lundi 15 janvier 2018

Up Against Evangelical Hecklers


I don't have an extensive blocklist. Nancy Smith-Williams and Art Kester just made it to it.

They were demanding me alone to answer both of them at the same time, in real time. A bit like the disciples of Spurgeon tend to do when "Evangelising".

But up to when they started becoming tedious, they gave some interesting debate. Nine people are now (after c. 8 years on FB here this profile) on my blocklist, it is not extensive. Patricia A Lovric whose question started it is not on it.

Patricia A Lovric
13 Janvier, 14:47
Will a Christian who dies while committing a sin go to heaven?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
When someone becomes a new creature, he ceases to be a sinner.

If you die while making yourself a sinner again, by committing a mortal sin, you go to Hell. Requirements? Grave matter against the commandments, full consent, full knowledge of what you are doing.

Note, thinking that "suicide can't be a grave matter" is not lack of full knowledge you are committing suicide, if suicide is the sin you are committing.

Nancy Smith-Williams
Nope.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Sorry, you seem to lack some catechetic knowledge.

Here:

EWTN : CATECHISM OF SAINT PIUS X
https://www.ewtn.com/library/CATECHSM/PIUSXCAT.HTM


Nancy Smith-Williams
I lack nothing. My knowledge comes from knowing Jesus and God's word. Your catechism is worthless.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
If you consider one of the best catechisms as worthless, you don't know God's word.

Art Kester
Nancy Smith-Williams Awesome!! I love your posts

Art Kester
Hans-Georg Lundahl I know God’s word. What can we talk about ???!!

Nancy Smith-Williams
Art Kester...Thank you! Blessings.

Art Kester I want him to ask me something. I know the Bible

Art Kester
Hmmm...I’m sure I could guess your answer but is a Christian once saved always saved ??

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Art Kester this, which Nancy said nope to:

When someone becomes a new creature, he ceases to be a sinner.

If you die while making yourself a sinner again, by committing a mortal sin, you go to Hell. Requirements? Grave matter against the commandments, full consent, full knowledge of what you are doing.

Note, thinking that "suicide can't be a grave matter" is not lack of full knowledge you are committing suicide, if suicide is the sin you are committing.

If you want a question too, well, if God chastises here and now, and there is no Purgatory, when does God chastise someone who dies sinning (supposing he is not damned).

Art Kester
Hans-Georg Lundahl wow that’s a lot of bloviating! So was that a yes or a no to once saved always saved ??

[If he meant OSAS on individual level, I think I just did say no. Some do lose their salvation, but the Church does not.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Art Kester you seem to want easy answers and to avoid difficult questions.

Nancy Smith-Williams
As a Christian I am not a sinner in God's view.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Nancy Smith-Williams If you are a living Christian you are not only not a sinner in God's view, but you are not a sinner. This is a condition which ceases if you commit a mortal sin.

Art Kester
Hans-Georg Lundahl what I want is clear concise answers. But apparently you can’t manage that.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
You apparently want concise answers on set questions and avoid other questions. I don't want to manage that.

Nancy Smith-Williams
Right...I am no longer a sinner but a saint.

Whenever I sin that doesn't change.

Art Kester
Hans-Georg Lundahl oooh there must be a list of mortal sins! Where is the list? I may want to laminate it and stick it on my fridge

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Nancy Smith-Williams

".I am no longer a sinner but a saint."

If you have committed no mortal sin after a valid baptism or confession.

"Whenever I sin that doesn't change."

It does.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Art Kester it is called the decalogue.

Art Kester
Nancy Smith-Williams Exactly....

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I seem to be around two heretics playing at "we are the Church" and the "two or three witnesses" before denouncing sn to it.

Art Kester
Hans-Georg Lundahl dude you’re so lost but it’s ok I guess we will see each other in heaven and God may explain to you what He really cares about and that’s unconditional love not the Decalogue!!

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Salvation is un-pre-condistional, not un-subsequent-conditional.

Nancy Smith-Williams
Nothing changes. My relationship with God may lose some intimacy, but as His daughter, I know that when I confess to Him my failure, He teminds me lovingly about the fact that all my sins have been wiped away.

Nancy Smith-Williams
And He restores me immediately.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Except when he doesn't.

Nancy Smith-Williams
Hans-Georg Lundahl...I am no heretic and you starting the animosity by making such a charge proves you are not on the side if right. You do not know what the Church is.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I do, I am a Catholic.

Nancy Smith-Williams
God always restores His children when they run to Him.

Nancy Smith-Williams
Are you born again?

Art Kester
Nancy Smith-Williams I love these ppl who admit their behavior wasn’t good enough to GET saved. But by some magic AFTER they are saved their behavior can be good enough to maintain salvation OR it could be bad enough to forfeit salvation! It it were all true God would have to be schizophrenic

(Hans-Georg Lundahl is ...
...answering two questions at once, second writting before posting first answer)
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Yes, when ... if it is really to Him they run.

Yes, I am born again by Baptism.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Art Kester God is not schizophrenic you are simplistic.

Nancy Smith-Williams
Baptism saves no one. Try again.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Baptism saves no one? Oh, John chapter 3.

Art Kester
Hans-Georg Lundahl Shocker!! Hey did Peter Really start the only legitimate church?!!

Nancy Smith-Williams
Try reading the whole NT.

John 3 makes no mention of baptism.

Try again.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
No, Christ started it on Peter.

I'd like to know what Nancy misconstrues as against salvation by baptism.

John 3 mentions "born again by water and spirit", meaning baptism in water is what is meant.

Nancy Smith-Williams
Nope.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Sorry, not my fault if Nancy can't read (unless it's medical journals)

You see,
before I blocked her, I saw her profile, she is a nurse or former nurse.

Did you think
I was only debating on this front? Check out Nancy's answer to OP question and what I wrote there:

Nancy Smith-Williams
Once you are adopted, the Father owns you. He's not going to give you up, but like the perfect Father He is, He will chastize you.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
When if you are just dying?

In Purgatory?

Nancy Smith-Williams
No such thing as Purgatory.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
If there isn't, where is God spanking someone who needs spanking but not giving up when he dies?

Nancy Smith-Williams
God chastises His children in the here and now.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
In that case, what does he do when someone dies sinning and escapes chastisement in the "here and now", presuming that means this side of the grave?

Nancy Smith-Williams
God receives His own when they die. You cannot gain salvation by good behaviour and likewise you cannot lose salvation by bad behaviour.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
You can gain Salvation by Christ's good behaviour, and also by your own in receving it. You can also make yourself again unworthy of it.

You just pretended when someone "saved" sins, God chastises him, so, when, if it is someone who dies sinning.

Perhaps
the notification from Nancy Smith-Williams was her a bit overdue answer on this one (while I had been dragging around the other one, see above), if so I missed it by blocking her.

Either way, there are guys, both Evangelical and Atheist who will use this two against one tactic on the internet, like they seem to enjoy doing it also orally.

jeudi 11 janvier 2018

For Torrey and Myself, Against Farnell (partly) and Fout and Olson


Norman Geisler Ministry Page
shared Defending Inerrancy's post. December 1, 2017

Defending Inerrancy
November 30, 2017
Do OT writers exaggerate and distort the truth? Some DTS PhD grads apparently say YES!

The Alarming Rise Of The Evangelical Hyperbolic Hermeneutic
F. David Farnell, PhD
http://defendinginerrancy.com/evangelical-hyperbolic-hermeneutic/


Hans-Georg Lundahl
answers much of the link

I Against Farnell's accusations against Romanism
"During their day, the prevailing interpretation ideology of Romanism was allegorical, or more importantly, non-literal interpretation that had held sway for 1500 years at least."

It was allegorical, it was NOT non-literal.

Isaac carrying the firewood for his sacrifice literally means Isaac carrying the firewood for his sacrifice. Which he did.

Isaac carrying the firewood for his sacrifice allegorically means Jesus carrying the Cross to Calvary - which He did.

Isaac carrying the firewood for his sacrifice morally means we should trust in God even in extreme danger of life - which we should.

Isaac carrying the firewood for his sacrifice anagogically means sth about the heavenly glory too, but I am not sure what. But what it anagogically means is true too.

If you didn't get it, I am saying this as a Romanist, as it is here called.

And introducing the allegorical method was done by Jesus Himself, since all over Moses and the Prophets His resurrection was foretold. You don't get the "all over" part, unless you accept the allegorical sense.

"but allowed the interpreter to find in the text any concept or idea desired by the interpreter, especially when the text in its literal sense presented something unacceptable to the interpreter’s mindset."

If he pretended so, he was lying, but I'd like a reference from his own writings this was his motive.

The literal sense can never be done away with. Not with Romanists, anyway.

"He believed that allegory or non-literal approach often contradicted the literal sense outright."

OK, Jesus carrying the Cross to Calvary contradicts Isaac carrying the firewood how?

II For Torrey
"One need only read R. A. Torrey’s The Fundamentals original work to see that they left a monumental testimony that “higher criticism,” today known as “historical criticism” and its bent toward dismissal of the historicity, supernatural of the OT and NT, as well as its, non-literal interpretation."

Grammatical literal sense of above sentence wanted.

"One need only read R. A. Torrey’s The Fundamentals original work to see that"

Clear.

"that they left a monumental testimony that"

Clear.

"that “higher criticism,” today known as “historical criticism”
subject
and its bent toward dismissal of the historicity, supernatural of the OT and NT,
subject
as well as its, non-literal interpretation."
also subject - where is the predicate???

By the way, Torrey in 1917 was a few years behind Popes Leo XIII and St Pius X, also condemning "higher criticism".

"especially since historical-criticism fought so strongly against an “infallible” or today’s term “inerrant” (without error) Bible."

