News and views of Constance Cumbey concerning "Radical Middle", New Age Movement, Communitarianism, "planetary humanism," "global governance," European Union, Javier Solana, Jeremy Rifkin, "New Age Politics," law in the USA, combined with life in general -- sometimes humorous, sometimes not!
Thursday, June 25, 2020
One of most significant messages I've heard in recent times -- "The time for detachment is now" Addition: Activist demands that images of Jesus come down! It's happening!
Furthermore, 2:49 AM, My 2:04 AM post clearly states："No matter which interpretation you choose—Israel, the Church, Mary, or all of the above—all interpretations agree: the labor pains of Rev. 12:2 are not literal pains from a child passing through the birth canal. This really should not be a problem at all."
Yet you conveniently skip that. Why should any Catholic or anyone be convinced by you willfully ignorant and disingenuous attitude? A question which leads one only to conclude you are not here for any other motive than to attack Catholics and our true Christian faith, to cause quarrel, strife and stress so as to persecute Jesus Christ's flock.
The proof of Mary's assumption and queenship have been provided and you, anon (paul?) have given nothing which directly tackles or refutes each point therein.
Post away, You have added nothing new. Your heretical points vomited mantra like from the mad ravings of Luther and Calvin have already been answered and shown to be baseless.
I will not deign to address that poster directly as you can see for yourselves their attitude, but for the rest of you, their assertion that:
"all interpretations agree: the labor pains of Rev. 12:2 are not literal pains from a child passing through the birth canal." was automatically and intrinsically shown to be in error simply by the very posting of "Notice that part of the curse is pain in childbirth. This is why women suffer during the birth process. So, when we look back to the text of Revelation 12:1-2, we see that the woman clothed with the sun is suffering birth pain. Since the Roman Catholic position is that Mary could not be suffering birth pain (because of her Immaculate Conception and no Original Sin), then these verses cannot be about Mary.
If all interpretations agreed then that interpretation would've agreed also.
(Rev. 12:1) Who is the woman: Israel, Mary, or the Church?
In Revelation 12, some of the symbols are very clear, while others are not.
The “red dragon” is no doubt Satan. John explicitly tells us that “the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan” (v.9; c.f. v.12). In addition, he wages war with Michael—the archangel—in heaven (v.7). Moreover, he is colored red, because he is drenched in the blood of believers (similar to the red horse of Revelation 6:4). He has a crown on his head (Rev. 12:3), as the current prince or ruler of the Earth (Jn. 12:31; 14:30; 16:11; Eph. 2:2; 2 Cor. 4:4).
While the dragon imagery is clear, who is the woman whom he persecutes? Three primary answers are typically offered:
1. Israel?
Premillennial interpreters argue that the woman here is the nation of Israel. Advocates of this interpretation make a number of observations about the woman:
First, in the OT, the imagery of the sun, moon, and stars refers to the nation of Israel. Joseph said, “I have had still another dream; and behold, the sun and the moon and eleven stars were bowing down to me” (Gen. 37:9). Osborne writes, “In Jewish literature ‘twelve stars’ often refers to the twelve patriarchs or the twelve tribes.”[1]
Second, in the OT, the image of a woman is frequently associated with Israel, Zion, or Jerusalem. Paul writes, “The Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother” (Gal. 4:26). Jeremiah writes, “Surely, as a woman treacherously departs from her lover, so you have dealt treacherously with Me, O house of Israel” (Jer. 3:20; c.f. Isa. 54:1-6; Ezek. 16:8-14; Hos. 2:19-20; Micah 4:9-10).
Third, in the OT, the image of being protected by eagle’s wings refers to Israel. In Exodus 19:4, we read, “You yourselves have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles’ wings, and brought you to Myself.” This seems to fit with the language in Revelation 12:14, where we read, “The two wings of the great eagle were given to the woman, so that she could fly into the wilderness to her place, where she was nourished.”
Fourth, the Woman is protected in the wilderness for 1,260 days. This fits with the prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27, which is directed to Israel (“your people and your holy city”). This iteration of 3.5 years is mention five times through this section of Revelation (Rev. 11:2; 11:3; 12:6; 12:14; 13:5). Clearly, this time span of three and a half years must be important to the author. This seems to fit with half of the seven years, where the Antichrist will be in power (Dan. 9:26-27).
Fifth, Daniel 12 predicted that Michael would rise up at this time to protect Israel—not the Church (Dan. 12:1). Daniel writes, “Now at that time Michael, the great prince who stands guard over the sons of your people, will arise. And there will be a time of distress such as never occurred since there was a nation until that time; and at that time your people, everyone who is found written in the book, will be rescued” (Daniel 12:1). We see a fulfillment of this, when John writes, “And there was war in heaven, Michael and his angels waging war with the dragon. The dragon and his angels waged war” (Rev. 12:7).
Sixth, Jesus is said to rule the nations with a rod of iron. In Revelation 19:15, we read, “From His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may strike down the nations, and He will rule them with a rod of iron.” Thus the man-child of verse 5 must be Jesus—not the Church.
2. Mary?
Roman Catholic interpreters argue that the woman here is Mary, Jesus’ mother. Advocates of this interpretation argue that the woman is referred to in the singular (Rev. 12:5, 17). If the nation of Israel or the Church were really in view, then why is this woman just a singular person? Also, the most natural and straightforward reading would be to think of this as Jesus’ mother, Mary.
Of course, critics of this view make a number of counter arguments to this interpretation:
First, this is symbolic language, and it shouldn’t be read rigidly. Since we are reading apocalyptic literature, we shouldn’t place too much weight on the fact that this is spoken of as a singular woman.
Second, when did the 1,260 days of nourishment occur in Mary’s life, as the text explains (vv.6, 14)? This time frame, which is mentioned five times in the text (Rev. 11:2; 11:3; 12:6; 12:14; 13:5), seems to fit best with Daniel’s vision of the 70th seven in Daniel 9:27 (as argued above).
Third, when was Mary persecuted so intensely? John writes, “When the dragon saw that he was thrown down to the earth, he persecuted the woman who gave birth to the male child” (v.13). Roman Catholic interpreters usually identify this with Mary seeing Jesus crucified in front of her. But this doesn’t seem to fit the language of Revelation 12.
Fourth, Roman Catholics believe that Mary was a perpetual virgin—not giving birth to more children. While the Bible affirms that Mary had more children (Mt. 1:25; 12:46-47; 13:55; Mk. 6:2-3; Jn. 2:12; Acts 1:14; 1 Cor. 9:4-5; Gal. 1:19), Roman Catholics argue that this Greek word for “brothers” (adelphos) should actually be translated cousins. While NT scholars disagree with this view,[2] we should see how this doctrine would preclude Mary from being the woman in Revelation 12 from a Roman Catholic perspective. If Mary remained a perpetual virgin, then who are “the rest of her children” mentioned at the end of the chapter? (Rev. 12:17)
3. The Church?
Amillennial and historical premillennial interpreters argue that the woman here is the church. Advocates of this interpretation argue that the NT authors call the Church a woman (2 Cor. 11:2; Eph. 5:25–27, 32; 2 Jn. 1, 5; 3 Jn. 9), and the early church fathers call the Church a woman as well (Hermas V.1.i–ii).[3] Moreover, Revelation 2:26-27 promises the church of Thyratira that they would reign with Christ with a rod of iron, as in verse 5 (“She gave birth to a son… who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron”).
However, this expression is also directed at Jesus specifically (Rev. 19:15), as was argued above. Moreover, this interpretation puts the amillennial interpreter in the awkward position of believing that the Church gave birth to Christ! Can we really hold to such a view? Surely this puts the cart before the horse! Additionally, if the woman is the church, then who are “the rest of her children” (v.17) mentioned later?
To avoid this difficulty, some amillennial and historical premillennial interpreters state that the male-child is actually the church that gave birth to more believers in Christ (v.17). However, this would negate the earlier argument that the Church is referred to as a woman. That is, here, the Church would be referred to as a man (i.e. a male-child; v.5), which doesn’t seem to fit any biblical imagery for the church.
Conclusion
For the reasons listed above, this author holds to the first view that the Woman is Israel, giving birth to the Messiah, and showing back up in the final tribulation at the end of human history.
You will not deign because you cannot, 4:22 AM. You forewent any pretense even at dignity when you chose to ignore the integrity of my post(s) showing the Catholic position to be the correct and Christian one, rather than whatever manmade cult you are part of.
None of my posts is an island, not least that part of the landscape at 3:17 AM. They are part of the same peninsula of Catholic truth, withstanding the tides of history way back from when Christianity began.
What you fail to understand in your "either or mentality", you willfully ignorant heretic, is that some concepts of Holy Scripture are both and. My posts show as such, showing your baseless assertions to be redundant even before you have posted them.
That is, Mother Mary and Mother Church, Spiritual Israel, i.e., the Catholic Church.
What you fail to understand in your "either or mentality", you willfully ignorant heretic, is that some concepts of Holy Scripture are "both and". My posts show as such, showing your baseless assertions to be redundant even before you have posted them.
That is, Mother Mary and Mother Church, Spiritual Israel, i.e., the Catholic Church are both that which Revelation 12 is referring to as the woman.
The persecution of the Church has been sadly borne out here for 15 long years now by child murderer supporting Calvinist heretics, such as paul, Ray B and your loveless pompous self, 4:22 AM.
Mary is not 'divine' (that is DISINFORMATION). We do not 'worship' her (more DISINFORMATION). We HONOR her as the Mother of Jesus... just as Jesus Himself HONORS His Mother.
The fact that some of you Protestants do NOT hold Mary, the Mother of Jesus, in the same high esteem that JESUS views His Mother... is the problem here.
This 'debate' is not between you and Catholics. This 'debate' is between you and Jesus, as HE has chosen to hold His Mother in such high esteem!!! It is some of You who DARE to disagree with HIM!!!
So, it won't be until Judgement Day... that you are forced to face the fact that Mary DID in fact ascend body and soul into Heaven... and that Jesus Himself has given His Mother the role of Queen of Heaven (not the Catholics here on earth).
Then, what will you do when you come face to face with the TRUTH??? Decide that Heaven is not the place where you want to spend eternity after all???
But, continue with all of your copying and pasting of all of the reasons WHY she means absolutely nothing to you.
I repeat: This back and forth discussion is NOT between you and me (or other Catholics on this blog). It's between YOU AND JESUS!!!
And ALL of this WILL be straightened out on Judgement Day!!!
Left in the dust of this back-and-forth discussion of Mary’s significance is the main subject of Constance’s post: statues and their removal. As I see it, the recent tearing down of the statue of Junipero Serra in CA puts a number of people in precarious situations: Pope Francis, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, and even John Boehner.
According to Wikipedia: Pope Francis canonised Serra on September 23, 2015, at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, D.C., during his first visit to the United States. Serra's missionary efforts earned him the title of Apostle of California for his evangelism during the Spanish conquest and occupation, a period in which Native American indentured servants were beaten and shackled during the construction of the missions.
Thus, it was Francis himself who canonized Serra. Where is his voice in this recent tearing down? He cannot remain silent on this.
Moreover, according to this LifeSite article Catholics, now is our ‘moment’ to defend our statues, our churches, our faith…Pope Francis made history by performing the first-ever canonization of a Catholic saint on U.S. soil: that of St. Junipero Serra. Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner wept on live television during the Pope’s address to Congress. Democratic leaders Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi joined the pontiff in reverencing a statue of the new saint.
So, where are Boehner, Biden and Pelosi? My inclination is to believe Boehner is a staunch Catholic, given that he was so moved that wept. As to Biden and Pelosi, my inclination is that their presence amounted to political theatre in service of votes; but, admittedly, that’s my guess, though based on what I’ve seen of the apparent lip service paid to Catholicism and Christianity in general.
Actually, Craig... I (one of the Catholic posters here) DO agree with you that Pope Francis must not remain silent... and should definitely speak out regarding the tearing down of the statue of Junipero Serra (not to mention Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, etc.)
Jeremiah 7:17-19 says: "Seest thou not what they do in the streets of Judah and the streets of Jerusalem? The children gather wood and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the QUEEN OF HEAVEN and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger. Do they provoke me to anger? saith the Lord: do they not provoke themselves to the confusion of their own faces?"
_And then Jeremiah chapter 44 goes on to repeat this same phenomenon and repeat that is is all part of the idolatry which the children of Israel picked up in Egypt and how it is a grievous sin before God. Other than that, the only mention of queens in the Word of God are multiple references to The Queen of Sheba and Queen Vashti in the book of Esther. There is no queen in heaven. All references to a "queen of heaven" are pagan and idolatrous. All use of the term "queen of heaven" is a man made tradition and man made traditions are all full of error. There are no sacred man made traditions. There are no sacred traditions. To say that there are is to degrade and demean the word sacred. Sacred refers to something that is holy. Holiness can only pertain to the things of God. To be holy or sacred is to be separate and set aside from this world. Traditions of men are never holy.
Come ye out of her my people and do not partake in her sins.
Catholic religion is exhausting. Make that, all religion is exhausting. But not our Lord. He will never exhaust anyone. In His Presence is perfect Peace and Rest.
Jesus so kept things quite simple. Humble. So much so that children could come to Him without all the trappings and strappings that one has to take on to be rightly religious and acceptable as some proclaim. Pride makes things difficult, impossible, actually.
Jesus spoke against the Pharisees for the very same type of religiosity. Jesus expressed His utter disdain for it with a whip of cords (twice). Righteous Jesus was angry at it. Worship, trust, faith..believing...coupled with repentance that proves the heart motive is right in it's believing God, belongs to God..alone. That is the first commandment. It sure got broken didn't it? Every last one of us is guilty. Their faith exercises/practices, that at one time pointed to God, had summarily replaced God and Jesus was mad at that. He was on the earth to lead people back to God. Straight back with no detours, loopty loops, somersaults of any religious kind, just simply in our believing, in humble repentant belief in His message, that He was the One---the Only One--to open the door, He made the way back to God by His Sacrifice.
Jesus said such simple things. As simple as "Come unto ME.." Not to His dear mother Mary, not to saints, not to priests/pastors, not rituals (catholic, protestant, new age, anything else) -- none of those!
"Come unto ME"
Who will come to Jesus then? The broken, the weary, the wayward, the lost. That is all of us sinners. When you are broken by your sin, when you are weary of your sin, when you are wayward (as the song goes "I did it my way!")...lost in your sin, the way Home is Jesus. Just Him. All the Glory goes to ONE..the One who saves the broken, weary, wayward, lost, sinner. He saves us and gives us His Spirit's presence and strength to live that way, His way. Can you find better than Jesus? Nobody can. HE is the Darling of Heaven, the LORD!
But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. Hebrews 11:6.
If religion "fixed" you, you won't come to Him. You have already replaced Him. If religion could "fix" you He would not have needed to be your holy sinless Sacrifice--the Cross would not have been necessary. But the Cross happened. See yourself in His Scars! He sees what we don't want ever seen or known. He already knows your name, your sinful soul, the multitude of your sins....and loves you anyway.
If you will..Jesus' formula is you sinner, ME Savior. So come home. Just turn to Jesus from wherever you are bound up, caught up, hung up, and turn around and go Home. And be received in that great Grace and perfect Redemption already bought and paid for in Jesus Body and Blood. Look at this world, this crumbling, very insecure place! He wants you safely Home with Him. Peace, Rest, Satisfaction, Love...never ending. "Come unto ME" He is ready for you, any of you, any ole me or you, ready for the asking, for the taking. And don't linger, time is ticking. Eternity is coming, eternal life or eternal death, your choice. Hallelujah, what a Savior!
Following the link you provided ultimately leads to the National Catholic Register article Archbishop Performs Exorcism Where St. Junípero Serra Fell, Asking For God’s Mercy. This article contains a video of the Archbishop in action. This same video I referenced back in the first 200 comments—a comment the contents of which no one apparently bothered to view. My comment there went to Dr. Taylor Marshall’s vlog—the same Marshall speaking in the 2nd of Cumbey’s two videos in this blog post—and his thoughts on the matter.
Having prefaced with my comments above, how do you view this? Though I have my own opinion, I’m leaving this open-ended so that I can get yours (and others') view.
Let’s discuss this more specific issue of Catholic statues and their preservation, etc., rather than the incessant RCC vs non-RCC and vice versa regarding other matters.
Catholic religion is exhausting. Amen. _Fish on Friday? No? say five Hail Marys and ten Our Fathers, and light fifteen candles for three straight days and say the special Saint Christopher prayer on page 217 of the prayer book, and don't forget to invoke Saint Luke. And of course do your rosary twice a day this week. Then we can discuss your Lenton requirements this year, after you've gotten your special blessed cloth from the parish store, (they're on sale this month).
Kind of like Islam, Mormonism, Christian Science, Paganism, witchcraft, Hinduism, Buddhism and come to think of it, Psychology
"After all, your "prominent" heretic in arms, Ray B., denied the bodily Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ."
NOTE: I have never, as in NEVER, even for a moment denied the bodily Resurrection of Christ. In fact, I have defended the PHYSICAL RESURRECTION more than most people have simply because of my many encounters with Jehovah Witnesses (I almost always invite them into my home when they knock on my door). JWs DENY that Christ rose physically.
What I have said on this blog in the past is that when Christ rose from the dead, His body obviously changed, as illustrated in a number of Bible passages. His body WAS NOT FOUND in the EMPTY TOMB, so He did RISE PHYSICALLY.
Lies, slander, personal attacks .... are all methods that are typically used by desperate people who cannot argue with TRUTH.
YES, that is so TRUE, RayB... and we Catholics are waiting for you and Paul to stop all of the LIES, SLANDER, and personal attacks against Catholics here on this blog.
It's all about the power of MEN over the souls of MEN. The power to usurp God's AUTHORITY with MAN's AUTHORITY. The Pharisees were guilty of it, the RCC hierarchy is as well.
This is precisely too how all of the cults operate. They all have a certain set of DIFFICULT man-made rules, guidelines and peculiar beliefs that set themselves apart from everyone else. ALL have a "works based" system for earning "salvation" and favor with God, while not able to ever quite reach that goal. ALL cults teach that they exclusively are "the people." This is one of the psychological tricks that is always employed; make people believe that they are "special" because they are following the one and only "true religion." This so effective because it appeals to the foundation of virtually all sin; PRIDE.
Catholicism is a very complex system, involving strict adherence to ritualistic sacramentalism, along with many ambiguous sets of rules, commandments, declarations, etc. I have personally found that most Catholics do not even know what their church actually teaches outside of the need to go to confession at least once per year, attend weekly Mass and on Holy days, pray the Rosary, be good and hope for a not too lengthy time in Purgatory. As far as defending their faith, about the only thing they typically claim is that "we're the church that Christ founded ... Peter was the first pope." That's what they have been TOLD to believe.
The idea of Jesus being King of kings and Lord of lords means that there is no higher authority. His reign over all things is absolute and inviolable. God raised Him from the dead and placed Him over all things, “far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all” (Ephesians 1:21–23). He does not "share" his sovereignty.
Likewise, there is no queen of heaven. There has never been a queen of heaven. There is most certainly a King of Heaven, the Lord of hosts. He alone rules in heaven. He does not share His rule or His throne or His authority with anyone. The idea that Mary, the mother of Jesus, is the queen of heaven has no scriptural basis whatsoever. Instead, the idea of Mary as the queen of heaven stems from proclamations of priests and popes of the Roman Catholic Church. While Mary was certainly a godly young woman greatly blessed in that she was chosen to bear the Savior of the world, she was not in any way divine, nor was she sinless, nor is she to be worshiped, revered, venerated, or prayed to. All followers of the Lord God refuse worship. Peter and the apostles refused to be worshiped (Acts 10:25–26; 14:13–14). The holy angels refuse to be worshiped (Revelation 19:10; 22:9). The response is always the same: “Worship God!” To offer worship, reverence, or veneration to anyone but God is nothing short of idolatry. Mary’s own words in her “Magnificat” (Luke 1:46–55) reveal that she never thought of herself as “immaculate” or deserving of veneration; on the contrary, she was relying on the grace of God for salvation: “And my spirit rejoices in God my Savior.” Only sinners need a savior, and Mary recognized that need in herself.
Furthermore, Jesus Himself issued a mild rebuke to a woman who cried out to Him, "Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you" (Luke 11:27), replying to her, "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it." By doing so, He curtailed any tendency to elevate Mary as an object of worship. He could certainly have said, “Yes, blessed be the Queen of Heaven!” But He did not. He was affirming the same truth that the Bible affirms—there is no queen of heaven, and the only biblical references to the “queen of heaven” refer to the goddess of an idolatrous, false religion.
Finally, the book of Jeremiah refers to the queen of heaven two times while warning the Israelites not to be idolatrous. The second passage that refers to the queen of heaven [Ashtoreth at that time] is Jeremiah 44:17-25 where Jeremiah is giving the people the word of the Lord which God has spoken to him. He reminds the people that their disobedience and idolatry has caused the Lord to be very angry with them and to punish them with calamity. Jeremiah warns them that greater punishments await if they do not repent. They reply that they have no intentions of giving up their worship of idols, promising to continue pouring out drink offerings to the queen of heaven, Ashtoreth, and even going so far as to credit her with the peace and prosperity they once enjoyed because of God’s grace and mercy.
In my opinion, the catholic church would be wise to heed Jeremiah's words and discontinue attempting to diminish the lordship and dominion of Jesus and repent of such pagan traditions.
[material compiled and sourced from Gotquestions.com]
I've mentioned my lengthy relationship with the two twin Attorneys who were life-long, devout Catholics before, both of whom were at that time in their late 80's. The one brother turned to me one day with a perplexed look on his face and asked me: "What is all this talk I keep hearing about being "born again?" Now think about that; here is an intelligent devout man that has spent over 80 YEARS in the Catholic Church, and he was asking ME what "born again" was all about.
Yet, Christ clearly stated in John 3:3 ...
"Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."
And ... "Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again." John 3:7
And what did the "first pope" have to say on the subject?
"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." 1 Peter 1:23
If anyone doubts that Catholics miss THE most important personal issue, ask a Catholic friend what "born again" means.
"It's all about the power of MEN over the souls of MEN ...", to spiritually imprison men and turn them from the One True Faith.
Child murderer Calvin was thoroughly guilty of it, as was that persecutor of Jews, Luther ... followed by many a Protestant heretic of whatever strand of manmade cult thereafter.
Jesuit trained, Catholic Chief Justice Roberts does it again. This time, he sides with the Liberal Justices to knock down ABORTION clinic restrictions.
Oh, yeah right... I'm sure a devout Catholic attorney of 80 years would be ready to throw his Catholic faith right out the window because of some 'words' you, RayB said to him.
First of all, that would mean that he obviously was not a very 'devout' Catholic to begin with... and second, not very 'smart'... to ALLOW any one person to influence them that easily.
So... I do NOT believe your story. Maybe that 'perplexed look on his face' was advanced DEMENTIA... since, like you said, the man was in his late 80's. LOL
And oh, by the way, 'two twin attorneys' would be FOUR people!!!
If only Protestants realized it is not about those arch-heretics, Calvin or Luther, but it is about the Living Word, Jesus Christ, and His One True Church, i.e., Spiritual Israel, which is the Catholic Church, as the Holy Bible and the test of time show.
Moreover, You'll find the Douay Rheims Bible to be the,most trustworthy of the English translations.
And now that I have made my point that I don't need to be 'born again'... since I got it right the first time... when are YOU going to STOP this obsession of yours and just go away???
For your information, I was NOT the one that brought up "born again." He brought it up because he had heard (from somewhere) "all this talk" about it.
They were both in remarkable physical and mental condition, in fact, they kept their law practice open (but purposely cut back their practice) until they reached the age of 91. Both were accomplished musicians that played in an amateur orchestra until they were 90. For years, both held season tickets for one of the major orchestras. The one brother, along with his wife, traveled to Europe every single year until the year before he died, where he would fly to Paris, rent a car, and drive across Europe. Both brothers lived to be 95, dying within 2 months of each other.
The three of us had numerous lengthy conversations, in which our relationship encompassed a span of over 10 years ... closer to 15.
We talked about current events, history, politics, the arts, and, "religion." Not once did we ever have an "argument." When it came to our "religious" conversations, I would often quote from the Bible a passage or verse and would discuss it. They were always respectful regarding God's word ... unlike "some" of the "Catholics" on this blog.
What's amazing is how brazen YOU are ... whoever you are, that you would "judge" this man as having "advanced dementia" based upon soley your fertile imagination. I suspect you are the same "Anonymous" that spewed out all the vulgar, violent venom yesterday. If I'm wrong about that, I apologize.
That video reminds me of the heretical "prayer walks" and "grave soaking" done by the NAR churches. It's very pagan to be worshipping and sprinkling holy water over the ground and claiming dominion over it.
I also see this as the catholic's, defining the battlefield {holy water on it} and trying to instigate a war with demonstrators (likened to demons) over stupid pagan statutes and thereby setting themselves up as the great opposition to the far-left lawlessness (and stupidity). Rome intends to be the "conservative" leader of the opposition that every gun-toting American needs to support. Such signaling is evidenced by the waving of the US flag over the event. Together with the NAR as well as many of the pentecostal & prosperity gospel churches, who they have been cultivating relationships with for years...
see this link: https://www.ihopkc.org/press-center/news-articles/mike-bickle-meets-pope-francis-discuss-jesus/
....they will eventually lead a violent opposition that they will claim to be a defensive attack against these young and disillusioned crowds/demons. Many uninformed and naive cafeteria Christians in the Protestant churches will welcome and join the fight in standing beside their "christian" catholic "brothers and "sisters" completely unaware they are enlisting in antichrist's army. Since "progressive thought and liberal ideas" are easy to hide in one's mind, flushing out all "liberals" will be the end goal along with ridding the world of all this silly and violent "protesting". After all this "army" promises peace and love to the world. In order to prove you are not a liberal/progressive/"protestor" - blood oaths and marks will be required. In time, they will exact their revenge on any yet resisting true born-again still "protesting" Protestant Christian that has refused to stop "protesting" (against the pagan roman catholic church), bend their knee to the pope, take their mark or worship their "queen mother" idols and join their now-unified cult. All remaining "protestors" will, to achieve true peace, need be slaughtered.
Thank you for engaging. Though I would not have phrased my comments quite the way you have, I immediately noted the similarity between the ritual and related comments by the Archbishop as essentially the same thing as the NAR's (New Apostolic Reformation, for the uninitiated) "Spiritual Mapping", i.e., (re)claiming the associated ground "for God" by ridding it of malevolent spiritual forces, thus making it "Christian".
There are other associated issues I'll address in a separate comment.
Ray B @12:14 and anonymous at 12:18: I just finally found a very reasonable explanation of exactly who the Nicolaitans were, after digging around for a long time. It's a strange thing that so little is known about them, and it's the strange things in the Bible that often seem to be the most revealing when one digs deep enough. When we break down the word Nicolaitans we have Nico, which refers to power and "power over" and laitans, which refers to the general people, the laity. The Nicolaitans were a false cult of the true Christian faith, who are mentioned twice in the seven letters to the seven churches of Asia Minor; once to Ephesis and once to Pergamos. In both cases it is clear that God hates this Nicolaitan cult. Yes, He uses the word hate. In the true Christian faith there is truly only one mediator between God and man, and that is Jesus Christ. There are no priests in the Christian faith like there had been in the Old Testament. There is no longer a need for priests, as the author of Hebrews so clearly spells out. The structure of God's Christian church on earth is not a worldwide centralized power but more like a network of bishops in locales who oversee their respective flocks. There is no mention of anything called a Cardinal, much less a "Pope". Nico=power over + Laitans=the people The Nicolaitans exercised power over the all the peoples. Jesus said: "Call no man on earth father, for one is your father which is in heaven."
So, Paul and RayB are going to stand before JESUS and criticize HIM for all the things they don't like about HIS Catholic Church... and for choosing Peter as the first Pope... and for choosing his apostles as His first priests???
Like I said earlier, stay tuned... and pass the popcorn (LOL).
FYI: When the Globalists usher in their New World Order and their One World Religion... ALL of the people from the 'old age' traditional religions (who refuse to worship the Antichrist) will be put to death / martyred: Protestants, Catholics and Jews.
Meanwhile, you Protestant Evangelicals are being 'used' to go after the Catholics and the Jews. You are doing an outstanding job on this blog. Satan must be VERY proud of you!!!
Let me add to my comment @ 2:13 PM. First, I note there’s been no challenge to my earlier assertion regarding Theodosia of Constantinople (I initially misspelled it “Theodotia”, assuming it was the feminine of Theodotion, which would require retaining the 2nd “t”). My specific assertion was that her defending of the STATUE of Jesus amounted to idolatry even by the standards set forth in the associated section of Roman Catholic Catechism (2113 and 2132)—I posted this portion of the Catechism for all to see and from which anyone could comment. With no rebuttal or counterclaim by any Catholics here, at present I’m of the opinion that there is no adequate basis to rebut.
The way I view this, Theodosia hardly died a “martyr” and she should not have been canonized since her actions illustrated the very definition of idolatry, as expressly stated in the Catechism. Further, given this, I’m inclined to cast doubt on the entire idea of what criteria constitute the canonization of a “Saint”. The bar seems mighty low if it includes rebelling against God’s authority (Romans 13:1-7) in order to defend a statue—which is supposed to be venerated through, not idolized directly—to the extent an innocent man dies by a specific action of the individual during the course of defending the icon.
I call bull. As I predicted here several weeks ago, the Republicans truly like it this way. This is an election year battle cry court decision. The Republicans can once again campaign upon and promise to get Roe v. Wade overturned while not actually achieving it another year. It's been 50 years. The Republicans have controlled the Supreme Court the entire time. It's a lie.
Biden used to be pro-life. Not that that matters much because if they ever do overturn Roe v. Wade, the regulation of abortion will just go back to the states. So my thought is, I actually think this election cycle the Supreme Court would be 100 times more likely to overturn Roe v. Wade during a Biden presidency than a Trump presidency. The resulting protests and unrest will then be directed at and a problem for a Biden/Democratic administration versus a Republican administration (that, if he wins, can't handle MORE unrest and opposition). The baby killing far-left and progressive middle (soccer moms) will just blame the courts and not hate the republican party all that much and whoever the republican presidential candidate is in 2024 won't have to suffer/incur that much of a backlash over something the Supreme Court did. Whereas doing it during a Trump presidency will cost the Republicans for years.
