Monday, September 29, 2014


Dr. Stanley Monteith:  1929-2014

I received this sad news from one of our forum [aka "Comments"] participants:  Dr. Stanley Monteith, M.D, a very dear personal friend departed this earth for what I'm sure is a far better place.  Dr. Stanley Monteith (an orthopedic surgeon) lived from February 16, 1929 to September 29th, 2014.  He did his last radio interview with me on August 29th.  That was on his Liberty Broadcasting Network and he promised to reciprocate by coming on my own Saturday morning program "My Perspective" [TheMicroeffect.Com]   Obviously that promised interview is not going to happen.  About a year ago I did a detailed long interview of Dr. Monteith on my program and he shared much of his life story with us.  I'm going to ask Joe McNeill to search his archives for it.  We will all miss Dr. Monteith very much, but we rejoice that God gave us his company for the 85 years he was here.  Rest in peace!


The First Detroit EntheogenicConference website image

Just when I thought it was safe to go back in the Detroit waters, this pops up:

Detroit Entheogenic Conference?  And where else?  At the Unitarian Church in the heart of the Wayne State University area in Detroit.  Now, it appears that this conference, from its advance publicity might be seeking to advance Constitutional rights to use mind-altering substances, such as those Marilyn Ferguson bragged in THE AQUARIAN CONSPIRACY, were "a pass to Xanadu."

A friendly word to the "initiated" -- translate XANADU = HELL.  That indeed is what they are  -- as pass to Hell -- both in the here and in the hereafter!

Quoting Terrence McKenna, one of the long time New Agers I have kept files on:  "If the words 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' don't include the right to experiment with your own consciousness, then the Declaration of Independence isn't worth the hemp it was written on."

From the blog of the Metro Times, Detroit's local counter-cultural paper, we read this about what's coming to Detroit in early November:

For the uninitiated, all things "entheogenic" relate to the use of mind-altering substances in a religious context. The people really into entheogenic substances argue (convincingly, we may add) that humans have been using psychoactive chemicals in rituals for many thousands of years, and that they aid in raising consciousness, transcendental meditation, and vision quests, giving a booster shot to man's search for meaning.
That's certainly what will be up for discussion at this year's inaugural Detroit Entheogenic Conference. There are several such events across the country every year, where presenters discuss such substances as ibogaine, peyote, psilocybin mushrooms, and ayahuasca, and their use for everything from a trip to cloud nine to treating alcoholism. You get the sense that people into this sort of stuff fancy themselves descendants of the ancient apothecary or shaman, the spiritual doctor who uses the magic of the herbal world to heal the body and the mind.
And they wouldn't probably be far from the truth.  . . ."
All things altered-state are the modus operandi and substance of the New Age Movement.  1960's Harvard Professor turned New Age LSD advocate Timothy Leary infamously passed LSD out as a "sacrament."  Many USA theological students went along with his game.

Marilyn Ferguson, a New Age particiant-observer wrote this in her THE AQUARIAN CONSPIRACY about the important role drugs played as an entry point to New Age "consciousness":

The first stage is preliminary, almost happenstance: an eutry
point. In most cases, the entry point can only be identified in
retrospect. Entry can be triggered by anything that shakes up
the old understanding of the world, the old priorities. Sometimes
it IS a token investment, made out of boredom, curiosity,
or desperation-a ten-dollar book, a hundred-dollar mantra, a
university extension course.
For a great many, the trigger has been a spontaneous mystical
or psychic experience, as hard to explain as it is to deny. Or
the intense alternative reality generated by a psychedelic drug.
It is impossible to overestimate the historic role of psychedelics
as an entry point drawing people into other transformative
technologies. For tens of thousands of "left-brained" engineers,
chemists, psychologists, and medical students who
never before understood their more spontaneous, imaginative
right-brained brethren, the drugs were a pass to Xanadu, especially
in the 1960s.
The changes in brain chemistry triggered by psychedelics
cause the familiar world to metamorphose. It gives way to
rapid imagery, unaccustomed depths of visual perception and
hearing, a flood of "new'' knowledge that seems at once very
old, a poignant primal memory. Unlike the mental states produced
by dreaming or drinking, psychedelic awareness is not
fuzzy but many times more intense than normal waking consciousness.
Only through this intensely altered state did some
become fully aware of the role of consciousness in creating their
everyday reality.[1]
Sadly, one cannot help but wonder how many of Detroit's present woes were caused by the 1968 and beyond New Age drug related "pass to Xanadu"?  The last thing we need as our region recovers is "more of the same"!

Stay tuned!


[1]Ferguson, Marilyn.  THE AQUARIAN CONSPIRACY, Tarcher Press, 1980, page 89.

consciousness, then the Declaration of Independence isn't worth the hemp it was written on. 
Comments: 1 – 200 of 206 Newer› Newest»
Among the more well-known ethneogenic shamans was the infamous Carlos Castaneda

Both Castaaneda and Marilyn Ferguson are mentioned in the following essay:

Wouter J. Hanegraaf

"Entheogenic Esotericism" (Wouter J. Hanegraaff, keynote, ContERN 2012)

Correction. The spelling should be "entheogenic" not "ethneogenic."

Of course the Institute of Noetic Sciences is all tuned in to entheogens.

The Promise of Psychedelic Research
by James Fadiman, PhD

ENTHEOGEN (generating the god within)
I had no idea in the seventies that what I was doing was Entheogenic Esotericism
Thank the LORD that He is our all.

Enjoy -

or Tinyurl

~ K ~

Re:I had no idea in the seventies that what I was doing was Entheogenic Esotericism


I think there are a lot of others who had no idea either since the term "entheogen" didn't even exist until 1979 when it was first coined as a replacement for the terms 'psychedelic' and 'hallucinogen.' And those who used such substances for 'recreational' purposes were not necessarily allied to those who used such substances for "religious" purposes.

"Getting stoned" is not the same thing as "getting religion." :-)
I bought a batch of brownies from a bake sale at a Unitarian Church. They were so good, I ate the whole thing. I woke up after four days had passed. The cats were outraged. Is entheogen "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds," or "Wild Wood Weed," (Lyrics: My Brother Bill, Naked on top of the Wind Mill).
Connie, I never received your review of "Iron Sky".
Dear Friends, Dr. Stan Monteith has gone to be with our Lord Jesus Christ today. RIP, Dr. Stan. I just found out.

Thanks for catching my typo on the initial sentence -- I spelled it correctlly in the heading and caption and messed up there. Also, correcting that, I noticed I had also misspelled XANADU as XANDU. So if everybody would refresh their browsers . . .!



It didn't dawn on me that you had also misspelled entheogenic. I was correcting my own spelling error in my comment.

In any case, since "entheogen" (which means "generating the god within") is a neologism to begin with.....cooked up not only to "sanctify" mind-bending drugs formerly labeled "psychedelic" and "hallucinogenic," but also to paper over all the bad press they got during the sixties, I think we can be excused for the little spelling errors which we have since recognized and corrected - unlike those whose bogus "new word" erroneously signifies that drugs are the path to the Beatific Vision. :-)

Entheogenic conference.

Practicing their sorceries.....
I am in shock and mourning over our loss of our dear Dr. Stanley Monteith. I did my last radio program with him only a month ago -- on August 29th. He promised an interview in turn for one of my upcoming shows!

We all loved Dr. Monteith and may he rest in peace! I will do a column on it very, very soon!

IMHO, this "Entheogenic Movement" does rather give new meaning to the recent legalization all over this country of one of the most widely used entheogens - Marijuana - for non-medicinal purposes.
I am also very saddened to learn of Dr. Stanley Monteith's passing.

Here is one of Dr. Monteith's more famous video lectures which wasn't available until December, 2013.

The Forbidden Secret with Dr Stanley Monteith 2007

Dr. Monteith was the first to film Norman Dodd whose chilling talk about the un-American activities of tax exempt foundations I posted on the previous thread.

Exposing the Tax Exempt Foundations - Dr. Stan Monteith

May Dr. Stanley Monteith rest in peace.

@ 11:57 Absolutely Susanna. Give them their vices and let them be deceived to follow blindly.
Dr. Stan's passing is an incredible loss especially to those who love the truth.

I was fortunate to have met Dr. Stan on several occasions and found him to be a very gentle, godly man who was always willing to take time to share his wealth of understanding and insights of issues, events, and people who have and are shaping our world.

Most importantly, Dr. Stan's deep faith in his Lord and Savior Jesus Christ means that he is now in eternity with his Lord.

Dave in CA
First recorded Ebola infection has been diagnosed in the United States

September 30, 2014 post
Above link should read
Dear Dave,

I concur so very much. I'm in mourning over Dr. Stan's passing. He was probably the most loyal friend I had in the Christian community! I did many interviews for him over the years. We first met in the 1980s.

My condolences to you Constance in the loss of a loyal friend and mentor. May the Lord grant comfort and peace in sorrow to all. Makes us so thankful for the Lord's perfect provision for our eternal rest.
My condolences also, Constance.
Pastor Ken Silva of the controversial Apprising Ministries passed away on September 29.
USA Today on the US Ebola case:

On Tuesday, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention confirmed a patient at Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital Dallas was the first person to be diagnosed in the United States with the Ebola virus.

Thomas Eric Duncan had left Liberia on Sept. 19 and arrived in Dallas the following day.

On Sept. 26, he sought treatment at the hospital after becoming ill but was sent back to the northeast Dallas apartment complex where he was staying with a prescription for antibiotics. Duncan's sister, Mai Wureh, said he notified health-care workers that he was visiting from Liberia when they asked for his Social Security number and he told them he didn't have one.

Two days later, he was admitted to the hospital with more critical symptoms, after requiring an ambulance ride.

Duncan, whose condition was upgraded to serious from critical Wednesday, was in contact with at least five children from four schools before he was hospitalized, said Superintendent Mike Miles of Dallas Independent Schools. Each of those children have been kept home from school and are under precautionary monitoring.

Officials: Second person being monitored for Ebola
Sorry Craig,

I just noticed that the link I just posted was the same as yours.

Texas Ebola Patient Thomas Duncan Prayed With Family on Phone Today

Oct 1, 2014
I just watched Dr Monteith's "The Forbidden Secret"
lecture for over an hour.
He was a great teacher and a great man.

I'm reminded how the Book of Enoch says that
all the true believers actually passed away in
the year or two before the flood. When the
flood actually began, there was only the sinners who rejected the Lord left outside the ark, on earth. They clamored around the ark and
begged Noah to let them in, even after he
had shut the doors.

FBI Interested in Texas “Doomsday” Ecologist who said Ebola the Solution to Human Overpopulation

AUSTIN, April 6, 2006 ( – Ebola, a form of hemorrhagic fever in which the internal organs of the victim liquefy, has one of the highest rates of fatality of any known contagious disease at approximately 80-90% and is one of the most contagious diseases known to medical science. It is also high on the list of possible bio-terror weapons of concern to international law enforcement and military security agencies. Tom Clancy’s thriller novel, Rainbow Six describes a group of radical environmentalists that wants to rid the world of people using a modified version of Ebola.

All of which is why the FBI is interested in talking to Texas ecologist and herpetologist, Dr. Eric R. Pianka, who suggested at a meeting of the Texas Academy of Sciences that an airborne version of Ebola that would wipe out 90% of the human population was the solution to the human “overpopulation problem.”

This week, Pianka has been in the Texas media saying that he was not advocating bio-terrorism, but also told the Austin Statesman that he is meeting with local FBI officials in response to complaints that he is advocating biological terrorism.

“Someone has reported me as a terrorist,” he said. “They think I’m forming a cadre of people to release the airborne Ebola virus into the air. That I’m the leader and my students are the followers.”

On the day he was named by the Academy as 2006 Distinguished Texas Scientist, Pianka declared that AIDS was not killing off the surplus human population fast enough. What is needed, he said, is Ebola to kill 5.8 billion of the world’s 6 billion plus humans. The speech received a prolonged standing ovation at the Academy’s annual meeting at Lamar University in Beaumont.

The Seguin Gazette quotes Pianka saying, “Every one of you who gets to survive has to bury nine.”Â

”[Disease] will control the scourge of humanity,” Pianka said in his March 3 speech. “We’re looking forward to a huge collapse.” He said, “We’ve grown fat, apathetic and miserable,” and described the world as a “fat, human biomass.”

The syllabus for one of Pianka’s courses reads, “Although [Ebola Zaire] Kills 9 out of 10 people, outbreaks have so far been unable to become epidemics because they are currently spread only by direct physical contact with infected blood…Ebola Reston, is airborne, and it is only a matter of time until Ebola Zaire evolves the capacity to be airborne.”

The speech was first reported by popular science and computer writer, Forrest Mims III on the website of the Citizen Scientist. Mims said he was concerned that in this age of international security tensions, “fertile young minds,” might take Pianka’s assertions as suggestions.

One class evaluation for one of Pianka’s courses shows the enthusiasm with which his ideas are received by ‘fertile young minds. Two quoted by the Seguin Gazette read, “the most incredible class I ever had” and “Pianka is a GOD!”

After the talk, student blogger, Brenna McConnell, who attended the Academy talk wrote, “He’s basically advocating for the death for all but 10 percent of the current population. And at the risk of sounding just as radical, I think he’s right.”

To the possibility that someone would actually go with the idea, Pianka said, “Good terrorists would be taking [Ebola Reston and Ebola Zaire] so that they had microbes they could let loose on the Earth that would kill 90 percent of people.”

Read previous coverage:
Texas “Doomsday Ecologist” Calls for 90% of Humans to be Wiped out with Ebola Virus

Read a transcript of Pianka’s March 3 talk:
Good find Christine.

Have you guys heard the latest on the creepy "GEORGIA GUIDESTONES?"

It ties right in with the Life-Site article Christine posted - especially as it pertains to the Georgia Guideline's "first commandment" on population control ( "culling the herd?").

Strange New “2014” Addition to the Georgia Guidestones (Updated)



The book of Enoch is a fraud. Yes, there is a quote from Jude and another somewhere that I can't recall right now. Just because one or two quotes were used, doesn't mean the book is biblical or inspired by God.

It is loaded with new age junk.
well, hardly new age I have read it and there is nothing pantheistic or about chanelling or altering your states of consciousness in it.

my guess is, that parts of it are legitimate and parts are not, complicating this is the fact that there are two or three books with this name, only one is the ancient book. It was one of the books held in high esteem by many Jews, so such in it as is worthy was put to use.

The deuterocanonicals also played a role in the conversion of many Jews to Jesus, which is why Rabbi Akiva kicked them out, but ancient synagogues have been dug up which showed evidence that some were in use.
The Book of Enoch Speaks Mumbo-Jumbo

As you read the Book of Enoch, you will notice a big difference between it and the genuine Word of God. The Bible is readable, from cover to cover, it tells a story. In sharp contrast, the Book of Enoch appears to be mocking the Word of God, quoting phrases here-and-there from the Bible, without any meaningful logic or order. This, coupled with a bunch of added mumbo-jumbo, makes the Book of Enoch a ridiculous piece of literature to even consider inspired by God. As a person progresses deeper into the Book of Enoch, they will eventually find the Books of Adam and Eve fascinating as well, and then they will be into New Age occultism without even realizing it. Don't be fooled friend, the Book of Enoch is occult material that will lead you into the senseless mysticism of pagan religion. The fact that it's being paraded to the public nowadays on Walt Disney's History Station as a SHOCKING revelation, should be a clear warning sign where this is all headed. The credibility of the Word of God is under malicious attack.
The book of Enoch is non-Biblical and pseudepigraphical (what we have today is not written by Enoch).

The Book of Enoch: “Behold, he comes with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgment upon them, and destroy the wicked, and reprove all the carnal for everything which the sinful and ungodly have done, and committed against him.”

Jude he quotes from a prophecy of Enoch; Jude 1:14 Now Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men also, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints.” Jude’s reference the Book of Enoch is not exact, which does seem to be contrary to the conclusion he quoted from the book of Enoch..

The concept of ten thousand saints is not unique. In Deut. 33:2 And he said: "The LORD came from Sinai, and dawned on them from Seir; he shone forth from Mount Paran, and He came with ten thousands of saints; from His right hand came a fiery law for them.”

The word for saints here is actually qodesh in Hebrew- meaning holy ones; hagiais muriasin, literally, "in or among holy myriads." The saints (holy ones) can mean angels or faithful human beings, or both.

Jude 14 The word for ten thousand, is representation of a tremendous number- myriads, it has the meaning of the highest number at that time that one could calculate.

Creatures located in Heaven are described in Dan 7:10 as “A fiery stream issued and came forth from before Him. A thousand thousands ministered to Him; ten thousand times ten thousand stood before Him. The court was seated, and the books were opened.”

