... on ISIS, Conversion, and End Times (ft. David Wood)

Featuring old friend David Wood:

How ISIS Is Converting Muslims to Christianity (David Wood)
Acts17Apologetics | 5.II.2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kr0zBEkrIXI

I

2:16 Nice, perhaps 1 reason to presume ISIS will as such not be the Apocalyptical Beast.

They will end Islam before coming near to that ultimate try to end Christianity.

(OK, there are some Catholic prophets who have said it is actually The Great Catholic Monarch who will end Islam, Judaism, Protestant heresy so that only a few are left of each ... leaving sth darker, ultimately, to those who won't be Catholics, or to most of them ... yes, it will be darker than ISIS).

II

3:11 "Even under the Syrian régime before the revolution, it was strictly forbidden to change religion from Islam to Christianity or the opposite."

Wait ... is he talking about Bashir al Assad's Syria here?

III

As you mentioned Omar, can you imagine a Christian people beginning as all Christians when he arrived, and then major parts of it being forced to Islamise?

And now Christians being a minority in that people?

I can not just imagine that people, I know of one : Palestinians.

That's why I take Christian Palestinians as my umpire for right and wrong in Holy Land : if they complain more of Israel, I complain more of Israel, if they complain more of Hamas, I complain more of Hamas, and while they usually complain of both, I do so too.

There was an Orthodox priest (the nation is divided basically between Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholics), who about Galilaean Palestinians was saying, they had more than enough of the Jewish Islamic vendetta.

IV

I somehow believe you reading the Qoran is a form of torture, we went through that in Swedish school ... "religious studies".

Now, more to the point, since the Swedish school did not expose me to all that much of the Quran, so is being confronted to harbrained Protestant attacks on Catholicism ... not meaning you, but I have started dealing with one major torture monger; GotQuestions:

Great Bishop of Geneva! : Answering 83 Claims from Got Questions : Catholic Bible and Origin of Catholic Church
https://greatbishopofgeneva.blogspot.com/2019/02/answering-83-claims-from-got-questions.html

Note, the Christian or semi-Christian you just cited mentions a denomination from 18th C Germany.

What about the one from AD 33 Palestine? There are not all that many realistic claimants (RC, EO, Copts, Armenians, Assyrians or Nestorians).

Perhaps even more hairbrained than GotQuestions, what about this:

"The astonishing story from an ex-Jesuit priest, Alberto Rivera, which was told to him by Cardinal Bea while he was at the Vatican. When Cardinal Bea shared with Rivera in the Vatican, he said, these writings are guarded because they contain information that links the Vatican to the creation of Islam. Both sides have so much information on each other, that if exposed, it could create such a scandal that it would be a disaster for both religions."

Yadda, yadda, yadda ....

No one questions Alberto Rivera was a Jesuit. I just checked his credential for even being Spanish, yes, he has as full name "Alberto Magno Rivera Romero" that is one saint's name (Alberto Magno refers to the teacher of St Thomas Aquinas, there are other Alberts) and two surnames.

No one questions he was told things by Cardinal Bea.

No one questions Cardinal Bea was if so not simply testing him.

No one questions Cardinal Bea was if so and not testing him simply repeating fake news in "insiders knowledge" of some infiltrating actually AntiCatholic group (he has other connections to ending Catholicism in Catholicism, like being overecumenical).

Doesn't that and similar hogwash make you think twice about remaining a Protestant?

V

Radical Islam will fail.

However, moderate Islam (from the outset saying one does not believe the Quran 100% or the example of Muhammed 100% esp as applicable today) may one day be one part of the Beast, since liberals as well as Russia (supposedly conservative) will do nothing to beat it, and since it has confusion at the heart of its "message".

ISIS is clear on brutality and perhaps on a few more things probably less popular than brutality in today's world.

Salafis in France are being suspected of being ISIS sympathisers, are being deprived of rights over their children's education.

One of the terrorists had a wife who fled to ISIS in Syria, bc France had destroyed her life by CPS during her teens and even post-teen youth.

I kind of think that man paid a ticket to a haven for his wife by attacking the Hyper-Kacher (kosher supermarket).

This kind of thing may lead Salafists to continue supporting ISIS for some time. Instead of being duly disgusted and drawing the right conclusions.

