SECOND UPDATE AND QUERY: WOULD THIS BE HAPPENING WITHOUT THE COUNSEL OF THE SDA (SECURITY AND DEFENCE AGENDA) CO-PRESIDED BY JAVIER SOLANA AND JAAP DE HOOP SCHEFFER?? DOUBTFUL!!!
Original Post: Hmmm, "New Age Revolutions" just about everywhere; Bolivia proposes universal Earth Charter / "pachamama" legislation for UN global enforcement and NOW Israel "under pressure to offer peace plan." If they don't, THE QUARTET may try to "jump-start" the process.
According to this story in the Los Angeles Times, Israel is under intense pressure both from the Quartet and from the USA State Department teamed up with the Brookings Institution. (Remember the information "Farmer" laid out about the Brookings Institution (now one of the many homes for Javier Solana) and "The Quartet" (formerly spearheaded by Javier Solana before his job responsibility cessations to Catherine Ashton?).
It looks like a power struggle between factions and it further looks as if Israel might be caught in the middle. Quoting from the Los Angeles Times article in relevant part:
Israel won some breathing space with the postponement last week of a meeting of international powers in Berlin, but American and European diplomats are continuing to prod Netanyahu to lay out his vision for restarting peace talks and ending the occupation of the West Bank. If he does not, diplomats warned, the so-called Mideast quartet — the United States, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations — may attempt to jump-start the process by formally endorsing, for the first time, the creation of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital. Netanyahu's government has vehemently opposed such a move.U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton signaled last week that international patience over the stalled peace process was growing thin and that the recent Arab world unrest made a resolution of the conflict more pressing. She promised "active American leadership" and a reinvigorated U.S. approach that would be announced in coming weeks.
Stay tuned!
CONSTANCE
237 comments:
1 – 200 of 237 Newer› Newest»Just found this:
Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced Thursday that he will unveil a new Middle East peace plan before the U.S. Congress next month, reports the Wall Street Journal. The Israeli proposal is intended to counter Palestinian efforts to unilaterally secure international recognition of statehood. Details of the speech are scant. No date for the address has yet been set, although Netanyahu said he plans to outline a way to bring "a secure peace" between Israel and its neighbors. He said he will also discuss Iran's nuclear program and the uprisings in the Middle East. The announcement comes as the Obama administration mobilizes for a renewed push for Arab-Israeli peace. Netanyahu has been under significant pressure to head off a Palestinian campaign to secure statehood in the West Bank and Gaza via a U.N. resolution. The campaign appears to be gaining steam, with the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund deeming the Palestinian Authority capable of functioning as a sovereign state.
http://slatest.slate.com/id/2291378/
As a dog and cat lover, here's an "Animal rights" cause I think I would support:
http://behindthewall.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/04/19/6496746-chinese-activists-rescue-dogs-destined-for-dinner-table
or
http://tinyurl.com/3oo34tr
Nice kitty, nice doggy! Neither deserve to be eaten!
Constance
They don't have cloven hoofs, or hoofs at all,
and they don't chew the cud.
Dogs and cats are definitely not kosher.
'MISSING RECORDS IN HAWAII, MISSING RECORDS IN KENYA, MISSING RECORDS IN INDONESIA'
BOOK TO REVEAL OBAMA'S TRUE IDENTITY?
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash7
.htm
Leviticus 11:3
Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, and cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that shall ye eat.
Well, as I see it (together with reading Genesis), God repented of making man. I never read of him repenting for making the cat and the dog. Some days what they give me (cat and dog) is about all the love and affection I'm going to get!
Constance
P.S. They do manipulate me for food and treats, however!
Arson damages Barcelona's Sagrada Familia basilica
"Witnesses said that the fire began when a man entered the sacristy, splashed vestments with some flammable liquid, and set them ablaze.
The incident is one of several troubling attacks on Catholic churches in Spain in recent weeks."
http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=10059&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CatholicWorldNewsFeatureStories+%28Catholic+World+News+%28on+CatholicCulture.org%29%29
Savvy
Atheists Announce Public Campaign Against Catholics
April 2011: In a broadcasting interview by ELA radio, in Madrid, a group of people who identified themselves as “representatives of different atheist groups”, expressed openly that their goals are to “punish” the Catholic belief, and to “damage” the views of Catholics. They praised the burning of churches in 1936, and they expressed their intention to “welcome” the Pope “as he deserves”, during the announced visit to Madrid in the summer of 2011.
http://www.intoleranceagainstchristians.eu/index.php?id=573&user_extmininews_pi1[detailid]=291&user_extmininews_pi1[page]=1
Savvy
http://www.borntowatch.com/
Gay Revision Of The Bible To Hit The Markets Soon
A newly revised gay-friendly Bible is set to go on sale in the next few weeks. Reaction to the announcement has been met with venom from conservative Christian groups.
Pink Cross Publishing, the same company that published a gay-friendly version of the Koran, stated that they were adding the finishing touches to the newly revised Bible. Mary and Joseph will be replaced by Mary and Josephine, a lesbian couple unable to have children the conventional way, hence the virgin birth of Jesus.
All of Jesus’ disciples will be gay except for Judas. In the new Bible, all of the disciples will pair off after the Last Supper with the exception of Judas. Satan will also be straight. The new gay-friendly Bible has yet to be named.
http://www.borntowatch.com/
The EU has drawn up a "concept of operations" for the deployment of military forces in Libya, but needs UN approval for what would be the riskiest and most controversial mission undertaken by Brussels.
The planning has taken place inside the office of Catherine Ashton, the EU's foreign and security policy chief. Officials are working on an "A-plan", the operational instructions that would specify the size of the force, its equipment and makeup, and the rules of engagement.
Thanks to J, I can pass this information on. Actions around the US are planned for this weekend.
http://www.dayofactionmovement.org/location.html
http://tinyurl.com/4ylj7wu
35 locations
From the Mission statement:
Therefore, on Saturday April 23rd, we are taking vigilantly to the streets, the projects, the police stations, the homeless shelters, courthouses, the State and City Capitols, morgues, jails, and anywhere our people or injustice can be found,
in order to shake and rattle them to life.
AND WE ARE ALSO CALLING FOR A BUY BLACK ONLY WEEKEND THE WEEKEND OF APRIL 23RD
AND A BOYCOTT OF ALL NON-BLACK BUSINESSES.
Therefore, we must have a new mass awakening of Black People. The sleeping giant of the planet. We will teach, educate, uplift, confront, expose, recruit, train, operate and demonstrate, organize and mobilize as never before. We shall put aside our petty differences, egos, affiliations and denominations for the greater goals of unity, solidarity, nation and worldwide struggle. We shall unite for a common cause.
BE IT RESOLVED THIS DAY MONDAY MARCH 14TH 2011
WE PLEDGE THAT APRIL 23, 2011, “NATIONAL-INTERNATIONAL DAY OF ACTION AND UNITY”,
Dear Savvy,
This is ugly history repeating itself. Just about the time the ugly persecution in Mexico wound down, it began with vengeance in the late 1930s in Spain. It was Franco who brought it to a halt. It was also Franco who worked to save much of European Jewry when the USA, Canada, and England refused to help.
Constance
Savvy,
What happened in Mexico from 1926 to 1935, Costa Rica in the teens, Spain during the "Civil War of the Spanish "Republic" was essentially a marriage of occultists and freethinkers/atheists. It is when those elements team up that things become more dangerous for the rest of us.
Constance
Constance,
The frog was being boiled slowly by re-writing history books in Spain, depicting Franco as the fascist leader.
I shudder at the thought of civil war coming to Western Europe.
Savvy
Constance,
The French Revolution, The Spanish civil war and the Mexican riots all targeted clergy in particular.
Savvy
Regarding Dorothy's post- the links don't work so great, but if you merely put in dayofactionmovement.org
you can get to the site.
Thanks anonymous 7:06. This is the first time a tinyurl didn't work. Wow. It appears they changed the website between the time I posted the link and the time you went to it, though I doubt it was because of my post. It only shows how hot things are.
Here's a new link to check out this movement.
http://www.bdsmovement.net/activecamps/dayofaction
Oh sure, it's all spontaneous activity.
Arson suspected in California church fire
"The fire that destroyed a Catholic church in California was "very definitely a deliberate act," a police spokesman says.
St. John Vianney Church in Hacienda Heights was gutted by a fire that began on Saturday night.
The torching of the church was the latest in a series of attacks on California Catholic churches."
http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=10063
Savvy
From a source who had received the earlier notice of anti-Catholic activity.
Catholic churches still teach that homosexuality is a sin.
In other parts of the country, homosexual activists have actually threatened to burn churches.
I once attended a church in York, PA, where the preacher preached against homosexuality.
A young man was then attending who many believed had romantic feelings for the pastor's son.
One Sunday after this pastor had spoken out frankly on the Biblical doctrine on homosexuality, his home was torched. Fortunately, no one was home except the dog, which unfortunately, died in the blaze.
http://guerillatics.com/?p=601
for a list of Muslim attacks in the last few months. When will you start being afraid of what can happen to you?
Time to choose the side you are on.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/liberal-website-mercilessly-mocks-down-syndrome-suffering-trig-palin-on-his-birthday/
http://tinyurl.com/3o6r5w9
Savvy,
You are right on the money on that!
Constance
Important books to read:
MEXICAN MARTYRDOM
NO GOD NEXT DOOR
BLOOD DRENCHED ALTARS
THE LAWLESS ROADS by Graham Greene
LIFE OF GRAHAM GREENE by Norman Sherry (Vol. 1)
SACRED HEART by Marcel Montecino (a historical novel about the Mexican persecutions)
Savvy,
You will be happy to know that the Simon Weisenthal Institute gave Franco the credit he deserved for saving upwards of 60,000 Jews in its encyclopedic work on the Holocaust. The large book is lurking somewhere here in my cluttered book collection.
Constance
Browsers should be refreshed. I put considerable new material up on this blog piece.
Constance
For anyone that wants a strong dose of reality here are four websites that you might want to check out. The information is not for the faint of heart, and you may find some strong challenges to what you think reality really is.
Consider the evidence that is provided, and as always try to assess it and use some critical thinking, not hyperskepticism, and draw your own conclusions.
http://intheknow7.wordpress.com/
http://vigilantcitizen.com/
http://www.mindjustice.org/
http://ritualabuse.us/
This is foundational information that pertains to what this blog is covering as to real time history that is unfolding in world events.
HK
Speaking of pets.
http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2008/02/04/4375963-tehran-outlaws-pet-dogs
Yesterday was anniversary of Columbine shootings and possible pipe bomb was found at nearby Littleton CO mall
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110421/ap_on_re_us/us_colorado_mall_fire
I just found this series on you tube talking about the relationship of Aleister Crowly, to rock and roll and the influence of rock music on the events of Columbine where at least some of the victims were martyred for Christ. It is not new so many of you may already know about it. (they sold their souls for rock and roll by pressing towards)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ez7Jet0WUDo
They also have a website that describes the influence of gnosticism in hollywood and critiques films like "The Matrix".
http://www.goodfight.org/a_cults_and_occult.html
AT
Constance,
Thanks for recommending the books and the Simon Weisenthal Institute source.
Savvy
Please then how do we donate? Checks are fine. Nkosazana
Speaking of the NEW AGE REVOLUTION, check out this quote from Rene Wadlow in a recent article!
The People’s Revolution is just that, the rise of a new people, not yet structured into a real social class. It has some leaders but rarely on a national level, and interest groups are only partly structured. This is not chaos except in the sense described by the classical Greek thinker Hesiod who saw chaos, creativity, and transformation working together. For Hesiod, chaos was not confusion but a richly creative space which flowed from the dual cosmic forces of heaven and earth or as in Chinese philosophy, from Yin and Yang. From this chaos comes new and more mature organization, one with more complexity and greater adequacy for dealing with the challenges of life.
Thus we need to find ways to support the People’s Revolution, to keep an eye open for counter-revolutionary activities and to watch closely as the next structures are put into place.
http://www.towardfreedom.com/africa/2311-the-last-circle-in-libya
Constance,
Where can I found more about Simon Weisenthal Institute institute.
Menaka Indrani
While it is important to learn from history, it is even more important for individuals to take a stand against the things happening right now, not to excuse or ignore them. What's the point of learning from history and ignoring the ugly Catholic baiting and Jew hating in the Fuel Project?
Theosophy/Lucis Trust infects, but it infects the thinking of people through the branches of its network. Much damage is done while hoping the head is destroyed.
Dorothy,
I suspect a couple of reasonable conversations with the young man putting together the "fuel project" would be far more profitable than trashing everything he has done to provide excellent education on many things we are also well aware of. I do have some serious areas of disagreement with a few aspects of what he has done. What he put together (and I will admit that unlike you, I probably have not had time to watch them all -- I snatched what I could working at two computers while on a critical project otherwise). I certainly have seen nothing from this young man inciting hatred of Catholics or Jews. I did detect the common fear instilled in him with which he was most likely raised that is common in British and Dutch areas where there are memories of "spanish armadas" and "Bloody Mary" and the "Fox Book of Martyrs."
I'm not willing to throw the baby out with the bath water on this young man, at least not yet, based on my present level of understanding.
Constance
Constance,
I disagree with you completely. You know better than what you have just written. By now you know how propaganda works. It suckers people with some truth and pushes them in the direction of Catholic hating, rich people hating, Jew baiting, or whatever direction they are trying to push the masses.
I don't think those listening to the Fuel Project tapes will be fighting the New Age movement. They will be looking at those they are being told are behind the scenes, pulling the strings. Catholics and Jews are much nearer targets than the well hidden networks of the Theosophical Society and Lucis Trust.
Nice young man baloney. Nice young men can be Catholic and Jew haters.
Then of course you can be right. Let's see you put a stop to the avalanche of blogs pushing his Jew and Catholic hating information by contacting him and telling him of the error of his ways. We've already seen Zeitgeist claim 500,000 followers and that was the work of a marimba player from North Carolina so it seems.
Constance,
The Fox books of Martyrs and the Black Legends were proved to be a forgery by credible historians.
They might as well put up the protocols of the elders of Zion.
Savvy
Dorothy, you bring up a good point. Taking a stand is the action behind all the intangible education we've received on the New Age and it's political machinations. I believe it's sometimes hard to take the abstract and make it real. It takes real creativity of thought to see what you can really do about it. I for one, would love to hear about what people have been able to accomplish because of their knowledge from this research. I think little things count too, like if you had the courage to speak up at a meeting where you might affect some even minor policy that was heading in the wrong direction. If you met someone on the bus or subway or park and made small talk enough to show them there is more behind what's going on. I think some of the more common ideas people go to first is writing congressmen/women or senators thinking that will have some huge effect. I think it needs to start smaller than that. I for one will give an example. Because of the research I have done, and the learning I have gathered from you all here, I was able to put into action a plan to prepare my family in food and skills to deal with whatever potential policy changes came down in the future. As an example to others, I started helping other familes get ready and we've now got a nice core group of people who've been brushing up on first aid, gardening, canning and other "lost arts". It's small, but practical.
It is because I believe that these changes are happening that I felt compelled to do something about it. Everyone is at a different stage of acceptance of where we are in the big scheme of things, but I would just encourage everyone here to watch for those opportunities where you can make a difference.
Leana
Dorothy,
As good as your tracking abilities seem to be, why don't YOU track this young man down and talk with him. Lots and lots of people believe Foxes' BOOK OF MARTYRS.
In this case, I am disagreeing with you about this earnest young man's motivation. I'm sure if you present him with your evidence, he'll investigate it.
