Opinions/Editorials
See other Opinions/Editorials Articles
Title: Rebuilding a Conservative Movement I
Source:
Sultan Knish blog
URL Source: http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/201 ... s+The+Stories+Behind+the+News%
Published: Sep 25, 2015
Author: Daniel Greenfield
Post Date: 2015-09-27 19:03:36 by Rufus T Firefly
Keywords: None
Views: 49935
Comments: 199
The trouble with the donor class, by and large, is that it is resistant to change because it doesn't want to change. The Democratic and Republican donor classes donate for their business interests, but the Democratic donor class has a radical edge. Groups like the Democracy Alliance want a fundamental transformation of the country. And they understand how they can make money off that. There are too many Republican single issue donors who are fairly liberal on everything outside that issue. And there are too many big business interests and financial folks who live in major cities and only differ from liberals in their economic policy. The trouble with fiscally conservative and socially liberal is that the left is not a buffet. You don't get to pick a combo identity. Fiscally liberal follows socially liberal as day follows night. All those single people, their babies need assorted government benefits. No amount of lectures on "liberty" will change that. Austrian economics is never going to displace food stamps for the socially insecure. A lot of the Republican donor class would like to have its cake and eat it too. It wants the fun of a liberal society without having to pay the bill. It wants cheap Third World labor without wanting to cover their health care, the school taxes and all the other social welfare goodies. But it doesn't work that way. There's no free ride. Yes, they can move to a township where the property taxes are killer, and dump their pool guy and tree trimmer and maid in some city to live in housing projects at the expense of that city's shrinking middle class and working class. And it can work for a while, until all those cheap laborers get community organized and the organizers take over the city. And then the state. And then there are housing projects in the township, everyone is plugged into the same statewide school tax scheme and the left runs everything and taxes everything. The wealthier members of the donor class can outrun this process longer. Or just live with it while funding groups that promote "Liberty", the way the Koch Brothers do, but the bill always comes due. You can't outrun the political implications of poverty in a democracy. And you can't stop those political trends without addressing the social failures that cause them. A socially liberal society will become politically and economically liberal. Importing Third World labor also imports Third World politics, which veer between Marxism and Fascism all the way to the Islamic Jihad. Everything is connected. You can't choose one without the other. We're not going to have some libertarian utopia in which everyone gets high and lives in communes, but doesn't bother with regulations and taxes. The closest thing you can find to that is Africa. Nor are we going to be able to import tens of millions of people from countries where working class politics is Marxist without mainstreaming Marxism as a political solution in major cities across America. People are not divisible that way. Human society is not a machine you can break down. The left has fundamentally changed America. Much of the donor class hesitates to recognize this or prefers to believe that it can isolate the bad changes from the good changes. It doesn't work that way. Getting the kind of fiscal conservatism that a lot of the donor class wants requires making fundamental changes to the country. You can't just tinker with economic regulations in a country where schoolchildren are taught to demand taxes on plastic bags to save the planet or where a sizable portion of the population is dependent on the government. Those tactics can rack up ALEC victories while losing the war. Fiscal conservatism requires a self-reliant population that believes in the value of honesty and hard work. Those are not compatible with social liberalism or casual Marxism. Individually, yes. It's possible to make money while being a leftist. But spread across a large population with different classes and races, those individual quirks will not be replicated. And you can't create that population with slogans. You have to be able to shape national values, not just economic policy. That's the hard truth. There are no single issue solutions. At best there are single issue stopgaps. But the left is not a single issue organization. It has narrowed down most of its disagreements and combined its deck of agendas. Its coalition supports a large range of programs from across the deck. It's still possible to be a pro-abortion Republican, but the political representation of pro-life Democrats is disappearing. You can be a Republican who supports the Muslim Brotherhood, but a Democrat who says anything too critical about Islam has a limited future in his party at any national level. The same is true across the spectrum. Kim Davis is a Democrat. How much of a future do Democrats opposed to gay marriage have? Meanwhile it's possible to be a pro-gay marriage Republican. The Republican "big tent" is more a symptom of ideological disarray, as we've seen in this primary season, by a party that doesn't really know what it believes, than of tolerance. But the left has taken over the Democratic Party and made its agendas into the only acceptable ones. There are still some national Democrats hedging weakly on gun control and environmentalism, but they're going to be purged. Their party will abandon them and Republicans will squeeze them out. A lot of the donor class is really seeking an accommodation with the left. The election was warped when the Koch brothers decided to find common ground with the ACLU on freeing drug dealers. They dragged some good candidates in with them and down with them destroying their credibility on key issues. You can't have an accommodation with the left. The left isn't seeking a compromise. It wants it all. The left has to be fought all the way or surrendered to all the way. There's no middle ground here regardless of what philosophical objections are introduced, because that is what the left is doing. It's easily observable just in Obama's two terms. The left has defined the terms of battle. And its terms are total control over everything. You can't be pro-life and pro-Obama. You can't be pro-business and pro-Obama. You can't be pro-Israel and pro-Obama. You can't be fiscally conservative and pro-Obama. You can't be socially conservative and pro-Obama. You can't be anything less than full leftist and pro-Obama. The left has to be fought totally or not at all. Single issues can be important and it's good for people to pick one or two things to focus on, but that has to come with the understanding that there can be no accommodation with it in any other area. An organization fighting gun control is doing important work, but its backers should never fall under the illusion that the 2nd amendment can be maintained if the left wins on all the other fronts. As Benjamin Franklin said, "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately". The quote is true today in all its implications as it was then. We must have a conservative movement that is united in a common front or we will be dragged down one by one. There will be no conservative issue islands left to stand on if the red tide comes in. The final point is that it is not enough to resist. That's just delaying the inevitable. Even the strongest resistance can be worn away with time. If the left can't win directly, it focuses on the next generation. If cultural barriers are in the way, it goes for population resettlement, as it's doing in parts of this country and Europe. There is no such thing as an impregnable issue island. Winning means pushing forward. Winning means advocating for change, not just fighting to keep what we have. Winning means thinking about the sort of free society that we want. Winning means having a vision to build, not just resist. Winning means advancing forward. To do that, we have to accept that fundamental change is necessary. Right now we're fighting a losing battle. We're trying to keep the tide out, when we must become the tide. Poster Comment: Money quote: You can't be pro-life and pro-Obama. You can't be pro-business and pro-Obama. You can't be pro-Israel and pro-Obama. You can't be fiscally conservative and pro-Obama. You can't be socially conservative and pro-Obama. You can't be anything less than full leftist and pro-Obama. The left has to be fought totally or not at all.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Rufus T Firefly (#0)
The left has to be fought totally or not at all. Well, if that's the agenda, then you cannot win as the right. Pro-life is a moral necessity. Right now there is no pro-life party either. Life begins at conception. Anything that says otherwise is a lie. That means that there cannot be a RAPE EXCEPTION. To abort the baby born of rape is to commit premeditated murder. That's just a fact, and there can be no compromise on it. Now, if you take that correct and true stance, you have to abandon fiscal conservatism, and here is why: 2 million babies, 75-80% of them poor, are aborted in America every year. Rape accounts for practically none of them. Good old red-blooded recreational sex is the cause. And you cannot legislate against THAT or make it stop. People are gonna do it, sin or not, and contraception is gonna fail. Right now, it fails (or is ignored) about 2 million times every year, and about 1.6 million of those times, the baby that is conceived is conceived in the womb of a woman who will most certainly need social welfare to raise that child. So, if we do the right thing on abortion, we will increase the social welfare state by 1.6 million souls per year, year after years. The school systems will have to get bigger, the housing projects will have to get bigger. You have a choice: be pro-life, and accept a LARGER social welfare state, or be pro-choice (which is to say, a murderer) and keep costs down. The choice that does not exist is the make-believe of the right: no abortion AND smaller social expenditures. That is ABSURD. it's ridiculous. It's physically IMPOSSIBLE. And it will never happen. Pro-business is fine, BUT AGAIN if you are pro-life, that MEANS a LARGER social welfare state, so UNLESS you CUT SOMETHING ELSE (namely, the military) you are going to have to increase taxes. And that's not business friendly. A large military and military intervention plus pro-life plus lower expenditures is fantasy land stuff. It is impossible. Which brings is to the "pro-Israel" part. 50% of our foreign aid budget goes to Israel. Why, exactly, is it in the US national interest to pour such money into a white colony in the Middle East? How is that in any way in AMERICAN national interest? It certainly isn't CHRISTIAN. Jesus doomed ancient Israel and God destroyed it for good. This thing that calls itself "Israel" is a white European ethnic enclave carved out of Arab land because of white guilt over what happened to the Jews in World War II. It would have made a great deal more sense to give the Jews Bavaria and deport all of the Germans from that province, expropriating everything as punishment, and then requiring every European state that shipped Jews to the camps to provide financial aid for a generation. That would have been justice. Creating a European colony in the Middle East that has to be propped up forever by American taxpayers and American armies is ridiculous, and it is ridiculous that Americans permit it. If you're going to be pro-life and stop abortion, you cannot pay for the large expansion of social welfare that will be required and ALSO maintain a world military empire with half of the foreign aid budget going to Israel. if you're going to be pro-life, you are going to have to cut off Israel. The article concludes that the Left has to be fought totally, or not at all. The problem is that if you're going to be pro-life, you cannot simultaneously be fiscally conservative. Pro-life is by its nature socially conservative. And if you are going to take the proper stance on life, that means that you have to start formally teaching sexual morality. So, you have to be socially conservative or you will break the bank. But that will not be enough, because you cannot impose harsh punishment for sexual liberty - the nation will never allow it. Which means that pro-life inevitably leads to a permanent expansion of the social welfare state. To be socially conservative, if pro-life is to be included in that, you have to be fiscally liberal when it comes to the social welfare state - because all of those babies have to eat - and even then the military empire cannot be sustained with a full-on pro-life agenda. For American babies to live, the American empire, and huge American aid to Israel, has to die. Socially conservative, fiscally liberal, and pacificistic is the only thing that will actually WORK, if pro- life is part of the socially conservative aspect. And if pro-life is not part of social conservatism, then that form of social conservatism is an evil sham that should lose anyway. These are hard truths. American conservatives have to face them.
You simply cut off the welfare payments and allow parents to live or die on their own. Be ready to open orphanages, and allow for easy adoption. The only way to stop the scourge of out of wedlock sex and pregnancy is to allow the people that engage and become pg to fail miserably and openly. If society or government can't do that there is no hope but failure of the entire country at once, then we all can starve equally.
It started way before WWII and the Holocost. In the eighteen hundreds Hertzl began a movement of Jews back to their homeland. Sometime in the twenties, the Jews who comprised 15% of the population as immigrants declared the Arabs a minority and got away with it. Certainly, sympathy with the Jewish people after WWII played a further part in it.
Casual free catch as catch can sex is killing this country. Half the magazines and the movies are bannering it as if it has no consequences other than a good time. There are consequences and they are not pleasant. Some years ago, President Reagan asked, "Whatever became of the word no" regarding the issue.
Wait a minute, do you want a population that KNOWS FROM EXPERIENCE that honesty and hard work makes them prosperous, or BELIEVES it because Rush and Koch brothers are prosperous and are generous enough to share their comfort through the media? New Deal was offering people the first the Rushes and Kochs offer people mind numbing propaganda and semi-slave status. It boils down to the share in economic pie, the rich over the centuries wanted others to do work for them for free. Then oops, democracy and socialism came. Horrible! Now the question is how to disempower unwashed masses, to terrorize them with police state or to brainwash them into zombie state? Probably you need both. Forget Obama. When hating and despising Palestinians became a requirement for a "conservative". Did a word "conservative" became a synonym for a psychopath? (Understand me well, I do not denythea right for Israeli Jews to fight for their interests, or same right to the Palestinian Arabs, but why should others to be dragged in their family quarrel and take side in a vicious way?)
Yes. If it becomes hard enough to live and procreate, then the dumber, poorer masses will die out. Smart professionals and independently rich will be left alone to enjoy themselves in the Galt's Gulch:
I agree. That train left the station a couple of decades ago. Here's a refresher: THE RISE AND FALL OF GREAT CIVILIZATIONS From Apathy to Dependence to Slavery 1. From bondage to spiritual faith, There's room to quibble, but I'd say we're at "7", entering into "8". "Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD . . . " ~Psalm 33:12a
ping to 7
"Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD . . . " ~Psalm 33:12a
f society or government can't do that there is no hope but failure of the entire country at once, then we all can starve equally. That is socially conservative and fiscally conservative, but it's not Christian. Yes, there IS a way for us to sustain our free society and not have abortion, and not starve - and not bankrupt ourselves - You have to give up the military empire, stop pouring money into Israel, expand the social welfare state, and teach Christian (or Jewish, or Muslim or Hindu for that matter - they don't differ on this point) sexual morality in the public schools. Just as education alone cut down the American smoking rate from about 75% to about 25%, you can cut the unaborted poor birth rate down from 1.6 million per year to perhaps 500,000 per year. But you're not going to get below that. If you're going to maintain the military empire and pour American treasure into Israel, you're not going to be able to maintain the budget no matter what you do. Fiscal conservatism must of necessity mean giving up on the idea of empire.
If the Jews want to go to Israel, that's their individual choice. If they have to fight for it, that's their business. AMERICA should not be in the business of maintaining a Middle Eastern military empire and pouring half of a huge foreign aid budget into a white European Jewish colony in the Middle East. It is not our affair, and if we're going to talk about "fiscal conservatism" seriously, then we need to get out of the business of empire, and get out of the business of funding other people's colonies. Otherwise what we end up getting from conservatives is "fund Israel, starve the American poor" - and that is a prescription for irrelevancy, because there is no set of political circumstances under which the right is going to starve the American poor. If the Right wants to cut American expenses, the place those cuts MUST come is military and foreign aid. We do not need an empire, we don't win these wars anyway. And over half of our foreign aid goes to Israel, so cutting foreign aid MOSTLY means cut off money to Israel, speaking realistically. THAT is where you find the money to balance the budget. "Let the poor starve" is not Christian, and it isn't going to happen. When conservatives talk like that, they just ensure that they will dwindle politically. It may make them feel good, but it simply reveals their evil, and most people pull back from that and say "No". If the Right won't be RESPONSIBLE, then it won't rule. "Starve the poor" is not responsible. It's evil. And it's never, ever, ever going to happen. Not ever. Right wing people need to grow up and stop even fantasizing about it, because that fantasy MEANS permanent defeat, and deserves to be defeated.
In other words,"VOTE THE PARTY TICKET OR DEM EBIL DIMS WILL WIN!" Several hundred words that boil down to the above because "winning is everything!" Which is pure BullBush. The alleged Republican Party is so corrupt that there is no actual difference between them and their globalist Dim pals and business partners. Which means if we want any REAL change back towards actual conservatism,they need to continue to lose until they are replaced by an actual opposition party. Or,to sum it up in this Jewish pro-Israel Neo Cons mindset,"losing is everything." ANY political party that starts out an election season with a piece of shit like JEB as the party favorite is a loser by definition,and needs to be replaced. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Bullshit! Nothing but pure religious dogma by an Stalinist organization that seeks nothing less than world-wide domination. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
WRONG! Your dogmatic religious biases are showing. Who has sex with who other than minors and retards is of NO LEGITIMATE concern to the government. Yes,adoption is an option,but there is no real reason for the taxpayers to foot the bill for any children born as a result. If people aren't willing or able to provide for their children,they should use birth control and not have children. Any children they have anyhow as a result of religious superstitions or other irresponsible actions should be taken care of financially by the various churches. That's what they get tax-free charity status for,so let them put their money where their mouths are,instead of using the money for empire building. The FACT is that a lot of these children would not be conceived or born if they didn't provide a minimum of 18 years of life on the government gravy train for their parents. No kid= no "part-mint ob my own",no welfare check,no food stamps,no utilities subsidies,no free health care,no free anything. THAT is why so many so-called "fatherless" babies are born,and the prime reason more babies aren't born into white middle-class working families. They are paying out so much in taxes to pay the living expenses for the professional welfare class they can't afford to have more babies themselves. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
That is a self-identifying phrase for neo-cons. Anyone that utters and believes it is NOT a conservative. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Is that right,comrade? There is no chance they will wise up and have fewer children? I know your mind is stuck in 1920,but this ain't then. Manual labor doesn't dominate,and poor people don't need huge families in order to provide a labor base to feed and provide for the family. Any poor people today that marry or otherwise get together to form their own family would benefit from having FEWER children to provide for IF YOU TAKE AWAY THE GOVERNMENT CRUTCH OF SOCIALISM. Any that are too stupid to understand that need to die out. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
The Socialists and Marxists who have taken over the democrat party certainly understand that. That's why they allow no dissent in their ranks. In practical governing terms there IS no difference between the parties. In addition to that, these truths should be self-evident 1. Events suggest that movers and shakers in the R party really don't care if they win. As long as they get their piece of the pie. 2. The R party is not a "conservative" party 3. There is no "opposition" party (unless you mean opposed to the people) Take a chill pill, 'pete. "Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD . . . " ~Psalm 33:12a
Bullshit! Nothing but pure religious dogma Actually the reverse is true. Biologically human life DOES start at conception. You are confusing this scientific fact with religious doctrine of ensoulment - when human living being receives soul. Dogmatically this question is tricky. I can speak from the Orthodox perspective; Fathers of the Church had different opinion, some of them thought that ensoulment happens in moment of conception, others at 40 days after,others at the moment of quickening (first independent movements), others when body is perfectly formed, etc ... But in order to avoid possible homicide Orthodox Church assumes the earliest moment of conception, to err on the side of caution. Personally I tend to think that soul finds its fleshly home in the nervous system, so when nervous system appears and shows any activity before neuronal - when glial cells start to function as a network. (BTW, I suspect that glial cells are seat of consciousness/psyche as neurons are more like fast computer circuits under glial control. Still it is only my uncertain opinion so I would support most cautious assumption - moment of conception.