Why did Protestants change the description of the Bible from "infallible" to "inerrant"?

Because Catholics make the distinction.

Each and every hagiographer as such was infallible and inerrant, by the grace and providence of God (God allowed Moses to well investigate with correct intuition about contradicting versions, if there were any or where to find the missing pieces, but God also allowed the Hebrew tradition up to him to involve no error gaining upper hand and no lacunae too important to sap it - that was providential).

But Catholic bishops, collectively, are infallible only.

If all Catholic bishops agreed on a wrong anno mundi for Christ's birth (say 5299 instead of 5199) on some occasion, but never formally expressed this as binding dogma (next Christmas reading again, correctly, He was born 5199 after Creation), this would prove them not inerrant - but their not making a doctrine of the spurious "AM 5299" would be the negative side of their collective infallibility.

III For Myself
"This means that we accept at face value the biblical record of the creation of the universe and man, the historic fall of Adam in Eden, the Noahic flood, the Tower of Babel, and all other events of biblical history, both natural and supernatural."

I do so also, at least insofar as there is one.

Tower of Babel, two things.

I
1) Would you at face value include it was a piece of architecture?
2) Would you at face value include it was vertically oblong?
3) Would you at face value include Nimrod (or whoever else the building master was, but tradition says Nimrod) having hopes to literally and not just visually "reach into heaven"?

In that case, you would need to either consider heaven as very close to the surface of earth (Rob Skiba is trying that) or Nimrod as very dumb (in and of itself no problem, not one of the giants of old found wisdom, Baruch ch. 3, forgot which verse).

Or would you agree one of the three things is not really part of the face value, at least if you face the text long enough?

In my view it is n#1.

On Cape Canaveral, a few times, towers have been raised of which not step one or two, but only step three reaches into Heaven. We call them rockets.

II
"[1] And the earth was of one tongue, and of the same speech. [2] And when they removed from the east, they found a plain in the land of Sennaar, and dwelt in it."

Would you at face value include lack of geographic spread? Or could "they" mean sth more restricted than "all men" and "earth" mean literally men spread out all over the earth?

"[8] And so the Lord scattered them from that place into all lands, and they ceased to build the city."

Would you at face value include geographic spread to begin then, or only the disunity between the different lands to begin then?

I take the latter view.

For one thing because of the tradition Hebrews were spared the confusion of tongues, since not collaborating. That would need some geographic distance if Nimrod was a mighty hunter of men.

For another, because this leaves room for a continuity of habitations between pre- and post-Babel, but a cessation of the to and fro to Babel and back which I imagine was going on.

And these factors, I, lack of architectonic tower being acceptable, II presence of geographic spread being acceptable, but III (verse 1) presence of recorded writing in different tongues NOT being acceptable means I consider Göbekli Tepe a very good candidate.

I agree with Graham Hancock on that one, but not in general world view, of course. Nor, obviously, in his acceptance at face value of carbon dates.

2551 (five years after Peleg born in 2556 BC) to 2511 - that is the traditional forty years of Babel.

If 2551 BC looks like 9600 BC and 2511 BC like 8600 BC, one can calculate exactly what carbon 14 levels were at start and end of Babel event - and that carbon 14 production was 11 times faster than it is now since carbon 14 level has been stable for 2500 years (or even since some before that).

IV Against Fout and Olson
"2. The number of the Ephraimites in Judges 12. Judges 12:6 gives a number of slain at 42, 000 for mispronouncing “Shibboleth,” but that such a number “exceeds the census for that tribe in either Numbers 1:32 (40,500) or Numbers 26:35 (32,500)."

Time had elapsed since Numbers 1:32 and since Numbers 26:35.

Similarily there is slight population growth in totals for Israel:

Num. 1:45 at 603, 550 total
Numbers 26:51 at 601, 730
2 Kings 24:9 at 1.3 million
1 Paralipomenon 21:5 at 1.57 million

Now, some argue that:

“Like the censuses of the book of nUmbers, the totals are entirely too large.” (p. 379)

R e m i n d s me of those arguing population of Europe was very low in the Middle Ages or Antiquity.

A reason not to trust them, right?

A scholarship giving a bad result on the Bible can't be trusted to give good results elsewhere - I mean of course a particular school in scholarship on a particular type of issue, not scholarship as such in general.

"And he gave David the number of them, whom he had surveyed: and all the number of Israel was found to be eleven hundred thousand men that drew the sword: and of Juda four hundred and seventy thousand fighting men."

Here is Challoner's comment:

[5] "The number": The difference of the numbers here and 2 Kings 24. is to be accounted for, by supposing the greater number to be that which was really found, and the lesser to be that which Joab gave in.

He was one of these pesky Romanists with their - our - pesky "non-literal" interpretation ...

"Next, based on an examination of (1) a brief review of the history of interpretation of these numbers that asserts a rejection of these numbers as true but rather allegorized them [with the exception of the Reformers who took them literally—PLEASE NOTE: [notice they were grammatico-historical advocates of literal interpretation] (pp. 379-81);"

Numbers are not allegorised to avoid believing literal numbers!

We believe the Apostles literally caught 153 fish, but we also allegorise it as the 153 Hail Marys in a complete Rosary.

"current archaeological and demographics discoveries that suggest at no time did the land contain such a large population as seen in Numbers 1; 26"

Well, seems like either archaeology or demographics is done with some bad methodology - not just for that particular error detected by the Bible!

Thank God for warning us about other inaccuracies the false methods can risk landing us with!

"Skeletal and tooth wear data from ancient times indicate an average lifespan of around forty years old, not over 900 years as in Genesis 5, or even the almost 200 years of the later patriarchs."

1) I'd say this poses the question whether these are accurate measures.

I don't believe in average lifespans of around forty, except insofar as high child mortalities bias it down.

Includes Patriarchs as well as Middle Ages which is getting undeserved bad press for "low average life spans".

Kings and Knights were dying around 55, and this is due to a wearing and tearing lifestyle, like if bodybuilders go on that way past thirty.

People with calmer lives lived longer.

2) As lifespans were decreasing, one consequence could be skeleta and teeth wearing out quicker. This means a "40" for modern times could correspond to a "400" for pre- and early post-Flood times.

3) The line from Noah to Abraham could have had exceptionally long lifespans (not what I think, but possible).

4) If Upper Palaeolithic is all between Flood and Babel AND Babel is "Year of the World about 1800, and Year before Christ 2204." as per Vulgate rather than LXX chronology (Ussher), and Flood "Year of the World 1656, Year before Christ 2348." then Babel / Göbeki Tepe was 144 after Flood, and then those dying in Upper Palaeolithic were all dying premature deaths.

"Kings and Knights were dying around 55, and this is due to a wearing and tearing lifestyle, like if bodybuilders go on that way past thirty," I just said.

Based on my calculations, not from archaeology, but from narrative history as accessed via wikipedians and in the lineages from St Louis IX.

"Plus, a chronology based on these lifespans is biblically inconsistent and contradicts the archaeology of the Intermediate Bronze and Middle Bronze ages."

Solved by a lower carbon 14 level in the Bronze Ages. Abraham (LXX, not Ussher) born 2015 BC (a nativitate Abrahae, anno bis millesimo quintodecimo, the Catholic Church said at midnight Mass less than a month ago).

Abraham c. 80 in Genesis 14 - > 1935 BC.

Genesis 14 involves either Chalcolithic or Neolithic of Engeddi (thank you Osborne).

I go for Chalcolithic, considering its Neolithic was rather around Babel, a few centuries before Abraham.

Chalcolithic of Engaddi perhaps sth like dated 3300 BC.

3300 BC (carbon)
1935 BC (for real)
1365

So 1365 extra years -> 84.779 percent modern carbon ....

https://www.math.upenn.edu/~deturck/m170/c14/carbdate.html

... at Genesis 14. In the atmosphere. Well, quite a lot more than in the time of GT/Babel:

9600 BC (carbon)
2551 BC (for real)
7049 extra years

8600 BC (carbon
2511 BC (for real)
6089 extra years

Going from 7049 to 6089 extra years in forty years means going from (same carbon 14 dating calculator) 42.626 to 47.875 pmc.

In 40 years you get 99.517 percent of original content if no new carbon is added.

This means:

0.99517 * 42.626 pmc = 42.42 pmc should be left is nothing was added.

But with a normal production during 40 years, you get: 1 (present level!) - 0.99517 = 0.00483 Or, 0.483 pmc added to the 42.42 = 42.903 pmc.

Instead of 42.903 pmc at the end of Babel we have 47.875 pmc.

47.875 - 42.42 = 5.455 pmc carbon production in 40 years. 5.455 / 0.483 = 11.294 (rounding off). That is how much faster carbon 14 was forming during Babel than now. If I have identified it right (see above).

"But these lifespans are outside the known extent of human longevity and seem to add a mythical or legendary quality to the narratives."

Olson's methodology is at fault in discounting the mythical and legendary qualities in narratives as non-factual.

Again, a method which is wrong about the Bible is not right about other things.

I believe Beowulf killed off two humanoid creatures (Grendel and his mother) and one dragon / reptiloid creature (hesitating between Pterodactyl and Dimetrodon) "with wings" (Dimetrodon sail could be taken by far off observers as folded wings).

I also believe Odin arrived at Uppsala and either pretended to be a god or was very badly misunderstood, presumablyt also by his heirs the Ynglings.

Hope you have no problem with this?

"He notes that “written records of how people interpreted the lifespans in Genesis do not appear until after ca. 300 BC” so one cannot be certain as to how the ancients interpreted lifespan due to the “time gap.” "

Reason why I for my part prefer to trust Beowulf and Ynglingasaga despite time gap of over 1000 years between Odin and Snorre, shorter but probably still there between Beowulf and his English poet.

