(Jerusalem Post) Pope Francis continues his campaign to bolshevize the Church by knighting a rabbi who has spent his life “negotiating” with Catholics to compromise their historical intransigence toward subversive, Christ-denying Jewry:
A. James Rudin, a leading Reform rabbi and educator and the longtime director of inter-religious affairs at the American Jewish Committee, will be knighted under the Papal Order of St. Gregory for his work on Catholic-Jewish relations.
He will become the ninth Jewish person to receive the honor in the Order’s nearly 200-year history. Other Jews so knighted include Walter Annenberg, the philanthropist and creator of TV Guide; the prominent Conservative rabbi Mordecai Waxman; Argentine interfaith advocate Rabbi León Klenicki; Rabbi David Rosen of the AJC; and various philanthropists, business people and musicians with Jewish ancestry.
The honor recognizes people whose work has supported the Catholic Church, which can include Jews focused on interfaith projects.
Earlier this year, Rudin, 88, published a memoir, “The People in the Room: Rabbis, Nuns, Pastors, Popes, and Presidents,” which recounts his many trips abroad during his time working at the AJC as part of his work to improve Jewish-Christian relations in the years after the Holocaust.
“For more than 50 years, Rabbi James Rudin has worked to advance Catholic-Jewish relations, and interfaith relations on a wider scale, with extraordinary skill, dedication, and success,” Cardinal Sean O’Malley, archbishop of Boston, said in a statement. “The impact of this work continues to grow as successive generations build on the foundation Rabbi Rudin has established.”
…Rabbi Eric J. Greenberg, director of the United Nations relations and strategic partnerships for the Simon Wiesenthal Center, helped nominate Rudin for the honor.
“This knighthood clearly demonstrates the evolving positive relations between Catholics and Jews,” Greenberg said. “Rabbi Rudin well deserves this historic, international honor.”
So-called “inter-faith” dialogue between Jews and Christians has always been a one-way street — Jews pretend to be offended and make demands — and the Christians cower and kiss their rings.
At no time in the short history of “inter-faith” dialogue have the Jews ever compromised any of their extremist hatred of Christianity or Christians in general — as far as the Church is concerned, Christianity must apologize to Jews for being Christian.
Jews demand that Christians literally deny Christ’s most foundational teaching in John 14:6,
“Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”
And Christians are commanded in 2 Corinthians 6:14 to have nothing to do with recalcitrant unbelievers — and that certainly includes any “inter-faith” dialogue that always leads to compromise:
“Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?”
And the Catholic Church has all but surrendered under pressure from the Jews and suggested that Jews have some sort of “special dispensation” that allows for their salvation without submitting to Christ.
When Pope Francis declared in 2019 that Christendom no longer exists, he had no one to blame but himself — by his actions, by his fruits we know him — and Francis is in bed with the fruits.
Note how the Church also bestowed a knighthood on Jewish billionaire Walter Annenberg whose family first gained their wealth from organized crime in Chicago by controlling the sports betting wire — which landed Walter’s father in Federal prison for tax evasion.
And then Walter Annenberg further enriched his family’s coffers by publishing TV Guide — which aided and abetted the mainlining of every American home with Jewish “values” through the Judaizing medium of television.
As Catholic priest, Fr. Leonard Feeney once observed,
“Having a television in your home is like having a Jew in your living room.”
It is this kind of relentless degradation of Christian values that the Church rewards with a knighthood — and allows the Pope to declare the demise of Christendom.
i dont know if you have seen this but years ago german supermarket Lidl removed crosses from a greek christian church on their packaging of greek style products their excuse it offends ethic minorities so on twitter i asked some muslims if they would take offence to the christian crosses their answer they are not offended and were disgusted by what lidl did so lidl was using some bs excuse
https://premierchristian.news/en/news/article/lidl-admits-error-over-cross-removal-and-commits-to-changing-it
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4850486/Lidl-removes-cross-food-avoid-offending-others.html
https://greekcitytimes.com/2017/09/02/lidl-supermarket-removes-religious-cross-food-packaging/
https://orthochristian.com/106249.html
https://www.christian.org.uk/news/lidl-airbrushes-christian-cross-food-packaging/
final note would lidl dare to airbrush out islamic symbols on islamic muslim buildings
Iran Fake opposition.the Saborjhian family changed its name to Ahmadinejad.
