Was This Image of Jesus Supernaturally Created During His Resurrection?
- Posted on December 22, 2011 at 7:32am by
Billy Hallowell
- Print »
- Email »
If you’re familiar with the Shroud of Turin, you know the primary debate surrounding the relic: Either it was created as a forgery by medieval sources or the image present on it was imprinted from a burst of light that miraculously occurred during Jesus Christ’s resurrection.
The shroud features an image of a bearded man (i.e. Jesus) whose body appears to have wounds from nails in his hands and feed — the same locations that some believe were affected when Jesus was nailed to the cross.
While the debate has gone back and forth for years, Italian researchers are now saying that the cloth may, indeed, be authentic. These experts, according to the Daily Mail, claim that the criticisms waged against the shroud may not stand.
The Huffington Post has more:
…researchers from Italy’s National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development believe their findings undermine previous theories that the shroud was faked in the medieval period…
Last year scientists were able to replicate marks on the cloth using highly advanced ultraviolet techniques that weren’t available 2,000 years ago — or during the medieval times, for that matter. [...]
Since the shroud and “all its facets” still cannot be replicated using today’s top-notch technology, researchers suggest it is impossible that the original image could have been created in either period.
For years, skeptics have said that the 14 foot by 3 foot sheet dates back to medieval times, which would clearly debunk it as the actual burial cloth used to cover Jesus following his crucifixion. The image, researchers say, may have come about as a result of the electromagnetic energy that was expended during Christ’s resurrection experience.
“The results show a short and intense burst of UV directional radiation can colour a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin” the scientists behind a new study report.
The researchers, though, were careful not to definitively endorse a God-centric explanation for the imagery. But despite their hesitation to claim that the cloth did, indeed, belong to Jesus, the team does conclude that no UV energy source, to date, could create such an image.
“When one talks about a flash of light being able to colour a piece of linen in the same way as the shroud, discussion inevitably touches on things such as miracles,” said Professor Paolo Di Lazzaro, the author’s lead academic. “But as scientists, we were concerned only with verifiable scientific processes. We hope our results can open up a philosophical and theological debate.”
Radiocarbon tests from 1988 showed the shroud dating back to between 1260 and 1390, which corroborated critics claims. But these tests were disputed and seen as incorrectly impacted by damage the cloth sustained by a fire in the Middle Ages.
Also, another cloth found in Jerusalem recently, is said to have come from the time of the crucifixion. This new cloth’s design and weave differ greatly from the Shroud of Turin, leading critics to say that these elements corroborate their forgery claims. The twill weave in the shroud was purportedly not introduced until more than 1,000 years after Jesus lived.
The debate, of course, is far from over. The Shroud of Turin will likely continue to be a source of scientific inquiry for years to come.
(H/T: Daily Mail)
Popular Stories
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 591 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 416 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 415 Comments
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 379 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 376 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 416 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 415 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 379 Comments
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 151 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know 100 Comments- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 303 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 416 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (392)
Larson Moore
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 10:21amAs i was watching the videos on The Blaze about the shroud and it’s amazing image of Jesus, all of the sudden, news on the television began talking about the shroud. Really made my hair stand on ends. Haven’t seen anything about the shroud on television in a couple of years since they tried to say it was a hoax after using carbon dating. The news is now saying the carbon dating wasn’t valid due to bad testing conditions. Is this a wake up or coincidence? I am a believer but the signs are all around us if we just want to believe.
Report Post »ZengaPA65
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 10:59amPeople who want to believe in ghosts and ufos see ghosts and ufos.
Report Post »mils
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 12:13pmIt was created in a flash from Leonardo’s paints and such
Report Post »Bible Quotin' Science Fearin' Conservative American
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 12:27pmIt’s amazing what the uneducated faithful will continue to believe in.
Bible Quotin' Science Fearin' Conservative American
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 12:29pmWhat I find hilarious is that Jesus probably looked a lot like Osama Bin Laden.
A blue eyed blond white guy would have stood out a bit.
Kaoscontrol
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 12:30pmZengapa- What you are saying is that because Christian believers WANT something to be real, it therefore really doesn’t exist. That’s flawed reasoning. Desiring something to be real doesn‘t disprove it’s existence.
Report Post »Cesium
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 12:54pmExactly Zenga. Also for the sake of argument lets say it’s true and it was electromagnetic energy as he rose blah blah blah… That would make the phenomenon “natural.” and if something exists in the universe such as god, then it all false within the realm of natural.. So why is there even the word “supernatural?”
Report Post »Bible Quotin' Science Fearin' Conservative American
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 12:54pmI‘ll believe it when I see Jesus’ long form shroud of turin plus his school records.
Report Post »TunaBlue
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 1:00pm@Zeng, Believing in ghosts and UFOs doesn’t mean that you see them, it just means that you believe in their existence. Stephen Hawkings believes that time didn’t exist before the big bang, but he has absolutely no proof that his belief is correct, it’s just a belief. Actually, he has no proof that the big bang really happened, and he believes that too.
What we believe is our reality, but it certainly is not what is real.
Report Post »jzs
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 1:34pmThe shroud didn’t come from the time of Christ:
http://www.shroud.com/nature.htm
Report Post »BuzzardSays
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 1:38pmThe people studying the shroud have been given a great task to put credence to testimony of the apostles on Jesus resurrection. It is not needed for the believer but instead for those sitting the fence who might take that additional step of faith because of the fact that there is a preponderance of truth to be found in the examination of the relic.
This is a critical piece of information for those who need to put their hand in Jesus’ side, and fingers into the pierced holes at his wrists. There are so many who may then come to faith in Jesus. And although they will ultimately stand before Jesus and hear blessed are those who have not seen yet still believe. Which is a negative embarassing comment for those who required so much more additional information to be able to believe in Jesus…but they will still enter into the Kingdom of Heaven for their belief in Him. Faith as small as a mustard seed will in-time grow to a larger faith. Tha is a given ;-)
Report Post »mcdonnal
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 2:28pmBible Quotin’ American. I am one of the “uneducated faithful” with the simple faith of a child. I will tell you that I am more inclined to believe that the Shroud of Turin is the true burial cloth of Jesus Christ and bears his image than I am to believe that Barack Hussein Obama is a natural born citizen, qualified to serve as President of the USA. Further, I seriously doubt that you are a conservative. You arre probably another limp wristed liberal, a little light in yur loafers, sipping white wine and humming Kumbaya, while typing your missives on here,
Report Post »GeddyWanaBe
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 3:13pmI don‘t believe this is faked and I’ve watched plenty on this subject. A history channel story called “The Real Face of Jesus?” discusses the three dimensional data in the image that they use to try to reconstruct the facial features. Modern science can’t explain how the image got there and the only way they can duplicate the three dimensional information on a two dimensional surface is with a scanner.
Personally, the more that science tries to debunk this, the more I think it’s the real thing. There are just way to many specific anomalies with this particular artifact that science can‘t explain and that they also can’t duplicate with modern technology, let alone middle aged technology.
Report Post »ZengaPA65
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 3:23pmPeople that believe in Reptilians see Reptilians.
Report Post »TimH
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 4:43pmNone of us faithful are full of faith because of the Shroud one way or the other. It is one of those things like the spear of longinus, or the grail. To psychically touch/see something that Jesus touched. Maybe that doubting Thomas thing where he had to touch the nail scared hand of the resurrected Jesus. Thomas went on to do great things in the name of Jesus, and was martyred.
The lack of respect shown by those that mock us and our faith, thank you. He was hated long before we were hated.
http://www.BornAgainHeathens.com
Report Post »DrFrost
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 5:48pmThe shroud was damaged in a fire and repaired during the medieval period. What’s amazing is that if you review where the carbon dating samples were taken, they were done in these repaired regions. So, of course, they come out with a medieval date.
What do I think? I think it doesn’t matter.
To those who believe in Jesus Christ, it may or may not be an incredible peice of history. Either way it doesn’t really affect them much.
To those who do not believe in Jesus Christ, they will consider this an obvious fake.
Either way, as a scientific mystery it is very interesting.
Report Post »Unix
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 6:09pmthe huff and puf compost is used on the Blaze? Oh my…
All that aside, I believe it to be the holy shroud, and that is good enough for me, I could care less what anyone else thinks.
Viva Jesus Christ, Emmanuel
Merry Christmas to all
Report Post »Unix
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 6:11pmHey pagans, who dis-believes and mocks the Bible here, beware!
Report Post »SovereignSoul
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 6:43pmIf you could care less…please do. As for me, I couldn’t care less.
Report Post »PowerPC
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 7:13pmZenga……If you cannot see the image on the shroud, whether it be supernatural or not you need to get your eyes checked. This is not a ghost or a UFO. It is an image on a piece of cloth that science cannot replicate. The image penetrates the cloth less than a fiber of the cloth’s thickness. There have been numerous scientific investigations into the shroud in the last decade. The investigations have revealed the shoddy scientific methods used during previous studies. Now that SCIENTISTS have found some evidence you start implying the scientists are ghost and UFO hunters when 10 years ago you would have agreed with their “scientific” findings that the shroud was a man-made forgery from the Middle Ages. I bet you believe in Global Warming…..Oh Wait, thats Climate Change now since the altered and destroyed data and destroyed communications have shown that man-made global warming is not occurring.
Report Post »last frontier
Posted on December 23, 2011 at 1:26amThe shroud has called all the paulyannas/darwins to attention. I‘d rather live my whole life believing that God exists and then die and find out he doesn’t rather than living my whole life not believing in him and die and find out he does. What drives you guys crazy about God is it guilt or is it fear. And if you don’t believe, then it shouldn’t bother you what we think.
Report Post »FreedomsFury
Posted on December 23, 2011 at 1:47amNot that it matters for my Faith stands strong as a Rock and shall never be moved, for the LORD is my ROCK, the ROCK of My Refuge I Shall Never Be Moved. This is The Almighty Most High One True Living GOD’s Only Begotten SON, My Great And Good SHEPHARD The LAMB Of GOD Who Has Come To Take The Sins Of The World Away My LORD And SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST’s Face. Watch History Channels The Real Face Of JESUS CHRIST You Will See It Is HIM. Glory To GOD For CHRIST Crucified And Raised On The Third Day( you are seeing that exact moment on The Shroud of the moment of the Glorious RESURRECTION) Then Ascended To HIS Proper Place At The Right Hand Of GOD. Repent, Confess Your Sins To CHRIST JESUS Call Upon HIM HE Is Waiting HE Is The Only WAY To GOD Almighty, HE Is The Giver Of Eternal LIFE, HE Is The TRUTH, Oh My GOD, My Great And Good GOD How The TRUTH Will Set Us Free……..Repent For The Kingdom Of HEAVEN Is At Hand GODs Loving Kindness And Tender Mercies Are Better Then Life Itself, We All Fall Short Of The Glory Of GOD, Only With The Precious BLOOD Of JESUS May We Stand Acceptable And Holy Before The ONE TRUE LIVING GOD Almighty, For GOD So Loved The World That HE Sent HIS Only Begotten SON That Whoever Believeth In HIM Shall Have Everlasting Life, For GOD Did Not Send HIS Only SON Into The World To Condemn, But That The World Through HIM Might Be SAVED…….Praise The LORD, Let Everything That Has Breath Praise The LORD, Praise The LORD Oh My Soul And Glorify HIS Holy NAME..
Report Post »Unix
Posted on December 23, 2011 at 10:02amSovereignSoul – I could care less that you couldn’t care less. Play with your little fire, it makes no difference to me. But remember fire burns, and in your case, it would be for eternity, but that’s all on you my friend – Love ya anyway, so does Jesus Christ, and your God in Heaven. It’s all written down for you to read.
Report Post »GordonPShumway
Posted on December 24, 2011 at 11:58pmIF the “Shroud of Turin” really were what it purports to be, a burial cloth which had actually been
Report Post »wrapped around a human head, the features of the face would surely NOT have been transferred
to the cloth as a perfectly straight orthographic projection (as it appears), but rather, with the image of each identifiable feature imprinted on the cloth which was immediately above it. The result would bear no more resemblance to the original model than does any Picasso painting, and maybe less.
http://torahkingdomliving.com
SaraD
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 7:09am@The Third Archon Really Satan said that? Did he write that down, and then it magically appeared in the mail system, then to your door? I don’t imagine the mailman goes there often.
Report Post »SaraD
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 7:12amIts BS. People believe what they want to believe. They see what they want to be there.
Report Post »sbenard
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 10:13amThe question in this headline is irrelevant. It has no influence over my faith at all. Those who depend upon signs for their faith will falter at the first dearth of such “signs”!
Report Post »WhiteFang
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 1:19pmThe bottom line to all this is: Carbon Dating of any object to find its age, is not reliable nor is it accurate.
Report Post »kimberlyjesus
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 10:08amSorry to say it’s a fake. JESUS told me. I have a connection like no other.
Report Post »fidelcashflo44
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 10:48amAhahahhaha u have an imaginary friend
Report Post »LouiseCA
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 11:33amI’m sorry, I don’t believe you have a “connection like no other” or that Jesus told you the Shroud is a fake.
Report Post »mils
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 12:14pmwow louiseca…what a party pooper you are…you don‘t know for sure and it doesn’t matter anyway..
Report Post »This_Individual
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 1:39pmKIMBERLY, Please tell us that you are kidding.
Report Post »BuzzardSays
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 1:42pmSo sure of your self? Good for you. Or bad for you. Your choice…after all. Free Will. Choose wisely.
Report Post »Arbroath7
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 10:03amI’ve followed this story off and on over the years and remember one “expert” saying that the image was produced when His spirit left his body. That didn’t make much sense as the Biblical account records that as happening on the cross. Ref. Mark 15: 39, “And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God.“ If indeed this ”relic” is authentic, the more likely explanation would be it occurring as His spirit reenters his body in the grave and he became a resurrected — body of flesh and bones — being. As recorded in Luke 24:39 & 40. “Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.” Nevertheless, if we have a testimony of Him, which can be gained through sincere prayer, we don’t need to rely on relics or other evidences of Christ. At any rate the matter will be settled soon when He returns and those who doubt Him will no longer be able to … much to their everlasting regret.
Report Post »olliec
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 11:35amAmen!
Report Post »tspark
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 2:32pmAmen
Report Post »GA Magnolia
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 9:21pmI was just getting ready to say the same thing! Well done.
Report Post »by faith
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 9:55amIt’s funny how some people on this site want to accuse others of idol worship if they believe the shroud to be real. Or they have a lack of faith. People use the shroud and other religious object to aid their faith. Similar to keeping pictures of loved ones in your home; no one would accuse them of idol worship of family memebers. They no more worship or idolize these things than you idolize the bible.
FloridaCracker
Report Post »There are seventy-three books in the Bible; forty-six in the Old Testament and twenty-seven in the New Testament. The canon of Scripture refers to the final collection of inspired books included in the Bible. The Catholic Bible contains seven books that do not appear in the Protestant Old Testament. These seven writings are called the deuterocanonicals or the Second Law. Protestants usually call these writings the Apocrypha (meaning hidden), books they consider outside the canon. These seven writings include 1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, Sirach, Wisdom, and Baruch, along with additional passages in Daniel and Esther. Before the time of Christ, these writings were included in the Jewish Greek Septuagint (LXX)-the Greek translation of Jewish Scripture-but they were not included in the Hebrew Masoretic text. These books were also “deleted” by protestants because they directly prove their new belief system to be false.
rush_is_right
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 10:09am“These books were also “deleted” by protestants because they directly prove their new belief system to be false.”
then why do the jews exclude those books from their scripture? the catholic church didn’t include 7 of the books until 1546….and none of those works are quoted by Jesus or the apostles.
