Posts by daniel1212

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • NCAA gives North Carolina ultimatum on ‘bathroom bill’

    03/27/2017 8:22:04 PM PDT · 81 of 81
    daniel1212 to Maverick68
    The NCAA are backing themselves into a huge corner: Very soon, MEN claiming to be women will be invading Womens’ Athletics and the NCAA won’t be able to do a damn thing about it, they will be FORCED to allow them to compete and dominate in Womens’ athletic competitions.

    Which is indeed consistent with requiring bathroom accommodations based upon which gender one chooses to I.D. as. An entire male basketball team could decide to I.D, as female.

    Moreover, where this is headed is forbidding discrimination against animals who evidence they see themselves as human. Leading to monkeys playing BB:

    photos.msn.com

  • Fundamental Christian Attitudes: Love [vs. abortion, etc.]

    03/27/2017 7:43:31 PM PDT · 4 of 7
    daniel1212 to daniel1212; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; kinsman redeemer; BlueDragon; metmom; boatbums; ...
    I’ll tell you this, if storks brought babies, nobody would legalize abortion.

    Far more than any political revolution, far more than any military revolution, the sexual revolution has destroyed this nation. We were worried all the time about Russia, we were worried all the time about the Iron Curtain world, we were worried all the time about arming ourselves – Star Wars, military might, armament, nuclear weapons, the H-bomb. We were worried all about that. And we were having a revolution here that has destroyed our society in a way that no bombs could, because it has destroyed the wellsprings of life.

    I do not agree with all MacArthur has preached, but i think this is one of his best sermons.

  • Fundamental Christian Attitudes: Love [vs. abortion, etc.]

    03/27/2017 6:53:14 PM PDT · 3 of 7
    daniel1212 to TBP
    If it’s OK to kill your child that you’ve conceived, why is it logically not OK to kill the child after it’s born? Call it post-partum abortion.

    My analogy is that while your car is your car, that does not give you the right to kick someone out of it at high speed if you decide you do not want them there. Even if they someone left an infant in your car that would be wrong. Yet i have actually had a liberal argue against me on this.

  • Fundamental Christian Attitudes: Love [vs. abortion, etc.]

    03/27/2017 1:13:05 PM PDT · 1 of 7
    daniel1212
    Excerpt from longer sermon:

    Let me take it a step further, and just kind of pique your thinking about where our culture is. The abortion battle, for example – to show you how steeped we are in this false love, how steeped we are in the sexual definition of relationships, let me talk about abortion for a moment. The abortion battle is not over babies. The abortion battle is not a battle about whether we ought to kill babies just for the sake of killing babies. Nobody is going to vote to legalize killing babies just for the sake of killing babies. The only reason people want to kill these babies is because the issue is not babies, it is sex. That’s the issue. If abortion had nothing to do with sex, it would never be legalized.

    Now, when I was a little kid, I first heard that storks brought babies. I’ll tell you this, if storks brought babies, nobody would legalize abortion. Nobody would legalize the murder of those babies if storks brought babies. But, you see, sex is the issue. People demand to have sex. And a conceived child may be an unfortunate consequence to that sex, so the issue is not stop the sex, the issue is what – kill the child. What are they trying to say? It’s not that they hate babies – it’s not even that they hate fetuses. It’s not that they love murder. It’s that they want their sex to that degree. We are willing in our society to murder the most innocent among us, willing to murder the most defenseless.

    Willing to do that – follow this one – willing to do that in the face of the strongest instinct to protect, which is motherhood. When a society can convince the mother to execute her child, that society has a powerful influence, because motherhood is instinctively protective. It is a miracle of black magic, satanic magic. It is a stunning success, this abortion. It is not a success for those who hate babies, that’s not the issue. It is a success for those who want sex without any implications. Free sex means we have to accept fornication; nothing wrong with that. Free sex means we have to accept adultery. It means we have to accept homosexuality. All of those things have to be redefined as honorable and loving expressions. As long as there’s love, we hear, it’s okay.

    And I just want you to understand, folks, everything is for sex, everything; and it has corrupted our culture to the core. The family, the home, the place where unselfish love is learned is a disaster of sexual promiscuity on every front. We have a whole society geared to take whatever they want, with no heart to give. Take your sexual fulfillment; if you don’t like the consequences, kill it. Take, and if you get AIDS, elevate your punishment to a symbol of courage, become a hero. Take your sexual activity, and when you’re tired of the one you’re taking from, discard that one and go take from another one. Our society is absolute obsessed with sex, and with it is the death of any normal, reasonable understanding of love.

    I’m not sure we really always recognize these things. I think you can go back to, as Augustine put it, the war between the city of God and the city of man; there’s a massive cultural war, a massive cultural conflict, and the war is raging today. And let me tell you something, folks, the war that rages between the city of God – that would be biblical Christianity – and the city of man – that’s the satanic world system – let me tell you this, it surrounds basically one single area, and that is sex. Within the moral realm in our society, the conflict is almost exclusively about sex. That one thing sums up all the most violent areas of battle between Christians and the world. Abortion, fornication, adultery, divorce, homosexuality, even feminism, those are all sexual issues. And they are all an outright assault on love.

    Satan has kind of a seven-step plan; maybe it goes a little like this. Step one: the ultimate end for Satan is to win souls to his cause. Step two: a powerful means to this end is the corruption of society. This works especially well in a society of conformists, of other-directed people. After all, a good society is simply one that makes it easy to be good. The satanic corollary is also true: a bad society makes it easy to be bad. In other words, what this means is that where you have a society of conformists, who all tend to follow each other, where you have some singular controlling influences, such as the media and all of that, you can control the whole culture. So all Satan has to do is make a bad society a place where doing bad is easy, and that’s how it is in America. It’s easy to be bad because we have a bad society.

    And what do I mean by that? We tolerate wickedness. We not only tolerate it, we elevate it to a freedom status. Third step: the most powerful means to destroy society is to destroy one fundamental building block, and that is the family, where sacrificial love is learned. The only institution where we can learn unselfishness on an everyday basis – just shatter it to ribbons. Step four: the family is destroyed by destroying marriage. Five: marriage is destroyed by loosening its glue, sexual fidelity. Six: fidelity is destroyed by the sexual revolution. That’s just the way it all works out. The sexual revolution will quite possibly prove to be the most destructive revolution in history; far worse than any revolution I know of.

    Far more than any political revolution, far more than any military revolution, the sexual revolution has destroyed this nation. We were worried all the time about Russia, we were worried all the time about the Iron Curtain world, we were worried all the time about arming ourselves – Star Wars, military might, armament, nuclear weapons, the H-bomb. We were worried all about that. And we were having a revolution here that has destroyed our society in a way that no bombs could, because it has destroyed the wellsprings of life. We have been brought to moral relativism. And sex has carried the day. The sexual revolution is a demand that we be free to do whatever we want sexually. That is the compelling issue in the city of man in our culture.

    The extent to which that satanic system will go for freedom to commit sexual sin is nowhere better seen than in abortions. We read about murders and we read about killings all the time, but just remember this: ninety-nine percent of all murders in the U.S. are abortions. That’s how much we want our sexual freedom. People are willing to murder to maintain it. As one writer put it, “Abortion is the willingness to kill for the sake of the willingness to copulate.” That’s it. So here we are in this society, redefining love in connection with its sexual demands and sexual freedoms, and nothing could be further from a proper understanding. In fact, it’s exactly what Ephesians 5 expects; that instead of the real thing, the world is going to come along and substitute immorality, impurity, driving lust, filthiness, silly talk, coarse jesting, all the dirty talk that goes with a sexually-oriented, promiscuous culture.

    Now, the question comes to us, this selfish sexual society desperately needs to see true love, where they going to see it? Well, there’s only one place they’re going to see it, and that’s in us. Let’s go to John 13. That was just an introduction. John 13 is really what we need to talk about. I probably spent too long on that, but I want you to understand where this society is. And this is one of those great passages. I still remember the Sunday that I preached on this passage, probably – I don’t know – twenty-two or twenty-three years ago. I’ve only preached on it once since I came here. It was over in the chapel. It had a profound effect on me. It had a profound effect upon our church.

    And it had even a profound effect beyond the walls of our church, as the message sort of went beyond the church, and I was asked to go various places and preach on this very same chapter. It is a profound insight into this most needful of spiritual motives, love. This most essential of spiritual attitudes, which our Lord addresses here. Let’s start in verse 1, “Now before the feast of the Passover, Jesus knowing that His hour had come that He should depart out of this world to the Father, having loved His own who were in the world, He loved them to the end,” or to the limit, to the max, to perfection. Jesus is on the edge right now of a very, very terrible experience. They are gathered together, these disciples, in the upper room.

    This is that final evening when Judas did his terrible treachery against the Lord and went out to betray Him – that all comes out in this chapter. These block-headed, self-centered disciples are having an argument about which of them will be the greatest in the kingdom. And in the midst of the treachery of Judas, and in the midst of the dissimilation of these disciples away from the Lord toward their own selfish purposes and goals – here is Judas who is about to betray Him, here are the disciples in this ugly debate about which of them will be the greatest – and all of them certainly having no consideration for what the Lord is about to go through, even though He has told them just before this that He’s going to have to die like a grain of wheat that falls into the ground.

    They’re indifferent to that, and preoccupied with their own course. It is in that very environment – which would find them as distasteful as possible to any normal human feelings – where it says, “He loved His own who were in the world and He loved them to the max.” The love of Jesus toward His own is not conditional; He loves them to the max in the moment of their ugliest indifference. In verse 2, this begins to unfold the demonstration of this love. It’s as if verse 1 identifies the subject of the chapter, the subject is how Jesus loved, and here’s the story. “During supper, the devil having already put into the heart of Judas Iscariot” – that means from the town of Kerioth – “the son of Simon, to betray Him.”

    The devil had already done his work, and captivated the unconverted heart of Judas, and set it up for the betrayal. “Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into His hands, and that He had come forth from God and was going back to God” – this is very important. In the midst of all of this, there really was never any fear on Jesus’ part. The betrayal had to come, the execution had to come, but Jesus knew, in the end, that He had come from the Father, and He was going back there, in spite of all of this. Certainly, in the garden He agonized over the reality that He would have to be separated from the Father and bear the weight of guilt for sin, all of that creating sweat which, as it were, was great drops of blood.

    There’s no question about the agony, but there was no fear about how it would turn out. Jesus knew how it would turn out. He had come from God in His incarnation and He would go back. And, of course, He prays to that end so magnificently in the seventeenth chapter. “He rose” – verse 4 says – “from supper, and laid aside His garments.” He took off His outer cloak, and was probably stripped down to the waist, with just the garments that were discreet and modest worn around the waist. His legs, perhaps, bare, and His upper body bare, as He stooped down, took a towel, it says, and girded Himself about. He put a towel around His waist. “He poured water into the basin and began to wash the disciples’ feet and to wipe them with the towel with which He was girded.”