About name Sabourjhian information can not be seen in wikipedia in Farsi, just in English, French and German. This is important because Saborjhian is a Jewish family name.
https://themuslimissue2.wordpress.com/2012/08/27/iran-ahmedejinn-the-promoter-of-antisemitism-and-persecution-of-jews-is-a-jew-himself/
https://i.imgur.com/8r54uFV.jpg
Ahmadinejad with Rabbi’s
https://i.imgur.com/S9O0UJX.jpg
Ahmadinejad President Iran
https://i.imgur.com/ehkxcAp.jpg
Prediction: The next Pope after Francis will be Black.
The head of the Jesuit order is often referred to as the “Black Pope”….the hidden hand behind nominal Pope.
Others believe that the final Pope at the End Times will be black:
https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/black-pope-says-there-is-a-plan-to-have-pope-francis-resign
I totally agree with CFT there. Most Catholics behave like the Jews with their “Chosenite” Ideology. Just because the Church was started by the Lord, appears to give the illusion that its still fine, no matter what appears to be happening to it. But as a Catholic I am not deluded. For the Catholic Church reminds me of the warning by Prophet Jeremiah, where the Lord warns;
“Steal, would you, murder, commit adultery, perjure yourselves, burn incense to Baal, follow other gods of whom you know nothing? – and then come and stand before me in this Temple that bears my name, saying: Now we are safe to go on doing all these loathsome things! Do you look on this Temple that bears my name as a den of bandits? I, at any rate, can see straight, Yahweh declares. “Now go to the place which used to be mine at Shiloh, where I once gave my name a home; see what I have done to it because of the wickedness of my people Israel!” Jeremiah 7:9-12
So, it is the same with the Catholic Church. “Catholicism” in which the priests and the people have become the tools for the enemy is just as meaningless as “The Temple Of The Lord” in which crime thrives.
“improve Jewish-Christian relations” is the fundamental reorientation of the Catholic Church and faith into becoming a tool for the Jewish World Power. The fact that this has been going on without most Catholics unaware of the harm done to their faith, is the prove of the stupendous power accruing from keeping that masses ignorance. Keep them ignorant, and you can mould them into anything. Keep them Ignorant and hungry, and you have slave. The Jews must be astonished as to just how easily they have accomplished their goals-or so-they think.
The Bear:
The Catholic Church was not “started by the Lord” as you and all Catholics contend. That is demonstrably false. That contention is based on a false and self-justifying reading of Matthew 16:17-19…
Christ was referring here to Himself as the foundation of the spiritual ekklesia, not Peter. Peter is referred to as a stone that is merely part of the ekklesia. The so-called “third Temple” or ekklesia that Jews believe in is actually built on the collective of believing Christians. It is not a brick and mortar literal entity. It is spiritual.
And if Christ founded the Catholic Church then and there, why did it take 400 more years for the Church to actually be established? And where in the Gospels is there a mention of a Pope? It’s silly to suggest any such thing.
I have no problem with Catholics who say, “We believe our faith is inspired by God”, if you need to believe that, but don’t try to make the false pretense that it was established literally in the Gospels. Eastern Orthodox Christians, at least, figured that one out.
Believing in Christ does not need false readings of the Gospels to support it or justify it, and if Catholics would just stick to what the scriptures actually say, you’d be much better off. I say this as someone who comes from a Catholic family.
And lest us not forget that Jesus called Peter Satan.
Mark, let me first thank CFT for again highlighting the talmudic ANTI-Pope.Jorge (stage-named “Francis”). http://judaism.is/jorge.html He the other post-Vatican 2 papal imposters profess a corrupted simulacrum of Catholicism—an incontrovertible fact evident on comparing the Judeo-Luciferian dogmas of the “Novus Ordo” (“New Order” as the Vatican 2 sect styles itself) with the preceding two millennia of unchangeable de fide Magisterium. http://judaism.is/new-order-of-pharisees.html The saddest fact is that the tepidity and studied ignorance of nominal Catholics has earned this punishment, a string of ANTI-Popes, marrano politicians, heresies, perverts, and heteropraxis.
In better times, Catholic peasants with pitchforks, scythes, and HAMMERS(!), would long ago have purged the Church of these monsters.
