Free Republic

What counts as “processed” deli meats? My German and Czech ancestors seemed to thrive in things like sausage, ham and salam

Because they worked off the fat, not being overweight, which is usually concomitant with the conditions the doctor cites. While a steady diet of most of these is not good, I think that a person who normally will "eat in due season for strength [when needed for energy, physiological hunger: vs. psychological or hedonic hunger], and not for drunkenness [intoxication]" (Ecclesiastes 10:17) and only as much as needed for energy, and includes healthy foods but also some of the forbidden ones, would normally be healthier and live longer , by the grace of God - other factors being equal - than one who only eats "healthy" but to excess.

Add to the list on LEO (liberal, ecumenical, offensive):

• Pope Activates Ice Powers, Builds Ice Palace While Singing In Sparkly Blue Dress [10/04/2025]
• Pope Leo XIV Blesses a Block of Ice in Bizarre Protest Against Trump and GOP Climate Deniers [10/03/2025]
• VIDEO: Pope and New Age Pagans Bless a Chunk of Ice [10/03/2025]
• [Catholic Caucus] Top Catholic scholar: Pope Leo is following Francis' ambiguity on abortion [10/03/2025]
• Pope Leo XIV raises pro-LGBT UK archbishop to key Vatican roles [10/03/2025]
• Pope Leo Slams Trump, Vance, and Hegseth All in One Go [10/02/2025]
• Pope Leo chides climate skeptics, embraces Francis's environmental legacy [10/02/2025]
• No Pro-Life Voice on CNN Panel On Pope Leo on Abortion and Death Penalty [10/02/2025]
• [Catholic Caucus] The Brew: Pope Leo Smothers Pro-Lifers in the 'Seamless Garment.' [10/02/2025]
• [Catholic Caucus] Pro-Abortion Senator Dick Durbin "Overwhelmed" By Pope Leo XIV's Defence [10/02/2025]
• Pope Leo's critique of Trump ends honeymoon with conservative Catholics [10/02/2025]
• Pope Leo Bashes Climate Skeptics After Trump Calls Out the 'Con Job' [10/02/2025]
• Pope Leo condemns climate change critics [10/01/2025]

• Pope Leo invokes criticism of Trump's policies in first major document 10/9/2025,

How about among Puritans there was often a tendency to make the way to the cross too narrow, perhaps in reaction against the Antinomian controversy, as described in an account (http://www.the-highway.com/early_american_bauckham.html) of Puritans during the early American period:

“They had, like most preachers of the Gospel, a certain difficulty in determining what we might call the ‘conversion level’, the level of difficulty above which the preacher may be said to be erecting barriers to the Gospel and below which he may be said to be encouraging men to enter too easily into a mere delusion of salvation. Contemporary critics, however, agree that the New England pastors set the level high. Nathaniel Ward, who was step-son to Richard Rogers and a distinguished Puritan preacher himself, is recorded as responding to Thomas Hooker’s sermons on preparation for receiving Christ in conversion with, ‘Mr. Hooker, you make as good Christians before men are in Christ as ever they are after’, and wishing, ‘Would I were but as good a Christian now as you make men while they are preparing for Christ.’

Yet, trying to actually access articles is usually met with “cannot access” on the first try.

I frequently use my Samsung phone when I am waiting for my wife in our vehicle. I use it with AR glasses that make it appear to be a desktop operating system in “Samsung Dex” which the phone switches to when I plug in the glasses. For input I use a folding Bluetooth keyboard that has a touch pad built in. I can glance down and see my hands. It is not a perfect system, but works much better than you might believe that it would

Never heard of them, but research says, AR glasses may be the inevitable evolution of the smartphone over the long term.

Just want to let you all know Jim was hospitalized last Wednesday to the ICU unit. Chris and I thought he was leaving us but by the grace of God he spared him. He is back home! what a miracle! He bounced back and it is truly a blessing and we are so thankful to our heavenly Father up above. life is temporary, Today is the day of salvation 2Corinthians 6:2 For the wages of sin is death, But the gift of God is eternal life through YESHUA Romans 6:23 HalleluYAH Amen.

Thanks be to God for His mercy, and more time for the boss to seek and thus serve the Lord, and which mercy and grace evidently includes a born-of-the-Spirit women of faith as Jim's care-giver, praise the Lord if all.

on the fourth day Jim said no mas! I'm going home and back to work

And a laborer worthy of wages.

Charlie Kirk Wrote 5-Page Letter to Netanyahu NewsMax ^ | Friday, 03 October 2025 07:39 AM EDT | Newsmax Wires https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/4344180/posts

Just months before his assassination, conservative leader Charlie Kirk penned a lengthy and impassioned letter to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, reaffirming his "deep love for Israel and the Jewish people" while urging the country to radically reform how it communicates with younger generations in the digital age.

The five-page letter, dated May 2, pushed back against rumors — fueled by fellow conservative commentator Candace Owens and others — that Kirk had soured on Israel.

Charlie Kirk: ‘Our Civilization Is Committing Suicide'... Read More

Instead, it revealed a man deeply committed to defending the Jewish state, though frustrated with what he called its "communications malpractice."

