CORRECTION: THE SECOND VIDEO IS NOT THE ONE I THOUGHT I POSTED. Let's try this instead:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67WuC20YGc4
There is a most dishonest purveyor of lies and disinformation out and about. Her claimed name is "Queeny Cameron." I rather suspect that is her pseudonym or "handle." I've never spoken to her and so far I know very little about her, but I know she is dishonest to the extreme. The chances that she is or ever has been a Christian are very, very remote. Among the more interesting "facts" (none of them true)I've learned from her Youtubes are:
1. Hillary Clinton considers me her enemy.
2. Constance Cumbey is an avid supporter of Hillary Clinton.
3. I am backed by Barack Obama and Hillary and Bill Clinton
4. Chelsea Clinton introduced "my granddaughter" Madeline Cumbey.
5. I borrowed a million dollars from somebody to oppose Benjamin Creme ads.
6. Benjamin Creme appeared out of thin air and hypnotized me!
The stories are so ludicrous, I don't know which one to laugh at the loudest. I saw Benjamin Creme, live in the flesh, at a evening where everybody had to buy tickets to get in the door of the Detroit Unity Center for Holistic Living. It was held in the very large former Christian Science Church that Detroit Unity Church in Palmer Woods Park, Michigan had purchased for their various seminars and events. The audience clearly appeared to be under mass hypnosis -- neither I nor several Christian observers I brought with me came under that unfortunate influence he obviously had on most of the rest of the audience.
The video where she makes these outrageous claims may be viewed by clicking here:
6. Benjamin Creme appeared out of thin air and hypnotized me!
The stories are so ludicrous, I don't know which one to laugh at the loudest. I saw Benjamin Creme, live in the flesh, at a evening where everybody had to buy tickets to get in the door of the Detroit Unity Center for Holistic Living. It was held in the very large former Christian Science Church that Detroit Unity Church in Palmer Woods Park, Michigan had purchased for their various seminars and events. The audience clearly appeared to be under mass hypnosis -- neither I nor several Christian observers I brought with me came under that unfortunate influence he obviously had on most of the rest of the audience.
The video where she makes these outrageous claims may be viewed by clicking here:
Madeline Cumbey is a fine young lady originally from the State of Indiana. She is no blood relation to me, but she is a first cousin once removed of my son, Stephen Cumbey. That would make me a great aunt. She has worked intensely on health and physical issues and has been honored by the State of Indiana and even nationally for her work. She deserves all the credit she gets. Her parents are fine Christian people who have interested their daughter in health and nutrition issues. I met her only once -- at my mother-in-law's funeral in 2003. Madeline was approximately 18 months then. I would be honored to have her as a granddaughter, but such is not the case. Until seeing the video with a blanked face, I did not know she had also received honors for her fitness, food, and gardening work. Madeline's videos are featured by the Children's Museum of Indianapolis, Indiana, and I found them surfing on line -- not by family phone calls.
Until just a few weeks ago, I had never heard of Queeny Cameron. I was looking for something else and stumbled upon one of her videos. I was astounded to hear her claim I had "made millions." Those of you who know me know I have truly done my work over the years on a shoestring and have supported myself by my modest law practice which has suffered greatly in finances, because I can't bill or charge for time I spend doing my equally time consuming work of staying abreast of the New Age Movement.
What is even more interesting to me is that her voice and phraseology about my heart felt congratulations to the British royals on April 29, 2011, for what appeared, in the large, to be a lovely Christian wedding ceremony, sounded identical to that of an active British pagan woman happily boasting that "Constance Clumsy" (her mocking reference to me) was wrong -- the royals were pagan, that voice happily and victoriously then said. The phraseology and tone of voice were either the same voice, or very, very similar to the voice on the video below.
At any rate, it appears to me that same voice is now claiming to be a critical Christian telling extravagant lies and practicing the same big lie technique that Hitler used. "Queeny Cameron" reminds me of a female Eustace Mullins -- with even less writing and speaking talent than that purveyor of Jew bashing enjoyed. I once located a purported facebook page for her and left my phone number, suggesting she might want to fact check with me. I never heard from her.
Who is she? Who is backing her? I would appreciate your insights as well as prayers for me. Years ago when I was young and running political campaigns, I could always tell when I was winning. The opponents would circulate fantastic slanderous rumors. I'm thankful that God has my back. I must be doing something right. It has been said that Satan lets sleeping dogs lie.
Interestingly, a top advisor to British royalty, Sir Martin Palmer, once wrote a book, COMING OF AGE, that gave me lots of unpleasant ink. It was published by the unquestionably British New Age Aquarian Press. I got even with him on the cheap with the following review of his book. I am now so very happy to learn that I am "in like flynn" with the United States Presidency, leading hopefuls, and even British royalty. Maybe that "ceremony" in my tongue in cheek review of Martin Palmer's book can be held in Buckingham Palace now. For the record, here is my review of Martin Palmer's book which is posted over at Amazon.com:
Stay in prayer and stay tuned, and remember to keep your sense of humor. God gave it to us as a safety valve -- to help us stay sane!
Interestingly, a top advisor to British royalty, Sir Martin Palmer, once wrote a book, COMING OF AGE, that gave me lots of unpleasant ink. It was published by the unquestionably British New Age Aquarian Press. I got even with him on the cheap with the following review of his book. I am now so very happy to learn that I am "in like flynn" with the United States Presidency, leading hopefuls, and even British royalty. Maybe that "ceremony" in my tongue in cheek review of Martin Palmer's book can be held in Buckingham Palace now. For the record, here is my review of Martin Palmer's book which is posted over at Amazon.com:
One needs a sense of humour as well as honest information to stay abreast of the New Age Movement by whatever current appellation is currently in vogue among its adherents. Martin Palmer claims to be knowledgeable. There is not a doubt in my mind that he knows far more about it than this reviewer -- FROM INSIDE -- a vantage point he vociferously denies under the covers of at least this particular book. That the information is accurate or honest is debatable! I found his book, 10 years newer than my own pioneering book on the subject, THE HIDDEN DANGERS OF THE RAINBOW, on the "50% off lowest advertised price" on the remainder table of a USA Barnes & Nobles bookstore. It did not escape my radar that the book was published by the unquestionably "New Age" Aquarian Press! Of course, he had little use for me. In fact, as I recall the reading, he said he had spent so much time on my book because it was the first book to come from "THAT STABLE OF CHRISTIANITY." Of course, since my Lord Jesus according to gospel accounts came from a stable, I'll take that as a sort of backhanded compliment. Now Martin Palmer, a reported advisor to Prince Philip, claims to head a trillion dollar environmental consortium -- churches' moneys, no less. Hug the trees, decimate the human population (anything else is "speciesism" no doubt), adore the rocks and crystals, recognize the god in all (except the actual creator), no doubt. Well, look upon the bright side, as the USA evangelical purveyors of disinformation acted by largely copying my work, while shaving the reported true dimensions of the New Age Movement (unlike the Catholics who at least to some extent admitted it had taken root in their institution and cleaned house by sweeping out Matthew Fox [too bad they missed Basil Pennington and Thomas Berry]) at least Palmer gave me lots of ink. Well, I suppose his less than flattering portrayal of my work means I have no realistic expectation of winning the Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion. If I did, I suppose the reception would have to held somewhere other than Buckingham Palace and the prize given by someone other than Prince Philip. Well, c'est la vie. So glad it's God ultimately judging me and NOT Martin Palmer. He accused me of quoting from that most dangerous of biblical books, "THE BOOK OF REVELATION." Well, certainly he probably has not crossed that "dangerous" line of even reading it himself. Had he done so, he would have paused at the clear warnings of Revelation 14:6-9 before making such foolhardy statements: "FEAR GOD AND GIVE GLORY TO HIM FOR THE HOUR OF HIS JUDGMENT IS COME -- WORSHIP GOD WHO CREATED THE HEAVEN AND THE EARTH, THE SEAS AND THE FOUNTAINS OF WATERS. . ."
It seems Martin Palmer is worshipping just about everything and everybody but the good LORD who created all.
Oh, and one more thing. It was so very good of Martin Palmer to reveal that he and not John Paul II was the real culprit behind the ever so syncretistic Assisi Council of 1986. He says in this book that he organized same on behalf of Prince Philip. Thanks for the insights!
May God have mercy on the poor deluded soul of "Sir" Martin Palmer!
CONSTANCE
368 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 368 of 368traducianism is the position held at one time by the undivided church before RC went into schism. there has been RC influence so many Orthodox hold to the position that Susanna describes.
Traducianism is biblically rooted in such points as Paul made in Hebrews, that Jesus' priesthood, after the manner of Melchizedec, which is what "order" refers to not an organization like the Mormons teach, is superior to that of Levi, because
1. the inferior pays tithes to the superior and
2. Levi was still in Abraham's loins when he paid tithes to Melchizedec, so Levi paid tithes to Melchizedec.
It also makes more sense in a way than the separate individual creation notion, which itself inherited by Protestants and not very Christian philosophers, leads to ideas of some people having no souls, because the soul is not necessary to the life of the body.
And yes, this distinction is more Greek than Hebraic.
Traducianism is this: that the soul stuff, so to speak, which animates all cells, incl. reproductive cells, is passed with the reproductive cells, half cell half souled. A new soul is formed with the new body at fertilization. There is a continuity of soul stuff back to Adam and Eve.
Some pro abortion character on youtube falsely equated this with apollinarianism which has nothing to do with it. (And whatever traducian argument may have played a role in that heresy, if any role, would be just as easily played by the separate creation of each soul idea.)
Soul in Hebrew does have an individual consciousness quality as well as a portmanteau word quality, including body soul and spirit, so that they are a continuum, and at death the denser part of the spectrum drops off, the rest going on in a reduced condition (CONTRARY to New Age etc. notions of soul superiority and death and "astral projection" approximation of death being a wonderful thing, but The Bible says it is the last enemy that will be conquered).
For instance in one of the Prophets it is written "the soul than sinneth it shall die," twisted by JWs to support soul cessation after death and mere recreation at the general resurrection.
Genesis says "God breathed the breath of life into Adam and he BECAME a living soul."
We do not HAVE souls, we ARE souls. (and if there is anything to the alien hybrid, or modern nephilim ideas, or fears about transgenic humans, the result is not no soul but a hybrid soul). Animals are listed as having the breath of life in the account of what died in The Flood, so animals also are souls, but are different kinds of souls from us.
This is an even better antiabortion argument, being rooted in observation of reality like start of individual life is, and not philosophic concepts.
Dear John Rupp,
"Jeremiah 1:5 Before I formed you in the womb I knew you..."
Far be it from me to question the Bible! But that is before you were conceived, not before you were born. Two possibilities: (1) our spirits pre=-existed our bodies and knew God at that time; (2) God means that he knew what we would be like in every detail even though we did not exist at that point, just as a naval architect knows exactly what a ship he has designed will be like even as the plans are on the way to the shipyard. I take (2) to be the case because if (1) then how come we have no memory of knowing God in our hypothesized pre-incarnate state? Same with Isaiah 49:1.
"Luke 1:41 "When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting the baby leaped in her womb"..."
Elizabeth was 3 months pregnant at that point at which point the unborn child John had a brain, a central nervous system and most internal organs.
These verses are consistent with what I am suggesting and do not knock it over. But please suggest more. I welcome dialogue.
Dear Susanna
You write: "Catholics are required to believe that each human soul is a direct creation from the hand of God and is infused into the human body at the moment of conception - DEFINED BY THE CHURCH - as the moment the sperm penetrates the egg - which is the beginning of the fertilization process......the "moment" of conception."
Thank you for stating Catholic doctrine with clarity. It is more specific than the Bible, though, and I hope that you will respond to questions about the extra stuff.
"You may think there is "no such thing" as a "moment of conception," but that is your point of view and you are of course free to believe what you choose to believe."
I gave reasons for why the concept is problematic, upon which you have not commented, so allow me to rephrase them as questions to you. Do you define the moment of conception as:
when the outer membrane of the sperm first makes contact with the outer membrane of the egg?
when the common membrane is first dissolved?
when the genetic material of sperm and egg begin to fuse?
when fusion of the genetic material is complete?
Or some other moment? Please give reasons for your answer.
Behind my question is the intent to demonstrate that conception is a PROCESS so that the "moment" of conception (upon which Catholic doctrine depends) is illusory. And if you zoom in further, each of the things I have mentioned in my questions is a process too.
Let me reiterate that I am as anti-abortion as any Catholic once the cells of the blastocyst have significantly differentiated.
""Jeremiah 1:5 Before I formed you in the womb I knew you..."
Far be it from me to question the Bible! But that is before you were conceived, not before you were born. Two possibilities: (1) our spirits pre=-existed our bodies and knew God at that time; (2) God means that he knew what we would be like in every detail even though we did not exist at that point, just as a naval architect knows exactly what a ship he has designed will be like even as the plans are on the way to the shipyard. I take (2) to be the case because if (1) then how come we have no memory of knowing God in our hypothesized pre-incarnate state?"
(1) would be okay as from conception because the conceptus exists in an undifferentiated form, this is not like you don't exist at all yet.
(2) would also be okay if God had particular interest in this particular one
final remark irrelevant we don't have memory of life in the womb usually at any stage, and God knowing us doesn't mean we are conscious of Him - also the case after one is born.
The whole foundation of the debate on birth control methods, fertilization methods and when a new soul begins is based on a modern Babylonian mind set. I am not sure at what exact point a new person begins? I am not sure whether natural birth control is acceptable with the Lord? I do know that whatever the pope, or any religious institution thinks, or proclaims is the reality of these things is not necessarily the truth of the matter. The Lord opens and closes the womb as He chooses. Read 1 Samuel 1:5-6. I am fully persuaded from the word of God, that any unnatural form of birth control, as well as any unnatural fertilization method, is an abomination!!! The attitudes of the secular west at least, are that children are something that either brings us joy, or are very much unwanted, and that everyone has the right to all decisions concerning having children, or avoiding them at all costs! This of course flies in the face of what the Creator wants or thinks! A small percentage of what is done in western medicine, diagnostic tools, critical care, truly necessary surgeries, and use of some medicines that do more than mearly paliate symptoms are a good thing, unfortunately the rest is largely evil, and quite displeasing to the Lord I'm quite sure. There is a whole lot of merchandizing of souls going on. The media has been very effective in creating an image in the general population of doctors as high priests worthy of our great admiration, and reliance. We need to seek the Lord first on what He wants for couples concerning children, and for all health care matters.
Anonymous,7:07
To repeat:
‘‘Human development begins at fertilization when a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoon) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to produce a single cell, a zygote.
That would be what you described as "when fusion of the genetic material is complete?" And it is hardly "illusory." It is a fact.
This is when ensoulment occurs according to Church teaching. This is a matter of faith....with my Rule of Faith being Scripture and Sacred Tradition, and not "Sola Scriptura." It is not my intention to denigrate "Sola Scriptura," - just to indicate one reason for some of the disagreements among Catholic and non-Catholic Christians.
While fertilization is a PROCESS, it is regarded by the Church as having occurred when the one cell (zygote)is formed.
After this PROCESS of fertilization has occurred, another PROCESS called "prenatal development" ( "embryogenesis") begins to occur.
HUMAN FERTILIZATION
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_fertilization
__________________________
PRENATAL DEVELOPMENT
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_development
___________________________
In any case, with regard to Catholic teaching, artificial contraception is also forbidden, so I guess the "moment of conception" debate is a debate that might concern Protestants more than Catholics given that Protestants - as far as I know - do not forbid the use of artificial contraceptives.
It sounds to me like the real question you are trying to ask is "when are we talking about a human being?" And as I have already answered in terme of Catholic teaching.......when the "zygote" is formed from the uniting of sperm and egg.