Satan and his Synagogue have always fought God, good reason to question the “newness” of the “Novus Ordo.” The Renaissance, a re-birth of paganism (including attempts to “baptize” Kaballah and usury) allowed infiltration of the Catholic hierarchy, softening the Church for the nearly fatal blow at the fake council. Vatican 2 was CONVENED by an ANTI-Pope, the Freemason Roncalli (an automatic excommunication under the ruling Cannon Law) and PROMULGATED by another heretic (earning automatic excommunication under the 1559 A.D. papal bull Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio), ANTI-Pope and sodomite Montini, so that “council” is null and void, including the damnable Nostra aetate. As you’d expect, Satan’s Synagogue figured infamously in the subversion at Vatican 2: https://judaism.is/dishonorable-mentions.html#malachimartin
So, again, thanks to CFT for spotlighting the evil ANTI-Pope before an audience that too reflexively call him “Pope.”
My due and sincere thanks to CFT presented, I now turn to your incompetent exegesis, Mark. Your vehemence is spent by the weakness of your common error, an error that I have addressed in detail here: https://judaism.is/private-interpretation.html
The short version: Bible Deniers are truly the self-justifiers. They commonly use two anti-Biblical stratagems to deny the papacy:
(1) They pretend that Jesus meant to found a Church on a stone at His feet. This is contradicted by the Greek etymology: “Cephas” (rock) is usually a feminine form in Greek, but the Scriptures use the masculine form, so is a reference to a man, the man that Jesus re-named and Himself called “Cephas.”
(2) When their etymological error is exposed, the self-justifiers, little Popes of their own one-man invisible “churches,” resort to the claim that Jesus was referring to Himself, but Jesus Himself at John 1:42 explicitly calls Simon Peter “Cephas”:
“And he brought him to Jesus. And Jesus looking upon him, said: Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter.” John 1:42
Further, St. Paul refers to St. Peter as “Cephas” 7 times: 1 Corinthians 1:12, 3:22, 9:5 15:5; Galatians 2:9, 2:11, 2:14.
Sorry, an auto-spell typo. Should be “Canon Law.”
Al Liguori
“…in his life St. John submitted to 4 popes (St. Peter, St. Linus, St. Anacletus, St. Clement I) without one word against them. …”
With the exclusion of the Apostle Peter, what documentation do you have that the Apostle John “submitted” to Linus, Anacletus and Clement?
In regards to Peter, what does it mean when you say John “submitted” to Peter? Where in the NT is this implied?
In all transparency, I hardly know anything about the Catholic Church.
I did spend time once studying the earliest of writings (so called Church Fathers) and in my opinion, I was not impressed.
But I am always open to learning more.
For clarification ………………….. I am a partial preterist in the sense that I believe many of the apparent future prophecies of the Bible (especially the NT) have dual fulfillment and have already happened
So, take for example the “Falling Away”. I believe a “falling away” happened during the time of the Apostles. Paul’s writings attest to this fact.
But I also believe the “Great Falling away” has been fulfilled in this or our lifetime. Probably starting in the 20th Century. So this is why I say I am not impressed with the so called “Church Fathers”. I believe they are a part of the “Falling Away” that happened in the first Century. I.E., getting away from the teachings of Jesus and His Apostles.
Not to get off topic ……………………..
I would be very interested if you had documentation proving the above quote regarding John sumitting to so called future “Popes”.
I did a quick check on Linus. Did he write anything? I did a quick search and didn’t find anything.
Thanks.
Peter is not called “Cephas” in Matthew 16:18…but he is elsewhere….
Matthew 16:18 Christ calls Peter “petros” in the Greek (Strong’s 4074), “(masculine) properly, a stone (pebble), such as a small rock found along a pathway”
Christ then refers to the foundational stone as “petros” (Strong’s 4073) in Greek, “(feminine) a mass of connected rock,” which is distinct from 4074 (Pétros)
So the “mass of connected rock” is the “ekklesia”, which is made up of the little rocks of believers, the “petros”, like Peter.
Many persuasively contend that the Book of Matthew, however, was originally written in Hebrew/Aramaic and translated into Greek early on, so focusing on the meaning of the Greek words to justify the Catholic Church may, in fact, be academic and/or pointless.
http://judaism.is/images/matthew%2016-18%20greek.jpg?crc=59496594
Al, all you’re proving is your own self-justifying definitions, your own “private interpretation” that someone in the early Church made up for the first time most likely around 400 AD to try to justify the foundation of the Catholic Church as ordained by Christ Himself.
As I’ve said, Matthew was likely written originally in Hebrew so your interpretation is a moot point anyway.