    This is one of the great scenes in the life of our Lord.

    Something you need to know. It was customary, it was traditional, but more than that, it was necessary to have a foot-washing before you had a banquet, because in those days the people wore sandals, and sometimes were nothing but bare feet. And when you came to a banquet, it would only be appropriate that you would wash your feet, because either they were dusty, if it was dry, or they were muddy, if it was wet. And since folks had prolonged dinners, which went on well through the evening, it would be a terrible, terrible lack of thoughtfulness to approach such an occasion without having your feet clean. It was also customary to recline at dinner.

    In other words, they sort of lounged a bit, and that could be exceedingly distressful if your head was near the next guy’s feet. It was therefore appropriate in ancient times for a foot washing to occur, and whoever was the lowest slave on the social ladder got that job. Obviously, that wasn’t one job that you lined up for. That wasn’t the most popular job, but it was a job for the lowest slave on the totem pole. Apparently, in this upper room which the Lord and His disciples had rented or borrowed for the evening to have their Passover supper in Jerusalem, there was no such servant available, and none of the disciples, in an argument about who is the greatest in the kingdom, is going to do that.

    More at link

  • POPE FRANCIS AS HISTORIAN

    03/27/2017 11:34:46 AM PDT · 33 of 36
    daniel1212 to Slyfox
    Francis did not write the Amoris with the teaching authority of the Church, the Magisterium, therefore it is his own opinion and not worthy of assent by the people.

    I was referring to what are formally titled an encyclicals, while Amoris Laetitia is formally titled and usually referred to as a "Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation," such as as by your bishops. Granted, the difference is imprecise, since an encyclical originally referred to a circular letter passed around to all the churches of a certain area, but came to " almost exclusively refer to certain papal documents which differ in their technical form from the ordinary style of either Bulls or Briefs." (Catholic Encyclopedia > Encyclical)

    Which differences are technical (http://www.ewtn.com/HolySee/Pontiff/categories.asp#exhortation), and what magisterial level a teaching falls under, and thus which level of assent is required of Catholics, are typically matters of dispute.

    All encyclicals, before this pope, were written so that he could say "We teach," very much like Peter himself speaking for all the Apostles. Francis did not include the teaching authority in Amoris. He had his people send out questionnaires and he conferred with a few like-minded bishops. That is contrary to how the Magisterium works.

    An encyclical is meant to present to the Catholic Church the teaching of all the bishops. In this one he picked a few friends and is trying to pawn it off as "The Official Teaching of the Roman Catholic Church."

    Then perhaps the term "Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation," distinguishes it from an encyclical, yet it is obvious that you reject this document as being worthy of the title "Apostolic Exhortation" as well, while your bishops overall applaud it as in affirming,

    Pope Francis has given us a tremendous gift in Amoris Laetitia. May our ongoing reception of it continue to be an opportunity for the whole Church and society to renew their dedication to protect, promote, and strengthen marriages and families. - http://www.usccb.org/news/2016/16-127.cfm

    Francis does use "we" in this letter, and while may be not be "speaking for all the Apostles" (nor did so many other popes, inclusively) but it seems like he is speaking for a majority, which is what elected him. And papal authority reserves to itself the supreme authority to provide the correct understanding or church teaching, as do the bishops with the pope, as V2 exampled (perhaps you publicly dissent in part from that as well).

    And i think that your criteria upon which you justify your public dissent is subject to dispute, with both sides being able to invoke past teaching to support them.

    Francis did not write the Amoris with the teaching authority of the Church, the Magisterium, therefore it is his own opinion and not worthy of assent by the people.

    While Pope Francis did say "that everything in his post-synodal exhortation Amoris Laetitia was agreed by a majority of the Synod fathers," (http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2016/12/07/pope-francis-everything-in-amoris-laetitia-was-supported-by-the-synod), yet rather than the pope being unable to exercise the magisterial teaching authority of the Church apart from the bishops, it is the bishops, singly or collectively, who have no authority apart from papal sanction, and who "can himself, independent of the bishops, exercise the supreme Magisterium." - Ralph M. McInerny. What went wrong with VATICAN II. (Sophia Institute Press, 1998; https://www.ewtn.com/library/theology/sipvat2.htm).

    I know the SSPV and SSPX type have their side to justify them essentially acting like us in dissenting from what is taught by Rome based upon our understanding of our respective supreme authorative sources (and i even think they are correct that modern RC teaching contradicts some of her past, though both stand in contrast with the NT church ) but i do not see room for their dissent in the light of much past teaching.

    Epistola Tua: To the shepherds alone was given all power to teach, to judge, to direct; on the faithful was imposed the duty of following their teaching, of submitting with docility to their judgment , and of allowing themselves to be governed, corrected, and guided by them in the way of salvation.

    Thus, it is an absolute necessity for the simple faithful to submit in mind and heart to their own pastors, and for the latter to submit with them to the Head and Supreme Pastor.... Similarly, it is to give proof of a submission which is far from sincere to set up some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them; and in some ways they resemble those who, on receiving a condemnation, would wish to appeal to a future council, or to a Pope who is better informed.

    On this point what must be remembered is that in the government of the Church, except for the essential duties imposed on all Pontiffs by their apostolic office, each of them can adopt the attitude which he judges best according to times and circumstances. Of this he alone is the judge. It is true that for this he has not only special lights, but still more the knowledge of the needs and conditions of the whole of Christendom, for which, it is fitting, his apostolic care must provide. - Epistola Tua (1885), Apostolic Letter of Pope Leo XIII; http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage_print.asp?number=403215&language=en

    "It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock...the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors ." - VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906.

    Nor can we pass over in silence the audacity of those who, not enduring sound doctrine, contend that "without sin and without any sacrifice of the Catholic profession assent and obedience may be refused to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to concern the Church's general good and her rights and discipline, so only it does not touch the dogmata of faith and morals. " But no one can be found not clearly and distinctly to see and understand how grievously this is opposed to the Catholic dogma of the full power given from God by Christ our Lord Himself to the Roman Pontiff of feeding, ruling and guiding the Universal Church. (Quanta Cura. Encyclical of Pope Pius IX promulgated on December 8, 1864; http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quanta.htm)

    20. Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent... if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians. - PIUS XII, HUMANI GENERI, August 1950; http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html

    The authority (of papal encyclicals) is undoubtedly great". It is, in a sense, sovereign. It is the teaching of the supreme pastor and teacher of the Church. Hence the faithful have a strict obligation to receive this teaching with an infinite respect. A man must not be content simply not to contradict it openly and in a more or less scandalous fashion. An internal mental assent is demanded. It should be received as the teaching sovereignly authorized within the Church." - Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, esteemed Catholic theologian and professor of fundamental dogmatic theology at the Catholic University of America, who served as a peritus for Cardinal Ottaviani at the Second Vatican Council. Extract from the American Ecclesiastical Review, Vol. CXXI, August, 1949; http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/encyclicals/docauthority.htm

    For it is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of a Christian to trust his own mental powers with such pride as to agree only with those things which he can examine from their inner nature, and to imagine that the Church, sent by God to teach and guide all nations, is not conversant with present affairs and circumstances; or even that they must obey only in those matters which she has decreed by solemn definition as though her other decisions might be presumed to be false or putting forward insufficient motive for truth and honesty.

    Quite to the contrary, a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord. - CASTI CONNUBII, ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XI; https://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19301231_casti-connubii.html

    ...when we love the Pope, there are no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed ; when we love the Pope, we do not say that he has not spoken clearly enough, almost as if he were forced to repeat to the ear of each one the will clearly expressed so many times not only in person, but with letters and other public documents ; we do not place his orders in doubt, adding the facile pretext of those unwilling to obey – that it is not the Pope who commands, but those who surround him; we do not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority ; we do not set above the authority of the Pope that of other persons, however learned, who dissent from the Pope, who, even though learned, are not holy, because whoever is holy cannot dissent from the Pope.

    The Bishops form the most sacred part of the Church, that which instructs and governs men by divine right; and so he who resists them and stubbornly refuses to obey their word places himself outside the Church [cf. Matt. 18:18]. But obedience must not limit itself to matters which touch the faith: its sphere is much more vast: it extends to all matters which the episcopal power embraces. - (Pope Saint Pius X, Allocution Vi ringrazio to priests on the 50th anniversary of the Apostolic Union, November 18, 1912, as found at http://www.christorchaos.com/?q=content/choosing-ignore-pope-leo-xiii-and-pope-saint-pius-x

    to scrutinize the actions of a bishop, to criticize them, does not belong to individual Catholics, but concerns only those who, in the sacred hierarchy, have a superior power; above all, it concerns the Supreme Pontiff, for it is to him that Christ confided the care of feeding not only all the lambs, but even the sheep [cf. John 21:17]. - Est Sane Molestum (1888) Apostolic Letter of Pope Leo XIII; http://www.novusordowatch.org/est-sane-molestum-leo-xiii.htm

    In addition, as concerns social teaching, The "Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church" (2005) states:

    80. In the Church’s social doctrine the Magisterium is at work in all its various components and expressions. … Insofar as it is part of the Church’s moral teaching, the Church’s social doctrine has the same dignity and authority as her moral teaching. It is authentic Magisterium, which obligates the faithful to adhere to it . - http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html

    And it is quite well evidenced that the popes last (titled) encyclical (http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html) is intended to teach what the Church's moral teaching demands as regards ecology and economy. (172 references in this encyclical cite church teaching and prelates for support).

    Thus we either have Trad. RCs contradicting past papal teaching in asserting the modern papal and magisterial teaching contradicts the past, or Rome's interpretation of herself is to be trusted.

  • POPE FRANCIS AS HISTORIAN

    03/27/2017 6:53:05 AM PDT · 31 of 36
    daniel1212 to ebb tide; boatbums
    The heretic, Luther, was baptized a Catholic, raised as a Catholic and ordained as as Catholic priest. He wrestled with the devil, and the devil won. Luther apostatized from the One, True, Faith.

    Rather, it is the RC distinctives of this so-called One, True, Faith that are unseen in the NT church of Scripture , and contrary to it.

    Moreover, your page on Luther is typical of the hit pages on Luther, which either employ bogus or questionable (such as "Table Talk" recollections) quotes or uses them out of context, and have no interest in understanding Luther's polemical style, which is often hyperbolic.

