The worst scandal yet for the Catholic Church?

[stitch626]

The reason we do not celebrate the holidays of the Jewish nation is simple, Jesus stated that he came to do away with the Law, and as such those holidays and festivals are no longer necessary. We do commemorate (effectively, celebrate, though not in a festive way) Jesus' death and subsequent resurrection.


Hellfire: almost every mention in the scriptures of a hell refers to Sheol, which is the Hebrew term for the common grave, IE the ground. The exception to this is when Gehenna is used. However, Gehenna refers to eternal destruction, not eternal torment. Nowhere in the Hebrew or Greek scriptures is there mention of an eternal torment (except in poor/old translations which has been corrected as far back as the 1980s).

Trinity: The Bible continuously refers to God and Jesus being separate entities. In fact, the scripture mentioning father, son, and holy ghost had the words "and these all are one" (or something to that effect) added to the KJV to support a pagan tradition.

And unless they use a completely different book, ie written by different men (in which case it is no longer the Bible), there is no such thing as their scripture, because it is all one and the same.



As for the sister, all of us make mistakes from time to time, it is unavoidable. Stating that none of the Catholic teachings have a scriptural basis was obviously incorrect.

[Mikey]

The reason we do not celebrate the holidays of the Jewish nation is simple, Jesus stated that he came to do away with the Law, and as such those holidays and festivals are no longer necessary. We do commemorate (effectively, celebrate, though not in a festive way) Jesus' death and subsequent resurrection.

Hmm. Funny, because 1) Jesus kept and celebrated the Jewish holidays, and 2) Scripture is Scripture, and choosing to believe that Jesus implied something to which he acted contrarily is as much stretch and interpretation as any interpretation with which you disagree.

Hellfire: almost every mention in the scriptures of a hell refers to Sheol, which is the Hebrew term for the common grave, IE the ground. The exception to this is when Gehenna is used. However, Gehenna refers to eternal destruction, not eternal torment. Nowhere in the Hebrew or Greek scriptures is there mention of an eternal torment (except in poor/old translations which has been corrected as far back as the 1980s).

I must admit that my knowledge of Scripture is far more focused toward the Pentateuch than apocrypha, but I can definitely tell you that your Hebrew is a bit off. Many Hebrew words have a conceptually-linked family of definitions of which, in translation, context can indicate more than one. Sheol can mean "grave," but can also mean "pit" or "abyss," all of which can be contextually relevant. Also, the term abaddon is used (unlike the New Testament version) to mean "place (abstractly speaking) of destruction" - a rather more powerful statement when you consider that Judaism at the time wasn't a mystery or messianic religion. "Gehenna" traditionally referred to a valley outside Jerusalem.

Trinity: The Bible continuously refers to God and Jesus being separate entities. In fact, the scripture mentioning father, son, and holy ghost had the words "and these all are one" (or something to that effect) added to the KJV to support a pagan tradition.

Believe you me, I am more familiar than you think with the Osiris cult's popularity in ancient Rome and the influence it had on burgeoning Christianity, along with the similar influence of Mithraism etc. However, the mundane origins of the tenets of the Bible aren't my concern in this discussion; I must reiterate that the New Testament is something with which I'm less than perfectly familiar, but I'm pretty sure that the Bible mentions all three of father, son, and holy spirit, and either encourages reverence or ascribes divinity to all three.

And unless they use a completely different book, ie written by different men (in which case it is no longer the Bible), there is no such thing as their scripture, because it is all one and the same.

#1 - No, it's not. Some people accept apocrypha, some don't, and some have different criteria for calling something apocryphal.
#2 - I only highlighted a distinction between possible "Scriptures" because you said that Biblical concepts weren't Biblical.

As for the sister, all of us make mistakes from time to time, it is unavoidable. Stating that none of the Catholic teachings have a scriptural basis was obviously incorrect.

I unfortunately didn't write down her exact verbiage, but the implication was clearly that Catholicism was inferior.