Likewise. I'm usually pretty good on a regular computer with a regular keyboard. But on a smartphone I have to use the microphone "dictation" feature -- typing is hopeless and correcting is frustrating beyond expression. Correcting the dictation errors is usually doable, or unnecessary if context allows.

Another reason why smartphones are profoundly inferior to a PC in most everything a PC can do (no right click, meaning far less options, and the ones a SM offers are slow access and or very limited, etc.) while smartphones are superior to a PC in features unique to them, which are very few, such as mobile phone, taking of pics, vids. SM's have also adversely affected the Internet due to brevity being favored, thus information being via headlines, TilToc etc.

However, as far as texting is concerned, I thank God for Google Messages for web.. Use Google Messages for web to send SMS, MMS, and RCS messages from your computer. Pair with QR code worked quickly for me. I have Galaxy Android

Not for Linux though.

thi gs like wine, lutrix etc wq5ched but w9ndering

Looks much like my somewhat quick typing with stiff arthritic typo-fingers until i correct the words. Meaning "Looks much lilke my tytpiucal typicig withg...until i cofrredct it." (use QuickPaste for phrases like "stiff arthritic typo-fingers"). Maybe you are on a smartphone.

Charlie Kirk supported Israel.

That is very clear:

Charlie Kirk Wrote 5-Page Letter to Netanyahu NewsMax ^ | Friday, 03 October 2025 07:39 AM EDT | Newsmax Wires https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/4344180/posts

Just months before his assassination, conservative leader Charlie Kirk penned a lengthy and impassioned letter to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, reaffirming his "deep love for Israel and the Jewish people" while urging the country to radically reform how it communicates with younger generations in the digital age.

The five-page letter, dated May 2, pushed back against rumors — fueled by fellow conservative commentator Candace Owens and others — that Kirk had soured on Israel.

Charlie Kirk: ‘Our Civilization Is Committing Suicide'... Read More

Instead, it revealed a man deeply committed to defending the Jewish state, though frustrated with what he called its "communications malpractice."

And Kirk at 6:57,58 of the vid linked to in post 53: “I just want to repeat for the fifth time, I love Israel, i want Israel to win.”

The other issue is personal loyalty. Tucker Carlson helped Charlie, Kirk and Kirk is loyal to him. It is very difficult to pressure someone to break a personal friendship and political alliance. .

Yet there is a time to break support, and that was warranted in the case of Carlson and Candace.

Pro-jewish organizations have not done a good job of convincing people for a generation. They really lost that touch. They spent their time talking to each other and fundraising instead of trying to actually meet with and change the opinions of others. Over time, they lost this vital skill

Indeed, and Kirk actually advised Israel on this.

Overall, you response is an objective assessment, akin to this from by PESACH WOLICK of the JP: Ihttps://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-868593

In death, Charlie Kirk is already being claimed by competing narratives. Some are eager to portray him as the ultimate Christian Zionist, an uncritical defender of Israel at all costs. Others are equally eager to insist he had abandoned Israel by giving a platform to anti-Israel voices. Both are wrong.

The truth is that Charlie Kirk’s relationship with Israel was complex, thoughtful, sometimes frustrating, and always honest. He loved the Jewish people and believed deeply in Israel’s place in the world. He also asked hard questions and insisted on hearing hard answers. That is not abandonment. That is friendship.

The pro-Israel community – and the Jewish community more broadly – would do well to remember this. A real friend is not a cheerleader. A real friend is someone who will defend you when you are attacked, even at personal cost, and still tell you when he thinks you are wrong. That was Charlie Kirk.

He will be remembered as a voice of courage in the America First movement, a leader who could unify factions that often mistrusted each other, and – though it may surprise some – as a defender of Israel. We may not always have agreed with him. Still, we should be grateful for him.

Kirk at 6:57,58 of the vid: “I just want to repeat for the fifth time, I love Israel, i want Israel to win.”

Charlie Kirk Wrote 5-Page Letter to Netanyahu
NewsMax ^ | Friday, 03 October 2025 07:39 AM EDT | Newsmax Wires

Posted on 10/3/2025, 4:20:29 PM by SoConPubbie

Just months before his assassination, conservative leader Charlie Kirk penned a lengthy and impassioned letter to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, reaffirming his "deep love for Israel and the Jewish people" while urging the country to radically reform how it communicates with younger generations in the digital age.

The five-page letter, dated May 2, pushed back against rumors — fueled by fellow conservative commentator Candace Owens and others — that Kirk had soured on Israel.

Charlie Kirk: ‘Our Civilization Is Committing Suicide'... Read More

Instead, it revealed a man deeply committed to defending the Jewish state, though frustrated with what he called its "communications malpractice."

Daniel, it’s ironic that you get provoked by the truth.

