First Century Christian-Jewish Relations

[Socrates]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jul 19 2005, 05:01 PM']Ahh yes, PBS, that bastian of Catholic knowledge and overt orthodoxy....and then there is nothing better than using a Jew as a scholarly commentary on Roman Catholicism......

Nobody who is serious about being Catholic watches that "stuff."
[right][snapback]650201[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Yeah, gotta love this stuff. Some talking head or liberal "scholar" gives his own idle speculations about what "really" happened in the life of Christ, St. Paul, etc. (as opposed to what is recorded in the scriptures), and these empty speculations are then presented by LittleLes as indisputable "facts."

For all his mocking of "True Believers," Les sure puts a lot of faith in his dissident masters, and expects us to do the same.

Expect a rehashing of his baseless "Anti-Semitism" conspiracy theories.

[Kilroy the Ninja]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jul 19 2005, 05:01 PM']Ahh yes, PBS, that bastian of Catholic knowledge and overt orthodoxy....and then there is nothing better than using a Jew as a scholarly commentary on Roman Catholicism......

Nobody who is serious about being Catholic watches that "stuff."
[right][snapback]650201[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


The only better authority on all things Catholic is the Discovery channel.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jul 19 2005, 05:01 PM']Ahh yes, PBS, that bastian of Catholic knowledge and overt orthodoxy....and then there is nothing better than using a Jew as a scholarly commentary on Roman Catholicism......

Nobody who is serious about being Catholic watches that "stuff."
[right][snapback]650201[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

It would take longer to read, but you can find the same information in the Bible. The New American Bible has extensive introductions and footnotes that you might profitably read.

But I suppose you are going to claim that all those bishops belonging to the US Catholic Conference and the Catholic Biblical Association don't know any better than PBS, eh?

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 20 2005, 11:42 AM']RESPONSE:

It would take longer to read, but you can find the same information in the Bible. The New American Bible has extensive introductions and footnotes that you might profitably read.

But I suppose you are going to claim that all those bishops belonging to the US Catholic Conference and the Catholic Biblical Association don't know any better than PBS, eh?
[right][snapback]651052[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
LittleLes, throwing around names, and the "new american bible" does not give you any more creditability than someone who can throw around the words "reason" and "logical thinking" in a God debate.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='fidei defensor' date='Jul 20 2005, 11:54 AM']LittleLes, throwing around names, and the "new american bible" does not give you any more creditability than someone who can throw around the words "reason" and "logical thinking" in a God debate.
[right][snapback]651066[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

I think that most Catholics, if they study religion at all, are familiar with the following publications:

1. The (New) Catechism of the Catholic Church. (on line)
2. The New American Bible (copyrighted by the US Catholic Conference of Bishops and developed by the Catholic Biblical Association)(on line)
3. The Catholic Encyclopedia. (The old edition is on line)

Of course, if you want to claim that you don't know of these publications or attack their reliability, you might want to start a thread on that topic.

Regarding the Jewish parties and sects comprising orthodox Judaism in the first century, I would have thought that the four Jewish scholars who wrote the PBS articles would probably be in the best position to recount the Jewish history ofthat period. But apparently Kilroy and CAM don't think so, but present no specific challenge, except that it was a PBS publication.

I'm not sure how to handle these objections. On the one hand if I cite any of the three "Catholic" publications above, especially the NAB, somebody objects. If I cite non-catholic historians or biblical scholars, the implication I get is that they're never reliable.

Apparently, I'm suppose to confine my use of references to Catholic Answers or EWTN.

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 20 2005, 02:14 PM']RESPONSE:

I think that most Catholics, if they study religion at all, are familiar with the following publications:

1. The (New) Catechism of the Catholic Church. (on line)
2. The New American Bible (copyrighted by the US Catholic Conference of Bishops and developed by the Catholic Biblical Association)(on line)
3. The Catholic Encyclopedia. (The old edition is on line)

Of course, if you want to claim that you don't know of these publications or attack their reliability, you might want to start a thread on that topic.

Regarding the Jewish parties and sects comprising orthodox Judaism in the first century, I would have thought that the four Jewish scholars who wrote the PBS articles would probably be in the best position to recount the Jewish history ofthat period. But apparently Kilroy and CAM don't think so, but present no specific challenge, except that it was a PBS publication.