They ARE wising up! They have fewer and fewer children. That it why the white population has to be replaced by the less demanding and more fertile Third World immigrants. Way to go. I meant 2.1 kids per family. See:
Nothing but pure religious dogma by an Stalinist organization that seeks nothing less than world-wide domination. Human life begins at conception, and there is no possible compromise between those who know it, and those who deny it. This issue must be settled by force. Thus far, the forces of evil have prevailed. IF the forces of good ever prevail and end abortion, we have to be prepared for a much larger social welfare state, with much larger permanent outlays, because we are going to have a lot more babies to raise and educate. That's the way it is. There are two ways to deal with the wave of children that inevitably flow from the poor having sex: (1) kill them. This is the liberal left wing solution: abortion. (2) pay for them. This means heavy social expenditure and the taxes to support it. That is what I support, not because I WANT heavy taxes and social expenditures, but because it is inevitable. The third option, what I WANT, is not on the cards: (3) Everybody adopts Christian morality, avoids sex out of wedlock, studies hard, does his duty, and has the means to support the children he has with his one wife, whom he has married for life. Social welfare isn't necessary because the only poor people are the unlucky, and they can be provided for through the charitable efforts of the Church. That's the RIGHT answer, but it requires a universal Christianity that is not on the cards now - the hypocrisy of Christians over the ages saw to that. Your solution is (1) Abort them. And by denying their humanity you make that easier. My solution is (2) Social Welfare. Because they're human beings, I know it, and if we will not discipline and Christianize the population, then we will have to pay for the babies that result.
Many will, but not all. Which means that there will be destitute children. So what do we do about them? The problem cannot be evaded by wishing it away.
Then why are there other races of people that are breeding like rabbits that live in countries that don't have massive social welfare programs? And most of them don't even have jobs to speak of... To me, God is clear in Scripture. Go back to Genesis and take a good, perceptive look at the description of lives. This works in Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, and English - it isn't an artifact of language, it's what the text says. It refers to the lives of each of the patriarchs, the lengths of those lives, and then describes the beginning of each life. And the WAY it does, is, e.g.: "Noah begat Ham", or "Enoch begat Methuselah". Begat. The lives are each measured by the FATHERLY principle of reproduction, not birth from the mother, but begetting by the Father. And that only occurs once, at the very beginning, with intercourse and fertilization. The father's begetting is punctiliar - he BEGETS a child when the sperm fertilizes the egg. And every life in Genesis is measured from THEN, not birth. Scripturally, life begins at conception.
It is not so simple. That is why Fathers of the Church who DID consult the Holy Scriptures had differing opinions. But as I said in PRACTICE id do agree with you, so the practical question is moot. One scriptural example: "And if two men strive and smite a woman with child, and her child be born [miscarried] imperfectly formed, he shall be forced to pay a penalty: as the woman's husband may lay upon him, he shall pay with a valuation. But if it be perfectly formed, he shall give life for life" (LXX).
There are three such places: India, Africa and Latin America. In Latin America, there ARE massive social welfare programs, and people do not starve, and most of the poor - are marginally literate. America offers them opportunity, a better life, not life itself. In India their religion opposes social welfare. They pick up cartfulls of the dead off the streets every morning. In Africa, where they don't have social welfare programs either, they just leave them to rot. We already know what happens when there is a large poor population without social welfare. Starvation. And revolution. That's the other piece. Large, desperate populations rebel. And when that happens, the rich and upper middle class start dying at a rapid rate. Bottom line: be cruel to the poor, and you accumulate wealth, which you don't get to keep in the end either way. So it's really a choice: have social welfare and peace. Or ignore the plight of the poor and periodically have the better classes of folks hanging on meathooks. Peace is better.
It is that simple. The Fathers of the Church who saw it in its clear simplicity were the ones who were right on that issue.
You are a lawyer. Could you analyze expertly the Leviticus quote I provided?
Kind of how the Irish, Italian et. al. did it in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."---Romans 5:6
Sounds like they have no clue as to what causes them and their children to starve. Maybe "education" would be a better way of dealing with the problem, instead of just throwing money at it which doesn't solve the problem either. BTA if that happened some "self proclaimed highly educated" people would be exposed as the buffoons they really are!!! I guarantee the later is going to happen again, it always does man never learns from his history... Education and jobs is what most people want not handouts!!! You pervert the Bible. The Bible says if you don't work you don't eat. Don already proved it to you but you ignore it. Also there is no pope in the Bible. He is a false leader. A piece of shit. Your left wing ideology is the opposite of what Christ taught.
above
We are at 8.
"For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."---Romans 5:6
From dependency back again to bondage." There's room to quibble, but I'd say we're at "7", entering into "8". I'd say we are way past that point and in the late stages of number 8. We've Crossed The Tipping Point; Most Americans Now Receive Government Benefits ...perhaps 52 percent of U.S. households—more than half—now receive benefits from the government, thanks to President Obama. And Mr. Entitlement is just getting started. If Obamacare is not repealed millions more will join the swelling rolls of those dependent on government handouts. Conservatives have long dreaded the day when the U.S. crossed the halfway mark because of all the implications for individual and fiscal responsibility. As Benjamin Franklin reportedly said, “When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” They learned that from the 2008 election and turned out in big numbers again in 2012. In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much You want to apply that to the retirees, including people in nursing homes? How about children? Should they all work too if they want to eat? I'm just curious how broadly you want to apply the work-to-eat principle and where your exemptions begin.
God created the family for a reason. To take care of each other. He created the church for a reason too. Part of that was to help people. The government stealing money indiscriminately and giving it to losers is not the plan laid out in the Bible by the creator God. It is the parents job to take care of their kids. The kids are supposed to help their parents when they get old. When Joseph ruled Egypt he showed that there is a role for government in helping people. We just subsidize losers with money from people who need the noney also.
This is a misread. What it says is this (literally): and-given-that they(masculine)-will-be-struggle man-s and-they-did-smite woman pregnant and-they-did-go-out boys-her and-not he-will-exist harm fine he-will- be-fine like-which he-will-set-down upon-him master the-woman and-he-did-give in-judge-s and-if harm he-will-exist and-you(masculine singular) did-give being under being eye under eye tooth under tooth hand under hand foot under foot singeing under singeing bruise under bruise striped-bruise under striped bruise This is hard to read, but here is what the parts say in English: and-given-that = when man-s = plural man = men, which agrees with the gender and number of the preceding verb "they-will-be-struggle". This verb is an imperfect. In Greek and English verbs are related to time: past, present, future. Not in ancient Hebrew. In ancient Hebrew, an action is either completed or incomplete. Here, a hypothetical is being discussed: "given that men struggle, when they do...", so this is in the imperfect tense, meaning "whenever they do, now or in the future". "and they did smite" is a verb in the perfect tense, because in the instance being considered, the hypothetical future action of a fight, is accompanied by a completed striking, not a hypothetical striking. "You COULD HAVE hurt her" is not the basis of the judgment. An actual striking is required. Who was smitten? "Woman pregnant". A pregnant woman. Now, this is the KEY misinterpretation. It is important to understand. The next two words are a perfect verb "and-they-did-go-out", and a noun "boys- her" (the unborn baby is given in the masculine plural; in ancient Hebrew when referring to people, a masculine or feminine must be used - babies are not an "it" - and when the gender is unknown, the language reverts to the masculine. The misunderstanding lies in translating that verb "veyatsu" - they-went-out - as "miscarriage". It does not mean miscarriage. Miscarriage in English means that an unborn baby DIES. Veyatsu does not mean miscarriage, it means premature birth, whether dead OR ALIVE. To be clear, in English, a premature birth means that the baby is born alive, a stillbirth means that a baby is born dead, and a miscarriage means that a baby dies in the womb. But in ancient Hebrew, "ve'yatsu" means unexpected delivery. It does NOT tell you that the baby that came out is dead or alive - it DOES NOT MEAN "miscarry" or "stillbirth" - it means to unexpectedly (prematurely) give birth. So, with THAT realization firmly in hand, what Exodus 21:22-25 are saying is much more straightforward: "If men struggle, and they hit a pregnant woman, and she delivers her babies (as a result), if there is no harm (to the babies or to her - if the babies are born ok), he will be fined by the husband [provoking a premature birth is itself worthy of a fine], but if the babies or the mother are harmed, then the harmer will give life for life (if the mother or the babies die), eye for eye, etc." That is what it actually says. If you hit a pregnant woman and her baby dies, you are put to death. If you hit her and either she or the baby is injured, you pay in kind. If you hit her and the baby comes out ok and she is not otherwise harmed, you still have to pay a fine, and her husband decides how much. And that fits hand in glove with life beginning at begetting. The Scriptures are not all ambiguous. The translation of Scripture has inserted an ambiguity that is not really there. Hope that clears things up.
The government taking a mandatory 10% tithe annually specifically for poverty relief and for maintenance of the administrators collecting and dispensing the tithe is THE key tax structure God set up for the Kingdom he ruled. God did not simply call upon men for private charity. The specific express purpose of the taxes collected by the Levites was poverty assistance and feeding the Levites doing it. One cannot argue that God did not establish government poverty relief. God established a tax system primarily FOR poverty relief. There was no roadbuilding or military purpose in the tithe. It was to feed the poor, and feed the clergy feeding the poor. The other taxes were smaller, and were to maintain the tabernacle/temple, and to feed the priests.
He created the church for a reason too. Part of that was to help people. The scripture you cited doesn't make those exceptions. It says work-to-eat. Period. Obviously, you want to enforce the work-to-eat principle but only when it suits you.
Don provided one line of Paul, addressed to a leader of a Church in which feeloaders were coming in to join the agape meals, lounging about and not contributing anything, either work or help. That is the very specific and narrow circumstance about which Paul was writing. The commandment of God, repeated a hundred times in his own words, and demonstrated by the actions of Jesus and the Apostles was tithe for poverty relief, poverty relief, alms for poverty relief, care for the poor. I provided you over the weekend an EXHAUSTIVE review of the words rich and poor in the entire Scripture, demonstrating the extent to which God was sympathetic to the poor, EVEN the poor whose fault it was they were in poverty, and critical or outright hostile to the rich. You ignored that, and pretend that Don proved something, with one line of Paul. You are twisting Scripture to your own destruction, my friend. You hate the poor, and that is a sin, and you should discipline your mouth and stop doing that, because you are defying 500 passages of God every time you do that, because of a misinterpretation of one line of Paul. Paul is not God. God is God. And in that PARTICULAR circumstance to which Paul was referring, Paul was right, of course. But you are generalizing it and pretending there is a commandment "If you don't work you don't eat." Not only is that not a commandment, it is a perversion of God's commandments. You are floundering into a death pit, and you should stop it now for your own good. As far as the Pope goes, and the Catholic Church, they are irrelevant to this discussion. The analysis I gave you this weekend - the exhaustive one - EVERY use of rich and poor in the Bible, no room to claim "You took it out of context" or any of the other weasely ways that men in deep error, like you, use to worm out of God's commandments regarding money. YOU and Don are the ones taking words - not even words of God - out of context, to your own destruction. I do not have a Left Wing ideology. I am teaching you what Christ taught, directly, using Christ's and YHWH's own words. I am Christ's agent here, you are speaking for Satan, and you're as belligerent about it as those in error always are. Now go read what I sent you over the weekend, and realize how deeply in error you are, and repent, and stop calling Christ and YHWH a liar. I am not "left wing" unless God and Christ were left wing. POVERTY RELIEF THROUGH TAXATION, AND PERSONAL ALMS, ARE BOTH COMMANDMENTS. You cannot evade them. And you should stop TRYING to evade them. Accept your duty under God's yoke, and figure out how to make things better. Expressing hatred and contempt for the poor are not making things better, and they are heaping coals of fire on your own head, blindly and stupidly. Stop it. For you own good.
What it says is this (literally): Well done. "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."---Romans 5:6
I was wrong. And I am sorry.
Here's the entire passage with several commentaries if you guys are interested. "Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD . . . " ~Psalm 33:12a
I'm not sure why you're sorry. I was talking about using those particular verses to justify a work-to-eat policy from scripture. As you know, it is an ancient debate and has played out many times around the world over the centuries. An obvious instance of implementing a biblically-based work-to-eat policy was found for a time in colonial America.
I liked Gill's comments. He is one of the few who ever pay attention to the Ethiopic manuscripts since the rest of Christendom simply pretends they don't exist. Actually, Vic is the only person I've ever noticed who even mentions the Ethiopic canon and manuscripts and my own knowledge of it is limited to Gill's remarks. Gill habitually looks at other ancient manuscripts like the Syriac, the ancient church fathers, etc. And he was in particular a notable Hebraicist, fleshing out the general cultural attitude and colloquial sayings and writings of Jewish leaders of the era which I like because, while we should know the sayings of Jesus and the writings of the disciples, we should also have some idea of the mental and cultural baggage of those who first heard Jesus teach or the disciples preach His message. We can't understand precisely the full impact of Jesus' teachings unless we have some idea of prevailing Pharisaic and scribal teachings and how Jesus differed with the major established schools of thought among Jews of His era. Sometimes you don't have as precise an idea of what is being said by Jesus and the disciples unless you know a bit about who they were saying it to and their ideas about religion and the social order.
Not true... the papacy began with the Apostle Peter, the first Bishop of Rome. (Matthew 16:16~19)
I'm sorry because of the thing that I wrote in that message and posted. Then I read what you said again and realized that you were saying just about the polar opposite of what I thought you were saying. So I deleted it and wrote "I'm Sorry", in the event that you had already seen what I wrote. Fortunately, you didn't, because it was not helpful. I'm thinking that in general I need to ratchet everything back five notches and just post the facts, and let partisans of positions fight, because I start to burn with wrath at a certain point - it FEELS righteous, too - but then I noticed that I was breathing fire upon something that was essentially right...and I realized that it isn't necessarily righteous wrath running through my veins at times so much as hot French blood. So, even though you never saw it, I'm sorry for what I wrote anyway. And I'll take instruction from it. And I'm sorry for calling you "Satan" yesterday. That, too, was over the top.
