Zemirah Loc: Sojourner En Route...

Continued From Part 1 -

"I was called 'Sister Ann Marie' when I was in the convent. I am using that name in this booklet because I want to avoid being harassed."

Appendix—Anathemas
According to the 1913 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia, when the Catholic Church anathematizes someone, the Pope ritually puts curses on them. There is a solemn written ritual for doing this. The Catholic Encyclopedia article describes the ritual in detail, including extensive quotations from it. (You can read the articles of the Catholic Encyclopedia online.)14

In pronouncing the anathema, the Pope wears special vestments. He is assisted by twelve priests who are holding lighted candles. Calling on the name of God, the Pope pronounces a solemn ecclesiastical curse. He ends by pronouncing sentence and declaring that the anathematized person is condemned to hell with Satan. The priests reply, “Fiat!” (Let it be done!) and throw down their candles.

As we will see, the Catholic Church considers heresy (disagreement with Catholic doctrine) to be a crime. The Council of Trent, and other Church councils, declare that any person who disagrees with even one of their doctrinal statements is thereby anathematized.

When the Pope pronounces an anathema, he is said to be passing sentence on a criminal. The Catholic Encyclopedia says that the anathema ritual is deliberately calculated to terrify the “criminal” and cause him to repent (in other words, to unconditionally submit to the Catholic Church).

For those whose crime is heresy, repentance means renouncing everything they have ever said or done which conflicts with Catholic doctrine. In other words, they have to renounce their own conscience and discernment and the conclusions they reached in their best efforts to understand biblical principles. And they have to submit their minds and wills unconditionally to every official doctrinal declaration of the Catholic Church. As we will see, Canon Law says this unquestioning submission of the mind and will is required.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, a person’s religious belief is “outside the realm of free private judgment.” This is consistent with the spirit behind anathematizing people.15

The new Code of Canon Law was published by the authority of Pope John Paul II in 1983. It claims to be inspired by the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) and to put its reforms in concrete form. According to Canon 752, whenever the Pope or the college of bishops makes a declaration concerning faith or morals, “the Christian faithful” are required to submit their intellect and will to it. Furthermore, they are required to avoid anything which disagrees with it.16

So it is against Roman Catholic Canon Law for “the Christian faithful” to doubt or deny or dispute any Catholic doctrine. If something is against the law, then any person who does it commits a crime, which makes him a criminal. Canon Law has punishments for such criminals.

According to Canon 1311, the Catholic Church has the right to coerce “the Christian faithful” who do things contrary to Canon Law. Canon 1312 says that penal sanctions can include depriving people of spiritual goods (such as the sacraments) and temporal goods (things which people need for life on this earth). During the Protestant Reformation, the Catholic Church penalized Protestants by depriving them of their property, their freedom, and even their lives.17

The Catholic Church has never renounced its past practice of killing people it considered to be heretics. On the contrary, the Office (or Congregation) of the Inquisition still exists. It is part of the Roman Curia (the group of men who govern the Catholic Church). In 1965, its name was changed to “The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.” It was headed by Cardinal Ratzinger until he became Pope Benedict in 2005.18

On December 8, 1854, Pope Pius IX declared the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary (i.e., that Mary was entirely sinless from birth). After defining the dogma, the Pope said that if any person dares to disagree with what the Pope has declared, then he or she shipwrecks their faith and is cut off from the Church. The Pope declared that such people are “condemned.” He said that if any person says, or writes, or in any other way outwardly expresses “errors” in his or her thinking, then that person becomes subject to punishment.19

The Pope’s reference to punishment is significant because a man had been executed for heresy 28 years before this papal bull was issued. In 1826, a Spanish schoolmaster was hanged because he substituted the phrase “Praise be to God” in place of “Ave Maria” (“Hail Mary”) during school prayers.20

On November 1, 1950, Pope Pius XII issued a papal bull defining the dogma of the Assumption of Mary. He ended by saying that it is forbidden for any person to oppose his declaration or to say things contrary to it. The Pope further declared that any person who attempts to do so thereby incurs the wrath of God and the wrath of the Apostles Peter and Paul.21

Although this papal bull doesn’t openly threaten punishment, it still implies the possibility of some form of punishment. The difference in tone between the bull of 1854 and the bull of 1950 reflects the decrease in power of the Catholic Church. In 1854, a man had recently been executed for heresy. In 1950, the political power of the Roman Catholic Church had decreased. By 1950, the kind of language which was used in the 1854 bull would not have created a good image for the Catholic Church in our modern day.