That would be ironic, but you mistake Truth for error, while you defend a church which requires submission to a pope (is he your pope) who in his short time at the helm already is building a list that indicates that he is a true LEO (liberal, ecumenical, offending):

• Pope Activates Ice Powers, Builds Ice Palace While Singing In Sparkly Blue Dress [10/04/2025]
• Pope Leo XIV Blesses a Block of Ice in Bizarre Protest Against Trump and GOP Climate Deniers [10/03/2025]
• VIDEO: Pope and New Age Pagans Bless a Chunk of Ice [10/03/2025]
• [Catholic Caucus] Top Catholic scholar: Pope Leo is following Francis' ambiguity on abortion [10/03/2025]
• Pope Leo XIV raises pro-LGBT UK archbishop to key Vatican roles [10/03/2025]
• Pope Leo Slams Trump, Vance, and Hegseth All in One Go [10/02/2025]
• Pope Leo chides climate skeptics, embraces Francis's environmental legacy [10/02/2025]
• No Pro-Life Voice on CNN Panel On Pope Leo on Abortion and Death Penalty [10/02/2025]
• [Catholic Caucus] The Brew: Pope Leo Smothers Pro-Lifers in the 'Seamless Garment.' [10/02/2025]
• [Catholic Caucus] Pro-Abortion Senator Dick Durbin "Overwhelmed" By Pope Leo XIV's Defence [10/02/2025]
• Pope Leo's critique of Trump ends honeymoon with conservative Catholics [10/02/2025]
• Pope Leo Bashes Climate Skeptics After Trump Calls Out the 'Con Job' [10/02/2025]
• Pope Leo condemns climate change critics [10/01/2025]

Another provocative antiProt post as part of a series, which allowance we may presume means that a series of reproving Rome may also be allowed. Which attacks are likely driven by the reality of RC disunity due to the previous pope (and V2) who was declared to be a non-Catholic heretic, and now this new one (LEO: liberal, ecumenical, offending) is increasingly exposed as leaning to the Left.

Pope Leo Offers Another Jibe at Trump Over Deportations -- Urges Catholics to Embrace Open Borders Under 'New Missionary Age' [10/05/2025]

• Pope Activates Ice Powers, Builds Ice Palace While Singing In Sparkly Blue Dress [10/04/2025]
• Pope Leo XIV Blesses a Block of Ice in Bizarre Protest Against Trump and GOP Climate Deniers [10/03/2025]
• VIDEO: Pope and New Age Pagans Bless a Chunk of Ice [10/03/2025]
• [Catholic Caucus] Top Catholic scholar: Pope Leo is following Francis' ambiguity on abortion [10/03/2025]
• Pope Leo XIV raises pro-LGBT UK archbishop to key Vatican roles [10/03/2025]
• Pope Leo Slams Trump, Vance, and Hegseth All in One Go [10/02/2025]
• Pope Leo chides climate skeptics, embraces Francis's environmental legacy [10/02/2025]
• No Pro-Life Voice on CNN Panel On Pope Leo on Abortion and Death Penalty [10/02/2025]
• [Catholic Caucus] The Brew: Pope Leo Smothers Pro-Lifers in the 'Seamless Garment.' [10/02/2025]
• [Catholic Caucus] Pro-Abortion Senator Dick Durbin "Overwhelmed" By Pope Leo XIV's Defence [10/02/2025]
• Pope Leo's critique of Trump ends honeymoon with conservative Catholics [10/02/2025]
• Pope Leo Bashes Climate Skeptics After Trump Calls Out the 'Con Job' [10/02/2025]
• Pope Leo condemns climate change critics [10/01/2025]

In any case, i will just paste links and text of previous responses by me, by the grace of God, against anti SS polemics. Esp. since the author also seems to subscribe to the Cath. propaganda that " "scripture alone" means only Scripture is to be used.

Step-by-Step Refutation of Dave Armstrong vs. Sola Scriptura

10-Point+ Biblical Refutation of RC Attempted Refutation of Sola Scriptura

 

