There is a lot of stuff in the new testament referring to “The Jews” in an unfavorable light.
John 7:13
However, no one spoke openly of Him for fear of the Jews.
Maybe the wording is the problem since Jesus and his disciples were Jews themselves, and other Jews elsewhere had nothing to do with any of this at all.
I think part of the issue is that the Catholic church was into a lot of messed up stuff over the centuries and the Jews were an easy scapegoat to deflect attention off their own actions.
Just out of curiosity do you know any examples off the top of your head of things the Church did and used the Jews as a way to cover their actions? I only ask because I am truly ignorant on these matters.
For some reason this reminds me of an interaction my grandmother had with a proselytising pastor. After several attempts of the man trying to convince her that Christianity was only true path towards salvation she stopped him and said that he should pray to her instead of Jesus. Naturally he asked what she meant by this and apparently she told him that if he was going to pray to a Jew he might as well pray to a living Jew instead of a dead one.
I found that hilarious. Regardless of wether it was right or wrong. She was and still is hard as nails. She was not one to take any shit from anyone. Born in the mellah of Casablanca. Married and had kids by 15 otherwise she was free game for any muslim eye that fancied her. Made Aliyah in 1955 and was dropped off in the middle of the Negev with the rest of the Moroccan Sephardim. No infrastructure whatsoever. The house she and my father lived in was literally built by her and my grandfathers hands. Widowed in 1964 and she came to the States where she ultimately had that encounter with that preacher man.
There is a book called “The Two Babylons” by Alexander Hislop, anyone interested in the Catholic church should read it. You can find it online. Basically the overall point is that the Catholic church is based on the same paganism that existed in Babylon and Egypt
One that comes to mind is the Spanish inquisition which continued after Alexander VI became pope. He impregnated multiple women, had parties with prostitutes, and did plenty of other things contradicting Catholic teaching, but speaking against him was heresy and Jews and Muslims were the enemy.
I’m sure the Spanish royals were o good either and I don’t know about the pope before him, but Alexander VI was one pope who stands out as a bad guy. You could find a lot more stuff if you look into it.
I don’t think I would call him a Marxist. He is the most secular pope IMO. I like that he is calling out the child molestation stuff. I know many don’t like him because he isn’t all that conservative like the previous popes.
How the fuck can you be secular when you are the leader of a church? What this means is that he is totally full of shit.
Seems like he is covering it up too:
The thing is that the Vatican is a sovereign state, they should be castrating or executing child molester priests. There is no excuse for that.
At one time, priests and popes were allowed to marry. See what wikipedia says about Alexander VI:
Of Alexander’s many mistresses the one for whom passion lasted longest was Vannozza (Giovanna) dei Cattanei, born in 1442, and wife of three successive husbands. The connection began in 1470, and she had four children whom he openly acknowledged as his own: Cesare (born 1475), Giovanni, afterwards duke of Gandia (commonly known as Juan, born 1476), Lucrezia (born 1480), and Gioffre (Goffredo in Italian, born 1481 or 1482). For a period of time, before legitimizing his children after becoming Pope, Rodrigo pretended that his four children with Vannozza were his niece and nephews and that they were fathered by Vannozza’s husbands.[50]
Of Alexander’s many mistresses the one for whom passion lasted longest was Vannozza (Giovanna) dei Cattanei, born in 1442, and wife of three successive husbands. The connection began in 1470, and she had four children whom he openly acknowledged as his own: Cesare (born 1475), Giovanni, afterwards duke of Gandia (commonly known as Juan, born 1476), Lucrezia (born 1480), and Gioffre (Goffredo in Italian, born 1481 or 1482). For a period of time, before legitimizing his children after becoming Pope, Rodrigo pretended that his four children with Vannozza were his niece and nephews and that they were fathered by Vannozza’s husbands.[50]
A daughter, Laura, was born to his mistress, Giulia Farnese; paternity was officially attributed to Orsino Orsini (Farnese’s husband). He is an ancestor of virtually all royal houses of Europe, mainly the southern and western ones, for being the ancestor of DonaLuisa de Guzmán, wife of King John IV of Portugal, of the House of Braganza.
His son Cesare Borgia is also said to have been the model for the graven idol of Jesus:
Well, I understand you are looking at this through a specific paradigm. All I can say to that is the old adage that if you are always looking for an --ism, you will always find one; in pretty much any information.
That’s how feminists decided that skyscrapers are misogynistic symbols of the patriarchy and toxic masculinity. They represent the penis! Of course! That, and because of that, they should be torn down…
When I got serious about reading the Bible, I made a promise to myself that I wasn’t going to bring my preconceived notions nor any kind of prejudice into it, as much as I could. I was committed to letting the text speak for itself and after I was done, if I cared too, bring those things back in.
I cannot tell you what to do, nor am I going to pretend that what I think matters to you in the slightest. But my unsolicited advice is to just read it and let it say what it says, first. I think, that’s the best way to approach scripture, the first time you go through it. Treat it agnostically, just let it say what it says. And comeback and judge it as a complete work.
You do you, I don’t want to come off as telling you what to think, so you can completely disregard everything I just said. But I think I had it right doing it that way and perhaps, if you want to, you’ll consider looking at it that way for the time being.