As for your reference to Scripture, as John Rupp pointed out, God reveals to us in His Word that not only does life begin at conception, but from all eternity He knows who we are even before then (Jeremiah 1:5). King David said this about God's role in our conception: "For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb . . . your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be" (Psalm 139:13, 16).
Anonymous 6:19 A.M.
RE:(2) God means that he knew what we would be like in every detail even though we did not exist at that point, just as a naval architect knows exactly what a ship he has designed will be like even as the plans are on the way to the shipyard. I take (2) to be the case because if (1) then how come we have no memory of knowing God in our hypothesized pre-incarnate state? Same with Isaiah 49:1.
I agree with you on this one. It is both philosophically and theologically accurate.
Before any of us was ACTUALLY created by God, we were purely POTENTIAL creatures having not yet received actual being from God.
"This is when ensoulment occurs according to Church teaching. This is a matter of faith....with my Rule of Faith being Scripture and Sacred Tradition, and not "Sola Scriptura." It is not my intention to denigrate "Sola Scriptura," - just to indicate one reason for some of the disagreements among Catholic and non-Catholic Christians."
What Catholics and EO don't appreciate, is that this tradition (except where it deviates) has its origin in the conclusions drawn by church fathers and councils from Scripture. Even the Creed cites The Holy Scriptures as the reason to believe Christ rose from the dead.
"and rose on the third day, according to the Scriptures."
what the protestants don't appreciate is that if you read The Bible closely enough often enough, and with a crew doing so comparing notes, the end result is going to be pretty close to liturgical church tradition.
As for contraception, while the EO probably thanks to RC influence filtering in through Jesuit run educational institutions and seminaries in Russia, during a time of lack of resources in past centuries, has until recently also forbidden contraception,
NONE of the canons of the first 7 Ecumenical Councils forbid this AT ALL, they specify potions etc. to kill the unborn as forbidden. The sole canon that is without such specification does not add barrier or spermacidal formulas as also forbidden, and its brevity therefore should be read in context of existing canons, a reiteration of them.
St. Paul never states marriage is for reproduction, rather that it is in order to avoid fornication!
St. Augustine started a lot of oddities incl. the anti Scriptural notions of a wife who is kept for pleasure and love being a mere legal prostitute on the one hand, and amillennialism on the other.
(thousand year reign of Christ, however, is a wrong idea, that is merely the first stage of His reign on earth, there is no end to His reign. chiliasm is condemned in terms of the idea of such a time limit on Christ's reign.)
Susanna,
Completion of the fusion of the genetic material of sperm and egg is a lot more tightly bracketable in time than "when sperm meets egg", but there is still a grey area in trying to define an instant when a chemical reaction is complete.
More important, though, is that I reject the notion of "ensoulment". Where did that come from? It cannot be proven to follow unambiguously from the Bible. Even to talk about "when ensoulment takes place" is to accept the presupposition that our spiritual side is slipped more developed into our physical side that is less developed. I suggest instead that our spiritual side grows in parallel with our body. That makes better sense to me. The Catholic position is based on various philosophical assumptions that seem to me to derive from ancient Greece. But assumptions they are, and the Catholic church asserts a certainty when it cannot in fact know.
Good study on the Babel of old and the Babel of today.
parablesblog.blogspot.com
Friday, August 15, 2014
on fertilization and ensoulment - the gray area in time, is so narrow that you cannot make use of it without risking the life of a conceptus.
traducianism basically says, there is no "ensoulment" THE SOUL IS THERE FROM THE START the soul stuff comes with the egg and sperm, what kind of soul (human, animal, etc.) it will be depends on the kind of creature the egg, sperm and soul stuff came from.
Traducianism is supported by Paul's argument in Hebrews for the superiority of Jesus' priesthood to that of Aaron, and held by several early Church Fathers perhaps not in the west, but weird ideas were already starting before AD 1054, RC allows eating meat with blood in it, with no exsanguination attempted as distinct from some amount left, even blood sausage that has blood added,
FORBIDDEN by at least two ecumenical councils and by the Apostolic Council in Acts, not of Moses but from Noah's time, "things strangled" is what is referred to in Acts. EO gets slack in the west or USA I hear.
Leaping in womb argument is irrelevant, says nothing about soul before that, medievals thought ensoulment occurred about 6 months because the baby is then big enough for its motions to be felt, but it was moving long before that. The issue here is abortion at ANY stage not just second trimester.
The Catholic Church regards Traducianism as a heresy - because it goes directly against the spirituality of the soul - and teaches Creationism - which affirms that the soul is created by God at the moment of conception; each soul is created ex nihilo for every person, and is created instantly and immediately (directly) by God. Support is found in the following passages: Gen. 2:7; Num. 16:22; Ps. 12:7; 139:13-14; Eccl. 12:7; Isa. 42:5; 57:16; Jer. 1:5; Zech. 12:1; Heb. 12:9.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 366, states that "The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God- it is not 'produced' by the parents...."[
Gen. 2:7; - irrelevant, this is the first man created, from whom comes all human flesh and soul stuff.
Num. 16:22; - utterly irrelevant. it is about individual vs. corporate responsibility you might as well use this to argue against original sin being transmissible (which I am sure some have done) actually it is not Adam's guilt, but Adam's sin inclined post fall warped nature that is the inherited original sin. of course once we start sinning on our own, we are kinda playing accessory after the fact to Adam's sin.
Ps. 12:7; - even more irrelevant SINCE ADDRESSED TO AN ADULT. The person addressed is effectively declared adopted by God, and also it is normally considered at least in part a Messianic prophecy, addressed to Jesus Christ, and relevant to His Incarnation.
Ps. 139:13-14; - irrelevant, it clearly discusses the formation of the body at various stages from conception on, and does not address the issue of ensoulment or relate to it at all. This could have happened at any point in the process if you stand on this verse alone.
Eccl. 12:7; - the first of this list that is remotely possible to be relevant, however it is the spirit not the soul that is referred to and could mean breath of life. In those days it was considered that the dead persons went to a gray underground world, the good to a better place than the bad, and that this was where Jesus brought the believers from the OT times to paradise in heaven, and whoever else would accept His testimony, since that time the dead in Christ go up to heaven. There is something mysterious about the spirit as distinct from the soul, and in general the whole matter is so ambiguous it is hard to make this relevant.
The same book refers gloomily to the dead in terms the JWs twist to say they are not conscious after death, so obviously ambiguous statements are nothing new to Ecclesiastes.
Isa. 42:5; - breath to people that walk on the earth and spirit to them that walk therein, again, ambiguous, and speaks of giving spirit (which can incl. attitude) to persons already walking in the earth. not too relevant sounding.
Isa. 57:16; - "souls which I have made" God made all humans and all creatures and they reproduce, so did God make each individual from scratch like He did Adam and the first animals and plants?
That which has the breath of life IS a soul. Adam BECAME a living soul. WE DO NOT HAVE SOULS WE ARE SOULS.
Jer. 1:5; - "before I formed thee in the belly" that's formed as from existing material needing shaping, either directly by intervention or just by the decree of how things are to develop embryonically or both. NOT made from scratch.
This whole passage since it says "BEFORE I FORMED THEE" if taken the way you would use it, would support pre existence of souls, if forming includes conception this is BEFORE conception if you take this passage as incl. conception. PRE EXISTENCE OF SOULS IS A HERESY. Condemned along with the rest of Origen's blather at the Fifth Ecumenical Council.
But a predestination operating in that prophet's case, a foreordination and determination about him is more likely implied. And this of course would be before conception, before his existence.
And therefore irrelevant to creationism vs. traducianism.
Zech. 12:1; - "and formeth the spirit of man within him," again, irrelevant, since we are talking like about men already in existence and the spirit being formed also over time, and spirit is harder to define than soul.
Heb. 12:9. "Father of spirits" this might have some bearing, and it might merely be a way of stating power and authority, higher than any spirit whether it has a body or not. CONTEXT is about if we endure chastening by human parents how much more so should we accept chastening (discipline) from God.
So none of these verses fully support creationism unambguously. (BTW "creationism" normally means God made the universe and all in it vs. evolution.)
HEBREWS CHAPTER 7:1-17 clear cut TRADUCIANISM, Levi was in Abraham's loins when Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedec, inferior pays tithes to superior, Melchizedec therefore superior to Levi, Jesus of Judah and no connection to the priesthood therefore, but God said "Thou art a priest forever after the order of Mechizedec" so Jesus has the priesthood which is higher than that of Levi.
Levi in Abraham's loins - the soul stuff as well as genetic material that was transmitted to Levi was still part of Abraham when Abraham paid tithes, so proto Levi paid tithes also.
This isn't pre existence of souls, because this is not the individual soul, but the material that went into that soul.
Susanna, if the pope is infallible speaking ex cathedra, then Pope Leo III infallibly declared that the filioque should not be used in The Mass and that he had no authority to add it to The Mass himself, only an Ecumenical Council could do that. This from a man who believed the filioque to be correct himself.
That means that subsequent popes have somehow lost grace a bit. Ditto some councils. Because a couple of popes later the filioque was put in The Mass by a pope.
That means that either Leo failed to use his charism or the subsequent pope acted in excess of in rebellion against it.
I would pay more attention to the Ecumenical Councils and eastern fathers and pre nicene writers if I were you.
Just ask yourself: WHY DO YOUR RC TEACHERS TELL YOU THAT ORTHODOXY IS IN SCHISM FROM YOU, WHEN TECHNICALLY WE WERE EXCOMMUNICATED (only the Constantinople patriarch in fact) WHY DO THEY LIE?
IS NOT SCHISM AND EXCOMMUNICATION TOTALLY DIFFERENT THINGS?
WHAT ARE THEY TRYING TO HIDE BY LYING?
Susanna,
You mentioned contraception, and within marriage I am not in agreement with the Catholic view of it, but I prefer to continue discussing only the issue of the rights of recently fertilized human ova. (Contraception is relevant to that issue only in the case of methods that prevent implantation rather than those that prevent conception.)
Regarding ensoulment, I do not mind being in a minority. Truth is not decided by voting and Jesus was in a minority in his time. In insisting on the notion of ensoulment the Catholic church is simply guessing about something of which it cannot possibly be certain, then insisting that it has to be right. The view that our spiritual capacity grows with our body makes much better sense to me, given the intertwining of the two in our life on this earth. Certainly we continue disembodied after we die here, but to suggest that we were in such a state before we were embodied, as Jesus was, immediately invites the question: How come we don't remember it? (Jesus surely did!)
I am not being facetious. I wish to point out only that any claim to certainty is spurious, and is simply fallible private revelation that has subsequently been endorsed by others in the absence of evidence.
In fertility clinics, helping married couples in difficulty to conceive, when one fertilized ovum is successfully implanted in the mother and the rest are discarded, do you consider the discarding of a fertilized ovum - consisting of a single cell, or perhaps a dozen or so after a few cell divisions - as equally sinful as an at-term abortion? If not, why not?
Sola Scriptura is not that we get all of our theology from the Bible alone, but that the Bible alone is the only infallible authority. It is quite alright to have a church authority, even if they're not infallible. Paul warns us in Galatians 1:8-9. If even Peter or Paul could preach a false gospel, then anyone could.
Because of this, we must be like the Bereans in Acts 17 and search the Scriptures to make sure that whatever we hear is true. This is a noble and Christian tradition. The early church fathers encouraged people to compare their words with that of Scripture.
Tradition can be a fine thing, but it cannot compare to Scripture. In no place in Scripture or history do we find any warning against Scripture, but in the Scriptures we find a number of warnings that tradition can be wrong (Matt 15:3, Mark 7:8, 7:9, 7:13, Col 2:8).
We must hold fast to the Scriptures and not stray away from the written word (1 Cor 4:6).
Praise Jesus our only Savior
I agree TLC,
When the devil tempted Jesus, three different ways,
the Lord responded three times with: "it is written..."
each time he quoted the sacred Torah.
And later when he confronted the scribes and Pharisees, he said; " Why do you follow the traditions of men and not the commandments of God?
Viva sola scriptura.
Exactly right TLC and Paul. There is only room for ONE at the top.
Anonymous 5:44 A.M.
Don't you read my posts?
I said that the Catholic Church teaches Creationism, not Traducianism - that each and every soul is created "ex nihilo" ( from nothing )by God at the moment of conception. Not to be facetious myself, but this is why the soul does not remember, because before it was joined to a human body at its zygote stage, it was nothing ( pure potentiality). As for Jesus, He is God, we are not. But it is my understanding that according to the Scriptures, Jesus was "like us in all ways except sin," Heb. 4:15 So if Jesus did not remember, it was because He chose not to in keeping with His desire to "be like us."
Re:(Contraception is relevant to that issue only in the case of methods that prevent implantation rather than those that prevent conception.)
They may be relevanr to that issue, but they are relevant for you, not for me since Catholic teaching prohibits the use of all artificial contraceptives.
Re:You mentioned contraception, and within marriage I am not in agreement with the Catholic view of it, but I prefer to continue discussing only the issue of the rights of recently fertilized human ova. (Contraception is relevant to that issue only in the case of methods that prevent implantation rather than those that prevent conception.)
Sorry, but you will need to discuss both if you are going to discuss it with me because in general, the one tends to lead to the other. As Pope Paul VI prophetically predicted in 1968 in his Encyclical Humanae Vitae, artificial contraception would result in a "general lowering of moral standards,( including a moral desensitization when it came to abortion )" women would be reduced “to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of their own desires,” and it would lead to an abuse of power by public authorities and a false sense of autonomy.
Sure enough, approximately four-and-a-half years later, On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade ignored good and evil and instead supported abortion. Since then, much of our society has also ignored good and evil and has moved away from traditional marriage and families in spite of all of the bogus "positive statistics" on the part of the pro abortion crowd.
As for Protestant teaching, historically, all major early Protestant Reformers, and indeed Protestants in general until the twentieth century, condemned birth control as a contravention of God's procreative purpose for marriage.
See:
Campbell, Flann (Nov 1960). "Birth Control and the Christian Churches". Population Studies (Population Investigation Committee)
Carlson, Allan (May 2007). "Children of the Reformation". Touchstone
cont.
In one of my previous posts here, I also mentioned "in vitro" fertilization which is also prohibited by Catholic teaching.
Foremost among the reasons why is that IVF makes the child a commodity produced in a laboratory, and makes doctors, technicians, and even business people part of the conception process. The sperm used is usually obtained by masturbation, which the Church teaches is immoral. The sperm or eggs used may not come from the couple desiring the child; because one of the spouses may be infertile, it may be necessary to use the sperm or eggs from an outsider. Most of the embryos conceived—which the Church holds should be respected new human lives—die, are frozen indefinitely for later implantation, are used for research, or are discarded. Children conceived through IVF also have a greater incidence of birth defects.
I hope that answers your question concerning the rights of recently fertilized human ova.
I take you at your word that you are pro life. If you were not, you would not be so concerned about when life begins.
If, as you have often stated, you "don't agree," with the Catholic position.
Fine. Since you are a non-Catholic Christian, I wouldn't expect you to.
If you do not agree, then all you have to do is to remain where you are and "bloom where you are planted".....as shall I.
Christine 11:45
You are just plain wrong.
Pope Leo III, who approved of the doctrine conveyed by the Filioque, but gave the advice to omit the expression in the Creed.
He did not make an infallible declaration.
While acting in harmony with the pope, Charlemagne combatted the heresy of Adoptionism which had arisen in Spain; but he went somewhat further than his spiritual guide ( i.e. Pope LeoIII) when he wished to bring about the general insertion of the Filioque in the Nicene Creed.
