lula posts:

leauki posts:

I have never lied about the Talmud.  The Talmud is what it is...a Babel of opinions.....good opinions to some and bad opinions to others.

It's no lie that the Talmud was complied by the academics of Jewry in Palestine and Babylonia between the 2nd and 6th centuries of the Christian era, after the Old Testament Aaronic priesthood, Temple, sacrifices, and Sanhedrin had ceased to exist.

It's no lie that the rabbis who put the Talmud together had a hostile attitude towards the early Christians and Christianity.

It's no lie that the Talmud contains extremely derogatory statements regarding the Blessed Virgin Mary and her Divine Son, Jesus Christ.   

I have to laugh at you Lula on this.  This is the pot calling the kettle black.  The Talmud is Jewish tradition and opinion written by their Rabbis thru the centuries.  It's absolutely NO different than the RCC traditions only instead of Rabbis it's Popes!!   

You've got to be kidding me!!! 

Exactly.

The Catholic Church of course burned the Talmud whenever they found a copy. I doubt there was ever organised anti-Christian hostility among Jewish Rabbis, it never reached the level that was standard for the Roman church. (Heck the Romans killed Jesus himself because he was a Jewish rebel.)

The Talmud barely mentions Christianity and the "hostility" is simply the Jewish belief that Jesus is not the Messiah. I think Lula has a problem with anyone who doesn't share her faith.

KFC,

 You're jumping at straws again.

Yes, my dear KFC, there is a difference....a huge difference between the Talmud's oral traditions of Rabbinic (man-made) Judaism and Apostolic Sacred Tradition.

But the first point to drive home is the difference between Jewish oral Tradition of God-made OT Judaism and Talmudic oral tradition of man-made Rabbinic Judaism.

 Jewish oral Tradiiton of God-made Judaism during the time of Moses and Aaron expressed through its priesthood was authoritative truth, not opinion.  That ended though with the coming of the prophecied Messias, in the Divine Person of Jesus who instituted a New Covenantal priesthood in the order of Melchesidech and the new Sacrifice (clean oblation=Holy Eucharist) predicted by Malachais chapter 1. You really ought to read it for true understanding.

 On the other hand, the Talmud is an extensive, rabbinical compilation of of very diverse doctrinal and ritual opinions, interpretations, and disucssions of thousands of Rabbis beloinging to various schools. The Talmud consists of the Mishnah ( traditional oral law reduced to writing in 200AD)and the 2 Gemaras, the Palestinian and the Babylonian, which are bodies of traditional lore, legends, anecdotes,  develolped into commentary that minutely governs the way od life of Orthodox Jews.

lula posts:

The Talmud is of the Jewrey that has ceased to have an Aaronic priesthood, Temple with its Holy of Holies, or a Sanhedrin. HENCE, the Talmud originated in a Jewry that was devoid of any God--given authority.

 Apostolic Tradition of the Church is doctrinal truth from authoritative ordained priests guided by the Holy Spirit as were "the Apostles and the ancients" at the first Council at Jerusalem in 49AD Acts. 15.

"Apostolic Sacred Tradition" is man-made by committee.

What's the "huge difference"?

The "Sacred Tradition" you speak of has been used to persecute people for centuries. The Talmud has never caused or commanded such sin. Does your god seek violence?

Lula, Leauki's right on this one.  Totally. 

This is nothing more than anti-semetic talk Lula.  You've been brainwashed here.  Totally.  Your premise is the RCC has replaced Judaism and that is so not true. 

You and your belief system is exactly the same type of system that Paul fought when he went after the Judaizers since he was one himself before his conversion. 

Consider what he said to the Phillippians in chap 3 fighting the Judaizers:

"For it is we who are the circumcision, we who worship by the Spirit of God who glory in Christ Jesus and who put no confidence in the flesh though I myself have reasons for such confidence.  If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh I have more:

circumcised the 8th day, of the stock of Israel of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews as touching the law a Pharisee.  Concerning zeal, persecution the church touching the righteousness which is the law blameless.  But what things were gain to me those I counted loss for Christ. 