... on Great Monarch and on End Times (ft. Coulombe)

The Great Catholic Monarch & the End Times
Tumblar House | 7.IX.2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKWHz9mNKQ8

I

2:33 "both Habsburg and Bourbon"?

As far as I know, that is not specified in Holzhauser.

Descending from both St Louis the IX and German Emperors is, but the Wittelsbach's in his day already fulfilled that criterium.

Obviously, Louis XVII fulfilled it in the shape of Bourbon descent from St Louis and Habsburg descent from German Emperors.

So, if Nauendorff should be genuine (that would mean a mitochondrial test on Karl Wilhelm Nauendorff and Marie Antoinette already conducted was either a fraud of bungled, but that is not quite impossible), that would perhaps be best candidate, after that you get Wittelsbachs (you know three Wittelsbach men and one Wittelsbach woman ruled Sweden, once? They are same branch as the Wittlesbachs now claiming Bavaria, next in line being as I recall a Liechtenstein, and that to the Stuart heritage as well).

II

4:58 Why wait for Game of Thrones?

I delight in Branduardi, but he was participating in an Italian emission which was very much referring to Hell (to his credit, as a faun kidnapped by demons, not as a demon, but still). Heard of Stryx?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stryx

Then again, False Prophet and Beast will definitely represent the Devil, and it is very probable they will be ... doing so on TV.

As for seeing, "ten horns" seems a bit like referring to cogwheels, then you have "teeth and claws of iron" ...

By the way, when it came to ASCII, I think St John both saw it and got it explained.

We know the numeric sum of the letters is 666 (at least if St Irenaeus is credible in discounting alternatives like 616), and we also know that while Greek, Hebrew and some Latin letters were used as numbers, by now (binary) numbers are used for letters in computers. The capital and lower case usually differing by 32.

13:18 is kind of a short resumé.

On my view, Moses when reading or hearing the recital of Babel from ancestors was asking "what where they trying to do?" and God showed him Cape Canaveral or Bajkonur, and he wrote "a tower, the top of which may reach heaven". You see, three step rockets are oblong long vertical axis, and only top "storey" reaches deep space ....

As I brought up Cape Canaveral, one can still see and hear Kennedy's speach "it's not because it is easy" ... in reference to that project.

Was the devil speaking through JFK that day?

III

7:31 I'd have to disagree on "that's not what it's for".

Why were people so desperate to save Roman Gaul from Franks up to when Clovis converted?

Well, the fact is, St Augustine and Orosius had commented on St Paul's prophecy in Thessalonians that the office of Roman Emperor was what held back. This meaning, that if a clearly non-Roman government came about, Antichrist would fairly well have an easy time.

Now, fast forward to 1917. Austrian Emperor was, via Charlemagne, a heir of Clovis. Similarily, the Charlemagne business may have inspired Russia to take over Imperial claim after 1453. So, Russian Czar Nicolas was also a heir of ... the guy who gave Clovis the dignity of Patrician.

Nicolas II and Charles I (Charles the Last) are taken out of the way.

And if Lenin was not Antichrist in person, he clearly prefigured him. In a longterm view of "seven kings", the list of "Seven Satanic Kings" starting with Nimrod ... as Nero and Domitian are both good candidates for the sixth King (after Antiochus and excepting Herod who was a corrupt Israelite), the candidates for "seventh" are either Hitler or Lenin. I think Lenin fits just a bit even better.

If you look at his first name, you can figure out who might be "the eighth and one of the seven". At present there is no politician with the first name Adolf, but if that's your preference for "seventh Satanic King" well, the guy has been somewhat likened to Hitler as well ...

Point is, when St Remigius thought opposing a Pagan and non-Roman Clovis so important that he even stepped into Syagrius' shoes, though resisting invasions was a lay office, he was precisely running his "business" on prophetic terms, and it turns out, he saved the world from the march on Harmageddon for 14 centuries or so.

Some guys think (as of John had his prophecy from Apollo and not from God) that believing the Apocalypse is likely to start a march to Harmageddon. Precisely not, by believing it, St Remigius was halting that downhill march to a precipice for centuries to come. While St Bridget and her more pious contemporaries or some of them were alarmed over Antichrist risking to come, the danger was less than it is now.