Rev 5:11 “Then I looked, and I heard the voice of many angels around the throne, the living creatures, and the elders; and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands. ” The bible teaches that heaven has a vast population of both angels and people- saints. These are those (either one or both groups) who will come with him when he comes to earth to judge and set up his kingdom.

Jude was writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:20-21), we know that what he quoted from Enoch was true. This is confirmed by the fact that the same idea about the Lord returning with His holy ones to render judgment found elsewhere in the Bible, Zechariah 14:5, Isaiah 66:15, and Psalm 96:13, Deut. 33:2.

The apocryphal writing called "the Book of Enoch," contains a statement resembling Jude’s, but there is no proof it existed at the time of Jude.
Question: "What is the book of Enoch and should it be in the Bible?"

Answer: The Book of Enoch is any of several pseudepigraphal (falsely attributed works, texts whose claimed authorship is unfounded) works that attribute themselves to Enoch, the great-grandfather of Noah; that is, Enoch son of Jared (Genesis 5:18). Enoch is also one of the two people in the Bible taken up to heaven without dying (the other being Elijah), as the Bible says "And Enoch walked with God, and he was not; for God took him." (Genesis 5:24; see also Hebrews 11:5). Most commonly, the phrase "Book of Enoch" refers to 1 Enoch, which is wholly extant only in the Ethiopic language.

The biblical book of Jude quotes from the Book of Enoch in verses 14-15, “Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men: ‘See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones to judge everyone, and to convict all the ungodly of all the ungodly acts they have done in the ungodly way, and of all the harsh words ungodly sinners have spoken against him.’” But this does not mean the Book of Enoch is inspired by God and should be in the Bible.

Jude’s quote is not the only quote in the Bible from a non-biblical source. The Apostle Paul quotes Epimenides in Titus 1:12 but that does not mean we should give any additional authority to Epimenides’ writings. The same is true with Jude, verses 14-15. Jude quoting from the book of Enoch does not indicate the entire Book of Enoch is inspired, or even true. All it means is that particular verse is true. It is interesting to note that no scholars believe the Book of Enoch to have truly been written by the Enoch in the Bible. Enoch was seven generations from Adam, prior to the Flood (Genesis 5:1-24). Evidently, though, this was genuinely something that Enoch prophesied – or the Bible would not attribute it to him, “Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men…” (Jude 14). This saying of Enoch was evidently handed down by tradition, and eventually recorded in the Book of Enoch.

We should treat the Book of Enoch (and the other books like it) in the same manner we do the other Apocryphal writings. Some of what the Apocrypha says is true and correct, but at the same time, much of it is false and historically inaccurate. If you read these books, you have to treat them as interesting but fallible historical documents, not as the inspired, authoritative Word of God.

Anon 1:41pm:

If you are quoting a source verbatim, you should provide the actual source:

If you are the same commenter as Anon 1:37, then your last sentence is negative by the info quoted @ 1:41.

1 Enoch, aka "the Book of Enoch," was well-revered in some Jewish circles. My opinion is that it was sourced in Jude 14 for theological reasons, as I argue here in a recent article:

Jude references the well-known (at that time) pseudepigraphical work known as 1 Enoch in Jude 14-15.24 In verse 14 the text is changed from θεὸς in its source (1 Enoch 1:9) to kύριοϛ, “…the Lord is coming…”25 This is significant, as Jude uses kύριοϛ exclusively for Jesus Christ in his epistle, as opposed to God, meaning that Jude has most likely changed 1 Enoch’s eschatological Judge from a Jewish monotheistic conception of God to Jesus Christ here.26 To see how Jude reserves kύριοϛ for Jesus Christ, observe how he uses this term in conjunction with the full designation of Jesus Christ in verses 4 (along with δεσπότηϛ), 17, 21, and 25, yet in these very same verses Jude references God, but not as kύριοϛ.27 Thus, while in verse 14 kύριοϛ stands alone, almost assuredly Jesus is the intended referent.28 Given the other evidence presented above, such as Jesus being portrayed as eternal Keeper, Redeemer, etc. we’ll adopt the position that Jude’s intention was, in fact, to make this distinction, as this appears the most probable understanding, given the full context of his epistle.

Looking at verses 5 through 19 as a whole, we will see how Jude has masterfully taken OT and extra-biblical references and (re)interpreted them Christologically, i.e., Jude has changed the referent in the original works from God to Jesus Christ.29 First, it’s important to understand that, by the full context of verses 5 through 19, the main subject is Jesus Christ (carried over from verse 4). That is, the subject of verse 5 runs through the intervening context, and that subject is Jesus Christ (see v 17), as confirmed through Jude’s alteration of θεὸς in 1 Enoch to kύριοϛ in Jude 14. And, of course, we’re arguing in the current article that Jude has changed the reference in Exodus from God / the Lord / YHWH to Ίησου̃ϛ in verse 5.30 In verse 9 there is a presumed reference to an apocryphal (non-canonical) book known as The Assumption of Moses, in the words regarding the dispute between Michael the archangel and the devil over the body of Moses;31 and it stands to reason that Jude refers to Jesus in verse 9 as well with “The Lord rebuke you!”32 That is, Jude here likely means for us to understand “the Lord” as referencing Jesus, since the overall context of this section strongly implies such an interpretation.33

Thanks for your 4:37 response PM Craig.
The book of Enoch is among the Dead Sea Scrolls.
The book of Enoch is definitely not Sacred Scripture. More like a history book.
The Book of Enoch is indeed corrupted with Gnostic chaff, but it can still be read to some degree.
But if one keeps all that in mind and accepts the judgements of a Bible believing Christian man who has spent a lifetime studying ancient texts, namely Ken Johnson ThD, _as to what is Gnostic insertion and what is likely genuine writing of Enoch, who was Translated and disappeared from earth according to Genesis, then you have a sample of writings that were handed to Noah by Enoch and which Noah carried with him from that side of the Flood to this side, and you have a history book worth reading to say the least.
Origen quoted Enoch more than once.
Irenaeus summarized the story of Enoch 6-16.
Anatolius quotes the book of Enoch.
Theodotus quotes Enoch.
Tertullian says the Book of Enoch is genuine in
"Apparel of Women" 1.3.

found some Ken Johnson videos on this.

I agree with some of what you write re: 1 Enoch (not Scripture, among writings of DSS/Qumran, referenced by early church fathers). However, I’ve not previously heard of Ted Johnson, ThD, but he certainly has a minority view within scholasticism. The very large majority of scholars are of the opinion that 1 Enoch, aka “the Book of Enoch,” aka Ethiopic Enoch (there are 2 other pseudepigraphical works attributed to Enoch) was multi-authored, making the dating a bit difficult. However, more importantly, not one scholar of whom I’m aware attributes any bit of the writing to Biblical Enoch.

I have info on the work, but the following article does a pretty good job describing points I’d have to otherwise type out, while adding some things I did not know:

Quoting from the above:

First Enoch never made a viable bid for canonicity in the Jewish community. While it obviously shaped Jewish thought, only the Qumranites seemed interested in preserving it. They viewed it as an appendix to and interpretation of Scripture instead of Scripture itself.16 As the apocalyptic works tended to stir national fervor, the rabbis suppressed them in normative Judaism after the failed Zealot revolt of A.D. 70.

“On the other hand, Enoch enjoys a long history of various Christians arguing for its inclusion or exclusion. That early Christians shared the Jewish fascination with this man who never died cannot be disputed. No less than 24 ancient works identify Enoch and Elijah as the two witnesses of Revelation 11.17 However, 1 Enoch’s place in the canon was not assured.

“While Tertullian argued that Enoch belonged in the canon based on Jude’s quotations, others argued that Jude should be removed from the canon because of its quotations from non-canonical works like Enoch.18 Agreeing with Tertullain [sic], the Ethiopic Church canonized 1 Enoch.19 Likewise, the Manicheans kept another related but separate work of Enoch, The Book of Giants. The Epistle of Barnabas and Athenagoras’ Embassy for Christians both allude to Enoch in favorable ways. Clement and Irenaeus (Against Heresies 4.16.2) both quote Enoch favorably (but not as Scripture).20 However, all of these arguments together did not prevail, and the early Church ultimately rejected Enoch from the canon.

“…Enoch contains numerous doctrinal differences with the canon. Almost in the beginning of the book, Enoch lays the blame for the Genesis Flood and introduction of evil into the world at the feet of the fallen angles whom he calls “Watchers” instead of humans as Genesis 1 and 6 do (1 Enoch 7-8).23 Sadly, Enoch’s doctrinal aberrations do not end there."

"“While Tertullian argued that Enoch belonged in the canon based on Jude’s quotations, others argued that Jude should be removed from the canon because of its quotations from non-canonical works like Enoch."

that's an interesting situation. Jude cites Enoch so its okay, vs. Jude cites Enoch so Jude is not okay.
“…Enoch contains numerous doctrinal differences with the canon. Almost in the beginning of the book, Enoch lays the blame for the Genesis Flood and introduction of evil into the world at the feet of the fallen angles whom he calls “Watchers” instead of humans as Genesis 1 and 6 do (1 Enoch 7-8).23 Sadly, Enoch’s doctrinal aberrations do not end there."

I don't know about doctrinal aberrations, I didn't read enoch carefully enough to remember it all, but Enoch 3.9 mentions the angels' fall as only PART of the problem, the main thing is the lawlessness and evil on the earth, which is the same thing Genesis 6 says in much fewer words. the angels' fall and the giants (who were there before that event so this was some additional giant producing thing probably genetic engineering and putative fatherhood by the angels who probably were sterile and no DNA anyway as I speculate in A Possible History of Life on Mars)

"[Chapter 9]
1 And then Michael, Uriel, Raphael, and Gabriel looked down from heaven and saw much blood being 2 shed upon the earth, and all lawlessness being wrought upon the earth. And they said one to another: 'The earth made without inhabitant cries the voice of their cryingst up to the gates of heaven. 3 And now to you, the holy ones of heaven, the souls of men make their suit, saying, "Bring our cause 4 before the Most High."' And they said to the Lord of the ages: 'Lord of lords, God of gods, King of kings, and God of the ages, the throne of Thy glory (standeth) unto all the generations of the 5 ages, and Thy name holy and glorious and blessed unto all the ages! Thou hast made all things, and power over all things hast Thou: and all things are naked and open in Thy sight, and Thou seest all 6 things, and nothing can hide itself from Thee. Thou seest what Azazel hath done, who hath taught all unrighteousness on earth and revealed the eternal secrets which were (preserved) in heaven, which 7 men were striving to learn: And Semjaza, to whom Thou hast given authority to bear rule over his associates. And they have gone to the daughters of men upon the earth, and have slept with the 9 women, and have defiled themselves, and revealed to them all kinds of sins. And the women have 10 borne giants, and the whole earth has thereby been filled with blood and unrighteousness. And now, behold, the souls of those who have died are crying and making their suit to the gates of heaven, and their lamentations have ascended: and cannot cease because of the lawless deeds which are 11 wrought on the earth. And Thou knowest all things before they come to pass, and Thou seest these things and Thou dost suffer them, and Thou dost not say to us what we are to do to them in regard to these.'"

Regarding Jude citing Enoch:

I'm not sure we have the right answer on that one. The book is considered to have multiple stages of composition and according to many scholars the author(s) of could have actually borrowed that from Jude.

I don't know if that is correct and I don't think anyone knows for sure. I think it could be erroneous to assume automatically that Jude cited Enoch just because some stages of the book were written many years before.

To each his own, and no disrespect intended to any that approve of reading the book whether for historical or spiritual purposes, but I choose to stay away from anything that has a few verses here and there that match scripture while the majority of the work is not biblical.
I agree with you on that. I like the keep the record straight, that's all. Did Enoch blame everything on the angels? doesn't look that way, he just focussed on the situation as it developed in his time, and the Fall was a taken for granted fact before that which made it possible in the first place. people learn evil arts because they want to learn evil arts. This is more complex than the simple first move of get Eve to eat the apple.

This issue doesn't prove Enoch is legitimate, more likely a complicated mix. Why else would it not be part of the early corpus of Mosaic literature like Job? It was a mixed bag of tricks.

this video is from a couple who used to support The Book of Enoch, then changed their minds.

They seem to hold to the crazy notion that the spirit is inherited from the male, based on presence of patriliny which means nothing in itself, and not realizing that the word translated beget in the case of men is the same one used for a woman producing a child. Supposedly original sin (they think) is not inherited on the female line, ergo Mary could not give it to Jesus. This is mechanizing things and leaving out the miraculous.

Can you name these “many scholars” who affirm that the Book of Enoch (BoE) borrowed from Jude? Or at least a few? By quick count, using Accordance software and the 30+ commentaries contained therein (not all include Jude), plus one other I have in book form not included in Accordance, I came up with 16 that reference Jude as sourcing BoE. Matthew Henry is ambiguous (and I didn’t spend a lot of time trying to find it), while John Wesley make no mention of it at all. Barnes (Barnes notes on the NT), not sure which book preceded which, opines it could be either Jude quoting BoE or the other way around. Calvin strongly implies the existence of BoE, stating that Jude 14 was part of an oral tradition rather than “taken from an apocryphal book,” so because he does not mention it explicitly, I did not include him in the talley.

Prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, most scholars proposed a ca. 105 – 64 BC date for the latest portion of the BoE, namely the Similitudes (Chps 37-71), which would make it impossible for a BoE writer to cite Jude.

However, included in the writings at Qumran (a Jewish sect ca. 130BC to 70AD), unearthed in 1947, was the BoE, but it did not contain the Similitudes. Some could conclude that they were not written at the time, but this need not be, for the Qumranians did not include some OT books among their library. They appeared to only include works they deemed as ‘inspired.’ Some were of the opinion that the Similitudes were a later Christian interpolation, but there is no evidence to support this view. But more importantly, the selections of the BoE in common with Jude are almost universally, if not universally acknowledged, within scholasticism as of pre-Christian era. Hence, BoE could not have sourced Jude.

I'm on the air now. Rosa Koire is scheduled as my guest. I'm holding my breath to see if we can reach her -- I tried to reach her for confirmation all day yesterday and left messages, but didn't hear back. I live and die by my calendar and hopefully she is doing the same. She is speaking world wide on Agenda 21 -- I found an excellent on line speech she was giving to an audience in Denmark re same.


If you read my post it says many scholars say the author(s) COULD have actually cited Jude. It does not say anything about affirmed.

Due to the general consensus that the book was written over different periods of time, this is a POSSIBLE and valid point that Jude may not have cited the book.

A few threads back you did the same thing with one of my posts by questioning it as a certainty when I did not present it as a certainty, only as a POSSIBILITY that should be SERIOUSLY be considered.

You could have saved yourself alot of work if you would have recognized that "could have" means:

expresses an opinion or suggestion for a past option.

And "affirm" means:

Stated as fact or declared strongly.

There is a DIFFERENCE between the two

Here's exactly what you wrote @ 5:30AM:

I'm not sure we have the right answer on that one. The book is considered to have multiple stages of composition and according to many scholars the author(s) of could have actually borrowed that from Jude.

I don't know if that is correct and I don't think anyone knows for sure. I think it could be erroneous to assume automatically that Jude cited Enoch just because some stages of the book were written many years before.
[bold added]

So, I ask again: Which scholars? I'm not talking about some conspiracy theorist/s providing absolutely no basis except 'well, it could have been.'

You may get offended, but if you're going to state a position so definitively ("many scholars"), the onus is on you to provide sources. As I've illustrated, there is no scholar I'm aware of who dates the portions from the BoE common between it and Jude as having been written in the time after Christ was born. It was only the Similitudes which may have been written in the first century.

If your claim is that it's possible that the portions common to BoE and Jude may have been amended after the book of Jude was penned to where the BoE sourced Jude, then it's on you to provide some sort of evidence for this hypothesis besides thin air. Otherwise, such an argument can be made about just about anything, including the whole of Scripture.

Dear Craig:

I'm so sorry to hear about the passing of Pastor Silva. He was a guest on my radio program in the past and I deeply respected his work.

Thanks for letting me know.


THANK YOU, THANK YOU for posting the information on Dr. Pianka. This, unfortunately, confirms too many of my suspicions!

We did the radio program today with Rosa Koire re Agenda 21 and her book BEHIND THE GREEN MASK which Dorothy Margraf put me onto a couple of years ago. She was outstanding and I have had many requests for an encore. You can obtain the interview either by listening to reruns or ordering the archives from Joe McNeill at


Thanks for posting what I wrote exactly, because there was nothing DEFINITIVE as you put it. It was speculation and possibility. I even started out my second paragraph with "I'm not sure if this is correct".