Report Post »C. Schwehr
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 10:30amWhatever! Evangelicals call Catholicism a cult (even though it is a legitimate offshoot of the original christian religion along with the Orthadox churches) and Catholics, until recently considered all of the “protestant” religions to be illegitimate. When will christians start acting like CHRISTIANS??? Enough of the foolish back-biting about who‘s liturgy and who’s bible is the correct one?
Report Post »And ALL of the old-time versions of christianity still consider Mormonism to be a cult, even though it professes faith in Jesus and God (a christian version of beating up the new kid on the block) but adds a second book supposed written by an angel. WHO CARES WHICH VERSION IS CORRECT?! GET A LIFE!
by faith
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 10:30amBefore the time of Christ, these writings were included in the Jewish Greek Septuagint (LXX)-the Greek translation of Jewish Scripture-but they were not included in the Hebrew Masoretic text
1546? where is your proof?
“and none of those works are quoted by Jesus or the apostles” Lets get rid of all the books not quoted in writing by Jesus or the apostles. Cuz everything Jesus did was written down, right?
Report Post »“And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written “
by faith
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 10:38amC. Schwehr
Report Post »Thanks for your valuable insight. I will be sure to get a life.
Maybe I can emulate your stellar character
rush_is_right
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 10:43am1546 was when the council of trent affirmed they were part of scripture…
“Lets get rid of all the books not quoted in writing by Jesus or the apostles. Cuz everything Jesus did was written down, right?
”
there are very few of those…and those are all affirmed as part of the bible by the jews.
now you sound like the mormons…just add whatever you want…
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 10:47amthose books were not written in hebrew, as the rest of the OT…I have never seen where the jews included them in scripture…and the books themselves do not claim to be scripture….
and if it contradicts scripture..then its not scripture….
Ecclesiasticus 25:24 From a woman sin had its beginning. Because of her we all die.
according to the Bible Adam sinned….Romans 5:12
Report Post »mikey1276
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 10:54amLooks like we will find out real soon, doesn’t it?
Report Post »by faith
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 11:08amAD 1442 At the Council of Florence, the entire Church recognized the 27 books. This council confirmed the Roman Catholic Canon of the Bible which Pope Damasus I had published a thousand years earlier. All orthodox branches of the Church were legally bound to the same canon. This is 100 years before the Reformation.
AD 1536 In his translation of the Bible from Greek into German, Luther removed 4 N.T. books (Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation) and placed them in an appendix saying they were less than canonical.
AD 1546 At the Council of Trent, the Catholic Church reaffirmed once and for all the full list of 27 books. The council also confirmed the inclusion of the Deuterocanonical books which had been a part of the Bible canon since the early Church and was confirmed at the councils of 373 AD, 397, 787 and 1442 AD. At Trent Rome actually dogmatized the canon, making it more than a matter of canon law, which had been the case up to that point, closing it for good.
1546 is NOT the first time these books were included.
“Ecclesiasticus 25:24 From a woman sin had its beginning. Because of her we all die. according to the Bible Adam sinned….Romans 5:12″
Report Post »Your taking these out of context,
A woman sin had its beginning, Yes
Adam sinned, Yes
by faith
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 11:09amNo one added books, but someone did subtract books
Report Post »SavedByTheLamb
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 11:41amThe Septuagint (LXX) was translated into Greek long before the 1500s. In fact of the 300+ references to the old testament in the new testament, 2/3 of them are referring to the 7 books the Protestants eliminated.
Report Post »by faith
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 11:54amSavedByTheLamb
Report Post »there you go again confusing the issue with facts
HAHAHA
This_Individual
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 1:51pmBYFAITH- I appreciate your rational and thorough understanding of your faith.
Report Post »TarletonsQuarter
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 2:11pmI hate to break the news to you but the Protestant authors Archer and Chirichigno list 340 places where the New Testament cites the Septuagint but only 33 places where it cites from the Masoretic Text rather than the Septuagint (G. Archer and G. C. Chirichigno, Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey, 25-32).
And here is a list of NT references to the deuterocanonicals: http://www.scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html
Report Post »by faith
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 2:23pmThis Individual
I agree with you, You are as perceptive as you are kind..
But seriously thank you for your kind words
Report Post »Merry Christmas
Caleb-Texas
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 2:27pm1. The Catholic Church established the Cannon of Scripture at the Synod of Rome in 382 and later at the regional Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397, 419), the deuterocanon was included. The Council of Trent simply infallibly reiterated what the Church had long taught regarding the Cannon of the Old and New Testaments.
2. “The Christian acceptance of the deuterocanonical books was logical because the deuterocanonicals were also included in the Septuagint, the Greek edition of the Old Testament which the apostles used to evangelize the world. Two thirds of the Old Testament quotations in the New are from the Septuagint. Yet the apostles nowhere told their converts to avoid seven books of it. Like the Jews all over the world who used the Septuagint, the early Christians accepted the books they found in it. They knew that the apostles would not mislead them and endanger their souls by putting false scriptures in their hands—especially without warning them against them”.
Jimmy Akin
Heb 11:35 – Paul teaches about the martyrdom of the mother and her sons described in 2 Macc. 7:1-42.
1 Tim. 6:15 – Paul’s description of God as Sovereign and King of kings is from 2 Macc. 12:15; 13:4.
Matt. 24:15 – the “desolating sacrilege” Jesus refers to is also taken from 1 Macc. 1:54 and 2 Macc. 8:17.
Heb. 12:12 – the description “drooping hands” and “weak knees” comes from Sirach 25:23.
Report Post »TarletonsQuarter
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 2:29pmOne more point. To my knowledge, the oldest compiled bible is the Codex Sinaiticus. It is more than 1600 years old and does contain the deuterocanonicals. That they were only included after Trent is an absurd allegation.
Report Post »Caleb-Texas
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 2:30pm@Rush is Right
The Church does not deny that there are ancient writings which are “apocryphal.” During the early Christian era, there were scores of manuscripts which purported to be Holy Scripture but were not. Many have survived to the present day, like the Apocalypse of Peter and the Gospel of Thomas, which all Christian churches regard as spurious writings that don’t belong in Scripture.
During the first century, the Jews disagreed as to what constituted the canon of Scripture. In fact, there were a large number of different canons in use, including the growing canon used by Christians. In order to combat the spreading Christian cult, rabbis met at the city of Jamnia or Javneh in A.D. 90 to determine which books were truly the Word of God. They pronounced many books, including the Gospels, to be unfit as scriptures. This canon also excluded seven books (Baruch, Sirach, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, and the Wisdom of Solomon, plus portions of Esther and Daniel) that Christians considered part of the Old Testament.
The group of Jews which met at Javneh became the dominant group for later Jewish history, and today most Jews accept the canon of Javneh. However, some Jews, such as those from Ethiopia, follow a different canon which is identical to the Catholic Old Testament and includes the seven deuterocanonical books (cf. Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 6, p. 1147).
Report Post »by faith
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 2:30pmTarletonsQuarter
Report Post »So you agree Rush_is_right_is_wrong on both counts
TarletonsQuarter
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 2:43pmBy Faith,
I agree with you that “Rush is Wrong” on all counts. :-)
Report Post »This_Individual
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 2:49pmBY FAITH- Thanks, Merry Christmas to you as well.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 3:04pm““Ecclesiasticus 25:24 From a woman sin had its beginning. Because of her we all die. according to the Bible Adam sinned….Romans 5:12″
Your taking these out of context,
A woman sin had its beginning, Yes
Adam sinned, Yes”
not taking it out of context at all…nice try. those books contradict scripture…so one or the other is lying…and you’re telling me Paul is….right.
Josephus rejected the apocryphal books as inspired and this reflected Jewish thought at the time of Jesus
“From Artexerxes to our own time the complete history has been written but has not been deemed worthy of equal credit with the earlier records because of the failure of the exact succession of the prophets.” … “We have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine…”(Flavius Josephus, Against Apion 1:8)
The Manual of Discipline in the Dead Sea Scrolls rejected the apocrypha as inspired.
http://www.bible.ca/catholic-apocrypha.htm
more to follow
but I don‘t think you’ll let facts get in the way of your faith…
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 3:05pmThey debated the canonicity of a few books (e.g., Ecclesiastes), but they changed nothing and never proclaimed themselves to be authoritative determiners of the Old Testament canon. “The books which they decided to acknowledge as canonical were already generally accepted, although questions had been raised about them. Those which they refused to admit had never been included. They did not expel from the canon any book which had previously been admitted. ‘The Council of Jamnia was the confirming of public opinion, not the forming of it.’” (F. F. Bruce, The Books and Parchments [Old Tappan, NJ.: Fleming H. Revell, 1963], p. 98])
Report Post »Although it was occasionally quoted in early church writings, it was nowhere accepted in a canon. Melito (AD 170) and Origen rejected the Apocrypha, (Eccl. Hist. VI. 25, Eusebius) as does the Muratorian Canon.
Jerome vigorously resisted including the Apocrypha in his Latin Vulgate Version (400 AD), but was overruled. As a result, the standard Roman Catholic Bible throughout the medieval period contained it. Thus, it gradually came to be revered by the average clergyman. Still, many medieval Catholic scholars realized that it was not inspired.
rush_is_right
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 3:06pmThe terms “protocanonical” and “deuterocanonical” are used by Catholics to signify respectively those books of Scripture that were received by the entire Church from the beginning as inspired, and those whose inspiration came to be recognized later, after the matter had been disputed by certain Fathers and local churches.
Report Post »Pope Damasus (366-384) authorized Jerome to translate the Latin Vulgate. The Council of Carthage declared this translation as “the infallible and authentic Bible.“ Jerome was the first to describe the extra 7 Old Testament books as the ”Apocrypha” (doubtful authenticity). Needless to say, Jerome’s Latin Vulgate did not include the Apocrypha.
Cyril (born about A.D. 315) – “Read the divine Scriptures – namely, the 22 books of the Old Testament which the 72 interpreters translated” (the Septuagint)
The apocrypha wasn’t included at first in the Septuagint, but was appended by the Alexandrian Jews, and was not listed in any of the catalogues of the inspired books till the 4th century
Hilary (bishop of Poictiers, 350 A.D.) rejected the apocrypha (Prologue to the Psalms, Sec. 15)
Epiphanius (the great opposer of heresy, 360 A.D.) rejected them all. Referring to Wisdom of Solomon & book of Jesus Sirach, he said “These indeed are useful books & profitable, but they are not placed in the number of the canonical.”
rush_is_right
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 3:16pmand just remember RUSH IS ALWAYS RIGHT.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 3:21pmoh and uh if you really want to prove they’re from God…list the prophecies….
becaues nothing else shows the Hand of God like prophecies…but you can‘t because those books don’t have any…
the books even acknowlege there weren’t any prophets at their time…1 Macc. 9:27; 14:41
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 3:23pmand a couple of other notes..
There are various divisions of the Hebrew canon. The Protestant Old Testament Canon contains 39 books while the Hebrew canon has 22 or 24. These are the exact same books as the Protestants have, but they are just arranged differently and some of the books are combined into one. For example, Kings is one book. There is not 1st Kings and 2nd Kings. Also, all of the 12 minor prophets (Hosea through Malachi) are one book in the Hebrew Canon.
4. It is true that the Catholic Church accepted the Apocryphal books at earlier councils at Rome (A.D. 382), Hippo (A.D. 393), Carthage (A.D. 397), and Florence (A.D. 1442). However, these were not universal Church councils and the earlier councils were influenced heavily by Augustine, who was no Biblical expert, compared to the scholar Jerome, who rejected the Apocrypha as part of the Old Testament Canon. Furthermore, it is doubtful that these local church council’s decisions were binding on the Church at large since they were local councils. Sometimes these local councils made errors and had to be corrected by a universal church council.
http://carm.org/why-apocrypha-not-in-bible
Report Post »by faith
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 3:28pmLet me remind you of your original post rush_is_wrong
“the catholic church didn’t include 7 of the books until 1546″….missed that one by more than 1,000 years
“and none of those works are quoted by Jesus or the apostles”. Wrong again
nothing you have posted since disproves anything I have said.
Report Post »by faith
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 3:36pmDid you read what you posted? It prove you wrong too
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 3:45pm“These books were also “deleted” by protestants because they directly prove their new belief system to be false”
again why did Josephus and the jews not accept them??? do you think the protestants, who didn’t exist for another millenia and half, forced them to?
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 3:47pm““the catholic church didn’t include 7 of the books until 1546″….missed that one by more than 1,000 years”
those other councils weren’t universal church councils…only local as my previous note made clear..
It is true that the Catholic Church accepted the Apocryphal books at earlier councils at Rome (A.D. 382), Hippo (A.D. 393), Carthage (A.D. 397), and Florence (A.D. 1442). However, these were not universal Church councils and the earlier councils were influenced heavily by Augustine, who was no Biblical expert, compared to the scholar Jerome, who rejected the Apocrypha as part of the Old Testament Canon. Furthermore, it is doubtful that these local church council’s decisions were binding on the Church at large since they were local councils. Sometimes these local councils made errors and had to be corrected by a universal church council.
“and none of those works are quoted by Jesus or the apostles”. Wrong again
really? post your proof, where did they quote them.
Report Post »TarletonsQuarter
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 3:50pmOne knows they won an argument with a Protestant (who almost MUST then believe in sola scriptura) when said Protestant goes outside of scripture to prove Catholicism “wrong.” Too funny.
Rush stated: “not taking it out of context at all…nice try. those books contradict scripture…”
No, they contradict your fallible interpretation of scripture. Your interpretation is fallible, correct?
Rush stated: “Josephus rejected the apocryphal books as inspired and this reflected Jewish thought at the time of Jesus…”
Josephus (and the Jerusalem Jews) also rejected the Gospels. So, we are supposed to follow THEM? I’d hate to have that as the strength of my argument.
Rush stated: “oh and uh if you really want to prove they’re from God…list the prophecies….”
Where is your sole test of authenticity in scripture?
Rush stated: “becaues nothing else shows the Hand of God like prophecies…but you can‘t because those books don’t have any…”
Again, where is this sole test of authenticity in scripture?
As a Bible believing Christian who believes that everything must be in scripture, can you tell me:
1) Are you an authentic interpreter of Scripture? Yes or no?
2) If #1 is yes, is your interpretation of Scripture infallible? Yes or no?
3) Where in the Bible does it list the books which should be part of the Bible? Scripture verse?
4) Do you believe the writer of the Gospel of Mark was inspired by the Holy Spirit? Yes or no?
5) If
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 3:54pm“Heb 11:35 – Paul teaches about the martyrdom of the mother and her sons described in 2 Macc. 7:1-42.”
first, no one knows if paul wrote Hebrews…second this is a historical event…where is the direct quote of this book? there is no direct quote…as there are for SO many verses from the real OT
“1 Tim. 6:15 – Paul’s description of God as Sovereign and King of kings is from 2 Macc. 12:15; 13:4.”
couldn’t be from Deutereonomy 10 could it now??
17 For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality and accepts no bribes
“Matt. 24:15 – the “desolating sacrilege” Jesus refers to is also taken from 1 Macc. 1:54 and 2 Macc. 8:17.”
this couldn’t be from Daniel now could it?
9:27
He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him. ”
Heb. 12:12 – the description “drooping hands” and “weak knees” comes from Sirach 25:23.
”
again couldn’t be from daniel, could it?
5:6
His face turned pale and he was so frightened that his legs became weak and his knees were knocking.
or Nehemiah 6:9
They were all trying to frighten us, thinking, “Their hands will get too weak for the work, and it will not be completed.” But I prayed, “Now stre
Polwatcher
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 3:55pmI have followed this story for a long time. I think the shroud is more likely authentic. Medival craftsmen were not good enough to make such a fake as is claimed by some.
