 |
| 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. |
http://www.wnd.com/2014/12/remembering-rabbi-jesus-this-christmas/
ReplyDeletejudahslion.blogspot.com
ReplyDeleteTuesday, December 23, 2014 post titled
The Roman Catholic Church
Constance,
ReplyDeleteThanks for posting the link to the lovely nativity art.
Merry Christmas to all, as we remember the reason we celebrate this day (and season) - the birth of the Savior of the world, the Prince of Peace, the Son of God/Son of Man, Jesus Christ.
In case you're under any illusions:
ReplyDeleteAccording to the International Society for Human Rights, a secular group, 80% all acts of religious discrimination today are against Christians.
To Constance and Everyone,
ReplyDeleteMERRY CHRISTMAS!!!
Constance, I am glad to hear that you are recovering from that "bug" that is making the rounds.. I started with that same "bug" the day after Thanksgiving and am just recovering from it now.
Describing it as "nasty" is an understatement.
anon 10:51 Cardinal Salvadore is not pope, and does not make official doctrine.
ReplyDeletehowever that he could say this, and speak of "we" feeling this, that he could feel free to say this publicly, speaks to how messed up the Vatican is, and how infiltrated by atheists and satanists it may in fact be.
I wonder if he will be disciplined at all, probably not. :(
What a bazaar statement from a cleric of all people.
ReplyDeleteHe obviously doesn't believe in the veracity of the scriptures, or the basic Christian faith as conveyed by
the Apostles and the church fathers.
So sad.
His god is his belly.
Also, I'd be willing to bet that he's a alcoholic.
ReplyDeletehave you seen a video of the pope at Easter mass singing the praises to the illumination of Lucifer and his son the Christ?
ReplyDeleteit is on YouTube.this mass was done in 2012 but repeated in 2014.
yeah, I think you guys got a translation problem issue, but a better term for light could have been chosen. lucis is light in Latin and "lucifer" is "light bearer" what he was before he fell. Now it is a false light, when visible a brassy yellow with red tinges mind scattering and particulate not a solid thing,
ReplyDeletetrue light lets you see things more clearly rather than obscuring them. A person I know with experience of demonic manifestations says whatever the color, it is always particulates massed not solid.
The Hebrew word translated lucifer in Latin and left that way in English is helal which someone said meant light like "the golden glitter of a king's robe." I thought BINGO! now I know what the evil is I've been running into. And notice gold, green and king's robe, pride, vainglory, ambition, powerlust.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kK269WcHMpM
ReplyDeletePlease Don't Feed The Trolls
But it's the trolls that are so hungry...
ReplyDeleteTo Haziz:
ReplyDeleteThat's a heavy accusation you are making. Do you have a Youtube link to offer as proof?
Constance
Constance: Haziz is almost certainly referring to the annual Catholic service in Latin in which Christ is referred to as the bringer of light, ie Lucifer. I was concerned about that myself but looked more closely at the words and it is unambiguously Jesus Christ who is referred to, the "true light that lighteth every man" as St John said - Physicist
ReplyDeletePhysicist, thank you. Like I said, they could have chosen a better phrasing to avoid using that word.
ReplyDeleteNow, if you want to speculate upon the secret biases of the writer of the hymn, in choosing phrasing that allowed that word or by grammar required it, I could go along with that. It is the sort of worry I would have.
Christine,
ReplyDeleteIt dates back to about the 7th century, and it is not obvious to me that "Lucifer" was in use for Satan at that time (anybody know?); in which case I can see why the Catholic church might not wish to change its liturgy to dispel the charge, as it would then be dancing to the devil's tune. Here is the relevant liturgy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exsultet
Physicist
Physicist,
ReplyDeleteLike you, I’d seen the use of Lucifer in the Exsultet, and my initial concerns were dispelled when I read the full context. A while back someone pointed to an article about the RCC’s use of Lucifer - and it may well have been here on Constance’s blog – and this is what prompted me to research it.
The Latin Vulgate uses the term lucifer in a generic way (though, curiously, it does use a different term for “morning star” in Revelation 22:18). Moreover, there were two different RCC bishops named Lucifer in the 4th century (the writings of the first one below are referenced in NT textual criticism). I’ll quote Wikipedia:
Isaiah 14:12 is not the only place where the Vulgate uses the word lucifer. It uses the same word four more times, in contexts where it clearly has no reference to a fallen angel: 2 Peter 1:19 (meaning "morning star"), Job 11:17 ("the light of the morning"), Job 38:32 ("the signs of the zodiac") and Psalms 110:3 ("the dawn").[43] To speak of the morning star, lucifer is not the only expression that the Vulgate uses: three times it uses stella matutina: Sirach 50:6 (referring to the actual morning star), and Revelation 2:28 (of uncertain reference) and 22:16 (referring to Jesus).
Indications that in Christian tradition the Latin word Lucifer, unlike the English word, did not necessarily call a fallen angel to mind exist also outside the text of the Vulgate. Two bishops bore that name: Saint Lucifer of Cagliari (d. May 20, 370 or 371), and Lucifer of Siena (306 circa).
The Wiki article on lucifer notes that while some early Christians attached Isaiah 14:12 to the Devil, the term “Lucifer” was not used for him: Even at the time of the Latin writer Augustine of Hippo (354 – 430), "Lucifer" had not yet become a common name for the Devil. In addition, the article notes that Isaiah 14:12 does not capitalize the term in the Vulgate.
It seems that the RCC had used the term in a number of ways; therefore, it would seem like ‘bowing to the devil’ to change its traditional usages of lucifer because of later developments. Should they now change the name of their “St. Lucifer” to something else? Of course not. (Not that I agree with naming a particular human a Saint in distinction from the rest of the saints.)
So now we have Craig, Marko, Paul and Physicist as catholic apologists.
ReplyDelete3 out of the 4 of you seem intelligent enough to see the RCC for what it is and has been. But I guess the quote "man's wisdom is foolishness in the eyes of God" seems to apply.
Oh...and I spent 30+ years in the RCC starting with my schooling and as an altar boy at an early age then faithfully adhering to doctrine into my 30's.
So...I don't need anyone to tell me how I don't understand, or, how I am mistaken. I LIVED it for many years.
I'm just thankful The Lord showed me the truth and gives me the courage to speak the truth, rather than try to explain everything away just so I don't offend my friends or family.
Dear 4.41pm,
ReplyDeleteBecause I insist that an incorrect argument against the Roman Catholic church is incorrect, why do you think that makes me an apologist for it?
Incorrect arguments discredit only their user, regardless of the issue.
Physicist
okay anon 4:41, how about you tell us what you lived in RC?
ReplyDeleteI know that official doctrine and what you get from parents, godparents, and semi educated priests with a bias towards the optional rather than the essential are not the same thing, and to some extent the same phenomenon exists in EO.
Also in protestantism. The best in all categories think their understanding and their experience, is identical in all their peers. It isn't.
so let's hear your story.
TO ANONYMOUS 4:41 from PRESENT ANONYMOUS
ReplyDeleteWe are all assuming your present religion/church/faith is perfect so please tell us what and where it is so we may all go there!!!!!!!
Anonymous
I doubt that there even IS an angel named Lucifer.
ReplyDeleteThe reference in Isaiah probably refers to the king of Babylon. It's not even capitalized as a proper noun.
Strongs Concordance Hebrew word #1966 comes in turn from word #1984. Both refer to gleaming light and the concept of Praise, pronounced Halal; as in Halleluia.
And I looked in the Book of Enoch which gives names of many of the fallen Angels, known as The Watchers, of which Semyaza and Azazel are the main culprits. There is no Lucifer mentioned, though there were apparently 200 such angels.
As far as me being an apologist for the Catholic Church, THANK YOU! I am flattered.
While you're busy tearing it down with endless and overreaching speculation, the Muslims meanwhile are actually raping, murdering torturing and doing everything in their power to kill every representation of Jesus Christ on earth. Talk about Anti-Christ!
And they don't ask their victims if they are Catholic or Protestant.
It's my contention that it's the LEADERSHIP of practically every institution on earth that is the aggressor. Corruption breeds corruption and gnosticism breeds and promotes gnosticism, such as Freemasonry, etc.
Jesus was murdered by the "Scribes, Pharisees, and LEADERS of the Sanhedron." And the lynch mob that they stirred up was made of a pack of low life
idiots whom they probably paid to holler and create a commotion.
Psalm 2:1-3 says:
"Why do the heathen rage and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves and the rulers take council together against the Lord and against his anointed, saying let us break their bands asunder and cast away their cords from us."
Judge not that ye be not judged. The measure that you use on others will be used on you.
paul, there is no capitalization in Hebrew, that is an English convention.
ReplyDeleteThe address to the king of tyre begins with statements that are clearly addressable to a human, but then it changes to statements that could not be addressed to a human, and that are therefore addressed to the entity that the king of tyre has some relationship with, probably consciously has this relationship.
Christine,
ReplyDeleteYes and yes. My mistake.
And the king of Tyre is well known to be a
type of the Antichrist.
The point is lucifer is not a proper noun.
Christine and Paul,
ReplyDeleteThe more important point is that lucifer is not capitalized in Isaiah 14:12 in the Latin Vulgate, the source from which the RCC Bible is translated.
where did you get that idea, from an english translation? Latin didn't use capitalization in Jerome's day. Things were either all capitals, or a kind of script uncials.
ReplyDelete"The first word of a sentence is not capitalized in most modern editions of ancient Greek and, to a lesser extent, Latin texts. The distinction between lower and upper case was not introduced before the Middle Ages; in antiquity only the capital forms of letters were used." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalization Jerome was before the Middle Ages. another article says the mixing of capitals and lower case in the same document began about AD 1300.
Christine,
ReplyDeleteI was not looking at this from the perspective of initial transmission from Jerome, or other manuscripts from around this time, i.e. anachronistically imposing current Latin base texts upon those closer to “originals,” which I’ve not investigated (though I know that Greek and Latin ancient texts were uncials (essentially written in all caps)). I was thinking specifically with respect to Isaiah 14:12 in the current Latin Vulgate (from which modern translations are derived). The word lucifer in Isaiah 14:12 is not capitalized, while e.g. Verbum (Word) and Deum/Deus (God) in John 1:1 ARE capitalized.
However, at the time of my posting, I had not looked at the associated English translations of Isaiah 14:12. Now having done so, it doesn’t help the RCC cause. One site renders lucifer the capitalized “Daystar,” while another renders it “Morning Star.” The former has this separate note regarding “Lucifer”:
Metaphorically, the word is applied to the King of Babylon ( Isaiah 14:12 ) as preeminent among the princes of his time…The Syriac version and the version of Aquila derive the Hebrew noun helel from the verb yalal , "to lament"; St. Jerome agrees with them ( In Isaiah 1:14 [ED: sic; should be 14:12]), and makes Lucifer the name of the principal fallen angel who must lament the loss of his original glory bright as the morning star. In Christian tradition this meaning of Lucifer has prevailed; the Fathers maintain that Lucifer is not the proper name of the devil, but denotes only the state from which he has fallen (Petavius, De Angelis , III, iii, 4).
If Lucifer is “not the proper name of the devil” in 14:12, then why is “Daystar” capitalized in the English?
The accompanying note of the second link in the 2nd paragraph reads:
Morning Star: term addressed to the king of Babylon. The Vulgate translates as “Lucifer,” a name applied by the church Fathers to Satan.
So, one claims the church Fathers “maintain[ed] that Lucifer is not the proper name of the devil,” while the other explicitly contradicts this claim. Huh?
While on one of the Catholic sites I just cited, I found the following:
ReplyDeleteSusan Hemeryck, Catholic Warrior, tears down satanic display erected by atheists at Florida state capitol
The over-the-top display by the Atheists proved to be too much for one Catholic woman who decided enough was enough.
Susan Hemeryck, Catholic hero, 54 began tearing the Satanic display apart.
She was arrested for her deed and charged with criminal mischief.
While we do not condone vandalism of any sort, it is easy to understand why Hemeryck was upset. Christmas is a distinctly Christian holiday. Hanukkah also occurs in the same season. However, atheists have no religion, and Satanists have no reason to celebrate the birth of Christ. So their displays are publicity stunts intended to subtract, in a meaningful way, from the real meaning of the season.
This can be frustrating to some who do not believe Satan ought to be glorified, especially before children. Frankly, such speech borders on obscenity. And what are the atheists doing exactly?
Hemeryck told police that "I just yanked that little devil" and she "wanted to take a stand against Satan."
Well, good for Susan Hemeryck. While we wish you might have chosen a slightly different manner of protest, we understand your frustration and we pray for you and for those who put up these displays, and or all who are righteously offended by them.
The displays may be legal, but they're certainly immoral and they're wrong. They're mean spirited and fail to convey the true meaning of the season.
We pray that we put this behind us, and we invite everyone, of all persuasions, even Satanists and atheists, to join us as one community during this holy season of Christmas. May we find peace and rejoice together and share the saving message of Christ, for unto us a savior is born!
My comment: I cannot commend what this woman did. Yes, the display was intended to offend Christians, but that did not give Hemeryck the right to trample on their rights to free speech through her act of vandalism.
Craig, you are a hypocrite, deceived by the false god of freedom. you can't commend what she did. Well, I can and do commend what she did. And those bastards who set that up would trample our rights if they could get away with it, and are working on things getting to where they can do so.
ReplyDeleteNow, as to lucifer, there is an agenda in play. Capitalization is the option of the translator, and there are a hellslew of masons and suchlike involved in translation and publication.
The idea that lucifer is not satan is part of the luciferian classy atheist philosophy stuff that you can find in masonic writings and elsewhere.
So when you run into this separation, just shrug it off and get on with reading the rest of the Scripture. and hope they didn't hork around with it much.
No sitting on Santa's lap kids but please dooooooooooo go and have a good look at the devil display !!!!!!
ReplyDeleteFeeling for Susan H right now.
From OZ
To all Pope Francis watchers:
ReplyDeleteThis, from today's London Guardian, if true, bothers me deeply:
He has been called the “superman pope”, and it would be hard to deny that Pope Francis has had a good December. Cited by President Barack Obama as a key player in the thawing relations between the US and Cuba, the Argentinian pontiff followed that by lecturing his cardinals on the need to clean up Vatican politics. But can Francis achieve a feat that has so far eluded secular powers and inspire decisive action on climate change?
It looks as if he will give it a go. In 2015, the pope will issue a lengthy message on the subject to the world’s 1.2 billion Catholics, give an address to the UN general assembly and call a summit of the world’s main religions.
The reason for such frenetic activity, says Bishop Marcelo Sorondo, chancellor of the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy of Sciences, is the pope’s wish to directly influence next year’s crucial UN climate meeting in Paris, when countries will try to conclude 20 years of fraught negotiations with a universal commitment to reduce emissions.
Matthew Fox would be dancing for joy if this is true. I wonder what really did happen with Pope Benedict XVI's "resignation"? Was it forced?
Constance
Link on above:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/27/pope-francis-edict-climate-change-us-rightwing
or
http://tinyurl.com/nelbr33
Constance
The two biggest "change agents" in the world are, Barack Obama, and pope Francis.
ReplyDeleteObama will fade out, and be replace by the AC. Pope Francis will baptize the AC, as Francis is THE FALSE PROPHET.
Dear Constance,
ReplyDeleteThank you for posting that beautiful Christmas display. I hope you and your family are having a wonderful Christmas season.
John
Anon 9:33
ReplyDeleteThanks for the wild guesswork.
12-28-14
ReplyDeleteFYI--Tonight on 60 Minutes they were talking about Pope Francis.
Constance,
ReplyDeletePope Francis is no scientist and is therefore wholly reliant on the advice of others. I regard it as likely that he has been badly advised about global warming and is seeking in good faith to use his influence. Nevertheless all who are involved with the global warming scam must be rebutted with facts, whether they are minor politicians, presidents or popes.
It hasn't got warmer in the last 15 or so years according to the satellite records, which are the only ones to interrogate the entire atmosphere at all depths simultaneously - and this despite the continuing increase in the atmospheric CO2 concentration as China and India industrialise. The effect of CO2 is instantaneous. In science the data trump theories. The catastrophic-warming scenarios are all based on computer models, ie theories. And they are unable to model the interactive effect of water vapour and CO2 in the atmosphere accurately, and don't take into account various interactions that might explain the absence of warming.
Physicist
not only that, some articles i've read show some "scientists" (degrees, yeah, but not devoted to truth) are fudging the data.
ReplyDeleteback in the 1960s and 1970s, some who looked at warmong and cooling cycles figured we were going into an ice age, and didn't count on a brief extra warming. But that precedes ice ages.
bundle up. Get those mylar emergency blankets, you can get 4 packs of them real cheap and keep in cars or your purse or whatever.
Unhappily that is true Christine, the so-called "raw temperature data" which should be what terrestrial thermometers actually read are increasingly quoted with "corrections" made for various effects, all of which "coincidentally" have the effect of exaggerating warming.
ReplyDeleteCorrections for certain things might indeed be in order in some cases, but they must always be explicitly stated to have been applied and the methodology of doing so must be made clear. Politics has corrupted climate science.
Physicist
I would like some understanding on something if someone could enlighten me.