The Roman Catholic Church believes that the Pope has the power and the authority to damn people to hell. The anathema ritual demonstrates this belief. Many Catholics deny this, saying that only God can condemn people to hell. But look at the ritual of the anathema, as described in the Catholic Encyclopedia. And look at the following solemn declaration of excommunication, which was pronounced by Pope Innocent III:

We excommunicate, anathematize, curse and damn him.22


*This contradicts what the Bible says about being a good Berean and testing all things (see Acts 17:10-11 and 1 Thessalonians 5:20), and it nullifies the idea that the Scriptures (particularly the Gospel) were intended to be understood by the common man (see Isaiah 35:8 and Habakkuk 2:2).

Endnotes
1. John A. Hardon, Pocket Catholic Dictionary (“merit”), p. 295. Hardon is a Catholic priest with a doctorate in theology.
2. The Rites of the Catholic Church, Volume 1, pp. 394-407 as cited by James G. McCarthy in The Gospel According to Rome: Comparing Catholic Tradition and the Word of God, p. 22.
3. Christopher Agee, “The Pope Just Invited Islam Into The Vatican, Christians Aghast” (Western Journalism, June 6, 2014, http://www.westernjournalism.com/pope-francis-host-islamic-prayer-vatican).
4. “Mental Reservation,” Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. X, 1911. The Catholic Encyclopedia is available online: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10195b.htm.
5. The Spiritual Exercises of Saint Ignatius, translated by Anthony Mottola, Ph.D., introduction by Robert W. Gleason, S.J. (New York, NY: Image Books, 2014), pp. 139-141.
6. “Inquisition,” Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. VIII, 1910. The statement opposing freedom of religion is in the second paragraph of the article: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08026a.htm.
7. Code of Canon Law, Canons 752, 1311-1312 (Latin English edition, New English Translation) (Washington, DC: Canon Law Society of America, 1988), pp. 247, 409. The 1983 Code of Canon Law was translated into English in 1988.
8. Catechism of the Catholic Church, Paragraphs 85, 100, 891, 2051. The Catechism summarizes the essential and basic teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. It comes in numerous editions and languages. Because it has numbered paragraphs, statements can be accurately located in spite of the variety of editions.
9. Ibid., Paragraphs 87, 1310, 2037.
10. Ibid., paragraphs 85, 87, 100, 862, 891, 939, 2034, 2037, 2041, and 2050.
11. Ibid., paragraphs 890, 891, 939, 2033, 2034, and 2049.
12. Ibid., paragraphs 892, 2037, and 2050.
13. William Webster, The Church of Rome at the Bar of History (Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1995), pp. 34-55.
14 “Anathema,” Catholic Encyclopedia (1913 edition), Vol. 1. The ritual is described in detail, with a lengthy quotation; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01455e.htm.
15. “Inquisition,” Catholic Encyclopedia,” Vol. VIII, 1910; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08026a.htm.
16. Code of Canon Law, Latin English edition, New English Translation (Washington, DC: Canon Law Society of America, 1988), p. 247, Canon 752. The 1983 “Code of Canon Law” was translated into English in 1988.
17. Ibid., p. 409, Canons 1311 and 1312. These canons are in the beginning of Book VI.
18. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith; http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/diocese/dxcdf.html
19. Ineffabilis Deus (“Apostolic Constitution on the Immaculate Conception”). This encyclical of Pope Pius IX was issued on December 8, 1854. Near the end of this papal bull, there is a section titled “The Definition.” The statements I described are in the last paragraph of that section; http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9ineff.htm.
20. Paul Johnson, A History of Christianity (New York: Simon & Schuster, a Touchstone Book, 1995), p. 308. Paul Johnson is a prominent historian and a Catholic.
21. Munificentissimus Deus (“Defining the Dogma of the Assumption”), paragraph 47. Encyclical of Pope Pius XII issued November 1, 1950; http://www.geocities.com/papalencyclicals/Pius12/P12MUNIF.htm.
22. Paul Johnson, A History of Christianity, p. 199.

