[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Freepers Still Love war Parody ... Jump / Trump --- van Halen jump "The Democrat Meltdown Continues" "Yes, We Need Deportations Without Due Process" "Trump's Tariff Play Smart, Strategic, Working" "Leftists Make Desperate Attempt to Discredit Photo of Abrego Garcia's MS-13 Tattoos. Here Are Receipts" "Trump Administration Freezes $2 Billion After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands"on After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands "Doctors Committing Insurance Fraud to Conceal Trans Procedures, Texas Children’s Whistleblower Testifies" "Left Using '8647' Symbol for Violence Against Trump, Musk" KawasakiÂ’s new rideable robohorse is straight out of a sci-fi novel "Trade should work for America, not rule it" "The Stakes Couldn’t Be Higher in Wisconsin’s Supreme Court Race – What’s at Risk for the GOP" "How Trump caught big-government fans in their own trap" ‘Are You Prepared for Violence?’ Greek Orthodox Archbishop gives President Trump a Cross, tells him "Make America Invincible" "Trump signs executive order eliminating the Department of Education!!!" "If AOC Is the Democratic Future, the Party Is Even Worse Off Than We Think" "Ending EPA Overreach" Closest Look Ever at How Pyramids Were Built Moment the SpaceX crew Meets Stranded ISS Crew The Exodus Pharaoh EXPLAINED! Did the Israelites Really Cross the Red Sea? Stunning Evidence of the Location of Red Sea Crossing! Are we experiencing a Triumph of Orthodoxy? Judge Napolitano with Konstantin Malofeev (Moscow, Russia) "Trump Administration Cancels Most USAID Programs, Folds Others into State Department" Introducing Manus: The General AI Agent "Chinese Spies in Our Military? Straight to Jail" Any suggestion that the USA and NATO are "Helping" or have ever helped Ukraine needs to be shot down instantly "Real problem with the Palestinians: Nobody wants them" ACDC & The Rolling Stones - Rock Me Baby Magnus Carlsen gives a London System lesson! "The Democrats Are Suffering Through a Drought of Generational Talent" 7 Tactics Of The Enemy To Weaken Your Faith Strange And Biblical Events Are Happening Every year ... BusiesT casino gambling day -- in Las Vegas Trump’s DOGE Plan Is Legally Untouchable—Elon Musk Holds the Scalpel Palestinians: What do you think of the Trump plan for Gaza? What Happens Inside Gaza’s Secret Tunnels? | Unpacked Hamas Torture Bodycam Footage: "These Monsters Filmed it All" | IDF Warfighter Doron Keidar, Ep. 225 EXPOSED: The Dark Truth About the Hostages in Gaza New Task Force Ready To Expose Dark Secrets Egypt Amasses Forces on Israel’s Southern Border | World War 3 About to Start? "Trump wants to dismantle the Education Department. Here’s how it would work" test "Federal Workers Concerned That Returning To Office Will Interfere With Them Not Working" "Yes, the Democrats Have a Governing Problem – They Blame America First, Then Govern Accordingly" "Trump and His New Frenemies, Abroad and at Home" "The Left’s Sin Is of Omission and Lost Opportunity" "How Trump’s team will break down the woke bureaucracy" Pete Hegseth will be confirmed in a few minutes Status: Not Logged In; Sign In United States News See other United States News Articles Title: the worst flood in recorded history Source: ABC News URL Source: [None] Published: Aug 28, 2017 Author: Barry Midyet Post Date: 2017-08-28 00:31:07 by interpreter Keywords: None Views: 20961 Comments: 128 The news today is that the worst flood in recorded history is occurring right now, and right here (in my neck of the woods, the Houston/ Galveston area). Moreover, as with all of the other major events of the last 25 years, I predicted it. (See my book, The Revelation: A Historicist View and turn to the section on the seven last plagues, Plague# 4). I very plainly said that hurricanes and major weather events including floods would wax much worse in 2017. Katrina was just a dress rehearsal, folks. But Thank God I was fully prepared because like I advised everyone on earth to do, I am completely stocked up on distilled water and can goods, and mosquito spray, and (provided the police give me my gun back) on bullets also. And with all this water to breed in, I'm pretty sure the Aedes from Hades will be here next. And I am making that prediction once again, right here, right now. So get ready folks for much worse before the 7 last plagues are mitigated. Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 102. #4. To: interpreter (#0) Moreover, as with all of the other major events of the last 25 years, I predicted it. (See my book, The Revelation: A Historicist View and turn to the section on the seven last plagues, Plague# 4). I very plainly said that hurricanes and major weather events including floods would wax much worse in 2017. Katrina was just a dress rehearsal, folks. Did you predict this? As I recall, you predicted something significant happening during the total eclipse. Maybe the flooding was that prediction, only you were a bit ahead of God's timetable. Again. And of course, failed to state where it would happen, along with what exact "it" was going to be. Petty details, I know, but still..... It's pretty safe to say that there is some kind of climate record set somewhere in the USA every year, whether it's temperature, rainfall, snowfall or any one of a hundred other metrics. If you want bragging rights about making predictions, you'll have to start naming places, events AND times. For example: I predict your house (a place) will be illuminated by the sun (an event) tomorrow. It will happen sometime around dawn (time). Can you top that one? Pinguinite  posted on  2017-08-28   3:04:32 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #5. To: Pinguinite (#4) (Edited) Actually, as you yourself admit, Harvey did in fact form during the eclipse, or perhaps a day afterward. But there is no law against being a day or so ahead of God's timetable. Because in no Bible prophecy anywhere in the Bible does any prophet state the exact date and/or exactly how a prophesied event would take place, and neither did Jean Dixon or Hal Lindsay or Nastrodamus or anyone else you care to name, so why in the hell do you say the utterly ridiculous things you say? But I come very very close to the exact day unlike anyone else in history. And if you want to read exactly what I said, then buy my book and turn to page 71. And there is no way in hell your prediction is going to come true. I dont have a house because I choose to be homeless like Jesus was. That takes the cake (the raspberry one). interpreter  posted on  2017-08-28   3:42:28 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #13. To: interpreter (#5) Actually, as you yourself admit, Harvey did in fact form during the eclipse, or perhaps a day afterward. But there is no law against being a day or so ahead of God's timetable. Oh, so you are indeed claiming credit for predicting the hurricane as part of the eclipse! I looked it up and Harvey was already a named storm before you posted your prediction. But I guess you like to give yourself as much leeway as required to make yourself right. Certainly you need to. And there is no way in hell your prediction is going to come true. I dont have a house because I choose to be homeless like Jesus was. That takes the cake (the raspberry one). Oh, well, when I said "house" I certainly didn't necessarily mean you were a home owner. One's "house" could be an apartment, or if you are indeed homeless, it would/could mean the bridge overpass or cardboard box you would be sleeping under. Anything you sleep under could be considered one's "house", even if it's a tree, so my prediction stands true. See how that works? I can do what you do too. Here's the deal. You made a decision to come on to a public forum and make extremely open ended predictions, like how someone might be born during an eclipse, which on any day in a country the size of the USA happens about 11,000 times, with or without any eclipse. That's a voluntary step on your part that makes you open to criticism. And that's simply what you're getting. We all have our quirks, and yours is a need for attention. Pinguinite  posted on  2017-08-28   10:42:59 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #17. To: Pinguinite (#13) Oh, so you are indeed claiming credit for predicting the hurricane as part of the eclipse! I looked it up and Harvey was already a named storm before you posted your prediction. But I guess you like to give yourself as much leeway as required to make yourself right. Certainly you need to. Oh, well, when I said "house" I certainly didn't necessarily mean you were a home owner. One's "house" could be an apartment, or if you are indeed homeless, it would/could mean the bridge overpass or cardboard box you would be sleeping under. Anything you sleep under could be considered one's "house", even if it's a tree, so my prediction stands true. See how that works? I can do what you do too. Thanks for confirming that Harvey did indeed form during the eclipse. But I personally (and probably most of the world) did not find out about it till the next day because the news media was focused on the eclipse mostly and also the threat of nuclear war, and (as far as the channels I was watching) never once mentioned the itsy-bitsy teenie weeny tropical depression that formed in the Gulf that day. "Oh, well, when I said "house" I certainly didn't necessarily mean you were a home owner. One's "house" could be an apartment, or if you are indeed homeless, it would/could mean the bridge overpass or cardboard box you would be sleeping under. Anything you sleep under could be considered one's "house", even if it's a tree, so my prediction stands true. See how that works? I can do what you do too." Well, I live on a boat, and at the present moment in time, I have no earthly idea if its still there or not, so I may very well have to sleep under a bridge at some point, but right now there are numerous homeless shelters being set up by the state and FEMA, et al, for all the homeless people displaced by Harvey so I am not worried about it at all. No matter what happens to my boat, I thank God that I and all my relatives and neighbors and friends are still alive and kicking. And as for a baby being born during the eclipse, what I actually said was a baby born in 2017 (possibly during the eclipse) will live to be 1000 years old. That narrows down your "11,000 babies" remark considerably dont you think? interpreter  posted on  2017-08-28   12:51:00 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #19. To: interpreter, Pinguinite (#17) [Pinguinite #13] Oh, so you are indeed claiming credit for predicting the hurricane as part of the eclipse! I looked it up and Harvey was already a named storm before you posted your prediction. [interpreter #17 to Pinguinite #13] Thanks for confirming that Harvey did indeed form during the eclipse. The eclipse occurred on August 21st. Harvey reached tropical storm status on August 17. It degenerated to a tropical wave on August 19th. It redeveloped by August 23rd, regained tropical storm status on August 24th, and became a hurricane on August 24th. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Harvey The eighth named storm, third hurricane, and the first major hurricane of the 2017 Atlantic hurricane season, Harvey developed from a tropical wave to the east of the Lesser Antilles, reaching tropical storm status on August 17. The storm crossed through the Windward Islands on the following day, passing just south of Barbados and later near Saint Vincent. Upon entering the Caribbean Sea, Harvey began to weaken due to moderate wind shear and degenerated into a tropical wave north of Colombia early on August 19. The remnants were monitored for regeneration as it continued west-northwestward across the Caribbean and the Yucatán Peninsula, before redeveloping over the Bay of Campeche on August 23. Harvey then began to rapidly intensify on August 24, regaining tropical storm status and becoming a hurricane later that day. While the storm moved generally northwestwards, Harvey's intensification phase stalled slightly overnight from August 24–25, however Harvey soon resumed strengthening and became a category 4 hurricane late on August 25. Hours later, Harvey made landfall near Rockport, Texas, at peak intensity. nolu chan  posted on  2017-08-28   15:56:14 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #21. To: nolu chan (#19) Thank you for that info. So if I understand your post correctly, Harvey existed, but was still a tropical wave on August 21st? That's probably why I never heard of it until after the eclipse. I rest my case. But I think its even more impressive that I predicted it before I even heard of it. Barry M interpreter  posted on  2017-08-28   17:05:18 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #23. To: interpreter (#21) So if I understand your post correctly, Harvey existed, but was still a tropical wave on August 21st? That's probably why I never heard of it until after the eclipse. I rest my case. It was a Tropical Wave until the 24th, three days after the eclipse. Harvey was reported as a Tropical Storm on the 17th. It degenerated to a Tropical Wave on August 19th, two days BEFORE the eclipse. It redeveloped on August 23rd, two days AFTER the eclipse, intensified to a Tropical Storm on August 24th, three days AFTER the eclipse, and later on August 24th, intensified into Hurricane Harvey, three days AFTER the eclipse. From two days before the eclipse, until three days after the eclipse, Harvey failed to be intense enough to qualify as a Tropical Storm. nolu chan  posted on  2017-08-28   17:36:47 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #28. To: nolu chan (#23) (Edited) I do have to say that you do your homework/research before you post. But I still will have to dispute one of your points, and I suspect it is because you live in New York City or somewhere and I live right here in the epicenter of this event. And I heard on the TV a few minutes ago that it is the 3rd 1000-year storm in 3 years. Think about that for a minute. Storms that used to occur once every thousand years are now occurring at least once a year (as I predicted in my book). Anyhow, if my memory serves me correctly, your timetable is not quite correct. The tropical wave once called Harvey strayed down to Texas and began to regroup and strenghthen a bit during the eclipse, and within a day or so began to be mentioned for the first time ever on the local weather stations. And within a day or two it became a a full-fledged tropical storm, and then within a day or so it became full-fledged hurricane, and the next day it became a category 4 hurricane. It all happened pretty quick and surprised a lot of people, and I myself was very fortunate to be able to buy some gasoline for my car before all the gas stations ran out of gas, and then after a hell of a lot of rain that night (at least 14 to 15 inches in every city in the area) everything was closed the next day and everything is still closed. It all happened very quickly. And about 15 to 20 thousand people in low-lying areas have been rescued so far, often from their roofs, and total rainfall from the storm is expected to be 50 inches before its over, causing another 15 to 20 thousand to seek to be rescued. But only about half of the 911 callers are able to get through, and many many people have drowned. So there you have it, straight from the epicenter of the latest plague that God/ Mother Nature has sent upon the Earth. And anyone who knows anything about history knows that most of the earth's earthshaking events have occurred during an eclipse. Everyone used to know that, but today that rather obvious fact (if there ever was one) is very often poo-pooed for some reason. Barry Midyet interpreter  posted on  2017-08-28   22:21:48 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #30. To: interpreter (#28) I do have to say that you do your homework/research before you post. But I still will have to dispute one of your points, and I suspect it is because you live in New York City or somewhere and I live right here in the epicenter of this event. I have not called New York home for more than 50 years. I do not live any where near it. I live much closer to you. I heard on the TV a few minutes ago that it is the 3rd 1000-year storm in 3 years. Think about that for a minute. Storms that used to occur once every thousand years are now occurring at least once a year (as I predicted in my book). Yeah, not to mention how may times the press has declared the Crime of the Century, the Trial of the Century, the Fight of the Century, and so on and so forth. When is the last time anyone saw a news story about the fourth, fifth, or sixth biggest storm of the century? Anyhow, if my memory serves me correctly, your timetable is not quite correct. I assuredly did not go by memory. The tropical wave once called Harvey strayed down to Texas and began to regroup and strenghthen a bit during the eclipse, and within a day or so began to mentioned for the first time ever on the local weather stations. As I posted previously at #19, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Harvey The eighth named storm, third hurricane, and the first major hurricane of the 2017 Atlantic hurricane season, Harvey developed from a tropical wave to the east of the Lesser Antilles, reaching tropical storm status on August 17. The storm crossed through the Windward Islands on the following day, passing just south of Barbados and later near Saint Vincent. Upon entering the Caribbean Sea, Harvey began to weaken due to moderate wind shear and degenerated into a tropical wave north of Colombia early on August 19. The remnants were monitored for regeneration as it continued west-northwestward across the Caribbean and the Yucatán Peninsula, before redeveloping over the Bay of Campeche on August 23. Harvey then began to rapidly intensify on August 24, regaining tropical storm status and becoming a hurricane later that day. While the storm moved generally northwestwards, Harvey's intensification phase stalled slightly overnight from August 24–25, however Harvey soon resumed strengthening and became a category 4 hurricane late on August 25. Hours later, Harvey made landfall near Rockport, Texas, at peak intensity. That description conforms to the NOAA/NHC weather notices, of which I quoted one in its entirely and linked to nine more, indicating the storm status of the alerts, and the dates. And within a day or two it became a a full-fledged tropical storm, and then within a day or so it became full-fledged huricane, and the next day it became a catagory 4 hurricane. It became a tropical storm on 17 August. It fell below a tropical storm on 19 August. It became a tropical storm again on August 24. It became a Hurricane on 25 August. It is a matter of record. It all happened pretty quick and surprised a lot of people, and I myself was very fortunate to be able to buy some gasoline for my car before all the gas stations ran out of gas, and then after a hell of a lot of rain that night (at least 14 to 15 inches in every city in the area) everything was closed the next day and everything is still closed. It all happened very quickly. It was lower than a tropical storm from 19 Aug to 24 Aug. The eclipse was on 21 Aug. The storm started to regain strength on the 23 Aug and resumed tropical storm status the next day. Later that day, it became a hurricane for the first time. For precise times, see the official times cited below. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Harvey Harvey was downgraded to a tropical depression at 21:00 UTC on August 19; six hours later, based on continued data from a reconnaissance aircraft, it was declared an open tropical wave. Early on August 20, the NHC began monitoring the remnants of Harvey for redevelopment. Although the effects of strong upper-level winds and dry air were expected to limit development in the near-term, conditions were expected to become more conducive to tropical storm and hurricane conditions when the disturbance entered the northwestern Caribbean Sea, and especially in the Bay of Campeche. Despite an increase in convective organization, the disturbance still lacked a well-defined center as it approached the Yucatán Peninsula. While traversing inland, satellite images and surface observations indicated that the circulation became better defined. A reconnaissance aircraft investigating the remnants of Harvey around 15:00 UTC on August 23 indicated that it once again acquired a well-defined center, and the NHC upgraded it to a tropical depression accordingly. The system began to slowly consolidate amid an increasingly favorable environment, attaining tropical storm intensity by 06:00 UTC on August 24. Later that morning, Harvey began to undergo rapid intensification as an eye developed and its central pressure quickly fell. By 17:00 UTC, the storm was upgraded to the third hurricane of the season. Slight entrainment of dry air slowed the intensification process, however, by the next day, Harvey was able to quickly strengthen into a major hurricane by 19:00 UTC. Further deepening occurred as the storm approached the coast of Texas, with Harvey becoming a Category 4 hurricane at 23:00 UTC, based on reconnaissance aircraft data. Around 03:00 UTC on August 26, the hurricane made landfall at peak intensity at Rockport with winds of 130 mph (215 km/h) and an atmospheric pressure of 938 mbar (27.7 inHg). Those times are UTC. Texas is on CDT and is UTC -5. So there you have it, straight from the epicenter of the latest plague that God/ Mother Nature has sent upon the Earth. And anyone who knows anything about history knows that most of the earth's earthshaking events have occurred during an eclipse. Well, this event did not occur during an eclipse. It was not even of tropical storm strength from two (2) days before the eclipse, to three (3) days after the eclipse. I'm older than you and have lived through no earth shattering events or plagues during any eclipse, but I do recall Carol and Edna. In 1954, the East Coast was especially naughty and Hurricane Carol (1-minute sustained wind, 115 mph) formed on August 25th and dissipated on September 1st. Then Hurricane Edna (1-minute sustained wind, 125 mph) formed on September 2nd and dissipated on September 15th. Carol caused 72 fatalities. Edna directly caused 20 fatalities, and 9 indirect. nolu chan  posted on  2017-08-28   23:50:33 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #31. To: nolu chan (#30) Well, with you I am giving up (for now) because as usual you have done much much research and I have done none, but that is simply because I do not have any time to do any research on anything because I am in the middle of the biggest storm in recorded history. All I can do is go by memory and by my eyes and ears and what I am seeing and hearing even as I type this. 9 trillion gallons of water have been dumped on Southeast Texas, and Rescuers have now rescued over 3000 people from the floodwaters and that figure is expected to double before its over. And it is very evident that it all started with an eclipse, and any knowledgable student of history can tell you that most all earthshaking events were fulfilled during, or started during an eclipse. Do you want me to list them for you? If that is what you want, I can do that. And as for 1000-year floods, a few years ago, it was a 500-year flood occurring every year. Now it is a 1000-year floods occurring every year. For God's sake, how much worse do things have to get before you become a believer and realize that God is unhappy with the US, and is punishing us just as He did with the Israelites?? We must repent and rejoin the Paris agreement for starters. Then we must repeal the 1965 Immigration Reform Act that let Muslims in. Then we must overturn the Same Sex Marriage decision and the Roe vs Wade decision for two other starters. Then, and only then, will we see the seven last plagues begin to be mitigated, and receive some relief. interpreter  posted on  2017-08-29   1:42:35 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #32. To: interpreter (#31) Well, with you I am giving up (for now) because as usual you have done much much research and I have done none, but that is simply because I do not have any time to do any research on anything because I am in the middle of the biggest storm in recorded history. Everything is bigger in Texas. http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/441964/The-biggest-storm-in-history-batters-the-Philippines The biggest storm in history batters the Philippines A MONSTER 235mph “super typhoon” confirmed as the ­biggest storm in history was last night feared to have claimed thousands of lives. By Nathan Rao PUBLISHED: 00:01, Sat, Nov 9, 2013 Typhoon Haiyan ripped into the Philippines, forcing millions to flee their homes in terror. The storm’s astonishing power ­unleashed giant 45ft waves, flooding coastal areas including tourist destinations with 16in of lashing rain. [snip] Can't touch those monster storms in the Pacific. All I can do is go by memory and by my eyes and ears and what I am seeing and hearing even as I type this. I don't know why your memory is all you can go on, when my post that you are responding to linked and quoted the official weather center data. Harvey failed to be a Tropical Storm from two days before the eclipse to three days after the eclipse. That may be inconvenient for the eclipse caused it theory, but that is the breaks of Naval air. And it is very evident that it all started with an eclipse, and any knowledgable student of history can tell you that most all earthshaking events were fulfilled during, or started during an eclipse. Do you want me to list them for you? If that is what you want, I can do that. It is not obvious at all that earthshaking events almost always occur during an eclipse. And as for 1000-year floods, a few years ago, it was a 500-year flood occurring every year. Now it is a 1000-year floods occurring every year. For God's sake, how much worse do things have to get before you become a believer and realize that God is unhappy with the US, and is punishing us just as He did with the Israelites?? We must repent and rejoin the Paris agreement for starters. You do realize that claims of more than one 1,000 year storm every thousand years is an irrational claim. If there were such a storm every day, it would be a daily storm. Weather happens. God does not cause storms, or touchdowns, or make footballs carom off goalposts to punish naughty kickers. Nor does He deflate Tom Brady's balls. And honest to Buddha, spare us the Paris agreement. Then we must repeal the 1965 Immigration Reform Act that let Muslims in. Then we must overturn the Same Sex Marriage decision and the Roe vs Wade decision for two other starters. Then, and only then, will we see the seven last plagues begin to be mitigated, and receive some relief. I'm not sure why the Immigration and Nationality Act, amendments of 1965 has such high priority. I'll provide the content and you can identify the most seriously offending provision(s). Well, heck, I uploaded to Scribd and their computer flagged it for a copyright violation. It's a Federal law, and a dumb computer program. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-79/pdf/STATUTE-79-Pg911.pdf 79 Stat. 911, H.R. 2580, P.L. 89-236 (3 Oct 1965). Immigration and Nationality Act, amendments. I would be for overturning (not reversing) Obergefell and Roe. Those were issues best left to the States and of questionable Federal jurisdiction. However, it should be noted that this would result in States making up their own mind, and many had permitted abortion and gay marriage. Texas would be free to do its thing, and California could do its thing. Advocating Federal jurisdiction is advocating for Federal government authority to decide the issue for all. Look where that got us. Then, and only then, will we see the seven last plagues begin to be mitigated, and receive some relief. Oh noes, not this plague thing again. Why would an all-loving god punish all for the whimsical acts of the nine? The good of the many outweighs the whimsy of the few. nolu chan  posted on  2017-08-29   4:00:34 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #41. To: nolu chan (#32) (Edited) As for the rest of your post, I am glad that we fully agree on some things, i.e, the need to overturn Obergefell and Roe. As for Roe, if we cannot succeed in overturning the whole thing, we definitely need (at the minimum) to overturn the part that allows partial-birth abortions and third trimester abortions when the baby is fully formed and fully capable of living outside the womb. That is murder (taking the life of another human being), pure and simple and there can be no debate, and no if ands or buts. As for your last remark, God is NOT an all-loving God. He hates a lot of things, and a lot of people (like ISIS for example), and we are repeated told in the Bible about the need to fear God and His wrath. And despite your view of things, God often punishes a whole nation or city, etc. for the sins of a few. He is like that sometimes if He gets mad enough, and we must constantly fear Him else we too will feel His wrath. interpreter  posted on  2017-08-29   13:26:43 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #58. To: interpreter (#41) As for Roe, if we cannot succeed in overturning the whole thing, we definitely need (at the minimum) to overturn the part that allows partial-birth abortions and third trimester abortions when the baby is fully formed and fully capable of living outside the womb. Can you please QUOTE the provision in Roe that you believe "allows partial-birth abortions and third trimester abortions when the baby is fully formed and fully capable of living outside the womb"? That is murder (taking the life of another human being), pure and simple and there can be no debate, and no if ands or buts. Murder is a man-made legal construct. If something is legal, it is not murder. Any act that does not meet the legal definition of murder, is not murder. If Roe were overturned, states such as California could, and likely would, have lawful abortion on demand. As for your last remark, God is NOT an all-loving God. He hates a lot of things, and a lot of people (like ISIS for example), and we are repeated told in the Bible about the need to fear God and His wrath. And despite your view of things, God often punishes a whole nation or city, etc. for the sins of a few. Your God may be a hateful, wrathful, avenging God. You are free to believe whatever you want. Resort to your invisible friend when your attempt at rational/factual argument fails is not persuasive. nolu chan  posted on  2017-08-29   22:46:48 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #65. To: nolu chan (#58) (Edited) Technically, the Roe vs Wade verdict does NOT say that, but the wording is kinda ambiguous, and what I said is how the alt-left judges and Planned Parenthood interprets it. The other alternative is simply to get rid of Planned Parenthood and all the alt-left judges and problem solved. (But to prevent any alt-left judges from ever ruling that way again, the wording of the verdict probably should reworded or amended or something, but I am in no way a legal expert so I have no idea how it should be accomplished. And the legal definition of murder should also be changed, and any other law if it disagrees with the Bible because that