ReplyDeleteConstance has had some threads on Rick Warren and those like him furthering the New Age agenda in Christian circles.
Constance has had threads on climate change and its possible ominous agenda.
The Pope is smack right in the middle of both (and much more) and within the last several months!!
But no concern here right?
Some of you who still post here climbed right on the bandwagon and thrashed those subjects back then. But now? Not much from anybody now the pope is involved. Except those who are labeled bashers and haters.
Where is the truth here?
To add to my 5:26 post:
ReplyDeleteI see that Constance mentioned the climate change issue with the Pope and how it would "concern her deeply if true".
That's all fine and dandy, but she has said those same words before, almost identically concerning a few of the Pope's actions this year.
BUT... where is the further investigation of some of these things that worry her deeply if true?
Maybe I missed them.
To Paul
ReplyDeleteAre you familiar with these verses?
2 Cor 11:14
And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
Matthew 24:24
24 For there shall arise false christs and false prophets and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
I ask because there is no doubt in my mind that ISIS and Muslim fanaticism and their horrible atrocities are tools of Satan. In no way do I believe that we should look the other way, or dismiss it and not give it due coverage.
But these are outwardly evil, that even the casual Christian, I believe, can easily recognize the pure evil associated with it.
I believe the 2 verses above make it clear that satan is so diabolical that his plan would encompass much more than that which is obviously evil to most people including those who are not Christian.
I do not believe we should ignore or minimize the evils being done, but we shouldn't put most of our eggs in one basket.
In my opinion, the 2 verses above point to something even worse than ISIS.
Like, maybe a political or religous figure who explodes on the scene and everyone, including those from other denominations think he is the greatest thing since sliced bread.
What a coincidence, we have someone like that right now, who is meeting and unifying with false teachers, politically involved with many things, most recently the Cuba relations, and now climbing on board with the climate change agenda.
I DO NOT think Pope Franny is the AC, but I do think he is a major player, and NOT the good one that most think they see.
anon 5:26, I think the reasons go like this.
ReplyDeleteConstance was very impressed with Fr. Malachi Martin and his anti New Age and pro exorcism stance, an improvement on the modernist trends in RC clergy and laity. Sometimes we equate a group with whatever some representative of it was like, when that isn't the case.
I am not sure if he was one of those who held that apostasy would happen at the highest levels of RC certainly he held it had already secretly happened. but "highest levels" is a nice vague term. Cardinals and bishops are one thing, but is someone who says this incl. the pope as a possible part of it?
The other thing is that any ecumenical action by RC generally is motivated by one thing and one thing only: get the other players into RC. "come home to Rome" is the saying.
At this point enters another issue. Many RC may instinctively shy away from contemplative prayer, while giving the doers and developers thereof credit as saints. Others are into it.
The Desert Fathers get the credit, if this is approved, or blame, if this is rejected, in both cases wrongly. They contemplated Jesus or specific Scriptures they did not empty their minds in the New Age sense. Quieting the thoughts was about not wandering off the subject or following leads of demons or the flesh into worldly or overtly sinful lines of thought. Lectio divina was about reading Scripture in order to APPLY it.
But what is called contemplative prayer and lectio divina now, was developed in the RC monastic scene in the Middle Ages as an overreaction to the sterile rationalist scholaticism attitude. That is what the RC and its imitators in emergent church are heir to, not The Desert Fathers. (though some individuals made errors but that is another matter.)
Now, charismatics and emergent church rats (as distinct from the nicer image of a church mouse), are looking to expand their empire into RC, while RC is looking to expand its empire by including them.
The goal of a charismatic pope under the influence of New Apostolic Reformation and in submission to such "apostles" is probably in some minds also.
Also a problem the excessive (even by Orthodox standards) views of Mary. How long before a tongues talking, empty minded (aside from empty headed ) adorer of Mary as Co Redemptrix gets to be pope, and declares the former are required activities of RC laity or at least clergy, and the latter is now a formal dogma?
http://10news.dk/muslim-inbreeding-impacts-on-intelligence-sanity-health-and-society/
ReplyDelete6:24 A.M.,
ReplyDeleteThe pope is a religious leader, he would not be the AC. He is very likely The False Prophet. Until its plain I'm wrong, and I repent from that, I do believe he is the False Prophet.
For info on from where the AC will arise, and when, see Daniel chapter 8. Once the AC arises the pope,FP, will baptize him, and the vast majority of the earths people will rejoice.
don't forget John's first epistle that speaks of many antichrists as well as THE antichrist. The pope could be a heretic and apostate and AN antichrist without being THE antichrist.
ReplyDeleteand Daniel 7 says he will arise out of an empire that will crush the eagle winged lion, the 4 headed 4 bird winged leopard and the bear and hasn't even come to power yet.
Revelation 13 says the beast rises up out of the sea, as do the beasts in Daniel 7. The false prophet rises up out of the earth. Might be the twelfth imam or pass as such last seen disappearing down a well in Iran or Iraq, might be in suspended animation or might just be dead but such a legend could be exploited.
This empire, out of whom will come the 11th horn that displaces three others, has features of the previous three empires, it will be possible because of, derive many features from the previous three empires.
If Daniel 10:26 "the people of the prince that shall come" refers to the antichrist as "the prince that shall come," then you have two options.
Legion 10 which destroyed Jerusalem and The Temple was Syrian. Titus the Roman emperor objected to the destruction of the Temple, because of its beauty, but couldn't stop it, and complained that the Syrian legion acting on old hate against Israel, would be the cause of this being blamed on Rome.
So you have two options. The antichrist might be a Roman, or an Italian ethnically of the same stock as old Rome, or just any Italian citizen, but Vatican City is a separate city state and not even legally part of Italy. So it is out of the picture.
Or the antichrist might be ethnically a Syrian, but of any personal origin.
Christine @ 8:13
ReplyDeleteOuch.
I had heard many a person refer to the Muslims as
inbred, but I had no idea...
I'm not surprised though.
Pope Francis has this to say to the Vatican Curia:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/22/pope-francis-curia-message_n_6366700.html
spiritual alzheimer's forgetting your encounter with Christ, mediocrity and cowardice, full text elsewhere.
People traditionally married relatives in order to keep wealth within the family and not disperse it, but God permitted first cousin marriages in ancient Israel's law and He knows what He is talking about so it should not be banned.
ReplyDeleteYes 6:24 AM.
ReplyDeleteAll of those evils are being used to shape minds (by fear) but beware the one who comes to shape all minds ( to trust) whose intent is to sway hearts and minds to belong ultimately to evil itself-coming as an angel of 'light'. The forerunner to that one is on the scene right now preparing the way as we speak. He (pope) is most definitely a player and his timing could not be better.
anon 10:35
ReplyDeletefirst off, that reason for marriage is unbiblical in the first place. As for first cousin marriage, God permitted this, but cross cousin marriage is more intense. two first cousins, and their siblings ditto, marry each other, a family swap.
honor killing may happen if not obeyed.
this goes on for several generations with the descendants of these marriages, adding up to the genetic equivalent of full sibling marriages.
effect documented.
forced arranged marriage nowhere indicated in Torah, even if rabbis later said a girl could only refuse four times. OT Law seems to depict the girl's father as a bargaining agent more than an owner. Bride price takes her and her children from her patrilineage to her husband's patrilineage.
marriage without this arrangement is shown in I Chronicles where a man with no son married his daughter to his Egyptian slave, and the boy was counted to the man's patrilineage and enrolled in Judah. An adoption by him probably was also done, as this would otherwise violate the three generation rule regarding Egyptian mixed marriage.
marriage was not designed for the extended family but for the individuals involved, Genesis 2:18 et. seq. note the man shall LEAVE his father and mother and cling to his woman (ishah translated wife) and the two shall become one flesh (I Cor 6:16 says sex has this effect of one flesh even if with a prostitute) so a progressing along intimacy results in physical intimacy.
The motives of these cousin marriages is therefore unbiblical.
The Church prohibited first cousin marriages early on, countering the forced marriage possibility usually, and perhaps reacting to what it could see were the results.
The occasional first cousin marriage is not the same thing as what is described in muslim culture.
a similar close marriage scene is evident in Abraham's family in his generation, but there were no other YHWH worshippers available. It did not continue, more distant relatives being sought after and outsiders brought in eventually.
ReplyDeleteDear Craig, Marko, Paul and Physicist,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your thoughtful, insightful posts on the use of "lucifer" in the Exultet!!!
I would like to add that it was an inadvertant transliteration error which was involved when translating the KJV from Latin into English:
The Vulgate is Latin. The KJV is English. And in the KJV Isaiah,14:12 "Lucifer" is carried over directly from the Vulgate as "Lucifer" instead of being translated to "Morning
Star."
Isaiah 14:12King James Version (KJV)
12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
As you are all already aware, the Catholic Old Testament canon is the GREEK SEPTUAGINT, not the Hebrew Bible which is the Protestant Old Testament canon.
The name "Lucifer" is not found in the Septuagint. The name "Lucifer" came from the Latin Vulgate:
Isaiah 14:12 quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes
The word "lucifer" is the Latin name of the planet Venus, aka the "morning star" known either as Eosophorus (bringer of the dawn) or Phosphoros (bringer of the light) in Greek. We find the word lucifer again as a title of Christ in the Latin Vulgate:
VUL 2 Peter 1:19 et habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem cui bene facitis adtendentes quasi lucernae lucenti in caliginoso loco donec dies inlucescat et lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestris
This verse tells us to wait until LUCIFER rises in our hearts!
The King James Bible
COPIED the name Lucifer from the Vulgate. It is one of the most unbelievably ridiculous of all the errors introduced by that version. There is no way that I can believe that it was done out of malice. Nevertheless, ountless millions of people erroneously believe that Lucifer is a name of Satan.
Unfortunately, this error is propagated by countless "Bible teachers" who are unaware of how the Latin word "Lucifer" came to be used by Catholics whose Old Testament canon originates with the Greek Septuagint.
Given that Reformation Protestants felt it incumbent upon themselves to substitute the Hebrew Old Testament canon for the Septuagint, it follows that their own English translation would - or should - have been made exclusively from the Hebrew O.T. canon to begin with - and not the Latin Vulgate based on the Greek Septuagint - even if they wanted to compare translations once they were finished with their English translation.
In the Vulgate, except for Isaiah, the Latin "Lucifer" is not used except to refer to Christ and it is translated into English as "Morning Star."
To repeat:
"The Bright Morning Star goes to the misnomer of "Lucifer", which is an incorrect title for Satan or the Devil taken from the King James Version of Isaiah 14:12.
Were it not for this odd transliteration, "Lucifer" would not exist as a term in English,( because Lucifer itself is a Latin word!!!!!) and there would be no confusion on the matter. As it is, we need to be careful about using the term to describe who the Bible calls "Satan" or "the Devil". Most Christians are onto this, yet still the term "Lucifer" persists. IN ANY CASE THE "MORNING STAR IS THE TITLE OF CHRIST THROUGHOUT THE REST OF SCRIPTURE!!!!!
Christine you are so biblically unread (without understanding) it is striking. Doesn't stop you from pontificating as though you have all authority on every subject from the bible though.
ReplyDeleteCousin marriage was not only permitted but practiced and continued. Sarah was Abraham's niece. Aram and Jochabed were cousins both from Levi. And on it goes.
Dna supports this.
You are in the crackpot zone....again.
The Septuagint English translation in the Orthodox Study Bible says "lucifer son of the morning." light bearer is the issue as a descriptor, and could fit anyone running around at night with a flashlight to get really picky.
ReplyDeleteBut the term is in use to refer to someone who bears a false light and fell from heaven, and is the same as satan, because Jesus says "I beheld satan fall from heaven like lightning" Luke 10:18 and Jesus is always quoting OT as is Paul, so this must refer to the Isaiah verse.
http://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/14-12.htm shows that "lucifer" and "morning star" are two separate words, not the same word. H1966 heylel "a shining one" and H1121 H7837, ben (son of) shachar (dawn) respectively.
"shining one" might well have been a proper name, since all names have a specific meaning, the names we use now have specific meanings in the languages they come from, but the names survived the languages (with confusing modifications) so we don't know what they mean, and the typical name meaning list is way off and involves symbolism and fantasy as well and how the name just feels to the writer. This is an anomalous situation not the usual in past.
The typical Amerindian name, Running Bear Scared By Chicken or Shithead son of Kickass may sound strange, but that is the kind of thing our names mean. Erikson is son of Erik, and was a patronymic, so I should be Eriksdotter, but actually I should be Elliotsdotter, and his son if he'd had one would be Elliotson. But at immigration the name was frozen into a patrolinic and passed on. Christine is feminine form of Christian.
"Christine you are so biblically unread (without understanding) it is striking. Doesn't stop you from pontificating as though you have all authority on every subject from the bible though.
ReplyDeleteCousin marriage was not only permitted but practiced and continued. Sarah was Abraham's niece. Aram and Jochabed were cousins both from Levi. And on it goes.
Dna supports this.
You are in the crackpot zone....again."
I ALREADY SAID THAT CONSANGUINOUS MARRIAGE WAS PRACTICED IN ABRAHAM'S FAMILY IN HIS GENERATION, THAT YOU REFER TO.
SARAH WAS NOT HIS NIECE BUT HIS HALF SISTER BY HIS FATHER OUT OF A DIFFERENT MOTHER.
Shows how well biblically read you are.
The obvious reason was lack of Yahwehists outside their family to marry.
The pattern changes, with Abraham sending his servant to a more distant relative to get a wife for Isaac.
The only reason Jacob went to Laban's place and married his cousins there, was that he was on the run from Esau.
As you get farther along in time you see outbreeding more than inbreeding. The first cousin marriage is allowed not required in Torah, marriage to uncles and aunts is PROHIBITED as is marriage to half siblings.
DNA doesn't prove what was going on in those days, but God says that one parent of Israel was an Amorite and the other a Hittite, so whatever they pleased to call themselves that was the reality, and DNA won't prove or disprove because all human lineages in the Middle East were too closely related.
DNA is tracked three ways. Y chromosome which is male line only. Mitochondrial DNA or mtDNA which is female line, matrilineal, only. and entire genome.
Which are you referring to as showing that double cousin marriage and so forth remained normative for Israelites throughout most of their history? It is certainly not invariable among Jews in the past several centuries though probably occurs now and then.
There is Susanna to cloud the issue again!
ReplyDeleteEverything she said is correct as I have researched it myself.
Would it not be wise to just avoid using the term lucifer for Christ?
Regardless if its a Latin word (which it is) or not, most people (even educated) do not know this and have been subject to the popular notion that it is Satan.
Wouldn't it be better to just NOT refer to Lucifer as Christ?
You can't use the argument "it's the proper word" and used in the bible because there are PLENTY of rituals and phrases that are NOT in the bible that those good ole church fathers say they've figured out for us.
So it doesn't hold water to use the defense of being used in the bible. It goes both ways ya know?
"Would it not be wise to just avoid using the term lucifer for Christ?...Wouldn't it be better to just NOT refer to Lucifer as Christ?"
ReplyDeleteYES.
Especially with the infiltration angle, you could have a secret satanist going along with its application to Christ, externally, but secretly applying to the devil.
I have already seen instructions as to how to hide wiccan affiliation or sympathy in an RC home: arrange the rosary, so that the cord of beads is a circle, and the cross or crucifix below that, making a crux ansata.
ReplyDeleteSARAH WAS NOT HIS NIECE BUT HIS HALF SISTER BY HIS FATHER OUT OF A DIFFERENT MOTHER.
Shows how well biblically read you are."
It continued and was biblical.
Sarah and Lot were brother and sister by Haran Abraham's brother.
Go back and lean on God's understanding and not your own.
Your own understanding is why you delve and speak from the crackpot zone. I'll take the bibles' word for this, not yours.
The double cousin/close cousin trend continued and particular with Cohen.
ReplyDeleteCheck out early American immigrant families and their cousin marriages. Back and forth repeatedly. I am cousin to cousins several times over as are the overwhelming majority until the 1900's when that was significantly changing as people could move faster and create distance between themselves and relatives at a greater rate.
ReplyDeleteyou still don't get it, THAT CONSANGUINOUS MARRIAGE WAS IN A CONTEXT OF NO OTHER YHWH BELIEVERS TO MARRY,
ReplyDeleteAND MARRIAGE BECAME FAR MORE EXSANGUINOUS AFTER THAT, AND MARRIAGE TO YOUR AUNT OR UNCLE WAS PROHIBITED BY GOD IN THE LAW GIVEN TO MOSES.
marriages outside of Israelite category altogether was allowed with specific limitations for only a few people on when the resulting generations could be classed as Israelite. Deuteronomy go find it.
marriages between tribes was normative and prohibited only if the woman was heir to real estate so land wouldn't travel between tribes.
cousin marriage was allowed not required.
I am not leaning on my own understanding I am going by what The Bible says.
The High Priest was to marry of the tribe of Levi no other limitation on ancestry, i.e., no need to be consanguinous.
If you people knew the Bible instead of commentators you wouldn't be arguing with me.
"Sarah and Lot were brother and sister by Haran Abraham's brother." What does that have to do with this?
Genesis 11:27-31 "Now these are the generations of Terah: Terah begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran: and Haran begat Lot.
"And Haran died before his father Terah in the land of his nativity, in Ur of the Chaldees.