IV

9:00 In fact, those claiming St Augustine did prophecy the Great Monarch cite one place (which could also be spurious as far as I know as yet) of his saying the Roman Empire could come into the hands of a Frank ... in his time they were Pagans, and then comes Clovis.

Meaning of course, his view does not necessarily imply a Great Monarch now, since it could have been already fulfilled 1500 years ago.

"Mitis depone colla Sigamber" (that might even have been St Augustine's actual term) "incende quod adorasti, adora quod incendisti".

V

10:46 If you are around in Ireland (or possibly New York State), about seven years before Doomsday, St Patrick might be arranging for your drowning with a whole country instead of facing what you are talking about ... it seems he felt the Irish would be in need of about same kind of grace to be spared those days ...

... on Second Temple Priesthood

The untold reason why Jewish people do not believe Jesus is the Messiah!
ONE FOR ISRAEL Ministry | 2.IV.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QP_JGRHvsE8

I

8:52 - 9:05 "is proof of the poor condition the temple priesthood was in. According to Elior, scrolls written by the Zadokian priesthood describe how they had to flee for their lives and hide from the new priests"

Now read II Maccabees 12 from 42 up to the end.

[42] And so betaking themselves to prayers, they besought him, that the sin which had been committed might be forgotten. But the most valiant Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin, forasmuch as they saw before their eyes what had happened, because of the sins of those that were slain. [43] And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection, [44] (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead,) [45] And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them. [46] It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.

Now, re-read verse 44, it is a parenthesis, with the words in previous verse to which this parenthesis refers:

thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection, (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead,)

As we know it, the priesthood in the temple in Jesus' time were in fact what we call "Sadducees" - deniers of the resurrection (among some other key concepts). This would mean that the author could be one of those fleeing from the new priests, or, at the very least, one who noted the difference.

And who preferred it the old way.

II

What do you think would have happened if in Our Lord's time there was one cohen, not John the Baptist (Yohanan ben-Zakhariah ha-Kohen, right?), but someone else, who actually also was against the corruption of Sadducee priests?

Would he have been a disciple of Our Lord?

What would Our Lord have thought of him?

Since St Irenaeus, most Church Father's have considered "John" and "the beloved disciple" as being John the son of Zebedee and the brother of James the greater. Look here at two texts from Gospels of St and of St John:

1) Now all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then the disciples all leaving him, fled. (Matthew 26:56)

2) And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple. And that disciple was known to the high priest, and went in with Jesus into the court of the high priest. But Peter stood at the door without. The other disciple therefore, who was known to the high priest, went out, and spoke to the portress, and brought in Peter. (John 18:15,16)

We see a disciple who doesn't exactly look like fleeing. And one whom St Matthew, writing very early after the events, does not mention. Both say Peter (later a saint and martyr) was at the occasion half-brave, only one (the later writer) dares say how he even came in ...

Also, Matthew and Luke in Acts seem to contradict each other about how Judas Ischariot died - the John who was known to people in Asia Minor where St Irenaeus had spent early years (and perhaps misunderstood sth which early Church Fathers writing back there understood better) was able to tell what had happened. Judas didn't die from hanging, he was cut down. But he died from burst stomach when ploughing on Aceldama, trying obviously to "get things together" after a failed suicide and this not pleasing God. Or the guys who cut him down and saved him also killed him by giving him really too much comfort food. These explanations are not mutually exclusive.

How did this John know what had happened to Judas? Was he a fisherman - or a priest?

One man from Asia Minor, also an early Church Father, speaks of one John who had worn the "golden head plate".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priestly_golden_head_plate

Biblical Errors - no such thing

Unless you mean errors in one specific or even more than one specific manuscript of the Bible.

Biblical Errors
Tumblar House | 11.III.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tY9BAOd_XPs

I

3:47 Are there Church Fathers saying there are real discrepancies or such saying there are apparent ones?

I'd like to see you point to a specific text in this selection:

The Fathers of the Church (NewAdvent site)
http://newadvent.com/fathers/

Meanwhile, here is one saying there are apparent ones but no real contradictions:

The Harmony of the Gospels (St. Augustine)
http://newadvent.com/fathers/1602.htm

II

4:01 "Biblical inspiration does not mean everything was dictated by the Holy Ghost."

