Yes and for the Jews this is when that quote in Zechariah will really mean something.  I hope your eyes are opened before that tho (only God can do this) because it's going to get very bad before this day happens. 

"And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication.  They will look on me the one they have pierced and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a first born son.  On that day the weeping in Jerusalem will be great like the weeping of Hadad Rimmon in the plain of Megiddo.  ......on that day a fountain will be opened to the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem to cleanse them from sin and impurity."  ..........12:10-13:1

Well according to the scriptures it looks like the Temple will be built somewhere before the Anti-Christ comes on the scene.  He could be behind it...not sure who gets it going tho but those who study the scriptures have been expecting this to happen next.   After that, the AC will sit on the Throne in the Temple and declare himself God.  Soon after that comes the Day of the Lord which is spoken of by the OT Prophets and is mentioned many many times.  When Jesus comes back, the earth will be in a shambles.  After the Millenium (which is after horrible The Day of the Lord) a new heaven and a new earth will be ushered in and that's when the real temple will be brought in.  From what I understand the earthly temples were only a model of the real deal in Heaven anyhow.   The template is the original and will come down from heaven at the very end never to be destroyed. 

Good question Lula.  I was going to ask this same question as well but already know it's not in the biblical texts. 

There is nothing in scripture that prohibits the rebuilding of the Temple.  Christ even in Matthew 24:15 predicts it will happen when he lays out the end of the world events when asked by his disciples.  Daniel did as well.  So if you just go by Daniel you'd see there will be a rebuilt Temple in the end times.

 Never take any man's word as final answer Leauki.  You need to search these things out yourself.  Someday you will be held responsible and you will have no excuse.  These teachers (some who are false and/or lazy) will be held even more accountable.  But that doesn't let you completely off the hook. 

For me Psalm 1 comes to mind.  I've memorized that.  "He (or she) shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water."

Thanks Leauki.  I always try to go to the source and the context to make things clear to me and others. 

it should. 

AD,

I've been gone all day and haven't had time to get my thoughts together.  I'd like to specifically address your Matthew 5:19 and Romans 11 but think I may do that separately on my blog.  I've actually been mulling 5:19 in my head all day as I've been out and about.  Got lots to say just on that.   I'll label it so you'll understand it's for you.  Leauki may be interested as well. 

Very good Sodaiho.......goes really well with my last three blog entries surrounding Hanukkah. 

For sure there were two diff factions going on in Jerusalem when the Maccabees rose up.  As per usual, God was very watchful over his people.  The fact that the Maccabees were victorious against the well organized Syrians under the madman Antiochus, is amazing.  No different tho than the stories in those years leading up to Israel being declared a Nation in 1948.  Just amazing. 

There is a purpose, plan and program going on here that is just amazing.  (Did I say that enough?) 

You ask "Temple will be rebuilt?"  Does 2 Thess teach this very specific prediction?  My answer is yes. 

You say you don't THINK so.  Well.....then THINK......woman!  

You only gave me a couple of verses in the beginning of the chapter and didn't go far enough Lula. 

There are two signs and you do have these both right.  Except for the fact that Paul wasn't talking about 70AD specifically.  He was speaking about before Christ comes back.  There will be a falling away and a man of perdition (AC) will be revealed.  I agree.

But you didn't go far enough (didn't I say that already?) because you stopped too short.  I'm specifically referring to:

"He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshipped so that he sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God."  V4

Now there is nothing in Jewish history, between when Paul penned these words and when the Temple was destroyed just a few years later that would point to any such event.  So that means it has to be future.  He's going to set himself up in a rebuilt Temple.   Basically what we are going to see is a more successful Antiochus come back to life.  This man will be a madman on the level of Antiochus "Theos" Epiphanes. 

Like it or not Lula this is a real literal Temple.  You can't spiritualize this away.  A Temple will be rebuilt (probably soon) and this man of perdition will enter and sit in the Holy Place and all Hell will break loose, because this will be just about the time the Day of the Lord will commence. 

Jesus mentions this same thing in Matt 24:15 and calls it the abomination of desolation.  Remember what Jesus said....."spoken by Daniel the Prophet?  Daniel also saw this future time.  So there are three witnesses to this temple and that's good enough for me. 

KFC POSTS: 197

Since Christ's death on the Cross, there is only one saving Covenant in existence today. In St.Luke 22:20, Christ referred to the New Covenant when He said, "And likewise the cup after supper, saying, 'This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood."  From this the Church makes it clear that the Old Covenant was indeed replaced by the New Covenant. Under this covenant there is no distinction between Jews and Gentiles (non-Jews) or any one as we are all one in Christ.

The whole thrust of St.Paul's teachings in Romans 9-11 is that Jews can be saved if they will repent and accept Christ, the God of Abraham. Gal. 3:29. "And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."