Bob Hope once said “All steeples point up”. I think his words sum up faith, whether it be Protestant, Catholic, Mormon, or other. All Christian faiths seek to understand and live by the concepts of Jesus. Bejond that, we cannot take everything to the 5th decimal place when the original information is not that accurate scientifically but IS accurate philosophically.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 3:55pmand of course weak knees and feeble hands just COULDN’T be common expressions…no never…
what a reach….again no direct quotes from the NT refer to the apocrapha….this attempt to link the two is really weak kneed and feeble…LOL
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 3:56pm“Did you read what you posted? It prove you wrong too”
isn’t it a bit early to start drinking?
Report Post »TarletonsQuarter
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 3:59pmNumber 5 was cut off.
5) If yes, where in the Bible does it say that the writer of the Gospel of Mark was inspired by the Holy Spirit? Scripture verse?
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 4:01pm“reflected Jewish thought at the time of Jesus…”
Josephus (and the Jerusalem Jews) also rejected the Gospels. So, we are supposed to follow THEM? I’d hate to have that as the strength of my argument.
”
I guess you think romans is not part of the bible…
Romans 3:2
2 Great in every respect. First of all, that athey were entrusted with the boracles of God.
and Paul isn’t talking about the catholics, sorry.
“Where is your sole test of authenticity in scripture? ”
there are several, but if you claim they’re from God, then you need to post some proof they are…and since much of the OT was written by prophets…and these books have zero zip nada prophecy…it makes you wonder…
“3) Where in the Bible does it list the books which should be part of the Bible? Scripture verse?”
when you add in something the jews reject from their era and their testament, you’re on very shaky ground…especially when Jesus and the apostles quoted the OT quite a bit…but they didn’t the apocrapha
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 4:04pm“And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written “
so explain to me why you think the book of mormon shouldn’t be included too?
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 4:09pm“No, they contradict your fallible interpretation of scripture. Your interpretation is fallible, correct?”
Tobit 6:5-7, “Then the angel said to him: Take out the entrails of this fish, and lay up his heart, and his gall, and his liver for thee: for these are necessary for useful medicines. 6 And when he had done so, he roasted the flesh thereof, and they took it with them in the way: the rest they salted as much as might serve them, till they came to Rages the city of the Medes. 7 Then Tobias asked the angel, and said to him: I beseech thee, brother Azarias, tell me what remedies are these things good for, which thou hast bid me keep of the fish? 8 And the angel, answering, said to him: If thou put a little piece of its heart upon coals, the smoke thereof driveth away all kind of devils, either from man or from woman, so that they come no more to them.”
so does smoke from fish hearts drive away devils???
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 4:11pm“Judith 1:5, “Now in the twelfth year of his reign, Nabuchodonosor, king of the Assyrians, who reigned in Ninive the great city, fought against Arphaxad and overcame him.”"
Nebuchednezzar was the king of the BABYLONIANS not assyrians…
so you’re telling me historical errors are OK for scripture..hmmmm??
Baruch 6:2, “And when you are come into Babylon, you shall be there many years, and for a long time, even to seven generations: and after that I will bring you away from thence with peace.”
Jeremiah 25:11 says the captivity was 70 YEARS not 7 generations…
Report Post »by faith
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 4:14pmRush_is_wrong
a bit early to start drinking? what time is it where I live?
the list of things you are wrong about just keeps growing
You have been proven wrong and yet you keep digging.
You even tried to change the debate to fit your argument.
Nothing is working, so now you resort to baseless accusations
Facts are facts, don’t blame me if history is not what you want it to be
Report Post »TarletonsQuarter
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 4:21pmRush stated: “I guess you think romans is not part of the bible…”
Nope. As a Catholic, I believe the ENTIRE Bible. I just do not believe your fallible interpretation of it. The Jews were no longer the “keeper of scripture” once Jesus came. The books were canonized out of scripture approximately 60 years after the death of Christ. If you take that as proof, you must also concede that the Gospels were not included as well.
Me: “Where is your sole test of authenticity in scripture? ”
You stated: “there are several, but if you claim they’re from God, then you need to post some proof they are…and since much of the OT was written by prophets…and these books have zero zip nada prophecy…it makes you wonder…”
LOL I ask for a quote in scripture that proves your test for authenticity is legitimate. You say there are “several” but never get to naming even ONE, just reasserting your manmade and fallible test. It is a de facto admission that you are wrong.
Me: “3) Where in the Bible does it list the books which should be part of the Bible? Scripture verse?”
You replied: “when you add in something the jews reject from their era and their testament, you’re on very shaky ground…especially when Jesus and the apostles quoted the OT quite a bit…but they didn’t the apocrapha”
Again, please answer my question. YOU believe in sola scriptura yet YOU go outside of it to “prove” your point. What verse(s) lists the books?
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 4:22pm“You have been proven wrong and yet you keep digging.”
LOL delusional
” You even tried to change the debate to fit your argument.”
nice lie…post your proof.
” Nothing is working, so now you resort to baseless accusations ”
does burning fish hearts drive away devils…does that work for you??
“Facts are facts, don’t blame me if history is not what you want it to be”
yeah you are rather immune to facts, history and logic.
Report Post »TarletonsQuarter
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 4:31pmRush,
I asked five simple questions, all the yes or no variety with at most a scripture reference required. Why have you not answered them? Is it because you cannot?
Report Post »by faith
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 4:36pmRush_is_wrong
you have nothing left but name calling?
Again, Let me remind you of your original post
“the catholic church didn’t include 7 of the books until 1546″
“and none of those works are quoted by Jesus or the apostles”.
delusional?
does burning fish hearts drive away devils…does that work for you??
yeah you are rather immune to facts, history and logic??
Book of Mormon???
unlike your replys, I have provided you with facts and tried to stay on topic.
Report Post »since you have no factual data to stand on, you resort to rhetoric, name calling and fabrication
TarletonsQuarter
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 4:47pmBy Faith,
I supplied him (see below quote) with the findings of PROTESTANT authors, who found 340 places where the Septuagint was quoted and only 33 places where the Masoretic texts were quoted instead of the Septuagint. Yet, he contnues to say that the NT does not quote from it. We can only pray that the scales fall from his eyes.
“I hate to break the news to you but the Protestant authors Archer and Chirichigno list 340 places where the New Testament cites the Septuagint but only 33 places where it cites from the Masoretic Text rather than the Septuagint (G. Archer and G. C. Chirichigno, Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey, 25-32). “
Report Post »by faith
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 4:49pmMaha Wrong
I was being unfair to you, you had a 3rd point in your original post:
“then why do the jews exclude those books from their scripture”
Since I had already posted the following: Before the time of Christ, these writings were included in the Jewish Greek Septuagint (LXX)-the Greek translation of Jewish Scripture-but they were not included in the Hebrew Masoretic text.
Report Post »I didn’t find it necessary to point out you were wrong here too
but since you want to be childish, nan na nan na na na
by faith
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 4:53pmTarletonsQuarter
Agreed, I will pray for him
Merry Christmas
Report Post »Caleb-Texas
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 5:14pm@ Rush is right
1. I am interested in your response pertaining all the quotations by the Apostles from the Septuagint (see earlier posts).
2. The Deuterocanonicals were included in the Vulgate by Jerome.
It is true that Jerome at one point did not accept most of the deuterocanonicals books as scripture however he was persuaded to include them in the Vulgate. This denotes a more profound issue. The issue is one of authority. Many Fathers of the Church had different opinions about scripture but they always accepted the final teaching of the Church.
Do you accept that the Book of Revelation is inspired? By whose authority do you do? It was the Church acting through its Bishops that declared the Book of Revelation as inspired despite the objections of many within the Church.
Albeit difference in opinions and spite of Jerome’s doubt about the deterocanonicals the Protestant scholar J.N.D. Kelly writes:
“For the great majority, however, the deutero-canonical writings ranked as Scripture in the fullest sense. Augustine, for example, whose influence in the West was decisive, made no distinction between them and the rest of the Old Testament… The same inclusive attitude to the Apocrypha was authoritatively displayed at the synods of Hippo and Carthage in 393 and 397 respectively, and also in the famous letter which Pope Innocent I dispatched to Exuperius, bishop of Toulouse, in 405.”
Early Christian Doctrines, 55-56
By the way Merry Christmas!
Report Post »by faith
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 5:21pmCaleb-Texas
I am officially impressed. Very well said.
Your post makes me feel inadequate
Merry Christmas
Report Post »Caleb-Texas
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 5:38pm@By Faith,
Hey thanks you but I really wish that what you said was only 1/20th true! I am just a budding apologist and it really hurts me every time I come here and see outrageous lies and misconceptions about our Catholic Faith.
Please keep me in your prayers!
By the way I am the one who is really impressed by your post. You inspired me! Keep going. Through Christ our Lord and through the interception of the Blessed Mother Virgin Mary and all the Angels and Saints in Heaven. AMEN!
Merry Christamas
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 7:15pm“unlike your replys, I have provided you with facts and tried to stay on topic.
since you have no factual data to stand on, you resort to rhetoric, name calling and fabrication”
you’re replies are laughable. you start out with an attack on the protestants…which proves your bigotry….and you have no references to back up what you say…I post reference material…and you claim I post no factual data.. you ‘sir’ are a liar.
“Again, Let me remind you of your original post
“the catholic church didn’t include 7 of the books until 1546″
“and none of those works are quoted by Jesus or the apostles”.
”
what I said is true, and I backed it up. unlike anything you have said.
I notice you don’t have the courage to answer my questions about why not include the book of mormon, and if those books you love so are scriptural, have you tried burning fish hearts to get rid of evil spirits?
those books are not scripture.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 7:22pmoh and your lie about the evil protestants deleting these books is just laughable…since the jews don’t include them….another point that you cannot respond to…no surprise.
“Nope. As a Catholic, I believe the ENTIRE Bible. I just do not believe your fallible interpretation of it. The Jews were no longer the “keeper of scripture” once Jesus came. The books were canonized out of scripture approximately 60 years after the death of Christ. If you take that as proof, you must also concede that the Gospels were not included as well.”
you don’t know your history very well obviously…and the catholics didn’t include all the apocraphya….
Of these books, Tobias, Judith, the Wisdom of Solomon, Baruch, and Maccabees, remain in the Catholic Bible. First Esdras, Second Esdras, Epistle of Jeremiah, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, Prayer of Manasseh, Prayer of Azariah, and Laodiceans are not today considered part of the Catholic apocrypha.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/apo/index.htm
why not? hmmm?? looks like you don’t believe the ENTIRE bible…just what you pick and choose.
“Again, please answer my question. YOU believe in sola scriptura yet YOU go outside of it to “prove” your point. What verse(s) lists the books?”
this is an ignorant question…there is no list of books in the bible…but we can see what books Jesus quoted..the apostles…and none of them are in the apocraphya
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 7:29pm“I supplied him (see below quote) with the findings of PROTESTANT authors, who found 340 places where the Septuagint was quoted and only 33 places where the Masoretic texts were quoted instead of the Septuagint. Yet, he contnues to say that the NT does not quote from it. We can only pray that the scales fall from his eyes.”
wow do you think the authors of the NT which was written in greek, would use the GREEK version of the OT?? I know thats a real stretch isn’t…
but it has nothing to do with the point at hand…its just a diversion….did Jesus or the apostles quote from the apocraphyl books? no. and your examples were just laughable.
“ince I had already posted the following: Before the time of Christ, these writings were included in the Jewish Greek Septuagint (LXX)-the Greek translation of Jewish Scripture-but they were not included in the Hebrew Masoretic text.
”
uh this is meaningless. the jews do not consider those books as part of their scripture…so why did they drop them? I bet you think it was a PROTESTANT PLOT don’t you??
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 7:33pm“1. I am interested in your response pertaining all the quotations by the Apostles from the Septuagint (see earlier posts).”
reading is fundamental, I already answered that….what you say is from the apocrapha isn’t. and I posted the verses to prove it…..you do know most bibles have references for verses…and none of them use the apocrapha.
“Do you accept that the Book of Revelation is inspired?”
yeah it was written by this guy named John…you may have heard of him…..an apostle…you know..
” By whose authority do you do? It was the Church acting through its Bishops that declared the Book of Revelation as inspired despite the objections of many within the Church”
so do you think burning fish hearts will drive away evil spirits? thats what you are telling me is scripture…I really wish one of you catholics would have the guts to answer this question instead of just ignoring it…but its rather obvious why you do…
do you think Jeremiah was wrong about the 70 years? or do you think Nebuchednezzar was king of the assyrians? thats what you think is scripture….
so why not have the book of mormon then? whats your standard?
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 7:42pm“I didn’t find it necessary to point out you were wrong here too
but since you want to be childish, nan na nan na na na”
thanks for proving what an ignorant little man you are.
I see you‘re unable to answer any of the points I’ve raised…you know you’re not nearly as clever or cute as you think you are.
I’ve enjoyed watching you dodge the questions…your inability to answer speaks volumes.
so again gomer, do you think the jew delete
Report Post »TarletonsQuarter
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 8:06pmRush,
You are indeed the master of subterfuge. I have asked you five simple questions and you have only partially answered (finally) one. You do nothing but dance. Why not answer?
You stated: “this is an ignorant question…there is no list of books in the bible…”
Not ignorant at all. It begs the follow up. On what authority do you know that ALL books intended to be in NT scripture were included and NO uninspired books were mistakenly included?
You stated: “but we can see what books Jesus quoted..the apostles…and none of them are in the apocraphya.”
Wrong. Even Protestant authors noted that 340 quotations came from the Septuagint and only 33 from the Masoretic texts. I have quoted them twice. In addition, your manmade test of authenticity is not scriptural. You do not even adhere to your own theology of sola scriptura, yet have the gall to comment on ours? Too funny.
You stated: “uh this is meaningless. the jews do not consider those books as part of their scripture…so why did they drop them?”
Yikes. What the Jews now consider to be scripture is irrelevant. As I stated, they also do not consider the gospels as scripture, yet you do. That you cannot even see this wild inconsistency is amazing.
Answer my questions and I will answer all of yours…
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 9:03pm“You are indeed the master of subterfuge. I have asked you five simple questions and you have only partially answered (finally) one. You do nothing but dance. Why not answer?”
and why should I answer your questions, when none of you catholics have answered mine? hmm??
“Not ignorant at all. It begs the follow up. On what authority do you know that ALL books intended to be in NT scripture were included and NO uninspired books were mistakenly included?”
yeah it is an ignorant question…we both know books have been written on why the cannon came about…so why didn’t you answer my question about why the catholics left out apocraphyl books?
“Wrong. Even Protestant authors noted that 340 quotations came from the Septuagint and only 33 from the Masoretic texts”
looks like you are a master of subterfuge and deception. which books from the septuagint? hmmm?? you can’t answer that one can you now? none from the apocrphyl books….all the quotes from Jesus and the apostles referencing the OT come from the books the jews accept as scripture…
“Yikes. What the Jews now consider to be scripture is irrelevant. As I stated, they also do not consider the gospels as scripture, yet you do. That you cannot even see this wild inconsistency is amazing. ”
lets see the jews are responsible for the scripture written before Jesus….how hard is this? Paul himself says the jews were entrusted with the word of God…why do you deny scripture?
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 9:09pm1) Are you an authentic interpreter of Scripture? Yes or no?
I don’t even understand what you mean by this question…am I greek or hebrew scholar? no are you?
