Chili

The Vatican has no guns and no intentions to ever buy some. Catholcism is not OT based and in fact, Catholicism and Judaism are like 2 branches on the same trunk that ends at Gen.3, in the same was as JohnB was of old stock and Jesus a new creation and together they moved to Rome.

And then of course Paul was the New Broom who kept the Church clean, and we could all use a sweeper like him.

Chili

Yes it is, and I agree that you seem to know a lot, and I write that only because I cannot be your judge. The bible, period, is not part of my life and never was.

To me religion is like a wheel barrow that people push, uphill, off all place to go and that is not easy. So I soon learned and decided to go downhill instead where the going was easy, and life was made into a song all of its own.

I often trip over your words, like 'happenstance' here. Typical English and so proper, I think. To this end, I feel, and not just feel but know for sure that the word Christian is grossly abused, and automatically assume that Catholics are excluded from them as none of them are Christian, nor were they ever.

To add some weight to this, let me tell you that I had never heard word until I came to Canada at the age of 21 and soon after met my first 'protestant' who asked me if I was a Christian, and I responded with: a what?

Is that how it is, according to you?

Chili

I like it and works well for me because all theologians do is present opposite views and will never know . . . because their sourcing is wrong from the start because as God has nothing to do with religion or there would be temples where he is at.

I'll have you know that 'inspiration' is the fruit of Spirit that freely flows over the adamsapple of humans now with purpose and intent directly from the mind of God. It is called 'interpretation' in the NT, and so why would Papist ever listen to those who got their sourcing wrong righ from the start.

Zwaarddijk

Could you phrase your response so that it makes sense? It would be helpful!

Chili

I think it is called the brown-nosing effect that puts them next in line.

Chili

Oh sorry. I am sure we can agree that theologians have different opinions, with the only thing that they have in common is that they want to have the last word. It is called 'the argument,' and even if that is towards the discovery of truth, it seems to never end and will sway back and forth, depending also on the age of the speaker, and his learned righteousness.

This problem is on account of 'oblivion,' they say, which really is a handicap to overcome, and so really, we now have mentally handicaps japping away.

Opposite this is Rome where the queen of heaven is home and is dispenser of divine wisdom to all men of good will via the gift of interpretation, they call it, which then is equal to glossolalia except now with words instead of out-of-order syllables freely flowing over the dam.

One is a foreshadow of the other, with the difference being wherein first the shepherds looked in to see and understand and later were raised to have the final word. The shepherds here were our strongholds, or eidetic images that finally unite in telic vision that is noetic as logos in the end. Naturally, this so is post-parousia or infallibility would be the wrong choice of words.

Not sure if this answered your question, but is to say, that if God is without substance and truth is with substance it cannot be God as first cause to talk about religion as the [final] enemy to overcome in the end, which so then is why God is and remains the unspoken word for the Jew.

Zwaarddijk

And this is relevant to what I said how? Even given this rephrasing it does not even seem tangential to what I said.

Toto

I don't think he can.

Chili

:huh:Ok, I will spoon feed it to you.

In particular I singled out this paragraph from your post, you must have noticed:
. . . and in particular I liked the idea that there also is oral Torah that is at least as binding as the written Torah. The 'at least' suggests that it is better and at least more practical for them. Then I can add that this is the reason why Jews are God's favorite OT people in the same way as Catholics are God's favorite NT people, simply because tradition emerges from the animal instinct of man, wherein they [at least finally] have the courage to tax the bullshit that is handed to them from the pulpit:

"Woe to you, you scribes and pharisees, you frauds! You shut the doors of the kingdom of God in men's faces, neither entering yourself nor admitting those who are trying to enter." Then he goes on to say that they make believers into selfrighteous devils, etc., right from Matth.24:13 to 34).

My reason for this is that the genus of man is animal and not human so the Jewishness is not part of the soul, which makes Judaism the enemy and never the recipient of Gods instruction that so is beyond theology and that must seen by the animal mind wherein trees have halo's are like men.

Judaism knows and understands this difference wherein theology is external teleological sophistry that are look-alikes of telic vision that comprehends the soul itself that only the bare naked animal man can see to make it 'prior by nature' to him.

So then let me add that the "Chief Priests," (this time), knew exactly what was going on, and cautioned Pilate that his disciples will steal his body if they can and then the final imposture will be worse than the first," to say that he would be a sophist instead and will die like a rich man after another 40 years of purgation for him, and so back to galilee he goes.

So my response was only to your notion that tradition in Judasim counts for the most, and then I elaborated why that is so.

Oh sorry, I should have called the 'scribeners and passages readers' as opposed to 'those in the know.'

Another one to add is that just as Jews never say the word God do/should Catholics never say the word Jesus, lest they become Jesus worshipers too as per Rev. 13:11-, except in America, maybe.

Jaybees

Is there someone here who can provide me with an interpretation (or translation) of this paragraph?