Intended Catholic Dictatorship

Intended Catholic Dictatorship

"B. Catholic Culture and Civilization

"Therefore, the ideal of the Counter-Revolution is to restore and promote Catholic culture and civilization. This theme would not be sufficiently enunciated if it did not contain a definition of what we understand by Catholic culture and Catholic civilization. We realize that the terms civilization and culture are used in many different senses. Obviously, it is not our intention here to take a position on a question of terminology. We limit ourselves to using these words as relatively precise labels to indicate certain realities. We are more concerned with providing a sound idea of these realities than with debating terminology.

"A soul in the state of grace possesses all virtues to a greater or lesser degree. Illuminated by faith, it has the elements to form the only true vision of the universe.

"The fundamental element of Catholic culture is the vision of the universe elaborated according to the doctrine of the Church. This culture includes not only the learning, that is, the possession of the information needed for such an elaboration, but also the analysis and coordination of this information according to Catholic doctrine. This culture is not restricted to the theological, philosophical, or scientific field, but encompasses the breadth of human knowledge; it is reflected in the arts and implies the affirmation of values that permeate all aspects of life.

"Catholic civilization is the structuring of all human relations, of all human institutions, and of the State itself according to the doctrine of the Church.

—Reginald Firehammer (06/28/10)

You are arguing all over the place and have completely obliterated the original issue with your long block quotes and irrelevant issue. To recap and refresh your memory: the topic was when were "apocrypha" added to the Roman Catholic biblical canon?

It is you who are all over the place trying to obliterated the original issue, which was my statement “the decree of Trent was the first infallible and effectually promulgated pronouncement on the Canon, addressed to the Church Universal”, in response to your assertion that the Apocrypha was infallibly declared by the Roman Catholic Church to be inspired and part of the Bible on August 29, AD 397, and the fact remains that your disagreement is with the Roman Catholic sources which state that Trent's decree “was the first infallible and effectually promulgated declaration on the Canon of the Holy Scriptures (The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent (Rockford: Tan, 1978), Fourth Session, Footnote #4, p. 17; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm). And other RCAs say that the canon was dogmatically closed in 1442. .And what Trent affirmed by was not a uniformly held canon, as you infer, but settled an ongoing debate.

We can hardly suppose that such men as Cardinal Catejan were mistaken about Jerome (whom you are in error about) or were voices in defiance of an infallible binding decree.

In addition to the Western voices already heard, note these excerpts from “Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent”, by the Roman Catholic historian (and expert on Trent) Hubert Jedin.

One particular scholar at the Council of Trent that was considered fairly knowledgeable on this issue was Cardinal Seripando. Jedin stated that Seripando was

“Impressed by the doubts of St. Jerome, Rufinus, and St. John Damascene about the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament, Seripando favored a distinction in the degrees of authority of the books of the Florentine canon....Seripando emphasized that in spite of the Florentine canon the question of a twofold canon was still open and was treated as such by learned men in the Church.”

“In his opposition to accepting the Florentine canon and the equalization of traditions with Holy Scripture, Seripando did not stand alone. In the particular congregation of March 23, the learned Dominican Bishop Bertano of Fano had already expressed the view that Holy Scripture possessed greater authority than the traditions because the Scriptures were unchangeable; that only offenders against the biblical canon should come under the anathema, not those who deny the principle of tradition; that it would be unfortunate if the Council limited itself to the apostolic canons, because the Protestants would say that the abrogation of some of these traditions was arbitrary and represented an abuse… Another determined opponent of putting traditions on a par with Holy Scripture, as well as the anathema, was the Dominican Nacchianti. The Servite general defended the view that all the evangelical truths were contained in the Bible, and he subscribed to the canon of St. Jerome, as did also Madruzzo and Fonseca on April 1. While Seripando abandoned his view as a lost cause, Madruzzo, the Carmelite general, and the Bishop of Agde stood for the limited canon, and the bishops of Castellamare and Caorle urged the related motion to place the books of Judith, Baruch, and Machabees in the "canon ecclesiae." From all this it is evident that Seripando was by no means alone in his views. In his battle for the canon of St. Jerome and against the anathema and the parity of traditions with Holy Scripture, he was aligned with the leaders of a minority that was outstanding for its theological scholarship.” Source: Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), pp. 278, 281-282.“ More quotes from Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent, here.

