NationStates Jolt Archive

More on the True Catholic Commandments and the Protestants' Distortion (http://www.catholicapologetics.net/apolo_31.htm)



...And the use of statues and such to symbolize religious points has always been Christian custom, since the Old Testament:
Upon which they came to Moses, and said: We have sinned, because we have spoken against the Lord and thee: pray that he may take away these serpents from us. And Moses prayed for the people. And the Lord said to him: Make brazen serpent, and set it up for a sign: whosoever being struck shall look on it, shall live. Moses therefore made a brazen serpent, and set it up for a sign: which when they that were bitten looked upon, they were healed.
--Numbers xxiVII-IX

To the Jew or Judaizer it would, since they dwell in idiocy...

I am neither. Still your comment is of an underlying prejudice, not justification.


So many gods, so many creeds, so many paths that wind and wind, when just the art of being kind is all this sad world needs.

More on the True Catholic Commandments and the Protestants' Distortion (http://www.catholicapologetics.net/apolo_31.htm)



...And the use of statues and such to symbolize religious points has always been Christian custom, since the Old Testament:
Upon which they came to Moses, and said: We have sinned, because we have spoken against the Lord and thee: pray that he may take away these serpents from us. And Moses prayed for the people. And the Lord said to him: Make brazen serpent, and set it up for a sign: whosoever being struck shall look on it, shall live. Moses therefore made a brazen serpent, and set it up for a sign: which when they that were bitten looked upon, they were healed.
--Numbers xxiVII-IX

I've never seen a brazen serpent in a Catholic Church. Plus, Moses was a Jew. Does this explain why the Pope wears a jew hat, i.e. because catholics are secretly jews?

Also, nowhere in the Bible does God command us to build statues of Mary and deify her through prayer. (You also notice that God did not tell the Jews to pray to the statue).

Admit your idolatry and polytheism sir.

More on the True Catholic Commandments and the Protestants' Distortion (http://www.catholicapologetics.net/apolo_31.htm)



...And the use of statues and such to symbolize religious points has always been Christian custom, since the Old Testament:
Upon which they came to Moses, and said: We have sinned, because we have spoken against the Lord and thee: pray that he may take away these serpents from us. And Moses prayed for the people. And the Lord said to him: Make brazen serpent, and set it up for a sign: whosoever being struck shall look on it, shall live. Moses therefore made a brazen serpent, and set it up for a sign: which when they that were bitten looked upon, they were healed.
--Numbers xxiVII-IX

If God says you can, fine. I don't remember the Bible saying to pray to Mary.

Is this your sense of pop culture?

Do you have posters on your wall of these popey dudes?

Is this your sense of pop culture?

Do you have posters on your wall of these popey dudes?

Don't you mean "pope" culture?

If God says you can, fine. I don't remember the Bible saying to pray to Mary.
She is Blessed above all women on earth! Do you deny this?

She is Blessed above all women on earth! Do you deny this?

Yeah. I'm way more blessed and sexy than she'll ever be.

Hey DF, how do you explain that the RCC borrowed the concept of a halo from the (precceding) Egyptian sun-disk?

Yeah. I'm way more blessed and sexy than she'll ever be.
I'm not asking you, heathen.

She is Blessed above all women on earth! Do you deny this?

No, but does that make her divine? Is she God? If you should only pray to God, then do you agree that Mary is God?

Hey DF, how do you explain that the RCC borrowed the concept of a halo from the (precceding) Egyptian sun-disk?
The 'concept of halo?'

She is Blessed above all women on earth! Do you deny this?

But you are only supposed to pray to God. He said so. Even in your little text about the statues, God never said to pray to them.

I say again, no-where in the scripture are you commanded to build statues to Mary and then deify her with prayer. It is idolatry and polytheism.

Even if Mary was the most blessed woman on earth, she is still a woman, and not to be prayed to.

I'm not asking you, heathen.

I like it when you talk dirty to me. :D

No, but does that make her divine? Is she God? If you should only pray to God, then do you agree that Mary is God?
Mary is the glorious intercessor and mediator between God and Man. Great things can be done by Mary's intercession to Her Son.

And the third day, there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee: and the mother of Jesus was there. And Jesus also was invited, and his disciples, to the marriage. And the wine failing, the mother of Jesus saith to him: They have no wine. And Jesus saith to her: Woman, what is that to me and to thee? my hour is not yet come. His mother saith to the waiters: Whatsoever he shall say to you, do ye...
...Jesus saith to them: Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim...
--St. John iiI-V,VII

Mary is the glorious intercessor and mediator between God and Man. Great things can be done by Mary's intercession to Her Son.

And the third day, there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee: and the mother of Jesus was there. And Jesus also was invited, and his disciples, to the marriage. And the wine failing, the mother of Jesus saith to him: They have no wine. And Jesus saith to her: Woman, what is that to me and to thee? my hour is not yet come. His mother saith to the waiters: Whatsoever he shall say to you, do ye...
...Jesus saith to them: Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim...
--St. John iiI-V,VII

That proves nothing. So Mary said to do whatever Jesus does. Big deal. I could do that. Does that make me "the glorious intercessor and mediator between God and Man"? Bow down before me, peon!

You're still dodging the question! Do not pray to someone who is not God! Mary is not God! By simple reasoning, you shouldn't pray to Mary!

That proves nothing. So Mary said to do whatever Jesus does. Big deal. I could do that. Does that make me "the glorious intercessor and mediator between God and Man"? Bow down before me, peon!
Iesus was not planning on performing such a miracle at that time. Only through the intercession of His Mother would He make such a change. He would not just spontaneously do miracles for anyone.

You're still dodging the question! Do not pray to someone who is not God! Mary is not God! By simple reasoning, you shouldn't pray to Mary!
We pray for Her intercession before God!

What about praying to saints?

Iesus was not planning on performing such a miracle at that time. Only through the intercession of His Mother would He make such a change. He would not just spontaneously do miracles for anyone.


We pray for Her intercession before God!

That's not anything special. It doesn't take the divine to tell Jesus that they've run out of wine and they need more.

Why do you need to pray for intercession when you could go straight to the source? This is why the Protestants broke from the Catholics! All this pomp and circumstance crap, getting away from the Bible! I don't need Mary to pray to God for help, and neither should you!

What about praying to saints?
They are to be venerated and prayed to as Saints of God.

That's not anything special. It doesn't take the divine to tell Jesus that they've run out of wine and they need more.
They have no wine. And Jesus saith to her: Woman, what is that to me and to thee? my hour is not yet come.

Why do you need to pray for intercession when you could go straight to the source? This is why the Protestants broke from the Catholics! All this pomp and circumstance crap, getting away from the Bible! I don't need Mary to pray to God for help, and neither should you!
"Pomp and circumstance crap?" Please cease the rhetoric here.

They are to be venerated and prayed to as Saints of God.

So in your view God = Mary = Saints. Because you pray to and venerate all of them.

They are to be venerated and prayed to as Saints of God.

Why? They're not God. Like I said, I don't need Mary or a Saint to get a message to God.

So in your view God = Mary = Saints. Because you pray to and venerate all of them.
No, Mary and the Saints intercede to God on our behalf.

They have no wine. And Jesus saith to her: Woman, what is that to me and to thee? my hour is not yet come.

"Pomp and circumstance crap?" Please cease the rhetoric here.

That just makes Jesus look uncaring, but that's a different story.

No, Mary and the Saints intercede to God on our behalf.

Even if I buy your Mary rationale, (which I don't becuase nowhere are we told to pray to her, quite the opposite in fact), the same cannot be said for the Saints.

That just makes Jesus look uncaring, but that's a different story.
So now "Jesus looks uncaring?"

So now "Jesus looks uncaring?"

Well, in ruder terms, he basically said to the party goers "Tough titties". Bolding this alone doesn't make it any better and is ripe for quoting out of context.

The most glorious vicar of christ was obviously Rasputin. Anyone who could be shot four times, stabbed, castrated, hung and drowned before dying had to be imbued by the holy spirit.

Well, in ruder terms, he basically said to the party goers "Tough titties". Bolding this alone doesn't make it any better and is ripe for quoting out of context.
But through His Mother's humanly intercession...

But through His Mother's humanly intercession...

Which any person though goading could do. Joseph could do it, or perhaps his brothers could persuade him. Mary isn't some semi-goddess just because she got Jesus to turn water into wine.

Which any person though goading could do. Joseph could do it, or perhaps his brothers could persuade him. Mary isn't some semi-goddess just because she got Jesus to turn water into wine.
Does it not violate your views on the Bible to say Joseph could do something when the Bible does not say it so?

