Steve, You Going?

and invite them over, lol. Help clean up America!

Good the American Catholic Church has distanced itself some from the Medievil concepts expressed by this Catholic. Ran across this today while reading some of ex Muslim, now Catholic Walid Shoebat's stuff against Islam.

http://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/m013rpProtestantsChristians.html

Oh, not a Protestant, because my Christianity isn't built on protesting, nor Papal authority, but like the apostle said, "to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. . " Corinthians 2:2
More a Congregationalist (no central authority except Christ the Head) and Reformist (rejection of useless ritual not prescribed by Scripture).

regarding their church is that it's ecumenical. There is a recognition that each and every church that teaches Jesus to be the "promised one" does something that adds to the fullness of the church. Each and every one also does something better than the others and it's together that the word is best spread. You won't hear an official teaching from Catholic clergy that condemns non-Catholics to loss of their souls. You'll hear that from some of the uneducated laity.

In short, while the Catholic church teaches that it's the best equipped to accurately deliver the full "deposit of faith" to all people, it does not claim that any other teaching is of no value. It is better to stay close to those with whom you'd like to share your faith than to distance yourself from them. Either one of two people who share something just might benefit.

the main official church position isn't as that site expressed.

Catholics view Peter as the first Pope, although he certainly wasn't a celibate person, but married. They would do well I think to follow his example.

An important principle was given to John concerning different groups doing God's work. John wanted any acceptance of Jesus, any works, everything to fall under the direct authority of their group.

Mark 9:38

38 And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us. But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is on our part.

Luke chapter 9
49And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us. And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.

Is this the interpretations that you objected to in independent church groups?

http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Davison/Roy/Allen/1940/062-flee.html

The problem with that interpretation is Babylon and those compared to it were always based on Non Judaic religions and even when the Jews were covered in sin, NEVER were they called Babylon as far as I recall, although they were called "******" such as the two sisters Ahollah, and Ahollibah. That refered to them embracing other non Judaic religious groups and religions within their own country, even at times sharing the temple grounds with them.

It's easy to see though why it could be applied to Catholic Church at times in it's history, since many descriptions line up with it. Seven hills she sits on, the church colors mentioned, but it's more than some religious compound. In description it's obviously an economic system also, especially concerned with the business environment, including those traders who used ships to arrive at it's shores. Walid Shoebat believes it refers to Arabia and makes some good arguments concerning it, but I think strains some points more than needed to make a good argument.

The book that was sealed in Daniel, for the time of the end, means either we will know the full meaning, understand what's already been written but "sealed" from our understanding till that day arrives, or it's an actual book that will be found at the proper time, probably from some cave like those at Qumran.

The level of corruption and type described in Rev 18 doesn't match up with the Catholic Church, although the killings, the murders, the religious persecutions at times in it's history can.

However, Satan is behind it and he NEVER gave the Jews his power, he ONLY gave it to those who were not God's people. His aim toward them was corruption first so he could have power then to oppress them, kill them, place them in captivity to a Babylon type power.

There is no reason to believe he'd change his tactics when it came to those who were Christians or professed Christ in any manner. He might make a lying covenant with them as a means to cause their fall, but NEVER share his power to them.

“Come out from among them and be separate, says the Lord. Do not touch what is unclean, and I will receive you” (2 Corinthians 6:17). Is almost a copy of Jeremiah and Isaiah prophecies to the Jews to leave Babylong at the time God provides a way for return to Israel. This means leaving out of a region, away from a totally false system that isn't based on Mosiacal concepts and for us today one that also isn't Christian in any form.

The only beast I know who hates both Jews and Christians is Islam. If so, which group? Sunni's or Shiites? I'm fairly certain the true meaning of it all will be apparent to us at the time. Till then a lot can be surmised, but definite conclusions I don't think can be reached.

Jesus implied that at some point we'd be able to see the day approaching for his return. Too many have thought they had that answer and been wrong. One day I suspect many will clearly understand the time is short, no doubt for believers at all. Till then... we watch...and wait.

That's also often applied against the Catholic church but;

Revelation 13:11 And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.

Daniel 8:20 The ram which thou sawest having two horns are the kings of Media and Persia.

It would seem if we use the bible to interpret the bible, that Iran is involved at the time of the end. Guess who wants the nuclear bomb? Who then can burn others with fire from heaven, a false "wonder" or "miracle".

