Opus Dei?

[Cam42]

[quote]However, I did notice that the book does not bear an imprimatur, so that makes me a little suspicious.[/quote]

The book is not intended to be a definitive teaching on the Catholic Church, therefore it does not need an imprimatur, nor a nihil obstat.

Cam42

[Jaime]

Honestly James, in reading your posts I get such a chalushisdick that its left me oysgeshpilt in my toches .

It appears that from reading all the comments that you're problems with Opus Dei (topic) is rooted in your anti semiticism. So we are not gettting off topic but getting to the root. Your views are clearly not in line with what the Church teaches about the Jewish faith.
Are we going to discuss your bias or are you Gornish helfn?

[Cam42]

[quote]Here's the real definition of ad hominem.[/quote]

What?????? Where is the difference?

[quote]An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.[/quote] MINE
[quote]1 :  appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2 : marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made[/quote] YOURS

Same thing. Worded a little differently, but nevertheless the same thing.

At least I gave an example.

BTW, my definition comes from Dr. Michael C. Labossiere, the author of a Macintosh tutorial named Fallacy Tutorial Pro 3.0.

But, it doesn't really matter, because the definitions are the same. Boy, you are really trying to pull this off topic. My statements about this were post scripts, not part of the body of content.

Cam42

[james]

None of the references you provide qualifies this statement.


[quote name='Cam42']"Again, if Rabbi Kreiman is a Cooperator, great!!!! He is finding salvation through his daily work"[/quote]

Edited February 11, 2005 by james

[Jaime]

Hey I just figured out how to add a picture to my avatar.

Katie Couric is soooo cute

[james]

[quote name='Cam42'][quote name='James']It's worth noting that Judaizing of Christianity is nothing new. It's a struggle that began with Christ Himself in his conflicts with the Pharisees. [/quote]



That language is pretty anti-Semetic. I would be very careful in how you word your future statements, or you may be construed as an anti-Semite.[/quote]

How do qualify this statement?

What have I said that you disagree with or feel is "anti-semitic": The fact that there were conflicts between Christ and the Pharisees or the fact that Judaizing of Christianity is nothing new?

[Cam42]

[quote]What have I said that you disagree with or feel is "anti-semitic": [/quote]

I have not said you are anti-Semetic. I have said that your statements MAY BE construed as anti-semetic by some. I was simply hoping that you'd be careful.

The word Judaizer, defined as bringing into conformity with Judaism, is considered as code for an anti-semitic viewpoint.

I was just offering some helpful advice.

I also am of the opinion that some of your discussion has anti-Semetic undertones to it. Hence the statements about the anti-Semetic rhetoric. I have asked you politely to stop, in order that you not be warned by those above us.


[quote]None of the references you provide qualifies this statement.[/quote]

Go back and look at one of my first posts. I won't post it again, because it would be the THIRD time that I would have posted it here.

Cam42

[james]

I'm sorry, but you haven't sufficiently explained this statement:

[quote name='Cam42']"Again, if Rabbi Kreiman is a Cooperator, great!!!! He is finding salvation through his daily work"[/quote]


If rabbi Kreiman, a man who has knowledge of, but no faith in Christ, can find salvation through his "daily work" then what purpose does faith in Christ serve?

Edited February 11, 2005 by james

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='james' date='Feb 10 2005, 05:15 PM'] Exactly. Now, why should the Talmud be treated any differently than you treat Protestantism here? [/quote]
You took one sentence out of the context of my whole argument. Please read and understand the whole post, which answers the question you just asked.

[james]

[quote name='Raphael'][quote name='James']Exactly. Now, why should the Talmud be treated any differently than you treat Protestantism here? [/quote]


You took one sentence out of the context of my whole argument. Please read and understand the whole post, which answers the question you just asked. [/quote]



[quote name='Raphael' date='Feb 10 2005, 03:57 PM'] I would be right to condemn all Protestantism.  That is because any beliefs they hold in common with us are not a part of Protestantism, but of Catholicism.  Those things which are Protestant (properly speaking) are not Catholic ideas.  Protestants hold many Catholic teachings (Triune God, the place of faith in salvation, etc.)...these are Catholic teachings and not Protestant.  Those teachings which are Protestant are those which [b]protest[/b] against Catholic teaching, so such teachings, i.e. Protestantism, can be completely condemned.  However, non-Catholic Christianity, in so much as it does hold some things in common with Catholicism, cannot be completely condemned, because we would be condemning some teachings of Catholicism with it.

The parallel does not work logically.