is what all English laws are supposed to be based on as everyone knows (except you apparently). interpreter  posted on  2017-08-30   1:36:08 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #73. To: interpreter (#65) [interpreter #65] the legal definition of murder should also be changed, and any other law if it disagrees with the Bible because that is what all English laws are supposed to be based on as everyone knows (except you apparently). Uh huh. The KING was the head of the church. And right now the Supreme Governor of the Anglican church is Queen Elizabeth II. English laws were not supposed to be based on the bible. Your supposed knowledge of English law is absolutely abysmal. English law has no formal codification. Murder is a common law crime in England, not one established by Act of Parliament. You apparently espouse your own Sharia-like system of law, and proclaim that everybody knows that is the way it is supposed to be. The United States adopted the common law system, and every one of the original colonies, by their constitution or by statues, adopted so much of the English common law as was not inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution. Every state has adopted the common law system of law except Louisiana. Louisiana still has a thing for their old Napoleanic code system. The United States codified its laws and has no common law courts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_law English law is the common law legal system governing England and Wales, comprising criminal law and civil law. English law has no formal codification: the essence of English common law is that it is made by judges sitting in courts applying statute, and legal precedent (stare decisis) from previous cases. A decision of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, the highest civil appeal court of the United Kingdom, is binding on every other court. Some rulings are derived from legislation; others, known as common law, are based on rulings of previous courts. For example, murder is a common law crime rather than one established by an Act of Parliament. Common law can be amended or repealed by Parliament; murder, for example, now carries a mandatory life sentence rather than the death penalty. [...] Common law Description Common law is a term with historical origins in the legal system of England. It denotes, in the first place, the judge-made law that developed from the early Middle Ages as described in a work published at the end of the 19th century, The History of English Law before the Time of Edward I,[2] in which Pollock and Maitland expanded the work of Coke (17th century) and Blackstone (18th century). Specifically, the law developed in England's Court of Common Pleas and other common law courts, which became also the law of the colonies settled initially under the crown of England or, later, of the United Kingdom, in North America and elsewhere; and this law as further developed after those courts in England were reorganised by the Supreme Court of Judicature Acts passed in the 1870s, and developed independently, in the legal systems of the United States and other jurisdictions, after their independence from the United Kingdom, before and after the 1870s. The term is used, in the second place, to denote the law developed by those courts, in the same periods (pre-colonial, colonial and post-colonial), as distinct from within the jurisdiction, or former jurisdiction, of other courts in England: the Court of Chancery, the ecclesiastical courts, and the Admiralty court. In the Oxford English Dictionary (1933) "common law" is described as "The unwritten law of England, administered by the King's courts, which purports to be derived from ancient usage, and is embodied in the older commentaries and the reports of abridged cases", as opposed, in that sense, to statute law, and as distinguished from the equity administered by the Chancery and similar courts, and from other systems such as ecclesiasical law, and admiralty law.[3] For usage in the United States the description is "the body of legal doctrine which is the foundation of the law administered in all states settled from England, and those formed by later settlement or division from them".[4] Early development Since 1189, English law has been described as a common law rather than a civil law system; in other words, no major codification of the law has taken place and judicial precedents are binding as opposed to persuasive. This may be a legacy of the Norman conquest of England, when a number of legal concepts and institutions from Norman law were introduced to England. In the early centuries of English common law, the justices and judges were responsible for adapting the system of writs to meet everyday needs, applying a mixture of precedent and common sense to build up a body of internally consistent law. An example is the Law Merchant derived from the "Pie-Powder" Courts, named from a corruption of the French pieds-poudrés ("dusty feet") implying ad hoc marketplace courts. As the Parliament of England became ever more established and influential, legislation gradually overtook judicial law-making such that today, judges are only able to innovate in certain very narrowly defined areas. In 1276, the concept of "time immemorial" often applied in common law was defined as being any time before 6 July 1189 (i.e. before Richard I's accession to the English throne). https://www.gotquestions.org/Anglicans.html The roots of the Anglican, or English, Church go back as far as the 2nd century, but the church traces its current structure and status back to the reign of King Henry VIII, who ruled from 1509 to 1547. The events that led to the formation of the state Anglican Church are a curious mix of ecclesiastical, political, and personal rivalries. Henry petitioned Pope Clement VII for an annulment of his marriage with Catherine of Aragon but was denied. When Protestant Thomas Cranmer became Archbishop of Canterbury, Henry saw his chance to bypass the Pope’s authority and get what he wanted. In 1531, Henry compelled the English clergy to accept him as head of the church in England. In 1532, Henry forced the national convocation to agree in The Submission of the Clergy that they would not promulgate any papal bull in England without the king’s consent. In 1534, Henry led Parliament to pass a series of laws depriving the Roman Catholic Church of any authority in England. The Act of Supremacy declared the king to be “the supreme head of the church in England,” thus giving Henry the same legal authority over the English church that the Pope exercised over the Roman Catholic Church. Here is an example of a 1700 English statute. I am at a loss to identify which part of the bible inspired it. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Will3/12-13/2/section/I Recital of Stat. 1 W. & M. Sess. 2. c. 2. §2. and that the late Queen and Duke of Gloucester are dead; and that His Majesty had recommended from the Throne a further Provision for the Succession of the Crown in the Protestant Line. The Princess Sophia, Electress and Duchess Dowager of Hanover, Daughter of the late Queen of Bohemia, Daughter of King James the First, to inherit after the King and the Princess Anne, in Default of Issue of the said Princess and His Majesty, respectively and the Heirs of her Body, being Protestants. Whereasin the First Year of the Reign of Your Majesty and of our late most gracious Sovereign Lady Queen Mary (of blessed Memory) An Act of Parliament was made intituled [An Act for declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and for setling the Succession of the Crown] wherein it was (amongst other things) enacted established and declared That the Crown and Regall Government of the Kingdoms of England France and Ireland and the Dominions thereunto belonging should be and continue to Your Majestie and the said late Queen during the joynt Lives of Your Majesty and the said Queen and to the Survivor And that after the Decease of Your Majesty and of the said Queen the said Crown and Regall Government should be and remain to the Heirs of the Body of the said late Queen And for Default of such Issue to Her Royall Highness the Princess Ann of Denmark and the Heirs of Her Body And for Default of such Issue to the Heirs of the Body of Your Majesty And it was thereby further enacted That all and every Person and Persons that then were or afterwards should be reconciled to or shall hold Communion with the See or Church of Rome or should professe the Popish Religion should be excluded and are by that Act made for ever [incapable] to inherit possess or enjoy the Crown and Government of this Realm and Ireland and the Dominions thereunto belonging or any part of the same or to have use or exercise any regall Power Authority or Jurisdiction within the same And in all and every such Case and Cases the People of these Realms shall be and are thereby absolved of their Allegiance And that the said Crown and Government shall from time to time descend to and be enjoyed by such Person or Persons being Protestants as should have inherited and enjoyed the same in case the said Person or Persons so reconciled holding Communion professing ... as aforesaid were naturally dead [snip] nolu chan  posted on  2017-08-30   20:28:17 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #82. To: nolu chan (#73) (Edited) Most of what you say is true except one or two things. First it is both the King (or Queen) AND the Anglican Church (the Archbishop of Canterbury) who make the rules. The 2 roles of the king are to enforce the doctrine of the Church (as for what is a sin, and what is not) and to protect the Church from harm. I can assure you that all of the English laws of old, including English common law are based entirely on the Bible. I can give you the chapter and verse for every one of them if you want me to. And I know pretty much everything there is know about this subject, and that is because I'm an Anglican. BTW, the Anglican Church was founded (officially) by St. Mark in 47AD (who was sent by St. Peter), and before that Joseph of Arimethea arrived in England / Canterbury and converted a bunch of people right after the crucifixion. So dont let anyone tell you that the Church in Rome is the oldest Church or the only Church founded by St. Peter. It is simply not true. interpreter  posted on  2017-08-31   20:20:30 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #86. To: interpreter (#82) First it is both the King (or Queen) AND