Discussion:
God's First Four Commandments Are Being Violated
(too old to reply)
Marcia, Bethany and Me
2004-02-13 06:39:33 UTC
Permalink
Yours is a different Jesus. My Jesus says that if I love Him,
then I should keep His Commandments. Your disrespect of
His eternal Seventh Day Sabbath (His 4th Commandment)
extends to disrespect of His other Commandments, resulting
in you turning trees into decorated idols and placing Egyptian
representations of penises on the roofs of your churches
(violations of His First and Second Commandments). And
you care little that "Christmas" is a violation of His Third
Commandment, for it is not Christ's Mass but is instead a
pagan mass commemorating the return of the sun from the
south. Jesus said, "If you keep My Commandments you will
abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father's
Commandments and abide in His love" (Jn 15:10). Jesus said,
"If you love Me, keep My Commandments" (Jn 14:15). For the
sake of your tradition you make void the Commandments of
God (Matt 15:3, 6). God's first four Commandments are
being violated, torturing me in an attempt to prevent me from
saying so is nothing short of a violation of God's Sixth
Commandment. Your claim to salvation is a joke, you
love your traditions more than both Jesus and me, let your
traditions save you. -Daryl S. Kabatoff
Raymond
2004-02-13 09:50:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marcia, Bethany and Me
Yours is a different Jesus. My Jesus says that if I love Him,
then I should keep His Commandments. Your disrespect of
His eternal Seventh Day Sabbath (His 4th Commandment)
You have no idea what God wants, or says, you other post show a dirty filthy
mouth moron.
Post by Marcia, Bethany and Me
traditions save you. -Daryl S. Kabatoff
Mr. Chaos 007
2004-02-13 19:35:10 UTC
Permalink
He is absolutely correct. You morons don't even know all of your
Catholic traditions are simply old pagan rituals sucked into the church.
It was all done to increase the Catholics church acceptance in rome and
to increase their coffers of cash and of course little boys for the
priests.

Ya really got a religion ya can be proud of......NOT!
Post by Raymond
Post by Marcia, Bethany and Me
Yours is a different Jesus. My Jesus says that if I love Him,
then I should keep His Commandments. Your disrespect of
His eternal Seventh Day Sabbath (His 4th Commandment)
You have no idea what God wants, or says, you other post show a dirty filthy
mouth moron.
Post by Marcia, Bethany and Me
traditions save you. -Daryl S. Kabatoff
Miss Anne Thrope
2004-02-23 22:43:45 UTC
Permalink
4 out of 10? It's still a 60% score. That's a passing grade at most
schools.
Shan
2004-02-13 13:08:53 UTC
Permalink
The three of you are idiots.

The Commandments Jesus gave are two, love God and love neighbor.

The stuff you babble about it is rubbish.

shan
Post by Marcia, Bethany and Me
Yours is a different Jesus. My Jesus says that if I love Him,
then I should keep His Commandments. Your disrespect of
His eternal Seventh Day Sabbath (His 4th Commandment)
extends to disrespect of His other Commandments, resulting
in you turning trees into decorated idols and placing Egyptian
representations of penises on the roofs of your churches
(violations of His First and Second Commandments). And
you care little that "Christmas" is a violation of His Third
Commandment, for it is not Christ's Mass but is instead a
pagan mass commemorating the return of the sun from the
south. Jesus said, "If you keep My Commandments you will
abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father's
Commandments and abide in His love" (Jn 15:10). Jesus said,
"If you love Me, keep My Commandments" (Jn 14:15). For the
sake of your tradition you make void the Commandments of
God (Matt 15:3, 6). God's first four Commandments are
being violated, torturing me in an attempt to prevent me from
saying so is nothing short of a violation of God's Sixth
Commandment. Your claim to salvation is a joke, you
love your traditions more than both Jesus and me, let your
traditions save you. -Daryl S. Kabatoff
John
2004-02-14 00:08:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shan
The three of you are idiots.
The Commandments Jesus gave are two, love God and love neighbor.
The stuff you babble about it is rubbish.
shan
Dear freind, do you mean that "love" is having a warm fuzzy feeling?
Because Jesus said John 14:15
15 "If you love Me, keep My commandments.
NKJV

And in James it says-
James 2:15-18
15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one
of you says to them, "Depart in peace, be warmed and filled," but you do not
give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17
Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
NKJV

Now that does not mean that "love" is absent of a feeling or a heart
renedering.
Certainly too, there are some who do good because they think it earns them
heaven.
Post by Shan
Post by Marcia, Bethany and Me
Yours is a different Jesus. My Jesus says that if I love Him,
then I should keep His Commandments. Your disrespect of
His eternal Seventh Day Sabbath (His 4th Commandment)
extends to disrespect of His other Commandments, resulting
in you turning trees into decorated idols and placing Egyptian
representations of penises on the roofs of your churches
(violations of His First and Second Commandments). And
you care little that "Christmas" is a violation of His Third
Commandment, for it is not Christ's Mass but is instead a
pagan mass commemorating the return of the sun from the
south. Jesus said, "If you keep My Commandments you will
abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father's
Commandments and abide in His love" (Jn 15:10). Jesus said,
"If you love Me, keep My Commandments" (Jn 14:15). For the
sake of your tradition you make void the Commandments of
God (Matt 15:3, 6). God's first four Commandments are
being violated, torturing me in an attempt to prevent me from
saying so is nothing short of a violation of God's Sixth
Commandment. Your claim to salvation is a joke, you
love your traditions more than both Jesus and me, let your
traditions save you. -Daryl S. Kabatoff
Shan
2004-02-14 13:52:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by John
Post by Shan
The three of you are idiots.
The Commandments Jesus gave are two, love God and love neighbor.
The stuff you babble about it is rubbish.
shan
Dear freind, do you mean that "love" is having a warm fuzzy feeling?
Because Jesus said John 14:15
15 "If you love Me, keep My commandments.
Did the incarnate God Jesus not love God the Father? Yes, he did;
however, before his capture he was not willing to go through bodily
death but said that his body is weak to do it. Simply put, love does
not exclude what a person does or wants to do. That means that the
opposite of John 14:15 is not true i.e. "If you love me and do not
keep my commandments, that means you don't really love me." How many
times do our children, as humans, who love us not do our what we
instruct them but we continue to love them and they us. God is way
beyond our human trivialities.
Post by John
Certainly too, there are some who do good because they think it earns them
heaven.
Those who do good to EARN heaven are misguided. Remember the two guys
praying at the Temple, The pharisee everything there is to do thinking
that his reward is guaranteed. The other did nothing but say "Have
mercy on me a sinner."

The plague of Christianity is its hypocrites and sanctimonious
air-heads who think they've got it made by following the old worthless
formulas and attention to details yet "all what is required is one."

Shan
John
2004-02-14 15:54:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shan
Post by John
Post by Shan
The three of you are idiots.
The Commandments Jesus gave are two, love God and love neighbor.
The stuff you babble about it is rubbish.
shan
Dear freind, do you mean that "love" is having a warm fuzzy feeling?
Because Jesus said John 14:15
15 "If you love Me, keep My commandments.
Did the incarnate God Jesus not love God the Father? Yes, he did;
however, before his capture he was not willing to go through bodily
death but said that his body is weak to do it. Simply put, love does
not exclude what a person does or wants to do. That means that the
opposite of John 14:15 is not true i.e. "If you love me and do not
keep my commandments, that means you don't really love me." How many
times do our children, as humans, who love us not do our what we
instruct them but we continue to love them and they us. God is way
beyond our human trivialities.
I wasn't speaking of God's love for us. "God is love". He loves sinners.
He loved a world that rejected him. And he also took mercy on those
whom he destroyed in the flood. Likewise he will destroy those
in the end who have rejected the free gift of salvation.
While God continues to love all, He does not excuse sin.
Sin can not dwell in his presence. And while God does not change
our sinful natures at this point, he does offer to change our hearts.
And to save us FROM sin. Salvation is not freedom *to* sin.
But rather salvation includes freedom from sin.
God empowers us to overcome. And we who have been
born again will seek the will of the Father. Not because it saves us,
but because we love Jesus. We know that our sin put Him on the cross.
Having been born again, we have new motives. We have a new heart.
And written upon that heart is the new covenant which includes the
10 commandments. No longer are they on stone tablets,
but on the fleshly tablets of the heart.
Heb 8:9-12
10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel
after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws in their mind and write
them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
11 None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying,
'Know the LORD,' for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the
greatest of them. 12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and
their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more."
NKJV

Rom 6:1-7
6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?
2 Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? 3 Or do
you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were
baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism
into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the
Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have
been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall
be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6 knowing this, that our old man was
crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we
should no longer be slaves of sin. 7 For he who has died has been freed from
sin.
NKJV
Post by Shan
Post by John
Certainly too, there are some who do good because they think it earns them
heaven.
Those who do good to EARN heaven are misguided. Remember the two guys
praying at the Temple, The pharisee everything there is to do thinking
that his reward is guaranteed. The other did nothing but say "Have
mercy on me a sinner."
Amen!

Gal 2:17-21
17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are
found sinners, is Christ therefore a minister of sin? Certainly not! 18 For
if I build again those things which I destroyed, I make myself a
transgressor. 19 For I through the law died to the law that I might live to
God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but
Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by
faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me. 21 I do not
set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then
Christ died in vain."
NKJV
Post by Shan
The plague of Christianity is its hypocrites and sanctimonious
air-heads who think they've got it made by following the old worthless
formulas and attention to details yet "all what is required is one."
Shan
Faith in Jesus Christ is the formula. But Jesus does not lead us to sin.
Jesus asks us to submit our wills to him. To say no to temptation.
Jesus offers us a holy life here and now. God knows that sin is destructive.
He doesn't ask us to obey because we are slaves to a pagan diety.
But rather we are heirs:
Rom 8:15-17
15 For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you
received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, "Abba, Father." 16 The
Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, 17
and if children, then heirs--heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if
indeed we suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified together.
NKJV

When Jesus was asked about his siblings He said:
Luke 8:20-21
20 And it was told Him by some, who said, "Your mother and Your brothers are
standing outside, desiring to see You." 21 But He answered and said to them,
"My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it."
NKJV
Shan
2004-02-14 18:50:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by John
Post by Shan
Post by John
Post by Shan
The three of you are idiots.
The Commandments Jesus gave are two, love God and love neighbor.
The stuff you babble about it is rubbish.
shan
Dear freind, do you mean that "love" is having a warm fuzzy feeling?
Because Jesus said John 14:15
15 "If you love Me, keep My commandments.
Did the incarnate God Jesus not love God the Father? Yes, he did;
however, before his capture he was not willing to go through bodily
death but said that his body is weak to do it. Simply put, love does
not exclude what a person does or wants to do. That means that the
opposite of John 14:15 is not true i.e. "If you love me and do not
keep my commandments, that means you don't really love me." How many
times do our children, as humans, who love us not do our what we
instruct them but we continue to love them and they us. God is way
beyond our human trivialities.
I wasn't speaking of God's love for us. "God is love". He loves sinners.
He loved a world that rejected him. And he also took mercy on those
whom he destroyed in the flood. Likewise he will destroy those
in the end who have rejected the free gift of salvation.
While God continues to love all, He does not excuse sin.
Sin can not dwell in his presence. And while God does not change
First. the NKJV is not an acceptable translation.

Second, there is nothing new in what you wrote.

Third, the Flood story did not really happen in history.

Fourth, if God destroys then he cannot be love.

Fifth, no one lives and does not sin so God does not excuse anybody,
according to you.

Sixth, you dwell on trivial matters, on the letter of the law and not
the heart of the law.

Shan
John
2004-02-14 20:04:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shan
Post by John
Post by Shan
Post by John
Post by Shan
The three of you are idiots.
The Commandments Jesus gave are two, love God and love neighbor.
The stuff you babble about it is rubbish.
shan
Dear freind, do you mean that "love" is having a warm fuzzy feeling?
Because Jesus said John 14:15
15 "If you love Me, keep My commandments.
Did the incarnate God Jesus not love God the Father? Yes, he did;
however, before his capture he was not willing to go through bodily
death but said that his body is weak to do it. Simply put, love does
not exclude what a person does or wants to do. That means that the
opposite of John 14:15 is not true i.e. "If you love me and do not
keep my commandments, that means you don't really love me." How many
times do our children, as humans, who love us not do our what we
instruct them but we continue to love them and they us. God is way
beyond our human trivialities.
I wasn't speaking of God's love for us. "God is love". He loves sinners.
He loved a world that rejected him. And he also took mercy on those
whom he destroyed in the flood. Likewise he will destroy those
in the end who have rejected the free gift of salvation.
While God continues to love all, He does not excuse sin.
Sin can not dwell in his presence. And while God does not change
First. the NKJV is not an acceptable translation.
It is for me,but If you'd like, I can also give the KJV or any other version
Post by Shan
Second, there is nothing new in what you wrote.
Never said it was. The question is, do you believe what scripture says?
Post by Shan
Third, the Flood story did not really happen in history.
Well this answers the above question. That is your opinion.
I chose to believe the bible.
Post by Shan
Fourth, if God destroys then he cannot be love.
I'm not sure what it is you believe. But it doesn't match what
God's word says. I can show you MANY incidents where God destroyed.
Egyptians, those of Sodom and Gomorrah etc.
And also where Jesus claims he will destroy in the future
Actually, God's destruction is an act of mercy.
Post by Shan
Fifth, no one lives and does not sin so God does not excuse anybody,
according to you.
I said that? So you blieeve that God permits sin?
No, God does FORGIVE sin, that is different than
excuse sin. To excuse sin, God would look the other way and say it
is acceptable. God calls upon us to repent of our sin, not wallow in it.
Post by Shan
Sixth, you dwell on trivial matters, on the letter of the law and not
the heart of the law.
"Trivial matters"? Where do I "dwell" on trivial matters in anything I
said.
I just gave you some scripture. If choose to not accept scripture that is on
you.
As far as me not dwelling on the heart of the law, you've mis-judged.
I clearly stated it. You apparently think that if we have warm and fuzzy
feelings
towards God and our fellow man that that Justifies us.
God's love is demonstrated in the life and death of Jesus Christ.
It is one of self sacrifice and self denial. His love is active.
Not based on emotion alone.
If the Holy Spirit dwells in your heart, you too, will be compelled
to obey.
Does obediance to God trouble you?
It should be an honor to glorify God in all you do.
We don't merit anything with obediance, but it is our
Christian duty.
If Christ was willing to die for me, then I should be at least
willing to serve him. Some seem to be very selfish and want the
benifits of Christ's blood, but not the sacrifice of disipleship.
Also, scripture is clear,
James 2:26
26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is
dead also.
NKJV

John
Post by Shan
Shan
bill wade
2004-02-23 22:35:11 UTC
Permalink
I suggest you checkout this website www.sdaoutreach.org Also, this is
another good website
http://www.khouse.org/articles/biblestudy/20000501-223.html Both are very
good. But Adventist will not like them....
Also, you are correct John in what James says about Faith without works is
dead. I think you need to do a little deeper research into the audience in
which James was writing to. Once you research the history, culture and
audience then you will be more knowledgable in your thinking and the things
you say. Too bad, you take it out of context.
Study a little theology...oh yes, the study of theology can be summed up
quite simply, Faith seeking a better understanding.
You cannot be saved by keeping the Sabbath or any other of the commandments.
The investigative judgment is not biblical, Ellen White was not a prophetist
and has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to have been a plagerist.

There is nothing wrong in keeping the seventh day Sabbath, but doing so will
not save you. You and many like you quote the verses where God says, "If you
love me you will keep my commandments." This is true. But remember this,
keeping the commandments for the commandments sake is leagalistic and very
pharaseic. Do not forget God's grace, Eph 2:8-10, "For by grace you have
been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,
not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created
in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should
walk in them." NKJV

You my friend have a boastful attitude. We are saved by grace. It is a free
gift. We are not saved by works, i.e. keeping the law, because otherwise
there would be a race of pious Christians, much like the Pharasees in the
world today looking down there noses at others. The good works Paul AND
James are refering to can be found in this parable:

Matt 25:31-46, "When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy
angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. All the
nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from
another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. And He will set
the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left. Then the King will
say to those on His right hand, 'Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the
kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: for I was hungry
and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger
and you took Me in; I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you
visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.'

"Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see You
hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? When did we see You a
stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? Or when did we see You
sick, or in prison, and come to You?' And the King will answer and say to
them, 'Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least
of these My brethren, you did it to Me.'

"Then He will also say to those on the left hand,'Depart from Me, you
cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels:
for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no
drink; I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not
clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.'

"Then they also will answer Him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry
or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister
to You?' Then He will answer them, saying, 'Assuredly, I say to you,
inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do
it to Me.' And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the
righteous into eternal life." NKJV

You can argue, discuss, all you want, but if you say keeping the
commandments will save you, you are a legalist and you cancel out God's
saving grace. The Bible is proof of that. You cannot argue the point that we
are saved by grace ALONE.

Isa 64:6, "But we are all like an unclean thing, And all our righteousnesses
are like filthy rags; We all fade as a leaf,
And our iniquities, like the wind, Have taken us away."
NKJV

This includes all of us....

Blessings

Bill
Harold Kupp
2004-02-24 05:29:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by bill wade
I suggest you checkout this website www.sdaoutreach.org Also, this is
another good website
http://www.khouse.org/articles/biblestudy/20000501-223.html Both are very
good. But Adventist will not like them....
Also, you are correct John in what James says about Faith without works is
dead. I think you need to do a little deeper research into the audience in
which James was writing to. Once you research the history, culture and
audience then you will be more knowledgable in your thinking and the things
you say. Too bad, you take it out of context.
Study a little theology...oh yes, the study of theology can be summed up
quite simply, Faith seeking a better understanding.
You cannot be saved by keeping the Sabbath or any other of the commandments.
The investigative judgment is not biblical, Ellen White was not a prophetist
and has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to have been a plagerist.
There is nothing wrong in keeping the seventh day Sabbath, but doing so will
not save you. You and many like you quote the verses where God says, "If you
love me you will keep my commandments." This is true. But remember this,
keeping the commandments for the commandments sake is leagalistic and very
pharaseic. Do not forget God's grace, Eph 2:8-10, "For by grace you have
been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,
not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created
in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should
walk in them." NKJV
You my friend have a boastful attitude. We are saved by grace. It is a free
gift. We are not saved by works, i.e. keeping the law, because otherwise
there would be a race of pious Christians, much like the Pharasees in the
world today looking down there noses at others. The good works Paul AND
Matt 25:31-46, "When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy
angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. All the
nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from
another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. And He will set
the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left. Then the King will
say to those on His right hand, 'Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the
kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: for I was hungry
and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger
and you took Me in; I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you
visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.'
"Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see You
hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? When did we see You a
stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? Or when did we see You
sick, or in prison, and come to You?' And the King will answer and say to
them, 'Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least
of these My brethren, you did it to Me.'
"Then He will also say to those on the left hand,'Depart from Me, you
for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no
drink; I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not
clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.'
"Then they also will answer Him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry
or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister
to You?' Then He will answer them, saying, 'Assuredly, I say to you,
inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do
it to Me.' And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the
righteous into eternal life." NKJV
You can argue, discuss, all you want, but if you say keeping the
commandments will save you, you are a legalist and you cancel out God's
saving grace. The Bible is proof of that. You cannot argue the point that we
are saved by grace ALONE.
Isa 64:6, "But we are all like an unclean thing, And all our righteousnesses
are like filthy rags; We all fade as a leaf,
And our iniquities, like the wind, Have taken us away."
NKJV
This includes all of us....
Blessings
Bill
And what sin did you commit which has caused you to accept
the lie of Satan - "Eve, even if you disobey God's commandments
'Ye Shall Not Surely Die"?

HK
--
The Seven Deadly Deceptions Of Counterfeit Christianity
http://www.harborside.com/~hkupp
bill wade
2004-02-24 14:05:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harold Kupp
And what sin did you commit which has caused you to accept
the lie of Satan - "Eve, even if you disobey God's commandments
'Ye Shall Not Surely Die"?
HK
Boy Harold, It must be nice to be perfect. "Lest any man should boast." Hit
your knees and pray about that Harold.

I ask you this question also, Can keeping the law (including the Sabbath)
save you? All I want is a simple yes and no answer. However, knowing your
kind as I do (Because I used to be just like you...legalistic) you will not
be able to answer that question with a yes or no answer. You cannot have it
both ways, salvation is either by grace, a free gift, or it is by works. I
think the Bible is clear. Oh yes, don't use the book of James on me because
it will not work. James was written to people who were already practicing
Christians instructing them that if they claimed to have faith that works
would certainly be the fruit there of.

I pray for you Harold, I have pity that you follow EGW's teachings. I feel
sorry for your blindness and pray that the Holy Spirit will cause your heart
to soften enough so that you will search for the truth.
Let's look at it this way, if you are right, what harm is there that you
investigate EGW and the teachings of the SDA church with an open mind? You
will do nothing but reinforce your beliefs. However, if you are wrong, then
you will be lead to new truths. Either way you cannot loose.
Wow, what a concept!

Praying for you in love and compassion

Bill
Harold Kupp
2004-02-24 17:46:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by bill wade
Post by Harold Kupp
And what sin did you commit which has caused you to accept
the lie of Satan - "Eve, even if you disobey God's commandments
'Ye Shall Not Surely Die"?
HK
Hit the nail right on the head huh Bill? Your answer is the typical
response of
the one called by God who "received the word with joy but in time of
temptation
fell away".

Jesus compared you to the seed which landed on rocky soil...


Luke 8:13
13 They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word
with joy;
and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of
temptation fall away.
(KJV)

Hopefully, it is not to late for you to repent and receive the adoption
of sons which
comes to those who love God and obey him.

HK

BTW your new buddy Lamarr proved to be quite a liar - do you feel in
good company with him?
Post by bill wade
Boy Harold, It must be nice to be perfect. "Lest any man should boast." Hit
your knees and pray about that Harold.
I ask you this question also, Can keeping the law (including the Sabbath)
save you? All I want is a simple yes and no answer. However, knowing your
kind as I do (Because I used to be just like you...legalistic) you will not
be able to answer that question with a yes or no answer. You cannot have it
both ways, salvation is either by grace, a free gift, or it is by works. I
think the Bible is clear. Oh yes, don't use the book of James on me because
it will not work. James was written to people who were already practicing
Christians instructing them that if they claimed to have faith that works
would certainly be the fruit there of.
I pray for you Harold, I have pity that you follow EGW's teachings. I feel
sorry for your blindness and pray that the Holy Spirit will cause your heart
to soften enough so that you will search for the truth.
Let's look at it this way, if you are right, what harm is there that you
investigate EGW and the teachings of the SDA church with an open mind? You
will do nothing but reinforce your beliefs. However, if you are wrong, then
you will be lead to new truths. Either way you cannot loose.
Wow, what a concept!
Praying for you in love and compassion
Bill
--
The Seven Deadly Deceptions Of Counterfeit Christianity
http://www.harborside.com/~hkupp
bill wade
2004-02-24 18:05:30 UTC
Permalink
Harold,

You enjoy spewing out vicious non Christian statements. If you had the Love
of God in your heart, you could never, ever say such things as you do.

Yes, I feel in good company with Lamar, and Russell G. also.

May the love of Jesus penetrate that hard heart of yours.

Blessings

Bill
Harold Kupp
2004-02-25 01:21:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by bill wade
Harold,
You enjoy spewing out vicious non Christian statements. If you had the Love
of God in your heart, you could never, ever say such things as you do.
Yes, I feel in good company with Lamar, and Russell G. also.
May the love of Jesus penetrate that hard heart of yours.
Blessings
Bill
Actually I have not been nearly as aggressive as I ought to be in exposing
those who teach Christians that they do not have to cease from sin in order
to enter the kingdom of God and inherit eternal life.

For our example on how to deal with false teachers we should look to Jesus.
Let's see, what did Jesus say...

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you shut the
kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither enter yourselves, nor
allow those who would enter to go in."

"You blind men..."

"...straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!"

"...full of extortion and rapacity."

"...you appear righteous to men but within you are full of hypocrisy
and iniquity."

"You serpents, you brood of vipers..."

"Blind guides..."

"...how are you to escape being sentenced to hell."

Now, there was a Man with the right attitude! Do you think that
Jesus did not have the fruit of the Spirit? Compared to Jesus
I have been quite gentle.

HK


Matthew 23:17,19
17 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or
the temple that sanctifieth the gold?
...
19 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or
the altar that sanctifieth the gift?

Luke 11:40
40 Ye fools, did not he that made that which is without
make that which is within also?
--
The Seven Deadly Deceptions Of Counterfeit Christianity
http://www.harborside.com/~hkupp
bill wade
2004-02-25 02:29:59 UTC
Permalink
So I guess the term loving them into the kingdom is lost on you.
The Last Church
2004-02-25 03:49:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by bill wade
You enjoy spewing out vicious non Christian statements. If you had the Love
of God in your heart, you could never, ever say such things as you do.
"Let no evil talk come out of your mouths, but only what is useful for
building up, as there is need, so that your words may give grace to
those who hear."
Eph4:29

But this they can not do.
Michael
2004-06-10 19:36:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Last Church
Post by bill wade
You enjoy spewing out vicious non Christian statements. If you had the Love
of God in your heart, you could never, ever say such things as you do.
"Let no evil talk come out of your mouths, but only what is useful for
building up, as there is need, so that your words may give grace to
those who hear."
Eph4:29
But this they can not do.
Rebuking evil is not evil.
--
May God Bless You
Michael
"Those that give up essential liberty for a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety." Benjamin Franklin
bardi
2004-06-10 20:46:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael
Post by The Last Church
Post by bill wade
You enjoy spewing out vicious non Christian statements. If you had the Love
of God in your heart, you could never, ever say such things as you do.
"Let no evil talk come out of your mouths, but only what is useful for
building up, as there is need, so that your words may give grace to
those who hear."
Eph4:29
But this they can not do.
Rebuking evil is not evil.
It depends on how and why it is done.

dnp
bardi
Daryl S. Kabatoff
2004-06-10 23:08:57 UTC
Permalink
Yours is a different Jesus. My Jesus says that if I love Him,
then I should keep His Commandments. Your disrespect of
His eternal Seventh Day Sabbath (His 4th Commandment)
extends to disrespect of His other Commandments, resulting
in you turning trees into decorated idols and placing Egyptian
representations of penises on the roofs of your churches
(violations of His First and Second Commandments). And
you care little that "Christmas" is a violation of His Third
Commandment, for it is not Christ's Mass but is instead a
pagan mass commemorating the return of the sun from the
south. Jesus said, "If you keep My Commandments you will
abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father's
Commandments and abide in His love" (Jn 15:10). Jesus said,
"If you love Me, keep My Commandments" (Jn 14:15). For the
sake of your tradition you make void the Commandments of
God (Matt 15:3, 6). God's first four Commandments are
being violated, torturing me in an attempt to prevent me from
saying so is nothing short of a violation of God's Sixth
Commandment. Your claim to salvation is a joke, you
love your traditions more than both Jesus and me, let your
traditions save you. -Daryl S. KabatoffJhn 8:34 Jesus answered them,
Verily, verily, I say unto you,
Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.
1Jo 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin
is the transgression of the law. ~ Cindy
bam
2004-06-11 16:11:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marcia, Bethany and Me
Yours is a different Jesus. My Jesus says that if I love Him,
then I should keep His Commandments. Your disrespect of
His eternal Seventh Day Sabbath (His 4th Commandment)
extends to disrespect of His other Commandments, resulting
in you turning trees into decorated idols and placing Egyptian
representations of penises on the roofs of your churches
(violations of His First and Second Commandments).
The Catholic Church says you are wrong. Jesus promised the Catholic Church
that whatsoever they bind on earth will be bound in Heaven.

Therefore, you *are* wrong.

BAM
alanm
2004-06-11 16:33:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by bam
Post by Marcia, Bethany and Me
Yours is a different Jesus. My Jesus says that if I love Him,
then I should keep His Commandments. Your disrespect of
His eternal Seventh Day Sabbath (His 4th Commandment)
extends to disrespect of His other Commandments, resulting
in you turning trees into decorated idols and placing Egyptian
representations of penises on the roofs of your churches
(violations of His First and Second Commandments).
The Catholic Church says you are wrong. Jesus promised the Catholic Church
that whatsoever they bind on earth will be bound in Heaven.
Everyone says Der Krappalot is wrong. That's nothing new.
Post by bam
Therefore, you *are* wrong.
BAM
Cindy
2004-06-11 17:27:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by alanm
Post by bam
Post by Marcia, Bethany and Me
Yours is a different Jesus. My Jesus says that if I love Him,
then I should keep His Commandments. Your disrespect of
His eternal Seventh Day Sabbath (His 4th Commandment)
extends to disrespect of His other Commandments, resulting
in you turning trees into decorated idols and placing Egyptian
representations of penises on the roofs of your churches
(violations of His First and Second Commandments).
The Catholic Church says you are wrong. Jesus promised the Catholic Church
that whatsoever they bind on earth will be bound in Heaven.
Everyone says Der Krappalot is wrong. That's nothing new.
No worries, no doubt it is those same name-calling "Everyones" who hate
name-calling, but who support Romes death mandates and agenda, and then
can't understand why they are identified as Jesuits...
Post by alanm
Post by bam
Therefore, you *are* wrong.
BAM
alanm
2004-06-13 22:57:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Last Church
Post by alanm
Post by bam
Post by Marcia, Bethany and Me
Yours is a different Jesus. My Jesus says that if I love Him,
then I should keep His Commandments. Your disrespect of
His eternal Seventh Day Sabbath (His 4th Commandment)
extends to disrespect of His other Commandments, resulting
in you turning trees into decorated idols and placing Egyptian
representations of penises on the roofs of your churches
(violations of His First and Second Commandments).
The Catholic Church says you are wrong. Jesus promised the Catholic
Church
Post by alanm
Post by bam
that whatsoever they bind on earth will be bound in Heaven.
Everyone says Der Krappalot is wrong. That's nothing new.
No worries, no doubt it is those same name-calling "Everyones" who hate
name-calling, but who support Romes death mandates and agenda, and then
can't understand why they are identified as Jesuits...
This is a dreadful argument Cindy. Have a go at deconstructing it yourself.
Cindy
2004-06-13 23:10:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by alanm
Post by The Last Church
Post by alanm
Post by bam
Post by Marcia, Bethany and Me
Yours is a different Jesus. My Jesus says that if I love Him,
then I should keep His Commandments. Your disrespect of
His eternal Seventh Day Sabbath (His 4th Commandment)
extends to disrespect of His other Commandments, resulting
in you turning trees into decorated idols and placing Egyptian
representations of penises on the roofs of your churches
(violations of His First and Second Commandments).
The Catholic Church says you are wrong. Jesus promised the Catholic
Church
Post by alanm
Post by bam
that whatsoever they bind on earth will be bound in Heaven.
Everyone says Der Krappalot is wrong. That's nothing new.
No worries, no doubt it is those same name-calling "Everyones" who hate
name-calling, but who support Romes death mandates and agenda, and then
can't understand why they are identified as Jesuits...
This is a dreadful argument Cindy. Have a go at deconstructing it yourself.
It simply means truth is not proven by the majority.

The majority around here can't notice that hate is all around them in Romes
mandates and her Servants who support them. what they do notice and
hyperventalate about is name-calling, considering that the epitomy of hate.
Seeing that it doesn't stop them from namecalling tho-, I consider it all so
much crap Alan, and that includes your inane opinions.