HISTORICAL IMPORTANCE OF THE FILIOQUE
It has been seen that the Creed of Constantinople at first declared only the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father; it was directed against the followers of Macedonius who denied the Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father. In the East, the omission of Filioque did not lead to any misunderstanding. But conditions were different in Spain after the Goths had renounced Arianism and professed the Catholic faith in the Third Synod of Toledo, 589. It cannot be acertained who first added the Filioque to the Creed; but it appears to be certain that the Creed, with the addition of the Filioque, was first sung in the Spanish Church after the conversion of the Goths. In 796 the Patriarch of Aquileia justified and adopted the same addition at the Synod of Friaul, and in 809 the Council of Aachen appears to have approved of it.
The decrees of this last council were examined by Pope Leo III, who approved of the doctrine conveyed by the Filioque, but gave the advice to omit the expression in the Creed. The practice of adding the Filioque was retained in spite of the papal advice, and in the middle of the eleventh century it had gained a firm foothold in Rome itself. Scholars do not agree as to the exact time of its introduction into Rome, but most assign it to the reign of Benedict VIII (1014-15).
The Catholic doctrine was accepted by the Greek deputies who were present at the Second Council of Florence, in 1439, when the Creed was sung both in Greek and Latin, with the addition of the word Filioque. On each occasion it was hoped that the Patriarch of Constantinople and his subjects had abandoned the state of heresy and schism in which they had been living since the time of Photius, who about 870 found in the Filioque an excuse for throwing off all dependence on Rome. But however sincere the individual Greek bishops may have been, they failed to carry their people with them, and the breach between East and West continues to this day.
It is a matter for surprise that so abstract a subject as the doctrine of the double Procession of the Holy Ghost should have appealed to the imagination of the multitude. But their national feelings had been aroused by the desire of liberation from the rule of the ancient rival of Constantinople; the occasion of lawfully obtaining their desire appeared to present itself in the addition of Filioque to the Creed of Constantinople. Had not Rome overstepped her rights by disobeying the injunction of the Third Council, of Ephesus (431), and of the Fourth, of Chalcedon (451)?
It is true that these councils had forbidden to introduce another faith or another Creed, and had imposed the penalty of deposition on bishops and clerics, and of excommunication on monks and laymen for transgressing this law; but the councils had not forbidden to explain the same faith or to propose the same Creed in a clearer way. Besides, the conciliar decrees affected individual transgressors, as is plain from the sanction added; they did not bind the Church as a body. Finally, the Councils of Lyons and Florence did not require the Greeks to insert the Filioque into the Creed, but only to accept the Catholic doctrine of the double Procession of the Holy Ghost.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06073a.htm
Susanna, I realize RC sides with "creationism" but traducianism is just as anti abortion because instead of claiming there is a moment of ensoulment, it claims the soul is there from the start, formed from the partial soul stuff of the partial reproductive cells, at fertilization, exactly as on the physical level, and at the same time, that the zygote is formed a complete cell, by the joining of the two partial cells (egg and sperm).
The only way contraception can morph into abortion is by sloppy thinking and by the old superstition that ensoulment occurs at the "quickening" or coming to life of the child, when the mother first feels its motion (actually when it is big enough for its motions, already going on for a long time, to be noticed).
The abortifaciant nature of most chemical birth control is a serious issue.
barrier contraception and spermicide are not remotely abortifacient.
I realize that RC does not make this distinction.
But the pope is dead wrong on seeing all this as making persons a mere object of desire and exploitation, because the standard mode of sex in no way prevents this happening.
Did all prostitutes throughout the ages use contraception? Obviously not considering that lots of men don't like condoms and that prostitutes have produced children, often raised in the same "profession."
The two have nothing to do with each other.
Meanwhile, arranged marriages for reproduction for family political and extended family connection building networking shall we say, conducted with varying degrees of coercion, is just as much a reducing of someone to being an object.
Rape within marriage in order to force children when the woman doesn't want to get pregnant is in no way prevented by this kind of thinking.
Rape is generally conducted without contraceptive efforts and is the ultimate perversion, and objectification.
Statistically women are more sexual after menopause, when fear of pregnancy doesn't interfere.
Now, I realize all this means nothing to you. But facts are facts. The REDUCTION of sexuality to mere reproduction is just as much a treatment of a person as an object, as is viewing them as a sexual object in terms Freud called masturbato in vagina.
The curse on Eve included increased fertility (Hebrew says "I will greatly increase thy pain and thy conception") as well as increased pain in childbirth. The curse on Adam was a lot of hard work to survive. Why should measures to lessen Eve's curse be considered sin when measures to reduce Adam's are not considered sin?
Sure sex is reproductive, but no one knows this unless told so. Animals and humans have sex because of desires, triggered by hormones that in most animals' cases are cyclic. (I read of one girl whose parents told her nothing about sex, thinking this would keep her pure. Oops, she turned up pregnant.)
Reproduction is to occur in a loving context that promotes godliness (or at least not a context that promote ungodliness) as Malachi pointed out. The focus has to be on the relationship not on reproduction. "Be fruitful and multiply" is like "let there be light," it is a statement that is a fiat by God making something be, creating fertility and reproductive capacity and mechanisms for the couple, human or animal, to get this done. It is not a birds and bees lecture.
Susanna,
I do not contend that you are not the final arbiter of your own position (although its consistency is another matter). I am speaking only of IVF attempts by a husband and wife using their own sperm and eggs, with implantation back in the wife's body (not that of another woman). The sperm will clearly derive from mutual sexual activity which climaxes outside the woman's body, with the purpose of the couple having a child. I don't know if that activity is regarded as sinful by the Catholic church. It isn't by me, but in any case I'm not interested in that question. And yes, IVF babies have a higher incidence of birth defects, but the couple will have given their informed consent. The child will be their own, genetically speaking, and will be carried by the wife. I condemn other arrangements.
In IVF multiple blastocysts are created and only one "makes it". The rest are discarded. I did indeed miss your earlier post where you explained that the soul is supposedly created by God at the "moment of conception" - my apologies - but perhaps you also missed my earlier question, as I found no reply to it above: Do you consider the discarding of a fertilized ovum - consisting of a single cell, or perhaps a dozen or so after a few cell divisions - as equally sinful as the horror of an at-term abortion? If not, why not?
This question is capable of being answered without reference to contraception. I am happy simply to agree to disagree about contraception within marriage; even barrier methods. But I would add a comment about the condemnation of it by protestant thinkers up to the 20th century. The reason is simply its association with prostitution until that time. When relatively reliable and non-intrusive methods became available and respectable married couples started using these, protestants took a closer look and junked some traditions that had been added to the Bible. Better late than never.
anon 11:51
"the horror of at term abortion" ironically, at term is probably the least painful for the child, since its brain is penetrated and destroyed and it is dead BEFORE it is dismembered.
The real horror is abortion at all the other stages, because in salting out the child suffers severely, and in dilation and curettage it is dismembered alive and conscious.
But we don't see those things. This is a case of out of sight, out of mind.
as for the IVF style you speak of, to get the sperm the man engages in masturbation which is considered a sin by RC anyway.
Christine, 11:37 A.M.
Re:The only way contraception can morph into abortion is by sloppy thinking and by the old superstition that ensoulment occurs at the "quickening" or coming to life of the child, when the mother first feels its motion (actually when it is big enough for its motions, already going on for a long time, to be noticed).
I think you have misunderstood. Pope Paul VI did not say that contraception could "morph into abortion" in the sense that it would mean the same thing. Contraception and abortion are NOT the same thing although the Catholic Church teaches that both are grievously sinful. What Pope Paul VI was implying was that the lowering of moral standards that contraception would lead to would include a moral desensitization with regard to abortion......which happened about four and a half years later with the Roe v. Wade decision. Things have gone downhill morally ever since.
I understand and respect that conservative non-Catholic Christians might disagree with Catholic teachings on contraception.
Re:But the pope is dead wrong on seeing all this as making persons a mere object of desire and exploitation, because the standard mode of sex in no way prevents this happening.
Really? With all the cohabitation without benefit of clergy, adultery, homosexuality, FIFTY SHADES OF GREY, etc., etc., Surely you jest!
Re:Now, I realize all this means nothing to you. But facts are facts. The REDUCTION of sexuality to mere reproduction is just as much a treatment of a person as an object, as is viewing them as a sexual object in terms Freud called masturbato in vagina.
You don't know me well enough to "realize" anything about how I think.
Because if you did and you want FACTS, you would "realize" that you missed one important thing vwhen reading my messages. Namely that the Church prohibits the use of all ARTIFICIAL contraception.
The Church is not against responsible family planning which is based on Natural Family Planning or periodic abstinence during times when a woman is least likely to be fertile. Because with Natural Family Planning, even though the woman is least likely to be fertile the procreative and unitive aspects of the marital act are preserved intact and the door is left open for the possibility - if not the high probability - of conception. But when all is said and done, the Church teaches that even Natural Family Planning itself is to be used responsibly.
Another thing to be mentioned is that some non-Catholic Christian communions also advocate NFP.
As for effectiveness, technology has advanced to the point where it is possible to determine a woman's most fertile times during any given month with high accuracy.
NFP is not only useful for avoiding pregnancy. it can also help women determine their most fertile time if they are trying to conceive.
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/marriage-and-family/natural-family-planning/what-is-nfp/
Re:Do you consider the discarding of a fertilized ovum - consisting of a single cell, or perhaps a dozen or so after a few cell divisions - as equally sinful as the horror of an at-term abortion? If not, why not?
As a Catholic, I consider all abortion equally sinful. As for the desire for a child, which is good in and of itself, does not justify using evil means to produce it. Catholic moral theology teaches that evil means cannot be used even to produce a good end.
Well Susanna, we shall have to disagree whether in-vitro fertilization using the wife's ovum, the husband's sperm obtained consensually by the wife, and subsequent implantation in the wife, with the concomitant destruction of a few cells, is "evil". And disagree that it is as evil to destroy the few cells that comprise a blastocyst as to abort a fetus at or near term. I find the latter equation extraordinary.
Susanna, abortion was going on for centuries in Catholic Europe and in Protestant America by various means. Illegal, sinful, etc., but old wives' methods using abortifacient herbs, well, that knowledge comes from those times and places. All sorts of little things one didn't say anything about in public or to the priest.
reduction of someone to a sex object, sex as services, is not necessarily present when people in love live together, and IS present in marriage.
lowering moral standards of sexual conduct is not promoted by contraception, the standards are already shot to hell the action is restrained by fear of consequences.
lowering of moral standards re sexual action and doing it not just would if not afraid, but afraid so won't, does not automatically morph to abortion either.
The increase in unwed mothers proves that, these women, however they got pregnant in love or in lust (and women can treat men as mere sex objects also) they balked at murder.
Conservatives view this increase with alarm, not realizing it means the anti abortion message is getting through, and these women are having their children. Maybe the man isn't a fit father, maybe they already broke up, maybe they broke up because he wanted her to abort and she wouldn't. Maybe she was a sleaze and just used him (and others) for sex. Maybe he was a sleaze and used her and dumped her when he got bored.
when two people marry for love, or move in together for love the sex is the same. The relationship dynamics are the same. The tendency to get bored with each other and feel tempted by greener pastures after a while is the same, but easier to restrain with a legal marriage.
Meanwhile, you guys have "annulments" and pretend they aren't divorces by arguing a "real" marriage hadn't happened in fact. Sheesh. They went through a ritual, they had sex, they were married. The real issue should be, fraud or coercion or abandonment as grounds for divorce, and these are biblically relevant.
RC even lies about Scripture in saying that porneia or fornication and/or moicheia adultery mean illicit marriages.
porneia is about WHORES and is where we get the word pornography or art about whores from. While illicit marriages and homosexual acts would be included under fornication as a portmanteau word, it is not limited to incest or other illicit marriages.
http://lemmonsaid.wordpress.com/2007/10/30/what-is-moicheia/ moicheia is used by pagan Greek writers to mean cheating by a spouse as shown by examples there.
The very use of the term fornication, from Latin fornax, arch, means that the translator from Greek to Latin knew porneia meant general unchastity, not just incestuous marriage, because fornication derives from fornax because Roman brothels were mostly in basements with street access through an arched doorway with steps down into the basement. don't have the cite for it right now but you can find it if you do the work.
so...how much do you really want to trust your church? AND YOU DON'T NEED RC TO TELL YOU ABOUT JESUS BEING GOD INCARNATE AND LORD. the prots don't rely on RC and the Bible was written by eyewitnesses and St. Irenaeus long before any council that affirmed the canon and cracked down on using non canonical books, used the same canon we have now. Just read Against Heresies. Eastern Orthodoxy is just as reliable if you want Tradition to tell you things as RC on this one anyway.
anonymous 1:38 P.M.
Re:Well Susanna, we shall have to disagree ...
Yes, we shall indeed have to disagree over the idea that ends necessarily justify means.
Christine,
How long did it take you to read "Against Heresies"
Christine 4:06 P.M.
Re: Just read Against Heresies. Eastern Orthodoxy is just as reliable if you want Tradition to tell you things as RC on this one anyway.
For your information, I have read AGAINST HERESIES by St. Irenaeus -as well as the writings of other Church Fathers both Eastern and Western.
With all due respect to Eastern Orthodoxy - and not your version of it - I think I will stick with the Roman Catholic interpretation of the Gospels, thank you very much.
Susanna,
I (1.38PM et seq) entirely agree that means are not to be justified by ends. What made you think I was doing that?
In case anyone is interested.
AGAINST HERESIES
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103.htm
Paul, I don't remember how long it took the first time I read it was several years ago read it through reread in segments later.
Susanna I don't know what you mean by my version of Eastern Orthodoxy, it has several flavors to be sure.
But the point about Against Heresies, is that "the church" meaning councils didn't write the NT or decree out of the blue the canon it was written by the Apostles who are the foundation stones of the Church, and the same canon we use now was in use by Irenaeus judging by what he quotes. Other early church fathers quote from the same canon.
The validity of the canon isn't dependent on what the RC is up to currently.
contraception in EO ranges from no way to its up to the couple in consultation with the priest.
Anonymous, 6:35 P.M.
Re:I (1.38PM et seq) entirely agree that means are not to be justified by ends. What made you think I was doing that?
I was replying to Well Susanna, we shall have to disagree whether in-vitro fertilization using the wife's ovum, the husband's sperm obtained consensually by the wife, and subsequent implantation in the wife, with the concomitant destruction of a few cells, is "evil". And disagree that it is as evil to destroy the few cells that comprise a blastocyst as to abort a fetus at or near term. I find the latter equation extraordinary.
If you don't think masturbation for purposes of in vitro is evil( whether the wife consents or not) and if you don't agree that discarding human embryos not used for the in vitro process is evil -or that using leftover human embryos for experimentation is evil, then I guess you are not allowing a good end to justify evil means according to your standards.
But according to my standards which are based on Catholic teaching which regards in vitro embryos as human beings with all the rights of a human being, I would be allowing a good end to justify evil means if I were to try to conceive by way of in vitro fertilization and all the ancillary activities it entails.
This is why we must agree to disagree. Further discussion would be pointless.
There is a well written and obviously well researched website called THE GREEN AGENDA, but I have no idea who maintains the site. Does anybody know?
Constance
Hopefully everybody here believes that life begins at conception and abortion is evil.
Now, can we all move on to something else, i.e. THE GREEN AGENDA with the valuable information on it alongside its mysterious website creator?
Constance
Susanna,
Happy to agree to disagree, but I wish to keep the English language free from distortion of the sort that Orwell made clear. Destruction of a blastocyst consisting of a few cells is not abortion, and masturbation is a solitary activity. Mosaic law does not regulate the marital bedroom. Neither is that "because it can't", for Mosaic law also commands people not to envy.
