You're taking translational variations of the Greek Ioudaios and exapnding it into a false distinction. A Red Delicious and a Granny Smith may be different but they're both still apples. Neither is an orange, which is what you're trying to claim.

You're also badly condensing an argument first presented by Bruce Malina without giving him any credit for his hard work. Not cool.

Likewise a Mass given in 500 AD was radically differnent from the High Mass of today, but it was still Christian and Catholic. It wasn't a different religion just because one is older than the other.

Remember when this topic was about the Embassy in Iraq? Me neither. Sorry DefendTruth Looks like the US Embassy isn't the only place that needs better security to keep the raving crazies out.

Matty crashed your topic for his Jew-bashing because nobody cares about the ones he starts. You aren't his first victim and you won't be his last.

Radically different? No. Nevertheless, the Mass was codified by Pope Pius V on July 14, 1570
www.youtube.com/watch and also (mhfm) www.youtube.com/watch

About Ioudaios, give me a link of the first usage becasue it's not in the Bible. Where & when it came into existence. Take the opposite then; Jews were so bad that the word became synonymous with Cheat. ...

Bruce Malina? I don't know him. I know the Dimond Brothers. Two saintly monks of God.

Well, yeah, actually. The Mass has evolved over time just as can be expected. So has The Church. So has Judaism. So have the languages used by both. But an earlier form of a religion is still the same religion.

"About Ioudaios, give me a link of the first usage becasue it's not in the Bible."

"...becasue it's not in the Bible." (your words)

www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm

Oh dear. Now that's gotta hurt. ;-)

"There is not a single occurrence of the word Jew in the Bible"

...and using that line of reasoning, there isn't a single occurance of the word "Judean" or "Judah" in the Bible either. Both "Jew" and "Judean" are English derivations, the latter ultimately stemming from the Aramaic. "Yĕhuwd".

www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm

Calling Jesus' human ancestors "Judeans" instead of "Jews" might be nice piece of politically correct linguistic revisionism but it doesn't change their race or their culture or their faith.

They were Jews and the ancestors of the same Tallit-wearing folks who trigger Matty's destructive litttle topic-tantrums.

The "American Indians" weren't a separate ethnic group from the "Native Americans". A Pachamama "idol" isn't a different object from a Pachamama "statuette".

Ioudaios (transliteration) means Judeans.
... www.holytextures.com/…/its-judeans-not… Is jewry a tribe?

Strongs is protestant. KJV is protestant.

John: Matthew 3:7
And seeing many of the Pharisees and Sadduceescoming to his baptism, he said to them: Ye brood of vipers, who hath shewed you to flee from the wrath to come?
Christ: Matthew 23:33
You serpents, generation of vipers, how will you flee from the judgment of hell?

In Jewry, their most sacred book is the Talmud. Mary never read the Talmud nor any other false text...

Apart from the written Talmud, they had their tradition Mark 7:4. Just like vatican II.

"Strongs is protestant. KJV is protestant."

Strong's Concordance is also one of the most definitive ever produced. Your Fallacy Is: Genetic (pic related).

As a reference source it's unquestionably mor reliable than a blog entry summarizing a research paper from Bruce Malina.

Try again.

Worth noting in Matthew 3:7... Jesus criticized many of the Pharisees and Sadducees, but He did not criticize all of them. "Many of" is not "all of". This shows He recognized some present were, in fact good.

Further "many of" two Jewish sects is not "all of" those sects nor do just two sects represent all Jews. Essentially you're making a fallacy of Composition.

Hyperbole and ad hominem aren't helping your case, Pattfm .

The word Ioudaios was in the bible long before a Protestant catalogued its appearance.

You made a bold claim "...becasue it's not in the Bible." (your words)

and you just got BTFO, simple as that.

Ioudaios is a transliteration not a translation. Ioudaios means Judean.
I wasn't paying attention to the Greek: Iουδαiος because Ioudaios is only a transliteration into latin.

Translations
Greek Bible: Iουδαiος
Latin Bible: Judææ

"There is not a single occurrence of the word Jew in the Bible :) Jew means cheat :)" --- @Pattfm

"You're taking translational variations of the Greek Ioudaios" --- @Ultraviolet.

