AnonymousMay 12, 2015 at 3:36 PM
"Would you say he was denying Christ because of that action?"
Yes
Yes
This is my opinion on this controversy. In the first place, a cross or crucifix is not Jesus Christ. We do not worship a cross or crucifix. I wear a crucifix only as a reminder of God's love for me, but I do not worship the crucifix. God is who I worship.
The cross worn around the neck does not make one a Christian. After all, Adolf Hitler was raised Catholic and wore an iron cross. That iron cross did not make Hitler a Christian. Christians receive something that no other persons in the world receive. We receive the Holy Spirit and the graces that God gives us is what makes us a true Christian.
So, was Pope Francis wrong in hiding his cross when he visited the Chief Rabbi in Jerusalem? Has anyone ever wondered why the Jews find the cross so offensive? Some commenters under my last thread said that the Jews find the cross offensive because they rejected Christ. Others say that they consider the cross an idol. Are they certain of that? Is it not possible that many Jews find the cross offensive because they associate it with Nazism? After all, the Nazi soldiers wore the iron cross on their uniforms and even place the cross next to the swastika. (See the photo below.)
 |
| World War II Nazi flag of Germany |
The Nazis murdered more than 6 million Jewish people, and this is the flag they saw during World War II. These are the same symbols they saw on the uniforms of the German Nazi soldiers who wore both the Iron cross and the Swastika. Naturally, many Jews would find these symbols offensive just as many African Americans would detest the Confederate flag of America. Would you blame them?
The Neocatechumenal Way was there together with the Jewish Rabbis on a retreat to also commemorate the victims of the Holocaust. When the Catholics hid their cross, it was not to deny Christ, but to show respect to the Jewish people. Christ loved the people more than the cross on which He was crucified on. And if we are to follow in Christ's footsteps, we would also love the people more than a piece of jewelry.
It is not merely a piece of jewellery. You are a quasi-Catholic Diana. And a crypto-Jew
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 4:59 pm,
DeleteSo, what is it to you........God???? Do you believe that jewelry you wear around your neck is the AImighty God???? I wear a crucifix simply as a reminder of God's love for me.
This is so true! The Nazi cross is a symbol of satanism. Hitler was a follower of the British satanist Aleister Crowley. There is ample documentation to prove this historical fact. This satanic sect provided all the background ideology to Hitler and the Nazis who killed the Jews during WW2. When we wear our crosses in our neck, unfortunately we remind our Jewish brothers in Holy Land of that murderous European history that many of them tried to escape from. Just think of the thousands and thousands of Holocaust survivors who barely escaped the death row and poison gas chambers in Auschwitz and took refuge in Israel.
ReplyDeleteOur cross is just a symbol if not a jewelry. We like to take pride in flaunting our expensive cross shaped jewelry. How offensive it is to our Jewish brothers who see in it a pride of committing Shoah. But this should not be a reason to be proud of! It is consumerism when faith matters became commecialized and expensive golden crosses hung in the neck to flaunt material riches and earthly wealth. Is this not a shame for a supposed religious people? This is what I am reminded about when our Jewish brothers in faith ask us to do away with our jewelry crosses. Is this not a blessing to keep friendship with the holy people of God who teach us to true humilty before God?
Dear Diana, on a previous post you stated that "Pope Francis also hid his crucifix."Can you please provide a reference or some evidence for this statement? Thank you
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 12:04 am,
DeleteBelow is a weblink showing photos of Pope Francis with the Chief Rabbi during his visit to Jerusalem. The Pope's cross was not visible and hidden By the way, the website is a Traditional Catholic website who oppose Vatican II.
http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/francis-hides-the-cross.htm
They are wrong about this. The Pope did not hide his cross. It has a habit of falling into his cummerbund. Here is another picture from the same meeting:
Deletehttp://tinyurl.com/mhg5zpb
I hope you will allow this post, and correct your misunderstanding
Dear Anonymous at 9:31 am,
DeleteWhat was the person whispering to him saying? Could it be that he was whispering to the Pope to hide his cross????? In a Jewish news report, Pope Francis was told to hide his cross as he approached the wailing wall. He hid the cross at the wall. According to the weblink below:
"Pope Francis fondled his cross at the Western Wall Monday after half-hiding it when he entered, but he made sure to remove his shoes when entering a mosque on the Temple Mount.
Previous papal visits have been preceded by demands from the Chief Rabbinate that the pope show a minimum amount of respect at the Western Wall, the outer wall of the destroyed Second Temple, and remove the cross, a sign of idol worship.
As one rabbi said before Pope Benedict visited, he wouldn’t wear Jewish symbols at a Christian holy site, and it is not too much to ask the same of the pope. Yes, it’s not too much to ask but it’s too much to expect."
http://www.thejewishindependent.com/news-and-views/news-briefs/pope-takes-shoes-mosque-wears-cross-western-wall/
It appears that the Chief Rabbi have asked Pope Francis and previous Pope to hide the cross. It seems that many Jews find the cross offensive. Personally, I think it has to do with Nazism rather than idol worship.
" Could it be that he was whispering to the Pope to hide his cross?????"
DeleteAmazing. I show you evidence that your claim that the pope hid his cross is false, and you still don't accept it. You can see it though can't you? Are you really that blind. Would you like me to show you other photos of the pope's pectoral cross half-hidden in his cummerbund while visiting Christian places?
How can you dare to post this statement:
"the cross, a sign of idol worship"
Incredible.
Dear Anonymous at 8:10 pm,
DeleteThat statement did not come from me. It came from a Jewish news article. I provided the weblink in my comment. Can you show me photos of the Pope's pectoral cross hidden in his cummerbund while visiting Christian people so I can publish the link?
You chose to repeat it though. Your desire for it to be true that the pope is hiding his cross is reather disturbing.
DeleteIn any case, the following are examples of the Pope at Catholic places having the same issue with his cross and cummerbund:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/22/pope-francis-warns-mafiosi-to-repent-or-end-up-in-hell
http://sandyfordparish.org/wp/?page_id=1503
Here's another one of the cross clearly visible while meeting the rabbis:
Deletehttp://cache1.asset-cache.net/gc/493893051-pope-francis-shakes-hands-with-israeli-gettyimages.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=X7WJLa88Cweo9HktRLaNXuiH3UtL%2BZlrhfyNHYQ3shXPimhEI8zRon3PUBw9oQ%2F3
Dear Anonymous at 11:39 pm,
DeleteDo you have one with the Pope covering the cross with Christians?
