It's a church of Europeans with very few Jewish members. Most Jewish converts to Christianity become Protestants.

Catholicism is a European religion. The vast majority of Catholic traditions have non-Jewish roots.

Really, I don't know of very many 'Christians' that are Torah Observant. 

Let me also clarify.  Christians may not reject the Torah as the Jewish Holy Book but they reject the application to their lives EVENTHOUGH it is contained in the book of their belief system.  This is the rejection I am speaking about.

Why should non-Jewish Christians be Torah-observant?

But Torah is only Jewish law, not universal law. Zoroastrians and Muslims likewise believe that the Torah was given to the Jews by G-d to be Jewish law but obviously they (being non-Jews) don't live by it.

I can believe in British law yet follow Irish law if I'm not British; certainly.

Sadly many Jews that came to America also changed their name when they arrived at Ellis Island.

I don't find that a good example.

Using your example it would be more of, you living in Britian and abiding by the rules in France while considering yourself a citizen of Britian.  While there are most likely rules that overlap but there will be laws that don't.

If you note Lula's comment she suggests that they are spiritually one with Israel (#108).  Christians also believe that they are grafted in as G-D's chosen (usually as Gentile).  

This is why it would be more like you walking into Britian, demanding citizenship but choosing your own rules.

The New Testament describes how Christ established His Church on St.Peter. Catholicism officially began in Jerusalem in 33AD, 50 days after the Passover at the first Pentecost.  After Christ appointed St. Peter, He gave His command to go, teach and baptize all nations. The infant Church community was established in Jerusalem where they prayed, praised and thanked God and broke Bread just as Christ commanded. The Book of Acts describes that as well as the first Church Council held in Jerusalem. Catholicism is universal in that it is a world-wide religion in which people of every race and nation. The CC is in every country throughout the world except the Communist held ones. I think it's underground in China and N. Vietnam.

When you say the CC are you including the Eastern Orthodox, Russian Orthodox as well?  Just curious.

There are British laws you have to follow as an Englishman even if you are in France.

Just like there a Jewish laws you have to follow as a Jew even if you are in Britain.

For example, no British subject is allowed to commit treason against Her Majesty, even if it would be legal according to French law.

Not following Torah as a non-Jew is like not showing loyalty to the Queen as a Frenchman.

I think by "CC" she means the Roman Catholic Church.

Catholic mythology has nothing to do with my statement.

Some Hindus believe that their religion is ultimately based on the same background as Zoroastrianism and might have come from the region of today's Iraq. But it is an Indian religion nevertheless.

What makes Israel, Israel (I'm referencing the spiritual here)?

is europe today able to bridge the divide between roman/western and orthodox/eastern sufficiently to accommodate or diminish the effects of competing alphabets, calendars, etc.

otherwise, your statement might be more accurately qualified as roman catholicism is a western european religion.

No. I was talking about European as a distinct culture from Semitic cultures. Western and eastern Europe are different from each other, but they are both very different from Semitic cultures.

I don't know about spirituality. In practical terms Israel (the people) is simply defined by a common heritage and culture.

As Ronald Reagan often said....here you go again! throwing out ridiculous hooey about the CC!  

What is freely asserted can be freely denied.  

As to Origins and Special Creation, the Church thinks with and believes Genesis and is against Darwin's "amoeba to ape to man" Evolution lie that has so inflicted the world with philosophical doubts and irreligion.

The Church has always been a patron of true science. She knows the increase of knowledge of the laws of nature makes more evident the existence and power of God. She knows the sceintific discoveries and knowledge add to the possible well being of man. Besides that, the workings of God in nature applied to that knowledge for the benefit of mankind has been the work of her universities and hospitals.

There cannot be conflict between true science and the Church because God is the source of all truth, whether it's manifest in the physical or the spiritual sphere of man's activity.  

In short, replying to your assertion that the CC supports the keeping of science and religion separate, Pope Leo XIII, said: "Whosoever gives credit to fancies so grotesque shows how little he knows of the flame of zeal that burns in the heart of Christ's spouse," the Chruch. the galaxy of scientists, Catholics stand forth in history as evidence that the CC teachings were not a hindrance to their scientific work, to put it negatively."

The conflict is with the true scientist and the pretender, who mixes scieintific knowledge with lies and saeeks to use it to refute the unchangeable laws of God as they apply to religion and morality.

Wow. Your "CC" is really quite different from the Catholic Church.

Here you go again with other erroneous claims!

As for the Jewish Talmud......it contains the most offensive references to Our Lord and His Blessed Mother Mary. So therefore, on that basis alone, it CANNOT  be a "holy writing".

Regarding respecting Judaism...I greatly respect and revere the Old Testament Hebraic Judaism, but that is no more being full blossomed into Christianity, specifically, Catholicism. We know that modern Judaism propagated after 70AD is not the Judaism that God gave the world through Moses and Aaron.  While I respect Jewish people, I do not respect modern Judaism. How can I? What is the modern Jewish faith anyway? No one speaks with Torah authority today in either the Orthodox, Reform, Conservative, or Reconstructionist divisions of present day Jewry. The Rabbi is in no sense an intermediary between man and God. The priesthood ended with the Temple and even the rabbinical diploma, unlike Catholic ordination, confers no sacred power. It's simply a testimonial of ability of the holder to act as a Rabbi if he wishes to be elected to the position.

