 |
| It doesn't exactly capture the Middle East, but it is a lovely and reverent Czechoslovakian creche display that does encapsulate proper reverence for the reason for our season. Merry Christmas to all and consider visiting the website providing this lovely Christmas art work. |
Wednesday, December 24, 2014
Merry and Blessed Christmas to All!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
528 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 528 Newer› Newest»Yes, folks want to guard the sheep here and it would be helpful if someone would run the 'wolf' off the property.
Paul,
RE: your earlier comment at 1:12pm. Yes, I think the most interesting part of the entry in HALOT is what is stated just after "Arabic," i.e., the meaning in Arabic:"the crescent of the new moon."
Yes, someone should come out all guns blazing and run that she-wolf out of here! She's roaming rabidly around the blog hoping to devour the flock and feed her delusions of chakra-ed vampires. Little Red Rabid Wolf is a ferocious deceiver with a voracious appetite for the destruction of this blog, which is bleeding away decent posters and readers alike!
This is Dorothy Margraf. Since I was mentioned by name I thought I should enter in and set the record straight. I've been researching New Age since I learned about it through Constance and heavily researched it even before her first book came out because it is important I continually respect her research. In the last five years we personally grew more and more apart for reasons which should be no one's business except ours.
I am a Jew. I was raised for the first 23 years of my life as a Catholic. I respect Christianity as I believe God allowed it to continue for reasons which I can respect. In addition to everything else ugly, New Age, like Nazism, is very antisemitic
I have not studied "the Kabbalah" topic. I will not jump to conclusions on anything without studying it on my own. The name Kabbalah is a name put on many different things and then talked about by every "authority" as if it was a concrete thing like a chair, no other similar thing. I've not found it important to dissect whatever a particular writer claims it to be in order to understand New Age.
I follow this blog so I can catch the occasional lead. What I generally see here is what the Saturday Night Church Lady told others to do..."talk among yourselves." If that is what is important to you, enjoy. I post on Facebook and to my small email list. Everyone learns from different sources with which they find themselves compatible. I'm not going to engage in discussions here. No need to. We all find our own comfortable settings. I only broke in because my name was mentioned by others and I needed to set the record straight. Constance provides enough information for readers of this blog.
I don’t know why I didn’t check this earlier; but, having read Roman Catholic theologian Fr. Raymond E. Brown’s comments on the PA in his excellent commentary, I’m more convinced than ever that it was a real account, but part of an oral tradition not included in Scripture. Most of the info I already knew, but the bolded portion I didn’t – or I didn’t think through, as it makes perfect sense.
First, he calls it a “non-Johannine interpolation” (Johannine meaning penned by John (or any in the Johannine community, as per Brown’s assertion)). Then he investigates the PA systematically, though I’ll only highlight sections:
There are no comments on this passage by the Greek writers on John of the 1st Christian millennium, and it is only from ca. 900 that it begins to appear in the standard Greek text. The evidence for the passage as Scripture in the early centuries is confined to the Western Church. It appears in some OL [Old Latin] texts of the Gospels. Ambrose and Augustine wanted it read as part of the Gospel, and Jerome included it in the Vulgate. It appears in the 5th–century Greco-Latin Codex Bezae.
However, a good case can be argued that the story had its origins in the East and is truly ancient…Eusebius (Hist. III 39:17; GCS 91:292) says, “Papias relates another story of a woman who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews.” If this is the same story as that of the adulteress, the reference would point to early Palestinian origins; but we cannot be certain that our story is the one meant. The 3rd–century Didascalia Apostolorum (II 24:6; Funk ed., I, 93) gives a clear reference to the story of the adulteress and uses it as a presumably well-known example of our Lord’s gentleness; this work is of Syrian origin, and the reference means that the story was known (but not necessarily as Scripture) in 2nd–century Syria. From the standpoint of internal criticism, the story is quite plausible and quite like some of the other gospel stories of attempts to trap Jesus (Luke 20:20, 27). There is nothing in the story itself or its language that would forbid us to think of it as an early story concerning Jesus. Becker argues strongly for this thesis.
[cont]
[cont]
If the story of the adulteress was an ancient story about Jesus, why did it not immediately become part of the accepted Gospels? Riesenfeld has given the most plausible explanation of the delay in the acceptance of this story. The ease with which Jesus forgave the adulteress was hard to reconcile with the stern penitential discipline in vogue in the early Church. It was only when a more liberal penitential practice was firmly established that this story received wide acceptance. (Riesenfeld traces its liturgical acceptance to the 5th century as a reading for the feast of St. Pelagia.)
…in general the style is not Johannine either in vocabulary or grammar. Stylistically, the story is more Lucan [penned by Luke] than Johannine…
…whether the story is canonical or not. For some this question will have already been answered above, since in their view the fact that the story is a later addition to the Gospel and is not of Johannine origin means that it is not canonical Scripture (even though it may be an ancient and true story). For others canonicity is a question of traditional ecclesiastical acceptance and usage. Thus, in the Roman Catholic Church the criterion of canonicity is acceptance into the Vulgate, for the Church has used the Vulgate as its Bible for centuries. The story of the adulteress was accepted by Jerome, and so Catholics regard it as canonical. It also found its way into the received text of the Byzantine Church, and ultimately into the King James Bible. And so the majority of the non-Roman Christians also accept the story as Scripture.
Dorothy, that is very interesting, may I ask why you left Catholicism to join Judaism? you seemed rather upset about Christian issues being discussed here last year, if that was you, as if they were irrelevant to the New Age.
Nazism and antisemitism do play a big role, no one denies that or distracts from that. But these are not the sole things New Age is about. It is a spectrum, or perhaps collage.
A tech site proclaims:
Experts Forecast the End of Privacy as We Know It
…The Internet of Things, which will allow everything from toasters to watches to spew data about their users, will exacerbate the tech assault on privacy.
"Every object will become a spy," said Privacy.me's Neivert.
The level of surveillance that exists now will seem pale once everything starts communicating with the Net.
"Once we start wearing the Internet and our appliances are connected to the Internet, the level of observation, data capture and surveillance is going to explode," Pew's Rainie said....
"As privacy is becoming increasingly monetized, the incentive to truly protect it is withering away, and with so much of policy run by lobbyists, privacy will be a very expensive commodity come 2025," he wrote in his survey comments.
"Sure, some of us will be able to buy it, but most will not," he continued. Privacy will be a luxury, not a right -- something that the well-to-do can afford, but which most have learnt to live without."
The rise of the Swedish cyborgs
By day there were tech entrepreneurs, students, web designers and IT consultants - but that night they were going to be transformed into cyborgs.
It may sound like the beginning of a science-fiction novel, but in fact it is a recollection of real events, by bio-hacker Hannes Sjoblad…
"I believe we have just started discovering the things we can do with this," Mr Sjoblad says.
"There is huge potential for life-logging.
"With the fitness-tracking wearables at the moment, you have to type what you are eating, or where you are going.
"Instead of typing data into my phone, when I put it down and tap it with my implant it will know I am going to bed.
"Imagine sensors around a gym that recognises, for instance, who is holding a dumb-bell via the tag in your hand.
"There is an ongoing explosion in the internet of things - the sensors will be all around for me to be able to register my activity in relation to them."
Increasingly the lines between human and machine are blurring. People with missing limbs are routinely fitted with bionic ones, which are getting ever more sophisticated. People think nothing of getting an artificial hip or laser surgery to correct vision problems.
And last year, Google released contact lenses that can monitor glucose levels in an effort to provide better diagnostics for diabetes.
And of course wearables - from smart watches to gadgets such as Jawbone's Up or the Fitbit - are getting increasingly clever at monitoring a range of body functions from heart rate, calorie intake and sleep patterns.
But already firms are thinking beyond wearables.
BioStamp is a digital tattoo developed by US firm MC10. It can be stamped directly on to the body and collects data on body temperature, hydration levels, UV exposure and more. As with other wearables, the data can be uploaded
Meanwhile another US company, Proteus, has developed a pill with an embedded sensor that works in tandem with a patch worn on the skin and, when swallowed, measures a range of body functions.
"These kind of things are already here," says David Wood, head of the London Futurists.
"The real question is whether they can work better if they are on our skin or inside us, and one of the big advantages is that we can't forget them like we can a phone or a wristband."
He doesn't think implantable technology is ready for the mainstream quite yet, but he does think that the time is definitely ripe for a debate about it.
canonical or not, the procedure was correct. First, Torah said BOTH parties were to die, yet they drag in only this woman. Second, you got witnesses two or more which is good for a death sentence.
Okay, she's to die. But the first to cast the stone has to be clean of the matter himself. Has to be without THIS sin (as one translation has it and as a point either in Torah or in Talmudic interpretation has it I forget which) and apparently they were all guilty to some extent of adultery. the older ones would recognize the relevance to their past even though they were cheating on wives but not with a legal second wife. The younger more brazen took longer for it to sink in.
This leaves her with no witnesses to accuse her. So she is dismissed. procedural issues got her freed.
To this situation, Jesus added a warning, "go and sin no more."
This is the procedure that would be in play, to which Jesus knowing she was guilty as hell added that warning.
The writing on the ground was probably names dates and places of the men's various pecadillos.
But as for why it isn't in any early Greek texts? IT HAD TO BE FOR AUGUSTINE TO COMPLAIN THAT SOME LACKED IT. The number of texts and fragments we have is very few. That isn't enough to draw a conclusion.
Even if not in the autograph, the Apostles weren't the only ones that observed and heard Jesus. Someone who had seen this happen may have been the cause of it being added.
And the other explanations are more likely, that it was there and was left out by some copyists at orders of a superior.
Augustine's statement is not that he heard of it but that he saw it was absent from SOME copies, which means he saw it in others.
"There are no comments on this passage by the Greek writers on John of the 1st Christian millennium, " blatant lie unless you mean those who followed the lexicon for the services in writing, and as Burgeon points out, this incident was not relevant to what would be being preached about when these chapters would be preached in Church. So no reason to include it.
But plenty of writers referred to it in the first millennium. so what are you doing, blindly following someone's statement as received like you are reciting a tradition?
It being in the autograph is far more likely the case than not.
Interesting website - from the people who made some of the signs at the Ferguson riots:
http://www.revcom.us/
The new face of the "Radical Middle" perhaps?
Christine,
You wrote, quoting Brown, with your own libelous words following:
"There are no comments on this passage by the Greek writers on John of the 1st Christian millennium, " blatant lie unless you mean those who followed the lexicon for the services in writing, and as Burgeon [sic] points out, this incident was not relevant to what would be being preached about when these chapters would be preached in Church. So no reason to include it.
But plenty of writers referred to it in the first millennium. so what are you doing, blindly following someone's statement as received like you are reciting a tradition?
Brown means there is no commentary by Greek writers about this passage during the first 1000 years of Christianity; he’s already noted that it’s extant in a 5th century Greek mss (Bezae). There is no lie here; this is absolute fact. Also, some who specifically reference this section in John (chapters 7, 8) conspicuously omit the PA, including the Diatessaron, Origen, Chrysostom, Cyril, Tertullian, and Cyprian.
And, both Brown and I mention Jerome, thereby affirming that others refer to the PA in the 1st millenium – just not GREEK writers. Again, please read more carefully.
I gave the option out of meaning commentary, not just reference in general.
Here is a reference to the pericope in a second century document, the didascalia
"
● The Syriac Didascalia Apostolorum is generally regarded as a text that was composed in the 200’s. Kevin P. Edgecomb has placed R. Hugh Connolly’s English translation of this text (published in 1929) online at http://www.bombaxo.com/didascalia.html . I have adjusted the following excerpt from chapter 7:
“Wherefore, O bishop, as much as you can, keep watch over those who have not sinned, that they may continue without sinning; and those that repent of sins, heal and receive. But if you do not receive
the one who repents, because you are without mercy, you shall sin against the Lord God; for you do not obey our Savior and our God, to do as He also did with her that had sinned, whom the elders set before Him, and leaving the judgment in His hands, departed. But He, the searcher of hearts, asked her and said to her, ‘Have the elders condemned thee, my daughter?’ She said to Him, ‘No, Lord.’ And He said unto her, ‘Go your way; neither do I condemn thee.’ In Him therefore, our Savior and King and God, be your pattern, O bishops.” " from an article in the files section of yahoo egroup https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/TC-Alternate-list/files
you will have to join to read this but the conversations section is public. T C refers to Textual Criticism.
" Jerome’s testimony regarding the PA should be stated again and again and again, in order to compensate for its remarkable [I was about to say deplorable] absence from Metzger’s comments about the PA in his Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, from the NET’s notes, and from some other lopsided commentaries. In about 417, toward the end of his career, Jerome wrote in Against the Pelagians, 2:17, “In the Gospel according to John, there is found, in many of the Greek, as well as the Latin, copies, the story of the adulteress who was accused before the Lord.” – In evangelio secundum Ioannem in multis et Graecis et Latinis codicibus invenitur de adultera muliere, quae accusata est apud Dominum. In the same composition, Jerome offers the explanation that Jesus, when he wrote in the earth, wrote down the names of the woman’s accusers, using a phrase from Jeremiah 17:13 as the lens through which to perceive this (“Those who depart from Me shall be written in the earth”).
Thirty-three years earlier, in 383, Jerome had included the PA in the text of John in the Vulgate Gospels. Jerome consulted ancient Greek manuscripts when he did that. He describes his work twice: in the Preface to the Gospels, addressed to Damasus, and in Epistle 27, To Marcella, written in 384. To Damasus he wrote:
“I therefore promise in this short Preface the four Gospels only, which are to be taken in the following order: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, as they have been revised by a comparison of the Greek manuscripts. Only early ones have been used. To avoid any great divergences from the Latin which we are accustomed to read, I have used my pen with some restraint, and while I have corrected only such passages as seemed to convey a different meaning, I have allowed the rest to remain as they are.”
Inasmuch as the presence or absence of 12 verses obviously conveys a different meaning, it seems very clear that Jerome, not only in 417, but in 383, found the PA in ancient Greek manuscripts. His remark in the preface also clearly implies that the church in Rome in 383 was accustomed to read the PA.
Jerome wrote to Marcella:
“The Latin manuscripts of the Scriptures are demonstrated to be faulty by the variations which they all exhibit, and my objective has been to restore them to the form of the original Greek, from which my detractors do not deny that they have been translated.”
It may be safely deduced that Jerome did not find the PA in all of the manuscripts of the Gospel of John that he examined; otherwise in Against the Pelagians he would not have referred to many manuscripts; he would have simply referred to the Gospel of John. But clearly, if we trust Jerome’s descriptions, we must conclude that (a) in 383 the PA was already customarily read in the churches in Rome, (b) the PA was in the ancient Greek manuscripts that Jerome used to make the Vulgate Gospels, and (c) before 417, Jerome had encountered the PA in many Greek manuscripts and many Latin manuscripts." same source as prior post. Notice Jerome talks about using early MSS.
Now, historians Christian and secular, don't hesitate to accept that someone wrote some book, though no trace can be found, if it is named and quoted in a later book. Jerome (and Augustine) are evidence the pericope existed in Greek mss and that some were leaving it out.
Theophylact in AD 1077 also fails to mention the pericope long after it was noted in the texts that survive now. So his silence wasn't from ignorance, so perhaps neither was the silence of earlier Church writers.
https://books.google.com/books?id=XR60i2c8Xz8C&pg=PA258&lpg=PA258&dq=pericope+de+adultera+chrysostom&source=bl&ots=QUEKZ6LT5f&sig=oWAN3ykjgs_ky9r4ho6GfHYtcoA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=BtWoVJL6Cs3zoASk-oKIDQ&ved=0CEUQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=pericope%20de%20adultera%20chrysostom&f=false
Christine,
Your comments at 9:27 are outrageous.
You've completely missed the point of the story.
The whole point of the pericope in question is that Jesus has the authority to forgive sin.
You make it sound like he did a tap-dance for the scribes and used a few little loopholes in the law to wiggle his way out of something.
He is the Lord of the Sabbath and He can forgive sins. He could walk in and eat the shew bread if He wanted to whether the Pharisees agreed or not.
Christine you have no authority to say so many of the things you say.
It's amazing.
if you bothered to aquaint yourself with the Law and its terms you wouldn't talk like that. It is more than a tap dance, it is application that challenged the hypocrites. The only one wiggled out was the woman, and that solely because her accusers were themselves guilty of the same or similar.
"Christine you have no authority to say so many of the things you say."
yes I have authority based on bible and other knowledge. I have forgotten more Bible than you ever knew, or you wouldn't make such a repeated fool of yourself. Of course Jesus has power to forgive, but that isn't the issue. He used the event to highlight their hypocrisy and secret sins.
read this and wise up.
http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/jones-pericope.html
it puts the relevant Scripture verses in one place and saves me the trouble of digging through The Bible to find exactly where what I remember is.
Re internal evidence in that pericope, one point worth considering is that the decision whether to accuse the woman under Mosaic Law and consequently stone her is surely up to her husband - who also has authority to forgive - yet he is not mentioned.
(A married man having sex in a brothel is not liable to be stoned; the asymmetry in Moses is because a man labors to support his wife and children and must know that the children, his heirs, are his own.)
It is irrelevant that the man she was having sex with, who should also be stoned, is not mentioned. The mob could in principle catch him later. Moses does not say that the two adulterers have to be stoned side by side.
Jesus is not going to preach against Mosaic Law, given by His Father. So if "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone" is taken literally then the pericope cannot be canonical, for nobody is without sin yet Mosaic Law required elders to make and execute judgements. Those who take the pericope as canonical often suggest Jesus means "Let him who is without THIS sin cast the first stone" but I don't find it plausible that every single one of that crowd had committed adultery. Some other commentators have suggested, plausibly, that Jesus means "Let him who is without sin in this matter [ie, bad conscience about their sanctimoniousness] cast the first stone". That is plausible.
So, internal evidence is indecisive too.
Christine, the theologian you mention is surnamed Burgon, Craig has already pointed this out to you. Again, the naked irony of your supposed knowledge is that although it takes over this web faster than Japanese knotweed it has so far failed to bud or produce any new shoots. If it were not for the roses of wisdom blooming here due to the patient explanations of Craig, physicist and others, you would have turned this place into a desert of unfounded supposition and New Age heresies!
