Posted on 01/05/2010 9:46:47 PM PST by the_conscience
ph
Not true...God told you all graven images are forbidden...I just brought the relevant scripture to your attention...
You are God, now? Jedediah, have you returned?
At any rate, I brought you Exodus 25 and 26, and Numbers 19, in which God explicitly instructs the creation of graven images. I haven't noticed any of your thoughts towards these very lengthy Scriptural passages.
Thank you, Alex. Excellent response.
Don't you ever get tired of being so bone-achingly gobsmackingly wrong?
I have to admit that I was in a hurry and left out a couple of words in that sentence...I intended to say that most if not all Catholics here who post any amount of scripture are former Protestants...
So am I still wrong???
Certainly. Let us review the Scripture that I post (mostly Gospel and in large quantities) versus yours (mostly non Gospel and in snippets). If a tree fell in the forest and nobody was there to hear, given your track record, you still would have an overwhelming tendency to be wrong.
Help me out here. I'd say there's a gap between being God-[in]breathed and being God's Breath.
Knights Templar Inquisition, 1185 DD\SAS\C/795/SX/25 1926
1 bundle
Contents:
Transcript of the Inquisition of the Templars' lands in England made by Geoffrey FitzStephen in 1185 (Exchequer K.R., Miscellaneous Book no.16). [Borrowed by Beatrice A.Lees for publication by British Academy, and returned to S.A.S. in Nov. 1926].
[Qto.sheets.]
Source: Knowledge Rush (I have no idea if that is any better or worse than Wikipedia)
* Templars in England
The history of the Templars in England starts when Hughes de Payens, Grandmaster of the order visited the country in 1128 to raise men and money for the crusade. The first house was in London and early patrons include Earl Robert de Ferrers, Bernard de Balliol, King Stephen of England and Queen Matilda. Henry II granted them land across England, including some land by Castle Barnard on the River Fleet where they built a round church. They were also given the advowson of St Clement Danes. In 1184 their headquarters was transferred to the New Temple where once again they built a round church.
An inventory by Geoffrey Fitz Stephen reveals that by 1185 they had extensive holdings in London, Essex, Kent, Warwickshire, Worcestershire, Salop, Oxfordshire, Cornwall, lincolnshire and Yorkshire. The involvement of Templars in financial matters is shown by Walter of Coventry's story of Gilbert de Ogrestan, the knight Templar accused of embezzling taxes in 1188. He was severly punished by the current Master. In 1200 Pope Innocent III issued a Papal Bull declaring the immunity of persons and goods within the houses of the order. This ensured that the New Temple became a royal treasury as well as the repository for the orders accumulated revenues. These financial resources provided the basis for the development of the Templar's banking faciluities.
Richard I confirmed their land holdings and granted them immunity from all pleas, suits danegeld and from murdrum and latrocinium.
King John of England had substatial financial dealings with the Knights Templar. At the time of Runnymede, not only was Aymeric de St Maur present, but King John was also resident at the Temple when the Barons first presented their demands. he gave them the Isle of Lundy as well as land at Huntspill, Cameley, Harewood, Radenach and Northampton.
King Henry III of England also had substantial dealing with them, the king's Wardrobe being located their in 1225. He entrusted Templars with military, financial and diplomatic commissions, and even considered being buried in the Temple. He did infact establish a chantry there in 1231.
King Edward I of England accorded them a slighter role in public affairs, financial issues often being handled by Italian merchants and diplomacy by mendicant orders. Indeed Edward I raided the treasury in 1283.
When Philip the Fair, King of France suppressed the order on October 13, 1307, Edward II of England at first refused to believe the accusations. But after the intercession of Pope Clement V he ordered the seizure of members of the order in England on January 8, 1308. The trial ran from October 22, 1309 until March 18, 1310 in front of Deodatus, Abbot of Lagny and Sicard de Vaur. Most of the Templars acknowledged that their belief that the mastter could give absolution as heretical and were reconciled with the church. However, Willian de la More refused to do so and remained prisoner in the Tower of London until his death.
The papal Bull of Clement V granting the lands of the Templars to the Knights Hospitaller was ignored until 1324. From 1347 the priests started letting part of the Temple to lawyers, from which the evolution of the Inner Temple and Middle Temple as Inns of Court derives.