Does it not violate your views on the Bible to say Joseph could do something when the Bible does not say it so?

Could Joseph touch his toes? The Bible is silent on this matter.

Does it not violate your views on the Bible to say Joseph could do something when the Bible does not say it so?

Just because Mary persuaded Jesus doesn't mean someone else could.

Could Joseph touch his toes? The Bible is silent on this matter.
We can't know for sure since the Bible did not explicitly say so! ;)

We can't know for sure since the Bible did not explicitly say so! ;)

So, all we can know for sure is what the Bible says explicitly?

So, all we can know for sure is what the Bible says explicitly?
In the land of the evangelical Protestant...

In the land of the evangelical Protestant...

Are you going to answer the question?

Are you going to answer the question?
I did.

I did.

Possibly you did, but it was far too Jesuitical and ecliptical for me to understand.

I will rephrase it: as a Catholic, is all that you can know for sure stated explicitly in the Bible?

Possibly you did, but it was far too Jesuitical and ecliptical for me to understand.

I will rephrase it: as a Catholic, is all that you can know for sure stated explicitly in the Bible?
I don't remember "as a Catholic," in the last form of the question. In this case it would be the fool to ask the question in true ignorance, for the answer has been stated.

I don't remember "as a Catholic," in the last form of the question.


I said openly that I would rephrase it: the 'as a Catholic' was implied in the first, as few here expect you to hold forth on the fiendish intricacies of what you consider to be heretical beliefs.

In this case it would be the fool to ask the question in true ignorance, for the answer has been stated.

Help me in my foolishness then by elucidating, if you would be so kind.

I am just going to jump in and ignore all the other posts and say that it is a toss up between first Crusade and Inquisition because they both give me the abilty to laugh at Christians.

I said openly that I would rephrase it: the 'as a Catholic' was implied in the first, as few here expect you to hold forth on the fiendish intricacies of what you consider to be heretical beliefs.



Help me in my foolishness then by elucidating, if you would be so kind.

Scriptura et Traditio

See Bodies, defensor is not such a bad guy...DF has been keeping you occupied for hours...

Scriptura et Traditio

...and the basis for tradition is?

...and the basis for tradition is?

That's Tradition not tradition...there is a difference

That's Tradition not tradition...there is a difference

mea culpa... and the basis for Tradition is?

mea culpa... and the basis for Tradition is?
The Apostles, the Church of Christ. As commanded by Scripture.

Here we go again: the belief in a flat earth was never widely nor officially held within the Church...

Galileo must be so pissed off. All that jail time for nada. :(

Galileo must be so pissed off. All that jail time for nada. :(
Galileo≠ Flat-earth :rolleyes:

That's Tradition not tradition...there is a difference
Indeed

What? Galileo again? Why? I thought that had already been dealt with.

Copernican heresy! That's rich...

Shows that Popes aren't infallible, and never will be... They are all anti-christs!

Except Peter of course, he wasn't a Pope.... Pope was an invention of the Roman Whore later.

What? Galileo again? Why? I thought that had already been dealt with.
Someone didn't even bother to read the first page or so? Not to mention he got geocentricity confused with "flat earth."

Copernican heresy! That's rich...

Shows that Popes aren't infallible, and never will be... They are all anti-christs!
What is rich about heresy?

And please do not start with more moronic rhetoric here.

Copericus' theory, wasn't heresy, it was true!

Copericus' theory, wasn't heresy, it was true!
No it wasn't!

No it wasn't!

Oh my... someone who still holds to the Ptolmaic solarsystem....

Dude, the earth revolves around the sun, and the earth is round too... while I'm at it....

Copernicus was right... Galileo was right about Copernicus being right.

The Pope was wrong.

Oh my... someone who still holds to the Ptolmaic solarsystem....

Dude, the earth revolves around the sun, and the earth is round too... while I'm at it....

Copernicus was right... Galileo was right about Copernicus being right.

The Pope was wrong.
Sorry, but the earth is the center of the universe and the sun revolves around it.

Sorry, but the earth is the center of the universe and the sun revolves around it.

Do you REALLY believe that?

Oh, and as far as I'm concerned, the coolest pope was that guy who was charged and tried in court by his sucessor after he died... I saw him on History Bites.

Sorry, but the earth is the center of the universe and the sun revolves around it.

:LOL:
:ROFL:
:ROFLMAO:

The Earth is not the center of the universe. Never has been. Never will be. If the universe is centered on anything it is God.... The Popes like the Earth there because that is where they are, and the Popes like to declare themselves as God, thus as Anti-Christs usurping His power... Which they will pay for in judgement.

The Earth, that is the third planet in this solar system, in which we reside, revolves around the sun.

The Popes are the heretics who have corrupted the church of Christ for political gain; which have on numerous times been wrong, comited sin, and shall all burn in the lake of fire.

Sorry, but the earth is the center of the universe and the sun revolves around it.

I was wondering when this was going to come up.

I was wondering when this was going to come up.

It came, was beaten and died and has now returned.

Sorry, but the earth is the center of the universe and the sun revolves around it.

Fuck you, you have to be TT. Or you know him personally. You're like his brother or something if not actually him.

Sorry, but the earth is the center of the universe and the sun revolves around it.

Now now DF, you failed to prove it in our argument.

You failed to prove that the passage about Joshua proves the earth is the center of the universe.

Now now DF, you failed to prove it in our argument.

You failed to prove that the passage about Joshua proves the earth is the center of the universe.
No, it does. As the Church correctly teaches.

No, it does. As the Church correctly teaches.
No, the Church teaches that earth orbits the sun, and we are not the center. And don't give me any of that 'that's the Church of Novus Ordo' or 'not the *true* RCC' BS.

No, the Church teaches that earth orbits the sun, and we are not the center.
Where is thy basis for this comment?

Iesus was not planning on performing such a miracle at that time. Only through the intercession of His Mother would He make such a change. He would not just spontaneously do miracles for anyone.


We pray for Her intercession before God!

Yes and before Moses interceded on behalf of the Isrealites, God was going to destroy them, but I don't see you praying to Moses..

They are to be venerated and prayed to as Saints of God.

And what portion of scripture suggests that this is a Divinely inspired idea?

Where is thy basis for this comment?
The fact that John-Paul II, in 1992, apologized for what the RCC did to Galileo and finally accepted his theory.

And don't give me any of that BS 'He's not the real Pope'

No, Mary and the Saints intercede to God on our behalf.

According to what portion of scripture do they intercede in any way different than any other human might ask God's blessing for another?

We can't know for sure since the Bible did not explicitly say so! ;)

And where did the Bible explicitly say to pray to Mary?

Yes and before Moses interceded on behalf of the Isrealites, God was going to destroy them, but I don't see you praying to Moses..
If one wished to...

DF, I havent seen you call my last argument uncredible yet!

The fact that John-Paul II, in 1992, apologized for what the RCC did to Galileo and finally accepted his theory.

And don't give me any of that BS 'He's not the real Pope'
It is not "BS."

It is not "BS."
Then prove to me that the 180-something cardinals did NOT choose John-Paul II in their Convent

Then prove to me that the 180-something cardinals did NOT choose John-Paul II in their Convent
A heretic cannot be pope.

According to what portion of scripture do they intercede in any way different than any other human might ask God's blessing for another?
I have already stated one thus far... Not that such is required.

:LOL:
:ROFL:
:ROFLMAO:

The Earth is not the center of the universe. Never has been. Never will be. If the universe is centered on anything it is God.... The Popes like the Earth there because that is where they are, and the Popes like to declare themselves as God, thus as Anti-Christs usurping His power... Which they will pay for in judgement.

The Earth, that is the third planet in this solar system, in which we reside, revolves around the sun.

No, earth is the center of the universe as per God's Divine will.

No, earth is the center of the universe as per God's Divine will.
So was it God's Divine Will that made me put you on my IGNORE list?
*fires his I.G.N.O.R.E. GunCannon at DF* I.G.N.O.R.E.D! (http://www.geocities.com/dyrik/pic/guncannon.jpg)

Oh and dont bother responding to this post; I won't be reading your idiotic posts anymore

"The only good thing to come out of religion is the music." -George Carlin.

I voted for Pope Gregory who is responsible for the system upon which all modern western music is based.

"The only good thing to come out of religion is the music." -George Carlin.

I voted for Pope Gregory who is responsible for the system upon which all modern western music is based.
And the Gregorian Chant itself?

