jpelham wrote:Thank you. Then the most reliable Greek texts use the feminine pronoun, and all of the Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, and other translations have brazenly changed it to the male?
The oldest Greek sources use a placeholder, so the Greek equivalent is not written out on any of the oldest manuscripts. The translator’s decision to render it in the male is just that an arbitrary decision based on no facts.
jpelham wrote: You refer to "energy" as a physical quantity which, although Yahuweh surely has infinite energy at His command, again identifies Him with physical properties that would trap Him in space and time. That is, you have exchanged 'mass' for 'energy,' which is a different name for the same thing.
I use energy merely as a metaphor, and as we all know metaphors are imperfect and when you try to make them walk they always fall down.
jpelham wrote: The medieval debates on how many angels can fit on the head of a pin were not without genuine warrant. The point is that an infinite number of spiritual beings could do this, i.e., all of Yahuweh's infinitude can both be present in the period at the end of this sentence and, because He is transcendent, be immediately present at every other point of space. This is an intrinsic property of transcendence.
If all of Yahuweh was in Yahushua, there would be no reason to call Him Qowdesh, a word which means separated and set apart, the word is perfectly apt however if you apply it as Yahushua was a part of Yahuweh separated from the whole, and set apart. So we can argue in philosophical circles, or we can look at the text that was given, and analyze what he said, in which case one understanding fits, and the other doesn’t.
jpelham wrote: I think I agreed with you, that Jerome edited existing Latin manuscripts of what are commonly said to constitute the New Testament, presumably based on his confidence in their reliability. Not so of the 'Old 'Testament.' His Greek was excellent and Hebrew was acquired later but apparently with little difficulty, under Jewish scholars.
Either way, an analysis of his translation/compilation against the oldest manuscripts in the original language shows that his Vulgate is extremely erroneous. And just like with Aquinas the fact that he was a Catholic destroys all of his credibility with me in terms of his understandings of Scripture.
Anyone who would take ten minutes to study even the modern English translations can see there is no basis for a Pope, then if they were to take another ten minutes and study a little on the history of pagan religions they would see that the Pope as well as most everything else associated with Catholicism has a Pagan origin. So a man who didn’t recognize any of that, and submitted to the authority of the Pope, obviously doesn’t have an understanding of Scripture.
jpelham wrote: I was told this about Catholicism by some well educated leaders of the Presbyterian church I used to attend. Their concern was touching and sincere, but they had never looked beyond what someone else had told them. I set out to study this apostate church so reviled by 'Christians' and the secular world, and found that, apart from the two points I will mention, they condemned a preposterously distorted conception of Catholicism. I very gently urge you to trust no one's estimation of an ecclesial body to which they do not belong. Check the sources yourself, dispassionately, although I know this is not easy - or natural. Those who most distort the dogma of the Catholic Church are very often former members. This is curiously not true of former Protestants, like the great historian Edward Gibbon for example.
I grew up in a Catholic family; all of my relatives on my father’s side are Catholics. But beyond that I have taken the time to study Catholic doctrine, and the history of the Catholic Church. Besides, it doesn’t take more than an understanding of Scripture to see that the Catholic Church is not what Yahuweh intended. And as I pointed out it doesn’t take much study to see that most every part of Catholicism has a Pagan origin.
Now, that is not to say that Protestants are any better. The protestant churches have rejected the authority of the Pope, and some of the Catholic traditions, but beyond that they have not left religion and continue to engage in the Pagan practices started by the Catholic Church.
jpelham wrote: 1st, not that He performed miracles or claimed that sins could be forgiven, but that He, a man who collected dirt on His feet like anyone else and wore the same dusty robes, is Yahuweh, that His followers had to humble themselves before absolute, divine authority in a living, breathing man who looked like any other man. This requires a completely unique kind of faith (or relationship).
While His stating that he was Yahuweh was offensive to the religious leaders at the time, he never had His follower humble themselves before Him. He walked with them, conversed with them, and taught them, they were not groveling at His feet.
jpelham wrote: 2nd, many disciples who had followed and watched and listened to Him for days, at least suspecting that He was who He claimed to be, disciples who had seen 5 loaves multiplied into food for a multitude just a short while earlier, left in disgust when He said "My flesh is truly food and My blood is truly drink." All but the 12 left Him. These have been the principal offenses from that day until now. Protestant pride still bristles at the claim of forgiveness of sins by another man, and is repulsed by the idea of eating what is in some mysterious way "truly flesh."
If by “what is in some mysterious way "truly flesh."” You are referring to the Catholic belief that the wafer of bread is miraculously being transformed in to the “body of Christ” then I would agree with the Protestants, as this is a ridiculous notion, which is never even hinted at in Scripture, and communion is a pagan ritual.
If that is not what you mean by it, then I apologize for the assumption, and need clarification.
jpelham wrote: You seem to presuppose a conspiracy that bridged theological chasms to largely obscure the truth of Yahuweh and Yahushua from the time of the Incarnation until the appearance of the Yada Yahweh community.
I presuppose no such thing, and have stated no such belief. Yahuweh’s Word has always been there, man has attempted to corrupt and conceal it, quite well, and most men are too lazy and indifferent to seek it out. Religion has done everything within its power to insure that people do not understand Yahuweh’s Word, they indoctrinate their members and pacify them. By in large the average Christian knows no more about Scripture than what they are told each Sunday from their pastor. They don’t read Scripture for themselves, they don’t study it in its entirety, and when they do read they read to reinforce what they have already been taught.