    The main first reference in your referenced compilation is the misnamed, "The Facts About Luther," by dubious Roman Catholic author Msgr. Patrick O'Hare. Of which Researcher Jame's Swan, whose site is where you should search for such things, finds , "This old book had sunk into obscurity until it was revived by the Roman Catholic publisher Tan Books in 1987. In their zeal, some of Rome's 1990's early e-pologists put O'Hare's content on the Internet without checking his facts about Luther."

    The next reference is Hartmann Grisar, "a Jesuit historian who used Freudian psychology to assess Luther as a pathological manic-depressive personality. Though as Swan goes on to state , "in my own use of Grisar, I have found him to be mostly reliable with his citations."

    I have not determined if the hyperbolic quotes here are accurate, but the Mass is much an corruption of what we see in the NT church.

    Your source goes on to reference De Wette for “We must remove the Decalogue out of sight and heart.” Swan's in his research finds:

    This letter is not available in the English edition of Luther's Works. It has though been cited either in full or partially in a number of books. The letter itself has quite a polemical history, cited by numerous Roman Catholic sources, as well as even being cited by PBS.

    And which is from a letter to a person who is afflicted, and from which is the quote taken out of context, which is that of battling with the devil when the accuser of the brethren is doing so. In response Luther even says "In a case like this the devil is overcome by scorning and despising him, not by opposing him and arguing with him." And in his typical hyperbolic language he even says he wishes he could commit "some brave sin" in order to illustrate the redemption one can have in Christ. And it is and in the context of counseling what to say to the devil when he charges you with sin based on the Law, that Luther says in response that we are to not look to the Law which condemns us, but to the Christ which redeems us:

    We must put the whole law entirely out of our eyes and hearts,--we, I say, whom the devil thus assails and torments. Whenever the devil charges us with our sins and pronounces us guilty of death and hell, we ought to say to him: I admit that I deserve death and hell; what, then, will happen to me? Why, you will be eternally damned! By no means; for I know One who has suffered and made satisfaction for me. His name is Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Where He abides, there will I also abide." http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2016/02/luther-when-devil-comes-to-tempt-and.html

    I am not defending all that Luther says, and he says many things that make us blush or reprove, including being too Catholic, but the Internet abounds with inaccurate or bogus assertions, and that Luther actually was an antinomianis one.

    For as already recently shown you in response to another one of your postings of RC propaganda,

    In his Introduction to Romans, Luther stated that saving faith is,

    a living, creative, active and powerful thing, this faith. Faith cannot help doing good works constantly. It doesn’t stop to ask if good works ought to be done, but before anyone asks, it already has done them and continues to do them without ceasing. Anyone who does not do good works in this manner is an unbeliever...Thus, it is just as impossible to separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from fire! [http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/luther-faith.txt]

    This is what I have often said, if faith be true, it will break forth and bear fruit. If the tree is green and good, it will not cease to blossom forth in leaves and fruit. It does this by nature. I need not first command it and say: Look here, tree, bear apples. For if the tree is there and is good, the fruit will follow unbidden. If faith is present works must follow.” [Sermons of Martin Luther 2.2:340-341]

    “We must therefore most certainly maintain that where there is no faith there also can be no good works; and conversely, that there is no faith where there are no good works. Therefore faith and good works should be so closely joined together that the essence of the entire Christian life consists in both.” [Martin Luther, as cited by Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1963], 246, footnote 99]

    All believers are like poor Lazarus; and every believer is a true Lazarus, for he is of the same faith, mind and will, as Lazarus. And whoever will not be a Lazarus, will surely have his portion with the rich glutton in the flames of hell. For we all must like Lazarus trust in God, surrender ourselves to him to work in us according to his own good pleasure, and be ready to serve all men.. And although we all do not suffer from such sores and poverty, yet the same mind and will must be in us, that were in Lazarus, cheerfully to bear such things, wherever God wills it.” [Sermons of Martin Luther 2.2:25]

    “This is why St. Luke and St. James have so much to say about works, so that one says: Yes, I will now believe, and then he goes and fabricates for himself a fictitious delusion, which hovers only on the lips as the foam on the water. No, no; faith is a living and an essential thing, which makes a new creature of man, changes his spirit and wholly and completely converts him. It goes to the foundation and there accomplishes a renewal of the entire man; so, if I have previously seen a sinner, I now see in his changed conduct, manner and life, that he believes. So high and great a thing is faith.”[Sermons of Martin Luther 2.2:341]

    “For it is impossible for him who believes in Christ, as a just Savior, not to love and to do good. If, however, he does not do good nor love, it is sure that faith is not present. Therefore man knows by the fruits what kind of a tree it is, and it is proved by love and deed whether Christ is in him and he believes in Christ...” [Sermons of Martin Luther 1:40]

    “For if your heart is in the state of faith that you know your God has revealed himself to you to be so good and merciful, without thy merit, and purely gratuitously, while you were still his enemy and a child of eternal wrath; if you believe this, you cannot refrain from showing yourself so to your neighbor; and do all out of love to God and for the welfare of your neighbor. Therefore, see to it that you make no distinction between friend and foe, the worthy and the unworthy; for you see that all who were here mentioned, have merited from us something different than that we should love and do them good. And the Lord also teaches this, when in Luke 6:35 he says: "But love your enemies, and do good unto them, and lend, never despairing; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be sons of the Most High: for he is kind toward the unthankful and evil." [Sermons of Martin Luther 2.2:101]

    ...if obedience and God’s commandments do not dominate you, then the work is not right, but damnable, surely the devil’s own doings, although it were even so great a work as to raise the dead......Peter says the grace and gifts of God are not one but manifold, and each is to tend to his own, develop the same and through them be of service to others.” [Sermons of Martin Luther 1:244]

    In addition, upon hearing that he was being charged with rejection of the Old Testament moral law, Luther responded,

    And truly, I wonder exceedingly, how it came to be imputed to me, that I should reject the Law or ten Commandments, there being extant so many of my own expositions (and those of several sorts) upon the Commandments, which also are daily expounded, and used in our Churches, to say nothing of the Confession and Apology, and other books of ours. Martin Luther, ["A Treatise against Antinomians, written in an Epistolary way", http://www.truecovenanter.com/truelutheran/luther_against_the_antinomians.html]

  • POPE FRANCIS AS HISTORIAN

    03/27/2017 4:57:58 AM PDT · 25 of 36
    daniel1212 to Slyfox; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; kinsman redeemer; BlueDragon; metmom; boatbums; ...
    He said that encyclicals have always been vetted and sent to experts for their consideration and edited so that it is a solid piece before it is published and disseminated. But that has not happened in the last four years. And Francis wonders why there is questioning of his writing and why there is a dubia hanging out there like a huge matzo ball.

    Yet according to official (subject to what "official" means) RC teaching, assent to encyclicals is required, and in general to non-infallible papal teaching addressed to the church. Which is both the strength (if unity at any cost is the goal) and the weakness of the RC basis for assurance of Truth and obedience to it.

    For rather than the validity of what is taught being subject to by examination in the light of the authoritative basis for it, which Caths criticize evangelicals for doing, while dissident "true RCs do the same (the difference being the supreme deterministic authoritative basis for evangelicals is wholly inspired Scripture), much historical papal teaching is that "the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors ." - VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906.

  • Meet New York's vigilante rat-catching DOGS that are solving the city's vermin [tr]

    03/26/2017 8:59:05 PM PDT · 42 of 45
    daniel1212 to Farmer Dean
    Try a product called Ramik.I use it on the farm,very effective on vermin.

    Us also, in the city. Its also cheaper (25.97 for 8lbs) than others: NEOGEN RODENTICIDE Ramik Mouse and Rat Nuggets Pouch, 4-Pound, Green (8 Pound)

  • Meet New York's vigilante rat-catching DOGS that are solving the city's vermin [tr]

    03/26/2017 8:48:41 PM PDT · 41 of 45
    daniel1212 to sheana
    I hate rats. We have rats in our attic right now that our pest guy has been poisoning to get rid of them. That’s about the size. Did I say I hate rats?!?!

    I have a Rat Zapper Classic (34.00) that has worked well for mice. Loaned it to my neighbor who killed 18 sop far with it, but for rats i want something more powerful, maybe this, by God's grace:

    Electronic Rodent Trap – Powerful, Safe and Easy Way to Kill Rats ,

  • Man who bound dog's muzzle with tape sentenced to 5 years

    03/26/2017 7:52:30 PM PDT · 110 of 155
    daniel1212 to daniel1212

    Ignore the “won’t” from my sentence.

  • Man who bound dog's muzzle with tape sentenced to 5 years

    03/26/2017 7:48:40 PM PDT · 109 of 155
    daniel1212 to FreedomStar3028; MarvinStinson; Trump20162020; Vaduz; Gay State Conservative
    5 years? Are you kidding me. What a joke. Animals are not equivalent to humans.

    He did not simply tape the dog's mouth shut to prevent barking, nor will Dodson's sentence for mistreating Caitlyn won't extend his prison:

    The tape cut off blood flow to her tongue. Veterinarians at the Animal Society unraveled it after an estimated 36 hours.

    The 43-year-old North Charleston man was sentenced a day earlier in federal court to 15 years on a gun charge stemming from a traffic stop months before Caitlyn was found in spring 2015.

    Dodson still faces state drug charges stemming from the March 2015 traffic stop. Prosecutors say he tossed a loaded pistol, along with cocaine and marijuana, as he ran from North Charleston police officers.

    Under a plea agreement, the two sentences will run simultaneously...Dodson's sentence for mistreating Caitlyn won't extend his prison time. >© 2017 The Associated Press

  • Liverpool explosion: Reports of two buildings destroyed (United Kingdom)

    03/26/2017 2:26:52 PM PDT · 109 of 117
    daniel1212 to Grampa Dave
    Meanwhile, Top al Qaeda leader, Qari Yasin, killed in Afghan air strike, Pentagon says

    But a certain judge would likely put a stop to this (if he could) under the premise that he was targeted because of his religion, and which targeted killing makes the US like a theocracy.

    If you want to get into the US and obtain government benefits with the goal of blowing innocent people up and turning the US into a formal theocracy then you just have to belong to a religion that believes in this, since the 1st amendment forbids discrimination on the basis of religion, and the free exercise of it.

    But if you want to teach the scientific evidence for intelligent design in s public school then that cannot be allowed, since the 1st amendment any forbids governmental support of religion.

    Which manner of perversity has become too common in the judiciary.

  • Wales Man Charged With Using Jumper Cables to Steal Power, Again

    03/26/2017 5:30:51 AM PDT · 41 of 45
    daniel1212 to Freedom4US
    Well, he WAS arrested without resistance.