The controversy under my last post was that some posters accused the cardinals and bishops for denying Christ because they covered their cross during the retreat with the Jews, which I think is ridiculous. A person denies Christ when they clearly denounce Him with their lips. But hiding a cross in order not to offend the other is NOT a denial of Christ. This was the reason why I posted this entry post.
Dear Anonymous at 11:28 pm,
DeleteThank you for the photos. The fact that I posted about the Jewish news report shows that the Jews did tell Pope Francis and previous popes to cover their cross It shows that it is the Jews who have an issue with the cross. The news report also goes on to say that the Pope did cover his cross and took off his shoes at the mosque.
If Pope Francis covered his cross so as not to offend the Jews, I have no problem with it. Pope John Paul II even kissed the Qu'ran, and I have no problem with that as well. If anything, the actions of these popes show humility rather than shame for Christ. These popes have shown that a true Christian seeks peace rather than exercise their right to wear the cross or the right to defend oneself. When one seeks peace in this manner, it shames the other rather than the person keeping the peace. For example, When Pope John Paul II kissed the Qu'ran, it silenced the entire Muslim world because not one of their Mullahs and Imans were able to kiss the Holy Bible, and these were the people who often say that Islam is a religion of peace.
Dear Diana at 6.48am
DeleteWhat photos are you looking at? Why are you still speaking as though Pope Francis was hiding his cross? I have shown you that he did not. I have shown you that sometimes his pectoral cross gets caught behind his cummerbund.
Why are you so determined to believe he hides his cross, when the evidence doesn't support it? You even go so far as to refer to websites you would normally never go to (novusordo etc) and relay articles that are written to criticise the pope.
The News report you quote actually says he didn't cover his cross! It suggests he "half-hides" it - but this is exactly what I shown happens often even at Catholic occasions and places. Nor does the report say that the Jews told him to cover his cross. It quotes one rabbi who said he would rather the Pope didn't display the cross - but it does not say the pope was ever formally asked not to.
All of this discussion is rather disturbing. Why are some people determined that the Jews should dictate how we display our faith? Why is it so important that we please the Jews? By all means we should try to be kind and considerate to everyone, not just Jewish people, but if anyone says that we should hide the cross or in anyway imply a readiness to put aside Christ in order to do that, we should strongly object.
Do you know the most amazing thing about this discussion? It is that the Apostle Paul was aware of this from the start. And this one of those passages that sits at the heart of the Kerygma that you claim to value. What did Paul tell the Corinthians?
"20 Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, God decided, through the foolishness of our proclamation, to save those who believe. 22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks desire wisdom, 23 but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For God’s foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and God’s weakness is stronger than human strength"
The Jewish offense at the cross did not begin with the holocaust. That is a stupid and ignorant idea. It has been the issue from the start. But as the above passage says "to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God."
We should be calling the Jewish people to Christ, not abandoning Christ at the behest of the Jewish people
Dear Anonymous at 11:00 am
DeleteThe Jewish news report shows that some Jews find the cross offensive. Whether Pope Francis covers his cross, half covers it, or not is not what my entry post is about. Do you agree that some Jews find the cross offensive and asked Christians including the Pope to cover it? From the news report, it appears the answer is yes. So, the next question is why?
Anti-Semitism started with the Christians when they first blamed the Jews for killing Christ. The worst anti-Semitic act would be the Holocaust where they would see both the cross and the swastika (a twisted cross) and associate it with Nazism.
St Paul also said, "And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; (1 Corinthians 9:20).
Of course, St. Paul is not saying to put aside your Christian faith. He is simply saying to be careful that the exercise of our rights do not become a stumbling block to the weak brother.
It is interesting that you chose to use the phrase "stumbling block", after what I had posted from 1 Corinthians:
Delete"but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews"
Paul doesn't say "don't preach Christ crucified, because it is a stumbling block to the Jews"
The question why Jews, and others might find the cross offensive, is far deeper than "anti-Semitism" or the horrors of the holocaust.
The cross demands of us a radical choice. The cross signifies the unimaginable love of God for us who want us to be with him in heaven.
The cross signifies that man is imperfect and that we do what we don't want to do (and what is not good for us) and we don't do want we want to do (or what is good for us). “For the wages of sin is death; but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Romans 6:23
The cross signifies that because mankind is imperfect and sinful, it needs a savior. That mankind can never do anything worthy enough to pay the debt we owe God due to our sins.
The cross represents our hope of salvation and the promise that every tear shall be wiped away.
The cross is a symbol of peace and offer of hope with a future eternal life in paradise with God. The WWII German swastika is a symbol of despair, death, and destruction. For anyone to equate the Christian Cross with a WWII German swastika is fully someone suppressing the truth.
Dear Anonymous at 12:35 pm,
DeleteSymbols are different across cultures. I see the cross the same as you do. Others may see it differently. I agree with you that the cross is a symbol of peace and the swastika is a symbol of death and destruction. However, the Nazis did place the iron cross next to the swastika. This was Satan's doing. He wanted people to associate the cross with the Nazis.
I don't think that ALL Jews have an issue with the cross. There are a few Jews who married Christians and they have come to see the cross in a different light....that it is not about Nazism. The Catholics believe that suffering makes us one with Christ. Many do not understand this. Even our Christian brothers who are not Catholic have a different view of suffering.
It depends. The cross in relation to Jesus is a symbol of life, love and Christian piety. The same cross in relation and built into the swastika is a symbol of death, hatred and Nazism. The cross in the necks of bishops could mean either one depending on the place and context. In Israel the cross means what it means for historical reason, you have to face it, otherwise you are just a petty antisemite.
Delete" and whoever does not take up the cross and follow me is not worthy of me." Matthew 10:38
ReplyDelete" Those who are ashamed of me and of my words[j] in this adulterous and sinful generation, of them the Son of Man will also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.” Mark 8:38
"Those who believe in him are not condemned; but those who do not believe are condemned already, because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God" John 3:18
"Those who are ashamed of me and of my words, of them the Son of Man will be ashamed when he comes in his glory and the glory of the Father and of the holy angels." Luke 9:26
Dear Anonymous at 12:17 am,
DeleteWhen Christ said to take up your cross and follow me.....do you actually think He "literally" meant a cross.......as in a ten ton wooden cross???