I'm not sure how to handle these objections. On the one hand if I cite any of the three "Catholic" publications above, especially the NAB, somebody objects. If I cite non-catholic historians or biblical scholars, the implication I get is that they're never reliable.

Apparently, I'm suppose to confine my use of references to Catholic Answers or EWTN.
[right][snapback]651161[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Yes, because that is where I get all of mine.....however, you do seem to limit most of your answers to the Catholic Encyclopedia.

[LittleLes]

Apparently, I'm suppose to confine my use of references to Catholic Answers or EWTN.


CAM replied:

Yes, because that is where I get all of mine.


RESPONSE:

So that explains it!

[LittleLes]

The apostles and first disciples of Christ settled in Jerusalem where they were known as the sect called "the Way" or sometimes "Nazoreans" ( or the Hebrew " Nozerim").

Acts 9:2 ....belong to the Way

Acts 19: 9 ...some disparaged the Way

Acts 19:23 ... a serious disturbance broke out concerning the Way.

Acts 22:4 ...persecute this Way to the death.

Acts 24:5 ...and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazorean

Acts 24:14 According to the Way which they call a Sect.

Any problem here?

[peach_cube]

[img]http://www2.filmweb.no/multimedia/archive/00026/Mike_Myers_i_Wayne_s_26692a.jpg[/img]

Nooooooo Way!

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 20 2005, 02:54 PM']Apparently, I'm suppose to confine my use of references to Catholic Answers or EWTN.
CAM replied:

Yes, because that is where I get all of mine.
RESPONSE:

So that explains it! 
[right][snapback]651231[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

And sarcasm is lost on LittleLes, like much of the Catholic Faith.

[Paladin D]

Littleless, these are similar tactics Nazis use to deny the existance of the WWII Holocaust against the Jews.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Paladin D' date='Jul 20 2005, 04:32 PM']Littleless, these are similar tactics Nazis use to deny the existance of the WWII Holocaust against the Jews.
[right][snapback]651515[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

I'm afraid I not following you. What are the "similar tactics Nazis use to deny the WWII Holocost..."?

[Paladin D]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 20 2005, 06:19 PM']RESPONSE:

I'm afraid I not following you. What are the "similar tactics Nazis use to deny the WWII Holocost..."?
[right][snapback]651617[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Sorry, thought your name had two [b]s[/b]'s at the end.

What I mean is, you're using various sources that are modern liberalistic theories, in contradiction to well-established facts. When you're not using these, you're quoting the well-established ones but taking them out of context. And if you're not doing that, you make bold statements but don't quote the actual text from the source you say you get it from.

With Nazis, they tend to follow the same patterns, trying to find [b]anything[/b] or twist [b]anything[/b] to deny the existance of the Holocaust.


All that we (those of Phatmass) ask is that you engage in charitiable, constructive, purely honest, and proper debate/discussion. How hard is that?

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Paladin D' date='Jul 20 2005, 07:39 PM']Sorry, thought your name had two [b]s[/b]'s at the end.

[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Not a problem

"Here lies Les who used to snore,
Killed by six shots from a .44,
No Less, no more!

Actually, I'm originally from Jersey and still answer to "Hey, Yo!"

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Paladin D' date='Jul 20 2005, 07:39 PM']

What I mean is, you're using various sources that are modern liberalistic theories, in contradiction to well-established facts.  When you're not using these, you're quoting the well-established ones but taking them out of context.  And if you're not doing that, you make bold statements but don't quote the actual text from the source you say you get it from.

With Nazis, they tend to follow the same patterns, trying to find [b]anything[/b] or twist [b]anything[/b] to deny the existance of the Holocaust.
All that we (those of Phatmass) ask is that you engage in charitiable, constructive, purely honest, and proper debate/discussion.  How hard is that?
[right][snapback]651752[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

On the contrary. I'm stating documentable facts which contradict some erroneous preconceptions of a belief system. I'll have to admit, that for a long time I held many of these same preconceptions myself. But in time I put them aside. ( For example, I no longer believe that only the Catholic Church possesses the "Truth, " and all nonCatholics are in error if they in any way deviate from the Catholic party line). Eventually, I started to evaluate the issues based on the evidence. Expecially the contradictions.