Another reason overturning Roe v. Wade seems unlikely for a predominantly roman catholic Supreme Court (not one practicing Evangelical among them) is because doing so requires a strict constructionist view of the Constitution and a much less liberal definition of the word "LIBERTY" as found in the 14th Amendment Due Process phrasing "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Now I guess a roman catholic supreme court might feel like they could yet control this and as long as they are the final body defining "liberty" themselves it's ok to risk doing this, but really they'd be just relinquishing federal power over "liberty" and giving the states the right to define it on their own. This could be risky for catholics as one of the major precedential cases supporting Roe v Wade is Pierce v. Society of Sisters.
Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925), was a United States Supreme Court decision striking down an Oregon statute that required all children to attend public school (i.e. - shut down catholic schools). The decision significantly expanded coverage of the Due Process Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution to recognize personal civil liberties. The case has been cited as a precedent in more than 100 Supreme Court cases, including Roe v. Wade, and in more than 70 cases in the courts of appeals.
Overturning Roe v. Wade likely means risking and/or overturning Pierce and many other cases that depend on the Supreme Courts' "liberal" interpretation of "personal civil liberties". These rights include things like the the right to marry, marital privacy, the right to have children, etc. It would open up and allow states to go back to permissive and strict regulating a lot about our private lives we all take for granted. Personally I'm willing to risk it. It beats killing babies, but, I don't think the catholic judges aren't likely to give up control and the ability to 100% protect catholics in all 50 states, therefore, it's another reason they may hesitate overturning Roe v. Wade.
'Brazen'??? LOL. Well, I guess it takes one to know one!!!
Oh, come on... that's not really a stretch to figure out that someone with a 'perplexed look on his face' (who also happens to be in his late 80's) would more likely be suffering from DEMENTIA... rather than throwing away his Catholic FAITH of 80 years???
Maybe your Protestant co-conspirators on this blog fell for that story... but, I did not.
P.S. That person with the 'vile venom' had a lot of misspellings in his post. So, that wasn't ME. Your apology is accepted.
Regarding the link to the Spirit Daily article, that I sent you earlier . . .
I am greatly alarmed by the tearing down of any and ALL statues (whether they be political or religious). This attempt to ERASE history is setting a very dangerous precedent.
Yes, paul that is the breakdown meanings of the word Nicolaitans as I found too. They were taking the preeminence among some churches as Apostle Paul warned in mentions in Scripture as the Spirit of God led him to write. I think that was the papacy's beginning. The book of Jude, as well as in what Apostle Peter wrote and warned also, describing these who preyed on others. The foolish Galatians were trying to go back to the old system to blend it with the new covenant and Apostle Paul warned of that also. Perfect scenarios for someone to walk in and claim authority they did not have from God but were determined to force on people. There has always been sheeple for these types to dictate to just as there has always been tares among the wheat. So the church has been infiltrated and quite early on. Jesus said: "an enemy hath done this". But some stayed true to God's Word and let the Spirit lead them away from those who were abusing the church and so it goes that we can have the discernment in our day and age too so it is vastly important to realize that the only pushback is the Spirit of God who comes to dwell in the believer when they are born again (as Jesus said in John Ch 3 for instance), and shows them the authority of His Word to distinquish the lies from the truth.
RENOUNCE GOD OR WE'LL CUT OFF YOUR FOOD AND SHELTER!
'It has become difficult to maintain belief in God because of religious persecution'
By WND Staff Published June 28, 2020
China's communist government is warning elderly Christians that they will lose basic benefits if they don't stop praticing their faith.
Bitter Winter, the online magazine about religious liberty and human rights in China, reports the Communist Party is threatening "to take away the last means of survival from elderly believers," the government benefits of "housing, food, clothing, medical care, and funeral expenses."
"A Catholic from Fuzhou city in the southeastern province of Jiangxi has been receiving monthly 250 RMB (about $ 35) from the government since 2018, the year her husband died," Bitter Winter reported.
"At the end of 2019, local government officials threatened the woman, in her 60s, that the subsidy would be withdrawn unless she removes images of Jesus from her home. 'Because the Communist Party feeds you,' they told the woman, 'you must only believe in it, not God.' Two months later, the pension was canceled because she refused to remove the symbols," the report said.
She told Bitter Winter, "It has become difficult to maintain belief in God because of religious persecution."
Reggie Littlejohn, founder and president of Women’s Rights Without Frontiers, said it's "a heartbreak and an outrage that widows and other elderly are forced to renounce their faith in order to receive stipends. For many, they may need these funds to survive."
"It [is] a pathetic act of cowardice to force desperate widows to choose between their survival and their God. This widow, who refused to renounce her faith potentially in the face of abject poverty, is heroic," she said.
"This form of religious persecution is on the rise in the area of China where we have our Save a Widow Campaign. I was just informed that in our area, a government official has instructed our widows to stay home on Sundays and not to go to church. He also ridiculed Jesus, saying, 'The Chinese government gives you 160 RMB (about $23). How much money does Jesus Christ give you?'"
She continued: "Fortunately for the widows in our area, they have a ready answer. Our fieldworkers bring love and compassion to widows, along with practical help: a $25 monthly stipend that makes a huge difference in their lives, providing food and warmth. Our fieldworkers encourage these widows in their faith, and many have found new hope that there is a God who loves them."
Littlejohn for years has fought China's one-child policy, which banned couples from having more than one child. It recently was changed to two children, but forced abortions still are part of the government's enforcement policy.
Bitter Winter noted that just weeks ago, officials in Fuzhou "forced an 80-year-old Christian women to cover up a cross image in her home, again threatening her subsistence allowance."
Authorities also have begun an intensive campaign of "return" inspections "to make sure that people don't resume practicing their faith," the report said.
In one case, government bureaucrats "threatened a Sola Fide believer in a nursing home, who has been paralyzed for eight years, to drive him out of the residence if he continued his belief."
"The officials said that I am supposed to believe in the Communist Party since it feeds me, or else all my social benefits would be canceled," he said. "I won’t give up my faith no matter how the government pursues me. If it cancels my benefits, I will meet God earlier."
In Yingtan city, authorities "deprived a local Christian of her government aid for hosting religious meetings at home, even though the woman was immobile from an illness," the report said. And they also harassed a Catholic, in her 70s, to replace religious symbols with images of President Xi Jingping.
Though I don't think any sort of worship should be deemed "harmful", I do note that Sean Feucht is associated with Bill Johnson's Bethel, Redding, CA "church".
And I'm tired of Dr. Michael Brown supporting Johnson and other heretics.
I agree Paul. Lording it over the people is Nicolaitan doctrine. To be served rather than serve which is the complete opposite of Jesus and the Apostles example. Something really worth consideration when evaluating "Kingdom now","Dominion" and "New Apostolic Reformation" doctrines.
Be on the look out for Domination, Manipulation and Control.
4:42 So it brings a real coherence to the letters to the seven churches, in that God is saying that he hates those who would take evil power over the Church, namely the Nicolaitans, and those who would take evil power over the Jews; namely those who "say are are Jews and are not", as well as those who want evil power over both; namely witches like Jezebel.
The timing of this is just too convenient. In his homily, priest Robert Altier said things will be better in four years. We are halfway through 2020. In four years it will be 2024, another election year. So that means somebody could point at the time interval and say it lasted 3 1/2 years, between the time the riots broke out and the statues toppled, and the time a new person became elected president.
How does Robert Altier know the rioting and statue toppling and the whole American version of the "cultural revolution" will be over in four years?
Is this another planned event, kind of like the Plandemic?
Will we get both the "good President" and the "good Pope" in 3 1/2 more years?
That WND dot com article above about christians being persecuted in China led me to check out "bitter winter".
Very suspicious organization. Mostly catholics. Massimo Introvigne, is the editor in chief and apparent founder. He is a professor of sociology that writes about, promotes and defends new religions...along with his friends and some priests. They have set out to oppose what they deem to be an "anti-cult movement". Professor Introvigne has authored one book available on Amazon title "Satanism: A Social History (Aries)" - probably not someone you want teaching your children.
Introvigne and his friends run an Italian based organization named CENSUR (Center for Studies on New Religions) that a lobbying and legal defense group for nut-bag religions worldwide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CESNUR
"Bitter Winter" magazing was launched in May 2018 as an online magazine which covers religious freedom and human rights in China. According to the magazine it is supported by volunteer contributions and is published daily in five languages.
My guess is those "volunteer contributions" are being made exclusively by members of the same Falun Gong cult that prints the Epoch Times. There are a lot of articles and twitter comments even going back and forth between these organizations and "writers". Probably an indication that there no group too fringe for the catholic church to not pursue - building bridges to enlist later in their little "unity" peace & love project.
I'm sure there is lots of oppressive crap going on in China as well as Government-sponsored disinformation campaigns, but these are ALSO unreliable "news" organizations that Christians can't trust at face value either. Sometimes the enemy of your enemy really isn't your friend. I didn't even know about Epoch Times until I saw their "volunteer" troll bots posting articles here. But then I got a free copy of their "newspaper" at my house soliciting my subscription. That's a lot of money to send out a propaganda piece designed to appear as an objective conservative multi-page professional newspaper to every mailbox in the country (probably targeting Trump terrortory so likely not urban zip codes). That's how profitable a cult newspaper can get by pumping out every Trump supporting lie they can conceive of as long as it draws readers to their primary agenda-based China reporting. Don't support this cult.
I've not read all the comments, but am working on it. I just deleted one particularly offensive one using the "F___" word.
However, it appears to me that Fr. Altier's homily/sermon sounds nearly prophetic in light of today's Fox News reported events of mobs attempting to destroy a monument in St. Louis to the St. Louis for whom the St. Louis is named. It appears to me that the very ugly spirit of mob violence has been unleashed and historically in the past when that happened, it became dangerous for ALL Christians -- Catholic and Protestant alike. Remember Mexico 1926-1935, the French Revolution, etc., etc.
The prophesied apocalyptic times may very well be in advanced stages among us.
Speaking of Fr. Altier's homily/sermon, I found another by him. You can watch it here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Omn6CgJNdfQ
He keeps referring to Mary's Immaculate Heart, and how we are to go THROUGH HER in order to GET TO HER SON, and that "our Lady will protect you, because, as we all know, no one fights like a Mother."
This is the priest that Constance is steering us to.
Sorry Padre ... I don't need to go through anyone other than Christ Himself, because that is exactly what He promised.
John the Gospel writer records Jesus’ words about “another Paraclete”:
If you love me, keep my commandments. And I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever. The spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, nor knoweth him: but you shall know him; because he shall abide with you, and shall be in you… But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you. (John 14:15-17, 26; Douay-Rheims Bible).
If the Holy Ghost, aka Holy Spirit, is “another Paraclete”, who is the other Paraclete? John identifies Him specifically in 1 John 2:1-2:
My little children, these things I write to you, that you may not sin. But if any man sin, we have an advocate [Paraclete] with the Father, Jesus Christ the just: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world. And by this we know that we have known him, if we keep his commandments. (Douay-Rheims Bible).
Mark McCloskey gave his first on-camera interview to 5 On Your Side anchor Anne Allred
Salient quote: I mean, I'm not I'm not the enemy of people that really care about the Black lives, but I'm apparently the enemy of the terrorists and the Marxists that are running this organization.
BTW, the word "Paraclete" (Greek: paraklētos) is found only 5 times in the entire NT: 4 in reference to the Holy Spirit (John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7) and 1 time for Jesus (1 John 2:1). I don't think that's a coincidence.
The word is used sparingly in pre-NT works, usually in legal contexts.
Regarding the 10:31 PM post (which I'm sure wasn't written by a Communist Chinese troll)...
"They came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up."
AllSides™
The Epoch Times
AllSides™ Media Bias Rating: Right
This media bias rating was determined using the following levels of bias verification:
✓Editorial Review: August 2019
✓Community Feedback: 7,561 ratings
✓Independent Research
AllSides Media Bias Ratings™ are based on multi-partisan, scientific analysis. Unless otherwise noted, this bias rating refers only to online news coverage, not opinion pieces or TV, print, or radio content. We have rated the bias of nearly 600 outlets and writers.
August 2019 Editorial Review
On August 28, 2019, AllSides conducted an editorial review of The Epoch Times. An editorial review is when the AllSides editorial staff — which includes people from across the political spectrum — reviews the works of a source and comes to a general consensus on its bias. These reviews always include a diversity of individuals covering the range of bias from left to right. The team determined The Epoch Times has a Right media bias.
The AllSides team found The Epoch Times is clearly critical of left-wing ideas and policies such as open borders, the sexual revolution, abortion, and multiculturalism on its news and opinion pages. It writes favorably about freedom of speech, gun rights, immigration control, and other topics. It is openly critical of the Chinese Communist Party.
An independent review by an AllSides Staffer in April 2020 found that The Epoch Times maintains a right bias, and that overall, The Epoch Times reporting is factual. Its headlines are generally free from sensationalism, a type of media bias. In The Epoch Times' COVID-19 coronavirus coverage, the paper calls the coronavirus "The CCP Virus," or the "Chinese Communist Party Virus," inviting others to join them, writing, "The name holds the CCP accountable for its wanton disregard of human life and consequent spawning of a pandemic that has put untold numbers in countries around the world at risk, while creating widespread fear and devastating the economies of nations trying to cope with this disease."
During the Aug. 2019 editorial review, The AllSides team found The Epoch Times does not employ much spin, another type of media bias, as evidenced by the paper providing full coverage of Democratic policies and proposals and quoting left-wingers in full in its reporting. For example, an article about 2020 presidential candidate Beto O'Rourke's comments on abortion included the politician's comments in full, not phrases or short snippets. Likewise, AllSides noted that The Epoch Times often quotes President Trump in full and with accuracy, devoting multiple paragraphs to feature his comments in their entirety. This is in stark contrast to many U.S. media outlets, which quote only small portions or phrases of politicians' comments, in order to spin the story in a misleading way. ... The Epoch Times has a self-proclaimed anti-communist bias and stands for traditional values and awareness of virtues.
"We stand against the systematic destruction of traditional culture by destructive ideologies such as communism, which continues to harm societies around the world," according to The Epoch Times "About" page. "We are inspired in this mission by our own experience. The Epoch Times was founded in 2000 to bring honest and uncensored news to people oppressed by the lies and violence of communism. Fulfilling this mission is our passion and our greatest honor."
"Having witnessed events like Tiananmen Square and the persecution of the spiritual group Falun Gong, and at a great risk to themselves and their loved ones, a group of Chinese-Americans started publishing The Epoch Times in Chinese in May 2000 in New York City," its website reads. "Some reporters in China were jailed, and some suffered severe torture. Yet despite the risks, they could see the growing need for uncensored coverage of events in China."
I don't know how this blog comment section got off into a Marian spin. The point of the videos I posted was the seriousness of our time and how possibly apocalyptic events are rapidly unfolding. I heard one very brief inclusion in that homily saying "Our Lady" -- that's probably what has motivated all of this discussion.
Is Mary in Heaven? I guess we'll all find out when we get there ourselves. Logically, looking back at historical Bible records, I note that Enoch, Elijah, and Moses were taken to Heaven and Elijah and Moses met with Jesus in the presence of his disciples.
So, logically, one might assume that if they were there, why wouldn't she be?
Did she die normally? I don't know. But, I'm certain, that whether or not normal death occurred, she certainly would have ascended to Heaven and most certainly I'm certain she would have had a place of great honor.
I'm amazed your found my use of the word "Torah" so offensive. I was referring to the first five books of the Bible as written by Moses. Those first five books of the Bible are commonly referred by by many as "The Torah" and definitely, Jews call it the Torah.
I was steering you to a powerful and valid message. I am not an expert on Fr. Altier. His message for this one particular homily/sermon came highly recommended to me by a most credible source.
There is no question in this video that Fr. Altier told us our faith and trust was not in art works, nor our church but in Jesus Christ alone. I have no idea what he may have said at other times in other places.
Well, RayB, I just listened to the Youtube video of Fr. Altier that I posted and he quite clearly and distinctly said . . . OUR FAITH IS NOT IN ANYTHING BUT THE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST."
What is your quarrel with that? My paternal grandmother was a powerful influence on my life and the most Godly person I have ever known. She was a whole lot like you vis a vis her attitudes towards Catholics. She didn't attend my brother's wedding because he married a Catholic girl in a ceremony that did not include a mass. My grandmother took me aside in her early 90s and said she had something crucial to tell me. She said the Lord had shown her most clearly and distinctly that she was TO REPENT OF HER BIGOTRY TOWARDS CATHOLICS, which she did and advised me she had done so.
Two false gospels, as far as I see it:
1. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be a member of the ABC Church and thou shalt be saved.
2. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be a member of the NBC Church and thou shalt be saved.
ABC = Anything but Catholic NBC = Nothing but Catholic.
BELIEVE ON THE LORD JESUS CHRIST AND THOU SHALT BE SAVED. The profile given in 2d Thessalonians, Chapter 2 as to who was and who was not taken in by the man of perdition was not "Perfect Truth." It was "the love of the truth."
My grandmother never suffered from senility. She was sharp as a tack in her early 90s and she died just a few days short of her 100th birthday. She was looking forward to going to be with the Lord and she used to joke with us that she had been here so long that she was starting to think maybe the Lord forgot she was here.
MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decisions Decision No. Mem 08-76 Docket No. Cum-07-174 O. ARLINE WAECKER v. PAUL FARRAR et al. Submitted on Briefs April 2, 2008 Decided April 22, 2008 Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and CLIFFORD, LEVY, SILVER, MEAD, and GORMAN, JJ. MEMORANDUM OF DECISION Paul Farrar and Andrea Farrar-Zimble appeal from a judgment, entered in the Superior Court (Cumberland County, Delahanty, J.) after a nonjury trial, in which the court found and concluded that O. Arline Waecker had acquired full rights, title, and interest in the paved driveway between the parties’ houses by adverse possession and acquiescence. Contrary to Farrar and Farrar-Zimble’s contentions, there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the court’s factual findings and resulting conclusion that Waecker had acquired the disputed parcel through adverse possession. See Striefel v. Charles-Keyt-Leaman P’ship, 1999 ME 111, ¶¶ 6, 7, 733 A.2d 984, 989. Because we reach this conclusion, we do not address whether the evidence also supported Waecker’s claim that she had established a boundary by acquiescence. The entry is: Judgment affirmed.
Perhaps trying the soft approach first might work.
Letting his Catholic family members know what a little man he has been, showing hate for the past 15 years towards Catholics here. It will be a start to stopping him before other options come in or go out to play.
Wow! The Man of Sin is on the horizon and all the followers of Christ on the comments section seem to be doing is hating and tearing at one another? It seems that the best blogs attract the nastiest and most un-Christian commentators... not to mention that the comments seem to bear little relation to the subject of Constance's post. Can I recommend the daily devotional of that great martyr Richard Wurmbrand. His words are full of true ecumenism and love of Christ in the face of hatred - just what we need at this extraordinary time. Or read the first letter of John...1 Thessalonians 4:18 Wherefore comfort one another with these words.
Your sentiments may provisonally cause me to stay my march to war against paul, yet I doubt he will relent or repent of his hatred and verbal knifing at the hearts of both Catholics and Jews, which he has repeatedly and mercilessly done for 15 years here.
There are seasons and unless Paul is willing to stop his persecution of the Catholic Christian brethren here, then I will not be disuaded from warring against that wicked enemy so as to bring him back to his senses, to repentance and remorse, through correction and reproof, however far that must go.
The onus is on Paul and that son of a failed congressman, Ray B. If Paul, incognito or no, or Ray B. continue their attack then I shall remain on the path to war against the pair of them and their sychophants, come what may! 15 years of it: we are sick to the back teeth of all Paul's and Ray B.'s evil. Enough already!
Either Ray B. and Paul's persecution of Catholics and Jews here stops now, or it is time to move beyond words on this blog to more convincing dissuasion. Enough said!
The source of systemic White supremacy and racism in America has roots in Biblical scriptures and the Christian religion. In the First Epistle of Peter, slaves are admonished to "obey their masters," indicating that slavery was a part of the early church's Christian doctrine.
In the 1452 papal document Dum diversas Pope Nicholas V told King Alfonso of Portugal that when his representatives arrived to their destination, they were to "invade, capture, vanquish, and subdue," "all Saracens, pagans, and other enemies of Christ," "to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery, and take away all their possessions and property." That language marks the beginning of the African slave trade and centuries of systemic White supremacist domination and racist dehumanization toward Black people such as George Floyd, whose recent brutal killing has inspired a global protest against systemic White racism.
When European Christian nations "discovered" the Americas they had a primarily papal developed colonizing legal document, called the Doctrine of Discovery, that claimed that they had a God given, Christian supremacy status that made void some of the most important fundamental human rights of pagan peoples-upon their discovery by Europeans.
At that time the aboriginal peoples had their fundamental human rights to be independent sovereign nations and have domination over their own homelands where they could freely practice their own religions taken from them by the European invaders. These human rights have not yet been returned to the aboriginal people of this land.
The U.S.A. was founded on a bigoted religious principle that was incorporated into law by the Supreme Court Case, Johnson vs Mcintosh (1832). It granted religious favoritism to mostly Christian monotheists (belief in one God, "one nation under God") over the polytheistic (belief in many Gods) aborigines. Colonizing European Christian and Masonic (a multi-religious fraternal organization with a belief in one God) people did not have a right to establish a monotheistic nation in these polytheistic aboriginal people's homeland, now known as America.
It is time for the world community of nations to establish an international criminal court to investigate, prosecute, and try the U.S.A. and the Roman Catholic Church for crimes against humanity.
In the early 19th Century the Roman Catholic Church accepted and publicly acknowledged that the biblical scriptures describing the cosmology of the universe did not present the truth.
When Galileo Galilei and other scientists in the 17th Century presented evidence to the hierarchy of the Catholic Church that proved the biblical scriptures describing the cosmology of the universe and a Church doctrine based on them -- a doctrine that claimed that the earth was located at the center of the universe and was not moving, but standing still -- to be false, the Church refuted the cosmological science of that time and then persecuted Galilei and the other scientists who correctly proclaimed that the earth was moving very fast around the sun.
Then, after the papacy could no longer refute the scientific cosmology that contradicted the biblical cosmology and a Church doctrine based on it and still retain its reputation it repented and put an end to its false, biblical scriptures based, cosmological Church doctrine. This eliminated false doctrine had not been a dogma of the Church, so the papacy claimed the Church could be scientifically proven to be wrong when it comes to doctrines that are not dogmas.
Dogmas are considered by the Catholic Church to be infallible and unchangeable. Therefore, if a modern day scientific discovery were to prove that a dogma, especially the Church's central dogma, to be false and the Church then accepted and publicly acknowledged that the new scientific discovery was true this would officially put an end to the Roman Catholic Church.
If a scientific discovery proves that a doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church is false, as has occurred in the past, the Church understandably does not quickly accept and acknowledge this truth. It cautiously proceeds to examine the evidence and then determines what to do about the situation.
This is what the Roman Catholic Church is now doing in respect to (1.) the scientific discovery of evolution, which unequivocally proved that the central dogma of the Roman Catholic Church is a false doctrine... and (2.) the scientific discoveries found in recent studies on human DNA and the Y chromosome that prove there was never a single couple ("Adam and Eve") whom every human being is a descendant of. And these studies also, consequently, prove that there was never a "Garden of Eden" where the first human ("Adam"), after being tempted by the first woman ("Eve"), committed "original sin."
In other words, today's scientists have discovered evidence that further proves (beyond the discovery of evolution) that the dogma that states that there was an "original sin" by the first human ("Adam") in the "Garden of Eden" -- a sin that caused the "creation to fall into the bondage of corruption" -- is not true. There is a National Geographic YouTube video about these scientific discoveries. It is titled Scientific Adam and Eve | National Geographic.
The rest of this article is located at: http://www.towahkon.org/EvolutionChurch.html
In the First Epistle of Peter, slaves are admonished to "obey their masters," indicating that slavery was a part of the early church's Christian doctrine.
Your conclusion does not follow your premise. Yes, 1 Peter admonishes slaves (servants) to “obey their masters”, but this hardly means slavery was part and parcel of Christian doctrine. If you look at the history of the 1st century, you will find that slavery was already present in the Greco-Roman empire (and others), predating Christianity. Peter’s point was that if one is a slave, then one must not rebel against their masters. This is part of his larger point that we are to submit to earthly ruling, in general. Here’s the full context:
13 Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, 14 or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right. 15 For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men. 16 Act as free men, and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but use it as bondslaves of God. 17 Honor all people, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king.
18 Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and gentle, but also to those who are unreasonable. 19 For this finds favor, if for the sake of conscience toward God a person bears up under sorrows when suffering unjustly. 20 For what credit is there if, when you sin and are harshly treated, you endure it with patience? But if when you do what is right and suffer for it you patiently endure it, this finds favor with God.
Mr. Dahlheimer, please show me how this advocates slavery—especially, as you imply, Christians as slave-masters.
Thanks for clarifying what you meant by “Torah”. I was relatively certain what you meant by the context, and I nearly responded to RayB’s statement questioning your use of the term. But I thought it best to let you set him straight. I’m glad you did.
Some of the most pathetic posting I have ever seen is yours. How small.
Extremely pinched off and hard too.
Is obvious this is a bitterness, not about Paul at all, but about you.
Why don't you trust God to be the judge, since He is and not you? I could not care less about whether what you found necessary to post is even the same person on this blog but regardless, who is revealed before blogworld is you, your shriveled soul.
Is good advice that you get your heart right before the Lord. You are in a critical state.
Once again anyone can easily see how unbalanced your information is. Your attempts at sounding informed and thoughtful fall short, skimming the surface of deep issues of human society through many eras with zero discernment...because...you have your own selfish agenda to promote. You are a slave to misinformation and your own pride.
Thank you so much for your input. Your calmness and wisdom is so welcome right now.
As a Catholic poster here (off and on) for the past 15 years, I would like to go on record here as stating that we Catholics are NOT trying to convert Protestants... but, at least two Protestants, RayB and Paul have been relentless in their attempts to convert us Catholics (e.g. Paul's comment for the past 15 years: "Come out of her...").
If your blog had a Human Resources Department, we would be filing a harassment complaint.
We just want it to STOP!!!
We only got off on the 'Marian spin' after our beliefs in the Immaculate Conception and her Assumption into Heaven (body and soul) were ATTACKED.
We are NOT asking RayB or Paul, etc. to BELIEVE as we do... but, just demanding that they stop attacking OUR RIGHT to believe as we do!!! Ultimately, we are constantly being put in a position of being forced to DEFEND our beliefs on a daily basis... and, my only point is that we should never have to be put in this position!!!
Two of us admonished the Catholic poster from Ireland (right here on this blog). He then apologized for his offensive language... which we ALL agree has no place on this blog.
Meanwhile, thank you for ALL that you do... and have been doing since the early 1980's. I truly believe that the Holy Spirit is working through you and your work... and that God has a special place in Heaven waiting for you.
May God bless you and keep you (and all of us) strong through future world events... and for whatever amount of time we have left on this earth. AMEN.
When harassing or stalking behavior involves the Internet, U.S. mail, or activities that cross state lines, the crime may be charged as a federal offense.
Stalking another person by using the telephone, Internet, or U.S. mail is a felony crime under the criminal law of the United States.
What is Stalking?
Under U.S. federal law, someone commits the felony of stalking if that person:
places another person in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury to him- or herself, his or her immediate family member, or spouse or intimate partner
causes, attempts to cause, or could reasonably be expected to cause substantial emotional distress to the target of their conduct, or
acts with the intent to kill, injure, harass, intimidate, or place the victim under surveillance in order to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate that person.
(18 USC § 2261A.)
In order to violate the federal, as opposed to a state, anti-stalking law, a person must either travel across state lines, into or out of tribal land, or engage in interstate commerce in the commission of the crime. Most people charged with the federal crime of stalking have engaged in interstate commerce by simply using a telephone, the Internet, or the U.S. postal service. The federal anti-stalking law expressly includes the use of an electronic communications system as a means of violating the federal anti-stalking law.
Definitions
Several of the terms used in the federal anti-stalking law have been defined by courts in cases challenging the law.
“Course of conduct”
In general, a single act will not amount to “stalking,” as that term is defined by federal law. Stalking requires a “course of conduct,” which courts have held means a pattern of conduct made up of two or more acts intended to accomplish a particular purpose (such as intimidation).
“Harass”
Courts have defined harassment as it is commonly understood: repeated words, conduct, or action that serve no legitimate purpose and are directed at a specific person to annoy, alarm, or distress that person.
“Substantial emotional distress”
Substantial emotional distress, as that term is used in the federal anti-stalking statute, is mental distress, suffering, or anguish, including depression, shame, humiliation, shock, embarrassment, grief, anxiety, or fear.
Intent
In order to convict a person under the federal anti-stalking statute, a U.S. attorney must prove that a stalking defendant acted with the intent to cause death, injury, fear of injury or death, or substantial emotional distress to the victim. Often, intent is proven by introducing the defendant’s own threatening voicemail messages, emails, texts, and/or Facebook page postings.
State Laws Also Prohibit Stalking
Every state has some version of an anti-stalking law that makes it a crime to engage in the conduct that is prohibited under the federal law. So, if a person stalks another individual but does not do so in a way that falls under the federal law (for example, the stalker does not use the phone, Internet, or mail, and does not travel across state lines to engage in the conduct), that person may still be charged under state anti-stalking law.
How is Stalking Punished?
A person convicted of stalking under federal law faces a possible prison sentence not to exceed five years, a fine not to exceed $250,000, or both. (18 USC § § 2261, 3571.) Where the defendant’s stalking conduct results in the death of or physical injury to another person, a conviction may lead to a sentence of up to life in prison.
Stalking under federal law is a VERY serious crime.
Craig here's my answer to your 9:30 AM question. Wikipedia says at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_slavery#Gospels The prospect of manumission is an idea prevalent within the New Testament. In contrast to the Old Testament, the New Testament's criteria for manumission encompasses Roman laws on slavery as opposed to the shmita system. Manumission within the Roman system largely depends on the mode of enslavement: slaves were often foreigners, prisoners of war, or those heavily indebted. For foreign-born individuals, manumission was increasingly amorphous; however, if subject to debt slavery, manumission was much more concrete: freedom was granted once the debt was paid. Children were often offered to creditors as a form of payment and their manumission was determined ab initio(at the outset) with the pater(family head).[86] This manicipia(enslavement) of children by the pater did not exclude the selling of children into sexual slavery. If sold into sex slavery, the prospect of complete manumission became much less likely under the stipulations of Roman Law. Much like the stipulations of the Covenant Code, being sold into sexual slavery meant greater chance of perpetual servitude, by way of explicit enslavement or forced marriage.