Thus, rather than the inclusion of the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament being settled and simply awaiting a further formalization and censure, uncertainty persisted up to the time of Trent, and the vote itself testifies to the substantial lack of unanimity.

Ad contrary to what you have inferred, that Carthage was infallible, and “binding to the whole Church as an infallible decision. Butwiohtout the Council it could not be condemned,” infallible decrees did not have to wait for Trent's formal anathema for deviation to be condemned, and its decree to be enforced, thus heretics were hunted down before that time. A infallible doctrine is irreformable, and a required belief (full assent of faith). Teaching of the Ordinary magisterium are fallible to a limited extent, and the general magisterium more so, allowing some dissent. And if the issue of the apocrypha was infallibly settled, then there would not have been an ongoing debate among scholars about any of them.

You then also deny that the Church considers itself infallible and posit that not all aspects of Ecumenical Council are infallible without providing a shred of evidence for either claim, when you know or should know, that the Church believes it does not err in terms of doctrine and canon, and that the Ecumenical Councils are in toto infallible pronouncements of the whole Church.

I certainly do not deny that the Roman Catholic church considers itself infallible, but reject its premise for this, while as for aspects of Ecumenical Council being infallible, i hardly believe that you are informed “that every aspect of every ecumenical council is infallible,” as such are conditional: “The College of Bishops also possesses infallibility in its teaching when the Bishops, gathered together in an Ecumenical Council and exercising their magisterium as teachers and judges of faith and morals, definitively declare for the universal Church a doctrine to be held concerning faith or morals.” Can. 749

Thus the infallibility of it statements are conditional upon fulfilling this criteria, and this is not the only statement on what constitutes infallibility, and it is open to some debate as to what language constitutes such (in addition to what such may mean, as in Extra Ecclesiam Nullus), and thus the ongoing debate about whether all statements of Vatican 2 are infallible and binding. As regards the past, Cardinal Avery Dulles states that “The interpretation given to infallibility in the present document (Mysterium Ecclesiae) is not something that can plausibly be ascribed to churchmen of the early centuries.”

However, the real issue is whether Carthage was an ecumenical council with its affirmation binding as infallible, and not only does substantial evidence testify that the apocrypha was not considered settled till Trent , but the position that Carthage was ecumenical is not the best attested to.

The common list of all Ecumenical councils omits both Carthage and Hippo:

First Ecumenical Council: Nicaea I (325)

Second Ecumenical Council: Constantinople I (381)

Third Ecumenical Council: Ephesus (431)

Fourth Ecumenical Council: Chalcedon (451)

Fifth Ecumenical Council: Constantinople II (553)

Sixth Ecumenical Council: Constantinople III (680-681)

Seventh Ecumenical Council: Nicaea II (787)

Eighth Ecumenical Council: Constantinople IV (869)

Ninth Ecumenical Council: Lateran I (1123)

Tenth Ecumenical Council: Lateran II (1139)

Eleventh Ecumenical Council: Lateran III (1179)

Twelfth Ecumenical Council: Lateran IV (1215)

Thirteenth Ecumenical Council: Lyons I (1245)

Fourteenth Ecumenical Council: Lyons II (1274)

Fifteenth Ecumenical Council: Vienne (1311-1313)

Sixteenth Ecumenical Council: Constance (1414-1418)

Seventeenth Ecumenical Council: Basle/Ferrara/Florence (1431-1439)

Eighteenth Ecumenical Council: Lateran V (1512-1517)

Nineteenth Ecumenical Council: Trent (1545-1563)

Twentieth Ecumenical Council: Vatican I (1869-1870)

Twenty-first Ecumenical Council: Vatican II (1962-1965)

In the time of St. Cyprian the Bishops of Carthage exercised a real though not official primacy in the African Church.

In addition, New Advent states, “Plenary councils, in the sense of national synods, are included under the term particular councils as opposed to universal councils. They are of the same nature as provincial councils, with the accidental difference that several ecclesiastical provinces are represented in national or plenary synods..Such were, apparently, the synods held in Asia Minor at Iconium and Synnada in the third century, concerning the re-baptism of heretics; such were, certainly, the councils held later in the northern part of Latin Africa, presided over by the Archbishop of Carthage, Primate of Africa. The latter councils were officially designated plenary council (Concilium Plenarium totius Africae).