Take a look at the following entries over the last several years, and there are more.
By: Attorney Constance Cumbey
September 17, 2007
NewsWithViews.com
Sunday, October 25, 2009
"GLOBAL WARMING" HARMONICALLY CONVERGES WITH MAURICE STRONG GLOBAL SCAM
By Attorney Constance Cumbey
May 13, 2011
NewsWithViews.com
LEADING GLOBAL REDISTRIBUTION SCHEME FOR THE "NEW AGE"
PART 1 of 2
Friday, April 18, 2014
Guest article by "Rich of Medford" (Rich Peterson) on "Global Warming" n/k/a "Climate Change"
Why is there no mention of the Pope's latest on getting involved in the climate control agenda?
Needs a little more attention than a passing comment how it is very bothersome if true, based on Constance's prevailing opinion over the years regarding the "scam" that is the climate control agenda, doesn't it?
Before some of you jump on the train of "how dare you question Constance after all her research over the years" or "your just a catholic basher", let me ask you this:
If you knew of a politician, religious leader, friend or neighbor across the street that was outspoken about an agenda and its tie in with world politicians and religious leaders as part of the new age lie, but seem to be silent on the issue since the pope has been mentioned, wouldn't you say- what's up with that??
Wouldn't you say- what has changed your mind?
Well, Constance,
What has changed your mind?
Christine, what Paul is indicating and communicating to you is that the authors of the substantiated texts from which Craig is citing base their findings on Biblical evidence (Sola Scriptura if you will, with the caveat that the pericope in question may have been passed down as a valid oral and true tradition before bieng interpolated into later New Testament text). Craig's position in no way violates the truth that the Holy Scriptures are Divinely Inspired (or God Breathed if you prefer).
Sadly you have proved yourself unable to produce any reliable rebuttal or counter-argument. Perhaps you should refrain from trying to see things, which are probably a little too high-brow for you, through the poorly treated 'periscope' of those who fail to properly give thorough academic account for their 'findings' and stop echoing the ramblings of the mindless rabble from whence you came!
I shall reiterate this for you Christine (in case you've not quite got it):
To clarify and reasonably deduce what Paul is indicating and communicating to you, based on being witness to your 'argument' with Craig, is this:
1 that the authors of the substantiated texts from which Craig is citing base their findings on Biblical evidence (Sola Scriptura if you will, with the caveat that the pericope in question may have been passed down as a valid oral and true tradition before bieng interpolated into later New Testament text). Craig's position in no way violates the truth that the Holy Scriptures are Divinely Inspired (or God Breathed if you prefer).
2 That sadly you have proven yourself unable to produce any reliable rebuttal or counter-argument. Perhaps you should refrain from trying to see things, which are probably a little too high-brow for you, through the poorly treated 'periscope' of those who fail to properly give thorough academic account for their 'findings' and stop echoing the ramblings of the mindless rabble from whence you came!
yes I have authority based on bible and other knowledge. I have forgotten more Bible than you ever knew, or you wouldn't make such a repeated fool of yourself.
I meant to put quotes around that last sentence.
"yes I have authority based on bible and other knowledge. I have forgotten more Bible than you ever knew, or you wouldn't make such a repeated fool of yourself."
Exactly Paul,
She certainly has expressedly and directly given her agenda away there hasn't she? Well of course it's not as though we couldn't spot it already!
The years of her repeated mantras of un- non- and downright antibiblical additions and subtractions, e.g., her attack on Ecclesiastes with her Hindu devil inspired eisegesis of chakras, ether and 'soul-stuff' as well as many more examples of her gnostic nonsense!
She'd have done well to remember the Biblical warnings in Dueteronomy 4 and Revelation 22 about adding to or subtracting from God's Word!
Yes truly amazing;
It's possible to read through the Bible five or six times and still miss all the lessons in humility and miss all the warnings against conceit, in this case a blinding conceit.
"Seeing, they will see but not perceive, hearing they will hear but not understand."
You must have also missed, five or six times, that we are commanded to honor our father and mother.
And you must have missed, five or six times, that the admixture of witchcraft and the true faith is
a mortal sin, because you do that all the time.
There must be something in there that gives you a special license, something that most of us mere mortals never noticed.
Your knowledge of witchcraft is comprehensive.
You are an expert on the k'ran.
You are an expert on Hinduism.
You are an authority on physics.
You are an authority on spiritualism(s)
Let's not forget that you're a celebrated historian.
And on and on.
Yet, amazingly no University has deigned to give you an honorary degree of any kind.
Like I said you have NO AUTHORITY.
Just a big bag of hot wind.
Paul
Aren't you the one who posted a few months back about a friend of yours that you'd known for years that you asked to move in as a roommate and didnt know he was gay? After knowing him for awhile?
Yea, that was you, because Susanna tried to jump to your defense in saying that I was accusing you of knowing, when in fact, I believed you. I was totally surprised at your lack of discernment in the matter considering your strong opinions on the gay lifestyle.
Aren't you the one who sings the praises of Shoebat even though there are MORE than a few stories that are completely falsified with inaccurate photos and dates? I mean, come on, his website smacks of sensationalizing and inflammatory statements. It looks like the National Inquirer- Middle East Bureau.
My point is, that no matter how much bible you know or forgot, your discernment is CRAP.
You are NOT any better than Christina with your posts here.
7:15 A.M
Not likely Constance will answer your question.
There are more important things to be done here. Arguing back and forth endlessly between Craig and Paul, and Christine is one of them. Some of the other ones are exposing relatively minor players in NA. Old dead Nazis, etc.
I think to any believer in the gospel, who is truly in Christ, it should be obvious by now that Pope Francis is a false prophet, if not thee False Prophet.
That would make his unholiness the most important New Age figure in the world to warn others about!
www.nowtheendbegins.com/blog/?p=29610
Post titled: The Sayings Of Pope Francis VS The Holy Bible
Anon 9:21
I agree, I'm sure I won't get a genuine response.
If you check out the links, you will see that Constance was thanking Susanna for the information on one of the articles and they proceeded to pat each on the back for exposing the evils of the climate control agenda.
And you won't get a genuine response from Susanna either. Just some church father interpretation of how we are misguided and don't understand the true nature of the pope's actions.
If you are who it appears you are by your own writing, then you are nothing more than a back-tracker, you have been a defender of occult things which you earlier implied you were an expert on and yet by your later admission knew little about! Despite this, you have driven many a sound Christian from this blog through emotional blackmail and your incessant bullying and false accusation! You are, by your own admission, an apostate and have therefore forefeited your inheritance! It is through the likes of wolves such as you that many a Christian poster has left here and you have created a vacuum for gnosticism and heresy to fill from the blusterings of Christine!
Anonymous 9:21 AM, you will not enter through the gates yourself and so try to block the way for others to do so. You are a blind guide and anyone who follows you shall fall into the ditch with you!
So with the vicious attacks from the 'anonymous' poster at 9:21 AM (and that poster's fans) aside, anyone can see that the fruits that Christine's briars produce are deadly if swallowed. Her twistings additions and omissions are the result of a reprobate mind. If there is any doubt over what it means to add or subtract from the Holy Bible then see the information available at the following link:
http://www.letusreason.org/Biblexp117.htm
Christine,
The author of the piece from the KJV-Only site, Floyd Nolen Jones, is either misinformed or overlooking the truth in his rather extreme rhetoric, impugning the character of those who deem the PA not part of sacred Scripture:
One reason that so many religious leaders and laymen oppose the inclusion of these verses, called the pericope de adultera in theological-scholastic circles ("pericope" is a short selection from a book), is due to their lack of understanding it and thus an inability to properly exegete the story. The forgiveness which Christ bestowed upon the adulteress is contrary to the conviction of many that the punishment for adultery should be very severe. [1] For most, the solution is to merely conclude that Jesus' coming to earth has somehow nullified the Laws of God; that God no longer punishes sin but has now ‘become’ a God of mercy, love and compassion. The story seems to offer too many inexplicable contradictory problems for most, and since they cannot understand the verses - they raise their vote to exclude them from the Scriptures. It requires great humility to admit lack of insight. Such men rarely will humble their intellect before God, constantly labeling paradoxes contained within the covers of the Bible as ‘unfortunate scribal errors’ simply because their wisdom has failed to unravel the paradox.
And, later he writes, Tragically, most naturalistic scholars today feel so certain that the pericope is not genuine that they regard further discussion of the matter as unprofitable…
If the UBS committee had wished the verses excluded, they would not be in the UBS4 (The Greek New Testament) at all. (And the same for the NA28, which also includes it.) Yet these verses are included, though enclosed in brackets. Moreover, as far as I know, all English Bibles include the pericope, while making a special note such as “earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses” (NIV) don’t contain it. Not one commentary on John that I’ve read (and I have over a dozen in my personal library) have ever stated anything about the theological content of the PA being a factor in the decision. Moreover, ALL critical commentaries state that the story is likely true historically. In addition, not one valid textual critic closes their minds to any further developments as regards TC. New manuscript evidence, or new analysis based on current evidence is always welcome.
One final quote from Jones:
Hills continues: "At a very early date it had become customary throughout the Greek Church to read John 7:37-8:12 on the day of Pentecost. This lesson began with 7:37-39, verses that are very appropriate to the Pentecostal feast day…Then the lesson continued through John 7:52, omitting 7:53-8:11, and concluded with John 8:12 - 'Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.'"
If true, this helps to make my earlier point that the PA interrupts the flow.
Like most KJV-Only-ists, those who disagree with their position must have some sort of agenda. That’s very cult-like behavior.
Christine,
Presumably in response to my post at 10:22pm yesterday about your libelous words, you wrote:
I gave the option out of meaning commentary, not just reference in general.
First of all, I don’t find the above anywhere in your comment. Secondly, and more importantly, you’ve not addressed your libelous “blatant lie” charge. Fr. Brown is deceased and not here to defend himself, so I’ll defend him. Since you libeled Brown publically, will you publically apologize here?
It’s one thing if you don’t quite understand what is written; it’s quite another to jump to conclusions and call someone a liar based on the straw man you’ve erected – a practice you continue to do repeatedly.
To be clear, by "a practice you continue to do repeatedly" I mean your repeated straw man fallacies.
Ugh, I meant to use this site for good examples of the straw man fallacy instead of the other url I used above, as it's much more descriptive:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html
(I'm a bit under the weather...)
Christine? Relying on cult-like behavior? Really? Oh yes, and drawing from heresies, false religion, spiritism(s) and all sorts of demonic dogmas too!
And now drawing from reputedly KJV-Only-ist sources ... What ever will her EO priest make of it? He's no doubt as exacerbated with her as we all are!
" Some of the other ones are exposing relatively minor players in NA. Old dead Nazis,"
I halfway agree but halfway disagree with you on this one.
A person in a position of power in an institution with Nazi origins (EU) or theosophical and related origins (UN) which organization has major international influence (both) is not a minor player exactly.
However, a serious tracking of who was close to the Old Dead Nazis and/or was a part of such background organizations (incl. Skull and Bones and similar things like Bohemian Grove), and then go forward looking at those who were close to/favored by them, and those who were close to/favored by that generation, to the present, would be a good idea.
The New Age is like an octopus with many tentacles. and some of them are in Christianity, some in Judaism, some in or flat out manifesting AS some other religions or major segments of them.
Some tentacles are political, some "spiritual" and a major player would be hard to define since they work separately to their combined effect.
So DEFINE A MAJOR PLAYER either by characteristics the rest of us can look for, or by name.
One aspect brought up by Dave Emory was the Bormann flight capital group, which companies (or founded later with such money) incl. media and publishing giant (or it was in Emory's day) Bertelsmann of Germany.
And Bertelsmann owned directly or indirectly a lot of American music incl. so called black culture gangster rap as well as book publishing (and the determination therefore of what gets published and what doesn't) companies.
A friend of mine, who probably in Alzheimer's doesn't remember me, said something interesting. Decades ago publishing companies were always interested in him. But in working on his magnum opus which includes apparently a lot of statistical stuff and patterns over decades, incl. the issue of govt. and media lying to us, he found he couldn't get a publisher.
AND the rejection notice he got, no matter who the publisher was, WAS IDENTICAL. That means all these companies are using the same boiler plate rejection letter, insert name as appropriate when sending.
While a certain amount of secretarial standardization might be expected in an industry, it still seems a bit odd.
One way this could happen, is that all these diverse publishers have a top down relationship with something above them unseen by the average person, but perhaps locatable by tracking "parent companies" which doesn't mean actual original company it split from, but the company that owns the other company now. Still, that would be instructive.
One person or small group did such research and found that a handful of companies, linked by overlapping directorates (same people on the board of directors or at least one in common) and stock holder huge shares, owned a somewhat larger groups of corporations which in turn own or somehow direct all other corporations or most of them in the world (or that part of the world the study was interested in, Europe and America).
Hmmmmm.
"Re internal evidence in that pericope, one point worth considering is that the decision whether to accuse the woman under Mosaic Law and consequently stone her is surely up to her husband - who also has authority to forgive - yet he is not mentioned."
you forget that when it becomes a public issue, because "they are found" then that option is not available. "purge out the evil from among you." different context but same issue, major sin.
The important point showing a problem was here, is that the co-adulterer was absent (unless he was one of the accusers).
RE: 10:58 AM:
Exacerbatedly exasperated I mean!
Yes Craig, I'm feeling a bit under the weather myself ... It must be all that battling against the luke-warm winds of nonsense blustering in from Christine's constant ravings!
Craig 10:48,
"presumably in response to my post at 10:22pm yesterday about your libelous words, you wrote:
I gave the option out of meaning commentary, not just reference in general.
First of all, I don’t find the above anywhere in your comment"
oh yes I did, right here "unless you mean those who followed the lexicon for the services in writing, and as Burgeon points out, this incident was not relevant to what would be being preached about when these chapters would be preached in Church. So no reason to include it. "
Notice the UNLESS YOU MEAN.
". Secondly, and more importantly, you’ve not addressed your libelous “blatant lie” charge. Fr. Brown is deceased and not here to defend himself,"
The attitude about not saying ill about the dead is NOT about them not being able to defend themselves, that is a later rationalization.
Originally the concern was that they COULD and WOULD defend themselves. Angry dead could make trouble, or so those feared who started this idea centuries ago.
Now, looking more closely at his remarks, he did indeed fit the category of out that I gave him. Which means yes I pounced too fast, but no in fact I didn't libel him since he fit the UNLESS category which was a built in retraction in case he did fit it.
anon 10:58 the source doesn't matter so much as the arguments and facts presented. If a KJBO site has the easiest search system or the best combined in one place arguments and facts, then I'd use it. Half the time I don't even know the agenda of the place, if I hit a good compilation in one site using google I use it.
If you are going to get all that hoity toity, why bother to pay attention to Constance who had lunch with Marilyn Ferguson and uses extensive quotes from New Age sources to illustrate her points?
KJBO is only semi heretical, and not on core doctrine anyway. Usually. It does have occult influenced people in its pedigree especially at the start.
In defending its position it is slippery, claiming for instance that a statement by a church in the 1830s USA about the KJV being the one they used, was a pre Ruckman et. al. KJBO statement.
Well, it isn't. Because in those days, that was the only respectable translation available to a protestant period. The others were RC, Quaker or something similar, its in wikipedia go search bible translations, and one by a single person without advisers operating on his own, open to question of accuracy because of that.
In those days, KJV was the only translation a baptist could use, so this is not a KJBO statement, given the context. If it was said now, it might be either KJBO or KJV preferring not the same thing.
But on other issues they are usually okay.
Craig,
I don't do straw men, I hit at core targets. If you have been under the weather you might have missed this.
Attacking the solar plexus, or doing the mafia style "hit 'em low and hit 'em high" (go for the knees then as they collapse get them in the head)
may look odd to someone used to boxing and swinging at the jaw only, but it is more effective (aka dirty fighting). it goes for the weak point.
and in a non physical argument, hitting such weak points (if correctly identified of course) weakens the arguments in general given by the other side's defenders.
When you go from John 7:53 "And every man went unto his own house." and follow as next verse 8:12 "Then spake Jesus again unto them,..."
it makes no sense, since there was no one to talk to they having left unto their own houses.
but it does make sense, if in between these two statements should be 8:1,2 "Jesus went unto the mount of Olives. And early in the morning He came again into the Temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them."
but "Then spake Jesus AGAIN" doesn't make sense unless He said something previous.
The disruption of His teaching in v. 2 by what occurs in vss. 3-11 explains why He was speaking AGAIN instead of just something like "and He opened His mouth and began to speak to them saying," etc. this forinstance being similar to something that is written elsewhere in the Gospels.
So the flow of the words requires the pericope.
To all:
Forgive my absence for a few days -- still trying to lick this stubborn whatever that has had me down since December 16th. I had a phone call from a dear Catholic friend last night. She is rightfully nervous about Pope Francis'alleged intentions to call a convocation of world religions and issue an encyclical on the subjects of climate change and biodiversity. She told me that she can't help but wonder if there was some type of coup d'etat at the Vatican in which Pope Benedict XVI (Ratzinger) had been deposed and put under a virtual house arrest and been replaced with a pro-change Bergoglio (Pope Francis).
She is one of my best informed personal friends and lives in the far Northwest of our country.
I'm interested in all opinions on this matter. I'm interested in knowing what Suzanne things of the possible import of making this an Encyclical which my other well informed friend thinks would be virtually "ex cathedra." I discussed this with Lee Penn today and he says that the encyclical would need "special language" to make this a matter of morals and doctrine.
Let's hear from Suzanne on this one and the rest of you who have information.
Constance
To anonyous 6:14
I don't know what your game or agenda is, but I suspect it is a destructive one. For your sake, I hope it is merely a sloppy one. If you have valuable information to supply, you are more than welcome to write a guest column and I will consider publishing it here, as I have for Rich of Medford and others. I did speak here on the climate change issue. I maintain this as a blogspot. I do not have sufficient financial resources to maintain a website, but the blogspot and the comments section have served me well. There are only 24 hours in my day and I have to juggle my remaining professional responsibilities as a lawyer, my duties as a wife and grandmother, and my duties to my severely disabled husband. If you are comparing me to those "ministries" which continually beg for funds and receive millions back in turn, sorry, I have never felt called to do that. I have never been forgiven by those interests in the Evangelical world which were taking funds from the Moonies and Paul Temple for uncovering their games. So, even though my book was a #1 best seller in its day, publishing my second book was considered an undesirable hot potato and was boycotted by even Huntington House which was busy printing literature for Pat Robertson for fun and profit and eventually declared bankruptcy after living on the proceeds of my own book for 20 years between 1983 and 2003.
