Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
General Discussion Forum / Re: Mass Killings
« Last post by Amo on Today at 12:40:55 »
Barb -
Quote
The Church's position on self-defense:
An initial point of reference is found in the Gospel of Luke, where our Lord indicates the legitimacy of the right to self-defense, telling the disciples, “Let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one” (Luke 22:36).

In a modern context, the Catechism of the Catholic Church acknowledges the right to use lethal force in self-defense, including on behalf of others, when the use of this force is moderate—i.e., when it is not practical to use less force (CCC 2264-2265).
2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

    If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.66

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.


The Catechism does not specify the means by which one may use lethal force in self-defense, but this may be inferred: If you are in a situation where the only effective means you have of defending your life (or that of another) is a gun, then you may use it.
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/what-does-the-church-say-about-gun-control

As in so many other cases, your unreasoning hatred of Catholics has deluded you into believing foolish misconceptions about them.

The Catholic article I quoted from a Catholic news service itself, addressed the info you quoted above. It therefore addresses or answers nothing I presented to you or asked you. Your false accusation of hate against Catholics creating my misconception concerning their true stance on private gun ownership, is once again built upon a false premise and narrative which exists in your own mind alone. I quoted a Catholic article from a Catholic news agency, you nitwit. How does that equate to personal misconceptions based upon Catholic hate? It was a public article written by a Catholic, published by a Catholic news agency. Get a grip man. Quit creating false narratives or premise for questions and or issues you have no good answers for.

The link and article you provided either did not know about the statements the Catholic published and written article I quoted referenced, or deliberately chose to ignore them. It danced around the issue of one of the official statements it did quote, concerning strict enforcement of strict gun laws. Here is the quote -

Quote
The only statement from a body connected with the Holy See that I have been able to obtain (and it took some doing to get it, because it is not on the Vatican website) is found in The International Arms Trade: An Ethical Reflection, a 1994 document by the Pontifical Commission for Justice and Peace (PCJP). Under the heading “Furnishing Arms to Groups That Are Not States,” the document says:

It is urgent to find an effective way to stop the flow of arms to terrorist and criminal groups. An indispensible measure would be for each State to impose a strict control on the sale of handguns and small arms. Limiting the purchase of such arms would certainly not infringe upon the rights of anyone (4:8).

This document does not address the question of handguns and small arms (rifles, etc.) except under the rubric of keeping them out of the hands of terrorists and criminal organizations. It thus does not engage the broader self-defense question.

The quoted statement is regarding “Furnishing Arms to Groups That Are Not States". Individual citizens compose a group of people who are not themselves the State. Imposing strict control on the sale of handguns and small arms to citizens which are not the state therefore, would be imposing the same upon them. This would and does most certainly infringe upon the rights of all citizens. The article I quoted clearly pointed out, that the Vatican believes in disarming all citizens of developed nations or states which have a standing military and police force. The article you quoted dances around the issues just like you do. Which is why you referenced it, no doubt.

Amo quoted from Barb - As others have already stated, you either have serious reader comprehension issues, or ignore what others have stated altogether to create a dialogue which exists within your own mind alone.

Barb -
Quote
I suppose if you loved God more than you hate Catholics, you wouldn't have those comprehension issues.   The Catechism is the doctrine of the Catholic Church.   You just don't want it to be so.   We all see that but there it is.    In case you were also misled about that...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catechism_of_the_Catholic_Church

More self created false narrative on your part. Same old Catholic hate crap, because I disagree with the leaders of your churches stance on handguns. You’re not just like the left, you are the left. Any and all who disagree with you, therefore also hate you, and therefore also must be wrong. You create your own false narratives, which you then use to avoid answering questions which would reveal your faulty position.

The comprehension issue which you have reversed in your own mind as well, was in relation to you not me. You must pretend not to hear or read certain questions, or reverse them in this case, in order to avoid actually answering them. As others on these boards have and are pointing out. 

Amo quoted by Barb - Police crossing a line is not an issue when serving tyrannical government. They already crossed the line by deciding to serve tyrannical government, or remaining in its service when it becomes one.

Barb -
Quote
So Danish police "crossed the line" when they and Danish Nazis tipped off Danish Jews about deportations, allowing most of them to escape?   I don't think so.   Did the centurian whom Jesus praised for his great faith,"cross the line" by serving in Caesar's army?   C’mon.

Now above you are creating a false narrative of the exception to the rules, defining the rules. C’mon. Just because you talk to people like they are idiots, doesn’t mean they are. As if Hitler and all the other tyrannical leaders throughout history did all they did without overwhelming military and police support. That idea in and of itself is idiotic. Are you really suggesting such? What, was it OK that all the Jews had to escape their homes because some people warned them to do so? Is this what you are suggesting? Just exactly what are you trying to say, in your above reference? Please do expound.