“There was no general council of the entire Church held at any time in North Africa.”

The conflates with Cajetan, who in excluding the Apocrypha, states, “By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage." (Cardinal Cajetan, "Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament," cited by William Whitaker in "A Disputation on Holy Scripture," Cambridge:Parker Society (1849), p. 424)

“As regards the unrelated and irrelevant Apostolic canon number 85, this..has nothing whatsoever to do with the canon of Roman Catholic Church, the western Church.”

This side argument is that the council of Carthage not only received by the 6th ecumenmical council, but that this council also received the canons of Athanasius and Amphilocius which also have to do with the canon.

Such is the nature of copy-cut-and-paste "scholarship."

Unlike yours, they are referenced.

As regards St. Gregory the Great's objection to 1 Maccabees, which you mention among your straw men: this was his private opinion and not his official teaching. He never removed any books from the canon of the Roman Catholic Church. So, what is your point or business bringing him up?

“With reference to which particular we are not acting irregularly, if from the books, though not Canonical, yet brought out for the edification of the Church, we bring forward testimony. Thus Eleazar in the battle smote and brought down an elephant, but fell under the very beast that he killed (1 Macc. 6.46)¹⁷ “

The point is, as with others, that such and greater objections to any apocryphal books among learned men would not have been going on down through the centuries if a binding decree had been made in 397.

As regard Jerome's "objection": Jerome did not oppose the Church. Regarding Jewish objections to the longer version of Daniel about which he wrote about, Jerome says (AD 402): "I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that [the Jews] are wont to make against us" (Against Rufinius, 11:33)

Jerome, who was considered to be one of the greatest Biblical and Hebrew scholars of the early medieval period before he was “adopted” by Protestants, plainly rejects all the apocryphal books from the canon, stating in his Prologus Galeatus, “As there are twenty and two letters, so there are counted twenty and two books. Therefore the Wisdom of Solomon, and Jesus, and Judith, and Tobit, are not in the canon.”

In his preface to the books of Samuel and Kings, he states,

"This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a "helmeted" introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that what is not found in our list must be placed amongst the Apocryphal writings. Wisdom, therefore, which generally bears the name of Solomon, and the book of Jesus, the Son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd are not in the canon."

He writes in his preface to the book of Chronicles, “The church knows nothing of the apocryphal writings; we must therefore have recourse to the Hebrews, from whose text the Lord speaks, and his disciples chose their examples. What is not extant in them is to be flung away from us.”

He mentions the book of Baruch in his prologue to the Jeremias and does not explicitly refer to it as apocryphal, but he does mention that "it is neither read nor held among the Hebrews".

In his prologue to the Judith he mentions that "among the Hebrews, the authority [of Judith] came into contention", but that it was "counted in the number of Sacred Scriptures" by the First Council of Nicaea.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm states, “the inferior rank to which the deuteros were relegated by authorities like Origen, Athanasius, and Jerome, was due to too rigid a conception of canonicity, one demanding that a book, to be entitled to this supreme dignity, must be received by all, must have the sanction of Jewish antiquity, and must moreover be adapted not only to edification, but also to the "confirmation of the doctrine of the Church", to borrow Jerome's phrase.”

The New Catholic Encyclopedia states,

“St Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture . . . " “According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church at the Council of Trent...The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent." (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. II, Bible, III (Canon), p. 390; Canon, Biblical, p. 29; Bible, III (Canon), p.390).

And this Roman Catholic tribute: “The Church owes much to St. Jerome. While his great work was the Vulgate, his achievements in other fields are valuable; to him we owe the distinction between canonical and apocryphal writings; he was a pioneer in the field of Biblical archeology, his commentaries are important; his letters, published in three volumes, are one of our best sources of knowledge of the times.” — http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=10

And John Cosin, in his work The Scholastical History of the Canon, cites fifty-two major ecclesiastical writers from the eighth to the sixteenth centuries who affirmed the view of Jerome.