Depends on which book. But even in cases the hagiographer was a historian, making a human effort to know history, like arguably Moses for most of Genesis (though he was direct prophet for 1:1-2:4), like definitely St Luke, we can depend on the Holy Ghost not letting any factual errors slip through either in the autograph or in all preserved versions.

Suppose Emmaus was not just politically and socially but also geographically same place as modern Amwaz. Now, Amwaz is 160 stades or 32 km from Jerusalem, Emmaus is 60 stades or 12 km from Jerusalem in St Luke ... most preserved versions. But there is a Syriac manuscript which actually says 160 stades. This could be the one trace of the autograph.

On the other hand, there are other possibilities, Emmaus was arguably destroyed in year 70 AD and then rebuilt when Christians came back from Pella (in Jordan, not in Macedonia, to clarify). Now, for St Cleopas, Roman Martyrology says he is buried in Emmaus. If he has a grave in Amwaz, it could have happened like this, St Cleopas was martyred outside Emmaus as to its pre-70 location, and then Emmaus (modern Amwaz) was rebuilt around his grave. By Christians. Hailing from old Emmaus, which had been 20 km or 100 stades closer to Jerusalem.

I mean, for a papal definition, you will hold it is free from error, and yet you do not consider the Holy Ghost actually dictates it, reducing the Pope to his secretary. Why? Bc you believe in providence. While a Pope and while St Luke had free will, they also had an intention to say the truth, now, with that intention, saying sth untrue would have been praeter intentionem. This being so, God can have simply preserved either of them from stumbling praeter intentionem. This involves no violation of their freewill, as they were not intending to teach error either of them.

... on Calvinistic OT Canard

Is the Old Testament Calvinistic?
Tumblar House | 15.VIII.2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0XFnoz_H3E

I

Starting with a dialogue, before my own comments:

Nick J

After each of the first five plagues in Egypt it simply reads, "And Pharao's heart was hardened, and he did not let the people go."

But it is specified after the second plague came to an end, the plague of frogs, that "Pharao seeing that rest was given, hardened his own heart, and did not hear them, as the Lord had commanded" (Ex 8:15).

It is not until the sixth plague, the plague of boils, that it tells us, "And the Lord hardened Pharao's heart, and he hearkened not unto them, as the Lord had spoken to Moses" (Ex 9:12). That was also the first time his magicians were powerless to compete.

So he had at least five chances, after having already brutally oppressed the Israelites and had all their newborn males killed, before God then confirmed Pharao's choice for him.

Throne and Altar

When it says that God hardened Pharaoh's heart it isn't being literal. God simply allowed Pharaoh to have his way. I'll try to find the sources but other passages in the OT refer to Pharaoh hardening his own heart.

1 Sam 6:6 - Why do you harden your hearts, as Egypt and Pharao hardened their hearts? did not he, after he was struck, then let them go, and they departed?

We can think of God hardening Pharaoh's heart in a passive way. If I say, "you're making me hungry", are you literally creating hunger within me?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Throne and Altar "it isn't being literal."

It is, as for activity.

"God simply allowed Pharaoh to have his way."

Same thing.

"other passages in the OT refer to Pharaoh hardening his own heart."

So did previous passages in Exodus, about first five plagues, as Nick J noted.

I had totally forgotten that aspect.

"before God then confirmed Pharao's choice for him."

Exactly so. Thank you, @Nick J

Now

for my own comments. So far without dialogue (except with video / Charles A. Coulombe).

II

"In a way that wasn't possible in the old testament."

No where in the OT does it say "no one except God can forgive sin".

However, neither is anyone given a hint someone else can either. The kohanim couldn't, what prefigured confession was distinguishing leprosy from non leprosy. That was a hygienic, not a moral issue. Meaning one could draw a kind of empiric conclusion, kind of inductive reasoning that no one except God could.

Which conclusion in the NT we gather that the Pharisees had reasoned, and we read they were considering God in the Flesh a blasphemer because of this.

Hence the Calvinist attack on confession, and of absolution being a "name of blasphemy" never mind Our Lord instituted it in John 20:21-23.