11 Then I saw a second beast, coming out of the earth. It had two horns like a lamb, but it spoke like a dragon.

This is "out of the earth" not "out of the sea" as one would expect to read if it was referring to the Roman church which was divided into Roman and Orthodox, and claiming the "horns" were from that division. This has to be from another direction from Jerusalem, either north, east, or south.

One has to keep an open mind on it though till the time I believe a majority of Christians will recognize the truth of what's about to happen at the same time.

as having both a literal side and one of imagery and metaphor. That is very much what I was taught and believe. Those who try to impart literal meanings are right only part of the time. Those who use both and are willing to enter the danger zones of interpretative discussion will have a different experience. IMO, God didn't create us as a bunch of robots though it seems to be the passion of some to turn us into such.

I believe the greatest impasse that exists between the Catholic Church and "all others" is concept of "sola scriptura". If we can't get past that, the other "solas" are inconsequential. It is likely very important that the defenders of Christianity outside that of the Catholic church still compare themselves to it and use it as a negative. Let it be so but I don't think there's doubt that Jesus left no personal writings that have been found and that all instruction that we know of came through the old fashioned oral means. We also can read that only a fraction of what Jesus told them is contained in what his apostles wrote to their various communities as they established and attempted to maintain them. We know that Jesus came to establish a church but we've not found written instructions as to how that process was to take place. We, humans, have learned to reject what isn't contained in writing. Wouldn't it have been a gift had the apostles been able to record every word Jesus spoke? So who, if anyone, should have the right to speak on behalf of Jesus after his earthy departure? In the Catholic church, this is where the "apostolic tradition" comes into play. We believe that any such instructions were given to them by word of mouth and that they would pass these instructions along as they taught and established the church in other locations.

I do know of at least on faith claiming it's not a Protestant denomination but the restoration of the original church. I wonder if that means they still go to Temple and meet in their homes later to reenact the "last supper". It would be mean of me to ask.

This may not pass through forum filters but might be where you were going with something. It's just a counter argument to something I've heard more than once about the RC church.

Title. Hunting the H of B from Catholic Answers

This won't be an official writing but the term at the bottom "NIHIL OBSTAT" means that it's been cleared by church authority as having no conflict with its teachings. The biblical world of metaphor is one in which we need to be cautious and make certain all sources are reliable. My guess is that it's a snake pit so watch where you step.

You'd need to replace the ***** with the cnet forbidden one...or unscramble hwreo

Strange that it worked during preview but not after posting.

exposure to Jewish history than I. I won't challenge anyone's knowledge when I know I'm short of weaponry. I am, however, confident that I can get very reliable and realistic answers should I want them.

I have been taught that the disciples did continue Temple traditions for a time but developed some new practices. We do hear that, during a particular rough time of persecution, new "Christian" communities were encouraged to hold on to the traditions they were given by the the disciples. Shall we presume these were new and not old practices? It could seem so. What we don't have is written structured formats that were to be followed. I'd say it's probable that this wasn't in the plan. There are documents some consider valid that were said to have been prepared by the disciples as uniform teaching instruments and tools but these haven't been universally accepted. One such is called the "Didache". You can look it up, read about it, refute it or whatever is your preference.

Back in the 80's about 1987, I purchased the double volume hard copy set of the Double Day publisher's complete works of Charlesworth's translations of pseudographica and each book is fairly large. I read through all those writings over the next few years, but don't remember if I read the Didascalia but I think it's i there, although do remember the Shepard of Hermes, and also the Prayer of Mannessah. Those are mentioned in relation to those volumes here.

Although all of them were interesting, many I felt were as indicated in the notes to be latter day writings, some with a particular doctrinal slant. The one at the time that really jumped out at me as possible inspired and I felt should have been included, at least the most accurate copy that could be derived from the past extant copies was "Book of Enoch" which I also discovered was still used in the Ethiopian Coptic Churches. It's a great text comparison to Revelation in the New Testament to discover the symbolic relationships between them.

Here's a picture of the volumes, someone else has posted online. I purchased them by special order through a bible bookstore, after I'd learned of them while searching bible stuff in a public library. When I saw the collection, I knew I had to have a copy. I don't know if it's been printed since, but if you get the chance to pick up copies, I think you would also enjoy reading through them.