the Anglican Church (the Archbishop of Canterbury) who make the rules. The 2 roles of the king are to enforce the doctrine of the Church (as for what is a sin, and what is not) and to protect the Church from harm. When Henry VIII made rules, he enforced them with beheading. It was simply his decree that broke the Church of England from the Roman Catholic Church. He wanted a Kennedy-like annulment and the Pope said no. So, he separated the Church of England from Rome and, wouldn't ya just know it, the now independent church gave him his Kennedy-like annulment. Wife #1 was annulled, #2 was executed, #3 died, #4 was annulled, #5 was executed, and #6 Henry died. (Joseph P. Kennedy obtained an annulment from the Archdiocese of Boston after 12 years of marriage, two kids, and a divorce. After ten years of bad publicity, the Vatican overturned the annulment.) Spiritual rulings fell to Ecclesiastical courts. And I know pretty much everything there is know about this subject, and that is because I'm an Anglican. My father was Episcopal, my mother was Catholic. My mother said that in hospital, when I was born, she shared a semi-private room with a Jewish lady who also had a boy. The Jewish lady had the mohel come, and he did a two-fer and pronounced me an honorary member of the House of David. I have Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish covered. BTW, the Anglican Church was founded (officially) by St. Mark in 47AD (who was sent by St. Peter), and before that Joseph of Arimethea arrived in England / Canterbury and converted a bunch of people right after the crucifixion. So dont let anyone tell you that the Church in Rome is the oldest Church or the only Church founded by St. Peter. It is simply not true. Until Henry VIII, the Church of England followed Roman Catholicism and acknowledged the authority of the Pope in Rome. In modern times, I have seen its polity listed as Episcopal. Way back, I spent two years living in Northern Ireland. To a Yank, it was amazing how neighborhoods could be segregated, Catholic and Protestant. nolu chan  posted on  2017-09-01   2:32:45 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #87. To: nolu chan (#86) You are trying to rewrite history. The Anglican Church had never once been subject to Rome or the Pope except when the Pope sent someone to conquer England and force them to submit to Rome (as with the Norman kings). The Archbishop of Canterbury and the Anglican Church very seldom paid any attention to anything the Pope said except when they were forced to submit or be beheaded (as was also the case with Bloody Mary--that's why she is called Bloody Mary). And historically, it is/was the Archbishop who made the rules concerning divorce, not the Pope. I dont know why people think that started with Henry the 8th. That is not true. But yes, for some reason the Irish have historically preferred to submit to the Pope rather than the Archbishop of Canterbury. But the rest of the British Isles have historically been loyal to their Archbishop rather than the Pope. And that is indeed the reason for a lot of fighting (and segregation, etc.) in Ireland over the centuries (unfortunately). And that's why my Grandmother's family left Ireland and came here. At least now most everyone has calmed down and just want peace (even though there are still some occasional flare-ups in that crazy country). interpreter  posted on  2017-09-01   4:23:57 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #91. To: interpreter (#87) You are trying to rewrite history. Not really. You either mislearned of misremember English history. The Anglican Church had never once been subject to Rome or the Pope except when the Pope sent someone to conquer England and force them to submit to Rome (as with the Norman kings). This is documented as categorically false. King Henry VIII was denied an annulment by the Pope. Why did he ask for an annulment from the Pope? Why did he declare himself the head of the Church of England in order to get an annulment? The Archbishop of Canterbury and the Anglican Church very seldom paid any attention to anything the Pope said except when they were forced to submit or be beheaded (as was also the case with Bloody Mary--that's why she is called Bloody Mary). And historically, it is/was the Archbishop who made the rules concerning divorce, not the Pope. I dont know why people think that started with Henry the 8th. That is not true. I think it because it is a matter of documented history, and I can produce copies of the documents themselves. The Pope excommunicated Henry VIII in 1533 because of his divorce from Catherine of Aragon. Henry VIII's Act of Supremacy was issued in 1534. It is a fact. Here is a copy of the document from the English Statutes at Large, 2 Stat. 203, C.22, CAP. I, 26 Hen. VIII, Anno. Dom. 1534: With the stroke of a pen, the Church of England split from the Roman Catholic Church and the authority of the Pope in Rome. But that is not the end of the story. In 1554, there issued another Act of Supremacy from Henry's Catholic daughter Mary, English Statutes at Large, 2 Stat. 473, C. 8, CAP. VIII., Anno primo & secundo Philippi & Maria, A.D. 1554. That one starts, [boldface added, archaic letters modernized] An Act repealing all Articles and Provisions made against the See Apostolick of Rome, since the twentieth Year of King Henry the Eighth, and for the Establishment of all Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Possessions and Hereditaments conveyed to the Laity. Whereas since the twentieth Year of King Henry the Eighth of famous Memory, Father unto your Majesty our most natural Sovereign, and gracious Land and Queen, much false and erroneous Doctrine hath been taught, preached and written, partly by divers the Natural-born Subjects of this Realm, and partly being brought in hither from sundry other Foreign Countries, hath been sowen and spread abroad within the same: (2) By Reason whereof, as well the Spiritualty as the Temporalty of your Highness Realms and Dominions have swerved from the Obedience of the See Apostolick, and declined from the Unity of Christ's Church, and so have continued, until such Time as your Majesty being first raised up by God, and set in the Seat Royal over us, and then by his Divine and gracious Providence that in marriage with the most noble and virtuous Prince the King our Sovereign Lord your Husband, the Pope's Holiness and the See Apolostick sent hither unto your Majesties (as unto Persons undehled, and by God's Goodness preserved from the common Infection aforesaid) and to the whole Realm, the most Reverend Father in God the Lord Cardinal Pool, Legate de latere, to call us home again into the right Way from whence we have all this long while wandred and strayed abroad; (3) and we, after sundry long and grievous Plagues and Calamities, seeing by the Goodness of God our own Errors, have knowledged the same unto the said most Reverend Father, and by him have been and are the rather at the Contemplation of your Majesties received and embraced into the Unity and Bosom of Christ's Church, and upon our humble Submission and Promise made for a Declaration of our Repentance, to repeal and abrogate such Acts and Statutes as had been made in Parliament since the said twentieth Year of the said King Henry the Eigth, against the Supremacy of the See Apostolick, as in our Submission exhibited to the said most Reverend Father in God by your Majesties appeareth: The Tenour whereof ensueth. II. We the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons, assembled in this present Parliament, representing the whole Body of the Realm of England, and the Dominions of the same, in the Name of our selvers particularly, and also of the said Body universally, in this our Supplication directed to your Majesties, with most humble Suit, that it may by your Graces Intercession and Mean be exhibited to the Father Pope July the third and the See Apostolick of Rome, do declare our selves very sorry and repentent of the Schism and Disobedience committed in this Realm and Dominions aforesaid against the said See Apostolic, either by making, agreeing or executing any Laws, Ordinances or Commandments, against the Supremacy of the said See, or otherwise doing or speaking, that might inpugne the same: [...] It is not possible to maintain that the England did not recognize the supremacy of the Pope in Rome, both before and after Act of Supremacy of Henry VIII in 1534. It is a matter of documented history. The full Act of Supremacy of 1554 follows. I do not allege that England recognized the supremacy of the Pope in Rome, I provide a complete copy of the document which did it, from the English Statutes at Large. nolu chan  posted on  2017-09-02   3:33:31 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #95. To: nolu chan (#91) You are so funny. I cannot read one word of that small print old-English document, except for the tile which appears to have bloody Mary's name on it. Of course all the world knows she recognized the supremacy of the Pope. But the Church of England never once did so voluntarily (and only when Mary threatened to behead the Archbishop of Canterbury if he did not comply). interpreter  posted on  2017-09-07   6:05:07 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #97. To: interpreter (#95) [interpreter #94] Sorry, but I do not agree with you at all. The break with Rome in 1534 was just the latest in several breaks with Rome. In fact, it can well be argued that the Anglican Church was independent from Rome for a thousand years until the Pope sent the Norman Roman Catholic kings to conquer England by force. We can agree to disagree. The historical documents clearly present historical facts, and you believe something else. You are completely entitled to your own opinions. [interpreter #94] And England always had more liberal divorce laws than Rome, and that has nothing to do with Henry the 8th. Of course, Henry VIII could get a divorce. But then, Henry VIII was a Catholic at the time and divorce meant ex-communication. And so, Henry VIII sought an ANNULMENT, not a divorce, from the Pope, so that he could remarry in the Church. The Pope said NO. And so it came to pass that Henry VIII started his own religion where his behavior, unacceptable to the Roman Catholic Religion, suddenly became acceptable. And then along came Queen Anne in 1559 and the Church of England bent a knee to Rome, begged forgiveness for its heresies, acknowledged the Supremacy of the Holy See in Rome, and rejoined