You have more time to call than I.
Constance
Constance,
There were no Protestants in the 15th century.
Historians estimate the inquisition killed around 5,000 people over a period of 600 years.
Foxes Books of Martyr's invents numbers and people that never existed.
I can't believe that you would buy into this.
Savvy
"This section is based on excerpts from the paper: The Real Inquisition, Investigating the popular myth by professor Thomas F. Madden with footnotes by Fr. Lindsay Harrison.
"The The Black Legend," did not arise until after the Protestant defeat at the Battle of Muhlberg at the hands of Ferdinand's grandson, the Emperor Charles V. A fierce propaganda campaign ensued. Two important Protestant publications in it were John Foxe's Book of Martyrs (1554) and a leaflet published in 1567 penned by a supposed Inquisition victim named Montanus. He painted Catholic Spaniards as barbarians who ravished women and sodomized young boys. The propagandists soon created "hooded fiends" who tortured their victims in horrible devices like the knife-filled Iron Maiden. The number of victims was exaggerated. Foxe claimed 32,000 were burned at the stake.
Protestant tracts that took aim at the Spanish Inquisition drew liberally from the Black Legend. But it had other sources as well. From the beginning of the Reformation, Protestants had difficulty explaining the 15-century gap between Christ's institution of His Church and the founding of the Protestant churches. Catholics pointed out this problem, accusing Protestants of having created a new church separate from that of Christ.
Protestants countered that their church was the one created by Christ, but that it had been forced underground by the Catholic Church. Thus, just as the Roman Empire had persecuted Christians, so its successor, the Roman Catholic Church, continued to persecute them throughout the Middle Ages.
Inconveniently, there were no Protestants in the Middle Ages, yet Protestant authors found them there anyway in the guise of various medieval heretics. In this light, the medieval Inquisition was nothing more than an attempt to crush the hidden, true church.
The Spanish Inquisition, still active and extremely efficient at keeping Protestants out of Spain, was for Protestant writers merely the latest version of this persecution. Mix liberally with the Black Legend and you have everything you need to produce tract after tract about the hideous and cruel Spanish Inquisition. And so they did."
http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/inquisition.htm
Savvy
Constance,
Back in the '80s there was a very antisemitic character named Bill G in the Chicago area. It was my first encounter in person with an antisemite. Some of us thought he was just misguided at the beginning. We learned differently when we checked him out. He was smooth as silk and a great liar to boot, taking in people across the Chicago area and on talk shows. Without going into a lot of detail, he was a plant from overseas.
I don't need another lesson. The intervening years have been very instructive about the nature of haters. It's why I've fought the New Age movement for the last 30 years.
Take on your own assignment. I lead a very busy life also, but, like you, I've made time to expose the New Age movement. I don't need to do this as a hobby. I've never exposed my personal life to you or others, so you have no idea how much time I have to do this. If you have time to go on all of those radio shows, you have time to contact Mark Fairley.
Leanna, you make some very good points. I hope others will share ideas on what they have done to stop the New Age movement. Without some kind of action, all of the information is just entertainment. Every little bit of action can help.
On the lighter side, here's a retrospective on historical events leading to Passover.
www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/04/god-as-a-general-passovers-lessons-for-warfare/
http://tinyurl.com/3dd3cq4
FAO Dorothy - Fuel Project.
I haven't watched all of these vids and frankly grew restless with them. I am somewhat interested in this Fuel Project because it's fairly local to me here in Scotland. If Mark Fairley is on the money then he might one day be invited to come and give us a few talks - if he's not ... well!!!!
Could you please point to me any specific areas of concern in any of the vids. I would be happy to try and contact Mark Fairley phone.
On the face of what I've seen of the Fuel Project there is something about it that disturbs me but I can't put my finger on it. I don't know if it's the presentation or too much symbology or the very shallow reporting, or just me being twitchy. I remain unconvinced that any authentic, in-depth research has been done and in this respect from the little I've seen I agree with you, it does appear to be very cult like.
~K~
Not being Christian, I'm not familiar with Christian networks.
I would suggest following Mark Fairley's Facebook page,
http://www.facebook.com/TheFuelProject to see who is involved.
His description of Fuel, the movement seems to fit in with
http://www.livingwaters.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=317&Itemid=258
http://tinyurl.com/3px6x26
with which he is associated.
Then, Living Waters is connected with the Way of the Master film/radio show.
Then look at what Living Waters has to do with the Messianic movement which I've always said is connected with New Age, as in all religions shall become one.
This is the result of a quick search. I'm sure Christian researchers can do much better, and I'm serious.
Dear Constance,
Re: your comment
I certainly have seen nothing from this young man inciting hatred of Catholics or Jews.
Apparently, you have not viewed Parts 23,24 and 25 of The Fuel Project.
Here are the specific links.
KNOW YOUR ENEMY
PART 23 - ROMAN CATHOLICISM
"Series exploring the coming New World Order from a Biblical perspective. In this part, how Catholicism was created by putting a Christian facade on Mystery Babylon paganism."
http://www.youtube.com/user/The
FuelProject#p/u/53/221sYyagu2I
______________________________
KNOW YOUR ENEMY
PART 24 CATHOLIC SYMBOLS
http://www.youtube.com/user/The
FuelProject#p/u/52/pSK5GYUOB5I
______________________________
KNOW YOUR ENEMY
PART 25 CATHOLIC SYMBOLS CONT.
http://www.youtube.com/user/The
FuelProject#p/u/51/7CFEMLzclXY
_______________________________
These Parts of the Fuel Project - especially Chapter 23 - sound like they were lifted verbatim and without reference - from the infamous piece of anti-Catholic crank scholarship entitled THE TWO BABYLONS written by Alexander Hislop.
I have already pointed this out on the previous thread but apparently, you must have missed it.
ALEXANDER HISLOP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex
ander_Hislop
_____________________________
Hislop's book THE TWO BABYLONS has been refuted by evangelical Protestant minister Ralph Woodrow.
...The evangelical minister Ralph Woodrow, drawing heavily on Hislop's book, made the case, which he no longer holds, in his book Babylon Mystery Religion that Catholicism was a syncretic religion that had evolved from pagan Babylon. Mr. Woodrow, after realizing how flawed Hislop's book was, recanted the error of his own book (Babylon Mystery Religion) and decried its and Hislop's errors and false connections.
Hislop's work has been described by Bill Ellis as "sketchy knowledge of Middle Eastern antiquity with a vivid imagination."
A history teacher challenged Woodrow, and called the integrity of Hislop's research into question. Mr. Woodrow began to diligently research the subject, and as he explored the theories of Hislop, began to discover that those ideas were either fraudulent, mis-interpretations, or had created false relationships where none actually existed. Eventually, Ralph Woodrow felt compelled to remove his own book from print, and in 1997 published a second book "The Babylon Connection?" to further explain and refute Hislop's (and his own) mistaken ideas. Woodrow had now become a critic of Hislop's 'pagan' theories... read more...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_
Two_Babylons
______________________________
THE TWO BABYLONS: A CASE STUDY IN POOR RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
By Ralph Woodrow
http://newprotestants.com/2babylons.htm
________________________________
While Hislop is still a favorite among certain anti-Catholics, most are too embarrassed to cite his book in their own anti-Catholic diatribes.
To Savvy @ 4:13 PM
Re: "There were no Protestants in the 15th century."
According to Wikipedia:
"Protestants generally trace to the 16th century their separation from the Catholic Church. Mainstream Protestantism began with the Magisterial Reformation, so called because the movement received support from the magistrates (that is, the civil authorities) as opposed to the Radical Reformation, which had no state sponsorship. Older Protestant churches, such as the Unitas Fratrum (Unity of the Brethren), Moravian Brethren or the Bohemian Brethren trace their origin to the time of Jan Hus in the early 15th century."
"In those days and at that time,
when I restore the fortunes of Judah and Jerusalem,I will gather all nations and bring them down to the Valley of Jehoshaphat.
There I will enter into judgment against them concerning my inheritance, my people Israel,
for for they scattered my people among the nations and divided up my land.
They cast lots for my people and traded boys for prostitutes; they sold girls for wine that they might drink." Joel 3
Dear Constance,
Re: your comment
I certainly have seen nothing from this young man inciting hatred of Catholics or Jews....
I am going to assume here that you have not viewed Chapters 23,24 and 25 of The Fuel Project.
Here are the specific links.
KNOW YOUR ENEMY
PART 23 - ROMAN CATHOLICISM
"Series exploring the coming New World Order from a Biblical perspective. In this part, how Catholicism was created by putting a Christian facade on Mystery Babylon paganism."
http://www.youtube.com/user/The
FuelProject#p/u/53/221sYyagu2I
______________________________
KNOW YOUR ENEMY
PART 24 CATHOLIC SYMBOLS
http://www.youtube.com/user/The
FuelProject#p/u/52/pSK5GYUOB5I
______________________________
KNOW YOUR ENEMY
PART 25 CATHOLIC SYMBOLS CONT.
http://www.youtube.com/user/The
FuelProject#p/u/51/7CFEMLzclXY
_______________________________
These Parts of the Fuel Project - especially Chapter 23 - sound like they were lifted verbatim and without reference - from the infamous piece of anti-Catholic crank scholarship entitled THE TWO BABYLONS written by Alexander Hislop.
I have already pointed this out on the previous thread but apparently, you must have missed it.
ALEXANDER HISLOP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex
ander_Hislop
_____________________________
Hislop's book THE TWO BABYLONS has been refuted by evangelical Protestant minister Ralph Woodrow.
...The evangelical minister Ralph Woodrow, drawing heavily on Hislop's book, made the case, which he no longer holds, in his book Babylon Mystery Religion that Catholicism was a syncretic religion that had evolved from pagan Babylon. Mr. Woodrow, after realizing how flawed Hislop's book was, recanted the error of his own book (Babylon Mystery Religion) and decried its and Hislop's errors and false connections.
Hislop's work has been described by Bill Ellis as "sketchy knowledge of Middle Eastern antiquity with a vivid imagination."
A history teacher challenged Woodrow, and called the integrity of Hislop's research into question. Mr. Woodrow began to diligently research the subject, and as he explored the theories of Hislop, began to discover that those ideas were either fraudulent, mis-interpretations, or had created false relationships where none actually existed. Eventually, Ralph Woodrow felt compelled to remove his own book from print, and in 1997 published a second book "The Babylon Connection?" to further explain and refute Hislop's (and his own) mistaken ideas. Woodrow had now become a critic of Hislop's 'pagan' theories... read more...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_
Two_Babylons
______________________________
THE TWO BABYLONS: A CASE STUDY IN POOR RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
By Ralph Woodrow
http://newprotestants.com/2babylons.htm
________________________________
While Hislop is still a favorite among certain anti-Catholics, most are too embarrassed to cite his book in their own anti-Catholic diatribes.
Dear Constance,
Re: your comment
I certainly have seen nothing from this young man inciting hatred of Catholics or Jews....
I am going to assume here that you have not viewed Chapters 23,24 and 25 of The Fuel Project.
Here are the specific links.
KNOW YOUR ENEMY
PART 23 - ROMAN CATHOLICISM
"Series exploring the coming New World Order from a Biblical perspective. In this part, how Catholicism was created by putting a Christian facade on Mystery Babylon paganism."
http://www.youtube.com/user/The
FuelProject#p/u/53/221sYyagu2I
______________________________
KNOW YOUR ENEMY
PART 24 CATHOLIC SYMBOLS
http://www.youtube.com/user/The
FuelProject#p/u/52/pSK5GYUOB5I
______________________________
KNOW YOUR ENEMY
PART 25 CATHOLIC SYMBOLS CONT.
http://www.youtube.com/user/The
FuelProject#p/u/51/7CFEMLzclXY
_______________________________
These Parts of the Fuel Project - especially Chapter 23 - sound like they were lifted verbatim and without reference - from the infamous piece of anti-Catholic crank scholarship entitled THE TWO BABYLONS written by Alexander Hislop.
I have already pointed this out on the previous thread but apparently, you must have missed it.
ALEXANDER HISLOP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex
ander_Hislop
_____________________________
Hislop's book THE TWO BABYLONS has been refuted by evangelical Protestant minister Ralph Woodrow.
...The evangelical minister Ralph Woodrow, drawing heavily on Hislop's book, made the case, which he no longer holds, in his book Babylon Mystery Religion that Catholicism was a syncretic religion that had evolved from pagan Babylon. Mr. Woodrow, after realizing how flawed Hislop's book was, recanted the error of his own book (Babylon Mystery Religion) and decried its and Hislop's errors and false connections.
Hislop's work has been described by Bill Ellis as "sketchy knowledge of Middle Eastern antiquity with a vivid imagination."
A history teacher challenged Woodrow, and called the integrity of Hislop's research into question. Mr. Woodrow began to diligently research the subject, and as he explored the theories of Hislop, began to discover that those ideas were either fraudulent, mis-interpretations, or had created false relationships where none actually existed. Eventually, Ralph Woodrow felt compelled to remove his own book from print, and in 1997 published a second book "The Babylon Connection?" to further explain and refute Hislop's (and his own) mistaken ideas. Woodrow had now become a critic of Hislop's 'pagan' theories... read more...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_
Two_Babylons
______________________________
THE TWO BABYLONS: A CASE STUDY IN POOR RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
By Ralph Woodrow
http://newprotestants.com/2babylons.htm
________________________________
While Hislop is still a favorite among certain anti-Catholics, most are too embarrassed to cite his book.
Dear Constance,
Re: your comment
I certainly have seen nothing from this young man inciting hatred of Catholics or Jews....
I am going to assume here that you have not viewed Chapters 23,24 and 25 of The Fuel Project.
Here are the specific links.
KNOW YOUR ENEMY
PART 23 - ROMAN CATHOLICISM
"Series exploring the coming New World Order from a Biblical perspective. In this part, how Catholicism was created by putting a Christian facade on Mystery Babylon paganism."
http://www.youtube.com/user/The
FuelProject#p/u/53/221sYyagu2I
______________________________
KNOW YOUR ENEMY
PART 24 CATHOLIC SYMBOLS
http://www.youtube.com/user/The
FuelProject#p/u/52/pSK5GYUOB5I
______________________________
KNOW YOUR ENEMY
PART 25 CATHOLIC SYMBOLS CONT.
http://www.youtube.com/user/The
FuelProject#p/u/51/7CFEMLzclXY
_______________________________
These Parts of the Fuel Project - especially Chapter 23 - sound like they were lifted verbatim and without reference - from the infamous piece of anti-Catholic crank scholarship entitled THE TWO BABYLONS written by Alexander Hislop.
cont......
cont...
I have already pointed this out on the previous thread but apparently, you must have missed it.
ALEXANDER HISLOP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex
ander_Hislop
_____________________________
Hislop's book THE TWO BABYLONS has been refuted by evangelical Protestant minister Ralph Woodrow.
...The evangelical minister Ralph Woodrow, drawing heavily on Hislop's book, made the case, which he no longer holds, in his book Babylon Mystery Religion that Catholicism was a syncretic religion that had evolved from pagan Babylon. Mr. Woodrow, after realizing how flawed Hislop's book was, recanted the error of his own book (Babylon Mystery Religion) and decried its and Hislop's errors and false connections.
Hislop's work has been described by Bill Ellis as "sketchy knowledge of Middle Eastern antiquity with a vivid imagination."