One of the first discussions of manumission in the New Testament can be seen in Paul's interaction with Philemon's slave Onesimus. Onesimus was held captive with Paul, as he was a fugitive, run-away slave. Paul proceeds to baptize the slave Onesimus, and then writes to his owner, Philemon, telling him that he will pay whatever fee Onesimus owes for his fugitive status. Paul does not explicitly ask Philemon for Onesimus's manumission; however, the offer a "fee" for Onesimus's escape has been discussed as a possible latent form of manumission.[115] Paul's treatment of Onesimus additionally brings into question of Roman slavery as a "closed" or "open" slave system. Open slave systems allow for incorporation of freed slaves into society after manumission, while closed systems manumitted slaves still lack social agency or social integration.[115] Roman slavery exhibited characteristics of both, open and closed, systems which further complicates the letter from Paul to Philemon regarding the slave Onesimus.
Unlike some others who resort to continual ad hominem or other ridiculous statements following your posts, I try to treat you fairly by the content of your posts. I also don’t think you’re unintelligent, as some have implied or stated in their ad hominem. I think they are out of line, rude.
With the above preface, I note first of all that you did not answer my question challenging your interpretation of First Peter. Instead you deflected to something else entirely.
Firstly, if you scroll up to the beginning of the section you cited (Gospels), you’ll see that manumission is first to be understood in the larger context of Jesus Christ’s ministry, and how his death is seen as some as manumission. This is why the first section at the page/section you reference speaks of Jesus as being the fulfillment of the “suffering servant” of Isaiah 53:
The Bible claims that Jesus healed the ill slave of a centurion[89] and restored the cut off ear of the high priest's slave.[90] In his parables, Jesus referenced slavery: the prodigal son,[91] ten gold coins,[92] unforgiving tenant,[93] and tenant farmers.[94] Jesus' teaching on slavery was metaphorical: spiritual slavery,[95] a slave having two masters (God and mammon),[96] slavery to God,[97] acting as a slave toward others,[98] and the greatest among his disciples being the least of them.[99] Jesus also taught that he would give burdened and weary laborers rest.[100] The Passion narratives are interpreted by the Catholic church [and other Christian traditions] as a fulfillment of the Suffering Servant songs in Isaiah.[101]
Jesus' view of slavery compares the relationship between God and humankind to that of a master and his slaves…
Jesus came to heal! To free the “slaves”, as outlined above. Not to enslave.
More importantly, in the portion you cite, it’s clear that NT writers were working within the Roman system that they themselves were under (“In contrast to the Old Testament, the New Testament's criteria for manumission encompasses Roman laws on slavery as opposed to the shmita system”). It’s not as though Christians could adopt their own slavery doctrine, thus superseding Roman authority.
Thus, I stand by my challenge to show my how First Peter, or any portion of the NT, specifically supports enslaving others in accordance with some sort of Christian doctrine. I’ll save you time. You cannot.
Now, that’s not to say some have not—to their shame—tried to make the Bible say it affirms slavery. Again: It doesn’t.
I'm amazed your found my use of the word "Torah" so offensive. I was referring to the first five books of the Bible as written by Moses. Those first five books of the Bible are commonly referred by by many as "The Torah" and definitely, Jews call it the Torah.
Are you anti-Semitic?
Constance
Dear Constance,
With all due respect, I was not referring to the "word" Torah, I was referring to the ambiguous meaning of what the Torah entails. THAT is why I provided this descriptive analysis of what is referred to as the "Torah:"
"Torah (/ˈtɔːrə, ˈtoʊrə/; Hebrew: תּוֹרָה, "Instruction", "Teaching" or "Law") has a range of meanings. It can most specifically mean the first five books (Pentateuch or five books of Moses) of the 24 books of the Hebrew Bible. This is commonly known as the Written Torah. It can also mean the continued narrative from all the 24 books, from the Book of Genesis to the end of the Tanakh (Chronicles), and it can even mean the totality of Jewish teaching, culture, and practice, whether derived from biblical texts or later rabbinic writings. This is often known as the Oral Torah.[1] Common to all these meanings, Torah consists of the origin of Jewish peoplehood: their call into being by God, their trials and tribulations, and their covenant with their God, which involves following a way of life embodied in a set of moral and religious obligations and civil laws (halakha)."
NOTE: The point I was making is that the Torah is NOT the Word of God. While it does contain books of the Bible, it also contains extra Biblical "traditons," writings, oral accounts, etc. of Rabbis throughout history. If you want to consider that as an authoritative source equal to the Bible, you have that right.
How you interpret what I wrote as something that portrays myself as an "anti-Semitic" is WAY beyond my ability to understand. Now along with everything else that has been thrown at me, you've just added to the fodder by accusing me of that, and, with no basis whatsoever.
But then again, I was accused by "Dorothy" of being an "anti-Semite" for copying and pasting, word for word, the words of Jesus Christ in a passage from John 8.
With as much respect as I can muster, if you look at Constance's initial comment in its larger context, I think it pretty clear what she meant at the time she posted her comment. That is, the Ten Commandments are in the Torah--understood in its most basic sense (the Pentateuch)--yet the Torah itself supports the idea of making images. THAT was her point!
It seems you wished to equivocate on the term (Torah) so that you could unfairly malign her--rather than just giving her the benefit of doubt as to what she might have meant.
1. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be a member of the ABC Church and thou shalt be saved.
2. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be a member of the NBC Church and thou shalt be saved.
ABC = Anything but Catholic NBC = Nothing but Catholic.
Dear Constance,
Just a couple of comments regarding your post above.
First, the RCC actually does state in the Council of Trent that there is NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. It is VERY IMPORTANT to note that he Council of Trent has never been rescinded. In fact, it was accepted in its entirety by both Vatican I and Vatican II. Regardless of what many may say or think, the Council of Trent remains the Official teachings of the RCC.
While many modern Catholics may reject such teachings, many "traditional" Catholics do in fact believe, and declare, that salvation cannot be obtained OUTSIDE the RCC. Michael Voris of Church Militant is an example of one holding to this view. He claims without the "Eucharist" and the "Sacraments" of the RCC, salvation is not possible. He has stated on a number of occasions that "all of the Reformers" are burning right now in eternal Hell. By extension, he must also believe that all that reject Catholicism are going there as well. He is in fact correctly declaring the Official teachings of his church.
Second, your ABC (Anything But Catholic) is based upon a completely false analogy. By making this accusation, you are saying that those that do not accept Catholicism are driven by BIGOTRY, and not by their convictions that are based upon the Scriptures. You are also implying that "EVERYTHING" is acceptable to us as long as it isn't Catholic, even lies, and that would encompass, by implication, our "acceptance" of ALL of the CULTS such as Mormonism, Jehovah Witnesses, Islam, etc., etc. because the Cults also reject Catholicism. That is about as far from the truth as one can get.
Constance, why not just stand on the firm foundation of God's Word? Do you believe it to be the final authority, or not?
As far as your reference to "believing .... and thou shalt be saved." Do you believe that the "Christ" of Mormonism, for example, is the same "Christ" of the Scriptures? Do you believe the "Christ" of Jehovah Witnesses is the same "Christ?" If you ever talk to these people, you will find they all "believe" in Him, yet, the PERSON behind the name is far different from the true Christ of the Scriptures.
The "Christ" of the RCC is one that has not paid the price for sin, as evidenced by their doctrines of the Sacrifice of the Mass and Purgatory. Incidentally, the rejection by a Catholic of ANY official teachings of the Catholic church constitutes MORTAL SIN, which means, eternal damnation. Does that sound to you like the Christ of the Bible?
Did Christ pay for all sins for believers, or, did He not? What say you Constance?
Did Enoch die, or did he go immediately to heaven? What about the prophet Elijah? Was he taken to heaven? Why did Jesus say no one had gone to heaven?
The stories of Enoch and Elijah are fascinating, and the biblical descriptions of the end of their time here are particularly mysterious.
What does it mean that Enoch was “translated”?
Based on Hebrews 11:5 (King James Version), which says, “By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death,” some believe that Enoch never died and was taken to heaven. The New King James Version states that “Enoch was taken away.”
The phrases “translated” or “taken away” come from the Greek word metatithemi, which means “to transfer to another place” (Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, 1997, “Translate, Translation”).
The verse continues by stating that Enoch “was not found.” This is a reference to Genesis 5:24: “He [Enoch] was not, for God took him.” So, it seems that God took Enoch from where he was and from a situation in which he likely would have seen death. But, after he was transferred to another place, Enoch died and ceased to be. Genesis 5:23 says that “all the days of Enoch were three hundred and sixty-five years.”
We also know that Enoch died from the statement found in Hebrews 11:13: “These all died in the faith, not having received the promises.” Therefore, Enoch is buried somewhere on the earth awaiting the resurrection at Jesus Christ’s return (1 Corinthians 15:52; 1 Thessalonians 4:16). Enoch is not alive in heaven.
What about Elijah?
Now, what happened to Elijah? In 2 Kings 2:11 we are told plainly that a chariot of fire appeared with horses of fire, and that Elijah “went up by a whirlwind into heaven.”
So did Elijah actually go to the heaven of God’s throne? We have to realize that the Scriptures speak of three heavens:
The first is the atmosphere of the earth, where the clouds are (Genesis 1:8).
The second is what we call “space” where the planets and stars are found (Genesis 15:5).
And the third is the location of God’s throne (2 Corinthians 12:2).
Actually, the prophet Elijah did not die at that time, nor did he go to God’s throne. The chariot must have entered the first heaven or the atmosphere and transferred him to another place, since Elijah wrote a letter many years later! Actually, the prophet Elijah did not die at that time, nor did he go to God’s throne. The chariot must have entered the first heaven or the atmosphere and transferred him to another place, since Elijah wrote a letter many years later! See 2 Chronicles 21:12-15.
An important point to consider is that the Bible clearly teaches us that “no one has ascended to heaven” (John 3:13). Acts 2:29 and 34 emphasize this fact as well. When the apostle Peter gave this sermon, righteous King David was still in his grave about 1,000 years after his death.
Based on the biblical evidence, Enoch and Elijah died, as do we all (Hebrews 9:27). Enoch and Elijah are still in their graves, somewhere on this earth, waiting for the resurrection of the just at Christ’s return; and neither was transferred up into the third heaven of God’s throne.
Did the Disciples See the Real Moses and Elijah (Matthew 17:3)?
Matthew, Mark, and Luke each record an account of the transfiguration of Jesus (Matthew 17:1-9; Mark 9:2-10; Luke 9:28-36). Notice Christ's instructions to the disciples as they descended the mountain: "Tell the vision to no one" (Matthew 17:9). A vision is not a material reality; it is a supernatural scene observed in the "mind's eye."
Moses was dead and buried long before this event (Deuteronomy 34:5-6), as was Elijah. The disciples saw these men only in the glory of the resurrection—an event which will not actually occur until the Second Coming of Christ (Hebrews 11:39; I Corinthians 15:51-52; I Thessalonians 4:13-17). So, the three disciples seeing Moses and Elijah in the transfiguration did not see ghosts or spirit beings of any kind but a vision of how they would look—glorified—in the resurrection.
The account of the transfiguration in Matthew 17 also explains Matthew 16:28: "Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste of death till they see the Son of man coming in His kingdom." Since God's Kingdom has not yet been established here on earth and the disciples all died, the obvious meaning is that some of the disciples were to be shown the splendor of the Kingdom in a vision. And so they were, through the transfiguration.
Grandma was sharp as a tack with a near photographic memory right up until her very final days.
Constance
We should be so fortunate !
Just out of curiosity, did your Grandma watch much TV?
I have found that older people that remain "sharp as a tack" do not waste time watching TV. I have read that the constant flashing of the TV screen actually puts people into a passive psychological state, and, contributes to the destruction of brain cells. I tend to believe that.
Interesting exegesis Anon 1:42-43 PM. How does square with the explicit words of Heb 11:5?
5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God (KJV).
Part of this is based on your understanding of John 3:13. Yet there are different interpretations.
Anonymous 7:36 Maybe you should tone down your threats.
This is from the book A Woman Rides the Beast, by Dave Hunt
The Slaughter of the Serbs: Unlike the Germans, who were interested only in the quickest and most efficient means of mass extermination, the Catholic Ustashi, with priests and bishops participating and giving their blessing, took great pleasure from torturing before killing. Franciscan monks in particular joined Ustashi battalions. Most of their victims were not shot, but were strangled, drowned, burned or stabbed to death. Serbs were herded into Orthodox churches by Ustashi, (as the Crusaders had done with Jews in an earlier age), who then barred the doors and torched the timbers. One captured photograph shows Ustashi smiling for the cameras before a table displaying a Serbian businessman whom they had castrated, disemboweled, carved with knives and burned beyond recognition. Estimates of the number of victims exceed a million. Yugoslavia in it's war crimes trials estimated that from 700,000 to 900,000 victims were tortured and put to death...in the two dozen concentration camps within Croatia, and tens of thousands never reached the camps. Many were Jews but most were Serbians of Orthodox faith who were given the choice of Roman Catholicism or death.
When RayB DARES to make many such OUTRAGEOUS statements like this one (see below)... he loses ALL credibility!!! (Would RayB DARE to confront Jesus Himself on Judgement Day with such a slanderous statement of HERESY such as this???)
RayB said at 1:29 PM today June 30, 2020 . . . "The 'Christ' of the RCC is one that has not paid the price for sin, as evidenced by their doctrines of the Sacrifice of the Mass and Purgatory."
As a Catholic, I want to go on record here as saying that NO ONE should ever be THREATENED on this blog... not towards Paul (as in the post directed at him @ 7:36 AM)... or anyone else on this blog -- EVER!!! This is unacceptable behavior.
Then there's the co authors of the book The Unholy Trinity; Mark Aarons and John Loftus, after sifting through thousands of hitherto secret documents which had been in underground vaults in Suitland, Maryland and found decades after the war:
"Under the direction of Pope Pius the XII, Vatican officials such as Monsignor Giovanni Montini (Later Pope Paul VI) supervised one of the greatest obstructions of justice in modern history...facilitating the escape of tens of thousands of Nazi war criminals to the West, where they were supposed to be trained as "Freedom Fighters"...as well as Central European Fascist war criminals from Russia, Byelorussia and the Ukraine"
A large number of them were Roman Catholic clergy, from priests to archbishops.
Maybe I should just confine my quotes to Vatican Officials:
"It is evident from experience that the Holy Scriptures, when circulated in the vulgar tongue, have produced more harm than benefit [paraphrasing Trent] we have deliberated upon the measures proper to be adopted, by our pontifical authority, in order to remedy and abolish this pestilence...this defilement of the faith so imminently dangerous to souls." _Pope Pius VII encyclical letter of 1816 addressed to the primate of Poland
If your sins are covered by the shed blood of Christ upon the cross, why is he sacrificed again and again and again via the Sacrifice of the Mass?
If your sins are covered by the shed blood of Christ upon the cross, why is it necessary for you to spend an "indeterminate" amount of time in Purgatory?
Enoch is included by Paul (in Hebrews 11) among the fathers who obtained a good report through faith; but “these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise” (Heb. 11:39). What promise? The “hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began” (Titus 1:2).
So Enoch therefore is one of “these all” who have not yet obtained the promise of eternal life and inheritance. Enoch and all the worthies of old will receive the promise of eternal life at the return of Christ, the same time Christians obtain it (Heb. 11:40). That is yet future!
Since Enoch has not yet inherited eternal life he must be dead! This is exactly what Paul writes in Hebrews 11:13. Paul says Enoch died! Notice it. “These all died in faith, not having received the promises.” Who were these “all”?
Paul tells us: Abel, Enoch, Noah, and the patriarchs and their wives. Hebrews 11:1-12 lists those who had faith and Enoch is included among them. Then in verse 13 Paul proved that they had not inherited the promises by saying: “These all [including Enoch] died in faith.”
But what about Paul’s saying that Enoch “should not see death”?
Which Death Did Enoch Escape?
Enoch lived only three hundred sixty-five years. Then what could Paul possibly have meant by saying: “By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found because God had translated him”? This verse nowhere says that Enoch did not die. Rather, it says that Enoch “should not see death.” But what does it mean?
Remember, there is more than one death mentioned in the Bible. There is a first death, and there is a second death (Rev. 20:6).
Which death did Paul mean? The first death is appointed unto men (Heb. 9:27). That death cannot be humanly evaded. It is inevitable. That death Enoch died, as we have already proved.
But Paul was not writing about that death. The phrase “should not see” is in the conditional tense of the verb, having reference to a future event. It is not in the past tense, that he “did not see” death — but that he “should not see death.” So this death that Enoch escaped by being translated is one that he can escape in the future on certain conditions!
Did Jesus ever speak of a death that might be escaped? He certainly did! In John 8:51 Jesus said, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death” — shall never see — that is, suffer — the second death! And again in John 11:26, “Whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die” — or “shall not die forever.”
This death is one that can be escaped on condition that men keep the saying of Jesus and believe Him. This death is not the first death, because Christians who keep Jesus’ sayings die this first death. Then the death which Enoch should escape must be the second death which will never touch those who are in the first resurrection (Rev. 20:6). And Enoch will be in the first resurrection because he met the conditions!
Enoch had faith. He believed God and walked with God, obeying Him. In keeping the sayings of God, Enoch kept the sayings of Jesus too; because Jesus did not speak of Himself, but spoke what the Father commanded Him (John 14:10).
Thus Enoch met the conditions so that he should not see death. The second death shall never touch Enoch, because of his faith and obedience.
Two Translations
Now we can understand Hebrews 11:5: “By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.”
This verse plainly mentions two translations.
Examining this verse fact by fact, we notice that Enoch had faith and was translated. This translation — removal, transference — was on condition of faith. Now what translation mentioned in the Bible is on condition of faith? Why, the one we read about in Colossians 1:13. The Father “hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son.”
This is a figurative translation — a figurative removal or transference from the spiritual darkness of this world to the light of the family or Kingdom of God and Christ. In verse 10 Paul shows that to abide in this Kingdom we must “walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing.” This is exactly what Enoch did. He walked with God, and pleased God.
Then Enoch, the same as Christians, was delivered from the power of sin and darkness in which he had been living for sixty-five years. He was removed (translated) from the ways of the world and lived three hundred years according to God’s ways so that he might inherit eternal life at Christ’s return, and should not suffer the second death.
By faith Enoch was separated — removed or translated — from the world, the same as Christians who are not to be a part of the world, although living in the world.
Not only was Enoch figuratively taken from the society of his day, but he was also literally removed — translated — so that he was not found.
God took him physically away from the people, just as He later took Moses. And God buried each so well that neither has ever been found since!
You’re swallowing the camel. It is obvious to any reader here that Constance’s ABC – NBC illustration centers on Christians, as understood as any partakers in the back-and-forth exchange. Your attempts to expand it to include Mormons and JWs smacks of looking for a ‘gotcha’. She should not have to spell out her comments to your satisfaction.
Obviously, Constance does not adhere to the Council of Trent. A staunch Catholic would, but a staunch Protestant would reject it in favor of his/her own belief to include the concurring belief that the RCC system is faulty to the extent of denying true salvation to its own adherents. Thus, the two are completely irreconcilable. Cumbey believes in a softer stance for each ‘side’.
Whether you like it or not, Constance’s stance IS HER STANCE. And she has every right to it, while you have NO RIGHT to impose your standards on her.
"The onus is on Paul and that son of a failed congressman, Ray B. If Paul, incognito or no, or Ray B. continue their attack then I shall remain on the path to war against the pair of them and their sychophants, come what may!"
"Either Ray B. and Paul's persecution of Catholics and Jews here stops now, or it is time to move beyond words on this blog to more convincing dissuasion. Enough said!"
Dear Constance,
This poster should not be banned. He is not completely over the top. He isn't vulgar, angry and never resorts to personal threats.
Whether you like it or not, Constance’s stance IS HER STANCE. And she has every right to it, while you have NO RIGHT to impose your standards on her.
Craig,
She can believe whatever she wants. She has that right. I also have the right (this is a blog isn't it?) to state my views, do I not?
Are you saying that "HER STANCE" cannot be questioned or examined?
Are you claiming that mere questioning or stating an opposing position is somehow "imposing" personal standards upon her, or, anyone else for that matter?
What exactly are you saying Craig? Should we only post when we are in complete agreement with others? Is that what you are saying?
With respect, right from the beginning of your first comment you go awry:
Enoch is included by Paul (in Hebrews 11) among the fathers who obtained a good report through faith; but “these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise” (Heb. 11:39). What promise? The “hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began” (Titus 1:2).
Why do you jump from Hebrews to Titus, when the answer is found in the very next verse in Hebrews (11:40):
God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect (KJV).
The “promise” was the MESSIAH! Thus, this must not necessarily mean those listed did not attain to eternal life in some fashion. The Jewish belief in “Abraham’s bosom” is implied in Jesus’ words in Luke 16:19-31.
RayB's pride and arrogance has only succeeded in clouding his judgement. (Until recently, few have dared to challenge him.)
While we ALL certainly have a right to our beliefs... no one has the right to openly trash and completely disrespect the beliefs of others on this blog... or, to make it a daily 'game of sport' to constantly provoke others... just to satisfy his own ego.
And, for RayB to keep confronting Constance... is the height of ARROGANCE and disrespect on his part.
Once again, you wish to put words in another's mouth, as evidenced by your ridiculous straw man: Should we only post when we are in complete agreement with others? Is that what you are saying? Just like you posted your own straw man in reference to Constance’s ABC – NBC stance (the bit about Mormons and JWs, etc.). This is not an infrequent tactic of yours. It’s not very difficult to tear down one’s own straw man version of another’s words, is it?
You are trying to impose your standards of what is acceptable discourse on someone else’s blog—Constance’s. Out of respect, you should either accept the parameters set forth by her NBC – ABC analogy (and accept that no analogy is perfect) or you should remove yourself from these types of conversations. Why not start your own blog and post exactly how you wish?
Your insistence of continuing to question Constance after she had just explained what she meant by her use of “Torah” is the height of hubris, as per the evidence here in your 12:57 PM comment above:
NOTE: The point I was making is that the Torah is NOT the Word of God. While it does contain books of the Bible, it also contains extra Biblical "traditons," writings, oral accounts, etc. of Rabbis throughout history. If you want to consider that as an authoritative source equal to the Bible, you have that right.
All you did, essentially, was repeat the same thing in your previous comment (in the first 200 @ 12:54 PM):
NOTE: Constance, I find it rather interesting that you would refer to the "Torah," and not the Bible in your comment. Here is the definition of what the Torah is ... hardly the rock solid foundation of God's all authoritative Word:
And this is AFTER she had already clarified her meaning to you!
"You are trying to impose your standards of what is acceptable discourse on someone else’s blog—Constance’s. Out of respect, you should either accept the parameters set forth by her NBC – ABC analogy (and accept that no analogy is perfect) or you should remove yourself from these types of conversations."
NOTE: interpretation; either agree with someone "out of respect" and either accept the analogy, or SHUT UP. So I take it, Craig, that anything and everything that Constance posts, should never be "out of respect" challenged ? REALLY ?
I felt that I must comment about the strife on this blogspot.
It is needless.
It is simple to stop.
All that is necessary is to:
a) Avoid posting insulting comments.
As examples this includes such things as "Come out of her my people" or "I can't believe their members are so gullible that..." etc. etc. etc!
Why? Well, let's say for the sake of argument that when someone might say it, the basis of that comment was true, whether it was (so to speak) for followers of this, that, or the other organization or belief system. These people are acting according to the best of their understanding and belief and when they are hit with being 'painted' with what amounts to saying to them "You're not good enough", it is way too much, way too fast.
There's a time and a place for everything and this blogspot is not the place for it. Nor in this same vein of course has it been the place for the more directly stated insults.
Sorry.
b) Avoid assuming insulting comments.
Example:
Anonymous said...
LIFE SITE NEWS
6/26/2020
Anglican archbishop of Canterbury: Statues 'will have to come down…names will have to change'
UN secretary general calls for "global governance" with ‘teeth’
US Catholic charity CEO: Catholic Church is racist because Jesus was 'white'
https://censored.news/LifeSiteNews.htm
6:17 PM
Anonymous said...
The ANTI-Catholics just can't get ENOUGH of our Catholic Church.
Copy & paste; copy & paste; copy & paste.
OBSESSION; OBSESSION; OBSESSION.
(It must be because their church is so BORING, BORING, BORING!!!)
7:25 PM
There we see three comments precisely one of which had to do Catholicism and even that was not in and of itself critical of the Catholic church but about what a CEO was going around claiming. (And all three from a Catholic website to boot!)
And dissections of doctrines and/or beliefs are just that. Dissections of doctrines and/or beliefs.
They are not "attacks".
If an understanding about Christianity can be improved by examination of the pros and cons in this position or that in doctrines and beliefs, all benefit! A denomination is not automatically destroyed if it should modify its official position(s) after gaining a better understanding, you know, so doctrinal or belief system points to ponder aren't lethal "attacks" on the institution which may at that time have them or its members hold to them but they are simply the intellectual examinations of theological issues.
Precisely another STRAW MAN: NOTE: interpretation; either agree with someone "out of respect" and either accept the analogy, or SHUT UP. So I take it, Craig, that anything and everything that Constance posts, should never be "out of respect" challenged?
How about within the scope of BLOG COMMENTING rather than "anything and everything".
Craig just loves to label ANY disagreement with him as either a "straw man" or an "ad hominem" tactic.
By doing this, he avoids any kind of meaningful debate.
Then he loves to end with snide remarks like "you really take the cake."
You showed your REAL colors, Craig, way back when. I was arguing FOR the Trinity doctrine based upon Bible verses, when I used the verse fromI John 5:7, which reads;
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
YOUR ONLY "contribution" to the debate, in TYPICAL "Craig" fashion, was to jump in and state (erroneously) "that verse does not belong in the Bible."
My entire defense of the Trinity suddenly took a different turn ... all because Craig just couldn't resist throwing in his "intellectual" 2 cents worth.
"The passage first appeared as an addition to the Vulgate, the Ecclesiastical Latin translation of the Bible, and entered the Greek manuscript tradition in the 15th century.[2] It does not appear in the oldest Latin manuscripts, and appears to have originated as a gloss around the end of the 4th century.[3] Some scribes gradually incorporated this annotation into the main text over the course of the Middle Ages.
"The first Greek manuscript of the New Testament that contains the comma dates from the 15th century."
Like Constance, Craig is a TRUE Christian (in the purest sense of the word) who shows love, wisdom, understanding and fairness toward ALL Christians (both Catholics and Protestants).
It's really a shame that you can't LEARN from their examples, RayB and Paul.
Lessons such as: "Love thy neighbor as thyself"... and "Judge not lest ye be judged".
1:55 PM is just another example of RayB's way to "dialogue". He asks questions then leaves the impression that one is saying/doing what he suspects/thinks is a wrong thing (according to him). He does that in question form but he means them as statements (against someone) because that comes back to bite later and the conversation is hijacked by him at that juncture. The dialogue nosedives at that point. Sorry, but that is too direct, too confrontational, RayB. Though we may often agree doctrinally I have called you out for your tone and tactics before when you and I basically agreed yet because I worded something differently than you then somehow my answers or thoughts on a subject were scrutinized unduly by you to become something other than what I actually said or definitely implied, so can't even agree when there is opportunity to do it! That is unnecessarily antagonistic and why you create more misunderstanding than you create understanding. I hope you hear what I am saying and with the intent I am trying to convey. Please reconsider the approach you take here.
Innuendo and/or manipulation of dialogue sends conversation sideways, and into a ditch. If someone is straightforward but not a display that personally sends a malicious intent, then we can give the benefit of the doubt, can't we? Agree to disagree, then, what is so wrong with that? Some others here also need to do a reconsideration of their posting as well.
I need this myself. from 1 Corinthians 13: If I speak in the tongues[a] of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast,[b] but do not have love, I gain nothing.
Whether one is for or against Catholic doctrine the wider or more pressing issue is the riseing attacks upon all things considered as Christain. Those indulgeing in anti Christian sentiment and hatred draw no distinction in regard to denominational or doctrinal differences.
What exactly did you find so offensive about the post I made at 1:55 PM ? Perhaps you are an avid TV watcher ... I hope I didn't offend YOU by my grossly insensitive comments ! LOL
Constance Cumbey said to RayB @ 2:48 AM:
Grandma was sharp as a tack with a near photographic memory right up until her very final days.
Constance
NOTE: Here is my response to Constance:
We should be so fortunate !
Just out of curiosity, did your Grandma watch much TV?
I have found that older people that remain "sharp as a tack" do not waste time watching TV. I have read that the constant flashing of the TV screen actually puts people into a passive psychological state, and, contributes to the destruction of brain cells. I tend to believe that.
1:55 PM
NOTE: Things are really starting to get strange on this Blog. People are so incredibly sensitive that you can't even say anything anymore without someone taking offense.
Yes RayB, strangely, you just had to go there to speculate about little Grandma whom you didn't know and make a rather stupid remark to cast some type of refute to Constance. I have not watched TV for years but what on earth is that to you if either I, her Grandma, did?
It shows, once again, how judgmental you really are. You come across as very arrogant.
By the way, RAYB...You didn't have to repeat your comment to Constance. It was stupid enough the first time...
When will you get a clue? You don't know any of us but you think yourself some kind of expert to speculate or to attempt to read our minds, reading in what we don't say or putting your spin on what we do. It is strange that you can't hear the very loud clanging coming from your posts.
It would be a shame, RayB, if you never turn from your (all-too-often) sourly judgmental and closed-minded attitude because you would have much to offer. I never thanked you for your mentions of how a plant-based diet helped you and can really help turn our health around for the better, but I will now. Thank you! It was an inspiring story.
A segment of an article of mine is present below. http://www.towahkon.org/EvolutionChurch.html
The Roman Catholic Church’s vetted and canonized St. Basil the Great (330-379) wrote: “…it is customary for vultures to feed on corpses, but since there were not yet [before Adam’s sin], corpses, nor yet their stench, so there was not yet such food for vultures. But all [beasts] followed the diet of swans and all grazed the meadows…none of the beasts were carnivores…such was the first creation [Gn 1:3], and such will be the restoration [RV. 21:1-4] after this.”
Every human being on earth today is a Homo sapiens. We are Homo sapiens who originated in Africa between 200,000 – 300,000 years ago. If there had actually been a “Garden of Eden” where a single couple (“Adam and Eve”) lived, it would had to have been divinely created on earth HUNDREDS Of THOUSANDS of years ago in Africa, and HUNDREDS Of MILLIONS of years of animal evolution would have already taken place.