There is no onus on me to prove speculation, because that's exactly what it is.

And I'm not offended at all, I just don't have the time right now to dig up my research from a few years ago to provide you with names right now. But rest assured when I do, I will drop everything to appease you.

You throw around conspiracy theory, so I take that as you are SURE that Jude cited Enoch. There is no doubt right? Considering the book is so biblically sound (NOT!!) he must have cited Enoch.

Not sure what your deal is but, speculation on this is warranted since the book is considered non biblical in many ways by many people or, should I cite the names of the thousands or tens of thousands who take this view to gain your approval?

You have cited some scholars, but do they KNOW for sure? No they don't and neither do you. Just as I stated that neither do I.

I didn't base my opinion solely on those who feel that the book of Enoch MAY HAVE cited Jude. I base it also on the book of Enoch having several questionable and non biblical writings.

Do you KNOW FOR SURE that Jude cited Enoch? If there are any questions at all about the book of Enoch ( and there are PLENTY), is it not plausible that this COULD be true?
"Do you KNOW FOR SURE that Jude cited Enoch? If there are any questions at all about the book of Enoch ( and there are PLENTY), is it not plausible that this COULD be true?"

Well I know for sure that Jude spoke of knowledge that evidently came from Enoch, in that Jude brought up Enoch's name and something God wanted passed on from that era or it would not have been in the canon of holy scripture.

I'm sure because God does not get this wrong, or anything else.

First of all – and this my last word on this particular aspect of this discussion – you very clearly stated “according to many scholars the author(s) of [BoE] could have actually borrowed that from Jude;” and that’s the portion I questioned, the portion you put forth as certain, providing my findings which run contrary to yours (at 8:38). Then (at 9:47) I posted supplementary info, not directed specifically at you but for the larger readership (though not excluding you, of course).

Since you are belaboring this subject, I’ll drill it down for you. Prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS), the earliest extant manuscripts (mss) of 1 Enoch containing the common material between BoE and Jude were from the 8th century, and only fragmentary (and I’m not certain the common material was even among these fragments, but I’ll give the benefit of the doubt). Complete BoEs exist in 15th century and later Ethiopic texts. Yet, by reviewing the documents themselves, other archaeological evidence, and historical evidence, scholars dated the entire book in the pre-Christian era (ca. AD30), though with the understanding that the book was multi-authored, with each one a slightly different dating.* R.H. Charles’ work was considered the benchmark. These manuscripts apparently included the material common to Jude.

With the discovery of the Qumran documents, and the absence of the Similitudes within these DSS, scholars began debating anew the dating of that section. The Qumran material included the verbiage common between BoE and Jude. The Qumran sect was in existence ca. 130BC until 70AD, when the Jerusalem Temple was destroyed. According to scholars, it was at this point (70AD) that the Qumran sect hid the DSS in caves, only to be discovered in 1947.

The Book of Jude is generally considered to be written at the earliest 65AD to as late as 80AD or, if Jude itself is pseudepigraphical (which seems doubtful), as late as 90AD. Even if Jude were to be found to have been penned earlier, thus providing a longer time period for it to be exposed to the Qumran sect, it beggars belief that the Qumranians, a sect of Judaism, would source an overtly Christian text.

The only way for your hypothesis to have any chance of any merit whatsoever, it would have to be shown (1) that there is a separate stream of mss apart from the Qumran and all other known texts which does not include the material common to BoE and Jude. (2)Then it would have to be shown that someone with Christian sympathies sourced Jude, thus amending this phantom stream of mss (3)and also the evidence of this stream of mss without this common language later disappeared. Once again, an argument from silence, and an argument from silence is never a good basis to form a hypothesis.

*Sourced from James H. Charlesworth’s The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Volume 1 (New York: Anchor Bible/Doubleday, 1983, pp 5-7

...scholars dated the entire book in the pre-Christian era (ca. AD30)...

This date was meant for the Similitudes only, while all the others are BC, or BCE.
I may not have been completely clear in the following, so I'll clarify:

(and I’m not certain the common material was even among these fragments, but I’ll give the benefit of the doubt)

By this I mean that I'm not sure the extant fragments even include 1 Enoch 1:9, 10:4, 10:12, or any other material one could construe as common between BoE and Jude (such as "the Watchers"). In other words, I'm not sure if these fragmentary mss include the common material, i.e. if this material is just not part of the fragments at all. I'm not stating that the fragments may contain these common sections while omitting part of the common verbiage.

For example, I'm not stating that the fragments have chapter 1, but omit verse 9 (yet contain 8 and 10 e.g.), which is quoted in Jude 14.

Just trying to head off any objections due to misunderstanding.
Craig and co., the pre Christian era does not incl. AD 30 because the Christian era is counted from the birth of Christ (which was miscalculated and is most likely AD 4).

I agree that "scholars" is a dubious thing to base your opinions on.

However, while The OT references several books not in it, but considered valid history that everyone knew about and read, such as Jashar and The Book of the Wars of YHWH (or something like that), it does not reference The Book of Enoch.

The other texts, or some of them, were preserved but never in the OT canon. Ditto Enoch, but it seems unlikely that Enoch was available in book form, assuming someone didn't stumble on a copy in the Qumran times or before after it had been out of circulation for millennia.

Jude DID cite Enoch, because he quoted something from Enoch which is in the book (or books, don't recall which one, but as I said aside from the three books of Enoch that make up THE Book of Enoch there are a couple of others that are recent and one doesn't pretend to antiquity, I don't recall if the other one does, and those two are new age).

Therefore he was citing Enoch.

Now, in his day, Enoch may have been worth quoting because it circulated as three books one of which was considered inspired but lost, or because everyone liked it so citing it would get their attention.

Citing one part doesn't validate the whole, but Jude might have gotten divine inspiration as to what part was inspired.

In all liklihood, since we are dealing with a fairly late book, one not referred to in OT unlike other books like Jashar which were compiled in the general times of Moses or Joshua, but not under divine imprimature (compiled by a prophet), this book IS a hodge podge and MIGHT contain things that are divine and others not.

This is my cautious opinon regarding Enoch based not on scholars, but on the reasons given above.

I think the opinions in the video I linked to, why the video makers who used to support Enoch as inspired Scripture no longer do so, also make sense.

You wrote, the pre Christian era does not incl. AD 30 because the Christian era is counted from the birth of Christ (which was miscalculated and is most likely AD 4). Yes, I’m aware of the difference between BC (BCE) and AD (CE); but, I was making a distinction between the birth of Christianity (hence, ca. 30AD) and the birth of Christ (ca. 4BC).

You wrote, I agree that "scholars" is a dubious thing to base your opinions on.

If you mean those who claim to be but actually aren’t (is this why you put it in quotation marks?), then I agree. However, in most things (save “Global Warming/Climate Change”), a scholarly consensus is usually something to rely upon. Good, proper scholasticism works from extant evidence and reasons from there.

I’m not sure where you’re getting the “three books” within 1 Enoch (I’ve not looked at the video, in case it’s there); but, there are five recognized sections/books in 1 Enoch:

1) The Book of the Watchers (1-36)
2) The Book of the Similitudes (37-71)
3) The Book of Astronomical Writings (72-82)
4) The Book of Dream Visions (83-90)
5) The Book of the Epistle of Enoch (91-107)

excuse me I haven't read it in a long time. now I remember them that you list them except I don't remember The Epistle of Enoch.

In any case it is unlikely this book survived unmodified since The Flood. But it probably has some worthwhile stuff in it.
"I don't remember The Epistle of Enoch. In any case it is unlikely this book survived unmodified since The Flood. But it probably has some worthwhile stuff in it."

Decent of you to say so, given that Jude quoted from a part of it that - since he was writing on behalf of God - obviously was authentic.


I mistakenly used the term "many scholars" relying on my memory from research a few years back. Although I shouldn't have used scholars in my rush to post, I still maintain that there are many educated people that do not automatically assume that Jude quoted Enoch.

I do not know the correct answer on that, he very well could have but given the absence of factual information supporting that the verse in question was absolutely in circulation at the time of Jude leaves a question mark for me.

I don't think one can say for 100% accuracy that he specifically quoted Enoch as Christina writes in her post that he DID quote Enoch as if it is a certainty.

I just looked at your blog for the first time last night, and you seem like a pretty decent guy genuinely searching for the truth like many of us so, my intention was not to insult or needlessly argue with you.


I offer this explanation with no intention of being argumentative with anyone since I do not pretend to know a whole lot about the Book of Enoch and am still in learning mode myself.

So for what it is worth, one explanation for why Jude would have quoted from the Book of Enoch - which at the time was believed to have had the status of Jewish Scriptures - is that the first Christians and the Jews of the first century AD did not have closed canon yet....the canon was not yet closed.

Even though the following is from a Catholic Wordpress, I would like to point out that while the Catholic And Protestant Old Testament canons are different on account of the fact that the Catholic and Orthodox Old Testament canon is the Septuagint while the Protestant Old Testament canon is the Hebrew Bible, the Catholic and Protestant New Testament canons are the same.

1 Enoch was one book that had scriptural status in that time. Thus among manuscript of the Dead Sea Scrolls we have 20 copies of 1 Enoch – it outnumbered most books of the Old Testament but Psalms (40 copies), Isaiah (21 copies) and Genesis (20 copies) [3]. Other than 1 Enoch we also have the book of Jubilees (15 copies), Tobit (5 copies), Sirach (3 copies) and one copy of Letter of Jeremiah (Baruch Chapter 6 in Catholic Bible) and one copy each of Psalms 151, 154 and 155. Like Jude the early Christians also cited Enoch as Scripture (English translation from Anti Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1, available on-line at ) more....

See also the following which was cited in the article:

Citation Formulae as Indices to Canonicity in Early Jewish and Early Christian Literature

by Ken M. Penner

Dr. Ken M. Penner

Susanna (and all):

Charlesworth’s two-volume set on the Pseudepigrapha (Charlesworth is the editor and a recognized authority in this area) is considered to be about the best source for info on these Jewish writings largely from the intertestamental period (ca. 200BC – 200AD). I highly recommend it.

The introduction to 1 Enoch (the book also contains 2 & 3 Enoch) was written by E. Isaac, referenced earlier (@ 4:43pm). According to this, there are only fragments from DSS, but presumably enough to piece together to form, at least mostly, a whole (excluding the entire Similitudes), and perhaps multiple wholes. Here are some direct quotes (bold added; bracketed statements mine):

“1 Enoch is clearly a composite, representing numerous periods and writers…

“[J.T.] Milik argues for a pre-Christian Qumran Enochic Pentateuch [book containing 5 smaller books] which contained a much longer version of the astrological writings, and most importantly, instead of the Similitudes, another work entitled the Book of Giants. He bases his argument on the fact that fragments of only four of the five constituent books of the Ethiopic Enoch have been discovered at Qumran. No fragment from the Similitudes has been recovered [at Qumran].

“Milik argues that the by the year 400 A.D. the Book of Giants as in the Qumran Aramaic Enoch had been replaced by the late Christian work, the Similitudes, in a new Greek Enochic Pentateuch. This hypothesis is not supported by any solid evidence and has been subjected to serious criticism…in 1978. The consensus…was that the Similitudes were Jewish and dated from the first century A.D….”

“Information regarding the usage and importance of the work in Jewish and Christian communities, other than the Ethiopic Church, is sparse. It is difficult, therefore, to understand its exact origin. It seems clear, nonetheless, that 1 Enoch was well known to many Jews, particularly the Essenes, and early Christians, notably the author of Jude. The earliest portions of the work originated probably in a proto-Essene milieu; the latter sections perhaps in a setting quite different from Qumran Essenism [this includes the Similitudes and the very last chapter].

“1 Enoch reflects historical events immediately preceding and following the Maccabean Revolt. More important, however, is the light if throws upon early Essene theology and upon earliest Christianity. It was used by the authors of Jubilees, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, the Assumption of Moses, 2 Baruch, and 4 Ezra [all included in Charlesworth, except Ass. of Moses, which may be part of a conflated Testament of Moses, also included]. Some New Testament authors seem to have been acquainted with the work, and were influenced by it, including Jude, who quotes it explicitly (1:14f). At any rate, it is clear that Enochic concepts are found in various New Testament books, including the Gospels and Revelation.

“1 Enoch played a significant role in the early Church; it was used by the authors of the Epistle of Barnabas, the Apocalypse of Peter, and a number of apologetic works. Many Church Fathers, including Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen, and Clement of Alexandria, either knew 1 Enoch or we inspired by it. Among those who were familiar with 1 Enoch, Tertullian had an exceptionally high regard for it [one must keep in mind that Tertullian fell in with the heretical Montanists for a time]. But, beginning in the fourth century, the book came to be regarded with disfavor and received negative reviews from Augustine, Hilary, and Jerome…”

One of the problems with this work – which I’ve already gone over before on this forum, so I’ll refrain presently from re-engaging – is the allusion to “sons of God” as fallen angels (which are, according to Scripture, non-sexual beings) mating with women in 6:1-4.

I am uncomfortable with statements like enochian ideas in Revelation, which implies a conscious or unconscious presupposition, that Revelation was a human work entirely and not dictated or given by vision by God.

the early church held to the idea the sons of God mated with women, but later abandoned this assuming it meant godly Seth descendants got interested in ungodly Cain descendants, though why this should produce giants or even just unusually aggressive people is not explained.

I am dubious about Enoch but a residuual element is probably legitimate, or else God made use of something everyone was accepting at the time, to make a point. The video I linked to while it is problematic in its notions about transmission of the spirit of a being to its descendants, makes good points about contradictions between Enoch and The Bible, such as saying that angels made the Ark while Genesis says Noah made the Ark.

Angels being spirits who can become solid obviously are shape shifters sort of. That means if some segment decided to get into lust (and neither Genesis nor Enoch even hints that anything than this was the reason for this, nothing about corrupting human seedline to prevent the Messiah coming, Whose death being for all creation note Romans about all creation awaiting the manifestation of the sons of God or rather of us resurrected and coming back with Jesus, means that Jesus' human purity would not be an issue),

then the angels could shape their bodies to have appropriate equipment.

But they would be sterile. Most likely they taught the women to seduce political and military leaders to get more status for the angels and when these people wanted more anomalous humans as super soldiers, and were already messing with recombinant DNA the angels taught them to do even more.

Genesis says "there were giants in the earth in those days, AND AFTER when the sons of God...." so since adoptive and putative parentage is as good as blood parentage, most likely the women were the first to give birth to modified humans, who were counted as sons of the angel husbands of these women.

Enoch has some self contradictions also.

Jude's quoting of it could be an inspiration from God to quote only the part that was itself inspired. If Enoch is cobbled together, only God knows what is legitimate and what is not.

"Jude's quoting of it could be an inspiration from God to quote only the part that was itself inspired

Yes. All that was needed for God's purposes. The continuing unfolding of prophecy will shed the further light but those first clues were given by God included in scripture and Enoch was the source because Jude under inspiration said so. Our overspeculation not needed.

You wrote, I am uncomfortable with statements like enochian ideas in Revelation, which implies a conscious or unconscious presupposition, that Revelation was a human work entirely and not dictated or given by vision by God.

I don't necessarily disagree with you here, but it depends how far one takes this. Revelation is known as apocalyptic literature, as was BoE. The author cited above doesn't cite specific cross-references, but some of the language is similar.

We must understand that Scripture was not "dictated," but under inspiration. Scripture is not the product of 'automatic writing,' and I don't think that's what you meant. But, certainly, John the Revelator received visions from God and recorded them, as best he could, given his humanity.

I'm actually less comfortable that the cited author mentions that the Gospels were influenced by BoE.

I should have made mention that Charlesworth leans Gnostic, though this doesn't necessarily mean his work should be in question. As an analogy, Bart Ehrman is a 'former Christian,' now agnostic, but much of his work is well-reasoned and useful. Just like any conclusions on data, one must look at the info going into the conclusions and decide for oneself. I do the same when reading commentaries written by individuals I'm reasonably sure are, in fact, Christians.

As to the rest of your post, I'll refrain from comment

"We must understand that Scripture was not "dictated," but under inspiration. Scripture is not the product of 'automatic writing,' and I don't think that's what you meant. "

No not automatic writing. "The word of the Lord came to me and said...." heard the word, wrote it down. or here's a vision and the person who sees it is told to write it down.

there is of course a level of inspiration that is like God is guiding and I suppose the historical documents are an example, God guiding Samuel and others to select the correct and most useful materials from extant history and personal observation to write Kings and Chronicles and Ruth and Judges.