14 questions as regards sola scriptura versus sola ecclesia    Some think that sola scriptura (SS) must mean that only the Bible is to be used, and  that no one can be saved unless they have and can read the Bible, and even that a SS preacher could not preach the gospel to people without a Bible, nor enjoin obedience to oral exhortation (under the premise that the preaching can pass the test of Scripture), and that Scripture formally explicitly provides all that is necessary for salvation and growth in grace, thus dispensing with the teaching office of the church, and helps of commentaries and any authority of synods,   But which opinions means that such are misled as to what SS means, and reason dictates, versus "alone" in SS meaning Scripture alone is the only infallible, supreme, standard of express Divine public revelation, to which all teaching must agree with, and as the sole sure, substantive source and authority on doctrine, it is  sufficient (in its formally and material senses* combined) to  provide all that is needed for salvation and growth in grace, by which  one can (not necessarily all will) do so thereby.  As in the words of the Westminster Confession, in Scripture  "the whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for God's own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture." "All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them"   (necessary things). The "due use of the ordinary means" can include helps such  as dictionaries and commentaries (which abound among SS advocates), as Scripture materially provides for the gifts such as teaching.  As well as providing for administration, that of the teaching office of the church,  under which Westminster Confession  (originally  a confession of the Church of England) itself falls.   And in which it is affirmed,  "It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same..."  Also, as a matter of material providence: .".we acknowledge...that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature , and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.” http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_I.html  And since Scripture also testifies to and affirms the recognition and establishment of a body of authoritative wholly inspired writings by the time of Christ, so also it provided for the complete canon of Scripture. For a body of authoritative wholly inspired writings was manifestly established by the time of Christ as being “Scripture, (”in all the Scriptures” - Lk. 24:27) “ even the tripartite canon of the Law, the Prophets and The Writings. ( Lk. 24:44).   And which body provided the doctrinal and prophetic epistemological foundation for the NT church (which was thus a product of Scripture) And regarding the objections of how Scripture alone can be the wholly inspired, sure, supreme and sufficient (in its formal and material senses) standard on faith and morals, when Paul referred to keeping oral tradition 2 Thessalonians 2:15, and the church as being the foundation of the Truth, and that souls could be regenerated without a complete Bible or being able to read it, then it is because, 1. From Adam onward, God always provided enough revelation for obedience to Him, which (aside from general revelation of nature, and morally of conscience) before Moses, was in a very limited sense and expressly to a limited amount of persons  who thus shared it. But when choosing to reveal Himself more fully and to an entire nation, God committed His word to writing, this manifestly being His  chosen means of preservation, versus  materially insubstantial  untestable oral transmission which is highly vulnerable to undetectable  corruption   (Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3,8; 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15,18-19, 30-31; Psalm 19:7-11; 102:18; 119; Isaiah 30:8; Jeremiah 30:2; Matthew 4:5-7; 22:29; Luke 24:44,45; John 5:46,47; John 20:31; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; Revelation 1:1; 20:12, 15; 2. As with Moses, men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God and provide new public revelation thereby, neither of which even Rome presumes its popes and ecumenical councils do. Yet  Scripture had become the standard by which even the veracity of  even the apostles could be subject to testing by: These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. (Acts 17:11) Likewise, as from Adam onward, souls today can be saved who do not personally possess a Bible or are able to read Scripture, as faith comes by hearing the word of God, and those who hear the Truth of gospel of the grace of God, and convicted of their need for salvation thereby can be saved thru those who share that truth.  By the grace of God souls could hear  the basic message of  Acts 10:43-47 and could be saved, and go on from there. But it is Scripture that alone is the sure supreme standard for the veracity of what is taught, and formally provides necessary Truth, explicitly or implicitly, and materially provides for teachers, etc. Thus what is taught must be the Truth of Scripture, versus contrivances as the  assumption of the Assumption.  3. Moreover, under the alternative of sola ecclesia, one can only assume that what their church teaches as oral tradition includes the teachings Paul referred to in 2 Thessalonians 2:15.  And for a RC, the assurance (that something is the word of God) is based upon the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial veracity, which itself is based upon so-called tradition (nowhere in Scripture is perpetual magisterial veracity in all universally binding matters of faith and morals promised or seen, nor is that how God preserved faith, nor is it required for authority).  4. While Catholicism presumes that what Paul referred to as tradition is part of its body of unwritten oral tradition, but which cannot be proved and the premise that unwritten oral tradition is the word of God is  based upon its own tradition of ensured   perpetual magisterial veracity.   However we can assume that what Paul referred to as tradition was subsequently written down, since God manifestly made writing His most-reliable means of authoritative preservation of the word of God.  5. And it is abundantly evidenced that as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God. Thus the veracity of even apostolic oral preaching could be subject to testing by Scripture, (Acts 17:11) and not vice versa. 6. Rather than an infallible magisterium being required for a body of wholly God-inspired  writings to be established as being from God, as mentioned, a  body of authoritative writings had been manifestly established by the time of Christ, as being "Scripture ("in all the Scriptures:" Lk. 24:27), even the tripartite canon of the Law, the Prophets and The Writings, by which the Lord Jesus established His messiahship and ministry and opened the minds of the disciples to, who did the same . (Luke 24:27.44,45; Acts 17:2; 18:28, etc.) 7. None of the few Greek words in 1 Timothy 3:15 ("church living God pillar and ground the truth" teach that the magisterial office of the church is supreme over Scripture, and both words for “pillar” and “ground” of the truth denote support (apostles were called “pillars”). And Scripture itself and most of it came before the church, and the latter was built upon the prophetic, doctrinal epistemological foundation of transcendent Scripture. And thus we see the abundant appeal to it in establishing the authority of teaching by the church, as the Lord did Himself in establishing His prophetic messiahship and ministry to those who would build His church, and opening their understanding of Scripture,  which included expanding the contents of Scripture, such as through Paul (cf. 2 Peter 3:15,16)  Thus here are questions for those who argue for the alternative of sola scriptura, which is that of sola ecclesia: 1. What is God's manifest most reliable permanent means of preserving the word of God: oral transmission or writing? 2. What became the established supreme substantive authoritative source for testing Truth claims: oral transmission or  Scripture? 3. Which came first: an authoritative body of  wholly God-inspired writings  of the word of God, or the NT church, and which provided the transcendent prophetic, doctrinal and moral foundation for the NT church? 4. Did the establishment of a body of wholly God-inspired authoritative writings by the first century require an infallible magisterium? 5. Which transcendent sure, substantive source was so abundantly invoked by the Lord Jesus and NT church in substantiating Truth claims to a nation which was the historical instruments and stewards of express Divine revelation: oral transmission or writing? 6. Was the veracity of Scripture ever subject to testing by the oral words of men, or vice versa? 7. Do Catholic popes and councils speak or write as wholly inspired of God in giving His word like as men such as apostles could and did, and also provide new public revelation thereby? 8. In the light of the above, do you deny that only Scripture is the transcendent, supreme, wholly inspired-of-God substantive and authoritative word of God, and the most reliable record and supreme source for what the NT church believed? 9. Do you think sola scriptura must mean that only the Bible is to be used in understanding what God says, and means that all believers will correctly understand what is necessary, and that it replaces the magisterial office (and ideally a centralized one)  as the  formal  judicial earthly authority on matters of dispute (though it appeals to Scripture as the only infallible and supreme substantive source of Divine Truth)? 10. Do you think the sufficiency aspect of sola scripture must mean that the Bible explicitly and formally provides everything needed for salvation and growth in grace, including reason, writing, ability to discern, teachers, synods, etc. or that this sufficiency refers to Scripture as regards it being express Divine public revelation, and which formally and materially (combined) provides what is necessary for salvation and growth in grace, as the sole sure, supreme, standard of express Divine public revelation? 11. What infallible oral magisterial source has spoken to man as the wholly God-inspired public word of God outside Scripture since the last book was penned? 12. Where in Scripture is a magisterium of men promised ensured perpetual infallibility of office whenever it defines as a body a matter of faith or morals for the whole church? 13. Does being the historical instruments, discerners and stewards of express Divine revelation mean that such possess that magisterial infallibility? 14. What is the basis for your assurance that your church is the one true apostolic church? The weight of evidence for it or because the church who declared it asserts she it cannot err in such a matter?    *SS actually includes the materially sense as regards sufficiency, as  affirming such things as reason and the recognition by Truth-loving souls as to what is of God, thus  providing for a canon of Scripture,  but not as in Catholicism, (esp. RC).  In which "The Church" asserts that written and oral tradition teach ensured perpetual magisterial veracity in formal teaching on faith and morals, uniquely for their church, thus effectively validating its own claim.  Whereby  they claim the Assumption is a fact ("remembering" what history forgot to record in that era), and thus all are required to believe it.  But SS does teach material sufficiency in the sense that "what is "necessary for God's own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added [as public express revelation], whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men." To which it adds that souls by "a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them" (necessary things). And that, .".we acknowledge...that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature , and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.” https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/westminster-confession-faith