Those hundreds of millions of years of animal evolution that occurred before we Homo sapiens came into existence were very corrupt. They were corrupted by a lot of animal deaths (making available many corpses for “vultures” to eat), sickening deadly diseases and devastating natural catastrophes. There were several mass extinctions of animals. Many vicious carnivorous animals existed. Every animal eventually died, often in a violent and cruel way. It was a brutal “survival of the fits” world then, as it still is today.
The creation was never “good” or “very good,” as falsely claimed in Genesis by the Old Testament “God” Yahweh, and, therefore, neither was the creation ever “pure,” as falsely claimed by the Roman Catholic Church. The creation cannot be "restored to the purity of its origins" [which is the Catholic church's central dogma] because it was not pure at the time of its origins, and therefore neither can, nor will, the earth be "restored to the purity of its origins," and consequently there will never be a "new earth," nor will the "just" be resurrected and live forever, "world without end" on the falsely prophesied future "new earth."
There is a recently written [open letter] statement by Archbishop Vigano to President Trump that was presented on the Fox News, Lou Dobbs Tonight show. It reads: "[It] is disconcerting that there are Bishops...who, by their words, prove that they are aligned on the opposing side [of righteousness]. They are subservient to the deep state, to globalism, to aligned thought, to the New World Order which they invoke ever more frequently in the name of a universal brotherhood which has nothing Christian about it, but which evokes the Masonic ideals of those who want to dominate the world by driving God out of the courts, out of the schools, out of families, and perhaps even out of the churches."
Vigano also wrote that the members of the "new church" or "parallel church" believe there are two Gods, so the "new church" people, according to Vigano, are not traditional Christians or monotheists who believe in American's declaration of civil and religious belief, as professed in these religious and patriotic words: "We, the people of the U.S.A., are one nation under God." Nor do the polytheistic (belief in many or more than one God) "new church" people (who believe in two Gods) want America's monotheistic "God" in this land's courts, schools, families, nor even in the churches.
Hundreds of George W. Bush administration officials to back Biden
https://news.trust.org/item/20200701081455-fu26q
Is this not ALL the proof we need that the only time a President of the United States will ever get 'a fair shake' by the press will be if he is a 'globalist' president (like Bush #41 & #43, Obama, Biden, Clinton)?
This article was first published back in February, but is making the rounds now. I fear it will stoke further violence against Whites and Christians:
Lynching preachers: How black pastors resisted Jim Crow and white pastors incited racial violence https://theconversation.com/lynching-preachers-how-black-pastors-resisted-jim-crow-and-white-pastors-incited-racial-violence-129963#comment_2144066
“White lynch mobs in America murdered at least 4,467 people between 1883 and 1941, hanging, burning, dismembering, garroting and blowtorching their victims.
“Their violence was widespread but not indiscriminate: About 3,300 of the lynched were black, according to the most recent count by sociologists Charles Seguin and David Rigby. The remaining dead were white, Mexican, of Mexican descent, Native American, Chinese or Japanese.
“Such numbers, based on verifiable newspaper reports, represent a minimum. The full human toll of racial lynching may remain ever beyond reach.”
To put this in perspective, the period of time for these 4467 lynchings is 58 years, yet more Black on Black murders occur in 10 years in Chicago alone. That’s not to minimize the horrors of these lynchings of course.
The title of the article suggests all lynchings were led by White pastors, even though the (Black) author presents no such evidence for this. Though apparently some were, it doesn’t appear ALL were.
"Thank you for your kind words. I deleted all posts that I found using the "f___" word. BUT I'M GLAD TO HEAR THAT THE POSTER IS OTHERWISE NOT HOSTILE." (block letters used for emphasis)
NOTE: Here is just a sampling of Constance's non "hostile" Catholic poster (from the posts that I copied, and she deleted, because they contained the "F" word):
"Paul is an awful brainless numbskull. We know where your homosexual lodger's lair is paul ... "
"Take care now, you proddy c***! Tempting to come and find you and give you a taste of the RA, you mouthy little murderous Protestant c***! Now get to f***, if you know what is good for you, you closeted proddy queer!"
"Don't f*** with the Irish! " 1:59 PM
"Now do you get we Catholics are sick and tired after 15 years of your s***, you mouthy proddy orange bas****, paul. Now get to f***, you protestant scum." 2:08 PM
"... paul. I know where in Portland Maine you are.
"I am not an idiot posting here, so you should realise I am f******* tired, you heathen orange filth!" 2:20 PM
"The persecution of the Church has been sadly borne out here for 15 long years now by child murderer supporting Calvinist heretics, such as paul, Ray B and your loveless pompous self." 4:22 AM
"The onus is on Paul and that son of a failed congressman, Ray B. If Paul, incognito or no, or Ray B. continue their attack then I shall remain on the path to war against the pair of them and their sychophants, come what may! 15 years of it: we are sick to the back teeth of all Paul's and Ray B.'s evil. Enough already!"
"Either Ray B. and Paul's persecution of Catholics and Jews here stops now, or it is time to move beyond words on this blog to more convincing dissuasion. Enough said!" 7:36 AM
NOTE: "glad to 'hear' that the poster is otherwise not hostile." LOL !!!
While Constance somehow passes over all of the hostility, etc. as illustrated above, she asks me: "Are you anti-Semitic?" because I challenged her use of the Torah as an authoritative source, rather than the Bible.
Here is my original post, that prompted her asking her "anti-Semitic" question. Notice that I provided the JEWISH definition of what the Torah actually is, not what "Craig" and Constance THINKS it is:
Constance Cumbey, @ 4:38 AM said this (in part) in an obvious defense of the Roman Catholic practice of making images in violation to * Exodus 20:4:
"Vis a vis the subject of images, I note that although the TORAH forbade images, nevertheless, the Jews were ordered by God to make images of Cherubim and Seraphim angelic beings."
NOTE: Constance, I find it rather interesting that you would refer to the "Torah," and not the Bible in your comment. Here is the definition of what the Torah is ... hardly the rock solid foundation of God's all authoritative Word:
"Torah (/ˈtɔːrə, ˈtoʊrə/; Hebrew: תּוֹרָה, "Instruction", "Teaching" or "Law") has a range of meanings. It can most specifically mean the first five books (Pentateuch or five books of Moses) of the 24 books of the Hebrew Bible. This is commonly known as the Written Torah. It can also mean the continued narrative from all the 24 books, from the Book of Genesis to the end of the Tanakh (Chronicles), and it can even mean the totality of Jewish teaching, culture, and practice, whether derived from biblical texts or later rabbinic writings. This is often known as the Oral Torah.[1] Common to all these meanings, Torah consists of the origin of Jewish peoplehood: their call into being by God, their trials and tribulations, and their covenant with their God, which involves following a way of life embodied in a set of moral and religious obligations and civil laws (halakha)."
* "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth." Exodus 20:4
NOTE: WHY did Constance NOT refer to God's Word while making her defense for the Catholic use of statues and images?
Could it be because the Bible is in direct conflict with her Catholic supporting position, while the "Torah" is an ambiguous, non-authoritative, predominantly un-Scriptural source, with equally ambiguous oral and written declarations by Jewish Rabbis?
Two of us, who are regular Catholic posters here, have ALREADY admonished that particular Catholic poster for his offensive language (who, unfortunately, had reached his 'breaking point' with both you and Paul). Why don't you copy and paste OUR comments?
Also, Constance has already addressed this.
So, your obvious goal and agenda here is to further INFLAME and 'stir the pot'... and for what purpose???
Sorry... but your copying and pasting comments from that particular exasperated Catholic, doesn't even come close to ERASING 15 long years of DAILY Catholic bashing VENOM that we have had to endure from you and Paul!!!
Question: Did Jesus come to bring unity and peace to the world? Or, was He knowingly bringing division because He knew that the TRUTH will always cause DIVISION:
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."
"For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law."
"And a man's foes shall be they of his own household." Matthew 10:34-36
NOTE that the word "sword" is used in Scripture in reference to His Word:
"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." Hebrews 4:12
Jesus was prophesied to be an instrument of great division among sinful men:
"And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him."
"And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ."
"And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary his mother, Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against;" Luke 2: 25, 26, 34
NOTE: the TRUTH is not a uniter, it is a DIVIDER. Christ did NOT come to bring unison, but rather, division, because "I am the way, the TRUTH, and the life ..." John 14:6 If you think you have Christ without HIS truth, you are being deceived. When He warned "Let no MAN deceive you," he also warned of "false Christs." Lies that are attached to your "Christ" is an invention of the Devil and is not of God.
Over many years of working in a corporate office, I learned that when someone CONSTANTLY has complaints about 'the boss' (in this case that would be our very wise leader, Constance)... the only SOLUTION is for that UNHAPPY person to leave and go somewhere else.
Start your own blog... and take Paul and Dahlheimer with you. Just think how happy the three of you would be together. Utopia awaits!!!
So... why doesn't RayB (who views himself as being so 'intelligent') get the message???
Unbroken line of succession? " Furthermore, there is no record that Peter was ever Bishop of Rome, and therefore no Bishop of Rome could possibly be his successor. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (178-200) provided a list of the first 12 Bishops of Rome. Linus was the first. Peter's name does not appear. Eusebius of Caesaria, the Father of Church History, never mentions Peter as Bishop of Rome.He simply says that Peter came to Rome "about the end of his days" and was crucified there. Paul, in writing his epistle to the Romans, greets many people by name, but not Peter. That would be a strange omission if Peter had been living in Rome and especially if he were its bishop!"
RayB, Righteous Jesus is indeed a Divider as the Word tells us. However, you are quite the unrighteous divider. You use God's Word but then you go off with your locked and loaded comments that bring ire because you are so heavy handed and unkind doing it, also quite coy and manipulative with your interested "curiousity" and diggy, probing but really just nosy, questions. You look for dirt. Can't find it ?..well then, you spin the conversation till you think you have somebody trapped..even the blog owner who is gracious to let you post here. And we are on to you. So you divide, but not coming from a righteous standpoint, as Jesus did. You hide behind Christian words all the while taking an ugly aim at people that goes against the very Spirit of the Word. You were saved from the pit of hell like every other true believer is, by the Lord's righteousness when you had none (because none of us do) but you seem to forget this very easily, so pride reeks from your posts.
Yes, Jesus is the divider alright, because the Truth does exactly that, it separates out what is false among us all. You do not hold all truth, He does. I have read your posts for a while now and you sure do have an anti-semtic air about you. You do come against Catholics in a superior and toxic tone. Constance answered you, but typical you and your fine toothed comb, you look for a way to divide. That is most certainly not Christ-like and you will answer for it. You have no defense for your behavior as you hide behind a keyboard where you can sound high and mighty...but you're not.
Why did you choose such an ambiguous term in your use of “God’s Word” (NOTE: WHY did Constance NOT refer to God's Word while making her defense for the Catholic use of statues and images?)? I’m not sure what you mean. Mormons and JWs have their own versions of “God’s Word”. Are one of those what you mean? Or do you mean the God’s Word translation of the Christian Bible? Or did you mean the website called “God’s Word For You”? On the latter, if you search “Torah”, seven results appear, and every one define it as the five Books of Moses, aka the Pentateuch. Well, how ‘bout that.
Relatedly, why did you use the similarly ambiguous “the Bible” (Could it be because the Bible is in direct conflict with her Catholic supporting position, while the "Torah" is an ambiguous…)? I’m not sure what you mean. Mormons and JWs have their own versions of “the Bible”. Are one of those what you mean? I’m thinking you probably mean “Bible” as defined on Wikipedia: The Bible (from Koine Greek τὰ βιβλία, tà biblía, "the books") is a collection of sacred texts or scriptures. The Bible is generally considered to be a product of divine inspiration and a record of the relationship between God and humans by Christians, Jews, Samaritans, Rastafari and others. Wait, what? The Bible is also used by Jews, Samaritans, Rastafari and others?! This is just SO CONFUSING!
I think you get my point: Words only take on meaning in their relative contexts. I think most anyone could understand Constance’s meaning by her context, especially since she clarified it. If you weren’t and still aren’t sure, why not ask an open ended question for clarification (“What did you mean by ‘Torah’?”), instead of “asking” in a manner that accuses her of some other intention?
In any case, from the very beginning, her most logical meaning is borne out in the very source you cited:
Torah (/ˈtɔːrə, ˈtoʊrə/; Hebrew: תּוֹרָה, "Instruction", "Teaching" or "Law") has a range of meanings. It can most specifically mean the first five books (Pentateuch or five books of Moses) of the 24 books of the Hebrew Bible. This is commonly known as the Written Torah.
Your query to Constance could have been: “Do you mean the Written Torah?” This would have had a much better result than the loaded question you posed.
Maybe it's time to 'throw in the towel' as far as the current posting policy and ban RayB, paul and the two(?) venomous 'Catholic' posters and Thomas Dahlheimer so we could get a little peace and quiet and friendly postings and discussions going without their jarring interruptions.
Seattle smashes CHOP: Police reclaim their precinct and at least 23 people are arrested after mayor FINALLY issues executive order and riot police vacate the zone which has seen two deadly shootings in three weeks and crime rise by 500%
There is only ONE Catholic poster here, who needed to be reprimanded on this blog recently.
There are several Catholic posters (who have been participating on this blog for 15 years)... who NEVER use offensive language... and always remain in control of their emotions.
Therefore, it is UNFAIR to paint ALL Catholic posters with the same wide brush!!!
Paul, all of your rants about Peter not being the first Pope can be directed to Jesus on Judgement Day... since your 15 years of 'quarrels' (and complaints) are ultimately with HIM and not with us Catholics on this blog!!!
Judgement Day can't come soon enough for ALL of us. Looking forward to it . . .
Anonymous said to RayB @ 12:39 PM (in part) .... making a VERY serious, slanderous charge:
"I have read your posts for a while now and you sure do have an anti-semtic air about you."
NOTE: Copy & Paste your proof in which I expressed ANYTHING that even hints at "anti-Semitism." If you can't, then that would illustrate that you are just another one of those that "judge" without having any proof that would stand up in a court of law.
"For the mouth of the wicked and the mouth of the deceitful are opened against me: they have spoken against me with a lying tongue." Psalms 109:2
"A false witness shall not be unpunished, and [he that] speaketh lies shall perish." Proverbs 19:9
It isn't slander. Most of my family are devout Catholics. They, and very many Catholics I have met in my life can, and often are, very hateful, and very judgemental. So I speak from experience! Stating facts from experience, especially over many decades is the great revealer of truth!
You venomous Catholics here take a speck of dust, and exaggerate it to where it's an asteroid headed straight for earth. RayB, and Paul, and others are not Catholic bashers. You venomous Catholics ARE the bashers. It's the only way you can cover for your Babylonian religion, because facts expose your religion as false!
Here's a true story from my hitchhiking days long past! I was hitchhiking through very rural Pennsylvania, as you traveled over a ridge, and there are lots of ridges, you would find a small town in each valley. This young Christian guy picked me up on one Sunday morning, and I mentioned the last town I was in was a lovely little town. He said often the towns would either be Protestant, or Catholic. The town that was nice he said was Protestant. He said that the Catholic towns had an unfriendly vibe. He told me to observe the town he dropped me off, on the edge of. He said it was nearly 100% Catholic. As I strolled through main street, there were people getting out of their cars to go into the Catholic Church. They looked like the most miserable people I have ever seen. The look on their face was contempt for me, and it seemed like all these people were going to a funeral for their best friend! No joy what so ever! No smiles, just bitter faces. This was just another of the Lord's perfect revealings to me, of reality! I honestly felt very sorry for these miserable people. I wished they knew the kind loving, merciful Lord I knew then, and know now. All you Catholics here can be set free from your religious bondage! You can be free indeed, and all your hateful bashing will be water under the bridge, and forgiven, and forgotten!
God not only made us Catholics HAPPY people... but He gave us a wonderful sense of humor... which comes in handy when we run across ignorant, misinformed bigots like yourself!!!
At least 3 of the Catholic bashers on this blog (RayB, Paul, Dahlheimer) come across as extremely bitter, UNHAPPY, and lacking in a sense of humor.
The PROOF is documented right here on this blog... every single day!!!
New International Version (one of many Protestant versions) "For I know the plans I have for you," declares the Lord, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future." Jeremiah 29:11
(WHY DO PROTESTANT EVANGELICALS CONTINUE TO BELIEVE IN A SO-CALLED 'PROSPERITY GOSPEL'???)
Douay Rheims (the Catholic bible) "For I know the thoughts that I think towards you, saith the Lord, thoughts of peace, and not of affliction, to give you an end and patience." Jeremiah 29:11
I am not the first to spot an unkind tone in what you convey in your posts about the Jews, RayB. Constance herself recently asked you that very thing. Others have mentioned this too. So really, it is incumbent upon you to pray and ask the Lord to show you if that is a bitterness in your spirit that needs addressed. Isn't that what any of us should do, asking the Lord to search our own hearts?
I note that it is an air about you, but you can search your own heart and see if that is actually what you could be harboring, and then correct that yourself, if that is truly the case. If all you need to do is correct the tone of much of what you write here, then the bad "air" will clear, and it will show up in your future posting.
This is for you as a christian to resolve with Jesus.
Psalm 139:23-24 Search me, God, and know my heart; test me and know my anxious thoughts. See if there is any offensive way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting.
And which 'word' is that, 3:41 PM... out of ALL of your many, many, many VERSIONS of the bible(s)???
THE TRUTH HAS NO VERSIONS... IT IS JUST THE TRUTH!!!
3:50 PM
Anonymous said...
New International Version (one of many Protestant versions) "For I know the plans I have for you," declares the Lord, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future." Jeremiah 29:11
3:58 PM
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
LEXICON
to prosper you שָׁלוֹם֙ (šā·lō·wm) Noun - masculine singular Strong's Hebrew 7965: Safe, well, happy, friendly, welfare, health, prosperity, peace
Moral of the story, 3:50-3:58 PM:
The Holy Bible was NOT written in English as your posts seem to try to suggest (although you undoubtedly know better) and to get at the full TRUTH of what it does say, rather than put blind faith in Douay Rheims or any other ofMAN'S TRANSLATIONS, you must make the effort and take the time to look in a LEXICON!
Actually, all of my friends DO think I'm sweet... and have often complimented me on my great sense of humor.
However, whenever I am forced to defend my Catholic faith against BIGOTS who continually post slanderous statements or deliberate misinformation... I have to put on my 'solder of Christ armor' and be tougher. (Jesus would expect me to defend the Catholic faith that HE created in 33 AD.)
After all, dealing with people like you is not for the faint of heart. LOL
And every time you Catholics spew your baseless and ludicrous, condemnations, you reveal the heavily damaged psyche that comes with long indoctrination to a heavily satanized religious cult!
I think you are attempting to DIVERT (rather than address this) . . .
I have met numerous Protestant Evangelicals who actually interpret 'prosperity' as meaning FINANCIAL success.
God never promised any of us 'a rose garden' here on earth (material wealth, etc.)
When Jesus chose his disciples, many (like Peter) were poor fishermen. He told them to leave everything and to "come follow Me"... "I will make you fishers of men."
Maybe it's time to 'throw in the towel' as far as the current posting policy and ban RayB, paul and the two(?) venomous 'Catholic' posters and Thomas Dahlheimer so we could get a little peace and quiet and friendly postings and discussions going without their jarring interruptions.
1:48 PM
(In response, 2:39 PM said:)
"There is only ONE Catholic poster here, who needed to be reprimanded on this blog recently."
(Who 2:39 PM was referring to was the venomous 'Catholic' poster of such things as:)
"Paul is an awful brainless numbskull. We know where your homosexual lodger's lair is paul ... "
"Take care now, you proddy c***! Tempting to come and find you and give you a taste of the RA, you mouthy little murderous Protestant c***! Now get to f***, if you know what is good for you, you closeted proddy queer!"
"Don't f*** with the Irish! " 1:59 PM
"Now do you get we Catholics are sick and tired after 15 years of your s***, you mouthy proddy orange bas****, paul. Now get to f***, you protestant scum." 2:08 PM
"... paul. I know where in Portland Maine you are.
"I am not an idiot posting here, so you should realise I am f******* tired, you heathen orange filth!" 2:20 PM
(The 2nd venomous 'Catholic' poster was the author of such things as:)
"The persecution of the Church has been sadly borne out here for 15 long years now by child murderer supporting Calvinist heretics, such as paul, Ray B and your loveless pompous self." 4:22 AM
(The same or possibly a 3rd venomous 'Catholic' poster doxxed Paul and THREATENED BOTH HIM AND RAYB, saying such things as:)
"The onus is on Paul and that son of a failed congressman, Ray B. If Paul, incognito or no, or Ray B. continue their attack then I shall remain on the path to war against the pair of them and their sychophants, come what may! 15 years of it: we are sick to the back teeth of all Paul's and Ray B.'s evil. Enough already!"
"Either Ray B. and Paul's persecution of Catholics and Jews here stops now, or it is time to move beyond words on this blog to more convincing dissuasion. Enough said!" 7:36 AM
(2:39 PM concluded:)
"Therefore, it is UNFAIR to paint ALL Catholic posters with the same wide brush!!!"
Speaking of jarring interruptions Regarding the unbroken chain of Popes, Dave Hunt writes:
Ironically, Damasus was the first who, in 382, used the phrase "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church" to claim supreme spiritual authority. Bloody, wealthy powerful, and exceedingly corrupt. Damasus surrounded himself with luxuries that would have made an emperor blush.There is no way to justify any connection between him and Christ, yet he remains one link in that chain of alleged unbroken succession back to Peter. Stephen VII (896-897) who exhumed Pope Formosus and condemned the corpse for heresy at a mock trial, was soon thereafter strangled by zealots who opposed him. His party promptly elected a Cardinal Sergius to be Pope, but he was chased out of Rome by a rival faction which had elected Romanus as its "vicar of Christ". Of the strange manner in which Popes followed one another in an "unbroken line of apostolic succession from Peter", one historian writes:
"Over the next twelve months four more popes scrambled onto the bloodstained throne, maintained themselves precariously for a few weeks, or even days, before being hurled themselves into their graves. Seven popes and an anti-pope had appeared in a little over six years when Cardinal Sergius reappeared after seven years exile, backed now by the swords of a feudal lord who saw a means thereby of gaining entry into Rome. The reigning Pope, Leo V (903), found his grave, the slaughters in the city reached a climax and then Cardinal Sergius emerged as Pope Sergius III (904-911); sole survivor of the claimants and now supreme pontiff."
Bombshell as Faui admits future COVID vaccines won't work, blames "anti-vaxxers" for failures of Big Pharma
During a recent interview with CNN, Fauci lamented the fact that millions of Americans distrust him, the pharmaceutical industry, Bill Gates, and others pushing for everyone to get vaccinated once a Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine is released.
According to Fauci, a future vaccine for the novel virus probably will not work because nearly 30 percent of Americans have already indicated that they will not be taking it – not now, not ever. Because of this, he claims, so-called “herd immunity” will not be possible, rendering the vaccine certifiably useless.
Some popes were put in office by their mistresses__six by a mother and daughter pair of prostitutes. Popes were both installed and deposed by imperial armies or Roman mobs. Some were murdered. More than one pope was executed by a jealous husband who found him in bed with his wife--hardly apostolic succession. The simple truth is that the Roman Catholic Church itself, with all of it's archives, cannot verify an accurate and complete list of the Popes. Anyone who takes the time to seriously attempt a verification of its accuracy will conclude that the church has fabricated an official list of popes in order to justify the papacy and its pretensions. Nor was the Bishop of Rome considered to be the Pope of the universal church until about a thousand years after Pentecost!
681 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 681 Newer› Newest»Furthermore, 2:49 AM,
My 2:04 AM post clearly states："No matter which interpretation you choose—Israel, the Church, Mary, or all of the above—all interpretations agree: the labor pains of Rev. 12:2 are not literal pains from a child passing through the birth canal. This really should not be a problem at all."
Yet you conveniently skip that. Why should any Catholic or anyone be convinced by you willfully ignorant and disingenuous attitude? A question which leads one only to conclude you are not here for any other motive than to attack Catholics and our true Christian faith, to cause quarrel, strife and stress so as to persecute Jesus Christ's flock.
The proof of Mary's assumption and queenship have been provided and you, anon (paul?) have given nothing which directly tackles or refutes each point therein.
Post away,
You have added nothing new. Your heretical points vomited mantra like from the mad ravings of Luther and Calvin have already been answered and shown to be baseless.
I will not deign to address that poster directly as you can see for yourselves their attitude, but for the rest of you, their assertion that:
"all interpretations agree: the labor pains of Rev. 12:2 are not literal pains from a child passing through the birth canal." was automatically and intrinsically shown to be in error simply by the very posting of "Notice that part of the curse is pain in childbirth. This is why women suffer during the birth process. So, when we look back to the text of Revelation 12:1-2, we see that the woman clothed with the sun is suffering birth pain. Since the Roman Catholic position is that Mary could not be suffering birth pain (because of her Immaculate Conception and no Original Sin), then these verses cannot be about Mary.
If all interpretations agreed then that interpretation would've agreed also.
It didn't.
(Rev. 12:1) Who is the woman: Israel, Mary, or the Church?
In Revelation 12, some of the symbols are very clear, while others are not.
The “red dragon” is no doubt Satan. John explicitly tells us that “the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan”
(v.9; c.f. v.12). In addition, he wages war with Michael—the archangel—in heaven (v.7). Moreover, he is colored red, because he is drenched in the blood of believers (similar to the red horse of Revelation 6:4). He has a crown on his head (Rev. 12:3), as the current prince or ruler of the Earth (Jn. 12:31; 14:30; 16:11; Eph. 2:2; 2 Cor. 4:4).
While the dragon imagery is clear, who is the woman whom he persecutes? Three primary answers are typically offered:
1. Israel?
Premillennial interpreters argue that the woman here is the nation of Israel. Advocates of this interpretation make a number of observations about the woman:
First, in the OT, the imagery of the sun, moon, and stars refers to the nation of Israel. Joseph said, “I have had still another dream; and behold, the sun and the moon and eleven stars were bowing down to me” (Gen. 37:9). Osborne writes, “In Jewish literature ‘twelve stars’ often refers to the twelve patriarchs or the twelve tribes.”[1]
Second, in the OT, the image of a woman is frequently associated with Israel, Zion, or Jerusalem. Paul writes, “The Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother” (Gal. 4:26). Jeremiah writes, “Surely, as a woman treacherously departs from her lover, so you have dealt treacherously with Me, O house of Israel” (Jer. 3:20; c.f. Isa. 54:1-6; Ezek. 16:8-14; Hos. 2:19-20; Micah 4:9-10).
Third, in the OT, the image of being protected by eagle’s wings refers to Israel. In Exodus 19:4, we read, “You yourselves have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles’ wings, and brought you to Myself.” This seems to fit with the language in Revelation 12:14, where we read, “The two wings of the great eagle were given to the woman, so that she could fly into the wilderness to her place, where she was nourished.”
Fourth, the Woman is protected in the wilderness for 1,260 days. This fits with the prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27, which is directed to Israel (“your people and your holy city”). This iteration of 3.5 years is mention five times through this section of Revelation (Rev. 11:2; 11:3; 12:6; 12:14; 13:5). Clearly, this time span of three and a half years must be important to the author. This seems to fit with half of the seven years, where the Antichrist will be in power (Dan. 9:26-27).
Fifth, Daniel 12 predicted that Michael would rise up at this time to protect Israel—not the Church (Dan. 12:1). Daniel writes, “Now at that time Michael, the great prince who stands guard over the sons of your people, will arise. And there will be a time of distress such as never occurred since there was a nation until that time; and at that time your people, everyone who is found written in the book, will be rescued”
(Daniel 12:1). We see a fulfillment of this, when John writes, “And there was war in heaven, Michael and his angels waging war with the dragon. The dragon and his angels waged war” (Rev. 12:7).
Sixth, Jesus is said to rule the nations with a rod of iron. In Revelation 19:15, we read, “From His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may strike down the nations, and He will rule them with a rod of iron.” Thus the man-child of verse 5 must be Jesus—not the Church.
2. Mary?
Roman Catholic interpreters argue that the woman here is Mary, Jesus’ mother. Advocates of this interpretation argue that the woman is referred to in the singular (Rev. 12:5, 17). If the nation of Israel or the Church were really in view, then why is this woman just a singular person? Also, the most natural and straightforward reading would be to think of this as Jesus’ mother, Mary.
Of course, critics of this view make a number of counter arguments to this interpretation:
First, this is symbolic language, and it shouldn’t be read rigidly. Since we are reading apocalyptic literature, we shouldn’t place too much weight on the fact that this is spoken of as a singular woman.
Second, when did the 1,260 days of nourishment occur in Mary’s life, as the text explains (vv.6, 14)? This time frame, which is mentioned five times in the text (Rev. 11:2; 11:3; 12:6; 12:14; 13:5), seems to fit best with Daniel’s vision of the 70th seven in Daniel 9:27 (as argued above).
Third, when was Mary persecuted so intensely? John writes, “When the dragon saw that he was thrown down to the earth, he persecuted the woman who gave birth to the male child” (v.13). Roman Catholic interpreters usually identify this with Mary seeing Jesus crucified in front of her. But this doesn’t seem to fit the language of Revelation 12.
Fourth, Roman Catholics believe that Mary was a perpetual virgin—not giving birth to more children. While the Bible affirms that Mary had more children (Mt. 1:25; 12:46-47; 13:55; Mk. 6:2-3; Jn. 2:12; Acts 1:14; 1 Cor. 9:4-5; Gal. 1:19), Roman Catholics argue that this Greek word for “brothers” (adelphos) should actually be translated cousins. While NT scholars disagree with this view,[2] we should see how this doctrine would preclude Mary from being the woman in Revelation 12 from a Roman Catholic perspective. If Mary remained a perpetual virgin, then who are “the rest of her children” mentioned at the end of the chapter? (Rev. 12:17)
3. The Church?
Amillennial and historical premillennial interpreters argue that the woman here is the church. Advocates of this interpretation argue that the NT authors call the Church a woman (2 Cor. 11:2; Eph. 5:25–27, 32; 2 Jn. 1, 5; 3 Jn. 9), and the early church fathers call the Church a woman as well (Hermas V.1.i–ii).[3] Moreover, Revelation 2:26-27 promises the church of Thyratira that they would reign with Christ with a rod of iron, as in verse 5 (“She gave birth to a son… who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron”).
However, this expression is also directed at Jesus specifically (Rev. 19:15), as was argued above. Moreover, this interpretation puts the amillennial interpreter in the awkward position of believing that the Church gave birth to Christ! Can we really hold to such a view? Surely this puts the cart before the horse! Additionally, if the woman is the church, then who are “the rest of her children” (v.17) mentioned later?