As for "apocalyptic literature," I don't think you can put a document produced by an Apostle on a par with anything else. the term kinda dismisses it with other things.
As for "apocalyptic literature," I don't think you can put a document produced by an Apostle on a par with anything else. the term kinda dismisses it with other things.

Apocalyptic literature is, basically, a sub-genre of literature, words used to describe dreams, visions, etc. I wasn't equating the two works, I was merely describing a similarity:
Dear Craig,

Thank you.
I will certainly study the sources you have cited - especially James H. Charlesworth, as he is indeed a recognized authority in this area.

Both he and Ken Penner are involved with the Online Critical Pseudepigrapha which is a fairly recent resource developed for the Society of Biblical Literature.

Have you seen this site?


I misspoke about Charlesworth, as I had him conflated with another James. I don't believe he has any Gnostic sympathies.

Thanks for the link! Coincidentally, I’ve just referenced the SBL in my most recent blog post less than a week ago. However, it seems, unfortunately, that the info on this portion of the site (see here, here, and here) is only available to paying members. I’ve tried clicking on links to the actual content of the works, but to no avail. I can understand the need for money to maintain the site (and etc.), though.

It looks like the site will consist of only the original languages sans translation to English. The critical apparatus would be nice to have, as, though I have the Pseudepigrapha in Greek (where applicable) in my Accordance software, there is no reference for variants. For those looking for English, the Charlesworth 2-vol set is probably the best (only?) place.

Since I’ve now mentioned Accordance more than once here, I’d like to give it a plug. (I’ve no affiliation besides as a satisfied consumer.) It’s available in a number of different packages, with and without original languages. It touches on about every subject imaginable regarding Christianity. Of course, it’s far from complete – how could it be! – but it is a GREAT value. (The Charlesworth 2-volume is NOT part of Accordance {yet?}.)


You are correct in that I'm genuinely looking for truth, and I think you are of the same inclination. I didn't mean to be hard on you, but having made my own fair share of mistakes in commenting in the blogosphere over the years, I've (mostly?) learned to be more careful in posting. Anyway, 'nuff said on that.

However, I think I may be able to provide you more confidence that Jude did indeed quote from BoE. In Richard J. Bauckham's commentary on Jude (Jude, 2 Peter: Word Biblical Commentary (Nashville, Thomas Nelson, 1983), p 7), which won the prestigious Gold Medallion Book Award in '85, states the following in the Introduction (bold added):

"His use of Jewish apocryphal works is at least as extensive as his use of the OT. He has a close familiarity with I Enoch (vv 6, 12-16), from which he takes his only formal quotation from a written source (vv 14-15). It seems to be the Aramaic text he uses (vv 6-14), though he probably knew the Greek (v 15)..."

The Qumran/DSS is the only extant Aramaic text, which means Jude sourced from this stream. Scholars of Bauckham's status has access to information that a lowly layperson such as me can only dream.
I'm on Roger Oakland's email list, and the following 3 articles on 'Climate Change' were in a somewhat recent one (I'm posting kinda late as I was working on finishing my most recent article):

To save the earth, all must change their ways, says Ecumenical Patriarch:

“If we are to respond to the ecological crisis in a responsible and substantial way, we must move beyond mere talk to practical action,” said Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople in an official message to the Interfaith Summit on Climate Change..., which was held about 2 weeks ago.

Weaving together personal faith and climate change:

Although climate change is often thought of as something external to an individual person, it is interwoven with personal spirituality, as well. This was the conclusion of a panel of three faith leaders during a session at the Interfaith Summit on Climate Change held on 22 September.

Atheists, Baptists and Baha'i come together to tackle climate change:

...Standing among the throng of people in New York, as well as the hundreds of thousands of others around the world (including 40,000 in London), I was struck by what a unifying power a common enemy can be. On Sunday, not only were there groups of Methodists and Baptists rubbing shoulders with Catholics and Presbyterians, there were Christians marching with Muslims, Jews, Pagans, Atheists and Baha'i. Anti-capitalist protesters stood alongside 'Concerned Moms for the Climate', doctors, firemen and vegans held banners next to indigenous people and victims of Hurricane Katrina. Almost every conceivable strand of society was represented in the huge column of humanity which snaked its way through the high rise blocks of Manhattan. There was even the odd celebrity thrown into the mix, with Leonardo DiCaprio taking to the streets in New York and Emma Thompson in London.

There aren't many things that show the same indiscriminate indifference to race, religion, age, profession or beliefs as climate change. And there's not much which needs such a unified, international response from people around the world. As Prince Charles said this week "even in a world full of daunting perils and crises, it is hard to imagine anything that poses a greater challenge and opportunity for humanity."

ironically, while they are screaming about global warming (I think "climate change" may have been adopted because some are getting wise to the facts, but aren't sure enough to take a stand) the reality is we are headed for an ice age.

Ice ages in the past (never mind time issues millions of years vs. young earth creationism, ice ages happened and not just one after The Flood) were preceded by warming phases.

It is impossible to discuss the question of cycles of Ice Ages in a young-earth format. I am a YOM = ERA guy and I accept the scientific account. I address the following comments to others who do so, and I do not wish to discuss the age of the earth here at Constance's blog.

It is true that we are overdue an Ice Age. But not by much, and the metronome of Ice Ages has some variability. So we should not take a bad winter as evidence that it is imminent on a timescale of years. Maybe, maybe not.

I agree with your scepticism re global warming. It hasn't got warmer in the last 15 years even though CO2 levels have continued to increase as China and India industrialise. This conclusion is based on the only data which are truly global - satellite data. Terrestrial datasets are undergoing some truly shocking manipulation in this politicised area of science; data should be sacrosanct. The buzzphrase shifted from "global warming" to "climate change" because climate change occurs spontaneously and naturally, and it is easy for warming zealots to blur the line between manmade and natural climate change.


I just did a quick search (which I should have done earlier) and found the Charlesworth volumes available on Accordance; however, they are quite expensive. Of course, the benefit of the Accordance would be the search option (there's no index in the print version - at least the hardcover).

Hardback copies can be found for around the same price, actually a few bucks less. Softcover versions are available at almost 1/3; however, both volumes are about 1000 pages, which means the softcover will not lay open easily.

There are some decently priced copies of the hardcover on ebay (not Amazon), such as the following:
Physicist, I don't think it is impossible to discuss Ice Ages in a young earth format. All you have to do is lop a lot of zeroes off.

(the usual young earth format doesn't go back as far as 12,000 years, but if you assume a lot of names were dropped from the begats only the ones of note kept, then this is possible and a young earth scientist noted that the salt concentration in sea water points to 12,000 years, for example.)

Anyway, we will see what happens.
"I don't think it is impossible to discuss Ice Ages in a young earth format. All you have to do is lop a lot of zeroes off."

Which has huge knock-on effects. I believe this is not the place for discussing them.


It struck me today as I'm reading a headline about the possibility of an earless lizard nearing the endangered species list, that there's a contradiction between Darwinism and Gaia worship, aka extreme environmentalism. I'm assuming most, if not all, extreme environmentalists are also Evolutionists/Darwinists. Given that a tenet of Darwinism is "survival of the fittest," wouldn't this just point to a failure on the part of the (near-to-be) endangered species to adapt, and hence indicate that said species is not among the "fittest?" In other words, said species' failure to adapt is a natural part of evolution in that the 'unfit' will necessarily die off, and thus nothing requiring outside intervention and nothing with which to be concerned. In fact, I suppose a Darwinist could argue that it's actually better for the 'unfit' to die off in order to provide larger habitats for the "fittest." Isn't this essentially the whole idea behind the presumed next leap of mankind to homo universalis?

This is Physicist. I write as an informed amateur in evolutionary biology, not a professional, but I can have a try at answering. "Fitness" is not an absolute concept; fitness is defined relative to an environment. For instance the sickle-cell anaemia gene is a bad thing to have in a population where there is no malaria, but a good one where there is (it confers immunity). Also, it is important not to confuse differing fitness of individuals within a species and fitness between differing species competing for, say, the same food source. Furthermore, very little evolution is governed by overt competition in which what one individual gets, another is deprived of; much more influential are mechanisms in which a virus sweeps through and those with genetic immunity survive to pass on the relevant gene whereas those without it die.

Philosophers have made a real mess of evolutionary biology. They typically think that it is all about how many relatives you should be willing to die for and they confuse social Darwinism with scientific Darwinism. They also read Darwin and suppose that our understanding is still the same now as it was 150 years ago. Not so!
"a young earth scientist noted that the salt concentration in sea water points to 12,000 years"

This claim is invariably based on the supposition that dissolved minerals enter the sea in rivers and stay there while the water goes round in the water cycle, so that the concentration of minerals dissolved in the sea always increases and can be extrapolated backwards to give a bound on the age of the oceans and presumably of the earth. But there are plenty of mechanisms by which salt is removed from the sea, and young-earthers seldom take account of these. See:

that being the case, you can't argue old or young earth from salinity. However, the flux described doesn't allow for supporting old earth, because uplifted land with salt beds doesn't change the salinity of the water left behind, and folding under again takes out what is local to it. My own inclination has been towards what I call mid range age earth, not millions but a lot more than 6,000 years old.
"that being the case, you can't argue old or young earth from salinity"


"However, the flux described doesn't allow for supporting old earth.."

You have just contradicted yourself... do bear in mind that the salinity of the ocean is not uniform.

no contradiction, just saying it doesn't do that much for really old earth, even if it doesn't prove young earth. Don't think in either/or terms, things are often inexact.

the flux picture is like evening out, rendering the info useless for either argument, but perhaps skewed a bit towards younger.

non uniformity also makes a problem in either direction.
Christine it is almost impossible to critique your comments at 1106 because they are so vague, but for the same reason they have very little scientific meaning. Whatever, you cannot consistently say both "that being the case, you can't argue old or young earth from salinity" and "the flux described doesn't allow for supporting old earth"
sigh, I will try again. the unknown original salinity screws up everything in itself.

the flux sounds like it doesn't remove that much except locally.

the nonuniformity currently anyway might be explained by the flux described, or not.


it sounds like you can make a sloppy effort at dating from salinity, but it is not going to be reliably young earth, and neither is it going to fit billions of years.

is that easier for you to understand? (now complain I post too often and too wordy.)
according to one of the articles you posted, the whole sea salinity and sea bed is in flux.

what part of "in flux" do you not understand?

Nothing "in flux" can be reliably used to support anything, though it may tilt the argument a little.

for instance, if an argument depends on absence of flux, then flux will destroy the argument....or it may push the conclusion away from the arguer's original goal, but not entirely away from it.
Christine, your posing as a rigorous thinker about scientific matters here is not going to be taken seriously in view of your track record. Go submit it to a peer-reviewed journal. The feedback you get from the refereeing and editorial process will educate you in a way that you decline to accept here.

i don't pose as anything incl. rigorous thinker about scientific matters. I am using common sense. Flux creates inaccuracy in conclusions about the matter in flux. Period. How much flux would be an issue in trying to guestimate things. Peer review is often a tad fraudulent since the peers are already committed in some directions anyway.
There are a number of scientists with degrees who have dumped evolution for creationism. Go argue with them. Others have dumped Darwinian evolution for punctuated equilibrium and saltation, two theories that involve sudden jumps and fairly scream for a Creator to be doing this.

(if you argue aliens did it, who created them?)
Dear Craig,

You can get the 2-volume paperback version of James H. Charlesworth's work at Amazon for $35.98. And it is new, not used.

The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha ( 2 Volume set) Paperback
by James H. Charlesworth (Editor)

I deal with Amazon all the time and am very happy with them.
Dear Physicist, 6:;40 A.M.

Re: Terrestrial datasets are undergoing some truly shocking manipulation in this politicised area of science; data should be sacrosanct. The buzzphrase shifted from "global warming" to "climate change" because climate change occurs spontaneously and naturally, and it is easy for warming zealots to blur the line between manmade and natural climate change.

I couldn't agree with you more!!!

The whole snake-oily "global warming" fiasco is nothing more than "shakedown socialism" at its bottom-feeding worst.

By "shakedown socialism" I mean a "wealth redistribution" scam in which the wealth of developed capitalist countries was to be "redistributed" to third world socialist crapholes whose tinpot dictators need said wealth in order to prop up their regimes.

If you know anything about Saul Alinsky, you will know about one of his most famous teachings:


"Issues" are merely the means to an end.

Global warming was never the "issue." It was merely a smarmy disguise for the real issue which is the promotion of the cause of world socialism.

The following is written by a Christian who converted from his "Marxist past."


......It is well worth pulling a few quotes from this book (Saul Alinsky’s influential Rules for Radicals) to help us understand current events, especially the OWS(Occupy Wall Street) movement. A very important remark is this: “In this book we are concerned with how to create mass organizations to seize power”.

As one SDS (Students for a Democratic Society) radical once wrote: “The issue is never the issue. The issue is always the revolution.” The cause is always to seize power, to bring about a successful revolution. Any issue, be it poverty, or racism, or pollution, can be used as a means to gaining power and overthrowing the enemy.

In his “rules of ethics” he includes this: “The tenth rule… is you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments”. Thus we hear a lot about injustice, unfairness, exploitation and greed out of the mouths of the Occupy mobs. They know the revolution is more easily sellable when framed in such moral rhetoric. more...

Susanna @ 6:04pm,

I've no issues w/Amazon; pointing you to the eBay listings was for the hardcover versions which are pricey at Amazon. Since each volume is about 1000 pages, I'd be concerned that 1) it wouldn't lay flat and would be somewhat difficult to read, and 2) it may be more likely to start 'losing' pages through use.

My hardcovers are well-bound and lie flat.
wealth redistribution always ends up with the money being redistributed from the poor and middle class to the rich.

wise up. socialism is a tool of the rich. Always was. And welfare is not the problem, the big money expense is so called corporate welfare and of course the military industrial complex.

In the Life of King Alfred the Great it is mentioned that in his earlier days, before he instituted the plough tax (to support the poor) he received some divine judgement against him, who, though a Christian king, had ignored the pleas of the poor for help and of others for justice. This is not about personal money of the king, which comes from taxes anyway. Welfare predates socialism and has nothing to do with it.

Marx put on his platform a plank of no fees to be charged for court cases. In other words, justice for free to the people involved. Only Connecticut as I recall has no court filing fees. This Marxist plank wasn't about "marxism" but a lure to get people with complaints on board.
"There are a number of scientists with degrees who have dumped evolution for creationism. Go argue with them."

I do! But not here.

"Others have dumped Darwinian evolution for punctuated equilibrium and saltation, two theories that involve sudden jumps and fairly scream for a Creator to be doing this."

Punctuated equilibrium is entirely consistent with the neo-Darwinian synthesis of natural selection and modern genetics. It is simply the hypothesis, within that framework, that evolution is driven more by events such as geological catastrophe and land bridges suddenly becoming crossable, rather than (say) "arms races" between predator and prey species. Stephen Jay Gould, one of the originators of punctuated equilibrium, would have been appalled to read the suggestion that it was incompatible with the neo-Darwinian synthesis; he wrote a large number of semi-popular books advocating evolution.

Physicist (@ 5:59AM),

Thanks for responding. I see I have (had?) a fundamental misunderstanding of what ‘survival of the fittest’ actually entails. However, I should have been more specific in my comment though, as the earless lizard is really a sub-species (if I’m correct), and, hence, one of my points may stand. That is, if this entire sub-species fails to adapt while other sub-species within this same species remain in the same environment, wouldn’t this be a natural consequence of survival of the fittest?

"wealth redistribution always ends up with the money being redistributed from the poor and middle class to the rich."

Isn't some of it redistributed to you, Christine?

King Alfred "the Great" instituted a plough tax? I'm skeptical; have you a reference for that?

I'm not sure I understand your question; sorry.


I’m probably not being clear. Or else I’m just thick, and still not understanding the tenet and its ramifications. But, I’ll try once more.

If ‘survival of the fittest’ means that only the ‘fittest’ in a given species will survive - i.e. adapt to their environment via some sort of evolutionary means (whether it be by acquiring resistance to deadly disease, a physical metamorphosis of some sort for survival, etc.) - while the ‘unfit’ perish, wouldn’t the (near-) extinction of a sub-species within a larger species group (earless lizards as compared to another lizard in same species group) be construed as said sub-species not among the ‘fittest?’ IOW, if another type of lizard considered to be in the same species group were to continue surviving in the same environment/habitat as those on the verge of extinction (earless lizard in this example), wouldn’t that just be considered ‘survival of the fittest’ in action?


So far as I understand it (and I'm a physicist not a biologist), the aim is to identify a mechanism by which the earless lizards died out while otherwise identical lizards didn't - if for instance they couldn't hear predators coming. Then you have an explanation that is fuller, and that has no need for the a posteriori notion of fitness.