    Depends on how he conducts himself.

    Most people don’t have the capacity to understand that.

    Its hard to gauge watt the scope of his arrest will have, if it even meters. See what you started in this current thread?

  • The Humility of Jesus' Self-Emptying

    03/26/2017 5:06:57 AM PDT · 190 of 194
    daniel1212 to Elsie
    I've read that Jesus has very black skin and green eyes. Show me something in the scriptures that voids this fact.

    Actually, unlike the black skin and green eyes, it was shown that being an active constructor of buildings (according to purported "Scripture" at issue) and traveling to Egypt and back and around is quite contrary to being a 90 year old man in the 1st century. Find out what supplements he was on.

  • The Humility of Jesus' Self-Emptying

    03/26/2017 4:50:46 AM PDT · 188 of 194
    daniel1212 to Elsie
    ...or sanctuary..

    But since Pope Pius IX said in his Encyclical Quanta Cura, "do not fail to teach "that the royal power was given not only for the governance of the world, but most of all for the protection of the [Roman Catholic] Church [alone]," (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quanta.htm) then it is not surprising that certain RCs suppose FR should exist to that end, protecting her from anything that offends RCs.

  • Inside my secret life as a KGB spy in America

    03/25/2017 7:23:01 PM PDT · 9 of 11
    daniel1212 to Kid Shelleen

    Barsky figures he’s now safe from any Russian assassination attempts — a fate that has allegedly befallen enemies of Russian President Vladimir Putin. “It’s not worth it; there’s no point to it,” Barsky said. “Anybody who might have had a personal vendetta against me, they are either all dead or too old to care.”

    All in all, Barsky, 67, is happy. Raised an atheist, he now has a strong Christian faith. He lives in Georgia with his third wife and their young daughter. Over the years, he’s rebuilt his relationships with his German sons. On a 2015 trip to Germany, he got a picture of himself with all four of his adult children. He’s still good friends with Joe Reilly, who is retired from the FBI.

    “The United States,” he said, “is still the greatest country in the world.”

  • Why Does Most of the World HATE Peanut Butter?

  • The Humility of Jesus' Self-Emptying

    03/24/2017 6:08:44 AM PDT · 110 of 194
    daniel1212 to amorphous
    You, nor others on this thread have any moral high ground to criticize Catholics, or anyone else for that manner, for making erroneous charges, as we've witnessed you and your fellows here, make plenty.

    Neither you nor anyone (save for Bathsheba for Abishag) showed i made any erroneous charges while progressively losing what little credibility you had.

    What should've/could've been a friendly/respectable discussion has turned into a hate fest; condemning Jews, Catholics, Mormons, and maybe even Hindus, IIRC. I know you feel you're right, and of course, I know I'm right, but who's right isn't important. How we treat one another, especially when it comes to our fellow Christians, is far more important.

    Therefore your recourse is to "Well genius," "take your bigotry and stuff it" and snowflake whining about being the subject of reproof, which real Scripture commands.

    And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. (Ephesians 5:11)

    And as the mods says , Open threads are in a town square format.... Antagonism though not encouraged, should be expectedIf you keep getting your feelings hurt because other posters ridicule or disapprove or hate what you hold dear, then you are too thin-skinned to be involved in “open” RF debate. You should IGNORE “open” RF threads altogether and instead post to RF threads labeled “prayer” “devotional” “caucus” or “ecumenical.”

  • The Humility of Jesus' Self-Emptying

    03/24/2017 5:45:06 AM PDT · 107 of 194
    daniel1212 to thecodont
    In addition, marriage is described from the beginning as sexual cleaving, (Gn. 2:24; Mt. 19:3-5) and there is only one possible exception to that, which was that of a very infirm old man, David, with Bathsheba. (1Kg. 1)

    You probably meant Abishag the Shunnamite (I Kings 1:1–4, 15) .

    100% correct. Right address, wrong name! Thanks.

  • The Humility of Jesus' Self-Emptying

    03/23/2017 7:12:07 PM PDT · 87 of 194
    daniel1212 to Elsie; amorphous; ealgeone; metmom
    So there is perhaps possible collaboration of Joseph being a bit older than Mary.

    HMMMmmm... 'A bit' is WAY different sounding than 76 years!!!

    That was indeed an understatement. Sorry if we seem harsh, amorphous (having no definite form or distinct shape), but defending Scriptural Truth is very important to us, and your sources are contrary to that, and also have gone from bad to worse.

    But I do care about you, and may God be merciful to you, and grant you repentance unto the acknowledging of the Truth. (2Tim. 2:25)

  • The Humility of Jesus' Self-Emptying

    03/23/2017 7:02:03 PM PDT · 86 of 194
    daniel1212 to ealgeone; Elsie

    More like Muslim or Mormon sympathies or just naive, careless or desperate recourse considering the main sources above. Mormonic thought has a vested interest in debasing Scripture as the sole supreme standard, as do Muslims, while the absurd “conclusions” such Muslims come up with from their reading/contorting Scripture is worse than atheists. Which takes some doing!

  • The Humility of Jesus' Self-Emptying

    03/23/2017 6:46:22 PM PDT · 84 of 194
    daniel1212 to amorphous
    I call you a "genius" and you call me a "mental deficient". A fine example of the real "Christian" fruit you bare, no doubt. ;)

    Actually this latest ad hominem is another example of a double standard or blindness, for it was you who sarcastically called me "genius" ("Well genius, you might want to let authors in the OT...know about that"), inferring mental deficiency on my part, and my substantiated reasoned response an "attempt to further muddy the waters, that, and your need to spout off." So much for self-righteous "Christian" fruit.

    “…the word apocrypha as it is a word that is greatly misunderstood. It comes from Greek and is formed from the combination of apo (away) and krytein (hide or conceal). Thus, it signifies that which is ‘hidden away’ or ‘concealed’. Apocryphan is the singular form and apocrypha the plural..., the word apocrypha ORIGINALLY MEANT A TEXT TOO SACRED AND SECRET TO BE IN EVERYONES HANDS.

    Your already marginal credibility continues to degrade. You first invoke a feminist (likely Mormonic) whose interest is in finding women of God - whom she seems to think is plural - and by skullduggery asserts that God meant for women to be "equal partner to her husband, corresponding to him in every way," even to be his savior.

    Seeking female heroes, she finds women from Pseudepigrapha - falsely-attributed works - and apocryphal works, and thus she tries to elevate such works as being TOO SACRED AND SECRET TO BE IN EVERYONES HANDS based on the "original meaning of apocrypha, " which etymologically is from Greek apokryphos "hidden; obscure, hard to understand...from apo "off, away" (see apo-) + kryptein "to hide" (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Apocrypha)

    However, "cute" used to mean bow-legged; "bully" originally meant darling or sweetheart; "Nice" originally meant stupid or foolish; "counterfeit" used to mean a legitimate copy, and the way this word apocrypha was used is the issue. And rather than meaning that the apocrypha were considered too sacred and secret to be in everyone's hands, Jerome described the extra 7 Old Testament books as apocrypha, and it was not because they were secret, but were actually part of later versions of the Greek LXX, which likely existed by the 2nd century.

    Thus your conspiratorial "TOO SECRET TO BE IN EVERYONES HANDS" is simply inaccurate.

    You can find more information about apocryphal books here: https://discover-the-truth.com/2013/09/30/marriage-of-mary-to-joseph-the-carpenter/

    So now you send me to a Muslim site, " dedicated to providing constructive responses and refutations against Islamophobes" as a credible source? "Asalam o Alikum Brother, you are doing a very noble and good job mashALLAH."

    Which is where you get your error that "Joseph [was] 90 years old when married" among other fables? This is the same Muslims who (faced with their leader taking a 9-year-iold bride) assert that Dinah (who left home to visit the daughters of the land) in Gn. 34 at the time of her marriage was no older than 7-years-old (based on the LIE that the word for "damsel" in Genesis 34:3 must mean "child” and “infant” here, contrary to its use . And that Rebecca was between the ages of 3-10, when she was married off to 40-year-old Isaac. How far in the bottom of the rubbish barrel do you have to resort to?

    Make sure you review the information concerning the book of Hebrews, or research it online, you might find it interesting.

    You mean another late (6th or early 7th century) wannabe from Egypt?

    The more you argue the more you are an argument against yourself.

  • The Humility of Jesus' Self-Emptying

    03/23/2017 4:03:55 PM PDT · 74 of 194
    daniel1212 to Mark17
    Dan, being specific, for a moment, on the doctrine of salvation, Tobias 12:8-9, is an outright distortion of salvation by grace. It ain't gonna cut the mustard.

    You mean, "For alms doth deliver from death, and shall purge away all sin?" The only way that can be reconciled is in a sames sense that 1 Peter 4:8 (cf. Prv. 10:12) may be: And above all things have fervent charity among yourselves: for charity shall cover the multitude of sins.

    Which in context can means, as Adam Clarke states,

    A loving disposition leads us to pass by the faults of others, to forgive offenses against ourselves, and to excuse and lessen, as far as is consistent with truth, the transgressions of men.

    Also, while all sin needs forgiveness, which is only enabled under the rubric of the atonement (which is why sins could be forgiven even before sacrifices were offered), yet we both sin ignorantly and ours sins call for punishment in this life. But God can have compassion of sinners, such as in the light of the intercession of others, and also will in the light of our overall character.

    With the merciful thou wilt shew thyself merciful; with an upright man thou wilt shew thyself upright; With the pure thou wilt shew thyself pure; and with the froward thou wilt shew thyself froward. (Psalms 18:25-26)

    For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment. (James 2:13)

    Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me: Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee? And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him. (Matthew 18:32-34)

    The relationship btwn sin and sickness and forgiveness and healing (Mk. 2) - which is not always the case - is actually rather deep.

  • The Humility of Jesus' Self-Emptying

    03/23/2017 3:43:49 PM PDT · 73 of 194
    daniel1212 to ealgeone
    Excellent review and summary as to why the Protevangelium of James that so many catholics hang their hat on is to be rejected.

    Thank God for light, while the basic Catholic rule being that whatever exalts Mary above what is written in Scripture is sacrosanct.

  • The Humility of Jesus' Self-Emptying

    03/23/2017 3:43:44 PM PDT · 72 of 194
    daniel1212 to amorphous
    Finally, someone offers good material for discussion concerning virginity, however, again, nothing relative to their relative ages - the main point of the commentary I inserted that resulted in the hijacking of metmom's thread and an explosion of animosity. I do apologize for that. It were but innocent remarks, and I had no ideal such would grow to suck in an enormity of different subjects. :) Such is the love of one Christian for another, I suppose, that none should part misinformed - unto death it would seem. But alas, a faulty oxygen sensor on my mechanical conveyance calls. Good day sir.