requiring the death of a person who committed premeditate murder is pro-life, as the penalty corresponds to the value of life from the womb to the grave, which is only to be taken when one has taken the life of another or committed certain other fundamentally grievous moral offenses. Because life is so valuable, then the penalty for anti-life acts is that of losing one's life.

Which Biblically is normally via communal stoning, as befits the crime being against all, and manifests the cost of the crime, versus antiseptic execution by the state, or burdening society by supporting the murderer for decades, and reminding others that he is live, and could get out.

Of course, all should be exhorted to be born of God via by effectual penitent, heart-purifying, regenerating, justifying faith (Acts 10:43-47, 15:7-9; Titus 3:5)

THE DEATH PENALTY (capital punishment in the Bible)

For if I be an offender, or have committed any thing worthy of death, I refuse not to die: but if there be none of these things whereof these accuse me, no man may deliver me unto them. I appeal unto Cæsar. (Acts 25:11)

Daniel1212, that is a very helpful and insightful post. You provided beautiful insight into the building of the Bible.

Not too insightful, but informative I trust. Glory to God for what is good and helpful.

meant to ping you.

No sure what you are pinging me to, but I see many RCC errors in the latest series (and I began this response last night, and finished it this AM in a rush, by the grace of God.), including:

RC argument: Jesus does not refer to an exhaustive list of Scripture in Lk. 24.

In reality, Luke 24:27 states And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. (Luke 24:27)

RC argument: Jesus quotes the deuterocanonicals Isa 61:1–2; Lk 4:18–19 - Septuagint/LXX version),