You have a very ugly attitude. I hope it was based on bad assumptions and not one of deliberate sabotage.
Constance
Christine,
RE: your comment @ 11:49AM: au contraire. You continually erect straw man fallacies, as you just did in your comment @ 12:17pm above. Verse 7:53 – “Then each went to his own home” – IS a part of the Pericopae Adulterae, and is specifically omitted according to Hills/Jones in the quote I provided. It’s this sort of carelessness that makes having a discussion with you exhausting.
Moreover, evidence of your continued erection of straw men are the times in which Physicist must correct your incorrect statements as regards science, for it is your misrepresentation of another’s position – such as miscomprehending a particular scientific theory – which compels Physicist to correct your statements.
Now, as to your statement but "Then spake Jesus AGAIN" doesn't make sense unless He said something previous, Jesus had spoken previously in verses 7:16 through 7:38. It’s like I stated WAY earlier: You see discontinuity in omitting the PA where I see continuity. Once you concede that 7:53 is part of the pericope, if you still see discontinuity, then fine. We’ll have to agree to disagree.
To all:
Forgive my absence for a few days -- still trying to lick this stubborn whatever that has had me down since December 16th. I had a phone call from a dear Catholic friend last night. She is rightfully nervous about Pope Francis'alleged intentions to call a convocation of world religions and issue an encyclical on the subjects of climate change and biodiversity. She told me that she can't help but wonder if there was some type of coup d'etat at the Vatican in which Pope Benedict XVI (Ratzinger) had been deposed and put under a virtual house arrest and been replaced with a pro-change Bergoglio (Pope Francis).
She is one of my best informed personal friends and lives in the far Northwest of our country.
I'm interested in all opinions on this matter. I'm interested in knowing what Susanna thinks of the possible import of making this an Encyclical which my other well informed friend thinks would be virtually "ex cathedra." I discussed this with Lee Penn today and he says that the encyclical would need "special language" to make this a matter of morals and doctrine. A VERY, VERY SERIOUS AND BAD DEVELOPMENT in my caller's opinion and my own.
Let's hear from Susanna on this one and the rest of you who have information.
Constance
Constance,
To your question about whether Pope Francis’ upcoming encyclical will be an example of speaking ex cathedra, at best we can only speculate. However, if it’s put in the form of his only other encyclical, LUMEN FIDEI, which includes Scripture references, reading like an exegetical commentary, then I’d say “yes.”
According to Wikipedia, there’s an interesting statement by Pope Pius XII:
Pope Pius XII held that Papal Encyclicals, even when they are not of 'ordinary magisterium', can nonetheless be sufficiently authoritative to end theological debate on a particular question:
“It is not to be thought that what is set down in Encyclical letters does not demand assent in itself, because in this the popes do not exercise the supreme power of their magisterium. For these matters are taught by the ordinary magisterium, regarding which the following is pertinent: “He who heareth you, heareth Me.” (Luke 10:16); and usually what is set forth and inculcated in Encyclical Letters, already pertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their acts, after due consideration, express an opinion on a hitherto controversial matter, it is clear to all that this matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot any longer be considered a question of free discussion among theologians.
—Humani generis
To my mind, this means that, at least according to Pius XII – which I’d think is itself an example of speaking ex cathedra - all encyclicals should be viewed as authoritative, i.e. part of RCC Tradition (with a capital “T”), the Magisterium.
Above should be changed to:
“…all encyclicals should be viewed as authoritative when “express[ing] an opinion on a hitherto controversial matter”…”
Infowolf Aka Nutter, you are known by your rotten fruits of chakras, ether and soul stuff, dishonoring a parent, claims of vampires, Nibiru and colonies on Mars, I wouldn't trust any of your supposed facts drawn from your own guesswork and hot air and I don't think anyone in their right minds would!
Go back and read the 10:58 PM post again! You will notice I began with, 'Christine', I did not begin with, 'KJVO'. I did not express an opinion about any heresies of KJV onlyism. Seeing as my post was a little highbrow for the likes of 'mindless rabble' such as you, let me patronize you some more:
A rhetorical remark about your behavior and tendencies then follows regarding your relying on cult-like behavior (responding to Craig's note of you, though I was not expressing any personal opinion of KJVO either way). Obviously, I was pointing to you and your drawing from gnostic fantasy spiritism(s) and Hinduism, which, incidentally I enforce with the following line: 'Oh yes, and drawing from heresies, false religion, spiritism(s) and all sorts of demonic dogmas too!'
It is obvious, ( to anyone with a bit more working gray matter than you) as shown at 10:58 AM by the following words, 'And now' (10:58 PM 2nd Paragraph), that in my preceeding paragraph (10:58 PM 1st Paragraph) I had been refering to your overall heretical and demonic dogmas which you have spread here, laden with spiritism(s) ever since you first began writing at this blog.
My opinions of what I think of KJV-Only-ism were not expressed and you are the last person I'd think of discussing such matters with, unless you were to attack the overall credibility of the KJV itself (yes there is a difference between KJV-Only-ism and the truth of and overall reliability of the KJV itself, Christine Aka Infowolf)!
Furthermore, on behalf of all here, I expressed empathy with your EO Priest (assuming we're to believe you on this and you have one). He must be at his wit's end with your attempts to devour the sheep of his congregation with your deceptions and delusions.
Finally, any reference to New Age ideas made by Constance is always done by her from a position of exposing and refuting them, you, Christine are to the contrary, as shown by your attempts at obfuscation and your promotion of all things false and gnostic! It would not surprise me in the least, Infowolf Aka whoever-you-are, if it has been you going incognito on this blog and directly attacking Constance's credibility! May the Lord rebuke you, you devil!
Thank you Craig for your comments about my interactions with Christine. You are somewhat more patient than me in your rhetoric - a good thing - but we are surely experiencing the same problem. As for it being exhausting - don't let quantity of words defeat quality; keep going!
Re Pope Francis and climate change - I await his statement, and as a non-Catholic am not particularly concerned about its authority (except perhaps to influence others). I would expect the Vatican to assume rather than assert climate change, for it learned that lesson retrospectively over Galileo; and then go on to discuss the political. As Pope Francis is not a scientist I regard it is important to keep trying to inform him of the correct scientific facts (ie no warming for 15 years despite CO2 increases) and to direct no-holds-barred criticism at any of his scientific advisors who assert that manmade climate change is proven. But let us await.
Physicist
Physicist,
Thanks for your comment. I have to admit that I was beginning to feel like a “blog hog” in my continued comments to refute Christine; and, for that reason, I nearly gave up a while ago.
Sometimes the straw man fallacy comes about through cognitive dissonance. I wrote an article on this a while back, employing a bit of humor:
Creating Straw Men from Cognitive Dissonance
Craig, you're no *blog hog*! It is easy to see who is the *'blog hog* aka ...
"Dorothy, that is very interesting, may I ask why you left Catholicism to join Judaism? you seemed rather upset about Christian issues being discussed here last year, if that was you, as if they were irrelevant to the New Age."
Trying to stir the pot again aren't you, Christine? And all to satisfy your constant need for drama to molest topics/people emotionally and mentally to fill your empty life. You don't deserve an answer.
("Christine you have no authority to say so many of the things you say.")
"yes I have authority based on bible and other knowledge. I have forgotten more Bible than you ever knew,"
God help you.
Christine,
In reading through one of your earlier comments (I don't always read them all), I find another blatant error. You wrote:
Here is a reference to the pericope in a second century document, the didascalia
The reference you cite states explicitly that it was "composed in the 200s," which means 3rd century NOT 2nd. Let's do a basic study:
Years 0 - 99 are 1st century. All Scripture was written in the 1st century
Years 100 - 199 are 2nd century.
Years 200 - 299 are 3rd century.
and, etc...
Constance @ 1:42
Who is anon 6:14? Did you mean 7:15?
If it is 7:15, then why are calling the person nasty?
I see a post that links articles AUTHORED by YOU regarding the new age lie of the climate control agenda.
These are fact, not agenda driven or not at all nasty. Simply the truth.
I see a post that questions why there isn't more on the topic now the pope is involved.
Again, this is fact, not agenda driven or nasty at all. Simply the truth.
Why when you are REALLY challenged (and I mean REALLY, because there are not too many here who would ever have the nerve to call out the great Constance Cumbey) do you insist that the poster is nasty or agenda driven?
I think you think a little too highly of yourself. This blog isn't that important anymore and hasn't been for quite sometime. You only have a small handful of yes men/women who are regulars and Christine.
You are not that big of a deal to create an agenda over. But you are just like anyone else, in that you should be called out when there are discrepancies in your past and current viewpoints.
"Trying to stir the pot again aren't you, Christine?"
In *blog hog*-ine Aka Infowolf-ina's case it's probably a cauldron!
Physicist
I understand your "wait and see" with the Pope and climate change.
My concern is that regardless if he offers it as scientific or not, it is still very dangerous because of who he is. There are 1.2 billion Catholics and then you have all the non Catholics who he has been courting this year who think he's the greatest thing- that could be a disaster.
I fear that if this actually plays out, millions of people will not care if it is based on scientific data.
Many will take it as law, and that's very dangerous, considering he is supposed to be meeting with many world religious leaders prior to strengthen his position.
Yes, 4.37pm, that is a concern, but let us prepare for the worst while not criticising anybody before they have opened their mouths - Physicist
Craig,
yes my goof going too fast, Didascalia is c. AD 230 which is THIRD century, my apologies to anyone I misled.
that's still a time frame in which the writers of the Didascalia had access to Gospels copied from the autograph(s). Lasting over 200 years is only unusual for papyrus in wet climates, or vellum, but parchment lasts a lot longer though is mold susceptible but would still be legible.
Since at c. AD 230 that is in the lifetime easily of parchment and of papyrus kept in a dry environment, the writers could have seen the autograph(s). In any a first generation copy is pretty certain.
Craig, maybe some people count ":each went to his own home" as part of the pericope and exclude this with it. But it comes at the end of the dispute in chapter 7, and refers to chief officers and priests and Pharisees. It can't possibly relate to the pericope.
Background to this, was that to avoid trouble before His time had come, Jesus stayed in Galilee, but came secretly to the Feast of Tabernacles in Jerusalem and then quit the disguise and preached in the Temple. A dispute came as a result, ending in that last verse we are talking about.
Chapter 8 begins with "Jesus went unto the mount of Olives, And early in the morning came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and He sat down, and taught them."
then the pericope incident itself.
without the pericope, you move from vs. 2 to vs 12
"and He sat down, and taught them.
"Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying,...."
huh? what happened between "taught them" and "spake Jesus AGAIN unto them" if not the interruptive incident with the woman taken in adultery? The flow requires something happened that was left out.
The Didascalia refers to the event, drawing c. AD 230 off at the latest 2nd generation and more likely 1st generation copies from the original John's Gospel.
That should settle it.
" In any a first generation copy is pretty certain".
Where's your evidence Christine? Do the writers report directly seeing the said pericope in a 'first generation copy'? Or is it all supposition on your part? You're all bluster and no substance!
Christine,
In your ever vigilant attempt to erect straw men fallacies if you can’t ‘win’ an unwinnable argument, you wrote:
maybe some people count ":each went to his own home" as part of the pericope and exclude this with it. But it comes at the end of the dispute in chapter 7, and refers to chief officers and priests and Pharisees. It can't possibly relate to the pericope.
The important point is what the Greek mss omit as regards the PA; and, the omission (or, better, absence of verbiage) begins with 7:53. That is, the Greek mss missing the PA go from 7:52 directly to 8:12, leaving out 7:53 – 8:11 in its entirety. Hence, your argument is your own pontification, having absolutely no basis in fact, even at odds with the KJVO source you so firmly relied upon above.
You wrote, The Didascalia refers to the event, drawing c. AD 230 off at the latest 2nd generation and more likely 1st generation copies from the original John's Gospel.
By this fallacious line of argumentation one could counter on much firmer ground that p66, a Greek mss which does not contain the PA, a document dated from 125 – 250 (stated as “ca 200” in the NA28, though 125 by Comfort and others), could be from “1st generation copies from the original John’s Gospel.” However, either way, it’s pure speculation, an argument from silence, and not one any responsible textual critic would employ.
What you absolutely fail to consider is the possibility that the Didascalia may well be taken from oral tradition (though a historically true account) rather than Scripture. This would appear to better account for the fact that the PA is variously placed in Scripture, such as after John 7:52, after 7:44, 7:36, 21:25, and even after Luke 21:38.
Christine,
The Diatessaron, written ca. 160–175 (thus predating the Didascalia by half a century), an early (earliest?) harmony of the Gospels, also does not contain the PA.
There now, 'that should settle it'!
If that is what the MSS omit, that in itself shows something is wrong. Because it has no logical connection to the pericope itself. But you have to cut it with the pericope, in order to cut out the next few verses that show Jesus went away from the Temple and came back, otherwise the connection becomes rough as I pointed out.
But since it can only refer to the events immediately preceding it, why is it missing with the pericope?
As for "oral tradition," that is an assumption, reeking of pontification. Why would the Didascalia not rely on the written word, though it paraphrased the account?
as for P66, it could be anywhere from what you say to 300s AD "Its original editor assigned the codex to the early third century, or around AD 200, on the basis of the style of handwriting in the codex.[1] Herbert Hunger later claimed that the handwriting should be dated to an earlier period in the middle or early part of the second century.[2] More recently, Brent Nongbri has produced a broader study of the codex and argued that when one takes into consideration the format, construction techniques, and provenance of the codex along with the handwriting, it is more reasonable to conclude that the codex was produced "in the early or middle part of the fourth century." [3]"
A similar one P75 "It is calculated that the codex omitted the Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53-8:11).[15]" what does THAT mean, "calculated?" the same wording is said of P45.
The fact remains, that in no case do we know the theology (gnostic, arian, or orthodox) or the copyists, the Egyptian provenance of much raises issues of hyper condemnatory type moralism and/or montanism or montanism influenced super strictness being in play.
The physical provenance is known, the theological or ecclesiological is not, and can never be known. Motive existed for making changes even among the orthodox and was reported as having been done. Its a "Greek Manuscript" because written in Greek, but it is North African, from whence came many serious problems.
The Didascalia was written by a bishop or bishops, instructing clergy and laity, and precisely these would have full copies of The Holy Scriptures to work with. "The provenance is usually regarded as Northern Syria, possibly near Antioch.[3]" A much safer location.
The content includes statements from Peter, and from the Apostles as a group, or claims to. In this it is either a pious fraud pseudepigraphia, in other words a LIE, or it is in fact Apostolic writing, or it is an expansion of an originally Apostolic core document or documents, cobbled together and more comments thrown in.
My guess is the latter, an early effort at making some kind of canons.
It quotes OT and NT exactly but also makes references to events. Buried in the text is a reference to not a direct quote of the events of the pericope.
IF the pericope is part of Scripture we can be certain it is fact. IF it is not we can't be certain it is fact. HOWEVER the way Jesus handles it is consistent with Torah rules as spelled out in that article. Note He doesn't deny the validity of the death penalty in the matter, merely follows procedure showing how hypocritical they were, they brought the woman not the man and were guilty of the same things. Possibly at least one with her, maybe several if she was married and a nymphomaniac or doing some whoring for hire on the side.
(The article argues she is believer because she calls Him Lord, but this could have developed and the notion of handling it as in the family makes no sense. There is no indication that He gives her a free pass, He does not compel her to speak on the matter, so she can't either lie or confess which would play into the accusers' hands, and He gives her a stern warning.)
Dorothy, I am not a spiteful person full of malice as apparently you are. And you make the BIG MISTAKE of judging others by yourself.
I did not ask why you left RC in order to open old wounds, an odd phrasing, unless there was some nasty antisemitic element in RC you ran into.
Yes that existed. A lot of pagan baggage NOT incl. the Eucharist or prayers for the dead or incense and candles, but pride and power games and ecclesiology to support it and sexual double standard and abuse of concepts of not judging, being forgiving, respecting elders and clergy, not creating scandal, all abused to promote evil.
And among those attitudes was the hatred satan has towards the Jews, because satan can't touch Jesus Who is Jewish so satan goes after those He came from among into the world to extend Passover from being about Jews coming out of Egypt, to the rest of us coming out of the kingdom of darkness with Jesus Messiah (which is what Christ means, both words mean anointed one in Hebrew and Greek) as the Passover Lamb ("Christ our Passover"). Easter originally called Pascha Greek for Passover.
When the Jews said Jesus' blood could be on them and their children, this was finished with in AD 70 with the destruction of Jerusalem and The Temple. Its over with. Jews are not Christ killers, we ALL are because our sins are what He went on the Cross about in the first place.
The pope and RC came to its senses on this one many decades ago.
Get over it.
Come back to Jesus, preferable Orthodox Church, yeah, Orthodoxy has a track record with pogroms, but there were bishops and priests who physically got in the way of some of that also.
Serbian Belgrade was the first Balkan city declared judenfrei, but Orthodox Bulgaria lost very few of its Jews.
The hostility you have towards Christianity is pretty obvious, and if you were the one screaming that the pericope de adultera was about how Christ has the power to forgive and is Lord of all, and the Scripturally and Torah correct picture is awful, then either you are parodying a view of Jesus as the Man Who hands out get out of jail free cards,
or you had that handed to you as the reason something horrible was allowed and covered up.
Jesus loves you.
And Christianity is actually a Jewish sect (the only correct one) but this has been forgotten by BOTH religions.
Once again Christine, you have nothing to offer but repeated unsubstsantiated bluster and supposition in your argumentum ad ignorantium, ad hominem post ad hominem, et argumentum ad nauseam!
hmmm. have I hit a nerve?