"And Abram and Nahor took them wives: the name of Abram's wife was Sarai; and the name of Nahor's wife, Milchah, the daughter of Haran, the father of Milcah, and the father of Iscah.
"But Sarai was barren; she had no child.
"And Terah took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haran his son's son, and Sarai his daughter in law, his son Abram's wife; and they went forth with them from Ur of the Chaldees, to go into the land of Canaan; and they came unto Haran and dwelt there."
Abram is told to leave not Ur of the Chaldees but Haran when told to leave his kindred and country, Gen. 11:32-12:1.
Jacob's sons did not all marry cousins or half sisters. Judah married a Canaanite and his wives took a Canaanite wife. Joseph had an Egyptian wife. The lineages in the Bible rarely mention the ancestry of mothers, only track father to son and anything can be in the rest of the pedigree. A close read of I chronicles genealogies shows nothing that indicates a pattern of consanguinous marriage, that something appearing to be so though perhaps not that close is mentioned at all, would seem to point to this being unusual and the pattern being outbreeding not inbreeding.
What Jews in the diaspora did is another matter, I know they kept track of supposed decendants from the priesthood, the ones named Cohen or variants, but even if two people of this name marry they may have several generations of outcross away from whoever brought the name into the location.
fast forward to the two events, where hesitant Abraham had pretended Sarai/Sarah was his sister, in case unbelievers were immoral and would kill him to be able to take her as wife. When called out on this, his excuse was this: Gen. 20:12 "And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife."
Some commenters have tried to make out Iscah said to mean princess to be another name for Sarai, but that is false because Sarai is already named, and Iscah is "From an unused root meaning to watch; observant;" http://biblehub.com/hebrew/3252.htm
while Sarai is a fem. diminutive of sar meaning prince http://biblehub.com/hebrew/8269.htm http://biblehub.com/hebrew/8297.htm
Iscah was then Lot's wife. Unless Lot's wife was another person altogether, and Iscah went off on her own and is not part of the story at all.
anon 12:53 yes, cousin marriages were not that unusual when you have a small population that doesn't move much, like you mention. But you will notice that life expectancy, health and brains seem to improve after those days.
ReplyDeletein animal breeding, inbreeding works to fix a type you want but after a while is usually a problem.
ReplyDelete""Sarah and Lot were brother and sister by Haran Abraham's brother." What does that have to do with this?"
Sarah was Abraham's niece not his actual sister.
It was biblical and appointed by God. Your reasons about the bible context stay within the physical and horizontal but the promised seed was secured because picked by God. You understand about zilch in spiritual matters. You should get vertical. That happens on your knees by the way. If you weren't so busy merely googling you might learn the bible God's way.
Terah had more than one wife and both were sisters to each other. And they were his cousins besides.
ReplyDeleteall of this has no bearing on what I said, it only supports it. AT THE START (Abraham and immediate family and close relatives) yes, it was consanguinous, to a point LATER FORBIDDEN BY GOD IN THE LAW GIVEN TO MOSES, i.e, marrying your uncle or aunt, or full or half sibling some 400 years later, during which time there are TWO incidents of marriage outside of Israel and probably others not mentioned.
ReplyDeletethe first cousin marriage was ALLOWED BUT NOT REQUIRED and there is plenty of Scriptural evidence it did not always occur.
intertribal marriages, which is pretty unrelated though all were Israelite, were taken for granted as a liklihood hence the marriage limitation to her tribe for a real estate heiress.
The genealogies almost never talk about mothers or mothers' parents, only track on the fathers' side, so are no proof that this continued much, let alone cross cousin marriage where two couples are all first cousins, all have same grandparents, and their children are expected to marry similarly related other people, till you end up with a pedigree that dead ends in at most 32 individuals more likely 16. Sometimes less.
"Terah had more than one wife and both were sisters to each other. And they were his cousins besides."
ReplyDeleteShow me the verse in Genesis proving this, because I see NOTHING indicating polygamy by Terah.
The very fact that the detail of consanguinous marriage is given, who the mothers and wives are and who their father's are, should cue you that this was unusual. Again, the obvious motive, they were the only non pagans available. Terah and Haran were probably residual Yahwehists to some degree.
It's just fun watching you chase your tail, Christine. Whenever I stop by here you are right where you were last time. You need a life.
ReplyDeleteAnd a job besides sitting at the computer ready to pounce on everyone.
If you were out supporting yourself you could be a productive part of something instead of this going nowhere thing you adore.
Hey Christine @ 1:36 PM , just merely google it ;).
ReplyDeleteOff Topic- I wanted to share this I just came across this morning. I have seen a few people singing Shoebat's praises here and i think it is important to note that this is not the only story presented on his website that was completely inaccurate and sensationalizing. Those who read him should take these things into account.
ReplyDeleteA certain Theodore Shoebat (Walid “fake ex-terrorist” Shoebat?), writing for “Jews News,” an Israeli website with over one million Facebook followers, has posted a false story that claims Muslim villagers in Dalga, Egypt tortured, lynched and mutilated a Christian man. The false story has gone viral with over 6.2k shares. (h/t: Nate)
The article has the inflammatory title, Muslims Murder Xtian Man Right In Front Of His Son, Drag His Body To The Mosque, Tie His Body And Mutilate Him.”
Shoebat writes,
“Muslims in Egypt, in the village of Dalga, murdered a Christian man right in front of his son by riddling his body with bullets, then they dragged his body to the mosque. When they arrived at the mosque, they tied his body to a tractor and then mutilated the corpse as they screamed “Allahu Akbar!”
The article is accompanied by a picture of the lynched man, shown above.
In fact, Shoebat’s story is completely fictional but that is not the only reason that it is horridly mendacious and reckless!
The lynching shown in the picture actually took place…in Lebanon! It took place not in 2014 but in 2010! The lynched man was not a Christian but an Egyptian Muslim!
you talking about this? "Regarding his children, Terah had three sons: Abram (better known by his later name Abraham), Haran, and Nahor II.[v.26] His daughter Sarai, by a second wife, was also his daughter-in-law, wife of Abram.[4]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terah
ReplyDeleteyeah, I forgot about the daughter of his father but not of his mother. The Genesis genealogy does not mention the second wife or even that Sarai is his daughter, that turns up later. Sorry.
But that doesn't change this fact: These events happened in a CONTEXT of lack of Yahwehists to marry but their own family.
It doesn't change this fact, that the marriage laws given to Moses prohibit such marriages though they allow first cousin marriage.
It doesn't change the fact, that it was taken for granted that a woman might marry someone so distant as to not even be in her tribe, hence the rule on real estate (as distinct from money or flocks) heiresses Numbers chapter 36.
It doesn't change the fact, that mention of mothers or wives or the parentage of someone's mother almost never occurs, and when it does and shows such a close relationship, it is almost as if this is something unusual by the time the Israelites were in Canaan.
Inbreeding and outbreeding depend on a lot of situations, and given the population figures given in Numbers when the tribes were numbered don't fit the picture in I Chronicles genealogies, there were a lot of unrelated people present to marry who came into the covenant of Moses.
It doesn't change the fact, that you can't (especially given the prohibition on real close marriages) figure that what Abraham and his family were doing, continued throughout history. That would be eisegesis not exegesis.
Terah was an idol worshiper and that was the way his tribe did marriage post flood and it continued long after Abraham and Jacob with some changes God mandated to modify to be more specific regarding priests. I'll not give my source but the bible supports it. You can look that up yourself.
ReplyDeleteYou are no biblical scholar.
God uses people where people are at at the time of their history but his ways are from a much higher purpose and carried out with his intervention when he deems it right. That is where we disagree.
ReplyDeleteChristine, have a secular take on the bible that ruins your learning for the higher things it teaches.
The best thing to do for your sanity in general, and especially your spiritual health, is to quickly scroll past Christine's too numerous posts.
ReplyDelete"Terah was an idol worshiper and that was the way his tribe did marriage post flood and it continued long after Abraham and Jacob with some changes God mandated to modify to be more specific regarding priests."
ReplyDeleteI have read The bible through three times, each time in a matter of three or four months. Like stop to eat and sleep and read almost nothing else.
What you just said has no basis in the Genesis chronology up to and after the Flood, except in that limited pocket. The Bible says NOTHING one way or another. Sure Cain married his full sister. And Eve was cloned out of Adam so was effectively his 99.99% sister. But absent REQUIREMENT to inbreed where marriages are forced and arranged, there is no reason to assume this. The Bible is simply silent on the subject. Inbreeding was an option but not the norm. Yes Terah had two wives.
But the idea he was an idol maker depends on his name referring to that, which I accepted at face value years ago from some Bible commentator.
On the contrary, looking at Strong's it is an undeclinable noun of uncertain origin. a place in the desert, Abraham's father, somehow http://www.studylight.org/lexicons/greek/gwview.cgi?n=2291 has it as station, while Strong's online just can't quite figure out what it is.
Topical bible says "Scripture intimates plainly that Terah had fallen into idolatry, or had for a time mingled some idolatrous practices" when in fact The Bible doesn't even hint at this, the similarity of terah to teraphim images is drawn on. http://biblehub.com/hebrew/8646.htm compare Hebrew letters http://biblehub.com/hebrew/8646.htm shows it is not the same word, the letters aside from the plural ending are not the same.
wikipedia suggests the name has to do with the ibex or a wanderer. The Rabbis got onto the Terah-teraphim similarity and promoted this idea but place Abraham contemporary to Nimrod which is nuts.
"According to rabbinical tradition Terah was a wicked (Numbers Rabbah 19:1; 19:33), idolatrous priest (Midrash HaGadol on Genesis 11:28) who manufactured idols (Eliyahu Rabbah 6, and Eliyahu Zuta 25). Abram, in opposition to his father’s idol shop, smashed his father’s idols and chased customers away. Terah then brought his unruly son before Nimrod, who threw him into a fiery furnace, yet Abram miraculously escaped.(Genesis Rabba 38:13). The Zohar says that when God saved Abram from the furnace, Terah repented (Zohar Genesis 1:77b) and Rabbi Abba B. Kahana said that God assured Abram that his father Terah had a portion in the World to Come (Genesis Rabbah 30:4; 30:12)." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terah#Jewish_tradition
my guess is, the name Terah is Akkadian in origin, a semitic language but not Hebrew.
I have read the bible through and through for years (for over 30) not to mention countless separate studies. It is not a mental exercise for me like it is for you. It is much more. So explore all you want Christine, because I could not care less who you think who is in the bible. Your understanding is very handicapped in the spiritual. And why I will not name my sources so you could do the comparison. You would only dissect it from your secular humanistic view. This is not an argument, this is not a competition, this is nothing but some facts with a bit of speculation thrown in on my part, however it is reasoned. And I can admit that which you cannot. But your penchant for argument and competing to constantly 'one up' others is why there is no real conversation with you. You merely talk at people, and not to them, another one of your anti-social quirks you revel in. You want have the last word to 'teach' me or anyone else something, and God knows what the heck that would be. Narcissistic beyond words.
ReplyDeleteSo keep googling for your own entertainment and learn more nothing because learning from the bible is spiritually discerned. The part you are not interested in or you would be willing to be taught rather than already think you know it all already. Unteachable by the Holy Spirit or anyone else for that matter is your whole problem in life isn't it?
I'm sorry for you.
Anonymous 12:01
ReplyDeleteRe: There is Susanna to cloud the issue again!
Everything she said is correct as I have researched it myself.
How in heaven's name can I be clouding the issue if everything I have said is correct - and by your own admission????
My explanation of the KJV transliteration error regarding the word "Lucifer" is as crystal clear as it is correct.
Moreover, I am very willing and able to point out an inadvertent transliteration error made by Protestant translators without assuming malice on their part or accusing them of being minions of the "antichrist."
****************************
RE: Would it not be wise to just avoid using the term lucifer for Christ?
If you had more thoroughly done your homework before posting your comments here, you would know that except for a minority of Catholic traditionalists who celebrate the extraordinary form of the Mass in Latin, the majority of Catholics in English-speaking countries celebrate the ordinary form of the Mass in English.
Ergo, the term lucifer is never used for Christ in the ordinary form of the Mass since lucifer is a Latin word.
With regard to Easter, ordinarily, the celebrant or a deacon sings the Exultet ( Easter Proclamation ) at the Easter Vigil. However, if there is no priest or deacon capable of singing the Exultet, a lay person may be asked to do so.
As a trained singer, I myself have been asked by my pastor on several occasions to chant the Exultet at the Easter vigil....IN ENGLISH!!!
The Latin word "lucifer" is never used in reference to Christ in the English Exultet.
Scrolling on......
ReplyDelete'The Goddess at Work'
ReplyDeletetheopenscroll.blogspot.com
Sunday, December 28,2014 post
Hindu Aka Gnostic
ReplyDeleteThere hovers a witch who would practice
Spellbinding to convince folk of Chakras,
She tries to achieve, lies and hopes to deceive,
Hear her swear without care: so tactless!
She tries to apply gnostic theses,
Twisting Scripture through vain eisegesis,
She implies Holy Writ was first penned in Sanskrit with her Hindu concepts as her basis!
Her aim is to cause folk to bicker,
o'er her 'aether', vampires and wicca,
with ufos, men on Mars,
and Nibiru: her lies
show her spiritual state's getting sicker!
She refuses correction in anger,
As folks warn her and others of danger,
Humility wounds her pride,
Her intentions she'd hide,
Yet the light of truth will expose her!
In step with Pope Francis plea to "stop proselytizing".
ReplyDeleteStop conversions, Stanford religious dean tells churches.
endtimeheadlines.org/uncategorized/stop-conversions-stanford-religious-dean-tells-churches/
Yes, I think I'll refer to her as Justina from now on.
ReplyDeleteendtimeheadlines.org/uncategorized/stop-conversions-stanford-religious-dean-tells-churches/
ReplyDeleteoutrageous.
Paul at 9:55 AM,
ReplyDeleteOr just Aka will do... Or maybe we should refer to her by that pseudonym she so fondly referred to herself by for so long... now what was it again?... Ah, yes, how appropriate, that was it... Infowolf!
Bad news tonight -- the New Agers are definitely on the march and indoctrinating our children with much more than Common Core, bad as that is. Tonight, NBC News showed public schools putting their children through TM (Transcendental Meditation) sessions and extolling it. That definitely is a form of Eastern/Hindu religion and has no place in either Christian nor public schools.
ReplyDeleteThe old battlesl we fought and won for a season are back! The war is for our children's souls. It is claimed the program (like {"Mindfulness") improves the children's concentration and diminishes violence. What about the violence to their eternal souls?
Constance
Re: Christine Erikson 6:26
ReplyDeleteMalachi Martin and I had a very mixed relationship. There was a time when I did not speak with him for a few years. After he released THE WINDSWEPT HOUSE we became friends again -- I felt that book covered "a multitude of sins" so to speak. I was contacted by in the mid 1980s friends of Malachi from Rochester, NY saying they had given him my book and he was grateful for it -- it was what had given him definitive and useful information about the New Age Movement. I thought his book HOSTAGE TO THE DEVIL was outstanding. I was later upset with him for some of his interviews on the ART BELL SHOW which I felt to be serious compromise. After he released WINDSWEPT HOUSE, I did some radio programs with him on my WMUZ LAWTALK program in the 1990s. We talked fairly regularly via long distance until his fall and subsequent incapacitation. As I recall, I believe he died in 1999. Like all the rest of us, he was human. The good work he did was very good indeed, but we did have differences. Suzanne has also pointed out some issues with Malachi Martin. I am trusting that he made his ultimate peace with God -- I sincerely hope so and that I will have the opportunity to have conversations with him in the life to come. We certainly had some interesting conversations while he was living. He was quite a conversationalist!
Constance
I remember back in the 1980s when I read about the fight against businesses requiring employees or managers or both to do TM. It went into court, and decisions came down against it, and these should be located and used against this.
ReplyDeleteThe point was, that it was a form of religion being taught, not a mere mental self control method, not only because of the nature of the technique, but because of the theory behind it AND THE PUJA RITUAL that you have to do which is in fact a Hindu religious worship ceremony, but done in Sanskrit or Hindi whatever, so the participant didn't know.
then you get assigned a mantra which is supposedly the one just right for you, and you are not to tell anyone what it is.
heh, heh, that little secrecy thing covered the fact that there were only a very few mantras, I forget how many, 5 or 7 something like that, I think all single syllable, and you used this to help get in the right state. These are all or most syllables that referred to some false god or other.
I think the court decisions could be used as existing case law to shut this down.
"Maharishi discusses Hindu devas as "very refined impulses of energy and intelligence" and refers to their finest vibrations as mantras. In the "New Jersey Court Case," the judge labeled this as overtly religious language -- not scientific concept. Most observers of the TM theology see this sort of "shadow speech" as a camouflaged attempt to discuss fundamentalist Hindu religious concepts without offending Western sensibilities.
ReplyDeleteThe Maharishi specifically talks about the Hindu God Indra as "that Agency, that force of nature which puts together the mind and the body." By extension, one might surmise that whenever the Maharishi talks about forces or laws of nature, that he is referring to the Gods. In fact, this equation is made explicitly for TM teachers and other insiders."
http://tmfree.blogspot.com/2009/12/how-transcendental-meditation-really.html
Interesting point about the idea of "forces" and "subtle influences" being in fact spirits, and some miasma they can send or a telepathic messaging and light influence as distinct from possession by them. Strip the technique of puja and so forth, and you still end up with a system designed to invite spirits or plug into an existing stream they created that can be activated.