In reality, Isaiah is not a deuterocanonical book, while quoting from the LXX simply does not equate to calling such Scripture, Mark 12:10; Mark 15:28; Luke 4:21; John 2:22; John 7:38; John 7:42; John 10:35; John 13:18; John 17:12; John 19:24; John 19:28; John 19:36; John 19:37; John 20:9; Acts 1:16; Acts 8:32; Acts 8:35; Romans 4:3; Romans 9:17; Romans 10:11; Romans 11:2; Galatians 3:8; Galatians 3:22; Galatians 4:30; 1 Timothy 5:18; 2 Timothy 3:16; James 2:8; James 2:23; James 4:5; 1 Peter 2:6; 2 Peter 1:20;
or "it is written:" Matthew 2:5; Matthew 4:4; Matthew 4:6; Matthew 4:7; Matthew 4:10; Matthew 11:10; Matthew 21:13; Matthew 26:24; Matthew 26:31; Mark 1:2; Mark 7:6; Mark 9:12; Mark 9:13; Mark 14:21; Mark 14:27; Luke 2:23; Luke 3:4; Luke 4:4; Luke 4:8; Luke 4:10; Luke 7:27; Luke 19:46; Luke 24:46; John 6:31; John 6:45; John 12:14; Acts 1:20; Acts 7:42; Acts 15:15; Acts 23:5; Romans 1:17; Romans 2:24; Romans 3:4; Romans 3:10; Romans 4:17; Romans 8:36; Romans 9:13; Romans 9:33; Romans 10:15; Romans 11:8; Romans 11:26; Romans 12:19; Romans 14:11; Romans 15:3; Romans 15:9; Romans 15:21; 1 Corinthians 1:19; 1 Corinthians 1:31; 1 Corinthians 2:9; 1 Corinthians 3:19; 1 Corinthians 9:9; 1 Corinthians 10:7; 1 Corinthians 14:21; 1 Corinthians 15:45; 2 Corinthians 4:13; 2 Corinthians 8:15; 2 Corinthians 9:9; Galatians 3:10; Galatians 3:13; Galatians 4:22; Galatians 4:27; Hebrews 10:7; 1 Peter 1:16;
or "saith the lord:" " Acts 7:49; Acts 15:17; Romans 12:19; Romans 14:11; 1 Corinthians 14:21; 2 Corinthians 6:17; 2 Corinthians 6:18; Hebrews 8:8; Hebrews 8:9; Hebrews 8:10; Hebrews 10:16; Hebrews 10:30; Revelation 1:8;
or "spoken" by "the prophet:" Matthew 1:22; Matthew 2:15; Matthew 2:17; Matthew 3:3; Matthew 4:14; Matthew 8:17; Matthew 12:17; Matthew 13:35; Matthew 21:4; Matthew 24:15; Matthew 27:9; Matthew 27:35; Mark 13:14; Acts 2:16; Acts 28:25;

Moreover,

as we now know, manuscripts of anything like the capacity of Codex Alexandrinus were not used in the first centuries of the Christian era," and since, in the second century C.E., the Jews seem largely to have discarded the Septuagint in favour of revisions or translations more usable in their controversy with the church (notably Aquila's translation), there can be no real doubt that the comprehensive codices of the Septuagint, which start appearing in the fourth century, are all of Christian origin. (Jellicoe, Sidney; The Septuagint and Modern Study, Oxford at the Clarendon Press, 1968, page 60.

RC argument: The NT alludes to the deuterocanonical books.

In reality, alluding to some of the deuteros does not mean "the deuterocanonical books" inclusively, nor that any were Scripture, likewise allusions and even quotes of sorts to extra canonical books, and even pagan sources, is merely citing them as truthful statements (Acts 17:28; Titus 1:12), even by God (Enoch 1:9) or illustrating a belief. (1 Cor. 15:33) And many cited references to deuterocanonical books are overall correspondent to texts in the Hebrew canon as well (see here on what I found). For the deuteros is not to be classed as akin to the Book of Mormon, nor without edifying and Luther translated deuterocanonical books which he placed in his translation (and sometimes invoked, and stated his canon was only his own private judgment) and they used to be placed in the KJV. But they are judged as failing the test of being wholly God-inspired, which (aside from some fables and errors) is due to their coming short in the unique heavily qualities and attestation of Scripture prosper. , I personally think the book of Wisdom comes closest, though judged as not written by its ascribed author.

RC argument: There was no Fixed Jewish Canon Pre-70.

In reality, the Lord expounded in all the scriptures the things concerning himself testifies to a fixed canon, understood as being corespondent to that of those who sat in Moses seat, and that of Protestantism (as some RC sources affirm).

RC argument: Scholars such as Lee M. McDonald (*Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon*, 1995, p. 38) conclude there was no fixed Jewish canon in Jesus' time.

In reality, Scholars such as J. N. D. Kelly state,
For the Jews of Palestine the limits of the canon (the term is Christian, and was not used in Judaism) were rigidly fixed; they drew a sharp line of demarca- tion between the books which 'defiled the hands', i.e. were sacred, and other religiously edifying writings. The oudook of the Jewish communities outside Palestine tended to be much more elastic.

And Timothy Lim:

By the first century, it is clear that the Pharisees held to the twenty-two or twenty-four book canon, and it was this canon that eventually became the canon of Rabbinic Judaism because the majority of those who founded the Jewish faith after the destruction of Jerusalem were Pharisees. The Jewish canon was not directed from above but developed from the "bottom-up." Ancient Jews did not have a council in the way that the Christian did, and while the Temple in Jerusalem kept some scrolls, it did not do so to prescribe the books of the canon. (Timothy Lim. University of Edinburgh; https://www.ancientjewreview.com/articles/2015/12/1/understanding-the-emergence-of-the-jewish-canon)

[Josephus] also limits his books to those written between the time of Moses and Artaxerxes, thus eliminating some apocryphal books, observing that "(Jewish) history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since that time."