Of course the exceptions are not noted. However, with proper exegesis we know in other parts of the Bible that the widow, orphan and those who are unable to help themselves must be taken care of. Taking care of the elderly falls under honor mother and father. The text referenced was the following: 6 But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us. 7 For you yourselves know how you ought to follow us, for we were not disorderly among you; 8 nor did we eat anyone’s bread free of charge, but worked with labor and toil night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you, 9 not because we do not have authority, but to make ourselves an example of how you should follow us. 10 For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat. 11 For we hear that there are some who walk among you in a disorderly manner, not working at all, but are busybodies. 12 Now those who are such we command and exhort through our Lord Jesus Christ that they work in quietness and eat their own bread. 13 But as for you, brethren, do not grow weary in doing good. 14 And if anyone does not obey our word in this epistle, note that person and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed. 15 Yet do not count him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother. Which of course as Vic pointed out et al. that Paul is addressing the ekklesia and ekklesia conduct. Notice the caution in not treating such a person in the ekklesia as an enemy but admonish as a brother. The overwhelming evidence in Holy Scriptures is for the ekklesia (both OT and NT) should take care of those who are in need, sick or are not able. Where AKA and Don object (as I have seen in previous posts and threads) is where government or even a church throws money at able bodied people who can work but don't. It seems the number of people who can work but don't or won't is increasing in this nation and the West in general. I believe the Welfare reform Act in the Newt-Bubba era gave States latitude to assign work to those receiving welfare benefits. Apparently, that has been significantly relaxed in the Zero admin. So given the above reference from 2 Thessalonians 3, if someone is capable of working they should work to support themselves. Other areas of Scripture make it clear the head of household supports the family which includes the elderly parents (see Jesus' comments on Corban). It is the family unit and ekklesia structure God has established. We do well to start in our own homes and churches. "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."---Romans 5:6
And he was in particular a notable Hebraicist, fleshing out the general cultural attitude and colloquial sayings and writings of Jewish leaders of the era which I like because, while we should know the sayings of Jesus and the writings of the disciples, we should also have some idea of the mental and cultural baggage of those who first heard Jesus teach or the disciples preach His message. We can't understand precisely the full impact of Jesus' teachings unless we have some idea of prevailing Pharisaic and scribal teachings and how Jesus differed with the major established schools of thought among Jews of His era. Sometimes you don't have as precise an idea of what is being said by Jesus and the disciples unless you know a bit about who they were saying it to and their ideas about religion and the social order. I agree with all of this. "All Scripture is God breathed" - Paul said that. But neither Paul nor anybody else in the Scripture delineated exactly what Scripture IS. After all, in Greek, "scripture" is just the word "writing". Obviously everything WRITTEN isn't God-breathed - Paul mean SACRED writings - but there's no list. The lists were drawn up by various Churches. The Jews, for their part, did not have a written list either. They didn't formalize anything until a generation after the Temple came down, and by then there were fierce polemics with the Christians. The Christians, for their part, didn't agree. The Eastern and Western Catholic Churches never fully agreed on an official canon - there are a handful of additional books and parts of books in the Greek Canon that are not in the Catholic Canon (though the difference is less important than it may seem, because neither the Orthodox nor the Catholics are Sola Scripturalists, both think that the traditions of the Church are ALSO inspired by God, and they all agree that all of the writings that some take as canonical are good for reading, holy and orthodox...just not at the level that should be called "necessary" canon. There are differences between the Greek Orthodox Canon and the Russian Orthodox Canon also. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church, for its part, is as old as the Apostles, as old as any other Church (see the story of Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts), and its canon is the longest, containing several books otherwise lost to history. St. Jude speaks of the Book of Enoch. Well, we only HAVE the book of Enoch because the Ethiopians preserved it and consider it Scripture. Enoch is interesting because Jesus seems to quote it extensively. Also, among the various books that are not in the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox or Protestant canons but that are nevertheless considered canonical by an ancient Church, Enoch is the only one mentioned BY NAME in the New Testament, and is the only one that really provides insights into things that are not otherwise revealed in the Bible (such as the names and motivations of the angels who fell and took human wives and made Nephilim came from). There are books mentioned in the Old Testament - Jubilees, Jasher, etc. that are also in the Ethiopian Canon. Whether or not the Ethiopian books are really copies of the original, I cannot say. What I CAN say about Enoch in particular is that either Jesus read it extensively, or whoever wrote it did so with the Gospels in hand (except there's so much that is strange and not otherwise in the Scriptures in it), or it contains truth that Jesus knew and spoke independently, which rather strongly vouches for the actual inspiration of at least some of it. I see no basis to reject the books of the Ethiopian Canon. After all, the Greek Orthodox and Latin Catholic canons are not identical, but that never divided the Church and provoked a schism. The extra books in the East add details of history that otherwise are not there. The so-called "Apocrypha", which I definitely consider canonical because Jesus quotes them so often, contain the whole suite of spiritual history from Malachi to Jesus. So, my view is expansive. If it's in any of the Orthodox Canons, I consider it important. And Enoch is particularly important because Jesus said so many of the things in it, and Jude quoted it by name. Peter referred to it very clearly also, though not by name. I suppose if I were a Protestant, Sola Scriptura doctrine and tradition would make me frightened of these books, but I'm a Catholic and the Ethiopian and Catholic Churches were once in unity, and never separated over this then. Enoch is probably at least partially inspired by God, and contains information that cannot be gotten anywhere else, so I read it. But when I discuss things on boards with Protestants, I limit myself to the KJV, because things are already so contentious that adding pre-packaged conflict is...well, that's not what I'm about. I want to find consensus and see Christians form ranks in a common army to face the ENEMY, not each other! (If I were feeling disputatious, I would use the so-called "Apocrypha", because they are translated and printed in the 1611 KJV.
That is the very specific and narrow circumstance about which Paul was writing. I think it is very specific. Specific in the point that Paul did not say he was giving advice but "we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ." Then he goes on to say look at his and other's example of working for provision. The inescapable fact here is that Paul is talking about able bodied human beings. Not the elderly, infirm, widow or orphan. He addresses those categories elsewhere and all are in accordance to the Law. The commandment of God, repeated a hundred times in his own words, and demonstrated by the actions of Jesus and the Apostles was tithe for poverty relief, poverty relief, alms for poverty relief, care for the poor. Indeed no argument there. However, it seemed the NT church did not need the 'motivation' of a prescribed tithe or to be reminded of such. Seemed they understood the Love of Christ. We know the diaspora Jews and Gentile Christians came to the aid of the Judean famine (Acts 11) abundantly. God loves a cheerful giver. 9 Now concerning the ministering to the saints, it is superfluous for me to write to you; 2 for I know your willingness, about which I boast of you to the Macedonians, that Achaia was ready a year ago; and your zeal has stirred up the majority. 3 Yet I have sent the brethren, lest our boasting of you should be in vain in this respect, that, as I said, you may be ready; 4 lest if some Macedonians come with me and find you unprepared, we (not to mention you!) should be ashamed of this confident boasting. 5 Therefore I thought it necessary to exhort the brethren to go to you ahead of time, and prepare your generous gift beforehand, which you had previously promised, that it may be ready as a matter of generosity and not as a grudging obligation. 6 But this I say: He who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and he who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. 7 So let each one give as he purposes in his heart, not grudgingly or of necessity; for God loves a cheerful giver. 8 And God is able to make all grace abound toward you, that you, always having all sufficiency in all things, may have an abundance for every good work. 9 As it is written: “He has dispersed abroad, He has given to the poor; His righteousness endures forever.” 10 Now may He who supplies seed to the sower, and bread for food, supply and multiply the seed you have sown and increase the fruits of your righteousness, 11 while you are enriched in everything for all liberality, which causes thanksgiving through us to God. 12 For the administration of this service not only supplies the needs of the saints, but also is abounding through many thanksgivings to God, 13 while, through the proof of this ministry, they glorify God for the obedience of your confession to the gospel of Christ, and for your liberal sharing with them and all men, 14 and by their prayer for you, who long for you because of the exceeding grace of God in you. 15 Thanks be to God for His indescribable gift! "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."---Romans 5:6
Why? It seems that you agree with everything I wrote because I agree with everything you wrote. You said the same things using different words. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Actually the reverse is true. Biologically human life DOES start at conception. You are confusing this scientific fact with religious doctrine of ensoulment - when human living being receives soul. No,that would be you. Life begins when a child takes it's first breath. Prior to that it is a parasite and only a potential life. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Indeed, we MUST start with ourselves, our homes, our families, and then reach out to others in the circle - preferably to our brothers and sisters in the faith. For everybody has needs, and resources of anyone are limited. Therefore we should pay particular attention, once we have done our family duties, to pay attention to the needs of our Christian brothers and sisters, to ease their burdens so that together we can also ease the burdens of others.
They ARE wising up! They have fewer and fewer children. That it why the white population has to be replaced by the less demanding and more fertile Third World immigrants. You have the "theys" mixed up. The "theys" that will wise up if we cut back welfare benefits to the point where only churches and other charities pay the freight,the professional welfare parasites will wise up and stop having so many children. You can bet your bippy the churches and other charities won't be as generous with the benefits or as open-minded about the life-styles and living conditions as Uncle Sugar,who wants their votes,is. The people on welfare that do have children will be taking a sudden interest in them actually getting an education and jobs because they will need their children employed to keep them fed and housed when they are old. The way things are now they don't give a damn because they will continue to drop another baby when their oldest turns 18 for as long as they can to keep the checks coming in,and by the time they get too old to do that they will be on SS disability due to diabetes,too much fat and not enough exercise,alcohol abuse,drug addiction,heart problems,etc,etc,etc. Selfish self-interest works when everything else fails. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Ahhhh,another Holy War! Killin dem heathens for Gawd! I knew you had it in you. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Which means that there will be destitute children. So what do we do about them? Let the churches and other charities deal with them. That's what they get tax-free status for as charities. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
HorseHillary! MOST of the people in India and South and Central America would be willing to work and provide for themselves if there were jobs available. Provide them with jobs where they see they have a future,and they will stop having so many children. The reason people in the 3rd world have so many children is to insure enough survive to reach adulthood so the children can provide for them when they are too old to scrap by doing the odds and ends things they are doing to avoid daily starvation. The people in Africa are mostly a lost cause. They are content to live in their mud huts with their cattle if they are rich enough to have cattle. If not,they will sit right there and starve to death if somebody doesn't feed them. If it wasn't for the western aid still pouring into Africa,they would be right back to the Stone Age,and eating each other again. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
BTW,did you hear that no less than "The Sisters of the Poor" are suing the Obomber Administration over Obomber Care actually reducing their ability to help the poor because of regulations and added expenses? I'm really,REALLY hoping this starts to get some press because nothing would make me happier than to see the "caring people" in the Dim Party take on the Sisters of the Poor in public. Hell,I'd pay money to watch that. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
You want to apply that to the retirees, including people in nursing homes? Who says retired people,through hard work and planning,aren't providing for themselves? Or that people in nursing homes,Pre-Obomber,didn't/don't have insurance to cover their expenses? We are not living in Biblical times now. We have banks,pension plans,and insurance. For example,children don't work,either. Damn few of them starve to death in the western world. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
I found this here: www.mcknights.com/news/po...ive-fight/article/441161/ I don't see the issue that you mention above.
Septuagint is the oldest translations made by several most competent devout Jewish scholars and priests in the main center of the ancient scholarship - Alexandria. It was done by the Jews, for the Jews and used by the Jews. Our Lord Himself quoted Septuagint and other New Testament quotes are from Septuagint. Both New Testament and Septuagint are in Greek. The next major translation was into Latin, centuries later, for common uneducated Western peoples who had problems with Greek. That is why called common/vulgar - Vulgate. Fathers of the Church used Septuagint and so did the Seven Ecumenical Councils. I am sorry, but your authority does not trump theirs. BTW, this passage resembles the Samaritan version. Samaritans separated from Judeans long before Septuagint! ====== [...] The Septuagint translators understood correctly the meaning of Exod 21:22–23 which states quite clearly that a fully developed fetus was a person protected by the lex talionis, but a fetus which was not fully formed was not a person but was a property properly protected by the lex pensitationis. The Hebrew dialect of the Septuagint translators in Alexandria included two words spelled !wsa, namely, (a) the !Asa'which was translated as malaki,a, “affliction, disease” (Gen 42: 28) and (b) the !As.a,/ !w"s.a, which was translated as evxeikonizomai, “to be fully formed” (Exod 21: 22–23) The word !wsa/!As.a,/ !w"s.a, did not survive in the Judean and Samaritan Hebrew dialects. Thanks to Septuagint translation of Exod 21:22–23 and the Arabic cognate £ÑªD(sawaya), “he made it equal, he became full-grown in body,” the lost lexeme !As.a,/ !w"s.a, has been recovered. Exod 21: 22–25 can be properly interpreted once the accuracy of the Sep- tuagint translation is duly recognized. This old lost lexeme !As.a,/ !w"s.a,), “fully formed / full-grown,” needs to be included in all the new commentaries of today and the Hebrew lexicons of tomorrow. [...] THE SEPTUAGINT HAS THE CORRECT TRANSLATION OF EXODUS 21:22-23 So is with Dead Sea Scrolls.
I found this here: www.mcknights.com/news/po...ive-fight/article/441161/ I don't see the issue that you mention above. I read a brief mention of it on a conservative news site,but didn't click on the link. Maybe it is related to Obomber care wanting to cut back money to the Sisters unless they provide abortion or contraception services? Either way,I see a leftist dust-up with the Sisters of the Poor in public as a win-win for everybody but the left. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Prove it.
Prove it. It's proven every day. NOW,YOU prove to me that life begins at erection by trotting a few fertilized cells out to give a talk. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
We are not living in Biblical times now. We have banks,pension plans,and insurance. For example,children don't work,either. Damn few of them starve to death in the western world. With regards to skilled nursing home care, Pete you will be just fine. You can always go into a VA skilled nursing facility if you had to. I inspected two in FL for my dad right before he passed away and those facilities were pretty good. However, for those who don't have the VA option, skilled nursing care at the lower end (FL prices) is $5000 to $7000 a month. Most middle income pensions, savings or equity will get gobbled up quickly at those prices...Again that is FL, and not the North East or Left Coast. So what happens is, for middle income retirees, within 1-3 years all of their savings is zapped, then investments are liquidated and then any land or homes must be sold to pay the skilled nursing facility. Only exceptions is if there is a spouse, the house will not be allowed to be taken nor the income the spouse needs to survive, maintain the home and pay bills. Once all assets (save the spouse subsistence)are liquidated and the middle income nursing home resident has no more money, then they can apply for MEDICAID to pay for nursing home care. If the patient has a pension, that and his/her social security check goes to the nursing home and what it does not cover the State picks up in Medicaid. So unless one is really wealthy and can afford a live in 24 hour a day nurse in their home somewhere down the line someone who requires skilled nursing care will lose everything. That is why elder care law is a booming business these days. There are ways to protect assets but they must be transferred or sold 5 years prior to admission to a nursing home (each state has differing provisions). Some are also taking out Long Term Care insurance. This is very expensive and takes away a large portion of retired income for a 'just in case' situation. My dad's friend paid into this for 5 years but never used it...He passed away before needing it. Some elderly are using those reverse mortgages to drum up income for long term care. Bottom line, long term care (nursing home care) is huge bucks. Most people just don't have the money for it. It is more an investment if you have loads of kids and hope a doctor or nurse comes out of it:) I would advise any of our aging posters here at LF to sit down with family to discuss the 'what if's' on long term care. Then invest in an elder care lawyer to get advice. It may be the best $2,000 someone will invest. These lawyers don't come free ya know:) "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."---Romans 5:6
Thanks. Now please look at this: "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."---Romans 5:6
Turn about is fair play. Let their adult children take them in. It's worked this way since the day of the cave man,so there is no reason it won't work today. The people without children can be provided for by churches and/or other charities. No,it's not a perfect system that provides for everybody. Neither is any other system. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Understood. It is when the elderly parent(s) require round the clock medical care when this becomes even untenable financially for the adult children. That's the real challenge with the cost of long term care. "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."---Romans 5:6
Not to hear some folks tell it, they use the Bible as their reason for doing so... Well, I saw your "Satan" and raised you an "Accuser" so it seemed to balance out anyway.
Dogma. Not interested. The text means premature birth.
If the government enforces a 10% tithe to the charities, fine. Otherwise, no - the resources required exceed what people give to charity.
St. Jude speaks of the Book of Enoch. Well, we only HAVE the book of Enoch because the Ethiopians preserved it and consider it Scripture. Enoch is interesting because Jesus seems to quote it extensively. Also, among the various books that are not in the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox or Protestant canons but that are nevertheless considered canonical by an ancient Church, Enoch is the only one mentioned BY NAME in the New Testament, and is the only one that really provides insights into things that are not otherwise revealed in the Bible (such as the names and motivations of the angels who fell and took human wives and made Nephilim came from). There are books mentioned in the Old Testament - Jubilees, Jasher, etc. that are also in the Ethiopian Canon. It is interesting once you learn a bit about it. Certainly, there is much to interest even lay people in the history of the Ethiopian Orthodox. The Orthos, as a club, are certainly the most conservative of churches. They just don't change. Or ever throw anything away. : ) It's no great reason to feel compelled to embrace the Ethiopic either. Even so, it does have a certain historical interest, regardless of which canon of scripture you prefer. As I said before, Gill is the only writer I've ever read who even mentioned it as a canon and as manuscript evidence for particular readings of a verse. As I recall it, the Ethiopian Orthodox differ as much in their creedal disagreement with the other churches that are Orthodox or Catholic. So there are some doctrinal differences. Also, the Ethiopian church was established in very ancient times when Christianity spread across regions of Africa. Over the centuries, Ethiopian Christianity became geographically isolated for many centuries. So many of the issues that became quite important in the West or in Byzantium never penetrated some of the remote churches of the Copts or the Ethiopian Orthos or the Syrian or Mesopotamian churches.
You use "dogma" as an insult. Do you deny Divinity of Christ? Dogma of Holy Trinity? Union of divine and human nature in Christ? Etc ... Where was a dogma in our exchange? You read your opinions into Holy Scriptures.
The most compelling reason to embrace the Ethiopic canon is that it contains Enoch. Jude referred directly to Enoch by name, and both Jude and Peter made arguments from it. Jesus quoted Enoch nearly verbatim several times. This book was very much on the minds of the Apostles and Christ himself. Why should it NOT be canonical? Jesus used it. The whole argument about what IS canon is interesting to me, because men place such very heavy authority on Scripture, but then Scripture never defines what Scripture is. Where Scripture QUOTES Scripture, that's a pretty good indication of what IS Scripture, and where God Himself, in personam Jesus, AND the head of the Church, AND the brother of God - two Apostles and the Christ - are all using a book - well, the only Old Testament book that has THAT much cross usage is the Torah itself. Jesus quoted Isaiah quite a bit, but the Apostles didn't. There's a line or two from Daniel, but that's it. Also, both Peter and Jude make specific theological ARGUMENTS from Enoch, and there isn't any OTHER text in the Old Testament, at all, that ever gives the data about the fallen angels leaving their stations and their motivations. Enoch is the ONLY Biblical source for that. Obviously it should be in the Bible. Just as obviously, the Jews have been celebrating Hannukka as a high holy day for millennia, and yet the only place to read about it is in the books of the Maccabbees, which are part of the Jewish LXX but which were eliminated from the Jewish canon a generation or more after the destruction of the Temple, by very xenophobic and racist Jews, BECAUSE Maccabbees is written in Greek. Obviously the Maccabbean account of the first Hannukka is properly in the Jewish canon, as it was at the time of Christ. If a book is NECESSARY to understand a Biblical teaching or a major tradition - and Enoch is - that tells me that it's in the Canon. The fact that there are ancient Christian Churches that agree is second corroboration. To my eyes, whatever any of the Orthodox call Canon, is properly included in the Canon, and that brings in a few extra sources. It doesn't really change anything Jesus said, which is the law for us, but it gives the information necessary to evaluate. The issues that became important in the West and Byzantium are all post Biblical, and have to be interpreted in light of the Bible. I will avoid all discussion of the Reformation Era canon choices, because it doesn't lead anywhere good when Catholics and Protestants are speaking with each other. Essentially, the canon of Scripture is the Ethiopic Canon, plus the additional book in the Slavic Canon, but it is not as easy to rely on the Ethiopic canon because it has not been mechanically translated, and when you've only got one or two translations, you may be getting some wrong things.