According to John 8:17 you need two witnesses to prove your doctrine, “It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true.”
Where is the second witness that Peter is the foundation of the Catholic Church? There’s enough ambiguity in Matthew 16:18 to require another witness to confirm that your interpretation of this one verse is true. Where’s your other witness? Peter himself doesn’t ever make that claim, nor any of the other apostles. Strange for such an important issue….
It’s also strange that Christ would choose Peter to be the foundation of his “church” considering Peter denied Christ three times, and Christ rebuked him as opposing Him, calling him “Satan”. Some might argue this is proof that the Church was “satanic” from the beginning, founding itself on the most antagonistic of the apostles, the one who clung to the nullified traditions of patriarchs.
We know that “ekklesia” does not in any way literally mean the Catholic Church, nor could it because it didn’t exist at the time of Matthew’s gospel. “Ekkesia” in this context means an assembly of believers, the “called out ones”, as when any two believers come together in the name of Christ, the “the mystical body of Christ.”
The “church” as you use it, on the other hand, comes from the Greek word “kyriakos”, not from “ekklesia”.
That said, I do sympathize with your view, and the view of many traditional Catholics that we need a unified body of Christ to protect the faith and faithful against our enemies, the Jews. We don’t have that unity because of corruption in the Catholic Church — and they have no one to blame but themselves. And trying to re-establish an uncorrupted Church free of Jewish subversion at the highest levels at this point is futile, an example of trying to put new wine in old wineskins (Mark 2:22).
Your own website, your “ekklesia” of like-minded Christians, is far more effective than the Catholic Church will ever be going forward.
Sad… and yet also hilarious, Mark
No Apostles taught your “no papacy” doctrine.
No Disciples taught your “no papacy” doctrine.
No Fathers taught your “no papacy” doctrine.
No Christian taught your “no papacy” doctrine for 1500 years.
No, quite the contrary. Every single Apostle walked with Jesus face-to-face for 3 years and ALL of them deferred to Peter AND his successors during their lifetimes. All but St. John were martyred. Those men willingly died rather than defect from Jesus’ teachings. It is only YOUR self-justification that requires that such men would be accomplice to some great defection from Jesus’ teaching about the Church and the papacy. In his life St. John submitted to 4 popes (St. Peter, St. Linus, St. Anacletus, St. Clement I) without one word against them. St. Clement’s letter in about 95 A.D. exercised his papal authority against a troublesome faction in Corinth. The Corinthian Christians, like the Apostles, respected and obeyed papal authority then and after. Your primacy of the individual and private interpretation is just a reprise of Genesis 3:5—”that you shall be as gods”—the ULTIMATE SELF-JUSTIFICATION.
Truly, it is beyond arrogance for you to pretend 2,000 years after Pentecost that you know better than those who walked and were instructed, sanctified, and empowered face-to-face by Jesus, It is all the more offensive that you DEFY the scriptural evidence that St. Peter had primacy over the other Apostles.
• St. Peter is mentioned 161 times in Scripture, more than any other Apostle.
• St. Peter was the spokesman for the Apostles. Matthew 19:27, Acts 1:15, 2:14
• St. Peter led the flock at the birth of the Church on Pentecost. Acts 2:14
• The Apostles were referred to as “Peter and they that were with him” Luke 9:32, “Peter and …the rest of the Apostles” Acts 2:37, and “Peter and the apostles.” Acts 5:29
• St. Peter was given the authority to forgive sins before the rest of the apostles. Matthew 16:18
• St. Peter was always named first, even “the first,” when the apostles were listed. Matthew 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13
• St. John ran ahead of St. Peter to the tomb but upon arriving he stopped and did not go in. St. John waited in deference to St. Peter, and let St. Peter go in first. John 20:4-6
• St. Peter alone of the Apostles stepped out of the boat in the middle of the storm, even though they were all afraid they would die in the storm. Matthew 14:29
• Our Lord commissioned St. Peter to “feed my lambs…tend my sheep… feed my sheep.” John 21:15-17 Our Lord had promised the spiritual supremacy to St. Peter at Matthew 16:19; and here in John 21:15-17 Jesus fulfilled that promise, by charging him with the superintendency of all his sheep, without exception; and consequently of his whole flock, that is, of his one and only Church.