They will say "no one except God" and miss Our Lord cured the lame to prove "the Son of Man can forgive Sin". The power did not just belong to Him as God, it also belonged to Him as Man. And He was free to hand it on, esp. when we consider "as the Father has sent me, I send you". [John 20:21, so in the passage where absolution is instituted]

And yes, Calvinism very much mirrors post-Temple Judaism, in being a religion of Scripture, Exegesis and Morals, but with nearly no cult beyond bans, beyond being forbidden to do some things.

This is also (in a diluted way or identic or exaggerated way) true of other Protestants.

Note however, post-Temple or Rabbinic Judaism is not the religion of the Old Testament.

III

5:31 "that reinforced the resemblance between Calvinism and the Old Testament"

No, Sir!

Between Calvinism and post-Temple Judaism, which is as little the religion of OT as Calvinism is that of NT.

IV

5:59 God meant He was withdrawing from Pharao the graces of conversion.

Before that, God might have given to Pharao some grace of conversion (which is actual graces, not sanctifying grace) which he rejected, then God decided, no more grace for that heart = it is hard, set on what it had decided without God.

I did not see Nick J had noted exactly same thing in better supported detail.

David Wolf Sees a Danger ... I don't agree on its nature

The Dangers Of Bible Reading In Public Education
David Wolf | 3.II.2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeKKpuwjNg8

I

1:50 How about the German model ... also in Austria.

IN public school, Catholic parents send Catholic children to Catholic catechism class, Protestant ones to Protestant catechism class (generally Lutherans and Calvinists are no longer that different in Germanies, they are a bit like United Church of Canada, to give a comparison from Americas). Jewish parents to Jewish catechism and in some Bundesländer Muslim parents to Muslim catechism.

I think even some Bundesländer by now (esp in former GDR) allow Atheist parents to send children to classes of Humane Ethics.

Either way, Catechism is not optional, all need to take it, but parents decide what confession. (In my case a back then Swedish High Church Lutheran mother chose Catholic catechism).

5:07 I am not sure what you mean by "sectarianism".

I am sure that the German model involves sectarian division, because Protestants by definition are not the Church, but a sect.

If this sect already exists, they are usually not first generation former Catholics, but the sect exists as a Protestant population where greatgrandfathers or further off is typical of the Catholic background, they are not to be wiped out by Inquisition and therefore their educational choices are to be respected.

II

2:50 In some cases they are doing so on texts where the Catholic Church has not decided on the interpretation.

For instance:

Genesis 11

[1] And the earth was of one tongue, and of the same speech.

Clearly includes Hebrew patriarchs and clearly includes whereever they were.

[2] And when they removed from the east, they found a plain in the land of Sennaar, and dwelt in it.

All, or just some? Including the Hebrews or excluding the Hebrews?

Of the Babel builders, all, or just the élite? Was Babel like a real global village or just a virtual one, like New York is these days?

I don't think the Pontifical Bible commission ever gave an answer on this one, so I think all three (at least) options are licit.

• Hebrews included in Babel-builders?
• Hebrews excluded, but all the rest concretely at Babel?
• Hebrews excluded, an élite of the rest gather at Babel to build the tower, while others have some geographical spread?

I take this last possibility. CMI (who are Protestants) take the first.

I do not think there is any harm in us arguing this out. I most definitely don't think it is "dangerous" that we do so.

3:01 Yes, when it comes to Exodus 20:4 there was a council called Nicaea II, I agree.

The two Baptists with the Bible verse are in fact both rejecting it. So, arguably, they are not arguing about exact meaning of Exodus 20:4, since they erroneously think that images in and of themselves, not just as example of strange gods (Exodus 20:3), get a no no from one separate commandment.

This means, what they are arguing about between them is arguably sth Nicaea II did not decide.

3:09 "there is no point on even having a debate on this"

True for some points, like Exodus 20:4 or Colossians 1:15 on the basis of which Nicaea II argued that Incarnation had changed the deal about images.

Not true for certain other points.

3:36 Sure I agree on the council of Chalcedon and have had to defend Chalcedonian christology against what I have seen as examples of shockingly bad Christology in Evangelicals.

When dealing with them, I can not just refer to the Council, whose authority they reject, I have to back it by the Bible.

But when some say Mary is no longer Christ's mother, since Christ no longer has the body of flesh, or on same principle reject Eucharist as invisibly a bilocation of His body from heaven (using "bilication" loosely, it is actually a somewhat different miracle for Padre Pio than for the Eucharist), I needed to do two things:

• have a shock at how non-Chalcedonian their Christology sometimes is
• defend Chalcedon by the Bible, which they claim to believe.

