Posted on 12/14/2014 11:57:21 AM PST by ealgeone
Septuagint de facto OT canon since St. Paul wrote? Absolutely not, as I have already established, and provided links for further study towards. You are in gross error.
I have already gone over why that sort of claim of yours simply does not work. But you dodged it all. Yet here again the issue gets strung out interminably, with what was established before needing to be repeated for the umpteenth time?
If any were are to believe you, then they would be right back to making of Athanasius, Jerome and men such as Epiphanius also, utter imbeciles again, since they must have not known what was the OT canon of the Church of their own day, and wrote in agreement with my own contentions here, instead of your own lazily, and mindlessly broadly sweeping statements...
Whatever you say....there was only one church there at the time, the Catholic church...you may not like it, but that changes nothing. He promised, as you may recall, that the gates of Hell would never prevail against her.....and they haven't.....despite the efforts of some to assist Satan in his endeavors.....won't work!!
When there is a de-facto canon, — a single body of books of which St. Paul can write “all scripture”, — but no formal canon, the prelates of the Church are free to disagree what the canon will be when we get one. And even after that, they have opinions that have value. So much for your “have already established”.
Because he's the president What percentage of CATHOLICS VOTED for OBAMA; anyway???
too damned many.....but nowhere near the number of protestants.
I think for some, it's their ONLY reference point. They cannot imagine NOT having some overarching, we-tell-you-what-you-are-to-believe magesterium on which to place ALL their trust - and blame, I suppose - for what they hold as the Christian faith. It never seems to occur to them that God has given us His sacred word, that we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God and that it is because of God that we are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God — that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption.
Hopefully, the day will come when those who drag out their "Luther Card" to play hammer-the-Protestants finally realize that what it is ALL about is the truth of the gospel that compels and not fealty to a man or men. It is Christ ALONE to whom we bow and exalt.
What I gave up, was a dead works, lifeless religion, whose plan of salvation is baptism, good works, church membership. What I gained, through my own, yes MY OWN Bible reading, was eternal life, through faith in Jesus Christ, right there at Mountain Home AFB, ID in 1970. I knew, previous to that tme, that if I sank into the tomb, I would not have a single ray of hope of ever being saved. If one waits till they die to see if they make it to Heaven, I would say, their odds are about 0 of making it. I would hazard a guess that your definition of faith and mine are different as well. You are right, eternity is a long time. Don't get caught on the short end of it. I appreciate your concern, but I have investigated true Christianity for many moons. I am comfortable and supremely confident. Just the fact that many here try to point out the truth, should motivate you to find out for sure what is the truth. You might even stay a catholic. So be it, but at least you will have looked for yourself, and will not have relied on anyone else, like me. The Navs pointed it out, then I looked for myself. Now, do I have questions about pre trib, post trib, and other minor issues? Yes, but I do not have even the remotest, smallest question about Heaven and Hell. It is far too important to be even 90% sure. People need to know 100% where they will spend eternity. Pray for me bro, and I will pray for you. Like SR always says, peace.
Now, I am off to watch hockey. Blackhawks rule.
No they didn't and besides, Bibles were hand copied, extraordinarily expensive, 90+ percent of the people couldn't read and lies concerning the Catholic church have been around for centuries....
bad answer....ALL Bibles at the time were hand copied, there were no printing presses. All Bibles were in the hands of libraries, wealthy families, Monasteries, Palaces, whoever could AFFORD TO BUY THEM....The vast majority of the common folk could not read...the reason that they couldn't read was because there was nothing for them to read....no newspapers, magazines, no lending libraries with common books....nothing. There were scribes and criers who informed them of Gov't proclamations etc.and could assist them in corresponding with someone far away. If you had a Bible you were Rich and none of the people in your community, except other rich people, would have any chance at all of reading it.
Right now, if your next door neighbor had a Bible written in Chinese...it would be pretty useless to you!!
think about it for a moment before you accuse the Catholic church of anything.
I was on a history site and it said the opposite of what you say. I will believe it over anythng y’all say. Do your own research. I was not even doing religious research when I found links on my genealogy sites. I went back that far on his ancestors and learned a lot about that era. It was fascinating to learn what his ancestors went through.