~ Cindy
alanm
2004-06-13 23:52:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Last Church
Post by alanm
Post by The Last Church
Post by alanm
Post by bam
Post by Marcia, Bethany and Me
Yours is a different Jesus. My Jesus says that if I love Him,
then I should keep His Commandments. Your disrespect of
His eternal Seventh Day Sabbath (His 4th Commandment)
extends to disrespect of His other Commandments, resulting
in you turning trees into decorated idols and placing Egyptian
representations of penises on the roofs of your churches
(violations of His First and Second Commandments).
The Catholic Church says you are wrong. Jesus promised the Catholic
Church
Post by alanm
Post by bam
that whatsoever they bind on earth will be bound in Heaven.
Everyone says Der Krappalot is wrong. That's nothing new.
No worries, no doubt it is those same name-calling "Everyones" who hate
name-calling, but who support Romes death mandates and agenda, and then
can't understand why they are identified as Jesuits...
This is a dreadful argument Cindy. Have a go at deconstructing it
yourself.
It simply means truth is not proven by the majority.
The majority around here can't notice that hate is all around them in Romes
mandates and her Servants who support them. what they do notice and
hyperventalate about is name-calling, considering that the epitomy of hate.
Seeing that it doesn't stop them from namecalling tho-, I consider it all so
much crap Alan, and that includes your inane opinions.
Well that's ungracious Cindy but, since you've mentioned it, crap has been
the major result of the thousands of posts on this topic.
Ronald Burdette
2004-06-11 20:33:48 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 12:11:56 -0400, "bam"
Post by bam
Post by Marcia, Bethany and Me
Yours is a different Jesus. My Jesus says that if I love Him,
then I should keep His Commandments. Your disrespect of
His eternal Seventh Day Sabbath (His 4th Commandment)
extends to disrespect of His other Commandments, resulting
in you turning trees into decorated idols and placing Egyptian
representations of penises on the roofs of your churches
(violations of His First and Second Commandments).
The Catholic Church says you are wrong. Jesus promised the Catholic Church
that whatsoever they bind on earth will be bound in Heaven.
ROTFL!!!!

Bam, your religious ignorance and intolerant bigotry never
ceases to amuse me.

Your romish cult is NOT the 'universal church'!

The only thing God promised your cult is judgment.

Your cult can't even 'bind' or control its queer false priests.
Let alone anything regarding the True Church.
Post by bam
<>...Ron
Ttocs
2004-06-11 16:48:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marcia, Bethany and Me
Yours is a different Jesus. My Jesus says that if I love Him,
16 Do not be excessively righteous, and do not be overly wise. Why should
you ruin yourself?
Eccl 7:16 (NASB77)
Thomas®
2004-06-11 23:19:51 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 23:08:57 GMT, "Daryl S. Kabatoff"
<***@shaw.ca> stumbled drunkenly into the group, dropped his pants
and rudely defectaed the following steaming pile:




6). God's first four Commandments are
Post by Marcia, Bethany and Me
being violated, torturing me in an attempt to prevent me from
saying so is nothing short of a violation of God's Sixth
Commandment. Your claim to salvation is a joke, you
love your traditions more than both Jesus and me, let your
traditions save you. -Daryl S. Kabatoff-Documented
pedophile/stalker and famous penis worshiper.
<<<snipped a lot of psycho crap from Shawn "pedophile-boy" Kabatoff>>>


The following (courtesy of Waxy.org) is sort of an unofficial "FAQ"
explaining the psychotic nonsense posted to Usenet by Shawn Daryl
Kabatoff AKA "Dar", AKA "Probababbilities". And now AKA "marcia and
me".

WARNING: Read below before even thinking about responding to this
twit.

http://www.waxy.org/archive/2002/05/21/dar_kaba.shtml#000643


Usenet has the tendency to provide a public forum for those who would
normally be scribbling in a closet. For example, take Daryl "Shawn"
Kabatoff. For the last few years, he's methodically gathered
"statistics" from various sources, ranging from local newspaper
obituary pages to the food court of the Saskatoon Midtown Plaza mall.
With all the raw data he's collected, he's attempting to prove daily
that our full names are in "mathematical harmony" with our birthdays.
His rants normally focus on a single individual he's met or read
about, starting with calculations related to their birthdate and full
names, blending in whatever other personal information about their
family members, spouses, birthplace, and career he's been able to
glean. From there, it descends into a mix of numerology, religious
zealotry, and personal torment. I've never seen anything like it.
With all the prime numbers, Fibonacci sequences and biblical
references, it's like reading the notebooks of Maximillian Cohen and
John Nash combined. Unsurprisingly, several posts unfold to reveal a
history of painful mental illness. If you have some time, take a look.
I've detailed his posting history and a several sample posts below.

Usenet Posting History:

January 27, 1999 to July 5, 2000 as ***@home.com

December 9, 2000 to May 4, 2001 as ***@sk.sympatico.ca

Oct 30, 2001 to Oct 31, 2001 as ***@the.link.ca

January 20, 2002 to April 17, 2002 as ***@hotmail.com (original
posts have been

removed from Google Groups archive)

April 26, 2002 to Present as ***@hotmail.com

Selected Posts:
Tessa Lynne Smith
Dastageer Sakhizai and Helen Smith
Brett David Maki
Andrew Meredith Cotton
Kathryn Lee Hipperson
Amanda Dawn Newton
Mona Marie Etcheverry
Tony Peter Nuspl
Lisa Charlene McMillan
Grant Allyn Wood

Comments
scarier still is that saskatoon is my hometown, though not my current
residence. and every single place he's mentioned in his posts (most
notably nervous harold's and the roastary) were either places i've
been (as it's a small city of 200K) or hangouts, ie. the two places
mentioned. chances are i could email some friends back home and find
out if they know of him, they (my friends that is) being of the
broadway-centred slacker ilk. myself, too, until i got out of there.
eh, anyways. thought it odd to see all this. midtown mall. i ate my
meals there, whilst waiting several days in line for star wars episode
one, at the theatre across the street.
posted by andy raad on May 22, 2002 06:20 PM

Fascinating. It's like he's trying to take chaos and bind it into
whatever rules he can find, religious, logical and otherwise. Numbers
and math have a reliable pattern, something that can always be proven
to true or false. People and religion do not. It reminds me of Darren
Aronofsky's movie Pi. It's the story of an paraniod genius who is
trying to find a pattern in Pi. A group that takes interest in his
work is convinced that the existence of Pi, a number whose existence
can be proven but no quantified, is proof of the existence of God.
Kabatoff's hunt for patterns in something as random as name selection
is a way to reconcile his deeply logical thought process with his
conflicting religious views.
posted by matt on May 23, 2002 11:19 AM

Exactly. I probably shouldn't have, but I e-mailed Daryl yesterday,
asking him if he'd be willing to create a numerological analysis for
me. I also asked him if he had seen either Pi or A Beautiful Mind, and
what he thought of them. If he replies, I'll be sure to post it.
posted by Andy Baio on May 23, 2002 11:24 AM

I baked many pumpkin pies for Shawn (he likes pumpkin pies). I rubbed
pumpkin pie all over my breasts for him, and my breasts turned orange.
I am a pumpkin for Shawn.
posted by Trisha Blondie on July 24, 2002 10:41 PM

Um, that's swell. So, you're in love with him?
posted by Andy Baio on July 25, 2002 07:10 AM

Shawn once went to a funeral for a Jehovah Witness that shot himself
and the lemon tarts were very bad, they were not only sour but were
rubbery as well. Shawn said that the guy was some kind of Jehovah
Witness prophet, he saw in advance that the lemon tarts at his funeral
were to be very very bad, and so he shot himself. Shawn said that he
never ate pumpkin pie at a funeral but would like to some day. Shawn
likes pumpkin pie and so I have been practicing to make very good
pumpkin pies.
posted by Trisha Blondie on July 25, 2002 02:49 PM

Shawn said that the lemon tarts were sour, bitter and rubbery.
posted by Trisha Blondie on July 30, 2002 12:32 AM

I don't think this guy takes notes. I think he has Total Recall, and
it has driven him insane...
posted by Todd Smith on December 26, 2002 11:00 AM

Oh... I almost forgot... I didnt spend thousands of dollars a day
tormenting Daryl... We got a deal on tormenting that fiscal year, it
only came to about 37cents a day....
posted by Dr Claw on December 30, 2002 01:56 AM

Mr. Kabatoff attempts to portray himself as a victim, but in fact he
is a violent predatory pedophile who is well known to his local law
enforcement. In his post to multiple newsgroups with the subject
"Collecting Mail For The Coming Anti-Christ", he encourages mothers to
send him photos of their naked daughters. Mr Kabatoff explains, "I
personally did not want photographs being mailed to (the coming
Ant-Christ) that were of underage children unless the parent was
signing consent." He is banned from virtually all the shopping malls
in his community because he stalks young people and sexually harasses
them. He has an extensive arrest record which includes sexual
molestation charges. He's been hospitalized in mental institutions
several times because he likes to accost "nubile cuties." He writes
about his contact with young girls in many posts. Search newsgroup
archives for posts by him containing the word "nubile". As part of his
harrassment, he provides personal details in a public forum, such as
the real names of real children, in these and other posts. About one
girl he met at a mall, he writes, "I wanted Callie in my bed or I
wanted her and her sister dead."
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Daryl+Shawn+Kabatoff+dead+or+in+my+bed&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=asqm35%24tjq5j%241%40ID-136124.news.dfncis.de&rnu
He not only curses children and prays for their death in his posts, he
also enjoys attending the funerals of young people: "And so, since
nubile sweeties are found in greatest abundance at the funerals of
high school students, then it is the funerals of high school students
that make the very very best funerals, especially if there is food...
I stuff my face (and my pockets) with all the good food and look at
all the pretty nubile sweeties and have the time of my life..
.http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Daryl+Shawn+Kabatoff+nubile+sex&hl=en&l
r=&ie=UTF-8&scoring=d&selm=LfXN8.63042%24R53.25142039%40twister.socal.rr.
com&rnum=1
Many of his posts are sent to alt.teens.advice. However, he liberally
spams, floods and crossposts his off-topic threatening and offensive
missives to countless newsgroups. Some people HAVE problems and some
folks ARE problems. Don't dismiss Mr. Kabatoff as a harmless nut. When
he sends these posts to any newgroup, please help by reporting him to
his ISP. Thanks.
posted by nospam on January 5, 2003 04:39 AM

I knew of him when I was attending the University of Saskatchewan.
He'd hang out in the Arts computer lab and all you'd see is screens of
numbers racing by on his laptop. I have an original copy of his
"Collecting Mail for the Coming Anti-Christ" pamphlet, and have seen
him be hauled away by campus security on more than one occasion. My
friends and I refer to him as "Crazy Number Man".
posted by Mr. Somebody on April 10, 2003 11:09 AM

I've been posting to (and about) Shawn for over two years with big
gaps in between. He has seen Pi and didn't like it and didn't think it
resembled him at all. (Wrong, it fits him to a tee) He doesn't have
total recall and has stated that he travels with a lap top to notate
items. Also, he uses "cut n' paste" a lot if you read all the way
through his ramblings. He is anti-social as shown by his angry
statements towards those who, by his own admission, have been kind
(but not kind enough) to him. Still, he's intelligent and seems to be
able to "take a joke" on occassion. That's where I came in.
posted by Gambol on May 19, 2003 02:22



ALOHA

Reply to group
(Unsolicited e-mail is deleted from the server unread
if it comes from anyone not already in my addressbook.
I'll never even see it)
Reuben Hick
2004-06-18 13:13:23 UTC
Permalink
"Daryl S. Kabatoff" <***@shaw.ca> scribbled in message news:dS5yc.726892$***@pd7tw3no...

Hey, I know that this is not personal, just wanted to kibitz and clear up a
few misconceptions here...
Post by Marcia, Bethany and Me
Your disrespect of
His eternal Seventh Day Sabbath (His 4th Commandment)...
This needs clarification, are you upset that people aren't observing a
particular day, or is it that some folks go to church and then to the lake
on the same day? When the Bible says "for six days... and on the seventh
day he rested" is it to be translated "whatever day the orthodox jews set
aside for their sabbath, the Christian church must also or be damned"?

Does observing a hebdomadal cycle yet not setting aside the day named after
the god Saturn constitute "hatred" of Christ?

Just wondering here.
Post by Marcia, Bethany and Me
...extends to disrespect of His other Commandments...
So failing to observe a sabbath in the ways that you imagine must be
observed, leads to murder, adultery, false witness and mouthing off to the
parents?
Post by Marcia, Bethany and Me
, resulting in you turning trees into decorated idols....
Oh my, the Jeremiah 10:3-4 "commandment" against the Excessmass tree.
Post by Marcia, Bethany and Me
...and placing Egyptian
representations of penises on the roofs of your churches...
LOL! Actually those towers on the roofes of Western churches are early
Rorshach tests. Some people see clock towers, some people see "penises".
Calling Dr. Freud.

I can see the church planning committee of a small rural town back in the
early nineteenth century gathering together one Sunday...er Saturday evening
and one of the elderly members standing up, hat in his hand, and saying
"Reverend? This sure is a purty church and all, but what we need to add to
it is one of them thar Egyptian phallic symbols up on the roof o'r there."
Another woman, blushing modestly nudges her husband encouraging him to ask
if the "bells" could be real large too. Then the rest of the meeting is
spent discussing length and girth of the steeple.

So this is how you propose the local assembly started its first attempt at
rapid growth. "Pastor, You know what we need to attract the lost? Put a
real huge dick on the roof. I mean a big massive one that can be seen for
miles. Rig up some bells and whistles and maybe even a clock so that we can
look at it and not be accused of being perverts. If this church has the
largest penis strapped to its roof, heck, you could attract people from
that Seventh Day Adventist church in the next town." The pastor thinks
about this for a moment, stroking his chin and looking off into the distance
then adds "We will have to have it circumcised or we might risk offending
our jewish neighbors." Thus began the church's foray into Steeple Envy and
the desire to have the biggest one in the nieghborhood. Other churches
without the budget to jumbo size their steeple were apologizing to
prospective new members by saying "It isn't the size that matters but what
we do with it.". Secretly though, people who were looking for a new church
to frequent knew that "size did matter", and since the Methodists were
rather clumsy with their services, they ended up substituting quality with
quantity and that is why the Methodists have the sort of crowd they do.

But this steeple = penis thing is even more perverted, for it suggests that
the church, often described as a female, due to the groom/bride paradigm
found in Christ's relationship to the church, is a lesbian, or really kinky.
Sort of like on the wedding day, the church hoists up her wedding gown and
exposes to her husband this huge white "steeple".

FWIW, The steeple on a Western church, (eastern europe favors domes and
steeples aren't found in asian or african churches...) was originally
designed to be an enormous sundial so that when church services went from
sunrise (a universally agreed upon time-of-day) to latter parts of the day,
one can observe the shadow cast and be able to reckon the time. (this was
before everyone had access to a reliable clock or watch) This may also
explain why steeples often have clocks and bells. (I have no idea what they
did on overcast days)
Post by Marcia, Bethany and Me
(violations of His First and Second Commandments).
Your previous examples are fairly rigid in regards to the 1st and 2nd
commandment. I am assuming that if an Excessmass tree and a church steeple
are "other gods" (the latter being a "likeness of [a penis]"), then a
"likeness" must extend to anything a pervert imagines (since only a pervert
would gaze upon a church steeple and see male genitalia)

But not wanting to go there, you have established that "images" are always
idols, and thus are you going to hell because you have left your "image" on
your driver's license - or did you preserve your salvation and thus your
love for the LORD by dutifully cutting it off?

It goes without saying that you have no family albums, television, artwork
depicting anything remotely like "created things" or genitalia, and I
suppose even a mirror, for it would be performance art reflecting back
images of that which is before it - presuming you. Of course the mirror
would in theory be acceptable if you were a vampire, but I don't know if
your scriptures have Christ dying for Dracula making the whole fear of going
to hell because of some images rather moot.
Post by Marcia, Bethany and Me
And
you care little that "Christmas" is a violation of His Third
Commandment, for it is not Christ's Mass but is instead a
pagan mass commemorating the return of the sun from the
south.
That's so true! Everytime I turn around during that season, there is some
Christian out telling everyone that the family was planning to get together,
sacrifice a virgin and commemorate the return of the sun from the south.
(that may explain why kids are getting into sex at such an early age, they
recognize that in their state of virginity that the family patriarch might
select them next as the one to be sacrificed) The office parties also engage
in ritual temple prostituion and drunkeness specifically to awaken the sun
god and have him return the bright firely orb to its position in the sky!

And that Santa Clause Deception? It was conjured up by the Billdibergers
and the Illuminati so that we wouldn't recognize their plans for a One World
Government brought about by the church observing this pagan mass
commemorating the return of the sun from the south.
Daryl S. Kabatoff
2004-06-18 18:44:44 UTC
Permalink
Yours is a different Jesus. My Jesus says that if I love Him,
then I should keep His Commandments. Your disrespect of
His eternal Seventh Day Sabbath (His 4th Commandment)
extends to disrespect of His other Commandments, resulting
in you turning trees into decorated idols and placing Egyptian
representations of penises on the roofs of your churches
(violations of His First and Second Commandments). And
you care little that "Christmas" is a violation of His Third
Commandment, for it is not Christ's Mass but is instead a
pagan mass commemorating the return of the sun from the
south. Jesus said, "If you keep My Commandments you will
abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father's
Commandments and abide in His love" (Jn 15:10). Jesus said,
"If you love Me, keep My Commandments" (Jn 14:15). For the
sake of your tradition you make void the Commandments of
God (Matt 15:3, 6). God's first four Commandments are
being violated, torturing me in an attempt to prevent me from
saying so is nothing short of a violation of God's Sixth
Commandment. Your claim to salvation is a joke, you
love your traditions more than both Jesus and me, let your
traditions save you. -Daryl S. Kabatoff

Jhn 8:34 Jesus answered them,
Verily, verily, I say unto you,
Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.
1Jo 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin
is the transgression of the law. ~ Cindy
julian_knight
2004-06-18 22:22:57 UTC
Permalink
Does you Jesus tell you to get banned from multiple public areas of
Saskatoon due to antisocial behaviour? Does your Jesus tell you to
pray for the deaths of children and disasters?
boy, shut the fuck up.
Post by Marcia, Bethany and Me
Yours is a different Jesus. My Jesus says that if I love Him,
then I should keep His Commandments. Your disrespect of
His eternal Seventh Day Sabbath (His 4th Commandment)
extends to disrespect of His other Commandments, resulting
in you turning trees into decorated idols and placing Egyptian
representations of penises on the roofs of your churches
(violations of His First and Second Commandments). And
you care little that "Christmas" is a violation of His Third
Commandment, for it is not Christ's Mass but is instead a
pagan mass commemorating the return of the sun from the
south. Jesus said, "If you keep My Commandments you will
abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father's
Commandments and abide in His love" (Jn 15:10). Jesus said,
"If you love Me, keep My Commandments" (Jn 14:15). For the
sake of your tradition you make void the Commandments of
God (Matt 15:3, 6). God's first four Commandments are
being violated, torturing me in an attempt to prevent me from
saying so is nothing short of a violation of God's Sixth
Commandment. Your claim to salvation is a joke, you
love your traditions more than both Jesus and me, let your
traditions save you. -Daryl S. Kabatoff
Jhn 8:34 Jesus answered them,
Verily, verily, I say unto you,
Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.
1Jo 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin
is the transgression of the law. ~ Cindy
Michael
2004-06-19 14:58:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Reuben Hick
Hey, I know that this is not personal, just wanted to kibitz and clear up a
few misconceptions here...
Post by Marcia, Bethany and Me
Your disrespect of
His eternal Seventh Day Sabbath (His 4th Commandment)...
This needs clarification, are you upset that people aren't observing a
particular day, or is it that some folks go to church and then to the lake
on the same day? When the Bible says "for six days... and on the seventh
day he rested" is it to be translated "whatever day the orthodox jews set
aside for their sabbath, the Christian church must also or be damned"?
Does observing a hebdomadal cycle yet not setting aside the day named after
the god Saturn constitute "hatred" of Christ?
Just wondering here.
The Jews do indeed observe the correct Sabbath, as our Lord did as well;
however, Christians find their sabbath rest in the Lord as their Sabbath,
and should observe it every day, not just the 7th. Christians also
observe the Lord's Day, which is the 8th day of the week, but is not the
Sabbath, but the day of resurection and new beginnings.
Post by Reuben Hick
Post by Marcia, Bethany and Me
...extends to disrespect of His other Commandments...
So failing to observe a sabbath in the ways that you imagine must be
observed, leads to murder, adultery, false witness and mouthing off to the
parents?
Post by Marcia, Bethany and Me
, resulting in you turning trees into decorated idols....
Oh my, the Jeremiah 10:3-4 "commandment" against the Excessmass tree.
Post by Marcia, Bethany and Me
...and placing Egyptian
representations of penises on the roofs of your churches...
LOL! Actually those towers on the roofes of Western churches are early
Rorshach tests. Some people see clock towers, some people see "penises".
Calling Dr. Freud.
I can see the church planning committee of a small rural town back in the
early nineteenth century gathering together one Sunday...er Saturday evening
and one of the elderly members standing up, hat in his hand, and saying
"Reverend? This sure is a purty church and all, but what we need to add to
it is one of them thar Egyptian phallic symbols up on the roof o'r there."
Another woman, blushing modestly nudges her husband encouraging him to ask
if the "bells" could be real large too. Then the rest of the meeting is
spent discussing length and girth of the steeple.
So this is how you propose the local assembly started its first attempt at
rapid growth. "Pastor, You know what we need to attract the lost? Put a
real huge dick on the roof. I mean a big massive one that can be seen for
miles. Rig up some bells and whistles and maybe even a clock so that we can
look at it and not be accused of being perverts. If this church has the
largest penis strapped to its roof, heck, you could attract people from
that Seventh Day Adventist church in the next town." The pastor thinks
about this for a moment, stroking his chin and looking off into the distance
then adds "We will have to have it circumcised or we might risk offending
our jewish neighbors." Thus began the church's foray into Steeple Envy and
the desire to have the biggest one in the nieghborhood. Other churches
without the budget to jumbo size their steeple were apologizing to
prospective new members by saying "It isn't the size that matters but what
we do with it.". Secretly though, people who were looking for a new church
to frequent knew that "size did matter", and since the Methodists were
rather clumsy with their services, they ended up substituting quality with
quantity and that is why the Methodists have the sort of crowd they do.
But this steeple = penis thing is even more perverted, for it suggests that
the church, often described as a female, due to the groom/bride paradigm
found in Christ's relationship to the church, is a lesbian, or really kinky.
Sort of like on the wedding day, the church hoists up her wedding gown and
exposes to her husband this huge white "steeple".
FWIW, The steeple on a Western church, (eastern europe favors domes and
steeples aren't found in asian or african churches...) was originally
designed to be an enormous sundial so that when church services went from
sunrise (a universally agreed upon time-of-day) to latter parts of the day,
one can observe the shadow cast and be able to reckon the time. (this was
before everyone had access to a reliable clock or watch) This may also
explain why steeples often have clocks and bells. (I have no idea what they
did on overcast days)
An idol is something that one worships and places a higher value on that
his Father. Scripture calls us to wear 'tassles' to remind us of His
Word. They are not idols, but can be if one wears them not to remember,
but to worship them. Steeples are never worshipped from my experience,
but they do call us to remember Him. How does having a steeple that points
to Him and calls us into rememberance of Him violate the statues of the
Commandments?
Post by Reuben Hick
Post by Marcia, Bethany and Me
(violations of His First and Second Commandments).
Your previous examples are fairly rigid in regards to the 1st and 2nd
commandment. I am assuming that if an Excessmass tree and a church steeple
are "other gods" (the latter being a "likeness of [a penis]"), then a
"likeness" must extend to anything a pervert imagines (since only a pervert
would gaze upon a church steeple and see male genitalia)
But not wanting to go there, you have established that "images" are always
idols, and thus are you going to hell because you have left your "image" on
your driver's license - or did you preserve your salvation and thus your
love for the LORD by dutifully cutting it off?
It goes without saying that you have no family albums, television, artwork
depicting anything remotely like "created things" or genitalia, and I
suppose even a mirror, for it would be performance art reflecting back
images of that which is before it - presuming you. Of course the mirror
would in theory be acceptable if you were a vampire, but I don't know if
your scriptures have Christ dying for Dracula making the whole fear of going
to hell because of some images rather moot.
The children of Israel looked upon the serpant on the tree to cure them,
not to worship the image; nor was it the image that cured them, but their
obedience. Christ who WAS on the cross can cure anyone, if he chooses,
but it Christ that cures, not the image. It is graven (Hebrew pecel)
images that are adultery or idolotry to the Lord.
Post by Reuben Hick
Post by Marcia, Bethany and Me
And
you care little that "Christmas" is a violation of His Third
Commandment, for it is not Christ's Mass but is instead a
pagan mass commemorating the return of the sun from the
south.
That's so true! Everytime I turn around during that season, there is some
Christian out telling everyone that the family was planning to get together,
sacrifice a virgin and commemorate the return of the sun from the south.
(that may explain why kids are getting into sex at such an early age, they
recognize that in their state of virginity that the family patriarch might
select them next as the one to be sacrificed) The office parties also engage
in ritual temple prostituion and drunkeness specifically to awaken the sun
god and have him return the bright firely orb to its position in the sky!
And that Santa Clause Deception? It was conjured up by the Billdibergers
and the Illuminati so that we wouldn't recognize their plans for a One World
Government brought about by the church observing this pagan mass
commemorating the return of the sun from the south.
The pagan mass was on December 21, not December 25. Christ was born on
September 29 fulfilling Tabranacles, but He was concieved on December 25,
the day He began Tabranacling with men. Nothing pagan about celebrating
Tabranacles, in fact, God commanded that it must be done.
--
May God Bless You
Michael
"Those that give up essential liberty for a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety." Benjamin Franklin
Cindy
2004-06-19 17:54:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael
Post by Reuben Hick
Hey, I know that this is not personal, just wanted to kibitz and clear up a
few misconceptions here...
Post by Marcia, Bethany and Me
Your disrespect of
His eternal Seventh Day Sabbath (His 4th Commandment)...
This needs clarification, are you upset that people aren't observing a
particular day, or is it that some folks go to church and then to the lake
on the same day? When the Bible says "for six days... and on the seventh
day he rested" is it to be translated "whatever day the orthodox jews set
aside for their sabbath, the Christian church must also or be damned"?
Does observing a hebdomadal cycle yet not setting aside the day named after
the god Saturn constitute "hatred" of Christ?
Just wondering here.
The Jews do indeed observe the correct Sabbath, as our Lord did as well;
however, Christians find their sabbath rest in the Lord as their Sabbath,
and should observe it every day, not just the 7th.
The Word of God says that Jesus declared the Son of Man Is Lord OF the
Sabbath, and as the Creator he said he made it FOR MAN. Mark 2:27-28

Where did he say The Son of Man IS the Sabbath in the word of God?
Post by Michael
Christians also
observe the Lord's Day, which is the 8th day of the week, but is not the
Sabbath, but the day of resurection and new beginnings.
Where is this observance Commanded by God?

You do know that Baptism demonstrates the death and resurrection of Christ?

Rom 6
3Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were
baptized into his death?
4Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ
was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also
should walk in newness of life.
5For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall
be also [in the likeness] of [his] resurrection:
6Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with [him], that the body of
sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.


Where is this 8th day added by God?

Where is the term Lord's day defined in scripture as first day (SUNday)?



~ Cindy
Post by Michael
Post by Reuben Hick
Post by Marcia, Bethany and Me
...extends to disrespect of His other Commandments...
So failing to observe a sabbath in the ways that you imagine must be
observed, leads to murder, adultery, false witness and mouthing off to the
parents?
Post by Marcia, Bethany and Me
, resulting in you turning trees into decorated idols....
Oh my, the Jeremiah 10:3-4 "commandment" against the Excessmass tree.
Post by Marcia, Bethany and Me
...and placing Egyptian
representations of penises on the roofs of your churches...
LOL! Actually those towers on the roofes of Western churches are early
Rorshach tests. Some people see clock towers, some people see "penises".
Calling Dr. Freud.
I can see the church planning committee of a small rural town back in the
early nineteenth century gathering together one Sunday...er Saturday evening
and one of the elderly members standing up, hat in his hand, and saying
"Reverend? This sure is a purty church and all, but what we need to add to
it is one of them thar Egyptian phallic symbols up on the roof o'r there."
Another woman, blushing modestly nudges her husband encouraging him to ask
if the "bells" could be real large too. Then the rest of the meeting is
spent discussing length and girth of the steeple.
So this is how you propose the local assembly started its first attempt at
rapid growth. "Pastor, You know what we need to attract the lost? Put a
real huge dick on the roof. I mean a big massive one that can be seen for
miles. Rig up some bells and whistles and maybe even a clock so that we can
look at it and not be accused of being perverts. If this church has the
largest penis strapped to its roof, heck, you could attract people from
that Seventh Day Adventist church in the next town." The pastor thinks
about this for a moment, stroking his chin and looking off into the distance
then adds "We will have to have it circumcised or we might risk offending
our jewish neighbors." Thus began the church's foray into Steeple Envy and
the desire to have the biggest one in the nieghborhood. Other churches
without the budget to jumbo size their steeple were apologizing to
prospective new members by saying "It isn't the size that matters but what
we do with it.". Secretly though, people who were looking for a new church
to frequent knew that "size did matter", and since the Methodists were
rather clumsy with their services, they ended up substituting quality with
quantity and that is why the Methodists have the sort of crowd they do.
But this steeple = penis thing is even more perverted, for it suggests that
the church, often described as a female, due to the groom/bride paradigm
found in Christ's relationship to the church, is a lesbian, or really kinky.
Sort of like on the wedding day, the church hoists up her wedding gown and
exposes to her husband this huge white "steeple".
FWIW, The steeple on a Western church, (eastern europe favors domes and
steeples aren't found in asian or african churches...) was originally
designed to be an enormous sundial so that when church services went from
sunrise (a universally agreed upon time-of-day) to latter parts of the day,
one can observe the shadow cast and be able to reckon the time. (this was
before everyone had access to a reliable clock or watch) This may also
explain why steeples often have clocks and bells. (I have no idea what they
did on overcast days)
An idol is something that one worships and places a higher value on that
his Father. Scripture calls us to wear 'tassles' to remind us of His
Word. They are not idols, but can be if one wears them not to remember,
but to worship them. Steeples are never worshipped from my experience,
but they do call us to remember Him. How does having a steeple that points
to Him and calls us into rememberance of Him violate the statues of the
Commandments?
Post by Reuben Hick
Post by Marcia, Bethany and Me
(violations of His First and Second Commandments).
Your previous examples are fairly rigid in regards to the 1st and 2nd
commandment. I am assuming that if an Excessmass tree and a church steeple
are "other gods" (the latter being a "likeness of [a penis]"), then a
"likeness" must extend to anything a pervert imagines (since only a pervert
would gaze upon a church steeple and see male genitalia)
But not wanting to go there, you have established that "images" are always
idols, and thus are you going to hell because you have left your "image" on
your driver's license - or did you preserve your salvation and thus your
love for the LORD by dutifully cutting it off?
It goes without saying that you have no family albums, television, artwork
depicting anything remotely like "created things" or genitalia, and I
suppose even a mirror, for it would be performance art reflecting back
images of that which is before it - presuming you. Of course the mirror
would in theory be acceptable if you were a vampire, but I don't know if
your scriptures have Christ dying for Dracula making the whole fear of going
to hell because of some images rather moot.
The children of Israel looked upon the serpant on the tree to cure them,
not to worship the image; nor was it the image that cured them, but their
obedience. Christ who WAS on the cross can cure anyone, if he chooses,
but it Christ that cures, not the image. It is graven (Hebrew pecel)
images that are adultery or idolotry to the Lord.
Post by Reuben Hick
Post by Marcia, Bethany and Me
And
you care little that "Christmas" is a violation of His Third
Commandment, for it is not Christ's Mass but is instead a
pagan mass commemorating the return of the sun from the
south.
That's so true! Everytime I turn around during that season, there is some
Christian out telling everyone that the family was planning to get together,
sacrifice a virgin and commemorate the return of the sun from the south.
(that may explain why kids are getting into sex at such an early age,
they
Post by Michael
Post by Reuben Hick
recognize that in their state of virginity that the family patriarch might
select them next as the one to be sacrificed) The office parties also engage
in ritual temple prostituion and drunkeness specifically to awaken the sun
god and have him return the bright firely orb to its position in the sky!
And that Santa Clause Deception? It was conjured up by the
Billdibergers
Post by Michael
Post by Reuben Hick
and the Illuminati so that we wouldn't recognize their plans for a One World
Government brought about by the church observing this pagan mass
commemorating the return of the sun from the south.
The pagan mass was on December 21, not December 25. Christ was born on
September 29 fulfilling Tabranacles, but He was concieved on December 25,
the day He began Tabranacling with men. Nothing pagan about celebrating
Tabranacles, in fact, God commanded that it must be done.
--
May God Bless You
Michael
"Those that give up essential liberty for a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety." Benjamin Franklin
Michael
2004-06-22 12:54:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by bill wade
Post by Michael
Post by Reuben Hick
Hey, I know that this is not personal, just wanted to kibitz and clear
up a
Post by Michael
Post by Reuben Hick
few misconceptions here...
Post by Marcia, Bethany and Me
Your disrespect of
His eternal Seventh Day Sabbath (His 4th Commandment)...
This needs clarification, are you upset that people aren't observing a
particular day, or is it that some folks go to church and then to the
lake
Post by Michael
Post by Reuben Hick
on the same day? When the Bible says "for six days... and on the
seventh
Post by Michael
Post by Reuben Hick
day he rested" is it to be translated "whatever day the orthodox jews
set
Post by Michael
Post by Reuben Hick
aside for their sabbath, the Christian church must also or be damned"?
Does observing a hebdomadal cycle yet not setting aside the day named
after
Post by Michael
Post by Reuben Hick
the god Saturn constitute "hatred" of Christ?
Just wondering here.
The Jews do indeed observe the correct Sabbath, as our Lord did as well;
however, Christians find their sabbath rest in the Lord as their Sabbath,
and should observe it every day, not just the 7th.
The Word of God says that Jesus declared the Son of Man Is Lord OF the
Sabbath, and as the Creator he said he made it FOR MAN. Mark 2:27-28
Where did he say The Son of Man IS the Sabbath in the word of God?
Hebrews 3: 2* For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them:
but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in
them that heard it.
3* For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have
sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works
were finished from the foundation of the world.
4* For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And
God did rest the seventh day from all his works.
5* And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest.
6* Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they
to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief:
7* Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so
long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not
your hearts.
8* For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have
spoken of another day.
9* There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.
10* For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his
own works, as God did from his.
11* Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall
after the same example of unbelief.
Post by bill wade
Post by Michael
Christians also
observe the Lord's Day, which is the 8th day of the week, but is not the
Sabbath, but the day of resurection and new beginnings.
Where is this observance Commanded by God?
God commanded that Sabbath (which we observe in our rest in our Saviour),
Passover, Unleavened Bread, First Fruits, Weeks, Trumpets, Atonement, and
Tabranacles are to be observed. Which Christians do; however, we don't
all get the names and dates correct.