Also, we are not saying to embrace wholly the Talmud, but merely that some of it's teachings are correct.  If it has any truth, then we must embrace those parts which have truth, for we are a people of Truth.  This does not mean embracing the rest of it.

I also don't think those popes wholly condemned the Talmud. [/quote]

I did read your post. I disagree with your reasoning. You reason that it's correct to condemn Protestantism but that one should not condemn the Talmud. You say that there is no parallel to be drawn. I assure you, the Talmud exceeds Protestantism exponentially in it's protests against Christ, His teachings and His church. This is precisely why the Talmud has traditionally been condemned by the church, just as Protestantism has.

You conclude that the Talmud has not been condemned by popes in the past. I provided clear evidence that the Talmud has been condemned by past popes.

[quote]Although in the Index issued by Pope Pius IV, the Jewish Talmud with all its glossaries, annotations, interpretations and expositions were prohibited: but if published without the name Talmud and without its vile calumnies against the Christian religion they could be tolerated; however, Our Holy Lord Pope Clement VIII in his constitution against impious writings and Jewish books, published in Rome in the year of Our Lord 1592 … proscribed and condemned them: it was not his intention thereby to permit or tolerate them even under the above conditions; for he expressly and specifically stated and willed, that the impious Talmudic Cabalistic and other nefarious books of the Jews be entirely condemned and that they must remain always condemned and prohibited, and that his Constitution about these books must be perpetually and inviolably observed. (Pope Leo XIII, Index Expurgatorius, 1887[/quote]

[quote]"The impious Talmudic, Cabalistic and other wicked books of the Jews are hereby entirely condemned and they must always remain condemned and prohibited and this law must be perpetuallv observed." Pope Clement VIII[/quote]

Edited February 11, 2005 by james

[Cam42]

[quote]If rabbi Kreiman, a man who has knowledge of, but no faith in Christ, can find salvation through his "daily work" then what purpose does faith in Christ serve?[/quote]

I answer that:
[quote]Many Jews and even certain Gentiles who shared their hope recognized in Jesus the fundamental attributes of the messianic "Son of David", promised by God to Israel. (CCC 439)[/quote] (Cf Mt 2:2; 9:27; 12:23; 15:22; 20:30; 21:9,15.)

[quote]The people descended from Abraham would be the trustee of the promise made to the patriarchs, the chosen people, called to prepare for that day when God would gather all his children into the unity of the Church. They would be the root on to which the Gentiles would be grafted, once they came to believe. (CCC 60)[/quote]

[quote]"The eternal Father, in accordance with the utterly gratuitous and mysterious design of his wisdom and goodness, created the whole universe and chose to raise up men to share in his own divine life," to which he calls all men in his Son. "The Father . . . determined to call together in a holy Church those who should believe in Christ."  This "family of God" is gradually formed and takes shape during the stages of human history, in keeping with the Father's plan. In fact, "already present in figure at the beginning of the world, this Church was prepared in marvelous fashion in the history of the people of Israel and the old Advance. Established in this last age of the world and made manifest in the outpouring of the Spirit, it will be brought to glorious completion at the end of time." (CCC 759)[/quote]

Can a Jew find salvation? You bet.

Why?

[quote][b]God tirelessly calls each person to this mysterious encounter with Himself.[/b] Prayer unfolds throughout the whole history of salvation as a reciprocal call between God and man. (CCC 2591)[/quote]
[quote] The prayer of Abraham and Jacob is presented as a battle of faith marked by trust in God's faithfulness and by certitude in the victory promised to perseverance. (CCC 2592)[/quote]
[quote]The prayer of Moses responds to the living God's initiative for the salvation of his people. [b]It foreshadows the prayer of intercession of the unique mediator, Christ Jesus.[/b] (CCC 2593)[/quote]
[quote] The prayer of the People of God flourished in the shadow of the dwelling place of God's presence on earth, the ark of the covenant and the Temple, under the guidance of their shepherds, especially King David, and of the prophets. (CCC 2594)[/quote]
[quote]The prophets summoned the people to conversion of heart and, while zealously seeking the face of God, like Elijah, they interceded for the people. (CCC 2595)[/quote]
[quote]The Psalms constitute the masterwork of prayer in the Old Testament. They present two inseparable qualities: the personal, and the communal. [b][u]They extend to all dimensions of history, recalling God's promises already fulfilled and looking for the coming of the Messiah.[/u][/b] (CCC 2596)[/quote]
[quote][b]Prayed and fulfilled in Christ, the Psalms are an essential and permanent element of the prayer of the Church. They are suitable for men of every condition and time.[/b] (CCC 2597)[/quote]

So, as Rabbi Kreiman prays in the name of Christ, follows a Christian priniciple, it is a condition that brings him closer to salvation. That is what I have said all along. How much more do you need? I can keep bringing it.

