Posted on 09/06/2016 11:16:34 PM PDT by Arthur McGowan
What was the role of the Catholic Church in building Western Civilization? While the typical mainstream narrative depicts the church as hostile to science and philosophy, it appears that once again the truth about history has been stolen from us. Dr. Duke Pesta joins Stefan Molyneux to discuss the unspoken truth about the impact of the Catholic church on scientific inquiry, philosophy and Western Civilization overall.
(Excerpt) Read more at youtu.be ...
However, giving the "ok" to collect money for the indulgence is viewed by many as selling the indulgence.
See Hillary Clinton Secretary of State and contributions by foreign countries to the Clinton foundation as an example. The Clinton adamantly deny they sold influence or allowed it to be bought.
The records, like the rcc and indulgences, indicates otherwise.
However, giving the "ok" to collect money for the indulgence is viewed by many as selling the indulgence.
See Hillary Clinton Secretary of State and contributions by foreign countries to the Clinton foundation as an example. The Clinton adamantly deny they sold influence or allowed it to be bought.
The records, like the rcc and indulgences, indicates otherwise.
apologies for the double post. not sure what happened there.
Not a Catholic here but flagellation has its Christian roots in Europe without regard for where it may be practiced today.
Couldn’t read the entire thread. Way too long.
When you say “indulgences” do you mean “carbon credits”?
Sorry. Couldn’t help myself.
**So no one prayed to Jesus? After all, he did die. He also rose from the dead, but He did in fact die by all earthly standards of what death is.**
I said (this time with caps to help you):“None of them (including the Son of God), WHILE LIVING THIS MORTAL LIFE, ever prayed to someone that had died.”
Now you can answer it, instead of getting out the balloon, like you seem to have done here:
**No. I saw no reason to answer your question because it literally made no sense to me. It sounded like something someone out of his head would ask. Also, I KNEW from what you’ve written here I had no reason to think you knew much about Christianity, or scripture, or logic, or anything else.**
I know this: You will do whatever it takes to avoid answering questions that CAN be answered, but would expose your misunderstanding of the scriptures.
Example 1: You insist on praying to souls (other than the Christ) that have died, when there no scripture showing Jesus Christ (while he lived as a mortal man), or anyone else, doing that.
Example 2: You insist on the partaking of the ‘mass’ as being truth, but cannot (or will not) tell me if once is enough; or why once is not enough.
Example 3: You say that “Free Republic the vladimir998” is **not even an English sentence. That’s not even a sensible fragment.**, but that ‘God the Son’ is.
The reason you feel that “Free Republic the vladimir998’ is not sensible is because Free Republic and you are not equals, and Free Republic is not a description of you because you are not a website.
But you ARE from somewhere. I assume that you live in the US, since you have the flag flying on your home page. But the United States is always preceded by ‘the’ because it is plural, so let’s use a random state:
‘Nebraska the vladimir998’ doesn’t work, does it, because you are not a state. But, you could be FROM, or OF, Nebraska.
The Son of God is FROM, or OF, God. The scriptures testify that to be the case.
**I would say the skill level displayed in your posts indicate a public school education.**
I attended public schools, but they were just an escape from work. Before, or by the time, I was 12 yrs old, I had learned to operate many types of farm equipment, fly single engine aircraft, drive cars and trucks, operate a acetylene torch and an arc welder (made my first minibike at 12), and raise various livestock.
But I have never flown a hot air balloon.......
**And there I think I can see a clear example of how you know little or nothing about Christianity, or scripture, or logic, or anything else. What you’re doing - and you might or might not know it - is reducing profound things to caricature. And then you ask questions based on the caricature you created. How intellectually honest is that?**
And there is your mistake. Muslims don't just deny the Trinity...they DENY GOD.
Get it???? They do not believe in God. And it makes not one whit of difference what they profess -- their "god" is a false god -- NOT Yahweh in any way shape form or state of imperfection.
Christians and Jews DO believe in the God of Abraham.
Your logic remains flawed. Terribly. And CCC 841 STILL teaches heresy.
Hoss
“Where are the Word’s instructions for indulgences and the persecution of heresy articulated in the New Testament?”
Where are the Word’s instructions for determining inspiration and the canonicity articulated in the New Testament?