And the Gregorian Chant itself?

If I recall(and I admit, my memory is fuzzy on this), Gregory created a written system for music in order to 'record' chants of the monks so they could be preserved as-is forever. As such, his system is still the basis for modern music including the current musical 'scale'.

If I recall(and I admit, my memory is fuzzy on this), Gregory created a written system for music in order to 'record' chants of the monks so they could be preserved as-is forever. As such, his system is still the basis for modern music including the current musical 'scale'.
Yes, but I was asking if this is all you choose him for as opposed to for the beautiful Gregorian Chant itself?

No, earth is the center of the universe as per God's Divine will.

And you make this statement based off of........ what?

An old, idiot with a big hat, who bases his entire study of the universe off of an ancient greek, pagan alchemist? Oh yes, most certainly an indiciation of "God's divine will."

Utinam logica tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant.

And you make this statement based off of........ what?

An old, idiot with a big hat, who bases his entire study of the universe off of an ancient greek, pagan alchemist? Oh yes, most certainly an indiciation of "God's divine will."

No idiots played a role...

Well after great thought, I decided to vote for Gregory IX, because no one better represents the faith which DF seems to beleive is christianity then the man who gave permission for the horrible slaughter that was teh inquisition.

No idiots played a role...

At least one did, the one who declared Copernicus's model a heresy, based off his adoption of a system designed from an ancient Greek pagan Alchemist named Ptolemy.

Hey, DF, still insisting that the universe is geocentric? Ever been to space? Ever seen the sun, and the 2 innermost planets on the opposite side of Earth as Mars and the rest? Ever wondered why all the orbital math and predictions based off of the heliocentric system, you know, works?
Oh, and your sig comment about Isabella is despicable. Anyone who authorized the slaughter of countless innocent human beings (that would include Pope Innocent the II, III, whichever Pope authorized the Inquisition, and Pius XII for standing by idly while Hitler slaughtered millions) deserves nothing more than our collective disgust and ire. To even say that the perpetrators of the Inquisition were good people is unthinkably horrific. If I was a Christian, I would be reveling in my belief that those people are in Hell, but, unfortunately, as an Atheist, all I can do is look down upon their memories. Bastards, the lot of them.

I vote for pope Steven VII, because he had his dead predicessor dug up, and put the corpse on trial.

These websites (and many others) talk about it abit, but apparently he served as both judge and prosecutor, and in his prosection spent much of the time yelling and screaming at the corpse. The deacon serving as the equivalent of the defense cousel was ordered, by Steven, to speak for the corpse.

http://www.karenlyster.com/trial.html
http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/p/po/pope_stephen_vii.html

"The differance between truth and fiction, is that fiction has to make sense." - me

I vote for pope Steven VII, because he had his dead predicessor dug up, and put the corpse on trial.

These websites (and many others) talk about it abit, but apparently he served as both judge and prosecutor, and in his prosection spent much of the time yelling and screaming at the corpse. The deacon serving as the equivalent of the defense cousel was ordered, by Steven, to speak for the corpse.

http://www.karenlyster.com/trial.html
http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/p/po/pope_stephen_vii.html

"The differance between truth and fiction, is that fiction has to make sense." - me

Yes, indeed, an official instance of a pope being heretic, therefore the Roman Church, was headed by a heretic at least once. And of course, exactly how insane many of these Bishops of Rome had been, in the persuit of ultimate power over the Church, to which they ultimately have failed, since the Church is founded upon the rock of faith in Christ.

Yes, indeed, an official instance of a pope being heretic, therefore the Roman Church, was headed by a heretic at least once. And of course, exactly how insane many of these Bishops of Rome had been, in the persuit of ultimate power over the Church, to which they ultimately have failed, since the Church is founded upon the rock of faith in Christ.

Actually, there was also that time when there were three popes, and each of them execommunicated the other two...

And the fact that, at various periods the position of pope was, ultimately arranged by the various political factions both outside and within the church through bribes, threats, assasinations, influence-peddling, etc. Which is actually how Steven got in (and removed)...

No, it does. As the Church correctly teaches.

The Church is filled with men and men are fallible.

The "heretic" Gallileo proved the Church wrong.

No, earth is the center of the universe as per God's Divine will.

And where is this will. The story of Joshua does not prove it.

Fact-1:Heretics cannot be pope.
Fact-2:John Paul II was appointed as Pope by the Council of Bishops.
Fact-3:The Council of Bishops choose all popes by ballot.
-
Conclusion-1:The Council of Bishops made an error in choosing John Paul II.
-
Conclusion-2:The Council of Bishops is fallible.
-
Conclusion-3:All choices of Pope are based upon fallible choice.
-
Conclusion-4:All Popes are fallible.

Conclusion-1:The Council of Bishops made an error in choosing John Paul II.
-
Conclusion-2:The Council of Bishops is fallible.
-
Conclusion-3:All choices of Pope are based upon fallible choice.
-
Conclusion-4:All Popes are fallible.

Conclusion-4 does not necessarilly follow from Conclusions-1/2/3.

Yes, but I was asking if this is all you choose him for as opposed to for the beautiful Gregorian Chant itself?

I enjoy chant. But I don't credit Pope Gregory with chant(as he didn't invent it). Just with it's preservation. But to me, that's enough.

Conclusion-4 does not necessarilly follow from Conclusions-1/2/3.

Actually, it does, since "Pope" is a positional title, and not a person, the position is fallible, because the choice in the position is fallible. Therefore being a position, All Popes are fallible.

Fallible merely means capable of error. If there is error anywhere in the line, the result is capable of error.

Actually, it does, since "Pope" is a positional title, and not a person, the position is fallible, because the choice in the position is fallible. Therefore being a position, All Popes are fallible.

Fallible merely means capable of error. If there is error anywhere in the line, the result is capable of error.

Actually, it's got some weaknesses, depending on what your default beliefs are.

For example, in the doctrine of the church, the pope is infallible in matters of faith. If you accept the church's doctrines, then in theory, it doesn't matter if they get together, and put a rabid dog into the position, because somebody slipped illicit substances into the communion wine. By at least on interpretation of the doctrine, the dog would now be infallable in regards to faith.

Mind you, I've also heard that the infallability was technically only granted to the first pope, and that it was more or less assumed (read: decided by the church) after his death that it transfered to his successor, and so on down the line. This is one of the reasons given for why certain christian sects don't consider the roman catholic church as being valid.

There's also the idea that god chooses the popes, and just makes people put the ones he wants in power. They may choose the methods (thus at least nominally preserving the doctrine of free will), but he chooses the individual. In this theory, there isn't any fallability in the system, because god's the one rigging it.

Actually, it's got some weaknesses, depending on what your default beliefs are.

For example, in the doctrine of the church, the pope is infallible in matters of faith. If you accept the church's doctrines, then in theory, it doesn't matter if they get together, and put a rabid dog into the position, because somebody slipped illicit substances into the communion wine. By at least on interpretation of the doctrine, the dog would now be infallable in regards to faith.

Mind you, I've also heard that the infallability was technically only granted to the first pope, and that it was more or less assumed (read: decided by the church) after his death that it transfered to his successor, and so on down the line. This is one of the reasons given for why certain christian sects don't consider the roman catholic church as being valid.

There's also the idea that god chooses the popes, and just makes people put the ones he wants in power. They may choose the methods (thus at least nominally preserving the doctrine of free will), but he chooses the individual. In this theory, there isn't any fallability in the system, because god's the one rigging it.

And of course, all of that is where the Roman Church has erred. By usurping power not specifically granted to it.

Oh, trust me, I know why they make claims, as such, of things pertaining to the Pope. But their claims, again, have little bearing on absolute truth. "Infallible in matter of faith" have conferred laterally to other scopes not related to faith. In example of the previous post, that of the declaration of support of the Ptolmaic model, and the declaration of heresy as regarding the Coppernican. Not a matter of faith; but treated as such. And this has continued down the line. Of course, this comes from the RCC concept of supernatural faith; whereby reason is thrown out the door in for the sake of blind adherance to leadership. Where as true 'faith', that is trust in, is not bound by distinctions to loyalty, or even adverse to reason, as they would claim.

They have done not!

sure they have.
love thy brother as thyself,something YOU dont practice by the way.
and thou shalt not kill.