God doesn't need the Jews or any one of us, but He created us becasue He loves us. God wants us to fully accept the teachings of His Divine Son and to save our souls by doing the things He taught which are preserved in His Mystical Body, the Church. So, the only plans the Jews should have is the same as the rest of us and that is to save their eternal souls and Christ Himself showed us the way to do that. To be saved, like St.Paul who was steeped in Judaism from his childhood, they need to resolutely leave modern Judaism behind and be baptized in the CC, the New Isreal.   

KFC POSTS: 240

You're exhibiting a radical sense of Sola Scriptura by predicting a literal rebuilding of the Jerusalem Temple out of these passages from 2Thess. 2, Daniel and St.Matt.. Your prediction shows you're reading the passage with a pre-set Rapturist or Christian Zionist agenda or both in mind. God isn't interested in physical nations, ie Israel, rather, He's interested in souls. The battle is over souls, not nations.    

I say, uh, uh, no way does any part of St.Paul's 2 Thess. 2  teach a literal rebuilding of the Jerusalem Temple! 

KFC POSTS :

Ha, I caught ya sleeping on the job, woman  ....didn't you read the rest of my post 217 in which I addressed v. 4 specifically and blow away your theory?  

Anyway, the DR version has it a little different, the son of perdition "Who opposeth, and is lifted up above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so that he sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself as if he were God."  

Here's a retake of my post #217

As to the details of the "man of lawlessness", "the son of perdition", we don't really know who or what these expressions indicate other than a forceful evil adversary of God actively deceiving many of God's people in the world. It could refer to a uniquely evil individual like that of the "antichrist" in St.John or could refer to all the forces of evil ( a system) that Satan uses to pursue his ends. St.Paul stresses that this "man of lawlessness", "the son of perdition" is so brazen that "he takes his seat in the temple of God". That is, he is going to proclaim himself/itself to be God and insist on divine worship. "By taking the seat in the Temple of God" means more that he's going to somehow subvert the worship of the true God and pervert it to his own worship.

Here's why St.Paul isn't talking about a literal rebuilding of the Temple.... let's go to the Greek word for temple, which is naos. St.Paul never once uses naos to designate the Temple of the Jews in Jerusalem (which is hieron 1Cor.9:13). When St.Paul uses naos, he's referring to New Covenant temples which could include either the Church or the individual Christian, both of which are New Covenant temples indwelt by the Holy SPirit. 1Cor. 3:16-17; 6:19; 2Cor. 6:16, and Eph. 2:21.

So, St.Paul, along with all the Christians, believed that Christ had predicted the the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple within their generation (St.Matt 24), but they never believed this destruction would leave the world without any Temple. The new temple was God's spiritual Temple, the Church, with Jesus Christ her Eternal Priest. St.Paul always used the word naos in the New Covenant context....He understood the New Testament Church as the new Temple...and according to their writings so did the Fathers of the Chruch.

These passages about the "man of lawlessness" (antichrist) and the details of his progress still remain a mystery. However, to believe St.Paul taught a future literal, physical rebuilding of the Jerusalem Temple is very poor proof text of Rapturist's beliefs.

KFC POSTS:

Ha, first you predict the passage means the literal rebuiliding of the Temple and now probably soon! Uh, uh we are not supposed to do that...no one knows when Christ will come again except God Himself. We must keep prayerful watch and persevere in the faith. No predictions!

We agree St.Paul is describing a future event of the final eschaton......that the "son of perdition" , the AC,  is going to be seated in the Temple somehow getting worshipped as God. No doubt. But what we disagreee is the Temple itself...

You know very well the Bible has lots of meanings for use of the word Temple, but it's always to signify a place where God dwells. One....the ultimate Temple is our Lord Jesus Christ Himself.

Two....were 2 buildings that stood in Jerusalem. God dwelled in the Old Covenant Temple.....Three....when Jesus stood in the Temple courtyard, He used the different understandings of the word Temple...His own physical body, when He said Destroy this temple, and in 3 days I will raise it up, referring to His impending Crucifixation and Resurrection.

Four...according to 1Cor.6:19-20, our body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within us. that's why we are supposed to glorify God with our body. Catholics believe the greatest example of a human temple is the Blessed Virgin Mary as her body was physical home of God the Son for 9 months of pregnancy. Which reminds me there is a popular song by Kenny Rogers and Winona Judd about Mary...so beautiful....one question is Did Mary know that when she kissed her baby, she was kissing the face of God?  Sorry, I digress.....

Five...Christ's Chruch is the Temple of God, made of physical members with God the Holy Spirit enlivening her. St.Paul taught this in Eph. 2:19-21, "You are.....members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the Apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the Cornerstone, in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord."

Six....the largest temple is the earth or the physical universe itself. (Sodaiho's gonna like this one!)

