I told you what Vatican I says. When he meets the conditions, his speech is infallible. But he's never infallibly stated that he's met the conditions. There are zero official (ex cathedra) teachings. That's the whole game, and it was discovered by Irish Protestants shortly after Vatican I was first analyzed.
Catholics have always been free to speak against the magisterium up until the hierarchy actually cracks down, and that's true during the first millennium too. The pope could never rein in everybody so instead he (does the same thing as the fake media and the science cabal and) gets everyone to think that only his group is authoritative without ever saying so or proving it.
Funny, when I criticize Catholics for breaking the magisterium, they just tell me (their consciences rule) that they didn't break it, proving my point of private interpretation that seeks to follow and build on tradition. But they've missed that point because they've been blinded to when they're responsible for speaking infallibly (often) versus when the pope is (never). Being my own pope, I know that everything I say is responsible to be as infallible as possible, so I have the greater seriousness in my statements.
I couldn't verify it because I always use scored.co or communities.win. I have just verified that the eraser still works in conspiracies.win, so I'm glad to know that this community, and maybe two or three others with similar styling, still retain the old function. Anyone (everyone) who didn't know that it was still working, didn't see the results.
Yes, and no pope every said any teaching was infallible, they only said some teachings would be infallible if conditions are met but they never told us infallibly that all those conditions have ever been met. Simon didn't say. Not a troll.
To criticize RC for rejecting beliefs held to be infallible misses the point. The correct critique of the RC position is that the popes let everyone think infallible teachings had been issued, and then let them argue freely over how many (one, two, or hundreds), but Simon never said any infallible teachings had been issued. The pope always waits until everyone agrees or is dead and then declares the doctrine, he's much cagier than you give him credit for.
No, according to Vatican I you have to submit to all faith and moral doctrinal teachings with humility.
And as a Protestant I say there are zero faith and moral doctrinal teachings (but you can be a good Catholic and think there's only one in all history).
Besides, how is the covenantal relation of jews to God, or of Muslims and Hindus worshipping the same God as Christians (ecumenism) not a religious teaching?
Simon didn't say!
Canon 720 states that anyone who doesn't submit to teachings taught by a solemn judgment (like papal definition) or by the ordinary and universal magisterium is a heretic.
Sure, but Simon didn't say u/RealWildRanter was a heretic, and neither Orthodox nor Catholics are allowed to make their own judgments and call them the Church's judgment. See how easy it is?
Christmas has been syncretist and is more so today. We had a right to claim the winter solstice for Christ and Nicholas, but we didn't do a clean sweep of that enemy-occupied territory. The Puritans did a much better job by trying to model Thanksgiving after Tabernacles and you'll notice that (though consumerist) isn't pagan.
Hebrew roots students know that Jesus celebrated Hanukkah ("Dedication") and all the Jewish feasts. But Protestants are happy to take the blame for everything as Paul did.
Catholics don't owe complete obedience to the Pope. We do only on religious matters where we believe he to be infallible.
And, as has been pointed out since the 19th century, the Pope never infallibly declared infallibility, even today, so we don't owe the Pope obedience on anything. Catholics disagree how many times the Pope has invoked infallibility, ranging from one to hundreds, so my view of zero is right there in the mix. The fact is that Simon says certain statements are theoretically infallible, but Simon didn't say which statements are infallible, and you have the original game of Simon Says so you ought to know how to play.
"protestant" doesn't mean any schismatic, only those who join Melanchthon, or else you'd be a "protestant" for protesting the 11th-century bishop of Rome.
I think you can only click on your own eraser. If you successfully click on someone else's eraser, please show us the URL you used so we can enjoy the same privilege, thanks.
(Scored used to make the evidence trail clear for self-edits, but it's now obscured, which is why I recommend making self-edits very clear in the text and markup.)
I trust you understand that Orthodox never joined Melanchthon's Protest and that they were Catholic for a full millennium until a schism that Rome apologized for in 1965.