    Glad you appreciated some material, but still fail to see how making industrious, traveling Joseph out to be a 90 year old man makes you credible.

    A faulty oxygen sensor? Call the Climate Change hot line.

  • The Humility of Jesus' Self-Emptying

    03/23/2017 3:43:35 PM PDT · 71 of 194
    daniel1212 to amorphous
    Well genius, you might want to let authors in the OT, who mention the book of Jasher at least twice, know about that, and also Paul who writes in Timothy that ALL scripture/texts should be used to understand the Word - paraphrasing.

    It is not I who am example mental deficiency here (though i certainly am no genius) but you, who reasons that the mention in Scripture of a source as providing material means that all they say must be Scripture.

    Thus, since Paul quoted from the Cretan poet Epimenides (Titus 1:12) and from the pagan poets Epimenides and Aratus in his speech at Athens (Acts 17:28) then all they said must be considered a wholly inspired Scripture.

    As must the Book of the Wars of the Lord, (Numbers 21:14), the Book of Samuel the Seer, the Book of Nathan the Prophet, and the Book of Gad the Seer, (1 Chronicles 29:29) the Acts of Rehoboam and the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah, (1 Kings 14:29) and the book of Enoch. (Jude 1: 14-15) But which Scripture can include true statements from such, this does not mean they are wholly inspired Scripture.

    And which includes books that God did not care to preserve, which appears to be the case with the book of Jasher. There is a book called “The Book of Jasher” today, although it is not the same book as mentioned in the Old Testament. It is an eighteenth-century forgery that alleges to be a translation of the “lost” Book of Jasher by Alcuin, an eighth-century English scholar.

    There is also a more recent book titled “The Book of Jashar” by science fiction and fantasy writer Benjamin Rosenbaum. This book is a complete work of fiction. Another book by this same name, called by many “Pseudo-Jasher,” while written in Hebrew, is also not the “Book of Jasher” mentioned in Scripture. It is a book of Jewish legends from the creation to the conquest of Canaan under Joshua, but scholars hold that it did not exist before A.D. 1625. In addition, there are several other theological works by Jewish rabbis and scholars called “Sefer ha Yashar,” but none of these claim to be the original Book of Jasher. https://www.gotquestions.org/book-of-Jasher.html

    Moreover, the reason why there are "forgotten books" versus established ones is because, apart from conciliar decrees, both men and writings of God were established as being so essentially due to their unique heavenly qualities and attestation, complementary and in conflation with what already has been established. Which leaves others in the dust, except among a few eccentrics. Some contend that Eugene Swedenborg was of God and his writings were Scripture, and others that the books Enoch was, but both fail conflation with and are contrary to Scripture.

    and also Paul who writes in Timothy that ALL scripture/texts should be used to understand the Word - paraphrasing.

    And Paul never referenced Jasher or other books as Scripture which those who sat in the seat of Moses recognized as being established Scripture, and which he said were "wholly inspired of God," not partially.

  • The Humility of Jesus' Self-Emptying

    03/23/2017 3:43:15 PM PDT · 70 of 194
    daniel1212 to amorphous
    The main point being: The ages given for both Mary and Joseph. What's needed is evidence that contradicts those "specific" ages given, something I see as quite striking in itself,

    Why are the ages (90 for Joseph, 12-14 for Mary) so striking? If Joseph was 90 then it means you must read another exception to the norm into Scripture, that of a 90 year old quite-mobile man, traveling to Egypt no less, who, as said, is still actively working in construction:

    And if Mary is only 12-14, then it is no surprise that she was a virgin, but which does not mean she would remain as one.

    Behold, I have received you from the temple of the Lord; and now I leave you in my house, and go away to build my buildings, and I shall come to you. (1:9; http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0847.htm)

    Upstream, there is mention of texts that support Yeshua's siblings were in fact from Joseph's previous wife. So there is perhaps possible collaboration of Joseph being a bit older than Mary.

    what you've cut and pasted offers nothing toward the above (i.e. the relative ages of Mary and Joseph), other than your attempt to further muddy the waters

    It is not I who muddied the waters, as instead what i showed was that it is your stream that is muddy. And which requires recourse to a lying apocryphal source in the light of the fact that, as said, the Holy Spirit said nothing manifest that Joseph and Mary had a novel marriage without sexual cleaving, that she was a perpetual virgin, despite characteristically recording extraordinary aspects among even lesser persons, while stating Christ was the first born, and that Joseph knew not until she bore Him. And despite prophecy about Mary's children, with its apparent fulfillment.

    You whole argument for PMV requires extraordinary exceptions to the norm, which Scripture does not record (which itself is an exceptions to the norm), and provides evidence against.

    need to spout off.

    "Spout off?" You mean (by the grace of God) providing reasoned argumentation and documented evidence contrary to the veracity of your source, and the idolatrous hyper-"hyperdulia" of the Catholic Mary?

  • The Humility of Jesus' Self-Emptying

    03/23/2017 9:20:53 AM PDT · 59 of 194
    daniel1212 to amorphous
    the Gospel of Peter) as stating that the ' brethren of the Lord' were sons of Joseph by a former wife.

    A sound hermeneutic is that unless an exception to the norm is stated, then the norm is to be accepted. The Holy Spirit characteristically records extraordinary aspects of even far less persons in Scripture, from great age (Methuselah), to excess size, fingers (Goliath), hair (Esau) strength (Samson), prolonged celibacy (Anna), diet (John the Baptist), to the supernatural transport of Phillip, the singleness of Paul and Barnabas, and the uncharacteristic duplicity of Peter, and the surpassing labor and suffering of Paul, to the virgin birth of Christ and Him being single and sinless.

    But while stating her virgin status before Christ was born, nowhere is Mary stated to be a perpetual virgin.

    For while the Spirit specifies that Joseph "knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS," (Matthew 1:25) firstborn normally is used with distinction from latter born, and the Greek for "till" almost always indicates a terminus and change or allowing for it.

    In addition, marriage is described from the beginning as sexual cleaving, (Gn. 2:24; Mt. 19:3-5) and there is only one possible exception to that, which was that of a very infirm old man, David, with Bathsheba. (1Kg. 1)

    Furthermore, a Messianic prophecy states "I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother's children," (Psalms 69:8) which corresponds to His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judæa, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest. For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world. For neither did his brethren believe in him. (John 7:3-5)

    Here again, there is no warrant or need for reading an exception to the norm, that brethren meant other children of Mary.

    And since this would require the assent of her head, then if perpetual Marian virginity (PMV) was the case, and since this would normally be more difficult for the male, then Joseph would deserve more honor.

  • The Humility of Jesus' Self-Emptying

    03/23/2017 8:51:54 AM PDT · 55 of 194
    daniel1212 to amorphous
    The Book of Jasher is also contained in the volume above, mentioned at least twice in the KJV:

    Mentioning or even quoting from a historical source, which even can include pagan authors, (Acts 17:28) does not make such all of it Scripture/thus saith the Lord. And besides the false attribution, there are clear contradictions/error in your Gospel of James source.

  • The Humility of Jesus' Self-Emptying

    03/23/2017 8:38:20 AM PDT · 53 of 194
    daniel1212 to amorphous; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; kinsman redeemer; BlueDragon; metmom; boatbums; ...
    If you read the accounts in the scriptures I've listed above ( they're not in the KJV, and I'm repeating this from memory, so please don't hold me to complete accuracy ), Mary was a virgin all of her life. She was raised in the temple until the age of 12 or 14 when the priests, afraid of having a young woman roaming the temple and the problems that might cause, gave her to Joseph, a very righteous man and widower of approximately 90 years of age, at the time. Yeshua's siblings were all from Joseph's first wife, according to texts listed above. Mary thru the Holy Spirit conceived around 14-16 years of age. Again, memory fails. Joseph died at well over 100 years of age, but before the Crucifixion. Yeshua was a young man when Joseph died, and at his side when he passed.

    You are "remembering" from "Scripture" what does not exist in Scripture, but which is from apocryphal Gospel of James, one of many fake pseudonymous (it lies about being written by James) wannabe gospels, a fantasy which even Catholicism rejects as Scripture despite her idolatrous hyper-"hyperdulia" of their Mary.

    Aquinas, responding to the the Protevangelium of James teaching that that midwives were present at Christ's birth, states, "Jerome says (Adv. Helvid. iv): "No midwife was there, no officious women interfered. She was both mother and midwife. 'With swaddling clothes,' says he, 'she wrapped up the child, and laid Him in a manger.'" These words prove the falseness of the apocryphal ravings." (http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4035.htm)

    Of course, Aquinas does so because he want to exclude Mary from suffering pain during childbirth, which would mean she was a sinner, which exceeding exception to the norm the Holy Spirit would characteristically, state, as He did with much less notable exceptions to the norm.

    There was no 90 year old (which is only in your memory) axe swinging, building contractor, journeying Joseph, or vestal virgin Mary in the temple, but what you are basically remembering is from the Protevangelium of James/Gospel of James, a

    "pseudepigraphal (noncanonical and unauthentic) work written about the mid-2nd century ad [possibly composed in Egypt] to enhance the role of Mary, the mother of Jesus, in Christian tradition. TThe story of Mary’s childhood as given in the Protevangelium has no parallel in the New Testament, and reference to a nine-year stay in the Temple of Jerusalem contradicts Jewish customs. - https://www.britannica.com/topic/Protevangelium-of-James

    The majority of scholars argue for a non-Jewish milieu given the author’s apparent ignorance of Palestinian geography (e.g., Joseph prepares to depart from Bethlehem to Judea, 21:1) and aspects of Judaism (e.g., Mary’s residency in the Temple and Joachim’s marginalization for childlessness are both suspect, and Mary is said to be of the “tribe of David”). However, the author has sufficient knowledge of the Septuagint to borrow phrares and use its characters as models for Anna and Joachim and, unlike the majority of early Christian writers, he does not portray Jewish leaders negatively. - http://www.tonyburke.ca/wp-content/uploads/dictionary-entry-samples.doc

    And besides the fanciful additions, you have real contradictions btwn this and the gospel accounts, as detailed by Bodie Hodge of answersingenesis.org:

    Table of some contradictions between The Protoevangelium of James and the Bible:

      Protoevangelium of James4 The Bible
    1 Gabriel is called an archangel (Chapter 9:22), which was a common designation for Gabriel in apocryphal literature written after the first century. (For example, see Revelation of Paul, The Book of John Concerning the Falling Asleep of Mary, and The Apocalypse of the Holy Mother of God.) The Bible never identifies Gabriel as an archangel, but Michael is described as an archangel in Jude 1:9. The idea of Gabriel as an archangel seems to be a misconception that began in the second century.
    2 Mary’s response to the angel is different than what is recorded in Scripture. “What! Shall I conceive by the living God, and bring forth as all other women do?” (Chapter 9:12).5 [Another translation of this work is available at http://ministries.tliquest.net/theology/apocryphas/nt/protevan.htm. Mary’s reply is rendered differently in this version, in which she replied, “What! By the living God, shall I conceive and bring forth as all other women do?” The angel responded, “Not so, O Mary, but the Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.” This version makes better sense, since the angel corrects her thinking that this would occur via natural means. Walker’s translation (Alexander Walker, Esq., in Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, The Ante-Nicene Fathers,) makes little sense.] Luke 1:34 states, “Then Mary said to the angel, ‘How can this be, since I do not know a man?’”
    3 Elizabeth fled the Bethlehem region with her son John (the Baptist) to the mountains because of Herod’s wrath when he decided to kill all the baby boys around and in Bethlehem (Chapter 16:3). Concerning John the Baptist, Luke 1:80 states, “So the child grew and became strong in spirit, and was in the deserts till the day of his manifestation to Israel.” It was Joseph, Mary, and Jesus who fled from Bethlehem because of Herod (Matthew 2:13–15).
    4 Jesus was born in a cave outside the city of Bethlehem (Chapters 12:11–14:31). Jesus was born in Bethlehem, the town of David, according to Luke 2:4, 11 and Matthew 2:1.
    5 The angel of the Lord, when speaking to Joseph in a dream, said to take Mary but does not mention having her as a wife. The priest chastised Joseph and accused him for taking Mary as a wife secretly by the priest. Joseph takes her home but is reluctant to call her his wife when they go to Bethlehem (Chapters 10:17–18, 11:14, 12:2–3). Matthew 1:19 reveals that Joseph was already Mary’s husband (they were betrothed) before the angel visited him in a dream. Matthew 1:24 points out that after the angel visited Joseph, he kept her as his wife.
    6 Mary wrapped Jesus in swaddling cloths and hid him in a manger at the inn to keep him from the massacre by Herod’s men (Chapter 16:2). Mary and Joseph were warned of Herod’s plot by an angel, and they fled to Egypt (Matthew 2:13–14).
    7 Wise men came to Bethlehem and inquired of Herod where the Child was born (Chapter 21:1–2). Wise men came to Jerusalem to inquire where the child king was (Matthew 2:1). https://answersingenesis.org/bible-characters/is-the-perpetual-virginity-of-mary-a-biblical-view/

    Some invoke certain statements from the the Babylonian Talmud (with its superstitions and fables) and or the apocryphal 2 Maccabees for support of temple virgins, neither of which are reliable sources as to what is Scriptural, nor does it make Mary a temple virgin, a vow which would require her father's assent.

  • The Biggest Anti-Intellectual Movement in History

    03/23/2017 5:28:11 AM PDT · 15 of 16
    daniel1212 to dhs12345
    And they didn’t get the “recipe right” and need to be given another chance. Because the leadership had the best of intentions. Paraphrasing a liberal friend of mine.

    Something like,

    Alexander Pantsov and Steven I. Levine claimed that Mao was a "man of complex moods", who "tried his best to bring about prosperity and gain international respect" for China, being "neither a saint nor a demon." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Zedong#cite_note-286

    How about a proxy servant for the devil?

  • WEEKLY GARDEN THREAD MARCH 10, 2017

    03/21/2017 6:41:55 PM PDT · 48 of 48
    daniel1212 to Diana in Wisconsin
    Usually any of the ‘Bloom Boosters’ are good. As long as the middle number is close to 2x as high as the first and last numbers, you should be good to go! :)

    Got it. It may be easier to just add Phosphorus to a 10-10-10 mix.

  • WEEKLY GARDEN THREAD MARCH 10, 2017

    03/21/2017 5:54:06 PM PDT · 46 of 48
    daniel1212 to oldasrocks
    I would heat water with the wood and get a hot water pump to pump the water through copper lines in the greenhouse. I had a small hothouse in Colorado. I used homemade solar hot water collectors to pump through and into a 100 gallon barrel in the basement. Then the hot water would pump through pipes in a raised insulated floor and an old steam unit in the greenhouse. Two hot water pumps and sensors to start and stop the pumps depending on temperature differences. Thats a redneck solution to a fancy outside furnace they sell.

    You must be in hot water. Sounds good to me!

  • WEEKLY GARDEN THREAD MARCH 10, 2017

    03/21/2017 5:13:54 PM PDT · 45 of 48
    daniel1212 to Diana in Wisconsin
    Well online, there is Jobe’s Tomato Fertilizer Spikes, 6-18-6 Time Release Fertilizer for All Tomato Plants, $6.98 and Miracle-Gro Water Soluble Bloom Booster Flower Food 15-30-15 at 4.86 for just 1.5lbs. But i will keep looking.
  • Sunday WashPost Puff Piece Champions Al Franken as 'Perfect Senator' and 'Breakout Political Star'

    03/20/2017 8:40:46 PM PDT · 49 of 49
    daniel1212 to FlingWingFlyer

    Possible future ticket, Al Franken and Jill Stein, thereby taking Democrats and liberal Independents.

  • WEEKLY GARDEN THREAD MARCH 10, 2017

    03/20/2017 8:15:46 PM PDT · 43 of 48
    daniel1212 to Diana in Wisconsin
    Thanks. I have 3lbs of Scotts 10-10-10 fertilizer i got cheap last Fall, and maybe one could mix some of this in with it, but will look for what you say, though those numbers seem to be more for grass. Meanwhile, i was able to order this for 6.84 for 4lbs, thank God if that price is for real. The specs are only 5-7-3 but it contains a lot of other nutrients.
  • WEEKLY GARDEN THREAD MARCH 10, 2017

    03/20/2017 9:55:48 AM PDT · 41 of 48
    daniel1212 to Diana in Wisconsin
    By far, the best all-around fertilizer that I have found for just about ANYTHING that sets a fruit or a vegetable is a granular 10-18-10.

    Thanks, but while that can work for the plant, i read that it is not as good for the soil as organic fer. as per my referenced source.

  • They Told Trump to Keep Jesus Out of the White House, So He Fired Back With THIS

    03/20/2017 9:52:45 AM PDT · 85 of 89
    daniel1212 to BlueDragon
    "...Unless I am convicted by scripture and plain reason--I do not accept the authority of popes and councils for they have contradicted each other--my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise, God help me. Amen."

    If Luther did this post V2. As http://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1090&context=jcls states,

    the documents of Vatican II do not reduce the apparent ambiguity between the personal duty in the individual to form her or his own conscience and the individual's responsibility to listen to the Church, its tradition, and Magisterium. It is certainly correct to say that "the Council fathers... were willing to tolerate two different visions of the moral life." - Halstead, James., Conscience, the American Bishops and the Renewal of Moral Theology: The Notion of Conscience in the Pastoral Letters of the American Bishops(1986) p. 133,

    Cardinal Ratzinger points to the conundrum when speaking of the two interpretations: One is a renewed understanding of the Catholic essence, which expounds Christian faith from the basis of freedom and as the very principle of freedom itself. The other is a superseded, 'pre- conciliar' model, which subjects Christian existence to 86 JOURNAL OF CATHOLIC LEGAL STUDIES [Vol. 47:69 authority, regulating life even in its most intimate preserves, and thereby attempts to maintain control over people's lives. Morality of conscience and morality of authority, as two opposing models, appear to be locked in struggle with each other. Accordingly, the freedom of the Christian would be rescued by appeal to the classical principle of moral tradition: that conscience is the highest norm that man is to follow, even in opposition to authority. Authority-in this case, the [M]agisterium-may well speak of matters moral, but only in the sense of presenting conscience with material for its own deliberation. Conscience would retain, however, the final word.

    Some authors reduce conscience in this, its aspect of final arbiter to the formula conscience is infallible .... But .... if this were the case, it would mean that there is no truth-at least not in moral or religious matters, which is to say, in the areas that constitute the very pillars of our existence. - JOSEPH RATZINGER, Conscience and Truth, in ON CONSCIENCE: Two ESSAYS 11, 11-12 (2007)

  • How to get "frozen" caliper bolts out??

    03/20/2017 9:51:44 AM PDT · 41 of 146
    daniel1212 to tet68; Paul R.
    As a last resort, you might get some dry ice from a grocery store, chip off a piece and hold it with pliers against the bolt. This will make it contract and pull away from the caliper, then it should come out.

    Putting it all together, quickly heat all areas of the surrounding area around the bolt just enough to allow your chosen penetrating concoction to penetrate better, but not boil off or combust.

    Then, once you have the removal wrench ready, hold a few ounces of dry ice (a meat shipper may have some) as much on and nearest the bolt as possible for about 20 minutes (cover with rags as doing so). Then quickly heat the surrounding area around the bolt so that this will expand faster than the cold bolt, and then quickly spray a little of something like PB Blaster penetrating fluid, and immediately attempt to remove the bolt.

  • They Told Trump to Keep Jesus Out of the White House, So He Fired Back With THIS

    03/19/2017 6:55:07 PM PDT · 77 of 89
    daniel1212 to IrishBrigade
    but I am pointing out the double standard of those who condemn us

    No double standard on my part: as said, I am not saying dissent is necessarily wrong, for as said, we ourselves engage in it, judging Rome to be wrong based upon our understanding of Scripture, while RCs condemn us for doing so yet they judge Rome to be wrong based upon their understanding of certain historical writings. And which manner of Trad. RC dissent is contrary to significant historical RC teaching.

  • WEEKLY GARDEN THREAD MARCH 10, 2017

    03/19/2017 6:48:08 PM PDT · 39 of 48
    daniel1212 to greeneyes; Diana in Wisconsin; gardengirl; girlangler; SunkenCiv; HungarianGypsy
    Can i ask your list what they think is the best organic fertilizer for MA (New England acidic) soils, which in this case is for an area only about 20' x 6' on the SW side of an apt. bldg. in the city, which only get about 5 hours of sun a day at best.

    I have used Miracle Gro and had a fair harvest of Butternut Squash for two seasons. Looking to do better, I have been reading about GroPal Bal (One hundred gallons of Australian ocean water are evaporated down to a 1 gallon concentrate, making it a product packed with trace minerals) which formula the author says he thinks "has the potential to revolutionize agriculture," but this novice is skeptical and am not looking to spend a lot of money. At $24.95 + shipping for a 8 ounce bottle (1/8th an acre) i want to do research.