People should think hard before taking sexual advice from an institution which for 1500 years admonished an entire continent not to experience pleasure during marital sex (Pastoral Rule of Gregory 'the Great', book 3, chapter 27), tolerated it only for procreation, and was run by celibates who commonly failed to practice what they preached. Yet when nowadays a married couple engage in a consensual sexual activity that is not particularly enjoyable yet is designed to aid conception (sperm gathering for IVF), that church grumbles!
It is clear to see from the long list of quotes by the 'faithful' over at the THE GREEN AGENDA website, that they are all 'of the same spirit'. That 'spirit' wishes to destroy the institutions and people of the Christian faith.
seems to be the product of someone at http://www.watchmanspost.com/ which calls it their sister site.
are there any strictly Christian and anti new age anti deep ecology groups out there that deal with the few legitimate issues that the new age green agenda hijacks?
Obama Preparing Executive Order To Flood Job Market With Millions Of Illegal Aliens
www.nowtheendbegins.com/blog/?p=24314
Ferguson's Future
www.seraphicpress.com./wecome-to-furgusons-future/
Islam: Satan's Religion
www.CNN.com/2014/08/19/world/meast/isis-james-foley/
To All:
Now here is an interesting coincidence. I was doing a little snooping around and discovered that there is another man named John Knight who is taking some heat for "flip-flopping" on Agenda-21.....which translates to mean that he was once for it, but is now against it. Moreover, this John Knight is not from New Zealand. He is from California.
Supervisor Knight Reverses Course on Agenda 21 Resolution
May 15, 2012
http://www.inedc.com/1-761
______________________
AGENDA 21 LINKS
A g e n d a 21 – You Decide
....Agenda 21 policy, and its implementation undercut the constitutional freedoms of American Citizens. It’s already telling us where we should live. Here in California it’s under the guise of the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008, also know as SB375, and right now our Board of Supervisors are amending the General Plan and Zoning Ordinances to align with those policies.
LOCALLY - On May 15, 2012 El Dorado County Supervisor John Knight submitted agenda Item 20 for consideration before the EDC BOS. It was defined as: Resolution to Expose Agenda 21.....read more....
http://saveourcounty.net/issues/united-nations-agenda-21/agenda-21-links/
______________________
El Dorado County folks riled by U.N. agenda for sustainable growth
By Carlos Alcalá
calcala@sacbee.com
Published: Thursday, May. 24, 2012 – 12:00 am | Page 1A
The United Nations is haunting El Dorado County.
Critics of a 20-year-old U.N. document called Agenda 21 are becoming more vocal, blaming it for any number of ills in the county.
Agenda 21 came out of a United Nations conference in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. It recommends a framework for nations to develop and grow sustainably – that is, with minimum damage to the environment.
Although it was accepted by presidents George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, it carries no force of law here.
According to local critics, however, Agenda 21 is environmental extremism responsible for U.S. Forest Service road closures, onerous regulations on family farms, high-density low-incomehousing projects, a ban on dredge mining, a Highway 50 wildlife crossing, unemployment and maybe even traffic roundabouts.
Those issues resonate with many of El Dorado County’s 180,000 residents. The county has growing suburbs near its border with Sacramento County, but is largely rural, and largely federal forestland, as it climbs the Sierra to Lake Tahoe.
The issue has become so heated that the Mountain Democrat newspaper in Placerville is publishing a four-part series on Agenda 21. The headline to kick off the series dubbed the U.N. measure “Central Planning on Steroids.”
“It mixes environmentalism and socialism,” said Kathleen Newell, one of 14 people who spoke against Agenda 21 at an El Dorado County Board of Supervisors meeting May 15. An anti-Agenda 21 resolution was on the calendar for that day, but was tabled......read more....
http://www.teapartypatriotsedh.com/2012/05/29/el-dorado-county-folks-riled-by-u-n-agenda-for-sustainable-growth-folsomel-dorado-news-the-sacramento-bee/
_______________________
Residents to supes: Back off U.N.s Agenda 21
By Chris Daley
From page A1 | May 18, 2012 |
http://www.mtdemocrat.com/news/residents-to-supes-back-off-u-n-s-agenda-21/
In terms of politics, GREEN IS THE NEW RED!!!
GREEN POLITICS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_politics
_____________________
Don't miss this gem.....
The Dangerous Green Agenda & How You Can Fight Back
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHhtlu-F5VM
For those who do not remember, Van Jones was President Obama's :Green Czar. He is also a self-professed Communist......with associations with Starhawk
Ann calls out Van Jones in Sin City (part 1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vQFIRxvm4k
___________________________
Ann calls out Van Jones in Sin City (part 2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUrYGSIQJfQ
to whom it may concern, Constance Cumbey is the sole administrator of
https://www.facebook.com/groups/hiddendangersoftherainbow/
Tie in with the Green Agenda, which is not only the "NEW RED", but maybe the NEW DEAD!
Prometheus, Ebola, and the Coming Days of Woe
Wednesday, August 20, 2014 post @
parablesblog.blogspot.com
Ebola Patient Kent Brantley To Be Released From Atlanta Hospital; Nancy Writebol Too Maybe Released
www.ibtimes.com
August 21, story
A Bioforming Pandemic-Beyond Ebola-CDC Claims Blunder with Bird Flu
the open scroll.blogspot.com/2014/08/parat-21-bioforming-pandemic-beyond.html
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/lcwr-assembly-2014-sticking-to-a-dangerous-course/
“We have been so changed that we are no longer at home in the culture and church in which we find ourselves,” Sister Nancy declared.
and
Yet, she also spoke of “diminishment” and “exile,” with sisters finding themselves in a “middle place” that is a “place of both creativity and disorientation,” where “all of our theological categories are re-defined: concepts like love, divine presence, incarnation, and world view are reshaped,” she said. And, “Much of what was is gone and what is coming is not yet clear.”
Comments from a Sr Nancy Schreck speaking at the latest LCWR a few days ago.
http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/3315/the_lcwr_doubles_down_on_dissent.aspx
In all my years I've never seen nuns in this kinda gear. Anyhow, its all very sad.
From Oz
What is going on in Israel, and the "change" that is happening here in the United States.
Just the Truth
thegoldenreport.net/?p=1549
Oz,
I read that article you linked us to entitled
The LCWR Doubles Down on Dissent
Last year the keynote speaker was Barbara Marx Hubbard. This year's keynote speaker, former LCWR President Franciscan Sister Nancy Schreck is hardly an improvement.
Unfortunately, the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) acts as if it speaks for all women religious. Such is most assuredly NOT the case.
In fact, in 2012, the Religious Sisters of Mercy of Alma, Michigan openly criticized LCWR.
Michigan religious order criticizes the LCWR
LCWR statements “reflect the poverty of their education and formation in the faith.”
June 14, 2012 03:03 EST
By Catherine Harmon
http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Blog/1426/michigan_religious_order_criticizes_the_lcwr.aspx
____________________________
These Sisters of Mercy belong to the Council of Major Superiors of Women Religious,(CMSWR) a Vatican-approved congregation of women religious superiors established as an alternative to the LCWR in 1992.
I think you will like the "kinda gear" these sisters are wearing much better.
CMSWR
http://cmswr.org/
_______________________
As for the reasons why Sister Nancy was whining in her keynote address, about so-called “diminishment” and “exile,”
Marty Rethul nails it over at BEING FRANK:
Marty believes that these 'nuns' will die before they open up to true spiritual reform as asked of them by the Holy Spirit. Many of them are very old now, so that won't be far away. They will soon dwindle from existence in this life. The real traditional Orders of Women Religious in the USA will continue to grow and flourish (as they have been), but even more so when the LCWR is no more, as they will set forth an uncontested and uncontaminated witness to consecrated life: – without the distracting babble of the LCWR and its New Age heresy infested jibber-jabber.
They stupidly think that they have a friend in Pope Francis, who is going to bless their version of religious life and allow them to continue their parallel 'Magisterium' of prophetic heresy. They should investigate how he acted with his Jesuit brothers in South America........
http://www.beingfrank.co.nz/casino-royale
_______________________
Perhaps the LCWR HAS investigated how Pope Francis acted!!! :-)
Now that New Age heresy infested jibber-jabber is pope Francis's job. Who do these LCWR gals think they are anyhow?
When these "very old 'nuns' soon dwindle from existence in this life", into their everlasting whatever, then the real deal, OWR, can have a party, growing and flourishing!!! Sounds kinda like Nazism to me! Typical cold dark spiritual fare offered up by the catholic institution.
I hope OZ, that before you dwindle away of old age, you will realize that you have no need for religion, the pope, Mary, or any form of religious gymnastics to find salvation. That salvation can only be found in Jesus. It can be found nowhere else! Nowhere else! Then you can be free from fretting, and hand-wringing over matters that are not worth a hill of beans to worry about!
Anonymous 11:58
Are you a "Jesus Only" Pentecostal?
Because if you are, you are involved in a serious Christological heresy by Protestant standards as well as Catholic standards.
No man comes to the Father but by Him(The Son). No error.
Oh, and also, I'm NOT Pentecostal.
anonymous 3:05
even suspecting anon 11:58 of oneness pentecostalism (unitarianism plus tongues) is an incredible conclusion based on saying there is salvation in none but Jesus, which is a quote from St. Paul,
and which has NOTHING to do with denying The Trinity which is what Jesus only pentecostals do (and demand you be baptized in the name of Jesus ONLY and without The Father and The Holy Spirit being named also). Oneness Pentecostals are modalists.
Meanwhile what RC doesn't understand when this is thrown at them is that prots think you think salvation is from the lesser lights not from Jesus and sometimes through them, and you do NOT have them being intercessors to The Father for them, alongside Jesus interceding, and that their intercession is not that of the high priest as Jesus' intercession is, but that Mary and the saints intercede TO JESUS Who remains the sole intercessor TO THE FATHER both in general and as High Priest.
It may be that pop catholicism the understanding of the average catholic in the street at least until the more serious efforts at teaching them over the past many decades, is indeed what protestantism accuses RC of believing. The message given by prayer and image content is often exactly that.
But officially, no.
I knew an RC who was sure Mary had to be a goddess in order to be mother of God, but later he got that sorted out (probably a priest helped him).
Anon at 11.58,
I will always be concerned when I see people who claim to be Catholic making a mockery of Catholicism, including and most especially, Catholic nuns.
From Oz
Jesus Christ is Lord and he is the only One who saves. He is Almighty and needed no help to be that perfect sacrifice to pay our sin debt. Why do some think Jesus such a weak God that He needed help from his mommy and needs help from the pope and the saints and rituals and holy water and all the other add-ons ad nauseum? That makes me just want to cry that he is deemed so needy. GOD is not needy. Jesus is LORD. Why do some say they believe He is but in reality treat Him as though He is not? The bible says there is none righteous no not one. Compare yourselves to JESUS CHRIST and see how righteous you are! I hate man-made religion. (God does too because the focus is on pleasing men-ultimately themselves-to "feel good enough" when God says human beings are not good enough to belong in heaven-only Jesus righteousness is good enough) and that is why we must rely upon his mercy to redeem us. I love sinners (because I am no better nor any worse than anybody else) and want them to be saved but I hate the organized institutions that take God's majesty (and saving power) away from Him and give it to their system of belief instead. And he is risen already why leave Him still hanging on the cross in your trinkets? Your religious (and idolatrous) pride is showing! Repent and believe in the Only Lord and Savior Jesus is what the bible is so specific about and not your religion if you say you love the Lord already! (Thou shalt have no other gods before Me sound familiar?)
Don't have a "label" like so many here like to strut on this blog and wear. I am just a sinner saved by grace-forgiven-and by my savior's goodness (only good in me is His Holy Spirit who has sealed me for redemption) I will enter in to eternal life and be forever with Him. So the only label that fits me is: a worshiper of the living and reigning Lord and grateful and for my savior who is strong to save a wretch like me.
Anonymous 11:49
RE: "I hate man-made religion"
Then you should REALLY hate yours!!!!
Dear 3:32 PM
I feel bad that you are trapped by religion/religious works and feelings or you would understand how simple real faith in Jesus as savior and LORD really is and you would repent and say you are a person undone before God and in need of Jesus to save you, not the ways of men to try to please God. Because simple faith in the Lord's atonement and nothing else troubles and stirs up your religious soul against the pure gospel. Go to Jesus and be cured of your faith in your faith and put your simple faith (like a child) in Jesus alone. That is all the repenting thief on the cross could do and Jesus saved him. (and that is when you can go do things that prove you are humbly saved by the Lord of your life)
People of pretty much every denomination in this day and age are thinking they are of the super-church and doing it right. That is sad. Church does not save-Jesus does.
God is great and very able.
True faith in the Lord is simple.
Anonymous 5:13
"Then I heard a loud voice in heaven say: "Now have come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God, and the authority of his Messiah. For the accuser of our brothers and sisters, who accuses them before our God day and night, has been hurled down." Rev. 12:10
_____________________
Maybe if you spent your own time studying the Bible and praying to Jesus day and night, you wouldn't have time to accuse the brethren before the Lord day and night.
"Wherefore he that thinketh himself to stand, let him take heed lest he fall." 1 Corinthians 10:12
6:12 P.M.
Rev. 12:10 does not apply to 5:13 P.M.
That person is not accusing you of anything. They are merely pointing out the obvious, and that is the fact that you, and some others here, are tangled up in your favorite religion.
anon 5:13, has it ever crossed your mind that simple faith in Jesus Christ as LORD and Savior, could lead one to want to lovingly light a candle to Him?
or give as much honor to images of Him as given to images of friends and relatives?
The Lord is to be worshiped in spirit and in truth. Not in man mad images.
Dear 7:55 PM
I am referring to salvation not some other expression of faith. The Lord calls us to be simple in our faith-trusting in Him. That keeps us humble. Otherwise it becomes a competition-isn't that done to death these days in most churches now regardless of denomination? The actual church is the believers in Christ (not a building and/or institutional system) who call Him Lord and know they could not save themselves and turned to Him to do just that because His sacrifice was perfect and perfectly sufficient without human helps. The Lord calls and the sinner who is humbled by hearing His word (faith comes by hearing the word of God) and in repentance (the turning that is beyond mere regret or remorse) cries out for the Lord's mercy. Church the institution as such, is what starts making it complicated when it is not. Jesus calls sinners to himself not to church to be saved.
He told the most religious man of that time (Nicodemus) something so simple that he totally misunderstood as a religious man but when he saw the sinless life of Jesus and his power as God and from God to do true and eternal good-not human version of good-then Nicodemus understood at Jesus death what it meant to simply look and live (tah-dah! simple). When he saw Jesus lifted up (on the cross) like the serpent on the pole that Moses made was lifted up for the people to see and believe when Israel's people were bitten by the fiery serpents that Jesus was referring to in John 3:14 (see also Numbers 21) then his faith became simple and humble and he laid his church career down to be known as just a follower of the Lord. No doubt he lost his wealth and status for the stand he took against his once dear denomination. (he who seeks to lose his life will find it in other words).
Later on in Israel's history they made an idol of that very thing (serpent on the pole)-taking that once good thing that pointed them to faith in God and made it about believing in that relic instead and God judged them for doing this. That is what people tend to do when they wax wanton in spiritual matters and the denominations are full of idols of every religious stripe-and missing Jesus-for the very thing that once pointed to Him.
That is the point I was making and hope I was clear but please go read your bible and check these things referred to for yourself. God gives the light upon His word when a heart humbly seeks to know Him in it.
"The Lord is to be worshiped in spirit and in truth. Not in man mad images."
typical OUT OF CONTEXT quote. Jesus said this in response to the question, whether God was to be worshipped in Jerusalem or on Mt. Gerizim (a Jewish vs. Samaritan issue).