God did not command that we 'attend church' nor that we observe the
resurection on a weekly basis; however, the Apostles did. Acts 20:7* And
upon the first [which is also the 8th day of the week] day of the week,
when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them,
ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.
Post by bill wade
You do know that Baptism demonstrates the death and resurrection of Christ?
Of course, at the 'new beginning' in commemeration of the resurection of
our Lord, which was also on the 8th day which was the Festival of First
Fruits, for He justified the entire 'crop'. As the world was reborn in
the flood of Noah, so is a Christian born from above in His Spirit, a new
man.
Post by bill wade
Rom 6
3Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were
baptized into his death?
4Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ
was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also
should walk in newness of life.
5For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall
6Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with [him], that the body of
sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
Where is this 8th day added by God?
Where is the term Lord's day defined in scripture as first day (SUNday)?
Revelation 1:10* I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind
me a great voice, as of a trumpet,

Gill comments:

Ver. 10. I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, &c.] Not on the Jewish
sabbath, which was now abolished, nor was that ever called the Lord's day,
and had John meant that, he would have said on the sabbath day; much less
the Jewish passover, but the first day of the week is designed; so the
Ethiopic version renders it "on the first day"; and is so called just as
the ordinance of the supper is called the Lord's supper, being instituted
by the Lord, and the Lord's table, #1Co 10:21 11:20|, and that because it
was the day in which our Lord rose from the dead, #Mr 16:9|; and in which
he appeared at different times to his disciples, #Joh 20:19,26|, and which
the primitive churches set apart for his worship and service, and on which
they met together to hear the word, and attend on ordinances, #Ac 20:7 1Co
16:1|; and Justin Martyr {z} tells us, who lived within about fifty years
after this time, that on the day called th tou hliou hmera, "Sunday", (by
the Greeks,) the Christians met together in one place, and read the
Scriptures, and prayed together, and administered the ordinance of the
supper; and this, he adds, was the first day in which God created the
World, and our Saviour Jesus Christ rose from the dead; yea, Barnabas {a},
the companion of the Apostle Paul, calls this day the eighth day, in
distinction from the seventh day sabbath of the Jews, and which he says is
the beginning of another world; and therefore we keep the eighth day, adds
he, joyfully, in which Jesus rose from the dead, and being manifested,
ascended unto heaven: and this day was known by the ancients by the name
of "the Lord's day"; as by Ignatius {b}, Irenaeus {c}, Tertullian {d},
Origen {e}, and others; for it must be some day that was known by this
name, otherwise it is mentioned to no purpose, because it would not be
distinctive from others; for which reason it cannot merely design the day
in which John saw this vision, because the Lord appeared on it to him, for
this would not distinguish it from any other day. Some have conjectured
that this was not the weekly Lord's day observed by the Christians, but
the anniversary of Christ's resurrection; and so the Ethiopians still call
Easter "Schambatah Crostos", the sabbath of Christ: to understand it of
the former is best. Now, though John was driven from the house and worship
of God, and could not join with the saints in the public worship of that
day; yet he was employed in spiritual contemplations and exercises, and
was under a more than ordinary influence of the Spirit of God; and his
spirit or soul was wholly intent upon, and taken up with divine and
spiritual things, with visions and representations that were made unto his
mind, which he perceived in his spirit, and not with the organs of his
body; he was in an ecstasy of spirit, and knew not scarcely whether he was
in the body or out of it:

and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet; which was the voice of
the Son of God, as appears by what it uttered, #Re 1:11|; and is
afterwards said to be as the sound of many waters; and it was behind him,
as in #Isa 30:21|, it came to him at an unawares, and surprised him, while
he was in deep meditation on spiritual things: and it was a very "great"
one; it was the voice of a great person, of the Son of God, and expressed
great things, and was very sonorous and loud, it was like the sound of a
trumpet; and this was partly to awaken the attention of John to it, and
partly to express the certainty of the relation he gives of what it said;
had it been a low muttering voice, it might be questioned whether John
rightly understood it, and whether he might not be mistaken in the account
of what he heard; but it being so loud and clear, there is no room for
such a doubt.

{z} Apolog. 2. p. 98, 99.
{a} Epist. c. 11. p. 244. Ed. Voss.
{b} Epist. ad. Magnes. c. 9.
{c} Apud Script. Quaest. & Respons. ad Orthodox. inter Justin. Opera,
p. 468.
{d} De Corona, c. 3.
{e} Homil. in Exod. fol. 41. 7.
Post by bill wade
~ Cindy
Post by Michael
Post by Reuben Hick
Post by Marcia, Bethany and Me
...extends to disrespect of His other Commandments...
So failing to observe a sabbath in the ways that you imagine must be
observed, leads to murder, adultery, false witness and mouthing off to
the
Post by Michael
Post by Reuben Hick
parents?
Post by Marcia, Bethany and Me
, resulting in you turning trees into decorated idols....
Oh my, the Jeremiah 10:3-4 "commandment" against the Excessmass tree.
Post by Marcia, Bethany and Me
...and placing Egyptian
representations of penises on the roofs of your churches...
LOL! Actually those towers on the roofes of Western churches are early
Rorshach tests. Some people see clock towers, some people see
"penises".
Post by Michael
Post by Reuben Hick
Calling Dr. Freud.
I can see the church planning committee of a small rural town back in
the
Post by Michael
Post by Reuben Hick
early nineteenth century gathering together one Sunday...er Saturday
evening
Post by Michael
Post by Reuben Hick
and one of the elderly members standing up, hat in his hand, and saying
"Reverend? This sure is a purty church and all, but what we need to add
to
Post by Michael
Post by Reuben Hick
it is one of them thar Egyptian phallic symbols up on the roof o'r
there."
Post by Michael
Post by Reuben Hick
Another woman, blushing modestly nudges her husband encouraging him to
ask
Post by Michael
Post by Reuben Hick
if the "bells" could be real large too. Then the rest of the meeting
is
Post by Michael
Post by Reuben Hick
spent discussing length and girth of the steeple.
So this is how you propose the local assembly started its first attempt
at
Post by Michael
Post by Reuben Hick
rapid growth. "Pastor, You know what we need to attract the lost? Put
a
Post by Michael
Post by Reuben Hick
real huge dick on the roof. I mean a big massive one that can be seen
for
Post by Michael
Post by Reuben Hick
miles. Rig up some bells and whistles and maybe even a clock so that we
can
Post by Michael
Post by Reuben Hick
look at it and not be accused of being perverts. If this church has the
largest penis strapped to its roof, heck, you could attract people from
that Seventh Day Adventist church in the next town." The pastor thinks
about this for a moment, stroking his chin and looking off into the
distance
Post by Michael
Post by Reuben Hick
then adds "We will have to have it circumcised or we might risk
offending
Post by Michael
Post by Reuben Hick
our jewish neighbors." Thus began the church's foray into Steeple Envy
and
Post by Michael
Post by Reuben Hick
the desire to have the biggest one in the nieghborhood. Other churches
without the budget to jumbo size their steeple were apologizing to
prospective new members by saying "It isn't the size that matters but
what
Post by Michael
Post by Reuben Hick
we do with it.". Secretly though, people who were looking for a new
church
Post by Michael
Post by Reuben Hick
to frequent knew that "size did matter", and since the Methodists were
rather clumsy with their services, they ended up substituting quality
with
Post by Michael
Post by Reuben Hick
quantity and that is why the Methodists have the sort of crowd they do.
But this steeple = penis thing is even more perverted, for it suggests
that
Post by Michael
Post by Reuben Hick
the church, often described as a female, due to the groom/bride paradigm
found in Christ's relationship to the church, is a lesbian, or really
kinky.
Post by Michael
Post by Reuben Hick
Sort of like on the wedding day, the church hoists up her wedding gown
and
Post by Michael
Post by Reuben Hick
exposes to her husband this huge white "steeple".
FWIW, The steeple on a Western church, (eastern europe favors domes and
steeples aren't found in asian or african churches...) was originally
designed to be an enormous sundial so that when church services went
from
Post by Michael
Post by Reuben Hick
sunrise (a universally agreed upon time-of-day) to latter parts of the
day,
Post by Michael
Post by Reuben Hick
one can observe the shadow cast and be able to reckon the time. (this
was
Post by Michael
Post by Reuben Hick
before everyone had access to a reliable clock or watch) This may also
explain why steeples often have clocks and bells. (I have no idea what
they
Post by Michael
Post by Reuben Hick
did on overcast days)
An idol is something that one worships and places a higher value on that
his Father. Scripture calls us to wear 'tassles' to remind us of His
Word. They are not idols, but can be if one wears them not to remember,
but to worship them. Steeples are never worshipped from my experience,
but they do call us to remember Him. How does having a steeple that points
to Him and calls us into rememberance of Him violate the statues of the
Commandments?
Post by Reuben Hick
Post by Marcia, Bethany and Me
(violations of His First and Second Commandments).
Your previous examples are fairly rigid in regards to the 1st and 2nd
commandment. I am assuming that if an Excessmass tree and a church
steeple
Post by Michael
Post by Reuben Hick
are "other gods" (the latter being a "likeness of [a penis]"), then a
"likeness" must extend to anything a pervert imagines (since only a
pervert
Post by Michael
Post by Reuben Hick
would gaze upon a church steeple and see male genitalia)
But not wanting to go there, you have established that "images" are
always
Post by Michael
Post by Reuben Hick
idols, and thus are you going to hell because you have left your "image"
on
Post by Michael
Post by Reuben Hick
your driver's license - or did you preserve your salvation and thus your
love for the LORD by dutifully cutting it off?
It goes without saying that you have no family albums, television,
artwork
Post by Michael
Post by Reuben Hick
depicting anything remotely like "created things" or genitalia, and I
suppose even a mirror, for it would be performance art reflecting back
images of that which is before it - presuming you. Of course the mirror
would in theory be acceptable if you were a vampire, but I don't know if
your scriptures have Christ dying for Dracula making the whole fear of
going
Post by Michael
Post by Reuben Hick
to hell because of some images rather moot.
The children of Israel looked upon the serpant on the tree to cure them,
not to worship the image; nor was it the image that cured them, but their
obedience. Christ who WAS on the cross can cure anyone, if he chooses,
but it Christ that cures, not the image. It is graven (Hebrew pecel)
images that are adultery or idolotry to the Lord.
Post by Reuben Hick
Post by Marcia, Bethany and Me
And
you care little that "Christmas" is a violation of His Third
Commandment, for it is not Christ's Mass but is instead a
pagan mass commemorating the return of the sun from the
south.
That's so true! Everytime I turn around during that season, there is
some
Post by Michael
Post by Reuben Hick
Christian out telling everyone that the family was planning to get
together,
Post by Michael
Post by Reuben Hick
sacrifice a virgin and commemorate the return of the sun from the south.
(that may explain why kids are getting into sex at such an early age,
they
Post by Michael
Post by Reuben Hick
recognize that in their state of virginity that the family patriarch
might
Post by Michael
Post by Reuben Hick
select them next as the one to be sacrificed) The office parties also
engage
Post by Michael
Post by Reuben Hick
in ritual temple prostituion and drunkeness specifically to awaken the
sun
Post by Michael
Post by Reuben Hick
god and have him return the bright firely orb to its position in the
sky!
Post by Michael
Post by Reuben Hick
And that Santa Clause Deception? It was conjured up by the
Billdibergers
Post by Michael
Post by Reuben Hick
and the Illuminati so that we wouldn't recognize their plans for a One
World
Post by Michael
Post by Reuben Hick
Government brought about by the church observing this pagan mass
commemorating the return of the sun from the south.
The pagan mass was on December 21, not December 25. Christ was born on
September 29 fulfilling Tabranacles, but He was concieved on December 25,
the day He began Tabranacling with men. Nothing pagan about celebrating
Tabranacles, in fact, God commanded that it must be done.
--
May God Bless You
Michael
"Those that give up essential liberty for a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety." Benjamin Franklin
--
May God Bless You
Michael
"Those that give up essential liberty for a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety." Benjamin Franklin
Cindy
2004-06-24 19:39:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael
Post by bill wade
Post by Michael
Post by Reuben Hick
Hey, I know that this is not personal, just wanted to kibitz and clear
up a
Post by Michael
Post by Reuben Hick
few misconceptions here...
Post by Marcia, Bethany and Me
Your disrespect of
His eternal Seventh Day Sabbath (His 4th Commandment)...
This needs clarification, are you upset that people aren't
observing a
Post by Michael
Post by bill wade
Post by Michael
Post by Reuben Hick
particular day, or is it that some folks go to church and then to the
lake
Post by Michael
Post by Reuben Hick
on the same day? When the Bible says "for six days... and on the
seventh
Post by Michael
Post by Reuben Hick
day he rested" is it to be translated "whatever day the orthodox jews
set
Post by Michael
Post by Reuben Hick
aside for their sabbath, the Christian church must also or be damned"?
Does observing a hebdomadal cycle yet not setting aside the day named
after
Post by Michael
Post by Reuben Hick
the god Saturn constitute "hatred" of Christ?
Just wondering here.
The Jews do indeed observe the correct Sabbath, as our Lord did as well;
however, Christians find their sabbath rest in the Lord as their Sabbath,
and should observe it every day, not just the 7th.
The Word of God says that Jesus declared the Son of Man Is Lord OF the
Sabbath, and as the Creator he said he made it FOR MAN. Mark 2:27-28
Where did he say The Son of Man IS the Sabbath in the word of God?
but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in
them that heard it.
3* For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have
sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works
were finished from the foundation of the world.
4* For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And
God did rest the seventh day from all his works.
5* And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest.
6* Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they
7* Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so
long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not
your hearts.
8* For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have
spoken of another day.
9* There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.
10* For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his
own works, as God did from his.
11* Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall
after the same example of unbelief.
How then did Moses keep the Seventh-day Sabbath Holy and also enter into
that rest???

what is meant here???

Isa 28:12 To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary
to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.
Post by Michael
Post by bill wade
Post by Michael
Christians also
observe the Lord's Day, which is the 8th day of the week, but is not the
Sabbath, but the day of resurection and new beginnings.
Where is this observance Commanded by God?
God commanded that Sabbath (which we observe in our rest in our Saviour),
Passover, Unleavened Bread, First Fruits, Weeks, Trumpets, Atonement, and
Tabranacles are to be observed. Which Christians do; however, we don't
all get the names and dates correct.
God did not command that we 'attend church' nor that we observe the
resurection on a weekly basis; however, the Apostles did.
Where does the bible say they met to celebrate his resurrection every
Sunday?
Post by Michael
Acts 20:7* And
upon the first [which is also the 8th day of the week] day of the week,
when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them,
ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.
There are not eight days in a week!
I ASKED where are these things in the WORD OF GOD?

Nowhere does it say here they met specifically on the first day of every
week to celebrate his resurrection.
The Facts are that they met daily, preached daily and broke bread together
daily...

Act 2:46And they, continuing DAILY with one accord in the temple, and
breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and
singleness of heart


This is exactly what Jesus did:
Mar 14:49 I was daily with you in the temple teaching, and ye took me not:
but the scriptures must be fulfilled.

and ALSO KEPT THE SEVENTH DAY SABBATH.
Post by Michael
Post by bill wade
You do know that Baptism demonstrates the death and resurrection of Christ?
Of course, at the 'new beginning' in commemeration of the resurection of
our Lord, which was also on the 8th day which was the Festival of First
Fruits, for He justified the entire 'crop'. As the world was reborn in
the flood of Noah, so is a Christian born from above in His Spirit, a new
man.
Are you quoting from a Catechism?
Do you mind not leaving the word of God behind and going to the commandments
and traditions of man?

The first fruits was yearly not weekly.

Have you read this?

1Cr 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward
they that are Christ's at his coming.


Rev 14:4 These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are
virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These
were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the
Lamb.
Post by Michael
Post by bill wade
Rom 6
3Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were
baptized into his death?
4Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ
was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also
should walk in newness of life.
5For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall
6Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with [him], that the body of
sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
Where is this 8th day added by God?
Where is the term Lord's day defined in scripture as first day (SUNday)?
Revelation 1:10* I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind
me a great voice, as of a trumpet,
This is not a scriptural definition saying that the Lord's day is Sunday

This makes sense to you?

that every week now has eight days but the eighth day is actually the first
day?

I asked "Where is the term Lord's day defined in scripture as first day
(SUNday)?"
Post by Michael
Ver. 10. I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, &c.] Not on the Jewish
sabbath, which was now abolished, nor was that ever called the Lord's day,
and had John meant that, he would have said on the sabbath day; much less
the Jewish passover, but the first day of the week is designed; so the
Ethiopic version renders it "on the first day"; and is so called just as
the ordinance of the supper is called the Lord's supper, being instituted
by the Lord, and the Lord's table, #1Co 10:21 11:20|, and that because it
was the day in which our Lord rose from the dead, #Mr 16:9|; and in which
he appeared at different times to his disciples, #Joh 20:19,26|, and which
the primitive churches set apart for his worship and service, and on which
they met together to hear the word, and attend on ordinances, #Ac 20:7 1Co
16:1|; and Justin Martyr {z} tells us, who lived within about fifty years
after this time, that on the day called th tou hliou hmera, "Sunday", (by
the Greeks,) the Christians met together in one place, and read the
Scriptures, and prayed together, and administered the ordinance of the
supper; and this, he adds, was the first day in which God created the
World, and our Saviour Jesus Christ rose from the dead; yea, Barnabas {a},
the companion of the Apostle Paul, calls this day the eighth day, in
distinction from the seventh day sabbath of the Jews, and which he says is
the beginning of another world; and therefore we keep the eighth day, adds
he, joyfully, in which Jesus rose from the dead, and being manifested,
ascended unto heaven: and this day was known by the ancients by the name
of "the Lord's day"; as by Ignatius {b}, Irenaeus {c}, Tertullian {d},
Origen {e}, and others; for it must be some day that was known by this
name, otherwise it is mentioned to no purpose, because it would not be
distinctive from others; for which reason it cannot merely design the day
in which John saw this vision, because the Lord appeared on it to him, for
this would not distinguish it from any other day. Some have conjectured
that this was not the weekly Lord's day observed by the Christians, but
the anniversary of Christ's resurrection; and so the Ethiopians still call
Easter "Schambatah Crostos", the sabbath of Christ: to understand it of
the former is best. Now, though John was driven from the house and worship
of God, and could not join with the saints in the public worship of that
day; yet he was employed in spiritual contemplations and exercises, and
was under a more than ordinary influence of the Spirit of God; and his
spirit or soul was wholly intent upon, and taken up with divine and
spiritual things, with visions and representations that were made unto his
mind, which he perceived in his spirit, and not with the organs of his
body; he was in an ecstasy of spirit, and knew not scarcely whether he was
and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet; which was the voice of
the Son of God, as appears by what it uttered, #Re 1:11|; and is
afterwards said to be as the sound of many waters; and it was behind him,
as in #Isa 30:21|, it came to him at an unawares, and surprised him, while
he was in deep meditation on spiritual things: and it was a very "great"
one; it was the voice of a great person, of the Son of God, and expressed
great things, and was very sonorous and loud, it was like the sound of a
trumpet; and this was partly to awaken the attention of John to it, and
partly to express the certainty of the relation he gives of what it said;
had it been a low muttering voice, it might be questioned whether John
rightly understood it, and whether he might not be mistaken in the account
of what he heard; but it being so loud and clear, there is no room for
such a doubt.
{z} Apolog. 2. p. 98, 99.
{a} Epist. c. 11. p. 244. Ed. Voss.
{b} Epist. ad. Magnes. c. 9.
{c} Apud Script. Quaest. & Respons. ad Orthodox. inter Justin. Opera,
p. 468.
{d} De Corona, c. 3.
{e} Homil. in Exod. fol. 41. 7.
Sigh.. I asked where God defined the term Lord's day?

Where did Jesus command a new Sabbath BEFORE his blood sealed the New
Covenant?

You apparently follow man not God.


~ Cindy
Michael
2004-06-24 21:00:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Reuben Hick
Hick"
Post by Michael
Post by bill wade
Post by Michael
Post by Reuben Hick
Hey, I know that this is not personal, just wanted to kibitz and
clear
Post by Michael
Post by bill wade
up a
Post by Michael
Post by Reuben Hick
few misconceptions here...
Post by Marcia, Bethany and Me
Your disrespect of
His eternal Seventh Day Sabbath (His 4th Commandment)...
This needs clarification, are you upset that people aren't
observing a
Post by Michael
Post by bill wade
Post by Michael
Post by Reuben Hick
particular day, or is it that some folks go to church and then to
the
Post by Michael
Post by bill wade
lake
Post by Michael
Post by Reuben Hick
on the same day? When the Bible says "for six days... and on the
seventh
Post by Michael
Post by Reuben Hick
day he rested" is it to be translated "whatever day the orthodox
jews
Post by Michael
Post by bill wade
set
Post by Michael
Post by Reuben Hick
aside for their sabbath, the Christian church must also or be
damned"?
Post by Michael
Post by bill wade
Post by Michael
Post by Reuben Hick
Does observing a hebdomadal cycle yet not setting aside the day
named
Post by Michael
Post by bill wade
after
Post by Michael
Post by Reuben Hick
the god Saturn constitute "hatred" of Christ?
Just wondering here.
The Jews do indeed observe the correct Sabbath, as our Lord did as
well;
Post by Michael
Post by bill wade
Post by Michael
however, Christians find their sabbath rest in the Lord as their
Sabbath,
Post by Michael
Post by bill wade
Post by Michael
and should observe it every day, not just the 7th.
The Word of God says that Jesus declared the Son of Man Is Lord OF the
Sabbath, and as the Creator he said he made it FOR MAN. Mark 2:27-28
Where did he say The Son of Man IS the Sabbath in the word of God?
Correction, this is Hebrews 4 not Hebrews 3, sorry.
Post by Reuben Hick
Post by Michael
but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in
them that heard it.
3* For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have
sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works
were finished from the foundation of the world.
4* For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And
God did rest the seventh day from all his works.
5* And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest.
6* Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they
7* Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so
long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not
your hearts.
8* For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have
spoken of another day.
9* There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.
10* For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his
own works, as God did from his.
11* Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall
after the same example of unbelief.
How then did Moses keep the Seventh-day Sabbath Holy and also enter into
that rest???
The same way that Abraham did: John 8 49* Jesus answered, I have not a
devil; but I honour my Father, and ye do dishonour me.
50* And I seek not mine own glory: there is one that seeketh and judgeth.
51* Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall
never see death.
52 Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil.
Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my
saying, he shall never taste of death.
53 Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the
prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself?
54* Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my
Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God:
55 Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know
him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his
saying.
56* Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.
57* Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and
hast thou seen Abraham?
58* Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham
was, I am.
Post by Reuben Hick
what is meant here???
What is meant is that we are to enter our Sabbath rest in our Lord, Jesus
Christ. Gill comments at Hebrews 4: Ver. 5. And in this place again, &c.]
In #Ps 95:11| he speaks again of another rest distinct from that on the
seventh day; which, and not the latter, is what believers under the Gospel
dispensation enter into:

if they shall enter into my rest: that is, unbelievers shall not enter
into it; as the unbelieving Israelites did not enter into the typical
rest, so neither shall any unbeliever enter into the Gospel rest, the
antitype of the former.

Remember, that a Christian is a priest in the order of Melchizadok, not
the order of the Levites, and it is priests that perform work on the
Sabbath, having their rest in the Lord.
Post by Reuben Hick
Isa 28:12 To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary
to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.
Wesley comments; V. 12. This-This doctrine. The rest-The only way, in
which you will find rest.

Wesley is correct, the only way to observe the sabbath is in the Lord
Jesus Christ.
Post by Reuben Hick
Post by Michael
Post by bill wade
Post by Michael
Christians also
observe the Lord's Day, which is the 8th day of the week, but is not
the
Post by Michael
Post by bill wade
Post by Michael
Sabbath, but the day of resurection and new beginnings.
Where is this observance Commanded by God?
God commanded that Sabbath (which we observe in our rest in our Saviour),
Passover, Unleavened Bread, First Fruits, Weeks, Trumpets, Atonement, and
Tabranacles are to be observed. Which Christians do; however, we don't
all get the names and dates correct.
God did not command that we 'attend church' nor that we observe the
resurection on a weekly basis; however, the Apostles did.
Where does the bible say they met to celebrate his resurrection every
Sunday?
At the Acts of the Apostles cited below, it is when the disciples came
together to break bread and preach the gospel.
Post by Reuben Hick
Post by Michael
Acts 20:7* And
upon the first [which is also the 8th day of the week] day of the week,
when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them,
ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.
There are not eight days in a week!
I ASKED where are these things in the WORD OF GOD?
Really? After creation in Genesis Chapter one, God rested, and on the 8th
day, he formed a specific man, the first man Adam.
Post by Reuben Hick
Nowhere does it say here they met specifically on the first day of every
week to celebrate his resurrection.
Nowhere does it say that they met specifically on any other day of every
week to celebrate His resurection.
Post by Reuben Hick
The Facts are that they met daily, preached daily and broke bread together
daily...
Where does it say that they met specifically on every day together? As we
are called to celebrate the Sabbath every day, that would be a good idea.
Post by Reuben Hick
Act 2:46And they, continuing DAILY with one accord in the temple, and
breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and
singleness of heart
Except of course, for Paul and others who were not in Jerusalem.
Worshiping God everyday and finding ones rest in Christ Jesus is what we
all do, everyday, jsut like the apostles.
Post by Reuben Hick
but the scriptures must be fulfilled.
Hmmm, but not 'everyday', He was not in the Temple when He was in Galilee
and Sumaria.
Post by Reuben Hick
and ALSO KEPT THE SEVENTH DAY SABBATH.
Of course He did, the New Covenant did not begin until He shed His blood
on the Cross. If He failed to observe the Old Covenant Sabbath, He would
not have been without sin and His sacrifice would have been rejected. It
does tell us, however, with authority, when the true Old Covenant sabbath
is with respect to the day of the week.

I make attempts to observe both the Sabbath and the Lord's Day.
Post by Reuben Hick
Post by Michael
Post by bill wade
You do know that Baptism demonstrates the death and resurrection of
Christ?
Post by Michael
Of course, at the 'new beginning' in commemeration of the resurection of
our Lord, which was also on the 8th day which was the Festival of First
Fruits, for He justified the entire 'crop'. As the world was reborn in
the flood of Noah, so is a Christian born from above in His Spirit, a new
man.
Are you quoting from a Catechism?
No, just paraphrasing from Scripture.
Post by Reuben Hick
Do you mind not leaving the word of God behind and going to the commandments
and traditions of man?
The only tradition of men is to ignor the importance of First Fruits,
which I did not do.