It was not Dorothy who wrote to you about stirring things up Christine, it was me an anon. Is it your business what she is choosing to believe? And though I am only partly aware of her writings here because not at this place that long I am however, well aware of your abuse of this blog. You say you have no malice, may be, I cannot know that, but I find it incredible that you think yourself so wise to know the motives of all the rest of us. You certainly love to pick at the scabs (real or not) of subjects of all kinds. Your Bible renderings are often unbiblical (love to slice and dice and miss the spirit of whole passages) and you want to tell Dorothy what she needs to believe? Since you need so much attention here it is very possible you are jealous of Dorothy and Constance both since you cannot get a following for your own blog because you sure don't mind stealing this blogs thunder. I don't know what your reasons are but you have a bad effect here. And you carelessly go on and on to continue in that vein. Very much in the way of the new age message you say you care so much about exposing by making yourself a topic instead in the confusion you leave in your wake.
Something is wrong in your heart and easy to detect. Deeply troubled within you to carry on as you do. So leave Dorothy and anybody else alone and concentrate on letting your own life find peace and let this place have some too.
Please.
If you have hit a nerve, Christine, it is probably one of your own. I was refering to your incessant unsubstantianted blathering in your post of 9:18 PM and those preceeding it. I therefore refer to you back to the 270th comment here! Oops, yes, you're not so very good with numbers are you (as Craig had to bring you back to basics just a few posts ago: it wouldn't surprise me if you had to work out which century we're in ... I'll give you a clue, it's 2015 ... Use the method Craig set out for you, that should settle it)?
Regarding your 9:29 PM comment, I'd say you've got a nerve! Repent of your own false beliefs (chakras, etc), breaking of God's Commandments (honor your mother and your father) and malicious behavior, etc, first! Repent Christine before it's too late!
Christine,
I’m aware of Nongbri, having read some of his works. The dating on NT Greek mss is primarily done paleographically (by handwriting analysis), which is an inexact science. At present, Nongbri is in the minority with his dating of p66 into the 4th century. It’s certainly plausible, but there is no way to know for sure. Importantly, he does not negate the fact that p66 has characteristics of 2nd century paleography in his conclusion:
Palaeography of literary papyri can be an extremely frustrating process for people uncomfortable with ambiguity. In the case of P.Bodmer II (p66), reasonable palaeographic parallels with secure dates can be found from the second century into the fourth. When, however, one considers that a very close parallel (P.Bodmer XX) can be dated securely on the basis of its contents to the fourth century, and that this piece was very likely part of the same find as P.Bodmer II, a fourth century date for the latter becomes more plausible…
The problem I find with this kind of reasoning is that just because one ms was found among other mss does not necessarily mean they were all written at the same time. The only conclusion that can definitively be drawn is that they came from the same cache. And that’s it.
You wrote As for "oral tradition," that is an assumption, reeking of pontification. Why would the Didascalia not rely on the written word, though it paraphrased the account?
And why wouldn’t it? The thing is that we flat out don’t know. And your “reeking of pontification” comment is a feeble attempt at attacking my position emotionally rather than logically challenging my position, obviously stated in response to my refutation of your logically fallacious argument above. But, the fact remains that we don’t know whether it is or isn’t taken from Scripture. As I stated above, “What you absolutely fail to consider is the possibility…” i.e., I never said it was definitely NOT sourced from Scripture.
Please don’t resort to the tired Alexandrian-mss-are-bad argument. If that were the case, then why do they actually use monogenes theos (“only begotten God” – in p66 and p75 both) instead of monogenes huios (“only begotten Son”) in John 1:18?
Nonetheless, the problem that still obtains with your position – and, again, neither your position nor mine can be proved – is that there are 4 NT Greek mss w/out the PA predating the earliest Greek mss w/ it. The earliest source that I’ve seen which actually states it sources the PA from John is Jerome from the 5th or maybe 4th century. All the others do not expressly state WHERE they sourced the PA; so, no definitive conclusion can be drawn as to whether they relied upon Scripture or an oral tradition. Moreover, Tatian’s Diatessaron (ca 160 – 175), a harmony of all 4 Gospels, and thus more logically using Scripture as its source, does not include it.
Let's hope Christine finds humility, fully repents and apologizes from the heart to Dorothy, Constance and all here!
God help her!
you like everybody keeps arguing on the basis of strictly usual issues of physical condition, age and body count.
I don't recall you dealing with the issue of DISHONESTY playing a role in the production and transmission, something that is not an issue (once modern fraud to make a sellable antiquity is eliminated) in dealing with any book except The Bible.
The motive exists obviously in all matters. Heretics were in play and stated as making alterations usually more drastic than this.
Orthodox were stated as having specifically deleted the pericope.
opportunity existed and reported was used.
Arianism died a hard death and is still with us in fact, it didn't end at Nicea I.
Not one of those MSS and fragments can be definitely proven to be from an orthodox source, that is not hyper condemnatory type moralistic, and anything from North Africa is open to question.
Between those who might think the pericope showed Jesus showing divine authority to forgive sins, as one poster thought was going on, instead of proceeding according to Torah as asked, and who, being deniers of His divinity wouldn't like this,
and those who affirmed His divinity but were hyper condemnatory moralistic,
The pericope was under fire.
This issue I and others in books and articles have mentioned before but I don't see a reaction.
what business is it of mine what Dorothy believes? perhaps none.
But if she is a straying daughter of the Church, my duty to The Lord - that means boss, THE OVERLORD, the KING the COMMANDER to Whom is my first duty, and to Whom I owe everything - is to see if I can help her get back to God.
Because while a Jew who knows no better MIGHT by the prayers of Christians find Jesus the real Messiah after death, Jesus might come to the realm of the dead and retrieve him or her, a Christian who has denied Christ is in danger of eternal damnation. I don't want that to happen.
Messiah means anointed one in Hebrew. So does Christ in Greek. Torah says he will come when a king NOT of Judah is on Judah's throne, that happened only once, in Herodian times, and there is no Judah kingdom anymore.
The window for the appearance of the Messiah closed a long time ago. Except for His Second Coming from heaven when He will fulfill the political expectations about the Messiah.
11:15 PM Delete
Christine,
You wrote I don't recall you dealing with the issue of DISHONESTY playing a role in the production and transmission, something that is not an issue (once modern fraud to make a sellable antiquity is eliminated) in dealing with any book except The Bible.
And that argument cuts both ways.
Christine, why don't you just drop this? You do understand that neither you nor I can 'win' this argument, don't you? For the sake of Constance and other readers here, please cease and desist from your endless speculations.
that is not speculation that is fact and in its not about winning.
what it is about, is absent SOLID PROOF THAT THE PERICOPE DOESN'T BELONG THERE, it should not be dismissed.
And while there physical proof cuts both ways, the presence of two streams of motive to eliminate it, even among orthodox, and testimony to the effect that this attitude existed and that this action had been taken, throws the ball more into the court of it belongs there.
as for protecting the sheep, it is precisely all this textual criticism stuff and making big deals about tiny differences, and now this and Mark 16, that makes people doubt the entire Bible.
Sure, that's simple mindedness, but simple mindedness is rampant most of the time. And undermining biblical authority is accomplished by this sort of stuff. And people need protecting against it.
Christine, finally I just about agree with you about something: your post at 11:16 PM. You are correct in that we all need Jesus Christ and we are commissioned in James' Epistle to reach out to backsliders and in so doing are a multitude of sins covered. This post has more humility about it. Well done!
Aside from everthing else, I also find your final two posts written in a far gentler fashion, however, I would add that you have made you point and position clear and any further thrashing out this issue by you or Craig would be self-defeating for both of you. There is enough material there to let the reader decide for himself or herself.
God bless you.
Things to check out:
Walter & Lao Russell
Glenn Clark
Camps Farthest Out
The Twelve
Fellowship Foundation
NCCL
ICL
Swannanoa
I'm doing deep research on the above, but if you want to start your own research, let's race!
Constance
at first glance it seems like another tiresome new age spiritual thing, but something seems a bit different somehow. the effort to affect others by telepathically sending a blank mind state....social connections....the seemingly Christian thing that underemphasizes doctrine, emphasizes love but emphasizes relationships.....everyone HAS to be relating to everyone, cultivate friendships....maybe some soul bonding concept in the works, and of course those who feel lost and lacking identity if not tied up with people won't get any freedom from this addiction listening to these people.
Masonry proposes to eliminate everything that could get in the way of brotherhood, which of course includes truth and Jesus. While this may not be the case here, the potential for it certainly exists.
by social connections I mean like high society, well connected people involved, that resort swannanoa mentioned seems Walter and Lao Russell were pushing some kind of kultur uplift and of course "the one" the impersonal whatnot substitute for God.
maybe I'm just cueing on the name Lao, never mind why.
But I keep feeling like, that organization the Russells started could be a front for anything. incl. overt satanism.
To Anonymous 4:26
1. I'm not chasing fame.
2. I'm interested in pleasing God, not you!
3. i've well done my part to shed light on the Hidden Dangers of the New Age Movement. It's God I have to account on this -- not a peevish, nasty personality on this site with whatever your real agenda is.
4. When I'm doing solid research and archiving, I'm not always simultaneously writing, but when I do, the appropriate people will know.
Constance
http://www.dowsers.com/lao-russell-of-swannanoa/ millionaires and movie stars, got her start by direct marketting health and beauty products.
A definitive biography, with excerpts from Lao Russell’s writings, including God Will Work With You But Not For You and Love: A Scientific and Living Philosophy of Love and Sex.
Introduction by stage, movie, and television star Eddie Albert.
Includes famous students of Lao and Walter Russell, among them Gloria Swanson, Melford Okilo, Barry Goldwater, Cary Grant, Joan Crawford, Shirley MacLaine, Eddie Albert, Tallulah Bankhead, Paul Fisher, and John Denver.
going back to dowsers.com they puxh kabbalah, dowsing and walter russell books.
here's a big problem with dowsing
and many psychotronic devices discussed in Pscyhic Discoveries Behind the Iron Curtain.
whether subtle energies put forth by things, or magnetic flux and hyper sensitivity to it, is the issue, the
PROBLEM is that the human is turned into an antenna.
That in itself opens the door to demon influence. Its not like someone is hypersensitive and walks into a place and notices something, it is a more direct attempt to connect with whatever out there. Dowsing rods tend to move ON THEIR OWN, which makes no sense whatsoever as a purely natural phenomenon.
either a demon is involved, or there is a SERIOUS dislocation of part of the soul to get into and operate the rods, if it is only themselves and their sensitivity doing it.
sensitivity in turn is a WEAKNESS, a lot of people who snootily look down on "mundanes" work hard to develop "shielding" the so called "mundanes" are born with, or develop fast.
Meantime, as one Church Father put it, if there is a fifth element, aether, that some pagan philosophers speculated about, it is a creation of God's, not God itself.
And that is what all these philosophers don't get.
http://www.dataisnature.com/?p=616
wow. I feel like I stumbled back in time to the electromagnetics plus spirituality hodge podge of theosophical and golden dawn connected stuff.
note the Tesla connection. This stuff is very dangerous. Could be weaponized. in many cases for the target's own karmic good I suppose, especially after their are relieved of their present physical limitations
and enabled to take their next step of reincarnational evolution or whatever.
Christine,
"Electromagnetics" are governed by Maxwell's equations and very well understood. What humans can sense and how is much less well understood, but please keep your comments consistent with what IS known.
Physicist
To my very vocal critic,
It's true, I'm no better than Christine and my discernment is CRAP.
After all, I should have thought the worst of my new roommate and never let his very masculine/very normal acting person into my house. How could I have been fooled by a lifelong deceiver ?
How could the entire German people have been fooled by Hitler and his friends, who it turns out were gay ?
Anyway, thanks for the continual vindictive haranguing and accusations.
As far a Shoebat goes, I have never followed him nor have I ever suggested that anyone follow him.
The point is the things that he is exposing.
http://shoebat.com/2015/01/04/horrifying-muslims-massacre-1878-people-hack-pieces-execute-stone-death/
If you think this is a baldfaced lie then I guess I should just ignore it.
But if it's true, don't shoot the messenger.
I know, it gives me cognitive dissonance too.
These things are really happening whether Shoebat is strictly honest or not.
Actually, I completely disagree with Shoebat in his/their opinion that we need to take up arms against them; the whole Church Militant thing.
"Here is the patience and the faith of the saints, that they loved not their lives unto death."
Jesus laid down his life for his friends and we are not above our Master.
Physicist, read the literature from the time. They were hijacking electromagnetics to make spiritual points like they do quantum stuff which you rightly pointed out they don't even get right.
But as for weaponizing a mix of psychic plus electrics to ramp it up, that is a field already under public experimentation.
By the time something is public, it has been messed with some time before that privately.
I am not going to even speculate a specific application of some of what Russell was into lest someone figure out how to do it, and does it.
Paul, a govt. role is to protect against attackers in the absence of govt. reverting to tribal type govt. and militias is the option.
taking faith in force of arms as distinct from God is always a problem. But an established Christian village facing an attack in the first several centuries fought back and won. Shoebat is a good one at digging up obscure history.
When the Church had influenced the Roman and Byzantine govt. and set its agenda enough, persecution of Christians by locals would be prevented by threat or action of force of arms.
When the antichrist gains control he will be allowed to prevail and kill Christians and anyone rejecting him for three and a half years (I don't know where some people get a seven year tribulation from), and it is in that context that what you quote is stated.
Military and even personal defense measures failing should not cause one to doubt the rightness of the Christian cause.
Meanwhile I have another worry about Shoebat. Given his church militant and RC adherence, if the islamic threat were put to flight, how long before his militancy would be turned against non RC Christian?
ISIS/ISIL is being fought effectively by Christian militias trained by kurdish peshmerga and some American advisors, and where the peshmerga hold ground has been the only reliably safe place for Christians (and other refugees, ISIS goes after non ISIS muslims and shia as "apostates" and Jews).
In Kobani in Syria a similar religious mix including Christians held out nearly 40 days before airstrikes were started, against ISIS which had invaded Kobani and held part of it, Kurds have recently revived an ancient ancestral over thousand years old pattern of females in combat, which increases the number of fighters you can field, and have never veiled their faces and tend to take ethnic identity and coexistence above islam.
In the rush to kill muslims, if some people had their way, the kurds would be in the crosshairs also, despite their secularism (okay a large number are not that secular but are under the gun figuratively speaking from those who are, and the latter control in Kobani absolutely, and mostly so in South Kurdistan aka northern Iraq.
Shoebat makes the point, that laying down your life for your brothers can include being in combat for them, since you may very likely die.
western and Chechen people have joined ISIS also, and a few of the islamist inclined kurds, several died at Kobani. It is a strategic town for ISIS plans in Syria.
Paul @ 9:00
I used Anon 12 because there are so many anons posting and it is hard to distinguish who is who.
I'm the one who has been the vocal critic towards you on a few ocassions.
I feel that it has been wrong and I have said enough. I was too busy holding past statements against you and not taking into account that you have changed and are a person with feelings.
This was not very Christian of me and I'm sorry.
God Bless.
trying to find out how Lao Russell got her first name I found it was Walter's name for her (from Lao Tzu), or so it says. http://www.walter-russell.de/en/Biographie.php#a153
Seems she called him up told him he was her soul mate and had been hearing his voice in her head for decades, and he dumped his then current wife and married her. Sounds ridiculous. However, she was already
established as a saleswoman, selling breast enhancing and breast reducing creams. So I guess she knew how to make a pitch.
On that page I found reference to The Twilight Club, so I went there. http://twilightclub.org/ and I find this http://twilightclub.org/history/
and this http://twilightclub.org/future/ ethics code starts out good and goes downhill from there. What might be considered acceptable, with no real death only change and reincarnation to get you physical again so its all okay sort of thinking, in some future, as being important to help the cause outlined, is anyone's guess. (Constance has already made a good one, and that Marx woman has explicitly stated it.)
Anon 12,
Wow, I didn't expect that one.
I do have a big mouth sometimes.
God bless you.
Anon 12,
Actually it was you who inspired this one:
https://soundcloud.com/phattyguitarbuckle/01-wannabe
Christine, when you can expound what electromagnetics is, ie when you have a basic understanding of Maxwell's equations, then - and only then - will you be in a good position to recognise what it isn't.
Physicist
Dear Constance, 1:35 P.M.
I think the climate change issue is one more attempt on the part of Pope Francis' enemies to paint him as a radical liberal.
Like all other Popes before him, I am sure that Pope Francis would encourage "good stewardship" by Catholics in their use of the goods of this earth. But this would not be anything new.
I agree with Lee Penn who says that the encyclical would need "special language" to make this a matter of morals and doctrine. But since climate change is not "settled science" except in the imaginations of those peddling a Marxist/socialist agenda, I hardly think the Pope is going to infallibly weigh in on this or any other science that is not "settled."
The following article nails it.
January 5, 2015
http://www.crisismagazine.com/2015/dont-lose-sleep-climate-change-encyclical
___________________________
Let me put it to you like this. If I were to read that Pope Francis had written such an encyclical containing an ex cathedra pronunciamento on so-called man made climate change that hasn't been scientifically demonstrated except by way of data that has been tionkered with, has been rife with fraud from the start ( recall climategate ) and is seen as one of many Marxist wealth redistribution scams, I wouldn't believe it came from the Pope unless he came to my house personally and swore the print out of the Bible that he wrote it!!!!!!!
In a word, I would be the quintessential "doubting Thomas."
As the above article states:
I understand of course why progressives are so excited over an anticipated row between the Roman Pontiff and their conservative enemies. But there’s really no reason why this should happen, because when it comes to climate change, none of the controversial questions are of the sort that the Holy Father could definitively answer anyway.......
......It’s reasonable for the Holy Father to use his moral authority to address ethical issues relating to climate change. However, he cannot claim infallibility, or even great expertise, in all the relevant empirical, economic and prudential questions that play into the controversies surrounding climate change. There is no reason for this issue to precipitate a standoff between the Holy Father and American conservatives. We should save our worrying for more important matters.
Physicist 2:46 P.M.
Your comments regarding the much talked about upcoming papal "encyclical" on climate change are spot on.
I never thought I would see the day that I would be happy over a non-Catholic Christian mentioning the Galileo fiasco!!! LOL!!!!