No, you are still ignoring Athanasius and Jerome, plus many others, while seeming to pretend that Paul, that Pharisee of Pharisees by his own description, would have embraced the writings which centuries later Jerome termed Apocrypha.
If I remember correctly, Catholics voted democrat 53% and in the case of Catholic Latinos, it was closer to 75%. Protestants went the other way and voted Republican.
NOT A CHANCE, but stick withe newbies from 1933 and pray a lot and I mean a lot....Deny the church that Christ founded and gave to you as a gift, deny the 7 Sacraments that He instituted, deny the truth of the Eucharist and ask another non-Catholic whether or not you made the right decision....brilliant I guess???????
I don’t ignore them. They had an opinion that was later settled differently by the Holy Church
Yes when said leader founded it; yes, else you would condemn him and not count him as a founder, but he is the founder so you are stuck with him;
Wrong, as being "founder" in this case meant that the founder was one of many, and held Scripture as supreme, and Luther's judgment was not binding, and thus Prots do not even hold to all he believed theologically, let alone his and the cultures attitude toward the Jews. Thus your attempts to impugn Protestantism by your unbalanced diatribes against Luther on the Jews are spurious.
Some (maybe not you) RCs do not even affirm official papal requirements to exterminate the heretics from Catholic lands.
I think some Evangelicals will support the State of Israel to the last drop of Jewish blood, but not their own with some few exceptions .
"Some" is always a given, while both are your opinion, and the latter is contrary to the heart many ministries to Jews express, including Jews for Jesus. I myself have often said that a unique love for Jews is a mark of a born again believer. From my experience, support for Israel is because evangelicals see Jews them as fathers, beloved for the father's sake, which the state of Israel confirms, and have a special love for Jews not merely being for eschatological purposes. Listen to Michael Brown "line of fire" in your radio.
And your estimation of evangelicals must be compared with Catholics. Do you want to argue RCs overall would be more committed to the welfare of Jews when they example about the lowest commitment to their own faith? Moreover, you can hardly claim to love Jews and not support the State of Israel against the Muslims. More on that in a minute.
significant numbers of younger Evangelicals do not share their parents' support of Israel, and already oppose Israel.
It is also quite manifest that significant numbers of younger Evangelicals are not Evangelicals, in much of any historical sense. As they grow older they can go in both directions. I pray the latter. But i think media reports that Israel is losing support from evangelicals is a combination of exaggeration due to wishful thinking, but also reflects a growing manifest division btwn classic evangelicals and the inevitable diluted version which uses the term.
Among white evangelical Protestants, nearly half (46%) say that the U.S. is not providing enough support for Israel (vs. Caths. at 20%) .
When asked whether God gave Israel to the Jewish people, more Christians (55%) than Jews (40%) say yes (although virtually all of the discrepancy is explained by Jews’ lower levels of belief in God overall). And the share of white evangelicals saying that God gave Israel to the Jews (82%) is on par with the percentage of Orthodox Jews who believe this (84%). [Caths were at 38%]
When it comes to the long-standing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, asked whether they sympathize with either side, 72% of white evangelicals sided with Israel in the dispute while 4% picked the Palestinians, according to a March 2013 survey. -http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/02/27/strong-support-for-israel-in-u-s-cuts-across-religious-lines/
The Catholic Church has diplomatic relations with Israel and is friendlier to the Jewish people than any other church, faith group, sect, or cult I can think of.
Whatever "friendlier" means, yet it is what one does and fosters that defines this, and you will have to talk to the likes of Michael Brown or John Hagee (too friendly if anything), and then dismiss it as merely being for eschatological purposes. Likewise a 128-person delegation of leaders from the Pentecostal Church of God (a 91-year old denomination of 620,000 peopl founded in Chicago in 1919) proclaimed their support for Israel
Rejecting that [modern I presume] Jews are not to be held responsible for the death of Jesus, and that they are beloved of God due to the Abrahamic covenant, and that prejudice, hatred, oppression, and persecution of Jews is wrong, and promoting dialogue between Catholics and Jews is friendly.