A history teacher challenged Woodrow, and called the integrity of Hislop's research into question. Mr. Woodrow began to diligently research the subject, and as he explored the theories of Hislop, began to discover that those ideas were either fraudulent, mis-interpretations, or had created false relationships where none actually existed. Eventually, Ralph Woodrow felt compelled to remove his own book from print, and in 1997 published a second book "The Babylon Connection?" to further explain and refute Hislop's (and his own) mistaken ideas. Woodrow had now become a critic of Hislop's 'pagan' theories... read more...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_
Two_Babylons
______________________________
THE TWO BABYLONS: A CASE STUDY IN POOR RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
By Ralph Woodrow
http://newprotestants.com/2babylons.htm
________________________________
While Hislop is still a favorite among certain anti-Catholics, most are too embarrassed to cite his book.
P.S.
We mustn't forget the Fuel Project's mentioning of the Jews - in bed with the Freemasons - and the Rothschildes......
KNOW YOUR ENEMY
PART 71 ISRAELI SUPREME COURT
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=
0qGstcJocPs&feature=related
Anon@9:16 p.m.
Thanks for that Information. The thing is Foxes book of Martyrs was only published after the reign of Elizabeth the first.
It cannot be said to document the 1st sixteen centuries of Christian martyrdom, where Protestants did not exist.
This is historical fraud.
Savvy
Savvy,
I don't buy into it. What I was pointing out to Dorothy is that there are many people who honestly believe it and many Protestant pastors who believe it to be virtual gospel. Dorothy is mischaracterizing my work and she is mischaracterizing this young man who plainly has not gotten into things historically as far as we have. I recall Mother Angelica remonstrating a radio listener once saying, "God was patient with you. Why can't you be patient with them!" Ditto here.
Constance
Unfortunately, the Hislop book is also part of the standard repertoire than many fundamentalist Christians are exposed to as virtual gospel along with the Fox Book of Martyrs. It personally took me a long time to dig through that and then reject much of it after my own research and seeing the persecution that Catholics had taken in France, in Mexico, in Costa Rica, in Spain and all the other places anti-clericalism reared its ugly head.
Dorothy has NO IDEA how much I have on my back and frankly I'm getting to resent her inferences.
Constance
From the Business & Media Institute (04/20/11):
George Soros event sets in motion new attacks on the dollar
http://tinyurl.com/3w5w8bf
Susanna,
You are right. I have not yet seen those segments. However, where he comes from in Scotland and knowing the Ian Paisley influences in the British Isles and about, I suspect he has been enculturated in this. I honestly believe that as he explores deeper and learns what I learned and then starts discovering how many of those anti-Catholic works were using Blavatsky's ISIS UNVEILED as a primary source, he will probably change his mind on a variety of topics as I did years ago.
Constance
Ralph Woodrow wrote a virulently anti-Catholic tract himself years ago and I noticed his references then included ISIS UNVEILED. I was in some contact with him about this a few years back after I learned that he had changed many of his then opinions which were indeed based on Hislop and other references that were passed around as then believed to be credible in the Protestant world.
I'm afraid that if we trash everything this earnest young man (Mark Fairley) is doing, he will never get around to analyzing what we have that makes us think otherwise.
Some of his work is very excellent. Quite honestly, I would buy a used car from him before Fr. Pacwa of EWTN who has his own disinformation game. Pacwa can't be innocent. I believe, however, this young man still in formation might be.
Randy England, author of UNICORN IN THE SANCTUARY shared with me that Pacwa called him years ago and "reamed him" for coming against MATTHEW FOX.
Constance
Here's something WEIRD I just found over on GODTUBE VIDEOS, "Up to Faith Global Dance." It looks NEW AGE / EMERGING CHURCH stuff to me. I would like the opinion of others.
Here's the link
http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=FBEEBCNU
Constance
When is the USA going to get smart and declare George Soros what he obviously is: SUBVERSIVE!
Constance
Resent away Constance. When I see someone promoting an anti-Catholic message or antisemitism, I'll point it out. After all, aren't those two things that ago all the way back to the start of the New Age movement?
I'm nobody's syncophant. Where you've done great work in attacking the New Age movement I've praised your work to everyone, on line and off line. Where I think you are making a mistake, I'll point it out. I've done so privately many times.
When you can show cause why Fairley is being mistreated, other than your unresearched opinion, I'll listen. Until then I see him as just another pretty face antisemite and Catholic basher.
I wrote the last comment. I thought I put my name to it.
Constance, I don't like to take chances with those who spread disinformation. They can do a lot of damage before they "repent." I would suggest you do some research on the guy and his connections. Your reputation is built on solid research, not on emotional feelings about young misguided people.
I would hope you are against New Age in the US and not just what is happening in Europe and Israel.
Yes, I know this is a blog which attracts mainly Christian readers. I am sticking my neck out going against anyone calling themselves a Christian when everyone knows I'm Jewish.
Everyone, Christian, Jewish, New Age, atheist, secular, Hindu, Buddhist is in line to get their teeth kicked in by New Age politics. Germans and others who followed Hitler were killed, their communities destroyed, families destroyed. New Age is an equal opportunity destroyer and I'm going to keep pointing that out.
Constance,
First, please understand that I am not passing judgement on Mark Fairley's motives - just his "scholarship" - or lack thereof.
I am also aware that Mark Fairley claims to be from Scotland and if so, has very likely been spiritually marinated in the rabidly anti-Catholic "gospel according to Ian Paisley."
I have had a chance to view several Parts of The Fuel Project and I can truthfully say as one who has read Hislop's book, that several of Mark Fairley's videos on Roman Catholicism are little more than a rehash of Hislop's work.
In fact, here is a link to a site that has all the parts of The Fuel Project in an easy to view format.
ORBIS VITAE - KNOW YOUR ENEMY
http://orbisvitae.com/mc/Know-Your-Enemy/index.html#a
________________________________
Here is an online version of Alexander Hislop's book THE TWO BABYLONS so anyone who wants to compare it with parts of The Fuel Project discussing Roman Catholicism can do so:
THE TWO BABYLONS
Or The Papal Worship Proved to be the Worship of Nimrod and His Wife
http://www.biblebelievers.com/baby
lon/00index.htm
______________________________
Ironically, Alexander Hislop was a Free Church of Scotland minister.
I am aware that Ralph Woodrow wrote a virulently anti-Catholic book based on Hislop's "findings," but when some of the discrepancies were pointed out to Woodrow by a history teacher, Woodrow had the honesty and the decency to further investigate the claims made in Hislop's book, and, after discovering Hislop's grievously flawed scholarship for himself, he recanted, removed his Hislop-based anti-Catholic book out of print, and wrote another one describing Hislop's flawed scholarship.
At the end of the day, however, one key thing that we should all be concerned about
is the fact that Hislop's thesis figures prominently in the conspiracy theories of racist groups such as The Covenant the Sword and the Arm of the Lord which is a radical Christian Identity organization.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_
Two_Babylons
______________________________
THE COVENANT THE SWORD AND THE ARM OF THE LORD
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_
Covenant,_The_Sword,_and_the_Arm_
of_the_Lord
______________________________
CHRISTIAN IDENTITY
...Christian Identity believers reject the beliefs of most contemporary Christian denominations. They claim that modern Christian churches are teaching a heresy: the belief that God's promises to Israel (through Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) have been expanded to create a spiritual people of "Israel", which constitutes the Christian "Church". In turn, most modern Christian denominations and organizations denounce Christian Identity as heresy and condemn the use of the Christian Bible as a basis for promoting anti-Semitism. Adherents of Christian Identity claim that Europeans are the true descendants of the Biblical Jacob, hence they are the true Israel, and that it is those who are against the interests of European-descended Christians that are the true anti-Semites....read more...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Christian_Identity
_______________________________
ARYAN NATIONS
Aryan Nations is a far-right white supremacist religious organization originally based in Hayden Lake, Idaho. Richard Girnt Butler founded the group in the 1970s, as an arm of the Christian Identity organization Church of Jesus Christ–Christian. The Federal Bureau of Investigation has called Aryan Nations a "terrorist threat", and the RAND Corporation has called it the "first truly nationwide terrorist network" in the US....read more...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan
_Nations
cont...
cont...
As for Ian Paisley, he not only refers to Hislop's book THE TWO BABYLONS at his website, but also includes adaptations from Woodrow's Hislop-based anti-Catholic book - before Woodrow got a clue and recanted.
http://www.ianpaisley.org/article
asp?ArtKey=relics
_____________________________
Needless to say, nary a word is said by Paisley about Woodrow's subsequent debunking of Hislop.
Quelle Surprise!
Constance,
First, please understand that I am not passing judgement on Mark Fairley's motives - just his "scholarship" - or lack thereof.
I am also aware that Mark Fairley claims to be from Scotland and if so, has very likely been spiritually marinated in the rabidly anti-Catholic "gospel according to Ian Paisley."
I have had a chance to view several Parts of The Fuel Project and I can truthfully say as one who has read Hislop's book, that several of Mark Fairley's videos on Roman Catholicism are little more than a rehash of Hislop's work.
In fact, here is a link to a site that has all the parts of The Fuel Project in an easy to view format.
ORBIS VITAE - KNOW YOUR ENEMY
http://orbisvitae.com/mc/Know-Your-Enemy/index.html#a
________________________________
Here is an online version of Alexander Hislop's book THE TWO BABYLONS so anyone who wants to compare it with parts of The Fuel Project discussing Roman Catholicism can do so:
THE TWO BABYLONS
Or The Papal Worship Proved to be the Worship of Nimrod and His Wife
http://www.biblebelievers.com/baby
lon/00index.htm
______________________________
Ironically, Alexander Hislop was a Free Church of Scotland minister.
I am aware that Ralph Woodrow wrote a virulently anti-Catholic book based on Hislop's "findings," but when some of the discrepancies were pointed out to Woodrow by a history teacher, Woodrow had the honesty and the decency to further investigate the claims made in Hislop's book, and, after discovering Hislop's grievously flawed scholarship for himself, he recanted, removed his Hislop-based anti-Catholic book out of print, and wrote another one describing Hislop's flawed scholarship.
cont....
P.S.
Sorry about the misplaced segment of my post. I had trouble posting.
P.P.S.
Constance,
As you know, I am not one to hesitate when it comes to dropping the hammer on Catholic apostates.
In fact, while I am here, I want to issue a warning to all Catholics who post here about the so-called American Catholic Council that is holding a conference in June in Detroit.
Many of the "usual suspects" are involved.
One of the ringleaders is Leonard Swidler - ( a.k.a. your own clever moniker "Leonard Swindler.") Hans Kung is among the speakers.
Kung has been trolling for "Vatican III" since I don't know how long!
Dissenters, now calling themselves the American Catholic Council, plan a 2011 conference in Detroit “to create a new Church.”
By Anne Hendershott
http://www.calltoholiness.com/
2011/Dissenter's__Conference_in_
Detroit_in_June_2011_(CWR)_Word_2003.pdf
Florida Bishop Victor Galeone issues statement warning faithful on American Catholic Council
http://fratres.wordpress.com
/2011/02/04/full-text-florida
-bishop-victor-galeone-issues
-statement-warning-faithful-on
-american-catholic-council/
__________________________________
BEWARE OF THE AMERICAN CATHOLIC COUNCIL
http://newenglandcatholic.blogspot
.com/2011/04/beware-of-american
-catholic-council.html
France said Thursday that European nations are considering recognizing a Palestinian state, heightening pressure on the United States and Israel to re-launch the Middle East peace process.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4059643,00.html
Dave in CA
This is something the media won't carry. I found it on the leftist site Alternet.
http://tinyurl.com/3k8zm2y
Shocking: 916 State Anti-Abortion Measures Proposed in First Three Months of 2011
Three cheers for the activist pro-life community. Alternet might be complaining, but I am cheering and so should every one reading this.
Constance,
From what I have seen so far in my investigation of the Resurrection Dance, it is said to be inspired by the CHRISTMAS FOOD COURT FLASH MOB HALLELUJAH! CHORUS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXh
7JR9oKVE
______________________
The difference here is that in this Easter Flash Mob, instead of singing there will be dancing.
A man who goes by the name of Tompage (Tamas Pajor) from Budapest, Hungary is the founder of Up To Faith.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXh
7JR9oKVE
____________________________
I haven't seen anything that smacks of "New Age" beliefs in anything that I have read about it so far.
I'm confused, what's Ian Paisley got to do with influencing the Scots or Brits? He's a Northern Ireland politician. His power base is in Northern Ireland. I really don't believe he has any influence over the Scots, English or Welsh.
~K~
Dorothy - thanks for the links. I'm slowly following through on these.
~K~
I'm confused, what's Ian Paisley got to do with influencing the Scots or Brits? He's a Northern Ireland politician. His power base is in Northern Ireland. I really don't believe he has any influence over the Scots, English or Welsh.
Although her wording is not entirely clear, I suspect Constance meant to refer not to Paisley as a direct influence but rather the virulent anti-Catholicism which he embodies, which was imported to Northern Ireland from the UK where it is still rampant.
I live in Ireland but visit England frequently and know it well. The anti-Catholicism I have encountered there over the years is so bad that it has gotten to the point that I never mention my religion voluntarily whilst in the company of Brits.
Thank you for the info on the action and unity day tomorrow. I hadn't heard about that. I put in dayofactionmovement.org and it gave all the info about this. Tomorrow is going to be very interesting.
John Rupp
Anon 5:11pm
I'm English, married to a Scot and living in Scotland. Where ever did you go in England that gave you such a hostile welcome? That's awful.
~K~
K,4:21 P.M.
I only know what I have read, and while I certainly don't pretend to be an expert on all the workings of Protestantism, I nevertheless feel myself compelled to ask if founder of the Free Presbyterian Church Ian Paisley has not had anything to do with influencing the Scots or the Brits over the years, then why did he go to all the trouble of traveling to Edinborough to protest the Pope's visit in September, 2010.....unless there are closer ties between the branches of the Presbyterian communion than the Presbyterians are willing to admit?
The truth of the matter is that Paisley was an associate of the late Scottish Protestant anti-Catholic preacher Pastor Jack Glass. In fact, according to his obituary in The Times, Glass was seen as "Scotland's answer to Ian Paisley."
Glass often joined Ian Paisley in his protests against Irish Republicanism and against the Irish Republican Army and papal authority in Northern Ireland, and his excessive zeal was such that even Paisley once noted that Jack Glass was "a bit of an extremist".
JACK GLASS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_
Glass
Jack Glass and Ian Paisley led the protests against the first papal visit to Scotland by Pope john Paul II beginning May 31 , 1982.
Glass and Paisley were said to have led the crowd in shouts of "The Beast is Coming" and "No Surrender".
But fortunately, the trip was remembered for its success, rather than controversy.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk
-scotland-11216562
K,
I have mainly gotten this reception from upper-class Londoners, but a couple months ago I got the same in a non-posh area of Sheffield. Last year I met an English woman from West Sussex who is a cradle Catholic and she confirmed to me that blatant Anti-Catholicism is rampant in England. As is often the case with these kinds of things, if you aren't it's object it might not be so apparent.
Anon
K,4:21 P.M.
I only know what I have read, and while I certainly don't pretend to be an expert on all the workings of Protestantism, I nevertheless feel myself compelled to ask if founder of the Free Presbyterian Church Ian Paisley has not had anything to do with influencing the Scots or the Brits over the years, then why did he go to all the trouble of traveling to Edinborough to protest the Pope's visit in September, 2010.....unless there are closer ties between the branches of the Presbyterian communion than the Presbyterians are willing to admit?
The truth of the matter is that Paisley was an associate of the late Scottish Protestant anti-Catholic preacher Pastor Jack Glass. In fact, according to his obituary in The Times, Glass was seen as "Scotland's answer to Ian Paisley."