Read them all Diana, not just the first line.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 9:32 am,
DeleteI did. The question I asked you was...........do you actually think He "literally" meant a cross.......as in a ten ton wooden cross??? Are you going to answer the question?
No, I don't think he meant that "literally", Diana.
DeleteSo let me ask you a question or three now. Should we be ashamed of the cross that bought us freedom? Should we shirk from the sign that gives us hope that all might be saved? What do you make of John 3.18?
So...are you going to answer?
Dear Anonymous at 8:12 pm,
DeleteAs I mentioned in my post, I wear the crucifix as a reminder of God's love for me, but I do not worship the crucifix. I do not worship the cross. I worship only God. The cross I wear around my neck is NOT magical. It only serves as a reminder of what Christ went through to rescue me. All power and salvation comes only from God.
John 3:18 says that whoever believes in HIM will not be condemned. John 3:18 did not say whoever believes in the cross will not be condemned. Christ is not a cross. He is a person. He is God.
Do you remember the story of the bronze serpent. God told Moses to build a bronze serpent and whoever looks upon it will be healed of snake bites. However, the Israelites later worshiped the bronze serpent. God then had the bronze serpent destroyed because the people were worshipping it.
Diana, this is gross. What are you talking about? Whoever on earth is worshiping a cross!? The crucifix is a symbol of the suffering of our Lord Jesus. We wear it for remembrance and never under any circumstances would hide our pride in the Lord under the bushel.
DeleteYou didn't answer the questions Diana. I will ask them again: Should we be ashamed of the cross that bought us freedom? Should we shirk from the sign that gives us hope that all might be saved?
DeleteJohn 3.18 also says that "those who do not believe are condemned already, because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God"
What is your response to that Diana?
Dear Anonymous at 11:23 pm,
DeleteOf course, we should not be ashamed of the cross. Did I not say that I wear a crucifix????? My entry post has nothing to do with being ashamed of the cross. My entry post explains why some JEWS may find the cross offensive, which is why some Christians chose to hide their cross. They hide not because they are ashamed, but to keep the peace and not cause conflict. Do you not see the title of my post????? It says avoiding conflict. It does not say being ashamed of the cross."
Dear Anonymous at 11:16 pm,
DeleteFundamentalist Protestants often accuse us of being idol worshippers because they see us bowing down to the cross, icons, and statues.
Diana, this is a blunder. Protestants also wear crosses. Not for idol but for Jesus!
DeleteDear Anonymous at 8:54 pm,
DeleteProtestants do not BOW down to the cross. Catholics are called "idol worshipers" by some Protestants because they see us bowing down and even kissing the cross especially during Good Friday. Catholics venerate the cross, but we do not worship the cross. Veneration and worship are two different things, which Protestants do not quite understand.
I was not there at the Domus for the historic meeting with the Rabbis. But the photos that I saw show clearly that the Cardinals and Bishops all had their crosses visible. I do not know what you are speaking about. Kiko spoke about Jesus Christ.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 5:55 am,
DeleteI saw a few of the photos at the Domus, and many of their crosses were NOT visible. However, the photo of Cardinal Pell showed his cross was visible. It is possible that there were some who made their cross visible while others chose not to in order not to offend the Jews.
There was also a photo of Kiko at the podium. There was no crucifix at the podium. However, the crucifix was probably not on display simply because this was an interfaith retreat between Christians and non-Christians. I was not there at the retreat so I would not know whether Kiko spoke about Christ or not. I would assume that he would speak more about God the Father because it was the Jewish Rabbis who asked Kiko to meet with them.
WHich photo of Cardinal Pell? The one of him outside after it was over? please point out any photo that shows the cardinals wearing their crosses with pride
Delete"I would assume that he would speak more about God the Father because it was the Jewish Rabbis who asked Kiko to meet with them. "
DeleteAccording to Rabbi Kligler, who was present at the meeting:
"Kiko not only had a big personality, he had a huge ego. He talked about himself at great length to us, his captive audience. My first impression – one that never abated much – was that all of the rabbis were there, at least in part, as Kiko’s trophies to be displayed to the Vatican hierarchy that was there, as if to show how important the Neocatechumenal Way had become. The building we were in was also clearly the fruit of Kiko’s work, and he described the hand he had taken in designing all of its features. And then – this is all still on the first day of the conference – an entire symphony orchestra had been assembled, along with an 80-voice choir, to perform for us a symphony that Kiko had composed on the theme of the suffering of the innocents at Auschwitz."
I do not want to defend Mishna, but we obviously have to respect the Jews. Cross or not cross, it might be offensive, so better keep quiet. Swastika is a cross too, the symbol of the Nazis. Would you like the wear Swastika? I bet you don't. So why wear something that is offensive to other people, especially in the Holy Land. Judaism is 4000 years old, Jews have worshiped Shema Israel, who is Yahweh Sabaoth, even in bondage from Egypt. God stroke the Pharaoh and the Egyptians because they made a cult of animal looking gods like bulls or dogs. Not ridiculous?
ReplyDelete4000 years of Judaism is quite an achievement on a historical scale, isn't it? That is why you are a complete fool and bigot if you don’t respect Torah, Mishna, Talmud and the other books, some written in your own Bible. Didn't know it, huhh? Okay, I keep pondering on the words of the Mishna about the Virgin Mary and Jesus Christ. What they are saying is not hatred at all, but an attempt to understand who is Virgin Mary and Jesus Christ.
Protestants say that the Virgin Mary had several children from Joseph the carpenter. They say one of them was Jesus. So the Mishna teaches almost the same: "Jesus was born out of wedlock to His mother, Miriam, and her lover Pantera. She is said to have been the descendant of princes and rulers, and to have played the harlot with a carpenter." Of course, Miriam is Hebrew for the Virgin Mary. But who is Pantera? Perhaps, they did not know Joseph married the Virgin Mary in a regular Jewish wedding ceremony, because they were not invited to the celebration. They can only speculate that Jesus might have born before the wedding thus "out of wedlock”. What is for sure, the angel Gabriel was not Mary's bride. You see that wrong and misinformation led to erroneous view of the Virgin Mary in the Mishna, but not at all deliberate hatred or such thing.