Are you saying that He was not resurected in fulfillment of the First
fruits? If He is not the fulfullment of the First Fruits, and God
commanded that all of His Children observe this forever, how do you
believe that Christians do this?
Post by Reuben Hick
The first fruits was yearly not weekly.
His resurection was on First Fruits, He was not crucified weekly.
Post by Reuben Hick
Have you read this?
Yes.
Post by Reuben Hick
1Cr 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward
they that are Christ's at his coming.
Consistent with the work of the priest on the Festival of First Fruits,
which was the 3rd day after passover, which He also fulfilled.
Post by Reuben Hick
Rev 14:4 These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are
virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These
were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the
Lamb.
One would hope that the Bride of Christ is undefiled and virgin, and not
jumping into bed with satan. What is your point?
Post by Reuben Hick
Post by Michael
Post by bill wade
Rom 6
3Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were
baptized into his death?
4Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as
Christ
Post by Michael
Post by bill wade
was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also
should walk in newness of life.
5For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we
shall
Post by Michael
Post by bill wade
6Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with [him], that the body
of
Post by Michael
Post by bill wade
sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
Where is this 8th day added by God?
Where is the term Lord's day defined in scripture as first day (SUNday)?
Revelation 1:10* I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind
me a great voice, as of a trumpet,
This is not a scriptural definition saying that the Lord's day is Sunday
No, it is a Scriptural defination saying that the Lord's Day is not the Sabbath.
Post by Reuben Hick
This makes sense to you?
Yes.
Post by Reuben Hick
that every week now has eight days but the eighth day is actually the first
day?
Every 50 years is a Jubilee, but the counting starts on the 49th year
Leviticus 25.
Post by Reuben Hick
I asked "Where is the term Lord's day defined in scripture as first day
(SUNday)?"
Asked and answered.
Post by Reuben Hick
Post by Michael
Ver. 10. I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, &c.] Not on the Jewish
sabbath, which was now abolished, nor was that ever called the Lord's day,
and had John meant that, he would have said on the sabbath day; much less
the Jewish passover, but the first day of the week is designed; so the
Ethiopic version renders it "on the first day"; and is so called just as
the ordinance of the supper is called the Lord's supper, being instituted
by the Lord, and the Lord's table, #1Co 10:21 11:20|, and that because it
was the day in which our Lord rose from the dead, #Mr 16:9|; and in which
he appeared at different times to his disciples, #Joh 20:19,26|, and which
the primitive churches set apart for his worship and service, and on which
they met together to hear the word, and attend on ordinances, #Ac 20:7 1Co
16:1|; and Justin Martyr {z} tells us, who lived within about fifty years
after this time, that on the day called th tou hliou hmera, "Sunday", (by
the Greeks,) the Christians met together in one place, and read the
Scriptures, and prayed together, and administered the ordinance of the
supper; and this, he adds, was the first day in which God created the
World, and our Saviour Jesus Christ rose from the dead; yea, Barnabas {a},
the companion of the Apostle Paul, calls this day the eighth day, in
distinction from the seventh day sabbath of the Jews, and which he says is
the beginning of another world; and therefore we keep the eighth day, adds
he, joyfully, in which Jesus rose from the dead, and being manifested,
ascended unto heaven: and this day was known by the ancients by the name
of "the Lord's day"; as by Ignatius {b}, Irenaeus {c}, Tertullian {d},
Origen {e}, and others; for it must be some day that was known by this
name, otherwise it is mentioned to no purpose, because it would not be
distinctive from others; for which reason it cannot merely design the day
in which John saw this vision, because the Lord appeared on it to him, for
this would not distinguish it from any other day. Some have conjectured
that this was not the weekly Lord's day observed by the Christians, but
the anniversary of Christ's resurrection; and so the Ethiopians still call
Easter "Schambatah Crostos", the sabbath of Christ: to understand it of
the former is best. Now, though John was driven from the house and worship
of God, and could not join with the saints in the public worship of that
day; yet he was employed in spiritual contemplations and exercises, and
was under a more than ordinary influence of the Spirit of God; and his
spirit or soul was wholly intent upon, and taken up with divine and
spiritual things, with visions and representations that were made unto his
mind, which he perceived in his spirit, and not with the organs of his
body; he was in an ecstasy of spirit, and knew not scarcely whether he was
and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet; which was the voice of
the Son of God, as appears by what it uttered, #Re 1:11|; and is
afterwards said to be as the sound of many waters; and it was behind him,
as in #Isa 30:21|, it came to him at an unawares, and surprised him, while
he was in deep meditation on spiritual things: and it was a very "great"
one; it was the voice of a great person, of the Son of God, and expressed
great things, and was very sonorous and loud, it was like the sound of a
trumpet; and this was partly to awaken the attention of John to it, and
partly to express the certainty of the relation he gives of what it said;
had it been a low muttering voice, it might be questioned whether John
rightly understood it, and whether he might not be mistaken in the account
of what he heard; but it being so loud and clear, there is no room for
such a doubt.
{z} Apolog. 2. p. 98, 99.
{a} Epist. c. 11. p. 244. Ed. Voss.
{b} Epist. ad. Magnes. c. 9.
{c} Apud Script. Quaest. & Respons. ad Orthodox. inter Justin. Opera,
p. 468.
{d} De Corona, c. 3.
{e} Homil. in Exod. fol. 41. 7.
Sigh.. I asked where God defined the term Lord's day?
Sigh, Where did He define it as the sabbath?
Post by Reuben Hick
Where did Jesus command a new Sabbath BEFORE his blood sealed the New
Covenant?
He couldn't before His blood sealed the New Covenant.
Post by Reuben Hick
You apparently follow man not God.
You apparently follow the traditions of men not God.
--
May God Bless You
Michael
"Those that give up essential liberty for a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety." Benjamin Franklin
Michael
2004-06-11 12:57:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by bardi
Post by Michael
Post by The Last Church
Post by bill wade
You enjoy spewing out vicious non Christian statements. If you had the
Love
Post by Michael
Post by The Last Church
Post by bill wade
of God in your heart, you could never, ever say such things as you do.
"Let no evil talk come out of your mouths, but only what is useful for
building up, as there is need, so that your words may give grace to
those who hear."
Eph4:29
But this they can not do.
Rebuking evil is not evil.
It depends on how and why it is done.
Depends upon why evil is rebuked? Not sure that Christ would agree with
that. Christ gives some good examples of how, but never an example
depending upon why.
--
May God Bless You
Michael
"Those that give up essential liberty for a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety." Benjamin Franklin
John
2004-06-10 23:56:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael
Post by The Last Church
Post by bill wade
You enjoy spewing out vicious non Christian statements. If you had the Love
of God in your heart, you could never, ever say such things as you do.
"Let no evil talk come out of your mouths, but only what is useful for
building up, as there is need, so that your words may give grace to
those who hear."
Eph4:29
But this they can not do.
Rebuking evil is not evil.
Some said Jesus had a demon, and Jesus called that "blaspheming the Holy
Spirit"
What happens if you call what God calls evil good, and what God calls good
evil?

Mark 3:28-30
28 "Assuredly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and
whatever blasphemies they may utter; 29 but he who blasphemes against the
Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation"--
30 because they said, "He has an unclean spirit."
NKJV

Isa 5:20
20 Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness;
Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
NKJV
Post by Michael
--
May God Bless You
Michael
"Those that give up essential liberty for a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety." Benjamin Franklin
Harold Kupp
2004-02-25 01:55:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by bill wade
Post by Harold Kupp
And what sin did you commit which has caused you to accept
the lie of Satan - "Eve, even if you disobey God's commandments
'Ye Shall Not Surely Die"?
HK
Boy Harold, It must be nice to be perfect. "Lest any man should boast." Hit
your knees and pray about that Harold.
I ask you this question also, Can keeping the law (including the Sabbath)
save you? All I want is a simple yes and no answer. However, knowing your
kind as I do (Because I used to be just like you...legalistic) you will not
be able to answer that question with a yes or no answer. You cannot have it
both ways, salvation is either by grace, a free gift, or it is by works. I
think the Bible is clear. Oh yes, don't use the book of James on me because
it will not work. James was written to people who were already practicing
Christians instructing them that if they claimed to have faith that works
would certainly be the fruit there of.
NO!

HK
Post by bill wade
I pray for you Harold, I have pity that you follow EGW's teachings. I feel
sorry for your blindness and pray that the Holy Spirit will cause your heart
to soften enough so that you will search for the truth.
Let's look at it this way, if you are right, what harm is there that you
investigate EGW and the teachings of the SDA church with an open mind? You
will do nothing but reinforce your beliefs. However, if you are wrong, then
you will be lead to new truths. Either way you cannot loose.
Wow, what a concept!
Praying for you in love and compassion
Bill
--
The Seven Deadly Deceptions Of Counterfeit Christianity
http://www.harborside.com/~hkupp
Mike Tennyson
2004-02-25 04:12:37 UTC
Permalink
I read somewhere that Martin Luthor in his translation added the words "
Alone" in the phrase
we are saved by grace ALONE. If he did, and this is continued in the KJV
shouldn't this be easy to prove by going to the original Greek or the
Vulgate Bible. Has anyone else heard this claim?
Post by bill wade
I suggest you checkout this website www.sdaoutreach.org Also, this is
another good website
http://www.khouse.org/articles/biblestudy/20000501-223.html Both are very
good. But Adventist will not like them....
Also, you are correct John in what James says about Faith without works is
dead. I think you need to do a little deeper research into the audience in
which James was writing to. Once you research the history, culture and
audience then you will be more knowledgable in your thinking and the things
you say. Too bad, you take it out of context.
Study a little theology...oh yes, the study of theology can be summed up
quite simply, Faith seeking a better understanding.
You cannot be saved by keeping the Sabbath or any other of the
commandments.
Post by bill wade
The investigative judgment is not biblical, Ellen White was not a prophetist
and has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to have been a plagerist.
There is nothing wrong in keeping the seventh day Sabbath, but doing so will
not save you. You and many like you quote the verses where God says, "If you
love me you will keep my commandments." This is true. But remember this,
keeping the commandments for the commandments sake is leagalistic and very
pharaseic. Do not forget God's grace, Eph 2:8-10, "For by grace you have
been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,
not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created
in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should
walk in them." NKJV
You my friend have a boastful attitude. We are saved by grace. It is a free
gift. We are not saved by works, i.e. keeping the law, because otherwise
there would be a race of pious Christians, much like the Pharasees in the
world today looking down there noses at others. The good works Paul AND
Matt 25:31-46, "When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy
angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. All the
nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from
another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. And He will set
the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left. Then the King will
say to those on His right hand, 'Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the
kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: for I was hungry
and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger
and you took Me in; I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you
visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.'
"Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see You
hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? When did we see You a
stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? Or when did we see You
sick, or in prison, and come to You?' And the King will answer and say to
them, 'Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least
of these My brethren, you did it to Me.'
"Then He will also say to those on the left hand,'Depart from Me, you
for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no
drink; I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not
clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.'
"Then they also will answer Him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry
or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister
to You?' Then He will answer them, saying, 'Assuredly, I say to you,
inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do
it to Me.' And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the
righteous into eternal life." NKJV
You can argue, discuss, all you want, but if you say keeping the
commandments will save you, you are a legalist and you cancel out God's
saving grace. The Bible is proof of that. You cannot argue the point that we
are saved by grace ALONE.
Isa 64:6, "But we are all like an unclean thing, And all our
righteousnesses
Post by bill wade
are like filthy rags; We all fade as a leaf,
And our iniquities, like the wind, Have taken us away."
NKJV
This includes all of us....
Blessings
Bill
jw <john_weatherly47@yahoo.com>
2004-02-25 07:15:13 UTC
Permalink
x-no-archive:yes
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 23:12:37 -0500, "Mike Tennyson"
Post by Mike Tennyson
I read somewhere that Martin Luthor in his translation added the words "
Alone" in the phrase
we are saved by grace ALONE. If he did, and this is continued in the KJV
shouldn't this be easy to prove by going to the original Greek or the
Vulgate Bible. Has anyone else heard this claim?
Yes. It's an old argument used to discredit the Bible. It holds no
credence, since we have ANCIENT, as in 1st C , 2nd C, and early 3rd C
copies of the entire NT.

jw
Post by Mike Tennyson
Post by bill wade
I suggest you checkout this website www.sdaoutreach.org Also, this is
another good website
http://www.khouse.org/articles/biblestudy/20000501-223.html Both are very
good. But Adventist will not like them....
Also, you are correct John in what James says about Faith without works is
dead. I think you need to do a little deeper research into the audience in
which James was writing to. Once you research the history, culture and
audience then you will be more knowledgable in your thinking and the
things
Post by bill wade
you say. Too bad, you take it out of context.
Study a little theology...oh yes, the study of theology can be summed up
quite simply, Faith seeking a better understanding.
You cannot be saved by keeping the Sabbath or any other of the
commandments.
Post by bill wade
The investigative judgment is not biblical, Ellen White was not a
prophetist
Post by bill wade
and has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to have been a plagerist.
There is nothing wrong in keeping the seventh day Sabbath, but doing so
will
Post by bill wade
not save you. You and many like you quote the verses where God says, "If
you
Post by bill wade
love me you will keep my commandments." This is true. But remember this,
keeping the commandments for the commandments sake is leagalistic and very
pharaseic. Do not forget God's grace, Eph 2:8-10, "For by grace you have
been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of
God,
Post by bill wade
not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship,
created
Post by bill wade
in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we
should
Post by bill wade
walk in them." NKJV
You my friend have a boastful attitude. We are saved by grace. It is a
free
Post by bill wade
gift. We are not saved by works, i.e. keeping the law, because otherwise
there would be a race of pious Christians, much like the Pharasees in the
world today looking down there noses at others. The good works Paul AND
Matt 25:31-46, "When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy
angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. All the
nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from
another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. And He will set
the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left. Then the King
will
Post by bill wade
say to those on His right hand, 'Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit
the
Post by bill wade
kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: for I was
hungry
Post by bill wade
and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a
stranger
Post by bill wade
and you took Me in; I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you
visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.'
"Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see You
hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? When did we see You a
stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? Or when did we see You
sick, or in prison, and come to You?' And the King will answer and say to
them, 'Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least
of these My brethren, you did it to Me.'
"Then He will also say to those on the left hand,'Depart from Me, you
for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no
drink; I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not
clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.'
"Then they also will answer Him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry
or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not
minister
Post by bill wade
to You?' Then He will answer them, saying, 'Assuredly, I say to you,
inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do
it to Me.' And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the
righteous into eternal life." NKJV
You can argue, discuss, all you want, but if you say keeping the
commandments will save you, you are a legalist and you cancel out God's
saving grace. The Bible is proof of that. You cannot argue the point that
we
Post by bill wade
are saved by grace ALONE.
Isa 64:6, "But we are all like an unclean thing, And all our
righteousnesses
Post by bill wade
are like filthy rags; We all fade as a leaf,
And our iniquities, like the wind, Have taken us away."
NKJV
This includes all of us....
Blessings
Bill
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
walksalone
2004-02-26 14:11:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by jw <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive:yes
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 23:12:37 -0500, "Mike Tennyson"
Post by Mike Tennyson
I read somewhere that Martin Luthor in his translation added the words "
Alone" in the phrase
we are saved by grace ALONE. If he did, and this is continued in the KJV
shouldn't this be easy to prove by going to the original Greek or the
Vulgate Bible. Has anyone else heard this claim?
Yes. It's an old argument used to discredit the Bible. It holds no
credence, since we have ANCIENT, as in 1st C , 2nd C, and early 3rd C
copies of the entire NT.
& those copies are known to be accurate accirding to you, but then,
you make many false claims, claims by implicatioon but positive claims
for all of that.
Now, just where aree these +1 Gr. copies to be found, not the scraps,
the whole shebang. I for one would like to know.
Since you usd ancient as a nounn, journalist that you are, yoiu are
wrong as usual.
Your useage is proper for an adjective only.

Compliments of m-w.com

Main Entry: 1an·cient
Pronunciation: 'An(t)-sh&nt, 'A[ng](k)-sh&nt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English ancien, from Middle French, from (assumed)
Vulgar Latin anteanus, from Latin ante before -- more at ANTE-
1 : having had an existence of many years
2 : of or relating to a remote period, to a time early in history, or
to those living in such a period or time; especially : of or relating
to the historical period beginning with the earliest known
civilizations and extending to the fall of the western Roman Empire in
A.D. 476
3 : having the qualities of age or long existence: a : VENERABLE b :
OLD-FASHIONED, ANTIQUE
synonym see OLD
- an·cient·ness noun

I doubt you even knew that.
Post by jw <***@yahoo.com>
jw
walksalone whose milk tonuge is not english, but he can at least use
it properly 99% of the time. Which leads to the question, is jw fluent
in any language, given his claimed credentials?

Snip, jw is unable to add to what was removed.
jw <john_weatherly47@yahoo.com>
2004-02-27 08:07:21 UTC
Permalink
x-no-archive:yes
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 14:11:25 GMT,
Post by walksalone
Post by jw <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive:yes
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 23:12:37 -0500, "Mike Tennyson"
Post by Mike Tennyson
I read somewhere that Martin Luthor in his translation added the words "
Alone" in the phrase
we are saved by grace ALONE. If he did, and this is continued in the KJV
shouldn't this be easy to prove by going to the original Greek or the
Vulgate Bible. Has anyone else heard this claim?
Yes. It's an old argument used to discredit the Bible. It holds no
credence, since we have ANCIENT, as in 1st C , 2nd C, and early 3rd C
copies of the entire NT.
& those copies are known to be accurate accirding to you, but then,
you make many false claims, claims by implicatioon but positive claims
for all of that.
What false claims, you pathological, demon possessed, liar?


jw
Post by walksalone
Now, just where aree these +1 Gr. copies to be found, not the scraps,
the whole shebang. I for one would like to know.
As I state a year ago, none of your business. I opened that can of
worms in the heat of an argument a year or so ago, and now I can't
reclose the can. But it is the truth and there may be 250 - 500 people
who know outside the people who own the mms. Other than my big mouth,
it's a closely guarded secret, and I'd just as soon you think I'm
lying about it.

I also have NO intention of providing documentation for the churches
should I get it.
Post by walksalone
Since you usd ancient as a nounn, journalist that you are, yoiu are
wrong as usual.
Your useage is proper for an adjective only.
You have merely proved your inability to read, and your ACUTE
pettiness, demoniac. All I did was leave out the parentheses.
Live with it.

And, again, you have wasted enough of my time with your drool.

jw
Post by walksalone
Compliments of m-w.com
Main Entry: 1an·cient
Pronunciation: 'An(t)-sh&nt, 'A[ng](k)-sh&nt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English ancien, from Middle French, from (assumed)
Vulgar Latin anteanus, from Latin ante before -- more at ANTE-
1 : having had an existence of many years
2 : of or relating to a remote period, to a time early in history, or
to those living in such a period or time; especially : of or relating
to the historical period beginning with the earliest known
civilizations and extending to the fall of the western Roman Empire in
A.D. 476
OLD-FASHIONED, ANTIQUE
synonym see OLD
- an·cient·ness noun
I doubt you even knew that.
Post by jw <***@yahoo.com>
jw
walksalone whose milk tonuge is not english, but he can at least use
it properly 99% of the time. Which leads to the question, is jw fluent
in any language, given his claimed credentials?
Snip, jw is unable to add to what was removed.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
Paul Hume
2004-02-25 21:11:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Tennyson
I read somewhere that Martin Luthor in his translation added the words "
Alone" in the phrase
we are saved by grace ALONE. If he did, and this is continued in the KJV
shouldn't this be easy to prove by going to the original Greek or the
Vulgate Bible. Has anyone else heard this claim?
Lex LUTHOR is a super-villain (or proto-super-villain if you watch Smallville)
Martin LUTHER opposed the RC Church and translated the Bible into German.
Raymond
2004-02-26 04:33:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Hume
Post by Mike Tennyson
I read somewhere that Martin Luthor in his translation added the words "
Alone" in the phrase
we are saved by grace ALONE. If he did, and this is continued in the KJV
shouldn't this be easy to prove by going to the original Greek or the
Vulgate Bible. Has anyone else heard this claim?
Lex LUTHOR is a super-villain (or proto-super-villain if you watch Smallville)
Martin LUTHER opposed the RC Church and translated the Bible into German.
Mark Johnson
2004-02-26 15:43:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Hume
Post by Paul Hume
Post by Mike Tennyson
I read somewhere that Martin Luthor in his translation added the words "
Alone" in the phrase
we are saved by grace ALONE. If he did, and this is continued in the KJV
shouldn't this be easy to prove by going to the original Greek or the
Vulgate Bible. Has anyone else heard this claim?
Lex LUTHOR is a super-villain (or proto-super-villain if you watch
Smallville)
Post by Paul Hume
Martin LUTHER opposed the RC Church and translated the Bible into German.
Not _that_ much difference between Luther and Luthor. Read what BAM
quoted. Luther sounds like some self-satisfied lib Usenet troll. He
really does. Some of those very passages could probably be found, if
not entirely word for word, from a random selection of trollish rants
on these very ngs, just before the troll goes to one-liners, or saying
- you'll be sorry I'm gone when I'm gone. Etc.

You can find that screed of his online:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22Christ+has+strongly+sustained+baptism%22


But there's a larger point to be made. This disdain for 'works'
follows in Prot revisions, in so many ways, in so many passages. Only
the Rheims was accurate. Only that translation from the Vulgate was
accurate. The others were INTENTIONALLY mistranslated to promote the
particular sect, to the point that you had 'dueling Bibles' on the
Prot side. But all were wrong. You have 'Bible-only' religion where
the founder of the sect, essentially, wrote his own Bible. The
differences in translation are that profound.

That's the insanity of Protestantism.


Peace.

--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+

to the only God our Saviour by JESUS Christ our Lord,
be glory and magnificence, empire and power before
all worlds, and now and for all worlds evermore. Amen.
JCarew
2004-02-27 06:21:33 UTC
Permalink
JMJ
Post by Paul Hume
Post by Mike Tennyson
I read somewhere that Martin Luthor in his translation added
the words " Alone" in the phrase we are saved by grace ALONE.
If he did, and this is continued in the KJV shouldn't this be easy
to prove by going to the original Greek or the Vulgate Bible.
Has anyone else heard this claim?
Lex LUTHOR is a super-villain (or proto-super-villain if you
watch Smallville)
Martin LUTHER opposed the RC Church and translated the
Bible into German.
Not quite true there were at least 18 versions of the Bible
published in German before Luther published his. See below

From the New Advent Website, Catholic Encyclopedia:

Versions of the Bible
Post by Paul Hume
snip<
German Versions:

The history of Biblical research in Germany shows that of the numerous
partial versions in the vernacular some go back to the seventh and eighth
centuries. It also establishes the certainty of such versions on a
considerable scale in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, and points
to a complete Bible of the fifteenth in general use before the invention
of printing. ****Of special interest are the five complete folio editions
printed before 1477, nine from 1477 to 1522, and four in Low German, all
prior to Luther's New Testament in 1522.**** They were made from the
Vulgate, differing only in dialect and presenting variant readings. Their
worth even to this day has been attested by many scholars. Deserving notice
as belonging to the same period are some fourteen editions of the Psalter
and no less than ninety editions of the Epistles and Gospels for Sundays and
Holy Days. On the authority of a Nuremberg manuscript, Jostes (Histor.
Jahrbuch, 1894, XV, 771, and 1897, XVIII, 133) establishes the fact of a
complete translation of the Bible by John Rellach, O.P., of Constance
(before 1450), and thinks it was the first German version printed. A New
Testament by Beringer (Speyer, 1526) was in part a correction of Luther's
version. In 1527 another New Testament was put forth by Emser who worked
from the Vulgate and an older version, likewise correcting Luther.
In 1534 John Dietenberger, O.P., gave out a complete version at Mainz
based on a primitive translation with aid from Emser's New Testament and
from the deuterocanonical books by Leo Juda. His agreement in places with
Luther is due to the use by both of a common source. The Dietenberger
Bible underwent frequent revision, and up to 1776 had fifty-eight complete
editions. It was revised (1) by Caspar Ulenberg (Mainz, 1549, 1617;
Cologne, 1630); (2) by the theologians of Mainz, i.e. Jesuits (1661, 1662,
etc.), from whom it received the title of the Catholic Bible; (3) by Th.
Erhard, O.S.B. (Augsburg, 1722, 6th ed., 1748); (4) by G. Cartier, O.S.B.
(Constance, 1751); (5) by Ignatius Weitenauer (Augsburg, 1783-89), whose
version with notes was valued even by Protestants for its fidelity and
literary excellence. An important new translation of the Vulgate was
published at Augsburg (1788-97) by H. Braun, O.S.B. This was revised by
Feder (Nürnberg, 1803) and by Allioli (Landshut, 1830, 1832). In
successive editions the last named has almost wholly changed the original
so that it is now known only by his name. It is much esteemed as a
literary rendering and is widely read. An excellent version made from the
Vulgate and compared with original sources was put forth by Loch and
Reischl (Ratisbon, 1851-66). From original sources D. Brentano began and
Th. A. Dereser finished a version (Frankfurt, 1799-1828), with notes
savouring of Rationalism. A second edition was emended by J.M. Scholz.
This account includes only the most representative versions made by German
Catholics.

Luther's Biblical translations, begun in 1522, when he issued his New
Testament, and carried on to 1545, when he finished the deuterocanonical
books and the first complete edition of his Bible, have retained a strong
hold on German and other Protestants and by many are esteemed as little
less than inspired. He saw to many corrections and revisions himself, and
his work went through some ten editions in his own lifetime. Though
supposed to translate from the originals, he made use of the Latin version
of Lyra, the Hebrew-Latin interlinear of Pagninus, and an older German
translation of the Vulgate whose order he retained. His renderings were
often excessively free and at times he arbitrarily changed the sense of
the original. The Swiss Zwinglians adopted such portions of Luther's work
as had appeared before 1529. That year they added their own version of the
Prophets and the deuterocanonical books by Leo Juda, the whole being
called the Zurich Bible. In 1860-8 this work was revised and is still in
use. An Anabaptist version was made by Hetzer (Worms, 1529), and Calvinist
versions by Parens (1579) and by Piscator (Herborn, 1602-4). A Socinian
Bible was given out by Crellius (Racovia, 1630). In the eighteenth century
versions reflecting different beliefs and doctrinal attitudes were put
forth by Michaelis (1709), Moldenhauer (1774), Grynæus (1776), and Vögelin
(1781). Of several nineteenth-century versions the most important is that
of de Wette and Augusti (Heidelberg, 1809-14). A complete revision by
Wette was published in 1831-3 and later. It is considered a good
translation but excessively literal.

A Jewish-German Bible (Old Testament) by Athias appeared in 1666.
It was reproduced in the Biblia Pentapla (Hamburg, 1711). Another
Jewish version (Berlin, 1838) was the work of Arnheim, Füchs, and
Sachs.
Post by Paul Hume
snip<
LEWIS, Complete Hist. of the several Translations of the Holy Bible into
English (London, 1739); NEWCOME, Hist. View of Engl. Bible Translations
(Dublin, 1792); BAGSTER, English Hexapla (London, 1841); COTTON, List of
Editions of the Bible (Oxford, 1851-2); ANDERSON, Annals of the Engl.
Bible (London, 1845); EDGAR, The Bibles of England (London, 1889);
WESTCOTT, Hist. of the Engl. Bible (London, 1868); HOARE, Evolution of the
Engl. Bible (London, 1902); EADIE, Hist. of the Engl. Bible (London,
1876); WESTCOTT AND HORT, New Testament (Cambridge, 1882), introduction;
GRAHAM, Where we got the Bible. Our debt to the Catholic Church (St.
Louis, 1911); POPE, Origin of the Douay Bible in Dublin Rev., CXLVII, 97;
IDEM, The Origin of the Clementine Vulgate in Amer. Eccl. Rev. (Oct.
1911); MAAS, The English Protestant Version of the Bible after 300 years
in Eccles. Rev.(Nov., 1911); IDEM, The Revision of the Vulgate in Amer.
Eccl. Rev.

ENGLISH VERSIONS: VIGOUROUX, Dict. de la Bible (Paris, 1895); CORNELY,
Historica et crit. introd. in libros sacros (Paris, 1885); GIGOT, Gen.
Introd. to the Study of Holy Script. (New York, 1901); BRIGGS, Gen.
Introd. to the Study of Holy Script. (New York, 1899); DAVIDSON, Treatise
on Bibl. Criticism (Boston, 1853); SAUL, Das Bibelstudium im Prediger
Orden in Der Katholik, XXVII (Mainz, Oct. and Nov., 1902); NESTLE, Urtext
und Uebersetzungen der Bibel (Leipzig, 1897); MARSH, Hist. of the
Translations ... of the Scriptures from the earliest to the present age
(London, 1912) SCHRÖDER, Thesaurus ling. armenicæ (Amsterdam, 1711);
HYVERNAT, Etude sur les versions coptes de la Bible in Revue biblique,
III, IV, 6, 1; WHITTAKER, Hist. and Crit. Inquiry into the Interpretations
of the Hebrew Script. (London, 1819-20); SWETE, Introd. to the Old
Testament in Greek (Cambridge, 1900); HODY, De bibliorum textibus
originalibus, versionibus græcis, et latina Vulgata (Oxford, 1705);
ZIEGLER, Die lateinische Bibelübersetzungen vor Hieronymus (Munich, 1879);
SABATIER, Bibliorum sacr. latinæ vers. antiq. seu Vetus Itala (Reims,
1739-49); WISEMAN, Two Letters on I John, v, 7, in Essays, I (London,
1853); RÖNSCH, Itala und Vulgata (Marburg, 1869); BURKITT, The Old Latin
and Itala in Texts and Studies (Cambridge, 1896); KAULEN, Gesch. der
Vulgata (Mainz, 1868); BERGER, Hist. de la Vulgate (Paris, 1893); Revue
biblique (1893), 307, 544; (1903), 633; (1908), 159, treats of the
Vulgate; LAGARDE, Probe einer neuen Ausgabe der latein. Uebersetzungen des
Alten Testaments (1870); BATIFFOL, Chrysostome et la version gothique in
Rev. biblique, VI (1899), 566-72; WESTCOTT AND HORT, New Test. (Cambridge,
1882), introduction; KEHREIN, Gesch. der deutschen Bibelübersetzungen vor
Luther (Stuttgart, 1851); WALTHER, Die Bibelübersetzung im Mittelalter
(Brunswick, 1889-92); HINLAPEN, Hist. van der Nederl. Overzettinge des
Bybels (Leyden, 1777); REID, Bibliotheca scoto-celtica (Glasgow, 1833);
The Bible in Every Land (London, 1860). (See also MANUSCRIPTS OF THE
BIBLE.)

A.J. MAAS
Transcribed by Dennis McCarthy
For my wife, Allyson Turco McCarthy
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XV
Copyright © 1912 by Robert Appleton Company
Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight

Nihil Obstat, October 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor
Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York

Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight

Praise Jesus Christ in His Angels and in His Saints.
New Advent is dedicated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

unquote

Jim Carew sfo
Paul Hume
2004-02-25 21:27:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Tennyson
I read somewhere that Martin Luthor in his translation added the words "
Alone" in the phrase
we are saved by grace ALONE. If he did, and this is continued in the KJV
shouldn't this be easy to prove by going to the original Greek or the
Vulgate Bible. Has anyone else heard this claim?
Actually, it looks like this claim is being a little hard on Luther -
it would take a super-villain like Luthor to mess with the text ;-)

Looking at the Unbound Bible (a marvelous resource at
http://unbound.biola.edu/ )

you can call up Eph 2:8-9 in any edition you can read and scores more
most of us probably cannot. The rusty remains of my college German was
up to the Lutherbibel in this case, as the even rustier Latin the
Jesuits hammered into me - literally, with a pandybat, on occasion -
in high school was up to Jerome.

Luther worked mostly from Jerome in his translation, and the Vulgate
does not use any form of the word alone in that verse. And neither
does Luther.

The statement that we are saved by faith alone is indeed a quote from
Luther, but not from the Luther translation of the Bible. It's
exegesis, and one may (many do - both Protestant and Catholic) argue
that it is faulty exegesis, but the guy did not fiddle with the
translation to make it stand up. KJV doesn't say "alone" either. The
verse does seem to deny works, and there you get into exegetical
arguments contrasting that with (say) James, but that is theological
wrangling, not textual interference.
walksalone
2004-02-26 16:11:26 UTC
Permalink
On 25 Feb 2004 13:27:17 -0800, ***@comcast.net (Paul Hume) wrote:

Crossposting list left in, not sure where Paul posted this from.
Post by Paul Hume
Post by Mike Tennyson
I read somewhere that Martin Luthor in his translation added the words "
Alone" in the phrase
we are saved by grace ALONE. If he did, and this is continued in the KJV
shouldn't this be easy to prove by going to the original Greek or the
Vulgate Bible. Has anyone else heard this claim?
Actually, it looks like this claim is being a little hard on Luther -
it would take a super-villain like Luthor to mess with the text ;-)
Looking at the Unbound Bible (a marvelous resource at
http://unbound.biola.edu/ )
Thanks for the link, looks intersting.

walkslaone who's reading list just got added to. Seems history has
spoken the Jewish myth is not historically accurate in an embarassing
way. Think Cyrus the Great & the early ending of the Babylonian exile.
bam
2004-02-25 23:20:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Tennyson
I read somewhere that Martin Luthor in his translation added the words "
Alone" in the phrase
we are saved by grace ALONE. If he did, and this is continued in the KJV
shouldn't this be easy to prove by going to the original Greek or the
Vulgate Bible. Has anyone else heard this claim?
Now that you've read all the unsupported and inaccurate responses......