Glass often joined Ian Paisley in his protests against Irish Republicanism and against the Irish Republican Army and papal authority in Northern Ireland, and his excessive zeal was such that even Paisley once noted that Jack Glass was "a bit of an extremist".
JACK GLASS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_
Glass
_____________________________
Jack Glass and Ian Paisley led the protests against the first papal visit to Scotland by Pope john Paul II beginning May 31 , 1982.
Glass and Paisley were said to have led the crowd in shouts of "The Beast is Coming" and "No Surrender".
But fortunately, the trip was remembered for its success, rather than controversy.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk
-scotland-11216562
Anon 6:12pm
I'm saddened to read this. I often experience an 'awkwardness' from non-Christians I meet here in the UK. Many people seem to be quite anti God and/or anti church. The thinking seems to go along the lines of, believe whatever you like but don't ever mention God, Jesus, the Bible, or anything that contrasts with 'my' liberal belief system.
Reading what you've said, I do wonder if maybe Roman Catholics might be picking up more flack than other Christians in the UK as the RC Church is probably the loudest voice in the UK to speak out against homosexuality, abortion, etc. It's also had some bad press with those child abuse cases which might strengthen some people's argument against the 'church'.
Whatever, I'm sorry to read this and Thanks for taking the time to share.
~K~
I often experience an 'awkwardness' from non-Christians I meet here in the UK. Many people seem to be quite anti God and/or anti church. The thinking seems to go along the lines of, believe whatever you like but don't ever mention God, Jesus, the Bible, or anything that contrasts with 'my' liberal belief system.
K,
Yes, the UK is hostile to Christianity, especially the upper class and it is quite palpable. Mockery, ridicule, and demonizing of any Christian believer as an ignorant, foolish, backward bigot is normal, acceptable dinner conversation with these people. I say this from first hand experience.
Prior to reading this blog I would have classed the anti-Catholicism in the UK as simply racism, but I have learned that the problem is much deeper and more complex than that. As Dorothy has pointed out many times, the Catholic Church is hated by enemies of monotheism because it is such a powerful institution that has held together for 2,000 years. These people want to see Christianity destroyed and Rome is perceived as its citadel.
Here are a few articles following on from Susanna's post:
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/writer-blasts-secular-britains-anti-catholicism-in-run-up-to-papal-visit/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rory-fitzgerald/the-popes-uk-visit-aggres_b_720595.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/aug/22/pope-visit-catholic-prejudice
Anon
K,
I just wrote a rather lengthy post agreeing with you about the palpable hostility toward Christianity in the UK but it "disappeared." My point was that amongst the trendy upper classes, the view of all Christian believers as being ignorant, uneducated, backward, bigots is considered normal, acceptable dinner conversation by these people. Too tired to try to reconstruct the rest of the post...
Following on from Susanna's post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rory-fitzgerald/the-popes-uk-visit-aggres_b_720595.html
The closest I came to Anti-Catholicism was at University in Canada, when a bunch of atheists were engaged in a debate on religion and Christianity.
One of them said "You know what's worser than Christian, Catholic."
The rest just nodded in agreement.
The irony is that none of them actually knew any Catholics.
Savvy
Suzanne - the Church of Scotland (the 'national' church) is not connected to Paisley's church in NI and Glass' church in Glasgow.
Here's the link to Glass' independent church ... Zion Baptist Church, Glasgow.
http://www.zionbaptists.org.uk/
This is the Church of Scotland:
http://www.churchofscotland.org.uk/home
~K~
If it weren't for reformers like Luther, Calvin and Knox any of us who call ourselves Protestant would not be alive. The Catholic church sought to extinguish us altogether.
If you are a member of a Protestant church, you owe a debt of gratitude to the reformers and another debt of gratitude to Ian Paisley and his prodigy, Alan Cairns.
To be saved by works is entirely Catholic and to be saved by Grace is entirely Protestant. That is the fundamental separation between us and there are no bridges to be built.
The choice is church tradition which is not biblical and biblical truth, which is. Sorry Suzanna, I can't let you attempt to build bridges by blasting Ian Paisley and the Free Presbyterian Church. We see romanism and papism as anti-christian. It's an age old dispute that won't go away.
Call me anti-catholic if you will. I am.
If anyone wants a good version of the reformation, Alan Cairns does a fantastic job of explaining it.
http://tinyurl.com/creqj8
Anon 7:45pm
Thanks for the link to the article - it was a good read.
K,
Thank you for the clarification with regard to the Presbytarian Church.
Doubt if I would buy a used car from either RUPERT MURDOCH or GEORGE SOROS.
Constance
SUSANNA,
Catholic friends in Detroit area whom I respect highly are on guard about the American Catholic Council. Now that I am aware, thanks to you, of the Leonard Swi[n]dler connection, I will make them even more aware. Kung has his Protestant allies in Detroit as well. Also, the Ecumenical Seminary in Detroit gave him an honorary doctorate in fall of 2006. I went to observe that disgusting evening.
Constance
If only Dorothy would be civil to Mark Fairley, I have more than a passing suspicion he could become another Ralph Woodrow.
I am afraid Dorothy's approach is going to quench many a spirit. Those who bought into Hislop and Paisley have a real fear that they are going to suffer at the hands of an inquisition.
Everybody deserves at least one kind warning, not immediate bashing.
Constance
Steve,
If you would stop to think for a moment, you would realize that your argument is not with me, but rather with the authors of the articles I clearly cited.
If I were not willing to admit that there have been apostates and evildoers in the Catholic Church, you might have a legitimate beef with me, but anyone reading my posts to this blog knows that this is not the case.
Furthermore, how would you like it if I distorted your beliefs, told lies about you and falsely accused you of being a pagan - and of "book worship" -"BIBLIOLATRY." Speculative Freemasonry was not a Catholic invention! How would you like it if I accused you of being in bed with it? I could go on...
As for your bizarre false accusation that I am "attempting to build bridges by blasting Ian Paisley," Puh -lease! You need to get real! Insofar as "blasting" and "bridge-building" are mutually exclusive terms, that doesn't even make sense.
As far as I am concerned, a "bridge" to any Hislop-larded pseudo-theology would be a proverbial "bridge to nowhere."
As for Paisley I did not invent what I said about Paisley - or Glass. What I said is a matter of documented historical fact and I carefully cited my sources....and even went out of my way NOT to cite Catholic sources with a view to remaining as unbiased as possible out of respect for the non-Catholic Christians who post here.
At the end of the day, while you are certainly entitled to your own opinions, you are not entitled to your own facts.
One more thing....since you decided to bring up Luther, Calvin and some of the other Reformers, you might want to go and study what they really taught, because if you had properly done your homework, you might have learned that when the "Reformers" decided to set up shop on their own, they did not ditch all of their
Catholic beliefs as you obviously appear to believe that they did.
But getting back to Hislop, at the end of the day, anyone who buys into the "gospel according to Hislop" - as Paisley and his pal Glass did - is at best a crank scholar, and at worst on a par with the radical Christian Identity groups that seriously need to be challenged.
Sorry about the comments that Google diverted into "spam." After reading that one of you had made a lengthy post that didn't get there, I suddenly remembered the SPAM issue and checked that. All comments were then marked "NOT SPAM" by me and should now be available for reading.
Constance
I wonder if STEVE shares Masrtin Luther's opinion that the Book of James should not have been included in the Bible???!!!
Lurking Catholic
Dear Constance,
I would very much appreciate it if you would notify all your Catholic friends about the American Catholic Council which would be better named "Apostates 'R Us!"
Here are some more details about the Swidler connection.
Old 'Call to Action' to break with Catholic Church: Founding of the American Catholic Council signaled the aim of creating a church both Catholic and American.
...Call to Action's Leonard Swidler, mentioned above as founder of the Association for the Rights of Catholic in the Church - ARCC, and one of the primary conveners of the American Catholic Council, has been promoting the idea of an independent church for years. Swidler developed VOTF's "Constitution" with VOTF founding member Jim Muller, seeking election of priests and other members of the hierarchy, as well as endorsing abortion, contraception, homosexual relations, married clergy and women priests, divorce and a host of other Call to Action "reforms." [Marianne Keating, Letter to the Editor, Lawrence Eagle Tribune, 11/9/02; Meg Murphy, "Walkout Ends Church Healing Session," Lawrence Eagle Tribune, 10/31/02]... read entire article.....
http://www.catholiccitizens.org/
platform/platformview.asp?c=50650
______________________________
The following is from the National Catholic Register:
REMAKING THE CHURCH
by DEACON THOMAS J. DAVIS JR. 03/05/2010
...Deacon Davis also explores Voice of the Faithful’s connections to dissident theologians and its plans to spread doctrinal error among Catholics.
Defective exegesis undermines faith, fosters division and politicizes dogmatic questions, as the failed 2009 Connecticut legislative putsch revealed. In Liberation of the Laity, Fairfield University professor and VOTF member Paul Lakeland maintains that “liberation” requires an “alternative vision” of Church developed in “parish-sized forums,” possibly divided into “working groups.” VOTF’s study guide reads like a step in that direction.
But things have not coalesced as VOTF once dreamed. With membership and interest fading, three of its national officers, together with Robert Kaiser from Take Back Our Church, Leonard Swidler from the Association for the Rights of Catholics in the Church and Arline Nosse of Future Church, recently established the American Catholic Council, calling its own “council” of 5,000 delegates for the “American Catholic Church” in 2011. Its website includes a “Declaration,” “Bill of Rights,” “Creed,” “Definitions” and more. Three of the nine individual signatories of its “Declaration” are VOTF members from Connecticut. Its organizational signatories reads like a who’s who of aging dissent organizations: VOTF, Take Back Our Church, the Association for the Rights of Catholics in the Church, Call to Action, New Ways Ministry, Future Church, women’s ordination groups, Dignity USA, Corpus, “Catholic Diocese of One Spirit” and the “Society of Blessed John XXIII.”....read more....
http://www.ncregister.com/daily
-news/remaking_the_church3/
________________________________
DISSENT AND CONFUSION: MEET THE AMERICAN CATHOLIC COUNCIL
October 28, 2010
http://www.catholic.org/national/
national_story.php?id=38903
_______________________________
Needless to say I wouldn't give Kung or "Swindler" the time of day!!!
Constance, let's just say the list of those kind of people you've befriended haven't changed. And let's say pretty boy does change, how will he undo all of the damage he has already done? By saying "Ooops, I Made A Mistake. God and Constance will forgive me I'm sure."
And, how long will you give him to change before you say "Ooops I made a mistake." I don't have that long to wait as the antisemitism grows.
How did that go? Fool me once etc.
However, have a go at it. It should keep you involved. No one else is going to take on the job.
P.S.
Constance,
Hans Kung is totally repulsive to me! In his book DOES GOD EXIST?, among other things, he had the unmitigated gall to attempt to USE THE BIBLE to place the divinity of Christ in doubt.
Not surprisingly, on May 18, 2007, Kung received an award from the Masonic lodge.
Call me anti-catholic if you will. I am.
If anyone wants a good version of the reformation, Alan Cairns does a fantastic job of explaining it.
http://tinyurl.com/creqj8
Like Susanna, I will not accuse you of "Biblioatry," but since you took the time to express your views that Catholicism is "anti-Christian," I will offer the following link:
CATHOLICISM IS OBJECTIVE, PROTESTANTISM SUBJECTIVE
http://littlecatholicbubble.blogspot.com/2011/04/catholicism-is-objective-protestantism.html
If anyone wants a good job of explaining the doctrinal differnces between Catholicism and Protestantism, Leila, who is not a scholar or theologian but merely a laywoman, does a very good job of explaining it.
I wonder if STEVE shares Masrtin Luther's opinion that the Book of James should not have been included in the Bible???!!!
Lurking Catholic
Good question. I wonder where STEVE thinks Martin Luther got the authority to change the canon of scripture. Since there is no list in scripture of which books constitute the canon, it certainly cannot be from the Bible itself! Yet he claims that the "Bible only" is the source of all doctrinal authority. Hmmmmmm......
If anyone is checking out the Fuel Project, you might be interested in these Notes pages:
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=54721237506
H. G. Wells and Hans Kung?
http://www.facebook.com/feeds/notes.php?id=22007885311&viewer=1236994006&key=AQDqtXQTwytDfa4g&format=rss20
http://www.facebook.com/notes.php?subj=22007885311#!/TheFuelProject
Move over Javier Solana - according to the NYDaily News
Arnold Schwarzenegger may be campaigning for president of the European Union in the near future.
Now, would-ndt that be lovely.!?.
Anonymous 9:00 am,
"Since there is no list in scripture of which books constitute the canon, it certainly cannot be from the Bible itself!"
Having read this quote from your post, then this "Yet he claims that the "Bible only" is the source of all doctrinal authority. Hmmmmmm......" quoted from the same post as your conclusion, I'm wondering what you have as a reliable, verifiable, tangible, credible source of information to base any belief in God.
Though you do not state so, the presumption/conclusion, considering the topic of "Church Tradition" is equal to the Scriptures as authoritative in this string of posts, seeems to me obvious. By implication what is left is that "oral tradition" of the Catholic Church is on a par with the established cannon of scripture, recognized as closed since essentially the second century.
The way I see this topic developing there is the written complete cannon of scripture, which can be physically held, read, studied, and assessed for and or researched for its existance, authenticity, and accuracy, and there is an "oral tradition" that cannot be evaluated or verified by anything other than propositional argument based on an existential belief in the reality and authority of something that cannot be verified except through persuasion.
If there is much debate over a real, tangible, physical book after 2000 + years as to its authenticity and accuracy, how on earth does one even attempt to claim to be able to verify the same for something as intangible and unverifiable as an "oral tradition" and expect to be taken seriously by a rational soberminded, intellectualy honest person seeking the truth pertaining to God?
I'll stand with Steve any day on the position of the Scriptures as the only verifiable, tangible, complete authorative revelation of God to and for man.
The Huguenots have a memorial in France with a saying "Hammer away ye hostile hands, your hammers break God's anvil stands"
That would some it up where I stand.The "oral tradition" camp needs more intellectual honsety and less passionate stubborn superstition in my opinion.
It took a lot of courage for Steve to make his post, I'll stand with him While he and I aren't perfect human beings, he and I are standing for the perfect Book.
It's about time that God's written, complete, inspired word be stood up for here. If you think Susanna can compose mega comments, fasten your seatbelts.
HK
I'm wondering what you have as a reliable, verifiable, tangible, credible source of information to base any belief in God
Well, HK, since you have previously claimed to be a former Catholic, I would expect that you know more about Catholic theology than Steve, whose post on this thread demonstrates his profound ignorance. As a former Catholic you were presumably taught at one point that Jesus Christ did not leave us a book when he ascended into Heaven to be seated at the Right Hand of the Father but instead, that he left us a teaching authority called the Roman Catholic Church, to whom he gave the authority to, inspired by the Holy Spirit, determine the canon of scripture as well as "bind and loose" (to teach with authority in all matters of faith and morals including interpretaiton of that scripture).
This quote is interesting:
I'll stand with Steve any day on the position of the Scriptures as the only verifiable, tangible, complete authorative revelation of God to and for man.
On what did the early Christians base their faith, at the time when no Bibles were in existence? And even more importantly, if scripture is the "only authority" for doctrine, whose interpretation of scripture is the "correct" one?
Your snide swipe at Susanna, who is as gracious to everyone here (including non-Catholics) as she is knowledgeable about theology, tells us a great deal about you but nothing about Susanna or the Roman Catholic Church.
