It's quite obvious to everyone here that you hate Jews.
Aren't Christians supposed to preach love and peace, not hatred of others?
As I mentioned on a different thread, I find it absolutely hypocritical that those who claim to follow the Jewish Messiah not only hate the Jewish Messiah's religion, but the very people who follow that religion.
So you're claiming that the disciples did not write it?
There is an abundance of evidence that they did not. In fact, many scholarly theological works themselves indicate that the names of the Gospel authors may not refer to the actual apostles, but pen names used by some later authors. Remember it was the Romans who created the book known as the New Testament, it didn't exist till at least 400 years after the death of Jesus as defined by those writing the book.
Allow me to ask, do you see what the Jews are doing today, namely those that claim to be jews, as "good" as Christ would define it? Or not? And I'm talking on a global scale here, not in minutae at the civil level here and there, which is irrelevant.
I see misery and suffering caused by BOTH the Jewish and Christian religions, as well as that caused by the Islamic religion.
I'd say the Christians have on a whole caused more suffering than the Jews have, when you consider the various Inquisitions, witch trials, Crusades, and other such matters.
Not many Christians are close to being "good" as described by their own religion.
I see misery and suffering caused by BOTH the Jewish and Christian religions, as well as that caused by the Islamic religion.
I'd say the Christians have on a whole caused more suffering than the Jews have, when you consider the various Inquisitions, witch trials, Crusades, and other such matters.
On the subject of the Crusades, it seems that you then want to disassociate Christianity from Jewish scriptures but there is evidence that a big motive of the Crusades was to re-enthrone a Davidic bloodline in the Holy Land. Do you agree or disagree?
I'd also like to hear what you think of Br. Kapner's assessment that if you put two Jews in a room for a week, by the end of the week they'll have formed 25 groups -- all of them Jewish oriented. I thought it was funny but probably not a big exaggeration. How about you?
On the subject of the Crusades, it seems that you then want to disassociate Christianity from Jewish scriptures but there is evidence that a big motive of the Crusades was to re-enthrone a Davidic bloodline in the Holy Land. Do you agree or disagree?
Whatever the motive, how does this fit in with a religion formulated to worship and follow a "Prince of Peace"?
how does this [the Crusades] fit in with a religion formulated to worship and follow a "Prince of Peace"?
Well, that's one of His titles from Isaiah 9:6 -- towards the end of the list, though. Since we're talking about Catholics, I'm going to reference the Douay- Rheims version of the Bible:
For a CHILD IS BORN to us, and a son is given to us, and the government is upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called, Wonderful, Counsellor, God the Mighty, the Father of the world to come, the Prince of Peace.
Matthew 10:34 says: Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword.
Personally, I think of it as the sword of Truth, which is divisive but can lead to a spiritual peace, if not an earthly peace due to the obstinance of others who reject the Truth. But in the age of the Crusaders, people might have been more apt to see it as a weapon of war for God the Mighty. It was a very long time ago and diplomacy probably wasn't as much of a priority back then. Even these days it's still not as high a priority as it should be to prevent war. Wouldn't it be Wonderful if the world could wise up enough soon through the teachings and examples He reflects for everyone to live here in Peace? I think so.
Yaba yaba doo, bible bible bible. You have anything more authoritive?
Jumpin' Jehoshaphat, FL! You're the one who referenced the Biblical title, "Prince of Peace". What would you prefer me to reference in response as more authoritative about that? The New York Times? I hope not. It's not what I consider a trusty source, like you don't think the Bible is.