Jesus answered that God was going to not be limiting the proper core place of worship geographically any more.
This is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to the issue of icons. This is about you don't have to go to a specific geographic location to worship God.
9:01
I have read The Bible straight through three times and frankly you find plenty of "idols" that are not made with hands, not visible, in various protestant denominations and the evangelical scene and so forth.
Various small things like Elisha's bones bringing a dead man back to life which validates miraculous relics, show that much of what protestants like I was once complain of in RC and EO are not the problem.
EO meanwhile has some of the most intense materials on the subject of repentance and re repentance, daily, recheck weekly or monthly, whatever, refining the soul more and more. The one time even "salvation" when you "accept Jesus Christ" is treated by protestantism (usually) as all there is to it, but biblically and EO wise it is the START of the walk not the end.
Christine,
Your saying "The one time even " salvation" when you "accept Jesus Christ" is treated by protestantism (usually) as all there is to it" is a preposterous statement. Protestants believe the Holy Spirit is a constant presence that brings us to repentance, and indeed for most, I believe that is the case. You even turn repentance into a religious exercise by making it a ritual "daily,recheck weekly,or monthly, or whatever".
its not a question of ritual its a question of how often you get around to checking yourself against The Bible and insights acquired regarding sin of action, inaction, or thought.
salvation is a process but it has a clear cut beginning. you're so afraid of rituals, but baptism is a ritual, and so is communion even if you deny the Real Presence. going to church services is a ritual. a ritual can be conducted as meaningful or meaningless.
There are meanwhile a lot of "believers" out there who think you just say the sinner's prayer, ask Jesus into your life, and exert no effort no discipline, no repudiation of any evil or questionable practices, do nothing for Jesus and you are just fine. They count themselves as Christian and live like heathen and maybe spout some verse like "there is no condemnation to them who are in Christ Jesus" to justify this, assuming they think they need to justify it, and are quick to condemn those who put the seal of action on their faith by engaging in Jesus centered rituals.
Exactly what are you repenting of? inattention to the poor would be a good start considering Jesus' warning about this regarding the Last Judgement in Matthew and Luke, and that doesn't mean telling people to get a job when jobs aren't that available, and their own ability to handle the stress and not break down in a few weeks is dubious (not to mention no one gets paid the first two or three weeks of work anyway and that's only if you get cleared a big background check and interviews and stuff like that). Or its "go find a husband" yeah, sell yourself to the highest bidder be a legal prostitute in essence.
pride is another good one to watch out for. Sure RC has problems but so has protestantism.
I read a list of denominations and teachings and ecclesiology and practices years ago.
NOT ONE PROTESTANT CHURCH WAS PURELY BIBLICAL IN ALL POINTS.
And it was a protestant writer who pointed out the salvation isn't just an end point but a starting point, and many writers from the old days complained of what I complain of.
Don't think your possibly better than most experience is normative.
Christina
I don't think you get what anon is trying to say, or you just don't want to get it.
It's not that all rituals are bad, but the dependence on rituals as a means of salvation.
Which I feel is RAMPANT in many denominations.
"Don't think your possibly better than most experience is normative."
Even if I wanted to understand that, I couldn't!
FYI: Posted on Mywordlikefire.com:
http://www.geekwire.com/2014/sticker-beacon-estimote-launching-tiny-nearables-sensors-track-items/
Jimmy Carter keynote speaker at Muslim convention in Detroit
m.Toledo blade.com/Religion/2014/08/23/President-Jimmy-Carter-to-be-Keynote-speaker-at-Muslim-convention.html
ISIS, Hamas, and the White House?
Saturday, August 23 post @
www.pastorbrianroberts.com
Anonymous 6:59 P.M. and Anonymous 9:01 P.M.
Re:That person is not accusing you of anything. They are merely pointing out the obvious, and that is the fact that you, and some others here, are tangled up in your favorite religion.
That so-called "merely pointing out" IS an accusation and the passage from Revelation does indeed apply.
The FACT is that it is a Protestant pastor who has "pointed out," that in order to mask the diabolical nature of such activity, the faultfinder/accuser will often trick its criticisms and accusations out in religious clothing.
If accusing fellow Protestants, under the pretense of protecting people with whom he happens to disagree from a "gnat-sized" error in doctrine, he forces the flock to swallow a "camel-sized" error of loveless correction. In an attempt to correct violations of Scripture, the very methods employed are a violation of Scripture - whether we are talking about Catholic or non-Catholic Christians!
******************************
RE:"That is the point I was making and hope I was clear but please go read your bible and check these things referred to for yourself. God gives the light upon His word when a heart humbly seeks to know Him in it."
I HAVE INDEED read my Bible and it is clear as crystal when it reports how Jesus said to Peter and the Apostles "He who hears you hears me." Luke 10:16
It was to Peter that God the Father revealed that Jesus was God the Son. Subsequently, it was upon Peter that Christ built His Church.
So you can weaselword the Scriptures until the cows come home and pretend that Christianity is not a supernatural religion (because revealed by God.)
But if you do, then you are practicing YOUR favorite religion which is a "my-will-be-done" religion which ultimately involves worshipping yourself.
So if you want to cherry pick the Scriptures in order to appear justified in reviling Peter and his successors, and trashing the beliefs of Catholics who post here fine, but don't think you are going to get away with accusing Catholics of being "unBiblical" or somehow not Christ-centered. In obeying Peter, we ARE obeying Jesus. THE BIBLE SAYS SO!!!
"In obeying Peter,we ARE obaying Jesus. THE BIBLE SAYS SO!!!"
NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jesus completed that commission to the 72 later in Peter and the Twelve,
especially in the words recorded in Matthew 16:19:to Peter alone:
"Whatever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in heaven, and
whatever you shall loose on earth, shall be loosed also in Heaven.
My 9:01 response was referring to idolatry in all denominations. It cut a wide swath. Christine are you trying to split hairs again?
Right on 4:41 AM and 7:09 AM.
I have read the bible through every year for almost 25 years and often take a book of it at a time to study...but that would mean nothing if I did not trust the Holy Spirit who lives within me to illumine what I read. He is the teacher and I don't need my preacher/pastor to do that for me. I rest in God's authority as my Lord to help me and change me and change me he has! I'm not where I want to be yet as a follower of my Lord but thank God i am His miracle and not where I was. Can you say that about your walk with Christ? Are you closer to Him today than you were yesterday? These questions are for anyone.
Any. One.
Church has it's place. Other believer's even if a different denomination than mine have their place. God knows His own wherever they are and knows those that are yet to come to Him though in churches (or outside of churches) that put many obstacles in front of them. God can get around all of this but he only truly works with clay that is moldable and tender in His hand. There actually could be more hard hearts within religion than outside of it.
The question you can ask yourself(ves) is: do I really believe God or just believe in God? If people really believe God they will take his word at his word and not make it a man-made (man-pleasing) religious exercise and or experience. That is what most churches (pick any denomination) are doing these days.
Christine,
What images of Jesus do you lovingly look at
and why ?
There are no photo's and no portraits of Jesus.
Only paintings from Europe, from hundreds of years later, and only a very cursory description of him by Josephus.
The Dutch paintings have him looking distinctly
Dutch. The French paintings make him look quite French and the English paintings render him looking , you guessed it, English. Ditto for the Spanish and American paintings and on and on.
But hey, you've read the Bible three times through
as you've pointed out numerous times, so you must
know where God rescinds his Commandment not to make any graven images of anything in heaven
to worship it.
Where is that verse by the way ?
Christine did you mention the sin of pride ? Because for someone who speaks with absolute authority on every subject imaginable, you sure are wrong a lot of the time.
"I HAVE INDEED read my Bible and it is clear as crystal when it reports how Jesus said to Peter and the Apostles "He who hears you hears me." Luke 10:16"
TO THE APOSTLES PLURAL not to Peter alone.
paul, iconography of Jesus way predates euro RC. There are three images "made without hands" that produced a tradition of how He looked, that iconographers used later.
One was the sudarion aka Shroud of Turin. I won't get into an argument on that. The reference in the Gospels to the grave clothes and a "napkin" which isn't a modern small square for dinner set apart from each other would support these things.
One was the veil of Veronica, which had an image of His face on it, after she wiped the sweat from His face on the way to the Cross.
One was the image He made on a cloth He wiped His face with when the artist sent by Abgar king of Edessa couldn't quite get Jesus' features right.
Eusebius in his church history in the 300s AD and other writers drawing on information not many removes from eyewitnesses, and whatever private accounts written, tells of these things.
Allegedly the first icon was drawn by St. Luke on a table top but this was of the Virgin Mary and the child Jesus.
Now, while it is possible to oppose icons on the grounds you cite, and not think about the larger implications, the arguments against iconoclasm point out that rejection of icons, rejection of the idea that God can work through physical means, is a rejection of the Incarnation itself.
Also the argument is, that while you can't make an image of God before He was Incarnate, once Incarnate you can make an image of God The Son (theoretically it is illicit to make an image of God The Father, but it has happened, and The Holy Spirit is not supposed to be imaged except as the dove descending on Jesus at His Baptism).
An analysis of the Sudarion or Syndarion (I forget which is the right term) noted that there is a strong correlation between some anatomical points of the face and neck and hair, and traditional depictations of Jesus from early times.
The earliest depictations of Him like in catacombs in Rome were very sketchy pointing to the tradition of His actual look being not in Rome at that time.
Anonymous said...
"Don't think your possibly better than most experience is normative."
Even if I wanted to understand that, I couldn't!
okay I should have said,
don't think that your experience, which is probably better than that of most, is universal and normative.
2:48 PM
So the rest of Jesus' disciples (including us today) were chopped liver or something? Why would Jesus play favorites? God is no respecter of persons. Surely you've read that in the bible but then again you have made an authority of your church traditions so maybe that is where those favorites come in.
You are straining at a gnat to get that one and swallowed...I think you've probably read that too....(swallowed too much religion).
And Christine has swallowed some real crap!
"So the rest of Jesus' disciples (including us today) were chopped liver or something? Why would Jesus play favorites? God is no respecter of persons. "
I do not understand the question or relevance, of the first statement about chopped liver.
Do you mean you think you are equal to the Apostles? if so you are claiming to be one of the foundation stones on which the church is built up of the lively or living stones, which is the rest of us. (Jesus Christ being the chief cornerstone.)
As for "no respecter of persons" that is about class, status, who is master who is slave, male or female, ethnicity, national citizenship, etc. these things we take too much into account God does not take into account,
He holds all to the same standard of conduct.
READ CONTEXT don't proof text out of context like you do here. The context always shows that this is the issue. Paul warns masters to be good to slaves because the masters also have a master in Heaven Who is not a respecter of persons - in other words, you do not have license to abuse because the legal system you are in says you own someone, or because you are a parent or imperial official or other higher rank.
Have Crustatean aka Nutter & Dotty Ma-Grump been investigating the NAM shaman's brew a little too closely? Men on Mars with chakras (and no doubt with extra strong sunglasses to dampen those glaring underground city lights), and troves worth of intellectual treasure from decades of research that nobody has ever seen, but we must believe because such an enormous claim must be true (especially coming from such a trusted source, and she must be trusted as she has troves worth of intellectual treasure that noone has ever seen)! 'Far out', as 60's Crustina would no doubt put it, and, 'provide something of substance', as Dotty would snipe ... Oh the pitiful irony that befalls you both!
Why don't you both join Queeny the Meanie, I'm sure she'd love to have you both over at Nonsense Manor: after all, she too makes wild and spurious claims she can't back up and attacks the credibility of established Christian exposers of the NAM and claims to be a font of wisdom! It'll be like the 3 old hags on the heath out of the Scottish Play.
Thankfully there are serious posters with mountains of interesting information here still, Constance of course, the ever-courteous Susan, Paul, Oz, and several anon posters worth their salt.
Oh, perhaps I should expose a couple of folks with 'New Age' 'Mystery Babylon' leanings, such as defending kabalah or pushing the NWO alien agenda 'Reagan style' ... ah yes, I just did!
An Occasional Poster!
Have Crustacean aka Nutter & Dotty Ma-Gruff been investigating the NAM shaman's brew a little too closely? Men on Mars with chakras (and no doubt with extra strong sunglasses to dampen those glaring underground city lights), and troves worth of intellectual treasure from decades of research that nobody has ever seen, but we must believe because such an enormous claim must be true (especially coming from such a trusted source, and she must be trusted as she has troves worth of intellectual treasure that no-one has ever seen)! 'Far out', as 60's Crustina would no doubt put it, and, 'provide something of substance', as Dotty would snipe ... Oh the pitiful irony that befalls you both!
Why don't you both join Queeny the Meanie? I'm sure she'd love to have you both over at Nonsense Manor: after all, she too makes wild and spurious claims she can't back up and attacks the credibility of established Christian exposers of the NAM and claims to be a font of wisdom! It'll be like the 3 old hags on the heath out of the Scottish Play.
Thankfully there are serious posters with mountains of interesting information here still, Constance of course, the ever-courteous Susan, Paul, Oz, and several anon posters worth their salt.
Oh, perhaps I should expose a couple of folks with 'New Age' 'Mystery Babylon' leanings, such as defending kabalah or pushing the NWO alien agenda 'Reagan style' ... ah yes, I just did!
An Occasional Poster!
All believers are the church Christine, and built on one foundation, Jesus. All roles are not equal in what their own discipleship may cost but all are the same--only debtors at the foot of the cross. Jesus gave a lesson to the disciples when they argued about who was greater among them. Luke 9:46-48 and also Matt 11:11. Please note that Jesus is not promoting one over another. The answer came from the top! Listen to Him!
@7:40 PM, perhaps she's believing her troves of info into being? Name it and claim it as the Prosperity pimps and the NAM muppets do? She should put up or shut up!
anon 7:53
exactly the point, all roles aren't equal but one's role does not give you a free pass to sin against someone who "doesn't count" because God is not a respecter of persons, there is no one who "doesn't count,"
but I don't understand your taking this as (if I understand you correctly) a reason to oppose liturgical and hierarchical church organization.
As a bible believer and checking context not eisegesis of romanism I reject papal supremacy, as did the church in the east and it still does. The Roman church didn't even make such claims until after several centuries, and RC as we see it now pretty much can date its origins to the 800s AD.
And this business about equality vs. chopped liver has no bearing on icons or on the Real Presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist.
yes the church is the believers, not just the organizational structure let alone a building. And God is for order and peace not chaos as Paul points out, so you can expect some order and structure to develop.
anon 8:05 I am totally against blab it and grab it, and the information I put up in past usually had some sources.
As for the men on Mars, who originate in my theory from Earth, buy my book on kindle A Possible History of Life on Mars by Christine Erikson before you try to critique it, all you do is make a fool of yourself.
My theory eliminates the existence of intelligent extraterrestrial life, if it turns up, from being a threat to Biblical worldview, and accomodates both the physical and the demonic theories regarding them.
The Face on Mars - the original pix were from two different angles, and the last one looks like a face that has partly collapsed. Fakery before releasing the photo, or tectonic activity on Mars or warfare. But facelike it still is, regardless of the incredible blindness of those who say the last picture of it on wikipedia doesn't look facelike. A messed up face yes, but a face nonetheless, and not something that can look as good as it did so something has happened since the earlier photos in the 1970s.
The Face is not necessary to my theory, I start with it because I am addressing the people who think all their alien archaeology etc. disproves The Bible.
Re:"So the rest of Jesus' disciples (including us today) were chopped liver or something? Why would Jesus play favorites? "
YOU are the one who is thinking in terms of "playing favorites" and "chopped liver." This mentality is redolent of those disciples who wanted to know who was going to be in the catbird seat in Christ's kingdom.