Dorothy,
I've been looking at your facebook page a couple of times, I haven't said anything on it because I thought you might be offended, but I really like what you say there, and I think if you highlight copy and paste into comments over here, it would be helpful.
A thought has crossed my mind while looking at it.
instead of referring to the New Age Conspiracy, which is going to turn people off, some other term should be used.
Aquarian Sociopolitical Movement. That should keep us off watchlists (DHS is worried about people who believe in a globalist conspiracy), and keep people from getting upset.
Conspiracy theorism is lately getting called a mental illness by some.
If the New Age Conspiracy is critiqued as a social and political and intellectually fuzzy and in some cases mental illness resembling social phenomenon it might make people listen.
Then you can move to Marilyn Ferguson talking about exterminating people, and the Nazi occult philosophy similarities.
Susanna,
What's actually going on in Rome, please? Is it just a rumour that a papal pronouncement on climate change is imminent, or is it definite and if so has a date been set?
Physicist
Is Susanna the right person to ask for an opinion on the Possible climate issue with the Pope?
With respect, she seems like an intelligent and well rounded person who's research is mostly thorough and informative but, her bias in RCC doctrine and teachings, I believe, is obvious.
Since I have visited this blog in 2010 I heve not seen her expose anything catholic that was not associated with some rogue element within the church that was fairly easy to obtain or already frowned upon by those associated with the church.
Her disdain for the climate agenda not being wholly backed by science (of which I agree) is evident in her post.
Perception is everything, and most people out there, quite honestly, do not care about encyclicals or councils. He is the Pope and, he will greatly influence the public opinion (non Catholics too) and further the agenda itself IF he lends his voice to the cause. This will happen whether there are encyclicals, councils and decrees or not. This is unfortunately how it usually works with the masses and what makes it so dangerous. And the TPTB know this. The Pope is not a dummy, so I don't see how he can not see this as well.
Dear 6.59am, I asked Susanna whether a papal pronouncement on climate change was likely or was set BECAUSE she is a well informed Roman Catholic. I am not asking her about Mary's assumption or papal infallibility! - Physicist
Physicist
I wrote that post without seeing your post. I was referring to Constance's request for Susanna's opinion on the climate issue.
NOWHERE did I touch on Mary or anything else related to infallibility. My post was specifically about the Pope and his possible interaction with the climate agenda and how it DOES not need to be an issue of infallibility, or decrees etc. because the masses will take it at face value anyway.
And also how Susanna's opinion on current papal matters are slanted to be generous.
You must need another cup of coffee or something. You are WAY off base here.
Dear 7.43am/6.59am, I didn't twig that you were implicitly responding to Constance rather than to me, and I wasn't meaning to suggest that you were seeking to raise papal infallibility or other specifically Catholic doctrines.
I am happy to drink more coffee. Pax! - Physicist
Physicist
I really didn't make it clear as I was on my mobile this morning and when there are lots of comments you must keep reloading additional comments that are not necessary when on the net.
Looking back, I can see how you may have thought that as I responded thinking it was obvious that I was responding to Constance, but, it wasn't obvious as I missed your post.
No harm intended, to Susanna either. I really do think she is an intelligent person with a great deal of knowledge. I just think she may be too vested to offer an unbiased opinion. Not because she has an agenda or is an evil person, but because it happens to ALL of us.
There is only one Holy Father, the Father of our Lord and Savior Y'shua.
The Pope is the leader of one of the worlds biggest religious cults. He is just a man, nothing more. People who trust in the Savior for their salvation should have no concern what the Pope thinks about anything, or says about anything!
The fact that the 'intellectuals' here give any measure to religious cult nonsense shows human predisposition to human institutions, and their words and deeds over, or mingled with, simple faith in Christ.
It should be obvious to all the "brilliant" posters here that Pope Francis is a false prophet, if not thee FP. His strange speeches are far from scriptural.
All the 'intellectuals' here "must need another cup of coffee or something".
I'll take a cup of "something"!
Christine, wants to teach you with some helpful hints Dorothy, about how to be effective in communicating the new age message!
Imagine that! (isn't that rich? LOL!!!!!!)
Physicist,5:18 AM
Sorry for the delay in my reply. I had to sign off before you posted your question.
RE:What's actually going on in Rome, please? Is it just a rumour that a papal pronouncement on climate change is imminent, or is it definite and if so has a date been set?
According to reports - mostly secular - the so-called "climate change statement" to be issued by Pope Francis is reportedly going to be issued sometime in 2015. It seems to be more than a rumor, although I am not seeing much about it in the Catholic publications to which I subscribe.
In analyzing the situation, I must point out that first of all, everyone agrees that climate change is a reality.
The entire controversy hinges on whether or not climate change is caused by human industrial carbon emissions, and if so, how to properly address it.
The question as to whether "climate change" is caused by human industrial emissions is the part of the climate change issue that is not "settled science."
I don't see how Pope Francis can "infallibly" pronounce anything about a "science" that is not "settled."
Neither can I see how he can credibly bow to the kind of European demagoguery according to which, besides its unelected bureaucracy, climate change is probably the most universal orthodoxy enforced on the continent. What I can see is Pope Francis issuing a balanced statement in which he reminds all Catholics of their duty to practice "good stewardship" in their use of the goods of this earth. I have been taught this since I was a child.
In fact the Catechism of the Catholic Church reads:
ARTICLE 7
THE SEVENTH COMMANDMENT
You shall not steal.186
2401 The seventh commandment forbids unjustly taking or keeping the goods of one's neighbor and wronging him in any way with respect to his goods. It commands justice and charity in the care of earthly goods and the fruits of men's labor. For the sake of the common good, it requires respect for the universal destination of goods and respect for the right to private property. Christian life strives to order this world's goods to God and to fraternal charity.....read more....
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a7.htm
_________________________________
But setting aside the question of whether climate change is happening and if it is, if human beings caused it and can fix it, the place where the rubber really meets the road is when the powers that be attempt to answer the hypothetical $64,000.00 question of how it should be fixed and what priority fixing it should be given.
Moreover, what nobody seems to be talking about is the fact that the Church also maintains that acceptable means to address so-called "climate change" must meet the Church’s standards of morality. These standards include an authentically Catholic Pro-Life position which uncompromisingly excludes abortion, and which forcefully reaffirms the inviolability of human life at every stage and in every condition, the dignity of the person and the unique mission of the family, where one is trained in love of neighbour and respect for nature.
The aforementioned EU "orthodoxy" maintains "the fewer the humans on the planet, the smaller the carbon footprint that contributes to climate change."
Indeed Susanna, the climate has never been stable and was changing continually before the Industrial Revolution, eg Ice Ages.
I guess that the concern of posters here about any statement by Pope Francis is twofold: (1) that it would be socialism disguised as concern for the environment and use phrases such as "climate justice" to propose taxes that, as one astute commentator put it, "transfer wealth from the poor in rich countries to the rich in poor countries"; (2) that it will propose to give teeth to supranational agencies such as the UN using the argument that climate change is a global problem and must be tackled by the pooling (ie loss) of national sovereignty. Plenty of people are proposing these pernicious things today and I hope Pope Francis will not join them.
No matter how badly advised a man is, he remains responsible for his words and, as I am happy to repeat indefinitely, the globe hasn't got warmer for 15 years despite China and India industrialising. However Pope Francis has as yet said nothing on the subject and I am not going to criticise a man for what he might say. Let's see what he does say.
Physicist
thous shalt not steal is addressed primarily to the individuals, and govt. is only secondarily capable of this, when it oversteps what is good for people.
Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's. that first part validated the TRIBUTE tax to Rome.
God as both God and King over Israel gave orders as to how to use property to the best advantage of all, including FORBIDDING harvesting twice in the same harvest and FORBIDDING harvesting around the perimeter of the field, these were for the poor and strangers and travellers. A price limit was set on the bride price.
A COMMAND was given that the tithe in the third year go to support the levites AND THE POOR. Not optional.
While tithing is not taught in the New Testament and was addressed to PRODUCERS not the poor, the action of govt. (never mind competence for the moment) in welfare is not theft. It has biblical precedent.
What is more like govt. theft, is the trillions in expenditure NOT ON THE POOR but on corporations and the military industrial congressional complex.
There is a prohibition on taking "gifts" i.e., bribes and perks, which is endemic in often legal formats in govt. in the USA and probably elsewhere. Pay for access has always been endemic in Asia and Africa and the Middle East.
The phenomenon of charging court fees is probably dubious in this light.
proactive safety laws have a precedent in God ORDERING that a roof have a fence around the edge so no one can fall off easily. This doesn't mean that regulations that regulate businesses out of existence and suchlike oppression is okay. That is another issue.
In all the misapplication of Bible verses out of context, against so called "socialism" (even when it is nothing that doesn't predate Marx) a lot of this is missed.
The taking of interest on loans, as distinct perhaps from a one time flat rate charge and MAYBE a late fee, is totally prohibited in The Bible and in the history of Church law east and west, and only was destabilized by redefining usury as excessive interest, instead of its original meaning EVEN A PERCERNT OF A PERCENT OF INTEREST. This was done in RC contexts by the Venetians, and in protestant contexts by Calvin, and the two are not entirely unconnected.
Yes climate change is a reality, but human cause (as distinct from local exacerbation) is not real.
And the direction is not global warming, but a new ice age, whether major or minor. Global warming always preceded an ice age.
The real issue of overpopulation, is not space to stand on, but arrable (can grow food on it) land and clean water. In the USA arrable land is wasted on housing developments where there used to be farms. THIS SHOULD BE PROHIBITED BY LAW. At most, mini farms around houses in large lots allowed.
Water privatization is another evil. This is not the same ting as paying to maintain infrastructure to clean and provide water.
http://iceagenow.info
Constance, regarding that Christian sounding focus type of thing in the list of what you are looking into, it seems like, once Walter and Lao Russell get mentioned to anyone in it, that it could be a conveyor belt to the rest of it.
Not to mention the focus on relating to people first and God second (and how is He defined?) if at all.
You guys are still feeding the trolls. Let your eyes pass over Justina and Dot.
***
Following is a general comment made in an effort to assist in posting here or on any forum. I’m sure some are aware of the following, already using the tips I outline below in their comments.
First of all, if a comment is more than one or two sentences, I find it beneficial to compose it in MS Word first, which automatically checks for fragments, misspellings, and the like. Using Word enables me to more easily proof-read the comment before posting, as the comments boxes on blogs tend to be much too small. Once I’m satisfied with the content, then I copy and paste into the comment box. This way, if the comment gets ‘lost’, and doesn’t actually appear, I can just re-copy and paste anew. I feel certain most anyone here knows the frustration of writing a nice, long comment, posting it, only to find it disappear!
Next I want to illustrate how to bold and/or italicize. Looking just under the comment box on this site, you’ll see “You can use some HTML tags, such as…” followed by letters enclosed in arrows. Bolding and italicizing are done using these html tags. These work on Wordpress and Blogger sites, as well as some other forums. Since the arrows will disappear when properly used, and an error message preventing posting of your comment will arise if these aren’t properly both opened and closed, I’ll illustrate appropriate usage by substituting parentheses in place of arrows.
The key thing to keep in mind is that each ‘command’ – “b” is bold, while “i” is italics – must be enclosed in outward-pointing arrows (located just below the K and L on your keyboard). The ‘command’ is opened by left arrow + command + right arrow (b) and closed with l arrow + forward slash + command + r arrow (/b). To illustrate I’ll use the proper formatting – which will disappear once the comment is submitted – though, again, I’ll illustrate its usage with parentheses ( ), which will remain for the illustration.
(b)to bold(/b)
(i)to italicize(/i)
The two can be combined:
(i)(b)to italicize and bold(/i)(/b)
…or:
(i)italics(b)bold(/b)continued italics(/i)
Note in this last one above that the italics command is opened at the very beginning, but not closed until the very end of the statement. This way, one can use italics to quote, yet add bold within the passage in order to call attention.
Again, done properly, the arrows and enclosed letters disappear leaving the desired effect (bold and/or italicized text). DON’T use parentheses, use the arrow keys for proper effect!
Physicist 12:38
There is no doubt in my mind that so-called "climate change" which morphed out of "global warming" after the earth seemed to be inconveniently becoming cooler is little more than a global wealth redistribution scheme devised by socialists to "transform" developed countries into third world socialist crapholes.
"The issue is never the issue." Thus spake Saul Alinsky. Socialists could not care less about the environment or climate change. What they care about is power and control. "Climate change" and radical environmentalism are simply pseudo-issues to be exploited as the means to that end.
As I have previously indicated, I cannot see Pope Francis rubber stamping bad science.
I am more inclined to believe that he is more than capable of of making clear distinctions between legitimate science and ideological noise.
In any case, while it is not clear what will be in the much discussed encyclical, it will likely urge Catholics around to world to take action in their own lives to preserve the environment for themselves, others, and for future generations.
But as you rightly pointed out, Pope Francis has as yet said nothing on the subject and I am not going to criticise a man for what he might say. Let's see what he does say.
Indeed! Let's see what he actually does say!
http://digidownload.libero.it/domingo7/TMPickering.pdf
Identity of the New Testament Text III
updated. Pickering. you won't believe what the textual experts admit about how they come to their conclusions.
Susanna, if Pope Francis is not a scientist and is badly advised by those who claim to be and have ulterior motives then he might indeed end up rubberstamping bad science. Let us simply pray that he doesn't and that truth prevails - Physicist
In addition to activity working on interfaith dialog with the Muslim Brotherhood (ISNA/Ingrid-Lusic Trust World Server- Mattson's group) across America, now what are the Bishops up too? Yes, let the truth prevail.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/68768
***
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmV8-TDjwKo
Why Francis Must Not Be Considered The Pope
Francis clearly has the issue of being the Kingdom of Heaven and in The New Jerusalem, confused with the issue of being in some lesser damnation that isn't full out torment.
Physicist 5:03 AM
Re:.....if Pope Francis is not a scientist and is badly advised by those who claim to be and have ulterior motives then he might indeed end up rubberstamping bad science. Let us simply pray that he doesn't and that truth prevails
That is a VERY good point and one that I am concerned about as well. Not because such a situation would actually involve his Petrine charism, but because others might mistakenly think it did.
The truth of the matter is that when all is said and done, the Pope is NOT infallible in scientific, historical, political, philosophical, geographic, or any other matters —just faith and morals!!!
FOUR THINGS TO REMEMBER ABOUT THE POPE'S ENVIRONMENTAL LETTER
Although faithful Catholics are not bound by positions adopted by the Pope on such matters (i.e. scientific, historical, political, philosophical, geographic,etc.), they are bound by the moral norms he proposes for them to hold definitively. So, for example, let’s imagine that a Pope writing in an encyclical says that pregnant women should not take ibuprofen (as they might do for a headache or toothache) because it will cause the death of the children they are carrying, and there is a basic moral responsibility not to cause the death of a child at any stage of development. The fact that one need not believe that ibuprofen is an abortifacient (since there are very good reasons for believing it is not—and, in fact, it is not) does not affect the validity of the norm against causing the death of unborn children, nor does it alter the authority of the Pope to teach the norm as a norm to be held definitively by the faithful. So to disagree with a pope on the question of empirical fact about whether ibuprofen is an abortifacient is not necessarily to dissent from his teaching that a child has a right not to be killed by abortion.....
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2015/01/four-things-to-remember-about-the-popes-environment-letter
____________________________
But as you said, let's all pray that the Pope does not wind up inadvertently rubberstamping bad science and that truth prevails on all levels.
"So to disagree with a pope on the question of empirical fact about whether ibuprofen is an abortifacient is not necessarily to dissent from his teaching that a child has a right not to be killed by abortion....."
or severely endangered by unnecessary medications that haveknown risk, whether iboprofen is one of them or not.
So that others may know where I stand, Susanna and I gladly acknowledge each other as Christians but I do not agree with her that the Pope is infallible in matters of "faith and morals" - Physicist
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/pope-franciss-2015-war-on-climate-denying-capitalists-2015-01-07?siteid=rss&rss=1
If the Catholic church and Pope Fr. do not know by now that the false scarce resource/go green /climate change hoax was started by the humanists/ eugenics/UN people then we are dealing with complete incompetence and any Catholic who still clings to this completely subverted church needs to
seriously wake up.
anon 3:22 you probably don't understand, that the Catholic clinging to the RC is not about competence, but about believing that even if the pope can be ignored sometimes, he is the connection to Jesus Christ, and salvation depends on being in communion with the pope. And for some it is merely a heavy duty personal and family identity thing, and/or the aesthetics.
http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/peres-united-religions.html
Nice poem there.
Re: So that others may know where I stand, Susanna and I gladly acknowledge each other as Christians but I do not agree with her that the Pope is infallible in matters of "faith and morals"
So that others may know where I stand, if what I said somehow seemed to imply that Physicist did agree with me that the Pope was infallible, it was not my intention to do so.
Physicist and I have always gladly acknowledged each other as Christians in spite of our ecclesiological and theological differences which, fortunately, do not involve our Christology.
Hate to sound theologically illiterate, but what is "chrismated"? Is it something like "christening" or "confirmation"?
Constance
Constance,
Perhaps you might find this helpful.
CHRISMATION
Chrismation, in the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Catholic churches, as well as in the Assyrian Church of the East initiation rites, consists of the sacrament or mystery more commonly known in the West as confirmation - although Italian normally uses cresima ("chrismation"), rather than confermazione ("confirmation").
The term chrismation comes about because it involves anointing the recipient of the sacrament with chrism, which according to eastern Christian belief, the Apostles sanctified and introduced for all priests to use as a replacement for laying on of hands by the Apostles Chrism consists of a "mixture of forty sweet-smelling substances and pure olive oil" sanctified by a bishop with some older chrism added in, in the belief that some trace of the initial chrism sanctified by the Apostles remains therein...read more...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrismation
_______________________________
well, in the west its kinda rare terminology, so you don't sound theologically illiterate, I should have explained being used to the idea and forgetting others aren't.
When one is baptized one is sealed with Holy Chrism also called Myron or Myrrh which is a mix of olive oil and many other components, on the forehead, earlobes, eyelids or eyebrows, each nostril, upper and lower lip, upper chest on or above the heart, both palms and both feet with a little applicator dipped in the chrism.
In RC this occurs at confirmation, instead of at baptism if the baptized is an infant.