Well the funny thing is I wasn’t specifically looking for anti semitism. I started reading it because I fundamentally think Christianity played a significant role in shaping western thought and philosophy. No shock about that right. Obvious.
It was watching many JP videos that I really started to cultivate an appreciation for Christianity and its role in the society that I am beneficiary of. I have tremendous appreciation for it and honestly I am arguably more a product of that than I am of Judaism.
But I gotta say man. It really hits you in the face right off the bat when you start reading it. But maybe still coming from a Jewish background I am more predisposed to think of it like that. But I don’t think thats the case.
Oh thats not even comparable I think.
I truly am going into with an open mind. But if it is anti semitic then it is anti semitic. Regardless if you have an open mind or preconceived notions. And it seems like I am not the first to have that impression. Either way I still am tremendously appreciative of the text and fully intend on reading it. I feel it is a must read at this point if you want to truly understand western thought. I am just a bit late to the game I suppose.
Sound advice man. Appreciate it. Thanks for the response.
Definitely for separation of church and state. Neither makes the other better, only worse.
But I am not for the notion that if religion believes in a common tenant, that most rational people believe too, that it should be removed from the government just because a church shares that same notion. I think that is what we see most of in the post-modern world of today.
Like someone going through the Catechism and marking down everything it has in common with the Constitution or English Common Law and stripping it from the law, solely because a religion also believes that tenant.
Separation of church and state doesn’t mean church and state need to be opposite, that too, would be a disaster.
Hey! Yeah, there is some messed up history. But western society and thought and growth was also intermingled with the Church through out the centuries.
There is no shortage of people looking at the shortfalls of the Church, but there is a shortage of people failing to look at all the good the Church managed to do in between the barbarity and slaughter. Despite the sins of the Church it still managed to do a hell of a lot of good in the world too. It wasn’t always burning heretics at the stake.
And keep in mind the Catholic Church, was THE church for most of history. Save for a few small branches, the Catholic Church was Christianity. Protestantism did not come into play until the 16th century because it required technology, the printing press, for it to come into being. Until everybody had access to a Bible, the Catholic church was it.
Yeah, I cannot argue with that, I just don’t have your background knowledge or experience.
Yeah a bit of an exaggeration, not the story, that’s real, but the ‘falling down the rabbit hole’ analogy is a bit extreme for this case.
I think that’s cool. I like when people try to learn and go beyond their horizons.
I’d like to read the Talmud, have any advice on good translations or anything you think I should know?
Oh it’s possible, it’s not the first time. He’s not totally full of shit, but he is overtly political and clearly didn’t get the memo on separation of church and state. He’s more politician than church head. Pope’s are supposed to tend to the people, especially the weakest and most forgotten in societies. Spread the Gospel and the good news, not drop political opinions every time he gets a chance.
He’s definitely not doing enough. This crap needed to be and continues to need to be stamped out fully, completely and totally once and for all.
He panders way too much to the ‘queer-wing’ of the Vatican and it’s irritating as hell. They need to be kicked out, not ‘listened to’.
No argument from me here.
One really doesn’t have to do with the other. Regardless of the churches stance on priestly marriage, child molestation is something else altogether. Sick people do that shit. Assholes do that shit. Deviant freaks do that shit. Having a reliable piece of ass at home wouldn’t make a difference on this.
That being said, I am willing to entertain the idea, but not from this pope. He has proven to be a political shill and this needs to be approached from the spiritual side. After all, that is the actual business of the church.
EDIT: I am taking a calculated risk, letting you have a window into our ‘family’ infighting. Please don’t use this as an excuse to bash.
I am not Catholic (you know that obviously), so forgive my ignorance if I don’t understand this correctly, but isn’t it impossible according to Catholic doctrine for the Pope to be full of shit? I think he is supposed to be infallible, right? So if one disagrees with the Pope, and is Catholic, they are by default wrong.
All the Catholics complaining of the Pope’s secularism are risking heresy.
Agree here. It should have ended decades ago. I understand why they didn’t, as they had an image to protect (not saying this is a justification, just that I understand why), but now that it’s out, they need to go full force.
This is probably the most misunderstood tenants of Catholicism in modern history. Though no fault of your own, nor even many Catholics do not understand what it means.
The Doctrine of Infallibility only applies to dogma and it has to be declared as such, specifically. Hence it is used very infrequently, the last time being in the 1950’s.
The Papal infallibility means that a tenant, say something like the validity of the scriptures is investigated by the church. Then there are counsels that discuss and debate the issue, imploring the Holy Spirit (divine intervention, so to speak) to guide them to the right conclusion in the process. Once, that has been done the pope can then declare that 'X’ is an infallible dogma of the Church. So the Church can (and has) declare that the Scriptures are the Word of God and should be treated as such.
That’s what Papal infallibility means.
It does not mean that everything the pope does is automatically perfect and is therefore incapable of sin. ← That would be actual heresy.
Act against, to the detriment of the Church, yes. Criticize, no. Heresy has to do with dogma as well.
There are traditionalist Catholic groups that have formed precisely because they believe the Pope is a sellout and heretic who bends the knee to modernism and globalism. There’s such a church (SSPX sect) a ten minute ride from me. Mass is done in Latin, very strict dress codes, all that.