the Church of Christ in Rome. [interpreter #95] You are so funny. I cannot read one word of that small print old-English document, except for the tile which appears to have bloody Mary's name on it. By Bloody Mary, I assume you mean the then reigning Queen of England and the then head of the Church of England. I thought I had provided a nice clear excerpt, as well as a copy of the complete 458-year old document. It must not have appeared on your monitor for some reason so, to make amends, I will repeat what my copy says. An Act repealing all Articles and Provisions made against the See Apostolick of Rome, since the twentieth Year of King Henry the Eighth, and for the Establishment of all Spiritual and Ecclestiastical Possessions and Hereditaments conveyed to the Laity. Whereas since the twentieth Year of King Henry the Eighth of famous Memory, Father unto your Majesty our most natural Sovereign, and gracious Land and Queen, much false and erroneous Doctrine hath been taught, preached and written, partly by divers the Natural-born Subjects of this Realm, and partly being brought in hither from sundry other Foreign Countries, hath been sowen and spread abroad within the same: (2) By Reason whereof, as well the Spiritualty as the Temporalty of your Highness Realms and Dominions have swerved from the Obedience of the See Apostolick, and declined from the Unity of Christ's Church, and so have continued, until such Time as your Majesty being first raised up by God, and set in the Seat Royal over us, and then by his Divine and gracious Providence that in marriage with the most noble and virtuous Prince the King our Sovereign Lord your Husband, the Pope's Holiness and the See Apolostick sent hither unto your Majesties (as unto Persons undehled, and by God's Goodness preserved from the common Infection aforesaid) and to the whole Realm, the most Reverend Father in God the Lord Cardinal Pool, Legate de latere, to call us home again into the right Way from whence we have all this long while wandred and strayed abroad; (3) and we, after sundry long and grievous Plagues and Calamities, seeing by the Goodness of God our own Errors, have knowledged the same unto the said most Reverend Father, and by him have been and are the rather at the Contemplation of your Majesties received and embraced into the Unity and Bosom of Christ's Church, and upon our humble Submission and Promise made for a Declaration of our Repentance, to repeal and abrogate such Acts and Statutes as had been made in Parliament since the said twentieth Year of the said King Henry the Eigth, against the Supremacy of the See Apolostick, as in our Submission exhibited to the said most Reverend Father in God by your Majesties appeareth: The Tenour whereof ensueth. II. We the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons, assembled in this present Parliament, representing the whole Body of the Realm of England, and the Dominions of the same, in the Name of our selvers particularly, and also of the said Body universally, in this our Supplication directed to your Majesties, with most humble Suit, that it may by your Graces Intercession and Mean be exhibited to the Father Pope July the third and the See Apostolick of Rome, do declare our selves very sorry and repentent of the Schism and Disobedience committed in this Realm and Dominions aforesaid against the said See Apostolic, either by making, agreeing or executing any Laws, Ordinances or Commandments, against the Supremacy of the said See, or otherwise doing or speaking, that might inpugne the same: [...] As you can now hopefully see, there was an admission in 1559 that "the Spiritualty as the Temporalty of your Highness Realms and Dominions have swerved from the Obedience of the See Apostolick, and declined from the Unity of Christ's Church," and "by God's Goodness preserved from the common Infection aforesaid) and to the whole Realm, the most Reverend Father in God the Lord Cardinal Pool, Legate de latere, [was sent] to call us home again into the right Way from whence we have all this long while wandred and strayed abroad." And they declared their repentance, "at the Contemplation of your Majesties received and embraced into the Unity and Bosom of Christ's Church, and upon our humble Submission and Promise made for a Declaration of our Repentance...." And they took a knee and begged forgiveness from the See Apostolic, and acknowledged the Supremacy of the See Apostolic, We the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons, assembled in this present Parliament, representing the whole Body of the Realm of England, and the Dominions of the same, in the Name of our selves particularly, and also of the said Body universally, in this our Supplication directed to your Majesties, with most humble Suit, that it may by your Graces Intercession and Mean be exhibited to the Father Pope July the third and the See Apostolick of Rome, do declare our selves very sorry and repentent of the Schism and Disobedience committed in this Realm and Dominions aforesaid against the said See Apostolic, either by making, agreeing or executing any Laws, Ordinances or Commandments, against the Supremacy of the said See.... I am sorry that only one word of the last copy was readable and hope this satisfies the deficiency. nolu chan  posted on  2017-09-07   19:29:21 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #99. To: nolu chan (#97) Henry the 8th did NOT start his own religion. The Church of England was estabished in 47 AD for God's sake, and long before the Church in Rome. And except for the Norman Kings (and later on Bloody Mary), Canterbury and/or London were never in the jurisdiction of Rome. interpreter  posted on  2017-09-08   8:26:21 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #100. To: interpreter (#99) Henry the 8th did NOT start his own religion. The Church of England was estabished in 47 AD for God's sake, and long before the Church in Rome. I am afraid this is impossible. You cannot have a Church of England centuries before there was an England. There was no England in 47 AD, and there was no Church of England in 47 AD. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England The area now called England was first inhabited by modern humans during the Upper Palaeolithic period, but takes its name from the Angles, one of the Germanic tribes who settled during the 5th and 6th centuries. England became a unified state in the 10th century, and since the Age of Discovery, which began during the 15th century, has had a significant cultural and legal impact on the wider world. The Church in Rome, the most holy Church of Jesus Christ, created by Jesus Christ and built upon His rock, St. Peter, existed from the time that Jesus Christ ordained it, with St. Peter being the first Pope, and the apostles being sent forth to spread the faith. Matthew 16:18 (NAS) — "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it." Matthew 16:18 (Living Bible) — "You are Peter, a stone; and upon this rock I will build my church; and all the powers of hell shall not prevail against it." Matthew 16:18 (KJV) — "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it Matthew 16:18 (DRB) — "And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." http://www.drbo.org/chapter/47016.htm Catholic doctrine would hold, "Upon this rock": The words of Christ to Peter, spoken in the vulgar language of the Jews which our Lord made use of, were the same as if he had said in English, Thou art a Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church. So that, by the plain course of the words, Peter is here declared to be the rock, upon which the church was to be built: Christ himself being both the principal foundation and founder of the same. Where also note, that Christ, by building his house, that is, his church, upon a rock, has thereby secured it against all storms and floods, like the wise builder, St. Matt. 7. 24, 25. The spreading of the faith then reached what would become England centuries later, and with that the most holy Church of Jesus Christ, under the papacy of St. Peter, became established in that land which, centuries later, would become England. It was not called the Church of England as there was no such place in existence. The Angles, from whom the name England is derived, did not arrive until the 5th century A.D. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_England The Church of England (C of E) is the state church of England. The Archbishop of Canterbury (currently Justin Welby) is the most senior cleric, although the monarch is the supreme governor. The Church of England is also the mother church of the international Anglican Communion. It traces its history to the Christian church recorded as existing in the Roman province of Britain by the third century, and to the 6th-century Gregorian mission to Kent led by Augustine of Canterbury. The English church renounced papal authority when Henry VIII failed to secure an annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon in the 1530s. The English Reformation accelerated under Edward VI's regents, before a brief restoration of papal authority under Queen Mary I and King Philip. The Act of Supremacy 1558 renewed the breach and the Elizabethan Settlement charted a course enabling the English church to describe itself as both Catholic and Reformed: King Henry VIII, as his predecessors, was a member of the Catholic Church established in England. The only way he could remarry in the Church was to obtain an annulment. Within his then-Catholic faith, a divorce meant ex-communication. When Henry VIII sought an annnulment from the Catholic Church in Rome, and said annulment was denied by the Pope, Henry VIII had a mad and, in 1534, renounced the authority of the Pope and started a religion with himself as the head honcho, and this new religion recognized an annulment granted to Henry VIII, and recognized Henry VIII through numerous annulments, divorces, and spousal beheadings. In 1555, when Henry VIII had the decency to die, Queen Mary renounced the heresies of Henry VIII, acknowledged the supremacy of the Pope in religious matters, begged forgiveness, and the Church of England rejoined the Church of Jesus Christ in Rome. In 1559, Queen Elizabeth again seperated from the Church of Jesus Christ in Rome. It is ludicrous to maintain that the Church of England was founded about 500 years before England was founded. It is equally ludicrous to maintain that Henry VIII sought an annulment from the Pope in Rome if he was