I always pose it as a question: how can Jude be scripture if it quotes Enoch? If Enoch is not scripture, Jude should not be elevated above Enoch. Excluding Enoch while including Jude is problematic, always was. However it came about, it is interesting to see a long-established and isolated Christian church and how it dealt with the whole tamale of scripture. We have no other examples of this. You can look for ways in which things change or do not change over time, whether there is any particular reliance on the peculiar features of the extra books they include in their canon as compared to other Ortho churches or Catholic/Protestant canons in the West.
When you made your appeal to "authority". Our ancestors fought about this fruitlessly for ages, and I am completely uninterested in the discussion. The Torah was given in Hebrew. It still exists in Hebrew. The LXX translation translated the Hebrew. If you want to look into the original GREEK meaning, in Eastern Mediterranean (Jewish ethnic usage, non-native) Greek of 200 BC, you may well find that the Greek word used, which has been translated into English as "miscarriage" - a very precise word in English - had the more general meaning of the underlying Hebrew. In fact, I'd bet drachmas that that is what you would find: if the baby comes out early and unexpectedly, that is probably what that Greek word means, and NOT the specific "baby dies early in the womb" that English "miscarriage" now means. In any event, the Greek translates a text that was given by God in Hebrew, and the Hebrew word that the Greek translates means that the baby comes out, and does not refer to the status - living or dead - of the baby. When properly understood, everything that follows makes perfect sense, AND it aligns perfectly with all of the OTHER statements in the Bible - about God knowing people in the womb, and about begetting. It all forms one seamless garment that completely and simply, tells the truth: life begins at conception. I am not sure that the Greek, even, inserts a seam due to translation. I doubt it. The English does. IF the Greek does, the Greek is wrong. It is true that when Jesus quotes the Old Testament, 9 times out of 10 where there is a difference between the LXX and the Hebrew, Jesus uses the Greek of the LXX. But it is also true that 1 time out of 10 he uses the Hebrew, and not the LXX. Which means that even though the Greek-speaking Fathers of the Church were completely sold on the Greek, Jesus wasn't, and his authority trumps theirs.
Ethiopians have the same faith as Copts and Armenians. They derive from those who rejected dogmatic definitions of the Fourth Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon.
Because canon is a measure or standard set by the Ecumenical Councils for practical pastoral reason. There are many good and inspired texts that were not included. Canon is not a fetish, it is an inspired collection of key and reliable books. But there are more.
Yes. And I agree with the Ethiopians that Enoch is a book inspired by God that should be read with the other books. If it is not included, then Jude's letter loses the marrow of its argument.
Not bad. Except the image misses the council of Jerusalem.
"For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."---Romans 5:6
If it is not included, then Jude's letter loses the marrow of its argument. Are there any Hebrew fragments of Enoch? "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."---Romans 5:6
Non sequitur. Saint Paul quotes Greek poetry that of course is not in the canon, it does not undermine "the marrow of his argument"
None of which I am aware. We have the Amharic, preserved by the Ethiopian Christians. And that's all we have.
Yes it does, because Jude is making a theological point. In any case, Jesus quotes Enoch extensively, so it should be in the canon.
This is not a purpose of the canon. Canon is to provide a standard to measure other books or doctrines or teachings. It is sufficient in traditional form (before Luther removed some books)
Then it's down-in-the-weeds inside baseball, and I'm content to leave it there. Enoch is Scripture.
It is in Geez, old liturgical language.
It is, so is Letter of St Clement, Martyrdom of St Polycarpos, Didache and many other inspired holy writings from later centuries. But the purpose of canon is not to include all holy books.
Before you leave, admit that LXX passage is correct one.
If the churches and the charities won't dig into their assets to pay for it,Tough Titty. Who ever said life would be fair? Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
I am more modernist than the Oriental churches in your diagram. I do harbor doubts about the filioque from the later Synod of Toledo in 589AD. Nothing good ever comes from Toledo. : ) Nice chart though.
If the Greek word means "babies come out" then sure. If the Greek word means the same thing as English "miscarriage" means today, then no, it is not.
You've sunk your teeth into this one. LOL
I actually agree with A Pole insofar as the designation as "canon" is a vague sort of line. I agree with him that the writings of the early saints, such as the Didache, or Clement's letters are every bit as authoritative as the writings of Paul or Jude. And happily, the Ethiopian Orthodox agree, for those documents are also part of the Tewahedo canon.
Filioque is right or wrong, depending on what you understand by saying it. Spirit is breath. Holy Spirit is the breath of God, the animating power of life and creation. Both the Holy Spirit and the Son ultimately originate, at their first beginnings, in the Father. If we look at the Son as an aspect of God that was WITHIN the Father until begotten and placed outside of the Father in a second person then he was indeed with the Father always, and certainly was beside the Father before the beginning of time. And yet the Father is the Father, and superior to the Son, not in divinity, but in primacy. God's divine breath creates. The First Breath, the Holy Breath, the Holy Spirit, began with the Father. And yet the Son also breathes, and the Son is divine, and the breath that proceeds out of the Son is divine - of one divine essence with the Father. Jesus breathed the spirit into the Apostles, remember. So the question of the procession of the Holy Spirit reposes on the question of WHEN. If speaking of the very beginning of beforetime, there was the Father, and the Father begat the Son and breathed out the Spirit. So at the first, before all time, The Holy Spirit AND the Son both originally proceeded out of the Father, certainly. But NOW, with Jesus enthroned at the right hand of the Father awaiting enthronement on the Earth, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the divine, and Father and Son are both divine, and both breath out the Spirit. Jesus breathed it into the Apostles and the Church. Nicaea and Toledo are both right. And the Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are both right also, just in different contexts. Or, and the miaphytism of the Oriental Orthodox - that's just exactly the right way to look at it too.
Uh-oh. You're treading on the thin ice of "eternally begotten Son". : )
We might make this claim. But when the canon was established, those books were rejected as they did not provide a reliable testimony or teach vital doctrine or they contained passages that contradicted other fundamental texts. Frankly, I've never understood exactly how Jude passed muster in those deliberations. We also have to recognize that for most of the books of the canon, they confirmed those that were widely in circulation. A few others, like Clement's epistles, were in circulation and were considered of great interest to readers but that they did not contain direct testimony or vital doctrine from the time of Jesus and the earliest churches. There was a certain minimalism used to screen unsuitable or dubious books out of the canon.
He kinda wanted to remove the ones that he thought ruined his systematic theology so he did disparage them. But he only moved them to the back of bible, much as the Apocrypha got moved to the back of many bibles. Demoting a book from its place in the ancient canon is not the same as removing it completely. Wiki: Luther's canon
A bit more from the Wiki on the Antilegomena. Among the disputed writings, which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name. Among the rejected writings must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the so-called Shepherd, and the Apocalypse of Peter, and in addition to these the extant epistle of Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles; and besides, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem proper, which some, as I said, reject, but which others class with the accepted books. And among these some have placed also the Gospel according to the Hebrews, with which those of the Hebrews that have accepted Christ are especially delighted. And all these may be reckoned among the disputed books. The Epistle to the Hebrews is also listed earlier: It is not indeed right to overlook the fact that some have rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, saying that it is disputed by the church of Rome, on the ground that it was not written by Paul. Codex Sinaiticus, a 4th-century text and possibly one of the Fifty Bibles of Constantine, includes the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas. The original Peshitta (NT portion is c. 5th century) excluded 2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, Jude, and Revelation. Some modern editions, such as the Lee Peshitta of 1823, include them. Given that Eusebius was a near-contemporary of those who canonized the NT and had access to a many materials we lack, we can't simply dismiss him entirely on this matter. I'm not saying he was right (because I don't know) but his education, his scholarship, his source materials, his connections in the early churches can't simply be ignored.
Not a bit. "Eternal" refers to TIME. Endless time. Time begins with creation. And the Father and the Son and Holy Spirit have been there from the beginning of time, and for all time. But BEFORE time, before anything that we would call existence, BEFORE the beginning, there was the Father, El, and El begat YHSWH and breathed out the Holy Wind. And THEN the beginning began. All of this is actually WITHIN the first word of Genesis, B'reshiyt, which we translate as "In the beginning", but the translation is shaky because it's really "in head" And the pictographic sentence WITHIN that word, WITHIN the beginning of "the beginning" are Within Head El division-into-two arm pointing to the Cross. That is what the pictographs of B'reshiyt SAY, when read as a sentence themselves. Then next comes "bara" BRA - a repetition within head God - then the word Elohiym, which is the PLURAL of El - the first PLURAL use of El, the name of the Father, since the beginning - now that El has divided into two pointing to the Cross and in the head of God - Elohiym. And Elohiym is God - Sheperd staff (the Lord is my shepherd) breath/spirit arm upon the chaos/waters, followed by the unstranlsated word AT - which is Alpha-Omega in Greek - from El to the Cross. The transition from El to Elohiym before the beginning of the world but IN the beginning of the beginning - literally WITHIN it - is actually toid out loud, in a series of sentences. We read the Hebrew words these letters form, and that's fine. But if we read the hieroglyphic sentences that form these words, we see the begetting of the son, the fore indication of the Cross from the beginning, and the breathing out out of the Spirit - and then the hand upon the chaotic waters...which the surface words will go on to tell in the first two verses. Genesis is a fractal, and it's all right there...in the Hebrew pictographs, which is why the LXX is wonderful for being able to match NT Greek words to OT Greek words, so that meaning is conveyed across the language change, but why preserving the Hebrew of the Torah is so vital: the pictographs themselves are full of fractal meaning that can be read as sentences. Were I to be free one day of the obligation to work. I would write out the Bible pictographic sentences in English, at least for the first chapters of Genesis. After that, when it comes to the story of Abraham and onward, the surface words convey the story. But in the very dense creation story, where God had to dictate everything, and where the meanings of words themselves have not yet been defined, the fractal density is...well...it's supernatural. And when you see it, you realize that you are peering into the mind of God.
I was a little tongue-in-cheek. The "eternally begotten" phrase seems to beg the question instead of answering it.
No, those books were NOT rejected. They were always accepted by the Orthodox Church. In Ethiopia. I see no reason to privilege the Greeks or Aramaens, or the Latins, over the ancient Ethiopians. For one thing, the Easterners lost their faith, en masse with the arrival of Islam. Part of the West was overrun by Islam also, and only slowly driven back, but the West and the East fought Christianity hard for centuries, and the Catholic West was still very barbaric well into the Middle Ages. By contrast, Ethiopia went over eagerly to Christ very early, without all of the trauma and drama. And the Ethiopian faith was like the rock of Gibraltar when Islam descended on all sides - by sea, down the coast, and down the river. It is difficult to evaluate the Ark of the Covenant at Elephantine claim, as nobody is allowed to see it anymore, but it is plausible that it IS the Ark. And the Ethiopians had the full canon from the beginning, and didn't accept the niggling and haggling of the Roman imperials. The Ethiopian faith was, and is, strong, and was free of all of the polluting and corrupting influence of imperial politics. My bet is that the Ethiopian canon is the best and most complete. So, the fact that squabbling imperials who were not behaving in a very Christian manner to one another rejected books of the proper canon doesn't mean that those books were rejected, it means that Rome and Constantinople were simply committing one more of the numerous errors that ultimately laid them low. After all, the East could not stand against Islam. And the West...well, they were selling indulgences until Martin Luther, and then burning people (on both sides). The Roman versions of Christianity, East and West, are quite tainted by imperial politics and violence. Ethiopia stood up to the Muslims and turned them aside. God preserved them. Seems to me that they got it right, as far as including all of the inspired Scriptures go, and the Catholics and Eastern Orthodox produced abridged versions which, while holy, are not complete. Luther continued that paring down business in the West. Given Ethiopia's success against Islam and barbarism and Rome's and Constantinople's failures and weaknesses, I'd say that God has indicated which of the Churches of that era best preserved his full message unadulterated by petty imperial politics.
We have the Amharic, preserved by the Ethiopian Christians. And that's all we have. Let's explore this a bit. Maybe on another thread. In Enoch I do see language showing their is direct conversation with God and Enoch. So it does meet at least on first examination to meet the "thus saith the Lord" criteria. Genuine authorship should be addressed as well. We would probably need something after or during Noah's timeframe to indicate preservation of the text. If so, then the question is when YHWH gives the Torah historical books to Moses why not the details of Enoch? One could chalk that up to Moses getting what YHWH deemed most important to communicate to the Hebrew people. So we would have to chalk up Enoch to historical oral tradition. If not who is the Holy Spirit inspired scribe writing it down later. We don't know. So this criteria, authorship is what probably put the early Christian fathers in some doubt. The other criteria would be did the Second Temple scribes attribute the book as part of the TaNaKh. Apparently they did not as St Jerome did much research on that. The criteria the Ethiopians most likely grasped on to was apostolic authority. Jude mentions specifically text from Enoch so that satisfies the apostolic authority of those commissioned directly by Christ. One might argue the apostle was clearly inspired (Jude) but that does not make all of Enoch considered inspired. I know sounds odd and why early theologians perhaps grappled with Enoch. I think the last criteria to be examined is the manuscript evidence. Why I asked about any Hebrew fragments of manuscripts are known. Or what opinions of Enoch came out of the post Babylon exile. What's interesting also is the various prophecies in Enoch do not contradict any of the end times prophecies in the TaNaKh. So I don't see contradictory issues. So yes this is interesting to investigate. Especially when the data in Enoch takes us to super antiquity yet we do not see written copies until the post Second Temple era. My best estimation is that is the most prevalent factor in why the Second Temple scribes did not have it added to TaNaKh. "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."---Romans 5:6
Nobody was present at creation, and yet we have Genesis. Divine inspiration provides the chain of custody.
Always thought Clement was a the third bishop of Rome and considered post apostolic. So given the apostolic criteria I can see why his works were not included in the NT canon. Only exceptions would be Mark and Luke. Mark writing Peter's gospel account and Luke the close companion and fellow traveler with Paul.
"For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."---Romans 5:6
Yes, no human was present. Not until created of course:) But we know YHWH gave Torah to Moses and those accounts were recorded. Why I mentioned it was probably important to the second temple era and beyond on "who" provided the Divine custody of Enoch. There was a huge flood and a whole lot of human history between the events of Enoch and when we first see it in writing. Jude thought it important enough to quote a bit from Enoch. A mystery we may never uncover. "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."---Romans 5:6
Which quotes of Christ? I'm curious if such cannot be found also in TaNakh. "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."---Romans 5:6
I am a classicist. The aristocracy gave power to the Athenian citizenship not so much because they feared a revolution (and they did) but because the old way of fighting wars, where the aristocrats did the fighting in the form of duels while the peasants fought around them willy nilly had ended and the age of armed formations of disciplined soldiers took over. The aristocrats realized an army of peasants heavily armed would not fight for free or take orders from aristocrats if they did not want to. We kind of saw that after WW2. The Americans passed the GI Bill - which was purely a wealth transfer from the rich to the poor (on a basis of merit) because they did not want an angry population of millions of combat hardened veterans returning to the slums of American cities (where most of the Irish, Italians and non WASP whites lived) and to poverty. And it worked. This wealth transfer benefited the republic immensely. All those non WASP whites who benefited from the GI Bill would before the war never have even finished high school in many cases pre WW2 and were now being payed to go to trade schools or higher education. These days, our leaders don't really need the rest of the population? As automation and outsourcing take over and fewer Americans serve there will be a feeling that they can use a private army to keep the discontent bottled in a nation with a 2nd amend?