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

I find your post most interesting. I do not think that Jesus founded the Christianity taught to most gentile today. The vast majority of modern day Christians actually follow Pauline Christianity, which is markedly different from what was taught by Jesus.

Again, thank you for this most informative post.

Zemirah Loc: Sojourner En Route...

Obviously, Jesus could not preach the gospel of Jesus Christ as a "done deal," as, could Paul, for at the time He preached, taught and healed others, it awaited future completion... and Jesus spoke to those who had been steeped in their own ancient, even at that time, religious system.

He fought against man-imposed rules and laws which were obscuring the original laws set by God.

Whereas Paul, having not "been down for the struggle," with Jesus and the original twelve disciples during their three and one half year ministry, was deliberately chosen for that very reason, among others - for he did not have to refocus.

Paul had not been steeped into the "home boy", "Israel/Jews only," "No goyim allowed" mental framework/ vision of the original crew, and having also been born in the diaspora, in Asia Minor, could more easily step into a ministry "outreach" to those very often pagan people.

For the way I see it, the promise, made to Abram by God, of the seed that would be a blessing to the entire world was fulfilled about 2,000 years after it was made, in the person of Jesus Christ.

If you check the genealogy of Jesus Christ you can trace it to Abraham. (Matthew 1 and Luke 3) If this could have been disproven, it would have been. Jesus Christ is the promised singular, not plural "seed" to Abraham and through this seed the entire world would be blessed because He brought with Him to all mankind (Jews and Gentiles alike) the ability to personally choose to accept eternal salvation.

Paul accepted Jesus' mandate to go to those hated Gentiles, and offer them the free gift of eternal life. His Roman citizenship also proved to be an advantage to him during his ministry, up until the time they beheaded him.

If your belief is based on what is actually recorded in the B'rit Hadassah, after reading it in it's entirety, and NOT what someone's uncle, twice removed, said that it means...

then, although I am saddened by that choice, I applaud your freedom to choose your own eternal spiritual destiny.

For my greatest concern is hearing people deliberately misrepresent, blindly denounce without investigating, or even swear vilely at those who disagree with "their church's," i.e., "their congregation's," or "their denomination's," - teachings, doctrines, rites, rituals, etc., etc., etc.,
and always rather than a rebuttal from factual research, curse words are thrown out like involuntary spittal, to their own detriment.

How crude our culture has become.

The intellectual dishonesty of proclaiming the truthfulness of something not personally investigated, or the simple slothfulness of accepting spiritual teachings on someone else's recommendation, or even the spinelessness of allowing oneself to be coerced into accepting beliefs and doctrines with which one does not personally acquiese, has, from my personal observation, become the rule and not the exception.

I am in no way impugning your character or applying any of the above conditions to you.

I was fortunate enough to grow to adulthood in a family household where spiritual truth was valued above all else, due diligence in searching it out never wavered, and a low key, self-deprecating, soft spoken approach was always preferred.

I have sort of wandered away from that last.

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

I find your attitude toward the Hebrews more than a little distressing. You seem to be under the opinion that the Hebrews "hated" the gentile. This is very untrue. Although there are laws regarding intimacy or marriage, and adopting the pagan religions, attitudes and worship of idols associated with the gentile, this did not, nor does it in modern time, equate to "hate." Indeed, there are laws about treatment of gentiles... and none of those laws permit mistreatment in any form of the gentile. Too bad that the gentiles were never taught to treat the Hebrews with equal consideration and respect.

Your second point, the linage of Jesus. Yes, all Hebrews of Jesus' time could easily trace their ancestry back to Abraham. He was a Hebrew.... and Abraham was the original "seed." But, that should be of small concern. The Hebrew bible says that the Messiah will be a human male, a Hebrew from the tribe of Judah, be a descendant from King David and further from King Solomon. You nailed the bible passages.... but they are different. Christians will point out that Matthew shows the lineage of Joseph and Luke the lineage of Mary. But... if you read the text, Matthew 1:16 is clear "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ." So, no mistake he is talking about Joseph the non-biological father of Jesus. Luke 3:23 opens up with " Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli," So, it is clear that he too is talking about Joseph. This is the problem.... It does not make a difference if Joseph was a descendant of King Solomon or even from the tribe of Judah. He was not the biological parent of Jesus and you can not pass tribal lineage through adoption. The bible does not say much about Mary's family. We know that Mary had Levite cousins (Zechariah and Elizabeth, the parents of John the Baptist). This does not help the argument that Jesus met the prophecy of the Hebrew text. One would think that if Mary could promote the position of Jesus, then it would be noted in the writings of either Matthew or Luke. In the end, if the Holy Spirit was Jesus' father, then who are we to question?