Coming back to who is Pantera the Mishna is mentioning? Well, here is a simple solution to the puzzle: Pantera might have been the family name of Joseph! Yes, Joseph was courting the Virgin Mary and some folks in the village did not agree with them. They fantasized that Miriam is "playing the harlot". But this was a lie, wrong information again. Joseph was actually the carpenter we are talking about and the wedding was a lawfully administered ceremony, we should never forget that.
ReplyDeleteMishna also acknowledges that the Virgin Mary is the descendants of the kings of Israel! This is a beautiful thing to observe because we are talking about the rulers of the Holy Land. The Virgin Mary was one of their own! There is no hatred or disrespect here because being a descendant of kings is a praise, accolade, lifting up and not putting down. The Mishna praises Miriam this way.
The other thing is the apostasy charge against Jesus Christ. Well, this came from the Sabbath law, a very important and otherwise beautiful law about keeping the 7th day of creation holy every week. Is this not beautiful to keep the Sabbath day holy? The only reason to break the Sabbath is for healing and that is exactly what Jesus Christ did. The Jews perceived this as apostasy because Jesus Christ overrode the Sabbath law. Again, the information was completely wrong. Jesus Christ did not override the Sabbath for apostasy. He did it to establish the will of the Father on earth in a new religion named Christianity.
So please, understand that the Mishna tried to explain the Virgin Mary and Jesus Christ on the basis of wrong and misinformation but not hatred. They came up with their own version that definitely makes sense in their own train of thought. That is why they are our elder and beloved brothers in faith. Of course we cannot agree as we are Christians of the Lord Jesus Christ. But the Jews are not Christians, so why do you think they must understand everything immediately even from faulty and wrong information? This is the point you have to see when you read the Misha, the Talmud and the Torah books. They are pearls of 4000 years of religious faith in the very same Yahweh God of Israel.
St. Paul says something about being a Jew for the Jews Greek for the Greeks etc
ReplyDelete"The Nazis murdered more than 6 million Jewish people, and this is the flag they saw during World War II. These are the same symbols they saw on the uniforms of the German Nazi soldiers who wore both the Iron cross and the Swastika. Naturally, many Jews would find these symbols offensive just as many African Americans would detest the Confederate flag of America. Would you blame them? "
ReplyDeleteThis is bad logic.
Which is the greater event? The holocaust or the death and resurrection of the Savior of the world? The Church rejected, and continues to reject, Nazism and the persecution, torture and death of Jews, Catholics, homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, and anyone else killed under the awful orders of the madman Hitler and his cronies. We can certainly sympathize with those sentiments.
However, it was not the cross that caused them to suffer, just as you say God is not the cross. It is what the cross symbolizes that matters. On one hand you say we should ignore the symbolism (of Christ) because that doesn't matter - its the (concrete) reality that matters; but on the other hand you then make an argument that the symbolism matters.
In fact, I have recently read an article written by one of the rabbis that attended the extravaganza at the Domus. He identified the elements that he found offensive. Do you know what was most offensive to him (and other Jews according to him)? I quote:
"For the Catholics, suffering is holy, something to offer up to God as the highest form of service, modeling after Jesus. Therefore, as far as I can tell, the suffering of the Jews, from the martyrdom of Rabbi Akiva and his colleagues in the 2nd century culminating with the victims of the Nazi Holocaust, has somehow been an ennobling experience. We Jews, obviously, don’t feel so ennobled by murderous oppression. When we remember the martyrdom of Rabbi Akiva on Yom Kippur, it is with anguish as well as praise. And for me and many other Jews, our response to the Holocaust is the need for the State of Israel, a clear statement that we would rather defend our lives than be suffering victims. It was challenging not to feel offended. It reminded me of well-meaning folks who console someone who has just suffered a loss by telling them it is God’s will and is all for the best."
Under your logic Diana, we ought to never speak of the value of suffering to the Jews, as they find that offensive - and in fact, then, the symphony of Kiko has questionable value other than when it accords with the Jewish perspective.
Dear Anonymous at 11:46 am,
DeleteI never said that we should never speak of the suffering to the Jews. This topic is not about the suffering of the Jews. It has to do with why the Jews may find the cross offensive. Some people under the last thread say that the Jews found the cross offensive because they reject Jesus Christ. Personally, I think it goes much deeper than that.
You stated: "The Church rejected, and continues to reject, Nazism and the persecution, torture and death of Jews, Catholics, homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, and anyone else killed under the awful orders of the madman Hitler and his cronies."
That is true, but Hitler was Catholic. Many of the Nazis were Christians. In fact, the Nazi Party first developed in largely Catholic Munich. It is true that Christians stopped the madman Hitler, but it was also true that it was Christians who murdered more than 6 million Jews. Even at that time, there was a division in the Catholic Church. There were Catholics killing Jews and Catholics trying to stop Hitler. It was Hitler and the Nazis who placed the cross beside the Swastika and wore both the cross and Swastika on their uniforms.
There was a division in the Catholic Church, and those who did not listen to the leaders of the Church followed a leader of their own - Hitler. Even when Hitler denounced Christianity, the Nazis continued to follow him. Today, the Jews and Christians in that retreat became one in suffering. Why? Because Christians are being killed by ISIS and other Islamic radicals.
You are correct, it is not the cross that cause them to suffer. It was people (Nazis) who cause them to suffer. In the same way, it was not the confederate flag that caused the African Americans to suffer, it was people (those who were in favor of slavery) that caused them to suffer. However, symbols are different for different people. For African Americans, the confederate flag symbolized slavery while for others it symbolized the southern states. For Christians, the cross symbolized Christianity. It may have a different meaning for other people. Communist China views the cross differently than the Jews. Their views are not the same. Pope Francis told the Way to be mindful of people, their culture, attitudes, and differences.
Here you go again with your double standards, Diana. You say
Delete"Hitler was Catholic" and
"Many of the Nazis were Christians" and
"it was also true that it was Christians who murdered more than 6 million Jews"
But you know very well that your prophet Kiko would never call them Christians. And most reasonable people would, at the very least, call them bad Christians or bad Catholics. These people abandoned Christianity the moment they refused to love. And they were unrepentant, at least visibly, which confirmed them as apostate.
So don't give us this nonsense please. Show some respect for the intelligenc of your (non-NCW) readers.
"I never said that we should never speak of the suffering to the Jews."
No. I said that. I said that, based on your logic, the fact that speaking of suffering as a treasure is insulting and offensive to the Jews, we shouldn't do it. Because your logic is that the cross is offensive to the Jews, and therefore its ok to hide it. Well, I believe it is perfectly reasonable to behave according to your beliefs, and to contradict your belief by your behavior does nothing but cause a fracture to yourself, and gives a false Gospel to others.