2) If #1 is yes, is your interpretation of Scripture infallible? Yes or no?
no one’s interpretation of scripture is infalible.
3) Where in the Bible does it list the books which should be part of the Bible? Scripture verse?
obviously there are none…this is a totally ignorant question.
4) Do you believe the writer of the Gospel of Mark was inspired by the Holy Spirit? Yes or no?
yes
ok now answer my questions
starting with why did you leave out all those apocrphyl books? hmmm?
do you think burning a fish heart will drive away evil spirits? and if not why not, since your scripture says its so…and where does the catholic church follow this scripture? if not why not?
do you think nebuchednezzar was king of the assyrians? if not, then how can a book be scripture if its historically inaccurate?
how about the jewish captivity, was it 7 generations, or 70 years as the bible says…and then how can scripture contradict scripture?
finally explain why the jews left out the apocrphya…since the jews wrote it…not christians. its their scipture…God gave it to the Jews…you really should read Romans…we are just grafted in….
I’m betting you will ignore my questions….
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 9:19pmthe way you dismiss the jews is very troubling..given the entire scripture was written by jews…with the possible exception of Luke, and thats iffy, given his intimate knowledge of temple priestly rotation at the birth of John…
then there is Romans 3…and Jesus was a jew…as were all the apostles…
talk about arrogance and hubris…wow.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 9:24pm““Yikes. What the Jews now consider to be scripture is irrelevant”
really? but then why do you consider the septuagint….THAT JEWS WROTE…to be scripture? hmmm??
talk about glaring inconsistency..wow….
Report Post »GA Magnolia
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 9:29pmWow, ya’ll remind me of arguments during my theology class. And, yes, I am a theology student. I have truly enjoyed your jousts. Please, do continue.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 9:42pmGlad you like it…share your wisdom, since I am just an amateur…(back to the subject)
you know I bet your answer to why certain books like: First Esdras, Second Esdras, Epistle of Jeremiah, are not in your catholic bible is because they weren’t included in the septuagint…
oh that makes sense…except who wrote the septuagint? oh yeah the jews..and you don’t care what the jews think is part of the cannon of scripture….so why do you accept what the jews who wrote the septuagint say, and not the jews who rejected the apocrypha?? I’m confused…..
oh and why don’t you accept the quran…(or the holy quran as hillary says) or the book of mormon? they would have the advantage, from your perspective, of not being written by jews….
Report Post »GA Magnolia
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 10:53pmI wouldn’t dare interrupt such wonderful banter. It would just be – well – rude. You, however, seem to have the upperhand. Perhaps you could tone down the anger a bit. It’s getting a tad loud. Please, continue.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 11:01pm“I wouldn’t dare interrupt such wonderful banter. It would just be – well – rude. You, however, seem to have the upperhand. Perhaps you could tone down the anger a bit. It’s getting a tad loud. Please, continue.”
thank you….I’m not sure anger is the right word, frustration for sure…starting with the claim that these books that talk about burning a fish heart to get rid of evil spirits to the claim that they don’t care about what the jews say about scripture…
but anything for a lady…
Report Post »GA Magnolia
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 11:28pmAlright now, Rush honey. The room got quiet so listen up. You are on the right track. But remember, there are six basis for including a book in scripture:
1. It must be prophetic (written by a prophet).
2. It must be authoritative (claims to be God’s message….“thus saith the Lord”)
3. It must be authentic (written by the person who claimed to be its author.)
4. It had life-transforming power.
5.It is widely recognized as the Word of God.
6..It was reliable (the contents were consistent with the rest of Scripture, the data accurate, and there were no inconsistencies in the book)
The books that are being discussed here did not meet these criteria.. Remember: no church or council made the books authoritative by their vote or recognition. They met the criteria recognized by all theological authorities.
Have a merry Christmas! May God bless you all!
Report Post »FreedomsFury
Posted on December 23, 2011 at 2:33amWhy did the vatican think it okay to remove a Commandment
Report Post »Kaoscontrol
Posted on December 23, 2011 at 2:33amThis has to be one of the longest threads to ever appear on the Blaze. You guys crack me up!
Report Post »Thank God for the Holy Spirit who teaches us all things. There are Christian brothers and sisters in communist countries who love God with all thier heart yet, their only ‘scripture’ is a hand coppied gospel of John. Somehow the Lord makes up for their lack of a complete copy of the bible by speaking to their hearts. I thank Jesus for the Holy Bible, but let’s not get so caught up in the arguments about which parts are or are not to be included that we miss the point: to love God and love one another. Make it about those relationships and less about the text.
Ojebuss
Posted on December 23, 2011 at 2:56amLOL just ask a few simple questions.
1. Do you believe that God had his hand in the way the Bible was created?
If yes then:
2. Why would he ask someone to remove books out of what he created, after a 1000 years of them being in there?
3. If God was truly working thorough the early Christians, why would you favor what the Jews say goes in over what the Christians do?
One would think that God, being the author of the Bible written through human hands, would make sure that what he wanted in there in both the Old as well as the New testament would get in.
Remember the ONLY version of the bible that has a CLOSED cannon is the Catholic one. The King James version can still be changed.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on December 23, 2011 at 10:41am“But remember, there are six basis for including a book in scripture:”
thank you I didn’t know that…
have a very merry Christmas!!!
Report Post »TarletonsQuarter
Posted on December 23, 2011 at 12:32pmRush stated: “and why should I answer your questions, when none of you catholics have answered mine? hmm??”
You did not directly ask me your questions until AFTER I asked you. It is common courtesy, although as determined by the unchristian manner you have acted on this forum, I am sure it is a strange concept to you.
Rush stated: “yeah it is an ignorant question…we both know books have been written on why the cannon came about…so why didn’t you answer my question about why the catholics left out apocraphyl books? ”
That books have been written is irrelevant. Answer the question. How do you know that the CORRECT books were included? As far as the second part, answer my questions (which I specifically asked you first) and I will be happy to return the favor.
You stated: “looks like you are a master of subterfuge and deception. which books from the septuagint? hmmm?? you can’t answer that one can you now? none from the apocrphyl books….all the quotes from Jesus and the apostles referencing the OT come from the books the jews accept as scripture…”
Nope. I even provided a link where many were from the deuterocanonicals. http://www.scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html No amount of denials on your part will change it.
Report Post »TarletonsQuarter
Posted on December 23, 2011 at 12:44pmYou stated: “lets see the jews are responsible for the scripture written before Jesus….how hard is this? Paul himself says the jews were entrusted with the word of God…why do you deny scripture?”
Yikes. It appears that you cannot see the difference between pre-Christ and post-Christ. The deuterocanonicals were not canonically removed until after Christ, when the Jews had lost authority. In fact, one of the reasons they denied them at Jamnia was BECAUSE Christians were using them to prove Christ was the Messiah. A Christian giving authority to a Jewish council decades after Jesus is stunning. Prior to Jamnia there were two canons (hence deuterocanonicals). Some Jews saw them as scripture and others did not. Your implication that Judaism was united against the books before Christ is a fabrication.
Me: 1) Are you an authentic interpreter of Scripture? Yes or no?
You: “I don’t even understand what you mean by this question…am I greek or hebrew scholar? no are you?”
It is a simple concept that any Protestant usually gets right away. Can you interpret scripture with assurance that your interpretation is correct?
You: “no one’s interpretation of scripture is infalible.”
Great. Then you admit that your interpretation may very well be flawed and your claims of being “right” are nothing but your inflated ego.
Report Post »TarletonsQuarter
Posted on December 23, 2011 at 12:55pmMe: “3) Where in the Bible does it list the books which should be part of the Bible? Scripture verse?”
You: “obviously there are none…this is a totally ignorant question.”
No, the only “ignorance” is yours of the dilemma that you are in. You are admitting to no way of knowing what should be scripture that also fits your theology. It is why you dodge the question. You cannot be sure of even the NT’s authenticity and remain consistent to your theology.
Me: 4) Do you believe the writer of the Gospel of Mark was inspired by the Holy Spirit? Yes or no?”
“yes, ok now answer my questions”
Actually, you skipped number 5, thus did not live up to your end of the bargain.
But please, explain to me how you know that NT scripture is authentic, with nothing incorrectly added or left out and please do it in a manner that is consistent to your sola scriptura theology. If you cannot determine the authenticity of the NT, then how are you qualified to determine the authenticity of OT scripture?
Report Post »TarletonsQuarter
Posted on December 23, 2011 at 1:26pmYou ask: “starting with why did you leave out all those apocrphyl books? hmmm?”
Thanks for the huge promotion, but I left out nothing. The apostles and first generations of Christians did. Trent merely affirmed what was passed down from Holy Tradition that originated with the apostles. Apparently, they did not see the other books as scripture.
You ask: “do you think burning a fish heart will drive away evil spirits? and if not why not, since your scripture says its so…and where does the catholic church follow this scripture? if not why not? ”
What is your point? We also do not burn animal flesh, refrain from shellfish and pork, or do a thousand other OT commands. Do you give burnt offerings? Does that mean the OT books that discuss it are not scripture?
You ask (combined by me): do you think nebuchednezzar was king of the assyrians? if not, then how can a book be scripture if its historically inaccurate? how about the jewish captivity, was it 7 generations, or 70 years as the bible says…and then how can scripture contradict scripture?”
Let me answer your question with a question. Mark 2:26 states (KJV): How (David) went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?” Yet, 1 Samuel 21:1 says that Ahimelech was the high priest. Are you claiming that Mark is not scripture?
Report Post »TarletonsQuarter
Posted on December 23, 2011 at 1:29pmRush stated: “finally explain why the jews left out the apocrphya…since the jews wrote it…not christians. its their scipture…God gave it to the Jews…you really should read Romans…we are just grafted in….”
And a great deal of Jews before Christ saw those books as scripture. That they eliminated them AFTER Christ is irrelevant.
Report Post »Kaoscontrol
Posted on December 23, 2011 at 1:34pmI got a fruitcake for Christmas that is less nutty than this discussion. You guys make Christianity seem like such a bore…Go ye therefore and proclaim the gospel, guys! Rather than hashing this out on the Blaze forums, go write a book on apologetics — clearly you all have a passion for the subject! Rather than wasting our time spouting off here, let God defend the veracity of his word and find someone hurting to love on this season. Believe me, you’ll feel much better….
Report Post »TarletonsQuarter
Posted on December 23, 2011 at 1:38pmRush stated: “oh and why don’t you accept the quran…(or the holy quran as hillary says) or the book of mormon? they would have the advantage, from your perspective, of not being written by jews….”
First, please refrain from commenting on my being “dismissive” of the Jews. I have not and have not. It is very unChristian of you to judge my demeanor towards them. I respectfully request that you debate as a fellow Christian. The hatred and bigotry in your heart is almost palpable.
To answer your question, all scripture needs something outside of itself with the authority to confess to its authenticity. The Bible has the Catholic Church, the one church that was present during the apostolic era. There were no Muslim, Mormon, (or Protestant) churches around during the apostolic era to confess such authenticity to Islam, Mormonism, or Protestantism. They are manmade and so are their scriptures and/or doctrines (although Protestantism has correct doctrine and scripture where it stays in communion with Christ’s Church).
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on December 23, 2011 at 1:49pm“ope. I even provided a link where many were from the deuterocanonicals. http://www.scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html No amount of denials on your part will change it.”
yeah I’ve already went through the examples you gave earlier….I’m not going to bother go to through the whole list…but its bogus….
“Matt. 2:16 – Herod’s decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wis. 11:7 – slaying the holy innocents.”
oh yeah its not in Isaiah 7:14, Micah 5:2 is it now?? please.
the second one you say Jesus referred to??
11 Lay up thy treasure according to the commandments of the most High, and it shall bring thee more profit than gold.
thats really a stretch….wow.
“ikes. It appears that you cannot see the difference between pre-Christ and post-Christ. The deuterocanonicals were not canonically removed until after Christ, when the Jews had lost authority.”
they did? oh please where in the bible does it say this??? Romans 3 says just the opposite…wow.
“A Christian giving authority to a Jewish council decades after Jesus is stunning. Prior to Jamnia there were two canons (hence deuterocanonicals). ”
oh but YOU give authority to the jews..not even a jewish council….just some scribes who translated the septuagint into greek…I mean really this is just laughalbe. you have NO standard…other than what you agree with.
Report Post »TarletonsQuarter
Posted on December 23, 2011 at 1:50pmGa Magnolia,
You give six criterion for determining scripture. I quote with my comments interspersed.
1. It must be prophetic (written by a prophet). How do you know any book was written by a prophet outside its own claims to have been?
2. It must be authoritative (claims to be God’s message….“thus saith the Lord”) So, if I claim this post is scripture, I meet at least one of your criteria?
3. It must be authentic (written by the person who claimed to be its author.) Did Mark write Mark? Which Mark? How do you know?
4. It had life-transforming power. (Subjective)
5.It is widely recognized as the Word of God. Recognized by whom?
6..It was reliable (the contents were consistent with the rest of Scripture, the data accurate, and there were no inconsistencies in the book) The “rest of scripture?” We are trying to DETERMINE scripture. How can you deem something scripture by comparing it to something that you need to determine is scripture? It is circular logic, akin to saying that “It is scripture because scripture says it is scripture.”
Do you believe in sola scriptura? If so, where is your test in scripture?
The truth of the matter is an outside authority must confess authenticity. The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth and determines the spirit of truth. One Church determined authenticity, the CC.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on December 23, 2011 at 2:00pm“Great. Then you admit that your interpretation may very well be flawed and your claims of being “right” are nothing but your inflated ego.”
I notice you haven’t though…no surprised given your arrogance and condescension….you may want to check the mirror for that inflated ego…try taking out the log from your eye before you take the spec out of mine..oh and where is that in your bogus apocrypha? hmmmm??
“No, the only “ignorance” is yours of the dilemma that you are in. You are admitting to no way of knowing what should be scripture that also fits your theology. It is why you dodge the question. You cannot be sure of even the NT’s authenticity and remain consistent to your theology.”
and you‘re too ignorant to realize you’re in the same dilemma….even worse…you have no standard other than what the catholic church tells you….you deny scripture and disregard the jews while accepting what another group of jews did….are you just ignorant or in total denial?
oh and Mark is there because its accurate…historical…correct…unlike that bogus apocrypha.
“If you cannot determine the authenticity of the NT, then how are you qualified to determine the authenticity of OT scripture?”
obviously much more educated people than me have decided what is the NT…and the jews have decided what is the OT…but since you deny the jews…then who are YOU to decide the OT??? hmmm?? and who is the catholic church to decide the OT?
Report Post »TarletonsQuarter
Posted on December 23, 2011 at 2:00pmRush stated: “yeah I’ve already went through the examples you gave earlier….I’m not going to bother go to through the whole list…but its bogus….”
LOL This is too typical. Someone who admitted that his interpretation is fallible goes on to speak exactly like he is infallible. This is a major problem for Protestantism, as you all see yourselves as pocket popes even though you would never admit as much.
And, no, you did not go through all the examples, just a few cherrypicked by you. Christ and the apostles used the septuagint. You need to come to grips with that reality as even Protestant scholars acknowledge that.
You state: “oh but YOU give authority to the jews..not even a jewish council….just some scribes who translated the septuagint into greek…I mean really this is just laughalbe. you have NO standard…other than what you agree with.”
If you give authority to Jamnia regarding the deuteros, you must give them authority over NT canon as well if you are to be consistent.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on December 23, 2011 at 2:06pm“Thanks for the huge promotion, but I left out nothing. The apostles and first generations of Christians did. Trent merely affirmed what was passed down from Holy Tradition that originated with the apostles. Apparently, they did not see the other books as scripture. ”
yeah I knew you couldn’t answer that…LOL where did the apostles accept the apocrypha? post your verse…you cannot…in other words you’re lying.