It is clever that you toss in Hebrew terms, it sure is a good thing that I know what you intended when you wrote B'rit Hadassah which should be B'rit Chadashah; it is a common mistake for those who do not speak Hebrew. Anyway, did you know that it is divided much like the Tanakh? (Interesting that Saul's letters are not considered part of the gospels.) I can assure you that not only have I read it entirely in English, but in Hebrew and Greek. So, I would say that it is not the understanding of a "uncle, twice removed, said that it means." And your inference was rather condescending. I take exception to you claiming that I "deliberately misrepresent, blindly denounce without investigating, or even swear vilely at those who disagree with "their church's," i.e., "their congregations," or "their denominations," - teachings, doctrines, rites, rituals, etc., etc., etc., and always rather than a rebuttal from factual research, curse words are thrown out like involuntary spittle, to their own detriment." (punctuation and spelling was corrected from original quote). Do show me where I have behaved as you claim. I strive to use informed sources, I will not respond to profanity nor will I use "curse" words... the closest I come is "hell" or "damn" but ordinarily I reserve those words to a place named in the Christian bible or to connote the attitude of another. You seem to think you are superior to me..... perhaps because you see me as just another "Jew."

Lastly, let us touch on your opening statement... "Obviously Jesus could not preach the gospel of Jesus Christ as a "done deal." If I understand this correctly, you are on one hand saying that Jesus is G*d, but for some reason or another could not know or talk about his message? That is odd... it seems when I read about him, it would seem that not only did he know what was going to happen to him, but he shared it with everyone who listened. So, let us briefly examine his teachings:

Jesus came for the Jew and the scattered tribes of Israel. He gave specific instructions to his disciples, "to These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Do not go onto the road of the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel.…" He taught the "Kingdom" just as John the Baptist, his cousin, taught and according to the prophecies foretold. During this kingdom reign, G*d would fulfill His covenant promises to Israel. Through Israel’s acceptance of their Messiah, Gentiles would also be blessed. Apart from this kingdom and apart from this plan, G*d had revealed no provision to bless Gentiles. Beginning with G*d’s covenant with Abraham (Genesis 12.1-3), all Gentile blessing had to come through Israel.

The gospel of the kingdom proclaimed by John the Baptist, Jesus, and the Twelve required repentance (Mark 1.15), water baptism (Matthew 3.6; Acts 2.38, 8.34-38, 19.4), and belief Jesus was the promised Messiah (Matthew 16.13-16; John 11.25-27). Believing in Jesus according to the gospel of the kingdom meant believing Who He was, i.e., believing in His name (John 3.18; Acts 2.21, 38, 3.6, 16, 4.7, 10, 12, 17, 18, 30, 5.28, 40, 41, 8.12, 16, 9.14, 15, 21, 27, 10.43, 48). The gospel of the kingdom focused upon the identity of Christ.

Jesus proclaimed repentance, baptism, and belief. These three were bound together in Jesus’ kingdom gospel. Repentance was the first step of kingdom salvation (Matthew 3.2, 4.17; Mark 1.4, 15, 6.12; Luke 3.3, 5.32, 13.3, 5, 24.47). Peter continued this message after Jesus’ resurrection and ascension. He demanded all Jews repent, be baptized, and believe (Acts 2.38, 3.19). Water baptism was required for salvation in the kingdom gospel (Mark 1.4, 16.16; Acts 2.38, 8.34-38, 22.16). Saving faith was belief Jesus was the promised Messiah, the Son of G*d (Matthew 16.15-16; John 11.26-27; Acts 8.36-37), not that He and rose from the dead.

