Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 21 22 [23] 24 25 ... 33

Author Topic: Francis Denies Divinity of Christ  (Read 22410 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Mark 79

  • Supporter
Re: Francis Denies Divinity of Christ
« Reply #110 on: October 12, 2019, 05:05:19 PM »
Even (((Wikipedia))) grudgingly acknowledges:

"Another explanation given is that the name "Yeshu" is actually an acronym for the formula (ימח שמו וזכרו(נו (Y'mach Sh'mo V'Zichro(no)), meaning "may his name and memory be obliterated". The earliest known example of this theory comes from medieval Toledot Yeshu narratives.[9][10]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshu



[9] Edman, L. (1857). Sefer Toledot Yeshu: sive Liber de ortu et origine Jesu ex editione wagenseiliana transcriptus et explicatus [Sefer Toledot Yeshu: or The Book of the rising and origin of Jesus from the Wagenseiliana edition: Transcription and Explanation] (Google Books convenience link) (Original copy from Harvard Divinity School) (in Hebrew and Latin). C. A. Leffler. p. 8. Retrieved August 2, 2011.
[10] Howard, George (1995). "Shem-Tob and the Tol'doth Yeshu". Hebrew Gospel of Matthew (Google Books convenience link). Macon, Georgia: Mercer University Press. pp. 206–211. ISBN 0-86554-442-5. LCCN 95016849. Retrieved August 3, 2011.




N.B. "Shem Tob" (usually, "Baal Shem Tov" or "BeShT") is the acronym nickname for Rabbi Israel ben Eliezer, the founder of Chasidim, the religion of "Chagall" and Jorge. "BeShT" is the acronym for "Master of the Good Name."

Satan's chosen people love and frequently use acronyms for persons: Rambam (for Maimonides), Ramban (for Nachmanides), Rashbi (for Shimon ben Yohai), etc.
Logged

Offline Jaynek

Re: Francis Denies Divinity of Christ
« Reply #111 on: October 12, 2019, 05:14:24 PM »
Quote from: Mark 79 on October 12, 2019, 04:47:52 PM
The only "context" in which "Jesus became the devil" is defensible is the context of quoting the blasphemy to damn it.


There is no "meditation" or "typology" that excuses "Jesus became the devil."


The sinlessness of Jesus is affirmed in these verses: 1 Peter 2:22, 2 Corinthians 5:21, Hebrews 4:15, 1 John 3:5, John 19:4, John 8:29, 1 Peter 1:18-19.


Until Jorge there has never been a need for the Magisterium to explain that sinless Jesus could never be the devil.


It is a sad state of affairs that there is even one "trad" here who thinks a "meditation" or "typology" or "context" canonizes such a blasphemy as Magisterial orthodoxy.


He said "Jesus became a devil" using the exact wording that he used to say "Jesus became sin," meaning it the same way. Whether one translates it as "sin" or "sin offering" it refers to the expiation of our sins on the Cross by taking them upon Himself.  "Jesus became sin (offering)" is a traditional, orthodox teaching and does not mean that Our Lord ever sinned.  It does not contradict the fact of his sinlessness.

Obviously "Jesus became the devil" seems wrong when taken in isolation, but this was a basically sound meditation taken as a whole.  It is unfortunate that this is distracting you from more serious problems in the papacy.
Logged

Offline Jaynek

Re: Francis Denies Divinity of Christ
« Reply #112 on: October 12, 2019, 05:17:18 PM »
Quote from: Quo vadis Domine on October 12, 2019, 04:50:33 PM
I don’t put anything past this heretical usurper. Yes, I think he said it and he prefers that people take it in an heterodox way. Remember, he is the fellow who said the following:

 “ Together today, I here in Rome and you over there, we will ask our Father to send the Spirit of Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and to give us the grace to be one, “so that the world may believe”. I feel like saying something that may sound controversial, or even heretical, perhaps. But there is someone who “knows” that, despite our differences, we are one. It is he who is persecuting us. It is he who is persecuting Christians today, he who is anointing us with (the blood of) martyrdom. He knows that Christians are disciples of Christ: that they are one, that they are brothers! He doesn’t care if they are Evangelicals, or Orthodox, Lutherans, Catholics or Apostolic…he doesn’t care! They are Christians.”
For the record, I do consider this unacceptable.  I would put it in my Top Ten Infuriating Quotes list.
Logged

Offline Mark 79

  • Supporter
Re: Francis Denies Divinity of Christ
« Reply #113 on: October 12, 2019, 05:21:16 PM »
Quote from: Jaynek on October 12, 2019, 05:14:24 PM

He said "Jesus became a devil" using the exact wording that he used to say "Jesus became sin," meaning it the same way. Whether one translates it as "sin" or "sin offering" it refers to the expiation of our sins on the Cross by taking them upon Himself.  "Jesus became sin (offering)" is a traditional, orthodox teaching and does not mean that Our Lord ever sinned.  It does not contradict the fact of his sinlessness.

Obviously "Jesus became the devil" seems wrong when taken in isolation, but this was a basically sound meditation taken as a whole.  It is unfortunate that this is distracting you from more serious problems in the papacy.


You are free to spew your apologia until The Last Day.


I am not "distracted" by this. I am well aware of Jorge's numerous other problems. Get the memo: http://judaism.is/st.-francis-on-francis.html


At the moment, yes, I am focused on your increasingly rabbinical efforts at exculpating "Jesus became the devil."


That you consider "Jesus became the devil" a sound mediation testifies against your sensus Catholicus.


Are you a marrano?


Quote from: Jaynek on October 12, 2019, 05:17:18 PM
For the record, I do consider this unacceptable.  I would put it in my Top Ten Infuriating Quotes list.
Hot air. 
Logged

Offline Jaynek

Re: Francis Denies Divinity of Christ
« Reply #114 on: October 12, 2019, 05:34:14 PM »
Quote from: Mark 79 on October 12, 2019, 05:05:19 PM
Even (((Wikipedia))) grudgingly acknowledges:

"Another explanation given is that the name "Yeshu" is actually an acronym for the formula (ימח שמו וזכרו(נו (Y'mach Sh'mo V'Zichro(no)), meaning "may his name and memory be obliterated". The earliest known example of this theory comes from medieval Toledot Yeshu narratives.[9][10]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshu
I did already say that I thought this was the more likely theory for the origin of Yeshu.  But it is a big leap to go from this being the origin of the word to saying all Jews are aware of it and intend the word as an insult when they use it.

My view is not coming a theological position, but from studying linguistics as an undergrad.  It is very common for people to speak a language without any awareness of the origins of the words in it.  That is typically the norm.  So I do not assume that Chagall intended an insult with the use of the word "Yeshu".

Even without that assumption I think that identifying that as a favourite painting is disturbing and shocking.  It is such a thoroughly unChristian picture that it ought to create feelings of revulsion in a Catholic.  Chagall co-opted Christian imagery to further the Jєωιѕн narrative.  He made the Saviour into a symbol of Jews.  It is simply wrong. 
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 21 22 [23] 24 25 ... 33
« previous next »