To avoid this difficulty, some amillennial and historical premillennial interpreters state that the male-child is actually the church that gave birth to more believers in Christ (v.17). However, this would negate the earlier argument that the Church is referred to as a woman. That is, here, the Church would be referred to as a man (i.e. a male-child; v.5), which doesn’t seem to fit any biblical imagery for the church.
Conclusion
For the reasons listed above, this author holds to the first view that the Woman is Israel, giving birth to the Messiah, and showing back up in the final tribulation at the end of human history.
NOTES...
http://www.evidenceunseen.com/bible-difficulties-2/nt-difficulties/jude/rev-121-who-is-the-woman-israel-mary-or-the-church/
You will not deign because you cannot, 4:22 AM. You forewent any pretense even at dignity when you chose to ignore the integrity of my post(s) showing the Catholic position to be the correct and Christian one, rather than whatever manmade cult you are part of.
None of my posts is an island, not least that part of the landscape at 3:17 AM. They are part of the same peninsula of Catholic truth, withstanding the tides of history way back from when Christianity began.
Moreover, 4:22 AM,
What you fail to understand in your "either or mentality", you willfully ignorant heretic, is that some concepts of Holy Scripture are both and. My posts show as such, showing your baseless assertions to be redundant even before you have posted them.
That is, Mother Mary and Mother Church, Spiritual Israel, i.e., the Catholic Church.
To: All
This is like the child that murdered his parents and threw himself on the mercy of the court sobbing that he was an orphan:
The poster who said "You forewent any pretense even at dignity" had written...
"I refer your Jew hating and Child murderer supporting self back to my post..."
"your willfully ignorant and disingenuous attitude..."
"you are not here for any other motive than to attack Catholics and our true Christian faith, to cause quarrel, strife and stress..."
"Your heretical points vomited mantra like from the mad ravings..."
Moreover, 4:22 AM,
What you fail to understand in your "either or mentality", you willfully ignorant heretic, is that some concepts of Holy Scripture are "both and". My posts show as such, showing your baseless assertions to be redundant even before you have posted them.
That is, Mother Mary and Mother Church, Spiritual Israel, i.e., the Catholic Church are both that which Revelation 12 is referring to as the woman.
The persecution of the Church has been sadly borne out here for 15 long years now by child murderer supporting Calvinist heretics, such as paul, Ray B and your loveless pompous self, 4:22 AM.
5:22 AM,
I stand by and reiterate every one of those points I made.
The only child with murder in its heart is you, 5:22 AM.
You are, as was your child murdering Protestant hero Calvin, of your father the Devil, who is the Father of Lies and a Murderer from the beginning.
Mary is not 'divine' (that is DISINFORMATION). We do not 'worship' her (more DISINFORMATION). We HONOR her as the Mother of Jesus... just as Jesus Himself HONORS His Mother.
The fact that some of you Protestants do NOT hold Mary, the Mother of Jesus, in the same high esteem that JESUS views His Mother... is the problem here.
This 'debate' is not between you and Catholics. This 'debate' is between you and Jesus, as HE has chosen to hold His Mother in such high esteem!!! It is some of You who DARE to disagree with HIM!!!
So, it won't be until Judgement Day... that you are forced to face the fact that Mary DID in fact ascend body and soul into Heaven... and that Jesus Himself has given His Mother the role of Queen of Heaven (not the Catholics here on earth).
Then, what will you do when you come face to face with the TRUTH??? Decide that Heaven is not the place where you want to spend eternity after all???
But, continue with all of your copying and pasting of all of the reasons WHY she means absolutely nothing to you.
I repeat: This back and forth discussion is NOT between you and me (or other Catholics on this blog). It's between YOU AND JESUS!!!
And ALL of this WILL be straightened out on Judgement Day!!!
Left in the dust of this back-and-forth discussion of Mary’s significance is the main subject of Constance’s post: statues and their removal. As I see it, the recent tearing down of the statue of Junipero Serra in CA puts a number of people in precarious situations: Pope Francis, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, and even John Boehner.
According to Wikipedia: Pope Francis canonised Serra on September 23, 2015, at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, D.C., during his first visit to the United States. Serra's missionary efforts earned him the title of Apostle of California for his evangelism during the Spanish conquest and occupation, a period in which Native American indentured servants were beaten and shackled during the construction of the missions.
Thus, it was Francis himself who canonized Serra. Where is his voice in this recent tearing down? He cannot remain silent on this.
Moreover, according to this LifeSite article Catholics, now is our ‘moment’ to defend our statues, our churches, our faith …Pope Francis made history by performing the first-ever canonization of a Catholic saint on U.S. soil: that of St. Junipero Serra. Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner wept on live television during the Pope’s address to Congress. Democratic leaders Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi joined the pontiff in reverencing a statue of the new saint.
So, where are Boehner, Biden and Pelosi? My inclination is to believe Boehner is a staunch Catholic, given that he was so moved that wept. As to Biden and Pelosi, my inclination is that their presence amounted to political theatre in service of votes; but, admittedly, that’s my guess, though based on what I’ve seen of the apparent lip service paid to Catholicism and Christianity in general.
Relatedly, see this article: Catholic youths heroically stop California mob from tearing down saint’s statue.
Actually, Craig... I (one of the Catholic posters here) DO agree with you that Pope Francis must not remain silent... and should definitely speak out regarding the tearing down of the statue of Junipero Serra (not to mention Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, etc.)
Jeremiah 7:17-19 says:
"Seest thou not what they do in the streets of Judah and the streets of Jerusalem? The children gather wood and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the QUEEN OF HEAVEN and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger. Do they provoke me to anger? saith the Lord: do they not provoke themselves to the confusion of their own faces?"
_And then Jeremiah chapter 44 goes on to repeat this same phenomenon and repeat that is is all part of the idolatry which the children of Israel picked up in Egypt and how it is a grievous sin before God.
Other than that, the only mention of queens in the Word of God are multiple references to The Queen of Sheba and Queen Vashti in the book of Esther.
There is no queen in heaven.
All references to a "queen of heaven" are pagan and idolatrous. All use of the term "queen of heaven" is a man made tradition and man made traditions are all full of error. There are no sacred man made traditions. There are no sacred traditions. To say that there are is to degrade and demean the word sacred. Sacred refers to something that is holy. Holiness can only pertain to the things of God. To be holy or sacred is to be separate and set aside from this world. Traditions of men are never holy.
Come ye out of her my people and do not partake in her sins.
To Craig:
Just saw this article a few minutes ago and thought I'd pass it on to you . . .
https://spiritdaily.org/blog/news/archbishop-performs-exorcism-where-st-junipero-serras-statues-fell
Catholic religion is exhausting.
Make that, all religion is exhausting.
But not our Lord. He will never exhaust anyone. In His Presence is perfect Peace and Rest.
Jesus so kept things quite simple. Humble. So much so that children could come to Him without all the trappings and strappings that one has to take on to be rightly religious and acceptable as some proclaim. Pride makes things difficult, impossible, actually.
Jesus spoke against the Pharisees for the very same type of religiosity. Jesus expressed His utter disdain for it with a whip of cords (twice). Righteous Jesus was angry at it. Worship, trust, faith..believing...coupled with repentance that proves the heart motive is right in it's believing God, belongs to God..alone. That is the first commandment. It sure got broken didn't it? Every last one of us is guilty. Their faith exercises/practices, that at one time pointed to God, had summarily replaced God and Jesus was mad at that. He was on the earth to lead people back to God. Straight back with no detours, loopty loops, somersaults of any religious kind, just simply in our believing, in humble repentant belief in His message, that He was the One---the Only One--to open the door, He made the way back to God by His Sacrifice.
Jesus said such simple things. As simple as "Come unto ME.." Not to His dear mother Mary, not to saints, not to priests/pastors, not rituals (catholic, protestant, new age, anything else) -- none of those!
"Come unto ME"
Who will come to Jesus then?
The broken, the weary, the wayward, the lost. That is all of us sinners.
When you are broken by your sin, when you are weary of your sin, when you are wayward (as the song goes "I did it my way!")...lost in your sin, the way Home is Jesus. Just Him. All the Glory goes to ONE..the One who saves the broken, weary, wayward, lost, sinner. He saves us and gives us His Spirit's presence and strength to live that way, His way. Can you find better than Jesus? Nobody can. HE is the Darling of Heaven, the LORD!
But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. Hebrews 11:6.
If religion "fixed" you, you won't come to Him. You have already replaced Him. If religion could "fix" you He would not have needed to be your holy sinless Sacrifice--the Cross would not have been necessary. But the Cross happened. See yourself in His Scars! He sees what we don't want ever seen or known. He already knows your name, your sinful soul, the multitude of your sins....and loves you anyway.
If you will..Jesus' formula is you sinner, ME Savior.
So come home. Just turn to Jesus from wherever you are bound up, caught up, hung up, and turn around and go Home. And be received in that great Grace and perfect Redemption already bought and paid for in Jesus Body and Blood. Look at this world, this crumbling, very insecure place!
He wants you safely Home with Him. Peace, Rest, Satisfaction, Love...never ending.
"Come unto ME"
He is ready for you, any of you, any ole me or you, ready for the asking, for the taking.
And don't linger, time is ticking. Eternity is coming, eternal life or eternal death, your choice.
Hallelujah, what a Savior!
10:13 AM
Can't wait till you tell Jesus to HIS face that "Catholic religion is exhausting."
We Catholics are READY and completely at peace within ourselves... don't need ANY 'help' from you Protestants. LOL
GET OVER IT... and please get professional help for your OBSESSION... because THAT is what is truly 'exhausting' on this blog.
Now, 10:13 AM
Are you SURE you want to spend eternity where Jesus has made His Mother 'Queen of Heaven'???
Take time to think about this very carefully now.
Amen 10:13 AM
Anon 10:05 AM,
Following the link you provided ultimately leads to the National Catholic Register article Archbishop Performs Exorcism Where St. Junípero Serra Fell, Asking For God’s Mercy. This article contains a video of the Archbishop in action. This same video I referenced back in the first 200 comments—a comment the contents of which no one apparently bothered to view. My comment there went to Dr. Taylor Marshall’s vlog—the same Marshall speaking in the 2nd of Cumbey’s two videos in this blog post—and his thoughts on the matter.
Having prefaced with my comments above, how do you view this? Though I have my own opinion, I’m leaving this open-ended so that I can get yours (and others') view.
Let’s discuss this more specific issue of Catholic statues and their preservation, etc., rather than the incessant RCC vs non-RCC and vice versa regarding other matters.
Catholic religion is exhausting. Amen.
_Fish on Friday? No? say five Hail Marys and ten Our Fathers, and light fifteen candles for three straight days and say the special Saint Christopher prayer on page 217 of the prayer book, and don't forget to invoke Saint Luke. And of course do your rosary twice a day this week.
Then we can discuss your Lenton requirements this year, after you've gotten your special blessed cloth from the parish store, (they're on sale this month).
Kind of like Islam, Mormonism, Christian Science, Paganism, witchcraft, Hinduism, Buddhism and come to think of it, Psychology
Anonymous said (in part) @ 3:17 AM:
"After all, your "prominent" heretic in arms, Ray B., denied the bodily Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ."
NOTE: I have never, as in NEVER, even for a moment denied the bodily Resurrection of Christ. In fact, I have defended the PHYSICAL RESURRECTION more than most people have simply because of my many encounters with Jehovah Witnesses (I almost always invite them into my home when they knock on my door). JWs DENY that Christ rose physically.
What I have said on this blog in the past is that when Christ rose from the dead, His body obviously changed, as illustrated in a number of Bible passages. His body WAS NOT FOUND in the EMPTY TOMB, so He did RISE PHYSICALLY.
Lies, slander, personal attacks .... are all methods that are typically used by desperate people who cannot argue with TRUTH.
And in RayB's very last sentence at 11:19 AM, he just described HIMSELF (LOL) . . .
Re: "Lies, slander, personal attacks .... are all methods that are typically used by desperate people who cannot argue with TRUTH."
___________________________________________________________________________________________
YES, that is so TRUE, RayB... and we Catholics are waiting for you and Paul to stop all of the LIES, SLANDER, and personal attacks against Catholics here on this blog.
It is just sooooo 'exhausting' . . .
"... AND THE GATES OF HELL SHALL NOT PREVAIL AGAINST IT." (Matthew 16:18)
Paul @ 11:15 AM & Anonymous @ 10:13 AM ...
It's all about the power of MEN over the souls of MEN. The power to usurp God's AUTHORITY with MAN's AUTHORITY. The Pharisees were guilty of it, the RCC hierarchy is as well.
This is precisely too how all of the cults operate. They all have a certain set of DIFFICULT man-made rules, guidelines and peculiar beliefs that set themselves apart from everyone else. ALL have a "works based" system for earning "salvation" and favor with God, while not able to ever quite reach that goal. ALL cults teach that they exclusively are "the people." This is one of the psychological tricks that is always employed; make people believe that they are "special" because they are following the one and only "true religion." This so effective because it appeals to the foundation of virtually all sin; PRIDE.
Catholicism is a very complex system, involving strict adherence to ritualistic sacramentalism, along with many ambiguous sets of rules, commandments, declarations, etc. I have personally found that most Catholics do not even know what their church actually teaches outside of the need to go to confession at least once per year, attend weekly Mass and on Holy days, pray the Rosary, be good and hope for a not too lengthy time in Purgatory. As far as defending their faith, about the only thing they typically claim is that "we're the church that Christ founded ... Peter was the first pope." That's what they have been TOLD to believe.
The idea of Jesus being King of kings and Lord of lords means that there is no higher authority. His reign over all things is absolute and inviolable. God raised Him from the dead and placed Him over all things, “far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all” (Ephesians 1:21–23). He does not "share" his sovereignty.
Likewise, there is no queen of heaven. There has never been a queen of heaven. There is most certainly a King of Heaven, the Lord of hosts. He alone rules in heaven. He does not share His rule or His throne or His authority with anyone. The idea that Mary, the mother of Jesus, is the queen of heaven has no scriptural basis whatsoever. Instead, the idea of Mary as the queen of heaven stems from proclamations of priests and popes of the Roman Catholic Church. While Mary was certainly a godly young woman greatly blessed in that she was chosen to bear the Savior of the world, she was not in any way divine, nor was she sinless, nor is she to be worshiped, revered, venerated, or prayed to. All followers of the Lord God refuse worship. Peter and the apostles refused to be worshiped (Acts 10:25–26; 14:13–14). The holy angels refuse to be worshiped (Revelation 19:10; 22:9). The response is always the same: “Worship God!” To offer worship, reverence, or veneration to anyone but God is nothing short of idolatry. Mary’s own words in her “Magnificat” (Luke 1:46–55) reveal that she never thought of herself as “immaculate” or deserving of veneration; on the contrary, she was relying on the grace of God for salvation: “And my spirit rejoices in God my Savior.” Only sinners need a savior, and Mary recognized that need in herself.
Furthermore, Jesus Himself issued a mild rebuke to a woman who cried out to Him, "Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you" (Luke 11:27), replying to her, "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it." By doing so, He curtailed any tendency to elevate Mary as an object of worship. He could certainly have said, “Yes, blessed be the Queen of Heaven!” But He did not. He was affirming the same truth that the Bible affirms—there is no queen of heaven, and the only biblical references to the “queen of heaven” refer to the goddess of an idolatrous, false religion.
Finally, the book of Jeremiah refers to the queen of heaven two times while warning the Israelites not to be idolatrous. The second passage that refers to the queen of heaven [Ashtoreth at that time] is Jeremiah 44:17-25 where Jeremiah is giving the people the word of the Lord which God has spoken to him. He reminds the people that their disobedience and idolatry has caused the Lord to be very angry with them and to punish them with calamity. Jeremiah warns them that greater punishments await if they do not repent. They reply that they have no intentions of giving up their worship of idols, promising to continue pouring out drink offerings to the queen of heaven, Ashtoreth, and even going so far as to credit her with the peace and prosperity they once enjoyed because of God’s grace and mercy.
In my opinion, the catholic church would be wise to heed Jeremiah's words and discontinue attempting to diminish the lordship and dominion of Jesus and repent of such pagan traditions.
[material compiled and sourced from Gotquestions.com]
(continued)
I've mentioned my lengthy relationship with the two twin Attorneys who were life-long, devout Catholics before, both of whom were at that time in their late 80's. The one brother turned to me one day with a perplexed look on his face and asked me: "What is all this talk I keep hearing about being "born again?" Now think about that; here is an intelligent devout man that has spent over 80 YEARS in the Catholic Church, and he was asking ME what "born again" was all about.
Yet, Christ clearly stated in John 3:3 ...
"Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."
And ... "Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again." John 3:7
And what did the "first pope" have to say on the subject?
"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." 1 Peter 1:23
If anyone doubts that Catholics miss THE most important personal issue, ask a Catholic friend what "born again" means.
"It's all about the power of MEN over the souls of MEN ...", to spiritually imprison men and turn them from the One True Faith.
Child murderer Calvin was thoroughly guilty of it, as was that persecutor of Jews, Luther ... followed by many a Protestant heretic of whatever strand of manmade cult thereafter.
Jesuit trained, Catholic Chief Justice Roberts does it again. This time, he sides with the Liberal Justices to knock down ABORTION clinic restrictions.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/us-supreme-court-strikes-down-louisiana-abortion-clinic-restrictions
Conservative Congressman Jim Jordon texts: "What's next Justice Roberts, the 2nd. Amendment?"
Don't need to be 'born AGAIN'... I got it right the first time.
Go away; go away; go away!!!
Thank you Anonymous for helping me out by illustrating the very point I was making.
"Don't need to be 'born AGAIN'... I got it right the first time."
Thanks again !
11:46 AM,
Bingo!
Ray B.'s supposed "pearls" are nothing more than the most venomous of scorpions' eggs, ready to hatch.
12:33 PM,
It's not about Calvin or Luther. It's about the Word, the Holy Bible. You, too, can read it now.
You're welcome.
Oh, yeah right... I'm sure a devout Catholic attorney of 80 years would be ready to throw his Catholic faith right out the window because of some 'words' you, RayB said to him.
First of all, that would mean that he obviously was not a very 'devout' Catholic to begin with... and second, not very 'smart'... to ALLOW any one person to influence them that easily.
So... I do NOT believe your story. Maybe that 'perplexed look on his face' was advanced DEMENTIA... since, like you said, the man was in his late 80's. LOL
And oh, by the way, 'two twin attorneys' would be FOUR people!!!
12:45 PM,
If only Protestants realized it is not about those arch-heretics, Calvin or Luther, but it is about the Living Word, Jesus Christ, and His One True Church, i.e., Spiritual Israel, which is the Catholic Church, as the Holy Bible and the test of time show.
Moreover,
You'll find the Douay Rheims Bible to be the,most trustworthy of the English translations.
No need to thank me, praise God!
You're welcome, RayB . . .
And now that I have made my point that I don't need to be 'born again'... since I got it right the first time... when are YOU going to STOP this obsession of yours and just go away???
Anonymous @ 1:04 PM ...
LOL !!
For your information, I was NOT the one that brought up "born again." He brought it up because he had heard (from somewhere) "all this talk" about it.
They were both in remarkable physical and mental condition, in fact, they kept their law practice open (but purposely cut back their practice) until they reached the age of 91. Both were accomplished musicians that played in an amateur orchestra until they were 90. For years, both held season tickets for one of the major orchestras. The one brother, along with his wife, traveled to Europe every single year until the year before he died, where he would fly to Paris, rent a car, and drive across Europe. Both brothers lived to be 95, dying within 2 months of each other.
The three of us had numerous lengthy conversations, in which our relationship encompassed a span of over 10 years ... closer to 15.
We talked about current events, history, politics, the arts, and, "religion." Not once did we ever have an "argument." When it came to our "religious" conversations, I would often quote from the Bible a passage or verse and would discuss it. They were always respectful regarding God's word ... unlike "some" of the "Catholics" on this blog.
What's amazing is how brazen YOU are ... whoever you are, that you would "judge" this man as having "advanced dementia" based upon soley your fertile imagination. I suspect you are the same "Anonymous" that spewed out all the vulgar, violent venom yesterday. If I'm wrong about that, I apologize.
@ Craig...
Was Kris Vallotton there?
That video reminds me of the heretical "prayer walks" and "grave soaking" done by the NAR churches. It's very pagan to be worshipping and sprinkling holy water over the ground and claiming dominion over it.
I also see this as the catholic's, defining the battlefield {holy water on it} and trying to instigate a war with demonstrators (likened to demons) over stupid pagan statutes and thereby setting themselves up as the great opposition to the far-left lawlessness (and stupidity). Rome intends to be the "conservative" leader of the opposition that every gun-toting American needs to support. Such signaling is evidenced by the waving of the US flag over the event. Together with the NAR as well as many of the pentecostal & prosperity gospel churches, who they have been cultivating relationships with for years...
see this link: https://www.ihopkc.org/press-center/news-articles/mike-bickle-meets-pope-francis-discuss-jesus/
....they will eventually lead a violent opposition that they will claim to be a defensive attack against these young and disillusioned crowds/demons. Many uninformed and naive cafeteria Christians in the Protestant churches will welcome and join the fight in standing beside their "christian" catholic "brothers and "sisters" completely unaware they are enlisting in antichrist's army. Since "progressive thought and liberal ideas" are easy to hide in one's mind, flushing out all "liberals" will be the end goal along with ridding the world of all this silly and violent "protesting". After all this "army" promises peace and love to the world. In order to prove you are not a liberal/progressive/"protestor" - blood oaths and marks will be required. In time, they will exact their revenge on any yet resisting true born-again still "protesting" Protestant Christian that has refused to stop "protesting" (against the pagan roman catholic church), bend their knee to the pope, take their mark or worship their "queen mother" idols and join their now-unified cult. All remaining "protestors" will, to achieve true peace, need be slaughtered.
Was that your interpretation as well Craig?
Anon 2:04 PM,
Thank you for engaging. Though I would not have phrased my comments quite the way you have, I immediately noted the similarity between the ritual and related comments by the Archbishop as essentially the same thing as the NAR's (New Apostolic Reformation, for the uninitiated) "Spiritual Mapping", i.e., (re)claiming the associated ground "for God" by ridding it of malevolent spiritual forces, thus making it "Christian".
There are other associated issues I'll address in a separate comment.
Ray B @12:14 and anonymous at 12:18:
I just finally found a very reasonable explanation of exactly who the Nicolaitans were, after digging around for a long time. It's a strange thing that so little is known about them, and it's the strange things in the Bible that often seem to be the most revealing when one digs deep enough.
When we break down the word Nicolaitans we have Nico, which refers to power and "power over" and laitans, which refers to the general people, the laity.
The Nicolaitans were a false cult of the true Christian faith, who are mentioned twice in the seven letters to the seven churches of Asia Minor; once to Ephesis and once to Pergamos. In both cases it is clear that God hates this Nicolaitan cult. Yes, He uses the word hate.
In the true Christian faith there is truly only one mediator between God and man, and that is Jesus Christ. There are no priests in the Christian faith like there had been in the Old Testament. There is no longer a need for priests, as the author of Hebrews so clearly spells out. The structure of God's Christian church on earth is not a worldwide centralized power but more like a network of bishops in locales who oversee their respective flocks. There is no mention of anything called a Cardinal, much less a "Pope".
Nico=power over + Laitans=the people The Nicolaitans exercised power over the all the peoples.
Jesus said: "Call no man on earth father, for one is your father which is in heaven."
If the shoe fits...
So, Paul and RayB are going to stand before JESUS and criticize HIM for all the things they don't like about HIS Catholic Church... and for choosing Peter as the first Pope... and for choosing his apostles as His first priests???
Like I said earlier, stay tuned... and pass the popcorn (LOL).
FYI: When the Globalists usher in their New World Order and their One World Religion... ALL of the people from the 'old age' traditional religions (who refuse to worship the Antichrist) will be put to death / martyred: Protestants, Catholics and Jews.
Meanwhile, you Protestant Evangelicals are being 'used' to go after the Catholics and the Jews. You are doing an outstanding job on this blog. Satan must be VERY proud of you!!!
Let me add to my comment @ 2:13 PM. First, I note there’s been no challenge to my earlier assertion regarding Theodosia of Constantinople (I initially misspelled it “Theodotia”, assuming it was the feminine of Theodotion, which would require retaining the 2nd “t”). My specific assertion was that her defending of the STATUE of Jesus amounted to idolatry even by the standards set forth in the associated section of Roman Catholic Catechism (2113 and 2132)—I posted this portion of the Catechism for all to see and from which anyone could comment. With no rebuttal or counterclaim by any Catholics here, at present I’m of the opinion that there is no adequate basis to rebut.
The way I view this, Theodosia hardly died a “martyr” and she should not have been canonized since her actions illustrated the very definition of idolatry, as expressly stated in the Catechism. Further, given this, I’m inclined to cast doubt on the entire idea of what criteria constitute the canonization of a “Saint”. The bar seems mighty low if it includes rebelling against God’s authority (Romans 13:1-7) in order to defend a statue—which is supposed to be venerated through, not idolized directly—to the extent an innocent man dies by a specific action of the individual during the course of defending the icon.
White House calls Supreme Court decision on abortion ‘unfortunate’
https://www.yahoo.com/news/white-house-supreme-court-abortion-ruling-unfortunate-kavanaugh-171052134.html
I call bull. As I predicted here several weeks ago, the Republicans truly like it this way. This is an election year battle cry court decision. The Republicans can once again campaign upon and promise to get Roe v. Wade overturned while not actually achieving it another year. It's been 50 years. The Republicans have controlled the Supreme Court the entire time. It's a lie.
Biden used to be pro-life. Not that that matters much because if they ever do overturn Roe v. Wade, the regulation of abortion will just go back to the states. So my thought is, I actually think this election cycle the Supreme Court would be 100 times more likely to overturn Roe v. Wade during a Biden presidency than a Trump presidency. The resulting protests and unrest will then be directed at and a problem for a Biden/Democratic administration versus a Republican administration (that, if he wins, can't handle MORE unrest and opposition). The baby killing far-left and progressive middle (soccer moms) will just blame the courts and not hate the republican party all that much and whoever the republican presidential candidate is in 2024 won't have to suffer/incur that much of a backlash over something the Supreme Court did. Whereas doing it during a Trump presidency will cost the Republicans for years.
Another reason overturning Roe v. Wade seems unlikely for a predominantly roman catholic Supreme Court (not one practicing Evangelical among them) is because doing so requires a strict constructionist view of the Constitution and a much less liberal definition of the word "LIBERTY" as found in the 14th Amendment Due Process phrasing "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Now I guess a roman catholic supreme court might feel like they could yet control this and as long as they are the final body defining "liberty" themselves it's ok to risk doing this, but really they'd be just relinquishing federal power over "liberty" and giving the states the right to define it on their own. This could be risky for catholics as one of the major precedential cases supporting Roe v Wade is Pierce v. Society of Sisters.
Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925), was a United States Supreme Court decision striking down an Oregon statute that required all children to attend public school (i.e. - shut down catholic schools). The decision significantly expanded coverage of the Due Process Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution to recognize personal civil liberties. The case has been cited as a precedent in more than 100 Supreme Court cases, including Roe v. Wade, and in more than 70 cases in the courts of appeals.
Overturning Roe v. Wade likely means risking and/or overturning Pierce and many other cases that depend on the Supreme Courts' "liberal" interpretation of "personal civil liberties". These rights include things like the the right to marry, marital privacy, the right to have children, etc. It would open up and allow states to go back to permissive and strict regulating a lot about our private lives we all take for granted. Personally I'm willing to risk it. It beats killing babies, but, I don't think the catholic judges aren't likely to give up control and the ability to 100% protect catholics in all 50 states, therefore, it's another reason they may hesitate overturning Roe v. Wade.
RayB @ 1:55 PM
'Brazen'??? LOL. Well, I guess it takes one to know one!!!
Oh, come on... that's not really a stretch to figure out that someone with a 'perplexed look on his face' (who also happens to be in his late 80's) would more likely be suffering from DEMENTIA... rather than throwing away his Catholic FAITH of 80 years???
Maybe your Protestant co-conspirators on this blog fell for that story... but, I did not.
P.S. That person with the 'vile venom' had a lot of misspellings in his post. So, that
wasn't ME. Your apology is accepted.
RayB
Too bad you don't show the same RESPECT to Catholics on this blog... as you CLAIM you showed to your 'two twin' attorney friends.
Had you DARED to treat them as badly as you have treated Catholics here on this blog... that friendship would have been OVER within 5 minutes!!!
RayB narcissist in chief on this blog . . .
YOU are not the only one who keeps bringing up 'born again'.
Try to remember that this blog is not all about YOU.
Dear Craig @ 11:14 AM
Regarding the link to the Spirit Daily article, that I sent you earlier . . .
I am greatly alarmed by the tearing down of any and ALL statues (whether they be political or religious). This attempt to ERASE history is setting a very dangerous precedent.
That is my sincere opinion.
Anon 3:42 PM,
I agree 100%. Two of the main issues prima facie are anachronism and historical revisionism.
Yes, paul that is the breakdown meanings of the word Nicolaitans as I found too.
They were taking the preeminence among some churches as Apostle Paul warned in mentions in Scripture as the Spirit of God led him to write. I think that was the papacy's beginning. The book of Jude, as well as in what Apostle Peter wrote and warned also, describing these who preyed on others.
The foolish Galatians were trying to go back to the old system to blend it with the new covenant and Apostle Paul warned of that also. Perfect scenarios for someone to walk in and claim authority they did not have from God but were determined to force on people. There has always been sheeple for these types to dictate to just as there has always been tares among the wheat. So the church has been infiltrated and quite early on. Jesus said: "an enemy hath done this". But some stayed true to God's Word and let the Spirit lead them away from those who were abusing the church and so it goes that we can have the discernment in our day and age too so it is vastly important to realize that the only pushback is the Spirit of God who comes to dwell in the believer when they are born again (as Jesus said in John Ch 3 for instance), and shows them the authority of His Word to distinquish the lies from the truth.
Major Power Orders Christians:
RENOUNCE GOD OR WE'LL CUT OFF YOUR FOOD AND SHELTER!
'It has become difficult to maintain belief in God because of religious persecution'
By WND Staff
Published June 28, 2020
China's communist government is warning elderly Christians that they will lose basic benefits if they don't stop praticing their faith.
Bitter Winter, the online magazine about religious liberty and human rights in China, reports the Communist Party is threatening "to take away the last means of survival from elderly believers," the government benefits of "housing, food, clothing, medical care, and funeral expenses."