A clearer example can not be found.... look, read, and understand the Lord's prayer. Luke 11:1-4 records the words: "It happened that while Jesus was praying in a certain place, after He had finished, one of His disciples said to Him, “Lord, teach us to pray just as John also taught his disciples.” And He said to them, “When you pray, say: ‘Father, hallowed be Your name. Your kingdom come. ‘Give us each day our daily bread. ‘And forgive us our sins, for we ourselves also forgive everyone who is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation’” Matthew 6:7 records: “And when you are praying, do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles do, for they suppose that they will be heard for their many words. So do not be like them; for your Father knows what you need before you ask Him."

Regarding the Law; Jesus ministered under the Law of Moses throughout his earthly ministry (Matthew 5.17-18). He constantly referred to the Mosaic Law as the foundation of His ministry (Matthew 7.12, 8.4, 12.5, 12, 23.1-3; Mark 1.44; 10.3-4; Luke 10.25-29). Gentiles had nothing to do with the Mosaic Law. G*d gave it to the Jews, not Gentiles (Ephesians 2.11-13).

After committing this to typed words and reading it again and checking for accuracy, it is little wonder why the gentile abandoned the teachings of Jesus for the easier path Saul offered.

Saul, by his own words, was a liar....according to the bible, a condition of sin; 1 Peter 3:12 "For he that will love life, and see good days, let him refrain his tongue from evil, and his lips that speak no guile." Saul not only admits to being a liar, but seems to be proud of his ability to lie. "But be it so, I did not burden you: nevertheless being crafty, I CAUGHT YOU WITH GUILE"
(2 CORINTHIANS 12:16). "But what I do, that will I do, that I may cut off occasion from those which desire occasion;…"
(2 CORINTHIANS 11:13). Mind you, these are quotes "after" he was recruited by Jesus... but, Jesus is recorded in Matthew 24:23-25 "Then if any man shall say unto YOU, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. Behold, I have told YOU before." Going on to say: "Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not." He goes on to say that if anyone tells you that they have seen Christ in the desert not to follow them. Or if they tell you they seen Christ in their chambers not to believe them. Saul is the only person in documented history to have claimed both. He claimed he saw the risen Christ (after the ascension) in the desert (Acts 9:3-5, Acts 22:6-8, Acts 26:13-15, Galatians 1:15-16). He also claimed Christ stood next to him and spoke to him in his chambers (Acts 23:11). I digress, let us return to the gospel of Saul.

“For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them under the Law, that I might gain them that are under the Law; To them that are without the law, as without law, (being not without law to G*d, but under the law to Christ) that I might gain them that are under the law. To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. (I CORINTHIANS 9:19-22) Saul himself cautions: "For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the Apostles of Christ." (2 CORINTHIANS 11:13) And quite the transformation.... look at his transformation, of which he tells it differently three times. ACTS 9:3-7, ACTS 22:6-10, and ACTS 26:12-20. In the first we have a record of Saul’s men, hearing a voice and seeing no man (Jesus). In the second narration, we have Saul claiming that the men saw Jesus, but did not hear a voice. The first and second narration are consistent when it comes to claiming only he fell to the ground when he saw the light. In the third narration, he claims he and his companions fell down. When addressing King Agrippa and his Gentile court. He makes the claim that in his vision, Jesus told him that he will be Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee. So in effect, Saul is claiming that Jesus sent him to the Gentiles. And in the second narration to the Jews, he brings absolutely no mention of this “I am sending you to the Gentiles” alleged statement that Jesus told him. Why not? Was this omission of a key fact a sin? According to Jesus, yes. James 4:17 "So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin." Is it possible for Saul to not recognize his deceit? Not hardly, just look at some of his railing against Jews:

But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of G*d deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of G*d. (2 Corinthians 4:2)
Their throat is an open sepulcher; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: (Romans 3:13)
Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, (Romans 1:29)Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds (Colossians 3:9), Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; (1 Timothy 4:2).

One thing he did not lie about was he took ownership of "his gospel." Romans 2:16; 16:25; II Timothy 2:8. Let us look at one more thing. According to Saul, “I was given a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me.” This is striking…. Because Saul continued to preach while under the influence of Satan. And then that begs the question, where did his visions come from? If …. and I only say if, they were not from G*d or Jesus?? Was he tasked to give (again his own words) "his gospel" to the gentile because of their ignorance of the Torah? They did not possess intimate knowledge of Judaism, its scripture or its doctrine. 1 Peter 5:8 cautions us: “Be sober-minded and alert. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.” Saul says: “For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office” Romans 11:13.