For reasons known only to God, it was Simon Peter to whom God the Father revealed that Jesus was
"the Christ the Son of the living God."
As long as we agree with Peter on that revelation, we too are infallible - whether Catholic or non-Catholic Christian!!!!
By the way, one of the titles of the Pope is "Servant of the servants of God."
P.S. The above post was addressed to Anonymous 6:07 p.M.
"As long as we agree with Peter on that revelation, we too are infallible - whether Catholic or non-Catholic Christian!!!! "
no, we too are not infallible we are CORRECT on that revelation.
we are still capable of error.
infallible means not capable of error.
all right let's look at this "infallibility" issue.
It means the pope is incapable of error, that is, of being MISTAKEN.
What's to prevent him being a secret heretic, and DELIBERATELY not in "error" but in ill intent, consciously, either teaching overt heresy or something that is borderline but lays the groundwork for overt heresy?
Which of course won't be considered heresy if it comes from the pope.....
Crustine aka Nutter? at 10:01 PM,
"anon 8:05 I am totally against blab it and grab it".
Do you claim to be Dotty then? If so, then not only are you claiming to be older and wiser then certain respected & established Christian posters here but also are avidly grabbing at the clouds of self-proclamation and empty promise purported and proposed without substance by another poor wench with delusions of grandeur, and decades of echoing wolf-howls without substance through the wilderness of her own self-importance!
Your nonsensical ramblings and unnavigable streams of polluted consciousness are not suddenly of benefit or reasoned argument just because you have sewered them into il librum completum tuum de furor et insaniae! The filth that flows from your fingers in lieu of your tongue has sullied this blog for long enough to know it would be pointless to peruse the cess-pit paragraphs of your New Age beliefs about extra-terrestrial aliens with supposed Earthling ancestors, chakras, and littered with your very own brand of EO ET 'faith'.
Crustine, I'm starting to suspect both you and Dotty have stolen the keys to the warder of the lunatic asylum's office and are taking 'turns' to access his or her computer so you may usurp this blog also!
2:14AM
"What's to prevent him being a secret heretic, and DELIBERATELY not in "error" but in ill intent, consciously, either teaching overt heresy or something that is borderline but lays the groundwork for overt heresy?"
Isn't that what you are (though not so secret, even if you've been hoping to remain so) and what you're doing, Crustine?!
This just in;
The Man On The Moon just winked at
the Face on Mars.
Clearly there is intelligent communication there.
This also suggests that there is collaboration and
co operation between the two and suggests that there may be other planets involved.
Although the the wink itself was not a very deliberate looking one, it was none the less, a wink.
Lol Paul! If a certain info-wolf [not you this time Dotty - you have to provide information no matter how ridiculous to do that, and no-one can deny Crustine's stacks of useless information here ((although the little you supply is certainly useless, Dotty))] ... erhem, if a certain info-wolf though being from Earth were to somehow live on the Moon would that make her a howling lunatic? Oh but of course, she already is!
I bet if that were to happen the Man on the Moon's features would look somewhat like this, :( ,or this, :/ !
Perhaps she's heard voices calling her from Mars over the local radio show (uncannily having the accents of her home-town) [what big ears you have Christine], and having vision much clearer than anyone else to see all sorts of shapes and colors on Mars (or was it Planet X aka Nibiru?) and with her bare eyes too [what big eyes you have Christine]! No doubt she took it upon herself to eat handfuls of the colorful mushrooms from the nearby fields, to take away the bitterness of her anti-psychotic concoction. She then climbed inside a space vehicle built with the latest alien technology yet poorly disguised as a derelict water-tower and took off to investigate those underground civilizations of Planet Red!
What big lies you tell Christine!
11:41 PM
How can you cherry pick now among disciples? Your clear favorite is Peter and why you 'need' him singled out for your bad doctrine to form your man-pleasing religion! Thomas said (seeing the risen savior) my LORD and my GOD. John the beloved wrote his gospel from the perspective of Christ Jesus as the Son of God. on and on it goes for more of these declarations of faith in Jesus! That is just two examples of the revelation these people were getting as Jesus prepared and then went to the cross. His own mother called Him my savior in her own recognition of her fallibility. Look at Stephens' declaration in Acts 7 and at Paul on the Damascus road in Acts 8. All fallible humans getting their eyes opened by the Holy Spirit.
Wow!!!!! Your eyes and your heart are very closed to miss the significance of this. You have my prayers for your own revelation by the Holy Spirit to take the religious denominational scales from your eyes. I pray that you have a born-again moment of personal faith in that oh so personal Savior who wore your sins (and mine) and rose victorius over sin and the grave! We are not valuable-we are valued by Gof himself. I was moved in repentance and faith in the living son of God decades ago to declare the same as these disciples of old and became the Lord's beloved too. I love knowing that Jesus loves each of us so much that we are all His favorite!!!!! Please take your faith in Him to that level and be set free!!!
Don't be one of those so blind who will not see and go read for yourself to get understanding about how Jesus expounded that. Will be an incredible moment for you when this powerful truth is revealed to your heart. I will pray for this for you.
Basically, RC has gotten carnal. It is among those who side with one apostle or major teacher over others, Paul mentions those who say "I am of Paul" or "I am of Cephas" guess who that is as typical of the clique forming fleshly tendencies.
all of these are to point to Jesus. None incl. Peter is to be the head of a party.
I Cor. 1:10-13 "Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?"
continues this theme
1 Cor 3:1-23
"And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.
2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.
3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?
4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?
5 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?
6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.
8 Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.
9 For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building.
10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.
11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;
13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.
14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.
18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.
19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
20 And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.
21 Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are your's;
22 Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are your's;
23 And ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's."
notice vs. 22 which incl. Cephas (Peter) as the things that are ours, not we are theirs, and they are not to be focussed on to make a party or division in the church to be head of a clicque.
note this trend, which became developed in the Roman branch of the church, began not with any of the men treated as special leaders, but with the carnal laity who adopted them as such.
Well said Christine!
Well said 12:30 P.M!
"note this trend, which became developed in the Roman branch of the church, began not with any of the men treated as special leaders, but with the carnal laity who adopted them as such."
Yes. Very good notation, Christine.
This is what is happening in this apostate age going on for a few decades in the many denominations. Christ himself (talking in the broad sense) replaced by celebrity popes, priests, preachers, pastors, worship leaders, etc, etc......you folks get the point.
No wonder the new age (and global agenda) crept with hardly a notice and why God will judge so harshly those who took glory for themselves as they put Jesus down to raise up (exalt) their churches/ministries using His name but denying the power thereof. Will not be pretty will it?
Interesting post by Joseph Herrin
Are You Being Played?
parables.blogspot.com
Sunday, August 24 post
Could this eventually leed
to a false flag event on US soil that will be blamed on Iran, to rally support for an attack on Iran, thus fulfilling Daniel chapter 8?
ISIS Entering U.S. Through Our Open Borders
www.nowtheendbegins.com/blog/?p=24453
Yes, this is real folks.
"Pope Francis Invokes Lucifer At Easter Vigil Mass", 2013.
www.nowtheendbegins.com/blog/?p=16251
Anonymous 12:30 P.M.
Re: " How can you cherry pick now among disciples? Your clear favorite is Peter and why you 'need' him singled out for your bad doctrine to form your man-pleasing religion!"
It was God the Father who "cherry picked" among the disciples when He revealed EXCLUSIVELY to Peter who Jesus really was....."the Christ the Son of the living God."
13 And Jesus came into the quarters of Caesarea Philippi: and he asked his disciples, saying: Whom do men say that the Son of man is?
14 But they said: Some John the Baptist, and other some Elias, and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
15 Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am?
16 Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.
18 And I say to 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 to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.
20 Then he commanded his disciples, that they should tell no one that he was Jesus the Christ. Matthew 16:13-20
__________________________
Let’s take a closer look at these things one by one.
Jesus asks his disciples Who He really is. When Peter responds with “Thou art Christ the Son of the Living God”, He tells him that God revealed this divine truth to him directly. Thus, Peter has exhibited the ability to make infallible declarations of doctrine (this ability is the basis of papal infallibility).
It is to be noted, moreover, that this ability that Peter exhibits had nothing to do with faith (all the apostles had faith) nor certainly with his education or intelligence, for the Gospels establish that Peter was “illiterate and ignorant” (Acts 4:13).
Which goes to show that when God does the "cherry-picking," it seems that He very often deliberately chooses the weakest vessels through which to act, for that serves to underscore all the more that it is He that is doing the acting.
If you believe that Jesus is God, then that belief has its origin in the revelation of God the Father to Peter. It is very clearly stated in the Bible and speaks for itself. And all of the arguments put forward in the various attempts to silence this truth amount to mere sophistry, while the passage and its unambiguous clarity remain standing.
*************************
By the way, there is no such thing as "non-denominational" Christianity. The very term "non-denominational" is an oxymoron! The minute you state your Christian beliefs, you are speaking denominationally whether you happen to think so or not.
I will pray for you that this powerful truth is revealed to YOUR heart.
Dear 11:05
I never brought up non-denominational anything.
Peter was usually spokesman (and very outspoken) for this group of men so this conversation between Jesus and Peter was not done in a vacuum. Go back and look at the setting of that conversation and read a good number of scriptures before and after the passage you quoted to get the real understanding there. People really should try some good ole who what when where how and why before they spout doctrine.
Please compare scripture with scripture on this whole topic to see and consider that there are many other testimonies equal to Peter's or else you will have very much limited yourself and worse you will limit what God has said. Don't be guilty there.
God is true to his word and the Holy Spirit is an awesome teacher so do not quench him in this. I'm praying for you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYo1gPYNHxc
one thing this commenter, and others on this same matter, miss, is that the three part blob to the right look at it at 2:10 time and earlier, has what looks like a tail, and frankly could be some kind of armadillo resembling something that likes to stay put.
the moving object starts beside it, disappears in the next shot, then appears in the third shot. This is too heavy to be moved by the wind, unless it is vegetable detritus so we are back to square one. Life on Mars.
The conspiracy of fake Mars landing idea presented, is kinda ruined by the curved, arrowhead pointed tail on the ignored larger object.
While neither of these look very brainy, it goes against NASA statements.
So does this from a guy working on his PhD in physics at CERN which shows that Mars atmosphere is a lot closer to ours.
http://davidaroffman.com/catalog_1.html
and this http://davidaroffman.com/catalog_1.html
when and if "aliens" land declaring they designed us and our religions, to undermine them with those who, unlike serious Christians, would reject this, is to make a case for us having designed them. Even if cross fertilization of the results (them) and us occurred later, that doesn't prove their essential message.
The alien civilization seems to have made a deal with the devil at some point, and will be serving his agenda.
Jesus died for us and for ALL creation see Romans about ALL creation awaiting the manifestation of the Son of God (or sons of God? the phrase mishandled by MSOG latter rain cultists) and a few hints elsewhere. So aliens and their salvation, whether they come from a separate creation or from our mad scientists pre Flood, is not an issue.
P.S.
In spite of the fact that the Lucifer/Bright Morning Star transliteration occurs only in the King James Bible, the KJV is nevertheless the Bible Geoffrey Grider lauds as the Bible of Bibles and has set up a page on his website for a KJV teaching series conducted by John McTernan to commemorate the 400th Anniversary Of The King James 1611Bible.
"lucifer" means "light bearer" and is son of the morning not morning star
Isaiah 14:12King James Version (KJV)
12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+14%3A12&version=KJV
biblehub shows several versions, http://biblehub.com/isaiah/14-12.htm
this morning star things is not KJV.
Anonymous 11:47
Re:"I never brought up non-denominational anything."
Oh but you did when you said,
"You have my prayers for your own revelation by the Holy Spirit to take the religious denominational scales from your eyes."
*******************
Re: "Please compare scripture with scripture on this whole topic to see and consider that there are many other testimonies equal to Peter's or else you will have very much limited yourself and worse you will limit what God has said. Don't be guilty there."
This is precisely the kind of exegetical "proof-texting" sophistry I was referring to - which is so often used in attempts to silence the clear, unambiguous and unequivocal passage about Peter. The arguments fail. The passage remains standing.
If you are satisfied with your own very limited and self-contradictory "Bible only" rule even though the Bible doesn't teach "Sola Scriptura," fine.
But don't try to tell me that my faith is "unbiblical" just because your private interpretation differs from the one that I have been taught....or because you choose to ignore clear unambiguous passages just because they don't happen to conform to what YOU think Christianity ought to be.
Christine, 12:59 A.M.
Re: this morning star things is not KJV.
The "morning star/Lucifer TRANSLITERATION is KJV.
"Lucifer (/ˈluːsɪfər/ or /ˈljuːsɪfər/) is the King James Version rendering of the Hebrew word הֵילֵל in Isaiah 14:12. This word, transliterated hêlêl or heylel, occurs only once in the Hebrew Bible and according to the KJV-influenced Strong's Concordance means "shining one, morning star, Lucifer". The word Lucifer is taken from the Latin Vulgate, which translates הֵילֵל as lucifer,[Isa 14:12][4][5] meaning "the morning star, the planet Venus", or, as an adjective, "light-bringing". The SEPTUAGINT renders הֵילֵל in Greek as ἑωσφόρος (heōsphoros), a name, literally "bringer of dawn", for the morning star.
In this passage Isaiah applies to a king of Babylon the image of the morning star fallen from the sky, an image he is generally believed to have borrowed from a legend in Canaanite mythology.
Later Christian tradition came to use the Latin word for "morning star", lucifer, as a proper name ("Lucifer") for Satan as he was BEFORE HIS FALL. As a result, "Lucifer has become a by-word for Satan in the Church and in popular literature", as in Dante Alighieri's Inferno and John Milton's Paradise Lost. However, the Latin word never came to be used almost exclusively, as in English, in this way, and was applied to others also, including Christ.'"........
In Latin, the word is applied to John the Baptist and is used as a title of Christ himself in several early Christian hymns. The morning hymn Lucis largitor spendide of Hilary contains the line: "Tu verus mundi lucifer".[44] Some interpreted the mention of the morning star (lucifer) in Ambrose's hymn Aeterne rerum conditor as referring allegorically to Christ and the mention of the cock, the herald of the day (praeco) in the same hymn as referring to John the Baptist.[45] Likewise, in the medieval hymn Christe qui lux es et dies, some manuscripts have the line "Lucifer lucem proferens".[46]
The Latin word lucifer is also used of Christ in the Easter Proclamation prayer to God regarding the paschal candle: Flammas eius lucifer matutinus inveniat: ille, inquam, lucifer, qui nescit occasum. Christus Filius tuus, qui, regressus ab inferis, humano generi serenus illuxit, et vivit et regnat in saecula saeculorum (May this flame be found still burning by the Morning Star: the one Morning Star who never sets, Christ your Son, who, coming back from death's domain, has shed his peaceful light on humanity, and lives and reigns for ever and ever). In the works of Latin grammarians, Lucifer, like Daniel, was discussed as an example of a personal name.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer
P.S.
Jack Chick endorses KJV. What else is there to be said?
Lucifer is not refered to as the 'Bright Morning Star' in the KJV anywhere! That is in the Zondervan corrupt Murdoch SMOM version, NIV, for example but NOT in the KJV!
In Isaiah 14:12 (the only passage which refers to the Devil as Lucifer, at the same time as calling him son [NOT SUN OR STAR] of the morning!
Isaiah 14:12 (KJV): How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
This is as direct a translation as one gets of this passage from the Hebrew original where the Devil is refered to as Helel, translating directly as Lucifer and is called the the son of the morning!
http://biblehub.com/interlinear/isaiah/14-12.htm
Moreover, when we turn to Isaiah 14:12 in Latin from the Biblia Sacra Vulgata, note the Devil is still called Lucifer in this passage, where we read:
Isaias 14:12: quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes.
http://biblehub.com/vul/isaiah/14.htm
You really should not be so sloppy in your accusations and false hope at trying to discredit the KJV's credibility regards what is written in Isaiah 14:12. A little research would've saved you a lot of embarrassment!
