FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: whoa, Samaritans still exist
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
(06-20-2009, 08:50 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: [ -> ]karate jews ah?
fascinating. who would of thought.

I would have thought Muslims would be more into karate than Jews.  After all, their women dress like ninjas.
(06-19-2009, 10:18 PM)phnuggle Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-19-2009, 10:16 PM)Walty Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-19-2009, 10:04 PM)phnuggle Wrote: [ -> ]Wow, they even practice animal sacrifice still. Huh. Learn something new every day here.

Why don't the Jews anymore?

It's my understanding that they do not have a temple in which to anymore. But I could definitely be wrong; I'm by no means an authority on Judaism. Anyone else know for sure?

You are correct.  Without the temple they are forbidden.  The point is only one true Church and only one true sacrifice. The purpose and the fulfillment of this prototype of sacrifice happened 2000 years ago on Calvary.  You will find in the OT the practice of a sacrifice made on mountain tops and it was performed by many of the heroes of the Old Testament and yet it was forbidden, yet they did it anyway, remind you of any parallel we have been seeing in the last 500 years?  Even King David made this mistake and the OT complains about it.

Of course modern Jews reject my view on the matter and as a side note the temple has been remade but has not been reassembled on the holy of holies.  It is standing somewhere in the South of Israel and they plan on moving it to the proper location.  Some items still need to be made but just recently they made the incense burners (pure gold).

As I understand it the big problem is finding the pure unspotted cow.  It must be red.  They had one that was close but it had one white hair on the tail and that was close but not close enough.  This is necessary to purify the temple to receive God and is well detailed in the OT during the reign of King Solomon.

The temple has been made off site just as the original was not carved in Jerusalem so the noise of the hammers and chisels would not be displeasing to God.  There is a difference, the original was carved in Lebanon and wood that lines it is the Cedar of Lebanon.

The Freemasons have a huge mythology involved in all of this as well.  Myth but they claim it just the same.
(06-19-2009, 10:52 PM)DrBombay Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-19-2009, 10:18 PM)phnuggle Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-19-2009, 10:16 PM)Walty Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-19-2009, 10:04 PM)phnuggle Wrote: [ -> ]Wow, they even practice animal sacrifice still. Huh. Learn something new every day here.

Why don't the Jews anymore?

It's my understanding that they do not have a temple in which to anymore. But I could definitely be wrong; I'm by no means an authority on Judaism. Anyone else know for sure?

Yea, that's what I understand too.  Complicated by the fact that there's a mosque sitting on the exact spot the temple needs to be built.  Meh, sure the Moslems won't mind if they're asked to relocate.

Maybe not.  I read an article years ago that claims the location of the Temple is not where we think it is.  They point out the geograph does not work with the location of the Mosque.  There is a famous tourist site of a tunnel they found only a few decades ago to provide water to the city during war and seiges.  It is located some distance south and is mentioned in the Bible.  It was carved in the last few Kings just before the Babylonian Captivity.

They also noted Jews in the Middle Ages did not pray at the wailing wall that we think of today but in a location south closer to that water supply.  They make a good case and the Bible gives clear evidence to support their theory. 

Add to this the fact the area we call the old city of Jerusalem is not at all the old city of David and Christianity and our religious devotions gives evidence why.  What is called the Old City behind the ancinet walls has near its center the Church of the Holy Sepacure.  In other words Christ's burial place which the Bible makes clear was OUTSIDE the city walls.  In other words the entire ancient city of Jerusalem was bit by bit moved to accomidate Christian pilgrams coming to pray at a purely Christian site.  Their theory is the Mosque was built on an old Christian Church at the site of Christ's trial before the pagan Roman Governor Pilate.  The Trial was in the Roman fort and was also the residence of Pilate.

You may be asking why they do not just build it if the mosque is not in the way.  The reason is the Old City of David the original Jerusalem is in present day East Jerusalem and it is still mostly Islamic.  Add to that the political pressure the modern state of Israel has on this issue including in Western countries, plus they still need a few things such as that red cow and the issue is a red hot potato that they do not need to deal with at this time.