Or Iliad and Odyssey (except for theology, which Homer as well as immediate observers were mistaken on).

As said, a method which shows itself wrong about the Bible is not right about other things.


Cited Bible verses from either DRBO or Haydock comment, 1859 edition.

mardi 2 janvier 2018

En suédois on dirait "justa clubben" (exception grosso modo Emmanuelle Chenu qui était vraiment juste)


Sur FB:
Wanted Community Paris

Hans-Georg Lundahl
29 décembre 2017, 15:56
Perdu :

Perdu ou volé? Vais-je le retrouver?

Dans la laverie à Créteil, ce matin, j'avais le sachet en étoffe de jean : je l'ai rattaché avec deux noeuds là où il était normalement attaché sur le trench-coat que je venais de laver.

Donc, il devait normalement être attaché là ... à travers le café dont le cafetier chinois m'a refusé de rester pour un café allongé sous prétexte de mon bagage. À travers le métro - à moins que je l'ai perdu à l'entrée par la porte. Métro 8 à République, métro 11 à rue des Vertus / Arts et métiers. Je suis allé à un bar, pour un café et aller aux toilettes, à la bibliothèque que j'ai découvert n'ouvrait qu'à 13 h., ensuite au parc, ensuite j'ai quitté le parc pour aller faire des courses au grand monoprix, ensuite à l'Armée du Salut / ESI St Martin, là où j'ai mon courrier. Pas de lettre de la famille. Pris un café en bas.

Je me suis assis dehors à la marche de Comédie truc ou machin (20-40 m de l'ESI), et je décide d'aller autre part.

Ensuite, je découvre que le sachet manque. Je retourne à la dame au courrier, non. En bas, non, pas non plus. Monoprix, je demande un gardien, non. Le bar, non. Le parc, deux des personnes que j'avais vues avant, non, pas là non plus. L'avais-je perdu quelque part en dehors la bibliothèque? Non, et pouisque c'est déjà 12:40, je reste.

Ce qui reste maintenant, c'est:

Comédie truc ou machin (Comédie française il me semble, quoique ça paraît optimiste), métro Arts et métiers, 11 à République, 8 à Créteil ... le métro là-bas aussi, ensuite le bar avec le cafetier chinois, ensuite traverser la rue pour regarder enfin si je l'ai perdu après l'avoir mal attaché dans la laverie elle-même.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bibl. Audoux
St Jean l'Apôtre
27.XII.2017

De mon blog:

New blog on the kid : Perdu ou volé? Vais-je le retrouver?
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.fr/2017/12/perdu-ou-vole-vais-je-le-retrouver.html


Stalh Sn
Je vois je vois.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Le sachet, déjà?

Emmanuelle Chenu
What do you mean by "sachet en étoffe de jeans" ?

Mymy Abd
oui

Juícy Chris
c'est le père fouras ou quoi 😂

Maud Brou
Je n’ai mais alors rien capté!!!

Aurelia DesMarty Humbert
[gif d'Emmanuel Macron en train de dire "je n'ai pas compris cette phrase"]

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Je suis venu ici, parce que telle amie m'a dit que vous pourriez aider à retrouver le sachet.

Peut-être qu'elle a mal compris le but de ce groupe, peut-être j'ai trouvé un homologue de celui que je cherchais?

Comédie de St Martin était encore fermé, le sachet en étoffe de jean n'était pas là ...

Emmanuelle Chenu
Sorry but people don't understand what "le sachet en étoffe de jean" is. Can you be more specific please ?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Je le ferais en bas.

Epo Elysium Nutshell
[gif avec "mais oui, c'est clair"]

Nolwenn Briand
[émotica de rigolade]

Epo Elysium Nutshell
Non mais c'est wtf cette publi

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Quelqu'un qui aurait trouvé l'objet entretemps?

Emmanuelle Chenu
I think that many of us here fail to picture what you mean exactly by "le sachet".

A sachet is something very small in french as le sachet de thé (tea bag).

Can you describe the object you lost please ?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Je connais le mot sachet de thé, mais un sachet c'est simplement moins grand qu'un sac, linguistiquement.

Je n'ai pas vraiment réfléchi à comment nommer l'objet que j'ai fabriqué.

Poche détachable va aussi.

Nolwenn Briand
Ils l'ont déposé a la poste ce matin, sur le comptoir, il arrivera demain, en voiture 16, sauf si le serveur est veuf.

Pierre de Crécy
Ca dépends, après 27 heures du matin, c'est plus le même créneau de livraison :/

Nolwenn Briand
Absolument surtout quand le chauffage tombe en panne, il a tendance a remonter par la glissière !

Isabelle DeCha
Kamoulox

Noura Noura
J ai rien compris. ...

Steven Debordeaux
J’ai rien compris

Aurelia DesMarty Humbert
[un gif sans texte]

La mer noire.

Emmanuelle Chenu
Are you looking for a bag ? A wallet ? Your translation of "le sachet" seems to be wrong.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Poche détachable, donc.

À SNCF [RATP, j'étais fatigué] j'ai donné "saccoche".

De toute manière, j'ai décrit son composition physique:

"en étoffe de jean"

Et son fonctionnement normale:

"je l'ai rattaché avec deux noeuds là où il était normalement attaché sur le trench-coat que je venais de laver."

La poche intérieure du trench coat me perdait trop souvent mon passeport et mes autres trucs (cartes de bibliothèques etc) quand je mettait le trench coat comme cape (avec des cordes ajoutés), donc j'ai fait une "poche détachable" en étoffe d'un jean que je refaisais en shorts.

Elle était suffisamment large pour un petit livre de poche.

Elle avait deux cordes attaches, une à la longueur en haut pour le rattacher au trench coat, une autre pour porter un bouton qui fermait "le dessus" de la poche.

Y a-t-il des détails qui sont encore pas trop clairs?

[Je crois que "corde" était juste!]

Magali Marquant
St Jean l'apôtre ?? Mais c'est Dieu qui vous envoit ?? Un message subliminal ?? Un sachet ?? Un sachet de coke ?? :p ;-)

Greg, Nadia, Stephane, Tahar encore un coup des illuminatis pour le réveillon ça hein !! :p ;-)

Nadia Saleh
Magali Marquant A « perdu » il m’avait déjà perdu!!!! [émotica, pas juste de rire]

Greg Hoffman
Mais sérieux il est fou celui la [émoticon de rire]

Au moins il fait rire je suis plié depuis 1h déjà j'en peux plus [émotica de rire]

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Ma signature comporte trois parties.

Première partie, le nom avec les prénoms avant.

"Hans-Georg Lundahl"

Deuxième partie, le lieux.

"Bibl. Audoux" = Bibliothèque Marguerite Audoux.

Troisième partie, la date, deux lignes:

"St Jean l'Apôtre / 27.XII.2017"

Je vous cite le martyrologe pour 27.XII:
27 Decembris Sexto Kalendas Januarii. Luna ... xxviij. A

*Apud Ephesum natalis sancti Joannis, Apostoli et Evangelistae, qui, post Evangelii scriptionem, post exsilii relegationem et Apocalypsim divinam, usque ad Trajani Principis tempora perseverans, totius Asiae fundavit rexitque Ecclesias, ac tandem, confectus senio, sexagesimo octavo post passionem Domini anno mortuus est, et juxta eamdem urbem sepultus.*

Constantinopoli sanctorum Confessorum Theodori et Theophanis fratrum, qui, a pueritia in Palaestinensi sancti Sabbae monasterio nutriti, cum postea pro sanctarum Imaginum cultu adversus Leonem Armenum strenue decertarent, ejus jussu verberibus affecti sunt et exsilio relegati. Sed, eodem Leone mortuo, rursus Theophilo Imperatori, qui eadem impietate detinebatur, constanter resistentes, verberibus iterum caesi et in exsilium pulsi sunt, ubi Theodorus in carcere exspiravit. Theophanes vero, pace demum Ecclesiae reddita, factus est Nicaenae civitatis Episcopus, et confessionis gloria praeclarus quievit in Domino.

Alexandriae sancti Maximi Episcopi, qui satis clarus et insignis titulo confessionis effectus est. Constantinopoli sanctae Nicaretes Virginis, quae, sub Arcadio Imperatore, claruit sanctitate.

Et alibi aliorum plurimorum sanctorum Martyrum et Confessorum, atque sanctarum Virginum. R. Deo gratias.

Donc,
un 27 Décembre c'est un jour de St Jean l'Apôtre.

Je ne me prends pas pour mon saint patron, mais j'observe son jour!

"Un sachet de coke ??"

Je ne sais pas si ce serait à votre goût, ce ne l'est pas pour le mien.

Passeport, cartes de bibliothèques etc.

Un petit "évangile de St Jean" (malheureusement traduction protestante).

Une domiciliation à ESI St Martin.

Une carte de photocopies qui marche sur une des bibliothèques, la BU de Nanterre-Paris X. 330 copies restants dessus.

Fleur van den Baviere
[gif "what are you talking about"]

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bienvenue à regarder un peu plus haut.

[J'avais ajouté l'explication en haut après de voir ce gif]

Fatou Bathily
[gif d'une femme ou fille qui roule les yeux en désapprobration]

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bienvenue à regarder un peu plus haut.

Emmanuelle Chenu
Tu as donc perdu une pochette en jean suffisamment grande pour y mettre un livre et attachée par deux ficelles.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Je ne dirais pas ficelles, je dirais cordes - ficelle c'est assez petit à mon avis ... bon, 5 mm ou un peu moins d'épaisseur, elle était double en haut. Cousue à la "pochette" si vous préférez.