Hey, DF, still insisting that the universe is geocentric? Ever been to space? Ever seen the sun, and the 2 innermost planets on the opposite side of Earth as Mars and the rest? Ever wondered why all the orbital math and predictions based off of the heliocentric system, you know, works?
Oh, and your sig comment about Isabella is despicable. Anyone who authorized the slaughter of countless innocent human beings (that would include Pope Innocent the II, III, whichever Pope authorized the Inquisition, and Pius XII for standing by idly while Hitler slaughtered millions) deserves nothing more than our collective disgust and ire. To even say that the perpetrators of the Inquisition were good people is unthinkably horrific. If I was a Christian, I would be reveling in my belief that those people are in Hell, but, unfortunately, as an Atheist, all I can do is look down upon their memories. Bastards, the lot of them.
I) Have you really been to space? :rolleyes:
II) The Holy Inquisition was glorious. I ask for Isabella's prayers as a warrior for Christ and His Sacred Church.
III) Someone "slaughtered millions?" When?
IV) Yes, they are good people, heathen.

And of course, all of that is where the Roman Church has erred. By usurping power not specifically granted to it.

Oh, trust me, I know why they make claims, as such, of things pertaining to the Pope. But their claims, again, have little bearing on absolute truth. "Infallible in matter of faith" have conferred laterally to other scopes not related to faith. In example of the previous post, that of the declaration of support of the Ptolmaic model, and the declaration of heresy as regarding the Coppernican. Not a matter of faith; but treated as such. And this has continued down the line. Of course, this comes from the RCC concept of supernatural faith; whereby reason is thrown out the door in for the sake of blind adherance to leadership. Where as true 'faith', that is trust in, is not bound by distinctions to loyalty, or even adverse to reason, as they would claim.


And here you presume the existance of absolute truth... But that's seriously another debate altogether....

What exactly constitutes 'faith', in regards to religion (and most specifically, christianity) has been argued for ages. To me, faith is believing in something even when you know you have no reason to believe in it.

Those points asside, the matter still stands that, depending on what other inplicit assumptions are made, the logic you used isn't perfect.

Were either of the two examples I gave true, then your argument wouldn't stand. The problem is in regards to such matters, proof in either direction is unavailable, and infact impossible.

You just need to add a point regarding divine intervention, or rather the lack thereof.

Now, regarding matters that aren't truely "of faith", but may seem to be... Remember that if the pope only believes it to be a matter of faith, he may well think he's infallable, but be wrong. Papal infallability doesn't necessarily extend to knowledge about what he's infallable about.

As I recall, the way it works is actually just that God promised to back up the first pope, in regards to such matters. Thus, what they say actually becomes true, as long as it's purely a matter of faith. That is to say, the pope has no special knowledge. This also serves, quite nicely, to explain the occasionally contradictory papal decisions. "That was true then, but this is true now" or somesuch thing.

Always remember - applying logic to most religions is a fairly insane proposition in and of itself.

----

Man, I love playing devil's advocate... ;)

sure they have.
love thy brother as thyself,something YOU dont practice by the way.
and thou shalt not kill.
And they have done not.

Ever wondered why all the orbital math and predictions based off of the heliocentric system, you know, works?

The same can be said for the geocentric model: in fact it requires less epicycles than the heliocentric model.

The same can be said for the geocentric model: in fact it requires less epicycles than the heliocentric model.

Actually, I think you may find that the whole point of the Heliocentric model is that it explains retrograde motion without using epicycles - which is why Aristarchus proposed it around 260 B.C. (It was rejected for other reasons).

Actually, I think you may find that the whole point of the Heliocentric model is that it explains retrograde motion without using epicycles - which is why Aristarchus proposed it around 260 B.C. (It was rejected for other reasons).

The Copernican model, did however contain epicycles, due to the assumption of uniform circular motion - I don't think it was until Kepler that the need for them was removed.

However, I will concede that the sources on the internet state that the Copernican theory used less epicycles than the Ptolomaic version: this is not how I remember it, but I am not in a position to argue.

EDIT: Anyhow, the point I haven't raised until now is that both the heliocentric and the geocentric models are arbitrary assumptions of a supposedly stable point: to claim that the entire solar system moves around its own centre of gravity located much closer to the Sun (or possibly within it) than to the Earth seems to me to be the more useful way of approaching the issue, but it should of course be noted that the centre of gravity of the solar system is itself moving relative to the centre of gravity of the cosmos...

I) Have you really been to space? :rolleyes:
II) The Holy Inquisition was glorious. I ask for Isabella's prayers as a warrior for Christ and His Sacred Church.
III) Someone "slaughtered millions?" When?
IV) Yes, they are good people, heathen.
1)No, I haven't been to space. But several hundred other have.
2)Any government-or-church-sanctioned slaughter is far from "glorious." There's nothing "glorious" about killing your fellow men because they worship a different invisible man in the sky than you. Or worship the same one differently.
3)That would be Hitler, the SS, and the Nazis in general. During the Holocaust. In World War II. But I don't want to get in a holocaust-denial thing here, TT.
4) Shouldn't I be a "heretic," as one who has heard the word of the Gospels but ignores them anyways? I thought "heathens" were those unreached by the Christian message.

There is no such thing is a glorious vicar of Christ. Christianity is just a breakaway branch of Judaism centering around the life of an ancient hippie. By the way, New Year's Day is just the celebration of Jesus's circumcision. Since he was born on December 25th, January 1st would have been his 8th day of life. After all, you know, Jesus was Jewish....

Since he was born on December 25th, January 1st would have been his 8th day of life. After all, you know, Jesus was Jewish....

Do sheep actually have their lambing season in December around Bethlehem...?

There is no such thing is a glorious vicar of Christ. Christianity is just a breakaway branch of Judaism centering around the life of an ancient hippie. By the way, New Year's Day is just the celebration of Jesus's circumcision. Since he was born on December 25th, January 1st would have been his 8th day of life. After all, you know, Jesus was Jewish....

Actually, the only reason they stuck christmas in the middle of the winter was to detract from the pagan holidays like yule and saturnalia.

Just like easter was placed where it was to detract from the pagan holiday of... well... easter.

They didn't succede very well in either case, as 99% of the standard trappings of both holidays are direct carryovers from the pagan ones. The tree, yule log, feast, etc. for xmas, and the rabbits, eggs, etc for easter.

"Yet another pagan holiday brought to you by the christians." - me

There is no such thing is a glorious vicar of Christ. Christianity is just a breakaway branch of Judaism centering around the life of an ancient hippie. By the way, New Year's Day is just the celebration of Jesus's circumcision. Since he was born on December 25th, January 1st would have been his 8th day of life. After all, you know, Jesus was Jewish....
This is so filled with deceptive blasphemy, may He have mercy on thy soul...

Actually, the only reason they stuck christmas in the middle of the winter was to detract from the pagan holidays like yule and saturnalia.

Just like easter was placed where it was to detract from the pagan holiday of... well... easter.

They didn't succede very well in either case, as 99% of the standard trappings of both holidays are direct carryovers from the pagan ones. The tree, yule log, feast, etc. for xmas, and the rabbits, eggs, etc for easter.

"Yet another pagan holiday brought to you by the christians." - me
What is thy point here?

:headbang: This whole forum is built on a wrong premise and I guess here is where I have to intervene. Ok, (calmly now) here goes :cool: : Christ having a "vicar" would have been news to him!! Christ never left a vicar and the passage that Catholics have interpreted as leaving Peter in charge is actually Christ talking about himself! It is taken from the book of the gospel according to Matthew and it is found in the sixteenth chapter, verses 13-20. Now Christ has just asked them probably the most important question he could've asked which is "Who do you (or y'all) say that I am?" Now Simon (who we refer to as Peter) answers "You are the Christ, the son of the living God!" Jesus is ecstatic, yes! they are getting it. He proceeds by changing Simon's name (very common practice between a teacher/pupil relationship) to Peter which in the Greek language which it was written means 'little stone' and then he states and on THIS rock(refering to himself and now written in a different Greek word which means 'HUGE BOULDER') I will build my church. In other words, not Peter but Christ! Christ left no vicar ...because HE IS THE VICAR!! WOW :eek: I amaze myself