From https://web.archive.org/web/20080502193024/http://www.trancenet.net/law/index.shtml
"Federal Courts Rule TM is a Religion"
Malnak vs. Yogi, " The New Jersey Court Case"
Upheld by the Appellate Court
Sets Important Precedent in McLean vs. Arkansas
Federal Courts TM Rule Subject to Protections and Sanctions of Relion, 1/96, Hendel vs. WPEC [top ] "
The court decisions:
https://web.archive.org/web/20080705084632/http://trancenet.net/law/nj/nj1.shtml
upheld by appellate court - in an earlier version of this page, removed from later ones archive crawled scroll down
https://web.archive.org/web/19980516015926/http://minet.org/otherdoc.html
but the archived pages of this were removed (probably by request) but the case is Malnak vs. Yogi if you want to look it up.
the case use as precedent https://web.archive.org/web/19980201131613/http://cns-web.bu.edu/pub/dorman/McLean_vs_Arkansas.html
the Fed. court ruling is only preserved at the start of it at https://web.archive.org/web/20070721082807/http://trancenet.net/law/hendel01.shtml
But the decision upheld the lower court findings that TM is a religion "In 1996, moreover, the Superior Court of the District of Columbia also ruled that
TM is a religion in Hendel v. World Plan Executive Council.
39 The fact that the organization has never
challenged the rulings in these cases by appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court seems an admission to the
strong evidence of its religious nature." http://www.equip.org/PDF/JAT262-1.pdf
I think the separation of church and state, however misapplied as it is now, can be used to keep this religion out of school (and keep islam out, it is edging in) just as much as Christianity can be kept out of school.
been listening to some debunking videos, this one against David Icke, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcUOVytK2ZA Now notice the connection of Maurice Strong to Theosophy, and to Kofi Anan. notice that theosophy especially Alice Bailey says that bloodshed is sometimes needed to restore balance or heal the planet or whatever.
ReplyDeleteNow consider this: The Rwanda horror happened because its outbreak used a weapons stash, that a UN agent had found, and asked Kofi Anan permission to destroy the weapons.
The permission was not granted. The weapons were not destroyed, and the massacres began, with back and forth war following.
That guy should have just destroyed the weapons without asking first.
I suspect, however, that Rwanda was more than what it appears to be, that among other things, it was a New World Order Theosophy project, if not in inception than in encouragement and allowing it, by not stopping what made it easy to do.
That also raises the question of who was back of the airplane shootdown, killing a president on board, that started the violence.
Justina
ReplyDeleteYou are amazing !
Your grasp of every subject is comprehensive and simply over everyone else's head.
There is nothing on earth which you aren't an expert on.
I am a licensed arborist and I help care for, plant and remove trees, yet I know that if you spent even one hour on the subject of trees or arboriculture that you would far surpass my puny knowledge.
There is NOTHING that you aren't an authority on.
I am just so awestruck and impressed by you. Maybe that's the one thing that you don't perceive;
that everyone EVERYONE is absolutely dumbfounded by your off-the-charts amazing mental power. It's unprecedented.
Have you ever tried moving objects with just your raw mental genius ? Like, your body; can you move it?
You know much much more than anyone on this blog, including the blog owner, but that's just the start. You know much more than any scientist, professor, writer or sage.
Like this gem:
"The typical Amerindian name, Running Bear Scared By Chicken or Shithead son of Kickass may sound strange, but that is the kind of thing our names mean."
_Or this pearl;
"true light lets you see things more clearly rather than obscuring them. A person I know with experience of demonic manifestations says whatever the color, it is always particulates massed not solid.
Who knew?
_And here I am stumbling around in the dark. Some stupid science teacher once told me that nothing is actually solid, but merely energy...or some such thing. I'm going to call that teacher and have him get in touch with you, to set him straight.
You Justina will someday just disappear, because I think that with your awesome brainpower, they may need you upstairs even more than they do here.
What this world should do is gather together all the
best scientists and brilliant people in a round table session with you, Justina, sitting in the center. Then they could all inquire about the things that have bothered science and knowledge for a long time.
For instance, I'm sure you could put together a Unified Field Theory that would clear everything up for them. They have so many loose ends and incongruous bits and pieces of truth but you are the one who can pull it all together!
Don't deprive the world any longer Justina, the world needs your help, right away.
You need to leave this little corner of the world and
take your wondrous gifts to the greater populous.
Please, Go and do that.
"I am a licensed arborist and I help care for, plant and remove trees, yet I know that if you spent even one hour on the subject of trees or arboriculture that you would far surpass my puny knowledge."
ReplyDeleteNo I wouldn't. I can barely handle vegetable gardening.
As for the rest of it, the scientists to set me straight had best include those amateur scientists who have experience in photography of the weird with the help of infrared photography and stuff like that, to get the scientists up to speed.
Frankly I don't like talking about these things, because I don't like thinking about them.
Also of interest is the fact that what aliens touch during an abduction, walls, bedding, the human him or herself, will fluoresce under ultraviolet light, google Derrell Sims.
And my kindle ebook A Possible History of Life of Mars might help you deflate the idiocy of those who think alien intelligent life in any way disproves The Bible, or that aliens are a reliable source of information on anything whatsoever, or that being so physical they can't also have a demonic component.
A possible history meaning not actual history.
ReplyDeleteGot it.
I'll pass.
anon 7:22, no one can know the actual history for sure. I can only draw conclusions as to what is possible as distinct from impossible. If someone gets there and does archaeological digs, someone whose trip is public and provable, then we will have something more like A Very Likely History. And it will take decades of digging (and questioning the "locals") to put together A Probably Definite History.
ReplyDeleteAll that and humble too.
ReplyDeletePaul, it's said true scholars are "people who know more and more about less and less." They specialize and dig deeper into every topic. In this internet age we know more and more about what is thought NOW. Christine is at that stage. Internet scholars teach each other, and what happens is mostly a ball of fluff that keeps growing. They spend a lot of intellectual energy in reading each other. Perhaps Christine could contradict me by listing the bibliography she has used other than internet sources.
ReplyDelete"..the scientists to set me straight had best include those amateur scientists who have experience in photography of the weird with the help of infrared photography and stuff like that, to get the scientists up to speed."
ReplyDeleteThey dang well better !
To get the scientists up to speed!
Yeah!!
Yeah they know 'stuff'. That must be the ball of fluff 9:44 PM is talking about.
ReplyDeleteStuff,..fluff,..bluff,..and....puff! (all that and humble too)
Yeah, like,
ReplyDeleteI once read in an article, I can't remember where, that
it's been proven that aliens have been here and that they still continue to come here but that we don't realize that they are aliens because they not only shape-shift but also they can use famous people voices and they can, by demonic vampirism, actually
disable our natural objectivity and render us easily impressionable and gullible,. I've actually had this happen to me more than once. One time when my so called mother was trying to get me to go outside and play, because they wanted me to play
with some demonic kids down the street who were in fact aliens from Mars, and my so-called mother
had already arranged it with them that I would be donating my life force to them for their trip back to Mars, which takes a while even for them.
I knew that they weren't human because everything they touched began to glow, an eerie greenish glow.
This actually happened, so don't try to tell me otherwise, because I've already debated this with
a number of so called PhD scientists, who actually
had to get all their information from me, after they realized that I know all that stuff, and much more.
One so called PhD Astrophysicist just threw up his hands and gave up when he realized that he needed to take lessons from me.
SO, don't forget that I have a book out about all this stuff and it explains everything. It's called:
"Malice in Fantasyland: A Summation Of All So- Called Science Which Is In Fact Just Pure Guesswork By Scientists, Which I Debunk."
I like it. A clever contest. Several players already. It takes intelligence to be clever and now we just have to play until we discover who is the cleverest of them all. I won't post who I think is already in the contest. Pretending to be wise is just part of the clever game, just as persistence is. The downside is that it stops solid information about the New Age movement on perhaps the only site discussing New Age.
ReplyDeleteNothing wrong with calling crap crap, 10:53 AM. That takes no cleverness, actually. And using her words against her is the best way to show how crappy this crap is. Sorry just true. Not our fault she has some sick need to keep this crap up. Got that?
ReplyDeleteAnd, if you'll notice ignoring has not made it go away. So if you are going to come back here expect more of said crap.
Only one person can make it go away. She has not chosen as yet to stop it.
Anonymous 11:57 I don't think you know the meaning of the word clever. You are more of a stick in the mud pain in the a__with a lot of pretentiousness about your intelligence. You add nothing to the discussion. Christine and Paul are clever in opposite ways here. I prefer Paul's way.
ReplyDeleteYou can think whatever you want 2:18 PM makes no difference to anybody here. Neither do Christine's crappy postings. Not clever, not cute, nothing...so
ReplyDeletetake it or leave it.
(And you've added so much...?)
;)
Anon 2:18
ReplyDeleteI feel sorry for you if you prefer Paul's way. To his credit, he posts far less than Christina. But that's about it.
When he's not peddling Shoebat or Shoebat's rhetoric, he tries to be cute, of which he is absolutely not.
Or, the pat on the back that he only gives to the very few, and the pat on the back he waits for from Susanna.
He's went from a mean, nasty jerk to a butt kissing joke to the click around here.
He is a total phony. No better than Christine.
Anonymous 4:24 -- and how would you describe yourself to differentiate yourself from the rest of the anonymous posters?
ReplyDeleteNo, you're right anonymous.
ReplyDeleteShe wins either way.
I'll go back to mute.
I'm taking this one for the team.
Paul, you are what Christine has proven she has no intention of being-a team player.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.pri.org/stories/2014-12-30/pope-francis-was-huge-story-2014-veteran-vatican-reporter-says-media-got-lot
ReplyDeleteFrom OZ
"He's went from a mean, nasty jerk to a butt kissing joke to the click around here." that's spelled clicque.
ReplyDelete"Paul, you are what Christine has proven she has no intention of being-a team player."
team player?
I think you have finally shown your true colors as what you are, nothing but a cheap clicque of team players.
which is to say, despicable and inferior.
"where there is strife and zeal there is confusion and every evil work." James Epistle. I read in a book once that "strife" and "zeal" translate better as party spirit and self exalting zeal.
I did enjoy your parody of me, however. I laughed and clapped, without dropping the cigarette from my mouth. I do have a sense of humor, even when the jibe is at me.
Someone who visits here and sometimes talks on the phone with me, said you guys are pretty nasty, and that your problem is that I'm way over your heads and you're jealous.
I think the problem is only partly that. The real thing is you want everybody to be punks like you, "team players" in a cheap school yard "clicque" which you can't even spell right.
Try humility for a change instead of looking for pats and applause.
4;24 PM + 8:27 PM: Hello Dorothy? That signature venom of yours betrays you.
ReplyDeleteIf someone hadn't brought all that paranormal stuff up, I wouldn't have been writing about it. Next time I will refer whoever to what I have already posted. I am tired of the subject.
ReplyDeleteAs for Paul and Shoebat, the latter is not the only source on the evils of islam. There is quite a body of information out there, including from a lady who as a child lived through the islamic revolt in Lebanon, where previously peaceful neighbors turned on Christians.
Right now, ISIS acting very much like the Ottoman conquests and the first islamic conquests, is massacreing Christians and others incl. sunni muslims that differ with them on the slightest thing, and shia muslims.
And I have read the koran twice and some hadiths and yes, all the worst is in the range of possible with the right context for some fiqh and fatwas to be enforced.
I suggest you watch the https://www.youtube.com/user/Acts17Apologetics channel videos.
Actually, it's spelled clique...
ReplyDeleteFor those who aren't aware, Newsweek posted an article on the Bible, making a point about the Biblical illiteracy of Christians. The author does so mainly by pointing out fringe groups (Westboro Baptist, snake handling cults, etc.). However, shamefully, many are Biblically illiterate, or nearly so.
I think it important to know some of the things brought up by Eichenwald, the author - and others of his ilk - so that we can adequately defend the faith as well as our belief in the authority and legitimacy of Scripture.
Are readers here aware (I'm sure at least some are) that the majority of Christian scholarship admits that the story of the woman caught in adultery is probably not part of sacred Scripture? I touch on that here, as I illustrate how the author is wrong in his own conclusion regarding this matter:
http://notunlikelee.wordpress.com/2014/12/29/predictable-christmas-fare-newsweeks-tirade-against-the-bible/
"Are readers here aware (I'm sure at least some are) that the majority of Christian scholarship admits that the story of the woman caught in adultery is probably not part of sacred Scripture?"
ReplyDeleteWhich shows how useless "Christian scholarship" generally is. As for "don't judge" being in a gospel it appear in, "don't judge" does not say anything remotely resembling "don't judge." it warns that if you do the same things you judge others for, your judging shows you knew they were wrong, and you will be judged more severely therefore at the Last Judgement.
Dean Burgeon makes an extremely good case for it being legitimate, even citing evidence some considered it should be left out in earlier centuries, or played down, to prevent anyone using it as an excuse to not take adultery seriously. COUNTERFEIT OR GENUINE? MARK 16? JOHN 8? edited by Otis Fuller.
http://www.baptist-books.com/VERS/778.html copy available
ReplyDeletenow, if you want to really get on track about New Age developments, which is already being covered by a lot of posts about technological and religious trends so I don't know what Dorothy or whoever is complaining about,
ReplyDeletecheck this out. A detailed connection between the supposedly sweetness and light sufis and jihad. I recall reading years ago, that the Bektashi sufis played a big role in the Armenian genocide.
Also, the Nazi pedigree of jihadism. But that is just the recent side. The fact is, without any jihad, as long as the state is not secular and/or doesn't look too closely, you can get killed for converting a moslem to Christianity, and for converting to Christianity if you are a moslem, or for rejecting an arranged marriage, but if you holler rape you are admitting you had sex, that is your LEGAL CONFESSION of fornication or adultery. Your defense is that you were forced, but WITHOUT FOUR ADULT MALE MUSLIM EYE WITNESSES OR CONFESSION BY THE PERPETRATOR, you are by your own confession guilty and get flogged for fornication or killed for adultery.
That is just the start of the problems with islam, and one of the biggest ones is its staunch denial of the divinity of Christ, and even of His death on the Cross, supposedly He was snatched to heaven and Judas or a phantom was miraculously put in His place. So no Resurrection, just immortality without the Crucifixion.
Islam is of antichrist and is just as bad as any New Age cult, and that New Agers might hope it would kill off Jews and Christians doesn't mean it wouldn't do so anyway on its own.
The only moslems you can trust are hard core secularists, who are likely closet atheists, unless their own decency and greater freedom and comfort in western influenced places lead them to focus on the nicer parts of the koran. Most moslems don't know that much about their religion or shariah, which is inextricably embedded in islam. One school of fiqh or law demands female genital mutilation, two others recommend it.
homosexuality has some interesting loopholes in its haram status, not the least of which is that four eyewitness rule. Who is going to do the forbidden around people who don't do the same or approve it?
http://www.terrorism-illuminati.com/essential-reading#.VKYfh9LF-eK
ReplyDeleteoops forgot the link read the chapters on the sidebar.
oh, by the way, they don't mean the same thing we do by "peace." Peace in islamic lingo means submission by others to shariah, whether they convert or not. convert, die, move out, or pay the jizzya and be dhimmi and under severe restrictions. "oppression" means any Christianity is allowed to be taught or practiced publicly, and/or islam isn't ruling the country. "injustice" means the same thing.
ReplyDeleteLadies and Gents,
ReplyDeletePlease, it's a NEW YEAR, don't feed the Beast by acting nasty to each other. Please try and practice the two Great Commandments. LEAVE THE PRIDE and NASTINESS BEHIND IN 2014 !!
As I am constantly telling my children, no one is perfect, and certain people will really BUG you throughout your lives, but BE BIGGER THAN THAT. IGNORE those individuals who bother you and PRAY FOR THEM. Specifically ask Jesus Christ to cover all who drive you crazy with His Precious Blood.
Remember JESUS CHRIST is painfully aware of each and every hurtful word we use. How can we say we love our Lord and Savior, but then shoot off our mouths filled with anger, disgust, and hatred at our brother and/or sister?
If nothing else, think of it like this. When we die every nasty thing we haven't confessed is going to flash before us. Our EYES and EARS are going to SEE and HEAR all the good and bad we've said and done. Have you ever played back a message on your answering machine only to hear your voice saying something really uncharitable and/or regrettable in a partially recorded conversation?
Come on all you Scripture scholars, let's hear 1 Corinthians 13:4-8.
"Love is patient, love is kind..."
AND DON'T ARGUE OVER THE MEANING OF THESE VERSES EITHER !!
Catherine
Constance,
ReplyDeleteIn case you missed it, Rick Wiles did a rebroadcast of his best interviews while he is in Ecuador. He rebroadcast one with you.
Happy New Year.
Christine, you wrote:
ReplyDeleteWhich shows how useless "Christian scholarship" generally is. As for "don't judge" being in a gospel it appear in, "don't judge" does not say anything remotely resembling "don't judge." it warns that if you do the same things you judge others for, your judging shows you knew they were wrong, and you will be judged more severely therefore at the Last Judgement.