But what RCs can think of when it comes to objectivity has been abundantly shown to only be what supports Rome, and both past history and present provides a fuller picture.The Vatican did not even formally recognize Israel until 1993. A bit late.
Until 1948 the Pope was motivated by the traditional Vatican opposition to Zionism. Vatican opposition to a Jewish homeland stemmed largely from theological doctrines regarding Judaism.[40] In 1904, the Zionist leader Theodor Herzl obtained an audience with Pope Pius X in the hope of persuading the pontiff to support the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. The pope's response was: "Non possumus"--"We cannot." In 1917, Pius X's successor, Pope Benedict XV, equally refused to support any concept for a Jewish state. Minerbi writes that when a League of Nations mandate were being proposed for Palestine, the Vatican was disturbed by the prospect of a (Protestant) British mandate over the Holy Land, but a Jewish state was anathema to it.[27][41]
On 22 June 1943, Amleto Giovanni Cicognani, the Apostolic Delegate to Washington D.C. wrote to US President Franklin Roosevelt, asking him to prevent the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. ...
If the greater part of Palestine is given to the Jewish people, this would be a severe blow to the religious attachment of Catholics to this land. To have the Jewish people in the majority would be to interfere with the peaceful exercise of these rights in the Holy Land already vested in Catholics.
It is true that at one time Palestine was inhabited by the Hebrew Race, but there is no axiom in history to substantiate the necessity of a people returning to a country they left nineteen centuries before.[42]
The Vatican view of the Near East was dominated by a Cold War perception that Arab Muslims are conservative but religious, whereas Israeli Zionists are modernist but atheists. The Vatican's then Foreign Minister, Domenico Tardini (without being even a bishop, but a close collaborator of Pius XII) said to the French ambassador in November 1957, according to an Israeli diplomatic dispatch from Rome to Jerusalem:
"I have always been of the opinion that there never was an overriding reason for this state to be established. It was the fault of the western states. Its existence is an inherent risk factor for war in the Middle East. Now, Israel exists, and there is certainly no way to destroy it, but every day we pay the price of this error."[45]
by initially siding with Palestinian claims for compensations on political, social and financial levels, the Vatican shaped its Middle Eastern policy since 1948 upon two pillars. One was based on political and theological reservations against Zionism,... the Holy See has also maintained reservations of its own. The more established the Zionist Yishuv became in Mandatory Palestine, the more political reservations the Vatican added to its initial theological inhibitions.[51]
On 26 May 1955, when the Israeli Philharmonic Orchestra performed Beethoven's Seventh Symphony at the Vatican as an act of respect for Pius XII, the Vatican still refrained from mentioning the name of the State, preferring instead to describe the orchestra as a collection of "Jewish musicians of fourteen different nationalities."[53]
Paul VI was Pope from 21 June 1963 to 6 August 1978. He strongly defended inter-religious dialogue in the spirit of Nostra Aetate. He was also the first Pope to mention the Palestinian people by name...On 15 January 1973, the Pope met Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir at the Vatican, which was the first meeting between a Pope and an Israeli Prime Minister. At the meeting, the Pope brought up the issues of peace in the Middle East, refugees and the status of the holy places, but no agreement was reached.[58] According to Meir's own account of the meeting, the Pope criticized the Israeli government for its treatment of the Palestinians, and she said in reply: Your Holiness, do you know what my earliest memory is? A pogrom in Kiev. When we were merciful and when we had no homeland and when we were weak, we were led to the gas chambers.[59]
Relations since 1993[edit]
The opening towards the State of Israel by the Vatican was partially a result of Israel's effective control over the entire Holy City since 1967. This forced the Vatican to introduce a pragmatic dimension to its well-known declaratory policy of political denial. Hence, since 1967, Vatican diplomacy vis-à-vis Israel began to waver between two parameters:
- A policy of strict and consequent non-recognition of Israel's sovereignty over Jerusalem, far beyond the usual interpretation of international law, as the Holy See still embraces its own ideas regarding the special status of Jerusalem.
- A pragmatic policy, through which Catholic interests can best be served by having a working relationship with the party who exercises effective authority and control in Jerusalem.