III

6:57 Arguably Catholic and Protestant children in same classroom hearing teacher who could be either read the Bible is a very dangerous idea, but if there had only been a division, Catholic children in one classroom have the Bible Douay Rheims version with Haydock comment read by a Catholic teacher and in one or two other classrooms Presbyterians and Anglicans have KJV read with Presbyterian or Anglican comment by a Presbyterian or Anglican teacher.

Also, anyone who risks being in so clear a minority as to be an easy target for harassment should have a clear right to not go to school.

By the way, here is the wikipedian account of background before the riots of 1844:

"During the 1840s, students in Philadelphia schools began the day with reading the Protestant version of the Bible. On November 10, 1842, Philadelphia's Roman Catholic Bishop, Francis Kenrick, wrote a letter to the Board of Controllers of public schools, asking that Catholic children be allowed to read the Douay version of the Bible, used by Roman Catholics. He also asked that they be excused from other religious teaching while at school.[6][7] As a result, the Board of Controllers ordered that no child should be forced to participate in religious activities and stated that children were allowed to read whichever version of the Bible their parents wished. Nativists further inflamed hostile feelings towards Catholics by reportedly twisting Kenrick's requests to the Board of Controllers as an attack against the Bible used in Protestant devotionals.[6][8]"

"Approximately one year later, a rumor was circulated that Hugh Clark, a Kensington school director who was Catholic, was visiting a girls school, where he demanded that the principal stop Bible reading in school. The story also claimed that the principal refused and that she would rather lose her job. Clark denied this version of events and claimed that after finding out several students had left a Bible reading to read a different version of the Bible, he commented that if reading the Bible caused this kind of confusion, that it would be better if it were not to be read in school. Protestants claimed that Catholics, with direct influence from the Pope, were trying to remove the Bible from schools.[8][9] Kenrick issued a statement[when?] asserting, "It is not consistent with the laws and the discipline of the Catholic Church for her members to unite in religious exercises with those who are not of their communion." [7]"

I have left out a paragraph stating how Philadelphia had had Orange societies forming to protect Orange supremacy / Protestant supremacy in face of Catholic numbers as early as 1830's.

This actually goes some way to explain where the twisting of a Catholic's words would come from, since these societies are clearly involved in anti-Catholic lying.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia_nativist_riots

Note well, Kenrick was the Catholic bishop, Clark was just a Catholic school director. I'd agree with the sentiments of bishop Kenrick, you seem to prefer those of school principal Clark.

Bible reading, sure, as long as Catholics and Protestants don't need to do so in the same classroom with the same teacher from the same Bible.

IV

8:50 "The United States has a history of this"

Has it occurred to you that the US or what became so also has an opposite history?

Lord Baltimore of Maryland, William Penn, two men who made sure that, while Charles II could secure no religious freedom for Catholics in England, he could do so in English colonies.

Note also, New England Puritans are much towted, but they are only Northern half (with consideration of Maryland and Philadelphia even less than half) of the 13 colonies.

V

debate:

jimmy c

You're right.

Peter warns in his epistle "First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, " (2 Peter 1:20). And there is also 2 Peter 3:15-16: "And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures."

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I think St Peter was writing to Romans, and that he was referring to some verses in Romans that later on Protestants also twisted to their own destruction ....

I most definitely do not think that he was speaking of having an opinion on geographical spread or opposite of mankind during Babel event.

II Peter 1:20 in Douay Rheims and with Challoner comment:

Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.

[20] "No prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation": This shews plainly that the scriptures are not to be expounded by any one's private judgment or private spirit, because every part of the holy scriptures were written by men inspired by the Holy Ghost, and declared as such by the Church; therefore they are not to be interpreted but by the Spirit of God, which he hath left, and promised to remain with his Church to guide her in all truth to the end of the world. Some may tell us, that many of our divines interpret the scriptures: they may do so, but they do it always with a submission to the judgment of the Church, and not otherwise.

jimmy c

@Hans-Georg Lundahl are you saying the bible can no longer be twisted to one's own destruction and the message of those verses are bound by time?