Diana, as I have told, Hitler was fascinated by the occult and ancient pagan Teuton Gods of German origin and was a follower of Aleister Crowley, a contemporary satanist cult leader. Nazis organized the Thule society in order to impose their occultism on the German society at large. They succeeded when Hitler was elected Chancellor of Germany and he placed all his occult cult friends into high ranking positions.
DeletePlease, follow the links
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism_and_occultism
and
http://www.canarycryradio.com/read/aleister-crowley-and-adolf-hitler-the-ideology-of-evil/
It says: "Crowley entered every secret organization that would let him join—he was known to be a member of Freemasonry, the Order of the Golden Dawn and the Ordo Tempi Orientis, a German satanic group. He also founded his own magical order: the Astrum Argentum, or Silver Star. After WWI, Hitler was initiated into the Thule Society. The occult Thule secret society included in its membership judges, police chiefs, professors, and industrialists. The Master of the Temple was the bald, opiate-addicted occultist Dietrich Eckhart. He trained Hilter in many of the secret teachings of the ancient mystery religions."
Yes, perhaps. Hitler was baptized into the Catholic church at his birth but he never followed the Catholic faith. He actually executed several Catholic priests because of opposition to his satanist ideology.
Dear Anonymous at 8:33 pm,
DeleteAnd do you know of any "good" Christians out there when ALL are sinners????
Anonymous, you are not making any sense. Christians are the only ones who see the cross as a symbol of God's love and Christ's suffering. Jews do not see the cross as suffering. The cross is only a trigger and a painful reminder of the "enemy" who persecuted the Jews just as the confederate flag is a trigger and painful reminder of the "enemy" who favored slavery. The cross does not symbolized the suffering of the Holocaust victims. Both the cross and swastika symbolized the enemy who caused the Holocaust.
When I see the swastika, I do not associate this symbol with the suffering of the Jewish victims. The swastika is a symbol of the Nazi hatred. In the same way, the African Americans who sees the confederate flag associate it with the prejudice of the Ku Klux Klan. Christians are the only ones who associate the cross with suffering because Christ suffered on the cross. As I mentioned in my previous comments, symbols have different meanings in different cultures.
This is untrue. The Confederate flag was the official banner of the South in the civil war. Southern history societies tend the good memories of Southern heroism and military genius during the civil war. Many Capitols in the South, even if not on the top of the building, have the Confederate flag flying in honor and respect for the posteriority.
DeleteWhat are you talking about Diana?
DeleteThe argument you make is that the Jews are justifiably upset about the cross because it represents the perpetrators of a great evil against them. They therefore find it offensive. And therefore Catholic prelates ought to hide it from their site so as not to offend.
I quoted a rabbi who attended the Domus event stating that, in fact, Jews find the valuing of suffering (such as Catholics do) as offensive.
If we follow the logic of your argument, that would mean that Catholics ought not speak about suffering as if it is valuable or useful, because that would then offend the Jews.
In that way we would deny the saving action of Christ, the suffering servant.
Dear Anonymous at 11:24 pm,
DeleteTo you, that may be what the confederate flag represents. To an African American, it represents something else entirely. The argument that split the North and the South was slavery. According to the weblink below:
More than a decade after a bitter feud ended with it being moved from atop the State House’s dome to its grounds, the Confederate flag remains a racially divisive symbol in South Carolina. Most whites say it should continue flying on the State House grounds; most African Americans say it should be removed, according to an exclusive Winthrop poll asked for The State.
http://www.thestate.com/news/politics-government/politics-columns-blogs/the-buzz/article13917458.html
Dear Anonymous at 11:34 pm,
DeleteWhat are you talking about? The Jews commemorate the sufferings of the victims in the Holocaust Museum. What the Rabbi found offensive is NOT our talk of suffering. He found our VIEW of suffering offensive. Catholics found suffering good. Most cultures found suffering bad. Two different kinds of viewpoints is normal among different people. But the Jews never told Christians NOT to speak about suffering. Rather, they told Christians to cover their crosses.
"Catholics found suffering good."
DeleteThis is the one single most controversial statement from the Neo Catechumenal Way I have ever read or heard. In what sense do you think, dear Diana, that suffering is good? Have you ever suffered because of toothache? I tell you it can be excruciating! Without pill one could go crazy over pain and suffering until the tooth is extracted. What good could possible coming from toothache? What good is coming from the misery and suffering of people, dear Diana?!
Dear Anonymous at 6:49 pm,
DeleteAccording to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, suffering is good in that it makes us one with Christ.
CCC 1505 Moved by so much suffering Christ not only allows himself to be touched by the sick, but he makes their miseries his own: "He took our infirmities and bore our diseases." But he did not heal all the sick. His healings were signs of the coming of the Kingdom of God. They announced a more radical healing: the victory over sin and death through his Passover. On the cross Christ took upon himself the whole weight of evil and took away the "sin of the world," of which illness is only a consequence. By his passion and death on the cross Christ has given a new meaning to suffering: it can henceforth configure us to him and unite us with his redemptive Passion.
CCC 2648 Every joy and suffering, every event and need can become the matter for thanksgiving which, sharing in that of Christ, should fill one's whole life: "Give thanks in all circumstances" (1 Thess 5:18).
Diana, where do you read in CCC 1505 and CCC 2648 that "suffering IS good"?? Suffering CAN be good, that is all I find here. You give the CCC a whole new meaning from what was intended by the Magisterium. Suffering can be beneficial only if you replace senseless suffering by meaningful one, when you accept it willingly for the good of the Body of Christ.
DeleteInnocent suffering is and has always been a scandal in the eye of God. That is why unbaptized dying babies do not go to the hell, but they are held up in purgatory for eternal hope. Suffering of lost souls in the hell is not beneficial for anyone!
Think of the corporal punishment of children. It is demonstrated that corporal punishment works is some instances but cannot be recommended in general to discipline young kids. Why? because corporal punishment destroys self respect and humiliates the soul. Children who were beaten to do good might not even be able to do good for its own sake, but only under threat of physical harm.