Originally he was prideful.  He thought he was right in his being a Pharisee.  He was the creme de la creme.  He came from great stock.  Had it made in the shade.   The ex-Catholics can say the same here to the practicing Catholics today just as converted Paul said to the Judaizers except they would say it this way:

"For it is we who are the baptized, we who worship by the Spirit of God who glory in Christ Jesus and who put no confidence in the flesh though I myself have reasons for such confidence.  If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh I have more: 

baptized the 8th day, of the stock of the Roman Catholic Church, a Catholic of Catholics as touching the traditions of the Holy Catholic Church a, Eucharist Minister,  Priest, Bishop, Cardinal, Pope, Saint (fill in the blank).  Concerning zeal, persecuting the true church (the universal church) touching the righteousness which is the Cathechism blameless.   But what things were gain to me those I counted loss for Christ. 

In other words, leaving those things behind, while they were worldly gain for me belonging to such a group of people, I left them, taking a loss to my personal well being for Christ.  I died to self to live for Christ.  I left the traditions of men for the cross of Christ. 

My very Catholic mother in law, bless her soul, also talked like Paul did only in her Catholic traditional way.  She sorrowed that our children were not being brought up in the traditon of the RCC saying they would lose their inheritance.  She talked alot about inheritance and tradition.  As they grew older she spoke less of this as she saw a Godly spirit in them that she didn't see in the rest of her grandchildren who were attending the RCC.  She couldn't help but see a difference.  What my kids had was real and it was manifested in them.  They talked about Jesus as tho he was their best friend and a real presence in their lives.   What the other grandkids had was superficial, fleshly, and empty and it too was manifested in their behaviors.   Now all in their 20's not one of the 12 other cousins attend their RCC today but two of my three children are very Godly attending church every single Sunday.  They are spiritual young men although my third one vaccilates not willing to give up what he perceives to be complete control to another.  I still pray for his return and I believe God will answer that prayer.   

You see, that is nice!

It's not just something you do on a weekend, it's part of life. I see Moses not just as someone worthy of respect because of his religious role but also as a good friend and relative. (That's why Jews make fun of Moses: he's family. In fact, so is Jesus!)

I understand Christianity should be Jesus' family. Is that not the goal?

I'd rather be wrong than replaced.

lula posts:

LEAUKI POSTS:

The Talmud comes from Rabbinic Judaism...from a Jewry that has ceased to have an Aaronic priesthood, Temple with its Holy of Holies, or a Sanhedrin. HENCE, a Jewry that was then and is now devoid of any God-given authority. The Talmud is of man, not of God.

Apostolic Tradition is doctrinal truth from authoritative ordained priests guided by the Holy Spirit as were "the Apostles and the ancients" at the first Council at Jerusalem in 49AD. Apostolic Tradition is protected from doctrinal error by the promise of Christ. 

The huge difference is that 1---all the Judaisms of today...Rabbinic, Reform, Orthodox, and Conservative function without God's authority....God had nothing whatsoever to do with the making of the Talmud, then, when it was made, or now.

Whereas Sacred or Apostolic Tradition of the CC exists only with God's authority through the operation of the Holy Ghost.

The huge difference is that 2...Rabbis are teachers, not priests. The rabbi is without any vested ecclesistical authority ....he is not even necessary to the functioning of the synagogue.

Surely this is not God-given Old Testament Judaism which was, as the Catholic Chruch is, an authoritative God-instituted priestly religion; the high priest being the supreme ecclesiastical authority. Aaron was its Peter, who was ordained by God through his brother Moses having successors until about the time of the destruction of the Temple in 70AD.

The huge difference is that 3....the Talmud has no God-given authority behind it while every decision or doctrine that come from Apostolic Sacred Tradition has God-given authority.

My dear opponents, it would be well to ponder the fact that both the Old and the New testaments obligate man to submit, in matters of faith and morals, to a God-made Chruch, the will of which is expressed through its priesthood. Such authority, once expressed through the God-instituted Jewish Chruch, has been exercised by the Catholic Church sine "the veil in the Temple was rent from top to bottom"  St. Matt. 27:51.  

You should recognize that the renting of the Temple Veil was God's warning that the Judaic religion of an exclusive people, the Children of Isreal had ended its mission...It had been displaced (not replaced) by the New Covenant religion of the people of all nations, the Catholic religion. A new set of keys were given by God through His Messianic Son to High Priest Peter St.Matt. 16:19, THose keys which signify spiritual, God-given authority are today in the hands of St.Peter's 265th successor, Pope Benedict XVI.

kfc posts:

I can assure you your Protestant forefathers being apostate Catholic priests, knew the difference between "traditions of men" and "Sacred Tradition", which Tradition St.Paul told us to steadfastly hold. Earlier in the same letter, he said, "We charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not according to the tradition which they received of us." 2Th. 3:6.

