OK, I understand better now ..I was confused with the way you phrased it.

Having said that, let's be more clear . At the beginning of Christ's 3 year public ministry, He didn't want to be known as "King" per se. That's for sure. He kept telling those for whom He performed miracles, etc. not to tell anyone. Jesus fled from those who wanted to make Him king becasue they had an earthbound view of His mission St.John 6: 14-15 when it was spiritual all along.  

Later on before Pilate, Christ explained that His Kingship "is not of this world." Which is true and neither is His Chruch, the Kingdom of Christ .....we are in the world but not of the world. According to St. Augustine, Christ was not King of Israel for exacting trubute or arming a host of men with swords, but Christ was King of Israel to rule souls, to counsel them for eternal life, to bring to the kingdom of heaven those that believe, hope and love. Christ has to reign first and foremost in our soul. 

But, as far as His Kingship, this changed at the end of His ministry. I'm referring to the Messias Christ's triumphal entry into Jerusalem on what we call Palm Sunday. This is when the prophecies of Zacharais 9:9, Is. 40:9 and Ps. 118:26 were fulfilled by Christ.

 The crowd took branches from the palm trees and laid them out for Him to pass over saying, "Hosanna Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord, even the King of Israel". Ps. 118:26. So, here they were indeed acclaiming Jesus as Messias underlining His royalty. The Messias is the King of Israel par excellence. And Jesus sitting on an ass, "as it is written,

Fear not, daughter of Zion, behold your King is coming, siting on an ass's colt." His disciples didn't understand this at first but did when Jesus was glorified then they remembered that this had been written of Jesus and had been done to Him.

TPP

Yup, Our Lord Jesus Christ said scoffers would come.

The Last Supper occurred on Thrusday evening the day before Christ was crucified.  It was the meal taken by Jesus with His disciples in which He instituted the Blessed Eucharist both as a sacrifice and as a Sacrament. As a Sacrifice it was completed on Calvary and perpetuated in the Holy Mass. As the second , it is given in Holy Communion and by this new rite, the sacrifices of the Old Law were superceded and for ever done away with.

I'm positive Christ knew what He was doing at the Last Supper when He instituted the Eucharistic sacrifice of His Body and Blood. The Euchaaristic Mass was instituted at the Last Supper. Anyone can turn to the text and read these infallible words, "Then He took bread, and blessed and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "this is My body, given for you.... take and eat...do this for a commemmoration of Me.

There is absolutely nothing pagan about it. He did it in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the Cross throughout hte centuries untiil He should come again. He institued the Eucharist so as to entrust to His beloved spouse, the Chruch, a memorial of His death and resurrection, a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a paschal banquet in which CHrist is consumed. Read St.John 6. When we eat this "Bread of Life" which is Christ's very Flesh and Blood, we receive His grace.

I don't care how many "similiarities" you find out there. Christ is the Real Thing and at Holy Communion I receive Him.

You have to keep in mind that what CHrist was yesterday, and is today, He remains forever. Heb. 13:8.

Yes, my point is that Jesus was not doing the euchraist.  He was doing a Sedar because that would be the Jewish thing to do and not some pagan religion concept.  I am not disagree with communion here.  What I am in disagreement is the concept of eucharist which is pagan and comes from Mithras which was largely a Roman religion and what a surprise you follow doctrine that has roots in this pagan practrice.

The text say nothing about the euchraist again you violate the golden rule and interject other man's opinion.  What Jesus said was take this bread for this is my body and take this wine for this is my blood and do this in rememberance of me.  During the Passover Sedar you would act like you were back right before G-D liberated you from Egypt and remember what happened.  G-D always reminded the Israelites of their years in bondage and how they were liberated from those years and Jesus was saying the samething here remember all that and this for I AM THE TRUTH AND THE TRUTH shall set you free.

OK...so you go by this "Golden rule of interpretation".  What can I say? What the "plain sense of Scripture" is to you according to your own private interpretation will be something very different to the next person's "plain sense of Scripture". This is why there are hundreads of varieties of Protestantism each variety containing some truths mixed up with its' own particular errors. If you give me any doctrine taught by one Protestant Church there is another which denies it. Your "Golden Rule of interpretating Scripture" ends up in confusion and error.

Protestantism in general says that Scripture is its own sufficient guide to salvation, although Scripture itself says it's not. Go figure. Protestantism denies the authority of the Chruch established by Christ. It has no sacfifice of the Mass. It does not believe in Confession, rejects Purgatory, and some of its advocates refuse to believe in Hell...and I could go on and on and on.

When it comes to understanding what Sacred Scripture means, the Christ's Church is my guide and interpreter.

leauki posts:

You've got things backwards here. The identity of the CC is indissolubly linked with a continuous identity of doctrine, worshjip, and discipline. The so-called "Roformation" involved the abolution of essential doctrines, worship, and discipline substituting completely different and humanly invented alternatives.