“Get it???? They do not believe in God.”
Sure they do.
“And it makes not one whit of difference what they profess”
Sure it does. How can you say it doesn’t matter what they say they believe?
“their “god” is a false god — NOT Yahweh in any way shape form or state of imperfection.”
Except that they profess belief in the God of Abraham.
“Christians and Jews DO believe in the God of Abraham.”
Do Jews believe in the Trinity? Is the God of Abraham a trinity of Divine Persons.
“Your logic remains flawed.”
No, actually my logic is perfect here. You don’t like perhaps, but I’m not the one denying reality. You are.
This made me laugh out loud. You have just jumped the shark. The only "reality-denying" going on here is what you're doing. Seriously.
What they profess means nothing; it's what they believe that counts -- and they don't believe in the God of the Bible. If they did, guess what? They wouldn't be Muslims!
When you float back down to reality, you will see that your logic is flawed. And that's being kind.
Hoss
“I said (this time with caps to help you):“None of them (including the Son of God), WHILE LIVING THIS MORTAL LIFE, ever prayed to someone that had died.””
Except Jesus died and people prayed to Him.
“I know this: You will do whatever it takes to avoid answering questions that CAN be answered, but would expose your misunderstanding of the scriptures.”
No. It’s nothing more than your presumption that I misunderstand scripture.
“Example 1: You insist on praying to souls (other than the Christ) that have died, when there no scripture showing Jesus Christ (while he lived as a mortal man), or anyone else, doing that.”
That’s not an example of any misunderstanding of scripture on MY part. Tell me the verse I am misunderstanding. List it.
“Example 2: You insist on the partaking of the ‘mass’ as being truth, but cannot (or will not) tell me if once is enough; or why once is not enough.”
Again, that is not a misunderstanding of scripture on MY part. Your question literally makes no sense. There is no number attached to the Mass. Christ wanted it done; we do it. There is no “enough” or too much in the worship of God. Again, I am not misunderstanding scripture in the least. I’m willing to bet it will be revealed that it is YOU who misunderstands scripture. What you will most likely do is present one issue as if it is another when it isn’t.
“Example 3: You say that “Free Republic the vladimir998” is **not even an English sentence. That’s not even a sensible fragment.**, but that ‘God the Son’ is.”
False. I never said that “God the Son” is either a fragment of a sentence or a sentence. It is simply a logical, and an entirely scripturally supported, reference to Jesus who is God, the Son of God. And, again, I pointed out to you 1 John 4:15 which says “If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in them and they in God.” So, if it’s okay to say “Jesus is the Son of God” then how can it be wrong to say “God the Son” in reference to the same Divine Person? Are you also going to claim it is wrong to say “God the Father”? I guess saying “God, the Father” (1 Cor 8:6) or “God and Father” (Ephesians 1:3; 4:6; 1 peter 1:3) or “O LORD, our father” (Isaiah 63:16) is wrong in your view?
“The reason you feel that “Free Republic the vladimir998’ is not sensible is because Free Republic and you are not equals, and Free Republic is not a description of you because you are not a website.”
Fair enough. But Jesus IS God. And Jesus IS the Son of God. And the reason why your “Free Republic the vladimir998” attempt at a logical point makes no sense you’ll see in a moment.
“But you ARE from somewhere. I assume that you live in the US, since you have the flag flying on your home page. But the United States is always preceded by ‘the’ because it is plural,”
No. The article “The” is actually attached to the first word of the name - “United”. That’s why we say The Federal Republic of Germany. There’s no plural at all in that name. None. The Union of South Africa. Same thing - no plural at all. United, Union, Federal are not plural words although all suggest more than one thing brought together. It is an adjective and therefore normally requires an article in a title. Much of this is convention:
“There are many other country names that are habitually referred to with “the”, such as Congo, Gambia, Yemen, Lebanon, Sudan, Netherlands, Philippines and Bahamas.
“But according to several authoritative sources, such as the CIA World Factbook, the Times Comprehensive Atlas of the World and the US Department of State, only two countries, The Bahamas and The Gambia, should officially be referred to with the article.
“The two Congos are officially Democratic Republic of the Congo and Republic of the Congo. And the longer, official name for Netherlands is Kingdom of the Netherlands.”