Every once in a while I agree with Leauki,,,,this is one of them!

cyrillic languages are as much all greek to me as hebrew or arabic

Ashkenazi {Europe} and Sephardic {Spanish or Arabian} are as different from each other as day and night, Even among the Jews there is prejudice, with the Ashkenazi looking down on the Sephardic Jews and the Hasidic Jews looking down on both the Ashkenazi and Sephardic.

Just checking.

It's the Roman Catholics that I have the most personal experience with when it comes to bigotry about me being a JEW, remember it took 2000 years for the Roman Catholics to "forgive" the Jews for their part in Christs crucifixion, To condemn an entire religion for over 2000 years for the actions of several Jews worried about losing their own personal power shows a tremendous amount of hatred and bigotry.

Does "religion" include modern day Judaism?

ALL RELIGION, PERIOD. That plain enough?

This comment reveals the attempt of Reform Rabbis to throw off Jewish responsibility for the crufixation of Christ has filtered down to you. Do with it what we may, not Catholics, no one has the power to make historic truth unhistoric.  

As "for the actions of several Jews" 2,000 years ago....those actions include some things that should be taken into account.

First, when Pilate asked, Shall I crucify your King?", the chief priests unanimously answered "We (the Jewish people) have no king, but Caesar." By this, the heads of the Jewish nation, the Sanhedrin, and the official guardians and exponents of the Jewish religion officially renounced  the honor of being the chosen people of God and merge and incorporate their nation into the Roman Empire. Second, after this, Pilate seeing that he couldn't prevail washed his hands of it, saying, "I am innocent of the blood of this just man. Look you to it"...and the Jews loudly declared, "His blood be upon us, and upon our children!" Here, they themselves were willing to accept full responsibility for the murder of Christ and were glad to pay this price for the favorable judgment of Pilate's court.  

This is when, 2000 years ago, the Jews invited upon themselves the curse of malediction and death over the blessing of life with the saving Blood of Christ.  Read Psalm 108:18-19. It is horrifying to think of the details of the actual fulfillment of the curse they forced upon themselves. Have you ever read the history of what happened in 70AD? Jesus was siezed in Mt. Olivet, and in the same place was encamped the Roman legion when Jerusalem was stormed by the armies of Titus. Jesus was sold for 30 pieces of silver and after the fall of Jerusalem, Jews in detachments of 30 were sold as slaves each band going for 1/6th of a piece of silver. The Jews caused Jesus to be stripped and scourged by the romans and the very same Roman soldiers stripped the Jews who fled Jerusalem in multitudes bound them to trees and cut them open in search for gold. The Jews had mocked Jesus and put a white garment on Him, and Titus dressed 2,000 Jews as fools and exposed them in the Roman ampitheater for sport of the Roman people. The Jews demanded of Pilate, Crucify Him, crucify Him, and the demand of the Roman soldiers was to crucify nearly every day 500 around the walls of Jerusalem so much so that wood was wanting to make crosses. The whole Jewish people and priests at Christ's trial cried out, His blood be upon us and when Jerusalem was taken, the blood of Jews ran in streams down the Temple stairs before it was taken down stone by stone. And ever since the Jewish people have wandered around without priest, without altar and without sacrifice.

This is the literal fulfillment of the prophecy of Osee 3:3-4, "The children of Isreal shall sit many days without KIng, and without prince, and without sacrifice, and without altar, and without ephod, and without theraphim. And after this the children of Isreal shall return and shall seek the Lord their God, and David their king, and they shall fear the Lord, and His goodness in the last days."

Again, Jesus had won the love of a multitude of Jews and the hatred of Him was from the Jewish leaders who had expelled Him from the Synagogue. It was they who gave Jesus over to the civil authorities, the Romans to be put to death. These Jewish authorities were directly guilty and morally responsible of turning the multitude into the death cry. Therefore, the decree of crucifixation came from the Roman state, whose guilt Jesus Himself recognized as secondary when He said, "He that hath delieverd Me to thee hath the greater sin."

Nobody can rightly say that it is hatred or bigotry of Jews that prompts Catholics to insist upon this historic fact as there is no historic doubt upon that score. Noone can rightly claim that the Gospel truth turns Catholic love of the Messias into hatred and bigotry against Jews. On Good Friday, the day of all days when Catholics recall the death of their Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, the priest at the altar chants with love in his heart the prayer to Almighty God that Jews everywhere may see that Jesus is the Messias.

MM, please by assurred once for all, the Jews of today are not held guilty of the act of the Jewish court in condemning Christ to death. They are guilty in so far as they will not recognize Jesus as He proved Himself to be ....the Messias...just as Catholics hold themselves individually responsible for morally crucifying Christ every time they sin.  So, if any Catholic ever says such a thing to you again, then show them this and remind them of their own responsibility.

an incredibly damning indictment considering there's no reliable evidence to support any of it whatsoever.  no state records--roman, jewish or any other kind--of these events are available nor is there any reliable indication we've yet to locate them. 

all you can offer is so-called sacred scripture, the origins and provenance of which cannot be established past the point of "he said, she said" hearsay of which each and every word seems more likely than not to have been in some way conformed subjectively to the advantage of its sources.

in what way is condemnation on the basis of prophetic interpretation different from condemnation on the basis the appearance of chicken entrails (other than sparing some poor chicken its life and integrity)?