Christ promised His Chruch would not fail. The Protestant Reformers said it did fail. Instead of protesting merely against the bad lives of some Catholics, and even of some priests, they went too far and protested against the Chruchas such, asserting that Christ had failed to keep His promise concerning it. This was a protest against Christ who had promised to be with His Chruch till the end of the world. Protest as much as you like against individual abuses in the Chruch, but no man has the right to set up his own church.

The Chruch eventually reformed herself of the abuses..that came about at the Council of Trent.

Most Protestants know little about Luther. He was an apostate priest. I have no respect for him at all. All of the Protestant churches that were established exist becasue men frrogated to themselves the right to coin new doctrines and set up churches of their own.

Again, if you say so, but they are not priests like that of the Aaronic priesthood who were consecrated for the altar by competant authorities who had a Divine commission to exercise levitical requirements.

No. Not rabbis.

The date of the origin of the synagogue is obscure but Jewish historians say it had its beginning during the Babylonian Captivity that is over 1,000 years after the Aaronic priesthood, sacrifices and sanctuary containing the Holy of Holies were institutued.

Jews didn't have ministers known as rabbis for over 3,000 years.  The designation as rabbis originated during the first century of the Christian era, when there were no longer Jewish priests, Mosaic sacrifices, or Temple. The pubils of Johanan B. Zakki who "abrogated" the already abrogated "sacrifices and laws of levitical purification"  substitutuin gprayers in the synagogue  were the first to assume that title after, "ordination".

Before the Christian era, Rabbi was merely a title of respect, addressed by Jewish pupils to their teachers, and by Jews generally to men more learned than themselves. Rabbi is a Palestinian title which means "My Master" as Rab is a Babylonian title given to doctors of the Law and Rabboni, (as Christ was called St. John 20:16), is an Aramaic title which means "My Lord Master." 

The Synagague cannot take the place of the Temple becasue it lacks the Holy of Holies and the sacrifices....which is another difference between Old Judaism and Modern Judaism.  

Current Judaism is neither holy nor the religion given by God but rather was established by Jews...so this is another difference between the two.  

The holy religion that God gave through Moses is no more as there is no Temple, no sacrifices, no ALtar, etc.

We can know because Abraham found the city of Salem with an already organised religion loyal to G-d. That didn't happen within Abraham's life time (by all accounts he lived for "only" 175 years). It takes many (normal) generations for a city to grow, choose a city god, and create a religion with priesthood around him.

The religion must have spread from there too because Moses found a (Arab) tribe that also worshipped the god of Salem and married the daughter of one of their priests.

Clearly G-d wouldn't leave Abraham and his descendants alone, would He?

Clearly when the (Canaanite) people of Salem already worshipped G-d (and possibly the bedouins south of the city did too) Abraham was still in Assyria (northern Iraq) and hadn't even started his journey to Canaan.

I assume this is why G-d told Abraham to travel that far. That's why the "holy land" was the holy land: it was the place where G-d was already worshipped whereas other lands and cities worshipped other gods.

They are Aaronic priests. What do you think Kohanim are???

Yet it is well over 500 years before the event you said divided "Old Testament Judaism" from modern Judaism.

Jews still don't have "ministers known as rabbis". You misunderstand what a rabbi is. A rabbis is not a priest, elder, or minister ("servant"). A rabbi is a teacher.

The title "rav" ("great one") for a teacher predates the events we are talking about by over a thousand years. If I recall correctly it was used in ancient Assyrian in that sense long before Moses and Aaron were even born.

Your entire comparison of the two disctint "Judaisms" you see is based on your complete ignorance of the Jewish religion and Jewish history, let alone the history of the words involved if you recall the discussion about the difference between "priest" and "elder".

In "modern" Judaism AND in "Old Testament Judaism", a priest is a priest (and has duties only when there is a Temple or Tabernacle) and a rabbi is a rabbi. Neither is an elder or minister (which is Latin for "servant").

Yes, that's exactly true about Jewish expectations.

And I said the same a few replies ago about what Jews expected of a Messiah.

That was exactly the situation Jesus was born into.

I can imagine that this is true. The gentiles (Romans and Greeks at the time) certainly wouldn't have followed Simon Bar Kochba.

There was a definite choice between coming as a warrior king and being accepted by the Jews and coming asa , as you call it, "savior" and impress the gentiles.

Perhaps it was a mechanism to save the gentiles by removing the opportunity of a Jewish victory (under the real Messiah's rule) which would have condemned all of Israel's enemies (then most everyone) to a bad place. This way the gentiles can find G-d before the king of Israel sits on his throne. Maybe...

What do you mean "another"?

Neither is that renewed repetition of your thesis a "difference" and nor is it "another".