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-18233844
Now, back to our regularly scheduled Zuriel post:
“so let’s use a random state: ‘Nebraska the vladimir998’ doesn’t work, does it, because you are not a state. But, you could be FROM, or OF, Nebraska.”
Your example is illogical Let me explain why. Charles de Gaulle famously once said, “I am France” and everyone knew exactly what he meant and didn’t mean. He was not claiming that he was a geographical place. He was claiming he had all the authority and support to speak for an entire nation.
Now, if we take your ‘Nebraska’ and ‘vladimir998’ analogy and actually make the proper analogy rather than the incorrect one you used it would be this: “vladimir998 the Nebraskan”. You mistakenly used “Nebraska”. Nebraska is a place, not a person. Jesus is a Person. God is a Person. The Son is a Person. The Father is a Person. The Holy Spirit is a Person. Thus, the correct analogy must be “PERSON the PERSON”.
Examples:
God the Father
God the Son
God the Holy Spirit
Jesus the Son
vladimir998 the Nebraskan
Zuriel the Illini (or whatever would work for a person from Illinois).
If you were a king we could apply a fitting title:
Ethelred the Unready, Philip the Fair, William the Conqueror, Charles the Bald, etc. “Unready”, “Fair”, “Conqueror” etc., has an unstated accompanying term: “man” or “king”. Thus, you might be:
Zuriel the Freeper or Zuriel the Poster or Zuriel the Sleepy (which is still about a person) because it’s implied that it’s Zuriel the Sleepy person, etc. You get the idea I’m sure.
This is called the English language and that’s how it works. If we were using German we would routinely say Gottessohn or Sohn Gottes - because that’s how they do it in German. But we’re using English.
“The Son of God is FROM, or OF, God. The scriptures testify that to be the case.”
Begotten and sharing the same divine substance, yes.
“I attended public schools,”
Right.
” but they were just an escape from work.”
Okiedokie.
“Before, or by the time, I was 12 yrs old, I had learned to operate many types of farm equipment, fly single engine aircraft, drive cars and trucks, operate a acetylene torch and an arc welder (made my first minibike at 12), and raise various livestock.”
Great. But I don’t know if those accomplishments are really working for you here on this issue. I’m just saying.. .
“But I have never flown a hot air balloon.......”
You’re sending up plenty of hot air online. ;) Have a good night!
My last try to explain this.
Do you always GET something tangible when you contribute money? I'd guess the answer is no. People contribute/donate to charity, churches, etc. and they expect nothing in return. However, when your church has a bake sale, say to finance some school need, and they ask you to "contribute/donate" money, you expect that your money gets you a cupcake or some cookies. This transaction IS the "selling" and it would have your priest's and/or bishop's approval. In fact, those little goodies arrayed on the table have actual price tags on them so you know how much they cost. Do some people "donate" more than the item asks for? Sure. But it IS a sale of goodies FOR a purpose.
When the Archbishop sent out his instructions regarding the granting of indulgences, he included a price guide in addition to recommendations for how folks could get their indulgences who either couldn't afford the trip to the churches - and may I say they knew these trips would bring in money/donations, as well - or in lieu of special prayers and other acts of penance. The rich noblemen and women paid more than a simple shopkeeper and he spelled that out clearly:
Kings, queens, and their sons, archbishops and bishops, and other great rulers should pay, upon presenting themselves to places where the cross is raised, twenty-five Rhenish guilders.
Abbots, prelates of cathedral churches, counts, barons, and others of the higher nobility and their wives shall pay for each letter of indulgence ten such gold guilders. Other lesser prelates and nobles, as also to the rectors of famous places, and all others who take in, either from steady income or goods or other means, 500 gold guilders should pay six guilders.
Other citizens and merchants, who ordinarily take in 200 such gold florins, should pay three florins. Other citizens and merchants, and artisans, who have their families and income of their own, shall pay one such guilder; those of lesser means, pay only one half... http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/instruc.htm
In this case, the Archbishop under instructions of the Pope, certainly DID approve the sale of indulgences for money in order to finance the church's building programs and to finance his OWN jurisdictions. When you accept money for something, you are, in fact SELLING it whether or not you euphemize it by calling it a "contribution" or a "donation". At least that's how it works in English. Deny it all you want, but that is simply the truth.