In Orthodoxy sometimes the previous baptism is (depending on form and origin) considered valid enough for anything lacking to be filled up by The Holy Spirit, and only Chrism is applied. Also if one returns to Orthodoxy after some apostasy. RC are usually received into Orthodoxy (except I assume among extreme Traditionalists) by chrismation only. Reception of protestants varies.
My original baptism by a person who didn't consider it important and got nagged into it, of unknown theology other than generic protestant, in a swimming pool, Trinitarian phrasing but single immersion, was considered maybe shaky enough it should be redone, with proper triple immersion.
Except they couldn't find something big enough to dip me in, so I stood in a big bucket and had the baptismal water (which has the Oil of Catechumens, what RC calls Oil of Exorcism I think) mixed into it poured over me with a very large pitcher three times.
Susanna?
Theology and practice
Unlike in the Western churches (e.g., Roman Catholic and Anglican), where confirmation is typically reserved to those of "the age of reason," chrismation in the Orthodox Church (as well as the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches) is normally administered immediately after baptism and immediately (or at least shortly) before one's first reception of Holy Communion.
Or
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Chrismation
Physicist,
From the the link Susanna provided above (11:15am) is the following comment by David Kenny; I’m curious as to your thoughts. Do you concur in full or in part?
I am having a lot of trouble according recognition to the claims of Messrs. Campbell and Mullally that anthropomorphic climate change is a serious moral issue for humanity today. Being an aerospace engineer with a depth of knowledge of aerothermodynamics and the other aspects of physics concerned with understanding so-called climate science such as heat transfer, the behaviour of the phase change of liquids, the effect of the sun's cosmic ray transmission on cloud formation, sunspot activity, large scale numerical solutions by computer and so on I have studied the data relevant to the possibility of climate change for about the last 10 years. Since even the most basic effect i.e. the average global temperature has not changed in the past 18 years contrary to the dire increases forecast by the IPCC originally using such numerical computer solutions denies the possibility of man-made global warming.. In the aerospace industry we have a saying about such computer solutions, " Garbage in, garbage out !". Or, such solutions are only as good as the equations purporting to represent physical phenomena and the attending constants and empirical parameters. Other predicted catastrophes that have not happened are rising sea levels, melting glaciers, etc. The sea ice in the polar regions has not massively melted and in fact is currently increasing and in companion the land ice in the Antarctic and Baffin Island and Greenland is steadily increasing. We may even be headed for global cooling now. It is an enormous task to model all of the energy transfer phenomena of the earth and no one has yet succeeded, which would be a start in trying to forecast what will happen in the future. The increases in atmospheric CO2 in the past century only began after the increase in temperature had been noted which is the reverse of what would be expected in a greenhouse environment. No significant increase in CO2 was noted after the intense period of industrialisation through the 1930s and 1940s preparing and waging WWII. There are many anomalies like this. In spite of other claims only about 70 scientists worldwide actually actively promote the climate change theory vs. the claim of 2,000. These 70 benefit directly as managers of government supplied research funding a as recipients of recognition and honors for their publications. The other 2,000 are junior researchers and paper reviewers who are totally dependent on the 70 for their career progression and research funding ( reference the famous scandal of the climategate release of e-mails from the US and UK climate center leaders). The only logical conclusion is that there is no anthropomorphic climate change and the earth is doing its own thing. The amount of fossil fuel CO2 generation is peanuts compared to the total amount of CO2 including that absorbed by the oceans which is not understood. Presenting the generated CO2 as a fraction of the total on the earth ( a relatively small number) is far more instructive than quoting billions of tons.
The industrialisation drive in China based on fossil fuel combustion has lifted more than half a billion people out of poverty, something unaccomplished by all the aid in the world and in this period of time the global temperature has remained constant.
Physicist,
From the the link Susanna provided above (11:15am) is the following comment by David Kenny; I’m curious as to your thoughts. Do you concur in full or in part?
I am having a lot of trouble according recognition to the claims of Messrs. Campbell and Mullally that anthropomorphic climate change is a serious moral issue for humanity today. Being an aerospace engineer with a depth of knowledge of aerothermodynamics and the other aspects of physics concerned with understanding so-called climate science such as heat transfer, the behaviour of the phase change of liquids, the effect of the sun's cosmic ray transmission on cloud formation, sunspot activity, large scale numerical solutions by computer and so on I have studied the data relevant to the possibility of climate change for about the last 10 years. Since even the most basic effect i.e. the average global temperature has not changed in the past 18 years contrary to the dire increases forecast by the IPCC originally using such numerical computer solutions denies the possibility of man-made global warming.. In the aerospace industry we have a saying about such computer solutions, " Garbage in, garbage out !". Or, such solutions are only as good as the equations purporting to represent physical phenomena and the attending constants and empirical parameters. Other predicted catastrophes that have not happened are rising sea levels, melting glaciers, etc. The sea ice in the polar regions has not massively melted and in fact is currently increasing and in companion the land ice in the Antarctic and Baffin Island and Greenland is steadily increasing. We may even be headed for global cooling now. It is an enormous task to model all of the energy transfer phenomena of the earth and no one has yet succeeded, which would be a start in trying to forecast what will happen in the future…
[cont]
[cont]
The increases in atmospheric CO2 in the past century only began after the increase in temperature had been noted which is the reverse of what would be expected in a greenhouse environment. No significant increase in CO2 was noted after the intense period of industrialisation through the 1930s and 1940s preparing and waging WWII. There are many anomalies like this. In spite of other claims only about 70 scientists worldwide actually actively promote the climate change theory vs. the claim of 2,000. These 70 benefit directly as managers of government supplied research funding a as recipients of recognition and honors for their publications. The other 2,000 are junior researchers and paper reviewers who are totally dependent on the 70 for their career progression and research funding ( reference the famous scandal of the climategate release of e-mails from the US and UK climate center leaders). The only logical conclusion is that there is no anthropomorphic climate change and the earth is doing its own thing. The amount of fossil fuel CO2 generation is peanuts compared to the total amount of CO2 including that absorbed by the oceans which is not understood. Presenting the generated CO2 as a fraction of the total on the earth ( a relatively small number) is far more instructive than quoting billions of tons.
The industrialisation drive in China based on fossil fuel combustion has lifted more than half a billion people out of poverty, something unaccomplished by all the aid in the world and in this period of time the global temperature has remained constant.
"In spite of other claims only about 70 scientists worldwide actually actively promote the climate change theory vs. the claim of 2,000. These 70 benefit directly as managers of government supplied research funding a as recipients of recognition and honors for their publications"
BINGO!
Craig,
I toally agree with the part of the quote you give at 1024 and largely agree with the rest at 1025 except that the CO2-temperature-time stats are a bit more complex and I don't know the figures for the numbers of climate scientists.
Physicist
Physicist,
Thanks for your response. Kenny seemed to be informed, but it’s difficult for the non-specialist (and “non-specialist” is not even proper terminology, as I know nothing at all) such as myself to determine if he’s speaking the truth or perhaps embellishing a bit.
Sadly, the media has done an excellent job of parroting the fallacy of man-made “climate change” such that it’s accepted prima facie by the average Joe. As but one example, this is evident by reading the comments on the site I referenced (that Susanna initially referenced) earlier.
Anonymous 5:45 P.M.
You are correct.
But apparently you didn't read the entire Wiki article and/or you missed the part on my post where I wrote "read more" at the end of the portion of the Wikipedia article I quoted.
Under the heading "Sacramental Theololgy" and "Eastern Churches" just below in the Wiki article, it says exactly what you said.
Moreover, the "Theology and Practice" portion of the Orthodox Wiki article you linked to reads exactly the same as the Wiki article I quoted.
Craig and Physicist,
If I may, I would just like to contribute an observation here......and you will have to pardon me because I get so angry just thinking about it that as the Scots say " I could chew glass."
We hear a lot of talk about how man-caused climate change is contributing to world poverty.
But if the purveyors of this unproven hypothesis in developed countries really wanted to simply help the poor in undeveloped countries, all they would have to do is to HELP THEM by making sure that the billions and billions of dollars that are already being poured into these undeveloped countries are actually spent on the poor in ways that would effectively lift them out of their poverty instead of allowing these billions and billions of dollars to be diverted to the "population control industry" whose policy is to "help the poor" by killing the poor.... to companies like Monsanto with their "terminator technology" who almost succeeded in making a deal with Muhammad Yunus which would have forced Yunus' impoverished microfinance customers to buy their seeds from Monsanto every year as a condition of qualifying for loans from Yunus (which have themselves frequently been shown to be a form of loan sharking)...... or to the coffers of the tinpot dictators and/or their dirtbag representatives at the UN and elsewhere who have a vested interest in continuing to peddle the "manmade climate change" myth even after the disgraceful "Climategate" revelations.
But as I have said before "the issue is never the issue." THUS SPAKE SAUL ALINSKY, author of RULES FOR RADICALS dedicated to the devil. ( Alinsky actually dedicated the book to "Lucifer," but I don't want to get into another rehash of the "Lucifer" issue here.)
The issue is about raw political power and control. The current regime in Washington as well as regimes in other developed countries are perfectly capable of helping the poor without interfering in the lives of their citizens vis a vis draconian regulations under the guise of minimizing the so-called "carbon footprint." What amounts to a regulation straight jacket has been custom made with contributions from the EPA, the IRS, the FDA, etc. a virtual cauldron of politically correct alphabet soup cooked up by chefs who are loathe to "eat their own cooking."
To cite another related example, let's take a look at Obamacare. The clowns running the regime in Washington couldn't care less about providing affordable health care for everyone. If they did, they could have simply provided affordable health care to the small percentage of the population who had none without confiscating and tinkering with the healthcare coverage the majority of American citizens already had.....and liked. They could have also done it without attempting to force Christian business owners and religious entities to violate their religious beliefs by requiring them to pay for insurance that provides abortifacients and/or contraceptives.
Gee! Am I beginning to sound like a "DENIER??????"
climate change sounds like a weasle word to me. the global warming thing is obviously getting dubious. if the ice age stuff is true, they can still be socially acceptable to those of short memory, as those who were talking "climate change" (never mind details) all along.
POPE FRANCIS FLEXES HIS MUSCLE AS POLITICAL POWERBROKER
In 2014, Pope Francis emerged as a hard-core political player, using the Vatican to conduct secret meetings between the US and Cuba which led to an unprecedented new partnership between the two nations. In 2015, the pope will again attempt to influence events by being the keynote speaker at the United Nations Global Warming conference in Paris.
The Washington Times reports that “for Mr. Obama and fellow Democrats, aligning with Pope Francis offers clear benefits in the short term, as they are able to highlight agreement on controversial issues with one of the most respected figures on the planet.”
While pretending to oppose them, the Catholic Church has long been a supporter of Socialist and Communist regimes in South and Central American countries, something that is very appealing to an Alinsky Marxist community organizer like Barack Obama. Getting the United States to re-open ties with Communist Cuba was a huge win for the Vatican, and will greatly help to advance their agenda. Having Obama submit to the Vatican’s leading is a great portend of things to come.
The pope also has wealth redistribution on his radar of goals to accomplish, and in 2014 gave repeated sermons on the need for nations to end income inequality. Obama has said many times that he is a strong proponent of wealth redistribution. Social entitlements under his presidency have skyrocketed. Social justice, wealth redistribution, economic inequality are all Socialist-Marxist ideals. So a political alliance between Francis and Obama seems like it would be a match made in….well, not Heaven. But a match nonetheless.
Papal Rome is well on the way to regaining the political power they once held on the world stage in glory days of the Roman Empire. Pope Francis ascension as political player has been well-received and it appears that he will be limited only by his own ambition. Which, at the moment, appears to be limitless.
The crown jewel in Pope Francis political ambitions is, however, nothing less than to be the architect of the coming 7 Year Peace Treaty between Israel and the Muslims. But if he is destined to play the role of the False Prophet, he will need his “boss”, the Antichrist, to arrive on the world stage as well.
anon 7:07
while you have some legitimate issues, you see things too starkly black and white. It is far more complex regarding RC and communist countries, where a lot of the RC flock lives.
If you want to talk about helping communist countries while pretending to oppose them, look at the USA read
The Best Enemy Money Can Buy by Anthony Sutton.
7:07 PM is pretty much calling it like I see it too.
One thing after the other is adding up stinky in the politics of this pope.
should have said "communist countries where a lot of RC flock LIVED." past tense. There aren't much left of commie countries.
Regarding Chrismation: I have to admit I’d never heard of the term, but I’m quite aware of its root chrisma. It is best translated as anointing. In the LXX (Greek version of OT Hebrew – written ca. 200BC) it referred to physical anointing oil for ordination, e.g. Ex 29:7, 30:25 (though it’s usage in Daniel 9:26 is curious, usually translated as “Anointed One”). Chismatos, a derivation, is used for anointment – essentially, the same meaning as in Ex 29:7, 30:25. However, in the NT, chrisma is only found in 1 John, and only in chapter 2, used 3 times. In each occurrence, it most logically refers to the anointing of the Holy Spirit:
2:20 But you have a chrisma from the Holy One, and you all know.
2:27 As for you, the chrisma which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His chrisma teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him.
In essence, the OT usage (excepting Daniel 9:26) has been changed to mean, most logically, the Holy Spirit indwelling in the NT. And, while there are other terms translated as “anointing” in the NT, these refer to a literal, physical anointing, such as in James 5:14 (aleiphw [with “w” = omega = long o], though in verb form here).
It would be interesting at this point to quote from the 2nd century Gnostic Gospel of Philip (written in Coptic, an Egyptian language adapted from Greek) and it’s usage of chrisma - though it omits the final alpha:
The chrism is superior to baptism. For from the chrism we were called ‘Christians’, not from baptism. Christ also was (so) called because of the anointing (chrism). For the Father anointed the Son. But the Son anointed the apostles. And the apostles anointed us.( Schneemelcher, Wilhelm; transl. (from German) R. McL. Wilson New Testament Apocrypha: Volume One: Gospels and Related Writings. © J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), Tubingen, 1990; English Translation © James Clarke & Co. Ltd, 1991 (Rev. ed.), Westminster John Knox, Louisville, KY; p 200)
Alternate translation from James M. Robinson (Gen Ed.) (2nd, Rev Ed.):
The chrism is superior to baptism, for it is from the word "Chrism" that we have been called "Christians," certainly not because of the word "baptism". And it is because of the chrism that "the Christ" has his name. For the Father anointed the Son, and the Son anointed the apostles, and the apostles anointed us. (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988, p 153)
[cont]
[cont]
Related to this is the erroneous notion that “Christ” (Christos) means simply “anointed.” Unfortunately, this is perpetuated by some online lexicons. The root of both chrisma and christos is chriw, which is used in Luke 4:18 and Acts 10:38 to refer to Jesus’ baptism; it’s also used in 2 Cor 1:21 in reference to the Holy Spirit-endued Christians. However, in the LXX, its usage is more diverse. Similarly, christos is used in this general manner in the LXX; however, in the NT the term is strictly applied to Jesus. The BDAG provides only the following 2 definitions:
1. fulfiller of Israelite expectation of a deliverer, the Anointed One, the Messiah, the Christ
2. the personal name ascribed to Jesus, Christ
I’m a bit more specific on this issue in “Christ” in Christian Orthodoxy here:
At 9:31pm my tag didn't come through for the James M. Robinson book, which should be The Nag Hammadi Library in English
Strong's supports the chrisma and Christos as meaning anointed one.
What one was anointed with in the OT was an oil, only for kings and priests and maybe objects dedicated to the service of YHWH.
The barrier between the worshippers and God was torn in the Temple when Christ died, and now everyone gets anointed once in their lives with Holy Chrism, while the Holy Unction oil of healing is used whenever specially needed and in some services.
There is also oil from church lamps, and relic lamps of some saints. Some are more healing, some more exorcistic. A blessing in it from God.
Strong's gives another word in James 5:14, where we are told that the elders should anoint a sick person with oil and pray for them. aleipsantes. The difference is probably that in chrisma it is poured, and in the case of the sick probably rubbed on, a handful or an applicator.
Why drag in a gnostic gospel which is rejected by Orthodoxy? it is also not stating things correctly, baptism precedes chrismation and we were called Christians not because of using an oil, which wasn't in use then, being a replacement of laying on of hands by Apostles, but because we worship Christ.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2015/01/07/after-charlie-hebdo-attack-u-s-catholic-group-says-cartoonists-provoked-slaughter/
This article and especially the top-liked comments links "fundamentalist Muslims" with "fundamentalist Catholics."
On my Facebook feed I have read quite a bit of vitriol against any fundamentalists after the Paris attacks.
Certain right-wing Catholic blogs, the likes of Ann Barnhardt and so forth, are calling for the extermination or killing of Muslims without realizing that the Catholics themselves are being discussed per the article above in a similar way.
I fear that it will not take too many more horrible attacks from fanatics before the world's opinion decisively changes to be brazenly and openly against the devout monotheistic religious people of any stripe.
this claim of provocation is outrageous. sure, they put themselves in the crosshairs, because there have been riots and attacks because of journalism and cartoons, but this is something they have a right to do in a free society, and a duty to do given the evils of islam free society or not.
RC has been trying to dialog with islam, but it doesn't work to curry favor or get cut slack. Both sides are looking to convert the other.
There's nothing sacredly devout about rejecting Jesus Christ, such are Anti-christ. Those who reject Jesus Christ reject the Chief Cornerstone of the Holy Temple, which is the only Temple we could truly accept since the veil to the Holy of Holies was torn in two at His crucifixion, and the Earthly 2nd Temple was destroyed in 70 A. D. When Jesus Christ said His true believers are living stones that make up the Temple and that it is one not built by human hands, He was not lying. When Jesus the Messiah said He had come to fulfil the Holy Scriptures He was not lying. When on the cross He said it is finished, He was not lying. He died on Passover, as The Lamb that was slain. He rose again and made things anew.
Christians, don't you understand that a building of an Earthly physical Temple by man now would be to deny Christ? It would be to call Him a liar for man to build such. It in itself, along with any animal sacrifices would now themselves be an abomination of desolation, denying that the things of the Old Testament were shadows of things to come, denying the Ultimate Sacrifice and price our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ paid on the cross in full! Let God be True and every man a liar!