@Hans-Georg Lundahl it doesn't matter who he was writing to. The important lesson here is why he wrote it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@jimmy c "The important lesson here is why he wrote it."

Yes.

"are you saying the bible can no longer be twisted to one's own destruction"

Not at all.

I am saying that he had a heresy about how one is saved in mind, one that is rehashed by Protestants, but obviously any other heresy would also be twisting scripture to one's own destruction.

I am therefore saying, outside heresy we do have a liberty of interpretation, unless the magisterium has decided against one's point.

jimmy c

@Hans-Georg Lundahl and how did they rehash it? Through their own private interpretations. So no wonder we have so many protestant churches today that can't seem to agree on anything. That's why the early church fathers warned about interpreting scripture on your own.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@jimmy c "That's why the early church fathers warned about interpreting scripture on your own."

Did they really do so about matters like Biblical history?

For instance, the other day I saw St Justin Martyr claim King David lived 1500 years BC, which means he would have misunderstood Biblical history some, that usually being the date of Exodus.

@jimmy c "Through their own private interpretations."

Private then in the sense of opposed to official magisterium.

Not the least private in their intentions. To Luther, his misunderstanding of Romans was meant to be Catholic dogma ... he just ditched the magisterium when it didn't comply with that.

Since he was not a private person studying the Bible from curiosity, he cannot be compared to someone having own ideas about how Biblical history works out with archaeology.

@jimmy c "That's why the early church fathers warned about interpreting scripture on your own."

Sure you don't mean when heresiarchs did so without any reference to apostolic Church?

@jimmy c "So no wonder we have so many protestant churches today that can't seem to agree on anything."

There are limited variations, though.

Some totally off hook, as with ecclesiology, and some more like one position coinciding with Catholicism or even both positions being licit in Catholicism.

jimmy c

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Luther is just a prime example of how awry things can go when you pick up a bible an make yourself your own self appointed authority through your "own private interpretations" Hebrew 13:17 instructs us to obey &submit to our leaders? Countless sects with no leaders ..Sad ! Some protestants believe in infant baptism while some don't. Some believe in divorce; others don't. Some believe in abortion even partial births others consider it murder !!.Satan surely knows how to divide & take one away from the ONE Truth ...Baptist, Anabaptist, Pentecostals, Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodist, Seven Day Adventist, Born Agains, .....39000 + divisions no leaders, no truth, no unity... chaos & confusion. God certainly is not the Author of Confusion.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@jimmy c "Countless sects with no leaders"

Not true, each has leaders.

And Luther was a leader of one in Wittenberg.

The problem is not "I read the Bible and I take it as it seems to mean" (until I run into a difficulty and ask or consult Church Fathers or St Thomas Aquinas).

The problem is making up verse so and so means the opposite of dogma such and such.

And I mean dogma of the Catholic Church, not just of any leader, all Protestant churches (or sects) have leaders.

jimmy c

@Hans-Georg Lundahl you still don't get it. We're done here.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@jimmy c I'm not your inquisitor, feel free to leave the conversation, meanwhile, it has gone to my blog as well:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : David Wolf Sees a Danger ... I don't agree on its nature
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2019/02/david-wolf-sees-danger-i-dont-agree-on.html

Scroll down to Roman numeral V. That's us, starting with you.

@jimmy c Oh, if your point was any individual Bible reading or even casual act of interpreting sth one way or the other is wrong, that is not sth I don't get, it's sth I don't agree with, and neither did Challoner, if you see how he commented that verse.

jimmy c

@Hans-Georg Lundahl the problem is there's too many Luther's.