[surfatigué, je ne suis pas sûr de la limite entre corde et ficelle en français, et je me dis après que j'avais peut-être tort - mais pas selon "Diamètre de corde : 2,3 mm"]

Emmanuelle Chenu
Bonne chance pour la retrouver. Retourne aux endroits où tu n'as pas vérifié.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Si vous avez lu la publication, il y a très peu de tels endroits. Même possibles. Entre République et Arts et Métiers, j'ai utilisé des différents côtés de la rue, c'est tout.

Je n'ai donc pas regardé devant l'Église de l'Ordre de Malte.

Maud Brou
Bonjour,
Si vous pouviez encore expliquer ce que vous recherchez de façon très terre à terre, ce serait gentil de votre part...

J’ai relu le post initial et je pensais arriver à déchiffrer, mais hélas, trou noir absolu 😳

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Imaginez une enveloppe ou une blague de tabac. Mais en étoffe de jeans. Taille : suffisemment pour un livre de poche, et encore un peu.

Le "dessus" ou "couvercle" qui se plie sur le devant a un trou de bouton. Dessous j'ai passé en double une corde ou ficelle (quelle que soit la bonne désignation pour un truc de 4-5 mm d'épaisseur, ce n'est pas une ficelle fine fine de toute manière) sur l'oeuil de laquelle j'ai cousu un ... bouton.

À la limite entre "dos" ou "derrière" et "dessus", j'ai cousu au milieu et aux deux coins encore une double ficelle qui dépassait avec un peu largeur, question de l'attacher aux doubles ficelles dans le trench coat. Encore une double ficelle y est aussi attaché, "en triangle", noeud en haut, qui permet de la rattacher alternativement à la ceinture.

Marlon Nguyen-Trong
J'ai encore moins compris ce post que mon cours de Droit International Privé, c'est fort.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Regardez les clarifications, s v p, ou donnez les phrases peu clairs.

Paulette Hilton
Pas tt lu. C est tt à fait indigeste à lire.

Pierre de Crécy
Comme ça vous êtes deux :p

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Paulette Hilton, je me trouve dans une situation précaire encore précarisée et vous trouvez à dire que c'est indigeste comme j'exprime ça?

N'avez pas trouvé l'objet qq part proche de la Mairie du III, Place de la République, ou Bibliothèque Marguérite Audoux?

Si vous l'aviez, ce serait un réponse plus sympa, et nettement!

Paulette Hilton
Je suis pas de Paris et au final, j'ai mm pas compris ce que vous avez perdu.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
[lien ici-même, ceci est une mise à jour]

Ah, pas de Paris? Une curieuse?

Ça marche aussi. Dans le lien il y a les clarifications déjà faites.

Eug JM
[émoticon de yeux en deux lignes raides et de bouche d'une ligne raide]

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Fatigué aussi. Prends encore une heure ou deux de sommeil, ou peut-être un café.

Vous savez quelqu'un m'avait présenté ce groupe comme une possibilité de retrouver un objet trouvé en faisant appel à davantage d'yeux.

Je commence à me poser la question, si la suggestion était une blague - et si l'objet aurait été volé (au moins momentanément) dans le but de m'exposer à cette blague ...

Si vous trouvez mon style littéraire "indigeste" allez sur twitter, ici j'ai posé une question à propos un peu d'objets de valeurs qui m'appartiennent, et on me harcèle à propos mon style littéraire parce qu'on a eu des profs dont les modèles sont très récents et probablement de la poésie très courte.

Yetta Jerry
Apparement cette personne aurait perdue une pochette en jean assez grande pour contenir un livre dans cette dite pochette il y a des papiers.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
correct!

S. K. [anonymisé]
J'ai balancé la pochette à la poubelle après avoir pris la drogue.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
et donné à la police, j'espère?

d'ailleurs, je ne l'avais pas mis dedans moi-même, ça devrait être planté après, dans ce cas

Les documents seraient donc déjà enlevés, avant que vous le faites, mais ma couture vous a tellement déplu que vous l'avez jetée dans la poubelle?

lundi 1 janvier 2018

Ending with Ivan Shiek and Timothy Bradley


With Ivan Shiek on Continuity of Church and Accusations against the Catholic one (Ten Commandments and Accusation ag. Papacy) · With Ivan Shiek and Glenda Badger on Continuity of the Church · Continuing with Ivan Shiek · Ending with Ivan Shiek and Timothy Bradley

Ivan Shiek
Hans-Georg Lundahl, there is an authority greater than any church or pope. It is by that authority that I am able to say what I say.

Jesus Christ was around Augustus Caesar's time, which is also when Julius was a centurion. Apart from those worldly men I know nobody else.

Hans-Georg Lundahl, I would like to hear your explanation of God being a spirit but not "unphysical".

This is going where spirits can interact with the physical world but the physical world cannot interact with spirits? What do you believe causes that and which law of nature or law of God is that following?

Hans-Georg Lundahl,

"And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed." Luke 2:1 KJV

The only empire at the time was the Roman Empire. He was emperor at the time of Jesus Christ's birth according to Luke and Simeon (Luke 2:25).

"But when Paul had appealed to be reserved unto the hearing of Augustus, I commanded him to be kept till I might send him to Caesar." Acts 25:21 KJV

"And when it was determined that we should sail into Italy, they delivered Paul and certain other prisoners unto one named Julius, a centurion of Augustus' band." Acts 27:1 KJV

Okay, Julius was not in the time of Jesus Christ like I thought, he was after. But Augustus Caesar was emperor at Jesus's birth and resurrection, all the way to Paul's time.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"there is an authority greater than any church or pope. It is by that authority that I am able to say what I say."

OK, it is by that authority the Church is able to say what it says, and it is by the Church we access that authority as to our souls.

God is a spirit, but since 2000 years ALSO a human soul and a human body.

So, you still have a gap between I C. AD and, perhaps Reformation - that is about 14 centuries?

"But Augustus Caesar was emperor at Jesus's birth and resurrection, all the way to Paul's time."

Tiberius was Caesar in the time of Christ's Resurrection, and Nero got Peter and Paul martyred in 64 AD.

Ivan Shiek
Hans-Georg Lundahl,
"'But Augustus Caesar was emperor at Jesus's birth and resurrection, all the way to Paul's time.'

Tiberius was Caesar in the time of Christ's Resurrection, and Nero got Peter and Paul martyred in 64 AD."


Not according to scriptures, in Acts it says Paul wanted to have a hearing by Augustus Caesar.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
You refer to Acts 25:21.

Here is Haydock on it:

"Ver. 21. Augustus Nero, who was then the Roman emperor."

http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id140.html

Note, the verse does nowhere say "Caesar Augustus" or even "Augustus Caesar", but it uses "Augustus" and "Caesar" as synonyms. Nero is not the same person as Caesar Augustus in "And it came to pass, that in those days there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that the whole world should be enrolled." (Luke 2:1).

So, your being led by the spirit in reading Bible, the results make me wonder "which spirit".

Ivan Shiek
Hans-Georg Lundahl, "Caesar" was the first emperor's first name? The Bible never went by last names. It was always a name with a title or title and a name. Only time they mention a family is when they say a "house": House of David.

Do not forget, the New Testament may have been written in Greek but it was written by Jewish Apostles or of them. Even Apostle Paul claimed he was a Jew by heritage.

Hans-Georg Lundahl,
"So, your being led by the spirit in reading Bible, the results make me wonder 'which spirit'."

Careful, you know blaspheming the Holy Spirit is the only unforgivable sin. The way the Pharisees blasphemed the Spirit was by saying Jesus Christ had an "evil spirit". Don't make the same mistake.

Timothy Bradek
"As it is written, eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that (L)ove Him. But God hath revealed them unto us by His Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? Even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned (1Cor.2)."

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Ivan Shiek, I was wondering whether your bad history and bad exegesis was among the things you got from whatever or whoever is your spirit.

Timothy Bradek, fair enough for the grace content of the Faith, but not fair enough for the fact that those who have the Faith are an outwardly visible group at each moment between Pentecost and the Second Coming (and the ten days before Pentecost as well).

// "Caesar" was the first emperor's first name? //

Caesar was the L A S T name of Julius Caesar (the one in Asterix), the S E C O N D L A S T name of "Caesar Augustus" after his adoption by former (Gaius Julius Caesar adopted Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus, whom the Senate gave the title "Augustus").

// The Bible never went by last names. //

Except when dealing with Romans. Pilate is also a last name.

// It was always a name with a title or title and a name. //

Augustus was a title. Caesar was a name becoming a title.

Ivan Shiek
Hans-Georg Lundahl,

I have no degree in any subject, I am not ordained by any man, I have no power of politics, and I am not of noble birth.

"Just look at yourselves, brothers — look at those whom God has called! Not many of you are wise by the world’s standards, not many wield power or boast noble birth. But God chose what the world considers nonsense in order to shame the wise; God chose what the world considers weak in order to shame the strong;" 1 Corinthians 1:26-27

Hans-Georg Lundahl,
You will know them by their fruit. If the fruit of my spirit bares bad fruit, then I am of the Evil One. But have I been trying to lead you away from God, or closer to Him? No, I have been trying to open your eyes to the truth, not for my benefit or pleasure, but for yours. So that you may claim God in Heaven as your true Father with a sincere heart. And call no man on earth as your "father".

Timothy Bradek
Hans-Georg Lundahl Fair enough for the grace content? This is not re: grace, but the difference between the "natural man" and being born from above, or the spiritual man, who .. is born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. Jesus Christ says that a man must be born again to see or enter the Kingdom of God (see Jn.3:5-7).