Diana, please, do not try to oversimplify your spiritual life. Do not reduce the riches of faith to a few sentences from a book. In the end, you may suffer great harm in seeing reality as it is and lose connection to others. People are not machines that you load up with senseless and unnecessary suffering and you obtain faithful believers in Christ. You wish it could work like this. But then the suffering of our Lord Jesus would have been in vain. He did not come to increase the pain in the world, but to decrease it, alleviate us from unnecessary suffering by taking our pains of sin upon himself on the cross.
Dear Anonymous at 9:44 pm,
DeleteI did not give suffering a new meaning. It was Christ who gave "suffering" a new meaning just as the Catechism stated........By his passion and death on the cross Christ has given a new meaning to suffering: it can henceforth configure us to him and unite us with his redemptive Passion.
You stated: "Innocent suffering is and has always been a scandal in the eye of God. That is why unbaptized dying babies do not go to the hell, but they are held up in purgatory for eternal hope. Suffering of lost souls in the hell is not beneficial for anyone!"
Anonymous, Christ was an "innocent suffering." His "innocent suffering" brought forgiveness and redemption to mankind.
St. Paul scolded St. Peter for having too much human respect for circumcised. Apostoles successors shouldn't have excessive respect, if this respect equals to hide Christ. Why a crucifix should offend Jews?
ReplyDeleteI don't know how's going on Guam, but in Europe everywhere atheists are pressing to remove crucifixes from schools, hospitals, public places and so on (not only crucifixes but every christian symbol, included nativity symbols). This attitude is a part of global plan to deny Christan roots of humanity. Seeing those Apostoles successors hide their crucifix is not a good message sent to those who in Europe are fighting against this insanity.
John Paul II and Benedict XVI haven't concealed their cross when they have met with Rabbis, neither in Italy nor in Israel. They were wrong? They were offending the Jews?
It seems to me that we have much more respect to other religions than love for unique, true cult liked by God.
Dear Sandavi,
DeleteYou are correct in that St. Paul scolded St. Peter for moving away from the Gentile converts and sitting with the Jews in order not to offend the Jews. However, did you know that eventually St. Paul ended up doing a similar act???? St. Paul was the one preaching that circumcision was not necessary. Yet, he had Timothy circumcised in order to avoid conflict with the Jews. According to the Holy Bible:
Acts 16:3 Paul wanted to have him go on with him. And he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in that region, for they all knew that his father was Greek.
So, St. Paul who always preached that circumcision was not necessary ended up circumcising a man just to avoid conflict with the Jews. Circumcision is much more painful, but it was done just to keep the peace and avoid conflict.
AnonymousMay 13, 2015 at 11:46 AM
ReplyDeleteSo to understand your logic; one negative opinion given by a Jewish brother as stated above negates the entire event?
I cannot believe that every participant would agree with this person. What is truly unbelievable for you think that your comments somehow renders the event insignificant.
You cannot believe in God second or third hand. You cannot deny the works of the Holy Spirit from a distance. It has to be felt, experienced only through the individual....in this case yourself.
Good try...
JSB
The event is significant, indeed. It signifies a turning away from Jesus as the center of Catholic faith for a sizable chunk of nominal Catholics. The new or neo center of Christianity, at least by the intention of the organizers of this event, is "Shema Israel" or Yahweh Sabaoth of the ancient books, that has not much to do with our Holy Trinity, the tri-unite God of the Father-Son and Holy Spirit, the only true and real God in the universe. We don't see it written anywhere in the old books that Yahweh Sabaoth had a son called Jesus Christ.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 11:32 pm,
DeleteAre you saying that the God whom the Jews worship is NOT the same God as whom the Christians worship??????? Are you saying that Yahweh Sabaoth is NOT the one true God????
Dear Diana, Imagine an aging businessman deciding to hand over the running of his company to his son -"All power and honor and glory and business decisions are left to you my son". And the son replies, "Thankyou father, you have given everything you have to me - I will promise my obedience to your intentions for our company, and after my work is done, I will give it all back to you".
DeleteNow, some old acquaintances of the father come to him seeking an agreement to do business, or for some favor. The old man says - "you should approach my son".
"We do not know your son" they reply.
What does it profit them to persist in their petition to the father? He has given them his reply and has instructed them as to what they ought to do. If they ignore him, can they claim to be doing the right thing? If they fail to receive the blessing they seek, can they blame anyone but themselves?
If their friends, who do know the son, say "keep petitioning the father", can they be thought of as true friends?
Dear Anonymous at 12:04 pm,
DeleteAbraham did not know Jesus Christ, but God called Abraham His friend
Judith 8:22 They must remember how our father Abraham was tempted, and being proved by many tribulations, was made the friend of God.
Even the New Testament called Abraham, the friend of God despite that Abraham never knew Jesus Christ.
James 2:23 And the scripture was fulfilled, saying: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him to justice, and he was called the friend of God.
There are two problems with your reply. First of all you suggest that Abraham "never knew Jesus Christ". I am not prepared to believe this in the way you seem to suggest. A great deal was revealed to Abraham, some of which was included in the scriptures, but in a summary way. In other words, the revelation to Abraham was much deeper that the few words about it.
DeleteAbraham was born when Noah was still alive. Noah's son Shem would have been a middled aged man, and some Jewish scholars suggests Melchizedek was actually Shem.
The promise of a deliverer to restore the order lost by Adam's sin would have been well known to these people, and the friendship of Abraham with God occurred in that context. The promise made to Abraham (regarding his "seed") was a direct reference to Jesus Christ - and this can be confirmed by the fact that the Virgin Mary refers to this promise in the Magnificat, after the angel announced that Jesus the Christ would be born to her.
In fact, all the patriarchs and prophets "knew Jesus", or a least, the Messiah. Remember Luke 24:
"Was it not necessary that the Messiah* should suffer these things and then enter into his glory?’ 27Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them the things about himself in all the scriptures. "
But most of all, recall the conversation of Jesus with the Pharisees in John's gospel:
"56Your ancestor Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day; he saw it and was glad"
I urge you, Diana, to finally put this misunderstanding about Abraham (and the patriarchs and prophets not knowing Jesus behind you.
(the full context is very important to this discussion:
39 They answered him, ‘Abraham is our father.’ Jesus said to them, ‘If you were Abraham’s children, you would be doing* what Abraham did, 40but now you are trying to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. This is not what Abraham did. 41You are indeed doing what your father does.’ They said to him, ‘We are not illegitimate children; we have one father, God himself.’ 42Jesus said to them, ‘If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now I am here.
