Catholic Statement on the Biblical Sabbath
sda...@my-dejanews.com
defended only on Catholic principles. . . .From beginning to end of Scripture
there is not a single passage that warrants the transfer of weekly public
worship from the last day of the week to the first."
—The Catholic Press, Sydney, Australia, August, 1900.
"Protestantism, In discarding the authority of the (Roman Catholic) Church,
has no good reasons for its Sunday theory, and ought logically to keep
Saturday as the Sabbath."
—John Gilmary Shea, American Catholic Quarterly Review, January, 1883.
"It is well to remind the Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, and all
other Christians, that the Bible does not support them anywhere in their
observance of Sunday. Sunday is an institution of the Roman Catholic Church,
and those who observe the day observe a commandment of the Catholic Church."
—Priest Brady, in an address, reported in the Elizabeth, N.J. "News", March
18, 1903.
"Ques.- Have you any other way of proving that the (Catholic) Church has
power to institute festivals of percept (to command holy days)?"
"Ans.- Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all
modern religionists agree with her: she could not have substituted the
observance of Sunday the first day of the week, for the observance of
Saturday the seventh day, a change for which there is no Scriptural
authority."
—Stephan Keenan, A Doctrinal Catechism, page 176.
"Reason and common sense demand the acceptance of one or the other of these
alternatives: either Protestantism and the keeping holy of Saturday, or
Catholicity and the keeping holy of Sunday. Compromise is impossible."
—The Catholic Mirror, December 23, 1893.
"God simply gave His (Catholic) Church the power to set aside whatever day
or days, she would deem suitable as Holy Days. The Church chose Sunday, the
first day of the week, and in the course of time added other days, as holy
days.
—Vincent J. Kelly, Forbidden Sunday and Feast-Day Occupations, page 2.
"Protestants. . .accept Sunday rather than Saturday as the day for public
worship after the Catholic Church made the change. . .But the Protestant mind
does not seem to realize that . . in observing the Sunday, they are accepting
the authority of the spokesman for the church, the Pope."
—Our Sunday Visitor, February 5, 1950.
Not the Creator of the Universe, In Geneses 2:1-3,—but the Catholic Church
"can claim the honor of having granted man a pause to his work every seven
days."
—S.D. Moana, Storia della Domenica, 1969, pages 366-367.
"We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty."
—Pope Leo XIII, in an Encyclical letter, June 20, 1894.
"The Pope is not only the representative of Jesus Christ, but he is Jesus
Christ Himself, hidden under veil of flesh."
—The Catholic National, July, 1895.
"If Protestants would follow the Bible, they should worship God on the
Sabbath Day. In keeping the Sunday, they are following a law of the Catholic
Church."
—Albert Smith, chancellor of the Archdiocese of Baltimore, replying for the
Cardinal in a letter, February 10, 1920.
"It was the Catholic Church which, by the authority of Jesus Christ, has
transferred this rest (from the Bible Sabbath) to the Sunday. . .Thus the
observance of Sunday by the Protestants is an homage they pay, in spite of
themselves, to the authority of the(Catholic) Church."
—Monsignor Louis Segur, Plain Talk about the Protestantism of Today, page 2l3.
"We observe Sunday Instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church
transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday."
—Peter Geiermann, CSSR, A Doctrinal Catechism, 1957 edition, page 50.
"We Catholics, then, have precisely the same authority for keeping Sunday
holy instead of Saturday as we have for every other article of our creed,
namely, the authority of the Church. . .whereas you who are Protestants have
really no authority for it whatever; for there is no authority for it (Sunday
sacredness) in the Bible, and you will not allow that there can be authority
for itanywhere else. Both you and we do, in fact, follow tradition in this
matter; but we follow it, believing it to be a part of God’s word, and the
(Catholic) Church to be its divinely appointed guardian and interpreter; you
follow it (the Catholic Church), denouncing it all the time as a fallible and
treacherous guide, which often ‘makes the commandments of God of none effect’
quoting Matthew 15:6."
—The Brotherhood of St. Paul, The Clifton Tracts, Vol. 4, tract 4, page 15.
"The Church changed the observance of the Sabbath to Sunday by right of the
divine, infallible authority given to her by her founder, Jesus Christ. The
Protestant claiming the Bible to be the only guide of faith, has no warrant
for observing Sunday. In this matter the Seventh-day Adventist is the only
consistent Protestant."
—The Catholic Universe Bulletin, August 14, 1942, page 4.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
EW
sda...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <6pglae$s0q$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>"Sunday is a Catholic Institution, and its claims to observance can be
>defended only on Catholic principles. . . .From beginning to end of
Scripture
>there is not a single passage that warrants the transfer of weekly public
>worship from the last day of the week to the first."
>
This question may be extremely simplistic, but still applicable. What's the
difference, what's the problem if one religion wishes to celebrate the "day
of rest" on a Saturday or a Sunday?? The fact that we worship our God is
the important thing. I know the Adventists have a strong belief in the
Saturday Sabbath, but what's the point in condemning the rest of
Christianity for their "Sunday Sabbath"? God...... must there always be
conflict? Isn't obeying the simple law of salvation --Love God and your
fellow man... -- more important than being one day off in worshiping??
Thanks, and blessings.....
Ernest
sda...@my-dejanews.com
Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. Why would we want to
replace this wonderful gift of the sabbath, which God has blessed, sanctified
and made holy at creation.
"EW" <ern...@camalott.com> wrote:
>
> sda...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <6pglae$s0q$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> >"Sunday is a Catholic Institution, and its claims to observance can be
> >defended only on Catholic principles. . . .From beginning to end of
> Scripture
> >there is not a single passage that warrants the transfer of weekly public
> >worship from the last day of the week to the first."
> >
>
> This question may be extremely simplistic, but still applicable. What's the
> difference, what's the problem if one religion wishes to celebrate the "day
> of rest" on a Saturday or a Sunday?? The fact that we worship our God is
> the important thing. I know the Adventists have a strong belief in the
> Saturday Sabbath, but what's the point in condemning the rest of
> Christianity for their "Sunday Sabbath"? God...... must there always be
> conflict? Isn't obeying the simple law of salvation --Love God and your
> fellow man... -- more important than being one day off in worshiping??
>
> Thanks, and blessings.....
>
> Ernest
>
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
rod...@ihug.co.nz
>The key issue here is what does the bible teach vs what is tradition ? The
>Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. Why would we want to
>replace this wonderful gift of the sabbath, which God has blessed, sanctified
>and made holy at creation.
The reason why" Bible believing Christians"(for want of a better identity)
worship on the First day of the week is simply because that is the day on
which the Lord Jesus arose from the grave and won the victory over Sin.
New testament Christians, who believe that All of the Bible is inspired,
worship on the first day of the week for this reason. We celebrate the
Lord's supper to remember the victory over Sin and our relationship to Jesus
who made forgiveness possible.
To call Sunday as we know it a Sabbath day is simply incorrect. there is only
one Sabbath day, we know that day as Saturday. I have worked for two SDA
members and appreciate their beliefs. They are the few people that I have
found to accept my belief and reason for worshipping on the First day of the
week..
I feel the important thing about the worship service is the attitude with
which we worship. I just do not know if the actual day is of the utmost
importance. I have often gone to a worship at the local congregation of the
SDA and am known to some, they have chosen not to return the visits and that
is fine. The mutual respect for each others beliefs is still there and that is
certainly a refreshing change.
Cheers.
Hoppy
Rick
> In article <6q5cg7$bh2$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, sda...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >The key issue here is what does the bible teach vs what is tradition ? The
> >Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. Why would we want to
> >replace this wonderful gift of the sabbath, which God has blessed, sanctified
> >and made holy at creation.
>
> The reason why" Bible believing Christians"(for want of a better identity)
> worship on the First day of the week is simply because that is the day on
> which the Lord Jesus arose from the grave and won the victory over Sin.
> New testament Christians, who believe that All of the Bible is inspired,
> worship on the first day of the week for this reason.
If you believe that ALL the Bible is inspired, how does that explain Sun-day
worship? Sunday is no where in Scripture designated as a memorial of the
resurrection. In fact, the apostles preached on the crucifixion far more than they
did the resurrection. The fact that Christ rose from the dead is not nearly as
significant as the fact that He died for our sins. More important than the
resurrection day was the day of rest. Christ rested the Sabbath according to the
commandment even in death as our example. John 13:15 "For I have given you an
example, that ye should do as I have done to you." The victory over Sin was gained
by Christ's death, not necessarily His resurrection. Remember if you will, all
those little lambs that had to be slain from the days of Adam until Christ became
the perfect Lamb. "The wages of sin are death." The fact that Christ paid the
price for us is what is significant.
> We celebrate the
> Lord's supper to remember the victory over Sin and our relationship to Jesus
> who made forgiveness possible.
Nowhere in Scripture is there any reference to the Lord's Supper being celebrated
on Sun-day. Sunday was the day of worship for the pagans in the days of the
apostles. The Lord's supper was for many years after Christ ascended celebrated on
Passover, which came on 14th of Abib. This day was never on a specific day of the
week such as Sun-day. The day of the week was of no significance to the early
Christians, it was the victory through Christ which was important then and today.
> To call Sunday as we know it a Sabbath day is simply incorrect. there is only
> one Sabbath day, we know that day as Saturday. I have worked for two SDA
> members and appreciate their beliefs. They are the few people that I have
> found to accept my belief and reason for worshipping on the First day of the
> week..