Good points and that is EXACTLY how Clinton and Co. justify and rationalize their actions.
I have to get up real early tomorrow so won't have a chance to get you all the proof texts on this. God in Scripture very clearly spells out how to know whether or not a prophet is speaking for Him, which gives us the guideline for determining what is Divine inspiration versus someone presuming to speak for the Lord. We have the Apostles of Jesus verifying their writings as from God and Holy Spirit inspired and Jesus authorized them.
For canonicity, we have Jesus' own words quoting Scripture and verifying its authority (how many time is "it is written" or "thus says the Lord" in the Bible). He also spelled out the triparate canon by speaking of "Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms" as well as showing the span of divine Scripture of the Old Testament (Matthew 23:35).
I think Elsie may have “it is written” already formatted for posting. It’s an extensive listing.
Kinda the same thing, ;o)
“Do you always GET something tangible when you contribute money?”
Already I see a problem with your thinking. “Do you always GET something tangible when you contribute money?” is simply not the way to ask that question. Why? Because the answer has to be “No, I only sometimes do.” The fact that the answer has to be “No [and] do” means there’s already a problem with how you’re looking at this.
“I’d guess the answer is no.”
“No [and] do”.
“People contribute/donate to charity, churches, etc. and they expect nothing in return.”
No, that’s not true. People today can expect the following: 1) a tax letter each year, 2) a name up on a donation tree or mentioned in a newsletter, etc. http://tinyurl.com/zd2g78b
Now, if you’re talking about a simple donation of a small amount - yeah, people probably expect nothing. But if there is a special person requesting the donation, asking for donations for a special project, I wouldn’t be surprised if something came with the donation. I’ve given to organizations where I had to tell them NOT to give me whatever it was they were giving their donors. I wanted them to keep the items so they could lose less money while taking in donations. Sometimes I was delighted to hear that what they were giving away was actually donated to them so they were not risking any of their funds. That’s always the best way to do it I suppose.
“However, when your church has a bake sale, say to finance some school need, and they ask you to “contribute/donate” money, you expect that your money gets you a cupcake or some cookies.”
Me? No. I always give them cash and tell them to give the item to someone else. If I want the best bake goods in the world, I go home.
“This transaction IS the “selling” and it would have your priest’s and/or bishop’s approval.”
Except that years ago - using your analogy - I would have received the baked good for free each and every time because I had no money to contribute in any case. And today I receive no baked good because I simply donate money for the parish and never take any items offered to me. Your analogy has already broken down.
“In fact, those little goodies arrayed on the table have actual price tags on them so you know how much they cost.”
And there your analogy fails again. Remember, people donated according to their station in life. There was no “cost”. A “cost” is a fixed amount - as you said “have actual price tags on them”.
“Do some people “donate” more than the item asks for? Sure. But it IS a sale of goodies FOR a purpose.”
Except, again, your analogy fails. There were people who donated nothing, there were no fixed “costs” that everyone “paid”, and there are, with your bake sale, no other requirements.
“When the Archbishop sent out his instructions regarding the granting of indulgences, he included a price guide...”
Nope. CONTRIBUTIONS according to station in life. You cannot say it was a “price” because then everyone would have had to “pay” it and yet the archbishop makes it clear the poor need not donate ANYTHING. Thus, those can’t be prices. They are, in fact, exactly what they say they are - contributions.
“in addition to recommendations for how folks could get their indulgences who either couldn’t afford the trip to the churches”
No. Apparently you have money so on the brain that it is coloring your recollection of the document’s actual contents. This is what it says: “persons are so weak that they could not easily come to such a church, their confessor or penitentiary should cause to be brought an altar to a suitable place according to his discretion.” See that? If the person is so “weak”. Also, almost immediately after that: “Those on a sick bed are to be given a holy picture, before or near which they shall offer several prayers according to the decision of the confessor. Thus they shall receive the indulgence in this manner as though they had visited the seven churches.” See that? On “a sick bed”.
“and may I say they knew these trips would bring in money/donations, as well - or in lieu of special prayers and other acts of penance. The rich noblemen and women paid more than a simple shopkeeper and he spelled that out clearly:”
They DONATED more. And that shows it was no sale. Remember, your analogy was baked goods with a fixed price and from that you said it was a “sale”.