Here's what Luther wrote:

=================================================================


An Open Letter on Translating
By Dr. Martin Luther, 1483-1546
Translated from:
"Sendbrief von Dolmetschen"
in _Dr. Martin Luthers Werke_,
(Weimar: Hermann Boehlaus Nachfolger, 1909),
Band 30, Teil II, pp. 632-646
by Gary Mann, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Religion/Theology
Augustana College
Rock Island, Illinois

Preface

Wenceslas Link to all believers in Christ:

The wise Solomon says in Proverbs 11: "The people who withhold
grain curse him. But there is a blessing on those who sell it."
This verse speaks truly concerning all that can serve the common
good or the well-being of Christendom. This is the reason the
master in the gospel reprimands the unfaithful servant like a lazy
scoundrel for having hidden and buried his money in the ground.
So that this curse of the Lord and the entire Church might be
avoided, I must publish this letter which came into my possession
through a good friend. I could not withhold it, as there has been
much discussion about the translating of the Old and New
Testaments. It has been charged by the despisers of truth that
the text has been modified and even falsified in many places,
which has shocked and startled many simple Christians, even among
the educated who do not know any Hebrew or Greek. It is devoutly
hoped that with this publication the slander of the godless will
be stopped and the scruples of the devout removed, at least in
part. It may even give rise to more writing on such matters and
questions such as these. So I ask all friends of the Truth to
seriously take this work to heart and faithfully pray to God for a
proper understanding of the divine Scriptures towards the
improvement and increase of our common Christendom. Amen.

Nuremberg Sept. 15, 1530.

To the Honorable and Worthy N., my favorite lord and friend.

Grace and peace in Christ, honorable, worthy and dear Lord and
friend. I received your writing with the two questions or queries
requesting my response. In the first place, you ask why I, in the
3rd chapter of Romans, translated the words of St. Paul:
"Arbitramur hominem iustificari ex fide absque operibus" as "We
hold that the human will be justified without the works of the law
but only by faith." You also tell me that the Papists are causing
a great fuss because St. Paul's text does not contain the word
sola (alone), and that my changing of the words of God is not to
be tolerated. Secondly, you ask if the departed saints intercede
for us. Regarding the first question, you can give the papists
this answer from me - if you so desire.

On the first hand, if I, Dr. Luther, had thought that all the
Papists together were capable of translating even one passage of
Scripture correctly and well, I would have gathered up enough
humility to ask for their aid and assistance in translating the
New Testament into German. However, I spared them and myself the
trouble, as I knew and still see with my own eyes that not one of
them knows how to speak or translate German. It is obvious,
however, that they are learning to speak and write German from my
translations. Thus, they are stealing my language from me - a
language they had little knowledge of before this. However, they
do not thank me for this but instead use it against me. Yet I
readily grant them this as it tickles me to know that I have
taught my ungrateful students, even my enemies, to speak.

Secondly, you might say that I have conscientiously translated the
New Testament into German to the best of my ability, and that I
have not forced anyone to read it. Rather I have left it open,
only doing the translation as a service to those who could not do
it as well. No one is forbidden to do it better. If someone does
not wish to read it, he can let it lie, for I do not ask anyone to
read it or praise anyone who does! It is my Testament and my
translation - and it shall remain mine. If I have made errors
within it (although I am not aware of any and would most certainly
be unwilling to intentionally mistranslate a single letter) I will
not allow the papists to judge for their ears continue to be too
long and their hee-haws too weak for them to be critical of my
translating. I know quite well how much skill, hard work,
understanding and intelligence is needed for a good translation.
They know it less than even the miller's donkey for they have
never tried it.

It is said, "The one who builds along the pathway has many
masters." It is like this with me. Those who have not ever been
able to speak correctly (to say nothing of translating) have all
at once become my masters and I their pupil. If I were to have
asked them how to translate the first two words of Matthew "Liber
Generationis" into German, not one of them would have been able to
say "Quack!" And they judge all my works! Fine fellows! It was
also like this for St. Jerome when he translated the Bible.
Everyone was his master. He alone was entirely incompetent as
people, who were not good enough to clean his boots, judged his
works. This is why it takes a great deal of patience to do good
things in public for the world believes itself to be the Master of
Knowledge, always putting the bit under the horse's tail, and not
judging itself for that is the world's nature. It can do nothing
else.



I would gladly see a papist come forward and translate into German
an epistle of St. Paul's or one of the prophets and, in doing so,
not make use of Luther's German or translation. Then one might
see a fine, beautiful and noteworthy translation into German.

We have seen that bungler from Dresden play master to my New
Testament. (I will not mention his name in my books as he has his
judge and is already well- known). He does admit that my German
is good and sweet and that he could not improve it. Yet, anxious
to dishonor it, he took my New Testament word for word as it was
written, and removed my prefaces and glosses, replacing them with
his own. Then he published my New Testament under his name! Dear
Children, how it pained me when his prince in a detestable preface
condemned my work and forbid all from reading Luther's New
Testament, while at the same time commending the Bungler's New
Testament to be read - even though it was the very same one Luther
had written!

So no one thinks I am lying, put Luther's and the Bungler's New
Testaments side by side and compare them. You will see who did
the translation for both. He has patched it in places and
reordered it (and although it does not all please me) I can still
leave it be for it does me no particular harm as far as the
document is concerned. That is why I never intended to write in
opposition to it. But I did have a laugh at the great wisdom that
so terribly slandered, condemned and forbade my New Testament,
when it was published under my name, but required its reading when
published under an other's name! What type of virtue is this that
slanders and heaps shame on someone else's work, and then steals
it, and publishes it under one's own name, thereby seeking glory
and esteem through the slandered work of someone else! I leave
that for his judge to say. I am glad and satisfied that my work
(as St. Paul also boasts ) is furthered by my enemies, and that
Luther's work, without Luther's name but that of his enemy, is to
be read. What better vengeance?!

Returning to the issue at hand, if your Papist wishes to make a
great fuss about the word "alone" (sola), say this to him: "Dr.
Martin Luther will have it so and he says that a papist and an ass
are the same thing." Sic volo, sic iubeo, sit pro ratione
voluntas. (I will it, I command it; my will is reason enough) For
we are not going to become students and followers of the papists.
Rather we will become their judge and master. We, too, are going
to be proud and brag with these blockheads; and just as St. Paul
brags against his madly raving saints, I will brag over these
asses of mine! They are doctors? Me too. They are scholars? I
am as well. They are philosophers? And I. They are
dialecticians? I am too. They are lecturers? So am I. They
write books? So do I.

I will go even further with my bragging: I can exegete the psalms
and the prophets, and they cannot. I can translate, and they
cannot. I can read Holy Scriptures, and they cannot. I can pray,
they cannot. Coming down to their level, I can do their
dialectics and philosophy better than all of them put together.
Plus I know that not one of them understands Aristotle. If, in
fact, any one of them can correctly understand one part or chapter
of Aristotle, I will eat my hat! No, I am not overdoing it for I
have been educated in and have practiced their science since my
childhood. I recognize how broad and deep it is. They, too, know
that everything they can do, I can do. Yet they handle me like a
stranger in their discipline, these incurable fellows, as if I had
just arrived this morning and had never seen or heard what they
know and teach. How they do so brilliantly parade around with
their science, teaching me what I grew beyond twenty years ago!
To all their shouting and screaming I join the harlot in singing:
"I have known for seven years that horseshoe nails are iron."

So this can be the answer to your first question. Please do not
give these asses any other answer to their useless braying about
that word "sola" than simply "Luther will have it so, and he says
that he is a doctor above all the papal doctors." Let it remain
at that. I will, from now on, hold them in contempt, and have
already held them in contempt, as long as they are the kind of
people that they are - asses, I should say. And there are brazen
idiots among them who have never learned their own art of
sophistry - like Dr. Schmidt and Snot-Nose, and such like them.
They set themselves against me in this matter, which not only
transcends sophistry, but as St. Paul writes, all the wisdom and
understanding in the world as well. An ass truly does not have to
sing much as he is already known for his ears.

For you and our people, however, I shall show why I used the word
"sola" - even though in Romans 3 it wasn't "sola" I used but
"solum" or "tantum". That is how closely those asses have looked
at my text! However, I have used "sola fides" in other places,
and I want to use both "solum" and "sola". I have continually
tried translating in a pure and accurate German. It has happened
that I have sometimes searched and inquired about a single word
for three or four weeks. Sometimes I have not found it even then.
I have worked Meister Philip and Aurogallus so hard in translating
Job, sometimes barely translating 3 lines after four days. Now
that it has been translated into German and completed, all can
read and criticize it. One can now read three or four pages
without stumbling one time - without realizing just what rocks and
hindrances had once been where now one travels as as if over a
smoothly-cut plank. We had to sweat and toil there before we
removed those rocks and hindrances, so one could go along nicely.
The plowing goes nicely in a clear field. But nobody wants the
task of digging out the rocks and hindrances. There is no such
thing as earning the world's thanks. Even God cannot each thanks,
not with the sun, nor with heaven and earth, or even the death of
his Son. It just is and remains as it is, in the devil's name, as
it will not be anything else.
.


I also know that in Rom. 3, the word "solum" is not present in
either Greek or Latin text - the papists did not have to teach me
that - it is fact! The letters s-o-l-a are not there. And these
knotheads stare at them like cows at a new gate, while at the same
time they do not recognize that it conveys the sense of the text -
if the translation is to be clear and accurate, it belongs there.
I wanted to speak German since it was German I had spoken in
translation - not Latin or Greek. But it is the nature of our
language that in speaking about two things, one which is affirmed,
the other denied, we use the word "solum" only along with the word
"not" (nicht) or "no" (kein). For example, we say "the farmer
brings only (allein) grain and no money"; or "No, I really have no
money, but only (allein) grain"; I have only eaten and not yet
drunk"; "Did you write it only and not read it over?" There are a
vast number of such everyday cases.

In all these phrases, this is a German usage, even though it is
not the Latin or Greek usage. It is the nature of the German
tongue to add "allein" in order that "nicht" or "kein" may be
clearer and more complete. To be sure, I can also say "The farmer
brings grain and no (kein) money, but the words "kein money" do
not sound as full and clear as if I were to say, "the farmer
brings allein grain and kein money." Here the word "allein" helps
the word "kein" so much that it becomes a clear and complete
German expression.

We do not have to ask about the literal Latin or how we are to
speak German - as these asses do. Rather we must ask the mother
in the home, the children on the street, the common person in the
market about this. We must be guided by their tongue, the manner
of their speech, and do our translating accordingly. Then they
will understand it and recognize that we are speaking German to
them.

For instance, Christ says: Ex abundatia cordis os loquitur. If I
am to follow these asses, they will lay the original before me
literally and translate it as: "Out of the abundance of the heart
the mouth speaks." Is that speaking with a German tongue? What
German could understand something like that? What is this
"abundance of the heart?" No German can say that; unless, of
course, he was trying to say that someone was altogether too
magnanimous, or too courageous, though even that would not yet be
correct, as "abundance of the heart" is not German, not any more
than "abundance of the house, "abundance of the stove" or
"abundance of the bench" is German. But the mother in the home
and the common man say this: "What fills the heart overflows the
mouth." That is speaking with the proper German tongue of the
kind I have tried for, although unfortunately not always
successfully. The literal Latin is a great barrier to speaking
proper German.

So, as the traitor Judas says in Matthew 26: "Ut quid perditio
haec?" and in Mark 14: "Ut quid perditio iste unguenti facta est?"
Subsequently, for these literalist asses I would have to translate
it: "Why has this loss of salve occurred?" But what kind of
German is this? What German says "loss of salve occurred"? And
if he does understand it at all, he would think that the salve is
lost and must be looked for and found again; even though that is
still obscure and uncertain. Now if that is good German why do
they not come out and make us a fine, new German testament and let
Luther's testament be? I think that would really bring out their
talents. But a German would say "Ut quid, etc.." as "Why this
waste?" or "Why this extravagance?" Even "it is a shame about the
ointment" - these are good German, in which one can understand
that Magdalene had wasted the salve she poured out and had done
wrong. That was what Judas meant as he thought he could have used
it better.

Now when the angel greets Mary, he says: "Greetings to you, Mary,
full of grace, the Lord is with you." well up to this point, this
has simply been translated from the simple Latin, but tell me is
that good German? Since when does a German speak like that - being
"full of grace"? One would have to think about a keg "full of"
beer or a purse "full of" money. So I translated it: "You
gracious one". This way a German can at last think about what the
angel meant by his greeting. Yet the papists rant about me
corrupting the angelic greeting - and I still have not used the
most satisfactory German translation. What if I had used the most
satisfactory German and translated the salutation: "God says
hello, Mary dear" (for that is what the angel was intending to say
and what he would have said had he even been German!). If I had,
I believe that they would have hanged themselves out of their
great devotion to dear Mary and because I have destroyed the
greeting.

Yet why should I be concerned about their ranting and raving? I
will not stop them from translating as they want. But I too shall
translate as I want and not to please them, and whoever does not
like it can just ignore it and keep his criticism to himself, for
I will neither look at nor listen to it. They do not have to
answer for or bear responsibility for my translation. Listen up,
I shall say "gracious Mary" and "dear Mary", and they can say
"Mary full of grace". Anyone who knows German also knows what an
expressive word "dear"(liebe) is: dear Mary, dear God, the dear
emperor, the dear prince, the dear man, the dear child. I do not
know if one can say this word "liebe" in Latin or in other
languages with so much depth of emotion that it pierces the heart
and echoes throughout as it does in our tongue.

I think that St. Luke, as a master of the Hebrew and Greek
tongues, wanted to clarify and articulate the Greek word
"kecharitomene" that the angel used. And I think that the angel
Gabriel spoke with Mary just as he spoke with Daniel, when he
called him "Chamudoth" and "Ish chamudoth, vir desiriorum", that
is "Dear Daniel." That is the way Gabriel speaks, as we can see
in Daniel. Now if I were to literally translate the words of the
angel, and use the skills of these asses, I would have to
translate it as "Daniel, you man of desires" or "Daniel, you man
of lust". Oh, that would be beautiful German! A German would, of
course, recognize "Man", "Lueste" and "begirunge" as being German
words, although not altogether pure as "lust" and "begir" would be
better. But when those words are put together you get "you man of
desires" and no German is going to understand that. He might even
think that Daniel is full of lustful desires. Now wouldn't that
be a fine translation! So I have to let the literal words go and
try to discover how the German says what the Hebrew "ish
chamudoth" expresses. I discover that the German says this, "You
dear Daniel", "you dear Mary", or "you gracious maiden", "you
lovely maiden", "you gentle girl" and so on. A translator must
have a large vocabulary so he can have more words for when a
particular one just does not fit in the context.
.


Why should I talk about translating so much? I would need an
entire year were I to point out the reasons and concerns behind my
words. I have learned what an art and job translating is by
experience, so I will not tolerate some papal ass or mule as my
critic, or judge. They have not tried the task. If anyone does
not like my translations, they can ignore it; and may the devil
repay the one who dislikes or criticizes my translations without
my knowledge or permission. Should it be criticized, I will do it
myself. If I do not do it, then they can leave my translations in
peace. They can each do a translation that suits them - what do I
care?

To this I can, with good conscience, give witness - that I gave my
utmost effort and care and I had no ulterior motives. I have not
taken or wanted even a small coin in return. Neither have I made
any by it. God knows that I have not even sought honor by it, but
I have done it as a service to the blessed Christians and to the
honor of the One who sits above who blesses me every hour of my
life that had I translated a thousand times more diligently, I
should not have deserved to live or have a sound eye for even a
single hour. All I am and have to offer is from his mercy and
grace - indeed of his precious blood and bitter sweat. Therefore,
God willing, all of it will also serve to his honor, joyfully and
sincerely. I may be insulted by the scribblers and papists but
true Christians, along with Christ, their Lord, bless me.
Further, I am more than amply rewarded if just one Christian
acknowledge me as a workman with integrity. I do not care about
the papists, as they are not good enough to acknowledge my work
and, if they were to bless me, it would break my heart. I may be
insulted by their highest praise and honor, but I will still be a
doctor, even a distinguished one. I am certain that they shall
never take from me until the final day.

Yet I have not just gone ahead, ignoring the exact wording in the
original. Instead, with great care, I have, along with my
helpers, gone ahead and have kept literally to the original,
without the slightest deviation, wherever it appeared that a
passage was crucial. For instance, in John 6 Christ says: "Him
has God the Father set his seal upon (versiegelt)." It would be
more clear in German to say "Him has God the Father signified
(gezeiehent)" or even "God the Father means him." But rather than
doing violence to the original, I have done violence to the German
tongue. Ah, translating is not every one's skill as some mad
saints think. A right, devout, honest, sincere, God-fearing
Christian, trained, educated, and experienced heart is required.
So I hold that no false Christian or divisive spirit can be a good
translator. That is obvious given the translation of the Prophets
at Worms which although carefully done and approximating my own
German quite closely, does not show much reverence for Christ due
to the Jews who shared in the translation. Aside from that it
shows plenty of skill and craftsmanship there.

So much for translating and the nature of language. However, I was
not depending upon or following the nature of language when I
inserted the word "solum" (alone) in Rom. 3 as the text itself,
and St. Paul's meaning, urgently necessitated and demanded it. He
is dealing with the main point of Christian doctrine in this
passage - namely that we are justified by faith in Christ without
any works of the Law. In fact, he rejects all works so completely
as to say that the works of the Law, though it is God's law and
word, do not aid us in justification. Using Abraham as an
example, he argues that Abraham was so justified without works
that even the highest work, which had been commanded by God, over
and above all others, namely circumcision, did not aid him in
justification. Instead, Abraham was justified without
circumcision and without any works, but by faith, as he says in
Chapter 4: "If Abraham is justified by works, he may boast, but
not before God." However, when all works are so completely
rejected - which must mean faith alone justifies - whoever would
speak plainly and clearly about this rejection of works would have
to say "Faith alone justifies and not works." The matter itself
and the nature of language necessitates it.

"Yet", they say, "it has such an offensive tone that people infer
from it that need not do any good works." Dear, what are we to
say? IS it not more offensive for St. Paul himself to not use the
term "faith alone" but but spell it even more clearly, putting the
finishing touches on it by saying "Without the works of the Law?"
Gal. 1 [2.16] says that "not by works of the law' (as well as in
many other places) for the phrase "without the works of the law"
is so sever offensive, and scandalous that no amount of revision
can help it. How much more might people learn from "that they
need not do any good works", when all they hear is about the
preaching about the works themselves, sated in such a clear
strong way: "No works", "without works", "not by works"! If it is
not offensive to preach "without works", "not by works"! If it is
not offensive to preach "without works", "not by works"!, "no
works", why is it offensive to preach "by faith alone"?

Still more offensive is that St. Paul does not reject just
ordinary works, but works of the law! It follows that one could
take offense at that all the more and say that the law is
condemned and cursed before God and one ought only do what is
contrary to the law as it is said in Rom. 3: "Why not do evil so
that there might be more good?" which is what that one divisive
spirit of our time was doing. Should one reject St. Paul's word
because of such `offense' or refrain from speaking freely about
faith? Gracious, St. Paul and I want to offend like this for we
preach so strongly against works, insisting on faith alone for no
other reason that to offend people that they might stumble and
fall and learn that they are not saved by good works but only by
Christ's death and resurrection. Knowing that they cannot be
saved by their good works of the law, how much more will they
realize that they shall not be saved by bad works, or without the
law! Therefore, it does not follow that because good works do not
help, bad works will; just as it does not follow that because the
sun cannot help a blind person see, the night and darkness must
help him see.

It astounds me that one can be offended by something as obvious as
this! Just tell me, is Christ's death and resurrection our work,
what we do, or not? It is obviously not our work, nor is it the
work of the law. Now it is Christ's death and resurrection alone
which saves and frees us from sin, as Paul writes in Rom. 4: "He
died for our sin and arose for our righteousness." Tell me more!
What is the work by which we take hold of Christ's death and
resurrection? It must not be an external work but only the
eternal faith in the heart that alone, indeed all alone, which
takes hold of this death and resurrection when it is preached
through the gospel. Then why all this ranting and raving, this
making of heretics and burning of them, when it is clear at its
very core, proving that faith alone takes hold of Christ's death
and resurrection, without any works, and that his death and
resurrection are our life and righteousness? As this fact is so
obvious, that faith alone gives, brings, and takes a hold of this
life and righteousness - why should we not say so? It is not
heretical that faith alone holds on to Christ and gives life; and
yet it seems to be heresy if someone mentions it. Are they not
insane, foolish and ridiculous? They will say that one thing is
right but brand the telling of this right thing as wrong - even
though something cannot be simultaneously right and wrong.

.


Furthermore, I am not the only one, nor the first, to say that
faith alone makes one righteous. There was Ambrose, Augustine and
many others who said it before me. And if one is to read and
understand St. Paul, the same thing must be said and not anything
else. His words, as well, are blunt - "no works" - none at all!
If it is not works, it must be faith alone. Oh what a marvelous,
constructive and inoffensive teaching that would be, to be taught
that one can be saved by works as well as by faith. That would be
like saying that it is not Christ's death alone that takes away
our sin but that our works have something to do with it. Now that
would be a fine way of honoring Christ's death, saying that it is
helped by our works, and that whatever it does our works can also
do - that we are his equal in goodness and power. This is the
devil itself for he cannot ever stop abusing the blood of Christ.

Therefore the matter itself, at its very core, necessitates one
say: "Faith alone makes one righteous." The nature of the German
tongue teaches us to say it in the same way. In addition, I have
the examples of the holy fathers. The dangers confronting the
people also compel it so they do not continue to hang onto works
and wander away from faith, losing Christ, especially at this time
when they have been so accustomed to works they have to be pulled
away from them by force. It is for these reasons that it is not
only right but also necessary to say it as plainly and forcefully
as possible: "Faith alone saves without works!" I am only sorry I
did not add "alle" and "aller", and said "without any (alle) works
of any (aller) laws." That would have stated it most effectively.
Therefore, it will remain in the New Testament, and though all the
papal asses rant and rave at me, they shall not take it away from
me. Let this be enough for now. I will have to speak more about
this in the treatise "On Justification" (if God grants me grace).

On the other question as to whether the departed saints intercede
for us. For the present I am only going to give a brief answer as
I am considering publishing a sermon on the beloved angels in
which I will respond more fully on this matter (God willing).

First, you know that under the papacy it is not only taught that
the saints in heaven intercede for us - even though we cannot know
this as the Scripture does not tell us such - but the saints have
been made into gods, and that they are to be our patrons to whom
we should call. Some of them have never existed! To each of these
saints a particular power and might has been given - one over
fire, another over water, another over pestilence, fever and all
sorts of plagues. Indeed, God must have been altogether idle to
have let the saints work in his place. Of this atrocity the
papists themselves are aware, as they quietly take up their pipes
and preen and primp themselves over this doctrine of the
intercession of the saints. I will leave this subject for now -
but you can count on my not forgetting it and allowing this
primping and preening to continue without cost.

And again, you know that there is not a single passage from God
demanding us to call upon either saints or angels to intercede for
us, and that there is no example of such in the Scriptures. One
finds that the beloved angels spoke with the fathers and the
prophets, but that none of them had ever been asked to intercede
for them. Why even Jacob the patriarch did not ask the angel with
whom he wrestled for any intercession. Instead, he only took from
him a blessing. In fact, on finds the very opposite in revelation
as the angel will not allow itself to be worshipped by John. [Rev.
22] So the worship of saints shows itself as nothing but human
nonsense, our own invention separated from the word of God and the
Scriptures.

As it is not proper in the matter of divine worship for us to do
anything that is not commanded by God (and that whoever does is
putting God to the test), it is therefore also not advisable or
tolerable for one to call upon the saints for intercession or to
teach others to do so. In fact, it is to be condemned and people
taught to avoid it. Therefore, I also will not advise it and
burden my conscience with the iniquities of others. It was
difficult for me to stop from worshipping the saints as I was so
steeped in it to have nearly drowned. But the light of the gospel
is now shining so brightly that from now on no one has an excuse
for remaining in the darkness. We all very well know what we are
to do.

This is itself a very risky and blasphemous way to worship for
people are easily accustomed to turning away from Christ. They
learn quickly to trust more in the saints than in Christ himself.
When our nature is already all to prone to run from God and
Christ, and trust in humanity, it is indeed difficult to learn to
trust in God and Christ, even though we have vowed to do so and
are therefore obligated to do so. Therefore, this offense is not
to be tolerated whereby those who are weak and of the flesh
participate in idolatry, against the first commandment and our
baptism. Even if one tries nothing other than to switch their
trust from the saints to Christ, through teaching and practice, it
will be difficult to accomplish, that one should come to him and
rightly take hold of him. One need not paint the Devil on the
door - he will already be present.

We can finally be certain that God is not angry with us, and that
even if we do not call on the saints for intercession, we are
secure for God has never commanded it. God says that God is a
jealous God granting their iniquities on those who do not keep his
commandments [Ex.20]; but there is no commandment here and,
therefore, no anger to be feared. Since, then, there is on this
side security and on the other side great risk and offense against
the Word of God, why should we go from security into danger where
we do not have the Word of God to sustain, comfort and save us in
the times of trial? For it is written, "Whoever loves danger will
perish by it" [Ecclus. 3], and God's commandment says, "You shall
not put the Lord your God to the test" [Matt. 4].

"But," they say, "this way you condemn all of Christendom which
has always maintained this - until now." I answer: I know very
well that the priests and monks seek this cloak for their
blasphemies. They want to give to Christendom the damage caused
by their own negligence. Then, when we say, "Christendom does not
err," we shall also be saying that they do not err, since
Christendom believes it to be so. So no pilgrimage can be wrong,
no matter how obviously the Devil is a participant in it. No
indulgence can be wrong, regardless of how horrible the lies
involved. In other words, there is nothing there but holiness!
Therefore to this you reply, "It is not a question of who is and
who is not condemned." They inject this irrelevant idea in order
to divert us from the topic at hand. We are now discussing the
Word of God. What Christendom is or do does belongs somewhere
else. The question here is: "What is or is not the Word of God?
What is not the Word of God does not make Christendom.

We read that in the days of Elijah the prophet there was
apparently no word from God and not worship of God in Israel. For
Elijah says, "Lord, they have killed your prophets and destroyed
your altars, and I am left totally alone" [I Kings 19]. Here King
Ahab and others could have said, "Elijah, with talk like that you
are condemning all the people of God." However God had at the
same time kept seven thousand [I Kings 19]. How? Do you not also
think that God could now, under the papacy, have preserved his
own, even though the priests and monks of Christendom have been
teachers of the devil and gone to hell? Many children and young
people have died in Christ. For even under the anti-Christ,
Christ has strongly sustained baptism, the bare text of the gospel
in the pulpit, the Lord's Prayer, and the Creed. By this means he
sustained many of his Christians, and therefore also his
Christendom, and said nothing about it to these devil's teachers.

Now even though Christians have done some parts of the papal
blasphemy, the papal asses have not yet proved that they did it
gladly. Still less does it prove that they even did the right
thing. All Christians can err and sin, but God has taught them to
pray in the Lord's Prayer for the forgiveness of sins. God could
very well forgive the sins they had to unwillingly, unknowingly,
and under the coercion of the Antichrist commit, without saying
anything about it to the priests and monks! It can,however, be
easily proven that there has always been a great deal of secret
murmuring and complaining against the clergy throughout the world,
and that they are not treating Christendom properly. And the
papal asses have courageously withstood such complaining with fire
and sword, even to the present day. This murmuring proves how
happy Christians have been over these blasphemies, and how right
they have been in doing them!

So out with it, you papal asses! Say that this is the teaching of
Christendom: these stinking lies which you villains and traitors
have forced upon Christendom and for the sake of which you
murderers have killed many Christians. Why each letter of every
papal law gives testimony to the fact that nothing has ever been
taught by the counsel and the consent of Christendom. There is
nothing there but "districte precipiendo mandamus" ["we teach and
strictly command"]. That has been your Holy Spirit. Christendom
has had to suffer this tyranny. This tyranny has robbed it of the
sacrament and, not by its own fault, has been held in captivity.
And still the asses would pawn of on us this intolerable tyranny
of their own wickedness as a willing act and example of
Christendom - and thereby acquit themselves!

But this is getting too long. Let this be enough of an answer to
your questions for now. More another time. Excuse this long
letter. Christ our Lord be with us all. Amen.

Martin Luther,
Your good friend.
The Wilderness, September 8, 1530
________________________________________________________________

This text was translated for Project Wittenberg by Dr. Gary Mann
in 1995 and was placed by him in the public domain. You may
freely distribute, copy or print this text, providing the
information in this statement remains attached. Please direct any
comments or suggestions to: Rev. Robert E. Smith of the Walther
Library at Concordia Theological Seminary.

E-mail: ***@CRF.CUIS.EDU
Surface Mail: 6600 N. Clinton St.,Ft. Wayne, IN 46825 USA
Phone: (219) 481-2123 Fax: (219) 481-2126
________________________________________________________________

file: /pub/resources/txt/wittenberg/luther: luther-translate.txt
.
BAM
Mike Tennyson
2004-02-26 06:24:08 UTC
Permalink
Wow! Thanks for posting this response. You really cleared that up. Adding
"alone" does change the meaning. Kinda like homoousius (same) and
homoiousius (similiar) Big Difference. Reading this makes me want to study
and learn more about Luther. I also heard he went mad near the end of his
life.

Mike Tennyson

So, if "alone" is not in the KJV why do the Protestants always say it (Saved
by Grace Alone, or Justified by Faith Alone)? I thought we are not supposed
to add or take away?