“What is your point? We also do not burn animal flesh, refrain from shellfish and pork, or do a thousand other OT commands. Do you give burnt offerings? Does that mean the OT books that discuss it are not scripture?”
oh this is TOO funny..you know very well the point…this verse proves your precious apocrypha is nothing more than BS. your scripture tells you to burn a fish heart to drive away evil spirits….this is insane…and proves your ‘scripture’ is nothing more than a joke.
this is totally different than the dietary requirements of the OT..and you know it…unless you’re just totally ignorant….its really a bit of magic…a spell….get a clue.
I knew you’d duck out on that one….LOL
“Let me answer your question with a question.”
again I knew you’d duck and dodge…if you can’t answer that yourself, then why do you think we should drop those 2 book from the cannon? ever hear of being hoisted by your petard?
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on December 23, 2011 at 2:11pm“First, please refrain from commenting on my being “dismissive” of the Jews. I have not and have not. It is very unChristian of you to judge my demeanor towards them. I respectfully request that you debate as a fellow Christian. The hatred and bigotry in your heart is almost palpable.”
uh huh, given the names you’ve called me, and your blatant anti-semitism? oh but then the catholic church has a long history of anti-semitism doesn’t it now? and unfortunately most of the protestant church does to.
you holier-than-thou hypocrite.
“To answer your question, all scripture needs something outside of itself with the authority to confess to its authenticity. The Bible has the Catholic Church,”
uh no, sorry I don’t accept the authority of the catholic church. especially over the OT…oh and the eastern orthodox don’t either.
“the one church that was present during the apostolic era.”
but that church didn’t exist when the apocrypha was written..the jews did.
” There were no Muslim, Mormon, (or Protestant) churches around during the apostolic era to confess such authenticity to Islam, Mormonism, or Protestantism”.
there weren’t any catholic either.
“They are manmade and so are their scriptures and/or doctrines ”
how do you know? at least they don’t go trying to burn fish hearts to drive away evil spirits…like your ‘scripture’ does.
Report Post »TarletonsQuarter
Posted on December 23, 2011 at 2:15pm“I notice you haven’t though…no surprised given your arrogance and condescension….you may want to check the mirror for that inflated ego…try taking out the log from your eye before you take the spec out of mine..oh and where is that in your bogus apocrypha? hmmmm??”
Please show me where my rhetoric has matched yours for “arrogance and condescension.” Keep in mind that it was YOU who was upbraided for your behavior BY SOMEONE WHO OTHERWISE AGREES WITH YOU.” Does that tell you nothing?
And I admit readily to being fallible. Luckily, my Church is not as the Church teaching a lie would in turn make Jesus a liar. I do not seem Him as a liar, as I believe Him when he says the “gates of hell will not prevail” against His Church. Do you?
You stated: “and you‘re too ignorant to realize you’re in the same dilemma….even worse…”
What a model for Christian brotherhood you are. Yet, no, I have no “dilemma.” The apostles were given authority and my Church is the successors of the apostles. You follow men named Luther, Zwingli, etc., while I follow Jesus and the Church He created.
You state: “you have no standard other than what the catholic church tells you….”
Let me rephrase: “you have no standard other than what the [the Church Christ founded] tells you….”
Yep, I am guilty. I will take the word of Jesus, Peter, Paul, Ignatius, More, Augustine, Aquinas, and Benedict over your fallible word anyday.
Report Post »TarletonsQuarter
Posted on December 23, 2011 at 2:22pmYou state: “you deny scripture and disregard the jews while accepting what another group of jews did….are you just ignorant or in total denial? ”
I did no such thing. I accepted the Holy Tradition given to us by the apostles.
You stated: “oh and Mark is there because its accurate…historical…correct…”
I agree. But prove it while staying consistent to your theology. I can. Can you?
You stated: “obviously much more educated people than me have decided what is the NT…”
Yep. And they were called Catholic bishops.
You stated: “and the jews have decided what is the OT…”
Yes, in the same council that they rejected the gospels. With all due respect to the Jews, I will side with the apostles and earliest Christians on that one.
You stated: “but since you deny the jews…then who are YOU to decide the OT??? hmmm?? and who is the catholic church to decide the OT?’
I never claimed to be anyone to “decide the OT.” You did that. Who is the Catholic Church? The Church founded by Jesus that he promised would not teach lies.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on December 23, 2011 at 2:25pm“If you give authority to Jamnia regarding the deuteros, you must give them authority over NT canon as well if you are to be consistent.”
thats ridiculous. seriously is this the best you can do? scripture in romans entrusts the jews with the scripture…so I trust them with their own scripture the OT. obviously they reject the NT, but thats not their scripture. why should I trust the catholic church over the jews when it comes to the OT?? post the scripture where the catholic church is entrusted with the word of God….you cannot.
“LOL This is too typical. Someone who admitted that his interpretation is fallible goes on to speak exactly like he is infallible. This is a major problem for Protestantism, as you all see yourselves as pocket popes even though you would never admit as much.”
oh yes do you really want to go into the history of the popes and their contradictions? hmmm?? the whole notion that pope is infallible is laughable…where does the scripture proclaim this? hmmmm??
oh yes I’ll trust the church…with its history of indulgences….and the most recent scandals with the priests..do you really want to go there?
“And, no, you did not go through all the examples, just a few cherrypicked by you. Christ and the apostles used the septuagint”
again you are lying…they didn’t use the apocrypha..you examples are bogus…the septuagint also contained real books of the OT. you deliberately try to deceive.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on December 23, 2011 at 2:30pm“I did no such thing. I accepted the Holy Tradition given to us by the apostles. ”
the apostles didn’t give us the septuagint…and they didn’t quote from the apocrypha. nice try.
lets see you’ve called me a master of subterfuge and deception, when you are the one being deceptive. its called projection…you should get some help for that.
“What a model for Christian brotherhood you are. Yet, no, I have no “dilemma.” The apostles were given authority and my Church is the successors of the apostles. You follow men named Luther, Zwingli, etc., while I follow Jesus and the Church He created.”
catholic propoganda. your church is not the successors of the apostles…talk about hubris and arrogance…lets talk about the JEWISH apostles..and then the treatment of the jews by the catholic church during the times of hitler…shall we? by their fruits you shall know them…
“Let me rephrase: “you have no standard other than what the [the Church Christ founded] tells you….””
more arrogance and hubris… I’ll accept the words of the jews over what their testament is, rather than words of an organizaiton that has a long history of ant-semitism.
Report Post »TarletonsQuarter
Posted on December 23, 2011 at 2:32pmRush,
You are obviously a hateful and bigoted person. I sincerely hope that you come to the Lord and find salvation. No saved person would act in the manner that you have.
This is just one example: “uh huh, given the names you’ve called me, and your blatant anti-semitism?”
Please list the names I have called you and the “blatant anti-semitism.” In the interest of honesty, please provide the exact quote in context with the date and time posted.
When (if) you do, we can continue. I will put your words next to mine and then see who has been unChristian. It was clear to Ga Magnolia (someone who agrees with you otherwise) that your demeanor was disrespectful and intolerant. She made no such comment to me. If you do not, I can only assume that you know I am right and will respond no further.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on December 23, 2011 at 2:33pm“Yep. And they were called Catholic bishops.
You stated: “and the jews have decided what is the OT…”
Yes, in the same council that they rejected the gospels. With all due respect to the Jews, I will side with the apostles and earliest Christians on that one.
”
uh post where the apostles accepted the apocrypha? you cannot…so your statement is a lie.
and you and your church haven’t given the jews much respect…so your words ring hollow…
“I never claimed to be anyone to “decide the OT.” You did that. Who is the Catholic Church? The Church founded by Jesus that he promised would not teach lies.”
so by your own words the catholic church does not meet that criteria…one word…INDULGENCES…a total lie.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on December 23, 2011 at 2:38pm“Please list the names I have called you and the “blatant anti-semitism.” In the interest of honesty, please provide the exact quote in context with the date and time posted. ”
TarletonsQuarter
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 8:06pm
Rush,
You are indeed the master of subterfuge.
as far as bigoted and hateful…again you really should take the log out of your own eye first…
at least I am not anti-semitic…and your scornful dismissal of the jews proves it.
I’m sure you will apologize for lying about me. sure.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on December 23, 2011 at 2:40pmas far as anti-semitism….
“Josephus (and the Jerusalem Jews) also rejected the Gospels. So, we are supposed to follow THEM? I’d hate to have that as the strength of my argument.”
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on December 23, 2011 at 2:43pm“When (if) you do, we can continue. I will put your words next to mine and then see who has been unChristian”
thats fine with me…especially in a thread that started with…
“These books were also “deleted” by protestants because they directly prove their new belief system to be false”
and your arrogance in assuming the perfection and holiness of the catholic church, and your total dismissal of protestantism prove you’re a hateful bigot.
Report Post »TarletonsQuarter
Posted on December 23, 2011 at 2:43pmRush,
In a post addressed to you, Ga Magnolia stated: “Perhaps you could tone down the anger a bit. It’s getting a tad loud. Please, continue.”
She obviously saw something in your demeanor that is not all that “Christian.” Why do you think that is? Why didn’t she see it in me?
Please pray on that and have a Blessed Christmas.
PS I still will respond if you answer my previous post and provide the examples of “anti-semitism” (which anyone who knows me would find hilarious).
Report Post »TarletonsQuarter
Posted on December 23, 2011 at 2:50pmRush stated: “thats fine with me…especially in a thread that started with…
“These books were also “deleted” by protestants because they directly prove their new belief system to be false”
I wrote that? Quote and reference? Strike one.
You state: “and your arrogance in assuming the perfection and holiness of the catholic church,…”
Quote and reference? The Church is made up of people that are not “perfect” or all “Holy.” I have never stated otherwise. Strike two.
You stated: “and your total dismissal of protestantism prove you’re a hateful bigot.”
Quote? Reference? Strike three. And talk about false indignation. Compare what I have said about Protestantism compared to what you have said about Catholicism. Night and day…
Ga Magnolia saw it. Why can’t you?
Report Post »TarletonsQuarter
Posted on December 23, 2011 at 3:02pmLOL As an example,you provide:
“You are indeed the master of subterfuge.”
Of course I asked you to put it into context, which you do not. The rest stated:
“I have asked you five simple questions and you have only partially answered (finally) one. You do nothing but dance. Why not answer?”
So, I asked 5 questions, you partially answered one while claiming to have answered them all and that is NOT subterfuge?
You stated: “as far as anti-semitism….
Quote of me: “Josephus (and the Jerusalem Jews) also rejected the Gospels. So, we are supposed to follow THEM? I’d hate to have that as the strength of my argument.”
Where is the anti-semitism? Am I wrong that Josephus and the Jerusalem Jews in 90AD rejected the gospels? How is stating historical fact “anti-semitism?” And how does a Christian find a council that rejected the gospels to be binding?
You are flailing at phantoms. All that I have left to say is Matthew 7:6.
May you find Jesus…
Report Post »TarletonsQuarter
Posted on December 23, 2011 at 5:11pmWow. I have to admit that I HAD to come back for this. This is false witness plain and simple.
You stated: “..and then the treatment of the jews by the catholic church during the times of hitler…shall we? by their fruits you shall know them…
You then stated: “more arrogance and hubris… I’ll accept the words of the jews …”
Would you? Let’s hear from the Jews about what the CC did during WW II:
At the time of (Pope Pius XII) death, Israeli representative to the United Nations and future Prime Minister of Israel, Golda Meir, said: “During the ten years of Nazi terror, when our people went through the horrors of martyrdom, the Pope raised his voice to condemn the persecutors and to commiserate with their victims.”
Nahum Goldmann, President of the World Jewish Congress, said: “With special gratitude we remember all he has done for the persecuted Jews during one of the darkest periods of their entire history.”
Rabbi Elio Toaff, who would later become Chief Rabbi of Rome, said: “More than anyone else, we have had the opportunity to appreciate the great kindness, filled with compassion and magnanimity, that the Pope displayed during the terrible years of persecution and terror, when it seemed that there was no hope left for us.”
More to come.
Report Post »TarletonsQuarter
Posted on December 23, 2011 at 5:14pmThe 1943-1944 American Jewish Yearbook reported that Pius XII “took an unequivocal stand against the oppression of Jews throughout Europe.”
The head of the Italian Jewish Assistance Committee, Dr. Raffael Cantoni, who subsequently became the President of the Union of all Italian Jewish communities reported: “The Church and the papacy have saved Jews as much and in as far as they could save Christians…. Six millions of my co-religionists have been murdered by the Nazis, but there could have been many more victims, had it not been for the efficacious intervention of Pius XII.”
In 1945, the Chief Rabbi of Romania, Dr. Alexander Safran, expressed the gratitude of the Jewish community for the Vatican’s help and support for prisoners in the concentration camps.
Grand Rabbi Isaac Herzog of Jerusalem wrote: “I well know that His Holiness the Pope is opposed from the depths of his noble soul to all persecution and especially to the persecution… which the Nazis inflict unremittingly on the Jewish people…. I take this opportunity to express… my sincere thanks as well as my deep appreciation… of the invaluable help given by the Catholic Church to the Jewish people in its affliction.” After the war, Rabbi Herzog visited the Vatican to thank Pius and the Holy See for “manifold acts of charity” on behalf of the Jews.
So, will you publicly renounce your “arrogance and hubris” and “accept the word of the Jews?”
Report Post »TarletonsQuarter
Posted on December 23, 2011 at 5:31pmAnd out of curiosity,
Do you have any similar comments from Jewish sources regarding the Lutherans in Germany? The Reformed? The baptists? The nondenomiationals or any of the other 32,000 protestant denominations?
From historian Ronald J. Rychlak: “It is commonly estimated that the Church under Pius saved more than half a million Jewish refugees during the war.”
And: “The survival rates for Jews in Catholic countries were almost invariably higher than for Jews who found themselves under Nazi occupation elsewhere.” (Elsewhere=Protestant countries)
Really? Do you want to play the “we will know them by their fruit” game in light of this information? It is even more astounding since Naziism came from a LUTHERAN (Protestant) country. Want to guess what the Jewish survival rate was there? So, we can know you by your fruit, eh?
You are a bigot, plain and simple, that was more than willing to believe blood libel against Christ’s Church that was started by the same Soviet Communism (see Rychlak’s books) that begat the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, both intending to falsely discredit people who worship the one true God.
Why would a fellow Christian buy into it so easily? Pray about it…
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on December 23, 2011 at 7:38pmcatholic anti-semitism has a very long history…
Expulsion of Jews from England
Main article: Edict of Expulsion
King Edward I expelled all the Jews from England in 1290 (only after ransoming some 3,000 among the most wealthy of them), on the accusation of usury and undermining loyalty to the dynasty.