Which are arbitrary and not accepted by the entire Church. There is no reason to privilege that Latin Church's decision, or the Greek Church's decision, over the Ethiopian Church's. The Ethiopian Church is older than the Latin Church, and as old as the Greek Church. They always used the holiest apostolic writings, and some of the writings of the Church fathers. Who gave the Greeks or the Italians the power to decide that ONLY THESE BOOKS are inspired by God? Nobody did. And given that the Ethiopian Church's actual BEHAVIOR was exemplary, when compared to the Latins and the Greeks, and also given the fact that God stripped the Greeks and the Latins of many faithful, but Ethiopia stood as a rock in a flood of Islam all around, the fact of victory demonstrates a divine favor that has an authority that exceeds that of Churches that were defeated by hostile religions and lost 90% of their adherents, forever. Should, therefore, the Latin Church or Greek or Russian Church of today "change their canon"? Why bother. The Ethiopians preserved certain parts of Scripture, and we can get it from them, and if the Greeks and Latins and Russians don't want to admit that those writings were inspired by God, and therefore have authority, well, they're no different from the Baptists then, are they? One reads more of God's inspiration in a Catholic Bible than a Protestant, because there are more inspired books in it, and more still in a Greek Orthodox Bible than a Catholic one. There's an additional book in the Russian Bible that the Greeks don't have. And finally the Ethiopians, who have the Old Testament books that are referred to in the Old Testament, but that the other Christians don't have (the Book of Jubilees, the Book of Jasher), and of course Enoch, the Didache, the Letters of Clement, etc. There is a reason to privilege the Ethiopian canon: it's the most complete. And there is a reason to dismiss the superiority of wisdom in the choices made by the Greek Orthodox and the Latin Catholics - the Greeks lost to Islam; the Russians lost to the Mongols. And the Latins? Well, look at how corrupt and barbaric they became. The Ethiopians had the favor of God: they did not succumb to Islam. They didn't have to have a Reformation. And they were founded IN ISRAEL by an Apostle speaking to a high official - meaning that whereas Greek and Roman officials rejected Christianity and tormented it, but the Ethiopians understood all the way to the top, from the start. And they preserved everything to now. Which means that the moral claim to superior wisdom clearly rests with Ethiopia, and their choice of the fullest canon is the most logically sustainable. If one wants to stick to the Catholic argument: "Only apostolic writing in the Scripture", that is fine as a limiter, unless one also adds to that an arbitrary "Only Scripture" tradition on top of that which treats something like the Didache as less authoritative than, say, a letter of Paul. There is no basis other than stubborn traditional prejudice for that. Enoch is Scripture. The Didache is Scripture. Clementine Letters are Scripture. So are Jubilees and Jasher. Why would they not be? Why are the opinions of corrupt, fighting, ultimately weakened and failed Greeks or ultimately violent and barbaric Latins better witnesses than a church older than either that neither fell nor failed nor went barbaric? Cultural prejudice? An error, then. It's Scripture.
YHWH gave the Law to Moses. The Torah we have includes the Law, and a bunch of other historical and wisdom writing added on for context. It's all called "Torah", but God didn't write all of that on two stone tablets.
You're wrong and dopey to the nth degree. A "parasite" is an un-invited thief of another's life; A pre-born child is not only invited, it is created and nourished in love and develops its own working system at the cellular level. And YES, pre-born babies DO indeed breathe while in the womb, Sherlock. That while oxygen circulates throughout its body -- including its brain. This IS a living, breathing human being. IDIOT.
HorseHillary. The economy was booming due to all of Europe's manufacturing being bombed to dust,and a booming American economy needed new skilled blue collar as well as white collar workers. Who better to subsidize for this new work force than the veterans who had proven they had ambition enough to stick with it and succeed? Plus it allowed the politicians to score major political points. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
You're wrong and dopey to the nth degree. If that is true and the fetus can live without the mother,you should have no objection to abortion at any stage. After all,the fetus doesn't need the mother to live,right? And YES, pre-born babies DO indeed breathe while in the womb, Sherlock. That while oxygen circulates throughout its body -- including its brain. This IS a living, breathing human being. IDIOT. You don't know the definition of a parasite,you believe in magic,miracles,and Holy Spooks,and you call ME a idiot? Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Human language has limits. "Breath" is a word like "Father" or like "Son". Father stands for the Source and Essence/Godhead, Son is Creator, Ruler of all, Savior and Judge, True God from True God. Holy Spirit is God Himself too. True God from True God as well, eternally (before all ages/eons/worlds/time etc ...) proceeding/outpouring from The Father - consubstantial and inseparable hypostasis/subsistence, Heavenly King, Comforter, Spirit of Truth, everywhere-present and filling all things, Treasury of Goods, Giver and Sustainer of Life, the Purifier of souls and bodies.
Newborn babies also need mother to live. Are they parasites? To eat they suck mother breasts like mosquitoes suck your blood. You can remove 6 months old fetus, put in the incubator and he will live. You can do it even earlier, but with difficulties.
You mean that they had luck and stamina to survive? Not all of them were volunteers, they were drafted. BTW, Big part of them was sent to Europe AFTER the main fighting ended, to crowd out Soviets. BTW, without GI Bill, would America be better off?
No,they don't. There are plenty of babies who lived to become adults whose mothers died giving birth,or shortly after birth. That doesn't mean it isn't easier or better for the infant if the mother is around to nurse and care for the baby,but the baby really becomes a separate human being at birth. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
You mean that they had luck and stamina to survive? Wahhhhh! Wahhhhhh! No,I meant the dead ones. After all,who has more stamina and luck than the dead ones? (sarcasm) Not all of them were volunteers, they were drafted. Yes,but not as many as were drafted in your beloved workers paradise,comrade. Not that you would really notice because you were all serfs of your Soviet masters to start with. BTW, Big part of them was sent to Europe AFTER the main fighting ended, to crowd out Soviets. BTW,you are full of Obomber. The majority of the ones that defeated the Nazi's and stopped the Red Army at Berlin were still in Germany and Europe for months after the war ended,and many were still there a year or more later while the military was being downsized,with those who had been at war the longest being the first to be allowed to go home and get discharged. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
At Berlin?!
Enoch is Scripture. The Didache is Scripture. Clementine Letters are Scripture. So are Jubilees and Jasher. You are on quite a roll with this. : ) It isn't a bad argument to make. Why, indeed, Jude and not the Didache? Or Enoch? One good answer for the inclusion of so many Pauline epistles is that the ancient churches faced the challenge of the Marcionites, who had introduced their own canon composed of the Gospels and the epistles of Paul. To them, Paul was the primary apostle of Jesus. So when the ancient fathers of the church recognized that they had better establish a canon themselves before the energetic Marcion did it for them and they found themselves presented with a fait accompli, they included the Pauline epistles rather prominently in the canon which undercut some of the appeal of Marcionism. Given how annoying you find Paul's and Augustine's more modern followers, I can only imagine how angry you are with Marcion's gang who are probably responsible for the prominence of so many Pauline epistles in the canon. It does open up an examination of the canon, how we got the canon we have, the standards used to establish the canon, the books which circulated widely in ancient times but did not make the canonical list. And it is a reminder that the canon we have also represents certain political compromises (the Revelation and Hebrews) as well as the need to exclude heresy like semi-gnostic Marcionites. We have inherited the canon but we should recognize its internal biases and the larger theological dimensions - and conflicts - among the doctrinal leaders of the far-flung churches of the early centuries.
References to Enoch are found in various books. No direct quotes outside of Jude. There are other portions of the New Testament that many argue are largely derived from the book of Enoch. The book of Enoch was widely read among Jews from the 3rd century BCE and was known and preserved by the Essenes in the Dead Sea Scrolls. In the same way that we can observe that Jesus and the disciples knew and used Greek and Aramaic and Hebrew and Roman terms and had familiarity with common texts, at least some of the group of Jesus and his disciples were quite familiar with the book of Enoch. After all, Jude didn't toss off that quick quote of Enoch just hoping that his reader(s) might recognize it. Given the rarity and expense and effort of sending epistles in ancient times, Jude knew his reader would recognize the thrust of his brief Enoch quote in verses 14-15. 15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him. 38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
I understand your approach on this and have to say you are consistent. However, I do not dismiss the scholarship of the time in which the canon was debated. I read a lot of Enoch last night. I came back with the same impression of it as I did when looking at texts such as the Qur'an and BOM. Most portions are choppy, thoughts not completed (maybe due to missing parts?), some even incoherent. When compared to what we do have in the OT and NT canon there is clarity, fullness, coherence, uniformity, well ordered. Much of which is absent or lacking in Enoch, and quite a few other religious texts of antiquity. However, I believe the largest factor the church fathers considered was authorship. No one knows if Enoch actually wrote Enoch and no one knows the original scribe. "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."---Romans 5:6
Who was the author of the Didache? Was the author of the Didache directly commissioned by Jesus Christ? I think both answers are 'we don't know' or 'no.' Paul was an apostle of Jesus Christ. He received a direct commission from Him and direct revelation. "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."---Romans 5:6
I always recall that Enoch appeared around the same time (~300BCE) as the Septuagint. This was an age of a great expansion of Jewish literature, not so dissimilar to the explosion of Christian literature in various centuries down to modern times. We can't precisely quantify the extent of the influence of various earlier texts like Septuagint and Enoch I on the religious language and discussion by Jesus and His disciples but we can have little doubt that they knew these writings and considered them to have a place in religious debate and theology, at least as familiar Jewish touchstones for other doctrinal matters that the early church encountered.
Yes,at Berlin. Patton had to have his fuel cut off to keep him from taking Berlin before your commie heroes could get there,and even after we handed it to them on a platter it took them a while to take it,and our troops in place outside of Berlin is all that stopped them from going further. What we SHOULD have done was taken out the Red Army and Stalin while we had the men and equipment in place to do it,but the communist sympathizers in the Dim Party kept that from happening. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
I noticed there is a rumored Aramaic Enoch scroll from the Dead Sea Scrolls. Unpublished, privately owned. At least one manuscript expert says he was shown a complete copy of Enoch in Aramaic on microfilm. He was never able to muster a group of buyers to purchase it. The Parables is a part of the Ethiopian translation of the Book of Enoch. It is disputed how old it is and if it was originally a part of Enoch (although today most scholars believe it to be pre-Christian[5]). If it was proven to have been a part of the original Aramaic book, it would mean that all of its prophecies concerning the coming Son of Man, which some argue refers to Jesus, would have been written before Jesus was born.
You're wrong and dopey to the nth degree. If that is true and the fetus can live without the mother,you should have no objection to abortion at any stage. After all,the fetus doesn't need the mother to live,right? I don't know what tangent you've now taken to worm your way out of this box of rocks, but it ain't working. You asserted that a baby in the womb is a parasite; I've explained why you're monumentally wrong by definition, by science, and in human terms. ou don't know the definition of a parasite,you believe in magic,miracles,and Holy Spooks,and you call ME a idiot? No, not just an "idiot"; a MONUMENTAL idiot. You haven't the foggiest as to was a "parasite" is. By *your* definition it's anyone who can't feed, clothe, or shelter itself independently. Care to tell the REST of us how many tens or even hundreds of millions that might be, Colonel Klink?
What you read, of course, was an English translation of a Geez/Amharic text. There are not many bilingual scholars of these things. When I read Proverbs, I do not find it to be choppy, but I do find many of the attitudes in several of the parables to be inconsistent with the messages of God that preceded it and of Jesus that came afterwards. Some of it sounds like God, and a lot of it sounds like men writing their own practical, but somewhat ungodly, traditions in there. With several parts of Scripture, I come to places where what is being said doesn't feel like God at all. It feels like men asserting what they think. I find, throughout the corpus of Scripture, that it is very inconsistent point to point, with lots of conflict in it. This is why I narrow my view to the parts that say "God said..." or "Jesus said..." It is not that I reject everything else. Rather, it's a winnowing process that uses the simply logic of the Scripture itself. I think the reason for all of the anxiety about the canon of Scripture comes from the logic of Sola Scriptura, which, of course, I do not accept as a valid way to look at God. But I do accept that it is a good way to impose discipline on theological discussions.
IMO, an astute assessment. From referencing Gill's collection, he indicates in many places Jesus used parables familiar to the masses and the various 'factions' of Pharisees,Sadducees, Essenes, Zealots etc. This was not a homogeneous timeframe for Judaism. So Jesus taking the context of different, of the time, traditions to preach His Truth would not be surprising. It is the way we all communicate today as well. "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."---Romans 5:6
They had a point system back then and the ones with enough points went home and others stayed until they had enough to rotate back home and some got shipped to the Pacific... Interesting. Having a complete text in the Aramaic would be quite a splash. If dated before Christ then those portions of Enoch then fill the Messianic prophecies criteria. "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."---Romans 5:6
Could be for many, long after the first three to four centuries. Can't believe I am making a case for Latins and Greeks in this discussion:) Funnier things have happened here on LF in the past:) However, I don't get that 'choppy' feel when reading the TaNaKh and NT. I do with Enoch and as you explained it could be translation related. Proverbs? Good advice in there. It is not a doctrinal text. Nor is Ecclesiastes. As a matter of fact when I first read Ecclesiates I mentioned to a Bible study lead that Solomon was probably in his backsliding years when composing them. It is a very glum and depressing book. "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."---Romans 5:6
Getting a little emotional there ain't ya,Becky? You haven't the foggiest as to was a "parasite" is. Unlike you,I actually do. A parasite is anything that is dependent on a host for survival,and gets what it needs to survive from that host. Just because YOU happen to think it is a negative instead of an factual and accurate description changes nothing. It is neither negative nor positive,merely factual. Then again,you don't care much for facts,do you? Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Jesus and some of the disciples and, especially, Paul demonstrated that they knew their audiences and were sophisticated thinkers who knew the cultures, religions and prevailing philosophies of their era.
Yup. Also,it wasn't mentioned for PR reasons (the war is over and the fighting and dying has ende,yaaaah!) ,but Ike and the rest of the military commanders weren't about to let their experienced combat soldiers return to Conus until they were certain beyond all doubt that they had wiped out all of the Nazi resisters,and that King Roosevelt's "kindly uncle Joe" wasn't going to send the Soviet hordes rushing to the coast. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
I think any extended examination of the canon and the process and the history of some of the near-misses tends to soften you up. Or reinforce a determination to read the Latin canon only. I'm not sure I want to read the apocryphal books but I think knowing about them isn't a bad bible study. It at least keeps you from laying awake nights worrying about blood moons. Even in astronomy, Enoch does offer its own solar calendar: This book contains descriptions of the movement of heavenly bodies and of the firmament, as a knowledge revealed to Enoch in his trips to Heaven guided by Uriel, and it describes a Solar calendar that was later described also in the Book of Jubilees which was used by the Dead Sea sect. The use of this calendar made it impossible to celebrate the festivals simultaneously with the Temple of Jerusalem.
You really think I was laying awake worrying about blood moons? LOL. However, if we take a 'script' from Tobit we can fashion a fish gut paste which wards off demons. Add a dash of Enoch and a few apocrypha and off to a New Age convention we go!/s "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."---Romans 5:6
Solar calendar? Wow. Wonder how that measured up with the Temple dudes. No wonder the books of Enoch got a bad rap...solar. "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."---Romans 5:6
Well, now, this is interesting, because it gets to the marrow of what different people see in Scripture. I find some of the advice in Proverbs to be profound, and some of it to be glib. Ecclesiastes, by contrast, I find to be the deepest work of the Bible, because it is completely human in its outlook - there are no commandments there - a mind moving through all of the different streets and alleyways, and examining every human diversion and philosophy, and discovering that it all, all of it, is in vain and doomed to decay. All that's left at the end is God. Every material angle and every human artifice is dust in the wind. And all that's left is God. Other books have striving and failing, commandment and consequence, but there is no THREAT in Ecclesiastes, no "do this or else". There is, rather, a man who has the real choices that real men face: we are astonishingly free. And because he is rich and powerful, he has ALL of the choices that any man of his era could make. We can dream of making laws, but he did make them. We can dream of having whatever sensuous pleasure we would like, but he had the money and power to do them. We can dream of having the freedom to be abstemious, but he had the freedom to do it. And every path of endeavor, whatever achieved, ultimately ended in dust and ashes. Every single solitary thing that every man does is utterly worthless. It is perishable, like him. And it, like him, DOES perish, and disappears, leaving a memory, for awhile. And then even that fades. The most prominent of all men leave a name that only the educated know, and maybe a sentence. And nothing more. Qoholeth is right: it is all vanity. Utter vanity. We build nothing, and if we think we do, we are deceived. By doing all, and trying all, Qoholeth came to realize that everything is vanity. The parallel figure in history was Siddhartha Gautama - the Buddha. They each came to a profound spiritual conclusion, albeit a different one, based on their pre-programmed faith. The Buddha sought the final end of unprofitable recycling through the ages by finding Nirvana - the nonexistence of the soul, finally escaping the circles of the world through nonexistence. Qoholeth realized that there is nothing worth holding onto as a perishable man in a perishable and perishing world. Only God. You find it glum and depressing. But I find it the most enlightening and true revealed by human reason in all of Scripture. Now, as to the "not a doctrinal text" comment. What is a "doctrinal text", and who says? I will tell you truthfully: the only person who can decide which text is doctrinal and which is not, is you yourself. God never gave any man, or collection of men, the power or indeed the ABILITY to decide that, for exactly the reason that precedes this part of this message. The texts are collected and preserved, and what is most important varies from mind to mind. And nobody is appointed either cop or judge to determine what is and is not "doctrinal" for anybody else. Men think they have that power, and they divide the Church by trying to assert it. They don't. And they should stop trying. We each come at God differently, through the light God gives us - if it finally comes down to a test of whose viewpoint is authoritative, I already know the answer to that: MINE. And whoever says differently is self-evidently wrong, and would be better to stop digging himself in deeper. And so it is with every mind. Jesus did not grant anybody the power to dominate anybody else's relationship to him and to the Father. We can encourage each other, and enlighten each other, and remind each other of dangers and traps, but when we seek to compel each other under pain of this or that, then by doing so we are wrong by definition. Enoch and the Didache are canon, because the Ethiopian Orthodox say they are. The Ethiopian Orthodox have the same authority as the Catholics and the Greeks in terms of age: they date from the Apostles. They have more authority than the Greeks because they resisted Islam while 90% of the East fell to Islam. They have more authority than the Catholics because the Catholics burnt people alive, including a messenger sent from God, and the Ethiopian Orthodox didn't. You know them by their fruit, and the Ethiopian Orthodox have 2000 years of sweet fruit, without mass apostasy, and without mass murder. Therefore the superiority of their wisdom is proven by the superiorty of their works and acts over the long haul. Which means that their judgments regarding what is Scripture are also better. Obviously. You know them by their fruit. Best fruit, best canon. Period. To me, that really is the FINAL answer, and everything else is just desperate, pathetic pleading of more morally compromised and more defeated variants. This doesn't mean that every tradition of the Ethiopian Orthodox is the best. It DOES mean that God has favored them exceptionally, as evidenced by their superior persistence, the centuries of good fruit, and the relative absence of rotten fruit. So, you can doubt the canonicity of the Didache if you wish, but I don't. To be clear, it matters, because Paul said "All Scripture is God breathed...", so saying that something is Scripture matters. And what the Ethiopians say is Scripture, is Scripture, because their fruit over 2000 years has been the less rotten, their faith the more persistent, and their challenges (surrounded by raging Islam) the most continuous and dire, yet lightly borne. Maybe that's why God gave them the Ark of the Covenant for safekeeping, and not the Greeks or the Romans.