Amo quoted by Barb - you are avoiding the subject of tyrannical government because as a Catholic, you belong to an institution which has historically supported many of the same,

Barb -
Quote
You actually think Luther, Cromwell, and Calvin committed those killings (or in Luther's case advised others to do it) when they were Roman Catholics? 

More false Barb created narrative. I said nothing about Luther, Calvin, or Cromwell. You inserted them to avoid the topic of your own denominations sins. You will not find me supporting Christians killing anyone for disagreeing with them. I guess this is why you make such up in your own mind, and then present it here as my thoughts or expression to distract and misdirect the conversation. No one else’s sins, can excuse the sins of the Catholic church or any other for that matter.

As this response is already long enough, I will finish the rest of my response in my next post. Barb has opted to quote a previous Pope’s words from 56 years ago, in an attempt to convey what I perceive as a false narrative concerning the Vaticans real political views and intentions. It will therefore be necessary to use the words other Pope’s, Doctrinal Notes, and writings throughout history to reveal these hidden as it were intentions. This will no doubt be somewhat lengthy.
2
The 90’s were a prophetic no-man’s-land for predictions of this magnitude, compared to the cataclysmic years preceding AD 70.
The 90's were very significant.  They saw a coordinated, systematic separation of Christianity from Judaism.

With the Sadducees disempowered by the removal of the temple cult, and the Essene community destroyed by Rome, only the Pharisees and Christians remained.  The Pharisees successfully changed Judaism to center on the synagogue (rather than the temple).  They then took captive the text of the Bible itself, by first insisting upon the use of Hebrew (nearly-a-dead language at the time) and then setting themselves up as the only ones who could interpret it.  The construction of a system of commentaries on the Tanach began that lasted for several hundred years.

Rabbi Akiba came to power.  His influence cannot be overstated.  One might say that he founded the modern religion of Judaism.  He certainly was the driving force in driving the wedge between Christians and Judaism that remains to this day.

This is the fulfillment of a large body of prophecy, stretching through both Testaments.

Jarrod
3
Posted by: 3 Resurrections « on: Yesterday at 22:40:55 »
Quote
The truth for the dating of any of these books is found in the text of the books themselves - which has plenty of time-relevant terms to help identify the time of the books’ composition.

Where tradition differs with this internal proof, tradition can be flushed.

John 5:2 speaks of a THEN-PRESENT EXISTENCE of the Bethesda pool and its 5 porches; which filled-up pool and sheep market was still there as the book of John was being written.

“Now there IS at Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool, which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, HAVING five porches.”

 Which dates the book of John to sometime BEFORE AD 70.

I will not contest the dating of John... of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John being after 70AD.

It is demonstrably obvious that this particular book was written when Jesus was still alive.


Likewise with the book of I John, which the writer said was being written in “THE LAST HOUR” (I John 2:18).  If this book truly was written in the AD 90’s, exactly what “LAST HOUR” was being spoken of in those AD 90 years?  The 90’s were a prophetic no-man’s-land for predictions of this magnitude, compared to the cataclysmic years preceding AD 70.

I John 2:18-19 spoke of the already-predicted, single person called “THE Antichrist” coming out of the many antichrists that he said were THEN PRESENT.  Christ had earlier spoken a warning of this coming “false Christs” threat  (Matt. 24:23-26).  This would be a phenomenon taking place while the temple’s “chamber of secrets” was still in existence before its AD 70 destruction (a donation room in the temple for storing anonymous charitable contributions).

As we will disagree on the anti-Christ forever and about Satan's comings and going and being bound, unbound, or whatever... this certainly is not proof of 1 John being written before 70AD.  There is no definitive proof that Satan was permanently bound before 70AD or having been "loosed alittle"... nor is there proof that he was originally bound BC. You talk about twisting a pretzel  ::doh::

I John 2:18-19 spoke of the already-predicted, single person called “THE Antichrist” coming out of the many antichrists that he said were THEN PRESENT.    YES, YES YES.... Very true. And that is simpy because this evil one has come out and has done and will continue to do damage until Satan  is finally brought to an end by God, through Jesus' return.

While the anti-Christ is a person under the spirit Satan. It is my belief that the anti-Christ embodies a system and that the system is ongoing and transferable... if you will... down the ranks until the time of the end.
Not unlike the system of the Papacy. NOT a bunch of people claiming to be Jesus like Louis Farrakhan did.

Therefore, there is no reason to believe that 1 John came before 70 Ad.