Mike
Post by bam
Post by Mike Tennyson
I read somewhere that Martin Luthor in his translation added the words "
Alone" in the phrase
we are saved by grace ALONE. If he did, and this is continued in the KJV
shouldn't this be easy to prove by going to the original Greek or the
Vulgate Bible. Has anyone else heard this claim?
Now that you've read all the unsupported and inaccurate responses......
=================================================================
An Open Letter on Translating
By Dr. Martin Luther, 1483-1546
"Sendbrief von Dolmetschen"
in _Dr. Martin Luthers Werke_,
(Weimar: Hermann Boehlaus Nachfolger, 1909),
Band 30, Teil II, pp. 632-646
by Gary Mann, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Religion/Theology
Augustana College
Rock Island, Illinois
Preface
The wise Solomon says in Proverbs 11: "The people who withhold
grain curse him. But there is a blessing on those who sell it."
This verse speaks truly concerning all that can serve the common
good or the well-being of Christendom. This is the reason the
master in the gospel reprimands the unfaithful servant like a lazy
scoundrel for having hidden and buried his money in the ground.
So that this curse of the Lord and the entire Church might be
avoided, I must publish this letter which came into my possession
through a good friend. I could not withhold it, as there has been
much discussion about the translating of the Old and New
Testaments. It has been charged by the despisers of truth that
the text has been modified and even falsified in many places,
which has shocked and startled many simple Christians, even among
the educated who do not know any Hebrew or Greek. It is devoutly
hoped that with this publication the slander of the godless will
be stopped and the scruples of the devout removed, at least in
part. It may even give rise to more writing on such matters and
questions such as these. So I ask all friends of the Truth to
seriously take this work to heart and faithfully pray to God for a
proper understanding of the divine Scriptures towards the
improvement and increase of our common Christendom. Amen.
Nuremberg Sept. 15, 1530.
To the Honorable and Worthy N., my favorite lord and friend.
Grace and peace in Christ, honorable, worthy and dear Lord and
friend. I received your writing with the two questions or queries
requesting my response. In the first place, you ask why I, in the
"Arbitramur hominem iustificari ex fide absque operibus" as "We
hold that the human will be justified without the works of the law
but only by faith." You also tell me that the Papists are causing
a great fuss because St. Paul's text does not contain the word
sola (alone), and that my changing of the words of God is not to
be tolerated. Secondly, you ask if the departed saints intercede
for us. Regarding the first question, you can give the papists
this answer from me - if you so desire.
On the first hand, if I, Dr. Luther, had thought that all the
Papists together were capable of translating even one passage of
Scripture correctly and well, I would have gathered up enough
humility to ask for their aid and assistance in translating the
New Testament into German. However, I spared them and myself the
trouble, as I knew and still see with my own eyes that not one of
them knows how to speak or translate German. It is obvious,
however, that they are learning to speak and write German from my
translations. Thus, they are stealing my language from me - a
language they had little knowledge of before this. However, they
do not thank me for this but instead use it against me. Yet I
readily grant them this as it tickles me to know that I have
taught my ungrateful students, even my enemies, to speak.
Secondly, you might say that I have conscientiously translated the
New Testament into German to the best of my ability, and that I
have not forced anyone to read it. Rather I have left it open,
only doing the translation as a service to those who could not do
it as well. No one is forbidden to do it better. If someone does
not wish to read it, he can let it lie, for I do not ask anyone to
read it or praise anyone who does! It is my Testament and my
translation - and it shall remain mine. If I have made errors
within it (although I am not aware of any and would most certainly
be unwilling to intentionally mistranslate a single letter) I will
not allow the papists to judge for their ears continue to be too
long and their hee-haws too weak for them to be critical of my
translating. I know quite well how much skill, hard work,
understanding and intelligence is needed for a good translation.
They know it less than even the miller's donkey for they have
never tried it.
It is said, "The one who builds along the pathway has many
masters." It is like this with me. Those who have not ever been
able to speak correctly (to say nothing of translating) have all
at once become my masters and I their pupil. If I were to have
asked them how to translate the first two words of Matthew "Liber
Generationis" into German, not one of them would have been able to
say "Quack!" And they judge all my works! Fine fellows! It was
also like this for St. Jerome when he translated the Bible.
Everyone was his master. He alone was entirely incompetent as
people, who were not good enough to clean his boots, judged his
works. This is why it takes a great deal of patience to do good
things in public for the world believes itself to be the Master of
Knowledge, always putting the bit under the horse's tail, and not
judging itself for that is the world's nature. It can do nothing
else.
I would gladly see a papist come forward and translate into German
an epistle of St. Paul's or one of the prophets and, in doing so,
not make use of Luther's German or translation. Then one might
see a fine, beautiful and noteworthy translation into German.
We have seen that bungler from Dresden play master to my New
Testament. (I will not mention his name in my books as he has his
judge and is already well- known). He does admit that my German
is good and sweet and that he could not improve it. Yet, anxious
to dishonor it, he took my New Testament word for word as it was
written, and removed my prefaces and glosses, replacing them with
his own. Then he published my New Testament under his name! Dear
Children, how it pained me when his prince in a detestable preface
condemned my work and forbid all from reading Luther's New
Testament, while at the same time commending the Bungler's New
Testament to be read - even though it was the very same one Luther
had written!
So no one thinks I am lying, put Luther's and the Bungler's New
Testaments side by side and compare them. You will see who did
the translation for both. He has patched it in places and
reordered it (and although it does not all please me) I can still
leave it be for it does me no particular harm as far as the
document is concerned. That is why I never intended to write in
opposition to it. But I did have a laugh at the great wisdom that
so terribly slandered, condemned and forbade my New Testament,
when it was published under my name, but required its reading when
published under an other's name! What type of virtue is this that
slanders and heaps shame on someone else's work, and then steals
it, and publishes it under one's own name, thereby seeking glory
and esteem through the slandered work of someone else! I leave
that for his judge to say. I am glad and satisfied that my work
(as St. Paul also boasts ) is furthered by my enemies, and that
Luther's work, without Luther's name but that of his enemy, is to
be read. What better vengeance?!
Returning to the issue at hand, if your Papist wishes to make a
great fuss about the word "alone" (sola), say this to him: "Dr.
Martin Luther will have it so and he says that a papist and an ass
are the same thing." Sic volo, sic iubeo, sit pro ratione
voluntas. (I will it, I command it; my will is reason enough) For
we are not going to become students and followers of the papists.
Rather we will become their judge and master. We, too, are going
to be proud and brag with these blockheads; and just as St. Paul
brags against his madly raving saints, I will brag over these
asses of mine! They are doctors? Me too. They are scholars? I
am as well. They are philosophers? And I. They are
dialecticians? I am too. They are lecturers? So am I. They
write books? So do I.
I will go even further with my bragging: I can exegete the psalms
and the prophets, and they cannot. I can translate, and they
cannot. I can read Holy Scriptures, and they cannot. I can pray,
they cannot. Coming down to their level, I can do their
dialectics and philosophy better than all of them put together.
Plus I know that not one of them understands Aristotle. If, in
fact, any one of them can correctly understand one part or chapter
of Aristotle, I will eat my hat! No, I am not overdoing it for I
have been educated in and have practiced their science since my
childhood. I recognize how broad and deep it is. They, too, know
that everything they can do, I can do. Yet they handle me like a
stranger in their discipline, these incurable fellows, as if I had
just arrived this morning and had never seen or heard what they
know and teach. How they do so brilliantly parade around with
their science, teaching me what I grew beyond twenty years ago!
"I have known for seven years that horseshoe nails are iron."
So this can be the answer to your first question. Please do not
give these asses any other answer to their useless braying about
that word "sola" than simply "Luther will have it so, and he says
that he is a doctor above all the papal doctors." Let it remain
at that. I will, from now on, hold them in contempt, and have
already held them in contempt, as long as they are the kind of
people that they are - asses, I should say. And there are brazen
idiots among them who have never learned their own art of
sophistry - like Dr. Schmidt and Snot-Nose, and such like them.
They set themselves against me in this matter, which not only
transcends sophistry, but as St. Paul writes, all the wisdom and
understanding in the world as well. An ass truly does not have to
sing much as he is already known for his ears.
For you and our people, however, I shall show why I used the word
"sola" - even though in Romans 3 it wasn't "sola" I used but
"solum" or "tantum". That is how closely those asses have looked
at my text! However, I have used "sola fides" in other places,
and I want to use both "solum" and "sola". I have continually
tried translating in a pure and accurate German. It has happened
that I have sometimes searched and inquired about a single word
for three or four weeks. Sometimes I have not found it even then.
I have worked Meister Philip and Aurogallus so hard in translating
Job, sometimes barely translating 3 lines after four days. Now
that it has been translated into German and completed, all can
read and criticize it. One can now read three or four pages
without stumbling one time - without realizing just what rocks and
hindrances had once been where now one travels as as if over a
smoothly-cut plank. We had to sweat and toil there before we
removed those rocks and hindrances, so one could go along nicely.
The plowing goes nicely in a clear field. But nobody wants the
task of digging out the rocks and hindrances. There is no such
thing as earning the world's thanks. Even God cannot each thanks,
not with the sun, nor with heaven and earth, or even the death of
his Son. It just is and remains as it is, in the devil's name, as
it will not be anything else.
.
I also know that in Rom. 3, the word "solum" is not present in
either Greek or Latin text - the papists did not have to teach me
that - it is fact! The letters s-o-l-a are not there. And these
knotheads stare at them like cows at a new gate, while at the same
time they do not recognize that it conveys the sense of the text -
if the translation is to be clear and accurate, it belongs there.
I wanted to speak German since it was German I had spoken in
translation - not Latin or Greek. But it is the nature of our
language that in speaking about two things, one which is affirmed,
the other denied, we use the word "solum" only along with the word
"not" (nicht) or "no" (kein). For example, we say "the farmer
brings only (allein) grain and no money"; or "No, I really have no
money, but only (allein) grain"; I have only eaten and not yet
drunk"; "Did you write it only and not read it over?" There are a
vast number of such everyday cases.
In all these phrases, this is a German usage, even though it is
not the Latin or Greek usage. It is the nature of the German
tongue to add "allein" in order that "nicht" or "kein" may be
clearer and more complete. To be sure, I can also say "The farmer
brings grain and no (kein) money, but the words "kein money" do
not sound as full and clear as if I were to say, "the farmer
brings allein grain and kein money." Here the word "allein" helps
the word "kein" so much that it becomes a clear and complete
German expression.
We do not have to ask about the literal Latin or how we are to
speak German - as these asses do. Rather we must ask the mother
in the home, the children on the street, the common person in the
market about this. We must be guided by their tongue, the manner
of their speech, and do our translating accordingly. Then they
will understand it and recognize that we are speaking German to
them.
For instance, Christ says: Ex abundatia cordis os loquitur. If I
am to follow these asses, they will lay the original before me
literally and translate it as: "Out of the abundance of the heart
the mouth speaks." Is that speaking with a German tongue? What
German could understand something like that? What is this
"abundance of the heart?" No German can say that; unless, of
course, he was trying to say that someone was altogether too
magnanimous, or too courageous, though even that would not yet be
correct, as "abundance of the heart" is not German, not any more
than "abundance of the house, "abundance of the stove" or
"abundance of the bench" is German. But the mother in the home
and the common man say this: "What fills the heart overflows the
mouth." That is speaking with the proper German tongue of the
kind I have tried for, although unfortunately not always
successfully. The literal Latin is a great barrier to speaking
proper German.
So, as the traitor Judas says in Matthew 26: "Ut quid perditio
haec?" and in Mark 14: "Ut quid perditio iste unguenti facta est?"
Subsequently, for these literalist asses I would have to translate
it: "Why has this loss of salve occurred?" But what kind of
German is this? What German says "loss of salve occurred"? And
if he does understand it at all, he would think that the salve is
lost and must be looked for and found again; even though that is
still obscure and uncertain. Now if that is good German why do
they not come out and make us a fine, new German testament and let
Luther's testament be? I think that would really bring out their
talents. But a German would say "Ut quid, etc.." as "Why this
waste?" or "Why this extravagance?" Even "it is a shame about the
ointment" - these are good German, in which one can understand
that Magdalene had wasted the salve she poured out and had done
wrong. That was what Judas meant as he thought he could have used
it better.
Now when the angel greets Mary, he says: "Greetings to you, Mary,
full of grace, the Lord is with you." well up to this point, this
has simply been translated from the simple Latin, but tell me is
that good German? Since when does a German speak like that - being
"full of grace"? One would have to think about a keg "full of"
beer or a purse "full of" money. So I translated it: "You
gracious one". This way a German can at last think about what the
angel meant by his greeting. Yet the papists rant about me
corrupting the angelic greeting - and I still have not used the
most satisfactory German translation. What if I had used the most
satisfactory German and translated the salutation: "God says
hello, Mary dear" (for that is what the angel was intending to say
and what he would have said had he even been German!). If I had,
I believe that they would have hanged themselves out of their
great devotion to dear Mary and because I have destroyed the
greeting.
Yet why should I be concerned about their ranting and raving? I
will not stop them from translating as they want. But I too shall
translate as I want and not to please them, and whoever does not
like it can just ignore it and keep his criticism to himself, for
I will neither look at nor listen to it. They do not have to
answer for or bear responsibility for my translation. Listen up,
I shall say "gracious Mary" and "dear Mary", and they can say
"Mary full of grace". Anyone who knows German also knows what an
expressive word "dear"(liebe) is: dear Mary, dear God, the dear
emperor, the dear prince, the dear man, the dear child. I do not
know if one can say this word "liebe" in Latin or in other
languages with so much depth of emotion that it pierces the heart
and echoes throughout as it does in our tongue.
I think that St. Luke, as a master of the Hebrew and Greek
tongues, wanted to clarify and articulate the Greek word
"kecharitomene" that the angel used. And I think that the angel
Gabriel spoke with Mary just as he spoke with Daniel, when he
called him "Chamudoth" and "Ish chamudoth, vir desiriorum", that
is "Dear Daniel." That is the way Gabriel speaks, as we can see
in Daniel. Now if I were to literally translate the words of the
angel, and use the skills of these asses, I would have to
translate it as "Daniel, you man of desires" or "Daniel, you man
of lust". Oh, that would be beautiful German! A German would, of
course, recognize "Man", "Lueste" and "begirunge" as being German
words, although not altogether pure as "lust" and "begir" would be
better. But when those words are put together you get "you man of
desires" and no German is going to understand that. He might even
think that Daniel is full of lustful desires. Now wouldn't that
be a fine translation! So I have to let the literal words go and
try to discover how the German says what the Hebrew "ish
chamudoth" expresses. I discover that the German says this, "You
dear Daniel", "you dear Mary", or "you gracious maiden", "you
lovely maiden", "you gentle girl" and so on. A translator must
have a large vocabulary so he can have more words for when a
particular one just does not fit in the context.
.
Why should I talk about translating so much? I would need an
entire year were I to point out the reasons and concerns behind my
words. I have learned what an art and job translating is by
experience, so I will not tolerate some papal ass or mule as my
critic, or judge. They have not tried the task. If anyone does
not like my translations, they can ignore it; and may the devil
repay the one who dislikes or criticizes my translations without
my knowledge or permission. Should it be criticized, I will do it
myself. If I do not do it, then they can leave my translations in
peace. They can each do a translation that suits them - what do I
care?
To this I can, with good conscience, give witness - that I gave my
utmost effort and care and I had no ulterior motives. I have not
taken or wanted even a small coin in return. Neither have I made
any by it. God knows that I have not even sought honor by it, but
I have done it as a service to the blessed Christians and to the
honor of the One who sits above who blesses me every hour of my
life that had I translated a thousand times more diligently, I
should not have deserved to live or have a sound eye for even a
single hour. All I am and have to offer is from his mercy and
grace - indeed of his precious blood and bitter sweat. Therefore,
God willing, all of it will also serve to his honor, joyfully and
sincerely. I may be insulted by the scribblers and papists but
true Christians, along with Christ, their Lord, bless me.
Further, I am more than amply rewarded if just one Christian
acknowledge me as a workman with integrity. I do not care about
the papists, as they are not good enough to acknowledge my work
and, if they were to bless me, it would break my heart. I may be
insulted by their highest praise and honor, but I will still be a
doctor, even a distinguished one. I am certain that they shall
never take from me until the final day.
Yet I have not just gone ahead, ignoring the exact wording in the
original. Instead, with great care, I have, along with my
helpers, gone ahead and have kept literally to the original,
without the slightest deviation, wherever it appeared that a
passage was crucial. For instance, in John 6 Christ says: "Him
has God the Father set his seal upon (versiegelt)." It would be
more clear in German to say "Him has God the Father signified
(gezeiehent)" or even "God the Father means him." But rather than
doing violence to the original, I have done violence to the German
tongue. Ah, translating is not every one's skill as some mad
saints think. A right, devout, honest, sincere, God-fearing
Christian, trained, educated, and experienced heart is required.
So I hold that no false Christian or divisive spirit can be a good
translator. That is obvious given the translation of the Prophets
at Worms which although carefully done and approximating my own
German quite closely, does not show much reverence for Christ due
to the Jews who shared in the translation. Aside from that it
shows plenty of skill and craftsmanship there.
So much for translating and the nature of language. However, I was
not depending upon or following the nature of language when I
inserted the word "solum" (alone) in Rom. 3 as the text itself,
and St. Paul's meaning, urgently necessitated and demanded it. He
is dealing with the main point of Christian doctrine in this
passage - namely that we are justified by faith in Christ without
any works of the Law. In fact, he rejects all works so completely
as to say that the works of the Law, though it is God's law and
word, do not aid us in justification. Using Abraham as an
example, he argues that Abraham was so justified without works
that even the highest work, which had been commanded by God, over
and above all others, namely circumcision, did not aid him in
justification. Instead, Abraham was justified without
circumcision and without any works, but by faith, as he says in
Chapter 4: "If Abraham is justified by works, he may boast, but
not before God." However, when all works are so completely
rejected - which must mean faith alone justifies - whoever would
speak plainly and clearly about this rejection of works would have
to say "Faith alone justifies and not works." The matter itself
and the nature of language necessitates it.
"Yet", they say, "it has such an offensive tone that people infer
from it that need not do any good works." Dear, what are we to
say? IS it not more offensive for St. Paul himself to not use the
term "faith alone" but but spell it even more clearly, putting the
finishing touches on it by saying "Without the works of the Law?"
Gal. 1 [2.16] says that "not by works of the law' (as well as in
many other places) for the phrase "without the works of the law"
is so sever offensive, and scandalous that no amount of revision
can help it. How much more might people learn from "that they
need not do any good works", when all they hear is about the
preaching about the works themselves, sated in such a clear
strong way: "No works", "without works", "not by works"! If it is
not offensive to preach "without works", "not by works"! If it is
not offensive to preach "without works", "not by works"!, "no
works", why is it offensive to preach "by faith alone"?
Still more offensive is that St. Paul does not reject just
ordinary works, but works of the law! It follows that one could
take offense at that all the more and say that the law is
condemned and cursed before God and one ought only do what is
contrary to the law as it is said in Rom. 3: "Why not do evil so
that there might be more good?" which is what that one divisive
spirit of our time was doing. Should one reject St. Paul's word
because of such `offense' or refrain from speaking freely about
faith? Gracious, St. Paul and I want to offend like this for we
preach so strongly against works, insisting on faith alone for no
other reason that to offend people that they might stumble and
fall and learn that they are not saved by good works but only by
Christ's death and resurrection. Knowing that they cannot be
saved by their good works of the law, how much more will they
realize that they shall not be saved by bad works, or without the
law! Therefore, it does not follow that because good works do not
help, bad works will; just as it does not follow that because the
sun cannot help a blind person see, the night and darkness must
help him see.
It astounds me that one can be offended by something as obvious as
this! Just tell me, is Christ's death and resurrection our work,
what we do, or not? It is obviously not our work, nor is it the
work of the law. Now it is Christ's death and resurrection alone
which saves and frees us from sin, as Paul writes in Rom. 4: "He
died for our sin and arose for our righteousness." Tell me more!
What is the work by which we take hold of Christ's death and
resurrection? It must not be an external work but only the
eternal faith in the heart that alone, indeed all alone, which
takes hold of this death and resurrection when it is preached
through the gospel. Then why all this ranting and raving, this
making of heretics and burning of them, when it is clear at its
very core, proving that faith alone takes hold of Christ's death
and resurrection, without any works, and that his death and
resurrection are our life and righteousness? As this fact is so
obvious, that faith alone gives, brings, and takes a hold of this
life and righteousness - why should we not say so? It is not
heretical that faith alone holds on to Christ and gives life; and
yet it seems to be heresy if someone mentions it. Are they not
insane, foolish and ridiculous? They will say that one thing is
right but brand the telling of this right thing as wrong - even
though something cannot be simultaneously right and wrong.
.
Furthermore, I am not the only one, nor the first, to say that
faith alone makes one righteous. There was Ambrose, Augustine and
many others who said it before me. And if one is to read and
understand St. Paul, the same thing must be said and not anything
else. His words, as well, are blunt - "no works" - none at all!
If it is not works, it must be faith alone. Oh what a marvelous,
constructive and inoffensive teaching that would be, to be taught
that one can be saved by works as well as by faith. That would be
like saying that it is not Christ's death alone that takes away
our sin but that our works have something to do with it. Now that
would be a fine way of honoring Christ's death, saying that it is
helped by our works, and that whatever it does our works can also
do - that we are his equal in goodness and power. This is the
devil itself for he cannot ever stop abusing the blood of Christ.
Therefore the matter itself, at its very core, necessitates one
say: "Faith alone makes one righteous." The nature of the German
tongue teaches us to say it in the same way. In addition, I have
the examples of the holy fathers. The dangers confronting the
people also compel it so they do not continue to hang onto works
and wander away from faith, losing Christ, especially at this time
when they have been so accustomed to works they have to be pulled
away from them by force. It is for these reasons that it is not
only right but also necessary to say it as plainly and forcefully
as possible: "Faith alone saves without works!" I am only sorry I
did not add "alle" and "aller", and said "without any (alle) works
of any (aller) laws." That would have stated it most effectively.
Therefore, it will remain in the New Testament, and though all the
papal asses rant and rave at me, they shall not take it away from
me. Let this be enough for now. I will have to speak more about
this in the treatise "On Justification" (if God grants me grace).
On the other question as to whether the departed saints intercede
for us. For the present I am only going to give a brief answer as
I am considering publishing a sermon on the beloved angels in
which I will respond more fully on this matter (God willing).
First, you know that under the papacy it is not only taught that
the saints in heaven intercede for us - even though we cannot know
this as the Scripture does not tell us such - but the saints have
been made into gods, and that they are to be our patrons to whom
we should call. Some of them have never existed! To each of these
saints a particular power and might has been given - one over
fire, another over water, another over pestilence, fever and all
sorts of plagues. Indeed, God must have been altogether idle to
have let the saints work in his place. Of this atrocity the
papists themselves are aware, as they quietly take up their pipes
and preen and primp themselves over this doctrine of the
intercession of the saints. I will leave this subject for now -
but you can count on my not forgetting it and allowing this
primping and preening to continue without cost.
And again, you know that there is not a single passage from God
demanding us to call upon either saints or angels to intercede for
us, and that there is no example of such in the Scriptures. One
finds that the beloved angels spoke with the fathers and the
prophets, but that none of them had ever been asked to intercede
for them. Why even Jacob the patriarch did not ask the angel with
whom he wrestled for any intercession. Instead, he only took from
him a blessing. In fact, on finds the very opposite in revelation
as the angel will not allow itself to be worshipped by John. [Rev.
22] So the worship of saints shows itself as nothing but human
nonsense, our own invention separated from the word of God and the
Scriptures.
As it is not proper in the matter of divine worship for us to do
anything that is not commanded by God (and that whoever does is
putting God to the test), it is therefore also not advisable or
tolerable for one to call upon the saints for intercession or to
teach others to do so. In fact, it is to be condemned and people
taught to avoid it. Therefore, I also will not advise it and
burden my conscience with the iniquities of others. It was
difficult for me to stop from worshipping the saints as I was so
steeped in it to have nearly drowned. But the light of the gospel
is now shining so brightly that from now on no one has an excuse
for remaining in the darkness. We all very well know what we are
to do.
This is itself a very risky and blasphemous way to worship for
people are easily accustomed to turning away from Christ. They
learn quickly to trust more in the saints than in Christ himself.
When our nature is already all to prone to run from God and
Christ, and trust in humanity, it is indeed difficult to learn to
trust in God and Christ, even though we have vowed to do so and
are therefore obligated to do so. Therefore, this offense is not
to be tolerated whereby those who are weak and of the flesh
participate in idolatry, against the first commandment and our
baptism. Even if one tries nothing other than to switch their
trust from the saints to Christ, through teaching and practice, it
will be difficult to accomplish, that one should come to him and
rightly take hold of him. One need not paint the Devil on the
door - he will already be present.
We can finally be certain that God is not angry with us, and that
even if we do not call on the saints for intercession, we are
secure for God has never commanded it. God says that God is a
jealous God granting their iniquities on those who do not keep his
commandments [Ex.20]; but there is no commandment here and,
therefore, no anger to be feared. Since, then, there is on this
side security and on the other side great risk and offense against
the Word of God, why should we go from security into danger where
we do not have the Word of God to sustain, comfort and save us in
the times of trial? For it is written, "Whoever loves danger will
perish by it" [Ecclus. 3], and God's commandment says, "You shall
not put the Lord your God to the test" [Matt. 4].
"But," they say, "this way you condemn all of Christendom which
has always maintained this - until now." I answer: I know very
well that the priests and monks seek this cloak for their
blasphemies. They want to give to Christendom the damage caused
by their own negligence. Then, when we say, "Christendom does not
err," we shall also be saying that they do not err, since
Christendom believes it to be so. So no pilgrimage can be wrong,
no matter how obviously the Devil is a participant in it. No
indulgence can be wrong, regardless of how horrible the lies
involved. In other words, there is nothing there but holiness!
Therefore to this you reply, "It is not a question of who is and
who is not condemned." They inject this irrelevant idea in order
to divert us from the topic at hand. We are now discussing the
Word of God. What Christendom is or do does belongs somewhere
else. The question here is: "What is or is not the Word of God?
What is not the Word of God does not make Christendom.
We read that in the days of Elijah the prophet there was
apparently no word from God and not worship of God in Israel. For
Elijah says, "Lord, they have killed your prophets and destroyed
your altars, and I am left totally alone" [I Kings 19]. Here King
Ahab and others could have said, "Elijah, with talk like that you
are condemning all the people of God." However God had at the
same time kept seven thousand [I Kings 19]. How? Do you not also
think that God could now, under the papacy, have preserved his
own, even though the priests and monks of Christendom have been
teachers of the devil and gone to hell? Many children and young
people have died in Christ. For even under the anti-Christ,
Christ has strongly sustained baptism, the bare text of the gospel
in the pulpit, the Lord's Prayer, and the Creed. By this means he
sustained many of his Christians, and therefore also his
Christendom, and said nothing about it to these devil's teachers.
Now even though Christians have done some parts of the papal
blasphemy, the papal asses have not yet proved that they did it
gladly. Still less does it prove that they even did the right
thing. All Christians can err and sin, but God has taught them to
pray in the Lord's Prayer for the forgiveness of sins. God could
very well forgive the sins they had to unwillingly, unknowingly,
and under the coercion of the Antichrist commit, without saying
anything about it to the priests and monks! It can,however, be
easily proven that there has always been a great deal of secret
murmuring and complaining against the clergy throughout the world,
and that they are not treating Christendom properly. And the
papal asses have courageously withstood such complaining with fire
and sword, even to the present day. This murmuring proves how
happy Christians have been over these blasphemies, and how right
they have been in doing them!
So out with it, you papal asses! Say that this is the teaching of
Christendom: these stinking lies which you villains and traitors
have forced upon Christendom and for the sake of which you
murderers have killed many Christians. Why each letter of every
papal law gives testimony to the fact that nothing has ever been
taught by the counsel and the consent of Christendom. There is
nothing there but "districte precipiendo mandamus" ["we teach and
strictly command"]. That has been your Holy Spirit. Christendom
has had to suffer this tyranny. This tyranny has robbed it of the
sacrament and, not by its own fault, has been held in captivity.
And still the asses would pawn of on us this intolerable tyranny
of their own wickedness as a willing act and example of
Christendom - and thereby acquit themselves!
But this is getting too long. Let this be enough of an answer to
your questions for now. More another time. Excuse this long
letter. Christ our Lord be with us all. Amen.
Martin Luther,
Your good friend.
The Wilderness, September 8, 1530
________________________________________________________________
This text was translated for Project Wittenberg by Dr. Gary Mann
in 1995 and was placed by him in the public domain. You may
freely distribute, copy or print this text, providing the
information in this statement remains attached. Please direct any
comments or suggestions to: Rev. Robert E. Smith of the Walther
Library at Concordia Theological Seminary.
Surface Mail: 6600 N. Clinton St.,Ft. Wayne, IN 46825 USA
Phone: (219) 481-2123 Fax: (219) 481-2126
________________________________________________________________
file: /pub/resources/txt/wittenberg/luther: luther-translate.txt
.
BAM
Paul Laird
2004-02-26 06:42:01 UTC
Permalink
Quite simple really, they don't say "alone" as you claim. I've been a
Protestant all my life; been a Christian since age 7 and I have never read
or learned any verse teaching salvation by grace that includes the word
"alone." Where did you ever get the idea that Protestants say that? It is
a perversion; if not down right lie.
Post by Mike Tennyson
So, if "alone" is not in the KJV why do the Protestants always say it (Saved
by Grace Alone, or Justified by Faith Alone)? I thought we are not supposed
to add or take away?
Mike
Mike Tennyson
2004-02-26 06:50:39 UTC
Permalink
Read Luther's own words in the response by BAM. He added it to his
translation. I hear ministers on the radio all the time use "alone". I am
not lying. Others in this group hear it also.

Mike
Post by Paul Laird
Quite simple really, they don't say "alone" as you claim. I've been a
Protestant all my life; been a Christian since age 7 and I have never read
or learned any verse teaching salvation by grace that includes the word
"alone." Where did you ever get the idea that Protestants say that? It is
a perversion; if not down right lie.
Post by Mike Tennyson
So, if "alone" is not in the KJV why do the Protestants always say it
(Saved
Post by Mike Tennyson
by Grace Alone, or Justified by Faith Alone)? I thought we are not
supposed
Post by Mike Tennyson
to add or take away?
Mike
Iconoclast
2004-02-26 09:44:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Tennyson
Read Luther's own words in the response by BAM. He added it to his
translation. I hear ministers on the radio all the time use "alone". I am
not lying. Others in this group hear it also.
Mike
Post by Paul Laird
Quite simple really, they don't say "alone" as you claim. I've been a
Protestant all my life; been a Christian since age 7 and I have never read
or learned any verse teaching salvation by grace that includes the word
"alone." Where did you ever get the idea that Protestants say that? It
is
Post by Paul Laird
a perversion; if not down right lie.
Post by Mike Tennyson
So, if "alone" is not in the KJV why do the Protestants always say it
(Saved
Post by Mike Tennyson
by Grace Alone, or Justified by Faith Alone)? I thought we are not
supposed
Post by Mike Tennyson
to add or take away?
Mike
It is not in the verse.
It is embellished by MANY other verses.
Only in your imagination does adding alone make a difference to curtailing
with Grace.

Nowhere in the bible is the concept of the trinity spelled out, but it is
there.

The use of alone means that you are NOT God and you can't "buy" salvation.
Mike Tennyson
2004-02-26 12:08:18 UTC
Permalink
James 2:14-26
Faith without works is dead. And of course we are saved by the Grace of
God. Just like Faith without Works is Dead so are Works without Faith.
Salvation is a gift and not bought. Do you really think Catholics teach you
can "buy" your way into Heaven? Absurdity!

Also see
THE NECESSARY THINGS OF ACTS 15: 29


"THESE NECESSARY THINGS: 15:29 that you abstain from things sacrificed to
idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality, from
which if you keep yourselves, it will be well with you. Farewell."'

Mike
Post by Iconoclast
Post by Mike Tennyson
Read Luther's own words in the response by BAM. He added it to his
translation. I hear ministers on the radio all the time use "alone". I am
not lying. Others in this group hear it also.
Mike
Post by Paul Laird
Quite simple really, they don't say "alone" as you claim. I've been a
Protestant all my life; been a Christian since age 7 and I have never
read
Post by Mike Tennyson
Post by Paul Laird
or learned any verse teaching salvation by grace that includes the word
"alone." Where did you ever get the idea that Protestants say that?
It
Post by Iconoclast
Post by Mike Tennyson
is
Post by Paul Laird
a perversion; if not down right lie.
Post by Mike Tennyson
So, if "alone" is not in the KJV why do the Protestants always say it
(Saved
Post by Mike Tennyson
by Grace Alone, or Justified by Faith Alone)? I thought we are not
supposed
Post by Mike Tennyson
to add or take away?
Mike
It is not in the verse.
It is embellished by MANY other verses.
Only in your imagination does adding alone make a difference to curtailing
with Grace.
Nowhere in the bible is the concept of the trinity spelled out, but it is
there.
The use of alone means that you are NOT God and you can't "buy" salvation.
Iconoclast
2004-02-26 16:17:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Tennyson
James 2:14-26
Faith without works is dead. And of course we are saved by the Grace of
God. Just like Faith without Works is Dead so are Works without Faith.
Salvation is a gift and not bought. Do you really think Catholics teach you
can "buy" your way into Heaven? Absurdity!
Properly translated in contex, Fiath without works does not exist.
Catholics DEFINETELY teach that salvation is earned.
Post by Mike Tennyson
Also see
THE NECESSARY THINGS OF ACTS 15: 29
"THESE NECESSARY THINGS: 15:29 that you abstain from things sacrificed to
idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality, from
which if you keep yourselves, it will be well with you. Farewell."'
It will be well with you. There is no loss of salvation or any mention of
any compensation after one dies.
"None are righteous."

You quoted James. He stated that to sin in one area is to sin in ALL.

Christ repeated over and over that what we DO has little to do with what or
who we are. We are ALL equally sinfull.