> I feel the important thing about the worship service is the attitude with
> which we worship. I just do not know if the actual day is of the utmost
> importance.
How often, when the question of the Sabbath is raised, do we hear the argument:
“It doesn’t make any difference which day we keep. God isn’t particular. If the
majority kept Monday, I’d keep Monday.” This very common statement makes one think
of a text that shows how well God pictures these people. “Her priest have violated
my law, and have profaned mine holy things: they have put no difference between
the holy and profane, neither have they shewed difference between the unclean and
the clean, and have hid their eyes from my sabbaths, and I am profaned among
them.” Ezekiel 22:26. Yes, god knew that people would be saying itdoesn’t make any
difference; and God points out on what point they will be saying this. He says:
they “have hid their eyes from my sabbaths, and I am profaned among them.” The cry
“It doesn’t make any difference what day we keep” would make the blessing, the
sanctifying, and the definite command of God meaningless. God blessed the Sabbath
day and we read that “The blessing of the Lord, it maketh rich.” Proverbs 10:22.
He hallowed the Sabbath. He made it the sign that He is the Creator of heaven and
earth. Exodus 20:8-11. He made the seventh-day Sabbath the sign of sanctification.
Ezekiel 20:12. He put the Sabbath in the bosom of His Ten Commandment law with the
words of caution, “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.” How can a Christian
read all this and say, “It doesn’t make any difference. God isn’t particular”?
May we ask the objectors, “Do you really think god isn’t particular? Would you use
the same process of reasoning about the other nine commandments? If using that
argument will free you from obedience to the fourth commandment, would it not free
you from obligation to obey the other nine? Doesn’t God really mean what He says?”
Let us note an experience of two from the early days of the Bible. In the early
days of Jewish history God instructed the priest that when they ministered in the
sanctuary they should not use strange fire—that is common fire—but that they
should always draw from the holy flame that burned continually on the alter. It
may be very plausibly argued that all fire is alike, even as one might argue that
all days are alike, and conclude that God would really not care if His command
concerning the particular kind of fire was not obeyed. Evidently two priests—Nadab
and Abihu—acted on this theory for they employed strange fire in offering incense
before
the Lord. And what was the result? “There went out fire from the Lord, and
devoured them, and they died before the Lord.” Leviticus 10:2.
The context shows that this judgment came upon them because they had failed to
obey the command to put a “difference between holy and unholy.” Verse 10.
How remarkable is the parallel! The Sabbath commandment is intended to put a
difference between the holy and the unholy in days. “Remember the sabbath day, to
keep it holy.” Is God less particular about His holy day than He was about the
holy fire that He gave to the Israelites?
For other illustrations showing that our God is particular read Numbers 4:15,20
and 2 Samuel 6:6,7. Read also the story of Naaman the leper, who was commanded to
dip seven times in Jordan. 2 Kings 5. He found that when God said “seven” He meant
“seven.”
EW
sda...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <6q5cg7$bh2$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>The key issue here is what does the bible teach vs what is tradition ? The
>Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. Why would we want to
>replace this wonderful gift of the sabbath, which God has blessed,
sanctified
>and made holy at creation.
>
OK, a simplistic answer to yours. I've researched this Sabbath controversy
quite a bit (more to do!) and there are several conflicting biblical Sabbath
verses. The one that comes to mind right now is Colossians 2:16 that says
something to the effect of ... don't judge others' practices of the Sabbath
or what you wish to eat, etc.... And there are several more that say the
same thing, all in the New Testament. Christ was adamant in going around
"Old Law" teachings and traditions, including Sabbath practices.
All in all, I find it ever sad and trite that we as Christians must always
find something to fight about, as if there weren't other priorities. The
bible has always, and always will be, a source of controversy because
"Everyone's Interpretation of it is The Right One." God help us!
EW
rod...@ihug.co.nz
I am so sorry I just cannot get the thread of you're well written answer.
It seems to me(My opinion) to jump from subject to subject.
As I am only a truck driver from the other side of the world, I wouldn't worry
too much about it, I tend to only figure one thing at a time anyway.
I have downloaded you're file to work (slowly ) through and perhaps get a grip
on you're beliefs, and in so doing increase my own understandings.
Thanks for the reply.
Don't hold you're breath for a reply, it will take me a while.
God Bless
Hoppy.
Jarrod and Eva Williamson
EW wrote:
> sda...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <6q5cg7$bh2$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> >The key issue here is what does the bible teach vs what is tradition ? The
> >Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. Why would we want to
> >replace this wonderful gift of the sabbath, which God has blessed,
> sanctified
> >and made holy at creation.
> >
>
> OK, a simplistic answer to yours. I've researched this Sabbath controversy
> quite a bit (more to do!) and there are several conflicting biblical Sabbath
> verses. The one that comes to mind right now is Colossians 2:16 that says
> something to the effect of ... don't judge others' practices of the Sabbath
> or what you wish to eat, etc....
The point of Col. 2:16 is to not let others judge you *in what manner* you
observe the Sabbath, or what you choose to eat (i.e., people placing ascetic
upon you). Paul is no more saying Sabbath observance is optional than he is
saying eating is option. Just don't let people place ytheir own human invented
restrictions (as opposed to God's injunctions) upon how you observe the sabbath.
> And there are several more that say the
> same thing, all in the New Testament. Christ was adamant in going around
> "Old Law" teachings and traditions, including Sabbath practices.
I'm sorry, could you please tell me where the terms "old law" and "new law"
occur in the Bible. I am familiar with the old covenant (OC) and new covenant
(NC). The OC, as seen in Ex. 20-34, consists of the ten commandments on two
tables of stone while the NC is different in *location* NOT in content. Jer.
31:31 and Heb. 8 make it clear that the NC is the law of God written upon the
heart. The imagery is clear, esp. in the context of Jer. 1-30, God will fix the
problem of His people's covenant breaking by making a new covenant with this,
i.e., He writes the law (ten commandments) upon your heart so you *want* to obey
them. You will obey them both in the letter and the spirit because you have
been converted. God doesn't change His law or its demands upon you, He
justifies your freely though His Son Jesus Christ (Rom. 5:1) and then changes
your heart so that you now choose to obey His ten commandments.
Christ's objections were constantly of the form "You make the law of God
null through the tradtion of men," NOT, "I have a new spiritual interpretation
of God's law that lets you avoid obedience to them both in the letter and
spirit."
> All in all, I find it ever sad and trite that we as Christians must always
> find something to fight about, as if there weren't other priorities. The
> bible has always, and always will be, a source of controversy because
> "Everyone's Interpretation of it is The Right One." God help us!
To the law and the trstimony, if they speak not according to these things,
there is no light in them. (paraphrase of is. 8:20).
jarrod
teresita_mercado
[The point of Col. 2:16 is to not let others judge you *in what manner* you
observe the Sabbath, or what you choose to eat (i.e., people placing ascetic
upon you). Paul is no more saying Sabbath observance is optional than he is
saying eating is option. Just don't let people place ytheir own human invented
restrictions (as opposed to God's injunctions) upon how you observe the
sabbath.]
..................................................
"So the Jews said to the man who was cured, 'It is the sabbath, and it is not
lawful for you to carry your mat.' He answered them, 'The man who made me well
told me, 'Take up your mat and walk.'" (John 5:10-11)
If not resting on the sabbath is a sin, and if it is also a sin to command
others to commit sin, then Jesus sinned.
Teresita
Michael Scheifler
Teresita, Mercado wrote:
> "So the Jews said to the man who was cured, 'It is the sabbath, and it is not
> lawful for you to carry your mat.' He answered them, 'The man who made me well
> told me, 'Take up your mat and walk.'" (John 5:10-11)
>
> If not resting on the sabbath is a sin, and if it is also a sin to command
> others to commit sin, then Jesus sinned.
Teresita,
Perhaps you can show us all where scripture forbids one to heal others
or do good on the sabbath day. The Pharisee's had many restrictions on
the sabbath that were their own inventions, and cannot be found in
the teaching of scripture. They tried to make the sabbath burdensome.
Jesus never broke the sabbath and never sinned, but He did violate
the traditions and laws of men, such as not healing on the sabbath.
For that the Pharisees wanted him dead.
Michael
teresita_mercado
sabbath, but for telling the man to carry his mat on the sabbath, thus violating
the God-ordained rest.
Teresita
Jarrod and Eva Williamson
Teresita, Mercado wrote:
>
<snip>
> Understood. But in the passage, the Jews didn't attack Jesus for healing on the
> sabbath, but for telling the man to carry his mat on the sabbath, thus violating
> the God-ordained rest.
The *rabbinic* prohibition against "carrying a burden," is taken out of context
from Jeremiah and has nothing to do with carrying an object from one place to
another, but from doing business on the Sabbath. Jesus disagreed with the rabbinic
(false) interpretation of Jeremiah, not the law of God.
jarrod
Euripides
>
> In article <35D37DA7...@aloha.net>, Michael says...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Teresita, Mercado wrote:
> >
> >> "So the Jews said to the man who was cured, 'It is the sabbath, and it is not
> >>lawful for you to carry your mat.' He answered them, 'The man who made me well
> >> told me, 'Take up your mat and walk.'" (John 5:10-11)
> >>
> >> If not resting on the sabbath is a sin, and if it is also a sin to command
> >> others to commit sin, then Jesus sinned.