[edit] Expulsion of Jews from Spain
In 1492 Ferdinand II of Aragon and Isabella I of Castile, the rulers of Spain who financed Christopher Columbus’ voyage to the New World just a few months later in 1492, declared that all Jews in their territories should either convert to Catholicism or leave the country. While some converted, many others left for Portugal, France, Italy (including the Papal States), Netherlands, Poland, the Ottoman Empire, and North Africa. Many of those who had fled to Portugal were latter expelled by King Manuel in 1497 or left to avoid forced conversion and persecution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_antisemitism
Some historians have argued that Pacelli, as Cardinal Secretary of State, dissuaded Pope Pius XI — who was nearing death at the time[56] — from condemning Kristallnacht in November 1938,[57] when he was informed of it by the papal nuncio in Berlin.[
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_Nazi_Germany
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on December 23, 2011 at 7:42pmWhat did Adolf Hitler think about the relationship between Christianity and Fascism? Hitler wrote: ‘The fact that the Catholic Church has come to an agreement with Fascist Italy …proves beyond doubt that the Fascist world of ideas is closer to Christianity than those of Jewish liberalism or even atheistic Marxism, to which the so-called…
http://atheism.about.com/od/adolfhitlernazigermany/Adolf_Hitler_Nazi_Germany_Christian_Nationalism_AntiSemitism.htm
Archbishop of Zagreb, Aloysius Stepinac, was the head of the Catholic Church in Yugoslavia. Beatified by the previous Pope, John Paul II, Stepinac was pro-Nazi. He not only knew of the crimes of the Ustashe and the priests, but he supported them and the forced conversions of Serbs. After the war, he was convicted for war crimes.
“God, who directs the destiny of nations and controls the hearts of Kings, has given us Ante Pavelic and moved the leader of a friendly and allied people, Adolf Hitler, to use his victorious troops to disperse our oppressors… Glory be to God, our gratitude to Adolf Hitler and loyalty to our Poglavnik, Ante Pavelic.”
– Archbishop Stepinac
http://freetruth.50webs.org/A7d.htm
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on December 23, 2011 at 7:46pmThe extraordinary ecclesiastical work of art remained unnoticed for a full 70 years at the St Jacques Church in Montgeron, south of Paris.
If it had been pointed out at the time of its inauguration – in July 1941.
The official version of the Catholic Church, is that the colorful window display “secret french resistance”. As it was, the colorful window clearly depicts a black fringed Hitler as Herod, the infamous biblical King renowned for slaughtering children.
The figure has Hitler’s hair, but his moustache has been hidden behind his arm to avoid serious trouble,’ said Father Dominique Guerin, pastor of the parish.
The Papal Nuncio to Berlin celebrated Hitlers birthday with Hitler as late as April 20th 1939.
http://ivarfjeld.wordpress.com/2011/01/18/catholic-church-in-france-hailed-hitler-for-killing-jews/
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on December 23, 2011 at 7:48pmIn the 1930s, Pacelli and his associates negotiated with the Nazis to form a contract which got signed in 1933 as the Reich Concordat with the approval of the Pope. Note that the Catholic hierarchy believes in the infallibility of Popes in matters of faith and morals (ever since the First Vatican Council of 1870). This Concordat with its Papal infallible authority had arguably neutralized the potential of 23 million Catholics to protest and resist and which helped Hitler into legal dictatorship. [Cornwell, p. 4] After the agreement, Hitler, mimicking Pacelli fourteen years earlier stated, “I will devote my entire strength to cultivating and strengthening the relations between the Holy See and Germany.” [Cornwell, p. 136] (Hitler, spent more time and effort on the concordat with Pacelli than on any other treaty in the entire era of the Third Reich [Cornwell, p. 150]). This Concordat gave Germany an opportunity to create an area of trust with the Church and gave significance to the developing struggle against international Jewry. According to John Cornwell, this papal endorsement of Nazism helped seal the fate of Europe which makes it plausible that these Catholic prejudices bolstered aspects of Nazi anti-Semitism. [Cornwell, p. 28]
http://nobeliefs.com/ChurchesWWII.htm#anchor2a
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on December 23, 2011 at 7:53pmthis is a timeline of anti-semitism….this is just a part..
1933 In a pastoral letter on January 23, Bishop Johannes Maria Gföllner of Linz, Austria, declares that while the radical anti-Semitism preached by Nazism is completely incompatible with Christianity, it is the right and duty of Christians to fight and break the harmful influences of Jewry in all areas of modern cultural life. The Austrian episcopate condemns the letter in December for causing racial hatred and conflict
1933-1939 The general consensus among the Catholic papers in Poland is that Jewish influence should be reduced in all areas of life, that the Polish and Jewish communities should be separated as much as possible, and that the most desirable option is mass emigration of the Jews from Poland. St. Maximilian Kolbe is an active promoter of antisemitic literature
http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/mine/timeline.htm
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on December 23, 2011 at 7:55pmoh and don’t think I excuse or try to explain away, as you do, the protestant history of anti-semitism…
anti-semitism is vile no matter the source…
the way you said THEM…is hateful bigoted and anti-semitic you should repent.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on December 23, 2011 at 7:57pm“You are a bigot, plain and simple, that was more than willing to believe blood libel against Christ’s Church ”
you are an anti-protestant bigot….full of hatred and arrogance..
Christ’s church is all that are HIS…orthodox, protestant and catholic…your arrrogance an hubris is astounding…you should repent you sound like a pharisee.
Report Post »TarletonsQuarter
Posted on December 23, 2011 at 8:21pmToo funny. Your original comments were“..and then the treatment of the jews by the catholic church during the times of hitler…shall we? by their fruits you shall know them…” and also that not taking the Jews word for it was anti-Semitism.
You then cite several examples, most of which were from periods prior to the Holocaust, or from obscure bishops (as if it is possible for a church of 1 billion NOT to have some that may have been pro-Nazi or anti-semitic), agreements with Hitler before he exterminated Jews, or diplomats (that is what a nuncio is) “celebrating” Hitler’s birthday with him. What is a diplomat supposed to do, spit on him? AND you go on to ignore the words of the most prominent Jews of the time who had nothing but good things to say regarding how the CC helped the Jews.
By your “logic,” that makes you anti-semitic.
You state: “the way you said THEM…is hateful bigoted and anti-semitic you should repent.”
How weak. Again, here was my entire quote:“Josephus (and the Jerusalem Jews) also rejected the Gospels. So, we are supposed to follow THEM? I’d hate to have that as the strength of my argument.”
The council referred to the Council of Jamnia, which is a Jewish council that rejected the gospels. “THEM” obviously refers to the council, not all Jews. Jews also do not believe that Christ is the savior, and it is not “anti-semitic” to say they are wrong. To claim otherwise is plain lunacy.
Report Post »TarletonsQuarter
Posted on December 23, 2011 at 8:38pmLOL What a joke. Your sources are mostly antiCatholic idiocy. Kolbe is an antisemite? LOL He HID 2000 Jews in his friary in Poland. He WAS ARRESTED FOR HIDING THEM and the man he replaced to die was a JEW.
In other words, for your “source” to be accurate, the great anti-semite Kolbe was arrested for hiding Jews and volunteered to die for a Jew in Auschwitz.
You state: “anti-semitism is vile no matter the source…”
Yet you only mention alleged catholic antisemitism and only catholic antisemitism is a “fruit”. What hypocrisy.
You stated: “you are an anti-protestant bigot….full of hatred and arrogance..”
Except you never give examples, while fellow Protestants admonish you for your hatred.
You stated: “Christ’s church is all that are HIS…orthodox, protestant and catholic…”
You are correct in that all baptised Christians are Catholic, if not perfectly united in His Church. We happen to be lucky enough to have the fullness of faith. But Jesus did begin one church. Men started the rest. To quote Ignatius who learned from the Apostle John and wrote around 107AD: “Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God. Thus, whatever is done will be safe and valid.” — Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8, J.R. Willis translation.
Does your church h
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on December 23, 2011 at 9:33pm“and also that not taking the Jews word for it was anti-Semitism.
You then cite several examples, most of which were from periods prior to the Holocaust, or from obscure bishops (as if it is possible for a church of 1 billion NOT to have some that may have been pro-Nazi or anti-semitic
”
oh you mean like those ‘obscure’ bishops and priests who either committed or excused the abuse of children? hmmmm?? looks like there is a pattern here…
In the summer of 1942, Pius explained to his college of Cardinals the reasons for the great gulf that existed between Jews and Christians at the theological level: “Jerusalem has responded to His call and to His grace with the same rigid blindness and stubborn ingratitude that has led it along the path of guilt to the murder of God.“ Historian Guido Knopp describes these comments of Pius as being ”incomprehensible“ at a time when ”Jerusalem was being murdered by the million”.[73]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_Nazi_Germany#Alleged_silence_regarding_the_Holocaust
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on December 23, 2011 at 9:43pm“You are correct in that all baptised Christians are Catholic”
I never said that…and I really am sick of your lies and BS.
you’re a fine example of catholic arrogance, hatred and bigotry..
here’s what the jews say about your holy pius…
Throughout the Holocaust, Pius XII was consistently besieged with pleas for help on behalf of the Jews.
In the spring of 1940, the Chief Rabbi of Palestine, Isaac Herzog, asked the papal Secretary of State, Cardinal Luigi Maglione to intercede to keep Jews in Spain from being deported to Germany. He later made a similar request for Jews in Lithuania. The papacy did nothing.(5)
Within the Pope’s own church, Cardinal Theodor Innitzer of Vienna told Pius XII about Jewish deportations in 1941. In 1942, the Slovakian charge d’affaires, a position under the supervision of the Pope, reported to Rome that Slovakian Jews were being systematically deported and sent to death camps.(6)
In October 1941, the Assistant Chief of the U.S. delegation to the Vatican, Harold Tittman, asked the Pope to condemn the atrocities. The response came that the Holy See wanted to remain “neutral,” and that condemning the atrocities would have a negative influence on Catholics in German-held lands.(7)
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/pius.html
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on December 23, 2011 at 9:45pmI’ve never seen a bigger lap dog…you’re a pathetic catholic apologist…I‘m sure you will defend the priest’s abuse of children….its rather sickening…
the pope’s refusal to speak out about these atrocities is unforgivable..
In late August 1942, after more than 200,000 Ukrainian Jews had been killed, Ukrainian Metropolitan Andrej Septyckyj wrote a long letter to the Pope, referring to the German government as a regime of terror and corruption, more diabolical than that of the Bolsheviks. The Pope replied by quoting verses from Psalms and advising Septyckyj to “bear adversity with serene patience.”(8)
On September 18, 1942, Monsignor Giovanni Battista Montini, the future Pope Paul VI, wrote, “The massacres of the Jews reach frightening proportions and forms.”(9) Yet, that same month when Myron Taylor, U.S. representative to the Vatican, warned the Pope that his silence was endangering his moral prestige, the Secretary of State responded on the Pope’s behalf that it was impossible to verify rumors about crimes committed against the Jews.(10)
Wladislaw Raczkiewicz, president of the Polish government-in-exile, appealed to the Pope in January 1943 to publicly denounce Nazi violence. Bishop Preysing of Berlin did the same, at least twice. Pius XII refused.(11)
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/pius.html
Report Post »TarletonsQuarter
Posted on December 24, 2011 at 11:23amRush,
Your hatred brings forth only my pity. I will not show you the same rage that even another Protestant has uprbraided you for on this very thread. A perfect example is this quote from you: I’ve never seen a bigger lap dog…you’re a pathetic catholic apologist…“ You use ”Catholic” as a derogatory term, which is not something that someone filled with the love of Christ would do.
You then go on to bring a totally irrelevant topic, stating: “I‘m sure you will defend the priest’s abuse of children….its rather sickening…”
You are “sure” I will defend it? How? Isn’t that a supreme case of arrogance? It sure is. Here is a newsflash, it is sickening. No defense offered. I would like to point out, however, that John Jay Law School (a top tier law school not associated with the RCC) recently did a thorough examination of this topic. Do you know what they found? That the BSA, public schools, and PROTESTANT DENOMINATIONS had a higher rate of sexual misconduct by clergy than the RCC, some denominations more than double. It also noted that the RCC has the most stringent protections against future abuses and that the Southern Baptist Convention STILL has none whatsoever, not even requiring the reporting of an accused clergy member moving from one congregation to another.
Isn’t it interesting that you did not have this information available on the Internet?
I can only pray that you come out as forcefully in word and deed.
Report Post »TarletonsQuarter
Posted on December 24, 2011 at 11:30amAnd your “examples” are equally pitiful. You called me a “pathetic Catholic apologist”, yet can do no more than copy/paste “examples” from anti-Catholic websites, without displaying an ounce of intellectual curiosity and integrity.
For instance, you provide: “In the spring of 1940, the Chief Rabbi of Palestine, Isaac Herzog, asked the papal Secretary of State, Cardinal Luigi Maglione to intercede to keep Jews in Spain from being deported to Germany. He later made a similar request for Jews in Lithuania. The papacy did nothing.(5)”
Nothing, eh? Then why were survival rates higher in Catholic countries? Oh, and here is what the SAME Chief Rabbi of Palestine Herzog said AFTER the war:
“I well know that His Holiness the Pope is opposed from the depths of his noble soul to all persecution and especially to the persecution… which the Nazis inflict unremittingly on the Jewish people…. I take this opportunity to express… my sincere thanks as well as my deep appreciation… of the invaluable help given by the Catholic Church to the Jewish people in its affliction.” After the war, Rabbi Herzog visited the Vatican to thank Pius and the Holy See for “manifold acts of charity” on behalf of the Jews.”
I suppose Rabbi Herzog changed his mind, huh?
Report Post »TarletonsQuarter
Posted on December 24, 2011 at 11:35amMore lunacy: “Within the Pope’s own church, Cardinal Theodor Innitzer of Vienna told Pius XII about Jewish deportations in 1941. In 1942, the Slovakian charge d’affaires, a position under the supervision of the Pope, reported to Rome that Slovakian Jews were being systematically deported and sent to death camps.(6)”
As if the Pope was supposed to raise an army?
More: “In October 1941, the Assistant Chief of the U.S. delegation to the Vatican, Harold Tittman, asked the Pope to condemn the atrocities. The response came that the Holy See wanted to remain “neutral,” and that condemning the atrocities would have a negative influence on Catholics in German-held lands.(7)”
Right, and he was supposed to do what? He was right. A strong condemnation would have done nothing to save one Jew and Catholics would have been slaughtered. In fact, MORE Jews would have died because the slaughtered Catholics (like Maximillian Kolbe) would not have been around to hide or smuggle Jews out of Nazi occupied lands.
Do you even think before you post?
Report Post »TarletonsQuarter
Posted on December 24, 2011 at 11:39amYou provide: “In late August 1942, after more than 200,000 Ukrainian Jews had been killed, Ukrainian Metropolitan Andrej Septyckyj wrote a long letter to the Pope, referring to the German government as a regime of terror and corruption, more diabolical than that of the Bolsheviks. The Pope replied by quoting verses from Psalms and advising Septyckyj to “bear adversity with serene patience.”(8)”
Again, the Pope should have sent in the Vatican “Seal Team 6” to kill Hitler?
The Pope was in a tough position, with the vatican and most of Catholic Europe under fascist control. Only the suicide of Catholicism would have made you happy…
Report Post »TarletonsQuarter
Posted on December 24, 2011 at 12:20pmMe: “You are correct in that all baptised Christians are Catholic”
You: “I never said that…and I really am sick of your lies and BS.”
Cursing? I am glad that my wonderful Protestant friends and neighbors do not adhere to your “model” of Protestant charity and Christianity. I might have grown as hateful as you.
Like it or not, if you are licitly baptized you are “Catholic”, as it is the universal (Catholic=universal) Church started by Christ. Look in Acts. It is FILLED with examples of the apostles (and those they appoint) “laying on hands” to appoint new bishops, priests, deacons, etc. Even Paul went to the apostles, and there are no instances of “Joe the Physical Therapist” deeming himself a pastor, which happens everyday in the Protestant churches. My priest can trace his ordination via the “laying of hands” back to Jesus appointing Peter. Only the CC and Orthodox Churches can trace this SCRIPTURAL ordination back to an apostle. This is not “hatred or arrogance”, just fact.