:headbang: This whole forum is built on a wrong premise and I guess here is where I have to intervene. Ok, (calmly now) here goes :cool: : Christ having a "vicar" would have been news to him!! Christ never left a vicar and the passage that Catholics have interpreted as leaving Peter in charge is actually Christ talking about himself! It is taken from the book of the gospel according to Matthew and it is found in the sixteenth chapter, verses 13-20. Now Christ has just asked them probably the most important question he could've asked which is "Who do you (or y'all) say that I am?" Now Simon (who we refer to as Peter) answers "You are the Christ, the son of the living God!" Jesus is ecstatic, yes! they are getting it. He proceeds by changing Simon's name (very common practice between a teacher/pupil relationship) to Peter which in the Greek language which it was written means 'little stone' and then he states and on THIS rock(refering to himself and now written in a different Greek word which means 'HUGE BOULDER') I will build my church. In other words, not Peter but Christ! Christ left no vicar ...because HE IS THE VICAR!! WOW :eek: I amaze myself

...Tu es Petrus et super hanc petram aedificabo
ecclesiam meam

Do sheep actually have their lambing season in December around Bethlehem...?
The shepherds of Palestine wouldn't be watching their flocks by night from about the third week of October, because it's too damn cold to have the sheep out... It's most likely that Jesus was born sometime in August/September ~4 BCE

undefined Oh I'm sorry my friend I guess you showed me my error and the reason for justification of this entire forum. I apologize greatly because what I'm about to say might prove that your response to my input was neither well thought out nor did it further the forum any more than where I ended it.
1.) You obviously did'nt read my input with open eyes because in it I rightly state that the New Testament was written in GREEK (say wuh), yeah GREEK, way before any copies of Latinae Vulgate
2.) Um...oh yeah! Greek.

undefined Oh I'm sorry my friend I guess you showed me my error and the reason for justification of this entire forum. I apologize greatly because what I'm about to say might prove that your response to my input was neither well thought out nor did it further the forum any more than where I ended it.
1.) You obviously did'nt read my input with open eyes because in it I rightly state that the New Testament was written in GREEK (say wuh), yeah GREEK, way before any copies of Latinae Vulgate
2.) Um...oh yeah! Greek.
And translated by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost into Latin so that we today can understand the true meaning of the Scriptures...

Oh that's right I had one more thing even in your 'idolized' latin...the words ...um ...mean the same as I previously stated.

Oh that's right I had one more thing even in your 'idolized' latin...the words ...um ...mean the same as I previously stated.
No, they don't. Christ builds His Church upon Saint Peter by His Own Words.

Mary is the glorious intercessor and mediator between God and Man. Great things can be done by Mary's intercession to Her Son.

And the third day, there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee: and the mother of Jesus was there. And Jesus also was invited, and his disciples, to the marriage. And the wine failing, the mother of Jesus saith to him: They have no wine. And Jesus saith to her: Woman, what is that to me and to thee? my hour is not yet come. His mother saith to the waiters: Whatsoever he shall say to you, do ye...
...Jesus saith to them: Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim...
--St. John iiI-V,VII
The modern version:
The wedding reception ran out of wine.
Mary says "They're out of wine."
Jesus replies "Yeah, and? Not my problem"
Mary says to the waiters (while glaring a Jesus reproachfully), "Look, my son's being a bit of a dick. If he's knows what's good for him, he's going to help, just do as he says."
Jesus sulks a bit. "Aw, Mum.... Okay... go get me some water. Jeez, I hate it when you do that, Mum. You know how embarrasing it is..."

WHO THE HELL CARES?! :mad:

:headbang:

:headbang:

:headbang:

And translated by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost into Latin so that we today can understand the true meaning of the Scriptures...
That's what John Smith said about the Book of Mormon. The spirit of the lord enabled him to translate the words on the gold tablets he found.
He was copying bits out of the King James bible!

The modern version:
The wedding reception ran out of wine.
Mary says "They're out of wine."
Jesus replies "Yeah, and? Not my problem"
Mary says to the waiters (while glaring a Jesus reproachfully), "Look, my son's being a bit of a dick. If he's knows what's good for him, he's going to help, just do as he says."
Jesus sulks a bit. "Aw, Mum.... Okay... go get me some water. Jeez, I hate it when you do that, Mum. You know how embarrasing it is..."
Begone with your blasphemy!

WHO THE HELL CARES?! :mad:

:headbang:

:headbang:

:headbang:
What are you really here for?

Sorry, but the earth is the center of the universe and the sun revolves around it.

If this was true (which it obviously isn't... and I suspect you are flamebaiting here, just as you do in all other threads...)

Why do the other planets follow solar orbits?

Is the sun going around all of those planets, too?

Are they, thus, all going around each other, also?

Are we, consequently, also going around all the other planets?

Your argument falls down on a logical inconsistency.

And the third day, there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee: and the mother of Jesus was there. And Jesus also was invited, and his disciples, to the marriage. And the wine failing, the mother of Jesus saith to him: They have no wine. And Jesus saith to her: Woman, what is that to me and to thee? my hour is not yet come. His mother saith to the waiters: Whatsoever he shall say to you, do ye...
...Jesus saith to them: Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim...
John 2:1-5, 7

Interesting post.... so, in the 'inerrant bible', you claim as your 'reason' for the deification of Mary... that she interceded with Jesus, on the third day... at Cana?

So - you base this ALL on the fact that, three days after his Baptism, Jesus was in Cana?

Then, how do you explain that Mark 1:12-13 clearly states: "And immediately the Spirit driveth him into the wilderness. And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him".

How did Jesus attend a wedding in Cana, if "IMMEDIATELY" after his baptism, he entered the "WILDERNESS", where he remained for "FORTY DAYS"?

Begone with your blasphemy!
To quote some one else, I love it when you talk dirty... :fluffle:


May your deity-construct reward you in an appropriate manner in accordance with your chosen belief system.

Happy holidays everyone!

What are you really here for?

What am I really here for?

...Tu es Petrus et super hanc petram aedificabo
ecclesiam meam


Translation (sorry but my latin sucks) You are Peter, the rock and upon this rock i build my church

What am I really here for?
Why do you repeat and not answer?

Translation (sorry but my latin sucks) You are Peter, the rock and upon this rock i build my church

If it's present tense, shouldn't it be aedifico?

And my Latin grammar is crap, but to me, the literal translation looks to be

"You are Peter, and upon this rock I build my church"

And to DF, the latin grammar seems a little off. Isn't super an ablative? As noted above, I think you misspelled aedifico.

Should be "Tu es Petrus, et super hanc petrā aedifico ecclesiam meam"

Then again, my latin is bad, so it could be wrong.

If it's present tense, shouldn't it be aedifico?

And my Latin grammar is crap, but to me, the literal translation looks to be

"You are Peter, and upon this rock I build my church"

And to DF, the latin grammar seems a little off. Isn't super an ablative? As noted above, I think you misspelled aedifico.

Should be "Tu es Petrus, et super hanc petrā aedifico ecclesiam meam"

Then again, my latin is bad, so it could be wrong.
sorry i meant to put "the rock" in (), and i think its really "i might build my church" but then again my latin sucks worse than yours

sorry i meant to put "the rock" in (), and i think its really "i might build my church" but then again my latin sucks worse than yours

According to your translation, super would be the ablative prep, so petra would be in ablative. In DF's sentence, petram is in acc, so super would mean over, above, on, beyond.

What he was probably trying to get across was "You are peter, the rock, and on this rock I build my church", since that makes the most sense.

If it's present tense, shouldn't it be aedifico?

And my Latin grammar is crap, but to me, the literal translation looks to be

"You are Peter, and upon this rock I build my church"

And to DF, the latin grammar seems a little off. Isn't super an ablative? As noted above, I think you misspelled aedifico.

Should be "Tu es Petrus, et super hanc petrā aedifico ecclesiam meam"

Then again, my latin is bad, so it could be wrong.


And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church...

And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church...

Are you sure its not "I might build my church"?

Are you sure its not "I might build my church"?
No, this is the correct translation.

Of course it is. Defensor Fidei is the mouthpeice of the son of god. Haven't you people been paying attention?

Sheesh.

No, this is the correct translation.

but aedificabo is not definative...

well aedifico would be the present tense, i think aedificaturus esse is will build

Aedificabo is the future tense version of aedifico, -are, -avi, -atum. Will be building is the correct one.

Aedificabo is the future tense version of aedifico, -are, -avi, -atum. Will be building is the correct one.
thats what I thought....or "I am going to build..."

The shepherds of Palestine wouldn't be watching their flocks by night from about the third week of October, because it's too damn cold to have the sheep out... It's most likely that Jesus was born sometime in August/September ~4 BCE

That's pretty much what I thought, but this argument depends on us accepting the literal truth of the shepherds being present at the birth (were they some kind of substitute midwives?) - anyhow, I'm personally fimrly of the belief that the date of the Birth of Jesus was set so as o capitalise on already pre-existent mid-winter festivals and pagan celebrations.

thats what I thought....or "I am going to build..."