I understand the original Zionist asked Pope Pius X  (in a personal audince) for his support in the Jews returning to the Holy Land and was told no.  St Pius X was correct Zionism is not a path to salvation, he did say they would have ample Priests to convert any returning Jews should they wish to do so (how very different from our present Pope).  His diary points out he personally admired and liked the Pope but was very disappointed in the answer just the same.

It is also worth noting the Pope was very worried about a Jewish rule over the city of Jerusalem.  Considering the prophecies that Christ made it is understandable.  Some people theorize it is this third temple that will be the site of the abomination of desolation and the Antichrist others say the Vatican in Rome.
I was recently having a conversation with my mother about this issue. My mother is a staunch Evangelical Zionist and I asked her about the temple sight. Is it correct or has the Dome of the Rock been built in the wrong place? And if it is correct, what should we, if capable, replace the Dome of the Rock with? She at first said it would be best to rebuild the Old Temple but in light of the Messianic fulfillment. In other words, have the old ceremonies done in reference to the sacrifice already being fulfilled. I explained that the Middle Eastern Christians (hinting at the Catholics and Orthodox in the area) believe that a Church would do just that and simply replace it with a Church like the Crusaders did.

Of course, with such an idea than the exact location becomes less of an issue for the Tabernacle is in every Catholic Church. She, of course, did not think in this context, at least not consciously.
(06-19-2009, 11:05 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: [ -> ]when the jews were taken into Babylonian captivity the ones who were left behind became the sumarians. they are the original jews. when the jews came back they had many many many new forms of worship with them. synagogues were one, talmud etc


You are incorrect and the Bible does not support what you imply.  What is correct is the Samarians were originally Jews and they were left behind to tend the vineyards but they intermarried with pagans which was forbidden by the law.  They had also started including Pagan practices mixed with Jewish.  When the Leaders came back from Babylon they made them separated from their illegal wives and give up pagan rites still they were never fully accepted because of mixed marriages. .  It was an Old Testament Prophet that gave the order.  They were correct to do so and it is an OT prototype of the Traditional Catholic prohibition on mixed marriages (meaning marry Catholics only)

It was also an OT Prophet that was told to start restoring the old faith while they were in captivity.  It was this restoration in Babylon that governed the OT faith until the arrival of Christ when things had began to go wrong in the Jewish Faith.

One item that is only partially correct is some Jews stayed in Babylon and there is a theory that it was some of these Jews that gave birth of Talmudic Jews theology.  Others point to the Pharisees who stated to put their rules over the OT doctrine and still others point to the Diaspora after the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD.  There are several types of Talmuds and the one written in Babylon is only one but it is the major Talmud.  It was not written until well after 70AD.  If I recall correctly in the 7th century.  Look it up in the Catholic Encyclopedia for more detail information.  It was not written 400 years before the birth of Christ as you post implies.

But the faith had been restored by those who had been taken in captivity not those who had stayed in the field in Israel.  This is clearly documented in the OT.


Some Catholics need to read their Bible a little more without the heavy drinking.
(06-19-2009, 10:03 PM)DrBombay Wrote: [ -> ]That is not good.

Why, should Israel bulldoze them too?? or do you mean that wee need to convert them?

If #1, no thanks-esp not with my Tax $$
if #2, then I am with you, send the missionaries......
(06-19-2009, 10:16 PM)Walty Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-19-2009, 10:04 PM)phnuggle Wrote: [ -> ]Wow, they even practice animal sacrifice still. Huh. Learn something new every day here.

Why don't the Jews anymore?

No temple...on a tongue-cheek thought, they are skewering Trad Catholic daily..........
(06-19-2009, 10:18 PM)phnuggle Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-19-2009, 10:16 PM)Walty Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-19-2009, 10:04 PM)phnuggle Wrote: [ -> ]Wow, they even practice animal sacrifice still. Huh. Learn something new every day here.

Why don't the Jews anymore?

It's my understanding that they do not have a temple in which to anymore. But I could definitely be wrong; I'm by no means an authority on Judaism. Anyone else know for sure?

Exactly, only on the Temple Mount.........
sure mtois ill take your word for it.
not the reading the bible with no sipping part though
sip sip
Pages: 1 2 3