Roman Catholic apologist Gary Michuta, author of Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger, in arguing for early authoritative acceptance, states that,

“Catholic scholars were in somewhat of a bind. They had the prefaces to the Vulgate saying that the Deuterocanon was Apocrypha while the Church accepted them as canon. Some scholars attempted to twist Jerome's words so that he affirmed their canonicity. Other simply recognized that Jerome's doubt but does not personally follow Jerome in his usage while others, who held Jerome in the greatest esteem, tried to hold Jerome's opinion and ignore the teachings of the Church or in a few cases actually state that Church doctrine should be made to conform to Jerome. Each writer should be examined separately.

This position is not negated by the Internet argument on his statements regarding Daniel, regarding which see here and here to save me time.

In addition to that, Jerome's Vulgate Bible of AD 406 contains the OT deuterocanonicals. So your argument is moot.

It is your argument is that already shown to be moot, as Jerome did reject them as canonical after your supposedly binding infallible affirmation of the canon. And while he was persuaded to include translations of a few of the apocryphal books, the inclusion of more was apparently by others. One source states, “As to the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament, Jerome made hasty translations of Tobit, Judith, and the additions to Daniel and Esther; the rest he did not touch, hence the Vulgate includes Old Latin versions of them.”

The evidence shows that while he still felt obligated to include them, Jerome made it clear that he overall thought them to be church books, not fully inspired canonical books. Protestant Bible's also contained them, but not as canonical.

As regards the "differences" between the Tridentine canon and the canon of Carthage, the Catholic (i.e. "Roman Catholic") Church does not recognize 1 and 2 Esdras as canonical, and neither do Jews or Protestants. And this may very well be the infallible Tridentine decision as regards the (Roman) Catholic canon. It is a change, a departure from the canon of 397, but ti is not the addition of the "apocrypha" to it.

Then how could Carthage be infallible if it included a book that Trent infallibly did not ratify? As i understand it,

1. the councils of Hippo & Carthage held the books 1 & 2 Esdras are canonical (based on the Septuagint Version, as translated in their Latin Bible),

2. the Latin Vulgate Separated 2 Esdras into Ezra and Nehemiah, calling them 1 & 2 Esdras.

3. The Council of Trent: declared the Septuagint book of 1 Esdras non-canonical, because it contained spurious apocryphal material.

4. The Council of Trent began calling the Septuagint book of 1 Esdras “3 Esdras,” even though there was already a different spurious apocryphal book of 3 Esdras.

5. Trent renamed that book “4 Esdras” The council of Trent deems 1 Esdras canonical (because it is now Ezra).

6. Hippo & Carthage though earlier claimed their version of 1 Esdras (Septuagint version that contained spurious apocryphal material) canonical.

7. Hippo & Carthage canonized a different 1 Esdras than the council of Trent.

RCA Gary Michuta argues that Trent “passed over in silence” on the book of Esdras in question, while the NEC states, "The Council of Trent definitively removed it from the canon" (New Catholic Encyclopedia (New York: McGraw Hill, 1967), Volume II, Bible, III, pp.396-397). If it passed over, that could allow that the book in question is canonical, but not in the canon, and negate an infallible list of all the infallible books.

This is debatable, and outside this i do not deny that Carthage affirmed what Trent would accept, but even Roman Catholic sources deny it was an ecumenical council and the first to infallibly define the canon, and thus they point to Florence (not so) or Trent, and despite your typical refusal to acknowledge the validity of arguments that oppose you, my statement that “the decree of Trent was the first infallible and effectually promulgated pronouncement on the Canon, addressed to the Church Universal”, versus that the Apocrypha was first infallibly declared by the Roman Catholic Church to be inspired and part of the Bible on August 29, AD 397, has abundant and sound support.

Good night.

14,821 posted on 10/25/2010 7:22:33 PM PDT by daniel1212 ( ("Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out," Acts 3:19))

To: kosta50; getoffmylawn

“So where is the “humor” in it?”

I didn’t say we think of it as humorous.

14,822 posted on 10/25/2010 7:30:03 PM PDT by blue-duncan

To: stfassisi; OLD REGGIE; MarkBsnr

Arnold C. Sundberg, a Lutheran scholar, likewise confirms that the early church accepted the deuterocanonicals, in his book “The Old Testament canon of the Early Church”

The "debate' is still going on for the same reasons to his day, in large part to spite the Church, and in doing so by denying historical facts is the priority. It seem there is no limit to how many straws they will reach for.