Masters of the Temple, London
* Richard de Hastyngs, 1160
* Richard Mallebeench,
* Geoffrey Fitz Stephen, 1180 to 1185
* William de Newenham,
* Thomas Beard, 1200
* Aymeric de St. Maur, 1200,1205 and 1228
* Alan Marcell, 1220 and 1228
* Amberaldus, 1229
* Robert Mounford, 1234
* Robert Saunforde, 1231 to 1247
* Rocelin de Fosse, 1250 to 1253
* Amadeus de Morestello, 1254 to 1259
* Imbert Peraut, 1267 to 1269
* William de Beaulieu, 1274
* Robert Turvile, 1277 to 1289
* Guy de Foresta, 1290 to 1294
* James de Molay, 1297
* Brian le Jay, 1298
* William de la More, 1298 to 1307
Then there is a reference in a book, Eden: The Knowledge of Good and Evil 666, that links the laying of the cornerstone to the White House by Freemason George Washington to Knights Templar Inquisition Day, October 13
The suppression of the Knights Templar is an interesting tale. This inventory (inquisition) makes sense with its timing...because of the suspicions of the monarchs about the moneys the Templars brought back from the Holy Land after they were booted. Need to know what they had, didn't they? Then combine that with the order's suppression during the reign of Clement V in Avignon. And, of course, we know that the reason for that is that Phillip wanted the Knights' money. He had his own pet pope...so why not?
Fascinating stuff...
An historical link? Here’s a basic PDF describing Cressing Temple in Essex, including the inquest of 1185, 11 pages with contemporary color photographs of the site, old diagrams and a fair amount of detail:
http://sarumseminar.org/meetings/2007-12-10-members-night/KathleenMuch-Templars.pdf
If you’re looking to research a surname, I’m not sure I have an online link for that, I’ll have to look.
If you’re looking to research the Templars in England, Cressing is where to start, it’s the earliest one, dating back to, I believe, 1137.
Quite.
I normally don't read or respond to your postings but the absence of rainbow colored Cat-in-the-Hat prose fooled me.
I dare say that this was the most un-Christian posting I have seen yet and really underscores the difference between who the Catholics are and who they are not and the differences between the New and Everlasting Covenant and the vengeful God portrayed in the Old Testament. We pray for her redemption, for her heart to be changed and for her to receive Salvation not for her to be made a harshly vivid example of.
23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews indeed a stumblingblock, and unto the Gentiles foolishness: 24 But unto them that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.1 Corinthians 1:23
Nicely said - way to make it black & white (literally too!)
By YOPIOS, God is opposed to photography, paintings, film and sculpture. Do you abstain from these evils?
Thank you for your support.
Ninja Mad Dawg
LOL
Okay, the near-dialectic: Hegel's methodology of pushing ordinary reality (thesis) into a melting pot with its antithesis to form a new tension (synthesis) that only the illuminati (Hegel, et al) could appreciate while they sit sipping their brandy. The Catholic Church, because of its contention that it alone holds all "keys" to the Kindgom, performs such silly voodoo upon the Scriptures. Instead of just allowing the ordinary sense of the text (say, Rom. 9), they manufacture a hyper-spiritual Catholic take on important and foundational ideas. Anything else is YPIOS. Just watcth the sparks fly over this post.
The Reformers warred against this self-importance. They pointed at the Scriptures, written not by Catholics, but by the Apostles and associates of Jesus and noted this extra-biblical stuff is just not there without unjustified extensions. Such arguments are rejected out of hand by the Catholics as an affront to their authority. Self-proving argument: I am the authority and I have decided that I am the authority. Okay, now where do we go? Oh, right, just to worship at the feet of Rome.
This is not to say the reformed thinkers got it all right. Luther's consubstantiation is as wrong as transubstantiation. But, they did not retreat to the self-styled bastion of "Didn't we mention that WE are THE authority." They left it out there for discussion and argument. And, yes, (here come your pals from the RCC hit squad), Calvin went overboard. But, no one on this side of the isle says, "Now that was a good idea." We do examine whether the Scriptures teach justification by faith, alone, in Jesus Christ, alone? But, the Catholics rally round the pornographic popes (yes, there were many with illegitamate children by nuns, etc.) claiming ex-cathedra authority to add the sacraments, indulgences, inquisitions and other nonsense. Such blind loyalty is required by headquarters, even though some will say, "Okay, there were some errors, but..." Please. This is more of the dialectic I am referring to. The RCC has made a pot full of theological and behavioral errors and cannot, will not, be scrutinized.
You just have a soft, clever (in the good sense) demeanor that minimizes the offense of the organization. I was cautioning the former poster not to be disarmed by such kindness...you still held to the firm view that there is no firm view, except the firm view that when the RCC decides a firm view should be a firm view.
I find Paul vigorously claiming the Jewish community made similar errors, and I stand with Paul. Pauliolatry is the error the RCC pack has now accused me of. Pauliolatry...there is the dialectic, again.
Seriously, it was the mention of an Inquisition of 1187. Being a Dominican and a Catholic and all, I get nervous when inquisitions are mentioned.
The Catechism as shown at vatican.va is equipped with better hyperlinks in the footnotes, but the interface is kludgy and the footnotes lead to the NAB (euh).
The Catechism as shown at http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm is not as extensively hyperlinked, but is easier (to these weary eyes) to read and navigate.