• “Simon, Simon! Remember Satan has asked for you [plural in the original Greek], to sift you all like wheat. But I have prayed for you [singular in the original Greek, hence Peter alone] that your faith may never fail. You [singular in the original Greek, hence Peter alone] in turn must strengthen your brothers.” Luke 22:31-32
“Hebrew”? Pfffft! • http://judaism.is/hebrew-bible.html
Al, again, everything you’ve listed here about Peter is merely your spin on its meaning. No specific verses corroborate your contention that Peter was designated by Christ to be the leader of some organized Church in Matthew. No need to get angry about it. Catholics need to stop being so condescending toward those who trust themselves to study the word of God directly.
I get it. It’s the “tradition” of the Church which is its own justification. Tradition as authority. Jews say the same thing about tradition. Tradition of the elders, which Christ rebuked. No wonder the priests didn’t want anyone else reading the Bible – because they’d see it’s all smoke and mirrors. God forbid that a Christian cuts out some parasitic middlemen and have a direct relationship with Christ without having to support this bloated bureaucracy.
You would do well to spend more time defending Christ than the Pope or the Church. Peter is just one of the apostles, and Christ is the foundation of any congregation, and the idea that a Christian needs to be a Catholic to enter the kingdom of Heaven, if not he’ll “burn in hell”, or that the Church is the “new Israel”, is pure chutzpah. It is this chutzpah that has led to its break up, Blame the “Protestants” all you want, but never blame yourselves.
I have a couple old friends who are older Catholic priests. And one of them was honest enough with me to admit that the scriptures do NOT necessarily support the Church’s dogma, and that I was probably right about what the scripture actually says, but he said he chose to believe the dogma anyway. I can respect that view because at least he’s honest and objective about it. And he isn’t the only one.
The genie is out of the bottle, the cow is out of the barn, and it’s too late to try to put all Christians back in the Catholic bottle/barn.
It will never happen.
And it’s a fool’s errand to try to do it.
Accepting this reality is the key to whatever awakened remnant is left of the Church to move forward.
They need to stop denigrating non-Catholics and work with those Christians who recognize our common enemy as a united front.
Non-Catholic white Christians are not your enemy, they are potential allies.
Catholicism in white nations is dying, churches are closing every year, the fire and brimstone threats have fallen on deaf ears.
The only growth for Catholics is in the superstitious third world where it doesn’t matter.
The Catholic Church needs whites to survive, not blacks, browns and yellows.
Time to focus on what we have in common, Christ and the survival of true Israel, and put aside our differences.
Al…..I’m trying to investigate that site you sent us to…..Judaism.is but to no avail. Where can I find this info. Is it related to SSPV?
Mark,
I know that there are many of us, who because of bitterness and anger at what the Jews have done to all religions, would wish to dismiss everything which is even remotely associated with the Jews. Problem is, that is exactly what they want. Don’t be enticed with anger into dismissing your faith, because it has been Judaised. Like the Fisherman and the Dragnet, sort out what is Jewish and what is the Lord’s, and keep what is the Lords.
First off. I do not wish to argue with you about the fact that the Catholic Church was started by the Lord Himself. Doubt as you may. Its an opinion, and you are entitled to one.
You say, “Christ was referring here to Himself as the foundation of the spiritual ekklesia, not Peter”
I agree. Those who believe in The Lord, Catholics included are not called “Peterians” Nor are they call “Papians” They are called after He who called them “Christians” “Catholic” is just a name meaning Universal. So it’s contradictory to claim that you are a Christian, but not a Catholic. Its like claiming that you are a Man, but not a Human Being.
You says; “The so-called “third Temple” or ekklesia that Jews believe in is actually built on the collective of believing Christians. It is not a brick and mortar literal entity. It is spiritual.”
I agree.
You ask; “And if Christ founded the Catholic Church then and there, why did it take 400 more years for the Church to actually be established?”
I say; When The Christ gave the parable of “Mustard Seed” He was referring to Himself. And just as the Mustard Seed takes time to grow, His followers would also take time to multiply.
You ask; “And where in the Gospels is there a mention of a Pope? It’s silly to suggest any such thing.”
I say; Nowhere. There is the Administrative Arm of The Church, and there if the Spiritual Arm of the Church. Names and titled of the Administrators do not matter. The Christians are free to come up with them. It was not The Lord, in person who told them directly to come up with titles such as Deacon, or Bishops either.