[A diagram I may have misinterpreted : in this life we may still be swinging between old and new man, of which the former necessarily sins - though not in every act - and the latter is not in and of itself sinning]

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Timothy Bradek, you know [referring to diagram], for one thing "cannot sin" is not a state on earth, but in purgatory and heaven, and "can ONLY sin" (not cannot avoid sin, but cannot make acts other than sins) is a state also not on earth but in hell.

For another, supposing I am not born again, and therefore cannot (on your view) even see the Kingdom of Heaven even on Earth, you would presumably be born again and be able to tell me where it was in Vth and VIIth C.

Btw, what Christ told Nicodemus was he had to get baptised to get to Heaven, not that he had to become only mystically part of the elect in order to see where Heaven's ambassadors on Earth were.

Ivan Shiek "Not many of you are wise by the world’s standards, not many wield power or boast noble birth."

Not many of you = > still some.

So, you can't tell me who in Vth or VIIth C. was the Church, maybe one of those in your Church who does have some secular knowledge of history can tell you.

I mean, by now you have had time to ask.

Ivan Shiek "But have I been trying to lead you away from God, or closer to Him?"

Away from His Church and therefore, even if you don't get it, in reality away from Him.

Timothy Bradek
What in Tar-Nation are you babbling about, and what is that hellinski stuff. Here's what God says about your sin: "Wherefore, as by one man (Adam) sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: and come short of the glory of God (Rom.3&5)." Even King David, under inspiration cries out, "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me (Ps.51:5)."

Ivan Shiek
Timothy Bradek, I have been contending the faith with Hans-Georg Lundahl for days, he is too stubborn and set in the way he was taught. The only way for him to see the truth is for him to be born again and seek God's Kingdom.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Timothy Bradek All have sinned is NOT equal to "all have done nothing excet sin" as you would have it to.

Ivan Shiek, I am born again by baptism.

The stubborness is on your side, you are SO demanding on everyone accepting what you know of history of 1517 - 21, but when it comes to Vth and VIIth Centuries (look them up on wiki!) you don't need to know anything, since "not many among you are learned".

No, it is n ot for the faith you have contended, whether you know it or not, but for a parody of it, as proven by Matthew 28.

Ivan Shiek
Hans-Georg Lundahl, God bless you and may He correct us both to His truth, amen.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Thank you for a good debate.

mercredi 27 décembre 2017

Continuing with Ivan Shiek


With Ivan Shiek on Continuity of Church and Accusations against the Catholic one (Ten Commandments and Accusation ag. Papacy) · With Ivan Shiek and Glenda Badger on Continuity of the Church · Continuing with Ivan Shiek · Ending with Ivan Shiek and Timothy Bradley

To clarify : this continues subthread II on previous, not subthread III.

Ivan Shiek
Here is another passage that speaks of worshipping God and how we must worship Him. I believe it throws out the "God in the church" theory.

“Our fathers worshipped on this mountain, but you people say that the place where one has to worship is in Yerushalayim.” Yeshua (Jesus) said, “Lady, believe me, the time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Yerushalayim. You people don’t know what you are worshipping; we worship what we do know, because salvation comes from the Jews (Jesus is born a Jew and brings salvation to all that worship God). But the time is coming — indeed, it’s here now — when the true worshippers will worship the Father spiritually and truly, for these are the kind of people the Father wants worshipping him. God is spirit; and worshippers must worship him spiritually and truly.”
John 4:20-24

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Yes, it is speaking of the time when the Church was becoming Catholic (over the whole earth) and it is saying the Jewish continuity (up to Christ) trumps the Samarian discontinuity.

I know.

Timothy Bradek
Ivan, I'm sorry but Fb doesn't include my comment w/ your latest reply, so I'm unable to recall from memory what exactly I said. Anyway my friend, Merry Christ.. mas to you and yours and a thank you to my Saviour who died for our sins.. and made me complete in Him and He in me, and we are in the Father in Heaven. Rejoice, again I say rejoice in Christ Jesus, Amen? Amen.. glory to God!!!

Ivan Shiek
Hans-Georg Lundahl, you are so off base. If it was speaking about Catholics, why do they still worship in buildings? If you understand what Christ said in that verse you wouldn't think of Catholics.

Christ broke all the old ways of worship. We no longer worship God in buildings but in spirit and truth.

The Jewish worship is no more and the Catholic's worship is no more. God is not physical, He is spiritual.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"If it was speaking about Catholics, why do they still worship in buildings?"

Building-S.

In Jewish worship, there was exactly ONE building they could worship in. Key difference.

If you insist one must worship God outdoors, well, I see that as a retake of Mount Gadarim.

As to God being spiritual : since 2000 years and some more, this no longer implies "not physical".

Ivan Shiek
Arguing with someone who does not have the Spirit and it's gift of discernment of scripture, is foolish.

When does spirit not mean spirit?

Hans-Georg Lundahl, here is some homework for you.

By who's authority am I able to say that Jesus Christ is my Lord and Messiah, and the Holy Spirit is in me?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"When does spirit not mean spirit?"

I don't know where you spent grammar school, but I don't recommend the place.

I never said God being spirit doesn't mean God being spirit. I did and do say that since 2000 years God being spirit does not mean God is unphysical.

"By who's authority am I able to say that Jesus Christ is my Lord and Messiah, and the Holy Spirit is in me?"

I don't know that you have that authority, but if you do, you are heading for the Catholic Church, sooner or later. And if you stay out of the Church, you have no authority to say the Holy Spirit is in you.

B u t, whether you can or can't say the Holy Spirit is in you, you should be able to point to someone else the Holy Spirit is in - including was in when they were alive and stays in their soul, which is with Christ. At least probable candidates.

You are still behind when it comes to those from Vth C. By the way, St Winifrede is from VIIth C.:

Creation vs Evolution : Living Stones
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.fr/2017/12/living-stones.html

mercredi 20 décembre 2017

With Ivan Shiek and Glenda Badger on Continuity of the Church


With Ivan Shiek on Continuity of Church and Accusations against the Catholic one (Ten Commandments and Accusation ag. Papacy) · With Ivan Shiek and Glenda Badger on Continuity of the Church · Continuing with Ivan Shiek · Ending with Ivan Shiek and Timothy Bradley

Under the general thread starting in previous post. Giving these subthreads numbers II and III.

II

Ivan Shiek
John 12:48-50 Those who reject me and don’t accept what I say have a judge — the word which I have spoken will judge them on the Last Day. For I have not spoken on my own initiative, but the Father who sent me has given me a command, namely, what to say and how to say it. And I know that his command is eternal life. So what I say is simply what the Father has told me to say.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
One of the things he said was, there would be a Church between 401 and 500 AD (assuming the world didn't end first, which it didn't) and that it would be visible.

Ivan Shiek
False, the Church of God is not a place, it is a people.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Where exactly did I call the Church of God "a place"?

As to people, it would be a visible people. [Matthew 5:14]

Ivan Shiek
Hans-Georg Lundahl, "One of the things he said was, there would be a Church between 401 and 500 AD (assuming the world didn't end first, which it didn't) and that it would be visible."

Visible means physical, so no, the Church is not visible but spiritual.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Matthew 5:14 means it is visible.

A Church which is "spiritual" only is not to be found in NT.

Ivan Shiek
Hans-Georg Lundahl, if that is true, then this verse is also visible:

In the same way, let your light shine before people, so that they may see the good things you do and praise your Father in heaven. Matthew 5:16

If that light is visible, then how do we not see a light from people?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Indeed, it is.

It need not be visible in every Catholic, but it must be visible:

* in lots of Catholic saints (as per canonised and also not canonised)
* in the known social mores of Catholics as compared with other denominations and religions.

The saints must be documentable people, their acts documentable acts, and the social mores, like freeing slaves, must be documentable social mores.

Ivan Shiek
Hans-Georg Lundahl, it is talking about a metaphor not a literal.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Cannot be hidden" is not metaphoric.

"built on a rock" is same metaphor as in Matthew 16:18.

Ivan Shiek
Can you hide joy? Yet people see that you are happy.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Well, document people between Jan 1 401 and Dec 31 500 who were joyful - the people I cited were.

Ivan Shiek
The light Jesus speaks of is the joy of having salvation from hell. You cannot contain that joy, it is from our Father in Heaven.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I am not speaking of men "containing" the joy, I am speaking of men recorded in history SHOWING it.

Hint : among the 7000 in Israel, you can cite at least two names : Elijah and Elisha.

Ivan Shiek
We are to proclaim it on the rooftops that we are saved from hell. That proclamation will make others envious for sure.
It is the beautiful robe given to Jacob that made his other brothers envious.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
OK, who exactly was proclaiming from rooftops between 1 Jan 401 and 31 Dec 500?

I gave my names - you give yours.

[It seems a comment with a list of saints from 5th C. was deleted. - Nope, it was on subthread I, here is subthread II]

Ivan Shiek
No idea, it was a message to all believers. If someone did as God instructed, then glory to God.

Hans-Georg Lundahl, you are giving glory to men by mentioning them, as if they mean something. The only one that deserves glory is God our Father in Heaven, Jesus Christ.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"No idea, it was a message to all believers. If someone did as God instructed, then glory to God."

Indeed glory to God, but also historic memory to these men.

You can't have men shouting from rooftops and then asking other men, like the Camel in an Arab proverb, who climbed into the Minaret "please don't look at me, I am hidden!"

Also, it was not directly to all believers, since He did not adress it to all, but to His chosen clergy among them, "the twelve" or right back then "the eleven".

"you are giving glory to men by mentioning them, as if they mean something."

OK, take a g o o d look at the title of the group we are in, first of all.

"Kent Hovind, Evolutionist's Nemesis"



Is some admin giving "glory to men"? Or, are we perhaps dealing with the fact Kent Hovind argued good for some things on behalf of Christ. In that case one might perhaps also mention the men who did so in the 5th C. AD.