The statement of Nostra Aetate is the commonsense "What happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today." Well, that's basic rejection of collectivism, which I've been explaining here for 5 years without reference to that model. I also added that those who did call for his death were the same group of whom about 2,000 immediately repented in Acts 3-4, so that really breaks up the curse. However, since I do believe there are many national blessings and cursings in the Bible on many nations, it's appropriate to speak of there being a particular national curse invoked by the Jews just as they also partake of certain national blessings; this does not permit prejudicing any individual (such as with the language "you kind"), it merely speaks of demographic likelihoods. You and u/SmithW1984 are using words like "jew" and "jesuit" to mean "person who disagrees with me". I do not think it means what you think it means.
You are free to try to lay out evidence of my shape shifting and what I should do differently in my sole witness for Jesus alone.
as per Nostra Aetate and Lumen Gentium your Church [Catholicism] forbids proselytizing jews because it doesn't classify Judaism as a false religion and holds that they have a functioning covenant with God.
Jumping in, I don't read those that way. As a covenantalist, I agree the Jews have a national covenant with God while believers in Christ are the only heirs of the spiritual covenant with God (which Jews can have on the same terms as anyone else by belief in Christ). The Catholics under Cardinal Pizzaballa are still running the St. James Vicariate out of the LPJ, which evangelizes Jews toward Messianism (Christianity within Hebrew culture), and I understand they simply have a semantic quibble that evangelization is not proselytization. However, I also suggest that Protestants have succeeded the most at this particular segment of the Great Commission, having done the most to understand the culture and treat it as pre-Messianic rather than post-Christian.
The covenantal system allows both Catholics and Protestants to be members of the one body of Christ with unique places, beside the Orthodox, and allows Jews to become members as well without losing any Jewish culture (except for those folk Jewish practices that are so easily read as idolatry that Messianics drop them readily).
I don't know who you mean as a gay Jewish drafter of Nostra Aetate, perhaps you're merely metaphorically referring to Jesuit Augustin Bea.
We've been doing this for thousands and thousands of years, since down to Adam's time
The actual quote above is from an actor identified only as "Rabbi Abe Finkelstein" (hoax #10), who is known only for appearing on the talk show of James Wickstrom, a host who was also jailed for a year for making up invalid titles for himself and others. The conversation tellingly included, "You are a lying Jew." "Eh, you could say that, but even when we lie we tell the truth! .... Remember, there has never been a Jew in the history of the world that ever told a lie. We always tell the truth." The actor was pretty obvious about getting Jewish things wrong like the placement of Adam.
Who's going to get their kids jabbed post-death?
Don't give the liberals any new frazzledrip ideas!
Service within minutes!
Yes, I subvert for Jesus only, the guy that JG5 thinks isn't God the Son. I also participated in the namespace landrush. Let me know if you want in on any of those names, they're all self-determining. JG5 thinks his rent-free earned media advertising is somehow hurting me.
There are no active mods, only the (relatively) inactive admins.
pops some popcorn to go with the Frankfurter theses that Luther's students roasted
Well, thank you for sticking with the conversation doggedly, because that means more for the sake of progress than the specifics do.
You don't seem to be able to fathom that I would think the way I do outside of being indoctrinated by atheists in college.
Let me first apologize if you thought my rhetorical flourish was too much. On the Conspiracies forum it's common to compress arguments into a suggestive close, rather than to spell the detail out, which would run like: Having closely heard all your arguments, I see a similarity of their origin in higher criticism that suggests you've gotten them mostly from the same source, and I politely point out that you're giving off the appearance of (e.g.) relying solely on a bit of college training and of not having that much more experience; and I bring that up to suggest that you might realize there are more arguments in the history of philosophy than the established group of talking points you repeatedly turn to. (If you prefer the longer and less presumptive version in general, I can seek that for you, but some people work well with the speedy rhetoric method.)