According to Deuteronomy 24:16, Ezekiel 18:20-21, and Micah 6:7-8, a man is responsible for his own sin. So, in the end, I leave you with the words of Saul: “Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man’s foundation”: (Romans 15:20)

Zemirah Loc: Sojourner En Route...

Thank you for your response.

It is always a pleasant surprise to log on to this site after a few days and find something worth contemplating.

I've copied your post to my hard drive, in order to construct an appropriate response in another room,
while attending to other duties, as my laptop is not functioning.

Your last scripture verse quoted caught my eye:



Allow me to enlarge it to include its proper context for greater understanding (Romans 15:17-24):

17 "So I boast in Christ Jesus about the things that pertain to God.
18 For I will not dare to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me in order to bring about the obedience of the Gentiles, by word and deed,
19 in the power of signs and wonders, in the power of the Spirit of God. So from Jerusalem even as far as Illyricum I have fully preached the gospel of Christ.
20 And in this way I desire to preach where Christ has not been named (not yet been preached), so as not to build on another person’s foundation,
21 but as it is written: “Those who were not told about Him will see, and those who have not heard will understand.”
22 This is the reason I was often hindered from coming to you (the Romans).
23 But now there is nothing more to keep me in these regions, and I have for many years desired to come to you
24 when I go to Spain. For I hope to visit you when I pass through and that you will help me on my journey there, after I have enjoyed your company for a while."

Zemirah Loc: Sojourner En Route...

Actually, I have no attitude toward the "Hebrews," a title by which I never hear reference to contemporary Jewish people,but I do have an intense interest in the history of that period, two thousand plus years ago when the Jewish people were distinquished from other ethnic cultures by that title.

As to the term, "hate," I find it inappropriately used in this modern era, as an increasingly illiterate generation, beginning at least two decades ago, insist on using what should be a verb as a noun.

In most instances "hatred," would be the proper form, but even then often misused, as it is an exaggeration.

I believe the ancient Jewish people had been taught to segregate themselves from other cultures, understandably, as they sought to honor their God, and obey His rules of morality, cleanliness abstention from the common vices found in the pagan world.

It was the elite religious leaders, not the normal, i.e., common people of Israel who engineered having Jesus, Paul and other men they saw as threats to their positions of power and self-importance stifled (silenced), through imprisonment or, with various degrees of success, manipulated the Roman authorities into silencing them permanently.

Personally, I have not one drop of prejudice or hostility toward any ethnic group, only toward false doctrines which need to be investigated and contrasted with Holy Scripture, and anti-semitism, wherever found, must be exposed and opposed, particularly as it is rapidly expanding around the world.

This is a by-product of the hord of migrating muslims, unable or unwilling to fight to preserve and improve their own countries, but too willing to "peacefully invade" the rest of the world as migrants and refugees, and bringing their hatred of the Jewish people and need to attempt to dominate all other cultures with them. They have been brainwashed by the Qur'an for centuries, and only in dislodging their beliefs, a spiritual endeavor substituting Biblical Christian faith in the God of Creation, can anything change for them, or the world they inhabit.

I fully understand that may well not be your solution.

Jesus never criticized or condemned the Jewish people of His day, only the arrogant and prideful Rabbis, the false religious leaders, whom He castigated for preventing the common man from finding the true will of God by heaping on him innumerable man-made rules and regulations never spoken by God.

In conversations I have had with Jewish friends and acquaintances over the years, the two historical realities that have, more deeply than any other, made the contemporary Jewish community recoil from Christianity at large, and from placing trust for their well-being and safety in any other than themselves, was the persistent cruelty, persecution and, eventually, pogroms of 1) Christendom (which is not Biblical Christianity) and especially 2) the Shoah/Holocaust.

Although you broached the subject, I apologize if you feel as if I'm dissecting your historical people (or any others) as through a lab microscope, but am, and have always been somewhat abstract and dispassionate in seeking knowledge, or in analyzing human reactions to historical facts, i.e., the truth, or to spiritual truth about which many of us will never agree, as beyond God and His obvious ability to personally touch us, each individual differs in their childhood training, education, and adult experiences.