I see that page has a listing of the writings in the 2 Charlesworth volumes. I see he has another listing of extra writings by someone else, many of those I've read also in a book called "The Lost Books of Eden....", this is the copy I have. The "Cave of Treasures" was an unusual and fun read, not due to inspiration, but the interesting look at how some things were considered during the first few centuries still closer to the older traditions.

I have a hard bound interlinear text of the Septuagint which I consult at times since I consider the Masoretic text to be deliberately corrupted in some areas by the post Christian Jewish translator, since he was one and the Septuagint was "the 70 elders" which worked on it, and the Letter of Aristeas is quite informative on that matter. Even without Aristeas, the many uses by the Apostles and Jesus from the Septuagint for scriptural quotes is more than enough to give it all authority needed for it's acceptance, not so for the Masoretic text, which is used for King James version.

Some other books like Young's Concordance (hard cover "blue"), Cruden's concordance, some bible dictionaries (those are fun to read also, some with many images of the places).

That's a lot of reading, and some of it is in dogmatic form which is never fun reading, but does help expand one's understanding and get a better feeling for what the early church was facing in those days, where times it seems many were at odds also with the accepted and newly developing theology, as we've seen already from Gnostic texts.

As we can see even from the Canon of Scripture we accept today, there was some differences between the Judaic Christian church group and the Gentile Christian church groups, and it's only expected there would have been some tensions between those who recently had fled Judea as the Roman army was about to destroy the Temple and Jerusalem till as Christ prophesied "not a stone will be left standing" and as Josephus reports the only thing left which could be recognized later was the Roman garrison, or citadel, which had been on a higher plane above the old city and it's Temple. He also mentioned prior to Temple destruction the Jews had built a higher addition to block the view from the higher garrison which at some point from the garrison walls allowed a view directly into the temple grounds. The garrison had been deliberately built near the temple so they could run soldiers into the area quickly at times if a riot broke out there between various Jewish factions.

I suspect the large area they believe is the former temple grounds is actually where the old Roman garrison was instead, but I don't think anyone can be sure about that, yet.

Jews were forbidden in Jerusalem for a long time after it's destruction, other peoples settled in the area, and was that way for a long time, so by the time first Jews returned, they really wouldn't have known for sure where the old Temple grounds actually were, and this even before the Wars of Mohammed started around 630 AD.

Now that gets off to another subject for another time, on why the African Christian churches accepted Mohammed's rule ahead of the Church in Rome, with which they already had some strong disagreements on authority, who could impose what on other congregations, etc.

I will read through the Didascalia soon enough, see if it's one I read before but under a different name.

On reviewing this thread I see they are still missing an hour later. I hope they do, I spent some time working on them. I think I saved a copy of one, so can repost tomorrow if it fails to come through whatever filters they have blocking it.

I try not to name faiths as I don't find that useful but I will not practices that seem odd to me just as other people note the same in Catholic practice. We all learn differently. One thing I do note is that is that it seems imperative that each faith validate itself by one method or another. It may "raise and praise" itself or "lower and condemn". Either serves the purpose but which is really better?

Don't we do the same in politics? What would happen if Trump suddenly made a sincere and magnanimous gesture toward Hillary and Hillary suddenly praised and idea that "the Donald" came up with? It would throw folks into a tizzy, I think. Why?...because it's important to remain comfortable with our own beliefs. Any suggestion that we might not be correct is something we can't deal with and will "adjust" our own logic to bring us back to that comfort zone.

If it doubles later when Lee sorts through ones that hang up sometimes.....

I've reviewed it again to see if anything would have caused it to hang up, can't see anything other than size, so breaking it into two now.
===================================
PART 1 OF 2

Back in the 80's about 1987, I purchased the double volume hard copy set of the Double Day publisher's complete works of Charlesworth's translations of pseudographica and each book is fairly large. I read through all those writings over the next few years, but don't remember if I read the Didascalia but I think it's i there, although do remember the Shepard of Hermes, and also the Prayer of Mannessah. Those are mentioned in relation to those volumes here.

Although all of them were interesting, many I felt were as indicated in the notes to be latter day writings, some with a particular doctrinal slant. The one at the time that really jumped out at me as possible inspired and I felt should have been included, at least the most accurate copy that could be derived from the past extant copies was "Book of Enoch" which I also discovered was still used in the Ethiopian Coptic Churches. It's a great text comparison to Revelation in the New Testament to discover the symbolic relationships between them.

