Author Topic: Francis Denies Divinity of Christ (Read 22424 times)

Mark 79 · « **Reply #105 on:** October 12, 2019, 04:47:52 PM »

Quote from: Jaynek on October 12, 2019, 04:23:23 PM

I know that the Haydock commentary says that it should be understood as sin offering in 2Cor 5:21, but I am not familiar with a magisterial source for this. Do you know of one? If it is merely a theological tradition, it would not be heterodox to take it as meaning sin.

The statement was in the context of a meditation on the typology of the bronze serpent. As a type, the serpent represents Jesus. But in other places serpents represent the devil. Francis meditates on the mystery of the Cross to consider how these seemingly opposite symbols coexist. Within this imagery, Jesus removing our sin by being "lifted up" (the expression in Scripture) is like Him becoming a devil/serpent. It is not a claim that Our Lord was a devil in the sense of saying that Our Lord was evil.

I'm just not seeing an outrageous blasphemy in either the words you quoted or the ones that I did. I can see that it might be confusing without the context that he was talking about typology, but I cannot understand how there is a problem in context. It all seems to be leading to the conclusion that the only true salvation is in Christ crucified. That idea is certainly orthodox.

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.

Quo vadis Domine · « **Reply #106 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.”

You see he is more than willing to say heretical things. He likes confusion, he likes ambiguity, but he prefers outright heresy. In my most charitable spirit, I’d like to believe that the man is just an atheist.

Mark 79 · « **Reply #107 on:** October 12, 2019, 04:50:37 PM »

Quote from: Jaynek on October 12, 2019, 04:30:01 PM

The parenthetical comment that "it speaks volumes about Francis that people wouldn't put this past him" is what I see as the real problem here. When someone claims that the pope privately told him a clearly heretical statement, if things were the way they should be, everyone ought to find the idea absurd and unbelievable.

Choose one:
A. The real problem is a man who said that Jesus became the devil.
B. The real problem is that someone is no longer surprised at Jorge's heresies and blasphemies.

Jaynek · « **Reply #108 on:** October 12, 2019, 04:51:19 PM »

Quote from: Mark 79 on October 12, 2019, 04:12:18 PM

As for "Yeshu"—The Jews' use of “zecher tzaddik liv'racha” (May the memory of this holy person be a blessing) about a deceased ally is common. So too, “yimach sh’mo” (May his name be erased) and “yimakh shemo ve zikhro” (May his name and memory be erased) and similar variants are common curses against their perceived enemies, so common that they are set phrases. Though as reflexive as "gesundheit" following a sneeze, these set phrases are arguably among the strongest curses used by Satan's chosen people. Wallow in the Israeli press or rabbinical literature (as I do to update http://judaism.is ) and you will encounter both phrases.

It is risible to suggest that the phrases are scarcely known among Jews. Since the "Yeshu" insult has been common since the earliest days of тαℓмυdic Judaism, appearing in the title and content of the medieval Toledot Yeshu (Life/History of Yeschu), it is even more risible to suggest that the thoroughly-schooled "Chagall" (or the slut in the video I linked) did not know the curse or its application to Our Savior. The Toledot Yeschu embellishes on the тαℓмυd insults described here: http://judaism.is/jesus-in-the-тαℓмυd.html

The curses, when written out in full, are obviously curses. Jews, as well as anyone else who see them, know what the are. The claim you are making, however, is that "Yeshu" is an acronym from a curse. Acronyms are just not that obvious. How many English speakers know that "radar", "laser", and "scuba" all came from acronyms and can say what they stand for? And these words were created in the last hundred years. "Yeshu" appeared over a thousand years ago.

There is a Wikipedia article on this word "Yeshu". It says:

Quote

The term Yeshu was used in Hebrew texts in the Middle Ages then through Rahabi Ezekiel (1750) and Elias Soloweyczyk (1869) who identified Jesus with the character of the Toledoth Yeshu narratives. Likewise Yeshu Ha-Notzri is the modern Hebrew equivalent for "Jesus the Nazarene" though in Christian texts the spellings Yeshua (i.e. "Joshua") and Yeshua Ha-Notzri^{[citation needed]} are preferred, as per the Hebrew New Testaments of Franz Delitzsch (BFBS 1875) and Isaac Salkinsohn (TBS 1886). In Israeli Hebrew Yeshu is used for Jesus of Nazareth per Aaron Abraham Kabak's novel "On the narrow path" Ba-Mishcol Ha-Tsar (1937). As with Bauckham's observation of medieval sources, the name Yeshu is still never applied to any of the other Joshuas in modern Hebrew, and lexicographers such as Reuben Alcalay distinguish Yeshua - "Joshua," and Yeshu - "Jesus."

Danish Christian author Kjaer-Hansen argues that this modern Israeli usage of Yeshu resulted from the influence of Joseph Klausner who used the name Yeshu for Jesus in his Hebrew works believing it to be a correct Hebrew equivalent. Eliezer Ben-Yehuda, the "father of modern Hebrew", had instead used Yeshua for Jesus (the name used in Maimonides and the expanded Josippon) but, Kjaer-Hansen argues, this choice lost out to Yeshu as a result of Klausner's influential Hebrew work on Jesus titled Yeshu HaNotzri published in 1922.^[11] Kjaer-Hansen, notes that many Jєωιѕн writers have assumed that "Yeshu" is a correct Hebrew name for Jesus and have used it without intending any disparagement, but advises against its usage due to its probable origin as a derogatory term.^[11]

Mark 79 · « **Reply #109 on:** October 12, 2019, 04:55:20 PM »

"The claim you are making, however, is that "Yeshu" is an acronym from a curse. "

We have known of this acronym since the convert Nicholas Donin revealed it to us in 1240 A.D.

Amusing that you choose Wikipedia as your source. Have you ever tried to correct or provide evidence against any Jєωιѕн narrative on Wikipedia? I have. I no longer waste my time. Even the most gentle corrections revert to the Jєωιѕн narrative within milliseconds.

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Francis Denies Divinity of Christ (Read 22424 times)

Mark 79

Re: Francis Denies Divinity of Christ

Quo vadis Domine

Re: Francis Denies Divinity of Christ

Mark 79

Re: Francis Denies Divinity of Christ

Jaynek

Re: Francis Denies Divinity of Christ

Mark 79

Re: Francis Denies Divinity of Christ