Cam42

[james]

Im sorry, Cam42. You didn't answer my question.

If rabbi Kreiman, a man who has knowledge of, but no faith in Christ, can find salvation through his "daily work" as you state, then what purpose does faith in Christ serve?

Edited February 12, 2005 by james

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote]I did read your post. I disagree with your reasoning. You reason that it's correct to condemn Protestantism but that one should not condemn the Talmud. You say that there is no parallel to be drawn. I assure you, the Talmud exceeds Protestantism exponentially in it's protests against Christ, His teachings and His church. This is precisely why the Talmud has traditionally been condemned by the church, just as Protestantism has.[/quote]

This does not, however, mean that the whole of the Talmud disagrees which Christianity, where whole of Protestantism does (but not the whole of non-Catholic Christianity). This is why the logic is flawed.

And I still haven't seen a wholesale condemnation.

[james]

[quote name='Raphael' date='Feb 12 2005, 02:31 AM']
This does not, however, mean that the whole of the Talmud disagrees which Christianity, where whole of Protestantism does (but not the whole of non-Catholic Christianity).  This is why the logic is flawed.

[/quote]
I'm sorry, but there is absolutely nothing in the Talmud which supports Christianity, much less Christ. What The Talmud does contain is a great deal of hatred and blasphemy for Christ.

[quote name='Babylonian Talmud' date=' Tractate Sanhedrin 43a'][b]On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. [/b]For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, [b]'He is going forth to be stoned because he has practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostacy[/b].

Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.' But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover! — Ulla retorted: [b]'Do you suppose that he was one for whom a defence could be made? Was he not a Mesith [enticer], concerning whom Scripture says, Neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him?[/b] [/quote]

[quote name='Babylonian Talmud' date=' Tractate Sanhedrin, folio 107b'] One day he (R. Joshua) was reciting the Shema', when Jesus came before him. He intended to receive him and made a sign to him. [b]He (Jesus) thinking that it was to repel him, went, put up a brick, and worshipped it.[/b] 'Repent,' said he (R. Joshua) to him. He replied, 'I have thus learned from thee: He who sins and causes others to sin is not afforded the means of repentance.' And a Master has said, [b]'Jesus the Nazarene practised magic and led Israel astray.'[/b][/quote]

Jesus practiced magic and "led Israel astray?" that sounds like a pretty strong protest against Christianity, Raphael, doesn't it? It makes those Protestants look like saints in comparison.

Here we find that according to the rabbis, Jesus is not sitting at the right hand of the Father, but that He is in hell in boiling hot excrement as punishment for mocking the Pharisees and "leading Israel astray."

[quote name='Babylonian Talmud' date=' Tractate Gittin, 57a'].2 He then went and raised by incantations the sinners of Israel.3  He asked them: Who is in repute in the other world? They replied: Israel. What about joining them? They replied: Seek their welfare, seek not their harm. Whoever touches them touches the apple of his eye. He said: What is your punishment? They replied: [b]With boiling hot excrement,[/b] since a Master has said: [b]Whoever mocks at the words of the Sages is punished with boiling hot excrement[/b].

[u]Footnotes:[/u]

2. Because he enticed Israel to go astray after the daughters of Moab. V. Sanh. 106a.

3. [MS.M. Jesus].

[/quote]


I have yet to see any error of Protestantism that even approaches this childish blasphemy.

[quote name='raphael']And I still haven't seen a wholesale condemnation.[/quote]

That's your problem, because one has been presented to you numerous times. One more time then?

[quote]"The impious [b]Talmudic,[/b] Cabalistic and other wicked books of the Jews are hereby [b]entirely condemned[/b] and they [b]must always remain condemned and prohibited[/b] and this [b]law[/b] must be [b]perpetuallv observed[/b]." Pope Clement VIII[/quote]

Edited February 12, 2005 by james

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote]"The impious Talmudic, Cabalistic and other wicked books of the Jews are hereby entirely condemned and they must always remain condemned and prohibited and this law must be perpetuallv observed." Pope Clement VIII[/quote]

There's a slight problem with this. The language is ambiguous. Pope Clement could have been speaking of the Talmudic, Cabalistic, and other wicked books entirely condemned, where entirely would be taken as condemning them collectively, but not necessarily every part of each individual.