[stitch626]

Yes Jesus celebrated Jewish festivals because he himself was born a Jew and still under the Mosaic Law (and he had not yet died which is the completion of his Earthly purpose, hence the fulfillment of him doing away with the law). He also did this for the obvious reason that if he hadn't his preaching would not have gotten very far.
However he told his disciples (quite plainly, no implication, it was said in black and white) that they were no more under the law because his purpose was to do away with it.


Also, as Timothy wrote, "ALL scripture is inspired of God and beneficial..." so taking only a part of it destroys potential understanding of the whole.
And if I could ask, what do Pentateuch and Apocrypha refer to (I'd actually like to know the meanings of the terms as well)?


And yes the Bible (once) mentions all three of the father, son and holy spirit. However, nothing in it indicated oneness (other than the addition to the KJV which is not in older texts). Many more times it mentions the father and son being separate entities. Jesus himself said the Father is greater than the Son, definitizing (yeah... I made that word up...) a separation of existence. It also says that the Son was the first of God's creations, whereas God has been around forever (still not sure how that works out conceptually...).

[Mikey]

Yes Jesus celebrated Jewish festivals because he himself was born a Jew and still under the Mosaic Law (and he had not yet died which is the completion of his Earthly purpose, hence the fulfillment of him doing away with the law). He also did this for the obvious reason that if he hadn't his preaching would not have gotten very far.
However he told his disciples (quite plainly, no implication, it was said in black and white) that they were no more under the law because his purpose was to do away with it.

Well, I'm not Christian so I may be wrong, but I thought Jesus' purpose was the salvation of mankind (if you believe that he was the Messiah.) In any event, saying that Jesus' main message was "Do as I say, not as I do" is one that I ain't buying if that's what you're selling.

Also, as Timothy wrote, "ALL scripture is inspired of God and beneficial..." so taking only a part of it destroys potential understanding of the whole.

Who was only taking part of it? It's not a question of discarding part of Scripture; it's a question of what you accept as Scripture. I'm Jewish - the New Testament, AFAIC, including the Gospels, is not Scripture so much as a biographical fiction about an itinerant rabbi. You accept the New Testament, but you don't accept the Book of Mormon as Scripture - but the Mormons do. Etc., etc. See where I'm going?

And yes the Bible (once) mentions all three of the father, son and holy spirit. However, nothing in it indicated oneness (other than the addition to the KJV which is not in older texts). Many more times it mentions the father and son being separate entities. Jesus himself said the Father is greater than the Son, definitizing (yeah... I made that word up...) a separation of existence. It also says that the Son was the first of God's creations, whereas God has been around forever (still not sure how that works out conceptually...).

Who cares if the Bible indicates distinction or unity among the Trinity? The New Testament espouses the divinity of three entities - ergo, it espouses the Trinity. EOS.

other than the addition to the KJV which is not in older texts

Be careful here. The oldest texts that made it into ecclesiastical translation comprise the Vulgate - which, along with other slightly younger translations, was deliberately and maliciously mistranslated from Hebrew and Aramaic in order to incorporate anti-Semitic language which wasn't contextually accurate in the originals. Saying that age of the text should be the sole criterion of accuracy is lending credence to the idea of changing the texts in order to fulfill a hateful agenda.

And if I could ask, what do Pentateuch and Apocrypha refer to (I'd actually like to know the meanings of the terms as well)?

"Pentateuch" is the Greek name that Christians (and therefore common usage) gave to what Judaism calls the Torah and Islam calls the Tawrat - i.e., the Five Books of Moses: Bereshit (Genesis,) Sh'mot (Exodus,) Vay'ikra (Leviticus,) Bamidbar (Numbers,) and D'varim (Deuteronomy.) While all three parts of the Tanakh (the canon Jewish Bible) are important, the Torah incorporates all 613 of G-d's commandments and is studied at liturgy multiple times each week.