The Biblical use of the word Temple illustrates biblical history prophecies the future. The OT foretold the temple building would be destroyed and rebuilt. History confirms Jerusalem was destroyed and then rebuilt.  Every temple must be destroyed and reborn. Our bodies are destroyed when we die and then will be resurrected. 2 Cor. 4:16. The Temple of Christ's body met death on the Cross and while the rebuilding of the Temple foreshadowed His resurrection, Christ's resurrection foreshadows the resurrection at the end of the world. The final temple to be destroyed at the end of the world is the earth and universe. As to the Chruch Temple, she too as the Bride of Christ will undergo this rebirth. The Catechism teaches the Chruch will enter the glory of the Kingdom only through this final Passover when she will follow her Lord in His Death and Resurrection.     

And you would be right.

May you be a blessing in it, too.

Yes, and you know I usually do that.

But this case is complicated. (Noteagain that it is not the rebuilding of the Temple that is specifically forbidden, but entering the area.)

It has to do with ritual cleanliness and a red heifer and not knowing where exactly the Temple stood. Basically ritually unclean Jews are not allowed to enter the holies of holies. In the absence of certain conditions, all Jews are ritually unclean for that prupose. And without knowing where exactly the Temple stood, the rabbinate has decided that all the Temple Mount is forbidden.

Note that Jewish law does not apply to gentiles. Arabs, Armenians, and Circassians can enter the area.

A (rare pro-Israel) German journalist put it this way:

"60 years ago the Jews were regarded as a race; now the world refuses to recognise them as a people."

And Amos Oz, an Israeli left-wing author, wrote:

"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."

But Israeli Ephraim Kisohon, my favourite author, put it most succinctly:

"So Sorry We Won"

Hmmmmmm.....LW, I hadn't thought of it this way...but you might be on to something here!

Taking this New World Order scenario further......in keeping with tribulation and persecution, if Obama passes the FOCA act,  thousands upon thousands more babies will be slaughered on the altar of abortion, and if he passes broader "hate crime" and "hate speech" laws, any one who believe homosexuality is an abomination and homosexual "marriage" an absurdity will be persecuted bigtime and the Holy Bible would also be considered hate speech!  

KFC POSTS: #202

Having already told you over and over that Catholics reverence the Crucifix and statues of the Saints only insofar as they remind us of our Lord Jesus Christ, our God, of our BLessed Lady, and of the Saints, I thought we had laid this to rest ...yet, here you are with another fraudelent attack against the Catholic Church.

Your attack though has gone too far. You are way of out whack if you believe making, selling and buying images of Christ, whether as a Baby in the manger, Boy of 12 teaching in the Temple, or as a wounded, sorrowful Man crucified on the Cross is in any way comparable or likened to those who made and worshipped idols, images and statues of Zeus, Jupiter and Diana.
 

KFC,

I've spoken to and read about lots of people who have left the Church and their reasons for doing so. Like you, many portray themselves as truth seeking judges who no longer want to give their allegience to the faith of their fathers, the Apostles preferring to walk through Luther's wide-open door of Protest-ism and experience religious individualism, the broad expanse outside without duty or dogma.

What I'm saying is it's past time to stop fraudelently protest-ing against the Church for your falling away from it.   

KFC POSTS:

I couldn't agree with you more that the Torah, as well as the rest of the OT, was very instrumental to the NT.

The Old Covenant and the New Covenant may "go together" insofar as the Old was preparatory for the New...other than that, they are distinctly different.  

The Old Covenant was made through Moses.....made with only one nation, the Isrealites...made to last for a limited time...was sealed with the blood of animal victims.....made severe laws but the power of observing them was not given and that's why the Isrealites longed for the promised Savior.

The New Covenant was made through Jesus Christ.....made for all mankind....will last until the end of time....was sealed with the Blood of God made Man....has abundant grace given by God, if only we desire to do so, to observe its own holy laws.   

AD POSTS; #201

Good point, AD. OT feasts yet to be fulfilled? Doesn't make sense becasue with Christ, the Abrahamic Covenant was fulfilled, and the Mosaic C. rabbinical rites, ceremonies, sacrifices, etc. revoked. And worse, according to St.Paul, they bring a curse to those who obstinately cling to them. Gal. 3:10.  

AD POSTS #201

Hebrews 13:8 expresses the foundation of the life of every Christian. "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever." It's an expression of faith, an act of adoration and reverence very similiar to the praise of the one God in Deut. 6:4 or of the Eternal God in Psalm (101)102:13  only here it's Jesus Christ who is being extolled. Even though the Old Dispensation has been revoked, Christ is the Eternal High Priest....He always was and always will be. Christ possesses the true definitive priesthood for He exercises His ministry in the sanctuary of Heaven, where He is seated at the right hand of the Magesty in Heaven, God the Father.

