Comments on: New Rules for Middle East Engagement

By: neuro_nurse

neuro_nurse — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 18:31:21 +0000

If we’re relying on anecdotal reports, then I was raised Catholic too and don’t recall hearing anything of the sort. So, with a sample size of 2, there is no statistical significance to either side of the argument.

By: djd1258

djd1258 — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 15:30:49 +0000

Having been a catholic most of my life I can only state what I was taught while spending my years in catholic school. and I was taught that when I was catholic, (was is the keyword)

By: neuro_nurse

neuro_nurse — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 00:44:37 +0000

We can disagree, as long as you withdraw your claim that replacement theology is a “Catholic doctrine.”

The webpages that you cited do not support that claim.

By: djd1258

djd1258 — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 05:13:27 +0000

I can agree with most of what you say here. the only thing I would challenge is the “new Israel” of which you speak

By: neuro_nurse

neuro_nurse — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 04:06:11 +0000

"The two extremes of replacement theology and dispensationalism within Protestantism (and there are middle, moderate positions) sometimes cause problems for Catholics. Dispensationalists often regard everybody but themselves as advocates of replacement theology and, consequently, as "spiritualizers" of God’s promises to the Jews who do not take these promises—or God’s word in general—seriously. Since Catholics are not dispensationalists, they frequently assume that we hold the views of replacement theologians.

"That is not the case. The Church regards both Jews and Christians as complimentary and overlapping peoples of God. We are both elect. Those Jewish individuals who are also Christians might be regarded as doubly elect, or elect on two grounds. While the Church is the New Israel, this does not obliterate the identity of the Old Israel, nor deprive it from playing any role in God’s plan of the ages. In particular, it does not remove the prophesied conversion of the Jewish people in the last days."

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0303bt.asp

By: djd1258

djd1258 — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 02:47:21 +0000

IN responce to replacement theology in the catholic church. I was brought up catholic anbut i do have some links for you to explore. this was widely taught in catholocism and mainstream liberal protistantism until just a few years ago

http://www.cephas-library.com/replacement_theol...

http://www.axt.org.uk/essays/Kessler.htm

http://www.americanvision.org/article/replacing...

http://moriel.org/MorielArchive/index.php/disce...

http://www.moriel.org/articles/discernment/chur...

By: neuro_nurse

neuro_nurse — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 23:56:15 +0000

Copy & paste

By: neuro_nurse

neuro_nurse — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 23:51:44 +0000

Let’s see, “replacement theology”… Nope, I don’t find that in the Catechism, but under “Israel” I find headings such as “call of Israel irrevocable,” “chosen by God,” “God’s love for Israel,” “The covenant that God made with the Jewish people through Moses remains eternally valid for them.” Hmm… Perhaps you could clarify your statement about this Catholic doctrine I’ve never heard of and that isn’t in the Catechism. When I looked it up on Wikipedia, it looked to me as if there was nothing particularly “Catholic” about replacement theology.

By: BlueDeacon

BlueDeacon — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 18:50:58 +0000

Answer the question.

By: djd1258

djd1258 — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 16:41:36 +0000

i didnt make it an issue, you did.but i

By: BlueDeacon

BlueDeacon — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 15:40:11 +0000

You are still dodging the issue. Where in the NT does God promise the land back to the Jews?

By: PASTOR JEFF

PASTOR JEFF — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 14:59:42 +0000

I wasn't quoting from a source.

By: djd1258

djd1258 — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 13:50:01 +0000

the catholic doctrine of replacement theology will again cause us to problems

By: djd1258

djd1258 — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 13:46:56 +0000

God himself has blinded the jews as a nation, this is 101. but has preserved them. like i have said, if there is no scripture in the new to change the old, the old still stands. like i said the parable of the fig tree speaks of the jewish nation coming back. there is nothing in the NT to add or take away from ezekiel daniel or the others so thier still valid. if we want to base our faith only on the NT we'llmiss the mark completely

By: djd1258

djd1258 — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 13:45:02 +0000

the keyword is “appears” there is but one truth. like all historians and like I have read in my short research its simply not credible. funny how you make a point of my not citing references however i didnt see you cite any

By: djd1258

djd1258 — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 13:36:35 +0000

Jesus words “judge not” actually mean “condemn not” having discernment and condeming are 2 different things. I like how the liberal compromisers ( and i wasnt the first to use that separation you were by calling me a conservative). all I was saying is you failed to show any “fruit of the spirit in any of your replies, which for a pastor should be evedent, but this is the same stuff i have come to expect. I have no problem with ending social problems. I have a problem with the politicol part of it and the means by which we go about ending social problems. I see the left as most of the cause of our moral decline. I am not left or right, I stand in the middle, so I am not in need of an elevator sole on my left foot. I realize I am on your turf so to speak. I can feel the love too

By: BlueDeacon

BlueDeacon — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 05:51:38 +0000

You're dodging the question. Where is the evidence in the New Testament that God intended to bring the Jewish people back to the original land? That's important, because it doesn't make sense that God would sanction a state to practice a religious system He rendered obsolete with Jesus Christ.

By: PASTOR JEFF

PASTOR JEFF — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 04:03:33 +0000

“there are many places where it appears that he has left for us a solid record of people and events—especially as regards the broad movements in history at this time. These might include facts about the Herodian dynasty, the nature of the Jewish religious sects, Roman rule over Palestine and the fall of Jerusalem.”-

Thank you for supporting my point. It would be nice if you cited references when quoting.

Now, back to your Bible Scholars….

By: PASTOR JEFF

PASTOR JEFF — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 03:56:24 +0000

As a pastor do you recognize the spiritual authority to correct you in your judgementalism regarding “those people who just follow religion and dont really know Christ” based upon Jesus' words to “Judge not” or are we “pastors just supposed to sit idly by while the sheep are led to slaughter by pop-media heresies? Maybe that's the stereotypical Pollyanna preachers propagated by those who would keep us in our places along with the God whom we serve and that may be why we have such outcry over pastors like Wallis, Wright and others. You conservatives must have a playbook when dealing with us that call into question our “tone” or calling.

By: djd1258

djd1258 — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 03:09:02 +0000

The Historical Reliability of Josephus
The question of the historical reliability of Josephus can only be answered by attempting to correlate what he asserts in his writings with other sources (some of which he used), whether literature, archaeology, etc. And, when no such external knowledge exists to confirm or deny his report, we must consider internal evidence, his habits, what kind of man he says he was, etc. to see whether certain of his claims are credible.16 At this point we are closer to guessing than in the first situation.

Given the above canons, it is no mystery that many scholars hold that Josephus is woefully inaccurate at times. And, it would appear from the work of Schurer, Broshi, Mason, Mosley and Yamauchi that such a conclusion is fairly warranted.17 Yet this skepticism does not need to be thorough-going, for there are many places where it appears that he has left for us a solid record of people and events—especially as regards the broad movements in history at this time. These might include facts about the Herodian dynasty, the nature of the Jewish religious sects, Roman rule over Palestine and the fall of Jerusalem. Boshi agrees that in many places Josephus errs, regarding numbers and names, but this is no grounds for dismissing all that he said as without foundation. Once again, the historical trustworthiness of Josephus, is perhaps not a flat declaration, “he is” or “he is not” but rather it proceeds on a case by case basis.18