It is also “fact” that Protestant Churches are manmade, started by men named Luther, Calvin, etc. in the 1500s or later. There are no ruins of a 1500-2000 year old Baptist, Episcopol, 7th Day Adventist, or Reformed churches; just RCC or Orthodox. Equally new and manmade are the notions of sola scriptura, OSAS, and sola fide.
I have much preparation for Christmas (Christ MASS, not Christ “church service”). I hope you find Him this Christmas.
Report Post »TarletonsQuarter
Posted on December 24, 2011 at 12:41pmOh dear. You see, I can copy/paste as well and I can use credible sources…
The German Protestant Church put in a good word for Adolf Eichmann, the chief logistics organizer of the Holocaust, after his arrest in Argentina by Israeli agents in 1960, SPIEGEL has learned.
The superintendent of the Protestant Church for Upper Austria, Wilhelm Mensing-Braun, based in the Austrian city of Linz where Eichmann spent part of his childhood, wrote a letter to the foreign affairs department of the Evangelical Church in Germany in Frankfurt claiming that the mass murderer “had a fundamentally decent disposition,“ was ”kind-hearted,“ and was characterized by ”great helpfulness.”
At that time, Eichmann was about to be put on trial in Jerusalem for crimes against humanity.
Braun went on that he could not imagine that the former SS officer “would ever have been capable of cruelty or criminal acts.”
Bishop Hermann Kunst, the representative of the Evangelical Church at the West German government, passed the letter on to the German Foreign Ministry with the note that the assessment was “at least interesting.”
That means that not only an Austrian church official, but a German one as well, effectively lobbied the German government on behalf of Eichmann. http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,781619,00.html
Report Post »TarletonsQuarter
Posted on December 24, 2011 at 12:49pmAnd from the father of protestantism himself:
Whoever would like to cherish such adders and puny devils — who are the worst enemies of Christ and us all — to befriend them and to do them honour simply in order to be cheated, plundered, robbed, disgraced, and forced to howl and curse and suffer every kind of evil, to him I would commend the Jews. And if this is not enough, let him tell the Jews to use his mouth as a privy, or else crawl into the Jew’s hind parts, and there worship the holy thing, so as afterwards to be able to boast of having been merciful, and of having helped the Devil and his progeny to blaspheme our dear Lord.
Martin Luther, “Hitler’s Spiritual Ancestor” by Peter F. Weiner (1985, Gustav Broukal Press)
Did I not tell you earlier that a Jew is such a noble, precious jewel that God and all the angels dance when he farts? Martin Luther, On the Jews and Their Lies
Therefore be on your guard against the Jews, knowing that wherever they have their synagogues, nothing is found but a den of devils in which sheer self-glory, conceit, lies, blasphemy, and defaming of God and men are practiced most maliciously and veheming his eyes on them.
Martin Luther, On the Jews and Their Lies
Well, I could go on, but the title of his book “On the Jews and their Lies” says it all, doncha think? Rush, clean your own house first…
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on December 25, 2011 at 3:25pm“No defense offered. I would like to point out, however, that John Jay Law School (a top tier law school not associated with the RCC) recently did a thorough examination of this topic. Do you know what they found? That the BSA, public schools, and PROTESTANT DENOMINATIONS had a higher rate of sexual misconduct by clergy than the RCC,”
yeah I knew you’d post something like this…the EVIL PROTESTANTS ARE WORSE SEE SEE..
as I said you’re a pathetic catholic lapdog, excusing any evil your church does…its really sick and pathetic….
there‘s a book called HItler’s Pope….that a book like that could even be written should cause you great concern….but no matter what the church does its right since its THE church….right…you’re badly brain-washed.
the pope couldn’t even speak out…pathetic…how hard is it just to speak out? but apparently he didn’t think it worth his time….and you defend him…I see the truth hurts, doesn’t it?
and of course you go blaming the protestants…newsflash gomer MARTIN LUTHER WASN’T ALIVE DURING THE TIME OF HITLER….
you’re sick twisted and evil to defend such conduct…I knew you’d excuse the sex abuse, as well as the anti-semitism….by blaming others…denying and deflecting…..
PATHETIC
Report Post »TarletonsQuarter
Posted on December 26, 2011 at 12:32pmRush,
Look at the words you chose to articulate on the day we celebrate the birth of the Lord, our Savior. I pray that the Lord will forgive such hatred on His day.
You stated: “yeah I knew you’d post something like this…the EVIL PROTESTANTS ARE WORSE SEE SEE..”
First, I have never called or implied that Protestants are “worse” or “evil.” You are the one throwing around such appellations. Also, you stated earlier in the thread, when you first brought up the topic, that we are known by our “fruits.” I am merely making scripture known to you, pointing out in a brotherly way that you will be judged by the same standard you hold Catholics. Will your church be known by its “fruits” as well? Will you be known by the fruit you have born on this thread? Pray about it.
You stated: “as I said you’re a pathetic catholic lapdog, excusing any evil your church does…its really sick and pathetic….”
Excusing? I said in response to you bringing up the topic: “Here is a newsflash, it is sickening. No defense offered. ” The interesting part is that you chose to quote me in your latest part, but CHOSE TO REDACT THE PART WHERE I SAID IT WAS “SICKENING” so that you could claim that I was “excusing” it.
Here is a tip for you that is one of the first rules of apologetics. When you have to mislead or lie to win a debate, you already lost it. That does not even cover your bigger problem, your soul in the face of such a blatant false witness.
Report Post »TarletonsQuarter
Posted on December 26, 2011 at 12:46pmYou state: “there‘s a book called HItler’s Pope….that a book like that could even be written should cause you great concern….”
All it proves is that an anti-Catholic bigot can write a book. And here is the NECESSARY RESULT of your logic. Richard Dawkins wrote a very popular book called “The God Delusion.” Using your logic, “that a book like that could even be written should cause you great concern.”
But your case is even worse than that. You claimed that not believing the Jews was evidence of anti-Semitism, yetI gave you a plethora of quotations from Jewish leaders showing great admiration and appreciation for what the Catholic Church and Pope Pius did for the Jews during the Holocaust (not to mention historical data that showed the survival rates of Jews to be higher in Catholic countries and that actions by the Church directly saved more than 500,000 Jews). Yet, you choose to ignore these statements. By YOUR “logic”, that makes you an anti-Semite. What a big old helping of hypocrisy on your part…
You stated: “….but no matter what the church does its right since its THE church….right…you’re badly brain-washed. ”
You are right on one account, it is “THE” Church. But no, it is not (nor have I ever claimed) always right in what it “does.” What the Church teaches is always right, as it is protected by the HS and Jesus does not lie. What it DOES is a different matter, as the Church is made up of sinners.
Report Post »TarletonsQuarter
Posted on December 26, 2011 at 1:08pmContinued from above…
You have offered nothing but an antiCatholic “Internet Favorites” rolodex to copy/paste. For you to call someone else “brainwashed” takes a lot of chutzpah.
You stated: “the pope couldn’t even speak out…pathetic…how hard is it just to speak out?”
Interesting. Ask Peter who denied Him three times. Or ask the remaining apostles who should have spoken out, but all except the beloved apostle abandoned Him. Are you claiming to be more holy than the apostles, who you must find “pathetic” as well because they did not “speak out”?
You stated: “but apparently he didn’t think it worth his time….and you defend him…I see the truth hurts, doesn’t it? ”
Not worth his time, heh? Again, no organization did more to put itself in danger to hide, feed, and smuggle Jews to safety. This included acts such as sheltering them in monasteries and the Pope’s residence at Castel Gandolfo, which resulted in the deaths of 300 and injuries to 1000 more being sheltered when the Nazis bombed it.
You stated: “and of course you go blaming the protestants…newsflash gomer MARTIN LUTHER WASN’T ALIVE DURING THE TIME OF HITLER….”
Again, what a model of Christianity you are, calling people “gomer.“ I would point out that you were the first to bring up alleged ”anti-semitism” prior to Hitler, going back to England in 1290. I mean, 1290 wasn’t “the time of Hitler” either, was it? I merely responded. Another healthy heaping of hy
Report Post »TarletonsQuarter
Posted on December 26, 2011 at 1:15pm(Continuing above). Another healthy heaping of hypocrisy on your part.
You stated: “you’re sick twisted and evil to defend such conduct…”
Of course I never did any such thing. The conduct you should be worried about is your own. I just cannot imagine my heart being so hard to Jesus’s love that I would ever post such things on Christmas. Again, there is a reason that a fellow protestant criticized YOUR conduct on this very thread.
You stated: “I knew you’d excuse the sex abuse, as well as the anti-semitism….by blaming others…denying and deflecting…..”
Again, I even said: ““Here is a newsflash, it is sickening. No defense offered.”
Is there a better case of false witness than above?
Report Post »TarletonsQuarter
Posted on December 26, 2011 at 3:49pmFrom author, historian, and attorney Ronald Rychlak:
“The serious controversy surrounding Pius XII’s wartime leadership began in 1963, with the publication and production of a play entitled The Deputy. It presented Pius as an unprincipled politician, possessed of an aristocratic coolness and eyes that had an “icy glow.” While there had long been suspicions, only recently was it established that the play was produced as part of a KGB disinformation campaign to discredit the Catholic Church.
In 2007, Ion Mihai Pacepa, the highest ranking Soviet bloc officer ever to defect to the West, revealed the plan and his part in it. The order came from Moscow at a time of particular hostility toward the Church. After the war, new Communist regimes had convicted many religious leaders (including leading Catholic bishops in Croatia, Hungary, and Poland) in show trials on the charge of collaboration with the Nazis. By 1960, some of these charades were being exposed, most notably by Hungarian Cardinal Mindszenty, who had escaped imprisonment in 1956 and wrote his memoirs.
Report Post »TarletonsQuarter
Posted on December 26, 2011 at 3:50pmVirtually every person who had a significant role in seeing The Deputy published and produced – from the German producer who took orders from the German Communist Party, to the translator who sat on the Spanish Communist Party’s leadership panel, to the American publisher who considered Communism to be his religion – had close ties to the Communist Party, and many had ties to the KGB or its predecessor. They made sure that the play was published, produced, and promoted with an eye toward discrediting not just Pius, but the Catholic Church and Christianity in general. A side benefit – from the anti-Semitic Soviet perspective – was that this effort helped separate Jews from one of their recent close allies.
The Deputy is a seven-hour play, with Pius XII as the central, stationary figure. The Pope is not developed as a tragic figure, since he is neither tragically indecisive nor torn by his alternatives. Not only does this Pius lack Christian charity, but also simple human decency. The Soviets so overplayed their hand that even critics of Pius have called the characterization of Pacelli “so wide of the mark as to be ludicrous.” Nevertheless, with the Soviet propaganda machine behind it, the play reshaped Pius XII’s reputation so that it is now an axiom of popular culture that he was, at the very least, guilty of criminal cowardice and insensitivity in the face of the Holocaust.
Report Post »TarletonsQuarter
Posted on December 26, 2011 at 3:52pmImmediately after The Deputy premiered Church officials responded, as did Protestant and Jewish leaders (there were strong currents of anti-Semitism in the play). Jeno Levai, the leading scholar of the Jewish extermination in Hungary observed that it was a “particularly regrettable irony that the one person in all of occupied Europe who did more than anyone else to halt the dreadful crime and alleviate its consequences is today made the scapegoat for the failures of others.” The Pope’s statements, tributes from Jewish victims, news accounts from the time, testimony of those who knew him, and Nazi anger directed at him clearly show where the Pope stood.
Report Post »TarletonsQuarter
Posted on December 26, 2011 at 3:53pmIn his first encyclical, Summi Pontificatus (Darkness over the Earth), released just weeks after the outbreak of war, Pius condemned the “Godless State” and deplored “the forgetfulness of that law of human solidarity and charity which is dictated and imposed by our common origin and by the equality of rational nature in all men, to whatever people they belong.” His reference to an “ever-increasing host of Christ’s enemies” was a clear swipe at both Germany and the Soviet Union. He went on to condemn racists, dictators, and treaty violators (all terms which applied to Hitler and Stalin). Heinrich Mueller, head of the Gestapo, wrote: “This Encyclical is directed exclusively against Germany, both in ideology and in regard to the German-Polish dispute; How dangerous it is for our foreign relations as well as our domestic affairs is beyond dispute.” Allies dropped 80,000 copies of it behind enemy lines as propaganda.
Report Post »TarletonsQuarter
Posted on December 26, 2011 at 3:54pmIn his 1942 Christmas statement, Pius spoke of the need for mankind to make “a solemn vow never to rest until valiant souls of every people and every nation of the earth arise in their legions, resolved to bring society and to devote themselves to the services of the human person and of a divinely ennobled human society.” Mankind owed this vow to all victims of the war, including “the hundreds of thousands who, through no fault of their own, and solely because of their nation or race, have been condemned to death or progressive extinction.” One Nazi report stated: “The Pope has repudiated the National Socialist New European Order…. His speech is one long attack on everything we stand for… [He] makes himself the mouthpiece of the Jewish war criminals.”
Report Post »TarletonsQuarter
Posted on December 26, 2011 at 3:57pmAfter the liberation of Rome, Pius declared: “For centuries, [Jews] have been most unjustly treated and despised. It is time they were treated with justice and humanity. God wills it and the Church wills it. St. Paul tells us that the Jews are our brothers. Instead of being treated as strangers they should be welcomed as friends.” In an allocution to the sacred College on June 2, 1945, which was also broadcast on Vatican Radio, Pius noted the death of about 2,000 Catholic priests at Dachau and described National Socialism as “the arrogant apostasy from Jesus Christ, the denial of His doctrine and of His work of redemption, the cult of violence, the idolatry of race and blood, the overflow of human liberty and dignity.”
Rush, in other words, your disinformation campaign began in the 1960′s by Soviet Communists. Lenin used to call those who supported him in the West “useful idiots”. Please do not be another one.
Report Post »by faith
Posted on December 27, 2011 at 2:32pmSummary
The Catholic Church believes that Jesus chose Peter to be the head of his church on earth. That he and the other apostles were to preach to the people the Good News. Later they began to write down these teachings. Through the authority granted by Jesus, this apostolic succession, which continues to this day, the Church on several occasions canonized the books of the Bible. The question of whether all Jews accepted the books in question is irrelevant, because the magisterial teaching authority. Allowing for the most liberal estimates for first 1,500 years there was the Catholic Church and a few dozen churches in schism and maybe a few dozen more completely disconnected “Christian” churches
You want me to believe that for more than 1,200 years this Bible included 7 books that God did not want included. That a fesses throwing monk from Germany and a couple other MEN came along to correct this error. The King James is based on the only perfect set of manuscripts we have (a false claim; there is no perfect set of manuscripts; and the ones used for the KJV were compiled by a Catholic, Erasmus), that it is the only translation that avoids modern, liberal renderings, and that its translators were extremely saintly and scholarly men.
Report Post »by faith
Posted on December 27, 2011 at 2:32pm. The complete KJV was published in 1611. Over the last three centuries, numerous minor changes (for example, of spelling and grammar) have been made in the King James, with the result that most versions of the KJV currently on the market are significantly different from the original. This has led one publisher to recently re-issue the 1611 King James Version Bible. Over the last 300+ years there are now estimates of more than 30,000 Christian denominations.
Report Post »by faith
Posted on December 27, 2011 at 2:51pmThe Catholic Church will be here until the end.
Jesus said the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church.
Rush_is_wrong, your church, when did it start? Last week? last year? 50 years ago? 100?
The Catholic Chuch has Jesus, the Bible and history on it’s side.
Report Post »You have your own interpritation of the Bible and anti-catholic hate.