What  is Sacred Tradition? Since all the Apostles shared the universal mission the infallibility of all was a logical necessity if the teaching Christ had commanded was to be protected. Their consciousness of this corporate infallibility came from the Apostles and the ancients" Acts. 15:23 who said at the Council of Jerusalem, "it hath seemed good to the Holy GHost and to us.." 15:28,. Well, the bishops who teach in union with the Pope of the teach with the very same guarantee agaisnt error.

We know Christ never told His followers to write anything or us to read anything. Rather, Christ said, "He that receiveth whomsoever I send, receiveth Me, and he that receiveth Me, receiveth Him that sent Me." We see nowhere in Scripture any hint that the same men whom Christ sent as though He Himself were the speaker and preacher, or their successors were to be deprived of their God-given authority.

Furthermore, there is nothing in Scripture that were to be replaced with some written account of some of the preeaching of some of them.   

Before a word of Sacred Scripture had been set down Christ commanded His APostles, and by extension their successors, to teach the whole world all the things He had commanded. The method by which His teaching would be passed on was chosen by Christ...and we cannot improve on the order in which He proceeded...from the Chruch to the Bible.

All doctrines relating to Faith and defined by the Apostolic Succession are to be believed as truths, whether or not they are explicitly found in the Bible. There  can never be a contradiction between what the Holy Ghost says here, and what He says there. God's Revelation of salvation history includes both Sacred Scripture and taht Apostolic Tezaching which was preserved in practice, called Tradition.

These bodies of written and oral Truth is passed on through the authoritative teaching of an infallible Chruch. "Many other signs also did Jesus in sight of His disciples, which are not written in this book."

Christ came on earth to teach a true doctrine which will last for all time. He establishe dHis Chruch and took the means to prevent His Chruch to which He committed the continuation of His work from ever falling into error and therefore corrupting His doctrine.

Now, the Scriptural proofs of the Chruch's infallibility are so numerous that it's hard to see how anyone can deny them. I'll cite just one..."Know how thou ought to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the Chruch of the living God, the pillar and ground of Truth." Unless the Church were infallible, St.Paul would be a liar and you know for sure that he isn't.  Without infallibility there would be no absolute certainity or finality in regard to any of the truths which are of the very essence of Christianity. The fact, for instance, that the Chruch condemned Arius at the Coundl of Nicea in 325 for denying the divinity of Christ would have absolutely no weight unless the condemnation could be regarded as certanly free from error. That's Sacred Tradtion.

On Sacred Tradition, if Luther and Calvin and now you are right, St.Paul is wrong.

Your Protestant forefathers knew well that Apostolic teaching preserved in Sacred Tradition is infallibility of the Church..and that's why they denied Sacred Tradition and established their own religion of Protestantism.

You left the traditions of men?  No...KFC...you are marching in lockstep with the traditions of Luther, Calvin, Wycliff, etc....all men last time I checked.

But you are so blind you don't know it....you can't see the forest for the trees...

Again, Luther and his pals were faced with Sacred Tradition which contained doctrines they disliked and no longer wanted to follow. In their place, they developed doctrines by faith alone, once saved, always saved, the bible alone is the sole rule of faith, and the bible interprets itself are all doctrines of men....all developed by your Protestant forefathers centuries ago, and handed down to you by way of Protestant oral tradition.

But what of the "traditions of men" which "nullify the Word of God" which Jesus excoriates?

What you fail to recognize in these passages, is that OUr Lord was condemning false traditions; He was not condemning Sacred Tradition itself. This is proven by the way the Apostles passed on Christ's teachings to the INfant Chruch:

1Cor. 11:2, "I praise you becasue you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you."

1Thess. 2:13, " Therefore, we also give thanks to God without ceasing: because, that when you had received of us the word of the hearing of God, you received it not as the word of men, but (as it is indeed) the word of God, who worketh in you that have believed.

2Thess. 2:14-15, " Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle. Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God and our Father, who hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation, and good hope in grace,

2Tim 2:2, "2 And the things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men, who shall be fit to teach others also.

2Tim. 1:13, Hold the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me in faith, and in the love which is in Christ Jesus. 14 Keep the good thing committed to thy trust by the Holy Ghost, who dwelleth in us.

The last passage not only points to the transmission of the deposit of faith through oral Tradition, it also gives a glimpse of Apostolic succession ----a succession that was already the norm for the transfer of ecclesiastical authority ..Acts. 1:15-26; 1Tim. 4:14.  