"A Catholic from Fuzhou city in the southeastern province of Jiangxi has been receiving monthly 250 RMB (about $ 35) from the government since 2018, the year her husband died," Bitter Winter reported.
"At the end of 2019, local government officials threatened the woman, in her 60s, that the subsidy would be withdrawn unless she removes images of Jesus from her home. 'Because the Communist Party feeds you,' they told the woman, 'you must only believe in it, not God.' Two months later, the pension was canceled because she refused to remove the symbols," the report said.
She told Bitter Winter, "It has become difficult to maintain belief in God because of religious persecution."
Reggie Littlejohn, founder and president of Women’s Rights Without Frontiers, said it's "a heartbreak and an outrage that widows and other elderly are forced to renounce their faith in order to receive stipends. For many, they may need these funds to survive."
"It [is] a pathetic act of cowardice to force desperate widows to choose between their survival and their God. This widow, who refused to renounce her faith potentially in the face of abject poverty, is heroic," she said.
"This form of religious persecution is on the rise in the area of China where we have our Save a Widow Campaign. I was just informed that in our area, a government official has instructed our widows to stay home on Sundays and not to go to church. He also ridiculed Jesus, saying, 'The Chinese government gives you 160 RMB (about $23). How much money does Jesus Christ give you?'"
She continued: "Fortunately for the widows in our area, they have a ready answer. Our fieldworkers bring love and compassion to widows, along with practical help: a $25 monthly stipend that makes a huge difference in their lives, providing food and warmth. Our fieldworkers encourage these widows in their faith, and many have found new hope that there is a God who loves them."
Littlejohn for years has fought China's one-child policy, which banned couples from having more than one child. It recently was changed to two children, but forced abortions still are part of the government's enforcement policy.
Bitter Winter noted that just weeks ago, officials in Fuzhou "forced an 80-year-old Christian women to cover up a cross image in her home, again threatening her subsistence allowance."
Authorities also have begun an intensive campaign of "return" inspections "to make sure that people don't resume practicing their faith," the report said.
In one case, government bureaucrats "threatened a Sola Fide believer in a nursing home, who has been paralyzed for eight years, to drive him out of the residence if he continued his belief."
"The officials said that I am supposed to believe in the Communist Party since it feeds me, or else all my social benefits would be canceled," he said. "I won’t give up my faith no matter how the government pursues me. If it cancels my benefits, I will meet God earlier."
In Yingtan city, authorities "deprived a local Christian of her government aid for hosting religious meetings at home, even though the woman was immobile from an illness," the report said. And they also harassed a Catholic, in her 70s, to replace religious symbols with images of President Xi Jingping.
https://www.wnd.com/2020/06/major-power-orders-christians-renounce-god-cut-off-housing-food
Instagram Brands Christian Worship 'Harmful'
By Michael Brown / WND
June 26, 2020
The headline to this article is not sensationalistic. It is not click bait. It is truth. Shocking truth.
CDC indicates COVID infection-fatality rate LESS THAN 1%
By WND Staff
Published June 27, 2020
...
In fact, Dr. Anthony Fauci, the top White House infectious disease expert, co-authored an article published March 26 in the New England Journal of Medicine predicting the case fatality rate for the coronavirus would turn out to be like that of a "severe seasonal influenza."
Anon 5:48 PM,
Though I don't think any sort of worship should be deemed "harmful", I do note that Sean Feucht is associated with Bill Johnson's Bethel, Redding, CA "church".
And I'm tired of Dr. Michael Brown supporting Johnson and other heretics.
I agree Paul.
Lording it over the people is Nicolaitan doctrine.
To be served rather than serve which is the complete opposite of Jesus and the Apostles example.
Something really worth consideration when evaluating "Kingdom now","Dominion" and "New Apostolic Reformation" doctrines.
Be on the look out for Domination, Manipulation and Control.
4:42
So it brings a real coherence to the letters to the seven churches, in that God is saying that he hates those who would take evil power over the Church, namely the Nicolaitans, and those who would take evil power over the Jews; namely those who "say are are Jews and are not", as well as those who want evil power over both; namely witches like Jezebel.
SHARE THIS!
Amen GrantNZ
And Share THIS!
Share THIS Too!
The timing of this is just too convenient. In his homily, priest Robert Altier said things will be better in four years. We are halfway through 2020. In four years it will be 2024, another election year. So that means somebody could point at the time interval and say it lasted 3 1/2 years, between the time the riots broke out and the statues toppled, and the time a new person became elected president.
How does Robert Altier know the rioting and statue toppling and the whole American version of the "cultural revolution" will be over in four years?
Is this another planned event, kind of like the Plandemic?
Will we get both the "good President" and the "good Pope" in 3 1/2 more years?
Just what is being planned, and by whom, and why?
That WND dot com article above about christians being persecuted in China led me to check out "bitter winter".
Very suspicious organization. Mostly catholics. Massimo Introvigne, is the editor in chief and apparent founder. He is a professor of sociology that writes about, promotes and defends new religions...along with his friends and some priests. They have set out to oppose what they deem to be an "anti-cult movement". Professor Introvigne has authored one book available on Amazon title "Satanism: A Social History (Aries)" - probably not someone you want teaching your children.
Introvigne and his friends run an Italian based organization named CENSUR (Center for Studies on New Religions) that a lobbying and legal defense group for nut-bag religions worldwide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CESNUR
"Bitter Winter" magazing was launched in May 2018 as an online magazine which covers religious freedom and human rights in China. According to the magazine it is supported by volunteer contributions and is published daily in five languages.
My guess is those "volunteer contributions" are being made exclusively by members of the same Falun Gong cult that prints the Epoch Times. There are a lot of articles and twitter comments even going back and forth between these organizations and "writers". Probably an indication that there no group too fringe for the catholic church to not pursue - building bridges to enlist later in their little "unity" peace & love project.
I'm sure there is lots of oppressive crap going on in China as well as Government-sponsored disinformation campaigns, but these are ALSO unreliable "news" organizations that Christians can't trust at face value either. Sometimes the enemy of your enemy really isn't your friend. I didn't even know about Epoch Times until I saw their "volunteer" troll bots posting articles here. But then I got a free copy of their "newspaper" at my house soliciting my subscription. That's a lot of money to send out a propaganda piece designed to appear as an objective conservative multi-page professional newspaper to every mailbox in the country (probably targeting Trump terrortory so likely not urban zip codes). That's how profitable a cult newspaper can get by pumping out every Trump supporting lie they can conceive of as long as it draws readers to their primary agenda-based China reporting. Don't support this cult.
I've not read all the comments, but am working on it. I just deleted one particularly offensive one using the "F___" word.
However, it appears to me that Fr. Altier's homily/sermon sounds nearly prophetic in light of today's Fox News reported events of mobs attempting to destroy a monument in St. Louis to the St. Louis for whom the St. Louis is named. It appears to me that the very ugly spirit of mob violence has been unleashed and historically in the past when that happened, it became dangerous for ALL Christians -- Catholic and Protestant alike. Remember Mexico 1926-1935, the French Revolution, etc., etc.
The prophesied apocalyptic times may very well be in advanced stages among us.
Constnce
Paul
Very interesting post @ 2:33 PM.
I couldn't agree more!
"In the true Christian faith there is truly only one mediator between God and man, and that is Jesus Christ."
Speaking of Fr. Altier's homily/sermon, I found another by him. You can watch it here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Omn6CgJNdfQ
He keeps referring to Mary's Immaculate Heart, and how we are to go THROUGH HER in order to GET TO HER SON, and that "our Lady will protect you, because, as we all know, no one fights like a Mother."
This is the priest that Constance is steering us to.
Sorry Padre ... I don't need to go through anyone other than Christ Himself, because that is exactly what He promised.
John the Gospel writer records Jesus’ words about “another Paraclete”:
If you love me, keep my commandments. And I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever. The spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, nor knoweth him: but you shall know him; because he shall abide with you, and shall be in you… But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you. (John 14:15-17, 26; Douay-Rheims Bible).
If the Holy Ghost, aka Holy Spirit, is “another Paraclete”, who is the other Paraclete? John identifies Him specifically in 1 John 2:1-2:
My little children, these things I write to you, that you may not sin. But if any man sin, we have an advocate [Paraclete] with the Father, Jesus Christ the just: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world. And by this we know that we have known him, if we keep his commandments. (Douay-Rheims Bible).
Watch what happened to the McCloskey’s in St. Louis, MO:
Tucker: Ordinary citizens stand up as politicians cower to the rage mob
Here's an interview Mark McCloskey gave to local press:
'The only thing that stopped the crowd was my rifle' | Interview with man who pulled out gun amid protest
Mark McCloskey gave his first on-camera interview to 5 On Your Side anchor Anne Allred
Salient quote:
I mean, I'm not I'm not the enemy of people that really care about the Black lives, but I'm apparently the enemy of the terrorists and the Marxists that are running this organization.
To Craig @ 11:31 PM
Thank you for sharing your beautiful post.
There is a wonderful sense of 'calm' coming from you... that is very refreshing.
Anon 11:44 PM,
You're welcome, and thank you.
BTW, the word "Paraclete" (Greek: paraklētos) is found only 5 times in the entire NT: 4 in reference to the Holy Spirit (John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7) and 1 time for Jesus (1 John 2:1). I don't think that's a coincidence.
The word is used sparingly in pre-NT works, usually in legal contexts.
Regarding the 10:31 PM post (which I'm sure wasn't written by a Communist Chinese troll)...
"They came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up."
AllSides™
The Epoch Times
AllSides™ Media Bias Rating: Right
This media bias rating was determined using the following levels of bias verification:
✓Editorial Review: August 2019
✓Community Feedback: 7,561 ratings
✓Independent Research
AllSides Media Bias Ratings™ are based on multi-partisan, scientific analysis. Unless otherwise noted, this bias rating refers only to online news coverage, not opinion pieces or TV, print, or radio content. We have rated the bias of nearly 600 outlets and writers.
August 2019 Editorial Review
On August 28, 2019, AllSides conducted an editorial review of The Epoch Times. An editorial review is when the AllSides editorial staff — which includes people from across the political spectrum — reviews the works of a source and comes to a general consensus on its bias. These reviews always include a diversity of individuals covering the range of bias from left to right. The team determined The Epoch Times has a Right media bias.
The AllSides team found The Epoch Times is clearly critical of left-wing ideas and policies such as open borders, the sexual revolution, abortion, and multiculturalism on its news and opinion pages. It writes favorably about freedom of speech, gun rights, immigration control, and other topics. It is openly critical of the Chinese Communist Party.
An independent review by an AllSides Staffer in April 2020 found that The Epoch Times maintains a right bias, and that overall, The Epoch Times reporting is factual. Its headlines are generally free from sensationalism, a type of media bias. In The Epoch Times' COVID-19 coronavirus coverage, the paper calls the coronavirus "The CCP Virus," or the "Chinese Communist Party Virus," inviting others to join them, writing, "The name holds the CCP accountable for its wanton disregard of human life and consequent spawning of a pandemic that has put untold numbers in countries around the world at risk, while creating widespread fear and devastating the economies of nations trying to cope with this disease."
During the Aug. 2019 editorial review, The AllSides team found The Epoch Times does not employ much spin, another type of media bias, as evidenced by the paper providing full coverage of Democratic policies and proposals and quoting left-wingers in full in its reporting. For example, an article about 2020 presidential candidate Beto O'Rourke's comments on abortion included the politician's comments in full, not phrases or short snippets. Likewise, AllSides noted that The Epoch Times often quotes President Trump in full and with accuracy, devoting multiple paragraphs to feature his comments in their entirety. This is in stark contrast to many U.S. media outlets, which quote only small portions or phrases of politicians' comments, in order to spin the story in a misleading way.
...
The Epoch Times has a self-proclaimed anti-communist bias and stands for traditional values and awareness of virtues.
"We stand against the systematic destruction of traditional culture by destructive ideologies such as communism, which continues to harm societies around the world," according to The Epoch Times "About" page. "We are inspired in this mission by our own experience. The Epoch Times was founded in 2000 to bring honest and uncensored news to people oppressed by the lies and violence of communism. Fulfilling this mission is our passion and our greatest honor."
"Having witnessed events like Tiananmen Square and the persecution of the spiritual group Falun Gong, and at a great risk to themselves and their loved ones, a group of Chinese-Americans started publishing The Epoch Times in Chinese in May 2000 in New York City," its website reads. "Some reporters in China were jailed, and some suffered severe torture. Yet despite the risks, they could see the growing need for uncensored coverage of events in China."
https://www.allsides.com/news-source/epoch-times-media-bias
The Epoch Times News Articles
The Epoch Times Video Channel
WND News Articles
Censored.news Featuring Over 45 Conservative News Outlet's Latest Articles 24/7!
FCL2093
Vicki Farmer (Aka) Andrea J Zimble Farrar
Farrar Tree Service, 364 Broadway, South Portland, ME (207) 671-8320
Paul Farrar Mail
pfarrar@maine.rr.com
Arline sends her neighborly love. She misses the supremely satisfying over the driveway squabbles about land, art and more.
I don't know how this blog comment section got off into a Marian spin. The point of the videos I posted was the seriousness of our time and how possibly apocalyptic events are rapidly unfolding. I heard one very brief inclusion in that homily saying "Our Lady" -- that's probably what has motivated all of this discussion.
Is Mary in Heaven? I guess we'll all find out when we get there ourselves. Logically, looking back at historical Bible records, I note that Enoch, Elijah, and Moses were taken to Heaven and Elijah and Moses met with Jesus in the presence of his disciples.
So, logically, one might assume that if they were there, why wouldn't she be?
Did she die normally? I don't know. But, I'm certain, that whether or not normal death occurred, she certainly would have ascended to Heaven and most certainly I'm certain she would have had a place of great honor.
Constance
To RayB,
I'm amazed your found my use of the word "Torah" so offensive. I was referring to the first five books of the Bible as written by Moses. Those first five books of the Bible are commonly referred by by many as "The Torah" and definitely, Jews call it the Torah.
Are you anti-Semitic?
Constance
Arline did not always find the anesthetic boredom of those chats not so dear. Still, it worked out well and justice was graciously served.
Those mindless days at 46 Deering St, Portland, ME 04101.
Well, if anyone would like to have a friendly chat, why not call Andrea Farrar?:
(207) 415-8678
To RayB 7:05,
I was steering you to a powerful and valid message. I am not an expert on Fr. Altier. His message for this one particular homily/sermon came highly recommended to me by a most credible source.
There is no question in this video that Fr. Altier told us our faith and trust was not in art works, nor our church but in Jesus Christ alone. I have no idea what he may have said at other times in other places.
Constance
Paul
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/talking-about-trauma/201306/in-the-mind-stalker
I believe, just as paul seems to be, Ray B. is indeed Anti-Semitic.
Anti-Semitism and Anti-Catholicism tend to go hand in hand for adherents to Anti-Semitic Nicolaitans such as Calvin and Luther.
Well, RayB, I just listened to the Youtube video of Fr. Altier that I posted and he quite clearly and distinctly said . . . OUR FAITH IS NOT IN ANYTHING BUT THE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST."
What is your quarrel with that? My paternal grandmother was a powerful influence on my life and the most Godly person I have ever known. She was a whole lot like you vis a vis her attitudes towards Catholics. She didn't attend my brother's wedding because he married a Catholic girl in a ceremony that did not include a mass. My grandmother took me aside in her early 90s and said she had something crucial to tell me. She said the Lord had shown her most clearly and distinctly that she was TO REPENT OF HER BIGOTRY TOWARDS CATHOLICS, which she did and advised me she had done so.
Two false gospels, as far as I see it:
1. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be a member of the ABC Church and thou shalt be saved.
2. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be a member of the NBC Church and thou shalt be saved.
ABC = Anything but Catholic
NBC = Nothing but Catholic.
BELIEVE ON THE LORD JESUS CHRIST AND THOU SHALT BE SAVED. The profile given in 2d Thessalonians, Chapter 2 as to who was and who was not taken in by the man of perdition was not "Perfect Truth." It was "the love of the truth."
Constance
To RayB,
My grandmother never suffered from senility. She was sharp as a tack in her early 90s and she died just a few days short of her 100th birthday. She was looking forward to going to be with the Lord and she used to joke with us that she had been here so long that she was starting to think maybe the Lord forgot she was here.
Constance
To RayB:
Grandma was sharp as a tack with a near photographic memory right up until her very final days.
Constance
Paul
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/know-your-mind/201503/feeling-paranoid
Paul
FYI 2:53 am was the creep. They imitated my 2:33 am post.
Constance
The creep should be banned.
Paul
FYI 2:33 am could be me. I'm the creep who's playing Mr. Nice. just stiring the hornet's nest a little as the wind blows through the trees of Maine.
The creep should definitely be banned as well as Ray B.
MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT
Reporter of Decisions
Decision No. Mem 08-76
Docket No. Cum-07-174
O. ARLINE WAECKER
v.
PAUL FARRAR et al.
Submitted on Briefs April 2, 2008
Decided April 22, 2008
Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and CLIFFORD, LEVY, SILVER, MEAD, and
GORMAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
Paul Farrar and Andrea Farrar-Zimble appeal from a judgment, entered in
the Superior Court (Cumberland County, Delahanty, J.) after a nonjury trial, in
which the court found and concluded that O. Arline Waecker had acquired full
rights, title, and interest in the paved driveway between the parties’ houses by
adverse possession and acquiescence. Contrary to Farrar and Farrar-Zimble’s
contentions, there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the court’s
factual findings and resulting conclusion that Waecker had acquired the disputed
parcel through adverse possession. See Striefel v. Charles-Keyt-Leaman P’ship,
1999 ME 111, ¶¶ 6, 7, 733 A.2d 984, 989. Because we reach this conclusion, we
do not address whether the evidence also supported Waecker’s claim that she had
established a boundary by acquiescence.
The entry is:
Judgment affirmed.
http://www.cleaves.org/pdf/08-76.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj5qI3XganqAhXME4gKHYeNACIQFjAMegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw3PIbv2-W31s2mGLTTbB96y
Perhaps trying the soft approach first might work.
Letting his Catholic family members know what a little man he has been, showing hate for the past 15 years towards Catholics here. It will be a start to stopping him before other options come in or go out to play.
https://law.justia.com/cases/maine/superior-court/2007/cumre-03-048.html
Wow! The Man of Sin is on the horizon and all the followers of Christ on the comments section seem to be doing is hating and tearing at one another? It seems that the best blogs attract the nastiest and most un-Christian commentators... not to mention that the comments seem to bear little relation to the subject of Constance's post. Can I recommend the daily devotional of that great martyr Richard Wurmbrand. His words are full of true ecumenism and love of Christ in the face of hatred - just what we need at this extraordinary time. Or read the first letter of John...1 Thessalonians 4:18 Wherefore comfort one another with these words.
Dear Ruth,
Your sentiments may provisonally cause me to stay my march to war against paul, yet I doubt he will relent or repent of his hatred and verbal knifing at the hearts of both Catholics and Jews, which he has repeatedly and mercilessly done for 15 years here.
There are seasons and unless Paul is willing to stop his persecution of the Catholic Christian brethren here, then I will not be disuaded from warring against that wicked enemy so as to bring him back to his senses, to repentance and remorse, through correction and reproof, however far that must go.
The onus is on Paul and that son of a failed congressman, Ray B. If Paul, incognito or no, or Ray B. continue their attack then I shall remain on the path to war against the pair of them and their sychophants, come what may! 15 years of it: we are sick to the back teeth of all Paul's and Ray B.'s evil. Enough already!
Either Ray B. and Paul's persecution of Catholics and Jews here stops now, or it is time to move beyond words on this blog to more convincing dissuasion. Enough said!
The source of systemic White supremacy and racism in America has roots in Biblical scriptures and the Christian religion. In the First Epistle of Peter, slaves are admonished to "obey their masters," indicating that slavery was a part of the early church's Christian doctrine.
In the 1452 papal document Dum diversas Pope Nicholas V told King Alfonso of Portugal that when his representatives arrived to their destination, they were to "invade, capture, vanquish, and subdue," "all Saracens, pagans, and other enemies of Christ," "to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery, and take away all their possessions and property." That language marks the beginning of the African slave trade and centuries of systemic White supremacist domination and racist dehumanization toward Black people such as George Floyd, whose recent brutal killing has inspired a global protest against systemic White racism.
When European Christian nations "discovered" the Americas they had a primarily papal developed colonizing legal document, called the Doctrine of Discovery, that claimed that they had a God given, Christian supremacy status that made void some of the most important fundamental human rights of pagan peoples-upon their discovery by Europeans.
At that time the aboriginal peoples had their fundamental human rights to be independent sovereign nations and have domination over their own homelands where they could freely practice their own religions taken from them by the European invaders. These human rights have not yet been returned to the aboriginal people of this land.
The U.S.A. was founded on a bigoted religious principle that was incorporated into law by the Supreme Court Case, Johnson vs Mcintosh (1832). It granted religious favoritism to mostly Christian monotheists (belief in one God, "one nation under God") over the polytheistic (belief in many Gods) aborigines. Colonizing European Christian and Masonic (a multi-religious fraternal organization with a belief in one God) people did not have a right to establish a monotheistic nation in these polytheistic aboriginal people's homeland, now known as America.
It is time for the world community of nations to establish an international criminal court to investigate, prosecute, and try the U.S.A. and the Roman Catholic Church for crimes against humanity.
In the early 19th Century the Roman Catholic Church accepted and publicly acknowledged that the biblical scriptures describing the cosmology of the universe did not present the truth.
When Galileo Galilei and other scientists in the 17th Century presented evidence to the hierarchy of the Catholic Church that proved the biblical scriptures describing the cosmology of the universe and a Church doctrine based on them -- a doctrine that claimed that the earth was located at the center of the universe and was not moving, but standing still -- to be false, the Church refuted the cosmological science of that time and then persecuted Galilei and the other scientists who correctly proclaimed that the earth was moving very fast around the sun.
Then, after the papacy could no longer refute the scientific cosmology that contradicted the biblical cosmology and a Church doctrine based on it and still retain its reputation it repented and put an end to its false, biblical scriptures based, cosmological Church doctrine. This eliminated false doctrine had not been a dogma of the Church, so the papacy claimed the Church could be scientifically proven to be wrong when it comes to doctrines that are not dogmas.
Dogmas are considered by the Catholic Church to be infallible and unchangeable. Therefore, if a modern day scientific discovery were to prove that a dogma, especially the Church's central dogma, to be false and the Church then accepted and publicly acknowledged that the new scientific discovery was true this would officially put an end to the Roman Catholic Church.
If a scientific discovery proves that a doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church is false, as has occurred in the past, the Church understandably does not quickly accept and acknowledge this truth. It cautiously proceeds to examine the evidence and then determines what to do about the situation.
This is what the Roman Catholic Church is now doing in respect to (1.) the scientific discovery of evolution, which unequivocally proved that the central dogma of the Roman Catholic Church is a false doctrine... and (2.) the scientific discoveries found in recent studies on human DNA and the Y chromosome that prove there was never a single couple ("Adam and Eve") whom every human being is a descendant of. And these studies also, consequently, prove that there was never a "Garden of Eden" where the first human ("Adam"), after being tempted by the first woman ("Eve"), committed "original sin."
In other words, today's scientists have discovered evidence that further proves (beyond the discovery of evolution) that the dogma that states that there was an "original sin" by the first human ("Adam") in the "Garden of Eden" -- a sin that caused the "creation to fall into the bondage of corruption" -- is not true. There is a National Geographic YouTube video about these scientific discoveries. It is titled Scientific Adam and Eve | National Geographic.
The rest of this article is located at: http://www.towahkon.org/EvolutionChurch.html
Thomas Dahlheimer wrote:
In the First Epistle of Peter, slaves are admonished to "obey their masters," indicating that slavery was a part of the early church's Christian doctrine.
Your conclusion does not follow your premise. Yes, 1 Peter admonishes slaves (servants) to “obey their masters”, but this hardly means slavery was part and parcel of Christian doctrine. If you look at the history of the 1st century, you will find that slavery was already present in the Greco-Roman empire (and others), predating Christianity. Peter’s point was that if one is a slave, then one must not rebel against their masters. This is part of his larger point that we are to submit to earthly ruling, in general. Here’s the full context:
13 Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, 14 or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right. 15 For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men. 16 Act as free men, and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but use it as bondslaves of God. 17 Honor all people, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king.
18 Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and gentle, but also to those who are unreasonable. 19 For this finds favor, if for the sake of conscience toward God a person bears up under sorrows when suffering unjustly. 20 For what credit is there if, when you sin and are harshly treated, you endure it with patience? But if when you do what is right and suffer for it you patiently endure it, this finds favor with God.
Mr. Dahlheimer, please show me how this advocates slavery—especially, as you imply, Christians as slave-masters.
Constance @ 2:25 AM,
Thanks for clarifying what you meant by “Torah”. I was relatively certain what you meant by the context, and I nearly responded to RayB’s statement questioning your use of the term. But I thought it best to let you set him straight. I’m glad you did.
Dear Miserable 3:48 AM,
Some of the most pathetic posting I have ever seen is yours. How small.
Extremely pinched off and hard too.
Is obvious this is a bitterness, not about Paul at all, but about you.
Why don't you trust God to be the judge, since He is and not you?
I could not care less about whether what you found necessary to post is even the same person on this blog but regardless, who is revealed before blogworld is you, your shriveled soul.
Is good advice that you get your heart right before the Lord. You are in a critical state.
Dahlheimer @ 9:30 AM
Once again anyone can easily see how unbalanced your information is. Your attempts at sounding informed and thoughtful fall short, skimming the surface of deep issues of human society through many eras with zero discernment...because...you have your own selfish agenda to promote.
You are a slave to misinformation and your own pride.
Dear Constance ~
Thank you so much for your input. Your calmness and wisdom is so welcome right now.
As a Catholic poster here (off and on) for the past 15 years, I would like to go on record here as stating that we Catholics are NOT trying to convert Protestants... but, at least two Protestants, RayB and Paul have been relentless in their attempts to convert us Catholics (e.g. Paul's comment for the past 15 years: "Come out of her...").
If your blog had a Human Resources Department, we would be filing a harassment complaint.
We just want it to STOP!!!
We only got off on the 'Marian spin' after our beliefs in the Immaculate Conception and her Assumption into Heaven (body and soul) were ATTACKED.
We are NOT asking RayB or Paul, etc. to BELIEVE as we do... but, just demanding that they stop attacking OUR RIGHT to believe as we do!!! Ultimately, we are constantly being put in a position of being forced to DEFEND our beliefs on a daily basis... and, my only point is that we should never have to be put in this position!!!
Two of us admonished the Catholic poster from Ireland (right here on this blog). He then apologized for his offensive language... which we ALL agree has no place on this blog.
Meanwhile, thank you for ALL that you do... and have been doing since the early 1980's. I truly believe that the Holy Spirit is working through you and your work... and that God has a special place in Heaven waiting for you.
May God bless you and keep you (and all of us) strong through future world events... and for whatever amount of time we have left on this earth. AMEN.
Federal Stalking and Harassment Laws
When harassing or stalking behavior involves the Internet, U.S. mail, or activities that cross state lines, the crime may be charged as a federal offense.
Stalking another person by using the telephone, Internet, or U.S. mail is a felony crime under the criminal law of the United States.
What is Stalking?
Under U.S. federal law, someone commits the felony of stalking if that person:
places another person in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury to him- or herself, his or her immediate family member, or spouse or intimate partner
causes, attempts to cause, or could reasonably be expected to cause substantial emotional distress to the target of their conduct, or
acts with the intent to kill, injure, harass, intimidate, or place the victim under surveillance in order to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate that person.
(18 USC § 2261A.)
In order to violate the federal, as opposed to a state, anti-stalking law, a person must either travel across state lines, into or out of tribal land, or engage in interstate commerce in the commission of the crime. Most people charged with the federal crime of stalking have engaged in interstate commerce by simply using a telephone, the Internet, or the U.S. postal service. The federal anti-stalking law expressly includes the use of an electronic communications system as a means of violating the federal anti-stalking law.
Definitions
Several of the terms used in the federal anti-stalking law have been defined by courts in cases challenging the law.
“Course of conduct”
In general, a single act will not amount to “stalking,” as that term is defined by federal law. Stalking requires a “course of conduct,” which courts have held means a pattern of conduct made up of two or more acts intended to accomplish a particular purpose (such as intimidation).
“Harass”
Courts have defined harassment as it is commonly understood: repeated words, conduct, or action that serve no legitimate purpose and are directed at a specific person to annoy, alarm, or distress that person.
“Substantial emotional distress”
Substantial emotional distress, as that term is used in the federal anti-stalking statute, is mental distress, suffering, or anguish, including depression, shame, humiliation, shock, embarrassment, grief, anxiety, or fear.
Intent
In order to convict a person under the federal anti-stalking statute, a U.S. attorney must prove that a stalking defendant acted with the intent to cause death, injury, fear of injury or death, or substantial emotional distress to the victim. Often, intent is proven by introducing the defendant’s own threatening voicemail messages, emails, texts, and/or Facebook page postings.
State Laws Also Prohibit Stalking
Every state has some version of an anti-stalking law that makes it a crime to engage in the conduct that is prohibited under the federal law. So, if a person stalks another individual but does not do so in a way that falls under the federal law (for example, the stalker does not use the phone, Internet, or mail, and does not travel across state lines to engage in the conduct), that person may still be charged under state anti-stalking law.
How is Stalking Punished?
A person convicted of stalking under federal law faces a possible prison sentence not to exceed five years, a fine not to exceed $250,000, or both. (18 USC § § 2261, 3571.) Where the defendant’s stalking conduct results in the death of or physical injury to another person, a conviction may lead to a sentence of up to life in prison.
Stalking under federal law is a VERY serious crime.
10:54 AM
And just WHO do you DARE to charge with doing the 'stalking' here on this blog???
I personally know something about being stalked.
Stalking is serious crap. Twisted minds do that.
And does not end well.
Memo to Dalheimer:
Your prejudice and tunnel vision is clearly showing for ALL (including GOD) to see here.
Please do not make the huge MISTAKE of lumping together and / or dismissing ALL Catholics as ONE poster here.
There are several Catholics who feel forced to DEFEND themselves on this blog.
(You know... something about the right to freedom of speech, etc.)
11:16 AM
OK... so, again, I am asking you WHO on this blog is 'stalking' you???
Dear 11:23 AM.
A few years ago, and not here as you are wrongly thinking.
Get some rest.