“I therefore, yet not I, but the love of Jesus Christ, entreat you that ye use Christian nourishment only, and abstain from herbage of a different kind; I mean heresy. For those [that are given to this] mix up Jesus Christ with their own poison, speaking things which are unworthy of credit, like those who administer a deadly drug in sweet wine, which he who is ignorant of does greedily take, with a fatal pleasure leading to his own death. I therefore, yet not I, out the love of Jesus Christ, “entreat you that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind, and in the same judgment.” For there are some vain talkers and deceivers, not Christians, but Christ-betrayers, bearing about the name of Christ in deceit, and “corrupting the word” of the Gospel; while they intermix the poison of their deceit with their persuasive talk, as if they mingled aconite with sweet wine, that so he who drinks, being deceived in his taste by the very great sweetness of the draught, may incautiously meet with his death. “Let no man be called good who mixes good with evil.” For they speak of Christ, not that they may preach Christ, but that they may reject Christ; and they speak of the law, not that they may establish the law, but that they may proclaim things contrary to it. For they alienate Christ from the Father, and the law from Christ. They also calumniate His being born of the Virgin; they are ashamed of His cross; they deny His passion; and they do not believe His resurrection. They introduce God as a Being unknown; they suppose Christ to be unbegotten; and as to the Spirit, they do not admit that He exists. Some of them say that the Son is a mere man, and that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are but the same person, and that the creation is the work of God, not by Christ, but by some other strange power.” (The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians, Chap. VI-“Abstain from the Poison of Heretics”)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@jimmy c What exact poison of heretics would St Ignatius have been referring to?

Some people ten times more poisonous than Luther, and these guys do not seem to even base anything on misreading canonical Bible books. They seem to be discarding the Bible completely, which they do, since they are Gnostics.

Comparing Lutherans to Gnostics is like comparing Muslims to Hindoos. Muslims at least believe in Doomsday, Hindoos just in "next incarnation" or in avoiding it.

jimmy c

@Hans-Georg Lundahl so Ignatius is wrong and you're right. Thanks for revealing yourself to be exactly what he warned about.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@jimmy c "so Ignatius is wrong and you're right."

No, but St Ignatius was simply not talking about 2 Peter 1:20 in that letter. Why? Because the heretics he was dealing with were not accepting all books of the Bible anyway.

"Thanks for revealing yourself to be exactly what he warned about."

I don't think so.

I pleaded for a right to read Biblical history and to consider the events as they naturally appear to the reader. I claimed no such liberty for dogma. I also do not claim it where the reading seeming natural to one would conflict with dogma.

St Ignatius was definitely saying somewhere "do nothing without the bishop" and it seems BISHOP Challoner (he was bishop for English Catholics, he was not an Anglican heretic pseudo-bishop) laid down the limits and I claim to stay within those limits.

Contradicting your overheated misapplication of St Ignatius is not contradicting the Church.

jimmy c

@Hans-Georg Lundahl drink your own poison.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@jimmy c I hope no one drinks anyone's poison bc of me.

You have pointed out no actual heresy in me.

... on Russia and on Sweden

Basically promoting this video:

The Utter Chaos in Europe; Russian plans for EUROPE
KeytotheBible | 2.II.2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhEOp_Aul7M

Here is a comment, basically telling why I promote it, it's not bc I'm a fan of their channel:

I am a Swede.

Sweden clashed with Russia over who should convert Finns to what Christianity (Roman Catholic or Russian Orthodox) as early as the Middle Ages.

In 13th C. Alexander Nevski defends Novgorod against Swedes and even more against Teutonic order. He submitted to Tatars to fight off Germans.

The peace of Nöteborg (Russian Oreshek or Orekhovets, Finnish Pähkinäsaari, on 12 August 1323, regulate the border.

In 14th C. St Bridget of Sweden has one vision in which Christ through her tells the Swedish king to crusade against the Pagans of Novgorod.

16th C Sweden gains quite a lot of land South of Finland, in what is now Estonia and Latvia (back then the names were Estonia for northern part of Estonia, southern part and most of Latvia were Livonia, and one part of Latvia was Curonia). Beginning of 18th C. Charles XII loses that to Peter the Great.

Beginning of next century, Sweden and our king Gustav IV Adolf (named after Gustav II Adolf, aka Gustavus Adolphus) loses Finland and temporarily northern parts of Sweden to Alexander I. Finland became a Grand Duchy.

At Russian Revolution, unusually, in Finland the White Army is victorious under Mannerheim, a man from the Czar's army, and Finland becomes independent for the first time since it was a conglomerate of pagan tribes. World War II, Germany takes Norway in custody, Soviet Union attacks Finland and permanently conquers part of Carelia (the disputed territory in 13th C).

In the Cold War, Sweden had a secret agreement with NATO.

It can be added, the high command on Russian side in Finland was led by one whose ancestors had been conquered by Russia a century earlier or less.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Wilhelm_von_Buxhoeveden