The simple truth is, the un and the Jewish settlers moved into an existing country, whose population was of mixed races, however redominately Palestinian. The jewish people who now inhabit Israel, are not Isralites, instead predominately European and American. This is not the creation of a home for a people from here, rather a home for anyone who is of the Jewish religon. These people have taken land from others, based purly on the premise that they are the chosen people, and who cares about the people they displace. I would say the Palestinian people have every reason to be angry. The state of Israel is not a real state based ethnic origin, rather a state based on religon, in this case Judaism. Does this give every christian and Muslim the right to live in Israel, or at least have our own personal states where all christians can live, sounds rather stupid when you think about it. Buy the way the original ISRALITES where an ARAB tribe led by Abraham, not European or American, these people have an attachment to Israel, the rest don't, so sorry no sympathy for your treatment, you reap what you sow, and the treatment metered out to the Palestinians is akin to that of Hitler and his treatment of the Jews, you would think they above all people would understand the plight they have caused their neighbours, the Palestinians.

On the whole Israel has not acted as a good citizen, since it's inception it has been at war and is still at war.

Anyone who thinks the treatment of Palestinians by Israel is fair and warrented needs to take a reality check, who would you react if the UN took your home away and gave it to someone else?

The simple truth is that you write complete nonsense.

There is no "Palestinian race". There are simply Arabs, Jews and other peoples who live in "Palestine", with "Palestine" being the Roman name for a region in the Middle-East. The idea that for some reason the western invention of "Palestine" is native to the Middle-East is quite ridiculous. (Before the British named the area "Palestine" it was the Ottoman province of Jerusalem and the south of the province of Beirut.)

The Jewish people who now inhabit Israel are Israelites, as are about half of the Palestinian Arabs, genetically. They are not "predominantly European and America", they are predominantly Mizrachim and Sephardim (mostly Jews from Arab countries). If you had ever been in Israel and talked to people you would know that.

Just 60 years ago Jews were a "race", now, apparently, they don't have the right to be a "people" any more. Judaism is the religion of the Jewish people. But the Jewish (Israelite) people have existed before the religion was introduced.

Christians and Muslims have hundreds of states to live in.

But Jews trying to live in them did not always have the easiest of times. Why could that be?

When I was in Iraq a Kurdish soldier from the Peshmerga told me that to his knowledge I was the first Jew in the Kirkuk region since the 1930s (when the local Jews started fleeing). He was wrong, but it was interesting to talk to him.

Now where did you pick that up?

The original Israelites were a Canaanite people (not Arab) led by Abraham (who was himself from northern Mesopotamia). They spoke Hebrew, a Canaanite language with some Akkadian loan words, closely related to Phoenician, less closely to Aramaic, and even less closely to Arabic. (Heck, both the Bible and the Qur'an tell that story as does every history book. I find it odd that you found a source that claimed that Abraham was an Arab.)

Arabs, as the name implies (the root means "evening" and "south-west") lived south-west of Mesopotamia (where the words came from). Abraham was from Aram Naharaim ("aram" = "height", "naharaim" = "two rivers", "aram naharaim" = "upper Mesopotamia"). The Israelites, the people he founded in Canaan ("kana3" = "low", "kana3an" is an emphatic state of the word, Hebrew "lehakni3a" based on the same root means "to subdue" or "to make low") spoke a Canaanite language (Hebrew, from a root "3avar" = "crossed over") and were related to the other Canaanites, the Phoenicians, today's Lebanese.

From Abraham descended Yishmael, who was, according to Qur'an, the ancestor of Muhammed. He was not an Arab either, but spoke Aramaic, like Abraham did at the time. Even Muhammed himself spoke Aramaic at home (like most traders did) and the Qur'an has not much good to say about the Arabs, which certainly reflected Muhammed's opinion of them. At the time "Arabs" were solely the desert-dwelling people, not the people in the big cities like Mecca.

Yes, a "good citizen" would have simply accepted his death and moved on.

I am sorry, but the times where the good Jew simply died when others screamed "death to the Jew!" are over. Deal with it.

The UN did no such thing in "Palestine".

But my family did lose their home in East-Germany when it fled to the west. How did I react? I didn't do anything. What should I do? Kill communists? Blow up a Polish kindergarden? Whine forever and demand a "right to return" to a place I have never seen?

The treatment is fair.

The "Palestinians" have a choice to end the war. The Israelis do not.