The establishment of full diplomatic relations in 1993–94, on the other hand, was a belated political consequence of the theological change towards Judaism as reflected in Nostra Aetate. It was also a result of the new political reality, which began with the Madrid COnference and later continued with the Oslo peace process, after which the Vatican could not continue to ignore a State that even the Palestinians had initiated formal relations with.
Pope Benedict XVI has declared that he wishes to maintain a positive Christian-Jewish and Vatican-Israel relationship. Indeed, on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the Jewish state, Benedict stated: "The Holy See joins you in giving thanks to the Lord that the aspirations of the Jewish people for a home in the land of their fathers have been fulfilled,"[72] which may be seen as a theological justification of the return of the Jewish People to Israel – indeed, an acceptance that has placed all previous Catholic denials of Zionism in the shade. On the other hand, he has also stressed the political neutrality of the Holy See in internal Mideast conflicts. Like John Paul II, he was disappointed by the non-resolution of the 1993 Fundamental Accord; and like his predecessor, he also expressed support for a Palestinian state alongside Israel. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_See%E2%80%93Israel_relations
In addition, "friendlier" now means not simply affirming Jews and the right to live in peace but also means affirming that Muslims worship the same God as Jews and Christians, which is blasphemous. For with Allah, we are not dealing with an utterly ambiguous "unknown god" as in Acts 17, which had no express revelation and could said to be the true God they were looking for. But Allah is as much a distinct God as that of Mormonism, and which even more than that false deity has skewed Biblical stories besides adding its own, and denied the very essence of the gospel, that of the Divine Son of God procuring salvation with His own sinless shed blood! Yet again and again popes comfort Muslims by assuring them they have the true God, while any gospel is scan and is replaced by platitudes for peace.
together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.” - Lumen Gentium 16, November 21, 1964
For they,
worship the same God as Catholics, "the one, living and subsistent, merciful and almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth," and "strive to submit themselves without reserve to the hidden decrees of God, just as Abraham submitted himself to God’s plan." -Second Vatican Council, Nostra Aetate 3, October 28, 1965
And,
We feel sure that as representatives of Islam, you join in our prayers to the Almighty, that he may grant all African believers the desire for pardon and reconciliation so often commended in the Gospels and in the Qur’an....
“Our pilgrimage to these holy places is not for purposes of prestige or power. It is a humble and ardent prayer for peace, through the intercession of the glorious protectors of Africa, who gave up their lives for love and for their belief. In recall the Catholic and Anglican Martyrs, We gladly recall also those confessors of the Muslim faith who were the first to suffer death, in the year 1848, for refusing to transgress the precepts of their religion.” - Paul VI, address to the Islamic communities of Uganda, August 1, 1969 [emp. mine.]
“I deliberately address you as brothers: that is certainly what we are, because we are members of the same human family, whose efforts, whether people realize it or not, tend toward God and the truth that comes from him. But we are especially brothers in God, who created us and whom we are trying to reach, in our own ways, through faith, prayer and worship, through the keeping of his law and through submission to his designs...
“Dear Muslims, my brothers: I would like to add that we Christians, just like you, seek the basis and model of mercy in God himself, the God to whom your Book gives the very beautiful name of al-Rahman, while the Bible calls him al-Rahum, the Merciful One.” - John Paul II, address to representatives of Muslims of the Philippines, February 20, 1981
“As Christians and Muslims, we encounter one another in faith in the one God, our Creator and guide, our just and merciful judge. - John Paul II, address to representatives of the Muslims of Belgium, May 19, 1985
We believe in the same God, the one God, the living God, the God who created the world and brings his creatures to their perfection...Both of us believe in one God, the only God, - John Paul II , address to the young Muslims of Morocco, August 19, 1985
Christians and Muslims, together with the followers of the Jewish religion, belong to what can be called ‘the tradition of Abraham.’..Our Creator and our final judge desires that we live together. Our God is a God of peace, who desires peace among those who live according to His commandments. Our God is the holy God who desires that those who call upon Him live in ways that are holy and upright. -John Paul II, address to Islamic leaders of Senegal, Dakar, February 22, 1992 -http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/interreligious/islam/vatican-council-and-papal-statements-on-islam.cfm
I view the Reformation built on this notorious antiSemite to be an abomination.