The early Church simply followed the Alexandrian canon of the Septuagint. The Greek Church also included the OT deuterocnaonicals even though it does not teach the Purgatory. So, clearly, Purgatory is not the resown for iits inclusion as the Protestants claim.

St. Jerome tried to defend himself by saying that he was not expressing his private opinions "but rather the remarks that [the Jews] are wont to make against us." (Against Rufinius, 11:33). Is this letter a forgery too? I have no idea. If it is that would be the first time I hear about it. If not, then +Jerome was not necessarily convicted but simply reiterated the rabbinic opposition.

However, one must realize that in Jesus' time the Jewish canon was not set and that by the time it was set only the Pharisaical (rabbinic) party was making decisions. Neither the Sadducees nor the Essenes, nor the Alexandrian Jews had any say in canonizing Jewish scriptures.

It is also of interest that Sirach was included into the Jewish canon until the 12th century.

The Church does not need to act infallibly on issues til prideful heretics like Luther and Arius come along and try convincing the flock the Church is wrong.

Spot on, sfa. The Church used General Councils to proclaim dogma and issue anathemas, IOW not to argue the pros and cons with heretics, but to condemn them. The Councils of Trent was convened to condemn the heresy of Reformation, which necessitated the mention of the OT dueterocanionicals because they were targeted by Luther and his ilk, and not because the Church had any doubts about the Bible canon.

The undeniable fact Romans that the Latin Catholic Church canonized the OT deuterocanonicals in Carthage in 397 and had that canon ratified by the Bishop of Rome in 419. Both events refer to the collection of books as "sacred scriptures" and order that only those be read in churches.

Therefore the "apocrypha" found in the Septuagint are canonized as scripture in the Latin Catholic Church at the end of the 4th and beginning of the 5th century, are reaffirmed (with one single change in 1 Esdras) by Trent more than 1000 years later, and remain as scripture of the Roman Catholic Church to this date, 1613 years after their inclusion in the canon.

As for Decretum Gelasianum , it is irrelevant that this historical (but nto necessarily contextual) forgery was mentioned as another straw man, since it has nothing to do with the fact that OT deuterocnaonicals were part of the Greek and Latin Catholic Church since the end of the 4th century until now.

14,823 posted on 10/25/2010 7:36:36 PM PDT by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)

As the early Christians (ca. second century) could have testified: the OT was actually not required for Christian belief, and the very first Christians had no NT scripture at all. The NT scripture was a byproduct of the Church, and not required in order for the first generation of Christians to be saved, right? Now, we have the NT Canon, and we as Catholics are taught to reverence them. However, we also believe, as the early Christians did, that Christ created His Church, which then Canonized Christian Scripture. It did not happen in the opposite order.

Spot on, Mark. I wonder if they ever think about this.

14,824 posted on 10/25/2010 7:40:35 PM PDT by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)

Nothing???? Nothing is sufficient?

Really? Since you have nothing, no originals how can you say this: " I have stated my opinion many times that our Scripture is not perfect, but it is sufficient" (your post 14747)

Nothing is ever sufficient, ey?

Your two "Councils" were local and, by your own standard, did not bind the whole Church. Trent did. Trent did not bind the whole Church because the East did not attend. Without the East present, it was not "Ecumenical."

The two local councils were binding to the Latin Church and the subject is Latin biblical canon.

14,825 posted on 10/25/2010 7:49:17 PM PDT by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)

14,826 posted on 10/25/2010 7:53:00 PM PDT by evangmlw

14,827 posted on 10/25/2010 7:56:31 PM PDT by daniel1212 ( ("Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out," Acts 3:19))

To: OLD REGGIE; stfassisi; MarkBsnr

I was having trouble with my eyes until I read Tobit...It's pure magic. We spend big money with Doctors and modern medicine when all we need is a fish.

One can argue the whole Bible is magic. A talking donkey, the sun standing still, the parting of the sea, Jonah living three days in a belly of a fish, the plagues, the raising of the dead...Do you think the Bible is "pure magic" or just Tobit?

Why is smoking a fish heart to drive away evil spirits any more "magic" than driving evil spirits out of men and having them invade a herd of pigs, which then jump off the cliff (which somehow "kills" the evil spirits!)???