The passages in Hebrews 8:3-6  say that in Heaven, Christ, the Eternal High Priest, continuously presents to the father the fruits of the Cross. In the New Covenant there is only one sacrifice...that of Christ on Calvary. This single sacrificie is renewed in an unbloody manner every day in the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass. There Jesus Christ, the only High Priest of the New Covenant, immolates and offers, by means of ordained priests who are His ministers, the same victim (Body and Blood) which was immolated in a bloody manner once and for all on the Cross.   

First of all I didn't predict anything but that there will be a Temple built.  The reason I say soon is because they are all ready in Israel to do so and the scriptures (as I keep saying) is showing this will be a reality.  They have already built a model of this.  Did you know about that?  They have the Priesthood all ready.  Did you know about that?  They have the cornerstone.  They have the oil etc.  Predicting that a Temple will be built soon has nothing to do with predicting the day Christ would come.  Christ even said although we wouldn't know the "day" or the "hour" we will know the "season."  He gave us very specific things to watch for in Matthew 24 for one thing. 

This is not an attack Lula.  It's a matter of fact.  Does the CC reap millions of dollars on the sale of their statues or don't they?

Yes or no?   We didn't lay anything to rest.  Just because you declare it isn't so, doesn't mean it isn't so. 

Lula everything you've written in a nutshell can be summed up in one sentence from your POV.

The Catholic Church is the only legitimate Church and also has replaced the  Jews who have no hope because God is done with the Jews. 

[quote]What I'm saying is it's past time to stop fraudelently protest-ing against the Church for your falling away from it. [quote] 

and this just proves it.  The dogma we have are the scriptures.  That's it.  The RCC has lots of dogma alright.  You follow your dogma and I'll follow the scriptures. 

Judges?  Fathers?  The RCC took and kidnapped Christianity Lula.  Sorry to tell you but the "fathers" you speak of were not Catholics until the 4th Century so if you're speaking before the 4th Century the church WAS NOT considered RCC. 

This is nothing more than Catholic speak against the Jews Lula.  God IS NOT DONE with the Jews.  Read Romans 11 for one thing or Zechariah 12-14. 

Did Christ come as the Passover Lamb?  Yes or no?  Was that a Jewish Feast?  Yes or no?  Was he called a firstfruit?  Yes or No?  Was there a feast called Feast of Firstfruits?  Yes or No?  Was he representative of unleavened bread (without sin) yes or no?  Was there a Feast called The Feast of Unleavened Bread?  Yes or no?

The last few Feasts left have not happened yet.  This will be the time he turns back to the Jews Lula.  I know you don't understand this because you've been taught the CC is the endall and God is done with the Jews because they killed Christ.  But he's not done with the Jews. 

and this just proves it.  The CC is NOT THE NEW ISRAEL.  That's called Replacement theory.  It's not true.  It's very anti-semetic for one thing.  Paul was NOT a Roman Catholic Lula.  He wrote the book of Romans to the Roman Christians as he did to the Christians in Corinth, Ephesus and Thessalonica.  But they had nothing to do with the denomination that we know today as the RCC.   

When your cage gets rattled Lula, out comes the truth.  The Jews have to be converted Catholic to be saved. 

A good summary of what seems to be Lula's religion.

But if Jesus is the Messiah Christians think he is, then I am sure the Jews will be fine.

Correct, KFC.

Wrong! 

from a primary naio (to dwell); TDNT - 4:880,625; n m

AV - temple 45, a shrine 1; 46

GK - 3724 { naov" }

1) used of the temple at Jerusalem, but only of the sacred edifice (or sanctuary) itself, consisting of the Holy place and the Holy of Holies (in classical Greek it is used of the sanctuary or cell of the temple, where the image of gold was placed which is distinguished from the whole enclosure)

Naos means shrine or sanctuary.  In this case the inner sanctuary.  This word was used among the heathen to denote the shrine containing the idol, Acts 17:24, 19:24 and among the Jews, the sanctuary in the Temple into which only priests could lawfully enter; Luke 1:9, 21, 22.

So in 2 Thess 2:4 when Paul was talking about the man of Perdition sitting in the holy place or inner sanctuary he was talking a literal inner temple sanctuary.  

According to a Gk dictionary I have on this "naos" word:

"The "temple" mentioned 2 Thess 2:4 (naos) as the seat of the Man of Sin, has been regarded in diff ways.  The weight of Scripture evidence is in favor of the view that it refers to a literal "temple" in Jerusalem to be reconstructed in the future (Daniel 11:31, 12:11 with Matt 24:15). 

As a side note you can see this same Naos in Eph 2:21, Rev 3:12,7:15,11:1,2,19, 14:15,17..etc.  

How about this one Lula?  "The veil of the temple (naos) was rent in two"  Luke 23:45.  Are you going to tell me that wasn't literal?  

AD POSTS #210

AD POSTS: 201

AD,

Even though your comments were directed to KFC, I'd like to address them. 