II John also wrote warning about this very same, then-present “THE Antichrist” threat, which dates this II John book also to the same period as I John.

Not necessarily so. The "Anti-Christ" threat, as you call it could be well after 70AD and the temple destruction because there is no end to Satan's workings. We have had those today who could be called an anti-Christ simply by claiming to be Jesus.
Louis Farrakhan within the past few years.

III John speaks of the witnessing “strangers” among the church who were evangelizing the Gentiles.  This was written when John was still noting the division between Jews and Gentiles. 

A distinction which is no longer made after the AD 70 destruction of the Judaic nation, priesthood, and its temple.

No proof. This is still being done today.

Every word in 3 John can be thought to be a current reporting of a past happening.

VSs3  3 For I rejoiced greatly, when the brethren came and testified of the truth that is in thee, even as thou walkest in the truth.

I rejoiced when they came That is past tense.

Vs 6 6 Which have borne witness of thy charity before the church: whom if thou bring forward on their journey after a godly sort, thou shalt do well:

7 Because that for his name's sake they went forth, taking nothing of the Gentiles.

they went. Is also past tense. And not indicative that it necessarily was at any time near the date of the writing of this letter.


The book of Revelation is saturated with events that were said to either be “AT HAND” (a present reality), “SOON”, or “ABOUT TO” happen.  As well as certain dated conditions that were then a PRESENT reality for John’s readers just prior to AD 60.

If Revelation (as suggested by some traditional sources) was written in the AD 90’s, again, that 90’s era was a prophetic no-man’s-land, that did not match the magnitude of the cataclysmic era that culminated in the AD 70 destruction in Judea.

Of course not. The prophesies to come are far more in magnitude then the
cataclysmic era ending with a Temple Destruction.


It takes a blinded eye to turn the English (and Greek) language into a pretzel in order to avoid the imminent terms that qualify the entire book of Revelation.  It was written “TO SHOW” to God’s servants what was “*ABOUT TO* HAPPEN HEREAFTER”.

The difference in styles is enough to show that John was writing of the future as if he were an eye witness. Which in fact he was as the Revelation of Christ was giving him an eye view.

Grab a cup of whatever and sit down and digest what is being said in this link.

Destruction of the Temple to the Death of the Apostle John.
The Bible Period by Period — Josiah Blake Tidwell
Epistles of John and Revelation.
The Period of History. This period begins with the fall of the city of Jerusalem, A.D.70, and ends with the death of John, the last of the apostles. We have but little scripture touching the conditions of this period. Indeed, all of it is inferential so far as the scripture is concerned. We may, however, learn much from secular history and tradition.

The Destruction of Jerusalem. Jesus had predicted the fall of this beloved city. Many frightful massacres of Jews had occurred in Judea before the end of the last period, but it was in A.D.70, about two years after Paul's death, that Titus destroyed Jerusalem and the temple and Judaism had its downfall. After this the marks of separation between Christianity and Judaism became more and more distinct. From that time the Jewish religion has never gained ascendancy in any country.

From A.D.70 to A.D.100. The general history of this period has in it little of interest. At the end of the very creditable reign of emperor Vespasian, who was on the throne of Rome when Jerusalem fell, Titus, called "The delight of the human race," reigned in his stead. During his reign occurred that awful eruption of Vesuvius that buried Pompeii. Titus was succeeded by his brother Domitian, who was one of the greatest tyrants that ever ruled in any country. It is generally supposed that John was banished to the Isle of Patmos during the reign of Domitian. After Domitian reigned Nerva and Trojan, the last of which showed great talent and brought back much of the early vigor to the empire. The cyclopedias and histories of Rome will give information about the period.

The Literature of the Period. The history of the Christians in this period is very obscure because of the scanty literature produced in it. What literature we have of these years may be divided into two classes: (1) Scripture books. These are the three epistles of John, which were written at Ephesus a while before his banishment, probably about 80 or 85 A. D., and the Revelation, which was composed while in exile on Patmos about 95 or 96 A. D. (2) Some early Christian writings not included in the canon of the New Testament. Of this class of writings is the Epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians, written about 96-98 A.D., and the Epistle of Barnabas and the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, probably written sometime before A.D.100. This then is a period of transition from the Canonical to the Patristic literature.

Death of John and End of Scripture History. John was on the Isle of Patmos as an exile because of his testimony for Jesus. He seems to have lived until the end of the first century and is said to have met death in a cauldron of boiling oil. The last of the apostles being now dead the canon of the scripture is closed and the power of miracles removed and Christianity left to win its own way by means of the efforts and the prayers of the disciples and the grace which God ordinarily grants to them. Thus ends the scripture history-with a completed revelation and the Christian churches set up as a witness for Christ.