In the meantime I will leave you with some words from Sarah, a former Protestant, about what you describe as merely an "existential belief":
Great post! It's amazing to me how much time is spent debating the issues you listed in wonderful Protestant circles. There is a lot of confusion. The CCC was very refreshing for me when I decided to become Catholic. Another aspect of your list of answers is that the clear answers the Catholics would give would be answers that haven't changed. It's not like last year the answer was "no" and this year "yes" depending on the whims of the pope.
Another fascinating study for me has been the debates of the early church and early church fathers. Without the papacy, the concept of apostolic authority, I don't think Christianity could have survived the early days. It's just not possible. Remember, the Scriptures were NOT in their current form at that time or even agreed upon. The debates on certain doctrines was fierce and very articulate on all side. If wasn't for the guidance of the Holy Spirit through the apostles and their successors, early Christianity would have just imploded. Modern methods of "just read your Bible" were completely foreign, impossible, and impractical to the early Christians.
P.S.
HK,
Where does it say in the Bible that the Bible is the sole source of Christian doctrine?
"P.S.
HK,
Where does it say in the Bible that the Bible is the sole source of Christian doctrine?
12:28 PM"
"Every scripture [is] God-inspired and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for correctionn, for discipline which [is] in righteousness; that complete may be the man of God to every good work fully fitted." 2 Tim. 3:16 (Berry's Interlinear Gk/Eng NT translated from the majority text)
That would be the foundational scriptural verse, following a strict heremeneutical discipline i.e. rules of context etc., applied for structure.
Considering the rule of context, all it takes is study time to follow the logic of what is in context there. What does not appear in context starting here is any refrence to a "tradition" of any kind oral or otherwise.
When one looks at the Greek words "scripture" and "God-inspired" it's easy to see the syntax (idea behind the word use) that "scripture" is the final written product, that is, the word on the original parchment, is "God inspired" God breathed into the human author and out his pen onto the original parchment.
That verse placed in context from the paragraph to the whole Bible would flow consistantly, and logically throughout from Gen. 1:1 to Rev. 22:21 with true consistancy and no errors in the context.
Try to do that with "oral tradition" and see what you get. It's an interesting study in contrasting points of view.
HK
"Every scripture [is] God-inspired and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for correctionn, for discipline which [is] in righteousness; that complete may be the man of God to every good work fully fitted."
HK,
That quote does not say that the Bible is the only source of authority for doctrine. What it says by its plain language is that scripture is inspired and profitable. The Catholic Church agrees - that is why it is called "sacred scripture."
So I repeat the question: where in the Bible does it plainly state that the Bible is self-interpreting and the sole source of doctrinal authority?
I don't intent to reinvent the wheel. If you want to know the Catholic view of why Sola Scriptura is false, read the following:
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html
I've studied the issues and my intellect working in cooperation with God's grace has led me to Roman Catholic Church. I understand that you feel differently, and that you follow Sola Scriptura. I am able to respect that its own terms even if I think it is unsound theology. Having long, convuluted discussions about scriptural interpretation is a Protestant thing, not a Catholic one. Catholics believe there is one truth, not many different interpretations of truth.
In the meantime, this "anti-Christian" and "unbiblical" Roman Catholic would be grateful if you would take that railroad-tie sized chip off your shoulder.
Anon
Tiny URL for the site about the Catholic view of Sola Scriptura:
http://tinyurl.com/28y7su
Anonymous 12:27 pm,
"On what did the early Christians base their faith, at the time when no Bibles were in existence? ..."
Personal testimony of eye witnesses. But we both already knew that, did't we?
We also know we live in 2011, please correct me if I'm wrong, there're aren't any eye witnesses around today.
So we seem to have a delima, where can we find true verfiable facts in order to know what the truth really is.
"...if scripture is the "only authority" for doctrine, whose interpretation of scripture is the "correct" one?" (your quote also)
God's interpretation. The application of a sound hermeneutic in studying the Scriptures shows that God has built into them the ability to understand it by letting it explain itself. Can we grant that God is well capable of writing a book that can be understood by the "average" person of "average" intelligence, and understand what God says we need to understand about Him?
The phrase "Well that's your interpretation of the Bible..." or any such phrase of that type is a Satanically inspired viewpoint. The Bible is not subject to interpretation. The Bible interprets itself means what it says and says what it means. Men, even some well intentioned men, fall for the "it's your interpretion" scam, which is most tragic.
"Your snide swipe at Susanna, who is as gracious to everyone here (including non-Catholics) as she is knowledgeable about theology, tells us a great deal about you but nothing about Susanna or the Roman Catholic Church." (another quote from your post)
I use Susanna as a standard of mega posting, not in derision, but to convey a point. Susanna makes many in depth posts and I made that statement as a comittment to be as thorough in my future posts.
The reason I did that is given Susanna's knowledge of theology produced the extensive content it did, so I figure to follow her example with the exception of Bible exposition in the original lanuages, employing a strich hermeneutic for two reasons. To achieve accuracy, and to allow what I post to be fact checked and assessed for accuracy.
My words will speak for themselves, hopefully the discourse will stay with the facts. Time will tell. I am more interested in facts and truth persued with integrity and able to be checked out. Either the God of the Bible is, and His word is true and trustworthy, and most importantly unserstandable, or we would all be better off spending our time at baseball games or slopping up beer at a bar smoking cigars and pondering indulgance of any worldly lust we can find to engage in.
From what bible study has done for me so far, I've only been encouraged to study more and study better, and skip baseball and bars.
I do appreciate you taking the time to comment to me though.
HK
Anonymous 1:34 pm,
"So I repeat the question: where in the Bible does it plainly state that the Bible is self-interpreting and the sole source of doctrinal authority?" (your quote)
2 Tim.3:16 is a direct quote that answers your question that you restated above.
If one spends time studying the scriptures rather than the doctrinal ideas of any "Church" or demonination whether they be Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Protestant, or even Islam, or Budshism in time it stands alone head and shoulders above any human construct of ideas, no matter how noble they profess to be.
I fully expect to get many comments from Catholics pertaining to posts of mine that give details of my Catholic backround, I don't have any problem with that. What is important to me are these 3 things:
#1) *Calvary* God without ever ceasing to be God becoming a perfect, sinless man, the Theoanthropos, dying a human spiritual death for every human being on a cross and His Resurrection as proof of what He has done.
#2)*Bible* the scriptures as the one and only source of God revealing to man Who He is and that He intends for us to be able to know and understand and trust what is contained in the scriptures, for ourselves, personally.
#3)*Grace* That people can know vast true wonderful things about the Grace of God by studying His word Rightly Divided and properly understood. (2Tim. 2:15)
I think it best to keep it simple, which is not to say that it does not have depth.
Calvary changed everything.
HK
Anon 1:34 P.M.
Re:
"That quote does not say that the Bible is the only source of authority for doctrine. What it says by its plain language is that scripture is inspired and profitable. The Catholic Church agrees - that is why it is called "sacred scripture."
You are correct. Not only does it not say that the Scriptures are the only source of authority for doctrine, but the Scriptures which are being referred to are the Old Testament.
On the other hand, there is evidence in the Bible that BOTH Scripture AND Tradition are the source of authority for doctrine.
Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.
2 Thessalonians 2:15
Also in the 2 Timothy quote we need to look at the passage that comes just before 2 Timothy 3:16-17.
You have followed my teaching, way of life, purpose, faith, patience, love, endurance,
persecutions, and sufferings, such as happened to me in Antioch, Iconium, and Lystra, persecutions that I endured. Yet from all these things the Lord delivered me.
In fact, all who want to live religiously in Christ Jesus will be persecuted.
But wicked people and charlatans will go from bad to worse, deceivers and deceived.
But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it,
and that from infancy you have known (the) sacred scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
2 Timothy 3:11-15
Paul tells Timothy to continue in what he has learned for two reasons: first, because he knows from whom he has learned it—Paul himself—and second, because he has been educated in the scriptures. The first of these is a direct appeal to apostolic tradition, the oral teaching which the apostle Paul had given Timothy. So Protestants must take 2 Timothy 3:16-17 out of context to arrive at the theory of sola scriptura. But when the passage is read in context, it becomes clear that it is teaching the importance of apostolic tradition!
"So I repeat the question: where in the Bible does it plainly state that the Bible is self-interpreting and the sole source of doctrinal authority?" (your quote)
2 Tim.3:16 is a direct quote that answers your question that you restated above.
HK,
I can see that you sincerely WANT 2Tim 3:16 to say that, but the reality is that it says no such thing. You can claim a gorilla is a type of tree but the claim, no matter how sincere, does not make it so. Same with your reading into scripture something that is simply not there.
So I ask the question again: where in the Bible does it clearly state that the Bible is the sole (meaning "exclusive") source of doctrinal authority?
Anon
I'm wondering what you have as a reliable, verifiable, tangible, credible source of information to base any belief in God
HK,
P.S. - the only reason I mentioned your Catholic background is because I found the above question you posed to me incredulous in light of it. If you are telling the truth about being a former Catholic, than surely you already know where Catholics derive all their beliefs about God!
The statement above from you reads as though it was written by someone who lacks even the most basic understanding of what the Catholic Church teaches.
Apart from this, I couldn't care less that you are a former Catholic.
HK 91 11:59 A.M.
Though you do not state so, the presumption/conclusion, considering the topic of "Church Tradition" is equal to the Scriptures as authoritative in this string of posts, seeems to me obvious.
Here is something a little more explicit that you should have learned when you were a Catholic.
**************************
Sacred Tradition & Sacred Scripture…EQUAL?
Q. The quote I am posting below proves that the R.C. church teaches equality between scripture and the catechism.
The Documents of Vatican II
Hence there exist a close connection and communication between Sacred tradition and sacred Scripture. For
both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a Unity and tend toward the
same end. For sacred Scripture is theWord of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration
of the divine Spirit. To the successors of the apostles, sacred tradition hands on in its full purity God’s word,
which was Entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit . . . Consequently, it is not from
sacred Scripture alone That the Church draws her certainty about everything which has Been revealed.
Therefore both sacred tradition and sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of
Devotion and reverence. Sacred tradition and sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God,
which is committed to the church (p.117).
The Question and Answer Catholic Catechism
59. Where do we find the truths revealed by God?
We find the truths revealed by God in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.
60. How does Sacred Scripture compare with Sacred Tradition?
Both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are the inspired word of God, and both are forms of divine
revelation. Sacred Scripture is divinely inspired writing, whereas Sacred Tradition is the unwritten word of
inspired persons.
89. Why is Sacred Tradition of equal authority with the Bible?
The Bible and Sacred Tradition are of equal authority because they are equally the word of God’ both derive
from the inspired vision of the ancient prophets, and especially from the infinite wisdom of God incarnate who
gave to the apostles what he came down on earth to teach, through them, to all of mankind.
A. I do not deny that they are of equal authority. But, many imagine that because of the equality of Scripture and Tradition, Catholic doctrine could be almost anything. And that the Catholic Church therefore, ends up with all kinds of Doctrines diametrically opposed to Sacred Scripture. But that is NOT how it works. The beliefs of the the Church existed FIRST. Scripture and the Teaching of the Apostles or Sacred Tradition are cited to support these doctrines.
Jesus—>Christian Faith—> Authentic Apostolic Teaching—>Oral and Written =Tradition and Scripture
And I can assure you NOTHING that the Church believes contradicts one thing in Sacred Scripture.
It is the BELIEFS of Protestants and their INTERPRETATION of scripture that contradicts Catholic Doctrine.
The reason for this is that both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition were DERIVED out of the FAITH and the CHURCH founded by Jesus Christ. So, the Bible does not contradict Catholic Doctrine and Catholic Doctrine does not contradict the Bible.
The only thing that contradicts Catholic Doctrine are Protestant Doctrines derived from various interpretations of Sacred Scripture 1500-2000 years after they were written.
cont....
cont...
Q. How do you relate John 21:25 to oral teachings?
A. John 21:25
Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.
The reason for citing this verse is to point out that Jesus did and said many, many things that did not get written down in John’s Gospel or even the rest of the NT. For instance, all that Jesus explained to the disciples on the road to Emmaus. Now Protestants will just say “We don’t need anything more than what was canonized.” But Catholics would disagree saying that the fullness of the Faith did not get written into the Canon of Scripture. Nothing in scripture says Scripture is enough. Therefore, this passage in John shows that there is nothing wrong with accepting unwritten teachings of the apostles which we call TRADITION. Traditions of men is something completely different. And St. Paul even exhorts the Thessalonians to hold firmly to what he taught them, both written and ORAL.
2 Thessalonians 2:15
So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.
Q. What about 2 Thess. 2:15? Remember scripture backs scripture.
A. I agree.
Q. Oral traditions get lost over time, but the written word of God has withstood time and persecution.
A. I would have to say the same thing about the Catholic Faith. Where in scripture does it teach that oral traditions get lost over time? I would contend that the Oral teachings of the Church were eventually written down and God has by HIS power protected and preserved the TRUTH within the One,Holy,Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
Q. How can you possibly follow “oral” traditions handed down over 2000 years ago?
A. I believe that God protected the purity of the Faith handed on by word of mouth just as St. Paul taught in Scripture. You believe in the inspiration of the Old Testament don’t you? Moses wrote down the first five books of the OT. The events he recorded were thousands of years before his time. We both believe that God safeguarded the truth to Moses several thousand years later. While on the other hand Sacred Tradition began to be written down within one hundred years after Christ’s resurrection. We reject any and all writings, no matter how old they are if they do not align with scripture and the Faith as always believed and taught. I am sure you believe God could have done this. The question you must decide is, “Did He?”
http://theblackcordelias.wordpress
.com/2009/02/28/sacred-tradition
-sacred-scriptureequal/
Sacred Tradition & Sacred Scripture…EQUAL?
Q. The quote I am posting below proves that the R.C. church teaches equality between scripture and the catechism.
The Documents of Vatican II
Hence there exist a close connection and communication between Sacred tradition and sacred Scripture. For
both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a Unity and tend toward the
same end. For sacred Scripture is theWord of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration
of the divine Spirit. To the successors of the apostles, sacred tradition hands on in its full purity God’s word,
which was Entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit . . . Consequently, it is not from
sacred Scripture alone That the Church draws her certainty about everything which has Been revealed.
Therefore both sacred tradition and sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of
Devotion and reverence. Sacred tradition and sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God,
which is committed to the church (p.117).
The Question and Answer Catholic Catechism
59. Where do we find the truths revealed by God?
We find the truths revealed by God in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.
60. How does Sacred Scripture compare with Sacred Tradition?
Both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are the inspired word of God, and both are forms of divine
revelation. Sacred Scripture is divinely inspired writing, whereas Sacred Tradition is the unwritten word of
inspired persons.
89. Why is Sacred Tradition of equal authority with the Bible?
The Bible and Sacred Tradition are of equal authority because they are equally the word of God’ both derive
from the inspired vision of the ancient prophets, and especially from the infinite wisdom of God incarnate who
gave to the apostles what he came down on earth to teach, through them, to all of mankind.
A. I do not deny that they are of equal authority. But, many imagine that because of the equality of Scripture and Tradition, Catholic doctrine could be almost anything. And that the Catholic Church therefore, ends up with all kinds of Doctrines diametrically opposed to Sacred Scripture. But that is NOT how it works. The beliefs of the the Church existed FIRST. Scripture and the Teaching of the Apostles or Sacred Tradition are cited to support these doctrines.
Jesus—>Christian Faith—> Authentic Apostolic Teaching—>Oral and Written =Tradition and Scripture
And I can assure you NOTHING that the Church believes contradicts one thing in Sacred Scripture.