Wouldn't it be somewhat more constructive to go back to the original Greek, rather than a version of the text which has already gone through one translation, and so been shaped by the pressing political and theological issues of the time when it was rendered into Latin?

Wouldn't it be somewhat more constructive to go back to the original Greek, rather than a version of the text which has already gone through one translation, and so been shaped by the pressing political and theological issues of the time when it was rendered into Latin?

Of course, as Saint DF says, the Latin Vulgate is the "true" version, and the original Greek versions are obivously fake...

Of course, as Saint DF says, the Latin Vulgate is the "true" version, and the original Greek versions are obivously fake...

The Latin Vulgate was authorized by the Holy See and according to Church without error, whereas the original greek manuscripts weren't...so the LV has more wieght when it comes to theological matters than the greek version. And believe it or not , there is a logic behind this madness, you see if the Roman Church accepted the greek versions it would also have to accept that the Greek Church is correct in its interpetation of scripture...and it can't do that.

The Latin Vulgate was authorized by the Holy See and according to Church without error, whereas the original greek manuscripts weren't...so the LV has more wieght when it comes to theological matters than the greek version. And believe it or not , there is a logic behind this madness, you see if the Roman Church accepted the greek versions it would also have to accept that the Greek Church is correct in its interpetation of scripture...and it can't do that.

Well, everyone has to bend reality a little to stay around. Even if the RCC authorized the LV, it still could have some translational inaccuracies.

Of course, as Saint DF says, the Latin Vulgate is the "true" version, and the original Greek versions are obivously fake...

No to be fair to him, he claims that the Vulgate is an 'inerrant' translation, thus both it and the original Greek have the same truth-value.*






* However, he did seem to imply that the Nova was somehow less inerrant than the Clementina.

POPE LEO X

jk

Wouldn't it be somewhat more constructive to go back to the original Greek, rather than a version of the text which has already gone through one translation, and so been shaped by the pressing political and theological issues of the time when it was rendered into Latin?
We have no way of understanding the original Greek meanings.

because nobody at all understands greek anymore of course

We have no way of understanding the original Greek meanings.

Why? We seem to do perfectly well understanding contemporaneous Greek texts, no?







(leaving aside the issue that most of Jesus's utterances would have been translated from Aramic...)

because nobody at all understands greek anymore of course
Correct.

Correct.

Ah, so those linguistic specialists working with Koine Greek are just making up stuff off the top of their heads?



EDIT: funny how the first three results that come up when I do a Google search on 'koine greek' are connected to courses dedicated to teaching it. Doubtless it is all part of some fiendish conspiracy...

Ah, so those linguistic specialists working with Koine Greek are just making up stuff off the top of their heads?
St. Jerome has 1600 years on any modern "translation." He was totally fluent in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin and was very competent in Aramaic and Syriac. He knew the languages of the Bible that were actually in use in his own time. He also had access to many documents and other references that have since been long lost- frozen in time only in his Ghostly protected Latin Vulgate. The conditions CANNOT be replicated by any modern "textual criticism" or "dynamic translation," nor from some form of a "linguistic specialist," as you put it. The original Greek has become corrupted over the centuries. There is no way to understand the full meaning of Scriptures than through the Vulgate of St. Jerome.

St. Jerome has 1600 years on any modern "translation." He was totally fluent in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin and was very competent in Aramaic and Syriac. He knew the languages of the Bible that were actually in use in his own time. He also had access to many documents and other references that have since been long lost- frozen in time only in his Ghostly protected Latin Vulgate. The conditions CANNOT be replicated by any modern "textual criticism" or "dynamic translation," nor from some form of a "linguistic specialist," as you put it.

What we have at present that was not available to past times is a comprehensive collection of koine greek texts: we are no longer bound by handmade copies, and so it is possible to produce an overview of the entire language and its development and peculiarities which would not have been available to the original translators into Latin.

The original Greek has become corrupted over the centuries. There is no way to understand the full meaning of Scriptures than through the Vulgate of St. Jerome.

Note the distinction I made between Koine Greek and modern or attic Greek. I am not claiming that Koine Greek is identical to the form of the language currently widespread.

What we have at present that was not available to past times is a comprehensive collection of koine greek texts: we are no longer bound by handmade copies, and so it is possible to produce an overview of the entire language and its development and peculiarities which would not have been available to the original translators into Latin.

Note the distinction I made between Koine Greek and modern or attic Greek. I am not claiming that Koine Greek is identical to the form of the language currently widespread.
So modern -day "translators" can make up their own texts and come up with their own dictionaries of meanings for Koine Greek?
St. Jerome lived in the times. He had access to originals.
These protestants live either to further an agenda, money, or both.

Is Defensor Fidei really Tenete Traditiones? Those anti-semetic bastards sound an awful lot alike

So modern -day "translators" can make up their own texts and come up with their own dictionaries of meanings for Koine Greek?
...
These protestants live either to further an agenda, money, or both.

Are you implying that no Catholic ever reads the original koine greek texts?


The very acceptance of the Vulgate Nova by the Catholic Church as a a valid translation of the koinos Greek (started in what 1907...?) shows that the gulf between St Jerome and the modern world is not as wide as you like to make out.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but this new translation was instigated by Pope Pius X, whom you describe as a "Latter-day Crusader against the errors of Modernism"... wasn't it?

The Greek Orthodox Church has done a pretty good job of preserving copies that can trace their lineage back to the 4th century, wouldn't those copies be more authorative than the Vulgate?

Are you implying that no Catholic ever reads the original koine greek texts?


The very acceptance of the Vulgate Nova by the Catholic Church as a a valid translation of the koinos Greek (started in what 1907...?) shows that the gulf between St Jerome and the modern world is not as wide as you like to make out.
Nova Vulgata is not a valid Catholic translation.

Is Defensor Fidei really Tenete Traditiones?

Draw your own conclusions... you might alsowant to have a look at these nations emboldened who voted for different Popes in the poll:



Pope Innocent III - Defensor Fidei, Imperialist Aggression, Psov

Pope Gregory IX - Harrylandia, Kinda Sensible people, Tenete Traditiones II

Pope Saint Pius V - Jemell, Teutonberg

Nova Vulgata is not a valid Catholic translation.

Is this assertion based solely on the date of its acceptance in the Vatican?

Is this assertion based solely on the date of its acceptance in the Vatican?
Freemasons hijacked it well in advance of its 1979 acception by the N.O.

Freemasons hijacked it well in advance of its 1979 acception by the N.O.

Evidence for this assertion?

Evidence for this assertion?
Annabale Bugnini and the N.O. come to mind...

And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church...

Or, alternatively:

Above this 'rock', I will 'build' my assembly... which would mean that Jesus specifies that Peter is less important than the assembly of Jeus' followers.

A classic example of Jesus putting Peter in his place, which the 'christian' church has twisted to a different meaning, to make out that THEIR 'man' was some kind of favourite... and thus justify their existence.

No to be fair to him, he claims that the Vulgate is an 'inerrant' translation, thus both it and the original Greek have the same truth-value.*

* However, he did seem to imply that the Nova was somehow less inerrant than the Clementina.

Of course, Saint DF has chosen to ignore the fact that I have posted a direct contradiction from scripture... one that exists in both the Greek and the Hebrew.

How does the 'Church' then rationalise the one as superior, when both are errant?

I don't know about the 'Church', but I predict DF will say that the English translation is the *correct* one, and for that matter, his chosen English translation.
:p

Which is, of course, why he always refuses to answer any of the questions I post him.

He can be a convincing 'troll', but cannot actually defend his assumed position.

Shame really... I wanted to see him explain how Jesus was in Cana, AND wandering in the wilderness at the same time...

I mean, couldn't he at least take the mystic route and say Jesus was capable of bilocation?
:D

:D

At least then, he'd be making some effort...

I really do wonder what it is he think he's getting out of this experience?

The way I feel, if you come into the situation knowing nothing, and you leave knowing nothing... what have you gained?

Maybe he gets Air-miles for his postcount or something? :)

What?! The greatest pope EVAR is so obviously Alexander VI, he so clearly demonstrates what every Christian should strive to be. :)

The greatest fella to bring about the glory of God and His Church? Well, apart from the obvious choice of Jesus, I would say Martin Luther, because without him, many of us would still be listening to Latin sermons and wondering what on earth is going on. We would also not be able to read our own bibles, or even own one. Thanks Luther!