You keep going on claiming that A and A are different based on the vast amount of evidence you brought up, namely:

1. You claim A and A are different.

2. You argue that since A and A are different (based on your claim), one of them was not created by X.

3. You claim that "another difference" between A and A is that one of them was not created by X.

You CANNOT prove a thesis by claiming the thesis itself as evidence. That's one thing.

You also CANNOT count something you deduce from the thesis as evidence for the thesis. That's another thing.

And, finally, you CANNOT claim that this deduction from your own fantasy constitutes a second piece of evidence, since there was no first.

Using your "logic" you could "prove" absolutely anything:

1. "All cars are red." (Unproven thesis not yet proven.)

2. Since all cars a red, no cars are green. (Deduction from unproven thesis, NOT evidence for the thesis.)

3. The absence of green cars is more evidence that all cars are red. (Neither "evidence" since it's a deduction from point 2. And not "more" since there was no evidence in points 1 or 2 either.)

Or this:

1. "Lula prays to Satan."

2. Since Lula prays to Satan, Lula does not pray to G-d.

3. The fact that Lula does not pray to G-d is more evidence that Lula prays to Satan.

Gee, isn't that how the inquisition worked?

Either way, if "Old Testament Judaism" and current Judaism are different based on your argument, then all cars a red and you are a Satan worshipper. Have fun with that or revise your argument.

lula posts:

kfc posts 319

Jesus said this at His trial when He was answering Pilate. According to the DR and KJV it reads, "....My kingdom is not of this world..." 

Again, any one can read Scripture but most often they don't understand it's correct meaning...and that's what is soooo important. Remember in Acts. the Ethiopian who was reading Isaias and didn't understand it? He needed help from a man of the Chruch....St. Philip the deacon in the Church interpreted it for him and afterwards preached Christ and then baptized the Ethiopian.

My concordance contains so many references to "the kingdom of Heaven" or "the Kingdom of God" which is the same thing.

In the OT, the Kingdom of God is the Jewish people. They were His people and He was their King for whom the earthly king was but a vicegerent. It also means the governance of Israel by God. later, taught by the prophets the Jews began to look forward to a new kingdom to come. Daniel 7:14, 18, 25 and 27 come to mind. This expectancy was at its height at the time of Our Lord's arrival. St.John the Baptist preached that the Kingdom of God is at hand. St.John 3:1-3.  The Kingdom is "at hand"....We know from St.John that means the time has nearly arrived when the Messias will appear and will found His kingdom. This rules out the future 1,000 year Messianic kingdom after Christ's Second Coming.

 In the NT, Our Lord's own teachings are full of references to the kingdom of God (or kingdom of Heaven in St.Matt. in deference to the reluctance of the Jews to pronounce God's name.).

I will give you the phrase has several distinct meanings. The spiritual rule of God, the kingdom of grace, the future eternal kingdom of Heaven, The kingdom of Christ which is the Church, a spiritual not a temperal rule. The kingdom of Heaven proclaimed by Our Lord is not purely a celestial thing in the future. As St.John the Baptist is warning...it was at hand, meaning it began in this world at the Incarnation really. It is here and now, existing as a spiritual power, the ruling of God in the Mystical Body of the Church. It will be perfected and come to its complete fullness at the end of time.

I totally Agree.

lula posts:

LEAUKI posts:

All this proves is that you live up to the Jewish reputation of being a debating society...I give red meat and you quibble and hair-split and otherwise offer off-the wall nonsense. You are playing games and I'm not interested in doing that.

Last time...2 points: Biblical Judaism is not in accord with modern Judaism because the Temple, of Jerusalem, the Aaronic priesthood and the Mosaic sacrifices exist no more. they came to an end during the first century of the CHristian era as all Rabbis know. Mosaic Judaism ended over 2,000 years ago with the fulfillment of its prophecies in the birth, life, works, death and resurrection, and Ascension of the promised Messias. Christianity became the reality, the completion, the fulfillment of the Holy things Judaism foreshadowed.

Lula, just give examples of the alleged differences or be done with it.

Your semantic games are just annoying.

I agree with this Lula.  Judaism was the types and shadows of Christ who was the body to these shadows.  Where you're missing the mark is that God is going to once again turn to the Jews and give them a second chance.  You cut them off forgetting that "mercy triumps over judgment."    That's why I compared you to Jonah who relished in the thought of the destruction of the Assyrians only to be discouraged when God forgave them instead. 