Craig here's my answer to your 9:30 AM question. Wikipedia says at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_slavery#Gospels The prospect of manumission is an idea prevalent within the New Testament. In contrast to the Old Testament, the New Testament's criteria for manumission encompasses Roman laws on slavery as opposed to the shmita system. Manumission within the Roman system largely depends on the mode of enslavement: slaves were often foreigners, prisoners of war, or those heavily indebted. For foreign-born individuals, manumission was increasingly amorphous; however, if subject to debt slavery, manumission was much more concrete: freedom was granted once the debt was paid. Children were often offered to creditors as a form of payment and their manumission was determined ab initio(at the outset) with the pater(family head).[86] This manicipia(enslavement) of children by the pater did not exclude the selling of children into sexual slavery. If sold into sex slavery, the prospect of complete manumission became much less likely under the stipulations of Roman Law. Much like the stipulations of the Covenant Code, being sold into sexual slavery meant greater chance of perpetual servitude, by way of explicit enslavement or forced marriage.
One of the first discussions of manumission in the New Testament can be seen in Paul's interaction with Philemon's slave Onesimus. Onesimus was held captive with Paul, as he was a fugitive, run-away slave. Paul proceeds to baptize the slave Onesimus, and then writes to his owner, Philemon, telling him that he will pay whatever fee Onesimus owes for his fugitive status. Paul does not explicitly ask Philemon for Onesimus's manumission; however, the offer a "fee" for Onesimus's escape has been discussed as a possible latent form of manumission.[115] Paul's treatment of Onesimus additionally brings into question of Roman slavery as a "closed" or "open" slave system. Open slave systems allow for incorporation of freed slaves into society after manumission, while closed systems manumitted slaves still lack social agency or social integration.[115] Roman slavery exhibited characteristics of both, open and closed, systems which further complicates the letter from Paul to Philemon regarding the slave Onesimus.
11:39 AM
I get plenty of 'rest' (lots of naps in between all of the RANTS against Catholics). LOL
Dear Soros, Clinton, Soetero, Bezos, Pelosi,
The last pair of pants you wear have NO pockets!
Mr. Dahlheimer,
Unlike some others who resort to continual ad hominem or other ridiculous statements following your posts, I try to treat you fairly by the content of your posts. I also don’t think you’re unintelligent, as some have implied or stated in their ad hominem. I think they are out of line, rude.
With the above preface, I note first of all that you did not answer my question challenging your interpretation of First Peter. Instead you deflected to something else entirely.
Firstly, if you scroll up to the beginning of the section you cited (Gospels), you’ll see that manumission is first to be understood in the larger context of Jesus Christ’s ministry, and how his death is seen as some as manumission. This is why the first section at the page/section you reference speaks of Jesus as being the fulfillment of the “suffering servant” of Isaiah 53:
The Bible claims that Jesus healed the ill slave of a centurion[89] and restored the cut off ear of the high priest's slave.[90] In his parables, Jesus referenced slavery: the prodigal son,[91] ten gold coins,[92] unforgiving tenant,[93] and tenant farmers.[94] Jesus' teaching on slavery was metaphorical: spiritual slavery,[95] a slave having two masters (God and mammon),[96] slavery to God,[97] acting as a slave toward others,[98] and the greatest among his disciples being the least of them.[99] Jesus also taught that he would give burdened and weary laborers rest.[100] The Passion narratives are interpreted by the Catholic church [and other Christian traditions] as a fulfillment of the Suffering Servant songs in Isaiah.[101]
Jesus' view of slavery compares the relationship between God and humankind to that of a master and his slaves…
Jesus came to heal! To free the “slaves”, as outlined above. Not to enslave.
More importantly, in the portion you cite, it’s clear that NT writers were working within the Roman system that they themselves were under (“In contrast to the Old Testament, the New Testament's criteria for manumission encompasses Roman laws on slavery as opposed to the shmita system”). It’s not as though Christians could adopt their own slavery doctrine, thus superseding Roman authority.
Thus, I stand by my challenge to show my how First Peter, or any portion of the NT, specifically supports enslaving others in accordance with some sort of Christian doctrine. I’ll save you time. You cannot.
Now, that’s not to say some have not—to their shame—tried to make the Bible say it affirms slavery. Again: It doesn’t.
I should add: I'm not referring to any recent comments and commentators in response to Mr. Dahlheimer. I'm referring to past ones.
Constance Cumbey said to RayB @ 2:25 AM:
I'm amazed your found my use of the word "Torah" so offensive. I was referring to the first five books of the Bible as written by Moses. Those first five books of the Bible are commonly referred by by many as "The Torah" and definitely, Jews call it the Torah.
Are you anti-Semitic?
Constance
Dear Constance,
With all due respect, I was not referring to the "word" Torah, I was referring to the ambiguous meaning of what the Torah entails. THAT is why I provided this descriptive analysis of what is referred to as the "Torah:"
"Torah (/ˈtɔːrə, ˈtoʊrə/; Hebrew: תּוֹרָה, "Instruction", "Teaching" or "Law") has a range of meanings. It can most specifically mean the first five books (Pentateuch or five books of Moses) of the 24 books of the Hebrew Bible. This is commonly known as the Written Torah. It can also mean the continued narrative from all the 24 books, from the Book of Genesis to the end of the Tanakh (Chronicles), and it can even mean the totality of Jewish teaching, culture, and practice, whether derived from biblical texts or later rabbinic writings. This is often known as the Oral Torah.[1] Common to all these meanings, Torah consists of the origin of Jewish peoplehood: their call into being by God, their trials and tribulations, and their covenant with their God, which involves following a way of life embodied in a set of moral and religious obligations and civil laws (halakha)."
NOTE: The point I was making is that the Torah is NOT the Word of God. While it does contain books of the Bible, it also contains extra Biblical "traditons," writings, oral accounts, etc. of Rabbis throughout history. If you want to consider that as an authoritative source equal to the Bible, you have that right.
How you interpret what I wrote as something that portrays myself as an "anti-Semitic" is WAY beyond my ability to understand. Now along with everything else that has been thrown at me, you've just added to the fodder by accusing me of that, and, with no basis whatsoever.
But then again, I was accused by "Dorothy" of being an "anti-Semite" for copying and pasting, word for word, the words of Jesus Christ in a passage from John 8.
RayB,
With as much respect as I can muster, if you look at Constance's initial comment in its larger context, I think it pretty clear what she meant at the time she posted her comment. That is, the Ten Commandments are in the Torah--understood in its most basic sense (the Pentateuch)--yet the Torah itself supports the idea of making images. THAT was her point!
It seems you wished to equivocate on the term (Torah) so that you could unfairly malign her--rather than just giving her the benefit of doubt as to what she might have meant.
Constance to RayB @ 2:45 AM (in part):
Two false gospels, as far as I see it:
1. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be a member of the ABC Church and thou shalt be saved.
2. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be a member of the NBC Church and thou shalt be saved.
ABC = Anything but Catholic
NBC = Nothing but Catholic.
Dear Constance,
Just a couple of comments regarding your post above.
First, the RCC actually does state in the Council of Trent that there is NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
It is VERY IMPORTANT to note that he Council of Trent has never been rescinded. In fact, it was accepted in its entirety by both Vatican I and Vatican II. Regardless of what many may say or think, the Council of Trent remains the Official teachings of the RCC.
While many modern Catholics may reject such teachings, many "traditional" Catholics do in fact believe, and declare, that salvation cannot be obtained OUTSIDE the RCC. Michael Voris of Church Militant is an example of one holding to this view. He claims without the "Eucharist" and the "Sacraments" of the RCC, salvation is not possible. He has stated on a number of occasions that "all of the Reformers" are burning right now in eternal Hell. By extension, he must also believe that all that reject Catholicism are going there as well. He is in fact correctly declaring the Official teachings of his church.
Second, your ABC (Anything But Catholic) is based upon a completely false analogy. By making this accusation, you are saying that those that do not accept Catholicism are driven by BIGOTRY, and not by their convictions that are based upon the Scriptures. You are also implying that "EVERYTHING" is acceptable to us as long as it isn't Catholic, even lies, and that would encompass, by implication, our "acceptance" of ALL of the CULTS such as Mormonism, Jehovah Witnesses, Islam, etc., etc. because the Cults also reject Catholicism. That is about as far from the truth as one can get.
Constance, why not just stand on the firm foundation of God's Word? Do you believe it to be the final authority, or not?
As far as your reference to "believing .... and thou shalt be saved." Do you believe that the "Christ" of Mormonism, for example, is the same "Christ" of the Scriptures? Do you believe the "Christ" of Jehovah Witnesses is the same "Christ?" If you ever talk to these people, you will find they all "believe" in Him, yet, the PERSON behind the name is far different from the true Christ of the Scriptures.
The "Christ" of the RCC is one that has not paid the price for sin, as evidenced by their doctrines of the Sacrifice of the Mass and Purgatory. Incidentally, the rejection by a Catholic of ANY official teachings of the Catholic church constitutes MORTAL SIN, which means, eternal damnation. Does that sound to you like the Christ of the Bible?
Did Christ pay for all sins for believers, or, did He not? What say you Constance?
Are Enoch and Elijah in Heaven?
Did Enoch die, or did he go immediately to heaven? What about the prophet Elijah? Was he taken to heaven? Why did Jesus say no one had gone to heaven?
The stories of Enoch and Elijah are fascinating, and the biblical descriptions of the end of their time here are particularly mysterious.
What does it mean that Enoch was “translated”?
Based on Hebrews 11:5 (King James Version), which says, “By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death,” some believe that Enoch never died and was taken to heaven. The New King James Version states that “Enoch was taken away.”
The phrases “translated” or “taken away” come from the Greek word metatithemi, which means “to transfer to another place” (Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, 1997, “Translate, Translation”).
The verse continues by stating that Enoch “was not found.” This is a reference to Genesis 5:24: “He [Enoch] was not, for God took him.” So, it seems that God took Enoch from where he was and from a situation in which he likely would have seen death. But, after he was transferred to another place, Enoch died and ceased to be. Genesis 5:23 says that “all the days of Enoch were three hundred and sixty-five years.”
We also know that Enoch died from the statement found in Hebrews 11:13: “These all died in the faith, not having received the promises.” Therefore, Enoch is buried somewhere on the earth awaiting the resurrection at Jesus Christ’s return (1 Corinthians 15:52; 1 Thessalonians 4:16). Enoch is not alive in heaven.
What about Elijah?
Now, what happened to Elijah? In 2 Kings 2:11 we are told plainly that a chariot of fire appeared with horses of fire, and that Elijah “went up by a whirlwind into heaven.”
So did Elijah actually go to the heaven of God’s throne? We have to realize that the Scriptures speak of three heavens:
The first is the atmosphere of the earth, where the clouds are (Genesis 1:8).
The second is what we call “space” where the planets and stars are found (Genesis 15:5).
And the third is the location of God’s throne (2 Corinthians 12:2).
Actually, the prophet Elijah did not die at that time, nor did he go to God’s throne. The chariot must have entered the first heaven or the atmosphere and transferred him to another place, since Elijah wrote a letter many years later! Actually, the prophet Elijah did not die at that time, nor did he go to God’s throne. The chariot must have entered the first heaven or the atmosphere and transferred him to another place, since Elijah wrote a letter many years later! See 2 Chronicles 21:12-15.
Enoch And Elijah Are Not In Heaven
An important point to consider is that the Bible clearly teaches us that “no one has ascended to heaven” (John 3:13). Acts 2:29 and 34 emphasize this fact as well. When the apostle Peter gave this sermon, righteous King David was still in his grave about 1,000 years after his death.
Based on the biblical evidence, Enoch and Elijah died, as do we all (Hebrews 9:27). Enoch and Elijah are still in their graves, somewhere on this earth, waiting for the resurrection of the just at Christ’s return; and neither was transferred up into the third heaven of God’s throne.
Did the Disciples See the Real Moses and Elijah (Matthew 17:3)?
Matthew, Mark, and Luke each record an account of the transfiguration of Jesus (Matthew 17:1-9; Mark 9:2-10; Luke 9:28-36). Notice Christ's instructions to the disciples as they descended the mountain: "Tell the vision to no one" (Matthew 17:9). A vision is not a material reality; it is a supernatural scene observed in the "mind's eye."
Moses was dead and buried long before this event (Deuteronomy 34:5-6), as was Elijah. The disciples saw these men only in the glory of the resurrection—an event which will not actually occur until the Second Coming of Christ (Hebrews 11:39; I Corinthians 15:51-52; I Thessalonians 4:13-17). So, the three disciples seeing Moses and Elijah in the transfiguration did not see ghosts or spirit beings of any kind but a vision of how they would look—glorified—in the resurrection.
The account of the transfiguration in Matthew 17 also explains Matthew 16:28: "Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste of death till they see the Son of man coming in His kingdom." Since God's Kingdom has not yet been established here on earth and the disciples all died, the obvious meaning is that some of the disciples were to be shown the splendor of the Kingdom in a vision. And so they were, through the transfiguration.
Constance Cumbey said to RayB @ 2:48 AM:
Grandma was sharp as a tack with a near photographic memory right up until her very final days.
Constance
We should be so fortunate !
Just out of curiosity, did your Grandma watch much TV?
I have found that older people that remain "sharp as a tack" do not waste time watching TV. I have read that the constant flashing of the TV screen actually puts people into a passive psychological state, and, contributes to the destruction of brain cells. I tend to believe that.
Interesting exegesis Anon 1:42-43 PM. How does square with the explicit words of Heb 11:5?
5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God (KJV).
Part of this is based on your understanding of John 3:13. Yet there are different interpretations.
Anonymous 7:36
Maybe you should tone down your threats.
This is from the book A Woman Rides the Beast, by Dave Hunt
The Slaughter of the Serbs:
Unlike the Germans, who were interested only in the quickest and most efficient means of mass extermination, the Catholic Ustashi, with priests and bishops participating and giving their blessing, took great pleasure from torturing before killing. Franciscan monks in particular joined Ustashi battalions. Most of their victims were not shot, but were strangled, drowned, burned or stabbed to death. Serbs were herded into Orthodox churches by Ustashi, (as the Crusaders had done with Jews in an earlier age), who then barred the doors and torched the timbers. One captured photograph shows Ustashi smiling for the cameras before a table displaying a Serbian businessman whom they had castrated, disemboweled, carved with knives and burned beyond recognition.
Estimates of the number of victims exceed a million. Yugoslavia in it's war crimes trials estimated that from 700,000 to 900,000
victims were tortured and put to death...in the two dozen concentration camps within Croatia, and tens of thousands never reached the camps. Many were Jews but most were Serbians of Orthodox faith who were given the choice of Roman Catholicism or death.
Constance ~
When RayB DARES to make many such OUTRAGEOUS statements like this one (see below)... he loses ALL credibility!!! (Would RayB DARE to confront Jesus Himself on Judgement Day with such a slanderous statement of HERESY such as this???)
__________________________________________________________________________________________
RayB said at 1:29 PM today June 30, 2020 . . .
"The 'Christ' of the RCC is one that has not paid the price for sin, as evidenced by their doctrines of the Sacrifice of the Mass and Purgatory."
As a Catholic, I want to go on record here as saying that NO ONE should ever be THREATENED on this blog... not towards Paul (as in the post directed at him @ 7:36 AM)... or anyone else on this blog -- EVER!!! This is unacceptable behavior.
Then there's the co authors of the book The Unholy Trinity; Mark Aarons and John Loftus, after sifting through thousands of hitherto secret documents which had been in underground vaults in Suitland, Maryland and found decades after the war:
"Under the direction of Pope Pius the XII, Vatican officials such as Monsignor Giovanni Montini (Later Pope Paul VI) supervised one of the greatest obstructions of justice in modern history...facilitating the escape of tens of thousands of Nazi war criminals to the West, where they were supposed to be trained as "Freedom Fighters"...as well as Central European Fascist war criminals from Russia, Byelorussia and the Ukraine"
A large number of them were Roman Catholic clergy, from priests to archbishops.
Maybe I should just confine my quotes to Vatican Officials:
"It is evident from experience that the Holy Scriptures, when circulated in the vulgar tongue, have produced more harm than benefit [paraphrasing Trent] we have deliberated upon the measures proper to be adopted, by our pontifical authority, in order to remedy and abolish this pestilence...this defilement of the faith so imminently dangerous to souls."
_Pope Pius VII encyclical letter of 1816 addressed to the primate of Poland
Anonymous @ 2:03 PM ....
"OUTRAGEOUS?" Really?
If your sins are covered by the shed blood of Christ upon the cross, why is he sacrificed again and again and again via the Sacrifice of the Mass?
If your sins are covered by the shed blood of Christ upon the cross, why is it necessary for you to spend an "indeterminate" amount of time in Purgatory?
Craig, thank you. And in answer to your question:
Enoch is included by Paul (in Hebrews 11) among the fathers who obtained a good report through faith; but “these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise” (Heb. 11:39). What promise? The “hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began”
(Titus 1:2).
So Enoch therefore is one of “these all” who have not yet obtained the promise of eternal life and inheritance. Enoch and all the worthies of old will receive the promise of eternal life at the return of Christ, the same time Christians obtain it (Heb. 11:40). That is yet future!
Since Enoch has not yet inherited eternal life he must be dead! This is exactly what Paul writes in Hebrews 11:13. Paul says Enoch died! Notice it. “These all died in faith, not having received the promises.” Who were these “all”?
Paul tells us: Abel, Enoch, Noah, and the patriarchs and their wives. Hebrews 11:1-12 lists those who had faith and Enoch is included among them. Then in verse 13 Paul proved that they had not inherited the promises by saying: “These all [including Enoch] died in faith.”
But what about Paul’s saying that Enoch “should not see death”?
Which Death Did Enoch Escape?
Enoch lived only three hundred sixty-five years. Then what could Paul possibly have meant by saying: “By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found because God had translated him”? This verse nowhere says that Enoch did not die. Rather, it says that Enoch “should not see death.” But what does it mean?
Remember, there is more than one death mentioned in the Bible. There is a first death, and there is a second death (Rev. 20:6).
Which death did Paul mean? The first death is appointed unto men (Heb. 9:27). That death cannot be humanly evaded. It is inevitable. That death Enoch died, as we have already proved.
But Paul was not writing about that death. The phrase “should not see” is in the conditional tense of the verb, having reference to a future event. It is not in the past tense, that he “did not see” death — but that he “should not see death.” So this death that Enoch escaped by being translated is one that he can escape in the future on certain conditions!
Did Jesus ever speak of a death that might be escaped? He certainly did! In John 8:51 Jesus said, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death” — shall never see — that is, suffer — the second death! And again in John 11:26, “Whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die” — or “shall not die forever.”
This death is one that can be escaped on condition that men keep the saying of Jesus and believe Him. This death is not the first death, because Christians who keep Jesus’ sayings die this first death. Then the death which Enoch should escape must be the second death which will never touch those who are in the first resurrection (Rev. 20:6). And Enoch will be in the first resurrection because he met the conditions!
Enoch had faith. He believed God and walked with God, obeying Him. In keeping the sayings of God, Enoch kept the sayings of Jesus too; because Jesus did not speak of Himself, but spoke what the Father commanded Him (John 14:10).
Thus Enoch met the conditions so that he should not see death. The second death shall never touch Enoch, because of his faith and obedience.
Two Translations
Now we can understand Hebrews 11:5: “By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.”
This verse plainly mentions two translations.
Examining this verse fact by fact, we notice that Enoch had faith and was translated. This translation — removal, transference — was on condition of faith. Now what translation mentioned in the Bible is on condition of faith? Why, the one we read about in Colossians 1:13. The Father “hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son.”
This is a figurative translation — a figurative removal or transference from the spiritual darkness of this world to the light of the family or Kingdom of God and Christ. In verse 10 Paul shows that to abide in this Kingdom we must “walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing.” This is exactly what Enoch did. He walked with God, and pleased God.
Then Enoch, the same as Christians, was delivered from the power of sin and darkness in which he had been living for sixty-five years. He was removed (translated) from the ways of the world and lived three hundred years according to God’s ways so that he might inherit eternal life at Christ’s return, and should not suffer the second death.
By faith Enoch was separated — removed or translated — from the world, the same as Christians who are not to be a part of the world, although living in the world.
Not only was Enoch figuratively taken from the society of his day, but he was also literally removed — translated — so that he was not found.
God took him physically away from the people, just as He later took Moses. And God buried each so well that neither has ever been found since!
RayB @ 1:29 PM,
You’re swallowing the camel. It is obvious to any reader here that Constance’s ABC – NBC illustration centers on Christians, as understood as any partakers in the back-and-forth exchange. Your attempts to expand it to include Mormons and JWs smacks of looking for a ‘gotcha’. She should not have to spell out her comments to your satisfaction.
Obviously, Constance does not adhere to the Council of Trent. A staunch Catholic would, but a staunch Protestant would reject it in favor of his/her own belief to include the concurring belief that the RCC system is faulty to the extent of denying true salvation to its own adherents. Thus, the two are completely irreconcilable. Cumbey believes in a softer stance for each ‘side’.
Whether you like it or not, Constance’s stance IS HER STANCE. And she has every right to it, while you have NO RIGHT to impose your standards on her.
Anonymous said (in part) @ 7:36 AM:
"The onus is on Paul and that son of a failed congressman, Ray B. If Paul, incognito or no, or Ray B. continue their attack then I shall remain on the path to war against the pair of them and their sychophants, come what may!"
"Either Ray B. and Paul's persecution of Catholics and Jews here stops now, or it is time to move beyond words on this blog to more convincing dissuasion. Enough said!"
Dear Constance,
This poster should not be banned. He is not completely over the top. He isn't vulgar, angry and never resorts to personal threats.
Thank you!
Craig said @ 2:37 PM:
Whether you like it or not, Constance’s stance IS HER STANCE. And she has every right to it, while you have NO RIGHT to impose your standards on her.
Craig,
She can believe whatever she wants. She has that right. I also have the right (this is a blog isn't it?) to state my views, do I not?
Are you saying that "HER STANCE" cannot be questioned or examined?
Are you claiming that mere questioning or stating an opposing position is somehow "imposing" personal standards upon her, or, anyone else for that matter?
What exactly are you saying Craig? Should we only post when we are in complete agreement with others? Is that what you are saying?
RayB
Don't try to put a new 'slant' on your previous statement.
You dared to actually say the following words: "The 'Christ' of the RCC is one that has not paid the price for sin."
You WILL have to answer to Jesus Himself on Judgement Day.
You need to be very careful when posting on a blog... because your WORDS do have consequences.
Anon 2:36-37 PM,
With respect, right from the beginning of your first comment you go awry:
Enoch is included by Paul (in Hebrews 11) among the fathers who obtained a good report through faith; but “these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise” (Heb. 11:39). What promise? The “hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began” (Titus 1:2).
Why do you jump from Hebrews to Titus, when the answer is found in the very next verse in Hebrews (11:40):
God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect (KJV).
The “promise” was the MESSIAH! Thus, this must not necessarily mean those listed did not attain to eternal life in some fashion. The Jewish belief in “Abraham’s bosom” is implied in Jesus’ words in Luke 16:19-31.
RayB's pride and arrogance has only succeeded in clouding his judgement. (Until recently, few have dared to challenge him.)
While we ALL certainly have a right to our beliefs... no one has the right to openly trash and completely disrespect the beliefs of others on this blog... or, to make it a daily 'game of sport' to constantly provoke others... just to satisfy his own ego.
And, for RayB to keep confronting Constance... is the height of ARROGANCE and disrespect on his part.
RayB,
Once again, you wish to put words in another's mouth, as evidenced by your ridiculous straw man: Should we only post when we are in complete agreement with others? Is that what you are saying? Just like you posted your own straw man in reference to Constance’s ABC – NBC stance (the bit about Mormons and JWs, etc.). This is not an infrequent tactic of yours. It’s not very difficult to tear down one’s own straw man version of another’s words, is it?
You are trying to impose your standards of what is acceptable discourse on someone else’s blog—Constance’s. Out of respect, you should either accept the parameters set forth by her NBC – ABC analogy (and accept that no analogy is perfect) or you should remove yourself from these types of conversations. Why not start your own blog and post exactly how you wish?
Your insistence of continuing to question Constance after she had just explained what she meant by her use of “Torah” is the height of hubris, as per the evidence here in your 12:57 PM comment above:
NOTE: The point I was making is that the Torah is NOT the Word of God. While it does contain books of the Bible, it also contains extra Biblical "traditons," writings, oral accounts, etc. of Rabbis throughout history. If you want to consider that as an authoritative source equal to the Bible, you have that right.
All you did, essentially, was repeat the same thing in your previous comment (in the first 200 @ 12:54 PM):
NOTE: Constance, I find it rather interesting that you would refer to the "Torah," and not the Bible in your comment. Here is the definition of what the Torah is ... hardly the rock solid foundation of God's all authoritative Word:
And this is AFTER she had already clarified her meaning to you!
Craig says:
"You are trying to impose your standards of what is acceptable discourse on someone else’s blog—Constance’s. Out of respect, you should either accept the parameters set forth by her NBC – ABC analogy (and accept that no analogy is perfect) or you should remove yourself from these types of conversations."
NOTE: interpretation; either agree with someone "out of respect" and either accept the analogy, or SHUT UP. So I take it, Craig, that anything and everything that Constance posts, should never be "out of respect" challenged ? REALLY ?
Precisely the point that I was making.
Bottom line, RayB... this is Constance's BLOG -- not yours.
If you're not happy here, why not leave and start your OWN blog???
I felt that I must comment about the strife on this blogspot.
It is needless.
It is simple to stop.
All that is necessary is to:
a) Avoid posting insulting comments.
As examples this includes such things as "Come out of her my people" or "I can't believe their members are so gullible that..." etc. etc. etc!
Why? Well, let's say for the sake of argument that when someone might say it, the basis of that comment was true, whether it was (so to speak) for followers of this, that, or the other organization or belief system. These people are acting according to the best of their understanding and belief and when they are hit with being 'painted' with what amounts to saying to them "You're not good enough", it is way too much, way too fast.
There's a time and a place for everything and this blogspot is not the place for it. Nor in this same vein of course has it been the place for the more directly stated insults.
Sorry.
b) Avoid assuming insulting comments.
Example:
Anonymous said...
LIFE SITE NEWS
6/26/2020
Anglican archbishop of Canterbury: Statues 'will have to come down…names will have to change'
UN secretary general calls for "global governance" with ‘teeth’
US Catholic charity CEO: Catholic Church is racist because Jesus was 'white'
https://censored.news/LifeSiteNews.htm
6:17 PM
Anonymous said...
The ANTI-Catholics just can't get ENOUGH of our Catholic Church.
Copy & paste; copy & paste; copy & paste.
OBSESSION; OBSESSION; OBSESSION.
(It must be because their church is so BORING, BORING, BORING!!!)
7:25 PM
There we see three comments precisely one of which had to do Catholicism and even that was not in and of itself critical of the Catholic church but about what a CEO was going around claiming. (And all three from a Catholic website to boot!)
And dissections of doctrines and/or beliefs are just that. Dissections of doctrines and/or beliefs.
They are not "attacks".
If an understanding about Christianity can be improved by examination of the pros and cons in this position or that in doctrines and beliefs, all benefit! A denomination is not automatically destroyed if it should modify its official position(s) after gaining a better understanding, you know, so doctrinal or belief system points to ponder aren't lethal "attacks" on the institution which may at that time have them or its members hold to them but they are simply the intellectual examinations of theological issues.
So let's strive to keep things civil here, folks!
RayB,
Precisely another STRAW MAN: NOTE: interpretation; either agree with someone "out of respect" and either accept the analogy, or SHUT UP. So I take it, Craig, that anything and everything that Constance posts, should never be "out of respect" challenged?
How about within the scope of BLOG COMMENTING rather than "anything and everything".
You really take the cake.
Addendum/clarification to above:
How about within the scope of BLOG COMMENTING with respect to 'ABC -- NBC' rather than "anything and everything".
RayB's problem (whether he wants to acknowledge it or not) is OBSESSION, OBSESSION, OBSESSION.
We Catholics are demanding that he cease and desist... and we continue to pray that he gets the professional help that he so desperately needs!!!
Re: The Jewish belief in “Abraham’s bosom” is implied in Jesus’ words in Luke 16:19-31
https://youtu.be/M4a0GlVf2No
BREAKING NEWS: States Ordered To Fraudulently Inflate COVID-19 Cases 15 Times Actual Rate
https://banned.video/watch?id=5efab695672706002f367a0a
Craig just loves to label ANY disagreement with him as either a "straw man" or an "ad hominem" tactic.
By doing this, he avoids any kind of meaningful debate.
Then he loves to end with snide remarks like "you really take the cake."
You showed your REAL colors, Craig, way back when. I was arguing FOR the Trinity doctrine based upon Bible verses, when I used the verse fromI John 5:7, which reads;
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
YOUR ONLY "contribution" to the debate, in TYPICAL "Craig" fashion, was to jump in and state (erroneously) "that verse does not belong in the Bible."
My entire defense of the Trinity suddenly took a different turn ... all because Craig just couldn't resist throwing in his "intellectual" 2 cents worth.
Yeah, Craig!
Oh, wait...
"The passage first appeared as an addition to the Vulgate, the Ecclesiastical Latin translation of the Bible, and entered the Greek manuscript tradition in the 15th century.[2] It does not appear in the oldest Latin manuscripts, and appears to have originated as a gloss around the end of the 4th century.[3] Some scribes gradually incorporated this annotation into the main text over the course of the Middle Ages.
"The first Greek manuscript of the New Testament that contains the comma dates from the 15th century."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannine_Comma
Yes, Craig does show his 'true colors'...
Like Constance, Craig is a TRUE Christian (in the purest sense of the word) who shows love, wisdom, understanding and fairness toward ALL Christians (both Catholics and Protestants).
It's really a shame that you can't LEARN from their examples, RayB and Paul.
Lessons such as: "Love thy neighbor as thyself"... and "Judge not lest ye be judged".
1:55 PM is just another example of RayB's way to "dialogue". He asks questions then leaves the impression that one is saying/doing what he suspects/thinks is a wrong thing (according to him). He does that in question form but he means them as statements (against someone) because that comes back to bite later and the conversation is hijacked by him at that juncture. The dialogue nosedives at that point.
Sorry, but that is too direct, too confrontational, RayB. Though we may often agree doctrinally I have called you out for your tone and tactics before when you and I basically agreed yet because I worded something differently than you then somehow my answers or thoughts on a subject were scrutinized unduly by you to become something other than what I actually said or definitely implied, so can't even agree when there is opportunity to do it! That is unnecessarily antagonistic and why you create more misunderstanding than you create understanding. I hope you hear what I am saying and with the intent I am trying to convey. Please reconsider the approach you take here.