> >
> >Teresita,
> >
> >Perhaps you can show us all where scripture forbids one to heal others
> >or do good on the sabbath day. The Pharisee's had many restrictions on
> >the sabbath that were their own inventions, and cannot be found in
> >the teaching of scripture. They tried to make the sabbath burdensome.
> >Jesus never broke the sabbath and never sinned, but He did violate
> >the traditions and laws of men, such as not healing on the sabbath.
> >For that the Pharisees wanted him dead.
> >
> >Michael
> >
>
> sabbath, but for telling the man to carry his mat on the sabbath, thus violating
> the God-ordained rest.
>
If you were an honest seeker of truth, rather than a polemicist, the
answer to this would leap out at you. We are commanded to rest from our
*work* as God did from His in creation. If the poor man's daily job was
as a 'mat-carrier,' and he was doing it for pay on the Sabbath, it would
have been a violation of the commandment. Please don't insult us all
with such tendentious posts in the future. Your concern about rest is
well taken--give it a rest.
EW
>"So the Jews said to the man who was cured, 'It is the sabbath, and it is
not
>lawful for you to carry your mat.' He answered them, 'The man who made me
well
>told me, 'Take up your mat and walk.'" (John 5:10-11)
>
>If not resting on the sabbath is a sin, and if it is also a sin to command
>others to commit sin, then Jesus sinned.
>
>Teresita
Hi Teresita,
Trust me, the Adventists will tell you "WHY" Jesus didn't break the laws of
the Sabbath (which He admittedly seemed to have done many times!). They
have an angle for everything, and everyone else is WRONG!
EW
EW
>> All in all, I find it ever sad and trite that we as Christians must
always
>> find something to fight about, as if there weren't other priorities. The
>> bible has always, and always will be, a source of controversy because
>> "Everyone's Interpretation of it is The Right One." God help us!
>
> To the law and the trstimony, if they speak not according to these
things,
>there is no light in them. (paraphrase of is. 8:20).
>
This kind of reply is, of course, useless. It doesn't address the issue and
spouts a generality. As I said before, it's really amazing how EVERYONE
knows the REAL truth, and EVERYONE else (and their religion) is wrong!! All
the while, the smug smiles continue, while everyone else is condemned to
Hell -- because they're "non-believers! Unreal!
EW
Teresita Mercado
(PDT+2) From: Euri...@Euripidose.org (Euripides)
[If you were an honest seeker of truth, rather than a polemicist, the
answer to this would leap out at you. We are commanded to rest from our
*work* as God did from His in creation. If the poor man's daily job was
as a 'mat-carrier,' and he was doing it for pay on the Sabbath, it would
have been a violation of the commandment.]
So it is your contention that any labor done for pay on the Sabbath is a
violation, but I could go out back and tend my garden or volunteer for a
soup kitchen because these don't involve a pay check.
I guess the man that gathered sticks in Numbers 15:32 was unfairly
punished, because he wasn't doing it for pay. And Jeremiah was wrong to
say in 17:22 "bring no burden from your homes on the Sabbath" because
he should have just said, "bear no burden for your master in the
fields".
Teresita
Euripides
You are laboring under the illusion that being intentionally obtuse
substitutes for reasoning. The purpose of the Sabbath is to lay aside
our everyday functions and spend time with God. Your initial point was
about the lame man carrying his mat. I pointed out that this was not his
normal occupation. The notion of his being a "professional mat carrier"
is as absurd as your objection and intended to highlight that absurdity.
Actually, for him, carrying his mat and walking home would be a
celebration of his healing encounter with Jesus, a very proper activity
for the Sabbath. A legalist will never understand a relational
opportunity such as the Sabbath. Circumstances alter cases. A
professional gardener would have a hard time disengaging from his
workweek in his garden, whereas walking through a garden and picking a
ripe tomato could be an act of worship for another.
Gathering firewood was forbidden in the desert, where it would not be a
necessity (Numbers), but allowed in the promised land where it might be
a matter of survival (Deut). The Ten Commandments are expressed
differently in Exodus than in Deuteronomy. This is only difficult if you
don't want to find an answer. There is nothing harder than the human
head. You post here to argue, not to learn. Your loss.
teresita_mercado
[Actually, for him, carrying his mat and walking home would be a
celebration of his healing encounter with Jesus, a very proper activity for the
Sabbath. A legalist will never understand a relational opportunity such as the
Sabbath. Circumstances alter cases. A professional gardener would have a hard
time disengaging from his workweek in his garden, whereas walking through a
garden and picking a ripe tomato could be an act of worship for another.]
Then I hope you understand that my choice to worship on Sunday is also a
"relational opportunity", a celebration of an encounter with the sin-forgiving
and healing Lord Jesus Christ in the Eucharist.
[Gathering firewood was forbidden in the desert, where it would not be a
necessity (Numbers), but allowed in the promised land where it might be a matter
of survival (Deut).
That's like saying the 1st Amendment prevents the establishment of a religion,
except Sunday laws because they are necessary for the survival of America as a
moral nation.
[The Ten Commandments are expressed differently in Exodus than in Deuteronomy.]
Yet they were given once, by the finger of God Himself. Which version is a treu
copy of the tablet?
.............................
Ad homs rolled into a ball:
[If you were an honest seeker of truth, rather than a polemicist, the answer to
this would leap out at you. You are laboring under the illusion that being
intentionally obtuse substitutes for reasoning. This is only difficult if you
don't want to find an answer. There is nothing harder than the human head. You
post here to argue, not to learn. Your loss.]
::PLONK::
Teresita
Rick
here in this group desire conversation with a Christian attitude. If you have
something worth-while to say, by all means express your concern, otherwise take
the rest somewhere else please.
Euripides
>
> In article <35D51E...@Euripidose.org>, Euripides says...
>
> [Actually, for him, carrying his mat and walking home would be a
> celebration of his healing encounter with Jesus, a very proper activity for the
> Sabbath. A legalist will never understand a relational opportunity such as the
> Sabbath. Circumstances alter cases. A professional gardener would have a hard
> time disengaging from his workweek in his garden, whereas walking through a
> garden and picking a ripe tomato could be an act of worship for another.]
>
> Then I hope you understand that my choice to worship on Sunday is also a
> "relational opportunity", a celebration of an encounter with the sin-forgiving
> and healing Lord Jesus Christ in the Eucharist.
Alas! There's the pity. God 'sanctified and hallowed' the Sabbath day,
making himself available on that day in a special way, as a memorial of
creation. The he did the same by resting in the tomb from the completed
work of redemption. He makes himself specially available on the Sabbath,
and you 'stand him up' by showing up Sunday instead. Then you disrespect
the completed work of salvation by crucifying him afresh in the Mass.
You honor his resurrection by worshipping on Sunday, when he told us to
remember both the Sabbath and his death. The Sabbath was the only
24-hour day he was in the tomb. As the first Adam awoke from a sleep
induced on Friday with a wound in his side and a bride, the Second Adam
awakes from a sleep begun on Friday with a wound in His side, and a
bride, the church. Redemption recapitulates Creation. Sunday worship
contradicts both.
Let me be clear. God does not condemn you for Sunday worship; in a real
sense, you condemn Him via Sunday worship. He is forgiving. It's not so
much the bad you do by worshipping Sunday as the good you miss by not
coming to Him when He has made Himself specially available.
>
> [Gathering firewood was forbidden in the desert, where it would not be a
> necessity (Numbers), but allowed in the promised land where it might be a matter
> of survival (Deut).
>
> That's like saying the 1st Amendment prevents the establishment of a religion,
> except Sunday laws because they are necessary for the survival of America as a
> moral nation.
>
Your quarrel here is with the Scriptures, not me. Your constitutiona
analogy is invalid because firewood is not a primary concern of the
fourth commandment.
> [The Ten Commandments are expressed differently in Exodus than in Deuteronomy.]
>
> Yet they were given once, by the finger of God Himself. Which version is a treu
> copy of the tablet?
Same problem. The same author (Moses) wrote the two books. Apparently
changing circumstances altered the ways in which the eternal principles
of the Decalogue were applied.
>
I address the evidence in your posts, period.
> ::PLONK::
>
> Teresita
teresita_mercado
>
>Teresita, Mercado wrote:
>>
>> In article <35D51E...@Euripidose.org>, Euripides says...
[Alas! There's the pity. God 'sanctified and hallowed' the Sabbath day, making
himself available on that day in a special way, as a memorial of creation. The
he did the same by resting in the tomb from the completed work of redemption.]
How was God "available" when He was dead in the tomb? What kind of religion
focuses on God's death rather than His defeat of that death (and therefore His
defeat of our death?)
[You honor his resurrection by worshipping on Sunday, when he told us to
remember both the Sabbath and his death. The Sabbath was the only 24-hour day he
was in the tomb. As the first Adam awoke from a sleep induced on Friday with a
wound in his side and a bride, the Second Adam awakes from a sleep begun on
Friday with a wound in His side, and a bride, the church. Redemption
recapitulates Creation. Sunday worship contradicts both.]
Saturday worship is a fascination with the dead works of the Law, as if your
eternal life is found in them.
[Let me be clear. God does not condemn you for Sunday worship; in a real sense,
you condemn Him via Sunday worship. He is forgiving. It's not so much the bad
you do by worshipping Sunday as the good you miss by not coming to Him when He
has made Himself specially available.]