Ioudaios is not a translation.

The form, matter, ministers and intention of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass remained unchanged till Vatican II.

"Ioudaios is not a translation."

"Judean" (or Jewish) however is precisely that, and that's what you based your argument upon.

And what a concession this is from "because it's not in the Bible", eh? From "not in the bible" now it's you're trying to argue what the word actually is -in the Bible.

"The form, matter, ministers and intention of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass remained unchanged till Vatican II."

Since we're at this level of nit-picking, please show where Christ read from the Gospels during the first Mass celebrated. :D

Fairly certain He didn't celebrated in Latin, either. Even after His death, for nearly the first two centuries early Masses were celebrated in Greek, not Latin.

Been a whole lotta other changes between AD 33 and AD 1570. ;-)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Tridentine_Mass

Every Sacrament has a form, matter, intention and ministers. You simply don't understand what the form of the Mass is. The codification came in time by the will of God for eternity; that anyone that would say the Holy Mass differently will incur the wrath of God.

Jesus need not read from any book because He is truth.

We have Bible translations and not transliteration. Ioudaios is a transliteration.
Ioudaios means Judean because jewry is not a tribe but a sect that rejects God.

Things like the skin color of the Priest or the region is neither part of the form nor the matter.

Quo Primum
"...Therefore, no one whosoever is permitted to alter this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition. Would anyone, however, presume to commit such an act, he should know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul."

"You simply don't understand what the form of the Mass is."

I understand the form changed which contradicts the claim you made. ;-)

"The codification came in time by the will of God for eternity;"

After Jesus' original instructions at the Last Supper, please show where God directly stated His will on how Mass was to be codified. ;-)

If you can't, don't put words in His mouth.

"Jesus need not read from any book because He is truth."

Agreed.

Meaning, the Mass itself has changed since its institution and that contradicts the claim you made. Broad generalizations are dangerous, amigo. They sound very authoritative but leave you wide open to getting blind-sided like this.

Probably also explains the silence about the fact the language went from Greek to Latin, or that huge-ola chart of other changes that happened over the years. ;-)

"We have Bible translations and not transliteration. Ioudaios is a transliteration."

...and the translation of it is is either Judean or Jew.

You're not making a claim about which letters go from Hebrew/ Greek into English. You're arguing what the word means. When a translator chooses to use Judean or Jew, those are translational variations. Lately, political correctness is prompting a fashionable change towards the former, but that doesn't change the people being described.

See my earlier point about Native Americans and American Indians.

"...because jewry is not a tribe but a sect that rejects God."

That's an artificial distinction made by Christian anti-Semites to reconcile their hatred of Jews with the fact Jesus was born, raised, and lived as a Jew.

Jewry can apply to both the religious group and the ethnicity.

A Christian Jew is still a Jew ethnically and, as history has shown, that's how anti-Semites treat them. St. Teresia Benedicta a Cruce was martyred for just this reason.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edith_Stein

"Things like the skin color of the Priest or the region is neither part of the form nor the matter."

Didn't say they were. Strawman argument.

How the Mass is conducted, what prayers are said (or not said) definitely are part of its form. Even today we have Low Mass and High Mass which are two separate forms of the same Latin Mass.

"And you speak as if..."

"as if" is not what I did, in fact, say. Everything after "as if" is what YOU are saying, nothing more. Tacit strawman argument.

Me: "You simply don't understand what the form of the Mass is."
You: I understand the form changed which contradicts the claim you made. ;-)
Me: Stupidity.

Me: "The codification came in time by the will of God for eternity;"
You: After Jesus' original instructions at the Last Supper, please show where God directly stated His will on how Mass was to be codified. ;-)
Me: Matthew 16:19

If 'Semite' means "A descendant of the biblical Patriarch Sem."
then Genesis 9:19. If Christian anti semitism means punishing pedophiles, then
1 Peter 2:14.