“In this case, the Archbishop under instructions of the Pope, certainly DID approve the sale of indulgences for money”
No, the letter shows there were to be contributions. No sale. And the poor made no contribution at all. No sale.
“in order to finance the church’s building programs and to finance his OWN jurisdictions. When you accept money for something, you are, in fact SELLING it whether or not you euphemize it by calling it a “contribution” or a “donation”.”
Except for the fact that not all people gave any money at all. That in itself shows this was not a sale. Also, because there were other requirements - and the contributions were merely one of them and the poor were not bound to it - shows there was no selling according to the instructional letter.
“At least that’s how it works in English.”
Except it doesn’t. It clearly says CONTRIBUTIONS. It shows the poor CONTRIBUTED nothing. Your baked good analogy failed miserably. And you even misstated part of the instructional letter. Apparently you need help with your English.
“Deny it all you want, but that is simply the truth.”
Nope. What I posted was the truth all along. You just keep proving it. In each and every one of your posts you present exactly ZERO EVIDENCE that any pope ever sold indulgences or okayed the sale of indulgences. I have been right all along in this thread. Don’t feel bad. I once believed as you did but after years of research at a world class academic library I came to the inevitable conclusion: parts of the common story we are told is simply false. Again, this is not the only case of this: http://tinyurl.com/jh6jbcn
“I have to get up real early tomorrow so won’t have a chance to get you all the proof texts on this.”
Nope. Sleep in. I already know there is not a single verse that “instructions for determining inspiration and the canonicity in the New Testament?”
There are none. Oh, there are verses from Paul about what inspired scripture is or does. But there is not one verse about DETERMINING inspiration and canonicity. None. St. Paul never says, nor does any other New Testament writer, “these following books are inspired or canonical and here’s how you determine that”.
“God in Scripture very clearly spells out how to know whether or not a prophet is speaking for Him, which gives us the guideline for determining what is Divine inspiration versus someone presuming to speak for the Lord. We have the Apostles of Jesus verifying their writings as from God and Holy Spirit inspired and Jesus authorized them.”
You’re failing again. I said IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. And I said nothing about prophets speaking. I said “the Word’s instructions for determining inspiration and the canonicity articulated in the New Testament?” ARTICULATED IN THE NEW TESTAMENT for DETERMINING inspiration and canonicity. There are no such verses. Never have been in the New Testament. Never will be.
“For canonicity, we have Jesus’ own words quoting Scripture and verifying its authority (how many time is “it is written” or “thus says the Lord” in the Bible).”
You’re failing again. That’s Jesus talking about the OLD TESTAMENT. I’m asking very clearly about the NEW TESTAMENT. Also, your idea fails inevitable because Jesus did not quote every book of the Old Testament. The following books, for instance were never directly quoted in the New Testament: Judges, Ruth, Ezra, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Obadiah, Jonah, Zephaniah. Now I found that list online and I know it’s less than perfect because Jesus did talk about the sign of Jonah, for instance, but still no direct “it is written” quotes. But, even if there are issues with the list, still there are OT books Jesus never sourced or quoted in His ministry that we know of.
“He also spelled out the triparate canon by speaking of “Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms” as well as showing the span of divine Scripture of the Old Testament (Matthew 23:35).”
Yes, but if you look around you’ll see that some people do not believe that Jesus there was referring to many of the historical books of the OT. So your example still fails.
And remember, none of what you presented is about the NT: “Where are the Word’s instructions for determining inspiration and the canonicity articulated in the New Testament?” I should have worded that better so that it read this way:
Where in the New Testament are the Word’s instructions for determining inspiration and the canonicity articulated for New Testament books?
The answer is no such verses exist. We know that Peter clearly referred to Paul’s letters. We know Paul wrote about inspiration. But there is nothing in the NT that gives us a list of NT books that are inspired and canonical and an explanation of how that is to be determined or was determined. The simple fact is the Church came to that conclusion with the Holy Spirit’s guidance. Sola scriptura doesn’t help in that regard at all.
John 8:58
58
"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"
NIV
>>>>“Christians and Jews DO believe in the God of Abraham.”
>>Do Jews believe in the Trinity? Is the God of Abraham a trinity of Divine Persons.
John 14:6
6
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
NIV
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.