Christ is "specially available" 24/7
Same problem. The same author (Moses) wrote the two books. Apparently changing
circumstances altered the ways in which the eternal principles of the Decalogue
were applied.
"Applied" isn't what I asked. The texts are different. For example, when God
explained why we observe the Sabbath with his own writing on stone, was it the
one in Exodus or the one in Deuteronomy?
Teresita
Jarrod and Eva Williamson
Teresita, Mercado wrote:
> In article <35D6E2...@Euripidose.org>, Euripides says...
> >
> >Teresita, Mercado wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <35D51E...@Euripidose.org>, Euripides says...
>
> [Alas! There's the pity. God 'sanctified and hallowed' the Sabbath day, making
> himself available on that day in a special way, as a memorial of creation. The
> he did the same by resting in the tomb from the completed work of redemption.]
>
> How was God "available" when He was dead in the tomb? What kind of religion
> focuses on God's death rather than His defeat of that death (and therefore His
> defeat of our death?)
The apostle Paul.
> [You honor his resurrection by worshipping on Sunday, when he told us to
> remember both the Sabbath and his death. The Sabbath was the only 24-hour day he
> was in the tomb. As the first Adam awoke from a sleep induced on Friday with a
> wound in his side and a bride, the Second Adam awakes from a sleep begun on
> Friday with a wound in His side, and a bride, the church. Redemption
> recapitulates Creation. Sunday worship contradicts both.]
>
> Saturday worship is a fascination with the dead works of the Law, as if your
> eternal life is found in them.
You know full well that that is not his point. That Sabbath observance is a
testimonial of our ceasing from works. It is no more dead work of the law than is
not takling God's name in vain, nor making graven images and worshipping them. But
alas, you knew that already.
jarrod
Jarrod and Eva Williamson
Euripides wrote:
> Teresita, Mercado wrote:
> >
> > In article <35D51E...@Euripidose.org>, Euripides says...
> >
> > [Actually, for him, carrying his mat and walking home would be a
> > celebration of his healing encounter with Jesus, a very proper activity for the
> > Sabbath. A legalist will never understand a relational opportunity such as the
> > Sabbath. Circumstances alter cases. A professional gardener would have a hard
> > time disengaging from his workweek in his garden, whereas walking through a
> > garden and picking a ripe tomato could be an act of worship for another.]
> >
> > Then I hope you understand that my choice to worship on Sunday is also a
> > "relational opportunity", a celebration of an encounter with the sin-forgiving
> > and healing Lord Jesus Christ in the Eucharist.
>
> Alas! There's the pity. God 'sanctified and hallowed' the Sabbath day,
> making himself available on that day in a special way, as a memorial of
> creation. The he did the same by resting in the tomb from the completed
> work of redemption. He makes himself specially available on the Sabbath,
> and you 'stand him up' by showing up Sunday instead. Then you disrespect
> the completed work of salvation by crucifying him afresh in the Mass.
The following is taken from:
http://www.cin.org/jp2/diesdomi.html
APOSTOLIC LETTER
DIES DOMINI
OF THE HOLY FATHER JOHN PAUL II TO THE BISHOPS, CLERGY AND FAITHFUL OF THE CATHOLIC
CHURCH ON KEEPING THE LORD'S DAY HOLY
My esteemed Brothers in the Episcopate and the Priesthood, Dear Brothers and Sisters!
<snip>
43. This "ascending" movement is inherent in every Eucharistic celebration and makes
it a joyous event, overflowing with gratitude and hope. But it emerges particularly at
Sunday Mass because of its special link with the commemoration of the Resurrection. By
contrast, this "Eucharistic" rejoicing which "lifts up our hearts" is the fruit of
God's "descending" movement towards us, which remains for ever etched in the essential
sacrificial element of the Eucharist, the supreme expression and celebration of the
mystery of the kenosis, the descent by which Christ "humbled himself, and became
obedient unto death, even death on a Cross" (Phil 2:8).
The Mass in fact truly makes present the sacrifice of the Cross. Under the species of
bread and wine, upon which has been invoked the outpouring of the Spirit who works
with absolutely unique power in the words of consecration, Christ offers himself to
the Father in the same act of sacrifice by which he offered himself on the Cross. "In
this divine sacrifice which is accomplished in the Mass, the same Christ who offered
himself once and for all in a bloody manner on the altar of the Cross is contained and
is offered in an unbloody manner"(70). To his sacrifice Christ unites the sacrifice
of the Church: "In the Eucharist the sacrifice of Christ becomes also the sacrifice of
the members of his Body. The lives of the faithful, their praise, sufferings, prayer
and work, are united with those of Christ and with his total offering, and so acquire
a new value"(71). The truth that the whole community shares in Christ's sacrifice is
especially evident in the Sunday gathering, which makes it possible to bring to the
altar the week that has passed, with all its human burdens.
<snip>
jarrod
Euripides
>
> In article <35D6E2...@Euripidose.org>, Euripides says...
> >
> >Teresita, Mercado wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <35D51E...@Euripidose.org>, Euripides says...
>
> himself available on that day in a special way, as a memorial of creation. The
>
> How was God "available" when He was dead in the tomb?
This is a prime example of your unwillingness to learn. Catholics are
trinitarian, and have no difficulty understanding that God the Father
could be available when the Son was in the tomb. You demonstrate again
that you are being intentionally obtuse.
But in a more profound way, the Son's resting in the tomb highlights his
having made himself eternally availabe to humanity, by becoming a human
being, subject to all that we are, even death.
> What kind of religion
> focuses on God's death rather than His defeat of that death (and therefore His
> defeat of our death?)
Christianity: (1 Cor 11:26 NASB) "For as often as you eat this bread
and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes."
>
> [You honor his resurrection by worshipping on Sunday, when he told us to
> remember both the Sabbath and his death. The Sabbath was the only 24-hour day he
> was in the tomb. As the first Adam awoke from a sleep induced on Friday with a
> wound in his side and a bride, the Second Adam awakes from a sleep begun on
> Friday with a wound in His side, and a bride, the church. Redemption
> recapitulates Creation. Sunday worship contradicts both.]
>
> Saturday worship is a fascination with the dead works of the Law, as if your
> eternal life is found in them.
You keep asserting that, but supply neither reasoning nor evidence that
it must be so. At the same time, you intentionally ignore my statement
about his resting from "the completed work of redemption," which clearly
indicates that NO works can add or detract from his finished work.
Indeed, Catholicism, with its 'penance' for one's sins, is the bastion
of dead works.
>
> [Let me be clear. God does not condemn you for Sunday worship; in a real sense,
> you condemn Him via Sunday worship. He is forgiving. It's not so much the bad
> you do by worshipping Sunday as the good you miss by not coming to Him when He
> has made Himself specially available.]
>
> Christ is "specially available" 24/7
>
> Same problem. The same author (Moses) wrote the two books. Apparently changing
> circumstances altered the ways in which the eternal principles of the Decalogue
> were applied.
>
> "Applied" isn't what I asked. The texts are different. For example, when God
> explained why we observe the Sabbath with his own writing on stone, was it the
> one in Exodus or the one in Deuteronomy?
Another evidence of obstinacy. If you refuse to accept the plain meaning
of English words ("principle' and "application") then no communication
is possible.
You pose a false dilemma. I explained why it was so. As someone who
believes in the Bible, rather than human edicts, it is my responsibility
to understand why the differences are there. Since you insist that one
account must be right and the other wrong, which of the two books would
you throw out of the canon?
>
> Teresita
That's the problem of accepting human authority rather than Biblical
authority. In the end, you become your own authority, cutting and
pasting the sacred text to suit your traditions.
I have no quarrel with catholics. I have dear friends who are catholic,
and wouldn't trade them for the world. But I have a great problem with
anyone, Adventist or Catholic, who insists on being obtuse, and argues
for the sake of arguing. There are some significant points we all might
explore to our profit, but attempting to destroy the Sabbath cannot be
supported in the Bible. If you accept the authority of the RCC, who
clearly assert the power to change the Sabbath, that's your proof. But
the church fathers have had more sense than to attempt to invalidate the
seventh day Sabbath from Scripture. I recommend their wisdom in this
matter to you.
For Christians who accept the Bible as the infallible rule of faith, the
seventh day Sabbath is the only honest conclusion. That does not mean
that all Sunday worshipers are dishonest. It only means that, for
whatever reason, they have not yet engaged the Sabbath question and been
convicted.
I'll be glad to keep shooting down these silly objections, but I prefer
a more profitable approach on your part.
arth
Jarrod and Eva Williamson
Euripides wrote:
> Teresita, Mercado wrote:
> >
> > In article <35D6E2...@Euripidose.org>, Euripides says...
> > >
> > >Teresita, Mercado wrote:
> > >>
> > >> In article <35D51E...@Euripidose.org>, Euripides says...
> >
> > [Alas! There's the pity. God 'sanctified and hallowed' the Sabbath day, making
> > himself available on that day in a special way, as a memorial of creation. The
> > he did the same by resting in the tomb from the completed work of redemption.]
> >
> > How was God "available" when He was dead in the tomb?
>
> This is a prime example of your unwillingness to learn. Catholics are
> trinitarian, and have no difficulty understanding that God the Father
> could be available when the Son was in the tomb. You demonstrate again
> that you are being intentionally obtuse.