Thanks for stating the obvious, but it is also obvious your raging biased opinion hardly warrants much value.
Sola Ecclesia is not a Catholic doctrine;
It is and some RCs defend it, for it denotes the Church of Rome and its law being the supreme authority, which you can only affirm, as popes have. You cannot presume to uniquely indisputably infallibly define both what Scripture and the word of God consists of and what it means without claiming to alone be the supreme authority. Which thus autocratically defines Scripture, tradition and history as defining her. It only means what she decrees in any conflict.
Which is irrelevant to the point that the Jews provoked his spirit, so that he spake unadvisedly with his lips, (Psalms 106:33) which was all this was said. Do you really think was trying to compared the level of Luther with Moses?
You really seem desperately driven to nuke Luther under the absurd premise that this somehow impugns evangelical faith, which idea is consistent with how RCs look to and think of men above which is written. Absurd indeed,
The fact that even Moses could be provoked to spake unadvisedly with his lips testifies to how much lesser men can.
Paul was willing to give his soul for the least of Messiah's brethren,
Indeed, and which we preach and which person we preach more than RCs. You really are off on a tangent.
named nine by a Catholic
More delusion .
Luther, dying from disease which perhaps God cursed him with for cursing the Jews, in perhaps his last letter to his wife, speaks of preaching from the pulpit to put pressure on a local noblewoman to remove her protection and sanctuary of a miserable, poor, needy, huddle of some Jews, just like Nazis did in the Holocaust.
And if this was indeed the case, then what in the world does this prove? That Luther must have gone to Hell? If so then would join your popes and Catholic leaders who did worse to Christians, and to Jews, and were more accountable! .
Does that negate the claims of Rome for you? Rome has apologized in an ambiguous way for such, while Luther's attitude is deplored by evangelicals overall, but we do not look to popes as RCs are to
another Catholic turned Protestant: Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him. Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.
Thanks for confirmed Paul was a Prot, and which love for others and Jews is what evangelicals overall preach, and evidence more faith commitment to than Caths. overall. And which testimony adds to the fact that the idea that we follow Luther as a pope is a necessary fantasy of RCs.
Your whole diversionary diatribe is in vain and with your silence about the crimes of Rome it evidences blind rage which marginalizes you as one unfit for meaningful exchange.
But here is some more Catholic love for Jews that gets left out of the balance sheet. You want context? Then we consistent.
In conferring the title "Catholic" upon Ferdinand and Isabella, 1495, Alexander VI. gave as one of the reasons the expulsion of the Jews from Spain, 1492. The institution of the Spanish Inquisition, which began its work twelve years before, was directed primarily against the conversos, people of Jewish blood and members of the Church who in heart and secret usage remained Jews. - http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc6.iii.viii.iv.html
The penalty of scourging was executed in public on the bodies of the victims, bared to the waist, by the public executioner. Women of 86 to girls of 13 were subjected to such treatment. Galley labor as a mode of punishment was sanctioned by Alexander VI., 1503. The sentence of perpetual imprisonment was often relaxed, either from considerations of mercy or for financial reasons. Up to 1488, there had been 5000 condemnations to lasting imprisonment
The king and queen issued the Alhambra Decree less than three months after the surrender of Granada. This was primarily a decision of Isabella, not her husband Fernando. That her confessor had just changed from the tolerant Hernando de Talavera to the very intolerant Francisco Jiménez de Cisneros suggests that Cisneros may well have had a role in Isabel's decision.[10] In it, Jews were accused of trying "to subvert their holy Catholic faith and trying to draw faithful Christians away from their beliefs." These measures were not new in Europe.[11]
Some Jews were only given four months and ordered to convert to Christianity or leave the country. Under the edict, Jews were promised royal "protection and security" for the effective three-month window before the deadline. They were permitted to take their belongings with them – except "gold or silver or minted money".[citation needed]
The punishment for any Jew who did not convert or leave by the deadline was death without trial.[1] The punishment for a non-Jew who sheltered or hid Jews was the confiscation of all belongings and hereditary privileges.