Please read [and write] more carefully. Neither the author of the piece nor I wrote that “don’t judge” is not “in a gospel it [didn’t] appear in.” You are conflating the issues brought forth. It is the story of the woman caught in adultery that appears after Luke 21:38 rather than at the ‘usual’ John 7:53-8:11. In addition, this account is found placed in other sections of John, to include after 21:25, the verse that reads, And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen. Moreover, there are many manuscripts without this story at all, with some of the earliest extant manuscripts leaving a gap between John 7:53-8:11, though hardly enough to place it into the text.
Yes, there are those who argue that the story was taken out because it was thought to be too soft on adultery. However, one must take all the evidence into account when arriving at a final decision. And, yes there are those who do so and arrive at the conclusion that the account is part of sacred Scripture; however, there are higher numbers of scholars who, given all the manuscript evidence believe it was an oral tradition which was later inserted into Scripture (thus accounting for they variety in its placement). To call Christian scholarship “useless” because it doesn’t agree with one’s own conclusion is not helpful.
My parenthetical remark about “don’t judge” in the article, was in reference to the following by the Newsweek writer:
Jesus said, Don’t judge. He condemned those who pointed out the faults of others while ignoring their own. And he proclaimed, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.”
That’s a good place to start.
My point then was that the author himself was being hypocritical, illustrating the very thing he points out above, in his claim that Scribes simply made up the story, essentially calling them fabricators, as the author simply cannot make the claim that the story “never happened.” He cannot know for certain either way.
Secular Humanists, part of the New Age movement, are doing their best to ridicule Christians. Sadly, by reading the comments on the Newsweek piece, there are scant few Christians who can adequately address issues, resorted to knee-jerk reactions instead. Time and again, pundits asked these Christians to back up their claims that the piece was lacking in scholarship. And it was rare that a Christian actually back up the claim.
Part of the Great Commission is “teaching everything I [Jesus] have commanded.” Disappointingly, the Church has failed in this regard, as we have scores of Biblically illiterate Christians. In some ways the secular world knows more about the book we supposedly hold dearly than we do. And that reflects poorly on Jesus Christ, our Savior.
Vatican Rising: Pope Francis And Obama Form Political Alliance
ReplyDeletewww.nowtheendbegins.com/blog/?p=29637
it is not a matter of not agreeing with my conclusions. Dean Burgeon argues pretty convincingly that the pericope de adultera is legitimate, and I suspect that since one translation possible is "he who is without THIS sin" is as much a gagging thing to dislikers as concerns about adultery. Because it strikes at the double standard. And the double standard managed to entrench itself among church fathers who argued that while a man could divorce his wife for adultery, and remarry in innocence, if a woman divorced her husband for adultery she could not remarry without being guilty of adultery thereby.
ReplyDeleteOne argument Burgeon gives, is that if you take the story out of the narrative, there is a peculiar incoherence, because of the break between what precedes and what comes after. Glancing at the book, I see Horr's name and textual issues mentioned, so we can partly blame Wescott and Hort for scholarship.
"Christian scholarship'" flag ship is the Jesus Seminar, by the way. Not to mention the absurd attack on the OT using the JPED theory, which has been hacked to pieces many times.
Absence from Codex A, but two leaves of it are missing anyway.
Pericope is in Codixes b c e ff g h j.
"Jerome (AD 385), after a careful survey of older Greek copies, did not hesitate to retain it in the Vulgate....Ambrose at Milan (374) quotes it at least nine times, as well as Augustine in North Africa (396) about twice as often" and goes on to list others in 370, 400 twice 433 and 434, 457, 484 and 492.
Liturgical smoothness of use also played a role in omitting it sometimes, left out of readings a less knowledgeable scribe might leave it out in copying as a "what?! I never hear that read in the lexicon through the year" sort of thing. (my e.g. of a possible reaction. you can be able to read and write, but generally ignorant of the material you are to copy.)
Its not my conclusions that are the issue. Its the conclusions of Burgeon who has done a lot more research than I ever did. The KJV translaters did a lot of research also, and didn't hesitate to include it. (I am not KJB only.)
yes, we have scores of biblically illiterate Christians, BUT THE REALLY DEADLY PROBLEM IS ONCE SAVED ALWAYS SAVED AND THAT OBEYING JESUS IS ADDING "WORKS" TO HIS FINISHED WORK OF SALVATION.
Why do we have such a pornography problem, for instance? its not because of the sellers. No market, no sale. ITS BECAUSE OF THE BUYERS. Same deal with prostitution. Whether you are selling Bibles, bubblegum or bimbos, you have to have a market that is willing to buy.
OSAS and no "works" (which Paul described as circumcision and food laws and sabbath keeping) are the real reason this country is such a mess. These allow everything else.
Dear Catherine,
ReplyDeleteI'm assuming that "nasty" being one of your favorite words, that you're the anonymous sniper who has called me nasty numerous times.
i wish you'd stop that. I don't deserve it
It's really very nasty on your part.
Yes. Christine 'wins'. Her total dominance of this blog is complete. But is no victory..
ReplyDeleteShe has eaten from the forbidden tree of knowledge and is 'drunk' in it's flow of good and evil. That is why she has no discernment and partakes where she should not and the admix of some truth to her much error has permeated this place. Be wise and discern for yourselves because her glut of knowledge is here to deceive and drain away from what should really be before us to see. She admits she laughs at this furor she is at the root of. Singles herself out that way is the picture of one not a team player, with the interest for the good of all. Shows us the motive is merely to dominate because careful study (study to show yourself approved) is left in the dust. Knowledge for knowledge sake is vanity (King Solomon told us this) and not how spiritual matters are brought to our understanding. No true meditation on these things to discern whether it is good to know (and from God) just the vanity of the chase. It is the spirit of the pit. It is the tactic of the enemy. Ever learning and never coming to true knowing the Bible calls it. It is her way or the highway proud. A vain and empty life in pursuit of the wind. I do not judge her soul, that part is for God, but for our own edification we must be wise to see that her 'fruits' can most definitely be seen for what they are...rotten. The best way to get a lie told and believed is to shroud it with some truth. And the sheer volume of her 'produce' is to overwhelm and distract.
And she laughs as she wastes her days-her life with so much of the web to run after-to chase and so little time, living only in her head...with no love in her days to make her heart rest and receive what is truly good and true....no quietness and rest as in Isaiah 30:15. A graphic picture-a sad portrait. Don't laugh at her, cry for her instead and then yes, pray.
" She admits she laughs at this furor she is at the root of."
ReplyDeleteNo I said I laughed at the parody of me, it is pretty good.
"Singles herself out that way is the picture of one not a team player, with the interest for the good of all."
being a team player is by definition NOT of use to the good of all, regardless of what the team may think. This is not a football or baseball game.
"Shows us the motive is merely to dominate "
No, but I think that is your motive. and your delusion that you did once dominate the blog. I can't see any indication you did. or that anyone does or did. Freudian projection in secular terms, failing to take the log out of your own eye before working on the sawdust spec in another's eye in Jesus' phrasing.
"team player" demand equals group think, especially as directed by Dorothy or whoever. Group think is a weakness, important things get missed or excluded. I show more love towards you guys by sharing what I know or addressing errors or lack of big picture information than by shutting up.
group think is an essential part of New Age/New World Order mentality.
shows you got a secularist and semi New Age bias yourself.
Paul,
ReplyDeleteYou must have me confused with someone else. It's been ages since I posted anything on this blog. I like to scroll past the squabbles and read only those points that relate to current events and the topic at hand.
My comments were not directed at you specifically, but serve as a gentle reminder to EVERYONE reading and posting on this blog. Let's leave the ugliness behind in 2014.
Peace.
Catherine
Christine,
ReplyDeleteMy intent on bringing up the woman caught in adultery was not to debate back on forth on the relative merits of an argument pro or con. My intent was to make Christians aware that there is some dispute over the text. While I’ve looked at some of the evidence for and against, I’m not aware of Burgeon’s work. I can only assume you’ve properly presented his position. Having said that, for the sake of the whole truth of this matter, there are numerous problems with what you wrote.
You wrote: One argument Burgeon gives, is that if you take the story out of the narrative, there is a peculiar incoherence, because of the break between what precedes and what comes after. Actually, this is one of the arguments against its validity.
Starting at 7:14, we find Jesus teaching at the Feast in the temple, with folks inquiring if He is the Christ (7:25-52), while the Pharisees continue in their unbelief. Picking up at 8:12 we find Jesus proclaiming that He is the “Light of the world.” The Pharisees declare His self-testimony invalid. I see continuity, while Burgeon does not.
If we insert the Pericopae Adulterae (PA), we have everyone going home, while Jesus went to the Mount of Olives; and, the following morning He is back at the temple courts. Then, the Pharisees bring the woman. When Jesus tells the crowd, “if any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone,” the crowd leaves one by one leaving the woman and Jesus, with Jesus telling her to go away and sin no more. Thus, it appears there is no one left. Then it jumps to “When Jesus spoke again to the people…” My position – in line with the majority of Christian scholars – is that this interrupts the natural flow.
You wrote: Absence from Codex A, but two leaves of it are missing anyway. Pericope is in Codixes b c e ff g h j.
It’s not in C. In both A & C there are portions missing; however, there is not enough room to accommodate the PA in either one. The PA is not in B, either. It is missing in p66 p75 א B L N T W X Y Δ θ ψ 0141 0211 22 33 124 157 209 788 828 1230 1241 1242 1253 2193. I’m assuming “ff” is for f13 (a family of mss); and it’s this one in which the PA is found after Luke 21:38. There are quite a few placing the PA after John 21:25.
You wrote: The KJV translaters did a lot of research also, and didn't hesitate to include it. The KJV is based on a small # of mss, most very late. It seems probable that the PA was included based on its inclusion on the Vulgate.
You wrote: "Christian scholarship'" flag ship is the Jesus Seminar, by the way. That’s a whole ‘nuther can of worms, totally unrelated to this subject. And, while Westcott and Hort were wrong with their position that the Alexandrian is the “neutral text,” and partially wrong on their stance on the Byzantine text-type, many of their speculations were found to be true with the discovery of later papyri. Their work should not be dismissed out of hand.
Can you admit you need the attention for yourself Christine, or you would learn to give ground to others (esteem them higher than you do yourself)? That's a problem for you. And why you single yourself out as the 'teacher' of 'you people'. That is pride on steroids.
ReplyDeleteNot a team player because you interrupt everyone-you are 'equal opportunity' there-no one-no topic-goes unmolested by your constant need for one-up-manship which is not team thinking. We should be here to glean from each other but who dominates the scene? You do. Un reproveable and anti-social behavior. Your soul is another matter. This is calling you by your 'fruit'. Excellence, if it is true excellence, rises to the top, but....so does scum Christine. Your large lack of discernment tells me you do not know the difference.
Constance told you to restrict yourself to one post a day and that lasted what? A week give or take? And when you bring up Dorothy it shows you as jealous. She actually has contributed productively here, as I have had to go back to archives to read because have not been here at this place for years like you. Your contributions are pitiful so often that when you do get something right it is easily passed over because most are scrolling past you. Don't you see how detrimental you have been to your own reputation? And to this blog's reputation too? Blind as a bat in all your so-called knowledge. And why I actually have prayed for your poor eyes to open to see what is what is
well well known by all.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteanon 11:54 whenever I left things alone, few posts. At least once someone said I was the life of the blog.
ReplyDeleteinterrupt? so do you if you post something, any post not answering a specific statement or adding to it, is an interruption by your standards. Get wise to how blogs and newsgroups and the Internet works.
It is not my constant need for oneupmanship but the constant need of supplementation or correction for lack of information or presence of inadequate information.
my reputation? I am not concerned about my reputation I am not interested in pleasing men but God.
Sometimes I go for a week or two no posting to make up for multiple posts. I don't see you critics limiting yourselves to one anti Christine post per day either. Most of them don't even attempt to deal with facts or issues. Some statements turn into conversations, which you would interrupt, and conversations are hard to do over a period of several days one post per day. An example would be the text issues.
Several times I have tried to get the blog comments back on Constance's original blog front page post subject, but it doesn't seem to work.
Craig,
ReplyDelete"You wrote: One argument Burgeon gives, is that if you take the story out of the narrative, there is a peculiar incoherence, because of the break between what precedes and what comes after. Actually, this is one of the arguments against its validity."
burgeon's point was a matter of wording, which show the end of a narrative making no sense unless a narrative had been there that was removed.
on the textual issues you cite, I will have to take your word for it, but where did you get this information, your own read and photographs of the sheafs or from someone with an agenda?
Burgeon's list of writers up to the early 400s AD should not be ignored and that Jerome, who studied many Greek texts, didn't hesitate to include the pericope.
"You wrote: "Christian scholarship'" flag ship is the Jesus Seminar, by the way. That’s a whole ‘nuther can of worms, totally unrelated to this subject."
Actually, its not another can of worms, "Christian scholarship" to me at least adds up to what I call "liberal theology, read, atheism." and precisely the undercurrent of prideful criticism and trying to lay a groundwork for a multigenerational process of bit by bit undermining The Bible is the issue in ANY discussion of this sort.
The work on the pericope needs to be rechecked by those who are "close minded" but honest.
"The Identity of the New Testament Text" by Wilbur N. Pickering blows Wescott and Hort out of the water.
the core argument as I recall, is that Byzantine Text type is so common because it was the one most copied because most valued. Most of the Epistles of Paul and at least one Gospel was written from or to Anatolian locations. (modern Turkey, core of the Byzantine empire.)
And, he points out, the lack of surviving real old examples, goes more to prove that they were valued and used and worn out and extensively copied, these also used and worn out, than that they developed later.
Also he points to Byzantine Test type quotes in early fathers, though the other types (perhaps the same quote from memory type error as a tired scribe would do when his eye skipped a word or line) also appear.
Missed by most, especially the atheists and pagans who use this research against the Bible, is that almost NONE of the changes or errors actually change or eliminate a doctrine. Either the immediate context or the larger context of the whole book, gospel or epistle, supplies this, or other verses remain teaching these doctrines and not changed.
Yeah, Christine, if people want some sideshow (freak-show-vampire, mars, chakras, new age religion garbage) entertainment as their reason to come here than you've got it, you are the life of this blog.
ReplyDeleteAnd I see you never apologize for talking down to people. Not in you to apologize? That is unchristian in and of itself. With that attitude (you don't please God but yourself) and a wink and nod on type your fingers to do Him and this blog and us a favor don't you? You take the cake.
Sad commentary that is.
In fairness 1:07 PM, although she's thoroughly made a pig of herself by hogging the table here, she has persistently offered her very own desert: filled with chakras, ether, essence of Hinduism and more, and all layered on a Nibiru and Martian foundation of gnostic sponge, topped with icings of NAM delusion, and finished with a shaman and vampire sauce!
ReplyDeleteChristine,
ReplyDeleteI looked more closely at the link you supplied earlier for the book you reference; the author’s name is John Burgon, who originally wrote the work 125+ years ago, while Fuller condenses this work, and adds contributions of others. Thus, Burgon did not have the benefit of the papyri, which includes p66 and p75, both of which exclude the PA, as noted earlier.
In any case, as I stated earlier, I didn’t wish to get into a back and forth discussion on this. However, you insist, casting doubt on the sources I used. So, for the record, I used a number of sources to include Metzger’s A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, a work by Philip Comfort (New Testament Text and Translation Commentary), the NA28 (for dating of mss), among others. None of these have “an agenda.” No, I didn’t check the actual mss themselves, though you are certainly welcome to go online, as some are on the web. However, it hardly needs to be done, as these works all agree with one another, and you can be sure that if there were an error, a scholar – conservative or liberal – would have noticed this by now.
which doesn't change the issue of those early fathers that reference its presence, or that St. Jerome after much study included it in the Vulgate. That should say something.
ReplyDeleteI insist as you put it, because the subject having been raised, those who see it need to know the contrary arguments. Similar arguments, also answerable were raised against the last verses of Mark.
Even if the first copies lacked both, given the presence of people who had heard Jesus and the Apostles these might have been added by copyists in some early copies who themselves knew of the events or heard the Apostles teach and remembered the incident. Or even saw it. The issue is the factuality of the incident and the last verses of Mark as having been said by Jesus Christ, and generally we depend on Apostolic Scripture aka NT for this. and it is in a lot of them.
Since we don't have the autographs and since some mss leave them out and others include them, it makes more sense that they were originally in them. As for Mark, "believe" is not mental assent or sinners prayer but 100% devotion to Jesus Christ and implies a missionary status, not a promise to everyone regardless of whatever (incl. regardless of whether it is God's will they die at that time by snakebite or poison or not, or at least His permissive will.) Also, being addressed to the Apostles they would be the primary recipients of the promise, and St. Paul did get bit without effect.
I forgot another possibility, that in the original autographs, which may have been several themselves, John and Mark dictated to scribes, on one occasion, forgetting to include these contested passages, and on another occasion remembered to include them. Thus you could have presence and absence from even original autographs, because it is likely that the autographs were not single documents, but several produced by dictating to scribes, to mass produce the information as fast as possible.