That, or she is demonstrating once again her inability to even keep here own
world-view consistent. Her faulty and irrational arguments are demonstrating that she
doesn't have a leg to stand on ... and she knows it.<snip>
> > What kind of religion
> > focuses on God's death rather than His defeat of that death (and therefore His
> > defeat of our death?)
>
> Christianity: (1 Cor 11:26 NASB) "For as often as you eat this bread
> and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes."
As the paschal Lamb, it was Christ's death on the cross that saved us and that we
commemorate through the Lord's supper, using the *symbolic* elements of the bread as
His body (a substitute for eating the flesh of the paschal lamb ... and the sacrifice
is no longer necessary, especially in "the mass" where He is resacrificed over and
over and over) and the cup/wine as His blood (a reference to the tample sacrificial
drink or poured out offering).
According to the apostle Paul, Christ's resurrection is celebrated through two
ways, via baptism were we partake of His death and resurrection, and via living a
"resurrected life" accorind to Rom. 6, i.e., living in the newness of the Spirit.
We are not instructed to celebrate Christ's resurrection via the use of
"christianized" pagan Babylonian mythos, i.e., a little easter (Ishtar) each sunday,
where the death and resurrection god (as opposed to the Biblical paschal Lamb) is
revered on the day of the sun-god.
> > [You honor his resurrection by worshipping on Sunday, when he told us to
> > remember both the Sabbath and his death. The Sabbath was the only 24-hour day he
> > was in the tomb. As the first Adam awoke from a sleep induced on Friday with a
> > wound in his side and a bride, the Second Adam awakes from a sleep begun on
> > Friday with a wound in His side, and a bride, the church. Redemption
> > recapitulates Creation. Sunday worship contradicts both.]
> >
> > Saturday worship is a fascination with the dead works of the Law, as if your
> > eternal life is found in them.
>
> You keep asserting that, but supply neither reasoning nor evidence that
> it must be so. At the same time, you intentionally ignore my statement
> about his resting from "the completed work of redemption," which clearly
> indicates that NO works can add or detract from his finished work.
>
> Indeed, Catholicism, with its 'penance' for one's sins, is the bastion
> of dead works.
And let us not forget their resacrificing Him over and over again through a
cannabilistic rite via "the Mass". Even poor catholic Dr. Scott Hahn tried to get
around the obvious implications by bastardizing the book of Hebrews and daying that
the mass does not resacrifice Christ, but that Christ is involved in one "ongoing
sacrifice," in direct contradition to Christ's once for all time sacrifice, which
catholisicism denies.
> > [Let me be clear. God does not condemn you for Sunday worship; in a real sense,
> > you condemn Him via Sunday worship. He is forgiving. It's not so much the bad
> > you do by worshipping Sunday as the good you miss by not coming to Him when He
> > has made Himself specially available.]
> >
> > Christ is "specially available" 24/7
> >
> > Same problem. The same author (Moses) wrote the two books. Apparently changing
> > circumstances altered the ways in which the eternal principles of the Decalogue
> > were applied.
> >
> > "Applied" isn't what I asked. The texts are different. For example, when God
> > explained why we observe the Sabbath with his own writing on stone, was it the
> > one in Exodus or the one in Deuteronomy?
>
> Another evidence of obstinacy. If you refuse to accept the plain meaning
> of English words ("principle' and "application") then no communication
> is possible.
The difference is irrelevant. They both apply to the Christian, who are the
spiritual decendants of Abraham. She is trying to trap you into noting the sabbath
commandment in Deut. instructs us to honor the sabbath because of their deliverance
from Egypt. Kinda like applying the dispensational cultic interpretation to Deut. and
making a separation between israel and the church, when the latter is the continuation
of the former. 1 Cor. 10.
<snip>
> That's the problem of accepting human authority rather than Biblical
> authority. In the end, you become your own authority, cutting and
> pasting the sacred text to suit your traditions.
Ask her how she feel about thew burning of heretics. She totally chickened out of
answering that one because she knows I have her between a epistimological rock and a
hard place. The RCC frequently advocated the burning of heretics in the middle ages
and this was supported by more than one pope. But now, they reject this postion (for
the time being, that is) as do the last few series of popes. So who was right, the
church of the middle ages, or the present RCC? Either way, one of them is wrong and
it is clear that their claims to papal infallibility, much less the RCC's
infallibility, is without merit.
So which is it Teresita? What is your position on the burning of heretics? or
will you answer?
> I have no quarrel with catholics. I have dear friends who are catholic,
> and wouldn't trade them for the world.
Preach it brother. Heaven is gonna be full of R. Catholics *despite* the
teachings of their Church, not *because* of.
> But I have a great problem with
> anyone, Adventist or Catholic, who insists on being obtuse, and argues
> for the sake of arguing.
She's not obtuse for the sake of arguing. She obtuse because she can't keep her
world-view together (how do you feel about the burning of heretics Teresita) and must
present invalide, ionconsistent, and erroneous arguments to support her Picaso-like
world-view.
BTW, Teresita, not only how do you feel about the burning of heretics, but was the
DEATH PENALTY enforced by the R. Church right or wrong back then? Or will you answer?
> There are some significant points we all might
> explore to our profit, but attempting to destroy the Sabbath cannot be
> supported in the Bible. If you accept the authority of the RCC, who
> clearly assert the power to change the Sabbath, that's your proof.
"Think to change times and laws."
>
<snip>
> I'll be glad to keep shooting down these silly objections, but I prefer
> a more profitable approach on your part.
Are you kidding, she won't even address my questions about the burning of heretics
by the Church, who was right, the Church today or the Church back then ... and how
does this relate to the death penalty enforced by the Church.
jarrod
Paul E. Tooley, Jr.
Do you feel that you are wrong and everyone else is right? Or do you also
feel you are correct and those who hold different views are wrong. Do you
just feel that you are correct and all Adventists are wrong? Are all
religions correct? If not which ones are wrong?
I think that what you precieve in this forum as being judgemental is perhaps
not the domain of Adventists alone, but a common human failing. After all
how could you know that your statement below is correct, unless you too
judge? I am truly sorry if anyone has made you feel judged, or condemned,
but if they have theirs is the condemnation. Keeping the Sabbath, Tithing,
Praying to saints, or any other work will NOT earn us Gods salvation. It is
a gift to you my brother, just as it is to me. You stand or fall before God
just as I do. If we are both in heaven it will be by God's Grace not our
own, and not by our own particular efforts. So I for one can't and won't
Judge you. Everything we do should only be a love response to God for his
gift and not an effort to save ourselves.
May God bless you,
Paul
EW
See your (partial) great message below...... and my responses. And thanks
for writing back. You seem to be someone who is very reasonable and not
judgmental.
Paul E. Tooley, Jr. wrote in message ...
>Dear EW,
>
>Do you feel that you are wrong and everyone else is right? Or do you also
>feel you are correct and those who hold different views are wrong. Do you
>just feel that you are correct and all Adventists are wrong? Are all
>religions correct? If not which ones are wrong?
I do not feel I am right about everything, esp religious beliefs. I
also do not believe that anyone else or any particular religion has ALL the
answers to all biblical and salvation thoughts and questions. The
Adventists, Catholics, Mormons, Jews, etc., all have something to learn from
each other. I just wish they would get started!!
>
>I think that what you precieve in this forum as being judgemental is
perhaps
>not the domain of Adventists alone, but a common human failing.
True; it's admitting it that's the hard part. And I think I can, and
did. As I tried to say before, I feel that those who judge others because
they don't hold particular beliefs are wrong. If that's being judgemental,
then I guess I am in that respect.
>Keeping the Sabbath, Tithing,
>Praying to saints, or any other work will NOT earn us Gods salvation. It
is
>a gift to you my brother, just as it is to me.
Don't say that too loud arouond this newsgroup!!
>If we are both in heaven it will be by God's Grace not our
>own, and not by our own particular efforts. So I for one can't and won't
>Judge you. Everything we do should only be a love response to God for his
>gift and not an effort to save ourselves.
>
>May God bless you,
>
>Paul
>
Thanks, and see you there!!
Ernest
EW
I may have written to you before, maybe not; but I'd like to ask a
simple question that deserves a simple answer. See you partial message
below.....
Jarrod and Eva Williamson <jar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
<35D8ADDC...@pacbell.net>...
>
>
> We are not instructed to celebrate Christ's resurrection via the use
of
> "christianized" pagan Babylonian mythos, i.e., a little easter (Ishtar)
each sunday,
> where the death and resurrection god (as opposed to the Biblical paschal
Lamb) is
> revered on the day of the sun-god.
>
There was a LOT more than this, but this gives the gist of your
posting. My question: since Protestants, Catholics, Mormons, Jehovahas
Witnesses, etc., etc., don't recognize the Sabbath as the Seventh Day
Adventists do, are they condemned to Hell! Not a trick question. I'm just
trying to understand the Adventists' mindset on the Sabbath and why it seems
to be the crux of EVERYTHING. Thanks.
EW
teresita_mercado
>There was a LOT more than this, but this gives the gist
>of your posting. My question: since Protestants, Catholics, >Mormons, Jehovahas
>Witnesses, etc., etc., don't recognize
>the Sabbath as the Seventh Day Adventists do, are they
>condemned to Hell!
No, they put it off until a future time when Sunday worship will be coerced, and
they say whoever goes to church on Sunday THEN will have accepted the Mark of
the Beast and will be judged.