Parthenogenesis is not a reasonable or viable explanation for your belief in a virgin female giving birth to a male baby. It'd either have to be a logic defying miracle or some kind of artificial insemination in which a Y chromosome would have been introduced to the egg.
Yes! Rhetorical flourish version would be: Thank you for proving my view of Cain's wife is scientific and I'm so glad we can now move on to Joseph's wife!
The more detailed version would be to focus on the fact that (Cain's wife being an incidental) Christianity has held the virgin birth of Jesus since its foundation and that counts for something. Now, you're right about the science that recently observed parthenogenesis only yields females (or other incomplete genotypes like drones), so I don't use ordinary parthenogenesis alone to explain Mary's pregnancy. Most Christianity is content to leave it a mystery because it totally matches the incarnation doctrine that fits Jesus's character, but I wanted to investigate further, so I found certain details in Bible, history, and science.
First, God's immediate solution to sin in the Mosaic narrative is the "seed of the woman", which is odd because there was no word for egg cells even though it was natural to classify sperm cells as similar to other seed (and to classify the womb as similar to the ground). Women have no "seed". But this is given more detail a couple chapters later (Gen. 6) where it's explained that when "sons of God" take women they generate mighty men (later categorized as giants). While conservative scholars try to read this without supernaturalism, the language and context gives rise to a thriving school of Nephilim studies in which insemination of women by angelic beings is a real explanation. This is supported by many giants passages in the OT, by the book of Enoch, and by Egyptian and Greek mythoi in which there is hardly a more common theme than heroes being begotten of deified spirits and mortal women. The mysterious Jer. 31:22 about a new created order in which a woman "surrounds" a man has also been taken as a statement of the male parthenogenesis unobserved by science. Therefore when Jesus claims God as his Father and himself the one-of-a-kind Son of God, when all are agreed that he was conceived when Mary was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit, when Joseph claims Jesus solely as an adopted son, this type is perfectly compatible with all kinds of anticipation of the true hero of the universe having divine origin.
Further, since there's a very broad (and mainstream) study of theophanies in which God appears in an angelic form (and not always an adult human form), and this is not minority research like the Nephilim theology is, it was well-known in 1st-century Judea that God was free to appear at any time in any form he chose; later theology recognizes all these appearances as the preincarnate Word, the one to be called Jesus. That makes it a very simple process for the very last appearance of this "angel of the Lord" to manifest as a single sperm cell in the womb of Mary. By taking onto himself the egg cell of Mary, the uncreated literally takes part in created flesh (just as he did when he ate meat later), and retains that nature forever as the flesh grows; and that's exactly what Heb. 2:14 says of taking part of flesh. Therefore the doctrine of the virgin birth, time-honored in Christianity, does indeed have sound scientific backing for the physics and theological backing for the spiritual.
I totally respect if you may be unconvinced, but I'm not writing to convince you of my belief, I'm writing to demonstrate to you that I've thought through the problem and the objection you raise does not hit its mark. You are free to continue objecting to Christianity, but it would be irrational to do so on the idea that it's automatically to be dismissed out of hand. If you want to go on believing that Christians aren't scientific, I've done my part to disabuse you. Since all theories of science admit that they are incomplete and that there are areas outside known laws, it's not unscientific to speak of things outside known laws more broadly as Christianity does. I've noted that the Big Bang Planck instant is big enough for Hawking and Hartle to stuff a whole second universe into to make their math work, so it seems reasonable that God would be there too.
You haven't exhibited an understanding of points I've made and where I'm coming from with what I've said.
The core of what you said is "good or bad ... depends upon the context". I raised a couple concerns with how that foundational proposition defeats itself and all built upon it, and haven't heard an answer back. So from my perspective I understand your points far too well, because I see their inadequacies clearly.
There is no coming to a meeting of minds with you and reasoning together when you do not respect that I actually believe what I say I believe, and I believe it other than just because of some kind of indoctrination.