The text is the same: The Second Edition English Translation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (including the corrections promulgated by Ven. Pope John Paul the Great September 1997).
HD “Tell me in the passages you’ve recited where does it tell Abraham that he is going to be the “light of the world”.”
Maybe I didn’t recite Gen 12:
“1Now the LORD said to Abram, “Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you. 2 And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. 3 I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”
I take Jesus - the Light of the World - to be the means by which all of the families of the earth have been blessed.
You quote Dt 9:4-6 as WHY God chose Israel, highlighting, “Not because of your righteousness or the uprightness of your heart are you going in to possess their land, but because of the wickedness of these nations the LORD your God is driving them out from before you,” but leaving unmarked the remainder of the sentence, “and that he may confirm the word that the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.” Two reasons, and by doing the first, God is setting up Israel to bless all the families of the earth by preparing the way of the Lord. IMHO.
HD “God selected the nation of Israel not because they were so good (which we know they weren’t), but simply to illustrate the wickedness to those around them.”
Not to illustrate, but to judge. It was part of our pastor’s sermon a few weeks back, showing where God predicted the judgment of the people Israel dispossessed 400 years later...I’ll try to find it sometime.
HD “Christians tend to be a bit smug in thinking we’re “good” or we’re doing “good things”.”
Most of the Christians I’ve met are more aware of their sins than just about any non-believer I’ve met. I sure don’t feel like I’ve ‘arrived’. Could PD tend to lead to more smugness than FW?
HD “Why didn’t God simply allow the nation to go in and preach to them? Children were being born every day. The old were dying. Couldn’t God have changed their hearts with the message of the gospel? Please remember that Nineveh was far worst.”
Don’t know. At worst, however, I’m not as deep in the pit as the PD, who claims God not only doesn’t do enough to reveal Himself to man, but that God actively prevents men from believing! However, one possible answer is that God knew that man was so fallen that the Gospel wouldn’t be received by anyone unless there was preparation first. I think Israel was chosen to prepare the way of the Lord, so that SOMEONE would be ABLE to receive the Gospel.
But that is a guess. Of course, a PDer would say that God could go in and irresistibly save everyone from the moment Adam fell, if he wanted to...but he didn’t because their names weren’t on the list.
While we’re at it, if God irresistibly saves men, why did He permit the Fall? Why does He not prevent us from sinning daily?
HD “And since we’re chatting, how about this scripture:
Mat 11:21 “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.”
I’ve already given one possible explanation. Another is that I believe Jesus, like most adults, sometimes used hyperbole to make a point. Some of the comments made by God in the Old Testament, Jesus in the New, and Paul in his letters seem sarcastic, as well.
Matthew 23, for example: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2023&version=ESV
or “9For I think that God has exhibited us apostles as last of all, like men sentenced to death, because we have become a spectacle to the world, to angels, and to men. 10 We are fools for Christ’s sake, but you are wise in Christ. We are weak, but you are strong. You are held in honor, but we in disrepute.”
Romans 9-11 deals with the problem of the Jews. Jesus came to his own, but they rejected Him. The question from Paul isn’t why individual Jews are not saved - for Paul was - but why Jews as a group did not overwhelmingly accept Jesus.
Is some of that hard to fit with Arminian views? Yes. But Calvin took this ‘hard passage’ and used it to interpret hundreds of explicit verses. That is backwards. We should use the obvious and often repeated to interpret the few that lie in shadows. I would rather be accused of not fully appreciating a handful of verses scattered in 3 chapters than of missing hundreds of verses permeating scripture from Genesis to Revelations.
HD “Now if you keep insisting that God wants all men to come to Him, why would God make it more difficult?”
Again - God knows what is in the hearts of men. HE knew about the betrayal of Judas when He picked Judas. Maybe God foreknew, and those he foreknew are the ones he predestined to be conformed to Jesus.
Rom 8:29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.
Rom 11:2 God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he appeals to God against Israel?
God knew Paul before Paul was born. His calling was not to salvation, but to become an Apostle. There is nothing there inconsistent with Armenian’s views.
It was more of an audit at that point. Didn’t get really ugly for another century or so.
Oh my Jesus,My emphasis, duh.
Forgive us our sins;
Save us from the fires of Hell;
Lead all souls to Heaven
especially those most in need of thy mercy.
Dominic was said to weep often in his concern for the fate of sinners.
Surely it is a pretty thing, this compassion.
(And besides, now that every time we even TALK about a pyre the ACLU shows up and shuts us down, we might as well pray for 'em. I got all these marshmallows going to waste!)
So, yeah, while there is a sense that the righteous judgment of God on the reprobate will be part of the joy of the blessed, still between now and the end, it seems good to pray compassionately even for baby-killers.
so it seems to me.
As Dave Barry would say, I like to say that word: Pauliolatry Pauliolatry Pauliolatry. Thinking about the rest of your post.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.