>Not a trick question. I'm just trying to understand the >Adventists' mindset on
>the Sabbath and why it seems to
>be the crux of EVERYTHING. Thanks.
"I also gave them my sabbaths to be a sign between me and them, to show that it
was I, the LORD, who made them holy." (Ezekiel 20:12)
Teresita
Jarrod and Eva Williamson
Teresita, Mercado wrote:
Teresita:
How do you feel about the burning of heretics?
jarrod
teresita_mercado
> Teresita:
>
> How do you feel about the burning of heretics?
>
>jarrod
It was necessary to compel individuals to keep their private opinions to
themselves, and to cease public propagation of their errors. In the good old
days both Church and State cooperated to prevent such men from corrupting the
faith of others and from subversive activities against the legitimately
established order.
Teresita
Paul E. Tooley, Jr.
Its me again Paul. I was born and raised an Adventist so maybe I can clue
you in on somethings. We humans tend to adopt anything special as if it
were our own and disown anything common as if we had nothing to do with it.
Watch five kids at a game of chance and the one who wins will act like he
had something to do with it. Some people will and do feel a cut above the
rest because of the Sabbath even though it has been there since no one can
remember when. The Sabbath, however never saved anyone and never will. The
vast majority of Christians in heaven will probably never have kept it. It
is the complete leaning of our entire being and will on Jesus Christ that
will save us, and nothing less. When you celebrate this you naturally will
want to follow Jesus in anywhere he leads you. If it is to celebrate the
Sabbath then good. If not, then good. All of our actions should only be a
love offering to the one who saved our souls. I think thats why two people
can preform the same act and one be blessed for it while the other is
cursed. After all everyone of the Pharasees kept the Sabbath, and kept it
better than Jesus did in there own eyes at least.
God bless you brother,
Paul
> There was a LOT more than this, but this gives the gist of your
>posting. My question: since Protestants, Catholics, Mormons, Jehovahas
>Witnesses, etc., etc., don't recognize the Sabbath as the Seventh Day
>Adventists do, are they condemned to Hell! Not a trick question. I'm just
>trying to understand the Adventists' mindset on the Sabbath and why it
seems
>to be the crux of EVERYTHING. Thanks.
>
>EW
Jarrod and Eva Williamson
Teresita, Mercado wrote:
> In article <35DE00C5...@pacbell.net>, Jarrod says...
>
> > Teresita:
> >
> > How do you feel about the burning of heretics?
> >
> >jarrod
>
> It was necessary to compel individuals to keep their private opinions to
> themselves, and to cease public propagation of their errors.
Let me see, if was necessary to *burn heretics* (?) to keep their private
opinion to themselves, and to cease public propagation of their errors?
So you do approve of the burning of heretics? What about the R. Catholic
church stance now about freedom of religion? Which church was right?
> In the good old
> days both Church and State cooperated to prevent such men from corrupting the
> faith of others and from subversive activities against the legitimately
> established order.
Like Freedom of Conscience, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech?
The good old days?
jarrod
>
>
> Teresita
Jarrod and Eva Williamson
Teresita, Mercado wrote:
> In article <35DE00C5...@pacbell.net>, Jarrod says...
>
> > Teresita:
> >
> > How do you feel about the burning of heretics?
> >
> >jarrod
>
> It was necessary to compel individuals to keep their private opinions to
> themselves, and to cease public propagation of their errors. In the good old
> days both Church and State cooperated to prevent such men from corrupting the
> faith of others and from subversive activities against the legitimately
> established order.
Well, it's nice to know the Roman Church hasn't changed in its character. At
some things are constant in life. Really something to depend on.
jarrod
Jarrod and Eva Williamson
Teresita, Mercado wrote:
> In article <35DE00C5...@pacbell.net>, Jarrod says...
>
> > Teresita:
> >
> > How do you feel about the burning of heretics?
> >
> >jarrod
>
> It was necessary to compel individuals to keep their private opinions to
> themselves, and to cease public propagation of their errors. In the good old
> days both Church and State cooperated to prevent such men from corrupting the
> faith of others and from subversive activities against the legitimately
> established order.
>
> Teresita
From Fox's Book of Martyrs, chapter IV.
Persecutions of the Albigenses
The Albigenses were a people of the reformed religion, who inhabited the country
of Albi. They were condemned on the score of religion in the Council of Lateran,
by order of Pope Alexander III. Nevertheless, they increased so prodigiously,
that many cities were inhabited by persons only of their persuasion, and several
eminent noblemen embraced their doctrines. Among the latter were Raymond, earl of
Toulouse, Raymond, earl of Foix, the earl of Beziers, etc.
A friar, named Peter, having been murdered in the dominions of the earl of
Toulouse, the pope made the murder a pretense to persecute that nobleman and his
subjects. To effect this, he sent persons throughout all Europe, in order to
raise forces to act coercively against the Albigenses, and promised paradise to
all that would come to this war, which he termed a Holy War, and bear arms for
forty days. The same indulgences were likewise held out to all who entered
themselves for the purpose as to such as engaged in crusades to the Holy Land.
The brave earl defended Toulouse and other places with the most heroic bravery
and various success against the pope's legates and Simon, earl of Montfort, a
bigoted Catholic nobleman. Unable to subdue the earl of Toulouse openly, the king
of France, and the queen mother, and three archbishops raised another formidable
army, and had the art to persuade the earl of Toulouse to come to a conference,
when he was treacherously seized upon, made a prisoner, forced to appear
barefooted and bareheaded before his enemies, and compelled to subscribe an
abject recantation. This was followed by a severe persecution against the
Albigenses; and express orders that the laity should not be permitted to read the
sacred Scriptures. In the year 1620 also, the persecution against the Albigenses
was very severe. In 1648 a heavy persecution raged throughout Lithuania and
Poland. The cruelty of the Cossacks was so excessive that the Tartars themselves
were ashamed of their barbarities. Among others who suffered was the Rev. Adrian
Chalinski, who was roasted alive by a slow fire, and whose sufferings and mode of
death may depict the horrors which the professors of Christianity have endured
from the enemies of the Redeemer.
The reformation of papistical error very early was projected in France; for in
the third century a learned man, named Almericus, and six of his disciples, were
ordered to be burnt at Paris for asserting that God was no otherwise present in
the sacramental bread than in any other bread; that it was idolatry to build
altars or shrines to saints and that it was ridiculous to offer incense to them.
The martyrdom of Almericus and his pupils did not, however, prevent many from
acknowledging the justness of his notions, and seeing the purity of the reformed
religion, so that the faith of Christ continually increased, and in time not only
spread itself over many parts of France, but diffused the light of the Gospel
over various other countries.
In the year 1524, at a town in France, called Melden, one John Clark set up a
bill on the church door, wherein he called the pope Antichrist. For this offence
he was repeatedly whipped, and then branded on the forehead. Going afterward to
Mentz, in Lorraine, he demolished some images, for which he had his right hand
and nose cut off, and his arms and breast torn with pincers. He sustained these
cruelties with amazing fortitude, and was even sufficiently cool to sing the One
hundredth and fifteenth Psalm, which expressly forbids idolatry; after which he
was thrown into the fire, and burnt to ashes.
Many persons of the reformed persuasion were, about this time, beaten, racked,
scourged, and burnt to death, in several parts of France, but more particularly
at Paris, Malda, and Limosin.
A native of Malda was burnt by a slow fire, for saying that Mass was a plain
denial of the death and passion of Christ. At Limosin, John de Cadurco, a
clergyman of the reformed religion, was apprehended and ordered to be burnt.
Francis Bribard, secretary to cardinal de Pellay, for speaking in favor of the
reformed, had his tongue cut out, and was then burnt, A.D. 1545. James Cobard, a
schoolmaster in the city of St. Michael, was burnt, A.D. 1545, for saying 'That
Mass was useless and absurd'; and about the same time, fourteen men were burnt at
Malda, their wives being compelled to stand by and behold the execution.
A.D. 1546, Peter Chapot brought a number of Bibles in the French tongue to
France, and publicly sold them there; for which he was brought to trial,
sentenced, and executed a few days afterward. Soon after, a cripple of Meaux, a
schoolmaster of Fera, named Stephen Poliot, and a man named John English, were
burnt for the faith.
Monsieur Blondel, a rich jeweler, was, in A.D. 1548, apprehended at Lyons, and
sent to Paris; there he was burnt for the faith by order of the court, A.D. 1549.
Herbert, a youth of nineteen years of age, was committed to the flames at Dijon;
as was also Florent Venote in the same year.
In the year 1554, two men of the reformed religion, with the son and daughter of
one of them, were apprehended and committed to the castle of Niverne. On
examination, they confessed their faith, and were ordered to execution; being
smeared with grease, brimstone, and gunpowder, they cried, "Salt on, salt on this
sinful and rotten flesh." Their tongues were then cut out, and they were
afterward committed to the flames, which soon consumed them, by means of the
combustible matter with which they were besmeared.
Jarrod and Eva Williamson
Teresita, Mercado wrote:
> In article <35DE00C5...@pacbell.net>, Jarrod says...
>
> > Teresita:
> >
> > How do you feel about the burning of heretics?
> >
> >jarrod
>
> It was necessary to compel individuals to keep their private opinions to
> themselves, and to cease public propagation of their errors. In the good old
> days both Church and State cooperated to prevent such men from corrupting the
> faith of others and from subversive activities against the legitimately
> established order.