ReplyDeleteas Dorothys bite is without effect on me.
ReplyDeleteChristine, what is it with you and Dorothy?
ReplyDeletethis looks like a good starting point to hash the pericope over. http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/pa-intro.html
ReplyDeleteAt some point this passage was selected to read on St. Pelagia's day. There are three Saints named Pelagia, one who committed suicide to avoid rape by soldiers in the Diocletian persecution, and the other an ex courtesan converted by hearing the outdoor preaching of St. Nonnus a bishop and a third. Since she died in AD 284 we can assume her feast day and liturgics selected for it are a maximum of 200 years after that, probably earlier.
Scroll down for points about alleged silence of Church Fathers, and remember Burgeon and/or Fuller's list of early Church Fathers who DID reference it. This page writer missed someting, however, listed by Burgeon/Fuller as quoting or referring to the pericope are:
Jerome AS 385
Ambros4e of Milan 374
Augustine 396
Pacian in the north of Spain 370
Faustus the African 396
Rufina at Aquileia 400
Chrysologus at Ravenna 433
Sedulius, a Scot 434
two unknown authors of famous treatises about this time
Vactorius of Victorinus 457
Vigilius of Tapsus in North Africa 484
Gelasius Bishop of Rome 492
Cassiodorus in southern Italy
Gregory the Great.
Now, I have to take this list on faith so to speak, because I haven't read anywhere near everything some wrote, and little
or nothing of many of them. But it sounds like the experts who claim it is not mentioned before the 12th century are flat out lying, either about its lack of mention, or about their expertise.
http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/jones-pericope.html
anon 3:40 I don't know, she targetted me a long time ago, at one point she was miffed about Christian issues being discussed here, but got shut down on that one. I think I recall trying to make a case for Jesus as Messiah to her, unless I am remembering someone else somewhere else, and her reactions incl. that this kind of discussion isn't normally done outside of a university or some such context. Obviously she is only Jewish by social habit not any kind of thought out theology or actual faith in God just in her self and her people. The whole idea of a theological debate seemed foreign to her.
ReplyDeleteBut the hostility predates that. I even took her side when she was attacked for being into Kabbalah, pointing out that she would only have a bare minimal comparatively harmless kabbalistic element taught her in open synagogue, a few concepts nothing like the occultism and New Age compatible "spirituality" of Kabbalism. Someone named Frank was after her hammer and tongs so to speak. Then after me. Then changed his mind regarding me. Then fell silent or went anonymous.
Someone I assume Dorothy was always saying I had no idea what New Age was but wouldn't give any response when challenged several times to define it. Then I spelled it out as spiritual and political, which is what Constance and wikipedia does, and this was denounced as ignorance, later on it was stated by someone probably the same person. I tracked her down and found a photo she looks like someone who is primarily pleased when she is the directing center of attention, which would explain some accusations about my motives.
Oh, I see Christine. So was she in favor of Kabbalah or against it? I mean, did she defend it or expose it? What was her opinion of Kabbalah?
ReplyDeletesome minor aspects of it were part of popular judaism and her experience, nothing extreme enough to brand her as New Age in itself. There is for example the notion floating in Judaism, that you make things better by being and doing better, which has a technical name I forget what it is, involves repairing the world.
ReplyDeleteBut while it is OT and NT compatible and common sense, the term comes from Kabbalah and the idea of healing God and His shattered creation that is supposedly partly at least emanated from Him, and that is a whole other matter. Whether she ever was exposed to this notion or not I have no idea.
Kabbalah itself means oral tradition, but while the term can be used to apply to things like understanding what some references and symbols would mean in the OT like for instance, if you don't know anything about sheep or shepherding the analogy is lost on you, but the oral tradition of those who do can explain. Or the traditions developed by rabbis and codified in the Talmud, from arguing over points of the Torah that are not self explanatory, especially after you've picked up all kinds of baggage other than idolatry per se in Babylonia or wherever.
(there are some slanders out there, like that the Talmud only required a fine of a man who'd raped his daughter, when in fact it said he was to be put to death, but you can't be punished twice for the same thing, so is the bride price a fine against him or a recompense to the girl in the former no pay in the latter pay. This of course derived from the idea that a raped virgin was to marry her attacker, though it says "and they are found" like the earlier mentioned adulterous couple and the word for lay hold on has no similarity to the word for seize used about a definite forcible rape victim who was betrothed, and referred to as like a murder victim, so this is not a property crime, so the rule would apply in any circumstance. Once they rejected Jesus as Messiah, they lost some light, so got stupid. Such as a girl can only refuse a husband selected for her four times, when there is no reference in Torah to having to accept a man selected for her at all, it is merely ASSUMED this has to be the case.)
But a full on doctrine like Kabbalah itself is not the same sort of thing.
There are some good arguments against Kabbalah from conservative and Orthodox rabbis, one of whom called it "a disease of the mind."
Kabbalah is not something a person who is under 35 or not already stabilized in Torah and Talmud is allowed to really study, though the texts got published anyway. I don't think women were supposed to be taught it either.
Therefore I doubt its really problematic crap is taught in open synagogue services. Only superficial stuff. It does teach reincarnation, and this may have leached into some Jewish congregations, but this is rejected by many rabbis over the century as NOT something allowed in Judaism as an idea.
Seriously, no matter how hungry we must never feed trolls. Let them starve.
ReplyDeleteIs anyone watching Oak Island on HC?
Anyone catch the meeting with the masons? I said they will let them dig until they find it and then the knights templar will claim it, he said it to them! He said any items found belonged to the knights.
HC is basically propaganda, what are they up to with Oak Island?
Do tell me the main propaganda point of this show!
anon 4:40 perhaps this will help.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/review-of-curse-of-oak-island-s02e07-trail-of-the-templars
yes the History Channel is pure propaganda. Colavito is very good at digging up source documents and tracking down and calling out bullshit, though I am not convinced in all cases he deals with. But I highly recommend his blog for some sanity on all this stuff.
What is the agenda? aside from the blurry minded state encouraged by the New Age, incl. a sense of awe and grandeur about all things ancient and/or secret society connected, there is the ever present hum of denunciation of the Roman Church (as if it was the only ancient Church which as Eastern Orthodox convert I can tell you it isn't) as a source of nothing but distorions lies and myths (but the History Channel approved myths and distortions are "truth").
Of course all the stuff supposedly changed in or kept out of The Bible by "the Vatican" went on long before The Vatican existed as such, and before there was any effort at a single apex point being created for the Church (aside from Jesus Christ Himself).
Another agenda, and potentially more ominous because not requiring all this, is the Magdalene stuff. Because
whether you argue she had a son by Jesus or by one of His half brothers or first cousins (all of which are called "brothers" in many cultures and in those days), the idea is presented that the Merovingians are somehow special, either mystical (i.e., pagan holdover energies) or Judaic/Jesus relevant.
Merovingian descent is well documented all over the map, but presumably the last male heir died. Or did he? Maybe he didn't, and the argument goes that he is back of Hapsburg royalty and maybe others.
Even without him, you have Merovingian women in royal and noble and nowdays commoner pedigrees in Europe and America.
So the goal of one faction is to eventually restore monarchy, a figurehead type, who is of course unassailable and the ones who really call the shots being under his protection will be unassailable also.
This can be presented as gnostic, if that mindset prevails, or Christian monarchism if that one does, or appeal to both camps because of the bloodline.
Christian traditionalists among RC would dig such a king for Christian reasons. gnosticoid New Agers would support him for their reasons, mystical bloodline stuff. Jesus viewed as a New Age guru not the Jesus Christ of the Bible and of the Nicene Council.
By the way, the canon of Scripture wasn't even on the table at Nicea I that was established already by use, and confirmed by a later council sorting out disputes about a very very few things in the NT and rejecting again the false gospels and so forth circulating.
And Constantine didn't make any changes in the Church either. And the deity of Christ was established long before that, it was incursions of the upstart Arius that became a later problem, that Nicea I dealt with.
But you will hear these lies from baptists and some other protestants, from atheists and from witches. And it started with an islamic polemicist.
http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/jones-o-lucifer.html
ReplyDeletePaul,
ReplyDeleteThat site - and I know Christine used it above - is a KJV-Only site. As such, it is biased against any Bible that isn't KJV (including the NKJV). The fallacy of the author's argument. As Susanna wrote above, the use of "Lucifer" here is actually taken from the Latin, not the Hebrew. I've a feeling the ultimate source was Dante's Inferno and/or Milton's Paradise Lost.
Sorry, I didn't finish one of my thoughts:
ReplyDeleteThe fallacy of the author's argument is that, as Susanna wrote above...
Moreover, if we look at the Latin Vulgate's use of lucifer, we find it also in II Peter 1:19, which is an obvious reference to Jesus:
https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=lucifer&qs_version=VULGATE
As always, context determines meaning.
Craig,
ReplyDeleteSo what does the Hebrew text say?
What should be the reading of the Isaiah passage?
Respectfully yet regretfully Christine, your memory does not serve you well. On Wednesday April 3rd 2013 Constance posted the topic: 'UN Approves Global Arms Treaty'.
ReplyDeleteThere, you posted about having taken her side regarding Kabbalah. She responded angrily and called you out for damaging the site more than any Communist New Ager could have done.
An anon poster at 5:36 AM, after gently explaining he was not anti-semitic then posted the following web address exposing the dangers of Kabbalah and its occult origins and teachings: http:www.crossroad.to/Quotes/occult/kabbalah.htm
Dorothy it appears, although she perhaps forgot to sign this time, wrote in her familiar style:
[Anonymous12:01 PM]
"Christians talking about Judaism as if they know what they are talking about. Even more stupid, Christians talking about mysticism as seen through the eyes of another religion and comparing it with the occult as if they know what the two things are or what they have in common. Maybe we should let Humanists, atheists, Muslims or witches teach children about Christianity. The Kabbalah has not caused any destruction in the world. Go find something else you don't understand and get a tirade going. Maybe you can convince someone you are an expert in chemical engineering without making Christians look stupid."
"You talk about Kabbalah as if you know what you are talking about. It is the foolishness of someone talking about nuclear physics to first graders. You, who don't understand what the New Age movement involves and can't tell your neighbor in a way that makes sense what the New Age movement is about all of a sudden are experts in the supernatural. You who know so little about the New Age movement you can't stay on the topic of the New Age movement for two days in a row yet still have the arrogance to believe you can teach about the supernatural."
It is clear just from the above quoted post that the poster was defending kabbalah and erroneously claiming it not to be of the occult, also stating that: "The Kabbalah has not caused any destruction in the world."
The kabbalah is Babylonian occult teachings of demons and incredibly destructive to the souls of all those who dabble in its witchcraft whatever their race or claimed purpose.
The assertions made in the 12:01 post are indicative of having been written by someone who saw themselves as having great understanding of what Kabbalah was. They tone of the post was that Christians had no right to expose it and should mind their own business!
So, although Dorothy rightly calls you out, as you yourself have repeatedly added the leaven of false religion and occult beliefs in amongst truth, she is just as culpable in her arrogance, attacking anyone who doesn't agree with her and casting unfounded aspersions against anyone who dares to question occult teachings on what she regards as her 'exempt patch'.
She is as vitriolic and foul mouthed as you are Christine, though I dare say she has alot more malice in her heart than you do. You have done her no spiritual favors by defending her over her stance on kabbalah, et cetera. Respectfully, both you and Dorothy would do well to heed the Apostle's cry, 'Have I become your enemy because I tell you the truth?', and stop siding with lies and deception.
This is a spiritual war, and whilst the methods of Paul, Frank, and others maybe a little hard (no doubt due to exasparation) they are right to expose, correct and reprove you both on these issues.
I only long to see the day when both of you rid yourselves of the teachings of demons and false belief and cry out, in Jesus Christ the Messiah's Holy Name: "Blessed is he who comes in the Name of the Lord!"
Paul,
ReplyDeleteIn all honesty, I am not qualified to answer your question, as I know nothing about Hebrew. Unfortunately, the word only occurs once in the Hebrew OT:
http://biblehub.com/hebrew/1966.htm
Keep in mind that the Strong's note below is based on the KJV, which merely provides a circular argument. The best source on that page will be the Brown-Driver-Briggs.
Christine, you wrote:
ReplyDeleteI forgot another possibility, that in the original autographs, which may have been several themselves, John and Mark dictated to scribes, on one occasion, forgetting to include these contested passages, and on another occasion remembered to include them. Thus you could have presence and absence from even original autographs, because it is likely that the autographs were not single documents, but several produced by dictating to scribes, to mass produce the information as fast as possible.
With your speculations you’ve just undermined the inspiration, authority, infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture. Christian orthodoxy affirms that the autographs – the original writings, of which there are ONE of each NT book – were Divinely inspired, giving them authority. Hence, the autographs are both infallible and inerrant. All subsequent copying was done by imperfect humans, who occasionally made mistakes. Therefore, while the autographs are without error, copies are not.
The job of the textual critic is to make judgments as to which variant reading(s) is (are) most likely correct. In cases such as the Pericopae Adulterae, the “long ending of Mark,” etc., there are going to be differing conclusions drawn from the available evidence among Christians. One cannot be dogmatic on matters in which one cannot be absolutely certain. However, this in no way demeans the infallibility of Scripture; all this means is that there are individual passages of which we are not 100% certain what is exactly in the text.
"With your speculations you’ve just undermined the inspiration, authority, infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture. Christian orthodoxy affirms that the autographs – the original writings, of which there are ONE of each NT book"
ReplyDeleteNot one little bit does this undermine inerrancy. Notice I said DICTATION TO SCRIBES BY THE APOSTLE or Luke or Mark.
what was the purpose of writing? to make sure the Church kept the words of the Apostles in a form that couldn't be easily altered in any substantial form (changes meaning so as to affect doctrine) after the Apostles died.
writing and photography are time binders, you have it pretty much as it was back then despite passage of years, without dependence on memories of humans.
So given this purpose, it seems likely that either one copy was written and immediately sent to a bevy of copyists to distribute, or that the first copy was dictated to a bevy of scribes.
the first case would preserve your assumption of one copy. The second doesn't create any problems.
Indeed, if the whole contested passage fits on a page, the sheaf at issue could have been dropped by accident. There are many ways.
THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS THAT EARLY CHURCH WRITERS UP TO EARLY 400s AD CITE OR REFER TO THE PERICOPE, and that proves it was there.
speculation merely gives scenarios why it might have gone missing.
Pickering points out, that the Bible can't be investigated like a normal book, because there were reported efforts to alter it by heretics who produced their own mangled copies, or lesser variations, and there were also those who faithfully copied as a religious exercize. These situations don't apply to normal books from those times and earlier.
text type doesn't influence doctrine except rarely in some few verses, and the difference is supplied by the overall context, the teaching of the Gosple or Epistle itself.
NOTE ON KJB ONLY SITE, didn't notice that but it doesn't change the usefulness of the comparative translations next to each other or the Strong's links, which go to the original Strong's not the "updated" version that leaves some stuff out. That someone thinks KJV is the sole and divinely inspired proper translation has no bearing on the content of the KJV, or the usefulness of Strong's based on it.
Christine,
ReplyDeleteYou most certainly did undermine the authority, inspiration, infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture with just this one tidbit:
Thus you could have presence and absence from even original autographs
Christine, you wrote:
ReplyDeleteTHE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS THAT EARLY CHURCH WRITERS UP TO EARLY 400s AD CITE OR REFER TO THE PERICOPE, and that proves it was there.
No it doesn't prove the PA was in the autographs. We don't have the autographs; so, you cannot possibly know for sure. Moreover, it is absent from all Greek manuscripts, bar none (of the extant mss), predating the 5th century. In addition, you must somehow account for why it appears at different places in John and even in Luke.
I cannot prove it wasn't in the autographs any more than you can prove that it was.
"Respectfully yet regretfully Christine, your memory does not serve you well"
ReplyDeleteon the contrary, I said "I even took her side when she was attacked for being into Kabbalah, " and this in context of her hostility to me, which somewhat predated that I think.
Of course she didn't like my basis for defending her, because I essentially dissed Kabbalah but considered she could not be into the serious problem stuff because it is too recondite.
Her attitude that an outsider can't possibly understand Judaism is laughable, it is EXACTLY the thing said by Eastern Orthodox Christians online when I had arguments with them, before I was chrismated.
Even though I used the quotes from priests on the side I was taking, or sided with priests posting or referred to there. Once I was chrismated such people fell silent.
The only reason I got chrismated was because I did understand the faith and the difference between acceptable and deviant variations within it, nothing much changed before and after chrismation regarding the issues discussed.
Kabbalah has been studied and applied by Jews and non Jews for centuries.
The ignorance of the average Jew even rabbis on many things is highlighted by their writing "G-d" to avoid saying The Name. But THE NAME is YHWH not "God." If I ever see one of them write "Y-H" I will know I am looking at someone who knows Torah like he ought to and is correctly applying the Talmudic tradition of not saying God's Name, though I don't think the tradition applied to WRITING it.
"With your speculations you’ve just undermined the inspiration, authority, infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture. Christian orthodoxy affirms that the autographs – the original writings, of which there are ONE of each NT book – were Divinely inspired, giving them authority. "
ReplyDeleteThank. you. Craig.