You: If you can't, don't put words in His mouth.
Me: Luke 10:16

Me: Jesus is truth
You: Agreed.
Me: Some priest can say the Holy Mass off book; and they do in captivity like one I know in history.

Teresia Benedicta. If she died a Jew, then she is eternally lost. If she was killed for promoting witchcraft/jewry, then she is in Hell. But if she was a Catholic and like Our Lady, does not like the holodomorinfo.com by the Jews, and was killed, then she was Martyred for the Christian Faith.

You: ..from Greek to Latin
Me: Because translations are found in the Bible and not transliteration. Jewry has nothing to do with the tribe of Juda.

You: ...Translational Variations...
Me: Translational Variations have little to do with Catholicism. The Latin Vulgate was canonized by the Council of Trent. That is a Translational constant.

Me: Jesus was born, raised, and lived as a Jew. Jesus was born, raised, and lived as a Judean for He is the Lion of the Tribe of Juda from the Land of Juda (Rev. 5:5). Jews are wicked sects (Formally Pharisees and Sadducees by name Matt. 3:7, Matt. 23:33) who rejects God.

"Me: Stupidity."

If you want to make a self-indictment like that, who am I to judge? :D

"Me: Matthew 16:19"

... is the basis for priests' ability to forgive sins. Says absolutely ZERO about how the Mass should be conducted. Your Fallacy Is: Red Herring.

"You: ...from Greek to Latin"

Please quote me directly without these abstract and misleading "summaries" of what I originally said.

If you can take the time to type out every "You:... Me:..." and then bold each one, you can just as easily cut 'n paste and italicize my original statement without altering it to suit your purpose. You were quoting me directly before, Pattfm . Please resume doing so.

It's not only a "strawman argument", but one that's been so over-simplified, it's at the point of pointless abstractiton

"Me: Because translations are found in the Bible and not transliteration."

...and, amusingly enough, your rebuttal is factually wrong as well! :D There are numerous transliterations in the Bible.

www.rebuildingthefoundations.org/bible-transliteration.html

davidbcapes.com/…/avoiding-transl…

If we really want to split hairs, technically those are transliterations found in translations of the Bible.

...and ultimately none of your attempted one-upmanship over this topic supports your claim about Judeans not being Jews. This kind of hair-splitting is an absolute blase, but I haven't lost sight of the fact it's ultimately a diversion.

"Jewry has nothing to do with the tribe of Juda."

Wrong. The Tribe of Judah was descended from (obviously) Judah, the fourth son of Jacob and Leah. Judah was one of Jacob's twelve sons. Jacob was the grandson of Abraham and you can't get any more Jewish than that.

"Me: Translational Variations have little to do with Catholicism."

Translational variations have a plenty to do with Catholicsm -as evidenced by none other than yourself.

Let's revisit your earlier complaint, "Strongs is protestant. KJV is protestant." The KJV is a Protestant (wait for it) translation. As opposed to other, non-Protestant, translations.

So, yes, translational variations have everything to do with Catholicism, else you wouldn't have complained about the one I used. ;-)

"The Latin Vulgate was canonized by the Council of Trent. That is a Translational constant."

.The Latin Vulgate is no longer used as an everyday language. English is -and we use the term "Jew".

"Jesus was born, raised, and lived as a Judean for He is the Lion of the Tribe of Juda from the Land of Juda (Rev. 5:5)."

You're conflating Judea with the tribe of Judah and that's wrong. Judea was a country. More precisely, it was a Roman province. Even in Jesus' time there were non-Jews living in Judea. They, too, would be "Judeans".But they weren't Jews, either ethnically Jewish or religiously Jewish, much less ancestrally of the tribe of Judah.

If you want a modern example, a Catholic Latino born in America is American. A Protestant Caucasian born here is also American. However both of those Americans have different ethnicities and religions.

As I mentioned earlier, the Tribe of Judah is directly decended from Abraham who's literally the founding patriarch of Judaism. He's literally the first Jew.

"Jews are wicked sects (Formally Pharisees and Sadducees by name Matt. 3:7, Matt. 23:33) who rejects God."

I've already pointed out the mistake you made in your interpretation of these two passages. Both of your interpretations are Fallacies of Composition.