Whether the site itself is known or labeled as a hate site is in fact a misnomer here because the video exposing old Frankie (or is it Old Nick? Oh no, of course it's not, old Nick's the Jesuit General!) and Mystery Babylon-Vatican, which relates to and accompanies the article "Pope Francis Invokes Lucifer At Easter Vigil Mass", 2013, speaks for itself!
www.nowtheendbegins.com/blog/?p=16251 speaks for itself!
Lucifer is not refered to as the 'Bright Morning Star' in the KJV anywhere! That is in the Zondervan corrupt Murdoch SMOM version, NIV, for example but NOT in the KJV!
In Isaiah 14:12 (the only passage which refers to the Devil as Lucifer, at the same time as calling him son [NOT SUN OR STAR] of the morning!
Isaiah 14:12 (KJV): How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
This is as direct a translation as one gets of this passage from the Hebrew original where the Devil is refered to as Helel, translating directly as Lucifer and is called the the son of the morning!
http://biblehub.com/interlinear/isaiah/14-12.htm
Moreover, when we turn to Isaiah 14:12 in Latin from the Biblia Sacra Vulgata, note the Devil is still called Lucifer in this passage, where we read:
Isaias 14:12: quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes.
http://biblehub.com/vul/isaiah/14.htm
You really should not be so sloppy in your accusations and false hope at trying to discredit the KJV's credibility regards what is written in Isaiah 14:12. A little research would've saved you a lot of embarrassment!
Whether the site itself is known or labeled as a hate site is in fact a misnomer here because the video exposing old Frankie (or is it Old Nick? Oh no, of course it's not, old Nick's the Jesuit General!) and Mystery Babylon-Vatican, which relates to and accompanies the article "Pope Francis Invokes Lucifer At Easter Vigil Mass", 2013, speaks for itself!
www.nowtheendbegins.com/blog/?p=16251
I think there has been illuminati (in the sense of a mindset more than an organization) infiltration in RC and to a lesser extent in EO but it played a role in protestantism also.
(and the promotion of pre trib rapture has an interested pedigree.)
the Alumbrados preceded the Jesuits and were considered an heretical gnostic group.
Anonymous 2:05
The Vulgate is Latin. The KJV is English. And in the KJV Isaiah,14:12 "Lucifer" is carried over as "Lucifer" instead of being translated to "Morning
Star."
Isaiah 14:12King James Version (KJV)
12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
For your information, the Catholic Old Testament canon is the GREEK SEPTUAGINT, not the Hebrew Bible. Perhaps some research on your part would have saved you a little embarrassment.
The name "Lucifer" is not found in the Septuagint. It came from the Latin Vulgate:
Isaiah 14:12 quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes
The word "lucifer" is the Latin name of the planet Venus, aka the "morning star" known either as Eosophorus (bringer of the dawn) or Phosphoros (bringer of the light) in Greek. We find the word lucifer again as a title of Christ in the Latin Vulgate:
VUL 2 Peter 1:19 et habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem cui bene facitis adtendentes quasi lucernae lucenti in caliginoso loco donec dies inlucescat et lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestris
This verse tells us to wait until LUCIFER rises in our hearts!
The King James Bible
COPIED the name Lucifer from the Vulgate. It is one of the most unbelievably ridiculous of all the errors introduced by that version. Countless millions of people erroneously believe that Lucifer is a name of Satan. This error is propagated by countless "Bible teachers" who are ignorant of what the Bible actually teaches. This is especially true of Geoffrey Grider and his confreres, Jack chick et al.
Grider really shows his hate-mongering ignorance on his "Exsultet" video.
If anyone is sloppy, ignorant and lazy in his ACCUSATIONS it is you - regardless of how many yards of verbiage you post to try to disguise your error.
You showed your true colors when you posted a link to Geoffrey Grider's hate site "Now The End Begins."
If you lie down with dogs, you get their fleas.
P.S. Except for Isaiah, the Latin "Lucifer" is not used except to refer to Christ and it is translated into English as "Morning Star."
To repeat:
"The Bright Morning Star goes to the misnomer of "Lucifer", which is an incorrect title for Satan or the Devil taken from the King James Version of Isaiah 14:12. Were it not for this odd transliteration, "Lucifer" would not exist as a term in English,( because Lucifer itself is a Latin word!!!!!) and there would be no confusion on the matter. As it is, we need to be careful about using the term to describe who the Bible calls "Satan" or "the Devil". Most Christians are onto this, yet still the term "Lucifer" persists. IN ANY CASE THE "MORNING STAR IS THE TITLE OF CHRIST THROUGHOUT THE REST OF SCRIPTURE!!!!!
Lucifer may be a latinization of the Hebrew for the planet Venus, but that's not inappropriate given the evils of the Venus/aphrodite/ishtar cults.
Meanwhile, that IS the name that the prophecy addresses him with, describing the being that is clearly satan.
And lucifer is so well established as the name of the devil, or what his name was before he fell, that there is no point trying to argue they are distinct, which is what New Agers do, trying to say he is a nice guy.
In fact the Process Church of the Final Judgement argued that God Who said to love your enemies, had loved the devil and made peace with him, and there were three segments to the cult, the luciferians, who were elitist and evil the satanist who were down and dirty like bikers and street thugs and evil, and the jehovahites who wore hair shirts and practiced asceticism and were perhaps moderately decent. The lot of them worked together of course.
their leader went around trying to look like Jesus Christ. I forget his name.
1:11 AM
In case you haven't noticed this isn't heaven where all is perfect for goodness sakes-now we see through a glass darkly but then....
I'm not preferring any denomination over another actually as I find lack in all of them if you read without your prejudice. But then that is how you roll. Whatever.
The Bible is the authority you just cannot accept so swallow that camel of whatever your chosen denomo is with it's severe limitations and specialized cherry picked portions to support your view on the very word of God. But beware! The adding and taking away that scripture condemns shows lack of proper context in selectedly prepackaged religious approved unquestioned view that you adhere to and so proves it. The word of God says test the spirits comparing scripture to scripture. That is your failing and where you are arguing. Your argument is not with me in other words. Can you just speak bible and not your denomination? The answer is no.
The bible trumps every denomination is my point which you obviously missed.
Have a nice life.
To 1:11 AM
So let me get this straight:
The bible which is God's holy word says let GOD be true and every man a liar in Romans 3:4. Now according to you you have a perfect pope and perfect church and perfect doctrine and perfectly held tradition right? All of that infallible right?
Since you believe it so much does that make you perfect too?
Just wondering.
Anonymous 10:28
RE: The bible trumps every denomination is my point which you obviously missed.
And every Protestant denomination has its own INTERPRETATION of the Bible.
That is the point YOU obviously missed.
Since there are about 40+ thousand Protestant denominations - each claiming that its interpretation of Holy Writ is THE Holy Spirit - approved version - why should I believe that one "Holy Spirit" approved Christian denomination ( or so-called "non-denomination" )could give me a more correct account of Christianity than any other "Holy Spirit" approved Christian denomination, etc.????
Have a nice life.
Re:The bible which is God's holy word says let GOD be true and every man a liar in Romans 3:4.
The Bible which is God's holy word also says:
13 And Jesus came into the quarters of Caesarea Philippi: and he asked his disciples, saying: Whom do men say that the Son of man is?
14 But they said: Some John the Baptist, and other some Elias, and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
15 Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am?
16 Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.
18 And I say to 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 to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.
20 Then he commanded his disciples, that they should tell no one that he was Jesus the Christ. Matthew 16:13-20
Indeed, "Let GOD be true and every man a liar."
I am not the one who is infallible. God is. And what God revealed to Peter is likewise infallible because revealed by God.
1:24 P.M.
How ever many thousand denominations there are, they do not all proclaim to be The Holy Sprit-approved version. They usually share a common statement of foundational beliefs in things such as salvation is found in Christ alone etc.
They do not have their own interpretation of the bible. There are obviously differences in interpretations of some scriptures, and there are differences in how they worship etc. As long as they have core beliefs that line up with scripture, and they glorify the Lord, then I think the lord is willing to forgive the fact that they are not perfect, as there simply are no perfect individuals, or churches. If you know of any perfect churches, let me know!
Just as I believe He will forgive me for misspelling Holy Spirit, and not capitalizing Lord one time, in my1:54 post!
Scripture interprets scripture. Very straightforward and simple. You keep missing that I notice. You did not back up that one passage with anything else yet I gave instances from scripture and scripture for mine that lets the scripture do the talking. No denomination has it all down (amen and what I have said all along) that is why we let the Word of God reveal itself and that is my point. The word spoke for itself and backed itself up and that is enough for me. Other disciples are in that snapshot you quoted and they all arrived at the same understanding as Peter whether right then and there or for some like Thomas a bit later but the bible shows us Jesus' disciples all have that same testimony calling Jesus son of the living God so Peter is not exclusively anything above anyone else. So much for your pope doctrine.....
But keep making it complicated for yourself and others..like religion loves to do. The pharisees of Jesus day did that and received his rebuke. Jesus made things simple for the humble but the proud struggle (complicate) with what He says every time.
(moving on....)
Anonymous 1:54
Re:If you know of any perfect churches, let me know!
Obviously, you are conflating "perfect" with "infallible." Moreover, you are wrong in thinking that everything the Pope says is "infallible." The Pope is only infallible when teaching as successor of Peter ( ex cathedra)in matters of faith and morals. The Pope himself is bound by the
Roman Catholic Rule of Faith, which is Scripture and Sacred Tradition insofar as he must preserve the faith handed on to him and in turn hand it on intact to his successor. Is the Pope "perfect?" No. Can the Pope sin? Yes.....and often has. But this does not in any way invalidate the Petrine charism we Catholics believe the Pope possesses as successor of Peter.
Lynching in progress:
www.seraphicpress.com/the-rape-torture-and-murder-of-christopher-newsom-channan-christian-redux/#more-22181
2:14 P.M.
Re:"Scripture interprets scripture. Very straightforward and simple. You keep missing that I notice. You did not back up that one passage with anything else yet I gave instances from scripture and scripture for mine that lets the scripture do the talking."
I did not miss it at all. The term "Scripture interprets scripture is part and parcel of the "Sola Scriptura" rule. "Sola Scriptura" is YOUR rule, not mine. Where in the Bible does it say that "Scripture interprets Scripture?" I notice you haven't quoted any passages in the Bible where "Sola Scriptura" is mandated. That is because there are none.
However, there is biblical support for the Catholic rule of Faith, Scripture and Sacred (oral) Tradition.
Perhaps the clearest Biblical support for oral tradition can be found in 2 Thessalonians 2:14(15), where Christians are actually commanded: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle."
This passage is significant in that 1) it shows the existence of living traditions within the Apostolic teaching, b) it tells us unequivocally that believers are firmly grounded in the Faith by adhering to these traditions, and c) it clearly states that these traditions were both written and oral. Since the Bible distinctly states here that oral traditions – authentic and Apostolic in origin – are to be "held" as a valid component of the Deposit of Faith, by what reasoning or excuse do Protestants dismiss them? By what authority do they reject a clear-cut injunction of St. Paul?
Yes. Let's do move on.
Can God lie? Can God back up everything He says?
2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness and Isaiah 28: 9-10 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall me make to understand doctrine?..For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little and there a little.
Jesus taught that way using the Scripture (asked often have you never read?...)and interpreting also using the parables he told. Jesus also said (what he thinks of the word of God) Mat 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.
All scripture for all things of life. God is all about that and has His bases covered so why look anywhere or to anyone else?
Good enough for Jesus good enough for me.
Toodleloo.
"Since there are about 40+ thousand Protestant denominations - each claiming that its interpretation of Holy Writ is THE Holy Spirit - approved version - why should I believe that one "Holy Spirit" approved denomination... could give me a more correct account of Christianity than any other "Holy Spirit" approved Christian denomination, etc.?"
Quite so. Why should I believe the Roman Catholic denomination if it is just one of many? Even if I accept the arguments that Catholics say make it special, why should I prefer it to Eastern Orthodoxy given that it uses exactly the same arguments?
I expect you got that 40k figure secondhand, because it comes ultimately from the World Christian Encyclopedia compiled by David Barrett. The 1982 edition found 25k denominations and the 2001 edition found 33k but a denomination was defined, anomalously, as an organised Christian group within a specific country. Yet denominations (not least Roman Catholicism) runs across national borders. As there are several hundred countries (and as smaller denominations are not represented in all of them) we should divide the figure by about 100. This gives a few hundred genuine denominations, consistent with the list recorded in Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations_by_number_of_members
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations
Do your research properly.
"the clearest Biblical support for oral tradition can be found in 2 Thessalonians 2:14(15), where Christians are actually commanded: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle."... Since the Bible distinctly states here that oral traditions – authentic and Apostolic in origin – are to be "held" as a valid component of the Deposit of Faith, by what reasoning or excuse do Protestants dismiss them? By what authority do they reject a clear-cut injunction of St. Paul?"
We don't. Paul was writing when the gospels were an oral tradition and before they had been written down. Check the dates that scholars - including Catholics - assert.
It's a huge lie to premise everything with the notion that the many Protestant denominations are all on different pages in terms of doctrine. Someone makes a statement to that effect and it sounds rational but it's a LIE. The question becomes, "says who?"
The fact is, practically every denomination recites the very same Apostles Creed and practically every denomination is in fact in complete agreement on all the essentials of the faith. If a person makes the Lord their God, they will not die in their sins. that's the promise that Jesus gives.
All these hair-splitting debates are just so many self appointed experts doing what they do best which is debate and contradict and wrangle over
things that we don't see very clearly yet in our carnal condition.
Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved. Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you won't have to die in your sins.
Everything else is secondary.
To believe in Jesus is an ongoing thing.
Believe in the one whom God sent.
Continue believing.
A person who believes for twelve hours and then quits believing, does not believe.
To believe is to embrace Jesus in any way that we can. To believe in him obviously leads us to want to consider and embrace the things that He said.
God is a spirit, and those who worship him must
worship him in spirit and in truth.
Anonymous 7:11 P.M.
13 And Jesus came into the quarters of Caesarea Philippi: and he asked his disciples, saying: Whom do men say that the Son of man is?
14 But they said: Some John the Baptist, and other some Elias, and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
15 Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am?
16 Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.
18 And I say to 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 to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.
20 Then he commanded his disciples, that they should tell no one that he was Jesus the Christ. Matthew 16:13-20
Anonymous 3:35
13 And Jesus came into the quarters of Caesarea Philippi: and he asked his disciples, saying: Whom do men say that the Son of man is?
14 But they said: Some John the Baptist, and other some Elias, and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
15 Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am?
16 Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.
18 And I say to 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 to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.
20 Then he commanded his disciples, that they should tell no one that he was Jesus the Christ. Matthew 16:13-20
Toodleloo
Paul
I respectfully disagree with you. I think "hair splitting" is necessary at times. Simply agreeing in principle is not really enough, unfortunately, I feel that there are many denominations out there that acknowledge Jesus as Lord and Savior, yet the preach a "different Jesus", and we are instructed to watch for this and use scripture to reprove and correct.
Even demons, when confronted by Jesus, recognize who He is and really wanted no part of what He was bringing because they knew and believed He is the Son of God.
I'm not implying in any way that you personally fall into these categories, I completely agree with you about worshipping in SPIRIT and TRUTH. Its that truth part that is so important.