Christine,
You wrote: Strong's supports the chrisma and Christos as meaning anointed one.
No it doesn't. Christos, Strongs # 5547, is already defined on the hyperlink I provided above as:
Christ, Anointed One, Messiah, the Greek translation of the Hebrew 4899 (cf. Greek 3323). The Messiah is the Son of David, an anointed leader expected to bring in an age of peace and liberty from all oppression. In the NT, the Messiah is Jesus, who came first to bring liberty from sin and peace with God and who will come again to bring all things under His control
Chrisma, Strong's 5545, is simply anointing.
You wrote: Strong's gives another word in James 5:14, where we are told that the elders should anoint a sick person with oil and pray for them. aleipsantes. The difference is probably that in chrisma it is poured, and in the case of the sick probably rubbed on, a handful or an applicator.
More unhelpful speculation mixed with error. As I stated, chrisma is only used in John's first epistle, and by it's usage it clearly refers to the Holy Spirit-endued. And while the word in James 5:14 is, transliterated, aleipsantes, an aorist active participle, the root is indeed aleiphw. And, as I state in the article on the CrossWise site, chrisma is sacred and symbolic; whereas aleiphw and others in the NT are literal.
So, why did I bring up the Gnostic version? Because it misapplies the term - though in a different way - just as I believe "Chrismation" is misapplied. If the NT usage gives it one exclusive definition, I think it prudent to stick with that one definition.
This term "Chrismation" is more in line with OT usage. Aren't we in a New Covenant?
"no it doesn't" I said it goes along with what you said plus adds another word.
OT covenant was about some limited specifics to be in covenant with God, circumcision, food laws, sabbath keeping, anointing is not part of that.
the word in James is translated anoint, and the practice of putting oil on someone to heal them is usually not pouring but touching it on them or a larger smear. There is no speculation and no error.
Chrismation is an anglicized way of saying something in Greek or Russian about having the Holy Chrism put on you, as part of bringing you into the Orthodox Church. References to this practice go way back, to the same time frame as that fake gospel, gnostics having made use of a lot of Christian terms and practices.
in being anointed with The Holy Spirit, which comes with baptism and a much fuller presence with Apostolic laying on of hands or chrismation now, this statement is a comparison to the anointing with oil as a consecration of someone to God which was done in the OT.
The New Covenant involves a change of priesthood so a change of law, and the relationship to God being closer, the features of distancing in the OT ceremonial are gone or greatly lessened. Thus the Holy Anointing Oil used only for priests and for things in the Temple, or the Tabernacle (Tent) before that, is now put to use on everyone once in their lives. The works of the law Paul talks about are specifically circumcision, food laws, sabbath keeping, not good works and not ceremonial brought over from the Jewish Temple Liturgy by those used to it.
In Samuel we see that the oil he was told to anoint David with was poured on him, not touched or rubbed on. That is why I bring up application issues. The point about chrismation is that you are anointed. Poured smeared whatever. Tertullian and Hippolytus from the 200s AD mention this.
the NT doesn't give it one exclusive definition, i.e., a spiritual one limited to an invisible anointing with The Holy Spirit, or for that matter an anointing with wisdom from The Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit was given by laying on of hands, and the sacred oil replaced this once the Apostles passed away, or probably before once the Christian population increased.
The very term used referring to this spiritual anointing, compares the impartation of The Holy Spirit to the believer with the anointing done with oil in the OT, and continued in NT times.
"The verb χριω (chrio) means to smear or anoint. The Septuagint (the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament) uses this verb to describe any kind of smearing, pouring or anointing, ranging from regular armory maintenance (2 Samuel 1:21, Isaiah 21:5) to basic medical routines (Isaiah 1:6)." http://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Christ.html#.VK9aD9LF9TY
I don't know or care what the rest of the site says, this is a google reference to show that this chrisma word is used in Greek Old Testament.
Christine,
Once again, you fail to admit your error, which is specifically this: The difference is probably that in chrisma it is poured…
No, in the NT chrisma is not "poured" at all. It’s the Holy Spirit indwelling.
By your intitial statement, Strong's supports the chrisma and Christos as meaning anointed one, taken at its face, I construe that your claim is that Strong's equates the two terms. If this was not your intention, then I suggest you write more clearly. This is a consistent problem in your comments, i.e. it’s difficult to figure out your meaning. My suggestion is to write first in MS Word, proof-read, then copy and paste into the comments box.
You wrote:
Chrismation is an anglicized way of saying something in Greek or Russian about having the Holy Chrism put on you, as part of bringing you into the Orthodox Church. References to this practice go way back, to the same time frame as that fake gospel, gnostics having made use of a lot of Christian terms and practices.
And, again, my problem is in either, essentially, adopting an old (OT) usage of the term, or adapting the NT usage, which can only cause confusion. I’m aware that Gnostics appropriated Christian terminology; but, isn’t “Chrismation” an example of same? In fact, this appears to be the very thing the Apostle John was speaking of in his first epistle.
You wrote:
The New Covenant involves a change of priesthood so a change of law, and the relationship to God being closer, the features of distancing in the OT ceremonial are gone or greatly lessened. Thus the Holy Anointing Oil used only for priests and for things in the Temple, or the Tabernacle (Tent) before that, is now put to use on everyone once in their lives.
I’ll agree with your first clause; however, believers are all priests in the NT (1 Peter 2:9); and, more importantly, all true Christians are ‘anointed’ – “chrisma-ed” – by the Holy Spirit (1 John 2:20, 27). Any NT anointings in a physical sense use a word other than chrio/chrisma/christos. And that is my overriding point. Your reverting back to OT usage is not pertinent.
Words evolve over time. Are you aware that nice in Middle English meant foolish or stupid? Surely, you know that the “Gay ‘90s” (the 1890s) did not refer to homosexuality.
If we’re going to adopt a Greek word, then we’d be best to adopt its NT usage – unless we’re specifically referring to OT practice.
Christine,
The link and info you use at 11:35 exemplifies my point about online sources re: christos and chrisma. I've already laid out the Biblical facts above.
In fact, the link you supplied references a book by the Gnostic, John Dominic Crossan!
You really should be more careful in your postings, Christine.
my reverting to OT usage is pertinent, because the NT is a continuation of the OT, and the issue is the Greek term used in the centuries before and after Christ, when the Septuagint was in use (and was the primary OT used by the Apostles, some cites of theirs of OT are a lot more recognizable in LXX than in Masoretic based OT translations).
your point about evolving words is not pertinent, because there is no evidence of such radical evolution in Greek over such a short period of time. English is a hybrid language from the start, primarily Saxon Celtic and French itself Celtic and Norman in origin, with input from LAtin and Greek and constant reinput here and there.
The Holy Spirit was given by laying on of hands by the Apostles, later by laying on the oil. Obviously to some extent He is present in conversion and baptism.
The OT parting lecture in Deuteronomy said that ALL ISRAEL was a nation of kings and priests, but within that was gradation, and specific kings and specific priests relative to lesser ones who were only kings and priests relative to the rest of the world.
I Peter 2:9 is QUOTING THIS when he says that.
But now, the priesthood situation is ratchetted up one. Originally the High Priest alone went into the closed off Holy of Holies, the rest of the priests in the next place, the believers in the still outer place, and those outside the covenant who chose to visit and pay their respects, seek prayer or make an offering to YHWH still farther outside.
Now the High Priest is Jesus Christ, in the Holy of Holies in Heaven. The veil closing off the Holy of Holies in the Temple was torn top to bottom by an invisible hand when Jesus died on the Cross. The lesser priests aka "priest" goes into the altar place, the still lesser priests (laity) in the next level out.
NT practice did not continue as described once the Apostles died, it could not. Something had to replace them. While the bishops are not really a replacement of Apostles, because the first ones were appointed by the Apostles while the latter were still alive, and they and the priests (really a lesser bishop) can do the laying on of hands the Apostles did, except they aren't Apostles. This laying on of hands is done in ordination of deacons, as was done in Acts, and ordaining elders aka presbyters which word morphed into "priests" is done with laying on of hands. But the oil replaces the lack of an Apostle, and repeats the practice of anointing priests and kings in the Temple.
This practice IS NOT PART OF WHAT PAUL DISMISSES AS WORKS OF THE LAW. if it were, he would list such things. What he lists are sabbath keeping, circumcision, and food laws (other than don't eat meat sacrificed to idols so contaminated spiritually, and don't eat meat from animals killed without the throat being slit some degree of exsanguination must have been done, see Acts the Apostolic Council that dictated the OT ritual law and its details and strictures was not to be continued).
The NT usage PRESUPPOSES OT USAGE, because the NT is based on and grows out of the OT. and quotes the OT at least 143 times.
As for Crossan,what link are you talking about? the links I posted here are quick summaries of stuff I have known from many and better sources for many many years and I didn't see anything about him on any of them. If you want to wait a couple of hours for a response I can put together three huge posts with lots of names and links and titles of books you probably can't get anymore, the sort of stuff I incorporated in my knowledge base but don't keep around.
I see Crossan is part of the founding of the Jesus Seminar. Given his education on the times then, there is no excuse for him. It is precisely this kind of information, that he was exposed to presumably unless his teachers were lying constantly, that underline the reality of Jesus and it takes an anti miracles bias to decide the NT docs are not factual and God knows what else he thinks.
I think a pre existing bias and dedication poisoned his mind. The idea that bodily resurrection was not an early belief is belied by writers of the second century to early third, who were raised in the faith of the second century. Crossan is a flat out liar. Even a pagan writer referred to us believing Jesus had come back to life.
okay I think I found the Crossan mentality there, but the section I referred to is not part of that but lifted from elsewhere or compounded from elsewhere, and it doesn't matter, it is correct itself. Try this. I used a different search term.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrism
http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8420
the antiochian jurisdiction has the idea that chrismation can be done only once like baptism, which is not correct but you will find it on their web page, on this Greek Orthodox site you see it may be used on someone returning to Orthodoxy after falling away from it. Antiochians have also adopted the idea of the priest as icon of Christ, which is more extreme than the milder similar concept you will find elsewhere. This brings up the issue of the epiklesis, which tradition keeps in Orthodoxy whether the RC ideas sneak in or not. And they do. The epiklesis is the invocation of the Holy Spirit to make the transformation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, something that Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, both mid to late 100s AD, and raised on the faith of the late 00s-early 100s AD testify to. RC depends on the ordination of the priest, and does not have an epiklesis in its Mass only a request for blessing before the words of institution, blessing that the bread and wine may become the Body and Blood of Christ, while in Orthodoxy (the original from which RC fell away), the epiklesis is done after the words of institution and in all sacraments major and minor (RC calls minor sacraments sacramentals).
Dear 10.49pm, Yes! I am a Christian Zionist (because of the Abrahamic covenant, not the Mosaic one which is obsolete), and I do not support the rebuilding of the Temple for precisely the reasons you give. Not everything that is prophesied is good, of course.
If Ann Barnhardt really is calling for the killing of all Muslims (which I don't see on her website re the Charlie Hebdo massacre) then she is making the same mistake as liberal Christians, much as she'd hate to be bracketed with them - i.e., conflating Islam with Muslims. She has made that conflation before without actually calling for killings. She is, however, absolutely right that this is not about "radical Islam" or "fundamentalist Islam" but basic faithful Islam. This needs saying, backed up with quotes from Quran, Hadith and Ishaq's Sira (the ancient biography of Mohammed from the same era as Hadith, and generally accepted by sunni Muslims).
Events in France show that, regarding multiculturalism, They who sow the wind shall reap the whirlwind (Hosea 8:7).
Christine, who will either use straw-men or obfuscation when she is not ‘winning’ an argument, stated:
your point about evolving words is not pertinent, because there is no evidence of such radical evolution in Greek over such a short period of time.
I’ve already illustrated this point re: “Gay ‘90s” – a term that has a radically different meaning 100 years later. The LXX was written about 250 years before the NT, and some words have changed.
You wrote: my reverting to OT usage is pertinent, because the NT is a continuation of the OT, and the issue is the Greek term used in the centuries before and after Christ, when the Septuagint was in use.
We all know that there are OT types in which the NT finds ultimate fulfillment. Jesus Christ (Iesous Christos) exemplifies one of those types, with christos particularized for the Person of Jesus Christ. Similarly, chrisma, used more broadly in the OT, is particularized in the NT to indicate the work of the Holy Spirit in Jesus, and the Holy Spirit indwelling with respect to Christians.
You wrote The Holy Spirit was given by laying on of hands by the Apostles, later by laying on the oil
Scripture references, please; and in doing so, look to content. Are you suggesting Christians can give the Holy Spirit to another at will by the laying on of hands or oil?
You asked, As for Crossan,what link are you talking about? the links I posted here are quick summaries of stuff I have known from many and better sources for many many years and I didn't see anything about him on any of them.
This link: http://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Christ.html#.VK-8AnvTZtR – which references the Crossan/Reed book In Seach of Paul.
You may think you “know this stuff,” but your words indicate that you don’t see the proper distinction between OT and NT usage.
Chritine,
Your appeal (@ 2:17) to EO and RCC usage does not negate the point I made about NT usage. My point is that this usage by EO, RCC (and Gnostics) goes contrary to the NT usage of chrisma. It's not my intent to pit Protestantism against the EO and RCC, my point is to illustrate the incorrect usage of the term by both groups when compared to the NT.
In fact, if one were to accept this usage of chrisma, I'd say one can make the analogy that it would be OK to use christos to mean simply "an anointed one," since this is how the OT uses it (a total of 50 times). But, as I stated above, Christos has been particularized in the NT to refer solely to the Person of Jesus Christ, the Messiah.
Christine,
You wrote:
The OT parting lecture in Deuteronomy said that ALL ISRAEL was a nation of kings and priests, but within that was gradation, and specific kings and specific priests relative to lesser ones who were only kings and priests relative to the rest of the world.
I Peter 2:9 is QUOTING THIS when he says that.
Yes and no. Yes Peter refers to some OT Scripture, but, once again, he points out that it is believers who are collectively a royal priesthood. However, importantly, the term "priest" and its cognates is only used 5 times in the NT: once in 1 Peter, twice in Luke to refer to Zechariah (Luke 1:8-9), once in 1 Corinthians 10:28 referring to meat sacrificed to idols, and, once in Hebrews 7:8 in reference to the Levitical priesthood (which is superseded by Christ). Hence, Christians are all on equal footing. This does not negate the need for leadership, of course; but, there is no longer an office equivalent to that of the Levitical priesthood, or the like, in terms of hierarchy.
I should point out that the elders in James 5:14 are presbyterous in the Greek (transliterated).
http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/53/53-4/JETS_53-4_787-800_Moorhead.pdf
Have the "Christian" Zionists explored the root of "Christian" Zionism? Any good Catholic should know better or do we have Catholics supporting Moody now? Go to Amazon and read the description of Blackstone's "Jesus is coming".
***
Thanks Craig, for your responses to Christine who loves to follow religion and rituals and play word games to confuse the issues (and hers is all over the map including new age teachings) rather than simply follow Christ...Who He is and what He said. The bible is not her authority, even the very words of the Lord, as she displays her contention with it here.
(In whom is your faith really Christine? it appears to be in name only regarding Jesus is that the case?)
Mere words on her part and so many of them. Her issues have issues and that is why all of the unresolved mess in her mind gets printed out here.
Dear 9.02am,
The root of Christian Zionism is the Abrahamic covenant. Please note that it is not necessary to be a dispensationalist in order to understand this correctly (I am not one). Too many Christians (Catholic and protestant) suppose without pondering it that the New Covenant in Christ outdates all OT covenants. Not so! Only the Mosaic - so the Abrahamic covenant is still in force and the descendants of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob/Israel are still entitled to jurisdiction ie political control in an area roughly matching interwar British Mandatory Palestine (although they are not entitled to take individual plots of land from peaceable Arabs who can prove that they own them). Logically, if you doubt that the covenant with Abraham is still in force as it's OT then you should doubt the covenant with Noah too, promising no second Flood, and be worried whenever it rains hard...
Don't tell me I've been duped by followers of Moody. Tell me what is wrong with my reasoning (if you can).
Is the modern State of Israel prophesied in scripture? There are various prophecies of return from exile, all portrayed positively. Many refer to the return from Babylon, but some cannot. Zechariah (8:7-8) promises a future return in a prophecy given after the return from Babylon. (Ezra 5:1 & 6:14 state that Zechariah is prophesying in Jerusalem, and Zechariah 1:1 tells us that he was speaking after the exile.) Amos (9:13-15) speaks of a permanent return, which the return from Babylon proved not to be. (Amos’ immediately preceding verses have a fulfilment in Christ, for they are quoted – loosely – in Acts 15:13-18; Amos’ verses before that refer to the exile of the Jews among the nations.) The Jews lost all self-governance after the failed uprisings of AD66-73 (in which the Temple and Jerusalem were destroyed) and AD132-5 (the bar-Kochba revolt).
A second return is prophesied by Isaiah (11:11-12), assembling the people of Judah from the four quarters of the earth (not just Babylon). This matches the present return. So does the prophecy of Ezekiel (36:24-26) of a return without commitment to God followed by spiritual cleansing. Today’s Jews have returned to the Holy Land holding mainly secular beliefs (whereas the return from Babylon was led by the godly), and the number of Jewish congregations in the Holy Land who follow Jesus is increasing.
Craig, yes elders are presbyturos, THAT IS THE WORD PRIEST COMES FROM, the usual Greek word for priest which is far more distant from the people and more sacrifice oriented, not any other role, is hieros.
The Orthodox Holy Liturgy, which existed before St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil the Great systematized it in the late 300s AD is partly based on the idea of the liturgical worship in heaven you see in Revelation. "You wrote The Holy Spirit was given by laying on of hands by the Apostles, later by laying on the oil
Scripture references, please; and in doing so, look to content. Are you suggesting Christians can give the Holy Spirit to another at will by the laying on of hands or oil?"
Scripture references? If I have to give you that, then you don't know the NT very well, which explains why you don't get the continuity with OT.
Try reading straight through the entire Bible from start to finish without stopping except to eat or sleep. Should finish in three or four months.
Or, read through Acts the same way. Which is more relevant to your statement.