Get real.

14,828 posted on 10/25/2010 7:58:24 PM PDT by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)

Killed the swine. Don’t recall scripture saying it killed the evil spirits.

14,829 posted on 10/25/2010 8:01:06 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Some, believing they can't be deceived, it's nigh impossible to convince them when they're deceived.)

Perhaps you would like to explain why you’re posting that link—with no explanation—on the religion threads? ...

14,830 posted on 10/25/2010 8:02:28 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Some, believing they can't be deceived, it's nigh impossible to convince them when they're deceived.)

To: boatbums; OLD REGGIE

So, Tobit's buddy the Angel Azarias gave a cure for cataracts? Did it work then? Does it still work today? Does any society still use this remedy? Sure sounds like fables, legends or demonic activity

Last time I checked, the text you consider inspired has lots of "demonic activity." Why demons jump into pigs and commit "suicide" by jumping off the cliffs! And don't you know blindness is caused by demons, and so is leprosy. It ,must be true, it's in the Bible.

Does it work today? Do you prefer exorcism over profane wordily medicine? Or do you just pray?

I cannot imagine the point of including such writings along with such as Isaiah or Jeremiah, Moses or Daniel as equally inspired by God. It's obvious to me why they weren't then and why they still aren't today

Why not? Why is the story of Jonah more believe able?

14,831 posted on 10/25/2010 8:08:27 PM PDT by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)

The point is; earlier you referenced reading the 'originals', while knowing they don't exist..

Where did I refer to originals?

14,832 posted on 10/25/2010 8:10:57 PM PDT by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)

Spot on, Mark. I wonder if they ever think about this.

How can they? It would force them to think about the rank hypocrisy of using the Catholic Canon, and basic Catholic beliefs on Christianity and each one tweaking it self-importantly and calling it true Christianity. Reminds me of the bailout hearings by people who are lower than lawyers and infinitely more corrupt.

There are some folks here that will call them out on it, though. There are tremendous Catholic apologists that will not put up with that hypocrisy. I am privileged to witness many of them.

14,833 posted on 10/25/2010 8:13:54 PM PDT by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so..)

To: MarkBsnr; boatbums

What kind of message does that send? This is lot more serious than an application of fish guts

Yet, if I remember correctly, he was the most righteous of all in that place. I would hate to think what the unrighteous were like!

14,834 posted on 10/25/2010 8:17:19 PM PDT by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)

14,835 posted on 10/25/2010 8:26:55 PM PDT by daniel1212 ( ("Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out," Acts 3:19))

Isaiah 17 says that Damascus will be a ruin, abandoned forever. Yet it is one of the oldest continuously inhabited cities in the world today

It's amazing what you find when you remove the wool from the eyes.

14,836 posted on 10/25/2010 8:28:13 PM PDT by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)

To: MarkBsnr; boatbums; stfassisi; OLD REGGIE; Jaded

Try Leviticus 13 and 14 for the cure for leprosy. Quarantine for seven days; if that doesn’t work, another seven will do. Shave off all the hairs on your entire body. Then the next day, kill a bird and rub the blood on youself and one that you don’t kill, and if that doesn’t work, use a sheep. Any less weird than fish guts?

Boatbums said Tobit didn't; impress her because there was no prayer to God. Where is the prayer in Leviticus boatbums?

14,837 posted on 10/25/2010 8:31:18 PM PDT by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)

To: MarkBsnr; Jaded

He is going to have to learn to choose good and reject evil (didn't Isaiah get the email about the divinity of Christ?)

The one in whom there was no evil had to learn good and reject evil? Amazing what a careful read reveals.

14,838 posted on 10/25/2010 8:37:44 PM PDT by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)

Yet, if I remember correctly, he was the most righteous of all in that place. I would hate to think what the unrighteous were like!

Well, making a practice of gang raping male visitors, unless you are in San Francisco or the US Congress, is not normal etiquette in any civilized society.

14,839 posted on 10/25/2010 8:45:05 PM PDT by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so..)

Killed the swine. Don’t recall scripture saying it killed the evil spirits

Why kill the swines?

14,840 posted on 10/25/2010 8:48:52 PM PDT by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794