If that if your belief you're free to prove it anytime by ceasing to interact; your interacting indicates you don't believe there is no meeting of minds possible.
I do respect that you believe what you say; and that we all come to our beliefs not only by hearing some of them (which some might uncharitably call indoctrination) but also by building some of them from observation, logic, and analysis. I respect your ability to do that, and I merely warn of the risk of fallacious appeal to authority because I believe you capable of mitigating that risk based on my nudge.
You view me as inherently self-destructive.
I said your view destroys itself logically. You probably know the statement "This statement is false" is meaningless because it destroys itself if it is assigned a truth value. Epimenides the Cretan understood this by saying, sarcastically, "All Cretans are liars"; his statement is incapable of being taken literally and can only have meaning by indirection. Your position ultimately does the same with a bit more sophistication. Either you believe it's logically true, which makes it logically false (if good always depends on context, then there are contexts in which good does not depend on context); or you believe it indicates a paradox by speaking indirectly (in which case there really are things that don't depend on context but you don't state what they are). This of course has nothing to do with you being self-destructive.
You try to put limitations on what I'm allowed and not allowed to talk about, and take it upon yourself to try and teach me lessons.
Nah. If you purport to use logic you can be judged by the (external) rules of logic. If you purport to refuse all bilateral agreement you can be judged by your refusal. Whatever you choose to say, you are answerable for saying. The nature of the universe is such that everything comes down to either irresponsibility (nihilism) or responsibility (truth). I've demonstrated why that happens logically, and the same happens if you wish to use the language of paradox instead of the language of logic. It's just a law of nature, and if you think it isn't you either hear from me that it is or you hear from somewhere else in the universe that it is.
You try to construe it that by merely talking to you that I actually believe as you do.
No, I said that by talking to me you must believe you have a purpose in talking to me, which cuts against your stated idea that there's no purpose in talking to me.
You don't seem to respect me whatsoever.
I respect you so much I trust you want to be shown if I think you're wrong. That's what the wise want.
Your style of Christianity has seen its time to shine, and is naturally fading away as people have been allowed to think for themselves, and aren't limited to the framework people like you want to impose on us all.
Ooh, sounds like a rhetorical flourish to me. I am so libertarian that I totally affirm your freedom to believe whatever you want, including your freedom to be wrong. I simply appeal to whatever part of you wants to be told if you should happen to be wrong. The person who has closed himself off from correction is locked into a sealed fate unless he is able to open his mind again. The wise person speaks freely because if he is wrong he will learn how and where and improve himself. The fact that you close by categorizing me into a "style of Christianity" that you perceive as fading sounds like you're more interested in dismissing (ridiculing) me than in debating with agreed ground rules in the joint search for truth. But I'm always here and it's never too late in this life to apprehend more truth.
JEWS HATE US!!!!!
Where is the evidence that Jewish babies hate you? Why do you treat Jewish babies exactly the same as you say Jews treat Gentile babies? That sounds Jewish. If you could clear that up it might cement a hole in your philosophy.
Hey Flex, I was trying to agree with you, I try to when I can.
I love looking into real evidence of Atlantis, it'll probably go somewhere sometime, but when people put out dubious numbers without backing, and it seems to me that the only reason for saying "12,000" is that Leo was in the right place, I try to steer away from that data and go to real elite research. Since you've said your other source is the Sadlers and they let through some freshman howlers in their "science" writing, I don't know that we can count on their chronology.
Around 300 BC, Crantor the peripatetic went to Sais, Egypt, to verify Plato's story about Atlantis, and the priests of Osiris and Neith referred him to their ancient records as confirming all of it, which is consistent with what might be the true branch of the narrative. However, Plato's dating is likely symbolic and the original Egyptian dating would have been exaggerated, as Atlantis could not be much earlier than the First Dynasty (Menes). I like the idea of Atlas being the oldest of ten siblings, but that is probably distorted from the Egyptian archetype whose name would be different from the Greek word for Suffering. When I find that archetype I'll be happy to report back.