Exactly why in spiritual matters Christine is operating from the flesh of her mind and the flesh of any type is enmity against God and not of the Spirit. The Bible says so, but she must go beyond. And repeatedly ventures into this realm to suppose herself teaching us and arrogantly says she is doing God's work no less! That is error to go beyond scripture for authority. God alone has the last word but not in her world! She thinks she does God and us a favor in her high-minded (?) over-explanations of things that are either already explained well enough in scripture and easily illumined in other passages for clarification for our minds to grasp or simply to be discerned in humble faith and of course it is all by faith that we take God at his word in the first place for we cannot attain to his mind. Oh, but she is the exception...nice try.
She eagerly goes where angels fear to tread and parades it here. Brutish and unlearned in true biblical wisdom and shameful and dangerous to boot. God will weigh in with her when he chooses to. She has been cued many times through people here to warn her of such but is heedless. My advice is she better get to repenting now.
"THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS THAT EARLY CHURCH WRITERS UP TO EARLY 400s AD CITE OR REFER TO THE PERICOPE, and that proves it was there.
ReplyDeleteNo it doesn't prove the PA was in the autographs. We don't have the autographs; so, you cannot possibly know for sure. Moreover, it is absent from all Greek manuscripts, bar none (of the extant mss), predating the 5th century."
But the church writers who quote it predate the fifth century, look at the dates on that list, and Jerome studied Greek MSS available in his day and decided to include it.
since we don't have the autographs, you are on no more sure footing in rejecting the pericope than in accepting it, but....
the testimony of those before the fifth century is that it existed. And Montanist influence and another hyper ascetic group would be a motive to leave it out.
Text type and variations never add up to such an extreme amount of material being added or left out, as in these two issues the pericope and the last 16 verses of Mark. That in itself should cue you that this is a whole other barrel of worms.
Christine, you wrote:
ReplyDeletesince we don't have the autographs, you are on no more sure footing in rejecting the pericope than in accepting it...
Thank you for finally conceding the point I've been trying to make since near the beginning. It's quite alright if you think the PA is original. It's also quite OK that I don't.
As I stated much earlier, my point for bringing this up was to make the issue known in a general sense, not to hash out sides pro and con.
Paul,
ReplyDeleteThe following is from the HALOT (Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament) for the Hebrew translated variously as “morning star,” “Lucifer” (KJV), etc. in Isaiah 14:12. I’ll post the listing as it appears in software I have, followed by an expanded version with some explanation (assuming the tags on the Hebrew come out correctly). Most of the names are individuals whose works are referenced. I think you’ll find it of interest.
הֵילֵל: Jerome elil, Sept. ὁ ἑωσφόρος (Seeligmann 100), Vulg. Lucifer; I הלל; Ug. hll, Arb. hilāl, > Tigr. Wb. 2b hı̄lal the crescent of the new moon, → WbMyth. 1:447; rd. הֵילָל ?: the morning-star or crescent moon Schrader Keilins. 565; → Gunkel Schöpfung 132ff; Baumgartner Umwelt 157f :: Driver JTS 12:63f; Grelot RHR 149:18ff: Akk. ellu (= ḥll !): Is 14.12.
הֵילֵל: Jerome elil, Septuagint [Greek OT] ὁ ἑωσφόρος [ho eōsphoros “bringer of morning”; morning star] (Seeligmann 100), Vulgate Lucifer; I הלל; Ugaritic hll, Arabic hilāl, > Tigrinia Wb. 2b hı̄lal the crescent of the new moon, → WbMyth. 1:447; rd. הֵילָל ?: the morning-star or crescent moon Schrader Keilins. 565; → Gunkel Schöpfung 132ff; Baumgartner Umwelt 157f :: Driver JTS 12:63f; Grelot RHR 149:18ff: Akkadian ellu (= ḥll !): Is 14.12.
Craig, you steadfastly ignore the issue of pre fifth century writers who cite or refer to it, and of Jerome who studied Greek manuscripts in order to make the Latin translation and included it.
ReplyDeletethe point about no autographs is a non point, it proves nothing either way, so nothing to "concede."
My point is, that since you can't go to those, you have to take note of those who had early copies, and this you don't do though they have been listed at least twice.
sounds like a bias to me.
Christine,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote, But the church writers who quote it predate the fifth century, look at the dates on that list, and Jerome studied Greek MSS available in his day and decided to include it.
Keep in mind that it’s the writings by these individuals we are concerned with, and that “5th century” means something written 400-499. The Greek mss excluding the PA, dated 5th century and earlier are:
p66 3rd century (ca. 200, according to NA28)
p75 3rd century
א 4th century
B 4th century
T 5th century
W 4th/5th century
Since the 3rd mss above is a Hebrew character (Aleph), which aligns right to left, the reference got jumbled. It should be:
ReplyDeleteא
4th century
"Internal evidence from the text
ReplyDelete1. The style and vocabulary of the pericope differ markedly from the rest of John. 14 out of 82 vocabulary words in
the section are unjohannine. Also, the use of ‘hos’ as a temporal conjunction rather than John’s usual ‘oun.’"
And that might be because John wrote it out himself, because he was not educated, but could do basic reading and writing.
The argument someone used against Revelation, is that the style and grammar are different the grammar poorer than John's Gospel and Epistles. But in the former case John was alone, writing on his own, while in the latter case he was not, and could have had brush up the quality help from scribes. If anything that is a testimony to the legitimacy of Revelation, and might be an argument for the pericope, if a scribe argued about including it and he just grabbed the paper and wrote it in himself.
PRE FIFTH CENTURY WRITERS QUOTED IT:
"Ambrose at Milan (374) quotes it at least nine times; as well as Augustine in North Africa (396) about twice
as often. It is quoted besides by Pacian, in the north of Spain (370)..."
"Jerome included the passage in the latin Vulgate, and noted that (ca. 420), “in the Gospel according to John in many
manuscripts, both Greek and Latin, is found the story of the adulterous woman who was accused before the Lord.”
Jerome, “The Dialogue against the Pelagians” (2.17).
Augustine (ca. 430) was of the opinion that certain manuscripts were lacking the passage because it was deliberately
removed. “certain persons of little faith, or rather enemies of the true faith, fearing, I suppose, lest their wives should
be given impunity in sinning, removed from their manuscripts the Lord’s act of forgiveness toward the adulteress, as
if He who had said ‘sin no more’ had granted permission to sin.” Augustine, “Adulterous Marriages (2.7)" https://austinbiblechurch.com/sites/default/files/documents/Pericope%20de%20Adultera.pdf
"the UBS and the modernistic Bible critics is known for giving ―half truths‖ and they do this by making the ―unknown‖ lean their way without revealing the true facts. For
instances, out of uncials (aABCD) the UBS says that four of these uncials are hostile towards the Pericope, scholars for sure know that uncial D contains the periscope. A large passage of John (6:50-8:52) in uncial A and uncial C (7:3-8:34) are lost and therefore the periscope passage (7:53-8:11) falls between them and for that reason are too lost. Three uncials cannot be counted for the UBS and that just leaves two in question not four! Codex Alexandrinus is also missing two leaves that involve the same area of the periscope and because of the crowding of two unusually long lines at the top of the first column scholars debate that John 7:53-8:11 (the periscope) was indeed listed in this uncial. It appears that the UBS and the modernistic Bible critics are down
one to four instead of four to one! Many would call that ―fuzzy math.‖ The
periscope is also found listed in uncials D05, G, H, K, M, U, and G. As one has just witnessed above, the UBS is known for taking a manuscript or two that
―seemingly‖ leans their way (with a little bend here and a little bend there) and then taking
manuscripts that cannot be proven one way or another and say that it demonstrates their way and then lump all that together to make it sound and look like it is much more support for their
lopsided ―half truths‖ when indeed it is a false picture designed to deceive and mislead." http://www.academia.edu/7975206/PERICOPE_DE_ADULTERA
I should also state that some (Philip Comfort, e.g.) have dated p66 as early as 125AD, though I think this is too generous.
ReplyDeleteIs it possible that the Hebrew HEYLEL is in fact the given name of the principal fallen angel?
ReplyDeleteChristine, apt is the application of Holy Scripture in highlighting the pedantic and unyielding arrogance of your postion juxtaposed with your doctrines of devils and traditions of men, for it is written: you strain at a gnat and swallow a camel!
ReplyDeleteUp pericope!
ReplyDeleteJerome and Augustine were fifth century, but had access to copies made in the fourth century and Jerome would have had access to by seeking out copies from even earlier. Jerome had a motive to research this better than Augustine, so I think we can accept his judgement.
ReplyDelete"The Old Latin tradition is a witness to the pericope. Scholars know that this translation was translated in 157 A.D. (along with numerous Old Latin mss) from Greek papyri. " This was what Jerome updated in the Vulgate.
http://www.academia.edu/7975206/PERICOPE_DE_ADULTERA
Oh, I see Craig.
ReplyDeleteThe Hebrew word is Halel.
It's more to that gleaming crescent moon than
the twinkling of any planets or stars ?
Like the very symbol of that religion of, quote, peace, unquote.
Christine,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote, PRE FIFTH CENTURY WRITERS QUOTED IT
Yes, and all this proves – assuming the Latin mss are 100% accurate (and they’ve not been subjected to textual criticism themselves) – is that pre-fifth century writers wrote about it. Was it an actual direct quote, or was it from an oral tradition? We don’t know.
Jerome’s quote as it stands is explicitly quoting from John; however, as I stated above, the Old Latin mss have not been subjected to textual criticism. Even if this proves to be authentic – and I’m not saying it is or isn’t – all this proves is that he saw one or more Greek mss with the PA. However, we still have to account for it absence in other mss; and, since we cannot know for certain why the PA is absent, we cannot be dogmatic about its presence or absence in the autographs. The problem of its inclusion at various places in John and even in Luke obtains.
Christine, you can't "win" this argument, as it isn't winnable from a pro or con standpoint.
Christine, you wrote: Jerome and Augustine were fifth century, but had access to copies made in the fourth century and Jerome would have had access to by seeking out copies from even earlier.
ReplyDeleteYou you know this how? By omniscience?
textual criticism lacking re Old Latin MSS? Craig you are coming from a humanist modernist perspective the point is that Old Latin MSS regardless of how recent a copy (and being in OLD Latin and needing an upgrade ergo Jerome, would not be likely to have many copies much later since Old Latin like Old English later on was on the way out, hence Jerome) it has the pericope, and Jerome who studied much earlier MSS in Greek than his own time endorsed it, so that should settle it for anyone who doesn't have an agenda, or hasn't bought into the self congratulatory "criticism" attitude riding on their coat tails psychologically.
ReplyDeleteThe honesty of the UBS critics of it is shown to be in doubt in that article last referenced, read it! Just the way they handle the evidence is sloppy.
The fact that it disappears from some John MSS and appears in some Luke MSS shows someone did a clip and snip that someone else thought wrong, but could only save the information by putting it in Luke since he was no longer working on John (and perhaps had left it out of John under orders, but remembered it by heart and put it in Luke to keep the information alive).
But, oh she must 'win' Craig, she must! The shame of having been caught out as an obfuscating weather vain blowing this way and that in the unsteady gales of hot air would doubtlessly be too much for her to bare! If there's no fog to pass over your astute observations and obscure them she'll do her utmost to seek it out and point towards it hoping others will be caught up in the luke warm air of her bluster!
ReplyDeleteChristine,
ReplyDeletetextual criticism lacking re Old Latin MSS?
That is a fact, not bias. Until the OL mss are collated, checked against one another, we don't exactly know the originals. This is a point brought forward by Daniel B. Wallace, about as conservative textual critic as you'll find.
The author of the piece claims UBS bias, but perhaps he's biased, no? The writer's own sloppiness is obvious of his use of periscope instead of pericope. If he wants to make charges against the UBS, then he needs to cite some specifics. As it is in the article you cite, the author is guilty of ad hominem.
"Christine, you wrote: Jerome and Augustine were fifth century, but had access to copies made in the fourth century and Jerome would have had access to by seeking out copies from even earlier.
ReplyDeleteYou you know this how? By omniscience?"
no by common sense. If we have copies from over a thousand years ago, how can any sane person think that in their time there weren't many copies around from 200 years ago or earlier?
papyrus "In dry climates, papyrus is stable and rot resistant when stored properly. Stored in humid conditions, the material can be destroyed by mold. In Europe, if this writing material lasted more than 200 years it was exceptional." http://arthistorygroup.blogspot.com/2012/06/papyrus-parchment-vellum-paper.html
So you have a window of 150 (in a wet climate) to 250 or more (if in a dry climate) years for papyrus, depending on climate. Parchment was much more durable, vellum being finer and thinner was more on a par with papyrus. Jerome and Augustine were early 400s, combine these two bits of information what does that tell you?
Jerome was doing a Bible translation from Old Latin to then modern Latin and stated he examined not only Latin but Greek MSS.
Christine,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote, quoting the article you’ve been citing on the PA: "The Old Latin tradition is a witness to the pericope. Scholars know that this translation was translated in 157 A.D. (along with numerous Old Latin mss) from Greek papyri.”
Let me illustrate the fallacy of this statement. The first part The Old Latin tradition is a witness to the pericope is true, but only insofar as it’s actually quoted. What about those who never saw the PA, and hence didn’t quote it? Are all the OL mss not containing the PA due to the fact that they didn’t find it in their copies of John (or Luke)? We don’t know either way. This is why the Greek mss must take precedence.
The second part is the real problem: Scholars know that this translation was translated in 157 A.D. (along with numerous Old Latin mss) from Greek papyri. Yes, but, we don’t HAVE the actual document from 157AD. We have copies. And, while the original Latin translation was very likely taken from Greek papyri, how do we know someone didn’t add the PA in there? We have one Greek papyrus from this era (p66), and this one does not include the PA.
Essentially, the guy’s argument is from silence. It’s guesswork.
"The author of the piece claims UBS bias, but perhaps he's biased, no? The writer's own sloppiness is obvious of his use of periscope instead of pericope. If he wants to make charges against the UBS, then he needs to cite some specifics. As it is in the article you cite, the author is guilty of ad hominem."
ReplyDeleteyou don't even know what ad hominem is. Ad hominem is when you say Reagan was a good president because of a b and c and I say your argument is flawed because you have bad breath.
But if say, your argument is suspicious because you are on the revive Reaganism organization payroll, and the stuff you cite is contradicted by contemporary sources, so maybe you got a bias and your entire thesis needs to be redone or thrown out, because where you can be tested you fail and where you can't be tested you are known to have a bias, that is not ad hominem.
Demonstrating specifically how someone in this case UBS handles facts in a sloppy way, is not ad hominem.
are you sure you know what you are doing? or are you parrotting a line from a source you love and don't want to give up even a bit?
check your motives how they can blind you. The testimony of Jerome a textual researcher in his own time, with access to materials at least 200 years older than his work and probably earlier than that, should make you rethink this.
Writers in the late 300s would draw on materials from the early 300s to late 200s if going for old stuff.
But somehow these things mean nothing to you, but should red flag the situation as not as simple as you think.
What you are calling ad hominem is challenging the credibility of a witness, standard procedure in law and other investigation. A mere typographical error is not the same kind of thing.
misspelling pericope as periscope does not change meaning as shown in context, and does not involve facts surrounding the argument. That is sloppy handling of a typewriter, not sloppy handling of evidence.
no by common sense. If we have copies from over a thousand years ago, how can any sane person think that in their time there weren't many copies around from 200 years ago or earlier?
ReplyDeleteChristine, this is more guesswork on your part. The more the papyri were handled (and were NOT in very dry conditions), the quicker they wore out. You simply cannot know the age of the mss Jerome has access to.
and if you look at the history of writing materials, parchment was already in use since 300s BEFORE CHRIST. http://www.reference.com/browse/parchment
ReplyDeleteJerome wasn't a fool. It is not "supposition" to make conclusions about something based on a. the motives of the person who did the work, Jerome, not your typical user and reader of MSS but specifically looking to make a good translation into then modern Latin not just from Old Latin but a full new translation, b. the materials available and how long they lasted.
This is the same kind of thinking that goes on with historians and archaeologists. and if you tell me I can't tell what people think then I will know you are a manipulator pushing an agenda for whatever reason, because mind reading is not the issue, but what people SAY in writing about sorting out things in history and so forth.
Christine,
ReplyDeleteYou miss my point re: the author’s ad hominem. He states:
the UBS and the modernistic Bible critics is known for giving ―half truths‖ and they do this by making the ―unknown‖ lean their way without revealing the true facts. For
instances, out of uncials (aABCD) the UBS says that four of these uncials are hostile towards the Pericope, scholars for sure know that uncial D contains the periscope. A large passage of John (6:50-8:52) in uncial A and uncial C (7:3-8:34) are lost and therefore the periscope passage (7:53-8:11) falls between them and for that reason are too lost. Three uncials cannot be counted for the UBS and that just leaves two in question not four! Codex Alexandrinus is also missing two leaves that involve the same area of the periscope and because of the crowding of two unusually long lines at the top of the first column scholars debate that John 7:53-8:11 (the periscope) was indeed listed in this uncial. It appears that the UBS and the modernistic Bible critics are down
one to four instead of four to one! Many would call that ―fuzzy math.‖
I’ve not seen anyone else make this sort of charge. The UBS specifically says there isn’t room for the PA in either A or C. This isn’t a “half-truth.” This is based on a very careful analysis of what could fit on the leaves. The author has not proven malice on the part of the UBS committee. This is ad hominem to accuse in this way.