not of that Church. Nor would it make sense to declare a seperation from the Church of Jesus Christ in Rome if the Church of England was not of that church. Nor could Queen Anne and the Church of England rejoin the Church of Jesus Christ in Rome had it not been of that church. Queen Anne only renounced the heresies of Henry VIII. Had the Church of England not been of the Church of Jesus Christ in Rome for the previous 1,500 years, renouncing the heresies of Henry VIII would have been seriously underwhelming. nolu chan  posted on  2017-09-08   19:35:40 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #102. To: nolu chan (#100) You just love to nit-pick everything I say. There may not have been a country called England in 47 AD, but I can assure you that Canterbury existed in 47AD, and that a Church was founded there in 47AD. You are also ignoring the fact that St. Peter also established a Church in Jerusalem, in Antioch, and in Alexandra. I have not made anything up. It is the official teaching/doctrine of the Anglican Church so you are really dissing the Archbishop of Canterbury, and not merely me. And can you please explain why all Popes, until very recently, taught that St. Peter established all the Orthodox Churches in addition to the Church in Rome? What you are spouting off is revisionist history, and a lie. interpreter  posted on  2017-09-09   8:00:46 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   Replies to Comment # 102. #105. To: interpreter (#102) [interpreter #102] You just love to nit-pick everything I say. There may not have been a country called England in 47 AD, but I can assure you that Canterbury existed in 47AD, and that a Church was founded there in 47AD. The first rule of digging holes is, when you in up to your neck, stop digging. What you had claimed: [interpreter #100] The Church of England was established in 47 AD for God's sake, and long before the Church in Rome. I responded with the inconvenient fact the England did not exist until the 5th century A.D. I do not consider it nitpicking that you have the Anglican church existing in Durovernum Cantiacorum 47 A.D., when the Church in Canterbury was established in 597 A.D. when both England and Canterbury actually existed. In your latest reimagination of history, based on nothing, you fantasize that the city of Canterbury was there in 47 A.D., and that at that time the Anglican Church was established with an Archbishop of Canterbury of said Anglican Church. Excretions emanating from your cranial sphincter do not replace facts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durovernum_Cantiacorum Durovernum Cantiacorum Watling Street linked Britain to the rest of the Roman Empire. Durovernum Cantiacorum was a town and hillfort (oppidum) in Roman Britain at the site of present-day Canterbury in Kent. It occupied a strategic location on Watling Street at the best local crossing of the Stour, which prompted a convergence of roads connected to the ports of Dubris (Dover), Rutupiae (Richborough), Regulbium (Reculver) and Portus Lemanis (Lympne). Considerable archaeological evidence of Roman activity has been found in Canterbury, much of which can now be found in the Roman Museum built on the remains of a Roman townhouse. Origins Plan of Durovernum from The Saxon Cathedral at Canterbury and The Saxon Saints Buried Therein The name Durovernum Cantiacorum is Latin for "Durovernum of the Cantiaci", preserving the name of an earlier British town whose ancient British name has been reconstructed as *Durouvernon ("Stronghold by the Alder Grove"),[1] although the name is sometimes supposed to have derived from various British names for the Stour.[2] The Iron-Age oppidum at the site was triple-ditched. The site seems to have been occupied and fortified by the Romans shortly after their invasion in AD 43. Military occupation continued until at least the time of Boudica's rebellion. Development There is no evidence of much development in Durovernum until the Flavian period (69-96), after demilitarisation.[3] It became the civitas capital of the Cantiaci (Cantii) tribes. A large religious and administrative complex was soon established at its centre, consisting of forum and basilica, temple enclosure and theatre. The theatre, originally built around AD 80, was totally rebuilt in the early 3rd century. It was probably associated with religious festivals as much as the dramatic arts. The public baths were just to the north-east. A number of other possible temple and/or church sites have also been identified. The town was enclosed by defensive walls in the late 3rd century and was given single-arched gateways. Private buildings within the walls were originally of timber, but were later replaced with stone and some furnished with mosaic floors. An extensive complex of wooden pipes serviced the town. Industries included brick, tile and pottery production, as well as bronze working. There were many commercial shops, notably a baker's shop with donkey-driven millstone. Cemeteries outside the town appear to have continued in Christian use and St Martin's Church appears to be built around an old Roman mausoleum which stood in one of these. Decline Because of its links with Gaul, Durovernum seems to have survived in good order until the Romans administration left around AD 410. However, after that, its decline was rapid. Hired mercenaries were used to defend the town but they revolted and, by the time of the Battle of Aylesford in the mid-5th century, the Jutes had taken over the area. The British and Latin name survived as the medieval Latin placenames Dorobernia and Dorovernia,[2] but it also became known in Old Welsh as Cair Ceint ("Fortress of Kent")[4][5] and in Old English as Cantwareburh ("Kentish Stronghold"),[6] which developed into the modern "Canterbury". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canterbury Early history St. Augustine's Abbey, which forms part of the city's UNESCO World Heritage Site, was where Christianity was brought to England. Main article: Durovernum Cantiacorum The Canterbury area has been inhabited since prehistoric times. Lower Paleolithic axes, and Neolithic and Bronze Age pots have been found in the area.[11] Canterbury was first recorded as the main settlement of the Celtic tribe of the Cantiaci, which inhabited most of modern-day Kent. In the 1st century AD, the Romans captured the settlement and named it Durovernum Cantiacorum.[6] The Romans rebuilt the city, with new streets in a grid pattern, a theatre, a temple, a forum, and public baths.[12] Although they did not maintain a major military garrison, its position on Watling Street relative to the major Kentish ports of Rutupiae (Richborough), Dubrae (Dover), and Lemanae (Lymne) gave it considerable strategic importance.[13] In the late 3rd century, to defend against attack from barbarians, the Romans built an earth bank around the city and a wall with seven gates, which enclosed an area of 130 acres (53 ha).[12] St. Augustine's Abbey gateway Despite being counted as one of the 28 cities of Sub-Roman Britain,[8][9] it seems that after the Romans left Britain in 410 Durovernum Cantiacorum was abandoned except by a few farmers and gradually decayed.[14] Over the next 100 years, an Anglo-Saxon community formed within the city walls, as Jutish refugees arrived, possibly intermarrying with the locals.[15] In 597, Pope Gregory the Great sent Augustine to convert its King Æthelberht to Christianity. After the conversion, Canterbury, being a Roman town, was chosen by Augustine as the centre for his episcopal see in Kent, and an abbey and cathedral were built. Augustine thus became the first Archbishop of Canterbury.[16] The town's new importance led to its revival, and trades developed in pottery, textiles, and leather. By 630, gold coins were being struck at the Canterbury mint.[17] In 672, the Synod of Hertford gave the see of Canterbury authority over the entire English Church.[10] In 597, Pope Augustine sent Augustine to convert the people to Christianity. The Pope did that. In 597, when Canterbury and England actually existed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Canterbury Augustine of Canterbury Not to be confused with Augustine of Hippo. Augustine of Canterbury (born first third of the 6th century – died probably 26 May 604) was a Benedictine monk who became the first Archbishop of Canterbury in the year 597. He is considered the "Apostle to the English" and a founder of the English Church.[3] Augustine was the prior of a monastery in Rome when Pope Gregory the Great chose him in 595 to lead a mission, usually known as the Gregorian mission, to Britain to Christianize King Æthelberht and his Kingdom of Kent from Anglo-Saxon paganism. Kent was probably chosen because Æthelberht had married a Christian princess, Bertha, daughter of Charibert I the King of Paris, who was expected to exert some influence over her husband. Before reaching Kent, the missionaries had considered turning back, but Gregory urged them on, and in 597, Augustine landed on the Isle of Thanet and proceeded to Æthelberht's main town of Canterbury. King Æthelberht converted to Christianity and allowed the missionaries to preach freely, giving them land to found a monastery outside the city walls. Augustine was consecrated as a bishop and converted many of the king's subjects, including thousands during a mass baptism on Christmas Day in 597. Pope Gregory sent more missionaries in 601, along with encouraging letters and gifts for the churches, although attempts to persuade the native Celtic bishops to submit to Augustine's authority failed. Roman bishops were established at London and Rochester in 604, and a school was founded to train Anglo-Saxon priests and missionaries. Augustine also arranged the consecration of his successor, Laurence of Canterbury. The archbishop probably died in 604 and was soon revered as a saint. Augustine of Canterbury was a Roman Catholic Benedictine missionary sent by the Pope to convert King Æthelberht from Anglo-Saxon Paganism to Christianity. Mission accomplished in 597. 550 years after your bleatings about 47 A.D., King Æthelberht from Anglo-Saxon Paganism to Christianity, by a Roman Catholic Benedictine missionary sent by the Roman Catholic Pope Gregory the Great. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_Saint_Benedict Order of Saint Benedict From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia "Benedictine" redirects here. For the Orthodox Benedictines, see Order of Saint Benedict (Orthodox). For the Anglican order of the same name, see Order of St. Benedict (Anglican). For other uses, see Benedictine (disambiguation). "O.S.B." redirects here. For other uses, see OSB. The Order of Saint Benedict (OSB; Latin: Ordo Sancti Benedicti), also known – in reference to the colour of its members' habits – as the Black Monks, is a Catholic religious order of independent monastic communities that observe the Rule of Saint Benedict. Each community (monastery, priory or abbey) within the order maintains its own autonomy, while the order itself represents their mutual interests. The terms "Order of Saint Benedict" and "Benedictine Order" are, however, also used to refer to all Benedictine communities collectively, sometimes giving the incorrect impression that there exists a generalate or motherhouse with jurisdiction over them. Internationally, the order is governed by the Benedictine Confederation, a body, established in 1883 by Pope Leo XIII's Brief Summum semper, whose head is known as the Abbot Primate. Individuals whose communities are members of the order generally add the initials "OSB" after their names. [...] England The English Benedictine Congregation is the oldest of the nineteen Benedictine congregations. Augustine of Canterbury and his monks established the first English Benedictine monastery at Canterbury soon after their arrival in 597. Other foundations quickly followed. Through the influence of Wilfrid, Benedict Biscop, and Dunstan, the Benedictine Rule spread with extraordinary rapidity, and in the North it was adopted in most of the monasteries that had been founded by the Celtic missionaries from Iona. Many of the episcopal sees of England were founded and governed by the Benedictines, and no less than nine of the old cathedrals were served by the black monks of the priories attached to them.[1] Monasteries served as hospitals and places of refuge for the weak and homeless. The monks studied the healing properties of plants and minerals to alleviate the sufferings of the sick.[4] Germany was evangelized by English Benedictines. Willibrord and Boniface preached there in the seventh and eighth centuries and founded several abbeys.[1] In the English Reformation, all monasteries were dissolved and their lands confiscated by the Crown, forcing their Catholic members to flee into exile on the Continent. During the 19th century they were able to return to England, including to Selby Abbey in Yorkshire, one of the few great monastic churches to survive the Dissolution. [...] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Benedictine_Congregation English Benedictine Congregation The English Benedictine Congregation (abbr. EBC) unites autonomous Roman Catholic Benedictine communities of monks and nuns and is technically among the oldest of the 18 congregations that are affiliated in the Benedictine Confederation (the oldest being the Camaldolese). History and administration Although the EBC claims technical canonical continuity with the congregation erected by the Holy See in 1216, that earlier English Congregation was destroyed at the Dissolution of the Monasteries in 1535-40. The present English Congregation was revived and restored by Rome in 1607-33 when numbers of Englishmen and Welshmen had become monks in continental European monasteries and were coming to England as missioners. At the beginning of the 21st century the EBC has Houses in the United Kingdom, the United States, South America and Africa. Every four years the General Chapter of the EBC elects an Abbot President from among the Ruling Abbots with jurisdiction, and those who have been Ruling Abbots. He is assisted by a number of officials. Periodically he undertakes a Visitation of the individual Houses. The purpose of the Visitation is the preservation, strengthening and renewal of the religious life, including the laws of the Church and the Constitutions of the congregation. The President may require by Acts of Visitation, that particular points in the Rule, the Constitutions and the law of the Church be observed. The current Abbot President is Abbot Christopher Jamison, former Abbot of Worth Abbey. Houses of the present Congregation United Kingdom: Ampleforth Abbey, fdd 1608 at Dieulouard Belmont Abbey, fdd 1859 Buckfast Abbey, fdd 1882 Colwich Abbey (nuns), fdd 1651 in Paris Curzon Park Abbey (nuns), fdd 1868 Douai Abbey, fdd 1615 in Paris Downside Abbey, fdd 1607 in Douai Ealing Abbey, fdd 1897 Stanbrook Abbey (nuns) fdd 1625 in Cambrai Worth Abbey, fdd 1933 As for the Anglican Order of St. Benedict, pimping off the name of the Roman Catholic saint, they were late comers to the party. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_St._Benedict_(Anglican) Order of St Benedict (Anglican) See also Order of Saint Benedict (Orthodox) for information on the Eastern Orthodox order of this name. The Roman Catholic equivalent may be found at the Order of Saint Benedict and the Benedictine Confederation. There are a number of Benedictine Anglican religious orders, some of them using the name Order of St. Benedict (OSB). Just like their Roman Catholic counterparts, each abbey / priory / convent is independent of each other. The vows are not made to an order, but to a local incarnation of the order, hence each individual order is free to develop its own character and charism, yet each under a common rule of life after the precepts of St. Benedict. Most of the communities include a confraternity of oblates. The order consists of a number of independent communities: [...] England Alton Abbey, Alton, Hampshire. Men. Founded in 1884 as the Order of St Paul. https://altonabbey.com/ Edgware Abbey (The Community of St. Mary at the Cross), Edgware, Greater London. Women. Founded 1866; dedicated to stand with Mary, the mother of Jesus, at the cross, thus sharing in her commitment to embrace all people in Christ's love. Black tunic and scapular with modernised headdress, black veil, and leather belt. Over the years the community's work has evolved to meet the present needs of elderly frail people for nursing or residential care. This care provision continues in Henry Nihill House at Edgware Abbey, where Residents enjoy close links with the community, its worship and its life. www.edgwareabbey.org.uk Salisbury Priory, Salisbury, Wiltshire. Men. Founded at Pershore 1914; resited at Nashdom Abbey, Buckinghamshire, 1926; resited at Elmore Abbey, Berkshire, 1987. In 2011 they relocated again to Salisbury. Malling Abbey, West Malling, Kent. Women. Original foundation c. 1090. Re-founded in London 1891; resited to Somerset 1906; resited to West Malling 1916. www.mallingabbey.org Mucknell Abbey, Stoulton, Worcestershire. A mixed-sex abbey with an ecumenical focus founded in 1941, and previously located at Burford Priory. www.mucknellabbey.org.uk [...] Regarding Malling Abbey, the original Roman Catholic Benedictine monastery was established circa 1090, and terminated with the surrender of Malling to the Crown on 28 October 1538 during Henry VIII's Dissolution of the Monasteries. The Anglican Benedictine community of nuns that has made its home at Malling Abbey since 1916 was founded in 1891. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malling_Abbey The manor of West Malling was given by King Edmund I to Burgric (or Burhic), Bishop of Rochester, in 946. The land was lost to the church in the Danish Wars but was restored to the diocese in 1076. About 1090, Gundulf, Bishop of Rochester and monk of Bec Abbey in Normandy, chose Malling as the site of his foundation for a community of Benedictine nuns, one of the first post-Conquest monasteries for women. Just before his death in 1108, Gundulf appointed the French nun Avicia as the first abbess. Gundulf had endowed the community with the manor of Malling and Archbishop Anselm had given the manor of East Malling. Royal grants gave the nuns the rights to weekly markets and annual fairs as well as wood-cutting and pasturage rights in nearby royal forests. Bequests and gifts also added to the community’s income. As the abbey prospered, West Malling became a flourishing market town. In the four-and-a-half centuries of Benedictine life at the abbey, major events included a fire in 1190 which destroyed much of the abbey and town, the Black Death in 1349 which reduced the community to four nuns and four novices, and the surrender of Malling to the Crown on 28 October 1538 during the Dissolution of the Monasteries. [...] Present The Anglican Benedictine community of nuns that has made its home at Malling Abbey since 1916 was founded in 1891 as an active parish sisterhood. The sisters worked among the poor in Edmonton, north London, until they became attracted to the Benedictine contemplative life through the preaching of Abbot Aelred Carlyle. In 1906, they moved to a farmhouse in Baltonsborough, a remote village in Somerset, to begin their enclosed monastic life under Benedictine vows. In 1916, the trustees of Malling Abbey invited them to move to the more spacious and historic abbey and to continue its tradition of Benedictine prayer, worship, work, study and hospitality. You are also ignoring the fact that St. Peter also established a Church in Jerusalem, in Antioch, and in Alexandra. I have not made anything up. I definitely did not ignore your heretical claim that St. Peter established a church. Jesus Christ established His church. St. Peter went about spreading the faith, not establishing new churches. The church established by Jesus Christ was not a building or set of buildings, but a faith, a religion. There is the Church of Jesus Christ. Christ, assisted by his apostles, did not establish dozens of churches. They established ONE church. That ONE church was spread widely about the world. It is the official teaching/doctrine of the Anglican Church so you are really dissing the Archbishop of Canterbury, and not merely me. I cannot take your word for it that something is the official word of someone else. Document it. And can you please explain why all Popes, until very recently, taught that St. Peter established all the Orthodox Churches in addition to the Church in Rome? What you are spouting off is revisionist history, and a lie. I cannot explain your inane ramblings about some or all Popes. That I decline to explain your symptoms does not indicate that I am lying. nolu chan  posted on  2017-09-10 04:07:19 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   End Trace Mode for Comment # 102. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com