By the 14th century, most of the Iberian Peninsula (present-day Spain and Portugal) had been conquered by the Christian kingdoms of Castile, Aragon, Leon, Galicia, Navarre, and Portugal.
Overt hostility against Jews became more pronounced, finding expression in brutal episodes of violence and oppression. Thousands of Jews sought to escape these attacks by converting to Christianity; they were commonly called conversos, New Christians, or marranos. At first these conversions seemed an effective solution to the cultural conflict: many converso families met with social and commercial success. But eventually their success made these new Catholics unpopular with some of the clergy of the Church and royal hierarchies.
Other Spanish Jews (estimates range between 50,000 and 70,000)[citation needed] chose to avoid expulsion by conversion to Christianity. However, their conversion did not protect them from ecclesiastical hostility after the Spanish Inquisition came into full effect; persecution and expulsion were common. Many of these "New Christians" were eventually forced to either leave the countries or intermarry with the local populace by the dual Inquisitions of Portugal and Spain. Many settled in North Africa, Latin America [15] or elsewhere in Europe, most notably the Netherlands < /p>
"The edict [Alhambra Decree that had expelled the Jews] was formally rescinded on December 16, 1968." In 2014, the government of Spain passed a law allowing dual citizenship to Jewish descendants who apply, in order to "compensate for shameful events in the country’s past." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alhambra_Decree
The consuls of Carcassonne in 1286 complained to the pope, the King of France, and the vicars of the local bishop against the inquisitor Jean Garland, whom they charged with inflicting torture in an absolutely inhuman manner, and this charge was no isolated one. The case of Savonarola has never been altogether cleared up in this respect. The official report says he had to suffer three and a half tratti da fune (a sort of strappado). When Alexander VI showed discontent with the delays of the trial, the Florentine government excused itself by urging that Savonarola was a man of extraordinary sturdiness and endurance, and that he had been vigorously tortured on many days (assidua quaestione multis diebus, the papal prothonotary, Burchard, says seven times) but with little effect. - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08026a.htm
So, y’all think the only “right” church is catholic? Wow! Where is the book, chapter and verse where the Bible says that because I never read it in the Bible? Or, is it just another made up “tradition”? I still can not understand that mentality of some people.
That establishing which I speak of, was backed up by the evidence in view at the links which I provided to you.
Go back and look. And read the information at the links, then you may be able to see what I mean.
Meanwhile, to one of those notes which I supplied much background and links within -- your own initial response was
leading me to believe you did not read a single word.
And now, it seems that you still refuse to acknowledge that the RCC did indeed tamper with the Scripture (thus changing it, before changing it back in 1979 or so) in their own Latin Vulgate -- seeming to pretend that not matter a whit for it did not change some set of fantasy "originals" which you kept mentioning -- but have never *quite* identified.
For NT Greek texts, there are variations beyond the few which we have already discussed, which leads me to conclude that the additional word, phrase, or even full sentence or two here and there among the Byzantine miniscules are additions, rather than the differences as seen in the older Uncial texts have been recension.
But I will be consistent here, and just as I do not place or award majority credit to the Roman Catholic Church ecclesiastical body for having established Scripture in much of any significant way, I also do not blame that ecclesiastical body foremost for many or most of the possible additions, even as they (the RCC) are as "guilty as sin" as that saying goes, for having monkeyed around with the protoevangelium (Genesis 3:15) within their own Latin texts.
Indeed, it was the responsibility of the parent to write down the words of God and to teach the children:
God's Name is I AM.
The problem with that "later settled" aspect, as far as your own claims go -- is that distances Paul from having written of Scripture, with himself (Paul) intending or having in mind writings which the sect that had trained him had set aside as not accepted among the Jews as Scripture --- all of which renders yet again your previous statements as being not true --
This entire conversation has become beyond extremely tedious, but then again I knew full well just how your own reasoning would slither and squirm around.
Regarding the rcc banning ownership, printing of Bibles, etc......you need to do some homework. As with so many of your posts they are lacking in facts.
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.