You say; “Believing in Christ does not need false readings of the Gospels to support it or justify it, and if Catholics would just stick to what the scriptures actually say, you’d be much better off”
I agree. The fact is, false teachers and false prophets are to be found all over. It is not surprising that even in the Catholic Church, they are there. I read the Bible by myself, and I understand its plain message. We all have to watch out. The Wheat and the darnel grow together. It the Lord who will sort them out. Blessing.
Mark….which version of the Bible are you referring to? Remember, the Bible was Judiazed with the publication of the Schofield Bible.
from my channel an example of fake christians and subversives look at what they promote https://www.bitchute.com/video/yc12Upq2V9co/
Anti-Pope Francis you meen.
https://vaticancatholic.com/anti-pope-francis-vatican-ii-antipopes/
Ulrich……
Doesn’t saying “anti-Pope” give legitimacy to a “Pope”? And what is a “Pope”? Where in the Scriptures is a “Pope” defined and how does one become one.
Very curious.
The article was discussing the Catholic Church and the Pope.
If you would like to discuss the scriptures and Christianity, I would first suggest you read this book exposing Paul as the murderer of Jesus’s half brother James, and how Paul highjacked Christianity from the beginning. Paul was still working at that time for the corrupt high priest Ananus.
https://www.amazon.com/Joseph-Arimathea-Jesus-Robert-Nelson/dp/1514226596
Which scriptures are you referring to anyway? The King James Bible, edited by Freemason King James?
If you want to read Jesus’ real teachings, go and read the Gospel of Thomas, conveniently left out of the Bible. I hope that you will be able to understand it. How many other books did they intentionally leave out of the Bible? How much of the full picture are you missing?
There was always an uneasy alliance between the Holy Roman Empire and the Papacy. The Vatican even murdered Dagobert in 639. To understand this murder you first need to understand the bloodline of the Holy Roman Emporers and why the Papacy was jealous of them. I could tell you the bloodline, but i don’t think it would sit very well with you.
Here is a hint at 3:10:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Q59m4nf8wlw
Now do you understand why the Holy Roman Empire and Germany has been continually targeted for destruction? Or is it not sinking in yet? Do you get it???
I would also suggest looking into why the Cathars were eliminated. The REAL reason.
Don’t try and play games with me. We’re not on the same level.
Ulrik, don’t you think everyone here already knows all this garbage you bring up? Don’t you think it’s all been already debunked here? You’re wasting everyone’s time. You are not as smart as you think you are, and you’ve already proven that over and over again.
You are doing the work of the Jews, and much of your material is endorsed by anti-Christ Jews. Well done.
And stop referring to the apocrypha, like the book of Thomas. Those book are not in the Bible for a reason, not political reasons, but factual and historical reasons, but you are too inexperienced with the material not to know why. You’re interested in only material that supports your anti-biblical stance, confirmation bias. Take it somewhere else. Read why Thomas was excluded:
https://crossexamined.org/why-the-gospel-of-thomas-isnt-in-the-bible/
Paul didn’t murder Jesus’ half-brother, the Bible says no such thing, but people have misread it to think so because they want to believe it. That’s another often repeated lie by Paul bashers and Jews. Listen to someone who actually knows something about the Bible, unlike yourself:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hz0vfqBhztk
CFT, I’m confused by that video. While I don’t subscribe to the notion that Paul killed James, the video doesn’t seem to disprove it, it labels the accounts of it as Dickensian fictions inspired by real events, but then seems to build a case supporting that notion, which includes considering that Simon Magus = Paul, and that Paul is plausibly “the antichrist”. Then it delves into some really off the wall theories, and islamobabble.
RB, the point of the video is that all the accounts of the “murder” of James at the Temple come from extra-biblical sources, with many different contradicting claims. Those who try to discredit Paul claim he was the one guilty of the act. Nowhere in the NT does it say any such thing. It’s all pure conjecture.
A comment posted some years ago on a British blog by ‘Ivan M’, a Jew who converted to Christianity: ‘If you’re a Christian and you’re not anti-Semitic, you’re not doing it right.’
If you’re a Christian and you’re not anti-Semitic, you’re not doing it right. “?
Well, I must being doing something right; cause I hate Jews with my whole being. My Saviour says they are of their father the devil; I agree 100 percent.
This reminds me, is it significant that Christ’s opposition, the high priests; elders; and scribes, labeled themselves descendants of Abraham (John 8:33)?
Seems to me that they would know that they’d need to be Israelites to hold their position by right. It sticks out to me as the woman at the well (John 4:12) refers to herself as being descended from Jacob.