The greatest fella to bring about the glory of God and His Church? Well, apart from the obvious choice of Jesus, I would say Martin Luther, because without him, many of us would still be listening to Latin sermons and wondering what on earth is going on. We would also not be able to read our own bibles, or even own one. Thanks Luther!
That makes no sense whatsoever.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

Well, for a long time, mass was done in Latin, and most people didn't know what they were saying.

Well, for a long time, mass was done in Latin, and most people didn't know what they were saying.
The Mass is universally in Latin, and Catholics know very well what is occuring at the Mass. A sign of the Church....

On the subject of translating the original Biblical texts:

We have no way of understanding the original Greek meanings.

So, you are implying that when...

Pope Saint Pius X(1903-14): Latter-day Crusader against the errors of Modernism

...comissioned the new translation in 1907 he was being an absolute fool?

On the subject of translating the original Biblical texts:

So, you are implying that when...

...comissioned the new translation in 1907 he was being an absolute fool?
Nova Vulgata was not intended to be an entirely new translation.

It's Peter for me.

Nova Vulgata was not intended to be an entirely new translation.

Irrelevant: the intention was still to go back to original sources and address points where St Jerome may have been in error - thus Pope Saint Pius X must have believed it possible to still understand the orignal Greek meanings.

Irrelevant: the intention was still to go back to original sources and address points where St Jerome may have been in error - thus Pope Saint Pius X must have believed it possible to still understand the orignal Greek meanings.
No, it was to update Jerome's Latin text in accordance with Tradition, not to completely re-translate the Greek.

Irrelevant: the intention was still to go back to original sources and address points where St Jerome may have been in error - thus Pope Saint Pius X must have believed it possible to still understand the orignal Greek meanings.

Which does, of course, mean that even the Catholic 'church' understood that the original translations were open to errors.

Makes me wonder why a (so-called) catholic is here arguing the Vulgate translation as inerrant, when the catholic 'church' allows that it could be flawed.

Which does, of course, mean that even the Catholic 'church' understood that the original translations were open to errors.

Makes me wonder why a (so-called) catholic is here arguing the Vulgate translation as inerrant, when the catholic 'church' allows that it could be flawed.

Well, they allowed that it was possibly flawed, or that its inerrancy was in doubt.

No, it was to update Jerome's Latin text in accordance with Tradition, not to completely re-translate the Greek.

So, despite the fact that St Jeromes text was an inerrant, entirely faithful tradition of the original texts, it was somehow wrong because it was not in line with Tradition?

Well, they allowed that it was possibly flawed, or that its inerrancy was in doubt.
The original text is inerrant, it simply would serve better to have a version with the evolving Latin tongue to make doctrines easier to understand in the modern day.

Well, they allowed that it was possibly flawed, or that its inerrancy was in doubt.

I did say "could be flawed"...

But, it certainly is errant... still waiting for DF to explain Jesus being in two places at once, three days after his baptism.

PS

Here's the list of ALL 265 popes so far

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

I did say "could be flawed"...

But, it certainly is errant... still waiting for DF to explain Jesus being in two places at once, three days after his baptism.
There is no contradiction.

There is no contradiction.

Very well, then.

Explain to me why one biblical verse put's Jesus at a wedding in Cana, three days after the baptism (which, you said was why catholics worship Mary)...

and yet, another verse says that Jesus left his baptism to "immediately" wander in the wilderness for "forty" days?

The original text is inerrant, it simply would serve better to have a version with the evolving Latin tongue to make doctrines easier to understand in the modern day.


The head of the Commission of Revision of the Vulgate appointed by Pius X seems to have held very different opinions:

"It is consequently the aim of the present commission to determine with all possible exactitude the Latin text of St. Jerome and not to produce any new version of the Latin Scriptures. Of course it is altogether another matter to determine how far St. Jerome was correct in his translation: to settle this will no doubt be the work of some future commission."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15515b.htm

Thus the inerrancy is in doubt.

Very well, then.

Explain to me why one biblical verse put's Jesus at a wedding in Cana, three days after the baptism (which, you said was why catholics worship Mary)...

and yet, another verse says that Jesus left his baptism to "immediately" wander in the wilderness for "forty" days?
So, there is no contradiction. What is "immediately" supposed to mean?

So, there is no contradiction. What is "immediately" supposed to mean?

Webster's New World Dictionary defines immediately as "1. not separated in space; closest. 2. without delay; instant. 3. next in order or relation. 4. direct; firsthand.

This shows that one of the gospel writers got his dates wrong. Was Jesus tempted first, or did he change water into wine first?

Webster's New World Dictionary defines immediately as "1. not separated in space; closest. 2. without delay; instant. 3. next in order or relation. 4. direct; firsthand.

This shows that one of the gospel writers got his dates wrong. Was Jesus tempted first, or did he change water into wine first?
Immediately is not in there. You have presented corruption.

Immediately is not in there. You have presented corruption.

KJV Mark 1:12-And immediately the Spirit driveth him into the wilderness.

NIV Mark 1:12-At once the Spirit sent him out into the desert.

NAB Mark 1:12-At once the Spirit drove him out into the desert.

NLT Mark 1:12-Immediately the Holy Spirit compelled Jesus to go into the wilderness.

Latin Vulgate Mark 1:12-et statim Spiritus expellit eum in desertum

Really?

Latin Vulgate Mark 1:12-et statim Spiritus expellit eum in desertum

Really?

And here is DF's beloved Clementina:

Marcus 1:12 Et statim Spiritus expulit eum in desertum

KJV Mark 1:12-And immediately the Spirit driveth him into the wilderness.

NIV Mark 1:12-At once the Spirit sent him out into the desert.

NAB Mark 1:12-At once the Spirit drove him out into the desert.

NLT Mark 1:12-Immediately the Holy Spirit compelled Jesus to go into the wilderness.

Latin Vulgate Mark 1:12-et statim Spiritus expellit eum in desertum

Really?
Your definition is corrupt.

Your definition is corrupt.

So immediately doesn't mean at that moment, right then, at once?

What dictionary are you using?

Your definition is corrupt.

So, what does 'STATIM' mean?

Immediately is not in there. You have presented corruption.

Mark 1:12 : "Kai Euthos Pneuma Ekballo Autos Eis Eremos"

From the Greek, literally : "And, Immediately, (the) Spirit (of god) driveth him into wilderness"

Mark 1:12: "et statim Spiritus expellit eum in desertum"

From the Latin, literally: "And, immediately, (the) Spirit (of god) driveth him in(to) the wilderness".

Explain it, for me, DF.

Both the original Greek AND the Latin, say you lie.

I'm surprised I didn't point this out earlier, but what does Defensor mean when he says that we don't know the meaning of the original Greek translation of the Bible? There are tons of translations of Greek literature written before Jesus. Also, Defensor, you know that the Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew, right?

I'm surprised I didn't point this out earlier, but what does Defensor mean when he says that we don't know the meaning of the original Greek translation of the Bible? There are tons of translations of Greek literature written before Jesus. Also, Defensor, you know that the Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew, right?
What does this have to do with anything?

I'm pointing out that it makes no sense to consider the Vulgate the best translation of the Bible since what it is translating still exists in the first place

I'm pointing out that it makes no sense to consider the Vulgate the best version of the Bible since it is a translation and what it is translating still exists in the first place- Greek and Hebrew versions will always be better since they are the originals.

sorry, didn't mean to double post

What does this have to do with anything?

It means half of your holy text was written by those damn dirty Jews. Don't forget, Jesus was a Jew.

It means half of your holy text was written by those damn dirty Jews. Don't forget, Jesus was a Jew.

I've tried pointing this, and many other things out to him in other discussions... It's like talking to a brick wall.

He's basicly re-written half of history in his head.

Skim through his messages some time. It's like reading a bad alternate history novel. It's chock full of internal inconsistancies, and he basicly never backs up anything he says, and when he does, it's often just as warped as what he said in the first place.

He also loves to throw around quotes in latin, because he knows that 99% of the readers have no idea what they mean, and thus it makes him look educated, and he can interpret freely, at least until somebody who actually knows latin shows up. The fact that he thinks latin is the root language for english displays a fundamental lack of knowledge of linguistics in general, and latin in specific.

I wouldn't mind if he'd actually back up his views with something other than pure ego - I'm the first to admit that history is a consensual delusion - but his fallback position seems to be "I believe I'm right, so I win" or "the version of the bible that I like says so, and you don't know latin and thus can't contradict me, so there".