"Apocrypha" refers vaguely to Biblical works which are non-heretical, but not considered to be divinely inspired; e.g., the epistle of Barnabas. It can also refer to works which have been rejected as part of Scripture by the governance of one church or another. Unfortunately, Apocrypha is Scripture to some Christians but not to others - the Anglicans, for example, regard the Apocrypha as part of the Bible to be read and studied, while Orthodox Christians and Catholics do not. Further complicating the matter is that back in the day, books which are now considered essential to the New Testament were regarded as apocryphal - books such as the Revelation of John and 2nd Peter.

[stitch626]

Yes Jesus overarching purpose was to provide a means of resurrection. Part of that meant doing away with the Law. And it wasn't so much of "don't do this" as much as "you no longer have to do this".


Regarding scripture, I get what you mean now.. won't argue that bit any more.


The key part of the Trinity is that not only are there 3 divine beings but those beings are one being.

As for the divinity of the holy spirit, there is no general consensus on that between different christian groups. Some believe it is, others do not. I'm of the opinion that it isn't.


I apologize mentioning older texts in that manner. What I meant was that the specific line was added to the KJV by the author/translator with no evidence of such a line ever existing.

[Mikey]

Yes Jesus overarching purpose was to provide a means of resurrection. Part of that meant doing away with the Law. And it wasn't so much of "don't do this" as much as "you no longer have to do this".

OK, then - as far as your religion (as opposed to the secular law of the land,) you must be allowed to murder people? The commandment against murder was one of the "old" laws, with which Jesus did away, right?

The key part of the Trinity is that not only are there 3 divine beings but those beings are one being.

Well, the unity of the Trinity doesn't seem to need to be expressed explicitly. Three objects of worship + expressed monotheism = unity of the three objects of worship. There's no way around it. So even if the Bible doesn't explicitly state the unity of the Trinity, you must assume it in order to follow Christianity.

As for the divinity of the holy spirit, there is no general consensus on that between different christian groups. Some believe it is, others do not. I'm of the opinion that it isn't.

It did, however, perform miracles (at least one that I know of, without any scholarly interest in the New Testament.) In the context of the Bible, that pretty much means "divine."

I apologize mentioning older texts in that manner. What I meant was that the specific line was added to the KJV by the author/translator with no evidence of such a line ever existing.

Exactly what I mean... just like St. Jerome added horns on Moses' head.

[Graham Kennedy]

It's hard to see in this case, because of how egregiously awful the activity is, but you're talking about imposing your (and my, for the record) morality on another entity. Certainly you won't find many people who would argue that the Church's actions in this case aren't wrong; but you're also talking about a precedent of punishing and possibly destroying entities which don't follow your morality. Yes, degrees do matter, and yes, the Church is supposed to be a beacon of morality rather than a "how not to" manual. But you in particular are usually so sensitive to one body imposing its will on another that I can't help but think that your opinion is possibly colored by the fact that the acting body in question happens to be an organized, dogmatic religion.

Yes I am, and I see no problem with that. Governments impose standards of all sorts on other entities all the time when there is a clear public need. The protection of children from harm on a large scale - apparently with inbuilt support for that abuse - would be one of the clearest possible cases.

If this was some secular organisation that had turned out to be involved in abuse on such a massive scale, over and over again and with apparent tacit approval from on high - with the only real issue being just how high the approval went - it wouldn't even be an issue. The government really would be sending in the stormtroopers, confiscating records, closing down branches, you name it.

[stitch626]

Of course not, for the very reason that murders will not inherit the Kingdom (Jesus' words recorded somewhere...). Portions of the Mosaic Law are repeated in the New Testament. Also, another instruction given was to be in subjection to the superior authorities (ie the Governments), which rules out murder in most countries.

Genuine question, are the Ten Commandments considered part of the Mosaic Law by modern Jews? Or are they considered separate?


And there is only one subject of worship, Jehovah (English representation of the Hebrew divine name). We do not worship Jesus or God's holy spirit. Doing so would break God's law on worshiping Him and Him alone.