It is the BELIEFS of Protestants and their INTERPRETATION of scripture that contradicts Catholic Doctrine.
The reason for this is that both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition were DERIVED out of the FAITH and the CHURCH founded by Jesus Christ. So, the Bible does not contradict Catholic Doctrine and Catholic Doctrine does not contradict the Bible.
The only thing that contradicts Catholic Doctrine are Protestant Doctrines derived from various interpretations of Sacred Scripture 1500-2000 years after they were written.
cont...
cont...
Q. How do you relate John 21:25 to oral teachings?
A. John 21:25
Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.
The reason for citing this verse is to point out that Jesus did and said many, many things that did not get written down in John’s Gospel or even the rest of the NT. For instance, all that Jesus explained to the disciples on the road to Emmaus. Now Protestants will just say “We don’t need anything more than what was canonized.” But Catholics would disagree saying that the fullness of the Faith did not get written into the Canon of Scripture. Nothing in scripture says Scripture is enough. Therefore, this passage in John shows that there is nothing wrong with accepting unwritten teachings of the apostles which we call TRADITION. Traditions of men is something completely different. And St. Paul even exhorts the Thessalonians to hold firmly to what he taught them, both written and ORAL.
2 Thessalonians 2:15
So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.
Q. What about 2 Thess. 2:15? Remember scripture backs scripture.
A. I agree.
Q. Oral traditions get lost over time, but the written word of God has withstood time and persecution.
A. I would have to say the same thing about the Catholic Faith. Where in scripture does it teach that oral traditions get lost over time? I would contend that the Oral teachings of the Church were eventually written down and God has by HIS power protected and preserved the TRUTH within the One,Holy,Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
Q. How can you possibly follow “oral” traditions handed down over 2000 years ago?
A. I believe that God protected the purity of the Faith handed on by word of mouth just as St. Paul taught in Scripture. You believe in the inspiration of the Old Testament don’t you? Moses wrote down the first five books of the OT. The events he recorded were thousands of years before his time. We both believe that God safeguarded the truth to Moses several thousand years later. While on the other hand Sacred Tradition began to be written down within one hundred years after Christ’s resurrection. We reject any and all writings, no matter how old they are if they do not align with scripture and the Faith as always believed and taught. I am sure you believe God could have done this. The question you must decide is, “Did He?”
http://theblackcordelias.wordpress
.com/2009/02/28/sacred-tradition
-sacred-scriptureequal/
Q. How do you relate John 21:25 to oral teachings?
A. John 21:25
Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.
The reason for citing this verse is to point out that Jesus did and said many, many things that did not get written down in John’s Gospel or even the rest of the NT. For instance, all that Jesus explained to the disciples on the road to Emmaus. Now Protestants will just say “We don’t need anything more than what was canonized.” But Catholics would disagree saying that the fullness of the Faith did not get written into the Canon of Scripture. Nothing in scripture says Scripture is enough. Therefore, this passage in John shows that there is nothing wrong with accepting unwritten teachings of the apostles which we call TRADITION. Traditions of men is something completely different. And St. Paul even exhorts the Thessalonians to hold firmly to what he taught them, both written and ORAL.
2 Thessalonians 2:15
So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.
Q. What about 2 Thess. 2:15? Remember scripture backs scripture.
A. I agree.
Q. Oral traditions get lost over time, but the written word of God has withstood time and persecution.
A. I would have to say the same thing about the Catholic Faith. Where in scripture does it teach that oral traditions get lost over time? I would contend that the Oral teachings of the Church were eventually written down and God has by HIS power protected and preserved the TRUTH within the One,Holy,Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
Q. How can you possibly follow “oral” traditions handed down over 2000 years ago?
A. I believe that God protected the purity of the Faith handed on by word of mouth just as St. Paul taught in Scripture. You believe in the inspiration of the Old Testament don’t you? Moses wrote down the first five books of the OT. The events he recorded were thousands of years before his time. We both believe that God safeguarded the truth to Moses several thousand years later. While on the other hand Sacred Tradition began to be written down within one hundred years after Christ’s resurrection. We reject any and all writings, no matter how old they are if they do not align with scripture and the Faith as always believed and taught. I am sure you believe God could have done this. The question you must decide is, “Did He?”
http://theblackcordelias.word
press.com/2009/02/28/sacred
-tradition-sacred-scriptureequal/
cont...
Q. How do you relate John 21:25 to oral teachings?
A. John 21:25
Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.
The reason for citing this verse is to point out that Jesus did and said many, many things that did not get written down in John’s Gospel or even the rest of the NT. For instance, all that Jesus explained to the disciples on the road to Emmaus. Now Protestants will just say “We don’t need anything more than what was canonized.” But Catholics would disagree saying that the fullness of the Faith did not get written into the Canon of Scripture. Nothing in scripture says Scripture is enough. Therefore, this passage in John shows that there is nothing wrong with accepting unwritten teachings of the apostles which we call TRADITION. Traditions of men is something completely different. And St. Paul even exhorts the Thessalonians to hold firmly to what he taught them, both written and ORAL.
2 Thessalonians 2:15
So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.
Q. What about 2 Thess. 2:15? Remember scripture backs scripture.
A. I agree.
Q. Oral traditions get lost over time, but the written word of God has withstood time and persecution.
A. I would have to say the same thing about the Catholic Faith. Where in scripture does it teach that oral traditions get lost over time? I would contend that the Oral teachings of the Church were eventually written down and God has by HIS power protected and preserved the TRUTH within the One,Holy,Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
Q. How can you possibly follow “oral” traditions handed down over 2000 years ago?
A. I believe that God protected the purity of the Faith handed on by word of mouth just as St. Paul taught in Scripture. You believe in the inspiration of the Old Testament don’t you? Moses wrote down the first five books of the OT. The events he recorded were thousands of years before his time. We both believe that God safeguarded the truth to Moses several thousand years later. While on the other hand Sacred Tradition began to be written down within one hundred years after Christ’s resurrection. We reject any and all writings, no matter how old they are if they do not align with scripture and the Faith as always believed and taught. I am sure you believe God could have done this. The question you must decide is, “Did He?”
http://theblackcordelias.wordpress.com/2009/02/28/sacred-tradition-sacred-scriptureequal/
Corrected link.
http://theblackcordelias.word
press.com/2009/02/28/sacred-tradition-sacred-scriptureequal/
cont...
Q. How do you relate John 21:25 to oral teachings?
A. John 21:25
Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.
The reason for citing this verse is to point out that Jesus did and said many, many things that did not get written down in John’s Gospel or even the rest of the NT. For instance, all that Jesus explained to the disciples on the road to Emmaus. Now Protestants will just say “We don’t need anything more than what was canonized.” But Catholics would disagree saying that the fullness of the Faith did not get written into the Canon of Scripture. Nothing in scripture says Scripture is enough. Therefore, this passage in John shows that there is nothing wrong with accepting unwritten teachings of the apostles which we call TRADITION. Traditions of men is something completely different. And St. Paul even exhorts the Thessalonians to hold firmly to what he taught them, both written and ORAL.
2 Thessalonians 2:15
So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.
cont....
cont...
Q. What about 2 Thess. 2:15? Remember scripture backs scripture.
A. I agree.
Q. Oral traditions get lost over time, but the written word of God has withstood time and persecution.
A. I would have to say the same thing about the Catholic Faith. Where in scripture does it teach that oral traditions get lost over time? I would contend that the Oral teachings of the Church were eventually written down and God has by HIS power protected and preserved the TRUTH within the One,Holy,Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
Q. How can you possibly follow “oral” traditions handed down over 2000 years ago?
A. I believe that God protected the purity of the Faith handed on by word of mouth just as St. Paul taught in Scripture. You believe in the inspiration of the Old Testament don’t you? Moses wrote down the first five books of the OT. The events he recorded were thousands of years before his time. We both believe that God safeguarded the truth to Moses several thousand years later. While on the other hand Sacred Tradition began to be written down within one hundred years after Christ’s resurrection. We reject any and all writings, no matter how old they are if they do not align with scripture and the Faith as always believed and taught. I am sure you believe God could have done this. The question you must decide is, “Did He?”
http://theblackcordelias.word
press.com/2009/02/28/sacred-tradition-sacred-scriptureequal/
Anon 3:06
As has been discussed many times on this blog, the Catholic Rule of Faith is sacred scripture and sacred tradition. It was Martin Luther who invented the "Bible-only" rule, not Catholics!
2 Thessalonians 2:15
So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.
3:24 pm,
I was just about to post that verse. Paul explicitly rejected "Sola Scriptura" before Martin Luther even invented. How providential!
I wonder if HK has read that particular Pauline letter.
3:32
Providential indeed! And in the unity of the Holy Spirit!
Anon 3:44
I'm just wondering how long it will be before someone comes along and complains how the "anti-Christian" and "unbiblical" Catholics, by responding rationally to the weak arguments presented by HK, are trying to "drive Steve and HK away from the blog." LOL
"So I repeat the question: where in the Bible does it plainly state that the Bible is self-interpreting and the sole source of doctrinal authority?" (your quote)
2 Tim.3:16 is a direct quote that answers your question that you restated above.
HK,
You are engaging in something Peter warned about in 2 Peter 3:16.
Constance
I agree that the Up to Faith, Global Dance is absolutely New Age in spirit. I don't know about you folks in the US, but in the UK we're absolutely inundated with propaganda on TV and online brain-washing us into Hive Mind mentality.
Have you come across Brian Gerrish of the UK Column? He was interviewed on Dr Stan Monteith's show a while ago.
Although his work is primarily political, Mr Gerrish is well aware of the Satanic spirit behind globalism and is a practising Christian.
I have heard him speak of the fact that mainstream churches in the UK have been so thoroughly corrupted that house churches are probably the best option for bible-believing folks.
Perhaps you should have him on your show? From some of the things he says, I would bet he's seen your talk on You Tube.
One area he and his team are researching is the use by the elite of neuro-linguistic programming which is endemic in our country, and therefore probably in yours too.
He has several websites - the one to start with is ukcolumn.org
Many of his talks are up online.
Keep up all your wonderful work. I for one really appreciate you.
Anonymous 2;42,
"On the other hand, there is evidence in the Bible that BOTH Scripture AND Tradition are the source of authority for doctrine.
Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.
2 Thessalonians 2:15"
This one verse needs to be placed in the context of the entire epistle, then in context of the entire Bible, to isolate it here and make a conclusive statement to support your position is prooftexting, not allowed by 2Peter1:20.
Have you taken into consideration the historical timeframe? The Apostle Paul is writing in the first century to first century new believers in an assembly he founded and taught personally, then moved on.
The historical framework is a time when oral teaching was the only method of available verses today. The superiority of the written word surviving time to convey an accurate true verifiable message is what we in 2011 have to deal with.To a first century person oral traditions were honored,but, they were understood to be inferior to the written scriptures that would be complete with the writings of the Apostle Paul and the Apostle John, then the cannon of scripture would be complete and closed, a concept that is not always kept in view sadly.
2Tim 3:16 does not say "All scripture(and oral tradition) are inspired by God...." if God intended for us to think oral tradition to be equal to the scriptures would He not have said that here?
I will quote this as you posted it:
"and that from infancy you have known (the) sacred scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus." (2Tim.3:15 for ref. *my note*) Well this you quoted and still it emphasizes scripture alone and not tradition.
Next you quote a conclusive statement:
"Paul tells Timothy to continue in what he has learned for two reasons: first, because he knows from whom he has learned it—Paul himself [ yes this is true Paul was teaching Timothy, his student, the Doctrines of Grace the were taught to Paul by the Glorified Risen Christ Eph. 3:1-5;Col.1:21-29 ...my note in boxes] —and second, because he has been educated in the scriptures.[When one reads through the Pauline epistles Paul always asks "What sayith the srciptures..." Paul never asks "What teachith the oral traditions..." my note in boxes] The first of these is a direct appeal to apostolic tradition[can you show any scriptures that support this concept of "apostolic tradition"?,,,my note in boxes], the oral teaching which the apostle Paul had given Timothy.[Paul was teaching Timothy things that he (Paul) of course it was oral teaching, the scriptures that would follow(1-2 Tim. (and the other Pauline Epistles) were to follow to preserve the teachings in written form, so we in 2011 would have them....my note in boxes] learned from the Glorified Risen Christ So Protestants must take 2 Timothy 3:16-17 out of context to arrive at the theory of sola scriptura.[no they have not taken it out of context...my note in boxes] But when the passage is read in context, it becomes clear that it is teaching the importance of apostolic tradition!"[ impossible, there is not one word in that verse, paragraph, epistle, or the entire bible that has a syntax to teach or define or even state something you term "apostolic tradition" if there is please site it, the word or words, from the scriptures in the original Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek and refrence it. my note in boxes]
If we are going to discuss this for clarity let's please distinguish between speculation wishfully supported by prooftexts from plainly stated facts supported by a factual statement of facts, supported by verfiable facts.
An independent observer to this will be helped by that type of process should their interest move them to fact check and learn.
HK
Anonymous 3:50 PM:
Well, I guess it all depends on your perspective. Maybe Steve & HK are the ones who are trying to 'drive' the Catholics away from the blog. LOL
If you'll notice, those of us who manage to hold our own are the ones who remain on this blog year after year.
Anonymous said...
"So I repeat the question: where in the Bible does it plainly state that the Bible is self-interpreting and the sole source of doctrinal authority?" (your quote)
2 Tim.3:16 is a direct quote that answers your question that you restated above.
HK,
You are engaging in something Peter warned about in 2 Peter 3:16.
3:54 PM
Sir,Madam, which ever you are, you really need to look at what you posted and what I have posted and kindly might I suggest do so with a logical thought process and some intellectual honesty. You accuse me of prooftexting, when I have not, yet base all of your positions on either prooftexting or imaginative speculation with no support whatsoever.
This is precisley the type of dialogue that takes place when one tries to engage those of you that have such a loyalty to the "Oral Tradition equals Scripture " for a basis of it being authoritative equal to scriptue alone. This is usually why this difference never is settled, hasn,t been in 2010 years and won't be here. I and others are firm and quite intellectually and spiritually centered in the scripture only position. Luther , Huss,Tyndale, and countless others throughout history have not wavered from this position, I will not either.
The truth is that the Catholic Church needs that position in order to support its claims for it existance. The oral tradition quite simply cannot be supported as they need it to be,unless, it is supported by a mountain of distorted facts, myth, fabrication, and misrepresentation/distortion of what the Bible clearly, plainly, and understandably says. We will in all probability post at each other rather than to or for each other until we find ourselves in the presence of Christ our Savior, and we won't need to then.
Calvary changed everything.
HK
2 Timothy 3:16 (KJV)
All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
To HK @ 4:59 PM:
Re: ". . .what the Bible clearly, plainly, and understandably says."
Please explain to me why there are so many 'versions' (of the actual wording) of the Bible?
The TRUTH does not have 'versions.'
To HK:
Re: "I and others are firm and quite intellectually and spiritually centered in the scripture only position. Luther , Huss,Tyndale, and countless others throughout history have not wavered from this position, I will not either."
OK, let's see...
You haven't 'wavered' since about the 16th Century, and we Catholics haven't wavered since 33 AD.
Sir,Madam, which ever you are, you really need to look at what you posted and what I have posted and kindly might I suggest do so with a logical thought process and some intellectual honesty. You accuse me of prooftexting, when I have not, yet base all of your positions on either prooftexting or imaginative speculation with no support whatsoever.