51Very truly, I tell you, whoever keeps my word will never see death.’ 52The Jews said to him, ‘Now we know that you have a demon. Abraham died, and so did the prophets; yet you say, “Whoever keeps my word will never taste death.” 53Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died? The prophets also died. Who do you claim to be?’ 54Jesus answered, ‘If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me, he of whom you say, “He is our God”, 55though you do not know him. But I know him; if I were to say that I do not know him, I would be a liar like you. But I do know him and I keep his word. 56Your ancestor Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day; he saw it and was glad.’ 57Then the Jews said to him, ‘You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?’* 58Jesus said to them, ‘Very truly, I tell you, before Abraham was, I am.’ 59So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple. -John 8)
Secondly, in my analogy, the old man retires and gives over his authority to the son. Obviously, in your example (Abraham) that had not occurred. But with the incarnation it had. It is no good to look only to the old testament as everything shifted with the revelation of Christ
Secondly, in my analogy, the old man retires and gives over his authority to the son. Obviously, in your example (Abraham) that had not occurred. But with the incarnation it had. It is no good to look only to the old testament, as everything shifted with the revelation of Christ
Dear Anonymous at 1:09 pm,
DeleteAbraham did not know Jesus Christ otherwise he would have told his descendants His name. The Jewish people knew that a Messiah would come, and this Messiah is God according to Isaiah 9:6. But they did not know the name of the Messiah. Today, the Jews are still waiting for that Messiah. Abraham was called a friend of God regardless of whether he knew the name of Jesus or not. The God of the Old Testament is the same God of the New Testament for there is only one God and no other. The Jews simply do not know the nature of this one God the way the Christians do.
Dear Diana, please explain how you understand the following exchange from John 8:
Delete"54Jesus answered, ‘If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me, he of whom you say, “He is our God”, 55though you do not know him. But I know him; if I were to say that I do not know him, I would be a liar like you,. But I do know him and I keep his word. 56Your ancestor Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day; he saw it and was glad.’"
"Abraham did not know Jesus Christ otherwise he would have told his descendants His name."
DeleteNot necessarily. Perhaps he was instructed not to tell the name. There might be any number of reasons. Yeshua ben Yosef is a pretty common name> I think someone found an ossuary with this name inscribed not long ago. Anyway, you can't know for sure that Abraham did not know his name.
He may also have been given another name - one that named him as God but didn't identify his later personal name.
IN any case, there is no way you can know. We must rely on scripture where we read that Jesus said Abraham knew him. Will you contradict our Lord on this? For how could Abraham have rejoiced to see his day "he saw it and was glad", if he did not know him? It makes no sense.
It is so simplistic to say 'The God of the Old Testament is the same God of the New Testament". It is a question of worship. If someone only knows an incomplete "nature" of a thing, it means that they are (at least partially) mistaken about what the thing represents. For example, let us say that I know a man who is on the surface very pleasant and friendly, but is actually a serial killer. you only know him partially, as a pleasant and friendly person.
We may speak about the same man, but what you say will be incorrect and not worth much, because you don't know the truth of him.
In the same way, I may say they worship the "one God" but know him more deeply and know his true nature, but you may say you worship the "one God" without that deeper knowledge. What good is it to say we worship the same God, if you attribute to him false qualities or fail to attribute to him his true qualities. Your worship is in error.
"Abraham was called a friend of God regardless of whether he knew the name of Jesus or not."
Where do you get this from?
Allah Akbar is also one god for the Muslim. Would this mean we have to worship our God the same way as they worship their Allah Akbar?
DeleteDear Anonymous at 1:48 pm,
DeleteGod did not reveal His name to Abraham because it says so in the Holy Bible. The name that God revealed to Moses was "I AM." Before Moses, He revealed another name to Abraham Isaac, and Jacob, and it was not "Jesus Christ." It was Almighty God. According to the Holy Bible:
Exodus 6:2-3 And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: I am the Lord, That appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, by the name of God Almighty; and my name ADONAI I did not shew them.
(Taken from the Douay-Rhimes Bible).
When the Apostles asked Jesus to show them the Father. Jesus said that whoever sees the Father see Him. In other words, whoever sees the Father sees Jesus. The God of Abraham did not retire. When God revealed Himself to Abraham, He saw and knew who God is. The same goes for Moses, but they never knew the name Jesus Christ. Whoever sees the Son, sees the Father because the Son and the Father are one. The God of the Old Testament is the same as the God of the New Testament.
If you feel that it is a question of worship, then what do you think of Jesus' statement?
John 4:22 You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews.
In the above scripture, Jesus was referring to the worship of the Jews.
"When the Apostles asked Jesus to show them the Father. Jesus said that whoever sees the Father see Him. In other words, whoever sees the Father sees Jesus."
DeleteI beg your pardon, but that is just plain wrong. In fact, assuming you are speaking of John's Gospel, it is the other way around. Philip asked for Jesus to "show us the Father", and Jesus' response was "he who has seen me, has seen the Father". Are you being deliberately deceptive here? I would have thought you knew this, as you have used this quote before?
Why are you so obsessed with whether Abraham knew Jesus' literal name? That is not the problem. The modern Jews reject the Trinitarian God - but, I suggest that the Patriarchs and prophets were aware of the Divine Trinity even if that was not explicitly apparent in the Old Testament. The statement of Jesus to the Pharisees in John 8 seems to confirm that.
The promise made to Abraham and his descendants is the Blessing of Jesus Christ through the Holy Virgin. Without Jesus, Abrahams descendants could not possibly be the blessing for all nations. In fact, as the Apostle Paul points out, it is Abrahams seed (Jesus) who is the Blessing. This is certainly explicit.
And it is clear that Jesus expected that the Jewish people ought to accept him as the second person of the Trinity, that he appealed to the patriarchs and prophets to prove it to them.
So, you didn't answer my questions as to how you understand that passage from John's Gospel. Before we get drawn into other passages, will you answer that now?
Dear Anonymous at 11:15 am,
DeleteThank you for correcting my first sentence in the third paragraph. I actually wrote it correctly in the last sentence of the same paragraph, but wrote the opposite in the first sentence. When Jesus said that Abraham knew Him, it is because Abraham knew God. Christ is God. The Son, Father, and Holy Spirit are one God. The Jews and Christians worship the same God. It is not a different God that they worship. Just because they are ignorant of His nature does not mean they worship a different God. I did answer your question. The problem here is you think the Trinity is three Gods when there is only ONE God.