You want Kent Hovind for fulfilling the promise in late XXth and early XXIst C.? OK.

You want Spurgeon to do so for XIXth C.? OK.

Whom do you take for early XVIth? Luther, Zwingli or Münzer? Or all three, despite them being in disagreement on why the Catholic Church was wrong? Fine, if you insist.

And back in XIIIth, perhaps you take Dante because he was a fine poet who put a Pope in Hell in his poem? Or Nogaret who arrested same Pope? I mean, you have no nproblem with taking Shaun Willcock as a Christian now, have you?

O ... K ...

But I am asking about Vth C. And you seem too cringy to answer the simple question. You seem intent on proving first of all that whoever in Vth C. was the fulfilment of Christ's promise, it can't have been the Catholics, and apart from that it doesn't matter who it was ...

No, that is not OK anymore, that is cowardice. You are acting like a hypocrite caught redhanded in lying and equivocating.

Ivan Shiek
Never heard Spurgeon's sermons. I did listen to Paul Washer though. Though I regard them both as my equals.

I consider Dante's work to be fiction and in the same category as the Greek gods; a myth.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Whether you consider Spurgeon as your equal after he - on your view - already made it to Heaven, or not is not the point.

The point is, on your view, Spurgeon is someone you can name for XIXth C. as on your view a Christian.

Whom are you considering from Vth C. as a Christian, and what was the group he "enjoyed" outside the commandment "breaking" Catholics?

" I consider Dante's work to be fiction"

Divina Commedia is theological sci fi.

But the point is some were ready to take his word about why Pope Boniface VIII deserved to go to Hell.

I don't consider that as fiction, I consider that as, possibly, Dante misunderstanding Pope Boniface.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
And, whom are you naming as Christians of the XIII and XIV C.?

Ivan Shiek
Hans-Georg Lundahl, I do not know who lived in that time period.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Ah, but how can you know Catholic Church was "corrupt" if you don't know who lived then?

Ivan Shiek
Hans-Georg Lundahl, I only know about the Crusades back then. That is corruption.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
No, it is not.

Ivan Shiek
Christ's directive was to spread the Word of God through patience and longsuffering, not murdering anyone who didn't listen.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Well, you don't care of history, how come you care for one version of what happened - and the wrong one?

Ivan Shiek
Very well, God will judge on the Last Day.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Indeed. He will judge if your ignorance excuses you or if it is feigned.

The deletion of two of my comments - one with a list of people I consider Christian in Vth C and one with a directory to what Pope Pius XI REALLY said (with dates not including 30 April 1922) seems to indicate someone is being less than candid.

Ivan Shiek
Hans-Georg Lundahl, do the Popes claim to be the vicar of Christ?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
The vicar of Christ, yes.

They do not continue and add "which means I am God on earth".

Ivan Shiek
Hans-Georg Lundahl,

"the original notion a vicar is of 'earthly representative of Christ'" - Wikipedia.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Yes, representative of, not Himself.

Ivan Shiek
If the Popes say it means something else, then that is what one would call "turning the truth into a lie".

Hans-Georg Lundahl
The liar is the one who is putting non-genuine words in the mouth of a Pope.

Btw, one of my comments was apparently not deleted, just not exactly where I was looking for it.

Ivan Shiek
Hans-Georg Lundahl, are the Popes claiming divinity or are they saying they are like Christ and only follow His way?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
They are neither.

They are claiming to be sent by Christ.

Ivan Shiek
Were they sent from Heaven?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
No, from Ascension Day and Pentecost Day, through unbroken continuity.

When Christ was last walking on Earth, when the Holy Spirit descended in tongues of flame.

Ivan Shiek
Hans-Georg Lundahl, all of Christ's followers claim the same. That we are chosen by God to do His work.

We claim to be the sons of God.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
But you do not have a clergy with Apostolic Succession, and also, you can produce none you consider as yours for some earlier centuries, as you admitted, so your claim is very moot, or rather spurious.

Ivan Shiek
Our claim comes from our Father in Heaven. Having repented our sins to God, Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. We proclaim with our lips and bondage to Him, that He is our Lord and Savior. Only Him.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
He proclaimed He was staying with his Apostles, which includes their successors.

Where the bishop is, there is the Church, and where the Church is, there is Christ and where Christ is, there is eternal life.

Epilogue?
Added next day, St Thomas Apostle, 21.XII.2017

Ivan Shiek
Hans-Georg Lundahl, so you put God in your box?

How convenient to pull Him out only when you need Him, then put Him back in.

Hans-Georg Lundahl, there will be nothing left of your churches. Not even a stone on the ground by the time He returns.

Hans-Georg Lundahl, let me give you an analogy of what you just described to me by your comment: "Where the bishop is, there is the Church, and where the Church is, there is Christ and where Christ is, there is eternal life."

Let's say my insects got the idea to shove me in their building, would I let them or squish them?

Hans-Georg Lundahl,

Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.
Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.
For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
1 Corinthians 3:16-19

This is to all believers.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
You know, God put Himself "in our box" as you like to call it.

Your outburst reminds me of "the wrath of Tash falls from above" ...

Our Faith is not tied to a specific building.

But there is a prophecy you may be able to take away the daily sacrifice for - was it 3 and a half years, or sth? Or was it 2300 days before the sanctuary was cleaned?

That is, if you are Assyrian enough. Otherwise, perhaps someone else will do what you called out for.

Yes, we know WE are the temple of God, we Catholics are.

Even briefer
Epilogue on December 22:

Ivan Shiek
Hans-Georg Lundahl, I do not put faith in man, only God. Your comment about Assyria, was that related to my statement about your churches being destroyed? I couldn't understand that fully. Who are the Assyrians?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
[Daniel 11:31]

[+ linked to this and previous post]

Ivan Shiek
To answer your blog, it is not only joy that we are commanded to show, but truth and love also.
I do not say love in the modern sense of sexual nature, but family love. Family love also does correction and discipline to those who do wrong.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Indeed, and Leo X showed Luther than kind of love.

I am a bit confused about "to answer my blog" - the blog is our debate from here.

And the question at hand is not whether it was enough for St Genevieve to have joy, the question is whether if I point to her as an example, you are pointing to someone else at the time as being a fulfilment, visibly, of Christ's promise in Matthew 28.

Continued from here
on:

Continuing with Ivan Shiek

III

Glenda Badger


Hans-Georg Lundahl
I'd like to know when and for what he is supposed to have massacred the population of Palestrina.

Glenda Badger
Hans-Georg Lundahl GOOGLE IT

Glenda Badger
Hans-Georg Lundahl It should be borne in mind that one Pope (Innocent III), in just one day, murdered more Christians than all the Roman Caesars put together. http://www.khouse.org/articles/1995/79/

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Look, I'd really hope the internet is not all that littered with this that it is very easy to find.

So, what is your source?

Glenda Badger
Hans-Georg Lundahl History books - it's a well known fact bro

Hans-Georg Lundahl Research the inquisition ...

[gif : literaly the stuff of nightmares]

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Not where I come from.

I had a 5 - when the grades system was 1-5 - in ten subjects, one of which was history.

No massacre of Palestrina [see image] mentioned there.

Also, looks like a military thing, not a clerical one.

Also, I very much did look up the inquisition and you are wrong.

I mean, if you mean the Inquisitions of the Catholic Church, not the modern counterparts (psychiatry, KGB and CIA, CPS).

Glenda Badger
Hans-Georg Lundahl Tell me what the inquisition was about, who was involved and what happened.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Short? Very short?

I'll take two examples of stats.

In one stat, the number of "condemned" varies from 200 down per locality in Southern France (not sure if they were all burnings, but could be, those were the hotter days of Inquisition - but actually I think number includes those who recanted and were given penances or who were held in prison).

The thing about it is, Albigensians outnumbered Waldensians. Now, you might consider Waldensians as fully Christian, I do not. You might consider them as your counterpart, fairly possible (as long as you are not Anglicans and Lutherans).

But Albigensians who believed in "two principles" and in two opposed creators?

No.

Other stat, Bernard Guy in Toulouse judged in 930 cases, of which 45 led someone to the bonfire and 45 someone's effigy to it. 300 or so were imprisonments - he was giving them a chance to become Catholics. 145 or so were his freeing people from prison.

Other cases involved imposition of penances (including pilgrimages and crusades) or destruction of property.

Citing both from memory, but the cases of Bernard Guy (which Charles Henry Lea cites only the condemnatory of) are cited several works and a few places on the internet.

The first stat I was looking up by accident in Charles Henry Lea while looking for something else. I have memorised it less well and not seen it outside Lea.

In all these cases, whereever someone was burnt, the Catholic Church reasoned that if he had sinned against the faith and failed to repent:

* he deserved it as per OT laws on stoning and their correspondence to natural law (our first duty is to God, heresy is worse than murder)
* he had been given time to repent and adequate admonition
* it was a kind of emergency in which heretics inimical to Catholicism (as Albigensians highly were) were threatening to get the upper hand if not checked in time (and had gotten it locally)
* heresy prefigures the Antichrist, so, by burning them, one was post-poning the coming of Antichrist a bit - through keeping society Catholic.

This last is actually so important that I consider the times are too late for reintroducing it.

So, out of 930 judged over several years in Toulouse, 45 made it to the fire. Does not sound like the working of a Church where someone would massacre - as a clergyman - whole villages for heresy or things.

Now, back to massacre of Palestrina.