HK,
You have made a claim about a passage of scripture which is not supported by the plain language of the scripture. Your interpretation involves "reading into" the clear words of scripture an idea that is simply not there-- yet you have the brass neck to accuse ME of "intellectual dishonesty"?
Pontificate away all you like, HK, but nowhere in the Bible-- including in 2 Timothy--does it clearly, understandably and plainly state that the Bible is the exclusive source of doctrincal truth. In fact, nowhere in the Bible does it clearly state that God is a triune God--Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, it only implies it. Guess where we got the doctrine of the Holy Trinit, HK? From Church Tradition! Didn't the nuns or your CCD teacher teach you this?
I now understand why Peter used such harsh words when he warned about people like you!
P.S.
HK,
With regard to your statement "Calvary changed everything." Why, yes it did. On this point we can agree. But I have no idea whatsoever what this fact has to do with your rule of faith, Sola Scriptura, since after all, the New Testament did not exist at the time of Calvary or even at Pentecost!
Jesus did not leave us a book -- he left us a Church!
I wonder if STEVE shares Masrtin Luther's opinion that the Book of James should not have been included in the Bible???!!!
Lurking Catholic
I have know idea who Masrtin Luther is. What is your argument? Should the book of Mary worship be in the Bible? Should transubstantiation be in the Bible? Why do you care what's in the Bible Lurking Catholic...since you deny the entire New Testament? Let me ask you, is the book of Romans in the Bible? If it's in your Bible why do you disobey it?
Steve,
This "anti-Christian" and "unbiblical" Roman Catholic would be grateful if you would take that railroad-tie sized chip off your shoulder.
And while you are at it, stop DISTORTING the teachings of the Catholic Faith. That is called bearing false witness. If you love Jesus so much, obey his commandments.
Anon
For the sincere Protestants out there who, as our brothers and sisters in Christ, are curious about what the Catholic Church actually teaches about Mary, the Mother of God, here is some information:
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html
Please don't swallow Steven's hateful and slanderous rants without doing your own research first.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
P.S.
HK,
With regard to your statement "Calvary changed everything." Why, yes it did. On this point we can agree. But I have no idea whatsoever what this fact has to do with your rule of faith, Sola Scriptura, since after all, the New Testament did not exist at the time of Calvary or even at Pentecost!
Jesus did not leave us a book -- he left us a Church!
Are you catholic??? If so you're proving my point perfectly. What Bible do you have in your house? Please clarify as I'm too unstudied to understand what books are canonized Scripture in your 'church'. He left us a Church alright but it isn't the one you attend. Last time I looked through a catholic Bible the New Testament was in it along with a few apocryphal texts.
Do the rest of you catholics support this point of view? If not, why haven't you corrected it???
since you deny the entire New Testament?
P.S.
Steve,
So now you are accusing Catholics of "denying the entire New Testament." Are you on drugs or something? Because that is not only an irrational statement, it is one that borders on lunacy.
Steve 5:41,
If the "Bible only" is your rule of faith, what would it matter what Martin Luther, Calvin, Huss et al said to begin with?
Steve, 5:51 P.M.
What anon. anon. is saying is don't try to change the subject when you can't answer a question.
Are you catholic??? If so you're proving my point perfectly. What Bible do you have in your house? Please clarify as I'm too unstudied to understand what books are canonized Scripture in your 'church'. He left us a Church alright but it isn't the one you attend. Last time I looked through a catholic Bible the New Testament was in it along with a few apocryphal texts.
Steve,
I am not going to dignify your hateful, slanderous rant against the Roman Catholic Faith. I am happy to discuss doctrinal differences with Protestants even in matters where this is harsh disagreement, but your posts are full of vitriol. You sound like the 14-year old son of some kind of Christian Identity movement leader.
No doubt you have a lot of fans reading this cheering you on. I will no longer add fuel to that fire.
I used to respect you and even complimented you once on an earlier thread but you have gone completely off the rails. I will pray that the Lord brings you to repentance, for you are clearly a very unhappy individual. If this is how you behave on the internet, the Lord only knows who and what else you lash out at on a regular basis.
Anonymous 5:21 pm,
"...we Catholics haven't wavered since 33 AD.
It seems you have me by a couple of years yes. Just wondering though, could you please tell me the math you used to get Catholics to 33 A.D.? If you have any pics from the Vatican archives of a Catholic Church under construction circa 33 A.D. could you please share them?
Somehow the name Flavius Valerius Constantinus (A.D. 285-337) is tugging at the back of my mind. I'm sure you have anticipated I'd pull ole Constantine out of the hat,I'll enjoy that response too.
Just to clarify though, my position was quite alive and well circa 34 A.D., altough it didn't start there. 2Timothy was probably penned about 67-68 A.D. so my conclusion is that God moved the hand of the Apostle Paul then to write the verse we were discussing now 2000+ years later, it says what God wanted it to and means what God says it means.The challenge to us is do we believe it. I do. Study it for yourself and see if you do.
HK
Hey, Steve (5:41 PM):
We 'lurking' Catholics have been posting on this blog for about 5 years now. So, how long have you been lurking . . . er ah 'posting'?
HK,
Along with "reading into" 2 Timothy ideas that aren't there, you are ignoring this verse:
Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.
2 Thessalonians 2:15
Protestants like you like to cherrypick scripture and claim their own, and ONLY their own, interpretation of any particular verse is the correct one. Yet they can cite no authority for this claim. The ones who are intellectually honest will admit that Sola Scriptura isn't in the Bible.
Please don't swallow Steven's hateful and slanderous rants without doing your own research first.
Do you pray to Mary or not? Where in any part of Scripture are we told to pray to Mary?
Dorothy, you're Jewish. Do you pray to Mary and do you find it in Torah? Where did it develop? I can't find it anywhere!
If you do your research, please do tell how you validate transubstantiation and the dogma of Mary. You have the same Bible I do with the exception of a couple texts we protestants leave out. Nowhere do I find any sort of command to pray to Mary. Nowhere do I find that she intercedes for me or can assist with the forgiveness of my sins. Nowhere do I find any notion of Purgatory.
What catholic or what Mary prayed Moses and Elijah out of Purgatory so they could appear with Christ in Matthew 17?
Was Mary there praying Elijah into a whirlwind?
But since we're talking about hateful and slanderous rants, you Protestants, please don't listen to the hateful and slanderous rants from these catholics regarding the reformers and your faith before doing your research.
Many of us are just trying to get along and that's okay but a great big division took place from the mid 1500s to the late 1600s in Europe. If you don't know why you're protestant, please look into it. If you find yourself wanting to say that we believe the same things, you don't understand what you believe and you're headed toward a dangerous mixture of doctrine.
Steve,
Perhaps you need to do some research about what Luther believed about Mary:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutheran_Marian_theology
While you are at it, check out what he believed about the Eucharist.
Martin Luther, the Reformer, on Mary and the Eucharist:
http://tinyurl.com/33hzel5
Anonymous 5:39,
"Jesus did not leave us a book -- he left us a Church!" (your quote)
I hate to burst your bubble, but, the word "Church" does not exist in the Scriptures anywhere in the original languages.
What say we quote Jesus Christ?
"4 But he answering, said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." Mat.4:4 (Geneve Bible 1599)
I could be wrong,but, I see the "word" and conspicous by it's absence "oral tradition".
Just a crazy little thought running through my head as I read your post to me.
HK
Martin Luther, the Reformer, on Mary and the Eucharist:
http://tinyurl.com/33hzel5
So Steve, is this an example of a "hateful rant" against the reformers?
Hey, Steve (5:41 PM):
We 'lurking' Catholics have been posting on this blog for about 5 years now. So, how long have you been lurking . . . er ah 'posting'?
Long enough to leave my name ANON...and a few times my e mail address. What point are you trying to make? I still haven't gotten it. I don't care how long you've been lurking here. It means nothing to me. You're wasting your time replying to me and making no point at all. Be smart enough to say something or break your own fingers so you can shut yourself up.
Steve
Anonymous 6:08,
"Protestants like you like to cherrypick scripture and claim their own, and ONLY their own, interpretation of any particular verse is the correct one. Yet they can cite no authority for this claim. The ones who are intellectually honest will admit that Sola Scriptura isn't in the Bible.
6:08 PM"
I submit this as exhibit A to suggest that the anonymous poster does not read with both eyes open and engaging critical deductive reasoning.
A clear reading of my posts is self explainatory unless a passionate, irrational, illogical mind is reading it.
In 10 min the clear meaning of what I post is a victum of revisionism, so is it any wonder why after 2000+ years of that type of thinking,it can confuse plain, simple, real, true, historical facts?
Intellectual honesty, is a close second, if truth is the first casuality of war.
HK
To Steve (6:31 PM):
Re: "You're wasting your time replying to me and making no point at all. Be smart enough to say something or break your own fingers so you can shut yourself up."
And you think that you are 'making a point' when you resort to hate-filled insults and childish rants?
(That speaks volumes about you, Steve...and it's not pretty.
What is it with you catholics? You resort to 'hateful and slanderous rants' when you have nothing else to say...and you post pro-catholic links against the reformers. What in heaven's name would make me think that any catholic had any favorable regard toward the reformation and the rejection of papism and romanism? You post your pro-catholic links as though I'll read the propaganda and suddenly become a papist. If I want revisionist history I'll go back to high school.
What does the Bible say about Mary worship? NOTHING. Outside of that you're expecting me to buy into church tradition. You aren't defending yourselves against the poster that Jesus didn't leave a book, he left a church. If that's the case, why is that Book in your church? And since it is, why are you rejecting it?
I'm sorry for the poster who used to read my posts and is now hurt by them. I'm not trying to damage people.
I posted a simple comment about the reformation, a defense of paisley and the FPC and we've gone from 69 to 129 comments last I checked. I've been called hateful and slanderous, HK has been attacked for agreeing with me. Yet I'm the one who should be ashamed of my intolerance. This whole conversation was the result of your intolerance for what I think and the last part of it is my response to it and my defense of my position...which is a waste of my time. The language and the tactics are liberal in nature and reminiscent of the tactics used by Saul Alinsky in 'Rules For Radicals'.
Of course, that book was dedicated to Lucifer. Good luck looking into that one.
To Steve (6:52 PM):
Please show us exactly when and where we Catholics posted any 'hateful and slanderous rants.'
Steve:
FYI: There are at least 3 or 4 Catholics posting here today.
Steve:
Why on earth would we Catholics have 'a favorable regard toward the reformation'?
Steve, I don't intend to get into the middle of this.
God created the world and all of the people in it. While I have my own opinions about many people and organizations, I also realize my limitations in understanding all of His creation.
I hope the celebration of Easter brings to all of you all that you hope for.
Well, personally, I'm going to enjoy hopefully a little diversion this week and plan to watch the royal wedding this week. Don't know much about the young couple's theology, but they seem like a lovely couple and the Brits can stage a royal spectacle like none else can. It'll be hopefully a little foretaste of a grander event awaiting us in God's Kingdom.
Constance
Anonymous Anonymous said...
To Steve (6:31 PM):
Re: "You're wasting your time replying to me and making no point at all. Be smart enough to say something or break your own fingers so you can shut yourself up."
And you think that you are 'making a point' when you resort to hate-filled insults and childish rants?
(That speaks volumes about you, Steve...and it's not pretty.
6:44 PM
You still fail to make any point at all. I haven't personally insulted you as you have me. I simply told you to break your fingers so you can stop typing this drivel to me if you don't have a valid point to make.
That doesn't speak volumes about me anymore than your ignorant statement speaks volumes about you. You keep plugging yourself into a conversation with nothing to say (go back and read what you've written and tell me what point it clarifies other than trying to tell me I'm a jerk). If that's you're point, say it that way and I'll thank you for being succinct. If you want to suggest it and beat around the bush, I'll ask that you break your fingers and stop typing.
It's more cruel that you keep torturing all of us with your meaningless BS than it would be if you just told me what you think of me. I'm pretty sure I can handle it.
Otherwise, drop the bottle and log off. Go live in your emotionally charged little world. I'm done talking to you, as much as I've enjoyed it.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
To Steve (6:52 PM):
Please show us exactly when and where we Catholics posted any 'hateful and slanderous rants.'
You've accused me of it several times. please show us protestants exactly when and where we posted any 'hateful and slanderous rants'.
To HK @ 6:20 PM:
Re: "I hate to burst your bubble, but, the word "Church" does not exist in the Scriptures anywhere in the original languages.
What say we quote Jesus Christ?"
___________________________________
Yes, HK - I will be more than happy to quote Jesus Christ.
From Matthew 16:18-19 (KJV):
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my CHURCH; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Dorothy
I know. Shouldn't have dragged you into it and I knew you wouldn't have anything to say about it.
I'm really not that much into arguing this stuff either, despite the appearance of it.
I'm going back to quietly checking in every now and again.
Sorry for the short disturbance everyone.
Like I said, Steve - there are 3 or possibly 4 Catholics posting today . . . and maybe we're the ones who are feeling 'tortured' here.
Also, why would I bother calling you a 'jerk' when you have just saved me the trouble by calling yourself one (LOL).
Have a nice day.
HK 6:03 P.M.
"Somehow the name Flavius Valerius Constantinus (A.D. 285-337) is tugging at the back of my mind. I'm sure you have anticipated I'd pull ole Constantine out of the hat,I'll enjoy that response too.
Just to clarify though, my position was quite alive and well circa 34 A.D., "
We Catholics do not have to refer to Protestantism. Protestantism, however, does have to refer to the Roman Catholic Church, since without the Roman Catholic Church there would be no Protestantism.
Hmmmm Ah yes. The old Constantine myth. "Hislopianity" at its pseudo-historical finest. Nice to know what is REALLY tugging at the back of your mind.
But instead of wallowing in the bogus "Constantine as first Pope" myth, why not wallow in the history of the "Reformers" like Luther who so hypocritically pandered to the German princes who presided over a "church council" in Germany after ditching the Pope and allowed them to dictate "reformation" policies by "reforming" the wrong things. It was, after all, Luther who thought that greater power should lay with the nobility, and not Pope Sylvester I.
Anonymous 5:35,
"HK,
You have made a claim about a passage of scripture which is not supported by the plain language of the scripture. Your interpretation involves "reading into" the clear words of scripture an idea that is simply not there-- yet you have the brass neck to accuse ME of "intellectual dishonesty"?
Pontificate away all you like, HK, but nowhere in the Bible-- including in 2 Timothy--does it clearly, understandably and plainly state that the Bible is the exclusive source of doctrincal truth. In fact, nowhere in the Bible does it clearly state that God is a triune God--Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, it only implies it. Guess where we got the doctrine of the Holy Trinit, HK? From Church Tradition! Didn't the nuns or your CCD teacher teach you this?
I now understand why Peter used such harsh words when he warned about people like you!
5:35 PM"
Here is Exhibit B to support my earlier posted Exhibit A on how people can instantly distort plain factual discussion.
Anon.5:35 here's a clue, open both eyes, try to engage your brain in a logical mode (if possible) and read the following sentences.
When a person takes a word from the original languages from the best historical document source of a verse in scripture and uses a Dictionary of that language to get first the transliteration (the exact English equivilent of it if one exhists) then a transliteration of it using care to preserve the syntax (the actual thought/idea for the word used) to bring the word from its original language into modern English that is not a process that yields what you term "my interpretation", that process results in a clear factual intellectually honest understanding of what the word is and is saying. You take offense to me because you have no concept of intellectual honesty, only the ability to type it correctly, and no appearent aptitude to understand it conceptually.