Craig 6:54,

I was thinking more in terms of affordability.

True, some paperbacks are rather cheesy in terms of their bindings, but I have some paperback books whose bindings are actually quite good.

But I get your point about their not lying flat.

It looks my concerns were unfounded on the Charlesworth paperbacks:

From the first review here:

"One of my main concerns was whether such a hefty tome would open flat on a table the way a Smyth Sewn Bible would do. Although it is perfect bound (using glue and trimmed on all sides, which is the way the vast majority of books are bound these days), the book does open up nicely on a table. This is great for study or just plain reading for pleasure.

"The paper is a little thin, kind of like Bible paper but not as good quality, which means you can see through to the other side. However, with books of this size that is to be expected, and I for one am not that bothered about it."

The reviewer even goes on to list all the contents.

anon 7:21 my SSI has ceased. And if it weren't for the machination of the super rich via politics driving up costs of everything, plus that of greed driving up real estate value which impacts property taxes which impacts rents and therefore other costs like food and everything sold out of a rented store, it wouldn't be necessary to support as many on welfare and disability has it has been.

anon 7:33 the plough tax is something everyone should know about from English or European history in junior high or senior high school, I guess my generation was the last one to get a decent education sort of.

plough taxes existed in a lot of places he wasn't the only one, though they were for various purposes. Orignally it was Danegeld to help fight the Danes, then put to other uses.
to get a bigger picture I will include more. having trouble finding the original information with the detail on the plough tax, which I recall some historians argued was not started by Alfred but merely continued by him. Alfred the Great was possibly continuing what his father started, Aethevulf "provided systems of poor relief."

"In regard to the financial resources of Alfred we know but little. Probably they were great, considering the extent and population of the little kingdom over which he ruled, but inconsiderable in comparison with the revenues of England at the present day. To build fortresses, construct a navy, and keep in pay a considerable military force,--to say nothing of his own private expenditure and the expense of his court, his public improvements, the endowment of churches, the support of schools, THE RELIEF OF THE POOR, and keeping the highways and bridges in repair,--required a large income. This was derived from the public revenues, crown lands, and private property. The public revenue was raised chiefly by customs, tolls, and fines. The crown lands were very extensive, as well as the private property of the sovereign, as he had large estates in every county of his kingdom.

But whatever his income, he set apart ... one-eighth for the poor, besides a considerable sum for foreigners, whom he liberally patronized."

the church support of the poor as well as of itself was from money collected by taxes and given by the king to the Church, normal routine. doesn't go back as far as King Alfred, but it shows also that wage restrictions were in play to prevent exploitation by the few laborers after the plague. Obviously the concept of govt. intervention in the economy predated "socialism."

Though it refers to charity as voluntary, the tax like required support of the church, or church getting a cut of taxes, some of which was used to support the poor, is not mentioned but clearly is not entirely "voluntary." It is an enforcement of Biblical standards of morality, which go beyond sexual issues into economic ones. This included in the medieval times, PROHIBITION OF LENDING AT ANY DEGREE OF INTEREST.

The conniving Venetians persuaded the pope eventually to redefine "usury" from ANY interest to excessive interest. Calvin did the same for the protestant scene, and Venetian influence was involved in creating the Reformation AND the counter reformation! This of course insured wars and so forth that would require borrowing money from the Venetians.... discusses the scene in AD 1601 et seq, notice the interference in families and restriction on travel way predate "socialism" after all the family as basic unit of society is not supreme, but the foundation and producer of society which the govt. is to direct to make sure society runs right so the family can be an object of direction also.

The Constitution clause about freedom of travel is not about driver's licenses, or toll bridges, but about the old feudal holdover rules that required passports and permits for travel within the king's realm. This was also present in Russia and other lands. you had to explain yourself.

scroll down for King Alfred's efforts at public education, and his writing on the necessity of individuals being in shape to do their duties if the king is to rule the land effectively download pdf. Bear in mind that all royal efforts at anything came from taxes.

references to support efforts for the poor click on each page segment shown for entire page.

plough taxes later became excessive and were opposed, they had to do with other things than the poor, so cost more.

Biblical basis for compulsory charity, in addition to charity done as individuals. THIS IS NOT PART OF THE RITUAL CODE WHICH IS WHAT PAUL SAYS IS SUPERCEDED IN THEREFORE ABROGATED BY CHRIST, but consistent with the rest of the moral code which he reiterates.

Deuteronomy 26:12, 13 third year tithe to go to the levite, the poor, the stranger, the orphan, the widow, and notice a PUBLIC REPORT so A PUBLIC EXAMINATION is made to be sure this was done.

Tithing applied only to people who were producing a lot farmers and so forth, high income earners now maybe, it is not supposed to be required of the underprivileged like churches demand poor members fork over (and support rich ministers), it is a tenth OF YOUR INCREASE, in other words, a capital gains tax.

12"When you have finished paying all the tithe of your increase in the third year, the year of tithing, then you shall give it to the Levite, to the stranger, to the orphan and to the widow, that they may eat in your towns and be satisfied. 13"You shall say before the LORD your God, 'I have removed the sacred portion from my house, and also have given it to the Levite and the alien, the orphan and the widow, according to all Your commandments which You have commanded me; I have not transgressed or forgotten any of Your commandments.…"
Tony Palmer, representative of a new covenant.

Tuesday, October 7, 2014 post
Tony Palmer's death sounds like a murder. And there is no spiritual significance whatsoever.

The problem is not that evangelicalism, now rendered infected a lot, is being led back to RC per se. And Mary as co redemptrix IS NOT AN RC DOCTRINE, merely an opinion of many though if someone of this opinion becomes pope that could be another matter.

The problem is, that the already compromised by spiritual deceptions and mechanistic mentalities RC will be infiltrated and infected even more by the charismatic evangelicals. charismaticism has already gotten into RC. It may get a papal supportive declaration beyond mere allowing.

As for the doctrine about the Eucharist, that is exactly what Jesus and Paul said, and what was believed by the early (pre Nicene Council pre Constantine) Church according to Justin Martyr AD 150 and Irenaeus AD 180, himself a disciple of a disciple of the Apostle John.

As for Tony Palmer's death, why murder him? well, maybe some more fundamentalist inclined person, of RC or of protestant persuasion did this. Or maybe some personal pecadillo with the wrong man's wife....or barely teen son or daughter brought this on. Maybe the driver was drunk.
Christine, do you realise how defensive you are? I asked for a reference that King Alfred, in your own words, "instituted the plough tax".

You reply with a long screed about the need for some form of poor relief, which was not the subject at issue, and you admit that Alfred might simply have continued his father's policy - in which case he didn't institute any such tax. As you are wrong, your comments about the plough tax being "something everyone should know about from English or European history in junior high or senior high school" are risible. I asked because I have recently read up on King Alfred out of private interest and found nothing about a plough tax. When I saw your comment I googled for it and found nothing, so I am not surprised that you are "having trouble finding the original information with the detail on the plough tax". Of course LAND was taxed, and land was ploughed, but that has been going on since time immemorial; perhaps you read something that conflated the two. It is a shame that you find it so hard to concede error.

I notice you don't bother to deal with the fact, that all the church charity in the past before govt. welfare was so extensive WAS PAID FOR BY MONEY FROM THE GOVT., ITSELF ORIGINATING AS TAXES.

I find it odd that the plough tax thing is hard to find online now, I think I mentioned that.

But it is something I knew from decades ago. The only dispute was, did he institute it or did he merely continue it? The code of law he put together was a biblically influenced version of existing codes.

The main issue is this: welfare and govt. intervention in economy and even the family way predated any notions of socialism, marxism or revolution.

That strange absence now, of info, I wonder if we can blame some "patriotic" rewriting of history on this? Whatever.

I am not defensive. I AM APPALLED AT IGNORANCE. The English poor laws efforts much later than King Alfred should be known as proof welfare statism and anything resembling it have nothing to do with Marxism. Indeed, even a cursory glance at Marxism should tell you this.

Because even if Fabianism was doing a gradualistic approach, the goal in both cases was total collectivism on a mass scale, and social engineering on a mass scale, while normal govt. interventionism and welfare are merely a matter of reforming existing situations, part of the duty of kings or whatever to care for the people when circumstances don't let them care for themselves.

Charity was never optional. in an earlier time of established churches, taxes incl. support for churches which support went in part to charity.

In this life you are under threat of prosecution for non payment.

In the next life, the threat for not doing charity or giving to the poor, is hellfire.

That doesn't sound like "personal choice" to me. That sounds like mandatory.

One of the big sins of American Christianity is pride, and ungodly type independence, and a sense of entitlement NOT THE KIND YOU COMPLAIN OF REGARDING PEOPLE DEMANDING GOVT. SUBSIDY,

but that you think you actually own yourself and your stuff. Lip service is given to God being "Lord" whatever you mean by that. But we don't own a thing God owns it all. Other typical sins are ambition, seeking glory, vanity. And yes, the infamous sexual sins, but guess what, they have a lot to do with these other sins.

Christine, my question about King Alfred was not about the rectitude of poor relief. All I asked was whether he instituted the plough tax. By all means punch air about other subjects if you wish, but I am merely a spectator to that.

My internet searching failed to find any tax on ploughs in English history by ANY English monarch. Land is taxed and land is ploughed, and perhaps you are conflating the two. As I said, it is a shame that you find it hard to concede error.

Christine, I think you are saying that although you (now?) accept there are natural mechanisms for removing salt from seawater, they can only prevent the concentration from increasing further, and never actually reduce it. I don't find it easy to work out what you are saying but I think that is the gist of your comments.

I replied that you should keep in mind that the concentration of salt in seawater is not uniform throughout the oceans. Allow me to explain why that means it IS possible to reduce the overall concentration. This happens when, to take one example of such a mechanism, a particularly salty bit of sea silts up.

The way it was phrased when I read this decades ago, before the Internet, was a penny on each plough to support the poor.

In old English law. A kind of tax or tribute anciently imposed upon every plow, (carue or plow-land,) for the public service.

old English law
: a tax on every plow or plowland

perhaps it started as on the plow, because that effectively included the land, and later got calculated per land. the concept began in Denmark apparently. Note the definition can be the plow itself or the plow land.


are you trying to duck this and change the subject?
"Carucage (...from carrūca, "wheeled plough")[3] was a medieval English land tax introduced by King Richard I in 1194, based on the size—variously calculated—of the estate owned by the taxpayer... Carucage was levied just six times: by Richard in 1194 and 1198; John, his brother and successor, in 1200; and John's son, Henry III, in 1217, 1220, and 1224, after which it was replaced by taxes on income and personal property." From

So: simply a name for a tax on arable land, and so named simply because arable land was ploughed. Not a "plough tax" ie a tax on ploughing implements. And not levied by King Alfred (or his father). How wrong can you be?

"are you trying to duck this and change the subject?"

No, you are. I am not going to fall for your diversion into the issue of poor relief, and you should not suppose what my views on that subject are. I am calling you simply on the notion of a "plough tax" and on when and by whom it was(n't) levied.

When you are in a hole, stop digging - or ploughing!
Credit where credit is due. Christine is correct, as I did a google search and found this - see first paragraph 2nd column.

"...a penny which King Ethelred ordered to be paid for every plough in England, towards the support of the poor..."
""are you trying to duck this and change the subject?"

No, you are. I am not going to fall for your diversion into the issue of poor relief, "

No YOU ARE DOING THE DIVERSION. Because the whole point about my original post, was poor relief by taxation BEFORE Marx.

Here is the original post, as you can see the plough tax was only an example one I preferred because King Alfred was a Christian king whose world view was shaped by the Bible as well as the world of his time. Which did not incl. Marx.

wealth redistribution always ends up with the money being redistributed from the poor and middle class to the rich.

wise up. socialism is a tool of the rich. Always was. And welfare is not the problem, the big money expense is so called corporate welfare and of course the military industrial complex.

In the Life of King Alfred the Great it is mentioned that in his earlier days, before he instituted the plough tax (to support the poor) he received some divine judgement against him, who, though a Christian king, had ignored the pleas of the poor for help and of others for justice. This is not about personal money of the king, which comes from taxes anyway. Welfare predates socialism and has nothing to do with it.

Marx put on his platform a plank of no fees to be charged for court cases. In other words, justice for free to the people involved. Only Connecticut as I recall has no court filing fees. This Marxist plank wasn't about "marxism" but a lure to get people with complaints on board.

You were talking about poor relief and mentioned the plough tax and King Alfred. I asked specifically about the plough tax and King Alfred. At no point did I engage you about the subject of medieval poor relief, so you cannot accuse me of disengaging from it.

Craig has found that there was a plough tax levied by King Ethelred. Which Ethelred that was is not stated in the reference that Craig gives. One was Alfred's brother, whom he succeeded as king of Wessex; another was King Ethelred "the unready" who was king of all England after the Danes had been pushed out a century later (a process begun by Alfred).

Craig's reference is a great start; I'd like to find out more because the reference he gives looks Victorian, and Victorian historians didn't go back to sources to the extent that we now know is necessary for reliability. Nevertheless, thank you Craig!

if you were so curious about it, why not just google it for yourself? the EFFECT of your entire posts has been to divert from the whole purpose of the post.
If this were any other subject I would assume you were just jolted by that one thing and curious about and wanted to save trouble. I might do the same.

But given the subject, the supposedly EEEEVULLLL welfare by taxation, I strongly suspect the effect is deliberate.
Christine, you ask me why I didn't google it for myself. But I said that I did (at 7.03am). Craig did a better job than me, however - or you.

As for my motivation: amateur history. Check and you'll find that I said I'd recently read up on King Alfred. If you wish to believe I have ulterior motives then you won't believe any denial, so I've nothing more to say.

I suspect that the Ethelred referred to in Craig's reference was Ethelred "the unready", who was Alfred's great-great-grandson and something of a lawmaker:
So Christine does that mean that now you are living only on SSI of the significant other/resident seer?

One minute you admit you needed to allow yourself to be helped by the system and now you say you are not relying on the system?

What a tangled web..........
The CDC Has A Patent On Ebola:

the conservative
anon 10:13

situations change.
Yes they do Christine. I hope yours is for the better.
Entheogenic esotericism is what happens when you
anesthetize the left side of your brain.
The right side is suddenly in charge but it really shouldn't be, because it's a clueless hippie.
Is Obama the first entheogenic president ?
Wasn't Clinton?
for those who think modern feminism is the only kind that ever existed, here is something from

On October 10, 1866, the pro-life founder of the women's movement, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, declared herself a candidate for Congress from the 8th Congressional District of New York, even though women did not yet have the right to vote. As a mother and a feminist, Stanton reported "four hundred murders annually produced by abortion in [one] county alone," Condemning the "murder of children, either before or after birth," Stanton "pointed to the only remedy, the education and enfranchisement of woman...."

NOTE: Stanton did make the error of focussing on "anti woman" stuff in the Bible and denouncing The Bible therefore whether at the same time or later, these points however taken in the overall picture show that it was an allowing not a demanding and the created order was nothing of the kind,
all male rule came as part of the curse after the Fall, and the mechanism was the default of the woman "your desire will be to your husband and he will rule over you." mitigation of curses on Adam was never called a sin (labor saving inventions like the plow and harnessing animals to do work) so why should mitigation of the curse on women be a sin? But it has to include changing her attitude and helping women develop what in Stanton's time was called "a man's mind." Paul warned women can be deceived, and refers to a woman being in subjection "as says the law." Now the Torah never dictated subjection except that one point, the curse, all other subjection was moderating an existing situation that was coming into play noticeably in Laban's time.

Jacob's wives complained of behavior that was normal later on, "he has treated us like strangers," devoured their inheritance and sold them. Clearly this wasn't the way it was in their childhood memory or they would not have thought it bad or strange.

So it would seem Paul is arguing (unless talking about local and Roman law in which case it was a matter of public relations only) that if a woman insists on having Eve's flaws she can keep her curse. The converse is implied of course.
Clinton DID NOT inhale.


Exactly! And Clinton "DID NOT have sex with 'that woman'."

But, I suppose it all depends on what your definition of "is" is...
"But, I suppose it all depends on what your definition of "is" is..."

Yup, that's what the transubstantiation debate is all about!

About time for me to update -- CLIFF KINCAID is my radio guest in the morning. He has strong opinions about Vladimir Putin that he wants to air in the morning. He sent me a review copy of his book BACK FROM THE DEAD - THE RETURN OF THE EVIL EMPIRE. I'm not all that sure that I disagree, however, with all of Pat Buchanan's analysis that maybe God is angry at USA over same sex marriage and abortion issues -- discussion in a.m. should be interesting. Lines will be open for comment at

I have been doing A LOT of reading about the incredibly bold Nazi woman Savitri Devi -- I'm 2/3 done with her book DEFIANCE. That the Nazis were firmly committed to doing away with all monotheism is plain from her writings. What a frighteningly evil mindset from what was an obviously brilliant but totally possessed and deluded woman.