Lessons of the Period. It is difficult to draw, from a period of which we know so little, any certain conclusions. We are perhaps safe in making some observations. (1) Christianity must always make its way against opposition. (2) The Christian faith gives courage and joy in the most trying circumstances. (3) Christianity will finally triumph over its enemies.

For Study and Discussion. (1) From the Bible dictionaries, cyclopedias, etc., study the reigns of the different Roman emperors of this period. (2) Learn something of the nature and contents of the Patristic literature mentioned in this discussion. (3) The four New Testament books of this period.

https://biblehub.com/library/tidwell/the_bible_period_by_period/chapter_xxi_destruction_of_the.htm

I will reply to your next reply to me later....

After I look into
Epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians, written about 96-98 A.D., and the Epistle of Barnabas and the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, probably written sometime before A.D.100. ::tippinghat::
[/size][/color]
4
If only.    As of this morning, there have been 579,951 deaths from COVID-19 in the United States, which has a population of about 320,000,000.    A death rate of about 0.0018.  Or about one in every 552 Americans.

About 32,308,557 Americans have become ill enough with COVID-19 to seek medical care.   That's an infection rate of about 10%.    As opposed to about 0.008% of vaccinated people.   Those data seem like a really good reason to get vaccinated.


I think you have to consider that the administering of vaccines has been very recent, to have stats like this in such a short amount of time is most definitely concerning.
5
Seventh Day Adventist Forum / Re: Judgments Coming on the Cities
« Last post by Hobie on Today at 10:35:37 »
First of all, if you are going to quote something, it is both wise and expedient to post the source.

Your source is "Conflicts in the Last Days" written by Ellen  G. White.  As with most false prophets, her prophecies are not sobering at all because they are completely generalized and have no specific details, so you can never pin them down as to whether the prophecy is true or false.  But ELG made enough prophesies about America, Jerusalem, etc. that were very detailed and we know are false that we know, as fact that she was a false prophet.  So none of her doctrine should be followed or listened to.

If you look carefully, each one has its own source, ie.. Evangelism, 29 (1910) which it this case is in the book "Evangelism" page 29, 1910 edition. So its always good to check carefully before making statements that are incorrect or lacking.
6
Sabbath 6/3/17 Seventh Day Baptist Edgewater, FL  Minister Norm sermon “Worth Studying Again” John 3:16-17, Revelations 20:15



In our text, the definition of the word “world” also means full of inhabitants. God sent His only son Jesus. Whosoever believeth- Believeth means have faith and reliance on Jesus. The people in the Book of Life believe in Jesus. Those who are not found in the Book of Life, will be thrown into Hell. These people are condemned and found guilty. Those who believe shall not perish. Perish means to be destroyed.

 We are to fear God, who is able to both destroy body and soul in hell. We are to worship God in love and not just for fear of Him. God’s love is that no one goes to hell. That is why He sent Jesus. You are not to be a Christian because we are scared of going to hell but you are to be a Christian because you love God.

God sent Jesus not to condemn the world but that thru Him, the world might be saved. Through Jesus the world “might” be saved. Might means it’s either going happen or not going to happen depending on if you decide yes or no. We need to make the decision. Jesus wants our choice to be believing in Him and us going to Heaven.

To summarize, our scriptures mean that God gave Jesus as a gift of salvation to anyone… no matter race, creed, age or gender. They have salvation if they choose to accept Jesus as their savior. Works don’t get you to Heaven! Only Jesus Christ gets you to Heaven! So we should be the “whosoever” in John 16 and accept the Gift of Life in Jesus!

AMEN

7
Since this seems to be turning mostly into a discussion of the dating of Revelation, I will put in my two cents on the matter:

I believe Revelation has two authors.

The first author wrote prior to the 70AD fall of Jerusalem.  He wrote what was more of less a coded book - the contents were not easily understandable.  That was by design, to protect the Christian community from persecution by the Jews.  Passing around a book talking about the evils of the priesthood and God's judgment on the country would have been unpopular.

The second author came back and explained (some of) the images the first author put down.  Judea was already destroyed, the threat of Jewish persecution was greatly reduced, and enough time had passed that the original audience who understood the symbols was passing on.  There was a need to explain what the book actually said to the next generation.

Just a theory, but an educated one.

Jarrod
8
I was looking into which books of the bible were written after 70AD, as the Preterists always have their arguments for that being written before.

This site has a quick list:

http://earlychristianwritings.com/
9
We’ll be lifting you up in prayer for full recovery.
10
Went in for some stents to open some clogged arteries and not quite back up to snuff.  Will come back later.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10