To briefly reply to you further and the others that have posted to me opposed to what I have posted, I'll make my original statement again, and you can either re-read my original or ignore it.
The Bible is not subject to interpretation, that view is a Satanically inspired position period. The Bible interprets itself and does so using a well established Hermeneutical process which is a disciplined science of evaluation of what is contained in the Bible. It, Hermeneutics, can be used by a scholar, high school teacher, bus driver, hamburger flipper, dentist, lawyer, or a 6 th grader. It isn't complicated it just takes work.
Your comment above and others like it display an ignorance of it, and show the results of that ignorance.
The indoctrination program of the Catholic Church is quite an impressive system for it has done a superb job over many thousands of years exploiting the brains of what the bible terms the "natural man", a man who's theology starts with man and works "toward" God. It measures God by a human standard.
In contrast a correct Hermeneutical approach to the Scriptures lets God speak for Himself in the Scriptures because a good hermeneutic lets the Bible speak for itself.
To do that requires a person to take the responsability upon themself to educate themself and do the study themself.
If you don't do that by default you "learn" your "theology" from some "clerical authority" and wind up where you folks are, unwhittingly supporting someone elses error, then perpetuationg it for thousands of years with the passion generated by the entheusiasm of ignorance, which is fueled by superstition.
Have fun with that one all you Anonymouses.....
Calvary changed everything.
HK
Anonymous 8:02,
"We Catholics do not have to refer to Protestantism."
Nice avoidance of the topic, however you label yourself "Catholic" ,fine, it matters not to me what you chose as an identification. You reply ,modifiers notwithstanding, does nothing to prove something called the "Catholic Church" with verifiable, credible, factual evidence. You make claims throw around historical dates,but, where are those first century pictures of a Catholic Church under construction???
If you find those then you have proof of existance, otherwise I expect more grandios unverifiable pontifications spiced with a lot of passion.
Um haven't had any takers on the word "church" not being anywhere in scripture in the original languages. That's a big clue to understanding this guys....
HK
Born to Watch reports:
Javier Solana, former EU High Representative for CFSP, and Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, former NATO Secretary General, will define the scope of the Brussels-based Security & Defense Agenda’s 2011 debate.
Jamie Shea, NATO’s Director of Policy Planning in the Private Office of the Secretary General, recommended the SDA should complement its analysis and political debate with concrete recommendations, such as the SDA’s milestone publication 10 Recommendations on the new Global Security Landscape which was released in May this year.
The Recommendations came out of the SDA’s 2010 Security Jam, a 5-day online brainstorm supported by NATO and the EU that brought together 4,000 security experts, policymakers, civil society and industry representatives from 124 countries to develop ideas on how to make the world a safer place.
To HK @ 8:22 PM
Re: "Um haven't had any takers on the word "church" not being anywhere in scripture in the original languages."
___________________________________
Well, HK - evidently you haven't bothered to scroll back up to read my post to you at 7:29 PM.
In the Septuagint translation of the Bible which is the Bible we Catholics use, the Greek word for "church" is "Ekklesia" and it is used 115 times in the New Testament, and in most Bibles it is always translated as "church" except in Acts 19:32, 39, 41, where it is translated as "assembly."
If the word "church" is not found in your Bible, it is possibly because you are using the Tyndale Bible.
St. Ignatius of Antioch used the phrase "katholike ekklesia", (Catholic Church), the unity of all churches, in letters he wrote during his journey as a prisoner from Antioch to Rome around 107 AD. His use of katholike ekklesia in several letters suggests that it was already in widespread use by then.
Anonymous 7:29 pm,
Ok, here we have Exhibit C from Anonymous 7:29:
"Yes, HK - I will be more than happy to quote Jesus Christ.
From Matthew 16:18-19 (KJV):
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my CHURCH; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
7:29 PM"
Please note Anon. 7:29 highlights "CHURCH" in vrs. 18.
The English word which is graciously called to your attention
in the Koine Greek in what we have about 5,000 manuscripts, full or partial dating back to 500 A.D. or earlier in the Greek is in point of fact ekklesia (there is a long"-"punctuation mark over the second "e" and a "/" over the "i", I don't have greek fonts)
so if you are concerned with accuracy and have read this with BOTH eyes open and brain engaged the point that I state that the English word "CHURCH" does NOT appear in the original Greek language that God had Matthew write it in.
Yes by all means keep quoting Jesus Christ, but let us quote Him accurately using the language He spoke and the language He inspired the authors to write the words in. Hope that is not too radical an idea for you all.
So there we have it folks, another bit of evidence on how my posts can be read and either not understood or purposely distorted.
I make yet another appeal to please read what I post accurately, I choose plain words, and carefully state the facts clearly as possible so we can see what is happening on this issue.
HK
HK
In the Septuagint translation of the Bible which is the Bible we Catholics use, the Greek word for "church" is "ekklesia" and it is used 115 times in the New Testament, and in most Bibles it is always translated as "church" except in Acts 19:32, 39, 41, where it is translated as "assembly."
If the word "church" is not found in your Bible, it is possibly because you are using the Tyndale Bible.
St. Ignatius of Antioch - bishop and martyr - used the phrase "katholike ekklesia", (Catholic Church), the unity of all churches, in letters he wrote during his journey as a prisoner from Antioch to Rome around 107 AD. The word "Catholic" was used to distinguish the Church of the Apostles from heretical teachings. St. Ignatius' use of "katholike ekklesia" in several letters suggests that it was already in widespread use by then.
St. Ignatius of Antioch, was a disciple of St. John, along with St. Polycarp. The Church historian Theodoret says Ignatius was consecrated bishop by St. Peter, the apostle, who was the first bishop of Antioch before returning to Rome.
Ignatius was martyred in Rome under Emperor Trajan's rule. It was during the journey to Rome that he wrote his famous letters that contain invaluable information about the early Church. He was the first to document the term "Catholic" in it's current form to describe the Church. It means universal. Ignatius' use of the word shows it was in common use. His is the earliest extant writing which has "ekklesia katholicos" where Catholic is an adjective modifying "Church" in the nominative. In Acts 5:11 and 15:22 we find "holen ten ekklesian." It is derivative of the same root as katholicos and is in the nominative and is translated as "The Whole Church" and then in Acts 9:21 we find εκκλησια καθ'ολης (ekklesia kathholes) and here Catholic is also an adjective, but it does not modify "Church" because it is in the wrong case but rather modifies the words following. Best translated as "the Church throughout the whole of..."
Catholic, referring to the Whole Church was a term in common use at the time but Ignatius' writing is simply the oldest still existing text which contains a specific form of the phrase we still use today as a proper name. That of "ekklesia katholicos," which means "Universal Church". The terms "holen ten ekklesian" which means "The Whole Church" and "ekklesia kathholes" which means "The Church throughout the whole of" were also in use, and by the Apostles no less.
P.S.
Sorry about the split post. I am having problems posting on this blog.
HK,
The oldest version of the Greek New Testament manuscript uses the word church BTW.
The Codex Sinaiticus has the word church.
This is the direct translation.
18 And I also say to thee, that thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.
19 I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of the heavens, and whatever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in the heavens; and whatever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in the heavens.
http://www.codexsinaiticus.com/en/manuscript.aspx?book=33&chapter=16&lid=en&side=r&verse=18&zoomSlider=0
Savvy
Well, HK @ 9:05 PM:
I'm sure that Jesus Christ will appreciate you telling HIM exactly what you think He 'meant' the day when you pass over to the other side!!!
LOL
Anonymous 9:00,
Very good, now can we note the defination for clarity?
It refers to a group of people, from the root word ekkaleo (to call out) and is subject to its use in context for the meaning, and as it is used in the NT it always refrences the people as a designated group with a specific purpose. To stretch that to it's modern day use as an institution such as the RCC and its claims of supremacy is just that a stretch or put another way a distortion of what its use is clearly in the original language.
We currently have today an entity of human constuct since essentially 324 A.D. an "institution" claiming it is THE representative of God on planet earth.
I'm not buying it because it has a huge and influential power base and a slick marketing system.
I'll stick with the simple profound truths of the Bible alone, Rightly Divided, properly understood. I let God be God and scripture speak for itself and Him. God wrote the book to you, the individual, the "man on the street". All a person has to do is study it for themself, it's work, but it's woth it.
HK
Yes, Savvy (9:26 PM):
If you'll notice HK believes every word that is in the Bible...except the parts he chooses to either disregard or ignore (LOL).
HK,
If Sola Scriptura goes back to 33 A.D. then,
1. Why did the Jews subscribe to Oral Tradition and not just scripture?
2. Why did the Apostolic churches of Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria, Constantinople, Rome and Alexandria not subscribe to it?
3. The list for the Christian Bible was compiled in the 4th century at the Council of Rome by Pope Damascus. It continued to be held in dispute, until the Council of Florence.
This was a 100 years before the Reformation.
If Christians were not certain about the cannon of scripture for centuries, how could they subscribe to Sola Scriptura?
Savvy
To HK @ 9:30 PM
Re: "I'm not buying it because it has a huge and influential power base and a slick marketing system."
___________________________________
WOW!!! Who knew that Jesus was so 'slick'....and into 'marketing' nearly 2,000 years ago???
Actually, Matthew is said to have originally written his Gospel in Aramaic and it was later translated into Greek.
The reason we believe this is because the Church Fathers ( i.e. St. Irenaeus, Bishop and Martyr ) have told us so, and not because there are any extant copies.
The Greek word "Ekklesia" is used by Christ in Matthew 16:17,18 and
Matthew 18:15,17
HK,
Yes, to be called out means to be set apart. Hence the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church would be visible and called out.
It would not be thousands of denominations that make mutually exclusive claims.
Savvy
Steve,
Since you bring up the reformation, you should know that Lutherans believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist and they also believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary, as did Martin Luther and many other reformers.
The Question is are you even Protestant?
Savvy
Savvy,
"The Codex Sinaiticus has the word church."
Yes I know it does and the issue I have it is that I prefer the Majority Texts or Recieved Texts for document consistancy in the large numbers of copies which agree with each other, which argues for an older common source document which agrees with them. The Codex Sinaiticus is a "codex" not a bible, as in one bound bible book, it is a collection of manuscripts that has other non canonical books along with Bible books.Scriptue was agreed upon very early, earlier than the date assigned to Sinaiticus and the majority of fragments are not rendered innacurate by the differences contained in Sinaiticus. Sinaiticus' use of "church" needs to be measured against the same standard as the Majority or Recieved Texts and when it is the prior two have more reliability in my opinion.
HK
"Anonymous said...
Yes, Savvy (9:26 PM):
If you'll notice HK believes every word that is in the Bible...except the parts he chooses to either disregard or ignore (LOL).
9:34 PM"
THAT is just SOOO tooo funny. Thankyou for the gaffaw of the day, um year even maybe...
HK
HK,
What majority texts are you talking about?
Could you please give me the date to when scripture was agreed upon and by whom?
Savvy
To HK @ 10:21 PM:
Well, at least you have the ability to laugh at yourself!!!
LOL
Savvy,
"Could you please give me the date to when scripture was agreed upon and by whom?"
How about doing a search on Majority Text, and Recieved Text. That will get you all the answers to your guestions Savvy. I know from your posts that you do a lot of reading and study, so there ya go. The canon of Scripture was well settled on by the second century, that's according to most scholars as a standard, except for the Higher Criticism types.
HK
Anonymous 10:35,
"Well, at least you have the ability to laugh at yourself!!!"
Well yes I do, but I was mostly laughing at you,to keep from crying for you, that was some nice try at wit, but, it just indicates you just don't get the importance of reading with both eyes and brain engaged. I realize sometimes it helps when we lighten up things in the overall engagement of such serious discourses for such things re enforce the climate of differing opinions to help keep them civil and flowing. Yes sometimes things get a little out of hand in the passion of expression at any particular moment when seriously held beliefs are challenged by countering serious beliefs. I would like to think that for all involved in this discourse that the most important fact underlying everything is that we all share a belief that Christ died for sinners, and that believing that is important to us because that is what God believes about it, and when God says that if we believe that, that the benefits of Christ's sacrificing Himself on the cross of calvary for you, me and every human soul, are a free gift from God in His Grace to us, for believing in Him and what He has done. When we reach for a heartbeat that isn't there and leave time for eternity we will know only Christ matters. As for time, presently, my hope is that we all can encourage each other to serve our Savior to the best of our individual ability.
HK
Just a little reminder for my brothers and sisters:
A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.
Matthew 28:7 (KJV)
7 And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.
Hallelujah!!!
Have a happy and blessed Easter, everyone!!!
Constance the "uptofaith" dance seems kind odd but I personally sensed God's spirit and for blog was looking for some "dance" video and ran across the 2010 dance in budapest: http://youtu.be/ERUy8u8zu4M
I just watched it again and the Holy SPirit stirred. The promo video for this years is a modern, kitchsy but God is behind it, it seems.
Let me add the promo is that it is in multiple world locations this time, dancing to celebrate the resurrection.
Eish, The Catholic , non-Catholic rants are perpetuating here- You guys can start a separate blog and carry on in infinitum! Keep your eyes on the ball -at this blog-...right now-Israel in much more dangerous situation as even a few months ago. The Arab uprisings - a diversion. Giving the Plotters and Schemers smokescreens to plan from?
The `watch` is on ! No pun-On Israel a never before
Love you all1
Remember-not Easter but the Pass Over.
Melinda
From a Sunny South Africa, with A mad politician Julius Malema singing a song to shoot the boers (Farmers-) with Shell wanting to frack our beautiful Karoo for gas- thats why puppet regimes are needed and the thinkers marginalized. The puppets will bribe off their own back yards! Shell/ BP behind the doings in Mid East? mmmmm?
I'm really not that much into arguing this stuff either, despite the appearance of it.
I'm going back to quietly checking in every now and again.
Steve,
You come onto this blog which has a mixed readership of Roman Catholics, Protestants, and Jews, tellings Catholics they are "anti-Christian" and that Jesus founded a Church but it isn't the Catholic one, among other things.
Yeah, sure, you didn't intend to cause any harm and "aren't really into" this stuff. Right.
Take a look in the mirror.
You post your pro-catholic links as though I'll read the propaganda and suddenly become a papist. If I want revisionist history I'll go back to high school.
Steve,
You seem unable, or unwilling, to comprehend plain English. The links posted about Catholicism were IN RESPONSE to your erroneous, Pro-Protestant claims which misrepresented the teachings of the Catholic Church (bearing of false witness). The objective was not to "convert" anyone but rather to set the record in straight -- not in a vacuum but IN RESPONSE to false allegations.
Yet you dismiss them as propoganda. Your "logic" seems to be: I can make any kind of claim I want about Catholicism, but if a Catholic attempts to rebut it with reason, I am entitled to dismiss that rebuttal as "propaganda" and an attempt at conversion.
For the record, here is one example of how the links were presented:
For the sincere Protestants out there who, as our brothers and sisters in Christ, are curious about what the Catholic Church actually teaches about Mary, the Mother of God, here is some information:
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html
Please don't swallow Steven's hateful and slanderous rants without doing your own research first.
Take a look in the mirror.
HAPPY EASTER EVERYONE!
To Watchman on the Wall:
Thanks for reintroducing sanity along with current important news to the discussion!
Constance
May you have a blessed Resurrection Sunday. Blog post with some videos: http://wp.me/p8N6Q-oo
note, I cannot vouch for the theology of any of the producers of the pieces but were what God led me to last night and this morning to compile. It does include the flash dance in Budapest last year that Constance was questioning. (Second, Third go the words to me lack some depth, but God wanted me to include it.)
Post a Comment