Innuendo and/or manipulation of dialogue sends conversation sideways, and into a ditch. If someone is straightforward but not a display that personally sends a malicious intent, then we can give the benefit of the doubt, can't we? Agree to disagree, then, what is so wrong with that?
Some others here also need to do a reconsideration of their posting as well.
I need this myself.
from 1 Corinthians 13:
If I speak in the tongues[a] of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast,[b] but do not have love, I gain nothing.
And love covers a multitude of sins.
AMEN to Anonymous @ 5:46 PM . . .
I would not be able to add or subtract anything to your very well expressed post.
Multiple beheadings of stations of the cross bronze statues at Catholic property seemed to be unreported news until now.
https://youtu.be/kJ_HgGTQtmY
Whether one is for or against Catholic doctrine the wider or more pressing issue is the riseing attacks upon all things considered as Christain.
Those indulgeing in anti Christian sentiment and hatred draw no distinction in regard to denominational or doctrinal differences.
You have made an excellent point, GrantNZ @ 7:23 PM.
To Anon @ 5:46 PM ...
What exactly did you find so offensive about the post I made at 1:55 PM ? Perhaps you are an avid TV watcher ... I hope I didn't offend YOU by my grossly insensitive comments ! LOL
Constance Cumbey said to RayB @ 2:48 AM:
Grandma was sharp as a tack with a near photographic memory right up until her very final days.
Constance
NOTE: Here is my response to Constance:
We should be so fortunate !
Just out of curiosity, did your Grandma watch much TV?
I have found that older people that remain "sharp as a tack" do not waste time watching TV. I have read that the constant flashing of the TV screen actually puts people into a passive psychological state, and, contributes to the destruction of brain cells. I tend to believe that.
1:55 PM
NOTE: Things are really starting to get strange on this Blog. People are so incredibly sensitive that you can't even say anything anymore without someone taking offense.
I was wondering the same thing. I think they mixed up and meant another, like your 1:29 PM post.
got mixed up and meant another...
Israel orders evangelical Christian media network God TV to take channel off air
https://www.yahoo.com/news/israel-orders-evangelical-christian-media-174741689.html
Yes RayB, strangely, you just had to go there to speculate about little Grandma whom you didn't know and make a rather stupid remark to cast some type of refute to Constance.
I have not watched TV for years but what on earth is that to you if either I, her Grandma, did?
It shows, once again, how judgmental you really are.
You come across as very arrogant.
By the way, RAYB...You didn't have to repeat your comment to Constance. It was stupid enough the first time...
When will you get a clue?
You don't know any of us but you think yourself some kind of expert to speculate or to attempt to read our minds, reading in what we don't say or putting your spin on what we do.
It is strange that you can't hear the very loud clanging coming from your posts.
Hey Ray.
I picked up the book you recommended today...
The Gulag Archipelago
Both you and Jordan Peterson recommended it actually.
Thanks.
It would be a shame, RayB, if you never turn from your (all-too-often) sourly judgmental and closed-minded attitude because you would have much to offer. I never thanked you for your mentions of how a plant-based diet helped you and can really help turn our health around for the better, but I will now. Thank you! It was an inspiring story.
To 10:50 a.m.
Thank you for your kind words. I deleted all posts that I found using the "f___" word. But I'm glad to hear that the poster is otherwise not hostile.
Constance
To Grant in NZ: You are so very right. What is going on is an attack on all things Christian.
Constance
A segment of an article of mine is present below.
http://www.towahkon.org/EvolutionChurch.html
The Roman Catholic Church’s vetted and canonized St. Basil the Great (330-379) wrote: “…it is customary for vultures to feed on corpses, but since there were not yet [before Adam’s sin], corpses, nor yet their stench, so there was not yet such food for vultures. But all [beasts] followed the diet of swans and all grazed the meadows…none of the beasts were carnivores…such was the first creation [Gn 1:3], and such will be the restoration [RV. 21:1-4] after this.”
Every human being on earth today is a Homo sapiens. We are Homo sapiens who originated in Africa between 200,000 – 300,000 years ago. If there had actually been a “Garden of Eden” where a single couple (“Adam and Eve”) lived, it would had to have been divinely created on earth HUNDREDS Of THOUSANDS of years ago in Africa, and HUNDREDS Of MILLIONS of years of animal evolution would have already taken place.
Those hundreds of millions of years of animal evolution that occurred before we Homo sapiens came into existence were very corrupt. They were corrupted by a lot of animal deaths (making available many corpses for “vultures” to eat), sickening deadly diseases and devastating natural catastrophes. There were several mass extinctions of animals. Many vicious carnivorous animals existed. Every animal eventually died, often in a violent and cruel way. It was a brutal “survival of the fits” world then, as it still is today.
The creation was never “good” or “very good,” as falsely claimed in Genesis by the Old Testament “God” Yahweh, and, therefore, neither was the creation ever “pure,” as falsely claimed by the Roman Catholic Church. The creation cannot be "restored to the purity of its origins" [which is the Catholic church's central dogma] because it was not pure at the time of its origins, and therefore neither can, nor will, the earth be "restored to the purity of its origins," and consequently there will never be a "new earth," nor will the "just" be resurrected and live forever, "world without end" on the falsely prophesied future "new earth."
There is a recently written [open letter] statement by Archbishop Vigano to President Trump that was presented on the Fox News, Lou Dobbs Tonight show. It reads: "[It] is disconcerting that there are Bishops...who, by their words, prove that they are aligned on the opposing side [of righteousness]. They are subservient to the deep state, to globalism, to aligned thought, to the New World Order which they invoke ever more frequently in the name of a universal brotherhood which has nothing Christian about it, but which evokes the Masonic ideals of those who want to dominate the world by driving God out of the courts, out of the schools, out of families, and perhaps even out of the churches."
Vigano also wrote that the members of the "new church" or "parallel church" believe there are two Gods, so the "new church" people, according to Vigano, are not traditional Christians or monotheists who believe in American's declaration of civil and religious belief, as professed in these religious and patriotic words: "We, the people of the U.S.A., are one nation under God." Nor do the polytheistic (belief in many or more than one God) "new church" people (who believe in two Gods) want America's monotheistic "God" in this land's courts, schools, families, nor even in the churches.
Hundreds of George W. Bush administration officials to back Biden
https://news.trust.org/item/20200701081455-fu26q
Is this not ALL the proof we need that the only time a President of the United States will ever get 'a fair shake' by the press will be if he is a 'globalist' president (like Bush #41 & #43, Obama, Biden, Clinton)?
Please IGNORE (or collapse) the intentionally inflammatory ANTI-Catholic remarks from Dahlheimer, RayB, Paul.
TRUE Christians have love in their hearts ("love thy neighbor as thyself"... in other words, they are non-TOXIC human beings.
May Jesus have mercy on their souls!!!
This article was first published back in February, but is making the rounds now. I fear it will stoke further violence against Whites and Christians:
Lynching preachers: How black pastors resisted Jim Crow and white pastors incited racial violence
https://theconversation.com/lynching-preachers-how-black-pastors-resisted-jim-crow-and-white-pastors-incited-racial-violence-129963#comment_2144066
“White lynch mobs in America murdered at least 4,467 people between 1883 and 1941, hanging, burning, dismembering, garroting and blowtorching their victims.
“Their violence was widespread but not indiscriminate: About 3,300 of the lynched were black, according to the most recent count by sociologists Charles Seguin and David Rigby. The remaining dead were white, Mexican, of Mexican descent, Native American, Chinese or Japanese.
“Such numbers, based on verifiable newspaper reports, represent a minimum. The full human toll of racial lynching may remain ever beyond reach.”
To put this in perspective, the period of time for these 4467 lynchings is 58 years, yet more Black on Black murders occur in 10 years in Chicago alone. That’s not to minimize the horrors of these lynchings of course.
The title of the article suggests all lynchings were led by White pastors, even though the (Black) author presents no such evidence for this. Though apparently some were, it doesn’t appear ALL were.
Constance posted @ 2:18 AM:
"Thank you for your kind words. I deleted all posts that I found using the "f___" word. BUT I'M GLAD TO HEAR THAT THE POSTER IS OTHERWISE NOT HOSTILE." (block letters used for emphasis)
NOTE: Here is just a sampling of Constance's non "hostile" Catholic poster (from the posts that I copied, and she deleted, because they contained the "F" word):
"Paul is an awful brainless numbskull. We know where your homosexual lodger's lair is paul ... "
"Take care now, you proddy c***! Tempting to come and find you and give you a taste of the RA, you mouthy little murderous Protestant c***! Now get to f***, if you know what is good for you, you closeted proddy queer!"
"Don't f*** with the Irish! " 1:59 PM
"Now do you get we Catholics are sick and tired after 15 years of your s***, you mouthy proddy orange bas****, paul. Now get to f***, you protestant scum." 2:08 PM
"... paul. I know where in Portland Maine you are.
"I am not an idiot posting here, so you should realise I am f******* tired, you heathen orange filth!" 2:20 PM
"The persecution of the Church has been sadly borne out here for 15 long years now by child murderer supporting Calvinist heretics, such as paul, Ray B and your loveless pompous self." 4:22 AM
"The onus is on Paul and that son of a failed congressman, Ray B. If Paul, incognito or no, or Ray B. continue their attack then I shall remain on the path to war against the pair of them and their sychophants, come what may! 15 years of it: we are sick to the back teeth of all Paul's and Ray B.'s evil. Enough already!"
"Either Ray B. and Paul's persecution of Catholics and Jews here stops now, or it is time to move beyond words on this blog to more convincing dissuasion. Enough said!" 7:36 AM
NOTE: "glad to 'hear' that the poster is otherwise not hostile." LOL !!!
While Constance somehow passes over all of the hostility, etc. as illustrated above, she asks me: "Are you anti-Semitic?" because I challenged her use of the Torah as an authoritative source, rather than the Bible.
Here is my original post, that prompted her asking her "anti-Semitic" question. Notice that I provided the JEWISH definition of what the Torah actually is, not what "Craig" and Constance THINKS it is:
Constance Cumbey, @ 4:38 AM said this (in part) in an obvious defense of the Roman Catholic practice of making images in violation to * Exodus 20:4:
"Vis a vis the subject of images, I note that although the TORAH forbade images, nevertheless, the Jews were ordered by God to make images of Cherubim and Seraphim angelic beings."
NOTE: Constance, I find it rather interesting that you would refer to the "Torah," and not the Bible in your comment. Here is the definition of what the Torah is ... hardly the rock solid foundation of God's all authoritative Word:
"Torah (/ˈtɔːrə, ˈtoʊrə/; Hebrew: תּוֹרָה, "Instruction", "Teaching" or "Law") has a range of meanings. It can most specifically mean the first five books (Pentateuch or five books of Moses) of the 24 books of the Hebrew Bible. This is commonly known as the Written Torah. It can also mean the continued narrative from all the 24 books, from the Book of Genesis to the end of the Tanakh (Chronicles), and it can even mean the totality of Jewish teaching, culture, and practice, whether derived from biblical texts or later rabbinic writings. This is often known as the Oral Torah.[1] Common to all these meanings, Torah consists of the origin of Jewish peoplehood: their call into being by God, their trials and tribulations, and their covenant with their God, which involves following a way of life embodied in a set of moral and religious obligations and civil laws (halakha)."
* "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth." Exodus 20:4
NOTE: WHY did Constance NOT refer to God's Word while making her defense for the Catholic use of statues and images?
Could it be because the Bible is in direct conflict with her Catholic supporting position, while the "Torah" is an ambiguous, non-authoritative, predominantly un-Scriptural source, with equally ambiguous oral and written declarations by Jewish Rabbis?
RayB @ 11:02 AM
Two of us, who are regular Catholic posters here, have ALREADY admonished that particular Catholic poster for his offensive language (who, unfortunately, had reached his 'breaking point' with both you and Paul). Why don't you copy and paste OUR comments?
Also, Constance has already addressed this.
So, your obvious goal and agenda here is to further INFLAME and 'stir the pot'... and for what purpose???
Sorry... but your copying and pasting comments from that particular exasperated Catholic, doesn't even come close to ERASING 15 long years of DAILY Catholic bashing VENOM that we have had to endure from you and Paul!!!
Nice try though . . .
Question: Did Jesus come to bring unity and peace to the world? Or, was He knowingly bringing division because He knew that the TRUTH will always cause DIVISION:
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."
"For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law."
"And a man's foes shall be they of his own household." Matthew 10:34-36
NOTE that the word "sword" is used in Scripture in reference to His Word:
"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." Hebrews 4:12
Jesus was prophesied to be an instrument of great division among sinful men:
"And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him."
"And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ."
"And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary his mother, Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against;" Luke 2: 25, 26, 34
NOTE: the TRUTH is not a uniter, it is a DIVIDER. Christ did NOT come to bring unison, but rather, division, because "I am the way, the TRUTH, and the life ..." John 14:6 If you think you have Christ without HIS truth, you are being deceived. When He warned "Let no MAN deceive you," he also warned of "false Christs." Lies that are attached to your "Christ" is an invention of the Devil and is not of God.
Over many years of working in a corporate office, I learned that when someone CONSTANTLY has complaints about 'the boss' (in this case that would be our very wise leader, Constance)... the only SOLUTION is for that UNHAPPY person to leave and go somewhere else.
Start your own blog... and take Paul and Dahlheimer with you. Just think how happy the three of you would be together. Utopia awaits!!!
So... why doesn't RayB (who views himself as being so 'intelligent') get the message???
From chapter 8 of A Woman Rides the Beast
Unbroken line of succession?
" Furthermore, there is no record that Peter was ever Bishop of Rome, and therefore no Bishop of Rome could possibly be his successor. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (178-200) provided a list of the first 12 Bishops of Rome. Linus was the first. Peter's name does not appear. Eusebius of Caesaria, the Father of Church History, never mentions Peter as Bishop of Rome.He simply says that Peter came to Rome "about the end of his days" and was crucified there. Paul, in writing his epistle to the Romans, greets many people by name, but not Peter. That would be a strange omission if Peter had been living in Rome and especially if he were its bishop!"
"White Lives Don't Matter" Academic: "I Resist Urges To Kneecap White Men"
More hateful tweets surface as Cambridge University continues to back Priyamvada Gopal...
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/white-lives-dont-matter-academic-i-resist-urges-to-kneecap-white-men
RayB,
Righteous Jesus is indeed a Divider as the Word tells us.
However, you are quite the unrighteous divider. You use God's Word but then you go off with your locked and loaded comments that bring ire because you are so heavy handed and unkind doing it, also quite coy and manipulative with your interested "curiousity" and diggy, probing but really just nosy, questions. You look for dirt. Can't find it ?..well then, you spin the conversation till you think you have somebody trapped..even the blog owner who is gracious to let you post here.
And we are on to you.
So you divide, but not coming from a righteous standpoint, as Jesus did. You hide behind Christian words all the while taking an ugly aim at people that goes against the very Spirit of the Word. You were saved from the pit of hell like every other true believer is, by the Lord's righteousness when you had none (because none of us do) but you seem to forget this very easily, so pride reeks from your posts.
Yes, Jesus is the divider alright, because the Truth does exactly that, it separates out what is false among us all. You do not hold all truth, He does.
I have read your posts for a while now and you sure do have an anti-semtic air about you.
You do come against Catholics in a superior and toxic tone.
Constance answered you, but typical you and your fine toothed comb, you look for a way to divide. That is most certainly not Christ-like and you will answer for it.
You have no defense for your behavior as you hide behind a keyboard where you can sound high and mighty...but you're not.
RayB @ 11:29 AM,
Why did you choose such an ambiguous term in your use of “God’s Word” (NOTE: WHY did Constance NOT refer to God's Word while making her defense for the Catholic use of statues and images?)? I’m not sure what you mean. Mormons and JWs have their own versions of “God’s Word”. Are one of those what you mean? Or do you mean the God’s Word translation of the Christian Bible? Or did you mean the website called “God’s Word For You”? On the latter, if you search “Torah”, seven results appear, and every one define it as the five Books of Moses, aka the Pentateuch. Well, how ‘bout that.
Relatedly, why did you use the similarly ambiguous “the Bible” (Could it be because the Bible is in direct conflict with her Catholic supporting position, while the "Torah" is an ambiguous…)? I’m not sure what you mean. Mormons and JWs have their own versions of “the Bible”. Are one of those what you mean? I’m thinking you probably mean “Bible” as defined on Wikipedia: The Bible (from Koine Greek τὰ βιβλία, tà biblía, "the books") is a collection of sacred texts or scriptures. The Bible is generally considered to be a product of divine inspiration and a record of the relationship between God and humans by Christians, Jews, Samaritans, Rastafari and others. Wait, what? The Bible is also used by Jews, Samaritans, Rastafari and others?! This is just SO CONFUSING!
I think you get my point: Words only take on meaning in their relative contexts. I think most anyone could understand Constance’s meaning by her context, especially since she clarified it. If you weren’t and still aren’t sure, why not ask an open ended question for clarification (“What did you mean by ‘Torah’?”), instead of “asking” in a manner that accuses her of some other intention?
In any case, from the very beginning, her most logical meaning is borne out in the very source you cited:
Torah (/ˈtɔːrə, ˈtoʊrə/; Hebrew: תּוֹרָה, "Instruction", "Teaching" or "Law") has a range of meanings. It can most specifically mean the first five books (Pentateuch or five books of Moses) of the 24 books of the Hebrew Bible. This is commonly known as the Written Torah.
Your query to Constance could have been: “Do you mean the Written Torah?” This would have had a much better result than the loaded question you posed.
RayB perhaps you shouldn't take satisfaction from your self-satisfied style of causing division since Christ also says...
https://www.biblehub.com/matthew/5-9.htm
(Correction)
RayB perhaps you shouldn't take satisfaction from your self-satisfied style of causing division since Christ also says...
https://www.biblehub.com/matthew/5-9.htm
Maybe it's time to 'throw in the towel' as far as the current posting policy and ban RayB, paul and the two(?) venomous 'Catholic' posters and Thomas Dahlheimer so we could get a little peace and quiet and friendly postings and discussions going without their jarring interruptions.
Seattle smashes CHOP: Police reclaim their precinct and at least 23 people are arrested after mayor FINALLY issues executive order and riot police vacate the zone which has seen two deadly shootings in three weeks and crime rise by 500%
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8479203/Seattle-police-moves-reclaim-precinct-CHOP-clearing-block-30-minutes.html
1:48 PM
There is only ONE Catholic poster here, who needed to be reprimanded on this blog recently.
There are several Catholic posters (who have been participating on this blog for 15 years)... who NEVER use offensive language... and always remain in control of their emotions.
Therefore, it is UNFAIR to paint ALL Catholic posters with the same wide brush!!!
The Catholics are "venomous" because it's the nature of their religion.
So you want to throw out the baby, with the bathwater? Kinda makes you the devil's advocate.
Paul, all of your rants about Peter not being the first Pope can be directed to Jesus on Judgement Day... since your 15 years of 'quarrels' (and complaints) are ultimately with HIM and not with us Catholics on this blog!!!
Judgement Day can't come soon enough for ALL of us. Looking forward to it . . .
Constance would NOT agree with your statement, 2:42 PM... and HER opinion is the only one on this blog that matters to me.
Have a nice day . . .
May God forgive you for your sin of SLANDER, 2:42 PM.
Anonymous said to RayB @ 12:39 PM (in part) .... making a VERY serious, slanderous charge:
"I have read your posts for a while now and you sure do have an anti-semtic air about you."
NOTE: Copy & Paste your proof in which I expressed ANYTHING that even hints at "anti-Semitism." If you can't, then that would illustrate that you are just another one of those that "judge" without having any proof that would stand up in a court of law.
"For the mouth of the wicked and the mouth of the deceitful are opened against me: they have spoken against me with a lying tongue." Psalms 109:2
"A false witness shall not be unpunished, and [he that] speaketh lies shall perish." Proverbs 19:9
It isn't slander. Most of my family are devout Catholics. They, and very many Catholics I have met in my life can, and often are, very hateful, and very judgemental. So I speak from experience! Stating facts from experience, especially over many decades is the great revealer of truth!
You venomous Catholics here take a speck of dust, and exaggerate it to where it's an asteroid headed straight for earth. RayB, and Paul, and others are not Catholic bashers. You venomous Catholics ARE the bashers. It's the only way you can cover for your Babylonian religion, because facts expose your religion as false!
Here's a true story from my hitchhiking days long past! I was hitchhiking through very rural Pennsylvania, as you traveled over a ridge, and there are lots of ridges, you would find a small town in each valley. This young Christian guy picked me up on one Sunday morning, and I mentioned the last town I was in was a lovely little town. He said often the towns would either be Protestant, or Catholic. The town that was nice he said was Protestant. He said that the Catholic towns had an unfriendly vibe. He told me to observe the town he dropped me off, on the edge of. He said it was nearly 100% Catholic. As I strolled through main street, there were people getting out of their cars to go into the Catholic Church. They looked like the most miserable people I have ever seen. The look on their face was contempt for me, and it seemed like all these people were going to a funeral for their best friend! No joy what so ever! No smiles, just bitter faces. This was just another of the Lord's perfect revealings to me, of reality! I honestly felt very sorry for these miserable people. I wished they knew the kind loving, merciful Lord I knew then, and know now. All you Catholics here can be set free from your religious bondage! You can be free indeed, and all your hateful bashing will be water under the bridge, and forgiven, and forgotten!
Above post should say, 'a great revealer of truth' God's word is 'the' great revealer of truth.
Au contrair, 3:37 PM
God not only made us Catholics HAPPY people... but He gave us a wonderful sense of humor... which comes in handy when we run across ignorant, misinformed bigots like yourself!!!
At least 3 of the Catholic bashers on this blog (RayB, Paul, Dahlheimer) come across as extremely bitter, UNHAPPY, and lacking in a sense of humor.
The PROOF is documented right here on this blog... every single day!!!
And which 'word' is that, 3:41 PM... out of ALL of your many, many, many VERSIONS of the bible(s)???
THE TRUTH HAS NO VERSIONS... IT IS JUST THE TRUTH!!!
New International Version (one of many Protestant versions)
"For I know the plans I have for you," declares the Lord, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future." Jeremiah 29:11
(WHY DO PROTESTANT EVANGELICALS CONTINUE TO BELIEVE IN A SO-CALLED 'PROSPERITY GOSPEL'???)
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Douay Rheims (the Catholic bible)
"For I know the thoughts that I think towards you, saith the Lord, thoughts of peace, and not of affliction, to give you an end and patience." Jeremiah 29:11
I am not the first to spot an unkind tone in what you convey in your posts about the Jews, RayB.
Constance herself recently asked you that very thing. Others have mentioned this too.
So really, it is incumbent upon you to pray and ask the Lord to show you if that is a bitterness in your spirit that needs addressed. Isn't that what any of us should do, asking the Lord to search our own hearts?
I note that it is an air about you, but you can search your own heart and see if that is actually what you could be harboring, and then correct that yourself, if that is truly the case. If all you need to do is correct the tone of much of what you write here, then the bad "air" will clear, and it will show up in your future posting.
This is for you as a christian to resolve with Jesus.
Psalm 139:23-24
Search me, God, and know my heart;
test me and know my anxious thoughts.
See if there is any offensive way in me,
and lead me in the way everlasting.
We Catholics believe that God created us to know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him in the next.
(HE NEVER PROMISED US HAPPINESS, OR 'PROSPERITY' HERE ON THIS EARTH.)
Yes, 3:48 PM your 'wonderful sense of humor' is a reflection of you sweet, and gentle soul. Your a regular Andrew Dice Clay!
Anonymous said...
And which 'word' is that, 3:41 PM... out of ALL of your many, many, many VERSIONS of the bible(s)???
THE TRUTH HAS NO VERSIONS... IT IS JUST THE TRUTH!!!
3:50 PM
Anonymous said...
New International Version (one of many Protestant versions) "For I know the plans I have for you," declares the Lord, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future." Jeremiah 29:11
3:58 PM
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
LEXICON
to prosper you
שָׁלוֹם֙ (šā·lō·wm)
Noun - masculine singular
Strong's Hebrew 7965: Safe, well, happy, friendly, welfare, health, prosperity, peace
Moral of the story, 3:50-3:58 PM:
The Holy Bible was NOT written in English as your posts seem to try to suggest (although you undoubtedly know better) and to get at the full TRUTH of what it does say, rather than put blind faith in Douay Rheims or any other of MAN'S TRANSLATIONS, you must make the effort and take the time to look in a LEXICON!
4:43 PM
Actually, all of my friends DO think I'm sweet... and have often complimented me on my great sense of humor.
However, whenever I am forced to defend my Catholic faith against BIGOTS who continually post slanderous statements or deliberate misinformation... I have to put on my 'solder of Christ armor' and be tougher. (Jesus would expect me to defend the Catholic faith that HE created in 33 AD.)
After all, dealing with people like you is not for the faint of heart. LOL
And every time you Catholics spew your baseless and ludicrous, condemnations, you reveal the heavily damaged psyche that comes with long indoctrination to a heavily satanized religious cult!
4:51 PM
I think you are attempting to DIVERT (rather than address this) . . .
I have met numerous Protestant Evangelicals who actually interpret 'prosperity' as meaning FINANCIAL success.
God never promised any of us 'a rose garden' here on earth (material wealth, etc.)
When Jesus chose his disciples, many (like Peter) were poor fishermen. He told them to leave everything and to "come follow Me"... "I will make you fishers of men."
5:14 PM
Be sure and add that to your long list... when you CONFRONT Jesus on Judgement Day.
Don't leave anything out now (that's a LOT of copying & pasting going back 15 years).
(I will bring the popcorn.)
Maybe it's time to 'throw in the towel' as far as the current posting policy and ban RayB, paul and the two(?) venomous 'Catholic' posters and Thomas Dahlheimer so we could get a little peace and quiet and friendly postings and discussions going without their jarring interruptions.
1:48 PM
(In response, 2:39 PM said:)
"There is only ONE Catholic poster here, who needed to be reprimanded on this blog recently."
(Who 2:39 PM was referring to was the venomous 'Catholic' poster of such things as:)
"Paul is an awful brainless numbskull. We know where your homosexual lodger's lair is paul ... "
"Take care now, you proddy c***! Tempting to come and find you and give you a taste of the RA, you mouthy little murderous Protestant c***! Now get to f***, if you know what is good for you, you closeted proddy queer!"
"Don't f*** with the Irish! " 1:59 PM
"Now do you get we Catholics are sick and tired after 15 years of your s***, you mouthy proddy orange bas****, paul. Now get to f***, you protestant scum." 2:08 PM
"... paul. I know where in Portland Maine you are.
"I am not an idiot posting here, so you should realise I am f******* tired, you heathen orange filth!" 2:20 PM
(The 2nd venomous 'Catholic' poster was the author of such things as:)
"The persecution of the Church has been sadly borne out here for 15 long years now by child murderer supporting Calvinist heretics, such as paul, Ray B and your loveless pompous self." 4:22 AM
(The same or possibly a 3rd venomous 'Catholic' poster doxxed Paul and THREATENED BOTH HIM AND RAYB, saying such things as:)
"The onus is on Paul and that son of a failed congressman, Ray B. If Paul, incognito or no, or Ray B. continue their attack then I shall remain on the path to war against the pair of them and their sychophants, come what may! 15 years of it: we are sick to the back teeth of all Paul's and Ray B.'s evil. Enough already!"
"Either Ray B. and Paul's persecution of Catholics and Jews here stops now, or it is time to move beyond words on this blog to more convincing dissuasion. Enough said!" 7:36 AM
(2:39 PM concluded:)
"Therefore, it is UNFAIR to paint ALL Catholic posters with the same wide brush!!!"
FYI: 2 (or 3) is hardly "ALL"!
Speaking of jarring interruptions
Regarding the unbroken chain of Popes, Dave Hunt writes:
Ironically, Damasus was the first who, in 382, used the phrase "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church" to claim supreme spiritual authority. Bloody, wealthy powerful, and exceedingly corrupt. Damasus surrounded himself with luxuries that would have made an emperor blush.There is no way to justify any connection between him and Christ, yet he remains one link in that chain of alleged unbroken succession back to Peter.
Stephen VII (896-897) who exhumed Pope Formosus and condemned the corpse for heresy at a mock trial, was soon thereafter strangled by zealots who opposed him. His party promptly elected a Cardinal Sergius to be Pope, but he was chased out of Rome by a rival faction which had elected Romanus as its "vicar of Christ". Of the strange manner in which Popes followed one another in an "unbroken line of apostolic succession from Peter", one historian writes:
"Over the next twelve months four more popes scrambled onto the bloodstained throne, maintained themselves precariously for a few weeks, or even days, before being hurled themselves into their graves. Seven popes and an anti-pope had appeared in a little over six years when Cardinal Sergius reappeared after seven years exile, backed now by the swords of a feudal lord who saw a means thereby of gaining entry into Rome. The reigning Pope, Leo V (903), found his grave, the slaughters in the city reached a climax and then Cardinal Sergius emerged as Pope Sergius III (904-911); sole survivor of the claimants and now supreme pontiff."
Bombshell as Faui admits future COVID vaccines won't work, blames "anti-vaxxers" for failures of Big Pharma
During a recent interview with CNN, Fauci lamented the fact that millions of Americans distrust him, the pharmaceutical industry, Bill Gates, and others pushing for everyone to get vaccinated once a Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine is released.
According to Fauci, a future vaccine for the novel virus probably will not work because nearly 30 percent of Americans have already indicated that they will not be taking it – not now, not ever. Because of this, he claims, so-called “herd immunity” will not be possible, rendering the vaccine certifiably useless.
Source: Natural News (July 1, 2020)
https://www.naturalnews.com/2020-07-01-fauci-admits-future-covid-vaccines-wont-work-blames-antivaxxers.html
Some popes were put in office by their mistresses__six by a mother and daughter pair of prostitutes.
Popes were both installed and deposed by imperial armies or Roman mobs. Some were murdered. More than one pope was executed by a jealous husband who found him in bed with his wife--hardly apostolic succession.
The simple truth is that the Roman Catholic Church itself, with all of it's archives, cannot verify an accurate and complete list of the Popes. Anyone who takes the time to seriously attempt a verification of its accuracy will conclude that the church has fabricated an official list of popes in order to justify the papacy and its pretensions. Nor was the Bishop of Rome considered to be the Pope of the universal church until about a thousand years after Pentecost!
Post a Comment