>
> Teresita
From Fox's Book or Martyrs, chapter IV
The Bartholomew Massacre at Paris, etc.
On the twenty second day of August, 1572, commenced this diabolical act
ofsanguinary brutality. It was intended to destroy at one stroke the root of the
Protestant tree, which had only before partially suffered in its branches. The
king of France hadartfully proposed a marriage, between his sister and the prince
of Navarre, the captainand prince of the Protestants. This imprudent marriage was
publicly celebrated atParis, August 18, by the cardinal of Bourbon, upon a high
stage erected for thepurpose. They dined in great pomp with the bishop, and
supped with the king at Paris.Four days after this, the prince (Coligny), as he
was coming from the Council, wasshot in both arms; he then said to Maure, his
deceased mother's minister, "O mybrother, I do now perceive that I am indeed
beloved of my God, since for His mostholy sake I am wounded." Although the Vidam
advised him to fly, yet he abode inParis, and was soon after slain by Bemjus; who
afterward declared he never saw aman meet death more valiantly than the admiral.
The soldiers were appointed at a certain signal to burst out instantly to the
slaughter inall parts of the city. When they had killed the admiral, they threw
him out at a window into the street, where his head was cut off, and sent to the
pope. The savage papists, still raging against him, cut off his arms and private
members, and, after dragging him three days through the streets, hung him by the
heels without the city. After him they slew many great and honorable persons who
were Protestants; as Count Rochfoucault, Telinius, the admiral's son-in-law,
Antonius, Clarimontus, marquis of Ravely, Lewes Bussius, Bandineus, Pluvialius,
Burneius, etc., and falling upon the common people, they continued the slaughter
for many days; in the three first they slew of all ranks and conditions to the
number of ten thousand. The bodies were thrown into the rivers, and blood ran
through the streets with a strong current, and the river appeared presently like
a stream of blood. So furious was their hellish rage, that they slew all papists
whom they suspected to be not very staunch to their diabolical religion. From
Paris the destruction spread to all quarters of the realm.
At Orleans, a thousand were slain of men, women, and children, and six thousand
at Rouen.
At Meldith, two hundred were put into prison, and later brought out by units,
andcruelly murdered.
At Lyons, eight hundred were massacred. Here children hanging about their
parents, and parents affectionately embracing their children, were pleasant food
for the swords and bloodthirsty minds of those who call themselves the Catholic
Church. Here three hundred were slain in the bishop's house; and the impious
monks would suffer none to be buried.
At Augustobona, on the people hearing of the massacre at Paris, they shut their
gates that no Protestants might escape, and searching diligently for every
individual of there formed Church, imprisoned and then barbarously murdered them.
The same curelty they practiced at Avaricum, at Troys, at Toulouse, Rouen and
many other places, running from city to city, towns, and villages, through the
kingdom.
As a corroboration of this horrid carnage, the following interesting narrative,
written by a sensible and learned Roman Catholic, appears in this place, with
peculiar propriety.
"The nuptials (says he) of the young king of Navarre with the French king's
sister, was solemnized with pomp; and all the endearments, all the assurances of
friendship, all the oaths sacred among men, were profusely lavished by Catharine,
the queen-mother, and by the king; during which, the rest of the court thought of
nothing but festivities, plays, and masquerades. At last, at twelve o'clock at
night, on the eve of St. Bartholomew, the signal was given. Immediately all the
houses of the Protestants were forced open at once. Admiral Coligny, alarmed by
the uproar jumped out of bed, when a company of assassins rushed in his chamber.
They were headed by oneBesme, who had been bred up as a domestic in the family of
the Guises. This wretchthrust his sword into the admiral's breast, and also cut
him in the face. Besme was aGerman, and being afterwards taken by the
Protestants, the Rochellers would havebrought him, in order to hang and quarter
him; but he was killed by one Bretanville.Henry, the young duke of Guise, who
afterwards framed the Catholic league, and wasmurdered at Blois, standing at the
door until the horrid butchery should be completed,called aloud, 'Besme! is it
done?' Immediately after this, the ruffians threw the bodyout of the window, and
Coligny expired at Guise's feet.
"Count de Teligny also fell a sacrifice. He had married, about ten months
before, Coligny's daughter. His countenance was so engaging, that the ruffians,
when they advanced in order to kill him, were struck with compassion; but others,
more barbarous, rushing forward, murdered him.
"In the meantime, all the friends of Coligny were assassinated throughout Paris;
men, women, and children were promiscuously slaughtered and every street was
strewed with expiring bodies. Some priests, holding up a crucifix in one hand,
and a dagger in the other, ran to the chiefs of the murderers, and strongly
exhorted them to spare neither relations nor friends.
"Tavannes, marshal of France, an ignorant, superstitious soldier, who joined the
fury of religion to the rage of party, rode on horseback through the streets of
Paris, crying to his men, 'Let blood! let blood! bleeding is as wholesome in
August as in May.' In the memories of the life of this enthusiastic, written by
his son, we are told that the father, being on his deathbed, and making a general
confession of his actions, the priest
said to him, with surprise, 'What! no mention of St. Bartholomew's massacre? 'to
which Tavannes replied, 'I consider it as a meritorious action, that will wash
awayall my sins.' Such horrid sentiments can a false spirit of religion inspire!
"The king's palace was one of the chief scenes of the butchery; the king of
Navarre had his lodgings in the Louvre, and all his domestics were Protestants.
Many of these were killed in bed with their wives; others, running away naked,
were pursued by the soldiers through the several rooms of the palace, even to the
king's antichamber. The young wife of Henry of Navarre, awaked by the dreadful
uproar, being afraid for her consort, and for her own life, seized with horror,
and half dead, flew from her bed, inorder to throw herself at the feet of the
king her brother. But scarce had she opened her chamber door, when some of her
Protestant domestics rushed in for refuge. The soldiers immediately followed,
pursued them in sight of the princess, and killed one who crept under her bed.
Two others, being wounded with halberds, fell at thequeen's feet, so that she was
covered with blood.
"Count de la Rochefoucault, a young nobleman, greatly in the king's favor for
his comely air, his politeness, and a certain peculiar happiness in the turn of
his conversation, had spent the evening until eleven o'clock with the monarch, in
pleasant familiarity; and had given a loose, with the utmost mirth, to the
sallies of his imagination. The monarch felt some remorse, and being touched with
a kind of compassion, bid him, two or three times, not to go home, but lie in the
Louvre. The count said he must go to his wife; upon which the king pressed him
no farther, but said, 'Let him go! I see God has decreed his death.' And in two
hours after he was murdered.
"Very few of the Protestants escaped the fury of their enthusiastic
persecutors. Among these was young La Force (afterwards the famous Marshal de la
Force) a child about ten years of age, whose deliverance was exceedingly
remarkable. His father, his elder brother, and he himself were seized together by
the Duke of Anjou's soldier. These murderers flew at all three, and struck them
at random, when they all fell, and lay one upon another. The youngest did not
receive a single blow, but appearing as if he was dead, escaped the next day; and
his life, thus wonderfully preserved, lasted four score and five years.
"Many of the wretched victims fled to the water side, and some swam over the
Seine to the suburbs of St. Germaine. The king saw them from his window, which
looked upon the river, and fired upon them with a carbine that had been loaded
for that purpose by one of his pages; while the queen-mother, undisturbed and
serene in the midst of slaughter, looking down from a balcony, encouraged the
murderers and laughed at the dying groans of the slaughtered. This barbarous
queen was fired with a restless ambition, and she perpetually shifted her party
in order to satiate it.
"Some days after this horrid transaction, the French court endeavored to
palliate it by forms of law. They pretended to justify the massacre by a calumny,
and accused the admiral of a conspiracy, which no one believed. The parliament
was commended to proceed against the memory of Coligny; and his dead body was
hanged in chains on Montfaucon gallows. The king himself went to view this
shocking spectacle. So oneof his courtiers advised him to retire, and complaining
of the stench of the corpse, hereplied, 'A dead enemuy smells well.' The
massacres on St. Bartholomew's day arepainted in the royal saloon of the Vatican
at Rome, with the following inscription: Pontifex, Coligny necem probat, i.e.,
'The pope approves of Coligny's death.'
"The young king of Navarre was spared through policy, rather than from the pity
of the queen-mother, she keeping him prisoner until the king's death, in order
that he might be as a security and pledge for the submission of such Protestants
as might effect their escape.
"This horrid butchery was not confined merely to the city of Paris. The like
orders were issued from court to the governors of all the provinces in France; so
that, in a week's time, about one hundred thousand Protestants were cut to pieces
in different parts of the kingdom! Two or three governors only refused to obey
the king's orders. One of these, named Montmorrin, governor of Auvergne, wrote
the king the following letter, which deserves to be transmitted to the latest
posterity.
"SIRE: I have received an order, under your majesty's seal, to put to death all
the Protestants in my province. I have too much respect for your majesty, not to
believe the letter a forgery; but if (which God forbid) the order should be
genuine, I have too much respect for your majesty to obey it."
At Rome the horrid joy was so great, that they appointed a day of high festival,
and a jubilee, with great indulgence to all who kept it and showed every
expression of gladness they could devise! and the man who first carried the news
received 1000 crowns of the cardinal of Lorraine for his ungodly message. The
king also commnded the day to be kept with every demonstration of joy, concluding
now that the whole race of Huguenots was extinct.
