Split from Christianity and Self-Defense article topic

I am so tempted to throw something glib and disrespectful into this serious discussion of what I consider to be delusional beliefs but I shall censor myself ... {strained voice} must ... not ... post ... link to ... "Cake or Death"!

On the flip side, I commend people for keeping their heads and actually engaging in discourse. Well done all :applause:.

It's almost restoring my faith in The Study.
 
Perhaps I should have been more explicit. I should have stated that Protestant churches have no hierarchy. LDS, IMO, does not follow the archtypical Protestant view.
True, they don't consider themselves protestant. In fact their eleventh article of faith speaks to this:
We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.


As far as Episcopalians, they consider themselves "Protestant, but Catholic." I'll let the Episcopalians speaak for themselves.
Yeah, I've never quite understood that. Perhaps they claim to be a reformation of the Catholic church, but in truth I don't know. If any MT member reading this happens to be episcopalian, perhaps you could answer that?

... {strained voice} must ... not ... post ... link to ... "Cake or Death"!

:roflmao:
 
Yeah, I've never quite that. Perhaps they claim to be a reformation of the Catholic church, but in truth I don't know. If any MT member reading this happens to be episcopalian, perhaps you could answer that?

Not Episcopalian so someone please correct me if I'm wrong. :)

They are best described (IMO) as a Catholic sect.

The Church of England recognized the King of England instead of the Pope as its head, which caused the Anglican church to not be in full communion with the Vatican. Because that divide was unrelated to the Protestant Reformation, and because the Anglicans essentially see themselves not as traditionally anti-Catholic, but traditionally anti-Papal, the Anglicans (and Episcopalians) do not typically consider themeselves to be Protestant. I think the "Protestant, but Catholic" of the Episcopalians specifically speaks more to their splintering away from the Anglican church and taking more liberties with their worship the way Protestants do (evangelizing, female/gay clergy, etc) while still following the devotions and rituals that Catholics do.

There have been efforts by both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI to bring Anglicans and Episcopalians in communion with the Holy See.

http://www.anglicanuse.org/
 
For myself, you have yet to adequately explain why.

Well, with respect, you may need to think a little broader then.

Factories and mass-production of the Industrial Revolution destroyed many people's ways of life, and the move from "old technology" jobs to off-shore "new tech" ones has done the same type of thing. This is a similar concept, but much deeper and more personal due to the spiritual implications.

I mentioned earlier the example of the Norse religious beliefs being overtaken by the Christian. To go into a little more depth, Norse Mythology is filled with protagonists and antagonists. A fair few of the protagonists are well known, including Odin, God of War, Loki, God of Mischief, and Freya, Goddess of Fertility. But perhaps best known (even having a comic book character modelled on him) is Thor, God of Thunder. Throughout Thor's adventures, he had a regular antagonist, the Midgard Serpent, or World Serpent. This was a great creature, so large that it was able to encircle the entire world.

Thor and the Midgard Serpent met a few times, first when the Serpent was disguised as a large cat, and was part of a series of impossible tasks that Thor failed to perform. Embarrassed, he held a grudge against the Serpent. Later, when fishing with a Giant, Thor managed to ensnare the Midgard Serpent, and bring it to the surface of the ocean. As it emerged, dripping blood and venom from it's jaws, Thor took up his Hammer to fight the monstrous creature. However, his Giant friend, overcome with fear, cut the line holding the Serpent, and it escaped Thors Hammer.

The third and final encounter is predicted to be at Ragnarok, the Nordic end-of-the-world myth (I'm not covering their Creation myth here, but it is very intriguing as well). At Ragnarok, Thor and the Midgard Serpent have their final battle. At the end, Thor is victorious, killing the Serpent with his Thunder Bolts and Hammer. However he is exposed to the venom from the Serpents jaws, and dies himself. As Thor represents order, and the Serpent represents Chaos, this is symbolically the destruction of the balance of the world. In the myth, it is explained with the Midgard Serpent (who, since becoming large enough to encircle the world, has been biting his own tail, holding the world together) losing his grip on his tail, leaving the world in pieces. Here endeth the Nordic Myth of the End of the World.