Well I guess that settles it:) Move the Vatican to Ethiopia now! "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."---Romans 5:6
Patton had to have his fuel cut off to keep him from taking Berlin before your commie heroes could get there,and even after we handed it to them on a platter Yeah, sure. And Obama's great-uncle, Charlie Payne, was among the U.S. troops who liberated the Nazi concentration camp Auschwitz. We all know it.
As you know, the temple followed a complex lunar calendar. So Enoch's calendar was not compatible with celebrating Jewish holy days as Jerusalem did. It is an interesting feature of the book for both Enoch fanbois and Enoch scoffers. : )
Historical FACTS,Bubbarade. And Obama's great-uncle, Charlie Payne, was among the U.S. troops who liberated the Nazi concentration camp Auschwitz. He was a REMF who never liberated anything other than the stuff he stole. He gets to claim "he" was a PART of the forces that liberated the camps because he was one of tens of thousands attached to that army Corps. It was always the front line combat assault troops,Soviet,US,or Brits that liberated the camps. BTW,since I remembered Obomber claiming at one speech it was his grandfather that liberated a Nazi concentration camp,I looked up Charles Payne,and was his grandfather's brother,not his grandfather. Nobody is ever sure he was the PFC Charles T.Payne listed in the 89th Infantry Division rolls or not since he wasn't a PFC and has used a different middle initial. The 89th morning report the name came from just listed first and middle name initials and rank. It also says he enlisted. In another bio it says he only served from 1943 to 1945 and got out as a Private. If you was the same rank when he got out as 2 years later while serving in a infantry division during WW-2 he was a major screw up and he definitely did NOT serve as an infantryman. Due to deaths in infantry units,survivors got promoted to Corporal or Sgt as the unit fought in battles. Also,only draftees served 2 years. People that enlisted served a minimum of 3 years,and some served longer as did draftees in 1941. Their terms of service was "for the duration of the war." As with everything else related to Obomber,there is an awful lot of disinformation. We all know it. You don't know squat beyond commie dogma. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
I don't see the word pope in Matthew 16 or anywhere else. Here are the facts. The Bible says to call no one father except for God This piece of shit pope insists on being called holy father. These Catholics pervert the Bible. They have changed the 10 commandments and they pray to a dead person Mary. Catholocism isn't what Jesus taught. It is what he warned about. My spit is more holy then any water that pope "blessed".
Scoffers!? Well there are some. I found this from the Chick.com questions and answers site. It just would not be a theological discussion without finding out what Jack's staff is thinking: Answer: I have a fundamental faith regarding the scriptures: God 'superintended' the texts, so that what God wanted in there is in there, and what God didn't want in there isn't. That means that if God through Paul quotes Epimenides in Titus 1:12, and summarizes the writing of Aratus and Cleanthes in Acts 17:28, it's only there because the quote itself states what the Biblical author wanted to say. It does not validate the entire writings of non-inspired authors. The same is true with the apocryphal (kept out of the Canon by God) Assumption of Moses and 2 Enoch. Those words say what the Bible author wanted to say. It does not say that the entire writings are therefore God's words. May God bless you as you read His preserved words in English, the King James Bible, exactly what God wanted to say. "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."---Romans 5:6
There were small pockets/units of resistance until 1947 or so, IIRC they were called Werewolves. A lot of them were young kids who popped up periodically to kill a few military and civilians but didn't accomplish anything. Some of them were turned in by the locals so they never really had a chance to get organized as it was feared they would... So it was 89th Infantry Division that liberated Auschwitz?
On April 4, 1945, the 89th overran Ohrdruf, a subcamp of the Buchenwald concentration camp. Ohrdruf was the first Nazi concentration camp liberated by US troops in Germany. A week later, on April 12, Generals Dwight D. Eisenhower, George S. Patton, and Omar Bradley visited Ohrdruf to see, firsthand, evidence of Nazi atrocities against concentration camp prisoners. No the Russians did and only found about 5-10,000 inmates, the rest were force marched/transported by train to the west. Quite a few of them ended up in Bergen-Belsen concentration camp... So all needed is in Koran, if it is not there it is not needed. Following Muslim/Calvinist dogma of TULIP you deny human role. Muslims deny also that human nature could cooperate freely with Divine, especially in God-Man Jesus Christ. You treat Holy Scripture as if God dictated it to the human robots. But if you read the Holy Books with open heart, you see human authors, who were inspired but who retained their individuality and freedom.
Yes, Americans are exceptional. They went to Europe at the end of war and won.
The Werewolfen actually killed over 6000 Allied troops - a division's worth - in Germany in a guerrilla war between 1945 and 1949. They were vicious bastards. And they were torn up by the roots and executed.
He did say "call no man father" at one point, but he referred to men's fathers at another point. So, either he really meant that men were never, ever to use the word "Father" to speak of anybody but God (no, he didn't mean that), or he meant something more obvious: don't call anybody your spiritual father. So, am I adding to Scripture by supplying the implied word "spiritual" into the text? If you say "yes", then you can't use the word "father" to refer to your OWN father - and then Jesus raises a welter of contradiction when he says that men must HATE their father and mother, or when he calls SATAN the father of some present. Oy vey did Jesus use that word in so many different way. He meant spiritual father, and he was speaking to Jews. Still, there are so many words we could use for priests and popes instead of "Father", that we probably should use a different word, lest our use of the word be a stumbling block for our weaker brethren. You pretty much HAVE to call your OWN biological father "father", because there isn't any other word that WORKS regarding that person. "Hey you" isn't honoring him.
No. That was your boys,the Soviets. You DO know there was more than one camp,right? Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Don't worry. We all understand the chip on your shoulder is why you can't admit the Soviets would have been speaking German if it hadn't been for that asshat King FDR bailing out his goomba Stalin. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
For me it does. However, just as when speaking with Protestants I seek to use Scripture as the basis of the discussion - because by the terms of their theology that is the ultimate and final authority; and just as, when demanded, I will use the KJV Only - because KJV Onlyists will accept only the KJV as TRUE Scripture; I will constrain myself in a public theological discussion with Protestants to use only the books of their abridged canon, and only in the KJV form which virtually all of them accept as authoritative. I do all of this fully recognizing what all is being lost and left aside, because otherwise there is no conversation, and there is enough in what is left to bind everybody to the same set of crucial practices. In fact, there is enough in just the words spoken by Elohiym, YHWH and Jesus alone to bind everybody to the full and correct beliefs and practices. Everything else is detail: history and example and argument. In this way, I sidestep all denominational disputes about the canon, or the translation - I just use the one that the hardest-bitten Protestants say is the only true Scripture. And once within Scripture, I will always acknowledge that anything and everything written therein, by anybody - including Paul in particular - is Scripture, and accept that it must be taken into account. Where I finally draw the line, though, is when an interpretation nullifies a commandment of Christ. Christ can nullify YHWH's earlier statements, and does, but nothing and nobody can ever nullify Christ. And Christ speaking later is more authoritative than Christ speaking earlier, if there appears to be a conflict between he himself. What this means is that where Christ speaks in Revelation, which is from the Throne Room of Heaven, AFTER the Resurrection, Ascenscion and Apostles have done their work - THOSE final words of Christ, which end the Bible, are THE most authoritative things of everything God says. So, for example, when Christ says to six churches, in a row, that they can lose what they gained, have their lampstand cast down, be spewed out of the mouth, and be ultimately rejected if they fail to persevere to the end and overcome their temptations - and that they, the baptized Christians washed in the blood of the land in original churches created by the apostles themselves - that THEY will be judged by their works - that right there authoritatively, definitively and absolutely ANSWERS THE QUESTION, with FINALITY. And Christians should not be debating that point any more, because God Almighty, IN HEAVEN, IN POWER, DICTATED that answer, SIX TIMES. There is no debate. There are people who can read, and there are people who are wrong. It[s all right there, in the KJV. Once that fact is accepted, all of the endless denominations debates SHOULD end, because Christians should realize that their theological debates will be MEANINGLESS at the end - at the end baptized washed in the blood Christians will be judged by their WORKS. So the focus should be, once one believes and is baptized and eats the body and blood, to do the WORKS demanded by Christ. Because they are the criteria for judgment, according to God Almighty, speaking directly to baptized Christians in real apostolic Churches (not pagans, not unbelievers, not people without faith - people who HAVE the faith already, and have done what is necessary and required. THAT is where our eyes should be. But that's hard. Yes, it is hard. Which is why, once again, our eyes should be on that, on doing the hard things. Bickering about books is easy. Giving away money is hard.
That is not true nor the motivation for the GI Bill. They congress remembered the Bonus March riots of the pre war and also the end of the depression was not assured yet.
I didn't say any of those things you accuse me of. I quoted a hard line view which was discussed earlier. I do, however, believe in God's Sovereign design to preserve His Written Words. And yes, He uses humans to do that. So no, the Bible did not fall out of the sky and land in our laps. Just as the Mona Lisa did not magically appear in the Louvre. Some good art critics and curators put the Mona Lisa with other wonderful collections of art. They knew it was worthy art by looking at it and knowing who the artist was. "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."---Romans 5:6
However, just as when speaking with Protestants I seek to use Scripture as the basis of the discussion - because by the terms of their theology that is the ultimate and final authority; and just as, when demanded, I will use the KJV Only - because KJV Onlyists will accept only the KJV as TRUE Scripture; I will constrain myself in a public theological discussion with Protestants to use only the books of their abridged canon, and only in the KJV form which virtually all of them accept as authoritative. Frankly a good majority of my Catholic family and friends really don't know what is meant by Sola Scriptura. Present company excluded of course. By far even more Protestants and Evangelicals don't know how SS was addressed originally in the Westminster confession and how early church fathers writings were used to argue SS. So no not every Evan/Prot throws the baby out with the bathwater. It's just everything from traditions and extra Biblical writings must stand the test of examination with regards to Scriptures. Many of the church fathers applied this same principle. "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."---Romans 5:6
Let me put it differently. It pleases God to let people made in His Image to participate freely in His work. I would not say He "uses" them, but that He invites them to cooperate as His beloved children so they can leave traces of their own handiwork. He is not a "user" but the Father.
That is full blown heresy. Jesus Christ was and is fully God from eternity, and both fully God and fully man from the Incarnation into eternity. His statements are all equally authoritative. Error, indeed, is never set forth in its naked deformity, lest, being thus exposed, it should at once be detected. But it is craftily decked out in an attractive dress, so as by its outward form, to make it appear to the inexperienced … more true than truth itself—Irenaeus, Against Heresies
True, and in John 17 Jesus used the term Holy Father as a title for God. Obviously, Roman Catholics are blaspheming, when they use that title for the pope. Error, indeed, is never set forth in its naked deformity, lest, being thus exposed, it should at once be detected. But it is craftily decked out in an attractive dress, so as by its outward form, to make it appear to the inexperienced … more true than truth itself—Irenaeus, Against Heresies
If you believe that, then shun me and cease speaking with me.
If you believe that, then shun me and cease speaking with me. Most of my friends if not all, follow some heresy. I would have to become a hermit :)
Well if you Europeans had stepped on Hitler's dick back in the mid 30s then you wouldn't have needed all those war supplies/troops we furnished during the war... BTA all the religious and ethnic squabbling over there wouldn't allow that would it??? I think he would rather we stayed out of it cause he thinks the Soviets would have defeated Germany all by itself and would be sucking the entire continent dry today instead of just parts of it. He's also forgetting Japan was on their back door itching for a fight (that we gave them) it could have won. The only thing the Soviets knew how to sail back in them days was a bathtub and probably a stolen/liberated one at that. (I wonder if their hygiene is still atrocious)??? Russia would have been in a 2 front war it couldn't have won and would be speaking "Germanese" these days!!! Europeans had peculiar weakness. They were not able to read the future. The main threat was Bolshevism and Fascists looked like a good counter force. Assad is the key evil in American eyes, so support to Islamists looks like a cool idea.
He is not a "user" but the Father. Yes your language, the way you describe it above is more accurate IMO. But I would add that what 'handiwork' one may do should Glorify God...Meaning God gets the Glory even for our own good actions. "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."---Romans 5:6
Yes,it is true. The Bonus Marchers were in the 20's ,and the truth on that matter is there were no riots. What there was,was panic that started when the WH ordered them chased out of their campgrounds in the park,and ordered the army to move them out using mounted cavalry. Who isn't going to scream and run when facing the danger of getting trampled by a horse? ..also the end of the depression was not assured yet. The depression in the US ended when European and Asian nations went to war against one another,and we started selling them everything they needed from trucks to arms,to butter. WW-2 was what got us out of the depression,not King Franklin. All he accomplished his schemes was to make it last longer. WW-2 bailed him out and prevented him from being identified as the worst president in US history. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Doesn't he still deny that the USSR and Nazi Germany were allies right up to the instant the Nazi's invaded the USSR? He's also forgetting Japan was on their back door itching for a fight (that we gave them) it could have won. Japan has already whipped them in 1905. The only reason they didn't end up occupying and controlling Russia was because it is so damn big and they just didn't have the population to do it. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Or Mein Kampf... Where he laid out for everyone to see just what he was going to do... Or Mein Kampf... Many Americans loved him.
Tens of thousands of them, certainly. Over 11,000 ethnic Germans spent the war in internment camps, some confined as late as 1948. In addition, we demanded the extradition of thousands of Germans we considered suspicious from South America and put them in the same camps. The Japanese were interred in much larger numbers, about ten times as many. It didn't help their case that so many were in California or Hawaii or that it was suspected that enemy agents had aided in the attacks on Pearl Harbor, being embedded with the native Japanese in Hawaii.
Tens of thousands of them, certainly. You are joking?
No. My post was factual, not controversial. It is still true that Hitler's biggest fans in America (and South America) spent WW II in internment camps, just as the Japanese Americans did.
The comparison was with Europe before the war.
That's your church, not mine. Error, indeed, is never set forth in its naked deformity, lest, being thus exposed, it should at once be detected. But it is craftily decked out in an attractive dress, so as by its outward form, to make it appear to the inexperienced … more true than truth itself—Irenaeus, Against Heresies
That's your church, not mine. Most of my friends are not from the church. What is your church?
The church of Christ.
Error, indeed, is never set forth in its naked deformity, lest, being thus exposed, it should at once be detected. But it is craftily decked out in an attractive dress, so as by its outward form, to make it appear to the inexperienced … more true than truth itself—Irenaeus, Against Heresies
Grace in the Church Romans 5:18–21 Grace Triumphs Over Sin The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. [Rom. 5:20–21] This is a difficult passage because it sounds as if Paul is saying that God gave the Mosaic law to make sin greater. Paul explains in other places that the law had many purposes, but his point here is that one effect of giving the law was to show that sin is sin. Of itself, law doesn’t create sin. Rather, the evil disposition of our hearts creates sin. The role of the law is to define, condemn, expose, and reveal sin for what it is. Moreover, there is a sense in which the law’s very presence incites us to sin. Now, it does not incite righteous creatures to sin, but it does incite ungodly creatures to sin. One of the ways to provoke me to sin is to tell me there is something I’m not allowed to do. My rebellious nature, fueled by an evil disposition, motivates me to greater sin simply because the law prescribes certain boundaries and limitations. But, says Paul, where sin abounds grace abounds much more. As we see sin growing and flourishing, we might despair. Paul tells us, though, that grace is growing also. Notice that Paul does not say that sin is abounding and so is grace, so that it is balanced off. No, Paul says that grace abounds much more—not just more, but much more. There is a greater measure of grace in this world than there is of sin. Common grace and saving grace work together to suppress human evil and tendencies to sin. Think about that for a minute; if you think it’s bad now, imagine what it would be like if God were to remove the restraint of grace. We simply have no conception of the capacity for evil that dwells in the human heart. But God does, and that is why he has caused grace to abound. Coram Deo We could easily become discouraged. From our vantage point sin seems to dominate. The more mature we grow in the faith the more fully we comprehend the complexity of sin and evil in the world. We literally perceive more sin. Thank God that our spiritual maturity also enables us to see grace abounding all the more in those circumstances. Ask God to show you the “much more” of his grace, beginning in your own life. For further study: Galatians 3:19–29; Colossians 1:28–29; 2:6–7; James 4:1–6 Error, indeed, is never set forth in its naked deformity, lest, being thus exposed, it should at once be detected. But it is craftily decked out in an attractive dress, so as by its outward form, to make it appear to the inexperienced … more true than truth itself—Irenaeus, Against Heresies
The Church of Christ? These Congregationalists tend to be liberal these days. Isn't that so?