    RE acidic soil, that author claims "Sulfur bacteria are eliminated by Lime. This is why you need GroPal Balance to correct the pH, because it is done biologically, not chemically. YOU CAN’T PROPERLY CORRECT YOUR SOIL pH WITH LIME."

    Another product i was looking at was Dr. Earth Organic 5 Tomato, Vegetable & Herb Fertilizer Poly Bag

    I would like to have a compost heap but with only a few months of warm weather and rats in the area then i wonder if it would be worth it.

    Any opinions?

  • should We Still Keep the Commandments?

    03/19/2017 4:53:51 PM PDT · 184 of 287
    daniel1212 to BipolarBob
    But mandating observance of the 7th day even relegating those who do not to being demonically deceived damned souls as you have done The only thing damnable on this thread is your LIE about me. Show me where I have relegated any demonic deceived damned souls. Post it word for word.

    You can follow Gods example or make up your own rules. 2 Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

    That is amazing. You can pull 7th day Sabbath observance by the NT church out of a NT which never shows them doing so, but only specifically meeting on the 1st day, and treating the 7th day observance as part of the ceremonial law, but you cannot see that you represented me as one who, by by rejecting your argument, made up my own rules in accordance with 2 Thess. 2:11 which speaks of demonic deceived damned souls.

    Your selective blindness is thus further manifest, and is a further argument against you. May God grant you and your cult repentance unto the acknowledge of the Truth. Bye.

  • should We Still Keep the Commandments?

    03/19/2017 4:53:40 PM PDT · 183 of 287
    daniel1212 to BipolarBob
    Do what you will then and bother me no more. If the fact God instituted the Sabbath at Creation means nothing to you

    A misrepresentation of what I said,.

    If the fact that Jesus kept the Sabbath means nothing to you then my words will not either.

    Another misrepresentation of what I said,.

    The Mosaic law was abolished on the cross so that has nothing to do with the Ten Commandments

    Another mere assertion. It is the beginning of the giving of the law under the Mosiac covenant, all of which were to be kept. (Deuteronomy 4:13-14; 7:12) ) And under the New, liturgical seasons fall under the ceremonial law with no distinction every being made wherever the sabbath or days are mentioned as part of what was no longer required literal observance. (Col. 2:16,17; Gal. 4:10; cf. Rm. 14:5) Thus you must read into the texts what you can only wish was there.

    You will not change my mind and vice versa so there is nothing more to converse about.

    Well, there is that fallacious charge you made in the next post to be exposed as such. You should have quite before you further provided an argument against yourself.

  • should We Still Keep the Commandments?

    03/19/2017 2:10:54 PM PDT · 178 of 287
    daniel1212 to BipolarBob
    The Sabbath was never part of the ceremonial law. There were additional sabbaths that were but the 7th day Sabbath commemorating Creation was never part of that. The 7th day Sabbath is part of the TEN (count them) COMMANDMENTS (not suggestions). Where is the LAW stating the first day of the week must be kept holy?

    Observance of the Sabbath was never enjoined until the Law, and as shown, under which the Spirit treats the Sabbath as part of the ceremonial law, despite assertions to the contrary made in the light of and the utter absence of the 4th commandment being repeated/reiterated while doing so for the rest, nor providing and one example of any NT church doing so.

    Where is the LAW stating the first day of the week must be kept holy?

    There is none, only a precedent of meeting on the first day under the New Covenant, the only specific day they are shown meeting on, which you lack, while the principle of one day of rest based on God's rest (from His atoning mission) supports this practice.

    I myself after becoming a Christian (former RC) have never worked for money on the first day (Sat, even to Sun, eve) even when I used to work 6 long days a week, and refrain from personal recreation on that day, as sanctified, nor do i condemn those who hold that 7th day is the correct day, as long as the motive is to honor the Lord.

    But mandating observance of the 7th day even relegating those who do not to being demonically deceived damned souls as you have done, is what i contend against. Thus it is your cultic spirit that makes your salvation suspect.

  • should We Still Keep the Commandments?

    03/19/2017 2:10:47 PM PDT · 177 of 287
    daniel1212 to BipolarBob
    Gen. 2:2 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done. The first Sabbath God instituted.

    But again, nowhere is observance of this shown to be enjoined until under the Law, nor under the New Covenant, and your desperation in trying to provide any example of this is an argument against it.

    Luke 4:16 He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. He stood up to read You can follow Gods example or make up your own rules.

    Again, this example is not under the New Covenant, and as the Lord also was circumcised and kept the OT feasts days (and it was on the 1st day that the Lord began to sanctify the Temple: (2 Chronicles 29:17), then according to your reasoning, you must make observance of all such mandatory as well!

    And instead, as said, the Holy Spirit nowhere repeats/reiterates the 4th commandment, while doing so for the rest, nor provides and one example of any NT church doing so, while treating the Sabbath as part of the ceremonial law.

  • They Told Trump to Keep Jesus Out of the White House, So He Fired Back With THIS

    03/19/2017 1:34:40 PM PDT · 74 of 89
    daniel1212 to fortes fortuna juvat
    Daniel1212, everything you’ve stated may be accurate in terms of the information sources you’ve cited, but every point you’ve alluded to has also been contradicted countless times by countless Catholics for countless centuries. That is because, in the final analysis, the faithful will believe and do what their conscience, informed or otherwise, compels them to believe and do. And this is as it should be, thus the pastors of the Church throughout history have themselves, by their words and actions, contradicted one another innumerable times. And of course the informed laity has always been, to one degree or another, influenced by that undeniable fact.

    I am aware of the contradictions, and am not even saying dissent is necessarily wrong, which is how the church began, but I am pointing out the double standard of those who condemn us (conservative evangelicals) to ascertaining the validity of Catholic teaching by examining them in the light of wholly inspired Scripture and dissenting from such when it is not (as is the case with basic Cath. distinctives) , while they essentially do the same in principle, judging modern teaching as invalid in the light of their understanding of historical RC teaching.

  • should We Still Keep the Commandments?

    03/19/2017 1:28:01 PM PDT · 161 of 287
    daniel1212 to Ezekiel
    The "I should be able to get away with x" or "Here is why I should get away with y" crowd uses God's grace as if it were an EBT card. The type of entitled folks who use the cards to buy filet mignon and expensive organic snacks, having zero thought, respect or regard for the ones who are actually paying the bill.

    Thus we replace preaching on how bad sin is and how great salvation at so great a cost by so great a savior and judge is much replaced with preaching that avoids this and rock songs with trite lyrics (if you can even hear them) in contrast to classic hymns.

  • They Told Trump to Keep Jesus Out of the White House, So He Fired Back With THIS

    03/19/2017 9:53:59 AM PDT · 70 of 89
    daniel1212 to Eleutheria5
    Who needs to consult with some guy up in the sky, when you got me? I’m brilliant, and I make sure other people die for my sins, not that there’s anything wrong with that.

    Which (regardless of attempted levity) would make you a false messiah, in contrast to Christ, who died for the sins of man, not those of God which are not, and you are not omnipotent, omniscient, but are a finite sinner, and thus you will ultimately fails us. Don't quit your day job superman.

  • They Told Trump to Keep Jesus Out of the White House, So He Fired Back With THIS

    03/19/2017 9:53:54 AM PDT · 69 of 89
    daniel1212 to fortes fortuna juvat; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; kinsman redeemer; BlueDragon; metmom; ...
    1. Not many Catholics have left the church because of the current Pope, so far as I know.

    The phrase, "left the church" i what is fraught with ambiguity of meaning. We are told by RCs that while one may no be a practicing RC, they are still Catholic if they were ever baptized as one. But the same will excommunicate multitudes (liberals) such as whom Rome counts and treats as members in life and in death.

    In the light of such confusion, rather than laity judging what is of God based upon their understanding of what the church teaches, RC teaching is that the one duty of the laity is to simply follow the pastors, and thus let leadership interpret itself by what is manifestly teaches, meaning Teddy k. Catholics are indeed Catholic, who never left the church.

    2. The word “subjection” is one fraught with ambiguity of meaning. Most Catholics, myself included, do not think of themselves as being in subjection to the Pope for the very good reason that they are not.

    It is so fraught with ambiguity of meaning that you can declare who is and who is not subject to the pope. However, as used by popes it excludes resisting this authority, including non-infallible teaching*.

    3. What they are in subjection to are the dogmatic doctrinal teachings of the church which is another way of saying “the Catholic faith.”

    No, it means they believe they are in subjection to the dogmatic doctrinal teachings based on their judgment of what they mean, contrary to how current leadership understands them to whom they dissent from. Then they then censure us for "private interpretation" versus following Catholic leadership. Both trad. RCs and evangelicals dissent from Rome to varying degrees, based upon their judgment of what historical teaching is and means, the difference being for us Scripture is the supreme, only wholly inspired substantive body of Truth.

    4. What many Catholics and non-Catholics misunderstand is that the Pope is NOT the Catholic Church, nor is he the Catholic Faith. And, virtually any position he may take on any issue whatsoever may be accepted or refuted according to one’s informed conscience in regard to whatever that position is.

    Misleading. Freedom of conscience does not justify your judgment as being Truth, nor (according to historical RC teaching) public dissent as being valid, and understanding that dissent of conscience means dissenters are faithful RCs, who are not guilty is contrary to much papal teaching.

    5. BUT, there is one caveat to what is outlined in #4. And that is, if the Pope makes a pronouncement regarding a matter of faith and/or morals and makes it clearly understood that he is speaking ex cathedra, it is then incumbent upon members of the faithful, i.e., sincerely practicing Catholics, to give their assent to that teaching.

    Wrong. Magisterial teaching requires religious assent to non-infallible teaching also, which excludes public dissent. .

    According to Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis & Vatican II in Lumen Gentium n.25, even non-infallible teachings are to receive the submission of mind and will of the faithful. While not requiring the assent of faith, they cannot be disputed nor rejected publicly, and the benefit of the doubt must be given to the one possessing the fullness of teaching authority. (http://www.ewtn.com/library/DOCTRINE/TRIGINFL.HTM)

    ...there are three kinds of magisterial statement, three levels of authoritative teaching which establish the “the order of the truths to which the believer adheres.”[1] They are (1) truths taught as divinely revealed, (2) definitively proposed statements on matters closely connected with revealed truth, and (3) ordinary teaching on faith and morals. A fourth category, ordinary prudential teaching on disciplinary matters, is commonly accepted by theologians and can be inferred from the text of Cardinal Ratzinger’s Donum Veritatis.[2] (http://catholicism.org/the-three-levels-of-magisterial-teaching.html)

    There is a difference in the kind of submission required: infallible, teachings, irreformable divinely revealed truths (which arguably constitute the smaller portion of what RCs believe and practice), require "assent of faith" (which, according to various Catholic sources, is that of "sacred assent," "internal assent," being "without wavering," "submission of faith," "assent of mind and heart," “obedience of faith,” "theological faith," “divine and Catholic faith.”

