What does Jesus want?

He wants to see Bush out of office for good!
In fact, he threw his sandals at him!

i believe that was Allah not jesus

Jesus was (according to the Christian tradition) the son of Allah.

I assume that Jesus would share his dad's opinion on Bush.

Just a guess, but based on his historical life, he might want Catholicism to drop the word "Roman" in its title. Also, disband the hierarchy in any church denominations that have a hierarchy (especially High Priests), since it was the hierarchical ways of Judaism in His time that made for problems with the Romans, and later with the Christian churches, due to the High Priests deciding to let Barabas go.

He might just give many Christians a failing grade as followers of Himself.

In other words, he would want Jews to see He was still very much Jewish, and annoyed that St. Paul was so successful in his proselytizing to the Gentiles, considering some churches moved so far from the simple lives of the Essenes.

I could go on and on about how many children in the U.S. have Hebrew first names, and other small points, but I doubt readers would be interested.

Hi might want a careful explanation of what the religion Islam is.

Jesus is DEAD so he couldn't possibly want anything.

I suppose I should have asked what would Jesus have wanted for us.

Yes, mismi, my question is sincere, but I can go along with "a quality surfboard" and clips about "figuring it out for ourselves (which I think is probably true) answers too. I'm not Christian and I don't know whether Jesus existed or not but I like his story and I do wonder what he would have wanted for us.

Can you be more ignorant than that?

Where is the archeological/historical evidence that he existed?

This must be American or English history, so it's your speciality, Foofie.

Why just and only the "Roman"? Has Rome got a different name recently?

Why not the Old, the Armenian, the Chaldean, the Syrian, the Malabarese, the Coptic, the Bulgarian, the Greek, the Belorussian, the Ruthenian, ... ?

If you believe that "Jesus," or someone like him actually existed, and that the alleged "testimony" of his teachings as embodied in the "gospels" of the four "evangelists" is even somewhat accurate, then what your boy Jesus wants for us is to find the kingdom of heaven within us, which "kingdom" does not exist anywhere else than in the hearts of all men and women, could they just but find it there.

In the King James version, verses 20 and 21 of chapter 17 of the gospel of Luke:

And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:

Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

It might interest you to learn, Foofie, that the word "Roman" in the name of the so-called Catholic church was added on by Protestants and that most "Roman" Catholics don't use it. They call it simply the Catholic Church. Inasmuch as English is your only language and you have disparaged the use of other languages on other threads, perhaps I'd better explain that the word "catholic" (lower case 'c') simply means universal. Until the Protestant reformation, the Catholic church was the only Christian church in the world., hence 'universal' or 'catholic.' The so-called Holy Inquisition made sure of that, burning any and all heretics (those who disagree with church teachings) at the stake. After Martin Luther's successful attempt to establish a rival church, the Protestants began to refer to the so-called Catholic church as "Roman" Catholic, to differentiate it from their own brand of Christianity which they also considered 'universal' or...Catholic. It was a backhand slap at the fact that the church takes its orders from the Bishop of Rome whom they call the Pope, derived from an Italian diminutive, meaning 'little father' -- il Papa.

The more you post, the more ignorance you demonstrate.

I accept the general tenor of your post... but your claims about the Catholic church are simply wrong.



First, every church claims to be the "original" church. Talk to protestants (even those of Martin Luther's day) and they will assure you that the original Christians believed what they believed until the Catholics came and changed everything. From this perspective it was the Catholics who set up the "rival" church.

Second, there were several Christian organized churches that existed right along with the Catholic church all through their history-- including the Eastern orthodox church and the Coptic Church.

I agree with your point that the tag "Roman" is a slap at one of the specific churches that believe they are the one true church.

But to imply that Catholics have any more of an objective claim to this title than any of the other churches is indefensible.

Well, it certainly is true that not only the Roman Catholic Church but also the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the Anglican Church, and a variety of national and other churches claim to be members of the holy catholic church.

Most - if not all- of those I mentioned above are actually in full communion with the Bishop of Rome, the Pope.

Your claim about protestant of Luther's day is a bit surprising for me - do you have any source for that? (The monastery in Erfurt, where Luther hold his first mass as a Catholic, Roman Catholic, priest still is a monastery, a protestant monastery. And the nuns there ... have the very same rituals as catholic nuns. [Nowadays the "St Augustine's Evangelical Monastery", in Luther's days without the 'Evangelical'.)

[The Augustine, btw, first spoke about the church as "Catholic". But it was St. Vincent of Lérins in his Commonitoria (434) who coined the term first.]


The confusion is in my opinion, because various groups that have been condemned by the Roman Catholic Church as heretical or schismatic never retreated from their own claim to catholicity.

Through his "middleman", the church, mismi. Except that the priest
sometimes forgets to deposit it.

Zing ! ! ! That was a good one, CJ . . .

*********************************************************

To the Christians of the pre-Reformation world, the Christian Church was universal, and therefore catholic. Catholic only becomes "Catholic" with a capital "c" with the Reformation. The Catholic and Orthodox confessions do not differ in matters of theology at all with the single exception of how to calculate the date of Easter--and neither church differs with the other on the matter of the theological significance of Easter.

To this day, in the middle east, you will find Orthodox Maronites, and Maronite Catholics, Syriac Catholics and Orthodox Syriacs--they only differ one from the other with regard to the ecclesiastic authority which they recognize as supreme.

Therefore, for example, the CIA Factbook page on the Lebanon has the following entry under the rubric "Religions""

Walter, what you are saying is from a very "Roman Catholic" centered perspective (and I am using the term "Roman Catholic" to refer to the organization). My point is that it is a matter of perspective.

I can speak with authority from the perspective of the modern Protestant churches I was a part of (although my understanding of what Martin Luther is not based on any expertise).

When I was a religious Protestant, my belief was that the original followers of Jesus were protestants (i.e. they understood God, Jesus and the Bible the way I did). From our perspective we understood that the "Roman Catholic" church had strayed from true Christianity very early in their history.

If by "catholic church" you mean the "one true church".... well everybody from Copts to Baptists to Branch Davidians claim to be members of the "one true church".

Many Christians, particularly Protestants, condemn the "Roman Catholic" church as a heretical or schismatic church that is no longer part of the "catholic" (i.e. one true) church.

But that is just a matter of perspective.

Don't confuse Catholic with catholic.

Since we talk about C/catholic and since Set describe the (non-existing) differences ...

In Walsingham, in north Norfolk, England, is the "Roman Catholic National Shrine of Our Lady". Since 1934, the original shrine was destroyed during the Reformation.

Now,"England's Nazareth" has an even more famous shrine - "The Shrine of Our Lady of Walsingham". Since 1931, Anglican, with the original statue and "a little more". (I've been there a few weeks ago - even many Italian or Mexican shrines look 'virgin' against this Anglican Catholic shrine!)

Then there's an Orthodox shrine within the Anglican building (a seperated chapel) .... and, "of course", a different Catholic Orthodox shrine, on own ground.

For the life of me, i can't understand why a personal, Protestant bigotry on the part of E_brown should be considered definitive for everyone else.

.....for you to be the best possible person you can be.

It is also a laughable logical absurdity to describe the Catholic church as "schismatic" when referring to Protestant sects which only formed having voluntarily split from that church. It only serves to show just how fantastical and stupid religious prejudice can be.