The Church of Christ? These Congregationalists tend to be liberal these days. Isn't that so? Hardly! I suspect you have the liberal United Church of Christ in mind. Error, indeed, is never set forth in its naked deformity, lest, being thus exposed, it should at once be detected. But it is craftily decked out in an attractive dress, so as by its outward form, to make it appear to the inexperienced … more true than truth itself—Irenaeus, Against Heresies
Hardly! So which is your church?
I don't see how anyone with reasonable means and assets can afford not to purchase this insurance to hedge the bet. We purchased our individual policies over a year ago when we were both 70. It initially covered $200/day for each of us with a 5% p.a. escalation for three years of coverage at a cost of about $325/month each. If either of us need it within the next 15 years it would more than pay for itself while preserving our savings, investments and assets for other things or to leave to our duaghter and grandkids. Another alternative can be term life insurance that can be used to pay medical care bills when a person is diagnosed with a terminal illness. We upped our coverage by adding a couple hundred thousand on 15 year term life last year as well. This costs us about $250 month total but it serves a dual purpose of life insurance and possible medical care insurance. Worth looking into especially for those currently in good health, even if they are over 60 years old. "Some elderly are using those reverse mortgages to drum up income for long term care." In general this is a bad decision but may be the best option for those in poorer health and of little other means. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
It's only a choice for desperate people who have no one to leave their home. IIRC,you get about 40 percent of the assessed value of your home,and are still responsible for the upkeep and repairs. I suspect most people would be better off to just sell their homes outright and move into a small apartment or mobile home in a building or park reserved for retired seniors. The money from selling their homes would provide a lot of years of rent money on a small place,and free up their SS money for living expenses. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Bingo. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
I am a member of the church of Christ. Error, indeed, is never set forth in its naked deformity, lest, being thus exposed, it should at once be detected. But it is craftily decked out in an attractive dress, so as by its outward form, to make it appear to the inexperienced … more true than truth itself—Irenaeus, Against Heresies
Are you ashamed to tell the exact denomination?
The churches of Christ are non-denominational. Error, indeed, is never set forth in its naked deformity, lest, being thus exposed, it should at once be detected. But it is craftily decked out in an attractive dress, so as by its outward form, to make it appear to the inexperienced … more true than truth itself—Irenaeus, Against Heresies
The churches of Christ are non-denominational. "non-denominational"? All have members and name, if they have a building they have bylaws, ministers, services and more or less defined beliefs. Unless you are a church of one. [...] nondenominationalism hides the fundamental theological and spiritual issues that drove the division of Christianity into denominations in the first place behind a veneer of "Christian unity". [...] nondenominationalism encourages a descent of Christianity—and indeed, all religions—into comfortable "general moralism" rather than being a focus for facing the complexities of churchgoers' culture and spirituality. [...] it also encourages ignorance of the Scriptures, which in turn reduces overall religious literacy, increasing the potential for inter-religious misunderstandings and conflict. the term non-denominational is essentially misleading: "If an American church calls itself “non-denominational,” nine times out of ten what that means is Baptist. Altar calls and appeals to personal conversion replace the sacraments as the means of grace. Baptism is a symbol of one’s personal conversion, nothing more, and it is only appropriate for adults. [...]
The church of Christ I attend has over 1,000 members.. You will find this and more in Wikipedia Churches of Christ are autonomous Christian congregations associated with one another through common beliefs and practices. They seek to base doctrine and practice on the Bible alone. They teach that they are the church written in scripture. They teach that any individual, from the time that the Church began until now, can become part of that church by hearing the truth, believing the truth, repenting from their ways to God's ways, confessing that Jesus in the Bible is Christ, and being baptized for the remission of their sins. Error, indeed, is never set forth in its naked deformity, lest, being thus exposed, it should at once be detected. But it is craftily decked out in an attractive dress, so as by its outward form, to make it appear to the inexperienced … more true than truth itself—Irenaeus, Against Heresies
Unfortunately there are so many such Baptist or Pentacostal congregations that I have no way to look up you particular group. Possibly you misread my intention. I am not interested in your personal data like name and address of your church. Only in the official beliefs of those with whom you pray, they go usually with some denominational (or "nondenominational" if you wish) name. But you have right to keep your secret.
Firstly, the churches of Christ are neither Baptist or Pentecostal,. We are part of the ,Restoration Movement, Secondly, in our desire to love and faithfully follow Jesus Christ we pattern our churches after those established by the Lord in the New Testament. Thirdly, you will find information about our beliefs and history at. http://www.thecra.org/about_us/restoration_movement < p> Read the complete article, and you will find a Russian connection. Error, indeed, is never set forth in its naked deformity, lest, being thus exposed, it should at once be detected. But it is craftily decked out in an attractive dress, so as by its outward form, to make it appear to the inexperienced … more true than truth itself—Irenaeus, Against Heresies
Thank you for the link. I have one dogmatic question. Your site says: "You must confess Christ. This is a public witnessing to the fact that you do believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." Do you (plural you) believe that Jesus Christ the Son of God is True God from True God, begotten not made before all ages, of one essence (being) with God the Father), and through the Son all things were made?
Certainly! That is taught in the Bible. That said, It is important to allow those who are babes in the faith time to grow into the full knowledge of Christ. One additional point, the Evangelical Christians I Russia were at a later date forced by the Soviets to merge with the Baptists and Pentacostals.. Error, indeed, is never set forth in its naked deformity, lest, being thus exposed, it should at once be detected. But it is craftily decked out in an attractive dress, so as by its outward form, to make it appear to the inexperienced … more true than truth itself—Irenaeus, Against Heresies
That is sick Pete. You think human beings are parasites. What a freak.
What a freak. I'll tell you what a freak is in the "information age",it's someone who doesn't understand the definition of the word "parasite". Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Some people are parasites from conception till death, just the way the elites/ruling class likes it...
Vegetarians eat vegetables. Beware of humanitarians!
Natural born sheeple. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
You can't be pro-life and pro-Obama. You can't be pro-business and pro-Obama. You can't be pro-Israel and pro-Obama. You can't be fiscally conservative and pro-Obama. You can't be socially conservative and pro-Obama. You can't be anything less than full leftist and pro-Obama.
#2. To: Vicomte13 (#1)
#3. To: Vicomte13 (#1)
This thing that calls itself "Israel" is a white European ethnic enclave carved out of Arab land because of white guilt over what happened to the Jews in World War II.
#4. To: jeremiad (#2)
#5. To: Rufus T Firefly, Willie Green, Vicomte13, TooConservative, sneakypete, tpaine, Pericles (#0)
Fiscal conservatism requires a self-reliant population that believes in the value of honesty and hard work.
You can't be pro-Israel and pro-Obama
#6. To: jeremiad (#2)
(Edited)
The only way to stop the scourge of out of wedlock sex and pregnancy is to allow the people that engage and become pg to fail miserably and openly.
#7. To: Vicomte13 (#1)
(Edited)
. . . then you cannot win as the right.
2. From spiritual faith to great courage,
3. From courage to liberty,
4. From liberty to abundance,
5. From abundance to selfishness,
6. From selfishness to complacency,
7. From complacency to apathy,
8. From apathy to dependency,
From dependency back again to bondage."
#8. To: A Pole, rlk, jeremiad, (#7)
#9. To: jeremiad (#2)
You simply cut off the welfare payments and allow parents to live or die on their own.
#10. To: rlk (#3)
It started way before WWII and the Holocost. In the eighteen hundreds Hertzl began a movement of Jews back to their homeland. Sometime in the twenties, the Jews who comprised 15% of the population as immigrants declared the Arabs a minority and got away with it. Certainly, sympathy with the Jewish people after WWII played a further part in it.
#11. To: Rufus T Firefly (#0)
#12. To: Vicomte13 (#1)
Life begins at conception. Anything that says otherwise is a lie.
#13. To: jeremiad (#2)
The only way to stop the scourge of out of wedlock sex and pregnancy is to allow the people that engage and become pg to fail miserably and openly.
#14. To: A Pole (#5)
You can't be pro-Israel and pro-Obama
#15. To: A Pole (#6)
Yes. If it becomes hard enough to live and procreate, then the dumber, poorer masses will die out.
#16. To: sneakypete (#11)
"winning is everything!"
#17. To: sneakypete, Vicomte13 (#12)
"Life begins at conception. Anything that says otherwise is a lie."
#18. To: sneakypete (#15)
(Edited)
There is no chance they will wise up and have fewer children?
poor people don't need huge families
#19. To: sneakypete (#12)
Bullshit!
#20. To: sneakypete (#15)
There is no chance they will wise up and have fewer children?
#21. To: Vicomte13 (#1)
Which means that pro-life inevitably leads to a permanent expansion of the social welfare state.
#22. To: A Pole (#17)
But in order to avoid possible homicide Orthodox Church assumes the earliest moment of conception, to err on the side of caution.
#23. To: Vicomte13 (#22)
To me, God is clear in Scripture.
#24. To: CZ82 (#21)
Then why are there other races of people that are breeding like rabbits that live in countries that don't have massive social welfare programs? And most of them don't even have jobs to speak of...
#25. To: A Pole (#23)
It is not so simple. That is why Fathers of the Church who DID consult the Holy Scriptures had differing opinions.
#26. To: Vicomte13 (#25)
It is that simple. The Fathers of the Church who saw it in its clear simplicity were the ones who were right on that issue.
#27. To: Rufus T Firefly, Vicomte13, TooConservative, liberator (#0)
Yes, they can move to a township where the property taxes are killer, and dump their pool guy and tree trimmer and maid in some city to live in housing projects at the expense of that city's shrinking middle class and working class. And it can work for a while, until all those cheap laborers get community organized and the organizers take over the city. And then the state.
#28. To: Vicomte13 (#24)
(Edited)
We already know what happens when there is a large poor population without social welfare. Starvation.
#29. To: Vicomte13 (#24)
So it's really a choice: have social welfare and peace. Or ignore the plight of the poor and periodically have the better classes of folks hanging on meathooks.
#30. To: Vicomte13 (#22)
#31. To: Don (#30)
#32. To: Rufus T Firefly (#7)
#33. To: Rufus T Firefly (#7)
8. From apathy to dependency,
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#34. To: A K A Stone (#30)
The Bible says if you don't work you don't eat. Don already proved it to you but you ignore it.
#35. To: TooConservative (#34)
#36. To: A Pole (#23)
"And if two men strive and smite a woman with child, and her child be born [miscarried] imperfectly formed, he shall be forced to pay a penalty: as the woman's husband may lay upon him, he shall pay with a valuation. But if it be perfectly formed, he shall give life for life" (LXX).
#37. To: A K A Stone (#35)
The government stealing money indiscriminately and giving it to losers is not the plan laid out in the Bible by the creator God.
#38. To: A K A Stone (#35)
God created the family for a reason. To take care of each other.
#39. To: A K A Stone (#30)
The Bible says if you don't work you don't eat. Don already proved it to you but you ignore it.
#40. To: Vicomte13, GarySpFc (#36)
This is a misread.
#41. To: TooConservative (#38)
(Edited)
#42. To: TooConservative, A K A Stone (#38)
2 Thessalonians 3:10
#43. To: Vicomte13 (#41)
I was wrong. And I am sorry.
#44. To: Rufus T Firefly, Vicomte13 (#42)
#45. To: A K A Stone (#30)
Also there is no pope in the Bible. He is a false leader. A piece of shit.
#46. To: TooConservative (#43)
I'm not sure why you're sorry.
#47. To: TooConservative, A K A Stone, Vicomte13, GarySpFc, Don, tomder55, CZ82 (#38)
The scripture you cited doesn't make those exceptions. It says work-to-eat. Period.
2 Thessalonians 3:
#48. To: TooConservative (#44)
I liked Gill's comments. He is one of the few who ever pay attention to the Ethiopic manuscripts since the rest of Christendom simply pretends they don't exist. Actually, Vic is the only person I've ever noticed who even mentions the Ethiopic canon and manuscripts and my own knowledge of it is limited to Gill's remarks. Gill habitually looks at other ancient manuscripts like the Syriac, the ancient church fathers, etc.
#49. To: Vicomte13, A K A Stone, Don, GarySpFc, TooConservative, liberator (#39)
Don provided one line of Paul, addressed to a leader of a Church in which feeloaders were coming in to join the agape meals, lounging about and not contributing anything, either work or help.
2 Corinthians 9:
#50. To: Rufus T Firefly (#16)
Take a chill pill, 'pete.
#51. To: A Pole (#17)
Nothing but pure religious dogma
#52. To: redleghunter (#47)
It is the family unit and ekklesia structure God has established. We do well to start in our own homes and churches.
#53. To: A Pole (#18)
There is no chance they will wise up and have fewer children?
#54. To: Vicomte13 (#19)
Human life begins at conception, and there is no possible compromise between those who know it, and those who deny it. This issue must be settled by force.
#55. To: Vicomte13 (#20)
Many will, but not all.
#56. To: Vicomte13 (#24)
So it's really a choice: have social welfare and peace.
#57. To: Deckard (#33)
perhaps 52 percent of U.S. households—more than half—now receive benefits from the government, thanks to President Obama. And Mr. Entitlement is just getting started. If Obamacare is not repealed millions more will join the swelling rolls of those dependent on government handouts.
#58. To: TooConservative (#34)
The Bible says if you don't work you don't eat. Don already proved it to you but you ignore it.
#59. To: sneakypete (#57)
Pope Francis made an unscheduled visit to The Little Sisters of the Poor during his trip to Washington D.C. last week. He indicated his support to the nuns in their battle against a federal requirement to provide contraceptive coverage to their employees.
#60. To: Vicomte13 (#36)
This is a misread.
#61. To: Fred Mertz (#59)
Pope Francis made an unscheduled visit to The Little Sisters of the Poor during his trip to Washington D.C. last week. He indicated his support to the nuns in their battle against a federal requirement to provide contraceptive coverage to their employees.
#62. To: sneakypete (#51)
Life begins when a child takes it's first breath. Prior to that it is a parasite and only a potential life.
#63. To: A Pole (#62)
Life begins when a child takes it's first breath. Prior to that it is a parasite and only a potential life.
#64. To: sneakypete, Vicomte13, TooConservative, SOSO (#58)
Or that people in nursing homes,Pre-Obomber,didn't/don't have insurance to cover their expenses?
#65. To: sneakypete (#63)
#66. To: A Pole, Sneakypete, *Pro-Life* (#65)
#67. To: redleghunter (#64)
So what happens is, for middle income retirees, within 1-3 years all of their savings is zapped, then investments are liquidated and then any land or homes must be sold to pay the skilled nursing facility.
#68. To: sneakypete (#67)
Turn about is fair play. Let their adult children take them in. It's worked this way since the day of the cave man,so there is no reason it won't work today.
#69. To: A K A Stone (#35)
The government stealing money indiscriminately and giving it to losers is not the plan laid out in the Bible by the creator God.
#70. To: Vicomte13 (#46)
And I'm sorry for calling you "Satan" yesterday.
#71. To: A Pole (#60)
#72. To: sneakypete (#55)
Let the churches and other charities deal with them. That's what they get tax-free status for as charities.
#73. To: Vicomte13 (#48)
The Ethiopian Orthodox Church, for its part, is as old as the Apostles, as old as any other Church (see the story of Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts), and its canon is the longest, containing several books otherwise lost to history.
I see no basis to reject the books of the Ethiopian Canon. After all, the Greek Orthodox and Latin Catholic canons are not identical, but that never divided the Church and provoked a schism.
#74. To: Vicomte13 (#71)
(Edited)
Dogma. Not interested. The text means premature birth.
#75. To: TooConservative (#73)
#76. To: Vicomte13 (#75)
(Edited)
The most compelling reason to embrace the Ethiopic canon is that it contains Enoch. Jude referred directly to Enoch by name, and both Jude and Peter made arguments from it. Jesus quoted Enoch nearly verbatim several times. This book was very much on the minds of the Apostles and Christ himself.
If a book is NECESSARY to understand a Biblical teaching or a major tradition - and Enoch is - that tells me that it's in the Canon. The fact that there are ancient Christian Churches that agree is second corroboration.
#77. To: A Pole (#74)
Where was a dogma in our exchange?
#78. To: TooConservative, Vicomte13 (#73)
As I recall it, the Ethiopian Orthodox differ as much in their creedal disagreement with the other churches that are Orthodox or Catholic.
#79. To: Vicomte13 (#75)
Why should it NOT be canonical? Jesus used it.
#80. To: A Pole (#79)
Canon is not a fetish, it is an inspired collection of key and reliable books. But there are more.
#81. To: A Pole (#78)
#82. To: Vicomte13, TooConservative, GarySpFc (#80)
Yes. And I agree with the Ethiopians that Enoch is a book inspired by God that should be read with the other books.
#83. To: Vicomte13 (#80)
If it is not included, then Jude's letter loses the marrow of its argument.
#84. To: redleghunter (#82)
Are there any Hebrew fragments of Enoch?