Also in support of the Jewish canon excluding the apocrypha we also have Philo, the Alexandrian Jewish philosopher (20 BC-AD 40) who never quoted from the Apocrypha as inspired, though he prolifically quoted the Old Testament and recognized the threefold division

While other have different opinions, in the Tosfeta (supplement to the Mishnah) it states, "...the Holy Spirit departed after the death of Haggai, Zecharaiah, and Malachi. Thus Judaism defined the limits of the canon that was and still is accepted within the Jewish community." Once that limit was defined, there was little controversy. Some discussion was held over Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs, but the core and bulk of the OT was never disputed. (Tosfeta Sota 13.2, quoted by German theologian Leonhard Rost [1896-1979], Judaism Outside the Hebrew Canon. Nashville: Abingdon, 1971; http://www.tektonics.org/lp/otcanon.html)

And very knowledgeable [if liberal] New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman also finds,

Most scholars agree that by the time of the destruction of the second Temple in 70 C.E. most Jews accepted the final three-part canon of the Torah, Nevi'im, and Kethuvim.... This was a twenty-four-book canon that came to be attested widely in Jewish writings of the time; eventually the canon was reconceptualized and renumbered an that it became the thirty-nine books of the Christian Old Testament. But they are the same books, all part of the canon of Scripture. (Ehrman, The Bible, 377)

The evidence clearly supports the theory that the Hebrew canon was established well before the late first century AD, more than likely as early as the fourth century BC and certainly no later than 150 BC. A major reason for this conclusion comes from the Jews themselves, who from the fourth century BC onward were convinced that "the voice of God had ceased to speak directly." (Ewert, FATMT, 69) In other words, the prophetic voices had been stilled. No word from God meant no new Word of God. Without proph-ets, there can be no scriptural revelation. Concerning the Intertestamental Period (approximately four hundred years between the close of the Old Testament and the events of the New Testament)

RC argument: This really shows that ealgeone never read Lee McDonald. In reality, if disagreement means one never read McDonald, then, "in the fifth century a more or less final consensus [on the New Testament canon] was reached and shared by East and West. It is worth noting that

no ecumenical council in the ancient church ever ruled for the church as a whole on the question of the contents of the canon." (Harry Gamble, in Lee McDonald and James Sanders, edd., The Canon Debate [Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2002], p. 291)

RC argument: "narrow Hebrew canon" is a post-70 AD Jamnia myth,

In reality,

Scholars refer to the Council of Jamnia (presumably Yavneh in the Holy Land) as a late 1st-century AD gathering that some claim finalized the canon of the Hebrew Bible in response to Christianity. Heinrich Graetz first proposed this theory in 1871,[1] and many scholars accepted it throughout much of the 20th century.[2][3][4] Since the 1960s, scholars have increasingly challenged and largely discredited the theory,[5] arguing instead that the Hebrew canon emerged earlier, possibly during the Hasmonean period.[6] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Jamnia

Unless a Prot can show a verse listing a 39-book canon, then the Prot admit his error and concede Jesus never excluded deuterocanonicals.

In reality, by the same RC rule and logic, unless the RC can show a verse listing a 73-book canon then the RC must admit his error and concede Jesus excluded deuterocanonicals. Of course, this RC reasoning is spurious, as in either case it is the weight of evidence that conclusions must be drawn.

RC argument: *2 Peter 3:16**: "His [Paul’s] letters… which the ignorant and unstable twist, as they do the other Scriptures." suggests some letters were revered, but not a closed canon.

In reality, calling letters of Paul merely "revered" does not do them justice, as they were called Scripture. And referring to he other Scriptures that does testify to an established canon, but not a closed one.

RC argument: Paul calls his words authoritative (1 Cor 14:37 but never equates them with OT Scripture, and contrary to so doing, . St. Paul appeals to oral tradition. (1 Cor 11:2)

In reality, referring to his written words here as a command of the Lord makes them equal to Scripture in authority as men such as the apostles could speak and write as wholly inspired of God, but which does not make the words of uninspired men (popes and councils) equal to Scripture, regardless of their own uninspired claim to infallibility.

Moreover, rather than Rome being necessary to know what is of God, an authoritative body of wholly inspired Scripture had been established by the time of Christ, as manifest by the frequent appeals to Scripture, including "He expounded unto them in all the scriptures) And writings of which provided the prophetic and doctrinal epistemological foundation for the church. Luke 24:27 the things concerning himself.

RC argument: Councils Rome (382 AD), Hippo (393 AD), and Carthage (397 AD) formalized the 73-book canon.