1 Jn 1:9 uses the word confess. The original context says "agree
wholeheartedly". This means that we know we are sinners and remain to be
sinners untill the first death.
Post by Mike Tennyson
Mike
Post by Iconoclast
Post by Mike Tennyson
Read Luther's own words in the response by BAM. He added it to his
translation. I hear ministers on the radio all the time use "alone". I
am
Post by Iconoclast
Post by Mike Tennyson
not lying. Others in this group hear it also.
Mike
Post by Paul Laird
Quite simple really, they don't say "alone" as you claim. I've been a
Protestant all my life; been a Christian since age 7 and I have never
read
Post by Mike Tennyson
Post by Paul Laird
or learned any verse teaching salvation by grace that includes the
word
Post by Iconoclast
Post by Mike Tennyson
Post by Paul Laird
"alone." Where did you ever get the idea that Protestants say that?
It
Post by Iconoclast
Post by Mike Tennyson
is
Post by Paul Laird
a perversion; if not down right lie.
Post by Mike Tennyson
So, if "alone" is not in the KJV why do the Protestants always say
it
Post by Iconoclast
Post by Mike Tennyson
Post by Paul Laird
(Saved
Post by Mike Tennyson
by Grace Alone, or Justified by Faith Alone)? I thought we are not
supposed
Post by Mike Tennyson
to add or take away?
Mike
It is not in the verse.
It is embellished by MANY other verses.
Only in your imagination does adding alone make a difference to curtailing
with Grace.
Nowhere in the bible is the concept of the trinity spelled out, but it is
there.
The use of alone means that you are NOT God and you can't "buy" salvation.
Brian Batty
2004-02-26 19:00:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Iconoclast
Post by Mike Tennyson
Read Luther's own words in the response by BAM. He added it to his
translation. I hear ministers on the radio all the time use "alone". I am
not lying. Others in this group hear it also.
Mike
Post by Paul Laird
Quite simple really, they don't say "alone" as you claim. I've been a
Protestant all my life; been a Christian since age 7 and I have never
read
Post by Mike Tennyson
Post by Paul Laird
or learned any verse teaching salvation by grace that includes the word
"alone." Where did you ever get the idea that Protestants say that? It
is
Post by Paul Laird
a perversion; if not down right lie.
Post by Mike Tennyson
So, if "alone" is not in the KJV why do the Protestants always say it
(Saved
Post by Mike Tennyson
by Grace Alone, or Justified by Faith Alone)? I thought we are not
supposed
Post by Mike Tennyson
to add or take away?
Mike
It is not in the verse.
It is embellished by MANY other verses.
Only in your imagination does adding alone make a difference to curtailing
with Grace.
Nowhere in the bible is the concept of the trinity spelled out, but it is
there.
The use of alone means that you are NOT God and you can't "buy" salvation.
"Even Martin Luther once said 'faith alone saves [Romans 3:28] and faith alone does
not save [James 2:24] If anyone can reconcile these two verses, I’ll put my doctor’s
cap on him and let him call me a fool'. Well, you know something, the Catholic Church
can reconcile these two verses, without any difficulty whatsoever, simply by
understanding that the 'works' condemned by St. Paul are works done under the system
of LAW, and hence attempting to obligate God to reward man; whereas the works cited
by James in James 2:24 and also by Paul in Romans 2, are works done under the New
Covenant system of GRACE, which do not obligate God, rather God in the Scriptures
Himself promises to reward those who persist in doing good (see e.g. Romans 2:6-8).
it is such a simple solution, but non-Catholic groups cannot see it because they
approach the Bible with a preconceived idea of 'faith alone', among other errors."

Yours in JMJ,

Brian
Iconoclast
2004-02-26 22:10:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Batty
Post by Iconoclast
Post by Mike Tennyson
Read Luther's own words in the response by BAM. He added it to his
translation. I hear ministers on the radio all the time use "alone". I am
not lying. Others in this group hear it also.
Mike
Post by Paul Laird
Quite simple really, they don't say "alone" as you claim. I've been a
Protestant all my life; been a Christian since age 7 and I have never
read
Post by Mike Tennyson
Post by Paul Laird
or learned any verse teaching salvation by grace that includes the word
"alone." Where did you ever get the idea that Protestants say that?
It
Post by Brian Batty
Post by Iconoclast
Post by Mike Tennyson
is
Post by Paul Laird
a perversion; if not down right lie.
Post by Mike Tennyson
So, if "alone" is not in the KJV why do the Protestants always say it
(Saved
Post by Mike Tennyson
by Grace Alone, or Justified by Faith Alone)? I thought we are not
supposed
Post by Mike Tennyson
to add or take away?
Mike
It is not in the verse.
It is embellished by MANY other verses.
Only in your imagination does adding alone make a difference to curtailing
with Grace.
Nowhere in the bible is the concept of the trinity spelled out, but it is
there.
The use of alone means that you are NOT God and you can't "buy" salvation.
"Even Martin Luther once said 'faith alone saves [Romans 3:28] and faith alone does
not save [James 2:24] If anyone can reconcile these two verses, I’ll put my doctor’s
cap on him and let him call me a fool'.
FOOL total FOOL

Rom 3:28
28Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the
deeds of the law.

God provides the faith as pointed out in Eph 2:8

Faith is what is given not earned, not self created.

See also ALL of Hebrews. These people had God given faith. They were His.


Faith without works does not exist and is corroborated by Eph 2:10.

No fancy applications needed.
Brian Batty
2004-02-26 18:58:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Tennyson
Read Luther's own words in the response by BAM. He added it to his
translation. I hear ministers on the radio all the time use "alone". I am
not lying. Others in this group hear it also.
In the words of the "humble" Marint Luther:

"You tell me what a great fuss the Papists are making because the word 'alone' is not
in the text of Paul. If your Papists makes such an unnecessary row about the word
'alone,' say right out to him: 'Dr. Martin Luther will have it so,' and say: 'Papist
and asses are one and the same thing.' I will have it so, and I order it to be so,
and my will is reason enough. I know very well that the word 'alone' is not in the
Latin or the Greek text, and it was not necessary for the Papists to teach me that.
It is true those letters are not in it, which letters the jackasses look at, as a cow
stares at a new gate...It shall remain in my New Testament, and if all the Popish
donkeys were to get mad and beside themselves, they will not get it out."

Yours in JMJ,

Brian
Post by Mike Tennyson
Mike
Post by Paul Laird
Quite simple really, they don't say "alone" as you claim. I've been a
Protestant all my life; been a Christian since age 7 and I have never read
or learned any verse teaching salvation by grace that includes the word
"alone." Where did you ever get the idea that Protestants say that? It
is
Post by Paul Laird
a perversion; if not down right lie.
Post by Mike Tennyson
So, if "alone" is not in the KJV why do the Protestants always say it
(Saved
Post by Mike Tennyson
by Grace Alone, or Justified by Faith Alone)? I thought we are not
supposed
Post by Mike Tennyson
to add or take away?
Mike
A Mighty Fortress
2004-02-26 17:53:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Tennyson
Wow! Thanks for posting this response. You really cleared that up. Adding
"alone" does change the meaning. Kinda like homoousius (same) and
homoiousius (similiar) Big Difference. Reading this makes me want to study
and learn more about Luther. I also heard he went mad near the end of his
life.
Mike Tennyson
So, if "alone" is not in the KJV why do the Protestants always say it (Saved
by Grace Alone, or Justified by Faith Alone)? I thought we are not supposed
to add or take away?
Mike
Well... it is actually not a protestant-thing, it is a Lutheran thing
that SOME protestants also claim. It is the Lutheran understanding of
justification (Sola Gratia= "Grace Alone" Sola Fide = "Faith Alone")

--Brandt
Iconoclast
2004-02-26 22:12:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by A Mighty Fortress
Post by Mike Tennyson
Wow! Thanks for posting this response. You really cleared that up. Adding
"alone" does change the meaning. Kinda like homoousius (same) and
homoiousius (similiar) Big Difference. Reading this makes me want to study
and learn more about Luther. I also heard he went mad near the end of his
life.
Mike Tennyson
So, if "alone" is not in the KJV why do the Protestants always say it (Saved
by Grace Alone, or Justified by Faith Alone)? I thought we are not supposed
to add or take away?
Mike
Well... it is actually not a protestant-thing, it is a Lutheran thing
that SOME protestants also claim. It is the Lutheran understanding of
justification (Sola Gratia= "Grace Alone" Sola Fide = "Faith Alone")
--Brandt
Another way of saying "GOD alone".
Of course there are many her who don't believe that. "THEY think, God with
their help."
A Mighty Fortress
2004-02-27 02:26:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Tennyson
Post by A Mighty Fortress
Post by Mike Tennyson
Wow! Thanks for posting this response. You really cleared that up.
Adding
Post by A Mighty Fortress
Post by Mike Tennyson
"alone" does change the meaning. Kinda like homoousius (same) and
homoiousius (similiar) Big Difference. Reading this makes me want to
study
Post by A Mighty Fortress
Post by Mike Tennyson
and learn more about Luther. I also heard he went mad near the end of
his
Post by A Mighty Fortress
Post by Mike Tennyson
life.
Mike Tennyson
So, if "alone" is not in the KJV why do the Protestants always say it
(Saved
Post by A Mighty Fortress
Post by Mike Tennyson
by Grace Alone, or Justified by Faith Alone)? I thought we are not
supposed
Post by A Mighty Fortress
Post by Mike Tennyson
to add or take away?
Mike
Well... it is actually not a protestant-thing, it is a Lutheran thing
that SOME protestants also claim. It is the Lutheran understanding of
justification (Sola Gratia= "Grace Alone" Sola Fide = "Faith Alone")
--Brandt
Another way of saying "GOD alone".
I guess you can say that if you understand that Lutherans (and some
other types of Christians) believe that we by our own reason or
strength cannot believe in Jesus Christ, our Lord, or come to Him; but
the Holy Ghost has called us by the gospel, enlightened us with His
gifts, sanctified us and kept us in the true faith; even as He calls,
gathers, enlightens and sactifies the whole Christian Church on earth,
and keeps it with Jesus Christ in the one, true faith; in which which
Christian Church He daily and richly forgives all sins to us and all
believers, and will at the last day raise us up and all the dead, and
give unto me and all believers in Christ eternal life.

This is most certainly true.
Post by Mike Tennyson
Of course there are many her who don't believe that. "THEY think, God with
their help."
Yikes... decision theology... bad medicine...
Iconoclast
2004-02-27 07:27:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by A Mighty Fortress
Post by Mike Tennyson
Post by A Mighty Fortress
Post by Mike Tennyson
Wow! Thanks for posting this response. You really cleared that up.
Adding
Post by A Mighty Fortress
Post by Mike Tennyson
"alone" does change the meaning. Kinda like homoousius (same) and
homoiousius (similiar) Big Difference. Reading this makes me want to
study
Post by A Mighty Fortress
Post by Mike Tennyson
and learn more about Luther. I also heard he went mad near the end of
his
Post by A Mighty Fortress
Post by Mike Tennyson
life.
Mike Tennyson
So, if "alone" is not in the KJV why do the Protestants always say it
(Saved
Post by A Mighty Fortress
Post by Mike Tennyson
by Grace Alone, or Justified by Faith Alone)? I thought we are not
supposed
Post by A Mighty Fortress
Post by Mike Tennyson
to add or take away?
Mike
Well... it is actually not a protestant-thing, it is a Lutheran thing
that SOME protestants also claim. It is the Lutheran understanding of
justification (Sola Gratia= "Grace Alone" Sola Fide = "Faith Alone")
--Brandt
Another way of saying "GOD alone".
I guess you can say that if you understand that Lutherans (and some
other types of Christians) believe that we by our own reason or
strength cannot believe in Jesus Christ, our Lord, or come to Him; but
the Holy Ghost has called us by the gospel, enlightened us with His
gifts, sanctified us and kept us in the true faith; even as He calls,
gathers, enlightens and sactifies the whole Christian Church on earth,
and keeps it with Jesus Christ in the one, true faith; in which which
Christian Church He daily and richly forgives all sins to us and all
believers, and will at the last day raise us up and all the dead, and
give unto me and all believers in Christ eternal life.
God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are GOD.
God opens eyes, awakes from the dead, Ref Eph 2:1.

The "one true faith" and the faith imbued by God (Holy Spirit) are often, in
English, confused.

Lutherans tend to confuse them, not by doctrine, but through traditional
repetiscous sayings out of the traditional Chatechism.
Post by A Mighty Fortress
This is most certainly true.
Post by Mike Tennyson
Of course there are many her who don't believe that. "THEY think, God with
their help."
Yikes... decision theology... bad medicine...
A Mighty Fortress
2004-02-27 14:54:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Tennyson
Post by A Mighty Fortress
Post by Iconoclast
Post by A Mighty Fortress
Post by Mike Tennyson
Wow! Thanks for posting this response. You really cleared that up.
Adding
Post by A Mighty Fortress
Post by Iconoclast
Post by A Mighty Fortress
Post by Mike Tennyson
"alone" does change the meaning. Kinda like homoousius (same) and
homoiousius (similiar) Big Difference. Reading this makes me want to
study
Post by A Mighty Fortress
Post by Iconoclast
Post by A Mighty Fortress
Post by Mike Tennyson
and learn more about Luther. I also heard he went mad near the end
of
his
Post by A Mighty Fortress
Post by Iconoclast
Post by A Mighty Fortress
Post by Mike Tennyson
life.
Mike Tennyson
So, if "alone" is not in the KJV why do the Protestants always say
it
(Saved
Post by A Mighty Fortress
Post by Iconoclast
Post by A Mighty Fortress
Post by Mike Tennyson
by Grace Alone, or Justified by Faith Alone)? I thought we are not
supposed
Post by A Mighty Fortress
Post by Iconoclast
Post by A Mighty Fortress
Post by Mike Tennyson
to add or take away?
Mike
Well... it is actually not a protestant-thing, it is a Lutheran thing
that SOME protestants also claim. It is the Lutheran understanding of
justification (Sola Gratia= "Grace Alone" Sola Fide = "Faith Alone")
--Brandt
Another way of saying "GOD alone".
I guess you can say that if you understand that Lutherans (and some
other types of Christians) believe that we by our own reason or
strength cannot believe in Jesus Christ, our Lord, or come to Him; but
the Holy Ghost has called us by the gospel, enlightened us with His
gifts, sanctified us and kept us in the true faith; even as He calls,
gathers, enlightens and sactifies the whole Christian Church on earth,
and keeps it with Jesus Christ in the one, true faith; in which which
Christian Church He daily and richly forgives all sins to us and all
believers, and will at the last day raise us up and all the dead, and
give unto me and all believers in Christ eternal life.
God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are GOD.
God opens eyes, awakes from the dead, Ref Eph 2:1.
The "one true faith" and the faith imbued by God (Holy Spirit) are often, in
English, confused.
Lutherans tend to confuse them, not by doctrine, but through traditional
repetiscous sayings out of the traditional Chatechism.
The Catechism is a great tool for understanding our faith.
Post by Mike Tennyson
Post by A Mighty Fortress
This is most certainly true.
Post by Iconoclast
Of course there are many her who don't believe that. "THEY think, God
with
Post by A Mighty Fortress
Post by Iconoclast
their help."
Yikes... decision theology... bad medicine...
If they are different, please define:
1. The one, true faith
2. The faith inspired by God
Iconoclast
2004-02-27 16:47:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by A Mighty Fortress
Post by Mike Tennyson
Post by A Mighty Fortress
Post by Iconoclast
Post by A Mighty Fortress
Post by Mike Tennyson
Wow! Thanks for posting this response. You really cleared that up.
Adding
Post by A Mighty Fortress
Post by Iconoclast
Post by A Mighty Fortress
Post by Mike Tennyson
"alone" does change the meaning. Kinda like homoousius (same) and
homoiousius (similiar) Big Difference. Reading this makes me want to
study
Post by A Mighty Fortress
Post by Iconoclast
Post by A Mighty Fortress
Post by Mike Tennyson
and learn more about Luther. I also heard he went mad near the end
of
his
Post by A Mighty Fortress
Post by Iconoclast
Post by A Mighty Fortress
Post by Mike Tennyson
life.
Mike Tennyson
So, if "alone" is not in the KJV why do the Protestants always say
it
(Saved
Post by A Mighty Fortress
Post by Iconoclast
Post by A Mighty Fortress
Post by Mike Tennyson
by Grace Alone, or Justified by Faith Alone)? I thought we are not
supposed
Post by A Mighty Fortress
Post by Iconoclast
Post by A Mighty Fortress
Post by Mike Tennyson
to add or take away?
Mike
Well... it is actually not a protestant-thing, it is a Lutheran thing
that SOME protestants also claim. It is the Lutheran understanding of
justification (Sola Gratia= "Grace Alone" Sola Fide = "Faith Alone")
--Brandt
Another way of saying "GOD alone".
I guess you can say that if you understand that Lutherans (and some
other types of Christians) believe that we by our own reason or
strength cannot believe in Jesus Christ, our Lord, or come to Him; but
the Holy Ghost has called us by the gospel, enlightened us with His
gifts, sanctified us and kept us in the true faith; even as He calls,
gathers, enlightens and sactifies the whole Christian Church on earth,
and keeps it with Jesus Christ in the one, true faith; in which which
Christian Church He daily and richly forgives all sins to us and all
believers, and will at the last day raise us up and all the dead, and
give unto me and all believers in Christ eternal life.
God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are GOD.
God opens eyes, awakes from the dead, Ref Eph 2:1.
The "one true faith" and the faith imbued by God (Holy Spirit) are often, in
English, confused.
Lutherans tend to confuse them, not by doctrine, but through traditional
repetiscous sayings out of the traditional Chatechism.
The Catechism is a great tool for understanding our faith.
Post by Mike Tennyson
Post by A Mighty Fortress
This is most certainly true.
Post by Iconoclast
Of course there are many her who don't believe that. "THEY think, God
with
Post by A Mighty Fortress
Post by Iconoclast
their help."
Yikes... decision theology... bad medicine...
1. The one, true faith
2. The faith inspired by God
There is the term "faith" used when describing ones belief system, I.E.
Lutheran Faith, Catholic Faith, Christian faith, Methodist faith. One 'can'
have this and never see heaven or really know God.
Many confuse "The one true Faith" as the Catholics do. (AKA If you are not
Catholic, you're damned.)

The other faith which is used in Eph 2:8 and in Hebrews. This faith is the
one giving the recipient the power to escape the second death, perform
unrealistic God directed feats on earth. This is, in fact, "The one true
faith". It is not a religion or denomination or method of worship.

It is not, contextually, "faith is the hope".

It took Luther a while to discover this after he rid himself of
Catholicisms.
Teresita
2004-02-28 03:35:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Iconoclast
Many confuse "The one true Faith" as the Catholics do. (AKA If you are not
Catholic, you're damned.)
Not guilty. Catholics don't say that. We merely say the Church in communion
with the bishop of Rome subsists in the fullness of truth. Have a nice day.

--
Encyclopedia Teresita
http://web.newsguy.com/teresita
Susan Williams
2004-02-28 04:33:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Teresita
Post by Iconoclast
Many confuse "The one true Faith" as the Catholics do. (AKA If you are not
Catholic, you're damned.)
Not guilty. Catholics don't say that. We merely say the Church in communion
with the bishop of Rome subsists in the fullness of truth. Have a nice day.
Of course, another bold, blanked lie by Teresita!

Here below Teresita tells us all non-Catholics must die, and that it
is mere "business" to exterminate them. And why exterminate people
who are saved or possibly so?

The Jesuit Oath which they all refused to condemn, tells us first that
Protestants are damned as the pretext for showing why there's no
problem exterminating them:...

============

These Jesuits created a post entitled, "In Defense of the Church
Wiping Out Heretics!" You can find that thread here:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=RainbowChristiannohate-0411031244140001%40h-68-164-229-8.chcgilgm.dynamic.covad.net&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%2522defense%2Bof%2Bthe%2Bchurch%2Bwiping%2Bout%2Bheretics%2522%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26selm%3Du946rvgsg6akhmps2ogk2ia6v2ecvseun0%25404ax.com%26rnum%3D1&as_drrb=b&as_maxd=4&as_maxm=11&as_maxy=2003&as_mind=29&as_minm=3&as_miny=1995

In response to this, since they violate all their lying tirades
against making attacks and accusations to attack us as hateful, we
responded with another thread entitled, "IN DEFENSE OF THE CHURCH
WIPING OUR HER NEIGHBOURS"

You can find that thread here:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=qj5rqvclrlv19obvjnib0fbnth39m6beqm%404ax.com&rnum=2&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Din%2Bdefense%2Bof%2Bthe%2Bchurch%2Bwiping%2Bout%2Bher%2Bneighbours%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26selm%3Dqj5rqvclrlv19obvjnib0fbnth39m6beqm%25404ax.com%26rnum%3D2

The thread was expounding upon the Parable of the Good Samaritan where
Christ shows how those not of our religion should be treated contrary
to the mandates of Rome!

A man by the name of Ted Seeber condemned all non-Catholic life when
with approval he told us that:

"NONE of the groups persecuted by the Catholics were living the Bible.
They were living their personal interpretations of God, not the Bible"

You can find that statement here as I submit the evidence:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&group=alt.religion.christian.adventist&scoring=r&as_drrb=b&as_mind=5&as_minm=10&as_miny=2001&as_maxd=7&as_maxm=10&as_maxy=2001&selm=55de15cf.0110071743.205a5dea%40posting.google.com

Brother Ted revealed that this was done just after the 911 attacks
when America was assessing what a terrorist was with respect to human
life. Prime Minister Tony Blair, a short time after the 911 attacks
gave the world a definition of terrorists by telling us they are
people who have a marked disrespect for human life. Since Seeber
told us with approval that Rome persecuted non-Catholics because they
did not live the bible, how many of the victims of 911 live the bible?
Did Seeber give condolences to the victims of 911 after the attacks?
If so, why? Did he mean it?

Because of the revelation, Ted Seeber had to make an excuse and leave.
He left his website up, but his pictures and other things appeared to
have disappeared from it.

Soon, another killer super-terrorist became insensed at what was done
to Ted Seeber. He then moved out to attack me as I was showing how
Seeber confirmed THAT ROME HADN'T CHANGED. She still has
mass-exterminations as part of her agenda, practice and habits. To
accomplish this she has demons in human form trained to storm all free
media and teach people how they must understand that people will
disagree.

That killer refashioned his name after mine in the reverse and called
himself "William Suzanne." The man then entered with the boldest of
lies, much like John Ashcroft telling us the Patriot Act is
Constitutional!

He comes in telling us that SEEBER DOESN'T SPEAK FOR (or represent)
Rome in his condemnation of all non-Catholics.

I had to ask the super-terrorist more than once why then he wasn't
upset with Seeber for MISREPRESENTING Rome. Jesuits are all over the
newsgroups ranting and raging claim that we MISrepresent Rome. Will
Suzanne now tells us Seeber doesn't represent Rome! He was asked to
give an answer for why he is not upset with Seeber. As usual, the
super-terrorist then moved into an unbridled attack against the
Adventist Church LEAVING THE QUESTION COMPLETELY UNTOUCHED!!

Now some of you may well not be convinced that Ted Seeber condemned
all non-Catholics on the newsgroups. Actually, to this day, even
those on the newsgroups who formerly denied it had to confess that
Seeber did just that, and they went into every manner of defense for
Seeber. As we expose the dialogues, we will more prove this.
However, since we started this work, another person came out more
boldly and gave approval of the deaths of millions of Christians. She
posts under the name of Teresita. When I made mention of that great
Christian work Foxe's Book of Martyrs, detailing centuries of
uncountable murders of bible-believing Christians, she referred to the
work as:

"Foxe's Book of Hereticks." She therefore approved of their deaths
because they viewed religion differently:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=b0165u09im%40drn.newsguy.com
1/14/2003

Naturally, we got on her case for her boldness here as we still have
the liberty to do in this free country.

Teresita in response lied to us, telling us that when she called
Foxe's Book of Martyrs "Foxe's Book of Heretics," she was only
referring to the Albigenses of the Protestant Reformation 5/29/2003
who were a minority group of Christians during that time:
<http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=bb521t01pej%40drn.newsguy.com&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dg:thl3424526807d%26dq%3D%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26selm%3Dbb521t01pej%2540drn.newsguy.com>

How do we know she was lying? The Albigenses were hardly mentioned in
that massive work. Protestants usually have little to say about the
Albigenses BECAUSE BOTH THEMSELVES AND ALL THEIR WORKS WERE COMPLETELY
ANNIHILATED BY ROME! But more proof that she was lying comes in her
next response as she worked to divert from my advancing questions:

Teresita belied her claim that she was only refering to the Albigenses
when she condemned the Christian martyrs as "hereticks" by condemning
Tyndale, who was not one of the Albigenses:
<http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=bcfbru0230p%40drn.newsguy.com>

NEXT:

When pressed further and further to reveal her beliefs she is trained
to hide on the matter of the value of human life, Teresita says the
Vatican merely carried out God's commands when they killed millions of
Christians because the Israelites did the same with their enemies.
Here she is freely admitting what all those "Anti-Catholics" and
"Catholic-haters" have been saying all along:

<http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl270768597d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=bb5kmo0vt2%40drn.newsguy.com>

Here is that dialogue below:

From: Teresita (***@newsguy.com)
Subject: Re: Teresita responds inappropriatly

Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.adventist,
alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, tnn.religion.catholic
Date: 2003-05-29 12:05:31 PST
Post by Teresita
Like Ted Seeber, you gave approval to their deaths and then come on the forums telling me I hate people just because they disagree.
We are still under Homeland Security right through to the destruction of this nation. We are asked to report all terrorist activity found
in people who have a profound disrespect of human life!
Teresita replies:
We merely carried out God's commandment in His Eternal Word:

Deuteronomy 17:2-5 "If there is found among you, within any of your
towns which the Lord your God gives you, a man or woman who does what
is evil in the sight of the Lord your God, in transgressing his
covenant, and has gone and served other gods and worshiped them, or
the sun or the moon or any of the host of heaven, which I have
forbidden, and it is told you and you hear of it; then you shall
inquire diligently, and if it is true and certain that such an
abominable thing has been done in Israel, then you shall bring forth
to your gates that man or woman who has done this evil thing, and you
shall stone that man or woman to death with stones."

From: Teresita (***@newsguy.com)
Subject: Re: #TWO "CULT" COMPARED better version
View: Complete Thread (21 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.adventist,
alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, tnn.religion.catholic
Date: 2003-09-21 11:52:08 PST
In article <***@4ax.com>, Susan
Williams says...
Post by Teresita
I saw an official Catholic website on the Inquisition that said the same
thing Teresita said: That Rome can put non-Catholics to death based
upon the word of God.
Leviticus 24:16 Anyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD must be put
to death.
The entire assembly must stone him. Whether an alien or native-born,
when he
blasphemes the Name, he must be put to death.

--
Encyclopedia Teresita
http://web.newsguy.com/teresita



ARE YOU LISTENING HOMELAND SECURITY??? She claims the scriptures
mandated their actions IN THE NEW TESTAMENT!! Is it the New Testament
now? Do those scriptures still exist now and have weight now IN THE
NEW TESTAMENT??

LASTLY AND MOST STRONGLY:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl175085396d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=bkkqlo0b0g%40drn.newsguy.com

After telling us that just to expose these facts about Rome she is now
boldly admitting is hatred, what would happen if we took a look at
what ANTI-PROTESTANTISM always was throughout the ages? When we
brought this issue about hatred up for her condemning the lives of all
non-Catholics, this is how she declared Rome didn't hate her victims
she was killing:

I wrote:
In article <***@4ax.com>, Susan
Williams says...
Post by Teresita
But super-terrorists--I mean SUPER-TERRORISTS, we are waiting for
evidence. We were not born to listen to the worst killers on the
earth who tell us what we must do, but when we expose how they are
they tell the world we hate Catholics. They can kill all
non-Catholics they say, BUT THEY DON'T HATE THEM!
Teresita replies:
It's nothing personal. It's just business.

--
Encyclopedia Teresita

Now the man who was ready to pull out his hair telling us that Ted
Seeber didn't represent Rome when he condemned the lives of all
non-Catholics is nowhere to be found with Teresita boldly confirming
the same. He was asked to comment about the words of Teresita, but
how can you force centuries experienced killers to commit suicide??
Post by Teresita
They very much want to be perceived as Evangelical Christians, seeking
a place on the ministerial fellowships. All this is good PR for them,
but what do they really believe?
Susan Williams:
True Adventist are not like that. The problem is that demon-possessed
killers from the Antichrist such as William Suzanne have infiltrated
our church to the CORE. That is why when Ted Seeber condemned all
non-Catholics to persecution and death, Paul Tooley came in to lie
claimng that he didn't do that, and then attacked me for exposing him.
They are trying to tell us that it is standard behavior for Adventists
to attack people who expose death mandates against all non-Catholics,
and that I am therefore not one.

Antichrist Andrew then attacked, claiming that by Brother Ted
frequently posting, he has childhood trauma and a dysfunctional home.
All of these said not the slightest word against the man who condemned
them to death.

COMPARE THE ISSUES THE SUPER-TERRORIST IS BRINGING AGAINST THE
ADVENTIST CHURCH WITH WHAT I'M SHIOWING YOU AND SEE WHAT YOU WOULD
PREFER IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD!
Post by Teresita
What facts won't they tell you?
Susan Williams:
Will Adventists tell you that you must protect a man who has condemned
the lives of all non-Catholics? Will they then tell you that a person
who exposes such a person is hateful and Satan's child as William
Suzanne, Lamarr Edwards, "Adventist" Paul Tooley and "Adventist"
Andrew have done?

COMPARE THE ISSUES THE SUPER-TERRORIST IS BRINGING AGAINST THE
ADVENTIST CHURCH WITH WHAT I'M SHIOWING YOU AND SEE WHAT YOU WOULD
PREFER IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD!
Post by Teresita
They won't tell you that they consider themselves to be the only,
true, remnant Church. Their prophetess, Ellen G. White, whom they
revere and believe without question has told them that
Susan Williams:
I would tell anyone that. But do you know folks that the major reason
Rome has shed more blood than any institution on earth was because all
those centuries of the Christian era SHE HAS BEEN SAYING THAT SHE WAS
THE ONLY TRUE CHURCH?? Do you know that she recently published a
public document REAFFIRMING THIS?? Why then is Will upset at us for
what he claims is the major crime of claiming to be the true church?

Now the man is telling us the Adventist Church is trying to hide the
claim. Rome doesn't hide the claim. Would something smell bad if the
Evangelical community accepts Rome anyway even though her claims to be
the true church always involves the shedding of much blood to those
who disagree?
Post by Teresita
"...Satan has taken full possession of the Churches". (Spiritual Gifts
V.l,p.189-90) They also believe our prayers are an "abomination" to
God. (Spiritual Gifts, V1 p.190).
That is what they think of you and your church, even if they won't say
it out loud in public, or to your face.
Susan Williams:
Now listen to what the Protestants used to say BEFORE, so that we can
figure out if something has taken possession of them:

"But even with such a great cloud of witnesses, one might be tempted
to ask the following question, 'Has not Rome changed recently?' To
answer this most vital question, I turn once again to the message of
D. Martyn Lloyd Jones:

'Ah, but,' you say, 'has not the Roman Catholic Church changed? You
are simply looking back, you are speaking as if you lived in the 16th
century - don't you realize you are living in the 20th century?

My answer is quite simple. The proudest boast of the Roman Catholic
Church is this, that she never changes, Semper eadem. How can she
change? If she changes she will be admitting that she was wrong in the
past - but she was saying then that she was infallible, and that the
Pope is the Vicar of Christ and that he cannot make a mistake. If she
says that she is capable of change she is denying her central claim!
She does not say that she is changing, and she never will. The Church
of Rome remains the same.

If anything, she is even worse. She has 'added' things to what she
taught in the 16th century, such as Papal infallibility, etc. No,
there is no change in the Church of Rome. And if there ever is one
great world Church, it will be because the Church of Rome has absorbed
all the rest and swallowed them in ignorance!'