And the "out-of-context" argument is a convenient fall back position if someone really can't explain an obvious error. The recent example that came up, Luke claiming that the Ascension occurred on Easter Sunday and from Bethany; with Acts claiming the Ascension occurred forty days after Easter and from Mt. Olivet, clearly does not involve "context." It involves contradiction. (Actually, I was kind of waiting to see if some apologist tried to say these passages really said the same thing if put in the proper context).

And I think your Nazi argument is a bit nonsensical. It's reminds me of John Cleese's lapsing into his "That's how Nazi Germany began" claim when he has no other argument.

But I'm curious if are still maintaining the traditional Church teaching that the earth doesn't move? Rumor has it that you are beginning to deviate from the party line on this scripturally based truth.

We've entered this deviation into your file. Tell me. Do you have relatives in the Old Country????

[Paladin D]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 20 2005, 10:15 PM']RESPONSE:

I'll have to admit, that for a long time I held many of these same preconceptions myself.  But in time I  put them aside.  ( For example, I no longer believe that only the Catholic Church possesses the "Truth, " and  all nonCatholics are in error if they in any way deviate from the Catholic party line).  Eventually, I started to evaluate the issues based on the evidence. Expecially the contradictions.
[right][snapback]651862[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Interesting, my story is almost the opposite. Curious as how we came to our conclusions.

[LittleLes]

Reading the New Testament carefully (or reading histories of the early Christian period) discloses that the sect called the Way, the first Christians, actually was composed of two slightly different groups: the orthodox Jewish-Chriatians and the non-Jewish Hellenicists (mainly Greeks) referred to as Gentiles.

The first dispute we see involves the equity of the ministration to Gentile widows (Acts 6;1) The problem was solved by the appointment of seven deacons, Stephen and the others (notice that they all have Greek rather than Hebrew names).

And, of course, there is Acts 15, the Council of Jerusalem of 49 A.D. in which it was decided that the non-Jews didn't have to be circumcised but were only required to observe the Noadhide laws, the same as other non-Jewish members in Judaism itself.

[LittleLes]

1. Following the Ascension, the disciples returned to Jerusalem (Acts 1:12)

2. The first disciples met daily in the Temple. (Acts 2:46)

3. Peter and John went to the Temple to pray. (Acts 3:1)

4. Gamaliel, a leading Pharisee, mentioned several possible messiahs who had come forth and recommended that the Jewish-Christians be left alone since their movement might be from God. Other members of the Temple leadership agreed. (Acts 5:34-40)

5. They taught and preached about Jesus in the Temple and in every house. (Acts 5:42)

6. There came to be many thousands of Jewish believers and they were zealous for the law (of Moses). (Acts 21:20)

7. Paul approved of an offering made in the Temple. (Acts21:26).

In sum, the original apostles and disciples of Jesus, regarding him as the Messiah, continued to be observant Jews and were accepted as such by the Temple membership and leaders.

[DannyBoy]

Les,

I like you...you've got passion and that my friend is the first step toward conversion. We'll be seeing you soon I am sure . You will be in my prayers.

Ne timeas...ecce homo...esto vir!

[LittleLes]

As evidenced by the Acts of the Apostles (as cited in the posts above), so long as the first century Jewish Christian community -Jesus' original followers - remained monotheists and followed the Law of Moses, they were welcome to remain a sect within orthodox Judaism and continued to use the Temple and the synagogues.

There was no problem with their belief in Jesus as the Messiah since there were several contenders for that role, and the Pharisees took a wait and see attitude (see Acts 5:34-39).

However, about 90 A.D., at Jamnia, the followers of Jesus were labeled as heretics, anathematized, and excluded from the synagogues.

Question: What had changed?????

Re: Encyclopedia Judaica, Macmillan Co., NY, vol 9, page 1176.

The good news is that some kind person extracted the pertainent sections of this reference and published them on the web at:

[url="http://members.aol.com/johnprh/curse.html"]http://members.aol.com/johnprh/curse.html[/url]