Romans 9 through 11 is the section on St.Paul's teaching of God's plan for the chosen people. He explains that Isreal, as a people, in general has failed to accept the Gospel despite the fact that God's promises of salvation were made to the Isrealites in the first place.

Romans 9:21-33 focuses on St.Paul's concern for the Jews and the Gentiles.

He starts this section with the metaphor of the potter which shows that we need to be obedient to God. 24 "Even us, whom also He has called, not only of the Jews, but also of the Gentiles. 25 As in Osee (Hosea) he said: "I will call those which was not my people, I will call 'my people'; and her that was not beloved, I will call 'my beloved'; and her that had not obtained mercy, one that hath obtained mercy. 26 "And it shall be, in the place where it was said to them, 'You are not my people'; there they shall be called the sons of the living God." 27 And Isaias cries out concerning Isreal: "If the number of the children of Isreal be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved. 28 For He shall finish his word and cut it off in justice; becasue a short word shall the Lord make upon the the earth. 29 And as Isaias foretold, "Unless the Lord of the Sabbath had left us a seed, we had been made as Sodom and we had been like Gomorrha." 30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, who followed not after justice, is not come unto the law of justice. 31 But Isreal, by following after the law of justice, is not come unto the law of justice. 32 Why so? Becasue they sought it not by faith, but as it were of works. For they stumbled at the stumbling stone. 33 As it is written: "Behold I lay in Sion a stumbling stone and a rock of scandal; and whoever believes in him shall not be confounded."

Romans 9:6-8 tells who are true Isreal.  6 "It is not as though the word of God has failed. For all are not Isrealites that are of Isreal: 7 Neither are all they that are the seed of Abraham, children; but in Isaac, shall they seed be called. " 8 That is to say, not they that are the children of the flesh, are the children of God; but they that are the children of the promise are accounted for the seed."

So, from these two sets of passages, we understand the true Isreal is not those descended from Abraham "according to the flesh" who seek to justify themselves through works rather than through faith. The true Isreal is the "remnant" of which the prophet spoke, that portion of Isreal which following Abraham's example, lives by faith, and those Gentiles (non-Jews) who, like the "remnant" of Isreal, accept the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

So, therefore the Chruch made up of one portion of Isreal and another of Gentiles is the true Isreal, which from the time of Christ onwards is constituted by spiritual ties, all one in Christ. As I read it, St.Paul is teaching there is no longer an Isrealite nation constituting a distnnct covenantal people of God, but only a new Isreal of the Catholic Chruch to which every one embraced by the New Covenant belong, without distinction between Jew or Gentile.

What's important to understand is that the New Testament doesn't speak of one covenant with different stages of development one for the Jews and one for every one else. Galations 3 teaches the blessings promised to Abraham come not by the law, but by faith. V. 23-27, "But before the faith came we were under the law shut up, unto that faith which was to be revealed. 24 Wherefore the law was our pedagogue in Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 but after the faith had come, we are no  longer under the pedagogue. 26 for you are all the children of God by faith in Jesus Christ." Now, faith has come and the baptized who have faith in Christ are the children of God and heirs to the Abrahamic convenant perfected in Christ.

Galations 3:16-27, St.Paul teaches it is Christ who is the "seed" of Abraham, and so whoever is incorporated into Him, that is into His Mystical Body, the CC, by means of baptism, inherits the promise God made to Abraham and becomes a member of God's covenant people. That's why we call the Chruch the new Isreal.

The fulfillment of the promise God made to Abraham is seen in Christ, who is Abraham's seed, not in the Mosaic Law.

Getting to Romans 11....we realize that God hasn't cast off all Isreal. While the Jewish people remain most dear to God for the sake of the patriarchs, especially Moses and Abraham, they are nonetheless, v. 20, "becasue of their unbelief, they were broken off" from the "olive tree" which is Christ. St.Paul goes on, v. 20-23, 28, But, "if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again." Hows that? by conversion and baptism the Jews can be reincorporated into the sole and exclusive covenant people of God, which is the Catholic Church.

So, of the Jewish race, v. 5 "there is a remnant saved according to the election of grace" and that remnant consists of those Jews who repent, are baptized and become members of the CC, following the example of St. Paul.  

You may address them but please do not be offended if I am not inclined to respond.

You and your Catholic Church have accepted the interpretations of the early Greek philosophers later to be known as "Church Fathers."

Lula, the very fact that you see no difference between a Hebraic mindset and a Greek mindset tells me that it is frivolous to really engage in any serious discussion on the matter.  I have little reason to believe we would come to any kind of consensus other than agreeing to disagree.  I only see us arguing rather than engaging in an actual discussion where we both might learn.

I would much rather respectfully agree to disagree with you at this time.

Wow. I think we have found something that you and I, and LW, and KFC agree with!