In reality, besides the problem with the so-called Gelasian Decree and 382 AD date, the fact is that decrees by non-ecumenical early councils such as Hippo, Carthage and Florence were not infallible, and thus doubts and disputes among scholars continued right into Trent. The decision of Trent in 1546 was the first “infallible” indisputable and final definition of the Roman Catholic canon, (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. II, Bible, III (Canon), p. 390; The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent: Rockford: Tan, 1978), Fourth Session, Footnote #4, p. 17, and see below)

Thus, t

he Catholic Encyclopedia also states as regards the Middle Ages,

In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages [5th century to the 15th century] we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we note St. Thomas Aquinas. Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity. The prevailing attitude of Western medieval authors is substantially that of the Greek Fathers. The chief cause of this phenomenon in the West is to be sought in the influence, direct and indirect, of St. Jerome's depreciating Prologus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm)

At Jerusalem there was a renascence, perhaps a survival, of Jewish ideas, the tendency there being distinctly unfavourable to the deuteros. St. Cyril of that see, while vindicating for the Church the right to fix the Canon, places them among the apocrypha and forbids all books to be read privately which are not read in the churches. In Antioch and Syria the attitude was more favourable. St. Epiphanius shows hesitation about the rank of the deuteros; he esteemed them, but they had not the same place as the Hebrew books in his regard. The historian Eusebius attests the widespread doubts in his time; he classes them as antilegomena, or disputed writings, and, like Athanasius, places them in a class intermediate between the books received by all and the apocrypha. The 59th (or 60th) canon of the provincial Council of Laodicea (the authenticity of which however is contested) gives a catalogue of the Scriptures entirely in accord with the ideas of St. Cyril of Jerusalem. On the other hand, the Oriental versions and Greek manuscripts of the period are more liberal; the extant ones have all the deuterocanonicals and, in some cases, certain apocrypha.

The influence of Origen's and Athanasius's restricted canon naturally spread to the West. St. Hilary of Poitiers and Rufinus followed their footsteps, excluding the deuteros from canonical rank in theory, but admitting them in practice. The latter styles them "ecclesiastical" books, but in authority unequal to the other Scriptures. St. Jerome cast his weighty suffrage on the side unfavourable to the disputed books... (Catholic Encyclopedia, Canon of the Old Testament, eph. mine)

RC Without councils, how could the NT canon be fixed?

For a RC "Fixed" means by one church, and the answer is the same away the OT body was fixed, and thus referred to such as in Lk. 24:27, 44; Acts 17:2, 11, 18:28) Which is essentially due to their enduring heavenly qualities and attestation.

RC church councils resolve disputes as "pillar and bulwark of the truth" (1 Tim 3:15) and thus, discerned the canon (Mt 16:18–19).

In reality, church councils are resolve disputes, as are civil courts, both having authority, but neither are infallible. a And to make 1 Tim. 3:15 mean that the church is the ensured source and infallible judge of what is of God and the meaning of it is reading a lot into the Greek, which simply says in the section at issue, "church living God pillar and ground the truth" - and with pillar and ground both basically meaning "support," which the body of Christ, the only one true church, is to support and uphold, in contrast to the dead church of cults.

Of course, the same RCAs will ignorantly parrot the claim that is 2 Peter 1:20 forbids private interpretation of Scripture.

Why do you reject John 20:23, even though it's in Scripture?

Why do you invoke John 20:23 as if pertaining to RC leadership (in significant odds even with EOs) despite though what see in Scripture as concerns

Confession of sins to Catholic priests. Of course, the answer as to why is that for faithful RCs, the Word of God only authoritatively consists of and means what she says, since she has authoritatively declared this is the case.

And AGAIN, it ALL ignores 100% the fact that in Scripture, the Holy Spirit, GOD HIMSELF, chooses to identify Mary as *the mother of JESUS*.

Yes:

Matthew 1:18, 12:50
Luke 2:43
John 2:1, 3, 19:25
Acts 1:14;

The Catholic counter argument is that Elisabeth declared, "And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?' (Luke 1:43) However, this recognition of the Messiah at this stage is not a recognition of His Deity, as Lord God, and the word for Lord (kurios) includes the owner; one who has control of the person, the master; in the state: the sovereign, prince, chief, the Roman emperor; is a title of honour expressive of respect and reverence, with which servants greet their master; he to whom a person or thing belongs, about which he has power of deciding; master, lord; the possessor and disposer of a thing; the owner; one who has control of the person, the master in the state: the sovereign, prince, chief, the Roman emperor.

The Lord' divinity was progressively made manifest, as evident in the response of His disciples when they "marvelled, saying, What manner of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him!" (Matthew 8:27; cf. Ps 65:7, 89:9, 93:3, 4)

However, rule # 1 to remember when debating Catholics (or other cultists) is that the Word of God only authoritatively consists of and means what she says, since she has authoritatively declared this is the case. Rule #2 could be that when faced with lack of Scriptural substantiation for their distinctive teachings, then the Catholic can assert that their recourse to egregious extrapolation in isolationist eisegesis works to establishes what they can only wish Scripture actually taught (faced with zero examples in Scripture of any believer praying to anyone in Heaven besides God, even John 14:12 can be cited for support). Appeal to Scripture is not engaged in by Catholics because they believe veracity rests upon the degree of sound Scriptural substantiation (as it must for true Bible Christians), but Catholic appeal to Scripture is in condescension to those who hold to Scripture alone being the sure, substantive sufficient (in formal and material senses) standard for faith and morals.

Even though in Catholic theology one cannot know what the word consists of apart from faith in their org. which would mean one must believe in the RCC (or EO) in order to know what Scripture consists of, as if their church is manifestly what she claims it to be, but Scripture is not. If she does say say so herself.