Sorry, but the earth is the center of the universe and the sun revolves around it.
This statement proves your insanity and stubbornness. The Pope CAN be wrong! And what percentage of people that you've met actually share your views? This interests me, because I thought ultra-ultra-wacko-Catholicism was pretty rare...

This statement proves your insanity and stubbornness. The Pope CAN be wrong! And what percentage of people that you've met actually share your views? This interests me, because I thought ultra-ultra-wacko-Catholicism was pretty rare...
"Ultra-ultra-wacko-Catholicism?":confused:

"Ultra-ultra-wacko-Catholicism?":confused:

That would be when you choose to play up certain aspects of catholic doctrine, disregard other parts, and flat-out make up a bunch of other stuff.

That would be when you choose to play up certain aspects of catholic doctrine, disregard other parts, and flat-out make up a bunch of other stuff.
Which I have done not.

Which I have done not.

Except when you debate over the definition of immediately, like Clinton debating over the meaning of is.

It's fun to have a pet troll. This is the best Christmas ever!

And they have done not.

ah yes like people didnt die in the inquisition or the crusades *rolls eyes* lets not forget the popes who fornicated and commited adultry.

lets not forget you who dont consider heatens your equals and love them as much as your fellow "orothodox" christians.

soooo,YOUR a heathen.

Which I have done not.

Maybe in the fantasy-land world you live in.

In the world the rest of us live in, jesus was a jew, the jews and freemasons don't run the world, and the catholic church admits to having caused the deaths of quite a few people, mostly in the dark ages. Just to name a few of the differances.

Well, it has got to be quite obviously our first Holy Father, Pope Saint Peter.

He is one of the most important Saints and Jesus Christ personally chose Peter to set up the Holy Catholic Church. He is by far the most important.

I also believe Pope Saint Pius V to be a very important Saint, despite the errors of Vatican II (in some but not all areas).

I also believe Pope Saint Pius V to be a very important Saint, despite the errors of Vatican II (in some but not all areas).
Despite the errors? Most doctrines of Pope Saint Pius V would condemn many of the N.O. apostate errors centuries prior to their culmination in the Smoke of Satan that entered through the so-called "Vatican II."

Maybe in the fantasy-land world you live in.

In the world the rest of us live in, jesus was a jew, the jews and freemasons don't run the world, and the catholic church admits to having caused the deaths of quite a few people, mostly in the dark ages. Just to name a few of the differances.
Stop with your absurd deceitful propaganda.

Stop with your absurd deceitful propaganda.

How does one become a Catholic then?

How does one become a Catholic then?
Baptized in Father, Son and Holy Ghost through the Holy Catholic Church.

Baptized in Father, Son and Holy Ghost through the Holy Catholic Church.

So where would I go for this? The local catholic church?

So where would I go for this? The local catholic church?
Yes, and begin the process of conversion. Make sure it is an actual Catholic Church, and not a Judeo-Protestant/ Modernist front calling itself "catholic."

Yes, and begin the process of conversion. Make sure it is an actual Catholic Church, and not a Judeo-Protestant/ Modernist front calling itself "catholic."

Well how can I tell? They all say "Catholic" on the outside.

Well how can I tell? They all say "Catholic" on the outside.
Oh, believe me, you can tell....

Oh, believe me, you can tell....

No, I can't. I've met Cardinal Dulles, should I go to him for advice.

No, I can't. I've met Cardinal Dulles, should I go to him for advice.
Usually you can tell simply from the outside of the structure. Otherwise-
When you enter, you will either see a Catholic altar or you will not. The Catholic Mass will also be in Latin...

And what does the ecumenist Dulles have to do with this discussion?

Usually you can tell simply from the outside of the structure. Otherwise-
When you enter, you will either see a Catholic altar or you will not. The Catholic Mass will also be in Latin...

And what does the ecumenist Dulles have to do with this discussion?

Well Dulles is an ordained Catholic Cardinal. His authority comes from the Pope.

Well Dulles is an ordained Catholic Cardinal. His authority comes from the Pope.
Dulles is a modernist who denies extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Dulles is a modernist who denies extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Nevertheless his authority, as does the authority of all Catholic Priests, comes from the current Pope. He is no less legitimate than any other Preist.

Nevertheless his authority, as does the authority of all Catholic Priests, comes from the current Pope. He is no less legitimate than any other Preist.
What makes you so sure of all of this?

What makes you so sure of all of this?

Do not all Priests derive their position from the authority of the Vicar of Rome? Is that not whence their authority is derived?

Do not all Priests derive their position from the authority of the Vicar of Rome? Is that not whence their authority is derived?
All Catholic priests derive their authority from God through His Vicar.

Now where did this topic come from?

All Catholic priests derive their authority from God through His Vicar.

Now where did this topic come from?

That's what I said, is it not? Thus Cardinal Dulles has at least as much authority as any other Catholic Priest. Indeed, as a Cardinal he surely has more.

That's what I said, is it not? Thus Cardinal Dulles has at least as much authority as any other Catholic Priest. Indeed, as a Cardinal he surely has more.
Whether he is today a Catholic priest is uncertain. Though he is a Jewsuit...

What does any of this matter?

Whether he is today a Catholic priest is uncertain. Though he is a Jewsuit...

What does any of this matter?

It matters because he has no more, or less, authority than any other Priest.

If I cannot go to him, I can go to no-one.

It matters because he has no more, or less, authority than any other Priest.

If I cannot go to him, I can go to no-one.
While his status as an orthodox Catholic is highly disputable, I am really failing to see the point of arguing over the validity of Dulles, since he actually has been irrelevant to any discussion so far, except for you sneaking his name in for no apparent reason.

While his status as an orthodox Catholic is highly disputable, I am really failing to see the point of arguing over the validity of Dulles, since he actually has been irrelevant to any discussion so far, except for you sneaking his name in for no apparent reason.

Well then who is an orthodox Catholic? Who does have the authority to perform baptism? I mention Dulles because he is the only Catholic we both know, I could mention the name of a local Preist, but you would not know him.

As a larger point, if the authority of the current Pope is compromised, is not the authority of all Preists compromised, thus making baptism impossible.

Well then who is an orthodox Catholic? Who does have the authority to perform baptism? I mention Dulles because he is the only Catholic we both know, I could mention the name of a local Preist, but you would not know him.

As a larger point, if the authority of the current Pope is compromised, is not the authority of all Preists compromised, thus making baptism impossible.
No, baptism is by God through the Church.

No, baptism is by God through the Church.

So you could baptize me then?

So you could baptize me then?
No, a valid water baptism is required, a sacred Sacrament of God.

No, a valid water baptism is required, a sacred Sacrament of God.

Why can't you do it?

Why can't you do it?
I am not a priest of God!

so defensor,what if theres no cathlic church within a hundred miles of someone.how do they get saved hmmmmmm?

so defensor,what if theres no cathlic church within a hundred miles of someone.how do they get saved hmmmmmm?
Golly me, a whole hundred miles? :rolleyes:
They got no hope... :rolleyes:

Golly me, a whole hundred miles? :rolleyes:
They got no hope... :rolleyes:

i ment orothodox defensor.im sure theres one near me,just prolly not one with your views.

i ment orothodox defensor.im sure theres one near me,just prolly not one with your views.
I really cannot understand what you have said.

I am not a priest of God!

Well who is, and how is one ordained as such without the authority of a sitting Pope.

Well who is, and how is one ordained as such without the authority of a sitting Pope.
A bishop...

A bishop...


Are not bishops ordained through Papal authority.

I really cannot understand what you have said.

you have claimed the vatican is not the catholic church.the church of peter,now i ask you.how am i supposed to find a church of peter(i think this term works for now) when they are quite nearly extinct.

and since one can only be saved by a orthodox church yes.isnt this quite the counondrum.

Are not bishops ordained through Papal authority.Quite definitely they are. Jesus said [Jn 8:28] “I do nothing on my own authority but speak thus as the Father taught me.” So, too, the bishop does nothing on its own authority, but speaks only as the pope teaches and directs, because his authority completely derives from the pope. The bishop has authority to the extent that he is in union with the pope.
http://www.secondexodus.com/html/catholicdefinitions/bishop.htm
If there is no true pope, there can be no true bishops. Without a true Catholic pope, no member of the Catholic clergy has any authority, because the pope derives his authority from god/God/Jehova/wossname and then passes on that authority to the clergy. Without the pope the authority is not distributed, and not a single member of the Catholic clergy has authority.

[Can I get a "Shut up heretic", please?]