Here's a picture of the volumes, someone else has posted online. I purchased them by special order through a bible bookstore, after I'd learned of them while searching bible stuff in a public library. When I saw the collection, I knew I had to have a copy. I don't know if it's been printed since, but if you get the chance to pick up copies, I think you would also enjoy reading through them.

I see that page has a listing of the writings in the 2 Charlesworth volumes. I see he has another listing of extra writings by someone else, many of those I've read also in a book called "The Lost Books of Eden....", this is the copy I have. The "Cave of Treasures" was an unusual and fun read, not due to inspiration, but the interesting look at how some things were considered during the first few centuries still closer to the older traditions.

Many groups grab hold of some concept, doctrinalize it, then use it as an excuse to condemn other Christians to accomplish what Paul warned about seeking to draw away disciples after them, to make gain of them. Some of those concepts are so ridiculous and completely different from every other believer that the group will even come up with their own transliteration of Scripture, call it a translation, often done by people who aren't even a scholar of the language, as if such a subterfuge and outright counterfeit "scripture" will justify their doctrines. When you look into history, such as with the Gnostics and their writings, you can see it was a problem from the beginning.

Can't figure out what it is, so linking to the long one in an html page I made of it and put on my server. Didn't keep a copy of the other smaller one which never posted. This one had some google links to books which are pretty long URL's and are forwarded links, so maybe that forwarding in them tripped up the filtering here.

http://glenburniemd.net/CNET/PostInCNETSpeakeasySept23_2015.html

I only studied the history outside of Canonical texts in Bible to try and better understand the times of the first century and what lead up to those days. I do wish the books of the Maccabees were in the KJV at least between the OT and NT as at least "historical texts" since it covers some of that missing 300-400 year period.

The murdering of Christians by Jews in concert with Roman oppression continued till the time of Constantine. The Jews had been permanently banned from Jerusalem, but Jewish Christians were allowed to return to the city eventually, which seemingly enraged the Jews, who in the 6th century teamed with Persia to take the city and they slaughtered many Christians there. It was only a short time later that Mohammed began his wars and slaughtered a number of Jews in Quraysh, which is where Mohammed raped the wife of one Jew the same day her husband had been executed by his band of murderers. Interestingly, it was that same woman who later poisoned him, which caused a decline in his health that was blamed for eventually leading to his death some years after the poisoning.

History can be very interesting when the various bits of it are all tied together in a proper timeline.

Seige of Jerusalem (Aelia Capitolina) in 6th century

"In the Siege of Jerusalem of 614 AD, after 21 days of relentless siege warfare, Jerusalem was captured. Byzantine chronicles relate that the Sassanids and Jews slaughtered tens of thousands of Christians in the city, many at the Mamilla Pool, and destroyed their monuments and churches, including the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. The conquered city would remain in Sassanid hands for some fifteen years until the Byzantine Emperor Heraclius reconquered it in 629."

So, before the Crusades, history....

is that history can be enjoyable to study but the sources and resources are necessarily questionable...especially when we go back far enough where literacy was rare. We have historical writings by folks who have, themselves, read from other historical writings and put together their own view. Even reading from ancient manuscripts has its problems as language changes and particularly the idiomatic forms. What do you think folks hundreds of years from now would interpret a southern writer's words "James, could you please cut off the lights?"

More and more I take historical writings with a grain of salt. You may recall children's chair games where one of which demonstrated how stories change when passed from one ear to the other. After so long, and unless someone records the original, the entire story changes to become a completely different animal. You may have also experienced family stories that do this and quite a few, in order to remain interesting enough to pass on, take on a good number of embellishments. I imagine stories we read and hear of heroes and villains have done the same.

Consider that, long ago, few could read or write. Could this mean that we are missing a huge and important part of our oral history? I think so and the evidence today is clearly in our discussions of the founding of the US. More than once in these forums I've tried to note that it wasn't the writers of our history or those of our first laws that were the real founders. It was those who gave up their homes to come here searching for something better. It is their spirits and desires we should respect but who among us has heard their voices? If Washington, Adams, Jefferson, et al didn't hear and respect them when writing the first documents that created the foundation for law or that we have twisted and changed them to where they are unrecognizable, the efforts of the real founders have been lost.

and didn't see any of it. Could it have been when he was expressing concerns about inequality in the area of wealth? So, could it be that God supports the pope and is showing a sign of approval by taking down the market?