Take the WOF preachers (not implying you approve of them, just using as an example) 98% of what they say is truth, but there's that little 2% of lies mixed in, yet even though they profess that Jesus is the Son of God, they still preach a "different Jesus".
It seems that some avoid confrontation at the expense of the truth, and confrontation is necessary for real truth. Now, I understand what you mean by confrontation, and I agree with you, I'm talking about good and respectful debate, which sometimes starts off pretty good here, but usually decends into craziness.
At the risk of appearing cynical and negative, I feel that in these times that we live, it is often necessary to split hairs as we are quite possibly entering the most crucial times in history, but also the most deceptive times in history as well, and our very souls depend on it.
I'm not saying that all issues of disagreement must always have a result of whoever is right is going to Heaven and whoever is wrong is going to Hell, but I think that there are alot of disagreements that will.
I don't know if I make sense on where I'm coming from, but your post kind of hit on some things that are very much on my mind these days as I struggle to understand what hairs we should split.
Toodleloo,
In 1st Corinthians 10 Paul explains who the rock in the desert was and he tells us it was Jesus. Jesus was already building his church in the Sinai desert.
Roberto
http://www.pravoslavieto.com/books/papacy_abatt_guette.htm
written by a man who was writing a history for RC and on doing the research rejected papal claims.
as for 40 thousand (originally I heard it was 30 thousand) this is a lie.
the detailed breakdown of all these is actually ALL denominations of ALL claiming Christianity incl. Mormons and JWs and Unitarians and God knows what all else, and all schismatic splinter groups both of real and pseudo Christian groups.
The Creed recited is with some the Apostles Creed which does not incl. the filioque or any statement regarding The Holy Spirit other than His existence, or the Nicene Creed, to which was added by the RC (against the ex cathedra orders of pope Leo the Great, the adding done by a later pope) the filioque which is unbiblical.
there is also the filioque containing Athanasian Creed, and, typical of Rome and its lies, this was ascribed to St. Athansius the Great, but this is refuted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasian_Creed#Origin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed#Filioque_controversy the quibble about meanings of words in Latin vs. Greek if anything highlights the reason the filioque should be removed, because you are still saying different things in the same place of the Creed in something that is supposed to be catholic, i.e., universal, and because the original phrasing was in Greek not Latin and that meaning in Greek should have been translated using a different Latin word than was used, so you still have a mess as long as the filioque is kept.
http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/photios_mystagogy1.html
St. Photios the Great weighs in on the implications of the filioque.
disputes about St. Photios legitimacy as Patriarch of Constantinople are irrelevant, the third time he was Patriarch he was totally legitimate, and the arguments in this monograph stand or fall on their own.
anon 2:37
something no one seems to think of, or want to deal with so far when I raise the issue, is this.
okay, let's say the pope has the charism that when speaking ex cathedra on faith and/or morals, he cannot err, that is he cannot make a MISTAKE cannot BY ERROR teach falsehood.
BUT WHAT IF.....he knowing the truth, because of his charism, decided to teach a falsehood anyway, teaching not by believing the wrong thing by a mistake, but teaching DELIBERATELY what he knows to be false, using his free will?
This would not be teaching wrong by ERROR by MISTAKE but by CHOICE.
What prevents this?
something from that book I linked to about the papacy:
"In his book against Marcion, Tertull. adv. Marcion. Book IV. § 5. he expresses himself thus: "If it be proved, to begin with: that is most true which is most primitive; that is most primitive which has been from the commencement; that which was from the commencement was established by the Apostles; it will then be equally unquestionable, that that has been given by the Apostles which has been held sacred by the apostolic churches. Let us see what milk the Corinthians have received of St. Paul; according to what law the Galatians have been corrected; what the Philippians, the Thessalonians, the Ephesians read; what the Romans our neighbors announce, they who have received direct from Peter and Paul the Gospel attested by their blood. We have also the churches nourished by John." . .
The Church of Rome is here assigned its proper place, which is after the apostolic churches, whose foundation was anterior to her own.
Tertullian does not esteem her witness superior to that of others; only he establishes one fact, namely, that the Church of Rome, the only apostolic Church of the West, was nearer than the others, and it was therefore more easy for him and his opponents to ascertain her testimony touching the questions that divided them.
In his book De Prœscriptionibus Tertullian develops the same doctrine of the witness of apostolic churches, and he appeals to that of the Church of Rome in the same manner as in his book against Marcion.
"That which the Apostles have preached," he said, Tertul De Præscript. § xxi. "that is to say, that which Christ has revealed to them, I claim by prescription, that it should only be proved by the churches that the Apostles have founded, teaching them, either viva voce, or by their epistles. If this be so, all doctrine that agrees with that of the apostolic churches, mothers and sources of faith, Matricibus et originalibus fidei. is agreeable to the truth."
Further on, Tertullian applies this general principle.
"Let us glance," Tertul De Prescript. § xxxvi. he says, "at the apostolic churches, where the sees of the apostles still remain, where their epistles are still read, where their voice still resounds, and their face, as it were, is still seen. Is it Achaia that is near thee? thou hast Corinth; if thou art not far from Macedonia, thou hast the Philippians; if thou canst go to Asia, thou hast Ephesus; if thou dwellest near Italy, thou hast Rome, whose authority is near us. How happy is that church to whom the Apostles have given all its doctrine with their blood—where Peter suffered death like his Lord, where Paul was crowned by the death of John the Baptist, whence the Apostle John, after being plunged into boiling oil without suffering any ill, was banished to an island. Let us see what that church says, what it teaches, what it testifies in common with the churches of Africa."
The Romish theologians ordinarily content themselves with quoting that part of the text we have put in italics. They are careful not to call attention to the fact that Tertuillian speaks of the Church of Rome, only after the other apostolic churches, and in the same character; that he appeals specially to her evidence, only because it was the apostolic church nearest to Africa, whose testimony it was most easy to obtain. These observations, the importance and truth of which all will understand, destroy completely the interpretation that these theologians endeavour to give to the few lines they cite. This doubtless is why they ordinarily pass the others over in silence."
"Moreover, the Church of Rome was the mother of many other churches, over which she exercised a certain authority, as we learn from the sixth canon of the first œcumenical council held at Nicea a.d. 325.
There has been a great deal of discussion upon this famous canon, in which the Roman theologians have endeavoured to see an argument in favour of their opinions.
They have called in evidence all the manuscripts in order to find some that should favour their views; and they have, in fact, found some which serve them admirably, by reason of certain additions, which would be very satisfactory if they were only authentic. For instance: "Since, then, the holy synod has confirmed the primacy of the Apostolic See, which is what is due to the merit of St. Peter, who is the prince of the whole episcopate (literally, of the episcopal crown) and to the dignity of the city of Rome."
This is certainly a beautiful preamble for the sixth canon of Nicea; but it is unfortunate that the forger should betray himself, even by his style, We give it as a specimen of its kind: Cum igitur sedis apostolicæ primatum, sancti Petri meritum qui princeps est episcopalis coronæ et Romanæ dignitas civitatis, sacræ etiam synodi firmavit auctoritas. It is only necessary to have read two pages of the Ecclesiastical Remains of the Fourth Century, to discover at first sight the fraud, and be persuaded that this ambitious and uncouth verbiage is of a much later age. which cannot be antecedent to the date of the manuscript itself, namely, the middle ages. In a Roman manuscript, at the head of the sixth canon, we read: "The Roman Church always had the primacy." These words, which we might otherwise adopt; are copied from the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, and in no wise belong to those of Nicea any more than this other formula interpolated in another manuscript, "Let the Roman Church have the primacy forever." All these additions were unknown in the ninth century, since the author of the Fausses Décrétales, who was then living, and who would not have failed to profit by them, has given the canons of the early councils, according to Dionysius Exiguus. This learned man, who made his collection of the canons at Rome itself, died in the first half of the sixth century. According to Cassiodorus, he had a perfect acquaintance with Greek; his version, consequently, deserves entire confidence, and in it we find none of the preceding additions; but it is thus we find the sixth canon of the Nicene Council:
"Let the ancient custom be preserved, that exists in Egypt, Lybia, and Pentapolis, that the Bishop of Alexandria have authority in all these countries, since that has also passed into a custom for the Bishop of Rome. Let the churches at Antioch and in the other provinces preserve also their privileges. Now, it is very evident, that if any one be made bishop without the concurrence of the metropolitan, the great council declares that he may not be bishop," etc., etc.
The object of this canon was to defend the authority of the Bishop of Alexandria against the partisans of Meletius, Bishop of Lycopolis, who refused to recognize it in episcopal ordinations.
The object of the sixth canon, therefore, was merely to confirm the ancient customs respecting these ordinations, and, in general, the privileges consecrated by ancient usage. Now, according to an ancient custom, Rome enjoyed certain prerogatives that no one contested. The council makes use of this fact in order to confirm the similar prerogatives of Alexandria, Antioch, and other churches.
But what were the churches over which, according to custom, the Church of Rome exercised a right of supervision?
Ruffinus designates them Suburbicarian. This writer, who wrote his Ecclesiastical History in the fourth century, who was born at Aquileia and dwelt at Rome, must have known the extent of the jurisdiction of the Roman Church in his times. Now, what does he understand by the suburbicarian churches? It is known that from and after Constantine's reign, the Church was divided in dioceses and provinces like the empire itself. A diocese was then a union of several provinces, and a province was a section of a diocese. The words have changed their sense, and at this time an ecclesiastical province is composed of several dioceses. From this undeniable fact, we know the suburbicarian churches; they are those which existed in places of the same name in the fourth century—these places being those that were dependent upon the diocese, or the prefecture of Rome—that is to say, the ten provinces called "Sicilia, Corsica, Sardinia, Campania, Tuscia, Picenum Suburbicarium, Apulia cum Calabria, Bruttium, Samnium, Valeria." Northern Italy formed another diocese, of which Milan was the prefecture, and was not dependent upon Rome. The diocese of Rome did not call itself Italy, but the Roman Territory. This is why St. Athanasius St. Athanas. Ep. ad Solit. calls Milan the metropolis of Italy, and Rome the metropolis of the Roman Territory. In the fourth century, therefore, the jurisdiction of the Roman bishops extended only over southern Italy and the islands of Corsica, Sicily, and Sardinia."
Dear 11.59pm,
This is 7.11pm to whom you replied. Presumably in response to my question about why to prefer Roman Catholicism over any other denomination, you quote a scripture about Peter.
It should not be in doubt that the Bible assigns clear priority among the disciples to Peter. One can quibble about the details but the fact is there. Nor is it seriously doubted that Peter was martyred in Rome. So he should have had priority there. But on what grounds do you assert that his successors there have the same priority? The answer seems to be because they say so.
This is a matter of faith, so by all means believe it if you wish. But don't tell others to believe it or else, and do give a reason if you want to be taken seriously in dialogue.
Anonymous 5:38 A.M.
Re:This is a matter of faith, so by all means believe it if you wish. But don't tell others to believe it or else, and do give a reason if you want to be taken seriously in dialogue.
This debate didn't begin with me or any other Catholic telling anyone else what to believe. It began with one or more bottom-feeding trolls dumping on 1. Constance for asking a Catholic(s)what Catholics believed 2. Catholics who were peacefully posting here and minding their own business. 3. It was the trolls
who were telling Catholics and others here what to believe.
All the Catholics did here was to defend their faith AFTER THEY AND THEIR FAITH AND CONSTANCE WERE GRATUITOUSLY ATTACKED.
So what you need to do is to practice what you preach and do your own research - especially by doing something as simple as staying au courant with this blog - if YOU want to be taken seriously.
When all is said and done, you are right. This is a matter of faith and as someone else has pointed out here in the past, anyone is free to go and worship his sneakers if he so chooses. That is between him and his Maker. Just don't let him come here sending people ( Catholics or Protestants ) to hell and/or accusing them and/or their Pope of being minions of the "antichrist" if they don't happen to agree with him.
As the saying goes "Now you know the rest of the story."
Was Peter really favored among the apostles?
Why was Peter entrusted with the Jews while Paul was tasked with preaching to the Gentiles? There were many more more Gentiles in the world than Jews. It seems a much more difficult task.
Why was so much more of the New Testament authored by Paul than anyone else?
Why was Peter publicly rebuked by Paul and rightfully so?
I'm not so sure Peter deserves such high elevation among the apostles.
Dear 7.35am,
My apologies for a misunderstanding. My comment" don't tell others to believe it or else" was not about Catholics on this blog, but about the track record of the Catholic church in persecuting Christians who have historically dissented from it.
Take a short break from the Protestant Catholic back and forth and read this very insightful post by Joseph Herrin @ parables.blogspot.com
Tuesday, August 26,2014 post
Are You Being Played-Part Two
The Balkanization of America
Is the "Conservative Media" equal 'players'?
Rupert Murdoch and the Fox News
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/occupy-movement-gets-own-tv-141500133.html
The Occupy Movement gets a tv channel now. Was hoping they'd gone away. From Oz.
Dear 8:54,
I didn't mean to come across so harshly and I also apologize.
In terms of Christians persecuting other Christians for dissenting against what any of them regards as "established dogma," there is plenty of blame to go around, and the Catholic Church is certainly far from being "without sin" in this regard.
The encyclical "Mystici Corporis Christi" by Pope Pius XII states in so many words that "conversion" elicited at gunpoint is no conversion at all.
When all is said and done, the "gun'n Gospel" evangelization strategy has tended to result in more guns and less Gospel.
We ran from Lucifer's media and they followed us to You Tube, this is sophisticated propaganda. They have enough data on Americans to fill millions of Microsoft servers, and you paid to install them on every university campus with internet2 cloud servers. It's a closed internet, global system and until they shut off ours expect more of this sort of junk.
Congrats, you are a direct threat go the 'enlightened ones'. I thought you would get off the hook since you rebuked the protocols. Time to reread them sweeties, there is more than one type of Jew. (and you thought the churches were corrupted) try reading the Talmud or get a book on Kabala, they are playing to win and that means drag us all down with them, Lucifer is NOT getting back into heaven, and he's mad.
yea I did speak to her once and she and her boyfriend were very rude and obnoxious, totally unfitting to Christians. I believe them to be witches who know the truth on people in their cult so they expose the false people, and they do so in a mockingly way to make people think Christians are disgusting people. They actually have a very dark vibe similar to Lady Gaga songs...
Looking to get rewarded for doing what you already do? Head over to mymarijuanafinder.com, find your dispensary and earn reward points to spend on products, mercy and discounts!
oakley sunglasses
abercrombie outlet
nike running shoes for women
tory burch boots
fake oakley sunglasses
michael kors outlet
ray-ban sunglasses
louis vuitton handbags
christian louboutin outlet
louis vuitton purses
canada goose jackets
canada goose outlet
tiffany and co
coach outlet
oakley sunglasses
uggs outlet
kobe 8
jordan 11
louis vuitton outlet
replica watches
ralph lauren
michael kors outlet store
abercrombie & fitch
air force 1
louis vuitton
timberland outlet
louis vuitton handbags
toms wedges
abercrombie outlet
coach outlet store online
coach factory outlet
canada goose outlet
soccer shoes
oakley outlet
ugg outlet
michael kors handbags
2016223yuanyuan
coach factory outlet
burberry outlet store
rolex watches uk
converse outlet
michael kors handbags
ugg sale
ugg australia boots
ralph lauren outlet online
coach outlet store
red bottoms
20170114
longchamp handbags
goyard bags
michael kors outlet store
nike roshe
nike air presto
prada glasses
http://www.kobeshoes.uk
adidas superstar shoes
supreme hoodie
nike flyknit racer
hermes online
bape
canada goose jacket
golden goose sneakers
yeezy boost 350
off white jordan 1
supreme clothing
curry 7
supreme clothing
golden goose sneakers
Post a Comment