Caleb-Texas
Posted on December 27, 2011 at 4:01pmDear Rush:
I hope you had a great Christmas! Reading your post you mentioned that you are an amateur apologist so am I! I respect the zeal you have for your faith however I can’t help but notice how angry you sound at times and although I sometimes don’t set the best of examples this scriptural passage helps me a lot:
“…always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; YET do it with gentleness and respect…”
1 Peter 3:15
Archibishop Fulton Sheen used to say that you may win the argument but loose the soul. Always be prepered to defend your faith but do it with gentleness and respect to others.
Your Catholic brother,
Caleb
Report Post »Caleb-Texas
Posted on December 27, 2011 at 4:49pmDear GA Magnolia,
Thanks for your kind response to Rush (about the six basis for including book in scripture), however I will like to clarify a few points:
“…Remember: no church or council made the books authoritative by their vote or recognition. They met the criteria recognized by all theological authorities”.
However it was the Church that established the Cannon of Scriptures (previous posts). Moreover your six points only make sense in the light of the Church that validates them.
Let me explain:
The early Church recognized that the books must be consistent with the rest of scriptures, for example Gnostic gospels such as the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Mary were excluded because they contradicted orthodox doctrine. However other books such as the Gospel of Peter that claimed to be authorities and written by the Apostle Peter were also excluded because the testimony of the early Church did not supported that claim. I also mentioned in one of my earlier post that the Book of Revelation almost did not make it into the Cannon of Scripture but thanks to St. Augustine’s advocacy (Bishop of Hippo 395-430) it was included. The pattern is clear it was the Church who canonized the cannon of scripture. It was Jesus who gave that authority to the Church:
“…whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven”
Matt. 16:18-19
(cont. below)
Report Post »Caleb-Texas
Posted on December 27, 2011 at 4:54pmTo GM Magnolia (cont.):
The question really boils down to that of Authority. If you trust the Scripture you must trust in the Catholic Church. The Church look at the totality of the evidence and made a decision guided by the Holy Spirit and yes they included the “deuterocanonical books”.
I recommend you to read:
Where We Got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church
By The Right Rev. HENRY G. GRAHAM,
Here is a free online copy:
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/wbible.htm
@By Faith
Hope you had a great Chirstmas with your family!
Report Post »poetopoet
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 9:43amThey Made Me Do It
Once upon time in the forest
I stood proud, tall and strong
but today I remember his trial
as I was cut down I too prayed.
Not once, twice a million times
in handrails some hold for safety
or the cane to support many today
mean nothing to me and my family.
History traces us back to door lintels
supports for homes of mighty no more
gone for good evil beings, wood died on.
A wooden cross lives, shows you the way.
You see they cut me down many years ago
and I was not born yesterday that joke goes
you know yourself to help your neighbor along
Pinocchio was a fairy tale and Jesus Christ is not.
Look every tree you can see is praying forgiveness.
Report Post »at twenty years old they nailed him to me for his life
and to this day trees of the world unite as one by I am
powerless, speechless and helpless we show you a way.
Belteshazzar
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 9:38amMatthew 24:22 Kumbaya wont get it done Mr Beck!
Placing your hands over your ears and singing” la-la-la-la” won’t do it either!
It’s time to overcome the inevitable cognitive dissonance and read carefully:
1 .A message from God using gematria on the design of freedom tower:
http://www.aiwaz.net Type in “twin towers” into search window
2. Yes, the United States is good! We are the Stone Nation as written in the bible:
http://www.originofnations.org/old_bi_literature/Pitts.htm
3. Why is the president acting so bizarre? (Arrogant, condescending and destructive to the point of destroying his own country, pro-Arab, anti-Israel)
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105527
4. Stop the oppression of the righteous (the end of the first tribulation). The Bible code “opens the books” statistically proving that God wrote the bible. The deeds of man to be judged are also revealed! The greater tribulation begins as God punishes the wicked!
http://www.biblecodedigest.com
http://www.goodbye666-suppersready.com
Sincerely,
Belteshazzar
Report Post »C. Schwehr
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 10:33amOh great, another “secret decoder ring bible code” believer! GET A LIFE!
Report Post »This_Individual
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 1:40pmLost fool.
Report Post »Passerby
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 9:26amAs an artist, it’s very bad art.
Plus the carbon 14 tests and their refusal to retest it after disputing them.
It’s one of those graven idols we were warned about.
Report Post »barber2
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 9:02amExpect to hear from ELIASIM and the Lefty religious Trolls on this one ! Just another chance to insult those “dumb *******” religious folks from our elitist Lefties…
Report Post »Passerby
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 9:30amAh, so those that are religious are “lefty”.
And black is white, and up is down, and Ron Paul is sane.
Report Post »barber2
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 9:51amActually I meant the Anti-religious Lefty Trolls. You know, the ones we have already heard from ! Minus ELIASIM who must of “ off” today !
Report Post »bigdaddyt46
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 8:56am@mollypitcher:
thank you for you show of support. in your words i see your faith is strong, my you continue in the light and enjoy the celebration which is upon us that being the birth of our Saviour Jesus Christ.
@pps
proving it is a bit harder yes. you would have to know and or have studied the Jewish and Roman history of that time, but it is not impossible.
@janimal
Report Post »you are correct scientists have theories and educated guesses, God doesn’t do that he knows!!!!!
TomFerrari
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 8:50amIt is called “FAITH.”
I do not require EVIDENCE in order to believe.
I DO BELIEVE. That is all I need. That is enough for me.
If I have a light switch that shocks me when I touch it, I believe it will shock me again.
I do not need to disassemble it to find evidence of a short circuit or a faulty ground.
My own experience is enough.
James 2:18: “Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.”
Titus 2:7-8: “In all things shewing thyself a pattern of good works: in doctrine shewing uncorruptness, gravity, sincerity, Sound speech, that cannot be condemned; that he that is of the contrary part may be ashamed, having no evil thing to say of you.”
I Peter 2:12: “Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation.”
RESTORING LOVE, July 26 27 28
Report Post »http://www.Meetup.com/MercuryOneHQ
Do you GBTV?
Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 8:46amI will summarize it all this way – Lord Jesus said unto the Apostle Thoman (Paraphrased) “You believe after having seen the wound in my side and wrists; it is better to believe and not have seen, than to have seen and then believe.”
Report Post »bigdaddyt46
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 9:02amnot a bad crack at it LOL.
you believe because you have seen, blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.
my real name is Thomas believe you me i have taken flack my hole life because of doubting Thomas (rolling eyes here).
TO ALL MY FELLOW BLAZERS (EVEN THE TROLLS) HAVE A VERY MERRY CHRISTMAS AND A BLESSED NEW YEAR
Report Post »poetopoet
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 9:40amA Doubting Tom
Then hell, it shall be for me
for I cannot live or survive
without love that’s denied.
You or I have no control of
life and death that follows us
some say love as riches die too.
I refuse to believe that of my God
who we loved and believe too meet
proof that is in His Son He raised up.
Thomas doubted as all doubting Tom’s
I guess alone I doubted that love will be
but that’s what I am afraid of love denied.
One on the other side of the world we lived
Report Post »doubting now one is there and one is left here
then again, Heaven loves Thomas the doubting.
ebw1957
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 8:38amGod created it to piss off liberals… its that easy..
Report Post »barber2
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 9:50amAnd to give them something to write nasty comments into the Blaze for their satisfaction.
Report Post »lukerw
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 8:18amI prefer… that the actual image of Christ remain unknown… to prevent look-alikes from making false claims!
Report Post »amd1044
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 8:32amThe picture in this shroud is a white guy and we all know Jesus would have had Olive skin.
Report Post »WSGAC
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 8:40amAre there any shrouds out of the Americas? After all, Jesus appeared there as a bright light from heaven. Any Lamanite or Nephite shrouds lying around?
Report Post »by faith
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 9:20amAMD1004
The picture in this shroud is a white guy and we all know Jesus would have had Olive skin.
___________________________________________________________________
you see a “white guy” when you look at the pictures of the shroud?
Report Post »your preconceived prejudices are showing
GA Magnolia
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 10:57pmHow would olive skin have shown on the shroud?
Report Post »bigdaddyt46
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 8:10amthe shroud of turin is a fake!!!!! they did not burry people that way is Jesus’ day. they wrapped the body and head with strips of cloth leaving the face exposed. this is both biblical and roman history.
Report Post »they did not place a cloth over the deceased as this shroud and theories suggest. God has hidden things such as the exact place of birth(aka the stable where he was born and manger) the actual Cross Jesus was crucified on, the ark of the covenant, the ark ect. because he knows people would actually worship those items.
Janimal
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 8:25amAnd scientists also believe in global warming too – how is that thing turning out?
Report Post »MOLLYPITCHER
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 8:28am@big daddy
Report Post »You are exactly right. People would worship these things. Why else would people want to prove weather or not they are real. True faith in God is believing in his unseen presence. I do not need an object to prove to me that Jesus died and rose again.
PPMStudios
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 8:36amI guess the easy part is to say “it’s a fake”. Proving it, is something just a bit harder….
Report Post »Janimal
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 8:37amTo add to it – scientists would also say it is impossible to walk on water and turn water into wine.
Report Post »Detroit paperboy
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 9:32amWho really knows forsure ? Nobody on earth !
Report Post »GA Magnolia
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 11:01pmSweetheart Big Daddy! Honey, listen. He was wrapped with a simple shroud because they did not have time to complete the entire ritual because the sun of setting on the Sabbath. Jews are not allowed to work on the Sabbath, which began at sundown. So you see, the women were coming back to the tomb on Sunday to complete the burial ritual complete with the herbs and proper strips of cloth. And ya know what? He wasn’t there!!
Now I don’t know if this is the burial shroud of Christ or not. It sure is compelling, don’t you think? Man may never know for sure while we are here on earth, but we know for sure later.
Merry Christmas!
Report Post »Janimal
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 8:08amI don’t need the shroud to enhance my belief. Whether there is a shroud or not, doesn’t sway my opinion. However, I must say on a personal note that when we were in Rome and near the catacombs there is a place where Jesus appeared to Paul as he was leaving Rome. I stood there and knowing that our Savior was there where I was did give me some tingles. It also gave me the incentive to one day get to Israel. I want to walk where our Lord did. I don’t need to, but I want to. To reach down and to touch the place with my hand where Jesus was – I can’t even imagine the emotions I would feel. I can see where people want to believe in the shroud as you are looking at the face of Christ and how it can bring inner peace. It doesn’t mean you need to see it to believe, but there is an inner emotion and if it is a comfort to some, then it does no harm. I don’t think that most people have their faith based on the shroud and its existence.
Report Post »PPMStudios
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 8:38amI’m with you. My belief is strong enough that it won’t be swayed by a possible burial cloth…
Report Post »SpankDaMonkey
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 8:07am.
Report Post »I Believe………
Smug
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 3:47pmMe too…………….MSSMUG
Report Post »gabbygirl
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 8:06amExactly what I was going to say GONZO.
Report Post »TC
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 7:58am“But as scientists, we were concerned only with verifiable scientific processes. ” bahahaha!
I have yet to see the theory of Evolution scientifically verified! Its faith based too. A persons worldview will naturally bias the “findings”.
Merry Christmas
Report Post »C. Schwehr
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 10:37amAnd your bias against science is obvious. Since you don’t believe in science, I suggest that you divest yourself of your computer, your phone, your car, and every other piece of modern equipment designed since 1898 because you obviously don’t believe in anything that currently makes your life so convenient these days.
Report Post »Go live with the Amish!
TC
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 11:25amNo, What I am saying is depending upon who is doing the science and what type of science, there will be a bias according to that persons worldview. I give you Man-made Global warming as another. What a sham that has turned out to be! Science is great as long as it can be proven. Theoretical science or applied science.
Report Post »Baddoggy
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 7:54amUnbelievers make me chuckle…
Report Post »4truth2all
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 8:08amUnbelievers make me want to tell them the truth !
Report Post »check out this “science”… bethlehemstar.com
HAVE A BLESSED CHRISTMAS …TO ALL :)
mikee1
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 7:53amYes, what else could account for this? CGI? lol.
Report Post »rfycom
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 7:52amThe Blaze encourages comments that are on topic and abide by our Comment Policy and Terms of Use. Members are solely responsible for their comments. Comments that violate our policies will be removed.
Report Post »4truth2all
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 8:03amWhy do many members that reguarly post questionable comments have the ‘report post’ removed so they can not be reported ???
Report Post »garyM
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 9:57amMaybe the Blaze is tired of listening to people whine about other people’s post!
Report Post »No Quarter
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 7:50amShrouds, grails, pieces of the cross…..
Report Post »Jesus did leave 1 thing behind, you apply it to your heart.
why will folks still search for something else to reverence?
Gonzo
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 7:53amI have often wondered the same thing. If you need the shroud to be exonerated by science to believe…your belief is worthless.
Report Post »StonyBurk
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 8:30amWhy did Jason need a fleece? It matters Not to me if the shroud is the relic claimed –or if it is not.
Report Post »It is not the relics I worship. They are signs only .If true then they were given to those who need such.
If not true then they exist to enhance the faith in what one does believe. ONLY if the relic is the venerated object of ones belief can it become an idol,and against God. I love to see the sign of the cross and the
gestures that certain individuals use to remind them -or as a sign to others for it comforts me. But it is not the cross–nor the gesture I worship for HE is risen -and He lives . And in Christ I can do all things.I cannot condemn another member of the body for how they believe for we all see through the glass dimly -and none of us has known perfection-save that one who died and By God was raised again. The shroud is a sign only .Like it lump it or leave it alone.
xzero01
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 7:48amits funny when scientist try to recreate what God made.
Report Post »Twobyfour
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 2:33pmA team of scientists met with God. One of them explained the reason for the meeting.
Scientist: “We don’t need you anymore. We can now create life on our own.”
God: “Interesting. Please could you describe your process?”
Scientist: ” We take dirt…”
God: “What dirt?”
Scientist: “Any dirt.”
God: “No, no! Make your own!”
Report Post »nowhereman
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 6:40pmThe scientists used extremely brief pulses of ultraviolet light to replicate the kind of marks found on the burial cloth. They concluded that the iconic image of the bearded man must therefore have been created by “some form of electromagnetic energy (such as a flash of light at short wavelength).” Two thousand years ago, even hundreds of years ago man had neither the knowledge or capability to do that that, even comprehend that. Only God could have done it. That is what I think the scientist were trying to show.
Report Post »GA Magnolia
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 11:07pm@twobyfour
Report Post »That is so cute! I gotta remember that.
Gonzo
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 7:38amI don’t need the shroud to believe, I have the Bible.
Report Post »proliance
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 7:53amSo if you were born sometime between Jesus‘ resurrection and when the council of Nicea met in about 325 you wouldn’t be a believer?
Report Post »Janimal
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 8:15amOut of curiosity – I know a Gonzo – he didn’t got to LSU but he is a fan. He is from the New Orleans area – is this you? To add to it, I sent you care packages if it is the same person. Probably not, but there isn‘t too many Gonzo’s out there and the LSU connection is what made me ask this.
Report Post »buzzn13
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 3:51pmGood point PROLIANCE. I would also refer people with similar comments to: The Church Or The Bible http://www.drbo.org/church.htm – and/or a similar longer version, The One True Church – http://www.drbo.org/church2.htm Very compelling.
Report Post »Gonzo
Posted on December 23, 2011 at 10:25amJanimal
Report Post »No I lost a bet and had to have this avatar. I’m a GA Bulldog.
Gonzo
Posted on December 23, 2011 at 10:28amproliance
Report Post »Considering I was obviously born within the last century, your question is pointless and obtuse.