Guest JeffCR07 Posted June 30, 2005 Share Posted June 30, 2005 [url="http://web.ukonline.co.uk/ephrem/lit-james.htm"]here is a website that has a tentative version of the ancient Divine Liturgy of St. James[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Didacus Posted June 30, 2005 Share Posted June 30, 2005 [quote name='Eremite' date='Jun 29 2005, 03:23 PM']I'm a little bit familiar with them. [snip] The establishment of such a Church might also have eschatological significance, in that we know a massive conversion of the Hebrew peoples will precede the parousia. [snip] [right][snapback]627697[/snapback][/right] [/quote] At the risk of sounding silly and uneducated.. what is the parousia? Care to elaborate? (I'm sorta hoping for the end of the world, but somehow... I don't think that's it) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Eremite Posted June 30, 2005 Share Posted June 30, 2005 [quote]what is the parousia? Care to elaborate?[/quote] hehe. It's a fancy word I use to sound smart. It's just the Second Coming of Christ. "Parousia" means "presence" in Greek, ie, "the presence of Christ". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pio Nono Posted July 2, 2005 Share Posted July 2, 2005 JMJ 7/2 - Thirteenth Saturday Don't mean to sound crass, but didn't St. Paul have to get in St. Peter's face because Peter was condoning the "Hebraizing" of Christianity? Just a thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Semperviva Posted July 2, 2005 Share Posted July 2, 2005 [quote name='Pio Nono' date='Jul 2 2005, 07:49 AM']JMJ 7/2 - Thirteenth Saturday Don't mean to sound crass, but didn't St. Paul have to get in St. Peter's face because Peter was condoning the "Hebraizing" of Christianity? Just a thought. [right][snapback]629942[/snapback][/right] [/quote] ..hmmm, think in this context paul just hadda say yo christianity is not exclusive to the Jew, stop hangin out with only Jews, which I think was what was happening...peter was dining only with jews and excluding gentiles for a while there...i think... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Eremite Posted July 2, 2005 Share Posted July 2, 2005 [quote]didn't St. Paul have to get in St. Peter's face because Peter was condoning the "Hebraizing" of Christianity?[/quote] Judaizing is the imposition of Mosaic requirements on Christians (eg, dietary laws). A Hebrew Catholic Church (or rite) would do no such thing. It would retain Hebrew culture for Hebrews; it would not impose the Mosaic law on other Catholics, or pretend it is necessary for salvation. As we read in the old Catholic Encyclopedia entry on "Liturgy", the Christian Liturgy already derives largely from Judaism. [quote]The likeness between the prayers of thanksgiving (ix-x) and the Jewish forms for blessing bread and wine on the Sabbath (given in the "Berakoth" treatise of the Talmud; cf. Sabatier, "La Didache", Paris, 1885, p. 99) points obviously to derivation from them. [/quote] A Jew is not a Gentile, even if he is a Christian. Jews, especially Christian Jews, have a special vocation in the world, and their identity needs to be preserved. Even if the Church doesn't establish a formal Hebrew Church, groups like the Association of Hebrew Catholics help further the Church's mission to the people of Israel, within and without the Church. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted July 2, 2005 Share Posted July 2, 2005 [quote name='photosynthesis' date='Jun 29 2005, 03:00 PM']There's an organization called the [url="http://hebrewcatholic.org/"]Association of Hebrew Catholics[/url], for Jews who have "completed" to Catholicism. It seems like they are trying to start a Hebrew Rite of Catholicism. your thoughts? [right][snapback]627672[/snapback][/right] [/quote] RESPONSE: We may be coming full circle. The first disciples of Christ , the Jerusalem community, was a sect within orthodox Jerusalem called "the Way," which kept Mosaic law, kept the Jewish holidays, kept the Sabbath, and worshipped in the Jewish Temple. LittleLes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted July 2, 2005 Share Posted July 2, 2005 I don't know if the "Association of Hebrew Catholics" would really want Littleles' support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JeffCR07 Posted July 2, 2005 Share Posted July 2, 2005 [quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 2 2005, 10:40 AM']RESPONSE: We may be coming full circle. The first disciples of Christ , the Jerusalem community, was a sect within orthodox Jerusalem called "the Way," which kept Mosaic law, kept the Jewish holidays, kept the Sabbath, and worshipped in the Jewish Temple. LittleLes [right][snapback]629972[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Les, this isn't intended to be as mean as it sounds, but just something I've noticed: a lot of your posts sound like you just got out of a New Testament in Context course and you're just spitting back info. That kind of stuff is great when its in context, but the strictness with which the pre-Jamnian christians adhered to the [i]halakha[/i] really doesn't have much bearing on the discussion of a "Hebrew Rite." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted July 2, 2005 Share Posted July 2, 2005 [quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jul 2 2005, 11:08 AM']I don't know if the "Association of Hebrew Catholics" would really want Littleles' support. [right][snapback]629979[/snapback][/right] [/quote] RESPONSE: I don't know. Some of the original Jerusalem considerd Paul to be an apostate from theLaw and certainly didn't want his support. But he got even. He started his own form of (Pauline) Christianity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted July 2, 2005 Share Posted July 2, 2005 [quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jul 2 2005, 11:20 AM']Les, this isn't intended to be as mean as it sounds, but just something I've noticed: a lot of your posts sound like you just got out of a New Testament in Context course and you're just spitting back info. [/quote] RESPONSE: Just recounting the facts of history in case they've been overlooked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted July 2, 2005 Share Posted July 2, 2005 [quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 2 2005, 06:25 PM']RESPONSE: I don't know. Some of the original Jerusalem considerd Paul to be an apostate from theLaw and certainly didn't want his support. But he got even. He started his own form of (Pauline) Christianity. [right][snapback]630215[/snapback][/right] [/quote] . . . which was in full communion with Peter and the rest of the Church, unlike LittleLes' rantings. Your nonsense has been thoroughly refuted in the "St. Paul" and "Divinity of Christ" threads. There is no need to repeat it here. Do your trolling elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted July 2, 2005 Share Posted July 2, 2005 [quote name='Socrates' date='Jul 2 2005, 06:40 PM']. . . which was in full communion with Peter and the rest of the Church, unlike LittleLes' rantings. Your nonsense has been thoroughly refuted in the "St. Paul" and "Divinity of Christ" threads. There is no need to repeat it here. Do your trolling elsewhere. [right][snapback]630225[/snapback][/right] [/quote] RESPONSE: No. The pretense that Peterine Christianity and Pauline Christianity were the same certainly wasn't "throughly refuted." In fact, it wasn't even refuted, just avoided. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted July 3, 2005 Share Posted July 3, 2005 [quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 2 2005, 06:53 PM']RESPONSE: No. The pretense that Peterine Christianity and Pauline Christianity were the same certainly wasn't "throughly refuted." In fact, it wasn't even refuted, just avoided. [right][snapback]630227[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Ops, typo. The claim that Peterine Chrisianity and Pauline Christianity were the same certainly wasn't proven. The fact that they were different was simply avoided. Please note that Paul's views were adopted first by the Paul's Roman Church and later became universal only after the destruction of the original Jerusalem (Christian) community during the Roman surpression of the Jewish uprising. One essential difference was that the Jerusalem community were zealous keepers of the Mosaic law while Paul put that aside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JeffCR07 Posted July 3, 2005 Share Posted July 3, 2005 For as much stock as you put in history, your comments here display a lack of understanding of the primitive church. Scholars agree that there was not a "split" as you would have it between communities evangelized by Paul and those of the other apostles and the christians of Jerusalem. As is noted in the Scriptures, Paul made it a priorety to maintain good relations with the christians in jerusalem (sending money from his churches in the diaspora and beyond back to jerusalem, etc). Even the boldest of scholars would not claim a serious and real split to have occurred prior to Jamnia, and, while it is clear that different groups had slightly different spiritual/theological outlooks (the Johannine vs. the Pauline communities, for example), there is no evidence for fundamental differences in the core of their beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now