So, while I appreciate and continue encouraging your framing things to keep away from the less founded material, I'm disappointed when I reach out to you with friendship and are charged that I'm entertaining an enemy agent. (Note, I wrote this prior to analyzing your other post but it didn't get loaded until now. The other strays a bit more from verifiable history but I still respect that you're trying to analyze how Judaism got off its original track so don't take it as other than constructive criticism.)
I don't defend "Jews" at large, I defend the innocent, for instance I ask what charges you have against Jewish children (you just gave a very revealing answer, you might have a better story still). I recently pointed out that German NatSocs were not Christians but invented a new religion called "Positive Christianity" and state church in which Jesus is not God's Son. I have only good things to say about Niemoller and Bonhoeffer, who fought this and established the confessing church in Germany.
So I don't side with antichrists or against Christians when I side with innocent children and against statists. You do believe in the Orthodox creed, right? That should settle what Christianity I defend.
You model your misandry after that of a Jewess? Interesting ....
In 800 BC, Moses ran off with the Hebrews (half white, half black group) who worshiped a volcano that the Golden Calf represented.
No, you fell for a revisionist history where atheist historians basically say there was no "Ramses" before Ramses II, so the expulsion of myriads of Semitic Hyksos in 1539 BC couldn't possibly have been the exodus. Volcano worship, wrong continent.
The Prophet Melchizedek was the original prophet who appeared and led Abraham from the Bible into the knowledge of Monotheism. He was the one who taught Abraham about Monotheism in 2000 BC.
Somehow you get that detail right (1969 BC, 430 years earlier), even though Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Levi, Kohath, Amram, Moses is only 6 generations (7 names), and all their ages are given, so Moses wasn't in 800.
but he was simply a super-human prophet that was not born but simply appeared and simply vanished after 75 years of teaching.
That's not in the text, it's a misreading of Hebrews; Melchizedek did have some superhuman powers, but that's because he was so old, as the context implies.
By 800 BC, Moses parents met because both of them believed in Monotheism. It was a brand new concept and much more accurate to the truth of God's nature.
You must be on evolutionary timescales to think 1200 years is "brand new". Monotheism was around a lot longer than Melchizedek, but knowledge of it grew slowly. Plus, Amram and Jochebed met because they were both Israelites in Egypt, which is kinda salient as to why they were monotheists.
For the first time in Human history, humanity had evolved in its way of understanding God thanks to Moses.
Nah. As long as there have been humans, there's been "evolving" (growing) understanding of God, and the exodus is not the first major growth spurt. Each spurt is unique, I agree.
The Satanists who worship Baal infiltrated the Hebrew Jews by becoming Rabbis and pretending to be Jews.
No, there were no rabbis until Jesus, so your referring to baalists controlling the Sanhedrin and priesthood doesn't work. It's true that baalists took positions of leadership at times in the kingdom and there were seesaw swings in control, but the Sanhedrin for its last 500 years was dominated by a Zugoth (two-party) paradigm between family-oriented conservatives (leading to Hillel and Pharisees) and control-oriented liberals (leading to Shammai and Sadducees). During that time there were no baalists at all. For us to trace any attempt at continuity of child sacrifice over this period we'd have to rely on assumptions and extreme inferences from a very small set of facts. The satan had infiltrators in all kinds of governments, and Jesus gives us a thorough analysis of satan's work in 96 AD, but at that time it was all just pockets of infiltration, not control (which was more applicable to the deified caesars instead).
The Sanhedrin today is the Illuminati's Astor family.
The ruling families may well be semi-organized in councils, but they don't have either the name or the authority or the inheritance of the Sanhedrin (which is currently held by a secretive group whose names are hard for me to even remember. (Checks notes:) The current leaders putting their names in public are chief justice (i.e. nasi) Meir Yaakov Hakak Halevi and secretary (i.e. abbethdin) Amnon Hever.