To Susanna and Physicist:

I wrote two major articles on the 'global warming' and 'climate change' issues being used as a global redistribution scheme. They were published both in and here on my blogspot. Although I did them in 2007 they are just as relevant today because this scheme is being continuously advanced.
Here's a great compendium of quotes from influential global warming zealots, showing their real agenda:

In the great global warming debate, the science is primary. And it hasn't got warmer for more than a decade although China and India continue to industrialise and increase the atmospheric CO2 concentration.

Given the death wish of the West in recent decades, it is a measure of how strong it has been that it is still going, albeit mutating.

Thanks for those quotes Physicist.
One can never have too much ammo.

Thursday, October 09, 2014 post
anon 10:07 shame on you.
Matt. 7:21 "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven."
It is far from clear whether 10.07am agrees or disagrees with the blog post "A self-righteous gospel". Speaking as an evangelical I think that most of the heat in the gays vs evangelicals debate is because there is a political prize at stake, namely the State-recognised definition of marriage and what is taught in our schools. If we lived under a dictator who persecuted gays and also persecuted Christians then we would offer gays the gospel in love, same as to any community defined by a specific sin; and there would be little friction between the two communities.

All of which shows that the church has indeed become tainted by politics, aka law. A rather deeper critique than that given by Judah's Lion is in Greg Boyd's fine book "The myth of a Christian nation: How the quest for political power is destroying the church".

it is true that one can kid onesself that one is pure and righteous simply because one is not a pervert.

I thought that the title was anon 10:07's condemnatory take on the whole blog, which is exactly what the once saved always saved and grace covers all so you just pray the sinner's prayer once and keep on as usual and you are okay crowd would consider that blog.

A certain amount of "persecution" of evil is what govt. should do combined with efforts to reform them. Removing homosexual "orientation" and/or activity and interest at all from the psychiatric categories of mental illness was a big mistake, and came from political pressure not anything like science.

Supposing you can establish some people are born psychopathic. Does that mean they should be given special privileges and "acceptance"?

opposing gays and abortion is one of the ways that major spiritual sin supporting people trick us into voting for them.

Meanwhile short sighted or worse, appearances rather than content focussed conservatives, bemoan the increase of births out of wedlock.

Which increase means that the anti abortion message is being accepted!
10:07 A.M. said

That is the title of the post Christine.
Halfway report of Catholic gathering suggests that Church will soon allow gay marriage - CNN today.
I saw that too 4:47 PM.
I know a good number of my Catholic family members that will feel disinfranchised by that move if it happens. (and I think it will if going the way I think it is going)because it is a global world and the global agenda has reached it's ugly tentacles into every facet of society.
Actually there is no stopping it though, and a real service has been done by any who have tried to expose it in it's many many facets but in all honesty it is an issue for such a time as this.

It is going by The Book.

That is what I believe and others may or may not agree but time will tell won't it?
If anyone is praying for Kobane keep doing so. Every day a terrible fight on. This is a strategic city for ISIS (Islamic State) purposes and kurdish controlled land is the only reliably safe place for Christians. Most are themselves islamic but mostly secular or too concerned with their culture to care about islam that much, for instance, their women never wore the veil. The hijab is a universal Middle Eastern Mediteranean thing predating Islam.

Pray for kurdish victory everywhere in Syria and Iraq. Right now, Iraqi forces are going to quit if USA doesn't put boots on the ground with them. Kurds will fight to the death even in the face of certain defeat, which is why Kobane has stood this long with only airstrikes supporting it.

If the RC allows gay marriage, it would be either a renegade clique of bishops (nothing new in itself, either towards traditionalism or liberalism) or the pope speaking ex cathedra.

Now, if he does so, note carefully what he says.

If he says that RC has no authority over non members, and that secular society is ipso facto pagan so it doesn't matter what the marriage laws
are, this has no bearing on RC internal matters, so Catholics should spend their time on more productive issues like abortion which is after all a murder issue, OR WORDS TO THAT EFFECT,
then it isn't that bad.

But if he says that RC priests are now allowed to perform such marriages, then you got proof right there that the Infallibility doctrine is false.

It was strongly opposed in the council that proclaimed it, but they were outvoted. This is not something that was universally held up to that time and merely formalized then by any means.
The roots of the doctrine of papal infallibility were in the pseudo-Isidorean decretals that had been forged in the Dark Ages.
anon 4:43 maybe the roots in a way, but these had nothing to do with infallibility, they supposedly gave the pope secular as well as religious rule.

Infallibility started when the Franciscans invented the argument. A pope had declared their lifestyle to be Apostolic, and a subsequent pope said no, and they said one pope can't undo what another pope did.
No Christine, you are confusing the pseudo-Isidorean decretals with the Donation of Constantine, another forged document. THAT is the one that supposedly gave the Pope secular as well as religious rule. Still the best exposee of how the pseudo-Isidorean decretals were the main documents appealed to when papal infallibility was formalised is the book "The Pope and the Council" published (pseudonymously) as a contribution to debate by a loyal Catholic German scholarly historian, Ignaz von Doellinger, the year before infallibility was formalised; see especially section 7, titled "Forgeries". He was shattered by the outcome of the First Vatican Council. He shows how the Thomist arguments quoted in support of the doctrine derive from the decretals, which Thomas believed in good faith (but incorrectly) were authentic. Doellinger understood that the doctrine was the definitive resolution of a power struggle within the Roman Catholic church between 'ecumenical' Councils of its bishops, and the papacy. It was a Council which, of necessity, had got things back on track during the era of two and then briefly three contending Popes in the 14th and 15th centuries. But the Renaissance Popes who followed smarted at the subordination of the papacy to councils; Pius II’s bull Execrabilis of 1460 was a threat to anathematise anybody merely calling for an ecumenical council to question papal decrees.

yep my bad.

The "Contraction and convergence" mentioned in your excellent News With Views article is simply another euphemism used to disguise the "Third Way" agenda, or what used to be described as a merger between capitalism and communism and ultimately between the United States and the Soviet Union......a merger once known as Franklin D. Roosevelt's "theory of convergence."

Diana West goes into FDR's "theory of convergence" in great depth in her book AMERICAN BETRAYAL: THE SECRET ASSAULT ON OUR NATION'S CHARACTER.

Specifically with regard to the global warming scam, I heard just today that Obama is going to huddle with the military hacks that he has just recently installed in the Pentagon to replace the more competent generals he fired on account of their apparent unwillingness to toe the party line. The purpose of the hack - huddle is to discuss global warming in terms of its being a threat to national security.

Obama Pentagon: ‘Global Warming’ Is A National Security Threat

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon released a report Monday asserting decisively that climate change poses an immediate threat to national security, with increased risks from terrorism, infectious disease, global poverty and food shortages. It also predicted rising demand for military disaster response as extreme weather creates more global humanitarian crises.

The report lays out a road map for how the military will adapt to rising sea levels, more violent storms and widespread droughts. The Defense Department will begin by integrating plans for climate change risks across all of its operations, from war games and strategic defense planning situations to a rethinking of the movement of supplies.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, speaking Monday at a summit meeting of defense ministers in Peru, highlighted the report’s findings and the global security threats of climate change.

“The loss of glaciers will strain water supplies in several areas of our hemisphere,” Mr. Hagel said. “Destruction and devastation from hurricanes can sow the seeds for instability. Droughts and crop failures can leave millions of people without any lifeline, and trigger waves of mass migration.”

“We have already seen these events unfold in other regions of the world,” he added, “and there are worrying signs that climate change will create serious risks to stability in our own hemisphere. Two of the worst droughts in the Americas have occurred in the past 10 years.”

While foreign policy experts have for years warned that climate change could present a future risk to national security, the Pentagon’s characterization of climate change as a threat demanding immediate action represents a significant shift for the military more.....

The truth is that global warming is nothing more than a global wealth redistribution scam in which first world countries like the USA are targeted for a shake down by third world socialist crapholes which need the money - not to prevent global warming - to prop up their tinpot socialist dictatorships.

Recall the the teaching of Saul Alinsky. "The issue is never the issue."
Physicist 4:21 A.M.

Thank you for the link.

I am laughing myself silly over "Spanky Banky."

Whatever could that possibly mean?

People may have fifty shades of gray guesses, but as for me, I couldn't possibly comment.
Wasn't "Spanky Banky" a song performed by Tommy James and the Shondells, released in between "Hanky Panky" and "Mony, Mony"?

The CNN report is misleading. The relatio is a summary of first week discussions .

Another report is due at the end of this week. It will be voted on and then next year will be reviewed, and a final document will be issued by the Pope.

The Synod is going to finally conclude next year.

Sorry, I've not checked in for a couple of days. I am more than perturbed at the Vatican Synod Report -- marriage between a man and woman is foundational. Susanna, what is your prediction/prognosis on how it will all sort out in the end? The LGBT community is taking no small amount of comfort from it!

Hi Susanna,

My problem, however, with Ms. West, is that unfortunately, she had some documentable ties with Unification Church -- she was employed by the Washington Times and I don't ever remember hearing her disown Rev. Moon -- she claimed he never interfered editorially, but my research on others showed that was not the case.

Co-Evolution, the ever popular New Age theory was the all-prevailing Nazi theory. I'm finishing Savitri Devi's incredibly evil book, DEFIANCE which so many people in extreme right circles seem to find fascinating today. Their belief in "co-evolution" was struggle of the fittest to perfect the Aryans to "god hood." The woman was TOTALLY POSSESSED!

Michael Voris has been spot on this week at the synod in Rome !!

"the "Third Way" agenda, or what used to be described as a merger between capitalism and communism and ultimately between the United States and the Soviet Union......a merger once known as Franklin D. Roosevelt's "theory of convergence." "

This is exactly what has emerged in China, without - in my opinion - any involvement of Them.

"Obama is going to huddle with the military hacks that he has just recently installed in the Pentagon to replace the more competent generals he fired on account of their apparent unwillingness to toe the party line. The purpose of the hack - huddle is to discuss global warming in terms of its being a threat to national security."

So something that isn't a threat to national security is going to be discussed by someone who is...
The Internet Of Things World Forum is going on now in Chicago:

Creepy stuff.

Diana West has done incredible research lately, and her book "American Betrayal" is a watershed book which is making lots of waves in conservative circles and waking people up to some of the deception games being played by Moscow and Islam, who are "joined at the hip".

That she hasn't vocally disavowed Rev. Moon just because she worked at Washington Times is sketchy grounds for suspicion - guilt by association. Although given what you've encountered over the years with other similar scenarios, I certainly understand your concern.

Is there something else you mean by "documented ties" that you haven't mentioned yet? If so, please share - I'd like to know.

"Wasn't "Spanky Banky" a song performed by Tommy James and the Shondells, released in between "Hanky Panky" and "Mony, Mony"?"

Perhaps you are thinking of "Wooly Bully" by Sam the Sham - all very appropriate for a leader of the UN.

Anon 1:31,

Hmmm. Could be. Were you including the band's moniker 'Sam the Sham' (with emphasis on the latter part) as "all very appropriate for a leader of the UN?"


I do not yet have all the facts on this synod or all the players involved, but I can say unequivocally that no Pope has the authority to change Church teachings "ex cathedra" in matters of faith and morals.

As Father Joseph Fessio S.J. once said half-jokingly, if a Pope tried to do this "the Holy Spirit would kill him."

This is actually believed to have happened once when Pope Sixtus V, thinking himself a great Latin scholar, decided to retranslate the Vulgate and was about to promulgate his "Bible of errors" ex cathdra when he died suddenly......seemingly of "natural causes."

It should be noted that in spite of his deficiencies as a Latin scholar, Pope Sixtus V did accomplish a great many good things during his pontificate.

When all is said and done, the Pope is just as subject to the Rule of Faith as his flock and whatever authority he has over his flock as the successor of Peter is believed by Catholics to be a delegated authority......delegated by Christ.

As for the synod, the following article from Catholic News Agency is instructive:

How an incorrect translation of the synod report created chaos

Unfortunately, there are indications that information is being manipulated in such a way as to portray the synod and Pope Francis as changing church teaching.

Michael Voris has again hit the nail on the head at the synod in Rome !!

Sixtus V DID publish his error-strewn Latin Bible. Complimentary copies were sent to European crowned heads, and it was made available for purchase; Rome did its best to buy all copies back once its defects were realised. Sixtus sent it out in parallel with the bull Aeternus Ille which stated emphatically, and obviously ex cathedra, that his version was the last word. That it had not been "promulgated", which means little more than that somebody in the Roman Curia hadn't got round to putting it on a particular list, is scarcely relevant. Cardinal Belllarmine lied in his preface to the revised and corrected edition in which he stated that the errors were due to the printers and that Sixtus himself had called for it to be corrected. Bellarmine admitted this in his autobiography (eds. J.J.I. von Döllinger & F.H. Reusch, Die Selbstbiographie des Cardinals Bellarmin; Bonn, 1887).

ahem. we can add this to pope Honorius who was excommunicated by his fellow patriarchate bishops in an Ecumenical council, I forget which one, which even Rome now accepts. They argue he merely didn't oppose monotheletism enough but that is not what people get in official trouble for. It is for explicit statements and actions.

Papal infallibility was approved by a western (RC) council ON THE BASIS OF THOMIST ARGUMENTS BASED ON FALSE INFORMATION. (the Isidorian Decretals.) It was NEVER something held "always, everywhere and by everyone," being hotly disputed at the time.

So this doctrine passed because of a deception. That means the deceived council was in error, and gave the pope a power he did not in fact have. So papal infallibility is false.

Then the pope went and made Immaculate Conception official, itself another doctrine NOT held "always everywhere and by all" but hotly disputed and only vague similarities sometimes in the East (aka EO later) and hotly contested in the Middle Ages.

So it is false.

That means Lourdes and any other vision that supports it is also false, and they have other dubious features about them.

RC DOES NOT REQUIRE BELIEF IN SUCH VISIONS rather says they are okay to believe IF YOU WANT TO. Sounds like whoever came up with that one was uncomfortable with the whole thing. The problem is, the visionaries never test the spirit and the spirit manifesting doesn't put itself in a situation to be tested by a savvy exorcist or bishop.

It is not enough to look at what does it say, though that is better than nothing. The real test is nailing the thing in direct questioning, and this never happens.
"Then the pope went and made Immaculate Conception official, itself another doctrine NOT held "always everywhere and by all" but hotly disputed and only vague similarities sometimes in the East (aka EO later) and hotly contested in the Middle Ages."

The outstanding scholarly book which translates and analyzes the earliest extant sources is Stephen Shoemaker's book "Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary's Dormition and Assumption". There is a multigenerational gap between the events spoken of and the earliest sources.

All of these posts about the catholic usurption (hijack) of God's word only shows me (again) that religion will have to do as it has done before...collapse under it's own weight. This time once and for all because Jesus Himself is coming to put all this under His feet.
All this much ado about nothing is not the way God goes about saving sinful men (including popes) in fact, directly in the way of the Holy Spirit who alone can cure the conscience and redeem the soul.
So if you must keep your crumbling religion then fine...
Give me Jesus.
He is enough without all the torture and complication of man's convoluted fleshly attempts to be good and faulty ways to pretend they are spiritual.
"the Holy Spirit who alone can cure the conscience and redeem the soul."
(meant to leave this phrase in in the edit)
the Holy Spirit who alone has the mind of God and able to apply the blood of Jesus that can cure the conscience and redeem the soul.
If the Pope is in error, he ceases to be pope.

Sixtus V reigned as pope from 1585-1590. He has been described as a "brilliant leader in political and ecclesiastical arenas, a tireless innovator in agriculture, engineering and law, he effectively enacted and enforced laws, created an impressive aqueduct system, reformed clergy and the Church’s liturgical customs, tackled building projects, drained the swamps near Rome to eliminate the siege of malaria, spent large amounts of money on charitable works and missions, and oversaw the completion of the St. Peter’s Basilica." Unfortunately he had an ego to match and this got him into serious trouble when a revision of the Latin Vulgate edition of the holy Bible was begun. "Historian Francis Gasquet explains the background of the Vulgate: ‘The Latin text of the Sacred Scriptures had existed from the earliest times of Christianity.’ The translators were unknown to St. Augustine and St. Jerome; but the former says that the old Latin version had certainly come ‘from the first days of the Faith’, and the latter that it ‘ had helped strengthen the Faith of the infant Church.’ Made and copied without any official supervision these western texts soon became corrupt or doubtful."