I found a reference:

"In his Inferno, Dante portrayed Boniface VIII as destined for hell, where simony is punished, although Boniface was still alive at the fictional date of the poem's story. Boniface's eventual destiny is revealed to Dante by Pope Nicholas III, whom he meets. A bit later in the Inferno, Dante reminds of the pontiff's feud with the Colonna family, which led him to demolish the city of Palestrina, killing 6,000 citizens and destroying both the home of Julius Caesar and a shrine to Mary. Boniface's ultimate fate is confirmed by Beatrice when Dante visits Heaven. It is notable that he does not adopt Guillaume de Nogaret's aspersion that Boniface VIII was a 'sodomite', however, and does not assign him to that circle of hell (although simony was placed in the eighth circle of fraud, below sodomy, in the seventh circle of violence, designating it as a worse offense and taking precedence above activities of sodomy)."

It seems, Nogaret had his reasons for calling Boniface VIII a sodomite, he was captruing the Pope to humiliate the papacy.

As to the massacre in Palestrina - if not a partisan lie or exaggeration by Dante who was pro-Empire and anti-Pope partisan, is described as a feud.

This would mean it was sth Boniface VIII was involved in as political leader of Papal States, not as Pope of the Church.

It could also have been made up by Nogaret ... or not ...

But it is definitely not in a normal history book in Sweden.

Here is one Catholic take on Palestrina affair:

"Boniface made the mistake of developing enemies among the Colonnas, a noble and important Roman family with extensive land holdings and powerful influence within the Church. Boniface became involved in a dispute over Colonna family property in which the younger brothers accused Cardinal Jacopo Colonna of misappropriating their inheritance. The pope's intervention was resented by all of the brothers and the dispute developed into a two year confrontation which included robbery, murder, a small war that Boniface called a "crusade," and the wholesale destruction of the town of Palestrina. In July of 1297, during the course of this disturbance, the Colonna cardinals Jacopo and Pietro issued formal decrees blaming Boniface for the illegal (so they claimed) resignation of Celestine V, and holding Boniface to be an anti-pope. It fit Philip's purposes well to have two cardinals of the Roman Church calling for an ecumenical council to depose Boniface and warning all concerned not to "obey or heed . . . this man who does not possess the authority of the supreme pontiff."[51] Boniface had been elected with the cooperation of the Colonnas; they would prove to be powerful enemies."

Not exactly [anything linking] Boniface to the destruction of the city.

[Fixed a garbled text.]

http://www.rosarychurch.net/history/boniface_8.html

As to Catholic encyclopedia, it says nothing about Palestrina, but gives some indication of his indirect involvement (and probably involuntary one) in a ruthless management of Florence:

"The efforts made by Boniface VIII to restore order in Florence and Tuscany proved equally futile. During the closing years of the thirteenth century the great Guelph city was torn asunder by the violent dissensions of the Bianchi and the Neri. The Bianchi or Whites, of Ghibelline tendencies, represented the popular party and contained some of the most distinguished men in Florence--Dante Alighieri, Guido Cavalcanti, and Dino Compagni. The Neri or Blacks, professing the old Guelph principles, represented the nobles or aristocracy of the city. Each party as it gained the ascendancy sent its opponents into exile. After a vain attempt to reconcile the leaders of the two parties, Vieri dei Cerchi and Corso Donati, the pope sent Cardinal Matteo d'Acquasparta as papal legate to mediate and establish peace at Florence. The legate met with no success and soon returned to Rome leaving the city under an interdict. Towards the end of 1300, Boniface VIII summoned to his aid Charles of Valois, brother of Philip the Fair. Appointed Captain-General of Church and invested with the governorship of Tuscany (in consequence of the vacancy of the empire), the French prince was given full powers to effect the pacification of the city. Valois arrived at Florence on 1 November, 1301. But instead of acting as the official peacemaker of the pope, he conducted himself as a ruthless destroyer. After five months of his partisan administration, the Neri were supreme and many of the Bianchi exiled and ruined--among them Dante Alighieri. Beyond drawing on himself and the pope the bitter hatred of the Florentine people, Charles had accomplished nothing. (Levi, Bonifazio VIII e le sue relazioni col commune di Firenze, in Archiv. Soc. Rom. di Storia Patria, 1882, V, 365-474. Cf. Franchetti, Nuova Antologia, 1883, 23-38.) It may be noted here that many scholars of repute seriously question Dante's famous embassy to Boniface VIII in the latter part of 1301. The only contemporary evidence to support the poet's mission is a passage in Dino Compagni, and even that is looked upon by some as a later interpolation."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02662a.htm

Sounds as if Dante could have had a motive for crediting Boniface with ruthless management of cities - and not one actually proving Boniface guilty.

Ivan Shiek
Any murder, no matter if they are "clergy" or not, is punishable by death. Have any of them repented to God for their sins?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Ivan Shiek, the point was not whether there were sinners back then. There were. The point is not whether people went clearly to Hell back then. Some did.

The point is, whether Boniface VIII, as Pope a clear authority for the Catholic Church, was one of these or if he stayed clear of that.

The laymen who were appointed to end a civil war in Florence and abused positions where Boniface VIII had made the mistake to trust them are NOT authority figures in the Catholic Church. Kennedy was a President of US who was a Catholic. JF, I mean. But he was a layman, he has not been canonised as Saint, he is not in any way an authority figure for Catholicism.

Ivan Shiek if you considered the Inquisition as murderers, for what?

For death penalty being applied on their judgements?

You just mentioned death penalty yourself. The OT "inquisition" applied death penalty by stoning for the crime of blasphemy.

Or for their victims being innocent? Some were, certainly St Joan of Arc, possibly Savonarola (St Filippo Neri thought so - Savonarola had a great Marian devotion, btw).

But before you declare whole swathes of Albigensians and Waldensians as innocent, who were the Albigensians or Waldensians of the 5th C.? If they were the real Church of Christ, why are they absent from the 5th C.?

Ivan Shiek
I have no clue who those groups were. That is not important, the Lord Jesus Christ chooses His people. He is not a Pope. He is God.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
You have no clue in what Church Christ fulfilled his promises between January 1 401 and December 31 500? [Back in the other more general discussion]

If that is not important, why do you single out one answer, with much history for it, as being excluded?

Ivan Shiek
A simple reason, was the Holy Spirit in it?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I am definitely saying yes, the Holy Spirit was in the Catholic Church and is so to this day (excepting certain modernists).

So, if you disagree with my answer, don't tell me just where the Holy Spirit, on your view "wasn't", but tell me where He w a s!

Ivan Shiek
Hans-Georg Lundahl, that would be a lie. The Holy Spirit is not present where there is corruption. Amend the corruption, throw out the ones responsible to be killed by nonbelievers, only then will the blemish be corrected.

And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you.
For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed,
In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,
To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?
Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
1 Corinthians 5:2-8 KJV

No, Paul is not talking about the past for the Holy Spirit is present today and desires you to be without blemish.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"The Holy Spirit is not present where there is corruption."

Not in the soul of a corrupt person, but sometimes in societies where some persons are corrupt.

"Amend the corruption, throw out the ones responsible to be killed by nonbelievers, only then will the blemish be corrected."

One can amend corruption in less drastic ways than that, right?

"No, Paul is not talking about the past for the Holy Spirit is present today and desires you to be without blemish."

What was future in the time of St Paul is partly past now.

Also, St Paul did care that in the then already past the Holy Spirit had spoken through prophets, and not through for instance Pharao's magicians.

Your position about the Vth C. is as if in the time of Exodus you could name Jammes and Mambres, but not Moses and Aaron, the evil prophets of Baal, but not Elijah and Elisha.

Ivan Shiek
Hans-Georg Lundahl, I do not answer because I have no clue what you are talking about, I have not studied Catholic history. I only study the Bible and apply it to my daily life.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
You only study the Bible and you still know of Spurgeon, who is not named in it?

You pretend the promise of Christ was kept in Vth C. outside Catholic Church - and you refrain from speaking of Vth C. because it is "Catholic History"?

You are aware that there is a mathematical reason why XIXth C. (with Spurgeon) is called "nineteenth" and not for instance "second"?

There do come a few centuries between the first century when NT was written (but not yet definitely collected as to which books were included) and our own.

The promise of Christ in Matthew 28 applies to these centuries too.

Catholic History? Maybe - if the Catholic Church is the true Church of Christ!

Ivan Shiek
History does not matter to me, I do not study it. All I know is that they existed in our timeline.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Well, history matters to me, and I want to know who "existed in our timeline".

[Seems at the rest Shiek wants to goof:]

Ivan Shiek
I also know the Great Flood ended in 01/01/601 B.C. because Noah wrote it (or Moses wrote it of Noah).

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"601 BC"?

Ivan Shiek
Yes, it will take a while to dig up that passage but it is there.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
More like 2957 BC.

Moses wrote down the testimony of Noah, which had been left orally or in writing, along with others, similarily left there before him.

This means, Moses cared about history.

Ivan Shiek
I posted my find on my wall back in 2015 or 2016.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Hmmm ... interesting.

Probably a wrong find, but still interesting.

Ivan Shiek
I'll try to find the passage again.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I am not running away.

Ivan Shiek
Hans-Georg Lundahl,
And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth.
Genesis 7:6

...

And it came to pass in the six hundredth and first year (601), in the first month, the first day of the month (01/01/601), the waters were dried up from off the earth: and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and, behold, the face of the ground (local area) was dry.
And in the second month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month (02/27/601), was the earth (global) dried.
Genesis 8:13-14

Hans-Georg Lundahl
This means that Flood occurred in 601 age of Noah, not in 601 BC.