Having never felt any driving interest in "debate," as such, as far as the back and forth of a forum, I'm usually content to express my own opinion, hopefully, with some factual documentation, and go on to another subject, as it has never much mattered to me whether anyone agrees or disagrees.

The ninety three (93) or so scriptures you referenced in your post yesterday, I will itemize, but have not yet found in my own schedule, time or space to do so. I can, of course, understand their objective.

My occasional presence on the OPP forum is with the profound hope of discerning a bit of spiritual/historical truth and/or wisdom not previously encountered, and to thoroughly enjoy the diversity of expression found within this relatively small group.

Zemirah Loc: Sojourner En Route...

This is one of the "stranger" messages I have received recently - or ever.

My original post is clearly discussing various aspects within Roman Catholicism, as is my Topic heading.

You chose to include a sentence switching the subject to an earlier post and Topic.

The paragraphs to which you took offense, claiming they somehow referred to you, referred to the really vicious language from those who opposed having the history of Roman Catholicism discussed. It had nothing to do with you.

I clearly wrote a disclaimer immediately following those two paragraphs in my response post, to wit:

" "I am in no way impugning your character or applying any of the above conditions to you."

If you insist upon taking offense anyway, that is your responsibility, and ostensibly beyond my control, as I control only what I write, and not other's reactions.

As to your quarry, "if I were considering you just another Jew...," in my entire life I have never considered anyone "just another" anything.

Each human being I have ever met is a unique individual.

I don't think of you at all, other than as a User Name and Avatar, for nothing else about anyone on an internet forum is known.

Anyone can claim to be anything or anybody.

I spent almost a decade in the 90s in a professional setting with Jewish clients, and have known Jewish individuals from most of the states and many from Israel, some Sabras.

I use Jewish phrases because they became part of my life, and as for a correct spelling, I did an online search to illustrate that even within Judaism, there are quite a few words, which when translated into English do not have a correct or incorrect spelling.

The same was and is true of many Arabic names, which have a myriad of different spellings when translated into English, and with whom I worked during the 80s.

https://judaism.stackexchange.com/

The covenant of God (berith)

the ancient Hebrew word CHaDaSH means NEW.

If the ancient Hebrew word CHaDaSH means NEW, then what is the Hebrew word for RENEWED? If the
ancient Hebrew word CHaDaSH means RENEWED, then what is the Hebrew word for NEW?

From an online search:The Hebrew Holy Scriptures (Tanach, Brit Hadassah)

BRIT CHADASHA. Brit=covenant Chadasha=new or renewed
B'rit Hadasha Messianic Synagogue
Brit Chadashah - the New Covenant
Brit-Hadashah Ministries
B'Rit Hadasha Messianic Jewish in Memphis, TN

Mashiyach (Messiah)

Jewish World Review Dec. 28, 2005 / 27 Kislev, 5766

So what is the correct way of spelling in English the Hebrew name of the ‘Festival of Lights’?
By Young Chang
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | (KRT) Having pondered the question "What's up with all the different English spellings of Hanukkah?," we have one thing to say: Thank goodness Scrabble prohibits proper nouns.

The holiday is commonly spelled "Hanukkah," "Chanukah" and "Hanukah." Less familiar spellings include "Khanukah" and "Ckanukka."

You'd think there'd be a reason — historical references, regional differences, something, anything — to explain why one of the most oft-used words this time of year has more incarnations than there are candles (nine) on the menorah.

But the variations don't come from the Hebrew word — it's been the same for thousands of years. It means "dedication," referring to the rededication of the Holy Temple in Jerusalem temple in 164 B.C. E.

Hebrew scholars and even the most persnickety of English-language pundits concur: Spelling the word in English depends entirely on phonetic preference.

The "miracle of Hanukkah" refers to the story of the lamp flame that lasted eight days after the Maccabees reclaimed the desecrated Holy Temple from the Greeks. The Maccabees used what little olive oil they could find as they repaired and rededicated their temple — approximately one day's worth — but the flame persisted.

The question of how best to spell "Hanukkah" in English incites first a chuckle, then a pause, then something like: "That's a tricky one" from editors at Merriam Webster, the Associated Press Stylebook and even local rabbis.