Christine,
ReplyDeleteHere’s what the UBS/Metzger source actually states:
… Codices A and C are defective in this part of John, but it is highly probable that neither contained the pericope, for careful measurement discloses that there would not have been space enough on the missing leaves to include the section along with the rest of the text…
Note the words “highly probable.” How is that a “half-truth?”
Even still, these are from the 5th century, as is D.
ad hominem is about irrelevance of the accusation (like you can't analyze papyri correctly because your hair is too long.)
ReplyDeleteThe only way to solve this is to look at photographs and see who is lying.
"Scholars for sure know that uncial D contains the periscope....Codex Alexandrinus is also missing two leaves that involve the same area of the periscope and because of the crowding of two unusually long lines at the top of the first column scholars debate that John 7:53-8:11 (the periscope) was indeed listed in this uncial." that doesn't look good for UBS.
so if we combine your argument (which needs photographic proof) with this, you got 1 out of four uncials and Codex Alexandrinus that which is two out of 5, where what is missing might not have been missing in the copy at the start.
everyone has some bias, if they are honest when presented with enough facts they will change their bias.
The issue is how they present evidence or suppress it or warp it or follow the trail.
One very good point Pickering made, is that the fact a text survived in fairly good shape is a testimony against it, that it was not used much so it didn't wear out much. Other ancient books were not in formal and personal use like The Bible so in their case the earlier copies can be assumed to be the better copies. Yet this assumption, incl disregarding known motives and efforts to mess with the NT text, lacking in other ancient books, is what the modern Bible scholars go by or at least what Hort-Wescott went by.
I might add, that it doesn't matter that whichever one of them was into spiritualism had dumped it as fraud before he got into Bible text criticism, because the time he spent there was more than enough to pick up demonic influence that would operate subtly to warp his judgement.
As Screwtape points out, demons often operate not by putting ideas in our heads but by keeping them out (yes I know Screwtape doesn't exist, but the point is valid). Two issues that would blow the oldest is best idea out of the water don't seem to have gotten into, or stayed, in the minds of Hort and Wescott. Yet they are things that would be common knowledge to students of Christian history.
Christine,
ReplyDeletead hominem:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, means responding to arguments by attacking a person's character, rather than to the content of their arguments.
Claiming someone is writing “half truths‖ and they do this by making the ―unknown‖ lean their way without revealing the true facts” etc. is ad hominem, as it is an attack on character rather than the issues. The author is essentially calling the UBS committee liars, who maliciously conceal “true facts,” these “true facts” being what the author states they are, though he offers no proof, only his bald statement. If the author truly believes there’s room for the PA in A and C, then he should illustrate this. The burden of proof is on him. Until he does so, his argument is all fluff, while his statement is ad hominem.
An attack on character is not irrelevant to the issues, since if they are being dishonest, you can't trust their conclusions.
ReplyDeleteThis character attack IS about the contents of the arguments, it is looking about how they don't fit what the arguer says, and do this not fitting in a way that looks more like dishonesty than incompetence or error.
an attack on the character is exactly what is relevant in determining believability if this person is the only source you have, the proper defense is, does this character problem have bearing or not and is there any support for the statements of the person?
If they are going to deliberately mishandle something, then their entire theory is more open to reasonable question than if they didn't do so. Such a person can't be looked on as a reliable witness rather you have to check his facts over and over and challenge him in person if possible. This isn't always possible.
I don't see the typical anti pericope writer illustrating their statements with anything but the bald statements - bald indeed, no decoration i.e., no illustrations with photos of the papyri or parchments, just their word for it.
At this point, both UBS et. al., except maybe for a very few high priced books for professional study maybe $500 a piece, are without verificability by the rest of us.
so why don't you go dig up photos proving or disproving all this online?
Jerome's word is good enough for me, he was the original textual critic, looking to do a translation brand new into Latin Vulgate, from the Greek, and he didn't have liberal biases.
While the KJBO (KJV BIBLE implying it is inspired) Only crowd is obviously wrong and derive from occult influenced people before them at that, they do have a good point about letting unbelievers and so forth mess around with things. Of course such people as these would prefer a reading that leaves "Lord" or something out, ignoring that the larger context supplies it, but then that ignoring is what a lot of Bible "readers" do anyway, they base their doctrine on a few verses and if these are tampered with their faith is in danger.
Christine,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote so why don't you go dig up photos proving or disproving all this online?
Because the onus is on you and the author of your source. Please show me and the rest of the readers how this is so.
No, the onus is on the people who started this dispute in the first place, Hort and Wescott and their heirs and assigns. They and their fans (such as you) expect their word to be taken as sacro sanct, that they are above question, either in terms of honesty or in terms of competence.
ReplyDeleteThat they are popular now merely means the mindless rabble, who sometimes by the Grace of Almighty God go in the right direction, may have in this case turned in the wrong direction.
They need to prove their case where they claim presence or absence of relevant text. Photographically.
Their competence IS on the line because they ignore issues about the Bible that put it outside of normal books of ancient times, i.e., motives to tweak the text and accusations back in those days that it was done, SO IS ANY ANCIENT TEXT THE PRODUCT OF AN ORTHODOX OR OF A HERETIC SCRIBE? and motives within the orthodox camp to eliminate the pericope because of fear it made too light of adultery.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletehere is an example of this kind of thing, and earlier in the article it talks about envisioning a scribe doing one thing instead of another.
ReplyDeleteThey totally ignore the fact, that Irenaeus was taught by Polycarp who was taught by John the Apostle himself, and that Irenaeus also was the recipient of the tradition of bishops from Peter and Paul, and therefore his opinion outweighs any early papyrus.
All the early support to 616 that the fragment referred to below does, is prove that such scribal errors, as Irenaeus refers to, in fact happened, as he said they did.
"Of some interest is the early support given by this manuscript to the number of the beast (Rev. 13:18) being 616 (here given in alpha-numeric form as XIV [with bar], the other early witness C has it written in full: ecakosiai deka ec).[37] Manuscripts bearing this reading were known to Irenaeus. He affirmed that 666 stood ‘in all the most approved and ancient copies’ (e0n pa=si toi=v spoudai/oiv kai\ a0rxai/oiv a0ntigra/foiv, Against Heresies V.30.1), and argued that 616 arose as a scribal error. The reading of P115 does not actually add much to the available evidence, except to confirm one side of Irenaeus’ account, and to add some early weight to the 616 reading."http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Head/NTOxyPap.htm
they then go on to point out that the two numbers are effectively the same if you transliterate Greek into Latin, ignoring that the proper approach would be to take a word or name and spell it in Greek and use the Greek number value of letter.s
Letters were used for numbers until the Arabic numbering system was developed. Thus in English if this was still done, 25 ice cream cones would be "KE ice cream cones" the eleventh (number 20) and fifth letters (number 5) of the alphabet being numbers. (after the tenth letter you count by tens starting with 20, after the letter meaning 100 you go by hundreds starting with 200.) But the alphabets weren't identical in order or content all the time, which would make a difference. The original code was in Greek, all efforts to decode must use Greek letters and their number value.
At this point, both UBS et. al., except maybe for a very few high priced books for professional study maybe $500 a piece, are without verificability by the rest of us.
ReplyDeleteHere you go Christine:
http://www.csntm.org/manuscript
Codex C is Ephraemi Rescriptus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_uncials looking at this
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Ephraemi_Rescriptus
I find two interesting things: "The Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53–8:11) is omitted; though the pericope is located on the lost two leaves (John 7:3–8:34), by counting the lines it can be proved that it was not in the book – there is not room for it (as in Codex Alexandrinus).[7] The text of Mark 16:9–20 was included to the codex, though it was located on the lost leaves; by counting the lines it can be proved that it was in the work.[8] "
This is confusing and incoherent, what lost leaves that there isn't room for? lost from these codices that are missing leaves in which case how do you know they were on them? or a coverup that they were on them because they are lying around separate? or what?
This document also is a hybrid of all text types: The Greek text of the codex is a representative of the Alexandrian text-type, with the Byzantine readings in the Gospels, but with numerous Alexandrian readings. It is a weak Byzantine witness in Matthew, a weak Alexandrian in Mark, and a strong Alexandrian in John. In Luke its textual character is unclear.[13] Westcott-Hort classified it as mixed;[14] Hermann von Soden classified it as in the Alexandrian text-type.[15]
According to Kurt Aland it agrees with the Byzantine text-type 87 times in the Gospels, 13 times in the Acts, 29 times in Paul, and 16 times in the Catholic epistles. It agrees with the Nestle-Aland text 66 times (Gospels), 38 (Acts), 104 (Paul), and 41 (Cath.). It has 50 independent or distinctive readings in the Gospels, 11 in Acts, 17 in Paul, and 14 in the Catholic epistles. Aland placed the text of the codex in Category II.[1] According to the Claremont Profile Method its text is mixed in Luke 1, Luke 10, and Luke 20.[15]
In Apocalypse Codex Ephraemi is a witness of the same form of the text as Codex Alexandrinus.[16]
And you will notice two experts don't agree on its classification. Maybe the classification boundaries aren't as exact as they make out?
and since most text differences don't make any difference in meaning, maybe they are all just scribal variants from an original?
For instance, someone says or writes that Bob came to town driving a brown truck, someone else might say Bob came to town in a vehicle, another a brown vehicle, another a truck, another (technically correct) an automobile (the term includes all internal combustion vehicles) and someone might say he rode rather than he drove which implies someone else drove, but can include him riding in a vehicle because he is driving it.
Then someone else gets into textual variants of the transmission of this information - ignoring the issue of the importance of the information itself. And to those who are like most of us (and myself on a bad day) not sharp enough, these variations would appear to be contradictions enough to raise questions about whether Bob exists, whether he ever came to town or not, and if so what in, a horse drawn cart (which is includable in vehicle) or an internal combustion device?
And if Bob's biography is testimony to some event in that town, then we can question whether the event occurred or even if the town existed.
And that is exactly the effect of all this textual criticism on the average mind especially those who exploit this to fight Christianity itself.
So this thing is testimony to every text type in the book, leaves out the pericope and supports the 616 reading in the Apocalypse, which means it is one of those MSS that Irenaeus said had a scribal error in it on that point, so why not on others as well?
Craig, thank you for that site, my experiment in size increase on one fragment leaves it pretty illegible anyway, perhaps it will be better in the others that are not fragments.
ReplyDeleteThis is going to take a while since I don't read Greek let alone script Greek (uncials) but can get an idea by looking at Greek lettering of NT somewhere what is and isn't at some point.
Christine, is the life of this blog?
ReplyDeleteI don't think so. Seems more like it is under heavy sedation.
I feel a coma coming on.
notes: "But, oh she must 'win' Craig, she must! The shame of having been caught out as an obfuscating weather vain blowing this way and that in the unsteady gales of hot air would doubtlessly be too much for her to bare!"
ReplyDeletea. its not an issue of "winning" its an issue of stopping bullshit which I am convinced is bullshit.
b. too much to bare should be spelled b-e-a-r.
c. its not obfuscation but dealing with part of the New Age agenda, and/or one of its the tools, the obfuscation of the New Testament.
"all this proves is that he [Jerome] saw one or more Greek mss with the PA. However, we still have to account for it absence in other mss"
Which means you admit it DID exist in Greek MSS of his time and earlier, which would have been available, and yet you can't, despite the evidence for tampering both heretical and orthodox with a moral agenda, account for its absence in the texts that survive.
Bear in mind things wear out with heavy use, and if known to be flawed are not going to be used much, maybe even destroyed. While papyrus wears out on its own, parchment lasts a lot longer, with vellum being too fragile and back at papyrus level.
the only reason you can't account for its absence, is that you can't wrap your mind around the issue of dishonesty in play in textual transmission (never mind criticism), despite testimony to the effect this happened.
How many fragments that leave out or modify something about Jesus' identity are perhaps from a heretical scribe and don't belong in the orthodox (small o) lineage of texts in the first place?
If a western church father could condemn a woman for remarrying after divorcing her adulterous husband, and this rule even get in some western local synods, a double standard nowhere indicated in the Gospels, what else would they do?
you referenced not knowing if the fathers who quoted the pericope quoted the text or from an oral memory. Augustine explicitly refers to it missing from some mss so he obviously saw it in others.
notes: "But, oh she must 'win' Craig, she must! The shame of having been caught out as an obfuscating weather vain blowing this way and that in the unsteady gales of hot air would doubtlessly be too much for her to bare!"
ReplyDeletea. its not an issue of "winning" its an issue of stopping bullshit which I am convinced is bullshit.
b. too much to bare should be spelled b-e-a-r.
c. its not obfuscation but dealing with part of the New Age agenda, and/or one of its the tools, the obfuscation of the New Testament.
"all this proves is that he [Jerome] saw one or more Greek mss with the PA. However, we still have to account for it absence in other mss"
Which means you admit it DID exist in Greek MSS of his time and earlier, which would have been available, and yet you can't, despite the evidence for tampering both heretical and orthodox with a moral agenda, account for its absence in the texts that survive.
Bear in mind things wear out with heavy use, and if known to be flawed are not going to be used much, maybe even destroyed. While papyrus wears out on its own, parchment lasts a lot longer, with vellum being too fragile and back at papyrus level.
the only reason you can't account for its absence, is that you can't wrap your mind around the issue of dishonesty in play in textual transmission (never mind criticism), despite testimony to the effect this happened.
How many fragments that leave out or modify something about Jesus' identity are perhaps from a heretical scribe and don't belong in the orthodox (small o) lineage of texts in the first place?
If a western church father could condemn a woman for remarrying after divorcing her adulterous husband, and this rule even get in some western local synods, a double standard nowhere indicated in the Gospels, what else would they do?
you referenced not knowing if the fathers who quoted the pericope quoted the text or from an oral memory. Augustine explicitly refers to it missing from some mss so he obviously saw it in others.
Christine,
ReplyDeleteIn response to you, I wrote:
"all this proves is that he [Jerome] saw one or more Greek mss with the PA. However, we still have to account for it absence in other mss"
To which you responded:
Which means you admit it DID exist in Greek MSS of his time and earlier, which would have been available, and yet you can't, despite the evidence for tampering both heretical and orthodox with a moral agenda, account for its absence in the texts that survive.
And
Which means you admit it DID exist in Greek MSS of his time and earlier, which would have been available, and yet you can't, despite the evidence for tampering both heretical and orthodox with a moral agenda, account for its absence in the texts that survive.
The only quote I’ve seen of Jerome that backs up the PA in John is one from the 5th century. We already know of Greek mss from the 5th century. Nothing new here.
And, for the record, I use Jerome as a 5th century source in my short blog post. Once again, nothing new.
You wrote: the only reason you can't account for its absence, is that you can't wrap your mind around the issue of dishonesty in play in textual transmission (never mind criticism), despite testimony to the effect this happened.
Come on, Christine! How in the world would you know my thoughts or motives on this?
So, why does Origen (ca 184/185 – 253/254) omit the PA in his commentary on John (he also did Luke)? Please don’t tell me he had an agenda.
John 21:25:
ReplyDelete25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.
Could this be why some have appended the PA to the end of John’s Gospel?
Christine, even if there were new discoveries of Greek mss from the 2nd or 3rd centuries containing the PA, this would not negate the fact that we have other mss without it (like the Augustine quote you sourced). Even if we were to find another 20 Greek mss to support the PA, the fact is, we don’t have originals, so we just don’t know if the PA is original. It’s as simple as that. Larger numbers with the PA may help to even the argument a bit, but it can never settle it.
Feeling your pain Craig, but...don't understand why you keep feeding the dog that bites your (everyones) hand.
ReplyDeleteLong story short is GOD is the authority, not Christine, nor any church father. She will never be clued in about this evidently or she would cease and desist. Nah she is not humble enough to come close to letting things rest with the Lord. GOD was and is perfectly able to protect his message through any and every faulty human era. It even survives Christine's slaughter of it. I don't need convincing of this and surely you don't either.
You need to go get a real life miss infowolf.
1 I spelled the word 'bare' as a point of naked irony, Justine, for no matter how you dress your ugly writhings they are even for the mindless rabble (as you term those who don't agree with your pointless points) laid bare for all to see the horror and ridicule of your feigned and vain fleshy device!
ReplyDelete2 Obfuscation is something you strive for evidently yet couldn't possibly achieven I'll give you that!
Maybe I should remember from now on not to afford you any unwarranted intellectual merit, you have earned none and moreover have shown yourself to be in dire deficit of any!
So Justine, the moral is: take the 'clicque' out of your own writing first!
ReplyDeleteWell said Anon 5:42 PM! We have a duty to guard the sheep, especially those still on milk from the wiles of gnostic info howled out by the long-fanged Little Miss Wolf!
ReplyDeleteWell said anon 5:42 PM, we have a duty as watchmen to guard the sheep( especially those not yet weaned off milk) from the wiles of gnostic info howled out by the likes of that long-fanged Little Miss Wolf!
ReplyDelete