Enter the Christian missionaries. Upon encountering "resistance" (well, we are talking about Viking lands here), the missionaries started to re-tell the established stories, and embelished them for their own ends. Amongst other changes they made, a big one was with the tale of Ragnarok. Most of it was kept as is, but a new ending was tagged on. In this version, after the battle between Thor and the Midgard Serpent the world was destroyed... but there was one thing left (note that the Christian missionaries have now changed the Ragnarok myth from a future to a past story...), known as the World Tree. And hidden within it, one man and one woman. So symbolically, they used the established Nordic Myths as precursors to Christian doctrine, using the World Tree as a symbol for Eden, and the one Man and Woman as Adam and Eve. Segue smoothly into Genesis... now! As time goes on, the Nordic myths are told less and less, and eventually taken out completely. The Norse religious beliefs are destroyed.

Now, you may say that they are still there, after all, I have just recounted a part of them to you, so they must have survived, right? Unfortunately, no. The stories have survived, but the spiritual traditions have not. The spiritual beliefs have not. The spiritual culture has not. They have been destroyed. This is the aim of every Christian missionary, although they do usually dress it in phrasing and beliefs that allow them to believe honestly that they are doing it for the best reasons ("saving" others, bringing the light of God into their lives etc), despite the fact that what they are honestly doing is equivalent to religious genocide. Okay, that's a harsh term, but it is correct.

The destruction of Judaism is basically as above. It is not a destruction of the people physically, it is a destruction of the people spiritually. If the Christian traditions take precedence and overshadow the older Jewish traditions, then although the Jewish stories will continue in the form of the Old Testament, the spiritual traditions will be gone.

Does that make it a little clearer?
 
That was well written, Mr. Parker {bows}. I was going to Rep you for it but my stack is 'full' presently - so, as I say, it's the embarassment of public praise for you good sir :D.
 
Whiskey!!! :soapbox:

Good grief man, whiskey is Irish! Whisky, dear boy, whisky!
This reminds me of the night I almost got killed by a bunch of british soldiers in a bar in Germany. One guy asked me if I had any Irish in me (I have red hair). I said no, "but I think I might be part scotch."

He literally choked on his drink and then, in the most indignant voice said, "SCOTCH! You drink bloody scotch. It's Scottish, man!"

I thought he was going to kill me.
 
It doesn't help that we Americans grew up with Scotch Guard and Scotch Tape. :rolleyes:

"Scotch is a drink, Scots is a people" :lol:
 
It doesn't help that we Americans grew up with Scotch Guard and Scotch Tape. :rolleyes:

"Scotch is a drink, Scots is a people" :lol:
And a fine, fine drink it is, too. Particularly with a good cigar. Thank you, Scotchland! :)
 
I have no problem with this line of thinking. What I was simply protesting was the idea that prostelyzation was against Judaic law, and therefore if you did it, you could no longer be considered Jewish.

Not so much against Jewish Law, but against Jewish tradition. Which to Gentiles like me may not seem like much, but it seems to be much more important than I am able to fathom. Probably since I wasn't raised with it.

To a certain extent, this goes to the core of my argument. I get that Judaic law can be interpreted in different ways by different teachers. The same occurs within Christianity. Often, it hinges on culture and upbringing. But if that is thae case, who is to say what being Jewish really is all about. And, if you cannot define what being a Jew is, who can say what a Jew is not. And if that is the case, how can one define an ethnic Jew as not being Jewish.

I will stipulate that the Judaic law does not state who can't be a Jew. But it, apparently, does state who can.

That's a good way to put it.

Having grown up in the Lutheran Church (K-12 schooling, as well as Sunday Church, Vacation Bible School, Christian summer camps) I have never heard that to obey Jewish Law was anathema to Christianity. What I was taught, however, was that for Gentiles, foloowing Judaic law was not required. The main reasont for this being Jesus' admonition that is it by faith, not works, through which you are saved.

I would be interestd to know exactly which Jewish practices would be forbidden in Christianity (from a Biblical, not political perspective).

The Abstract: (Galatians 5) Emphasis mine.
It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.
Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all.
Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law.
You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.
But by faith we eagerly await through the Spirit the righteousness for which we hope.
For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.
You were running a good race. Who cut in on you and kept you from obeying the truth?
That kind of persuasion does not come from the one who calls you.
“A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough.”
I am confident in the Lord that you will take no other view. The one who is throwing you into confusion will pay the penalty, whoever he may be.
Brothers, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished.
As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!

So, number 1: Circumcision as a part of the covenant is not "recommended" to say the least.
You can't functionally be a Christian while being alienated from Christ. And of course, you can't be righteous as a Christian, if you have "fallen away from grace."