=============
Post by Teresita
They revere their founding prophetess, Ellen G. White, and made this
statement in their "Ministry" Magazine of Oct. 1981 and have never
Susan Williams:
What the super-terrorists won't tell you AND WHAT THEY HAVE NOT
RETRACTED! COMPARE THE "CRIMES!":

"If Catholics ever gain a sufficient numerical majority in this
country, religious freedom is at an end. So our enemies say, SO WE
BELIEVE" (The Shepherd of the Valley, official journal of the Bishop
of St Louis, Nov. 23, 1851).
Post by Teresita
"We believe the revelation and inspiration of both the Bible and Ellen
White's writings to be of equal quality. The superintendence of the
Holy Spirit was just as careful and thorough in one case as in the
other".
Susan Williams:
"No man has a right to choose his religion." -- (New York Freeman,
official journal of Bishops Hughes, Jan. 26, 1852).
Post by Teresita
They won't tell you too much about Ellen G. White at their public
seminars, but their goal is to bring the person attending to the point
of conversion and baptism.
Their 2000 baptismal certificate poses questions to which the
candidate must answer "yes". Question 8 says,
"Do you accept the biblical teaching of spiritual gifts and believe
that the gift of prophecy is one of the identifying marks of the
remnant church".
If the candidate says "yes" and is baptized, they soon learn that the
"gift of prophecy" is Ellen G. White's writings. Point 13 has them
accepting that the SDA Church is the remnant church of Bible Prophecy.
They have been baptized into an exclusive group, but they don't know
how exclusive it is, yet!
Susan Williams:
"The church . . . does not, and cannot accept, or in any degree favor,
liberty in the Protestant sense of liberty." -- (Catholic World,
April, 1870.)

"Protestantism has not, and never can have, any right where
Catholicity has triumphed." -- (Catholic Review, June, 1875)
Post by Teresita
No doubt they will be urged to avail themselves of a "Clear Word
Bible". This publication of theirs has inserted the words and
doctrines of Ellen G. White right into the Bible text, insuring that
the person studying it will have the mind of Ellen G. White.
Slowly, but surely, the new SDA will come to believe these
extra-biblical doctrines that set the SDA church apart from
Evangelical Christianity.
Susan Williams:
"Religious Liberty is merely endured UNTIL THE OPPOSITE CAN BE CARRIED
INTO EFFECT WITHOUT PERIL TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH." -- (Rt. Rev.
O'Connor, Bishop of Pittsburgh.)

"The absurd and erroneous doctrines or ravings in defense of liberty
of conscience are a most pestilential error--a pest, of all others,
most to be dreaded in a state." -- Encyclical Letter of Pope Pius IX,
August 15, 1854.

"There is, ere long, to be a state religion in this country, and that
state religion is to be the Roman Catholic. . . The Roman Catholic is
to wield his vote for the purpose of securing Catholic ascendancy in
this country." -- (Father Hecker, Catholic World, July, 1870.)

"If the liberties of the American people are ever destroyed, they will
fall by the hands of the Catholic clergy." -- Lafayette

"You ask if the Pope were lord over this land and you were in a
minority, what he would do to you? That, we say, would entirely depend
on circumstances. If it would benefit the cause of Catholicism, he
would tolerate you: if expedient, he would imprison, banish you,
probably he might even hang you. But be assured of one thing, he would
never tolerate you for the sake of your glorious principles of Civil
and religious liberty." -- (Rambler, one of the most prominent
Catholic papers of England, Sept., 1851.)


WHICH WOULD YOU WANT IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD!

How about William Suzanne telling us that ELLEN WHITE, dead for almost
100 years, IS THE ANTICHRIST!! When Christ comes, He will smell like
a rose just ressurrecting Ellen White to punish her for destroying the
earth!!

In His Grace,



Susan Williams
Alberich
2004-02-28 04:37:51 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 22:33:56 -0600, Susan Williams
Post by Susan Williams
Post by Teresita
Post by Iconoclast
Many confuse "The one true Faith" as the Catholics do. (AKA If you are not
Catholic, you're damned.)
Not guilty. Catholics don't say that. We merely say the Church in communion
with the bishop of Rome subsists in the fullness of truth. Have a nice day.
Of course, another bold, blanked lie by Teresita!
Oh, bugger off.

Alberich
Iconoclast
2004-02-28 07:24:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Teresita
Post by Iconoclast
Many confuse "The one true Faith" as the Catholics do. (AKA If you are not
Catholic, you're damned.)
Not guilty. Catholics don't say that. We merely say the Church in communion
with the bishop of Rome subsists in the fullness of truth. Have a nice day.
--
And everyone knows you lie about the Catholics. So what's new?
A Mighty Fortress
2004-02-29 21:10:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Teresita
Post by Iconoclast
Many confuse "The one true Faith" as the Catholics do. (AKA If you are not
Catholic, you're damned.)
Not guilty. Catholics don't say that. We merely say the Church in communion
with the bishop of Rome subsists in the fullness of truth. Have a nice day.
True. Vatican II has really muddled the beliefs of the RCC.
A Mighty Fortress
2004-02-29 21:09:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Iconoclast
Post by A Mighty Fortress
1. The one, true faith
2. The faith inspired by God
There is the term "faith" used when describing ones belief system, I.E.
Lutheran Faith, Catholic Faith, Christian faith, Methodist faith. One 'can'
have this and never see heaven or really know God.
Many confuse "The one true Faith" as the Catholics do. (AKA If you are not
Catholic, you're damned.)
I think you know Lutherans do not believe in denominational salvation,
otherwise we would cease to be Lutherans. Martin Luther believed in
what is known as the "invisible church", where there is a body of true
believers.
Post by Iconoclast
The other faith which is used in Eph 2:8 and in Hebrews. This faith is the
one giving the recipient the power to escape the second death, perform
unrealistic God directed feats on earth. This is, in fact, "The one true
faith". It is not a religion or denomination or method of worship.
It is not, contextually, "faith is the hope".
It took Luther a while to discover this after he rid himself of
Catholicisms.
I see them as one in the same... because the Holy spirit gives us the
faith to believe in Jesus (which according to the confesssions) is the
one, true faith.
Icono
2004-03-01 02:13:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by A Mighty Fortress
Post by Iconoclast
Post by A Mighty Fortress
1. The one, true faith
2. The faith inspired by God
There is the term "faith" used when describing ones belief system, I.E.
Lutheran Faith, Catholic Faith, Christian faith, Methodist faith. One 'can'
have this and never see heaven or really know God.
Many confuse "The one true Faith" as the Catholics do. (AKA If you are not
Catholic, you're damned.)
I think you know Lutherans do not believe in denominational salvation,
otherwise we would cease to be Lutherans. Martin Luther believed in
what is known as the "invisible church", where there is a body of true
believers.
Oh, don't get me wrong. I agree 100%.
Post by A Mighty Fortress
Post by Iconoclast
The other faith which is used in Eph 2:8 and in Hebrews. This faith is the
one giving the recipient the power to escape the second death, perform
unrealistic God directed feats on earth. This is, in fact, "The one true
faith". It is not a religion or denomination or method of worship.
It is not, contextually, "faith is the hope".
It took Luther a while to discover this after he rid himself of
Catholicisms.
I see them as one in the same... because the Holy spirit gives us the
faith to believe in Jesus (which according to the confesssions) is the
one, true faith.
Faith imbued (the one true faith) is what allows or performs miracles.

The faiths of the various people in Hebrews was God given and they
performed.

The faith that we can build within ourselves is another thing, important,
but another thing.
We can grow that faith.
We can grow "in" the other faith.
A Mighty Fortress
2004-03-01 15:13:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Icono
Post by A Mighty Fortress
I see them as one in the same... because the Holy spirit gives us the
faith to believe in Jesus (which according to the confesssions) is the
one, true faith.
Faith imbued (the one true faith) is what allows or performs miracles.
The faiths of the various people in Hebrews was God given and they
performed.
The faith that we can build within ourselves is another thing, important,
but another thing.
We can grow that faith.
We can grow "in" the other faith.
Interesting concept. What do you do to build faith in yourself?
Icono
2004-03-01 18:11:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by A Mighty Fortress
Post by Icono
Post by A Mighty Fortress
I see them as one in the same... because the Holy spirit gives us the
faith to believe in Jesus (which according to the confesssions) is the
one, true faith.
Faith imbued (the one true faith) is what allows or performs miracles.
The faiths of the various people in Hebrews was God given and they
performed.
The faith that we can build within ourselves is another thing, important,
but another thing.
We can grow that faith.
We can grow "in" the other faith.
Interesting concept. What do you do to build faith in yourself?
That concept was taught me in a Lutheran Church.

Study / be in the word every day.
Assemble together.
Question and analyze scripture.
Use the iron sharpens iron concept.
A Mighty Fortress
2004-03-02 14:21:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Icono
Post by A Mighty Fortress
Post by Icono
Post by A Mighty Fortress
I see them as one in the same... because the Holy spirit gives us the
faith to believe in Jesus (which according to the confesssions) is the
one, true faith.
Faith imbued (the one true faith) is what allows or performs miracles.
The faiths of the various people in Hebrews was God given and they
performed.
The faith that we can build within ourselves is another thing,
important,
Post by A Mighty Fortress
Post by Icono
but another thing.
We can grow that faith.
We can grow "in" the other faith.
Interesting concept. What do you do to build faith in yourself?
That concept was taught me in a Lutheran Church.
Study / be in the word every day.
Assemble together.
Question and analyze scripture.
Use the iron sharpens iron concept.
Well, regardless of where you learned it, I can see this as a
beneficial practice to anyone. Thank you for your input.
Mike Tennyson
2004-03-03 16:26:51 UTC
Permalink
By the way, the Catholic Church does not teach if you are not Catholic you
are damned. Quit spreading lies.
Mike Tennyson
Post by A Mighty Fortress
Post by Iconoclast
Post by A Mighty Fortress
1. The one, true faith
2. The faith inspired by God
There is the term "faith" used when describing ones belief system, I.E.
Lutheran Faith, Catholic Faith, Christian faith, Methodist faith. One 'can'
have this and never see heaven or really know God.
Many confuse "The one true Faith" as the Catholics do. (AKA If you are not
Catholic, you're damned.)
I think you know Lutherans do not believe in denominational salvation,
otherwise we would cease to be Lutherans. Martin Luther believed in
what is known as the "invisible church", where there is a body of true
believers.
Post by Iconoclast
The other faith which is used in Eph 2:8 and in Hebrews. This faith is the
one giving the recipient the power to escape the second death, perform
unrealistic God directed feats on earth. This is, in fact, "The one true
faith". It is not a religion or denomination or method of worship.
It is not, contextually, "faith is the hope".
It took Luther a while to discover this after he rid himself of
Catholicisms.
I see them as one in the same... because the Holy spirit gives us the
faith to believe in Jesus (which according to the confesssions) is the
one, true faith.
Raymond
2004-03-03 23:43:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Tennyson
By the way, the Catholic Church does not teach if you are not Catholic you
are damned. Quit spreading lies.
Mike Tennyson
Where do you get your information from, can you give a online references to
such a statement. Since the Roman Catholic church does seem to hold just
that idea, and have killed "heretics" over the century for not believing in
the "Holy Catholic Church". Then it really doesn't matter what the Catholic
Church believes or not, many non-Catholics believe the Roman Catholic Church
is damned and so they do not care what the other side believes or not. It
doesn't matter, if they do not know Jesus as Lord and Saviour they all are
damned by their own lack of trust in Jesus Christ as the Head of the Church
Universal. If you can prove your point, that would be nice, just to call
one a liar or spreading lies, really doesn't support a thing.

Raymond
Post by Mike Tennyson
Post by A Mighty Fortress
Post by Iconoclast
Post by A Mighty Fortress
1. The one, true faith
2. The faith inspired by God
There is the term "faith" used when describing ones belief system, I.E.
Lutheran Faith, Catholic Faith, Christian faith, Methodist faith. One
'can'
Post by A Mighty Fortress
Post by Iconoclast
have this and never see heaven or really know God.
Many confuse "The one true Faith" as the Catholics do. (AKA If you are
not
Post by A Mighty Fortress
Post by Iconoclast
Catholic, you're damned.)
I think you know Lutherans do not believe in denominational salvation,
otherwise we would cease to be Lutherans. Martin Luther believed in
what is known as the "invisible church", where there is a body of true
believers.
Post by Iconoclast
The other faith which is used in Eph 2:8 and in Hebrews. This faith
is
Post by Mike Tennyson
the
Post by A Mighty Fortress
Post by Iconoclast
one giving the recipient the power to escape the second death, perform
unrealistic God directed feats on earth. This is, in fact, "The one
true
Post by A Mighty Fortress
Post by Iconoclast
faith". It is not a religion or denomination or method of worship.
It is not, contextually, "faith is the hope".
It took Luther a while to discover this after he rid himself of
Catholicisms.
I see them as one in the same... because the Holy spirit gives us the
faith to believe in Jesus (which according to the confesssions) is the
one, true faith.
Mark Johnson
2004-03-03 19:29:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Tennyson
By the way, the Catholic Church does not teach if you are not Catholic you
are damned.
OUTSIDE THE CHURCH THERE IS NO SAVLATION!

That is EXACTLY what The Catholic Church teaches, and always has. But
there are RARE exceptions. But these are rare exceptions for lack of
immediate Baptism, frankly - given situation and sudden and immediate
death.

Any broad loophole, to the 'modern mind', of any century, completely,
utterly and totally ignores God, Himself. It simply does not figure in
the idea of - Providence.


Peace.

--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+

to the only God our Saviour by JESUS Christ our Lord,
be glory and magnificence, empire and power before
all worlds, and now and for all worlds evermore. Amen.
Paul Duca
2004-03-06 15:53:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Johnson
Post by Mike Tennyson
By the way, the Catholic Church does not teach if you are not Catholic you
are damned.
OUTSIDE THE CHURCH THERE IS NO SAVLATION!
That is EXACTLY what The Catholic Church teaches, and always has. But
there are RARE exceptions. But these are rare exceptions for lack of
immediate Baptism, frankly - given situation and sudden and immediate
death.
As the Catholic life is so miserable (and the afterlife even worse),
it's better to hope for the exemption than spend your days being like Mark
Johnson....although currenlty, there would be pleasure in sitting in a movie
house, masturbating to "The Passion"



Paul
Icono
2004-03-04 04:05:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Tennyson
By the way, the Catholic Church does not teach if you are not Catholic you
are damned. Quit spreading lies.
Mike Tennyson
You are the one lying.
They have backed off as of late of pushing the issue.
Post by Mike Tennyson
Post by A Mighty Fortress
Post by Iconoclast
Post by A Mighty Fortress
1. The one, true faith
2. The faith inspired by God
There is the term "faith" used when describing ones belief system, I.E.
Lutheran Faith, Catholic Faith, Christian faith, Methodist faith. One
'can'
Post by A Mighty Fortress
Post by Iconoclast
have this and never see heaven or really know God.
Many confuse "The one true Faith" as the Catholics do. (AKA If you are
not
Post by A Mighty Fortress
Post by Iconoclast
Catholic, you're damned.)
I think you know Lutherans do not believe in denominational salvation,
otherwise we would cease to be Lutherans. Martin Luther believed in
what is known as the "invisible church", where there is a body of true
believers.
Post by Iconoclast
The other faith which is used in Eph 2:8 and in Hebrews. This faith
is
Post by Mike Tennyson
the
Post by A Mighty Fortress
Post by Iconoclast
one giving the recipient the power to escape the second death, perform
unrealistic God directed feats on earth. This is, in fact, "The one
true
Post by A Mighty Fortress
Post by Iconoclast
faith". It is not a religion or denomination or method of worship.
It is not, contextually, "faith is the hope".
It took Luther a while to discover this after he rid himself of
Catholicisms.
I see them as one in the same... because the Holy spirit gives us the
faith to believe in Jesus (which according to the confesssions) is the
one, true faith.
The Last Church
2004-02-13 21:38:45 UTC
Permalink
The word "sin" translates to english as "Mistake"
What is a mistake for one may not be for another,
so judge only yourself.
12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things
are not expedient: all things are lawful for me,
but I will not be brought under the power of any.
Romans 14:14 says that they're relative, invoking Jesus as
an authority: "I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus,
that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that
esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean."

Rom 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not
under the law, but under grace.

The ten commandments are not a law for you. The whole of the law
is fulfilled in one word, Love.

Gal 5:18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

You are not led by the law,(bible) but the spirit of Christ.
Seek the truth of all things with out fear or regards for doctrine,
In the spirit of Christ. Christ is the spirit of unconditional love
and compassion.

In the mind of Christ,
Michael

.
**************************
A preacher is the blind
leading the blind...

The Last Church
http://www.thelastchurch.org
***@thelastchurch.org

alt.religion.thelastchurch
alt.religion.the-last-church
Cindy
2004-02-13 21:45:30 UTC
Permalink
Jhn 8:34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you,
Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.
1Jo 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin
is the transgression of the law.

~ Cindy
Post by The Last Church
The word "sin" translates to english as "Mistake"
What is a mistake for one may not be for another,
so judge only yourself.
12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things
are not expedient: all things are lawful for me,
but I will not be brought under the power of any.
Romans 14:14 says that they're relative, invoking Jesus as
an authority: "I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus,
that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that
esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean."
Rom 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not
under the law, but under grace.
The ten commandments are not a law for you. The whole of the law
is fulfilled in one word, Love.
Gal 5:18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
You are not led by the law,(bible) but the spirit of Christ.
Seek the truth of all things with out fear or regards for doctrine,
In the spirit of Christ. Christ is the spirit of unconditional love
and compassion.
In the mind of Christ,
Michael
.
**************************
A preacher is the blind
leading the blind...
The Last Church
http://www.thelastchurch.org
alt.religion.thelastchurch
alt.religion.the-last-church
The Last Church
2004-02-13 22:56:12 UTC
Permalink
Jhn 8:34 the RCC answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you,
Whosoever does not belong to this church is full of sin.
1Jo 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the RCC: for sin
is the transgression of the RCC.
~ Cindy
Post by The Last Church
The word "sin" translates to english as "Mistake"
What is a mistake for one may not be for another,
so judge only yourself.
12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things
are not expedient: all things are lawful for me,
but I will not be brought under the power of any.
Romans 14:14 says that they're relative, invoking Jesus as
an authority: "I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus,
that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that
esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean."
Rom 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not
under the law, but under grace.
The ten commandments are not a law for you. The whole of the law
is fulfilled in one word, Love.
Gal 5:18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
You are not led by the law,(bible) but the spirit of Christ.
Seek the truth of all things with out fear or regards for doctrine,
In the spirit of Christ. Christ is the spirit of unconditional
love
Post by The Last Church
and compassion.
In the mind of Christ,
Michael
.
**************************
More than you want to know?
The Biblical stories (specifically OT) are copied from the more
ancient Enuma Elish - The Sumerian Creation Epic; Sumeria is the first
known human civilization. Moses himself was reared in the Egyptian
religion. The Ten Commandments that Moses shewed his people were
written in Egyptian (as Hebrew did not exist for another 1,000 years).
All this is derived from Sumerian ethical laws.
Even though the Sumerians have stories about the creators of
humanity, i.e. "those who from heaven to Earth came", they never
reference such as "gods". The biblical nephilim and the Sumerian
Annunnaki (whom the Sumerians claim are our creators) may be one and
the same; likewise, the Annunnaki and Elohim. Who knows for sure?
What *is* known is that the Sumerians have clay tablets depicting an
astrological cycle that takes over 25,000 years to view...yet their
empire lasted only (approx.) 2,000 years. How could a civilization,
who only lasted 2,000 years, could have *possibly* viewed an event
that took over 25,000 years to complete?
Furthermore, there is a Sumerian clay tablet (discovered in
modern-day Iraq, as all Sumerian tablets are) displaying *all* the
planets in our solar system...Pluto, for example, wasn't discovered
until this past century. How could they have known such
things?...unless the Annunnaki, as they claim, told them so.
The Old Testament Bible (whichever version you choose to believe in)
is nothing more than the stories handed down from the Sumerian
dynasty. The Sumerians are credited with creating the first taxation
system, the first religion, and many other things.
The Trinity, according to the Enuma Elish, is Anu, Enki and Enlil -
three distinct entities. Enlil was known as the Great Mountain Lord,
since he spoke to his created humans from atop a mountain from time to
time...and *where* did Moses receive the 10
Commandments???..................

.
**************************
A preacher is the blind
leading the blind...

The Last Church
http://www.thelastchurch.org
***@thelastchurch.org

alt.religion.thelastchurch
alt.religion.the-last-church
A Mighty Fortress
2004-02-13 23:24:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marcia, Bethany and Me
Yours is a different Jesus. My Jesus says that if I love Him,
then I should keep His Commandments. Your disrespect of
His eternal Seventh Day Sabbath (His 4th Commandment)
extends to disrespect of His other Commandments, resulting
in you turning trees into decorated idols and placing Egyptian
representations of penises on the roofs of your churches
(violations of His First and Second Commandments). And
you care little that "Christmas" is a violation of His Third
Commandment, for it is not Christ's Mass but is instead a
pagan mass commemorating the return of the sun from the
south. Jesus said, "If you keep My Commandments you will
abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father's
Commandments and abide in His love" (Jn 15:10). Jesus said,
"If you love Me, keep My Commandments" (Jn 14:15). For the
sake of your tradition you make void the Commandments of
God (Matt 15:3, 6). God's first four Commandments are
being violated, torturing me in an attempt to prevent me from
saying so is nothing short of a violation of God's Sixth
Commandment. Your claim to salvation is a joke, you
love your traditions more than both Jesus and me, let your
traditions save you. -Daryl S. Kabatoff
Traditions don't save anyone, neither do Christmas trees or any other
celebration. JESUS DOES. You really have a penis fixation, don't you?
Thomas
2004-02-14 01:35:48 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 06:39:33 GMT, "Marcia, Bethany and Me"
Post by Marcia, Bethany and Me
Commandment. Your claim to salvation is a joke, you
love your traditions more than both Jesus and me, let your
traditions save you. -Daryl S. Kabatoff-Well-known penis worshiper
and documented pedophile.
<<<snipped a lot of psycho crap from Shawn "pedophile-boy" Kabatoff>>>


The following (courtesy of Waxy.org) is sort of an unofficial "FAQ"
explaining the psychotic nonsense posted to Usenet by Shawn Daryl
Kabatoff AKA "Dar", AKA "Probababbilities". And now AKA "marcia and
me".

WARNING: Read below before even thinking about responding to this
twit.

http://www.waxy.org/archive/2002/05/21/dar_kaba.shtml#000643


Usenet has the tendency to provide a public forum for those who would
normally be scribbling in a closet. For example, take Daryl "Shawn"
Kabatoff. For the last few years, he's methodically gathered
"statistics" from various sources, ranging from local newspaper
obituary pages to the food court of the Saskatoon Midtown Plaza mall.
With all the raw data he's collected, he's attempting to prove daily
that our full names are in "mathematical harmony" with our birthdays.
His rants normally focus on a single individual he's met or read
about, starting with calculations related to their birthdate and full
names, blending in whatever other personal information about their
family members, spouses, birthplace, and career he's been able to
glean. From there, it descends into a mix of numerology, religious
zealotry, and personal torment. I've never seen anything like it.
With all the prime numbers, Fibonacci sequences and biblical
references, it's like reading the notebooks of Maximillian Cohen and
John Nash combined. Unsurprisingly, several posts unfold to reveal a
history of painful mental illness. If you have some time, take a look.
I've detailed his posting history and a several sample posts below.

Usenet Posting History:

January 27, 1999 to July 5, 2000 as ***@home.com

December 9, 2000 to May 4, 2001 as ***@sk.sympatico.ca

Oct 30, 2001 to Oct 31, 2001 as ***@the.link.ca

January 20, 2002 to April 17, 2002 as ***@hotmail.com (original
posts have been

removed from Google Groups archive)

April 26, 2002 to Present as ***@hotmail.com

Selected Posts:
Tessa Lynne Smith
Dastageer Sakhizai and Helen Smith
Brett David Maki
Andrew Meredith Cotton
Kathryn Lee Hipperson
Amanda Dawn Newton
Mona Marie Etcheverry
Tony Peter Nuspl
Lisa Charlene McMillan
Grant Allyn Wood

Comments
scarier still is that saskatoon is my hometown, though not my current
residence. and every single place he's mentioned in his posts (most
notably nervous harold's and the roastary) were either places i've
been (as it's a small city of 200K) or hangouts, ie. the two places
mentioned. chances are i could email some friends back home and find
out if they know of him, they (my friends that is) being of the
broadway-centred slacker ilk. myself, too, until i got out of there.
eh, anyways. thought it odd to see all this. midtown mall. i ate my
meals there, whilst waiting several days in line for star wars episode
one, at the theatre across the street.
posted by andy raad on May 22, 2002 06:20 PM

Fascinating. It's like he's trying to take chaos and bind it into
whatever rules he can find, religious, logical and otherwise. Numbers
and math have a reliable pattern, something that can always be proven
to true or false. People and religion do not. It reminds me of Darren
Aronofsky's movie Pi. It's the story of an paraniod genius who is
trying to find a pattern in Pi. A group that takes interest in his
work is convinced that the existence of Pi, a number whose existence
can be proven but no quantified, is proof of the existence of God.
Kabatoff's hunt for patterns in something as random as name selection
is a way to reconcile his deeply logical thought process with his
conflicting religious views.
posted by matt on May 23, 2002 11:19 AM

Exactly. I probably shouldn't have, but I e-mailed Daryl yesterday,
asking him if he'd be willing to create a numerological analysis for
me. I also asked him if he had seen either Pi or A Beautiful Mind, and
what he thought of them. If he replies, I'll be sure to post it.
posted by Andy Baio on May 23, 2002 11:24 AM

I baked many pumpkin pies for Shawn (he likes pumpkin pies). I rubbed
pumpkin pie all over my breasts for him, and my breasts turned orange.
I am a pumpkin for Shawn.
posted by Trisha Blondie on July 24, 2002 10:41 PM

Um, that's swell. So, you're in love with him?
posted by Andy Baio on July 25, 2002 07:10 AM

Shawn once went to a funeral for a Jehovah Witness that shot himself
and the lemon tarts were very bad, they were not only sour but were
rubbery as well. Shawn said that the guy was some kind of Jehovah
Witness prophet, he saw in advance that the lemon tarts at his funeral
were to be very very bad, and so he shot himself. Shawn said that he
never ate pumpkin pie at a funeral but would like to some day. Shawn
likes pumpkin pie and so I have been practicing to make very good
pumpkin pies.
posted by Trisha Blondie on July 25, 2002 02:49 PM

Shawn said that the lemon tarts were sour, bitter and rubbery.
posted by Trisha Blondie on July 30, 2002 12:32 AM

I don't think this guy takes notes. I think he has Total Recall, and
it has driven him insane...
posted by Todd Smith on December 26, 2002 11:00 AM

Oh... I almost forgot... I didnt spend thousands of dollars a day
tormenting Daryl... We got a deal on tormenting that fiscal year, it
only came to about 37cents a day....
posted by Dr Claw on December 30, 2002 01:56 AM

Mr. Kabatoff attempts to portray himself as a victim, but in fact he
is a violent predatory pedophile who is well known to his local law
enforcement. In his post to multiple newsgroups with the subject
"Collecting Mail For The Coming Anti-Christ", he encourages mothers to
send him photos of their naked daughters. Mr Kabatoff explains, "I
personally did not want photographs being mailed to (the coming
Ant-Christ) that were of underage children unless the parent was
signing consent." He is banned from virtually all the shopping malls
in his community because he stalks young people and sexually harasses
them. He has an extensive arrest record which includes sexual
molestation charges. He's been hospitalized in mental institutions
several times because he likes to accost "nubile cuties." He writes
about his contact with young girls in many posts. Search newsgroup
archives for posts by him containing the word "nubile". As part of his
harrassment, he provides personal details in a public forum, such as
the real names of real children, in these and other posts. About one
girl he met at a mall, he writes, "I wanted Callie in my bed or I
wanted her and her sister dead."
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Daryl+Shawn+Kabatoff+dead+or+in+my+bed&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=asqm35%24tjq5j%241%40ID-136124.news.dfncis.de&rnu
He not only curses children and prays for their death in his posts, he
also enjoys attending the funerals of young people: "And so, since
nubile sweeties are found in greatest abundance at the funerals of
high school students, then it is the funerals of high school students
that make the very very best funerals, especially if there is food...
I stuff my face (and my pockets) with all the good food and look at
all the pretty nubile sweeties and have the time of my life..
.http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Daryl+Shawn+Kabatoff+nubile+sex&hl=en&l
r=&ie=UTF-8&scoring=d&selm=LfXN8.63042%24R53.25142039%40twister.socal.rr.
com&rnum=1
Many of his posts are sent to alt.teens.advice. However, he liberally
spams, floods and crossposts his off-topic threatening and offensive
missives to countless newsgroups. Some people HAVE problems and some
folks ARE problems. Don't dismiss Mr. Kabatoff as a harmless nut. When
he sends these posts to any newgroup, please help by reporting him to
his ISP. Thanks.
posted by nospam on January 5, 2003 04:39 AM

I knew of him when I was attending the University of Saskatchewan.
He'd hang out in the Arts computer lab and all you'd see is screens of
numbers racing by on his laptop. I have an original copy of his
"Collecting Mail for the Coming Anti-Christ" pamphlet, and have seen
him be hauled away by campus security on more than one occasion. My
friends and I refer to him as "Crazy Number Man".
posted by Mr. Somebody on April 10, 2003 11:09 AM

I've been posting to (and about) Shawn for over two years with big
gaps in between. He has seen Pi and didn't like it and didn't think it
resembled him at all. (Wrong, it fits him to a tee) He doesn't have
total recall and has stated that he travels with a lap top to notate
items. Also, he uses "cut n' paste" a lot if you read all the way
through his ramblings. He is anti-social as shown by his angry
statements towards those who, by his own admission, have been kind
(but not kind enough) to him. Still, he's intelligent and seems to be
able to "take a joke" on occassion. That's where I came in.
posted by Gambol on May 19, 2003 02:22


ALOHA

Reply to group
(Unsolicited e-mail is deleted from the server unread
if it comes from anyone not already in my addressbook.
I'll never even see it)
Marcia, Bethany and Me
2004-02-14 06:09:45 UTC
Permalink
"Thomas" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:***@4ax.com...
<snip>

James Takayama posted libel against me using the name
"nospam", now he frequently quotes this libel using
the name "Thomas." -Daryl S. Kabatoff
HALOHA

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

See Hebrews 4, here is New Testament Scripture
in chapter 4 telling us to remember to honor God's 4th
Commandment. The pre-incarnate Jesus created
heaven and earth and provided us with the Ten
Commandments. Then He came to earth in human form
and abided by His Ten Commandments. Then He was
crucified on the 6th day of the week, RESTED in the
tomb on the 7th day of the week, then rose on the first
day of the week to resume His ministry (His WORK).
He rose on a Sunday to resume His work while the
filthy churches teach you that His rising on a Sunday
changes His day of rest to Sunday.

Let us strive to enter that rest and honor what God
desires that we honor rather than continue to strive
to hold onto the things that our are important to
our friends, family and ourselves. -Daryl S. Kabatoff
The Last Church
2004-02-14 07:12:45 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 06:09:45 GMT, "Marcia, Bethany and Me"
Post by Marcia, Bethany and Me
BS
The intro was so poorly written that I didn't catch on at first. But
your attempt at defending yourself made it clear to me.

"Marcia, Bethany and Me" Is not a few girls but this man-
-Daryl S. Kabatoff- who is posting as "Marcia, Bethany and Me"
I thought there was something strange about "Marcia, Bethany and Me".
Now I get it... -Daryl S. Kabatoff is the man we are talking to,
as "Marcia, Bethany and Me".

In that case we all might do well to go back and read what "Thomas"
had to say about this man,
Post by Marcia, Bethany and Me
-Daryl S. Kabatoff-Well-known
and documented pedophile.
Unsurprisingly, several posts unfold to reveal a
history of painful mental illness. If you have some time, take a look.
I've detailed his posting history and a several sample posts below.
I usually ignore slandering post but this time I thank you Thomas
For posting the information.

Michael

.

**************************
A preacher is the blind
leading the blind...

The Last Church
http://www.thelastchurch.org
***@thelastchurch.org

alt.religion.thelastchurch
alt.religion.the-last-church
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...