As for the Holy Spirit, it is more consistently used as a force of God, much like the force from Star Wars (hate to use that as an analogy ).

[Deepcrush]

A quick hop in about the Trinity. Its the "Heavenly Father, His Son and Thou Holy Spirit" which was later shortened to "Father, Son and Holy Spirit". The Father being God, the Son being Jesus and the Holy Spirit being the piece of God in all of us making out our Soul. The Trinity isn't just three beings or one being but the acceptance of three parts to create a greater whole. The presence of God, the coming of Christ and the Everlasting Life of the Soul.

What that means to everyone is up to your own thoughts but I just wanted to put that out their for you guys.

[Mikey]

Portions of the Mosaic Law are repeated in the New Testament.

So, it's "ignore the old law... except the parts you shouldn't?" I get that, I guess...

Also, another instruction given was to be in subjection to the superior authorities (ie the Governments), which rules out murder in most countries.

Yes, we have the same idea (at least since the Diaspora.) That's why I qualified the example as I did.

Genuine question, are the Ten Commandments considered part of the Mosaic Law by modern Jews? Or are they considered separate?

Absolutely. They are the cornerstone of G-d's 613 commandments, and they are expressly described in the Book of Exodus.

English representation of the Hebrew divine name

There can't be. The Hebrew term from which words like that are derived is expressly unpronounceable. Supposedly the true name of G-d was revealed only once - to Moses on Sinai - if I recall my stories correctly; but it was never meant to be translated or uttered by human tongues.

We do not worship Jesus or God's holy spirit. Doing so would break God's law on worshiping Him and Him alone.

I tend to agree. However, let's assume for a second that we are discussing Christianity - and to do so, let's look at it from the Christian's viewpoint (i.e., let's not just assume that they're wrong.) They accept the Trinity, AND they accept the third statement of the Decalogue - therefore, the unity of the Trinity MUST be assumed or those tenets can't coexist.

As for the Holy Spirit, it is more consistently used as a force of God, much like the force from Star Wars

The only knowledge I truly have of the Holy Spirit is that of the descent on the apostles and bestowing the gift of tongues after Jesus' resurrection. Seems like a divine function to me. It matters little if you consider it a divine entity of itself or a functional appendage of G-d; in fact, the latter interpretation helps to accommodate the unity of the Trinity.

[stitch626]

God's Name: The Israelites regularly used God's name in religious conversation, it was recorded in the Biblical texts (both OT and NT) over 1000 times, and His name has shown up in tablets from Babylon and other ancient cities.
The time you are thinking of is the only time that God spoke his name to a human himself (and one of only... 3 I think, times he spoak directly to humans), rather than using an angel as a representative. And yes it was Moses on Sinai.

The idea of not mentioning his name is a rather recent (a little less than 2000 years) addition to both Jewish and Christian religions.


Some Christians accept the Trinity, others view it as complete falsehood (and one local church has this odd view of the Trinity that I can't even understand).

[Mikey]

How exactly did you (generally, not you personally) come up with the pronunciation "Jehovah" for the term used in the Bible? Not only is it not indicated by the Hebrew text, it's actually counter to the Hebrew consonants involved.

I'm trying to recall offhand where G-d's name was used in conversation, and I can't. Generally, we use (and did use) terms like Adonai (Lord,) Elohim, Kadosh kiddushim, etc.; which are all euphemisms rather than a name.

And I can't wrap my head around believing in three entities without unity but still accepting the 3rd commandment of the Decalogue.

[stitch626]

Doing research...

[Captain Seafort]

It's traditional to do that before you start arguing the toss...

[stitch626]

It's traditional to do that before you start arguing the toss...

I'm doing research on his most recent question, which wasn't asked in any form before so I'm not sure how I would have known to do research on it prior to the beginning of the discussion.

However, if you somehow know how to foretell the future with 100% accuracy, please do share your secrets.