With Ivan Shiek on Continuity of Church and Accusations against the Catholic one (Ten Commandments and Accusation ag. Papacy)


With Ivan Shiek on Continuity of Church and Accusations against the Catholic one (Ten Commandments and Accusation ag. Papacy) · With Ivan Shiek and Glenda Badger on Continuity of the Church · Continuing with Ivan Shiek · Ending with Ivan Shiek and Timothy Bradley

Ivan Shiek
15 décembre, 16:27


(Subthread I)

Hans-Georg Lundahl
You know, I thought this group was about Kent Hovind vs Evolution, not about his friend Jack Chick vs Catholicism.

Ivan Shiek
All Christians are like-minded.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Kent Hovind is on a subject Christian, namely in being against Evolution.

Jack Chick is on a subject un-Christian, in being against Catholicism.

Ivan Shiek
No, Catholicism in un-Christian. You do not even go by the name "Christian", you go by "Catholic".

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Among whom ....?

Ivan Shiek
Among the Lord.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Er, no.

The Lord has said he doesn't consider certain adherent of Judaism, persecuting Catholics, to be Jews.

Were you confusing Jews with Catholics, or were you confusing yourself with the Lord?

Ivan Shiek
Nope, no confusion. The Lord hates the Catholic materialism and idol worship. That is plainly known to those that read their Bible and obey it.

Joseph Lynch
Catholicism=harlot of revelation 17

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Ivan Shiek, Joseph Lynch, would you mind proving the allegations?

Joseph Lynch
Read the bible, look at history and today and use your common sense. Those who don't want to see will remain blind.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I am at least as familiar with the Bible, I think, and more familar with History than you.

As for Common Sense, I don't think hearing just one side's version is showing very much of it.

My mother was told that Albigensians were basically Evangelical Christians, I found out otherwise.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Also, while I was Lutheran, no "John Foxe" and "Book of Martyrs" was our common fare.

Some people will not mistake exaggerations and heroisation from centuries distance over a partisan hatred against contemporaries as excellent historiography.

Joseph Lynch
As I said, those who don't want to see, won't.

Ivan Shiek
Hans-Georg Lundahl, my dislike of the Catholic Church is not founded on another denomination's view. It is founded on what Christ said. It is founded on the Ten Commandments.

Those that do not follow the Ten Commandments, are heretics.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
OK, I suppose you could be referring to what we Catholics often consider as OT liturgic parts of the three first commandments.

1st Commandment prohibits idolatry in the large sense, and has as a liturgic part a prohibition of imagery, valid up to Incarnation of God. The prohibition of imagery was explicitated in the lines after initial one.

2nd Commandment prohibits misuse of God's name, and has as liturgic part, not the pronunciation of the Trinitarian name, but the non-pronunciation (except for Cohen Gadol) of the Tetragrammaton one. The pronunciation of the "God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit" liturgically took over when Christ revealed the Baptismal formula to the Apostles.

3rd Commandment commands working on the Lord's day, and explicitates the liturgic part as "seventh day" (i e of the week starting on Sunday), which was validly the Lord's day up to when Resurrection and Pentecost made Sunday the new Lord's day.

You have a little problem, since prior to reformation (or a bit before, but briefly, Petrobrussians) (or a bit before even that, less briefly and more bloody, Iconoclasm in Eastern Empire, which was also ended before Reformation), there were no Christians explicitly attacking Christians using images.

Prior to JW, no one was saying among Christians "you must use the Tetragrammaton as the most holy name".

Prior to 7th Day Adventism, perhaps before that a few other sabbatarian sects, no one was saying among Christians one had to use the Saturday Sabbath as if the Old Testament was still valid.

This means, your view of Orthodoxy would contradict Matthew 28:18-20.

Ivan Shiek
Hans-Georg Lundahl, you don't understand, I do not kneel to Baal.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I don't know what "kneeling to Baal" has to do with Catholicism.

If you mean there is such and such a cabale in the Vatican who are secretly kneeling to Baal, that is not Catholicism, they are infiltrators who should be, at best, exposed and opposed.

But if you meant sth else, as in Catholic view of commandments constituting such a crime, well, where are the "seven thousand men in Israel who did not bend their knee to Baal"?

You need them for each century of Church history.

Ivan Shiek
2nd Commandment - You shall not use the Lord's name in vain.

Meaning: do not assume His name to do vain things.

His name is Jesus Christ. His followers assume His name and are called "Christians".

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Calling oneself a Christian is not vain, if one is.

Calling oneself a Catholic is not a contradiction of it.

Ivan Shiek
No, taking the name of the Lord and not doing all that He commands is taking it in vain.

If you do not practice His commandments, your faith is in vain.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
It is not in vain if I confess myself as obliged to His commandments.

It is perhaps in vain if my interpretation of what they mean involves a non-existence of the Church for centuries, contrary to His express promise in Matthew 28:18-20.

Or just verse 20.

"[20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world."

This means, for every day from then to now and beyond to Doomsday there was, is and will be someone openly teaching ALL THINGS He commanded.

Where is your sabbatarian or iconoclast from 5th C. AD?

Come on, if you compare what we consider the NT liturgic implications of first three commandments as equivalent of "bowing our knee to Baal", each century, including 5th AD should have its seventhousand men who didn't.

Ivan Shiek
Yes, and they all should equal the 144,000 virgins mentioned in Revelation.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I did not ask where you find the 7000 men in Apocalypse, I was asking where you found them for 5th C. AD in history.

Ivan Shiek
Only Christ knows who they are. They will be revealed on the last day.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
owch .... you just contradicted Christ:

"You are the light of the world. A city seated on a mountain cannot be hid."
[Matthew 5:14]

Ivan Shiek
That is true also. The gift of the Holy Spirit cannot be hid, we are to give as we have received. To forgive our enemies as Christ has forgiven us who were His enemies before.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Well, if the gift of the Holy Spirit is visible for the 5th C. where in the confessions back then do you find it?

Ivan Shiek
What is the 5th C. AD you are referring to?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I can name Catholics in the 5th C whom I consider as showing forth the fruit of the Holy Spirit. You would not count them.

So, whom would you count?

On your criteria, they need to:

* use no images
* use the name JHVH
* worship on the Sabbath.

5th C. AD is the years 401-500 Anno Domini.

Ivan Shiek
Just throwing this into the mix;

Idolatry: occurs when you look down at the fruit of your own labor, the statue that you carved yourself, and you worship it.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/idolatry?s=t

[Bluff, when I checked it said - on the real page, not the one he gave:
noun, plural idolatries.
1. the religious worship of idols.
2. excessive or blind adoration, reverence, devotion, etc.
]

Hans-Georg Lundahl
[under impression, back then, he had been honest]
Fine.

* The dictionary is not a Bible, nor a Catholic Catechism.
* We do not "worship" statues.
* Supposing you were right, that we do, that would give you a right to disqualify my men, but doesn't produce yours.

Where are they?

I could point to St Augustine of Hippo, died 430, or to St Jerome from Stridon, died 420. I could point to St Simeon Stylites, who died in 459. I could point to St Genevieve, she died early in 6th C, but at a high age and so was alive most of the 5th C I am talking about. She was, by the way, active in promoting the cult of relics : remains of saints from which we expect miracles, as per IV Kings 13:21 or Acts Of Apostles 19:12.

I could point to St Patrick of Armagh who died in 492 or 493, though some historians claim it was rather 460.

I could point to St Germanus of Auxerre under whom he studied as a monk in preparation of receiving episcopal orders and going to Ireland as a missionary.

I could point to St Remigius who, like St Genevieve died in early 6th c. but at a high age.

And like her was involved in establishing the Frankish Kingdom as a Christian one. St Clotilde, a younger contemporary of theirs was even more involved, she was the wife of Clovis, leading up to his baptism.

On your view all of these are disqualified as worshipping statues, right?

So, exactly whom are YOU pointing to?

Also, by Dictionary definitions, Catholics count as Christians.

Ivan Shiek
I point to Christ not men.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Why were you pointing to the dictionary?

When I ask you to point to men fulfilling your criteria for Christians, I am pointing to Christ whose promise tells us we can point to men for fulfilment of the promise.

Joseph Lynch
Romanism is not catholicism. Rev 17 perfectly describes the whore church of the vatican.

Ivan Shiek
Hans-Georg Lundahl, Christ fulfilled the promise. We need not look to anyone else.

For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
Matthew 24:5

Popes claim to be Christ, so yes they do fulfill this prophecy.
*mic drop*



Hans-Georg Lundahl
[Deleted comment in which I gave a directory over Pope Pius XI's documents, here are some more complete ones:

Homilies Speeches Motu Proprio Letters Encyclicals Bulls One Brief Apostolic Letters Apostolic Constitutions and a Biography about him, not by him, in Italian.

Not a trace of any document (including speech in his throne room) in April 30 1922.

As I pointed out in the deleted comment, not a trace in the directory over encyclicals. Nor, in the other ones linked to here. Where the directories had more than one page, I gave what was relevant for 1922.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I do however find this quote in an accusation by Shaun Willcock :

// Pius XI, on 30 April 1922, in the Vatican throne room, said: "You know that I am the Holy Father, the representative of God on the earth, the Vicar of Christ, which means that I am God on the earth." //

The accusation is the less credible in so far as it says also:

// The Roman Catholic theologian, Thomas Aquinas, said: "There is no difference between the Pope and Jesus Christ." //

Also, not a link to any known passage from St Thomas Aquinas anywhere on the web, just a bland accusation.

// The Canon Law in the Gloss on the Extravaganza of John XXII, AD 1316-1334, calls the Roman pontiff "Our Lord God the Pope." And this was continued in all editions of the Canon Law up to AD 1612. //

And would you mind to tell me where you find in any body of canon law a "Gloss on the Extravaganza of John XXII"?

So, instead of showing your Church, where it was in the 5th C., you prefer accusing mine with false accusations.

Was it joy which could not be hidden if present in a heart ... you seem to be good at hiding your joy!