Repeating your error absent any new supporting evidence, doesn't make it correct. That's a Fallacy of Repetition, ie. Argumentum Ad Nauseam.

Further, both are quotes from John the Baptist and not Jesus.

Even if John The Baptist had been a raving anti-Semite and made Mattsixteen24 look normal by comparison, what of it?

Even saints are fallible and capable of error. Christ Himself rebuked Peter with His famous "Vade retro, satana."

John was just a man and not God. As the noun suggests, Christianity is based on Christ. Not John.

The Gospels do show Jesus was fully capable of making blanket declarations that applied to an entire group of people, both positively and negatively.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatitudes

If Jesus wanted to condemn all Pharisees or all Sadducees or all Jews over their relgion, or their ethnicity, or anything else, He would have done so explicitly and He didn't.

"Christian" anti-Semites are falsely extrapolating a criticism Jesus didn't make from words Jesus didn't say.

"Catholics were the target of those bombings."

No. Neither city was targeted because of its Catholic population.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings…

Thank you, no.

I'll pass on Matty's conspiracy theory youtube videos. When I want stupid and crazy, it should at least be entertaining. You should try a few seasons of the History Channel's "Ancient Aliens". You'll get the same nutty flavor without the bitter-tasting anti-Semitic rot at the center.

"Cath for either Cathedral or Catholic and the word Church are no where to be found on that page with Chrome's powerful search bar :("

I'm not surprised those terms are missing from the wiki page I linked.

That's because neither city was targeted for their religious value to Catholics. Catholics comprise less than one half of one percent of the population in Japan.

Using Firefox's powerful search bar, the words, "wasabi" and "unagi" don't appear either, even though they're definitely Japanese. There are two main possibilities.

a.) condiments and eel-meat had absolutely nothing to do with why those cities were bombed.

b.) Matty's evil JIDF baddies got so enraged at the thought of non-kosher sushi, they edited the page.

Not sure why you're so eager for a response, @Pattfm . While you were waiting, I hope you checked the page on your Rainy Day Fun Activity Pad. None of "the dots" show Israel having any involvement with this embassy attack. Matty just wants to turn someone else's topic into another one of his endless Jew-bashing rants. Again.

Anyway, back on topic, Ron Paul's journalist fails to recognize a huge fortified embassy isn't a symbol of "subjugation", it's a necessity. The US embassy is no different than the equally fortified police stations found in high-crime districts in America. They're outposts of civilization and order in places that see regular mob violence, the media likes to white-wash (pun intended) as "civil protest" by "the disenfranchised/ marginalized".

Without massive defensive architecture, many US police stations would be easily over-run by mobs of rioters. Interestingly, so-called "community leaders," who often instigate these incidents, make the same argument this journalist does. "Smaller, nicer, boutique police stations would make the locals feel more at ease." Not mentioned, of course, is smaller police stations would be much easier targets for the next mob riot.

This article advances the same kind of "solution" for the same essentially bad-faith reason. Ron Paul is an isolationist. This journalistic stoolie at his institute is advocating something guaranteed to fail. When it does, he and his cronies will claim it proves America should withdraw from Iraq entirely. "We've lost control! It's too much for us!"

You're probably too young to remember it (and maybe this journalist is as well), but the same thing ultimately happened during Vietnam. We had already "lost" the war in the American press even when we were still winning it in the jungle.

What's happening in Iraq today happens whenever Muslims aren't kept under strict control. They can't get along with anyone else and they can't get along with each other. Not unless somone is literally holding a gun to their heads the way Saddam did (and other Middle Eastern rulers still do). When that level of control is removed in a Muslim country, this sort of constant tribal mayhem becomes inevitable.

---

By the way @mattsixteen24,, you really should look up the definition of a "shill". Shills are people who constantly promote a single product/ service/ idea. Shills derail topics onto the item they want to promote. For example, trying to take a topic about Iraq and turn it into one about Israel and Jews. That's shilling.

P.S. Everyone who makes a fool out of you isn't Jewish. We're just smarter, that's all. :)