Well, there is a difference between a Hebraic mindset and a Greek mindset, of course.

Want to know an easy test?

In the wars between Greece and Iran around 500 BCE, which side do you consider "your side" and which side do you consider the good guys?

The Hebraic mindset, I am sure, is with the monotheistic anti-slavery Israel-allied Iranian Empire.

The Greek mindset is with the country that is the foundation of European civilisation.

AD,

Absolutely no offense taken if you don't want to respond to my comments now or in the future.

I'm in automatic mode....when serious questions are asked, I give serious answers to the best of my ability.  You aren't the first and won't be the last to close the discussion before it begins by saying let's agree to disagree. my liberal sister who says that to me all the time.

It seems everyone on this thread has their own particular form of animosity towards the CC and that's something I take in stride every time I respond. 

And for what it's worth, with Leauki's 257 response, I can see where I should have better explained the Hebraic vs Greek mindset. But that's fine....all water over the dam.   

Yes, the Church has accepted the interpretations of the Church Fathers (also called Doctors of the Church), but of the 32, only 2 were Greek, St.John Chrysostom and St. Peter Chrysologus. I'm guessing it's the writings of St.John Chrysostom that bother you. I know there have been charges that he and the Gospel of St. John are anti-Semitic.  

St.Albert the Great,  born in Germany was a renown scientist who died in 1280. He was convinced that all creation spoke of God and that the tiniest piece of scientific knowledge told us something about Him. Besides the Bible, God has given us the book of creation revealing something of His wisdom and power. In creation, Albert saw the hand of God. http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/ALBERT.HTM

St.Alphonsus Liguori was born in Marianella, Italy in 1696 and died at age 90 in 1787. He was a bishop, spiritual writer, and theologian, and founded the religious order known as the Congregation of the most Holy Redeemer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphonsus_Liguori

St.Ambrose, a bishop and one of the four original Doctors of the Church...born in Germany between 337 and 340 and died in Italy in 397. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambrose

St. Anselm of Canterbury was born in 1033 (died 1109) near Aosta, a Burgundian town on the frontier with Lombardy. He was the outstanding Christian philosopher and theologian of the eleventh century. He is best known for the celebrated “ontological argument” for the existence of God in chapter two of the Proslogion, but his contributions to philosophical theology (and indeed to philosophy more generally) go well beyond the ontological argument. In what follows I examine Anselm's theistic proofs, his conception of the divine nature, and his account of human freedom, sin, and redemption. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/anselm/

St.Anthony of Padua born in Lisbon, Portugal in 1195 and died in Padua 1231. Said to be a half-thrid cousin once removed to Muhammad. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_of_Padua

St.Athanasius of Alexandria, Egypt in 293 d. 373 He was a theologian and Bishop of the fourth century. He is best remembered for his role in the conflict with Arius and Arianism. At the first Council of Nicaea (325), Athanasius argued against Arius and his doctrine that Christ is of a distinct substance from the Father. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasius_of_Alexandria

St.Augustine of Hippo, was Algerian born in  354 -430) He was a bishop, a philosopher and theologian, a Latin Chruch Father, considered one of the most important figures in the development of Western Christianity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo

St.Basil the Great of Caesarea in Cappadocia, Asia Minor (Turkey). He was a 4th century theologian and supported the Nicene faction of the Chruch in opposition to the Arians.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basil_of_Caesarea

St.Bede the Venerable born in Jarrow, Northumbria, part of Sunderland, England, in 672–735 was a Benedictine monk.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bede 

St.Bernard of Clairvaux was French, born in 1090 and died in 1153. He was a French abbot and the primary builder of the reforming Cistercian monastic order.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_of_Clairvaux

St.Bonaventure is French I believe born 1217-1274  " is called the "Seraphic Doctor" because he revealed a certain warmth toward others as a divine fire. His leadership with the Franciscans, following St Francis of Assisi, expressed itself by showing charity, goodwill and ardent affection toward others beside having great discernment in decision-making and judgement.

St Bonaventure tells us to look carefully at the crucified Christ. Gradually this practice will enable us to become more compassionate and undertanding toward others. People will begin to see God in you, even if you don't. Then, you will shine like a seraph, the highest rank of angels, as Bonaventure.