There goes step #1 for converting to Judaism. There goes step #1 for raising Jewish children.

Also, there goes step #1 in the history of Judaism, being part of the Abrahamic covenant, which predated Moses by several hundred years.

The Priesthood (Hebrews 7:17)
For it is declared: “You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.”
The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless
(for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.
And it was not without an oath! Others became priests without any oath,
but he became a priest with an oath when God said to him: “The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind: ‘You are a priest forever.’ “
Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant.

Context: Jesus is described as the new "High Priest" of the order of Melchezidek. This sets aside the old priesthood of Aaron and Moses. Christians are not to follow the Aaronic Priesthood anymore.

There goes both the authority of the written law, and especially the authority of the oral law.

The covenant. Hebrews 8:7,13
For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another.
But God found fault with the people and said: “The time is coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.
*snipped*
By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.

If I am not mistaken, Jews are know as "Children of the covenant."

In making the "Old" covenant with Moses obsolete, you change the very core of Jewish heritage. Christians may study the old covenant, and in fact better understand the new covenant in the context of the old, but are not to live by it.

The "Old Covenant" defined: (Jer. 31:31-32, Heb. 8:8-13)
“The time is coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.
It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them, " declares the LORD.

That would be the entire Law given at Sinai, and during the wanderings in the desert. Essentially Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

The Sabbath:
Some Christians read this differently, but it's safe to say that most Christians do not obvserve the Jewish Sabbath, even if they worship on Saturday. The Seventh-day Adventist's practice of Sabbath is not even close to even the present-day Jewish interpretation.

Romans 14:5
One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.
He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord.

The difference is that Christians are not to judge others who don't celebrate on the Sabbath. Even in the slightest sense. For Jews, they are called to hold one another accountable for keeping the Sabbath, and they have the responsibility to maintain it as a holy day.

So, between the Curcumcision, the Priesthood, the Covenant, and the Sabbath, that doesn't leave a lot of Jewish heritage. The outward trappings may remain: the actions, but they are stripped of authority and meaning.

With all due respect, I think you are misinterpreting the context. This is my opinion, of course, which may be no more "right" then yours. I point to this as an example: http://ldolphin.org/deaddead.html
(I hope you'll take a look. I know I hate to go to links.)

Fantastic link, and actually what I was reffering to.

Near the bottom of your link:
The Reason for Jesus’ Response
Why would Jesus respond in a seemingly harsh manner? The purpose of His response may have been twofold. The first purpose was to encourage the disciples to faithfully follow Him. The second purpose and perhaps more importantly, was to teach correct theology.
The concept of gathering the bones of one’s ancestors is deeply embedded in the Hebrew Scriptures and reflected in Israelite burial practices (Gen. 49:29; Judges 2:10; 16:31; I Kings 11:21, 43, etc.). However, by New Testament times, the concept had taken on a new meaning. According to the Rabbinic sources, the decomposition of the flesh atoned for the sins of the dead person (a kind of purgatory) and the final stage of this process was gathering the bones and placing them in an ossuary (Meyers 1971: 80-85). Jesus confronts this contrary theology. Only faith in Christ’s redemptive work on the cross can atone for sin, not rotting flesh or any other work or merit of our own (Heb. 9:22, 26; Acts 4:12; Eph. 2:8, 9). Jesus may have rebuked these two disciples rather harshly because they were following the corrupted practice of secondary burial.

In saying "Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead" Jesus was requiring commitment to himself over the Jewish traditions. That was quite a statement, and the type of thing that set him against the Scribes, who were guarding the Oral Law, and the traditions.

For myself, you have yet to adequately explain why.
I've got about as far as I'm comfortable in a public setting -- particularly the Study, without feeling like I am getting preachy.

I am willing to continue to answer questions, but it is a little too personal to go much further here. In private, I would be willing to go as deep as you like, but out of respect for those who aren't Christian, I don't want to alienate them.

I find this an ironical statement if you are a Christian, at least as I have understood Christianity.

For a full dose of the irony, check this thread out: http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=48269

I often learn the most from those I disagree with.
 
Not so much against Jewish Law, but against Jewish tradition. Which to Gentiles like me may not seem like much, but it seems to be much more important than I am able to fathom. Probably since I wasn't raised with it.

In Tradition, once accepted and followed becomes as strong as Halacha.