If Abraham was resurrected in the first century, he would recognize Jesus as the Almighty God despite that he does not know His name.
Dear Diana, I assure you that I do not understand the Trinity as "three Gods".
DeleteIf you examine what Jesus said to the Pharisees in John 8 you will surely discover that your explanation is in error. Jesus quite clearly argues against the Pharisees when they claim to worship God:
"Then they said to him, ‘Where is your Father?’ Jesus answered, ‘You know neither me nor my Father. If you knew me, you would know my Father also.’"
and again:
"They said to him, ‘We are not illegitimate children; we have one father, God himself.’ 42Jesus said to them, ‘If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now I am here. "
Jesus is clearly denying that God is their Father.
he then gives them the consequence of their mistaken belief:
"Again he said to them, ‘I am going away, and you will search for me, but you will die in your sin. Where I am going, you cannot come.’"
"He said to them, ‘You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world. 24I told you that you would die in your sins, for you will die in your sins unless you believe that I am he
"Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot accept my word. 44You are from your father the devil, and you choose to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. 46Which of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? 47Whoever is from God hears the words of God. The reason you do not hear them is that you are not from God.’ "
'It is my Father who glorifies me, he of whom you say, “He is our God”, 55though you do not know him,. But I know him; if I were to say that I do not know him, I would be a liar like you. But I do know him and I keep his word. 56Your ancestor Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day; he saw it and was glad.’ "
This is really strong stuff - Jesus knew what he was saying and made it absolutely clear. It is only stubbornness and hardness of heart that would prevent you from understanding what Jesus is saying to the Jewish people here.
Diana, it is not the problem that "they are ignorant of His nature". The problem is they consciously ignore reject it! Being ignorant means one only has to obtain proper information and then one will know and accept it, thus the problem will clear up and go away. Unfortunately, this is not the case here! The theology of Judaism is adamantly against any notion that could override their Schema Israel and their concept of the One God. In Judaism there is no Son of God, because this would be a contradiction to the Oneness of Yahweh Sabaoth.
Delete"Thus says Yahweh, Israel's king, Yahweh Sabaoth, his redeemer: I am the first and I am the last; there is no God except me." (Isaiah 44:6)
In Judaism there is no separate Holy Spirit either, the Spirit of God is only an emanation of Yahweh the Only True God. This is the fundamental reason Judaism cannot accept the Holy Trinity where there is three distinct persons in One God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit! It is not ignorance but willful rejection based on different religious views of God.
Dear Anonymous at 3:02 pm,
DeleteWe are not speaking about the Pharisees. We are speaking about Abraham. Jesus Christ came incarnated as a man in the first century when Mary gave birth to Him. However Christ existed with the Father even before He was incarnated as a man. Abraham knew God despite that He has never met the man Jesus Christ. Abraham does not know the name "Jesus Christ." But if he were to resurrect into the first century and met the man Christ, He would recognize Him as the Almighty God because the Son and the Father are one. Abraham was a friend of God because He knew God the Father despite that he did not know the name of Jesus.
During the transfiguration Jesus spoke with Moses and Elijah. He did not speak with Abraham. Peter, John and James did nit see Abraham there. Peter even wanted to make tents for them. But they were not supposed to talk about it to the others.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 9:13 pm,
DeleteThere are Jew who have come to accept the Holy Trinity. They call themselves Messianic Jews. The rest are still waiting for the Messiah because they are ignorant in that they do not know that He has already come. God revealed Himself to the Jews in their history, but to the Christians, He revealed Himself through His Son. Since it is us who knows the Son, it is up to us to dialogue with the Jews about His Son so they can come to know Him and realize that their Messiah had already come over 2000 years ago.
The Messianic Jews are the contemporary followers of John the Baptist. Originally, they were part of the early Christian church. However, after the destruction of the Temple, the Jewish high priests accused the Christians for the destruction and ordered them expelled from the Synagogues. Christians had to leave and gather in their own homes for Eucharistic celebrations rather than in the Synagogues as they did earlier. This was a breaking of koinonia between the followers of Moses and the followers of Christ. The followers of John the Baptist remained in the Synagogues.
DeleteWhat do you expect from dialogue? Each religion has its own internal dynamics. They confess and follow the tenets of the their own religion. It is not a lack of information that make the different from Christianity, as you may assume. Think of the Buddhists. No dialogue could make them to abandon their belief in reincarnation and accept resurrection. Would they lack the information we have? Not at all! It is just a different religion that is not Christian!
Dear Anonymous at 5:24 pm,
DeleteThe Messianic Jews existed in the 1960s and 1970s. They are ethnically Jews, but believe in the Holy Trinity. The Jewish people did not accuse the Christians of destroying the Temple. They knew it was the Romans who did that, and at that time in 70 AD, pagan Rome also persecuted Christians.
So what is your historical recollection, dear Diana, of the expulsion of Christians from the Synagogues in the 70ties a.d.?
DeleteDear Anonymous at 12:55 am,
DeleteThe Jewish leaders of the first century were the ones who rejected Christ, and they are long dead. The Jews of today are ignorant of Christ. In the same way, the Protestants of the 16th century were excommunicated by the Catholic Church, but their descendants are not excommunicated and have remained ignorant of the true teachings of Christianity.
Maybe as a "catecumen" you should study the NT--as St. Paul wrote: I preach Christ and Him crucified, a stumbling block to the Jews, etc.
ReplyDeleteRabbi Bergolio is more concerned about "offending" the Jews than he is about witnessing to the great sacrifice of the Lord Jesus without which neither Bergolio nor anyone else could be saved.
If anyone will not acknowledge me before men, I will not acknowledge him before my Father in heaven.
To compare the swastika (an occult symbol) to the cross of Christ is blasphemous-the Lord took the pagan method of execution and turned it into His symbol of fidelity, courage, and love.
By the way, maybe Bergolio should have asked his masters if the reason the find the cross offensive is the role some of their revered sages played in the death of Christ.
Dear Anonymous at 3:12 pm,
DeleteYou are ignoring the FACT that the Nazis DID indeed put the iron cross next to the swastika, When the Jews ask Christians to cover their cross, their intention is not to get rid of Christianity. On the other hand when communist China tells Christians to get rid of the cross, we know for a fact that the intention of communist China is to get rid of Christianity.