When we humble ourself, reflect upon the crucified Lord often, and share unselfishly, acting with goodness toward others, Jesus mysteriously becomes alive in us, and is plainly seen by others. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonaventure

St.Catherine of Siena was Italian born 1347 and died in 1380. She was of the nun of the Dominican Order, a Scholastic philosopher and a theologian. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_of_Siena

St.Cyril of ALexandria was born about 378 in Theodosios, Egypt and died in 444. He was the Pope of Alexandria, when the city was at its height of influence and power within the Roman Empire. Cyril wrote extensively and was a leading protagonist in the Christolical controversies of the later 4th, and 5th centuries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyril_of_Alexandria

St.Cyril of Jerusalem was born in 313 possibly near Caesarea Maritima, Palestine and died in Jerusalem in 386. He was a distinguished theologian of the early Church. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyril_of_Jerusalem

Sr.Ephraem was born around the year 306-373 in the city of Nisibis (Turkey) on the border with Syria. He was a was a Syrean Deacon, a prolific Syriac-language hymnographer and theologian of the 4th century. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephrem_the_Syrian

St.Francis de Sales was born in France, in 1567-1622, was bishop of Geneva Switzerland, who worked to convert Protestants back to Catholicism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_de_Sales

St.Gregory the Great born at Rome about 540; died 12 March 604. He is one of the most notable figures in Ecclesiastical History. He has exercised in many respects a momentous influence on the doctrine, the organization, and the discipline of the Catholic Church.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_the_Great

St.Gregory of Nazianzus was born at Arianzus, in Asia Minor, c. 325; died at the same place, 389. The saint's father was originally a member of the heretical sectof the Hypsistarii or Hypsistiani, and was converted to Catholicity by the influence of his pious wife. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_of_Nazianzus

St.Hilary of Poitiers was born in France in 300 and died in 366. He championed the Nicene Creed, along with  Athanasius, Basil, and the two Gregories. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilary_of_Poitiers

St.Isadore of Seville was a Spaniard born in 560 – 636 was Archbishop of Seville for more than three decades and has the reputation of being one of the great scholars of the early Middle Ages. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isidore_of_Seville

St.Jerome was born c. 347 and died in 420) He was a priest best known for translating the Vulgate.  He is recognized by the Catholic Church as a canonized saint and Chruch Doctor and his version of the Bible is still an important text in Catholicism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome 

St.John Chrysostom was Greek born in Syrian Antioch in 347–407, He was the Archbishop of Constantinople. He is known for his eloquence in preaching. After his death (or, according to some sources, during his life) he was given the Greek surname chrysostomos, meaning "golden mouthed", rendered in English as Chrysostom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Chrysostom

St.John of Damascus born in Damascus in 676 and died in Jerusalem in 749. He was a monk. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_of_Damascus

St. John of the Cross was a Spaniard born in 1542 near Avila and died in 1591. He was a major figure of the Catholic Reformation, a mystic, Carmelite friar. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_John_of_the_Cross

St.Lawrence of Brindisi was born in Brindisi, kingdom of Naples, in 1559 and died in 1619. He was a priest and a member of the Order of Friars Minor Capuchin. An accomplished linguist, Lawrence spoke most European and Semitic languages fluently.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_of_Brindisi

St.Leo the Great was of Italian nobility. Born in Tuscany in 400 and died in Rome, Italy in 461. He was Pope from 440 to 461 during the time of the invasion of Attila the Hun. When Attila marched on Rome,  Leo went out to meet him and pleaded for leave. As Leo spoke, Attila saw the vision of a man in priestly robes, carrying a bare sword, and threatening to kill the invader if he did not obey Pope Leo. As Leo had a great devotion to Saint Peter it is generally believed the first pope was the visionary opponent to the Huns. When Genseric invaded Rome, Leo's sanctity and eloquence saved the city again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Leo_I

St.Peter Canisius was born in the Netherlands in 1521 and died in 1597.  He was a Jesuit who fought against the spread of Protestantism in Germany, Austria, Bohemia (Czech Republic) , and Switzerland. The restoration of Catholicism in Germany after the Reformation is attributed to his work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrus_Canisius

St.Peter Chrysologus was Greek background born in Italy in 380 and died in 450. He was Bishop of Ravenna from about 433 AD until his death.  Pope Sixtus III appointed Peter to the See of Ravenna in about the year 433, apparently rejecting the candidate elected by the people of the city. He was a counsellor of Pope Leo I. Eutychesappealed to Peter to intervene with the pope on his behalf after he was denounced at a synod held in Constantinople in 448. The text of Peter's letter in response to Eutyches has been preserved in the "Acts of the Council of Chalcedon" in it, Peter admonishes Eutyches to accecpt the ruling of the synod and to give obedience to the Bishop of Rome as the successor of Saint Peter. Known as "The Doctor of Homilies," Peter was known for his short but inspired talks; he is said to have been afraid of boring his audience. After hearing his first homily as bishop, Empress Galla Placidiais said to have given him the surname "Chrysologus," by which he is known. Galla Placidia was to become the patroness of many of Peter's projects. Peter spoke against the Arianand Monophysiteteachings, condemning them as heresies, and explained topics such as the Apostles' Creed John the Baptist the Blessed Virgin Mary and the mystery of the Incarnation, in simple and clear language. Peter advocated daily reception of Holy Communion He urged his listeners to have confidence to the forgiveness offered through Christ. In the eighth century Felix of Ravenna preserved 176 of his homilies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Chrysologus