At first they misled them into thinking God is a tyrant which explains why God sounds like a tyrant in the Old Testament. In reality their Lucifer is the tyrant.
No, you don't compound the error of late-dating the OT by early-dating the luciferians. The actual problem is that the OT is about good government (as billions of Christians recognize) but we've lost the cultural understanding of its mercies that leaders like Michael Heiser have been demonstrating.
a group is seen as sub-human, they are targeted. This leads to all kinds of problems in society.
If only everyone here learned that lesson!
So lets say the Satan group nowadays is called Zionism. Not all Zionists know about this though.
That shows that Zionism has multiple meanings, which participates in the doublespeak of the enemy. Best not to use the word at all.
Hebrew Jews living in Germany and Russia
If only everyone here recognized they were Hebrew.
Rothschild is the leader of the synagogue of Satan but his masters are in Rome.
I don't think you mean Nathaniel Rothschild (1971-); but who else? You also don't mean "synagogue of satan" (no caps necessary) when you mean the cabal. We were just discussing here who the Pope answers to ....
So one part of the Jews are the greatest victims of the Zionists. Zionists that worship Lucifer cannot call themselves Jews because Jews believe in the Trinity concept of God and name Lucifer as the opposer of God in the Torah. The only reason Zionists call themselves Jews is because they learned that by concealing their true religion of Satanism, the rest of the world won't hunt them down. They lie about being Catholic a lot too. Every religion really. Even the Dhalli Lama is one of them.
Here we get almost unintelligible. "Jews" don't call themselves "trinitarian" unless you mean "spiritual Jews", Christians (or unless you use the plurality of God's attributes in Rabbi Simlai's description, which is not regarded as Christian trinitarianism). Hebrew Jews are often victims of luciferians, but some luciferians do openly call themselves Jews (and trinitarians), so the idea that they can't doesn't make sense. But the problem of infiltration and of hidden motives indeed exists in every religion. The "tares" solution is to let them be until they manifest their evil fruits and then to deal with them swiftly (i.e., don't prejudge). Jesus will protect his church and uproot evil fruit at the right time, and until then I think we can inspect mature fruit.
There is no "Abnor" or "Abner" among the traditional founders of Eastern Christianity. The Urantia Book says he was one of the seventy disciples, but he is not in any classical list of them. The character of Abner is rife for misinterpretation.
They will try and try even if it takes 200 years so its always best to counter their psyops by exposing their plot to others.
This is true of satanists. Best to ensure our exposures don't have material errors either. We are currently in an era of, well, great awakening and transmittal of truth, and so we must each be cleansing our own vessels regularly to ensure we don't harm truth by infiltration of enemy-inspired ideals in ourselves.
Reality is objective. Our perception of reality is a sufficient but imperfect model of the objective. When people study math or geography, they come to broad consensus on essentials even though edge cases exist where quibbles arise, because they're merely modeling reality. The same is true of theology. The fact that consensus is imperfect doesn't make it insufficient.
Thank you for keeping a more level tone.
We do have an obligation to preach the gospel to every creature by any means by which we might save some.
Are Jewish children guilty of something? Are adults guilty of something they didn't do but some other person of the same race did?
First, you mean rabbinical Jews, because a Lifeway survey estimated there are a million Messianic (Christian) Jews.
Second, I ask people for proof that some congregational rabbi or rabbinical organization teaches, as a tenet of Judaism, that Jesus's sacrifice is rejected. They don't actually do it because they're too scared, they leave the rejection to folk religion and to antimissionaries but they don't make it a tenet of rabbinical Judaism because they know what would happen if they did. So I decline the statement that rabbinical Judaism definitionally rejects Jesus Christ's sacrifice, and ask for proof. In fact, rabbinical Judaism teaches that it's a valid view that the Christ must suffer and that this suffering is somehow redemptive for his people; but they refuse to apply that the way Christianity does, and so they do not get the spiritual benefit of salvation from it.