While The Holy Spirit goes where and as He pleases, John 3:8, there was also a clear transmission angle as well. As follows:
Acts 8:17 - Then laid they [their] hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.
2 Timothy 1:6 - Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands.
Hebrews 6:1 - Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,
Hebrews 6:2 - Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.
[I.e., these were the basics, but an appreciation of Jesus as High Priest and of course how we are to live and think, were essential. Judas was one of the Apostles, but betrayed Jesus, Nicolas a deacon but started a licentiousness sect if you go through the motions its not enough.]
Acts 19:6 - And when Paul had laid [his] hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. (note they had been baptized into repentance by John the Baptist, barely knew of Jesus, and were rebaptized trinitarian style, since that is what Jesus told the Apostles to do before He left, so we can infer that this was done, and then laying on of hands.)
Acts 8:17
Sometimes from the foregoing, you see that The Holy Spirit having been given to The Apostles (and whoever else was present at Pentecost) was then given by laying on of hands, but in some cases those who already had received Him, such as Timothy, received an ordination for a purpose like the diaconate by laying on of hands, in addition to the process at baptism into Jesus and the Church already done.
Acts 13:3 - And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid [their] hands on them, they sent [them] away.
Acts 6:5,6 And the saying pleased the whole multitude; and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas and proselyte of Antioch:
Whom they set before the apostles; and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them.
there are of course references to healing by Jesus and the Apostles involving laying on of hands.
When an Apostle couldn't be everywhere, he blessed cloths and sent them to heal people, Acts 19:12, precedent for blessed objects in general and miracle working relics, especially note 2Kings 13:21 Elisha's bones brought a dead man back to life.
ANON 10:17 "The bible is not her authority, even the very words of the Lord, as she displays her contention with it here.
(In whom is your faith really Christine? it appears to be in name only regarding Jesus is that the case?)"
I think it is you who plays word games. My faith is in Jesus, Who is God in the flesh and that in itself makes physical forms of worship - bowing, kneeling, lighting a candle to Him or burning incense to Him - valid. Worshipping God in spirit and in truth was said in response to a question about WHERE one was to worship God, not HOW.
By the way, some scared of hierarchy (who don't hesitate to promote hierarchy preferably with themselves at the top, in politics, or political theory, or the family but don't want any hierarchy they might not be high in themselves) like to say that the Nicolaitaines were hierarchists, because something about Nicolas as a name implies rule over people. The Nicolaitaines were followers of this deacon Nicolas who went rogue. Note he was a proselyte, i.e., a convert to Judaism, and not raised in its faith and morals, which except for some externals essentially remains unchanged in Christianity.
Big problem. Irenaeus two removes from John, and well acquainted with who and what happened, tells us the Nicolaitaines were not about any of that, but corruption and wife swapping. I think the testimony of one who was writing only 80 years or less after the death of John would know what had happened, better than modern writers with an axe to grind, who are more concerned about status than about WHAT the status might be misused for, and who self admittedly don't know what the Nicolaitaines did and are limited to empty speculation based on a name's meaning. THIS IS NOT ABOUT EXTRABIBLICAL AUTHORITY THIS IS ABOUT FACTS OF HISTORY FROM ONE WHO WOULD KNOW.
ANON 9:02 excellent points, but as for the issue of the rebuilding of the Temple, most Christians who support Zionism aren't supporting this are they? I know a few are involved with the Jewish extremists who do want to do this, the Christian motive being the dubious one of hastening the end time situation and maybe forcing God's hand, by facilitating the antichrist by facilitating his context.
"Logically, if you doubt that the covenant with Abraham is still in force as it's OT then you should doubt the covenant with Noah too, promising no second Flood, and be worried whenever it rains hard..."
The whole New Covenant in Jesus Christ is relatable to the Abrahamic Covenant, it is part of it, remember Abraham was told that in him all nations would be blessed.
"Yes and no. Yes Peter refers to some OT Scripture, but, once again, he points out that it is believers who are collectively a royal priesthood. However, importantly, the term "priest" and its cognates is only used 5 times in the NT: once in 1 Peter, twice in Luke to refer to Zechariah (Luke 1:8-9), once in 1 Corinthians 10:28 referring to meat sacrificed to idols, and, once in Hebrews 7:8 in reference to the Levitical priesthood (which is superseded by Christ). Hence, Christians are all on equal footing."
"and you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.' These are the words that you shall speak to the sons of Israel."" Exodus 19:6 ALL ISRAEL WAS COLLECTIVELY A NATION OF KINGS AND PRIESTS.
The Levitical priesthood is superseded in Christ, but NOT so that all priesthood is done away with, Jesus Christ is HIGH PRIEST and of the nature of Melchizedec instead of Levi, who paid tithes, the act of the inferior to the superior, to Melchizedec when Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedec while Levi was still in Abraham's loins (traducianism there).
If there is a HIGH priest there are lower priests, and the Apostles in their authority from God estabished overseers and elders (overseer, episkopos, "bishop") don't tell me you need Scripture verses for that. If you do, I will know for sure that instead of reading the Bible for yourself, you are only reading a few verses here and there along with a mini pope preacher who then tells you what they mean and launches into some long lecture possibly with minimal relevance and some story telling?
someone called it the 20 20 rule: always read 20 verses before and 20 verses after the verse(s) you are offered, to get context.
priests are not closer to God than laity and in a sense yes we are on the same level, and the priest, like all teachers, face greater judgement than the average person. Don't tell me you don't remember that as familiar from somewhere in the NT? I will find it for you if you need it.
After all, such people have greater responsibility and either lead or mislead more people than the usual individual.
10:32 You need to work on your neuro linguistic programing a bit harder because anyone can read the Bible and answer your questions.
Reason is an illuminating invention of occultists and behaviorists. The roots of political Zionism are from Blackstone. I have provided the pdf in which the author includes sources.
If you are having trouble understanding your Bible, I recommend looking into family curses and breaking them. Pray that the Lord will open your eyes.
I support people not political movements. Lucifer was a politician, a lobbyist in fact.
What shall the Jews of Europe and America do if they don't support Zionism? Shall we 'force' them? Can they not live in Paris and Chicago? Who wants all this multiculturalism?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2Vq_e2Z1ug
***
"In fact, if one were to accept this usage of chrisma, I'd say one can make the analogy that it would be OK to use christos to mean simply "an anointed one," since this is how the OT uses it (a total of 50 times). But, as I stated above, Christos has been particularized in the NT to refer solely to the Person of Jesus Christ, the Messiah."
Not really, because the word "Christ" has a specific personal meaning, yes any king in Israel could be called "Messiah," but THE Anointed One is Jesus. Some argue that "Christ" is an office, okay, so if you are talking about the American president, which is an office, and you say "the president" you are only talking about who is in that office currently. But if you are talking about some place where the president is president-for-life, then no matter when you say "the president" you are talking about that one person. Jesus is The Christ Jesus is king-for-life, and never dies or get voted out or whatever, so anytime you say "Christ" you should be intending to refer to Jesus of the Four Gospels.
I think that should deflate some liberal theologian and new age crap.
The whole CONCEPT of anointing is from OT which was done with the sacred oil.
anon 12:21 I don't know what NLP has to do with anything, but while you may think anyone can read the Bible and answer anon 10:32's statements, WHATEVER YOU FIND TO ANSWER HAS TO STAND UP TO THE POINTS IN THE BIBLE ANON 10:32 REFERS TO.
The Bible doesn't contradict itself, so where such a clash exists, the interpretation placed on part of it is wrong, and when vague is squared against specific (such as anon 10:32's references are specific) the specific must stand.
And if you have some specifics, that contradict those other verses, then they are not specific as you think, but are part of a context you are missing that makes them irrelevant to this discussion.
Christine,
Here is context for you.
You might want to check yourself out to see if the shoe fits.
2Ti 3:1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2Ti 3:2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
2Ti 3:3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
2Ti 3:4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
(and lastly)
2Ti 3:5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
The KJV Bible is to be read by the reader, without commentary, and the reader will or will not receive the context given by the Holy Spirit and this is specifically dependent on what God so chooses for the reader to see, period. I have no use for any 'reasoned' individuals cherry picking verses and have received no enlightenment from his selections.
Any believer who shall read for himself starting at Romans 3, who wishes to be stablished in the faith, can do so. I have argued Humanism with Mr. Reason and found it to be funny at times but now it's tiresome.
Christian Zionists have chosen other sources for their concept of Biblical truths. Naturally one thinks they can trust pastors (men). That's unfortunate, but I am sure I read God's warning and Christ's warnings about these matters.
2:00 PM
Was not for you.
You have no context for your comment.
2:20 Shit happens. It's a blog.
"The KJV Bible is to be read by the reader, without commentary, and the reader will or will not receive the context given by the Holy Spirit and this is specifically dependent on what God so chooses for the reader to see, period."
that is a recipe for depending on the flesh disguised as The Holy Spirit, acting on whims. CONTEXT is what precedes and follows, barring a change of subject.
On your style, one could cherry pick to one's heart's content.
Regardless of whether anyone is using "other sources" either these will line up with Scripture or will be refuted by Scripture. And the Scriptures cited by the Christians who support Israel (I am not sure what Christian zionist means besides that, so I won't use the term), stand on their own without external help.
The only external source is that the event took place, Israel is back in its homeland in control of it, and that should make you look at stuff you overlooked before.
It doesn't matter what was involved in Israel getting there. God can use any worldly system to accomplish His goals. That they would be brought back in a state of unbelief, and get cleansed LATER is shown in Scripture. This doesn't fit the picture of those struggling to rebuild the Temple in Ezra and Nehemiah's time. Sure some were in sin, but the general picture doesn't fit that.
God used Babylon to enforce the land sabbaths, seventy years to make up for the every seventh year leave land lie fallow that was disobeyed. God used pagan Rome to help Israel against pagan Greecian empire.
Read the WHOLE Bible not just bits here and there. you sound like one of those deceived charismatics, or worse yet hyper charismatics the manifest sons of God movement Constance exposed in one of her books and elsewhere.
Craig, sorry to be a pedant regarding your typing error in your 7:07 AM post (where you wrote: "Chritine") but for the sake of blog clarity, I assume you were responding to Cretin's gnostic follow on at 2:17 Am.
Christine,
I’m quite familiar with the book of Acts and the examples you cite. The laying on of hands was done by the 1st century Apostles. Would you call this descriptive or prescriptive, i.e., do you think that any Christian can lay hands on another to bring forth the Holy Spirit’s indwelling at will? I’m sure you’ll agree that this is not normative for the Christian – but it sure would make missions much easier!
However, looking at the full contexts of Acts 8:17 and 19:6, you’ll find it’s not as simple as you may suppose. In 8:17, those who believed in God in Samaria, including Simon Magus, were baptized. Yet, I hope you’ll agree that Simon didn’t actually receive the Holy Spirit (see v 18); and, this is borne out in verse 16: “because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus” (NIV). Prefacing this is verse 15: “When they (Peter and John) arrived, they prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit” (NIV). Importantly, this prayer was the precursor to the laying on of hands. Presumably, the Apostles heard from God and were instructed to lay on hands.
In Acts 19:6 we have a similar situation:
It happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus, and found some disciples. 2 He said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said to him, “No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.” 3 And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” And they said, “Into John’s baptism.” 4 Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying.
The info these disciples received was deficient, resulting in non-salvation. They had followed John the Baptist; i.e. they repented, but had not yet understood the message of the Cross in order to receive the Holy Spirit. Was it required that Paul lay on hands for them to receive the Holy Spirit? I don’t think we can answer that. However, I think we can say that no one can just willynilly lay hands on another to effect the Holy Spirit indwelling. This is either: 1) a practice only done by 1st century Apostles; or 2) not required per se (the laying on of hands), except in obedience to God’s specific directive to the Apostles in those instances. Again, I don’t believe anyone would believe that any believer today has the power to grant salvation to anyone they please.
Your examples of 2 Timothy 1:6, Hebrews 6:2, Acts 6:5-6, 13:3 (clearly Stephen HAD the Holy Spirit already – v 5), are, in context about commissioning and NOT about receiving the Holy Spirit.
Also, I don’t see any Scripture reference from you regarding receiving the Holy Spirit by pouring/laying on of oil. That’s because there aren’t any.
Anon 2:45,
I noticed my mistake too late!
Yeah, it's a blog alright lol!
Everybody has an opinion just like everybody has a navel.
We have enough of infowolf's opinions to last each of us 3 lifetimes.
Religiosity and pomposity run amuck.
97% of the time there is no substance to her 'stuff' Just some form of googling but constantly morphing to no absolute anywhere except that she absolutely never shuts up!
How it is in blogworld, everyday, all day long.....
Christine better find out what it means to receive the Holy Spirit.
That is why her bible intake and outtake is abysmal.
Christine, you are a liar like your father, the father of lies! Well did Anonymous 1:51 point to you when indicating the type of godless amoral person prevalant in the last days! You viperess of venom, deadly to those not yet sure in the Faith once given unto the saints!
Christine,
You wrote yes elders are presbyturos, THAT IS THE WORD PRIEST COMES FROM, the usual Greek word for priest which is far more distant from the people and more sacrifice oriented, not any other role, is hieros.
Au contraire. Please show how hieros and presbyturous have lineage. Well, you cannot, because there isn’t any.
You wrote If there is a HIGH priest there are lower priests, and the Apostles in their authority from God estabished overseers and elders (overseer, episkopos, "bishop")… and ad nauseum
Yes there are episkopos, but there were no separate, higher priests, as we are all equal as a collective royal priesthood. The apostles established presbyters and episkopos – not priests.
I’m glad you agree that it would be incorrect to use christos to mean “an anointed one,” meaning any can be called “Christ.” We have one point of agreement.
You wrote The whole CONCEPT of anointing is from OT which was done with the sacred oil.
Yup, and I said as such; however, in the NT chrisma strictly refers to the Holy Spirit-indwelling. This is clearly the ultimate fulfillment of this OT practice.
" Would you call this descriptive or prescriptive, i.e., do you think that any Christian can lay hands on another to bring forth the Holy Spirit’s indwelling at will?"
not necessarily. you see, you are PRESUMING as per "do you think that any Christian" that just any Christian can do so.
Secondly, that passage says they found some disciples, in other words, these people already believed in Jesus. not saved? well, the thief on the Cross believed in Jesus without having been baptized, hands laid on him, or partaken of The Holy Eucharist, but he was clearly saved.
Thirdly, you will note that Acts doesn't say that Simon Magus himself had been baptized, more like he observed all this.
Laying on of hands is done with someone who has received authority to do so not just anyone. Did just anyone select the bishop to run Crete or Ephesus? No, Paul the Apostle selected him, and ordained him. Timothy is referred to as having had hands laid on him and received something relevant to his task, aside from hands laid on him at baptism.
where and how does one get this authority? in some extreme cases it may be per individual directly from God, but the only safe bet is from someone who received authority to transmit, from someone who had this authority (Apostolic Succession).
That a practice in the OT would suddenly stop in the NT if not explicitly ordered to stop is absurd. The continuity of the testaments incl. elements that predate the Mosaic, such as Abraham paying tithe to a priest of YHWH and what do priests do? among other things they light candles and incense. The only way you can assume contrary is when it is specified as contrary. These are features of most worship everywhere, and that it is addressed to the false gods is not the point, it was ordered by God to be addressed to Him, instead of to the false gods, and the order to not do like the canaanites did was explicitly about morality and temple prostitution was a big deal with them, and sacrificing their children. (i.e., killing them.) also ritual groves were not a part of YHWH worship probably because these tend to relate to relate to housing invisible entities and places to conduct temple prostitution and so forth. Ritual pillars figure very very rarely with YHWH worshippers and not as part of the Temple structure or ceremonial He prescribed.
So what do you expect to happen, about people receiving The Holy Spirit, once the Apostles are dead? By your logic if just any Christian can't do this, then no one received Him after the last Apostle laid hands on the last recipient. What then?
"Au contraire. Please show how hieros and presbyturous have lineage. Well, you cannot, because there isn’t any."
Strong's hierus priest and application, this is a more extreme kind of thing than the liturgical role of the elders and bishops, because there are no more blood sacrifices, the bread and wine are sacrificed to God Who returns to us changed.
http://biblehub.com/greek/2409.htm
The word presbyter derives from Greek πρεσβύτερος (presbyteros), the comparative form of πρέσβυς (presbus), "old man".[1] The English word priest has presbyter as the etymological origin.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presbyter
citing webster's
Christine,
Wow. Just wow. Go back and read my quote from the Gnostic Gospel of Philip, and you’ll see what you just expressed in your 3:13pm comment is almost exactly in line with it. With your point of view missions is simply about laying hands on everybody. There should be no reason anyone shouldn’t be ‘saved.’
You wrote The continuity of the testaments incl. elements that predate the Mosaic, such as Abraham paying tithe to a priest of YHWH…
I’m not even going to get in a debate about the validity of NT tithing. If you believe it’s true, then go ahead. But, you may wish to read this:
http://www.stewardshipministries.org/tithing-is-not-a-christian-doctrine-russell-earl-kelly-phd/
Craig, at 2:58 PM, I understand. There's a certain reprobate around these parts who is wearing us all out! She'd try the patience of a Saint! A word to the wise (as opposed to the gnostic), rebuke her where necessary but don't rummage through her swill with her, she'll only vomit more!
Christine,
You wrote, quoting wiki, which quotes Webster’s, ”The English word priest has presbyter as the etymological origin”
But, the point is lineage among the GREEK words. Does the Greek hieros have any etymological lineage with the ENGLISH word “priest?” Well, no. By your quote, the English word comes, in part, from presbyterous (Greek), not hieros (Greek).
Christine wrote,
Thirdly, you will note that Acts doesn't say that Simon Magus himself had been baptized, more like he observed all this.
Acts 8:13 proves you incorrect.
I reread you 3:13 comment. If I'm reading it correctly only certain special individuals have received this ability to lay hands on individuals for their salvation. Assuming so, I'll pose a question similar to the one I pose to hyper-charismatics who claim they can heal at will: Why don't these few select individuals do worldwide 'evangelizing' tours to effect salvation to every living person. I'd hope we can agree that salvation is the single most important thing to an individual.
Post a Comment