    One who doubts these articles lacks faith that Rome possesses ensured veracity, and falls into heresy), while "authentic" while non-definitive ordinary teaching requires "ordinary assent," that being "religious submission of will and intellect," submission of mind and will," which "forbids public contradiction of the teaching"." An obstinate refusal to give "assent of faith" when it is due is a sin against the virtue of faith, while obstinate refusal to give "religious assent" when it is due is a sin against the virtue of charity. Of course, which of the 3 or 4 levels of magisterial teaching falls under is also subject to interpretation, and thus what type of assent is required. To such a Prot responds,

    Boy. No disrespect intended...and I mean that honestly...but my head spins trying to comprehend the various classifications of Catholic teaching and the respective degrees of certainty attached thereto. I suspect that the average Catholic doesn't trouble himself with such questions, but as to those who do (and us poor Protestants who are trying to get a grip on Catholic teaching) it sounds like an almost impossible task.

    The solution for which is cultic, just obey and don't question:

    Praxis [practice] is quite simple for faithful Catholics: give your religious assent of intellect and will to Catholic doctrine, whether it is infallible or not. That's what our Dogmatic Constitution on the Church demands, that's what the Code of Canon Laws demand, and that is what the Catechism itself demands. Heb 13:17 teaches us to "obey your leaders and submit to them." This submission is not contingent upon inerrancy or infallibility. - http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=1565864#post1565864

    While trad. RCs criticize Prots for seeking to ascertain the validity of teaching by examining the warrant from the source for it, they themselves pick and choose what to obey in Catholic teaching based on their judgment of its conformity with what they see Rome teaching in the past. Many RCs here scoff at the idea of encyclicals, esp the latest one of the pope, as requiring religious assent, while others disagree, with both sides selectively quoting popes and teaching from the past.

    And submission is also required to V2. As stated by pope Paul VI in closing V2,

    You have no right any more to bring up the distinction between the doctrinal and the pastoral that you use to support your acceptance of certain texts of Vatican Council II and your rejection of others. It is true that the matters decided in any Council do not all call for an assent of the same quality; only what the Council affirms in its 'definitions' as a truth of faith or as bound up with faith requires the assent of faith. Nevertheless, the rest also form a part of the SOLEMN MAGISTERIUM of the Church, to be trustingly accepted and sincerely put into practice by every Catholic.(Epistle Cum te to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, 11 Oct, 1976, published in Notitiae, No. 12, 1976.)

    Some RCs reject all or parts of Vatican 2 (or at least reject religious assent as disallowing public dissent), based on a difference btwn a "pastoral" vs. "dogmatic" council. To which a RC apologist responds,

    "This "pastoral" vs. "dogmatic" council distinction is a bunch of hooey (a technical canonical term meaning whatever). Those two words are descriptive, not definitive. Whatever Vatican II taught authoritatively, Catholics are bound to hold. Period. Of course, finding out just what Vatican II taught authoritatively is not always so clear as it was with, say, Trent, but that's a different problem from the one your friend wants to pose." ...So you are not at liberty to dissent from its teaching in part or in entirety. It's as simple as that. - Dave Armstrong, http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/01/vatican-ii-is-it-orthodox-binding.html

    6. And finally, it is extremely rare that a Pope pronounces a position regarding the faith and/or moral teachings of the Church officially speaking ex cathedra.

    Misleading: RC teaching is that "infallible" teaching can come from the bishops in union with the pope, not simply directly from the pope, and submission is required to basically all formal papal teaching (including encyclicals) even if not considered infallible.

    * Epistola Tua: To the shepherds alone was given all power to teach, to judge, to direct; on the faithful was imposed the duty of following their teaching, of submitting with docility to their judgment , and of allowing themselves to be governed, corrected, and guided by them in the way of salvation.

    Thus, it is an absolute necessity for the simple faithful to submit in mind and heart to their own pastors, and for the latter to submit with them to the Head and Supreme Pastor.... Similarly, it is to give proof of a submission which is far from sincere to set up some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them; and in some ways they resemble those who, on receiving a condemnation, would wish to appeal to a future council, or to a Pope who is better informed.

    On this point what must be remembered is that in the government of the Church, except for the essential duties imposed on all Pontiffs by their apostolic office, each of them can adopt the attitude which he judges best according to times and circumstances. Of this he alone is the judge. It is true that for this he has not only special lights, but still more the knowledge of the needs and conditions of the whole of Christendom, for which, it is fitting, his apostolic care must provide. - Epistola Tua (1885), Apostolic Letter of Pope Leo XIII; http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage_print.asp?number=403215&language=en

    "It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock...the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors ." - VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906.

    Nor can we pass over in silence the audacity of those who, not enduring sound doctrine, contend that "without sin and without any sacrifice of the Catholic profession assent and obedience may be refused to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to [only] concern the Church's general good and her rights and discipline, so only it does not touch the dogmata of faith and morals." But no one can be found not clearly and distinctly to see and understand how grievously this is opposed to the Catholic dogma of the full power given from God by Christ our Lord Himself to the Roman Pontiff of feeding, ruling and guiding the Universal Church. (Quanta Cura. Encyclical of Pope Pius IX promulgated on December 8, 1864; http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quanta.htm)

    20. Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent... if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians. - PIUS XII, HUMANI GENERI, August 1950; http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html

    The authority (of papal encyclicals) is undoubtedly great". It is, in a sense, sovereign. It is the teaching of the supreme pastor and teacher of the Church. Hence the faithful have a strict obligation to receive this teaching with an infinite respect. A man must not be content simply not to contradict it openly and in a more or less scandalous fashion. An internal mental assent is demanded. It should be received as the teaching sovereignly authorized within the Church." - Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, esteemed Catholic theologian and professor of fundamental dogmatic theology at the Catholic University of America, who served as a peritus for Cardinal Ottaviani at the Second Vatican Council. Extract from the American Ecclesiastical Review, Vol. CXXI, August, 1949; http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/encyclicals/docauthority.htm

    For it is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of a Christian to trust his own mental powers with such pride as to agree only with those things which he can examine from their inner nature, and to imagine that the Church, sent by God to teach and guide all nations, is not conversant with present affairs and circumstances; or even that they must obey only in those matters which she has decreed by solemn definition as though her other decisions might be presumed to be false or putting forward insufficient motive for truth and honesty.

    Quite to the contrary, a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord. - CASTI CONNUBII, ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XI; https://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19301231_casti-connubii.html

    ...when we love the Pope, there are no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed ; when we love the Pope, we do not say that he has not spoken clearly enough, almost as if he were forced to repeat to the ear of each one the will clearly expressed so many times not only in person, but with letters and other public documents ; we do not place his orders in doubt, adding the facile pretext of those unwilling to obey – that it is not the Pope who commands, but those who surround him; we do not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority ; we do not set above the authority of the Pope that of other persons, however learned, who dissent from the Pope, who, even though learned, are not holy, because whoever is holy cannot dissent from the Pope.

    The Bishops form the most sacred part of the Church, that which instructs and governs men by divine right; and so he who resists them and stubbornly refuses to obey their word places himself outside the Church [cf. Matt. 18:18]. But obedience must not limit itself to matters which touch the faith: its sphere is much more vast: it extends to all matters which the episcopal power embraces. - (Pope Saint Pius X, Allocution Vi ringrazio to priests on the 50th anniversary of the Apostolic Union, November 18, 1912, as found at http://www.christorchaos.com/?q=content/choosing-ignore-pope-leo-xiii-and-pope-saint-pius-x

    to scrutinize the actions of a bishop, to criticize them, does not belong to individual Catholics, but concerns only those who, in the sacred hierarchy, have a superior power; above all, it concerns the Supreme Pontiff, for it is to him that Christ confided the care of feeding not only all the lambs, but even the sheep [cf. John 21:17]. - Est Sane Molestum (1888) Apostolic Letter of Pope Leo XIII; http://www.novusordowatch.org/est-sane-molestum-leo-xiii.htm

    In addition, as concerns social teaching, The "Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church" (2005) states:

    80. In the Church’s social doctrine the Magisterium is at work in all its various components and expressions. … Insofar as it is part of the Church’s moral teaching, the Church’s social doctrine has the same dignity and authority as her moral teaching. It is authentic Magisterium, which obligates the faithful to adhere to it . - http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html

    And it is quite well evidenced that the popes last encyclical (http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html) is intended to teach what the Church's moral teaching demands as regards ecology and economy. (172 references in this encyclical cite church teaching and prelates for support).

    Thus we either have Trad. RCs contradicting past papal teaching in dissenting from modern papal and magisterial teaching, and that Rome's interpretation of herself is to be trusted.

  • should We Still Keep the Commandments?

    03/19/2017 5:14:27 AM PDT · 134 of 287
    daniel1212 to BipolarBob
    and now where is there aNy command ever given under the New Covenant to the church to keep the 7th day Sabbath.

    Mark 2:28 So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath. Jesus declares His affiliation with the Sabbath. Luke 4:16 And He came to Nazareth where He had been brought up. And as His custom was, He went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day and stood up to read. Jesus kept the Sabbath! Acts 17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three Sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures. This is three consecutive weeks on the Sabbath for those taking note. Matthew 24:20 "But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the Sabbath day". This is an event that took place years after the crucifixion. Sounds like it is still valid to me. The Law that God wrote Himself (Ex. 24:12) and spoke Himself (Deut. 4:12,13). You can't go wrong by following Gods own Words, speech or example while on earth. There is NO excuse in the day of judgment. REMEMBER the Sabbath day. The only one with remember in it.

    All of which utterly fail to produce any command ever given under the New Covenant to the church to keep the 7th day Sabbath. The Lord also enjoined general obedience to the Scribes and Pharisees, (Mt. 23:2) and kept OT feasts, none of which is binding under the New Covenant, which is distinctively declared to be “Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt.." (Jer. 31:32),

    Thus akin to Catholics who assume NT Christians did what is nowhere recorded, you assert that the Holy Spirit would fail to record even one example of a NT church (as a church) specifically keeping the 7th day, despite this being such an important practice, while only showing them specifically meeting on the first day, and treating the sabbath as part of the ceremonial law which Christians are not bound to keep. Based upon your failure to rightly divide the word of Truth you and your elitist cult might as well argue that Christians must be circumcised and keep the feasts to be saved.