Micah says:

"He will turn again; he will have compassion upon us; he will subdue our iniquities and  will cast ALL THEIR SINS into the depths of the sea.  You will perform the truth to Jacob (Jew) and the mercy to Abraham which you have sworn to our fathers from the days of old."  7:15

Despite their unfaithfulness there is an unconditional promise to Abraham.  Enacted with the Davidic covenant Israel will be restored as a nation and the people to the land originally promised to Abraham. 

no it doesn't.  There will be a "physical" 1,000 year rule with the Messiah according to Rev 20.  Right now, yes, he's ruling in each believer's heart "spiritually" but that's not what I'm talking about.  Besides all that that's been well over 2,000 years now.  The Millennium is 1,000 years and is still future.  Last I knew that's what Millennium means.  Not 2,000 plus.  God could have written 2,000 quite easily if he meant it to be what you're saying.  He didn't.  So you're attempting (with the teachings of the RCC) to make a square peg fit into a round hole and it' doesn't fit. 

You never answered all my questions in #326 other to say in a blanket statement "it all happened in the first coming."  You never answer the point blank questions Lula.   You skirt around them with long responses that don't directly answer the questions. 

I understand all this Lula.  Yes.  He is OUR king but HE did not come to take the throne of David as promised yet.  That is for the second coming.  That's when the Jews will accept him as a whole nation.  That's when "all Israel will be saved."  That's when he will turn back to the Jews and fullfill the Davidic Covenant physically as well as spiritually.  He will be the ONE KING over ALL THE Nations. 

@ The Peoples Party

AMEN to all you wrote here especially response #330. 

Yep.  I've been saying all along that the RCC is filled with a mixture of Christianity and Paganism. The best lies have truth woven into them.  Lula can't see it because she's wearing protective lenses thinking it's a good thing when in fact it's blinding her to the truth of God's revealed WORD. 

Exactly.  It's the number one rule of interpretation.  Lula violates this all over the place.  That's why the RCC NEVER exposits scripture.  They are totally topical.  If a preacher (Catholic or otherwise) tends to do this it's a very big red flag.  You can take scripture topically and make it anything you choose it to be.  It's the favorite way to twist scripture. 

There are rules/principles are for interpreting or understanding any language.  THESE RULES ARE APPLIED TO THEM.  One of the first and primary one is usually called the 'Golden Rule of Interpretation' is to take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the context indicate otherwise.' This rule is recognized by logicians, grammarians and rhetoricians as the true criterion by which one must be governed. When guided by this principle, one cannot go far afield, but if it is ignored, one roams at will and can never know whether he has interpreted the Word of God correctly.  LOGICIANS (maybe you need to interject some of that) grammarians, and rhetoricians ALL USE THIS AS THE MAIN POINT!

Lula, I hope your Mithras worship is going well.  You seem to think that the rcc is some how united?  Within 2 months, I have talked to over a dozen fathers and several bishops who believe in reincarnation.  That number of goes up astronomicallly when you ask about hell and if it exists ( a lot will say no).  Then there is the charsmatic catholics.  I haven't even hit on the issue of homosexuality; homosexuals and being a father, homosexuals marriages.  Yes, yes it so very 'united'.

red meat?  All I have seen is doctrine and conjecture in the discourse on your part.  You should use Scripture and use less MSG (doctrine) because Scripture doesn't need any flavoring.

Speaking of your beloved doctrine. Mithra's cave-temple on the Vatican Hill (wait doesn't someone claim that to be a holy place and its no longer mithras who do, hmmmm I wonder who) seized by christians in 376 ad offered a lot of "goodies".  "The Mithraic high priest's title of pater, patrum which became papa, or pope. The Mithraic holy father wore a red cap and garment and a ring and carried a shepherd's staff.  Mithra's biships wore a mithra or miter as their badge of office. Mithraists commemorated the sun-god's ascension by eating a mizd, a sun-shaped bun embossed with sword of Mithra.  The roman catholic church adapted this/continues this with the mizd (Latin missa English mass) wafer to retain its sun-shape although not even Episcopalian counterpart do that. "(Encarta)  As the sun hits this sun shaped wafer Mithra is interjecting himself into the bread and the wine wow, sounds like  the euchraist.  That's where all that non-sense came from.  Again, I hope your mithras worship is going fine and dandy because the living G-D doesn't need any of those additives.

You rather take pagan traditions instead what G-D was doing.  Yeshua (aka Jesus) was doing here was a Passover Sedar.  That 'last supper' was just a portion of it when HE took the 3rd or 4th cup and said those words.  Again Yeshua (Jesus) WAS OBSERVING THE PASSOVER and HE TOLD US TO REMEMBER HIS DEATH WHENEVER WE OBSERVE PASSOVER. Since HE was Jewish HE HAD NO CONCEPT OF THIS PAGAN eucharist (that is what I am discussing here and p.s. with the 'church' positioning of the last supper there is no way Jesus could have spent 3 days in the grave WHICH ACCORDING to Scripture HE DID). It appears that you rather take traditions of men and pagan things. Oh wait, that's because you believe that the 'church' super-seded the old, so Lula you should do yourself a favor if you hadn't already and just tear out that old done away with testament because don't you know that the 'church' has replaced what those old smelly Jews have done.