#85. To: A Pole (#83)
Non sequitur. Saint Paul quotes Greek poetry that of course is not in the canon, it does not undermine "the marrow of his argument"
#86. To: Vicomte13 (#85)
Jesus quotes Enoch extensively, so it should be in the canon.
#87. To: A Pole (#86)
This is not a purpose of the canon. Canon is to provide a standard to measure other books or doctrines or teachings.
#88. To: Vicomte13 (#84)
#89. To: Vicomte13 (#87)
Enoch is Scripture.
#90. To: Vicomte13 (#87)
Then it's down-in-the-weeds inside baseball, and I'm content to leave it there.
#91. To: Vicomte13 (#72)
If the government enforces a 10% tithe to the charities, fine. Otherwise, no - the resources required exceed what people give to charity.
#92. To: A Pole, Vicomte13 (#78)
Ethiopians have the same faith as Copts and Armenians. They derive from those who rejected dogmatic definitions of the Fourth Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon.
#93. To: A Pole (#90)
Before you leave, admit that LXX passage is correct one.
#94. To: Vicomte13 (#85)
In any case, Jesus quotes Enoch extensively, so it should be in the canon.
#95. To: TooConservative (#94)
#96. To: TooConservative (#92)
#97. To: Vicomte13 (#96)
If speaking of the very beginning of beforetime, there was the Father, and the Father begat the Son and breathed out the Spirit.
#98. To: Vicomte13 (#95)
I actually agree with A Pole insofar as the designation as "canon" is a vague sort of line. I agree with him that the writings of the early saints, such as the Didache, or Clement's letters are every bit as authoritative as the writings of Paul or Jude.
#99. To: A Pole (#86)
It is sufficient in traditional form (before Luther removed some books)
#100. To: A Pole, Vicomte13, redleghunter, GarySpFc (#86)
Let's not pretend that Luther is the only one with alternate views of the canon. Others are those like Eusebius and Jerome and many others. If you're going to throw rocks at Luther, save some stones for Eusebius. The first major church historian, Eusebius, who wrote his Church History c. AD 325, applied the Greek term "antilegomena" to the disputed writings of the Early Church:
#101. To: TooConservative (#97)
#102. To: Vicomte13 (#101)
#103. To: TooConservative (#98)
#104. To: Vicomte13 (#84)
None of which I am aware.
#105. To: redleghunter (#104)
#106. To: TooConservative, Vicomte13 (#98)
#107. To: Vicomte13 (#105)
Nobody was present at creation, and yet we have Genesis. Divine inspiration provides the chain of custody.
#108. To: Vicomte13 (#85)
In any case, Jesus quotes Enoch extensively, so it should be in the canon.
#109. To: A Pole, Rufus T Firefly, Willie Green, Vicomte13, TooConservative, sneakypete, tpaine (#5)
t boils down to the share in economic pie, the rich over the centuries wanted others to do work for them for free. Then oops, democracy and socialism came. Horrible! Now the question is how to disempower unwashed masses, to terrorize them with police state or to brainwash them into zombie state? Probably you need both.
#110. To: redleghunter (#106)
So given the apostolic criteria
#111. To: redleghunter (#107)
But we know YHWH gave Torah to Moses and those accounts were recorded.
#112. To: sneakypete (#51)
Life begins when a child takes it's first breath. Prior to that it is a parasite and only a potential life.
#113. To: Pericles (#109)
We kind of saw that after WW2. The Americans passed the GI Bill - which was purely a wealth transfer from the rich to the poor (on a basis of merit) because they did not want an angry population of millions of combat hardened veterans returning to the slums of American cities (where most of the Irish, Italians and non WASP whites lived) and to poverty.
#114. To: Liberator (#112)
(Edited)
Life begins when a child takes it's first breath. Prior to that it is a parasite and only a potential life.
#115. To: Vicomte13 (#96)
Spirit is breath. Holy Spirit is the breath of God, the animating power of life and creation.
#116. To: sneakypete (#114)
(Edited)
If that is true and the fetus can live without the mother,you should have no objection to abortion at any stage. After all,the fetus doesn't need the mother to live,right?
#117. To: sneakypete (#113)
Who better to subsidize for this new work force than the veterans who had proven they had ambition enough to stick with it and succeed?
#118. To: A Pole (#116)
Newborn babies also need mother to live.
#119. To: A Pole (#117)
Who better to subsidize for this new work force than the veterans who had proven they had ambition enough to stick with it and succeed?
#120. To: sneakypete (#119)
The majority of the ones that defeated the Nazi's and stopped the Red Army at Berlin were still in Germany and Europe for months after the war ended
#121. To: Vicomte13, redleghunter, GarySpFc (#110)
If one wants to stick to the Catholic argument: "Only apostolic writing in the Scripture", that is fine as a limiter, unless one also adds to that an arbitrary "Only Scripture" tradition on top of that which treats something like the Didache as less authoritative than, say, a letter of Paul. There is no basis other than stubborn traditional prejudice for that.
Why would they not be? Why are the opinions of corrupt, fighting, ultimately weakened and failed Greeks or ultimately violent and barbaric Latins better witnesses than a church older than either that neither fell nor failed nor went barbaric? Cultural prejudice? An error, then.
This is certainly a topic you warm up to. I don't favor expanding the canon but I think it is worthwhile to know the history of the canon(s) and the churches who use(d) them. And it opens up the idea of knowing ancient books outside the Latin canon. The Didache is a good example of a book you must know something about if you expect to understand anything about the earliest churches, especially in the first century. You really should know something about the ancient churches and their location and prominence and influence, the formulation of the canon and the books in wide circulation prior to the official canon, the ancient heresies like the Marcionites (and other gnostics) and the Arians, the major ancient church fathers like Tertullian and Athanasius, the ancient historians like Eusebius and translators like Jerome. None of them was perfectly neutral in their approach to religion.
#122. To: redleghunter, Vicomte13 (#108)
(Edited)
Jude 14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
Luke 3 37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,
Hebrews 11 5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.
#123. To: Vicomte13, TooConservative, GarySpFc (#110)
Who gave the Greeks or the Italians the power to decide that ONLY THESE BOOKS are inspired by God? Nobody did.
#124. To: Vicomte13 (#110)
If one wants to stick to the Catholic argument: "Only apostolic writing in the Scripture", that is fine as a limiter, unless one also adds to that an arbitrary "Only Scripture" tradition on top of that which treats something like the Didache as less authoritative than, say, a letter of Paul. There is no basis other than stubborn traditional prejudice for that.
#125. To: redleghunter (#123)
However, I believe the largest factor the church fathers considered was authorship. No one knows if Enoch actually wrote Enoch and no one knows the original scribe.
#126. To: A Pole (#120)
Not all of them were volunteers, they were drafted. BTW, Big part of them was sent to Europe AFTER the main fighting ended, to crowd out Soviets.
#127. To: redleghunter, Vicomte13 (#123)
No one knows if Enoch actually wrote Enoch and no one knows the original scribe.
Such a manuscript could appear in our own lifetimes. You never know when it might be released or sold to a museum or to scholars.
The importance of a complete Aramaic manuscript of the Book of Enoch could be immense. Michael Wise, a DSS scholar, writes: "No trace of the Parables of Enoch has been discovered at Qumran, and it is widely considered today to be a composition of the later first century C.E. If a pre-Christian copy of the Parables were ever discovered, it would create a sensation"[4]
#128. To: sneakypete (#114)
(Edited)
Life begins when a child takes it's first breath. Prior to that it is a parasite and only a potential life.
#129. To: redleghunter (#123)
I read a lot of Enoch last night. I came back with the same impression of it as I did when looking at texts such as the Qur'an and BOM. Most portions are choppy, thoughts not completed (maybe due to missing parts?), some even incoherent. When compared to what we do have in the OT and NT canon there is clarity, fullness, coherence, uniformity, well ordered. Much of which is absent or lacking in Enoch, and quite a few other religious texts of antiquity.
#130. To: TooConservative (#122)
References to Enoch are found in various books. No direct quotes outside of Jude. There are other portions of the New Testament that many argue are largely derived from the book of Enoch. The book of Enoch was widely read among Jews from the 3rd century BCE and was known and preserved by the Essenes in the Dead Sea Scrolls. In the same way that we can observe that Jesus and the disciples knew and used Greek and Aramaic and Hebrew and Roman terms and had familiarity with common texts, at least some of the group of Jesus and his disciples were quite familiar with the book of Enoch. After all, Jude didn't toss off that quick quote of Enoch just hoping that his reader(s) might recognize it. Given the rarity and expense and effort of sending epistles in ancient times, Jude knew his reader would recognize the thrust of his brief Enoch quote in verses 14-15.
#131. To: sneakypete (#119)
The majority of the ones that defeated the Nazi's and stopped the Red Army at Berlin were still in Germany and Europe for months after the war ended,and many were still there a year or more later while the military was being downsized,with those who had been at war the longest being the first to be allowed to go home and get discharged.
#132. To: TooConservative, Vicomte13 (#127)
Such a manuscript could appear in our own lifetimes. You never know when it might be released or sold to a museum or to scholars.
#133. To: Vicomte13, TooConservative (#129)
I think the reason for all of the anxiety about the canon of Scripture comes from the logic of Sola Scriptura,
#134. To: Liberator (#128)
(Edited)
I don't know what tangent you've now taken to worm your way out of this box of rocks, but it ain't working.
#135. To: redleghunter (#130)
(Edited)
So Jesus taking the context of different, of the time, traditions to preach His Truth would not be surprising. It is the way we all communicate today as well.
#136. To: CZ82 (#131)
They had a point system back then and the ones with enough points went home and others stayed until they had enough to rotate back home and some got shipped to the Pacific...
#137. To: redleghunter, Vicomte13 (#133)
Could be for many, long after the first three to four centuries. Can't believe I am making a case for Latins and Greeks in this discussion:)
Four fragmentary editions of the Astronomical Book were found at Qumran, 4Q208-211.[82] 4Q208 and 4Q209 have been dated to the beginning of the 2nd century BC, providing a terminus ante quem for the Astronomical Book of the 3rd century BC.[83] The fragments found in Qumran also include material not contained in the later versions of the Book of Enoch.[81][83][84]
#138. To: TooConservative (#137)
I'm not sure I want to read the apocryphal books but I think knowing about them isn't a bad bible study. It at least keeps you from laying awake nights worrying about blood moons.
#139. To: TooConservative (#137)
Even in astronomy, Enoch does offer its own solar calendar:
#140. To: redleghunter, Too Conservative (#133)
Proverbs? Good advice in there. It is not a doctrinal text. Nor is Ecclesiastes. As a matter of fact when I first read Ecclesiates I mentioned to a Bible study lead that Solomon was probably in his backsliding years when composing them. It is a very glum and depressing book.
#141. To: Vicomte13 (#140)
Enoch and the Didache are canon, because the Ethiopian Orthodox say they are.
#142. To: sneakypete (#126)
Yes,at Berlin.
#143. To: redleghunter, Vicomte13 (#139)
Wonder how that measured up with the Temple dudes.
#144. To: A Pole (#142)
Yeah, sure.
#145. To: Willie Green (#45)
(Edited)
Also there is no pope in the Bible. He is a false leader. A piece of shit. Not true... the papacy began with the Apostle Peter, the first Bishop of Rome. (Matthew 16:16~19)
#146. To: TooConservative (#143)
It is an interesting feature of the book for both Enoch fanbois and Enoch scoffers. : )
Question: I have been reading lately about how the Bible contains quotes from extracanonical texts as in Acts 17:28. Even the Old Testament quotes from rabbinical texts, right? Do you feel that these texts should have been omitted from the canon? Why would Jude quote from "The Assumption of Moses" in Jude 9 and then "The Book of Enoch" in Jude 14 if they are now considered 'apocryphal'?
#147. To: sneakypete (#136)
but Ike and the rest of the military commanders weren't about to let their experienced combat soldiers return to Conus until they were certain beyond all doubt that they had wiped out all of the Nazi resisters
#148. To: sneakypete (#144)
Nobody is ever sure he was the PFC Charles T.Payne listed in the 89th Infantry Division rolls or not since he wasn't a PFC and has used a different middle initial.
#149. To: A Pole (#148)
So it was 89th Infantry Division that liberated Auschwitz?
#150. To: redleghunter (#146)
God 'superintended' the texts, so that what God wanted in there is in there, and what God didn't want in there isn't.
#151. To: CZ82 (#149)
No the Russians did and only found about 5-10,000 inmates, the rest were force marched/transported by train to the west.
#152. To: CZ82 (#147)
#153. To: A K A Stone (#145)
The Bible says to call no one father except for God
#154. To: A Pole (#148)
So it was 89th Infantry Division that liberated Auschwitz?
#155. To: A Pole (#151)
Yes, Americans are exceptional. They went to Europe at the end of war and won.
#156. To: redleghunter (#141)
Well I guess that settles it:)
#157. To: sneakypete (#113)
HorseHillary. The economy was booming due to all of Europe's manufacturing being bombed to dust,and a booming American economy needed new skilled blue collar as well as white collar workers.
#158. To: A Pole, liberator, GarySpFc, CZ82 (#150)
#159. To: Vicomte13 (#156)
For me it does.
#160. To: redleghunter (#158)
I do, however, believe in God's Sovereign design to preserve His Written Words. And yes, He uses humans to do that.
#161. To: Vicomte13, ALL (#156)
And Christ speaking later is more authoritative than Christ speaking earlier, if there appears to be a conflict between he himself.
#162. To: Vicomte13, ALL (#153)
He did say "call no man father" at one point, but he referred to men's fathers at another point. So, either he really meant that men were never, ever to use the word "Father" to speak of anybody but God (no, he didn't mean that), or he meant something more obvious: don't call anybody your spiritual father.
#163. To: GarySpFC (#161)
That is full blown heresy.
#164. To: Vicomte13, GarySpFC (#163)
"That is full blown heresy."
#165. To: A Pole (#151)
#166. To: sneakypete (#155)
Don't worry. We all understand the chip on your shoulder is why you can't admit the Soviets would have been speaking German if it hadn't been for that asshat King FDR bailing out his goomba Stalin.
#167. To: CZ82 (#165)
Well if you Europeans had stepped on Hitler's dick back in the mid 30s
#168. To: A Pole (#160)
Let me put it differently. It pleases God to let people made in His Image to participate freely in His work. I would not say He "uses" them, but that He invites them to cooperate as His beloved children so they can leave traces of their own handiwork.
#169. To: Pericles (#157)
That is not true nor the motivation for the GI Bill. They congress remembered the Bonus March riots of the pre war
#170. To: CZ82, APole (#166)
I think he would rather we stayed out of it cause he thinks the Soviets would have defeated Germany all by itself and would be sucking the entire continent dry today instead of just parts of it.
#171. To: A Pole (#167)
Europeans had peculiar weakness. They were not able to read the future.
#172. To: CZ82 (#171)
Europeans had peculiar weakness. They were not able to read the future.
#173. To: A Pole (#172)
(Edited)
Many Americans loved him.
#174. To: TooConservative (#173)
Many Americans loved him.
#175. To: A Pole (#174)
#176. To: TooConservative (#175)
#177. To: A Pole (#164)
Most of my friends if not all, follow some heresy.
#178. To: GarySpFC (#177)
"Most of my friends if not all, follow some heresy."
#179. To: A Pole (#178)
#180. To: All (#179)
#181. To: GarySpFC (#179)
The church of Christ.
#182. To: A Pole (#181)
The church of Christ.
#183. To: GarySpFC (#182)
The Church of Christ? These Congregationalists tend to be liberal these days. Isn't that so?
#184. To: redleghunter, sneakypete, Vicomte13, TooConservative (#64)
Some are also taking out Long Term Care insurance. This is very expensive and takes away a large portion of retired income for a 'just in case' situation. My dad's friend paid into this for 5 years but never used it...He passed away before needing it.
#185. To: SOSO (#184)
In general this is a bad decision but may be the best option for those in poorer health and of little other means.
#186. To: sneakypete (#185)
I suspect most people would be better off to just sell their homes outright and move into a small apartment or mobile home in a building or park reserved for retired seniors. The money from selling their homes would provide a lot of years of rent money on a small place,and free up their SS money for living expenses.
#187. To: A Pole (#183)
So which is your church?
#188. To: GarySpFC (#187)
I am a member of the church of Christ.
#189. To: A Pole (#188)
Are you ashamed to tell the exact denomination?
#190. To: GarySpFC (#189)
"Are you ashamed to tell the exact denomination?"
#191. To: A Pole (#190)
#192. To: GarySpFC (#191)
(Edited)
The church of Christ I attend has over 1,000 members.. You will find this and more in Wikipedia
#193. To: A Pole (#192)
#194. To: GarySpFC (#193)
http://www.thecra.org/about_us/restoration_movement
#195. To: A Pole (#194)
Do you (plural you) believe that Jesus Christ the Son of God is True God from True God, begotten not made before all ages, of one essence (being) with God the Father), and through the Son all things were made?
#196. To: sneakypete, liberator, tomder55, redleghunter (#51)
#197. To: A K A Stone (#196)
That is sick Pete. You think human beings are parasites.
#198. To: A K A Stone, sneakypete (#196)
#199. To: CZ82 (#198)
Some people are parasites from conception till death, just the way the elites/ruling class likes it...
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]