And while I believe that people have conspired to hide Yahuweh’s Word, I don’t believe that it was all one. Each religion that derives its authority from Yahuweh’s Scriptures is independent, and while their goals have been the same, to corrupt and hide Yahuweh’s Word, they have done it independent of each other, and each for their own advantage, and not in concert together.
jpelham wrote:Yahuweh would not have let so many of His sheep stray so hopelessly far, without shepherds who knew the true Way, not in any age.
Yahuweh lets man do what man will do; it is the essence of Free Will. And while he was there for those that sought Him, at times those were few, just as it is today. But Yahushua told us it would be this way. He told us the path was narrow and few would find it.
jpelham wrote:Man's pride and free will have strayed from the start.
Awmane
jpelham wrote:But a god who would allow the fullness of his love to be completely obscured by pretense and hypocrisy for 2 millennia is a feeble god, and certainly not the Yahuweh of Israel.
You have built a straw man, I have concede from the beginning that His Word has been available, and that there have been those that have come to know Him.
But facts are facts; God’s Word has been corrupted by man. The fact that the oldest manuscripts vary so much from the modern ones, tells us that either 1)Yahuweh allowed them to be corrupted then, and then fixed them over time, or 2)Yahuweh allowed them to be corrupted over time, and they were right then. Either way He allowed His Word to be corrupted. Why, because man has free will, and Yahuweh will not stop man from using his free will.
Yahuweh’s Word has been available; people have come to know Him throughout all of recorded History.
And your reasoning ignores the fact that in the thousands of years between ‘Adam and ‘Abraham, no more than a handful of people knew Yahuweh or had a relationship with Him. If he allowed it to occur then why do you insist that he didn’t allow it now? Yahuweh is not interested in quantity; he is interested in quality of relationship. If someone isn’t interested in investing the time to get to know Him, why would he want to invest the time to get to know them.
jpelham wrote:According to Yahushua's most insistent prayer, the community of His followers would remain visible to "the world" until the end of time (Jn. 17).
I just read all of John 17, in 6 different translations, I don’t know what translation you are using, but I didn’t find that in any of them. Perhaps you cited it wrong, but if you would please give me a chapter in verse that says that I will look at in the context and then respond.
jpelham wrote:The life of the Way, in communion with Yahuweh, cannot be other than as Yahushua ordered it.
Yahushua was Torah observant and told His disciples to be the same. Something the Catholic Church is not.
Not to mention the fact that Matthew 23:8 is a pretty condemnatory verse on the Catholic Church whose leader is the Pope, which means Father, and whose priests are called Father.
Matthew 23:8 wrote: "Be not called Rabbi for only One is your Master - the Messiah, and you are all brethren. And do not call men Father on earth, for only One is your Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called exalted leader, teacher or judge for only One is your leader, teacher and judge - the Messiah."
jpelham wrote:He told His disciples that they are to forgive sins with His authority (the 1st offense - followers accepting, in the physical person of a man, Yahuweh's authority to forgive sins),
How exactly is this supposed to transfer to Catholic priests having the authority to forgive sins? This was told to His disciples, they never, at least to my recollection, told this to those who taught them, and it was never implied. And if that were the case, then all who are followers of Yahushua would have the ability to forgive with His authority, not just a certain select group.
jpelham wrote:unless they eat His flesh and drink His blood they have no life in them (the 2nd offense - , the Romans charged cannibalism).
Since there is no record of the disciples ever physically consuming the flesh and blood of Yahushua, I think it is pretty safe to assume that this was meant symbolically.
jpelham wrote:Where these appear, there is the Way, and nowhere else. They appear in "Orthodoxy" and "Catholicism." And only the latter is founded upon the Rock, which also remains as much an offense now as it was then.
The Catholic Church is not founded on Shimon Kephas’. It was founded by Constantine, a pagan general with ambitions of being king. The Catholic Church engaged in the activity that the Nicolaiatians promoted and Yahushua said that he HATED them for, which is incorporating Pagan practices into the Way. The Rock had nothing to do with the founding of the Catholic Church.
jpelham wrote: One can read the character and even moral substance of a person in their prose (I cringe...). If you read any of the writings of Pope Benedict with an eye to understanding why he takes the stand he does, or especially John Paul II's "Faith and Reason," a profound and impeccably rigorous, scholarly exploration of the fulfillment of our human nature and needs, then if you reject their Catholicism, you do so honestly.
Yes Benedict has great moral character, just look at how well he condemned an turned over the pedophile priests, oh wait, he did no such thing, in fact he did everything in his power as a cardinal to ensure that they were not punished. Benedict’s moral authority has gone right out the window with the Church’s inaction in turning over these sick perverted pedophiles. You can find any number of stories showing how he along with many other members of the Church attempted to cover up incidents of atrocious acts so as to not make the Church look bad.
Besides, even if he were the nicest most descent man in the world, it doesn’t make his understanding of Scripture correct, or his authority divine. It doesn’t change one bit the fact that most every Catholic practice is derived from Pagan religions.
wrote:The "Sacrament of Confession" quite literally restored me to life, and the "Sacrament of Holy Communion" offers the physical relationship with Yahushua that has been accepted with inexpressible gratitude for 2000 years, a union with His Spirit and flesh that is our best glimpse of heaven. I can truly live with no less.
I’m happy for you, but I would say that you have accepted that which makes you fill good, as opposed to that which is true and reliable.