And you, my friend, should really learn a bit about the Middle-East before you come back here. The idea that Abraham was an Arab and that the Israelites were an Arab tribe is totally opposed to everything history, archaeology, and religion tell us; it's more than ridiculous.

If you claimed that Abraham's people were Akkadian, you might arguably have a point because he hailed from northern Mesopotamia. But the Arabs were so much further south and spoke a totally different language. (Arabic is a Southwest-Semitic language. Hebrew and Phoenician are Canaanite languages. Canaanite languages and Aramaic are West-Semitic languages. Akkadian and Babylonian are East-Semitic languages.)

Here is something I wrote about the relationship between Israel and the Akkadian/Assyrian language:

http://web.mac.com/ajbrehm/Not_A_Linguist/Not_A_Linguist_Blog/Entries/2009/6/8_The_Assyrian_Language.html

Akkad, Ashur, and Babylon were three cities in Iraq north of Sumeria. They spoke different dialects of East-Semitic languages, today referred to as Akkadian, Assyrian, and Babylonians. The remnants of the Assyrian people are Iraq's Christians. They are not "Arabs" either. And while we are at it, neither are the native people of North-Africa "Arabs".

I think some people believe that just because the Arabs ruled an area, all the ancient peoples in that area are suddenly "Arabs". But that notion does a grave injustice to the other, non-Arab peoples of the Middle-East.

The Imazighen (Berbers), Israelites, Kurds, Assyrians, Aramaeans, and Phoenicians are _not_ and never have been Arabs. They have (or in some cases had) their own language, have their own culture, and they should have their own countries.

Unfortunately only the Israelites have been granted that honour. And no, today's Israelis are not the zombies of European Jews. They are in fact a mixture, after several generations, of European Jews who immigrated, sometimes fled from the Holocaust, "Arab" Jews who were hunted down in Arab countries and fled to Israel, the remnant of the native local population of Israel that survived the invasions of the Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Turks, and British, and 140,000 Ethiopian Jews most of whom arrived in the late 70s and early 80s.

I find it amazing that in the 21st century there still exist people who really have no idea about the cultural wealth you can find in the Middle-East once you get over the idea that everybody there is really the same from Abraham to "King" Saud.

For some Europeans (including Americans) the world really looks like "lots of nations in Europe, everybody else is either black or Indian or Chinese or Arab", doesn't it?

You might find this interesting:

http://citizenleauki.joeuser.com/article/361361/Kurdish_mag_sparks_wrath_by_urging_Jews_to_return

It's about an Iraqi organisation calling on Iraqi Jews (the "Europeans" as you would call them) to return to Iraq. They figure that the settlement issue could be, well, settled, if those Jews who fled to Israel were allowed to return home.

I am sure their intentions are good, but there are of course problems with this.

The Jewish refugees from Iraq have since built a life in Israel, and while many people might argue that herding Jews from country to country every few decades is not a problem from their point of view (the same people scream bloody murder if they are told that Arabs had to move a few hundred miles, of course), those Jews do not want to move again.

Plus the Arab nationalists and Islamic fundamentalists in Iraq certainly don't want to live with the same Jews they threw out of the country just 60 years ago.

Iraqi had a large Jewish population before World War II which shrank quickly when Iraq allied with Germany and Italy and introduced certain policies against, some might say, the "Europeans" who had lived in Iraq since long before the Arabs arrived.

Oddly enough, the Jews of Germany were still referred to as "Palestinians" in the 19th century. Too European for the Middle-East, too Palestinian for Germany...

(You can find lots of references to "Palestinians" over the centuries. It usually means "Jews". In the 1940s it included Arabs, and since the 1960s it means exclusively Arabs for some reason, perhaps in an attempt to get the Jews out of the last area in the Middle-East where some still survive.)

It all boils down to this, doesn't it?

Out there, in the world, all the walls were covered with graffiti: Yids, go back to Palestine, so we came back to Palestine, and now the worldatlarge shouts at us: Yids, get out of Palestine. 

-- Amos Oz

Some people are just never happy, no matter where the Jews live.

It goes as far as whining when somebody fails to kill them all. (Luckily most people are too scared to take over when the braver ones die in that quest these days.)

But the best part is when people from America, Canada, Australia or one of the other British colonies whine that the Jews who fled from Iraq to Israel are "colonising" a "country" people in the west call "Palestine".

If you guys want to de-colonise something and feel no need to de-colonise North-Africa and the Middle-East from Arab rule, you can move back to Britain.