For example, Torah prohibits the eating of 5 grains during Pesach. Ashkenaz tradition also prohibits eating legumes and rice, therefore because I'm Ashkenaz, I cannot eat them. My niece-in-law, OTOH, being Sephardic, can sit down in gront of bowl of rice.
 
To a certain extent, this goes to the core of my argument. I get that Judaic law can be interpreted in different ways by different teachers. The same occurs within Christianity. Often, it hinges on culture and upbringing. But if that is thae case, who is to say what being Jewish really is all about. And, if you cannot define what being a Jew is, who can say what a Jew is not. And if that is the case, how can one define an ethnic Jew as not being Jewish.



I will stipulate that the Judaic law does not state who can't be a Jew. But it, apparently, does state who can.



I would be interestd to know exactly which Jewish practices would be forbidden in Christianity (from a Biblical, not political perspective).



For myself, you have yet to adequately explain why.


You are a Jew if you are born of a Jewish mother or have converted according to Halacha. That is pretty straightforward.

Once a Halachic Jew, if you do not practice, you are an apostate. If you convert to another religion a) if you were a convert, your conversion could be annulled. b) if you were born of a Jewish mother, you would still need a statement of reaffirmation to be accepted back in the reigious community.

As to how the destruction of Judaism will destroy the Jewish People, most of our tradition is based on the religion, once gone, there goes our tradition.
And once we no longer follow Judaism, intermarriage will dwindle out what you call the 'ethnic' Jews.

If Jewish man marries a non-Jewish woman, none of the kids are Jewish.
If a Jewish woman marries a non-Jewish man, the 'status' of Jewishness will only keep going until their kids meet the first condition.

So assume that today Xtians convert every Jew, our tradition becomes meaniless and whithin a few generations, nobody will be able to claim even the bloodline of Jewshness.
 
Not so much against Jewish Law, but against Jewish tradition. Which to Gentiles like me may not seem like much, but it seems to be much more important than I am able to fathom. Probably since I wasn't raised with it.

Ah, but the tradition has been known to change. Which I think is important to this discussion.

The Jews no longer practice animal sacrifice as was done in the Old Testament. Are they no longer true Jews?

Do Jewish women still go into seclusion during their periods? If not, are they no longer practicing Jews?

Truly, it is up to the Jews to define themselves. If all Jews were to become believers in Jesus, then that would define Jews, they would not become non-Jews.

To address on specific regarding your Biblical quote for circumcision: The purpose of the comment was not in regards to stopping the practice. It was to tell people that it was no longer required. His condemnation for the practice was not the practice itself, but the importance people were ascribing to it.

In saying "Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead" Jesus was requiring commitment to himself over the Jewish traditions. That was quite a statement, and the type of thing that set him against the Scribes, who were guarding the Oral Law, and the traditions.

Of this, I will agree. However, IMO, this does not mean that you can no longer follow Jewish traditions. The context was that someone was trying to push the performing of a tradition over what God Himself wanted that person to do, at that time. About the only further implication that I would have is Jesus' emphasis on faith, rather then rote practicing of a tradition.

See, I don't think that the rites themselves are against Christianity. It is the fact that Jesus, and later his disciples, wanted the emphasis placed on faith, rather then acts. As we can see even in our own age, hypocracy runs rampant amongst the powerful, be it politicians or religious clergy. And it was something that Jesus believed had reached a tipping point. Therefore the emphasis on getting people to believe the message, rather then the actors delivering the message.
 
You are a Jew if you are born of a Jewish mother or have converted according to Halacha. That is pretty straightforward.

Once a Halachic Jew, if you do not practice, you are an apostate. If you convert to another religion a) if you were a convert, your conversion could be annulled. b) if you were born of a Jewish mother, you would still need a statement of reaffirmation to be accepted back in the reigious community.

As to how the destruction of Judaism will destroy the Jewish People, most of our tradition is based on the religion, once gone, there goes our tradition.
And once we no longer follow Judaism, intermarriage will dwindle out what you call the 'ethnic' Jews.

If Jewish man marries a non-Jewish woman, none of the kids are Jewish.
If a Jewish woman marries a non-Jewish man, the 'status' of Jewishness will only keep going until their kids meet the first condition.

So assume that today Xtians convert every Jew, our tradition becomes meaniless and whithin a few generations, nobody will be able to claim even the bloodline of Jewshness.