Since the Church was much threatened by Protestant doctrines that were fast appearing throughout much of Europe and since there were numerous editions of the Vulgate in circulation, Pope Sixtus recognized that the Church required best biblical translation possible to meet Protestant arguments. He acted forthrightly in assembling a team of scholars and linguists, headed by eminent theologians like Cardinal Robert Bellarmine and others. They compiled as many Greek manuscripts as could be assembled and finished the revision process by the end of 1588. But apparently overcome by pride, the pope found the ten thousand readings they had diligently chosen inadequate, and angrily announced he would personally revise the Vulgate. He declared, ‘We, weighing the importance of the matter, and considering carefully the great and singular privilege we hold of God, and our true and legitimate succession from Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles . . . Are the proper and specially constituted Person to decide this whole question."

Ill equipped for the task, Sixtus eliminated all the work done by the former commission, and started fresh. Unfortunately his abilities to translate, edit and make all the appropriate decisions were beyond his capabilities and the result was an error filled translation presented to the cardinals in early 1590.


Cardinal Bellarmine and Fr. Toledo, another Jesuit scholar revealed their fears "…that by such mutilation he [Sixtus] was laying himself open to the attacks of the heretics, and was giving more serious scandal to the faithful than anything else the pope could do . . . " If Sixtus had formally promulgated this distorted version, it would have allowed a strong case to be argued against the doctrine of papal infallibility since the Pope would have fulfilled the three requirements layed out by Vatican I for an infallible teaching. But the weight of opposition was sufficient, thanks to Bellarmine and others, to stope the Pope from releasing it. Still, he worked on correction of typographical errors with the apparent intention of releasing a corrected version soon. Patrick Madrid writes, "Expectation was at a boiling point. The news in Rome had it that the official promulgation would happen any day. Advance copies of the new Vulgate had been bound and delivered to all the cardinals in Rome along with advance copies of the bull officially publishing it. Everything was ready for the pope to promulgate the new version. Nothing could stop him." But at the last moment Sixtus, whose health and vigor were never questioned, took to his bed, dying on August 27, 1590 after a brief illness. The Holy Spirit's promise to guide the Church to all truth seems to have been fulfilled again. "Only God knows if Sixtus’ sudden death was dramatic proof of divine intervention-- the evidence that papal infallibility isn’t just a Catholic idea, but that God Himself will prevent, by death if necessary, the pope from teaching an error formally to the Church." (Madrid, pps. 242-51, Pope Fiction).
Revisionist history! Sixtus' Latin Bible went out uncorrected to crowned heads and was also commercially available and had the backing of the Bull Aeternus Ille, which stated ex cathedra that it was definitive. "Promulgation" is irrelevant in the light of those facts; invoking it is a legalistic attempt to save Sixtus' reputation (and perhaps papal infallibility, although this is scarcely the strongest argument against it).

Bellarmine admitted in his autobiography, “I showed [Sixtus’ successor] that… it would be better to correct it in such manner that it could be published without detriment to the honour of Pope Sixtus. This result could be achieved by removing inadvisable changes as quickly as possible, and then issuing the volume with Sixtus’ name upon it, and a preface stating that owing to haste some errors had crept into the first edition through the fault of printers and other persons.” (J.J.I. von Döllinger & F.H. Reusch, eds., Die Selbstbiographie des Cardinals Bellarmin; Bonn, 1887).

Anonymous 10:56

Be careful about Michael Voris. He is like a modern day Father Leonard Sweeney albeit without the Roman collar.

Father Leonard Sweeney taught that everyone who wasn't explicitly Roman Catholic was going to hell in a handbasket.

Pope Sixtus V had planned on officially publishing a [botched|heretical] version of the Latin Vulgate Bible. This was the ONLY version Catholics were to use.

From POPE FICTION by Patrick Madrid concerning Pope Sixtus V's plan to officially publish a (botched/heretical) version of the Latin Bible and making it the ONLY version Catho;lics were to use:

By now, expectation was at a boiling point. The news in Rome had it that the official promulgation would happen any day. Advance copies of the new Vulgate had been bound and delivered to all the cardinals in Rome along with advance copies of the bull officially publishing it. Everything was now ready for the pope to promulgate the new version. Nothing could stop him. All he had to do was take the last fateful step.

BUT, the next day, they found him dead in his bed due to a brief illness : )

He had been in excellent health, and was one of the more vigorous and active pontiffs in the history of the papacy. But at the last moment, it seems the Holy Spirit fulfilled, once again, Christ's promise that He would guide the Church into all truth. Advanced copies of the version were quietly withdrawn by the cardinals.

The bull announcing it, was never issued. At the request of the new pope, Gregory XIX, under Cardinal Bellarmine's supervision, a new commission was formed to carry out the revision of the revision.

Pope Fiction, Pages 250-251
See what I mean?
The fallible trying hard to be infallible. (ain't working)
Redemption is God's idea and work.
Religion is man's idea and work.
Jesus is my Savior..not my religion
Anonymous 2:12 P.M.

RE: Revisionist history!

If anyone was guilty of historical revisionism, it was Dollinger, who was excommunicated precisely over his opposition to the dogma of Papal Infallibility.

As for Saint Robert Bellarmine who isa Doctor of the Catholic Church:

...In 1588 Bellarmine was made Spiritual Father to the Roman College, but in 1590 he went with Cardinal Gaetano as theologian to the embassy Sixtus V was then sending into France to protect the interests of the Church amidst the troubles of the civil wars. Whilst he was there news reached him that Sixtus, who had warmly accepted the dedication of his "De Controversiis", was now proposing to put its first volume on the Index. This was because he had discovered that it assigned to the Holy See not a direct but only an indirect power over temporals. Bellarmine, whose loyalty to the Holy See was intense, took this greatly to heart; it was, however, averted by the death of Sixtus, and the new pope, Gregory XIV, even granted to Bellarmine's work the distinction of a special approbation. Gaetano's mission now terminating, Bellarmine resumed his work as Spiritual Father, and had the consolation of guiding the last years of St. Aloysius Gonzaga, who died in the Roman College in 1591. Many years later he had the further consolation of successfully promoting the beatification of the saintly youth. Likewise at this time he sat on the final commission for the revision of the Vulgate text. This revision had been desired by the Council of Trent, and subsequent popes had laboured over the task and had almost brought it to completion. But Sixtus V, though unskilled in this branch of criticism, had introduced alterations of his own, all for the worse. He had even gone so far as to have an impression of this vitiated edition printed and partially distributed, together with the proposed Bull enforcing its use. He died, however, before the actual promulgation, and his immediate successors at once proceeded to remove the blunders and call in the defective impression. The difficulty was how to substitute a more correct edition without affixing a stigma to the name of Sixtus, and Bellarmine proposed that the new edition should continue in the name of Sixtus, with a prefatory explanation that, on account of aliqua vitia vel typographorum vel aliorum which had crept in, Sixtus had himself resolved that a new impression should be undertaken. The suggestion was accepted, and Bellarmine himself wrote the preface, still prefixed to the Clementine edition ever since in use. On the other hand, he has been accused of untruthfulness in stating that Sixtus had resolved on a new impression. But his testimony, as there is no evidence to the contrary, should be accepted as decisive, seeing how conscientious a man he was in the estimation of his contemporaries; and the more so since it cannot be impugned without casting a slur on the character of his fellow-commissioners who accepted his suggestion, and of Clement VIII who with full knowledge of the facts gave his sanction to Bellarmine's preface being prefixed to the new edition. Besides, Angelo Rocca, the Secretary of the revisory commissions of Sixtus V and the succeeding pontiffs, himself wrote a draft preface for the new edition in which he makes the same statement: (Sixtus) "dum errores ex typographiâ ortos, et mutationes omnes, atque varias hominum opiniones recognoscere cœpit, ut postea de toto negotio deliberare atque Vulgatam editionem, prout debebat, publicare posset, morte præventus quod cœperat perficere non potuit". This draft preface, to which Bellarmine's was preferred, is still extant, attached to the copy of the Sixtine edition in which the Clementine corrections are marked, and may be seen in the Biblioteca Angelica at Rome......
God's intervention could have happened without it being relevant to papal infallibility, especially since this was BEFORE the doctrine was proclaimed, and it was not universally held by the bishops who opposed it when it came up for approval.

anon 5:24 Assumption after Dormition has nothing to do with Immaculate Conception. References to Mary as immaculate in early times are more relevant to her conduct and faith than her conception. If an occasional excessive opinion was expressed by one or two fathers explicitly speaking of her conception that means nothing.

If she was referred to as kept pure FROM her conception that doesn't mean the conception itself was immaculate, but that divine intervention happened at some time when she was a blastocyst or an embryo.

Okay, if the pope errs he ceases to be pope, but to determine if he is erring or not and kick him out if he is, one has to be willing to examine his statements AS IF he is not infallible, doesn't one?

Interior Minister Gideon Saar has instructed the Population, Immigration and Border Authority (PIBA) to allow the registration of a new nationality – Aramaean – in the identity cards of Christian citizens who were registered as Arabs until now.

In a letter to PIBA Director Amnon Ben-Ami, Saar wrote that he has “received three opinions according to which the existence of the Aramaean nationality is clear and obvious, as required by the Supreme Court's ruling.”

"The conditions required by the ruling for proving the existence of the nationality are present – including historical heritage, religion, culture, descent and language," he determined.

Saar wrote that “the registration clerks must be instructed in accordance with the Population Registry Law that a resident who first registers in the Population Registry, and who requests to be registered as an Aramaean in the nationality detail, will be able to register thus.”

Saar's decision ultimately applies to those Christians currently living in Israel who identify as Aramaean, can speak Aramaic, and are either from the Maronite, Orthodox Aramaic, Greek Orthodox, Greek Catholic and Syriac Catholic denominations. Some of them, wishing for a change of status, applied as a group to the Interior Ministry as far back as 2010 and will now finally be allowed to register as Aramaeans.

A Facebook page representing supporters of Father Gabriel Nadaf, a leader of the Aramaean minority, was ecstatic over the decision.

The decision “corrects a historic injustice that wrongly defined Israel's citizens of eastern-Christian descent as 'Christian Arabs,' although other than their spoken language, they have absolutely no connection to the Arab nationality,” he wrote.

In an emotional letter to Saar, Nadaf thanked him for Israeli society's “pluralism and its openness to absorbing religious and ethnic minorities out of love and acceptance, without any discrimination, according to the principles of democracy, individual freedom, freedom of conscience and freedom of worship.”

Father Nadaf said that the Christians wish to become “an inseparable part” of Israeli society make their voices heard “in the social, economic, academic and political sphere in the state of Israel.”

He went further and said that the decision is even more meaningful in a regional and historic perspective.

“This is the first time that a Middle Eatern state recognizes the Aramaean-Christian minority as a legitimate nationality and acts to preserve it, the teaching of its language and its absorption in society,” he wrote.

"In contrast with the region's countries, in which Christians and other minorities are systematically murdered, churches are destroyed and people are forced to hide their identities just because they are defined as Christians – while with every decade that the world progresses, the Arab countries go a decade backward – the state of Israel has made a giant lead forward.”

Nadaf is unique among Orthodox Christian leaders in that he advocates a strong connection between his community and the state – and for that he has been sanctioned by the official Greek Orthodox church, which has sought to have him defrocked.

Arab MKs have also condemned him, calling him “an agent of Zionism who seeks to divide Arabs.” Nadaf has also been threatened with violence, and even death, he told Israeli reporters. But he insists that he represents a sizable portion of the Christian Israeli community.

"We feel secure in the state of Israel,” Nadaf has said, “and we see ourselves as citizens of the state with all the attendant rights as well as obligations.”
"If anyone was guilty of historical revisionism, it was Dollinger, who was excommunicated precisely over his opposition to the dogma of Papal Infallibility."

Doellinger wrote his book as a scholarly contribution to the debate about papal infallibility ahead of the decision. He knew full well that the Thomist doctrines on which infallibility rested were derived by Thomas from the pseudo-Isidorean decretals, which Thomas was unaware were forgeries. At this point Doellinger was a deeply loyal Catholic who wanted to prevent the church he loved from making a fool of itself by asserting a doctrine based on falsehoods, and he was free to point this out without compromising his good standing within the Roman Catholic church.

Then it was decided at the First Vatican Council that papal infallibility was true.

At that point we have to divide: some say that Doellinger, who was unable to accept the doctrine, overnight became a heretic. Others say that he was a man of deep scholarship and integrity whose church had let him down rather vice-versa.

Which side is right simply cannot be discussed without looking at Doellinger's arguments about the origin of infallibility in forged documents. Knee-jerk accusations of disloyalty do nothing to discredit him. I would say only that might is not necessarily right and that Doellinger can be read in his own words at

As for Bellarmine's role in lying, see his autobiography in which he admitted it (quoted at 2.12pm above) and the following article, which exposes the distortions about "promulgation":

If you send complimentary copies of a book to Europe's crowned heads and other men of influence, including a preface saying that this is the one true Bible and that you, the Pope, are insisting so, with no rider about "subject to promulgation", then you may reasonably be taken to mean what you say.

If some here nevertheless wish to go down the road of legalism, what EXACTLY constituted promulgation in the post-Trent era?

Watch Michael Voris as he again brings to light the deception by some of those at the synod..."Document-Gate"
Anonymous 8:56 P.M.

Since Dollinger and his protégé Reusch were involved in the publication of the autobiography of Saint Robert Bellarimine, I am not inclined to trust it.

The reason why I am not inclined to trust it is because according to the late Father John A. Hardon, S.J.:

Shortly after his defection from Rome, Johann Döllinger bitterly reproached the First Vatican Council with "doing nothing but defining the private opinions of a single man—Cardinal Robert Bellarmine. The accusation is false but suggestive, because it leads us to investigate the teaching of St. Robert on the organization of the Catholic Church as the Mystical Body of Christ.

If Dollinger could falsely state that the First Vatican Council merely defined the private opinion of a single man - Cardinal Bellarmine, then his credibility is undercut with regard to anything else he might have to say about Bellarmine.

As for the forged Decretals,even Dollinger admitted that the goal of the forger was not the extension of papal authority.


That the False Decretals contain material that supports papal claims does not prove that the bishops of Rome played any part in their manufacture. Forgers often mix actual events, widely-known facts, and personalities into their work in order to improve a document's credibility. One cannot presume the subject matter of a forged document easily or necessarily reveals the identity or the agenda of its true author. The spurious "Arabic Canons" of Nicaea, which call the pope the "head and prince of all patriarchs," are more explicitly pro-primacy than are the genuine canons of the council of Nicaea. These spurious canons were written not in the West but in the East. If this fact had not been known widely, anti-Catholic apologists might have added the Arabic Canons to their list of alleged Roman forgeries.....


If you are going to impugn the integrity of von Doellinger to the extent of accusing him of making up parts of Bellarmine's autobiography then be aware that that is a serious charge to make against a man. Here is Doellinger:

...a Catholic loyal enough to have written anti-protestant material, a leading academic church historian in the country having the best scholars at that time, and a man who wrote a book BEFORE the First Vatican Council about the dubious historical roots of the doctrine of papal infallibility as a service to his church. No Catholic here has engaged with Doellinger's arguments, perhaps because he is right; read them for yourself at

After papal infallibility went through, Doellinger was unable to accept it but he did nothing to further the Old Catholic Church which took the same view, saying merely that he agreed with it but did not wish to be a schismatic by promoting it.

That suggests a man of integrity. Furthermore, no serious scholar would make up, at an advanced age, a quote from Bellarmine stating that he lied (given at 2.12pm above), because such an action would be instantly detectable by Vatican insiders with access to the original of Bellarmine's autobiography - who would after 1870 be pleased to nail Doellinger for lying and so undermine his entire life's scholarship.

Furthermore, works NOT edited by Doellinger show that Bellarmine's lies about the Sistine Vulgate, appearing in the preface to the revised edition, were a serious bar to his canonisation. So, high-ups inside the Vatican accepted either the purported admission (see 2.12pm above) in his autobiography or something equivalent to it.

"As for the forged Decretals,even Dollinger admitted that the goal of the forger was not the extension of papal authority."

True - but not the point, because once a document is written, the material in it is available to be co-opted for a different purpose than that of its author.

What sources does Patrick Madrid give for his claim that Rome was all a-tremble over whether Sixtus would "promulgate" his edition of the Vulgate and its preface Aeternus Ille? I question that view and suspect that Madrid is unintentionally repeating distortions. Are his sources contemporary with Sixtus? And what was involved in "promulgation" in the late 16th century?