"Every time I spell it, I think I spell it different," said Linda MacDonald, who is Jewish and works at Tree of Life Judaica and Books in Ravenna, Washinton.

Paul Burstein, a professor in the Jewish Studies Program at the University of Washington, says those proficient in Hebrew really don't care or insist on a single English spelling of "Hanukkah." It's the Hebrew spelling that matters.

A VOTE FOR ‘CHANUKAH’

The old comedy album "Chanukah Carols," by Stanley Adams and the Chicken Flickers (along with Sid Wayne), included the song, "Let's put the 'Ch' back in Chanukah." In the song, Adams sings two parts, that of a grandfather with a heavy Yiddish accent bemoaning the Americanization of the culture and a young man complaining in the hipster slang of the day that it is time for a change, at one point saying that "a yarmulke is just a beanie with a button in the back. All the cowboys are laughing at me. I ain't going to do it no more." And later saying, "Man, that lox and bagel scene has got to go."
The grandfather counters by giving the young man a Yiddish lesson and then says "Let's put the 'Oy' back in Oyving (Irving), please." He then sneezes and the young man says "Gezundheit" and the grandfather proudly says, "That's my boy!"

It's unknown exactly when the rare, undated album was recorded. But Rabbi Scott Sperling, who has a copy of the album, said it was likely cut in the late 1950s or early 1960s, a time when younger Jews were becoming more reluctant (or incapable) of speaking in the Old World way.

"It was not your grandfather's Hanukkah," quipped Sperling, who was a rabbi at Seattle's Temple De Hirsch Sinai, before moving to Washington, D.C., a couple of years ago. He now serves as director of the Mid-Atlantic Council for the Union for Reform Judaism.

Adams, who died in 1977 at age 62, was an actor, writer and Jewish humorist whose TV and film career spanned 30 years and included writing episodes for "Star Trek" and "Bonanza."
— Bill Kossen

Mostly, the confusion lies in that first guttural sound — a throaty mix of "k" and "h" similar to the sound at the end of the slang word "yech," said Rabbi Ted Falcon, from the Bet Alef Meditative Synagogue in Seattle and Bellevue.

There's the "k" sound in the middle. And finally, do you need that last "h?" Again, depends on preference.

It's a common problem when transliterating words from a language without the Roman alphabet into English, Burstein added. People guess how to communicate the word phonetically.

This isn't always the case — the different phonetic spellings of "Sabbath" have regional ties. Orthodox Jews with ancestors from Eastern Europe tend to go with "Shabbos."


The different spellings of "Kabbalah" have religious significance. "Qabalah" indicates a scholarly or Christian rendering of the Hebrew alphabet, Falcon said, while "Kabbalah" indicates a Jewish transliteration.

James Lowe, senior editor at Merriam Webster, in Springfield, Mass., said the version in their dictionary is "Hanukkah."

Editors at Merriam Webster decide on spellings of words by reading magazines and newspapers from around the country and other parts of the world where English is spoken. They look for how a word is most often spelled, Lowe said. For "Hanukkah," it's "Hanukkah," "Chanukah" and "Hanukah."

Personally, Lowe sticks with "Chanukah."

"Because the first sound is like a guttural sound," he said. "If you see the 'H' [Hanukkah], you're not gonna pronounce it that way. But if you see the "Ch," maybe you will."

Rabbi Falcon agrees; he spells it "Chanukkah." (He uses two k's to represent the double strength of the Hebrew letter.) But there's the danger of pronouncing the "Ch" the way you'd pronounce the same letters in "church," which Falcon has encountered.

The Associated Press Stylebook, widely used as the final source on spelling matters by newspapers and magazines, goes with "Hanukkah."

"It's really debatable, but that's the one we decided on," said Norm Goldstein, editor of the Stylebook in New York. "We have looked at it again and stayed with it."

Microsoft Word's spellchecker recommends "Hanukkah," "Hanukah" or "Chanukah."

The Google search engine works well with "Chanukah" and "Hanukkah," but will ask "Did you mean Hanukkah?" if you attempt to search with just one "k."

John D. Williams Jr., executive director of the National Scrabble Association in Greenport, N.Y., mused that if "Hanukkah" were allowed in the game, people would be thrilled: "There are many different ways to spell it — and a lot of high-value tiles."
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in Washington and in the media consider "must reading."