It's not that I don't want to believe you, but everything that I have read / heard tells me that simply being born of a Jewish mother, not your beliefs, will entitle you to being Jewish.

Also, in every church that I have been to, Christians are encouraged to only marry other Christians. This would be similar to the emphasis on Jews marrying only other Jews, if of course, we leave this to the realm of religion.

Which leads me to my next question: Why should Jews care about the "bloodline of Jewishness". And by this, I am making the assumption that you are referring to a genetic heritage. I hesitate to tell you what this makes me think, for fear of offending you and ruining a perfectly friendly and constructive conversation.
 
See, I don't think that the rites themselves are against Christianity. It is the fact that Jesus, and later his disciples, wanted the emphasis placed on faith, rather then acts.

I have a question then: Why do Christians not observe the Jewish rites and traditions then? If it was only placing emphasis on faith rather than acts (and tradition) then abandoning them all together would be uncalled for.

Furthermore, James in his epistle made it clear that faith without acts is dead as a doornail. D-E-D, dead. ;)

James 2:14-26
My friends, what good is it to say you have faith, when you don't do anything to show that you really do have faith? Can that kind of faith save you? If you know someone who doesn't have any clothes or food, you shouldn't just say, "I hope all goes well for you. I hope you will be warm and have plenty to eat." What good is it to say this, unless you do something to help? Faith that doesn't lead us to do good deeds is all alone and dead!

Suppose someone disagrees and says, "It is possible to have faith without doing kind deeds."

I would answer, "Prove that you have faith without doing kind deeds, and I will prove that I have faith by doing them." You surely believe there is only one God. That's fine. Even demons believe this, and it makes them shake with fear.

Does some stupid person want proof that faith without deeds is useless? Well, our ancestor Abraham pleased God by putting his son Isaac on the altar to sacrifice him. Now you see how Abraham's faith and deeds worked together. He proved that his faith was real by what he did. This is what the Scriptures mean by saying, "Abraham had faith in God, and God was pleased with him." That's how Abraham became God's friend.

You can now see that we please God by what we do and not only by what we believe. For example, Rahab had been a prostitute. But she pleased God when she welcomed the spies and sent them home by another way.

Anyone who doesn't breathe is dead, and faith that doesn't do anything is just as dead!

What this tells me, is that Christians are supposed to value acts. Traditions are acts, heck, the RCC has a lot of traditions: but none of them are Jewish. Why not? I mean, if one can be a Christian and observe Judaism then why don't they?
 
Last edited:
It's not that I don't want to believe you, but everything that I have read / heard tells me that simply being born of a Jewish mother, not your beliefs, will entitle you to being Jewish.

Yes and no. While being born of a Jewish mother is a prime way, there is a line where it is no longer good enough. That line is definetely crossed when you start to actively practice another religion. And while more fuzzy, after a few generations of not practicing Judaism at all, even a documented matrilineal descent would not make you simply be accepted as a Jew.

Also, in every church that I have been to, Christians are encouraged to only marry other Christians. This would be similar to the emphasis on Jews marrying only other Jews, if of course, we leave this to the realm of religion.

Which leads me to my next question: Why should Jews care about the "bloodline of Jewishness". And by this, I am making the assumption that you are referring to a genetic heritage. I hesitate to tell you what this makes me think, for fear of offending you and ruining a perfectly friendly and constructive conversation.


Not so much a genetic heritage, for a Gentile woman who converts according to Halacha bears Jewish children. It refers more to, absent a living Judaism, there ar no longer converts. Therefore the only way one can be considered Jewish is to be born of a Jewish mother. And again absent of Judaism, that would die out as well.
 
I have a question then: Why do Christians not observe the Jewish rites and traditions then? If it was only placing emphasis on faith rather than acts (and tradition) then abandoning them all together would be uncalled for.

Furthermore, James in his epistle made it clear that faith without acts is dead as a doornail. D-E-D, dead. ;)



What this tells me, is that Christians are supposed to value acts. Traditions are acts, heck, the RCC has a lot of traditions: but none of them are Jewish. Why not? I mean, if one can be a Christian and observe Judaism then why don't they?
Actually, you can see the Jewish roots in several aspects of Catholic worship. For example, much of the Catholic Mass (especially in the Eucharistic Prayers) has its roots in the Seder or Passover meal.
 
Ah, but the tradition has been known to change. Which I think is important to this discussion.