Please note that I am not seeking to widen this discussion into a battle about papal infallibility or about Bellarmine's canonisation. But the whitewashing of Sixtus in the passage you quoted about his Vulgate deserved to be pointed out.

Looking at how things developed, and the presence of the same Venetian individual helping the Reformation
AND the Counter Reformation, I can't help wondering if the Reformation wasn't the result in part of a plot by an RC
segment with the Venetians, to do a dialectical war that ramped up papal power and Marian status.

That book by Dollinger is worth reading, you can find some examples of papal mutual contradictions, and check RC sources
to validate them. The example at the page I stopped at, is Innocent I and Gelasius saying that unbaptized infants
burn in hell, and a later western council condemning this belief. That's just for starters. I wonder what else I am going to find when I get back to
reading it.

Contra this is a statement from an early church writer that aborted babies go to heaven while their mothers go to hell.
While this wasn't a council statement, it shows the tenor of thought.
Anonymous 5:33 A.M.

As for my so-called my "impugning the integrity of von Doellinger to the extent of accusing him of making up parts of Bellarmine's autobiography," you obviously have no scruples about impugning the integrity of a man whom Catholics acknowledge as a canonized Saint - SAINT Robert Bellarmine - to the extent of accusing HIM of lying in spite of there being no concrete evidence - not even in the writings of Dollinger - that Bellarmine had actually done so.

As for "whitewashing Sixtus"????

You have got to be kidding!!!

In my original comment to Constance I pointed out that Sixtus may have been struck dead by God before he was able to officially promulgate a bogus bible.

Hardly an instanceof "whitewashing."

At one time, Doellinger may have been a loyal Catholic, but unfortunately his liberalism/modernism its accompanying historical criticism led him to become a heretic.

Moreover, he was a heretic in the strictest sense of the word because he was a baptised Catholic.

Döllinger was a brilliant scholar whose embrace of modern historical criticism and whose belief in religious freedom brought him into conflict with papal policy. His opposition to the Ultramontanists, those who supported papal infallibility, led to his designation as the leader of the antipapal party in Germany.

In 1869 Döllinger wrote a series of articles, later enlarged and published as Der Papst und das Konzil (1869; The Pope and the Council), under the pen name Janus. This book, which criticized the Vatican Council and the doctrine of infallibility, immediately was placed on the Vatican’s Index of Forbidden Books.

After his refusal to accept the doctrine of papal infallibility, Döllinger was excommunicated (1871) but was elected rector of Munich University in the same year. Döllinger and his colleagues, all excommunicated, held a congress to oppose the council’s dogmas at Munich on Sept. 22, 1871; it was attended by 300 Old Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, and Lutheran sympathizers. A committee, of which Döllinger was a member, drew up a doctrinal basis and a program for separate organization. According to Döllinger, it was the vocation of the Old Catholic communion to protest the Vatican dogmas, to support a Catholic church free from error, and to reunite Christendom.....


By the way, the Liberal Catholic Church is the British development of the Old Catholic Church.

The name Liberal Catholic Church (LCC) is used by a number of separate Christian churches throughout the world which are open to esoteric beliefs and hold many ideas in common.

Though the term "Liberal Catholic" might suggest otherwise, it does not refer to liberal groups within the Roman Catholic Church but to groups within the "Independent Catholic" tradition.

There are essentially two groups of Liberal Catholic churches; those which espouse theosophical ideas and those which do not do so.

The founding bishops of the Liberal Catholic churches were J. I. Wedgwood of the Wedgwood China family and the Theosophist Charles Webster Leadbeater. Wedgwood was a former Anglican priest who left the Anglican church on becoming a theosophist in 1904. After serving in several high offices in the Theosophical Society, including being general secretary of the society in England and Wales from 1911 to 1913, he was ordained as a priest in the Old Catholic movement on July 22, 1913, by Arnold Harris Mathew.
Matthew in turn was a former Roman Catholic priest who had left to be ordained as a bishop in the Old Catholic Church, which had separated from papal authority in 1873 over the issue of papal infallibility. The Old Catholics maintained that their ordinations were valid within the Catholic tradition, and the Liberal Catholic Church thus claims to trace its apostolic succession back to Rome through Old Catholicism more...

It was Charles Leadbeater, who teamed up with Annie Besant with a view to presenting a young adolescent Indian boy named Jiddu Krishnamurti to the world as "Maytreya."

You can have the last word.
The Liberal or Old Catholic church is not of interest to me, nor to regular Catholics, nor to many people it seems from its small size.

No concrete evidence that Bellarmine lied? Try this:

* the fact that the Vatican regarded his confession in his autobiography that he lied, in the preface to the corrected Sistine Vulgate, as an obstacle to his canonisation (although not insuperable).

* Acording to Doellinger's edition of Bellarmine's autobiography, this confession runs as follows: “I showed [Sixtus’ successor] that… it would be better to correct it in such manner that it could be published without detriment to the honour of Pope Sixtus. This result could be achieved by removing inadvisable changes as quickly as possible, and then issuing the volume with Sixtus’ name upon it, and a preface stating that owing to haste some errors had crept into the first edition through the fault of printers and other persons.” We can be sure that the canonising committee (1930) did not trust Doellinger's edition because Doellinger was by then a heretic by Catholic standards. They could and surely would have looked up Bellarmine's original, and the impediment was admitted to be there and discussed.

Yes, Doellinger became a Catholic heretic once papal infallibility was formalised. Others would regard the doctrine itself as heretical. I do not wish to dispute about that here; I do insist that the doctrine rests, through Aquinas, on bogus documents, the pseudo-Isidorean decretals. Witness Doellinger's book "The Pope and the Council". No Catholic has denied it here.

As for Sixtus, my apologies for the word "whitewash". However, it is sheer legalism to distinguish between publishing and promulgating his flawed Vulgate. He sent it out to Europe's crowned Catholic heads together with a preface saying that it was now the one true Bible and available from the Vatican's printers.

I do not seek the last word; I seek the truth.

Anon@1:26 pm,

The forged document you speak of is accepted as forgery by the Catholic church.

It is not however, seen as totally false since it mixes truth with fiction.

It ascribes things to the Pope, that he has no authority to do, much , like how some people today, think the Pope can change things, they want changed.

Susanna, pointed out that this is not the case.

You can continue to insist otherwise. It does not make it true.

Dear 3.38pm:

Nowhere did I claim that the Roman Catholic church asserts the authenticity of the pseudo-Isidorean decretals today, or even in 1870 when the doctrine of papal infallibility was formalised. I claim rather that those who argued for the doctrine derived their arguments, through Aquinas, from those decretals. The case is made by Doellinger in his book:

Do take him on!


exactly. RC now recognizes it is a forgery, but thought it was real in Aquinas' day.

Aquinas argued from it.

Papal infallibility declared based on Aquinas.

So its wrong. Also refuted by history. Popes have contradicted each other a lot.

Pope Leo III speaking ex cathedra forbade the use of the filioque (which says that The Holy Spirit proceeds from The Son "and The Son" as well as from The Father) in the Mass, and said he did not have authority to change the creed only an Ecumenical Council could do that.

A later pope said different.

Which one was right? And how can either be wrong if papal infallibility is true?


Anon@3: 57 pm,

Generally, speaking, a Papal decree is about a decision made on discipline, rather than dogma or doctrine. It can be changed or revised, even if a pope says, its final.

Dollinger got his theology mixed up.



The Scriptures are God breathed and His Word the Bible-all 66 books are the words of life.

All else, from anyone else, is after the fact and filler.

God's Superior Word or man's comparatively inferior word? In which do people really believe and put their trust? That was, in essence, the question posed in the Garden of Eden. And he said to the woman, yea hath God said, ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? We know how that went when they should have stuck with what God said and only what God said.
All else is confusion.

Which will it be then is each souls choice. Taking God at His Word or putting the human spin on it as the devil tempts us to do. That is the nutshell.

Popes contradicting each other takes place during the process of debate and discussion, before a final decision has been made.

The road to a council, is never smooth, all sides are heard, all proposals are weighed, including ones that might be wrong.


I accept the ancient councils, fathers, and scriptures, just not your exact interpretation of them.

I also find the eastern orthodox view on divorce and remarriage to be bigamy, and another obstacle to unity.

The fullness of truth will not claim, that marriage is indissioluble, and sacramental, but another one can be permitted that is not sacramental at the same time, for those who cannot live up to the ideals of a true marriage.

Good economy leads to conversion of life, not making excuses for teachings we find hard or challenging.

papal contradictions I refer to were promulgated formal statements not debates.

declarations on discipline aren't the issue.

What RC does with "annulment" is divorce under another name, a fiction. Orthodoxy is simply more honest about what it does. As for bigamy, what do you think polygamy is? Yet God allowed it. Why? is there a discernable pattern?

yes. casual fornication is without relationship or affection or commitment. remarriage and polygamy are closer to the ideal than casual fornication, or unstable short term relationships without expectation of permanence.

Jesus pointed out in a time that polygamy had fallen out of use, that divorce and remarriage were really adultery, although tolerated, but were not perfection so don't consider yourselves pure who do so under color of a formality called a divorce.

Exception was made for both "fornication" which covers a range of actions, and "adultery," neither of which means "illicit marriages."

One flesh is created by the sex act, if sex doesn't happen outside of marriage or nearly indissoluble betrothal, things stay on track. When people have multiple sex partners then it gets dicey.

Paul said that you are not under bondage (the pauline exemption) if you are driven out or abandoned by an unbelieving spouse.

An annullable marriage is not a non marriage, it is something that has a built in problem, forbidden consanguinity, god sibling relationships incl., or fraud or force or some major failure of mutual understanding and informed consent.

Paul said that to avoid fornication EVERYONE should have their own spouse, which incl. by definition those already divorced several times.

Orthodox standards for divorce are pretty much the same as RC standards for anullment.

If you want to be perfectly pure, be celibate if you are not a virgin and any of your sex partners are still alive and not willingly had sex with another.

Or you can bear in mind that Jesus said that not everyone can receive this teaching, and DID NOT RESCIND THE MOSAIC PERMISSION, He merely clarified the situation.
Michael Voris has done an excellent job covering the synod. Here are the latest two MUST SEE segments!


Dear 9.17pm:

You wrote: "Generally, speaking, a Papal decree is about a decision made on discipline, rather than dogma or doctrine. It can be changed or revised, even if a pope says, its final. Dollinger got his theology mixed up."

I agree with your first sentence. But Doellinger was writing about matters of dogma and doctrine, not discipline. He made no mistake. I repeat: Do take on his claim that the roots of the assertion of papal infallibility are (via Aquinas) in bogus documents.

Anonymous 3:57PM and 1:07AM

"The case is made by Doellinger in his book:

Do take him on!"



First, it is too bad that you couldn't do any better than to cite the book Dollinger wrote under the pseudonym "Janus" which was placed in the Index of Forbidden Books when the Index was still in effect.


" In the last century Dr. Ignaz von Dollinger (the Hans Küng of his day) viciously attacked St.Thomas for using "forgeries" to uphold his "papal system."

It is possible that spurious texts were quoted by St. Thomas which originally appeared in a book sent to Pope Urban IV by a Greek unionist bishop, Nicholas of Cotrone.

However, as historian and theologian Cardinal Hergenröether wrote in refuting Dollinger's distortions, all questionable quotations are easily replaced by genuine ones from [the] Eastern Fathers and Councils. It can be added here that it is possible that the questionable texts may still be found in medieval catenae and florilegia which still exist. At any rate, the fact remains that St. Thomas' dogmatic teaching on the Papacy, as Cardinal Hergenröether pointed out,

"relies...upon many other things, and especially on the passages of Scripture respecting Peter's Primacy, as well as upon internal theological grounds, upon inferences from dogmatic premises, as for example, from the necessary unity of faith..." (Anti-Janus, p.176)

Let us now review some authentic texts of the Fathers, Doctors, and Councils of the First Millennium that St. Thomas could well have substituted for the questionable texts that Nicholas of Cotrone included in the work that St. Thomas was evaluating for his "Contra Errores Graecorum."

Note that the column on the left presents the passages which have not been found or have been brought into question. The column on the right presents texts from the Fathers and Councils concerning which there is no question of authenticity. Readers can examine for themselves the falsehood (too often repeated by the ignorant) that: " The Church of the First Millennium has no concept of Roman Primacy or supremacy or Papal Infallibility! " The same falsehood is repeated in Hans Küng's latest heretical work" Christianity: Essence, History and Future " wherein he writes concerning the time of Charlemagne's empire (800-814 A.D.):

"As in the East, so, too, in the West, there was not a trace of a papal primacy of jurisdiction"!

Read on........



The dogma of Papal Infallibility had not yet been defined when Cardinal Hergenröether wrote his book refuting the errors of Dollinger who received most of his support from the anti clericalism of the German empire which had an obvious axe to grind against the Vatican.

Moreover, to repeat what others have asked, if Papal infallibility were such a "nouveau" idea in 1870 then why do you think the vast, vast majority of Roman Catholics went along with it? If Dollinger and his "old catholic" movement were so "traditional" then why did only a handful of Catholics follow him????




"He was a stanch supporter of the infallibility dogma; and in 1870 he wrote Anti-Janus, an answer to The Pope and the Council, by Janus (Ignaz von Döllinger and Johann Friedrich, which made a great sensation at the time. In 1877 he was made prelate of the papal household; he became cardinal deacon in 1879, and was afterwards made curator of the Vatican archives.

He died in Mehrerau Abbey near Bregenz in 1890.

"all questionable quotations are easily replaced by genuine ones from [the] Eastern Fathers and Councils."

heh heh, trouble is, THERE AREN'T ANY. Not in the Ecumenical Councils or regional councils they reference as okay at least,
some few remarks that praise Rome and a few that might be the beginning of the pride that overtook
Rome later.

Constantinople I elevated Constantinople to be second Patriarchate city after Rome, displacing Alexandria, which complained. Rome backed Alexandria, which didn't stop the Constantinople I Council being universally accepted.

Chalcedon canon 28 weighs in on this, affirming Constantinople I and saying that THE FATHERS (not Jesus) granted pre eminence (which is all primacy meant in Greek not supremacy) to Rome, BECAUSE IT WAS THE FIRST CITY IN THE EMPIRE, and therefore FOR THE SAME REASON Constantinople should be second city in the Church instead of Alexandria, BECAUSE CONSTANTINOPLE WAS THE SECOND CITY OF THE EMPIRE.

RC endorses all these councils.

Contemplate that for a while.

There was even a canon prohibiting seeking across the water i.e., to Rome, to drag it into regional or local disputes.

Dollinger DID NOT SIDE with Old Catholics. And the RC majority fell into line for the same reason they would fall into line with anything. Authority. And the newfangled idea of officially granting the pope infallibility, which some ideologues held and others didn't, WAS STRONGLY OPPOSED IN THE COUNCIL but not by enough to stop it.

After that the pope declared the Immaculate Conception a dogma. (I forget if the Assumption of Mary was declared then also or earlier, but there is no reason to reject it, especially since the reason it was a later belief c. AD 500s, is that she had told the people who saw it to keep it secret so as not to distract from Jesus Christ, which sounds consistent with her known behavior in Scripture.)

Mary is NOT considered officially to be co redemptrix, but this idea IS held by many (and was held by the late Fr. Malachi Martin). Which means you only need someone who holds this opinion, and keeps quiet about it if the College of Cardinals are not on that page, to become pope, and he will declare her to be co redemptrix.

And the majority of RC will fall into line with this.
"First, it is too bad that you couldn't do any better than to cite the book Dollinger wrote under the pseudonym "Janus" which was placed in the Index of Forbidden Books when the Index was still in effect."

Doellinger wrote as Janus because of that odious index. The usual Vatican excuse is that the index existed for the protection of its faithful. I suggest that it is because Rome is frightened that its faithful will see the force of the arguments against it. Shame on Rome, not on Doellinger!

"" In the last century Dr. Ignaz von Dollinger (the Hans Küng of his day) viciously attacked St.Thomas for using "forgeries" to uphold his "papal system." "

Nonsense! Doellinger knew very well that Thomas believed the Decretals in good faith. Kindly find a "vicious" quote or withdraw that claim. And to call him the Hans Kung of his day is shameful. A good case can be made from Kung's writings that he is not a Christian. Not so with Doellinger.

Doellinger rightly set the infallibility debate in the context of where final authority lay within the Roman Catholic church: with ecumenical councils or the papacy. (Too bad neither side contemplated the Bible.)

As Christine has pointed out, most Catholics accepted infallibility simply because of Rome's authority; and it is highly questionable whether relevant parts of the forged decretals are equivalent to conclusions from the East.

1 – 200 of 206 Newer› Newest» Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]