St.Peter Damian was Italian born in  1007 ^-1072 He was a reforming monk and a cardinal. Dante placed him in one of the highest circles of Paradiso as a great predecessor of Saint Francis of Assisi. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Damian

St.Robert Bellarmine was born in Italy in 1542- 1621, was an Italian Jesuit and a Cardinal. He participated in the Catholic Church's proceedings against Giordano Bruno and Galileo Galilei. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bellarmine

St.Theresa of Avila was born in Spain in 1515 and died in 1582. She was a Spanish mystic, Carmelite nun, and writer of the Counter Reformation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teresa_of_%C3%81vila

St.Therese of the Infant Jesus born in France in 1873 and died in 1897. She was a Carmelite nun. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Th%C3%A9r%C3%A8se_de_Lisieux

St.Thomas Aquinas was Italian born in 1225- 1274, He was a priest in the Dominican Order, and an immensely influential philosopher and theologian in the scholastic tradition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas

Lula who cares?  It doesn't matter where you're born to have accepted Greek culture.  The whole world under Alexander the Great was under the influence of this culture.  The WHOLE WORLD including ROME!   

Exactly!

And Greek culture (with its paedophilia and unlimited slavery and all those customs) was totally different from Hebrew and Iranian culture. Alexander brought a lot of change to Israel, and while many Israelites welcomed Greek culture initially, it was ultimately rejected.

KFC POSTS:

I do. Truth matters.

KFC POSTS:

Sodaiho posts: 235

But we know from the patriotic heroism of the Machabees that every one didn't have to accept the Greek culture at least the odious Persian-Greek domination. Their revolt retained their own nationality as well as their own God-given religion of Hebraic Judaism at least for a while longer. But eventually, in turn, it fell before the onslaught of the Roman armies iron.   

KFC POSTS:

Sodaiho posts: 235

The Hebraic Jews in diaspora still kept their religious way of life, but became Hellenized, that is, by speaking Greek.  And that's what I meant when I said:

lula posts: 234

Alexander the Great's time was 300 years before Christ. And this was the same time that ancient Hebrew language passed on by Abraham and his descendents was supplanted by Aramaic, a branch of the Semitic languages spoken by the Jews in Palestine. Hellenism continued to spread and as a result the Greek dialect was the world language.

The OT was in Hebrew, and not many Jews could speak or read it, and thus the dire need for the translation. For the sake of the Jewish diaspora, the OT was translated into Greek even though the actual work was done by 70 Jerusalem Jews in Egypt. It enabled the knowledge of the OLd Law, its Divine prophecies, and their culmination in the coming of the Messias.

During the first century, the time of the Roman Empire and Jesus, Greek was the common language. That's why the New Testament, though written mostly by Jews, was composed in Greek. 

Lula, It is interesting to me, that you seem to make a distinction between what you call "Hebraic Jews" and,  I think,  "Rabbinic Jews".  As if to say Hebraic Jews were the true people of God and Rabbinic Jews are not.  I think you are trying to make the case, overall in your thought, that Christianity is the logical next step of Hebraic Judaism while Rabbinic Judaism was a offshoot.

If this is your thinking, its backwards. Christianity is a daughter faith sprouting off from Judaism, no longer Jewish, it took its own path.  While Judaism evolved after the fall of the Second Temple into Rabbinic Judaism.  Judaism is organic, always unfolding, always evolving, always responsive to contemporary situations. It is still one line going back to Abraham. It still maintains its original covenant with God.  Whereas Christianity abandoned the "old" covenent and believes that it has established a New Covenant with its god, Jesus. The moment it did so, it severed its relationship with Judaism period and became something altogether different.  So, while Christians use the Hebrew Scriptures, they use them only in support of their New Scriptures; they use the language differently, changed the meanings of the original texts, added their own spin to ancient stories, and so on. They believe they are correct; Jews do not. We Jews are at peace with this and support your right to believe and practice your new faith. So, why not co-exist as partners rather than trying so often to convince us to adopt your new faith?

Be well.

Now where did you pick that up?

It always surprises me when people (or even researchers) come to conclusions that so clearly contradict my own experience.

I know little Hebrew, barely enough to read a few sentences in the Bible without needing a dictionary. But even I can read and understand the Aramaic parts of the Bible.

It appears odd to me that an Aramaic-speaker of 2000 years ago would not have been able to understand the Hebrew text of the Bible and required a translation to Greek.

The contention that Hebrew wasn't spoken then is also wrong. Hebrew only died out less than 2000 years ago. Inscriptions found between 300 BCE and 1 CE show that Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew all existed as spoken languages.

You are trying and trying to make Israel into something Greek, aren't you?

LW

maybe your joke was funny at the first even the second, but now you're just getting annoying.

Why bother stopping by if this is bringing about the death of you?