The Jews no longer practice animal sacrifice as was done in the Old Testament. Are they no longer true Jews?

we pray for the resoration of the Temple and a return to animal sacrifice 3 times a day. Those Laws have not been abrogated, merely suspended.

Do Jewish women still go into seclusion during their periods? If not, are they no longer practicing Jews?

We still practice the Family Purity LAws. A Jewish man will not have direct or indirect contact with his wife from the begining of her periods until she has gone to the Mikvah.

Truly, it is up to the Jews to define themselves. If all Jews were to become believers in Jesus, then that would define Jews, they would not become non-Jews.

In a word, no. That would make us Xtians.

To address on specific regarding your Biblical quote for circumcision: The purpose of the comment was not in regards to stopping the practice. It was to tell people that it was no longer required. His condemnation for the practice was not the practice itself, but the importance people were ascribing to it.

Considering it is the Sign of the Covenant, as told by G-d to Abraham, I'd say it is pretty darn important. We have circumsised our children under every possible conditions. Completely secular Jews will have their boys circumcised.


Of this, I will agree. However, IMO, this does not mean that you can no longer follow Jewish traditions. The context was that someone was trying to push the performing of a tradition over what God Himself wanted that person to do, at that time. About the only further implication that I would have is Jesus' emphasis on faith, rather then rote practicing of a tradition.

It is not wrote practice of tradition. Judaism is a way of life. It defines who I am and how I relate to the world. I pray 3 times a day. I utter blessings when encountering the wonders of the world around me.

See, I don't think that the rites themselves are against Christianity. It is the fact that Jesus, and later his disciples, wanted the emphasis placed on faith, rather then acts. As we can see even in our own age, hypocracy runs rampant amongst the powerful, be it politicians or religious clergy. And it was something that Jesus believed had reached a tipping point. Therefore the emphasis on getting people to believe the message, rather then the actors delivering the message.


Faith and acts are not mutually exclusive. In fact, there is a much greater emphasis on acts, here and now in Judaism than in Xtianity.
 
Actually, you can see the Jewish roots in several aspects of Catholic worship. For example, much of the Catholic Mass (especially in the Eucharistic Prayers) has its roots in the Seder or Passover meal.


Come again????

It's been a long time since I was forced to sit through a Catholic Mass, but I still can see the connection.
 
Jewish traditions that Catholics (and in some cases, Christianity as a whole) observe:

A sabbath day.

In Jewish kingdoms, it is not the wife of the King who is the principle Queen, it is the mother of the King who is the principle Queen. This is clearly seen in the Marian devotions of the Catholic church, as St. Mary is the Mother of the King (of Kings).

Monotheism. God as the Holy Trinity? God as Triune, yet still 3 = 1? And don't get me started on that evil dude with horns that also has ethereal powers. Not trying to be facetious or disrespectful here, but I think the Jewish influence is why Christianity is a monotheistic faith, and not polytheistic faith.

I'd guess that the vast majority of Catholic boys are circumcised, at least here in the US. Can't say about elsewhere. As an aside, the word circumcision is borrowed from Latin circumcisio (as opposed to Hebrew or Greek).

Tithing. The word "tithe" is taken from Anglo-Saxon words meaning "to pay one-tenth". This is a value that the Church holds to even today, yet its basis is from the Levites:

"And concerning the tithe of the herd, or of the flock, even of whatsoever passeth under the rod, the tenth shall be holy unto the Lord." - Leviticus 27:32 KJV.

There are probably others...
 
Come again????

It's been a long time since I was forced to sit through a Catholic Mass, but I still can see the connection.


The Sanctus is taken from the words of the Prophet Isaiah:

Holy, holy, holy Lord, God of power and might,
Heaven and earth are full of your glory.
Hosanna in the highest.
Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.
Hosanna in the highest.

Here are the first two grafs of a prayer of Intersession, note the focal point is that of sacrifice (a Jewish tradition), and the people revered (other than Jesus) were Abel, Abraham, and Melchizedek.

Father, we celebrate the memory of Christ, your Son. We, your people and your ministers, recall his passion, his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into glory; and from the many gifts you have given us we offer to you, God of glory and majesty, this holy and perfect sacrifice: the bread of life and the cup of eternal salvation.



Look with favor on these offerings and accept them as once you accepted the gifts of your servant Abel, the sacrifice of Abraham, our father in faith, and the bread and wine offered by your priest Melchizedek.
 
Back
Top