Many who gave great sums of money for their ransom were immediately after slain;
and several towns, which were under the king's promise of protection and safety,
were cut off as soon as they delivered themselves up, on those promises, to his
generals or captains.
At Bordeaux, at the instigation of a villainous monk, who used to urge the
papists to slaughter in his sermons, two hundred and sixty-four were cruelly
murdered; some of them senators. Another of the same pious fraternity produced a
similar slaughter at Agendicum, in Maine, where the populace at the holy
inquisitors' satanical suggestion, ran upon the Protestants, slew them, plundered
their houses, and pulled down thei rchurch.
The duke of Guise, entering into Blois, suffered his soldiers to fly upon the
spoil, and slay or drown all the Protestants they could find. In this they spared
neither age nor sex; defiling the women, and then murdering them; from whence he
went to Mere, and committed the same outrages for many days together. Here they
found a minister named Cassebonius, and threw him into the river.
At Anjou, they slew Albiacus, a minister; and many women were defiled and
murdered there; among whom were two sisters, abused before their father, whom
theassassins bound to a wall to see them, and then slew them and him.
The president of Turin, after giving a large sum for his life, was cruelly
beaten withclubs, stripped of his clothes, and hung feet upwards, with his head
and breast in theriver: before he was dead, they opened his belly, plucked out
his entrails, and threw them into the river; and then carried his heart about the
city upon a spear.
At Barre great cruelty was used, even to young children, whom they cut open,
pulledout their entrails, which through very rage they gnawed with their teeth.
Those whohad fled to the castle, when they yielded, were almost hanged. Thus they
did at the cityof Matiscon; counting it sport to cut off their arms and legs and
afterward kill them;and for the entertainment of their visitors, they often threw
the Protestants from a highbridge into the river, saying, "Did you ever see men
leap so well?"
At Penna, after promising them safety, three hundred were inhumanly butchered;
andfive and forty at Albia, on the Lord's Day. At Nonne, though it yielded on
conditionsof safeguard, the most horrid spectacles were exhibited. Persons of
both sexes andconditions were indiscriminately murdered; the streets ringing with
doleful cries, andflowing with blood; and the houses flaming with fire, which the
abandoned soldiers had thrown in. One woman, being dragged from her hiding place
with her husband,was first abused by the brutal soldiers, and then with a sword
which they commandedher to draw, they forced it while in her hands into the
bowels of her husband.
At Samarobridge, they murdered above one hundred Protestants, after promising
thempeace; and at Antsidor, one hundred were killed, and cast part into a jakes,
and part into a river. One hundred put into a prison at Orleans, were destroyed
by the furiousmultitude.
The Protestants at Rochelle, who were such as had miraculously escaped the rage
ofhell, and fled there, seeing how ill they fared who submitted to those holy
devils,stood for their lives; and some other cities, encouraged thereby, did the
like. AgainstRochelle, the king sent almost the whole power of France, which
besieged it sevenmonths; though by their assaults, they did very little execution
on the inhabitants, yetby famine, they destroyed eighteen thousand out of two and
twenty. The dead, beingtoo numerous for the living to bury, became food for
vermin and carnivorous birds.Many took their coffins into the church yard, laid
down in them, and breathed theirlast. Their diet had long been what the minds of
those in plenty shudder at; evenhuman flesh, entrails, dung, and the most
loathsome things, became at last the onlyfood of those champions for that truth
and liberty, of which the world was not worthy.At every attack, the besiegers met
with such an intrepid reception, that they left onehundred and thirty-two
captains, with a proportionate number of men, dead in thefield. The siege at last
was broken up at the request of the duke of Anjou, the king'sbrother, who was
proclaimed king of Poland, and the king, being wearied out, easilycomplied,
whereupon honorable conditions were granted them.
It is a remarkable interference of Providence, that, in all this dreadful
massacre, notmore than two ministers of the Gospel were involved in it.
The tragical sufferings of the Protestants are too numerous to detail; but the
treatmentof Philip de Deux will give an idea of the rest. After the miscreants
had slain thismartyr in his bed, they went to his wife, who was then attended by
the midwife,expecting every moment to be delivered. The midwife entreated them to
stay themurder, at least till the child, which was the twentieth, should be
born. Notwithstanding this, they thrust a dagger up to the hilt into the poor
woman. Anxiousto be delivered, she ran into a corn loft; but hither they pursued
her, stabbed her in thebelly, and then threw her into the street. By the fall,
the child came from the dyingmother, and being caught up by one of the Catholic
ruffians, he stabbed the infant, andthen threw it into the river.
Jarrod and Eva Williamson
Teresita, Mercado wrote:
> In article <35DE00C5...@pacbell.net>, Jarrod says...
>
> > Teresita:
> >
> > How do you feel about the burning of heretics?
> >
> >jarrod
>
> It was necessary to compel individuals to keep their private opinions to
> themselves, and to cease public propagation of their errors. In the good old
> days both Church and State cooperated to prevent such men from corrupting the
> faith of others and from subversive activities against the legitimately
> established order.
>
> Teresita
From: FOX'S BOOK OF MARTYRS, CHAPTER VIII: An Account of the Persecutions in
Bohemia Under the Papacy
Persecution of John Huss
John Huss was born at Hussenitz, a village in Bohemia, about the year 1380. His
parents gave him the best education their circumstances would admit; and having
acquired a tolerable knowledge of the classics at a private school, he was
removed to the university of Prague, where he soon gave strong proofs of his
mental powers, and was remarkable for his diligence and application to study.
In 1398, Huss commenced bachelor of divinity, and was after successively chosen
pastor of the Church of Bethlehem, in Prague, and dean and rector of the
university. In these stations he discharged his duties with great fidelity; and
became, at length, so conspicuous for his preaching, which was in conformity with
the doctrines of Wickliffe, that it was not likely he could long escape the
notice of the pope and his adherents, against whom he inveighed with no small
degree of asperity.
The English reformist, Wickliffe, had so kindled the light of reformation, that
it began to illumine the darkest corners of popery and ignorance. His doctrines
spread into Bohemia, and were well received by great numbers of people, but by
none so particularly as John Huss, and his zealous friend and fellow martyr,
Jerome of Prague.
The archbishop of Prague, finding the reformists daily increasing, issued a
decree to suppress the further spreading of Wickliffe's writings: but this had an
effect quite different to what he expected, for it stimulated the friends of
those doctrines to greater zeal, and almost the whole university united to
propagate them.
Being strongly attached to the doctrines of Wickliffe, Huss opposed the decree
of the archbishop, who, however, at length, obtained a bull from the pope, giving
him commission to prevent the publishing of Wickliffe's doctrines in his
province. By virtue of this bull, the archbishop condemned the writings of
Wickliffe: he also proceeded against four doctors, who had not delivered up the
copies of that divine, and prohibited them, notwithstanding their privileges, to
preach to any congregation. Dr. Huss, with some other members of the university,
protested against these proceedings, and entered an appeal from the sentence of
the archbishop.
The affair being made known to the pope, he granted a commission to Cardinal
Colonna, to cite John Huss to appear personally at the court of Rome, to answer
the accusations laid against him, of preaching both errors and heresies. Dr. Huss
desired to be excused from a personal appearance, and was so greatly favored in
Bohemia, that King Winceslaus, the queen, the nobility, and the university,
desired the pope to dispense with such an appearance; as also that he would not
suffer the kingdom of Bohemia to lie under the accusation of heresy, but permit
them to preach the Gospel with freedom in their places of worship.
Three proctors appeared for Dr. Huss before Cardinal Colonna. They endeavored to
excuse his absence, and said they were ready to answer in his behalf. But the
cardinal declared Huss contumacious, and excommunicated him accordingly. The
proctors appealed to the pope, and appointed four cardinals to examine the
process: these commissioners confirmed the former sentence, and extended the
excommunication not only to Huss but to all his friends and followers.
From this unjust sentence Huss appealed to a future Council, but without
success; and, notwithstanding so severe a decree, and an expulsion in consequence
from his church in Prague, he retired to Hussenitz, his native place, where he
continued to promulgate his new doctrine, both from the pulpit and with the pen.
The letters which he wrote at this time were very numerous; and he compiled a
treatise in which he maintained, that reading the books of Protestants could not
be absolutely forbidden. He wrote in defence of Wickliffe's book on the Trinity;
and boldly declared against the vices of the pope, the cardinals, and clergy, of
those corrupt times. He wrote also many other books, all of which were penned
with a strength of argument that greatly facilitated the spreading of his
doctrines.
In the month of November, 1414, a general Council was assembled at Constance, in
Germany, in order, as was pretended, for the sole purpose of determining a
dispute then pending between three persons who contended for the papacy; but the
real motive was to crush the progress of the Reformation.
John Huss was summoned to appear at this Council; and, to encourage him, the
emperor sent him a safe-conduct: the civilities, and even reverence, which Huss
met with on his journey were beyond imagination. The streets, and sometimes the
very roads, were lined with people, whom respect, rather than curiosity, had
brought together.
He was ushered into the town with great acclamations, and it may be said that he
passed through Germany in a kind of triumph. He could not help expressing his
surprise at the treatment he received: "I thought (said he) I had been an
outcast. I now see my worst friends are in Bohemia."
As soon as Huss arrived at Constance, he immediately took logdings in a remote
part of the city. A short time after his arrival, came one Stephen Paletz, who
was employed by the clergy at Prague to manage the intended prosecution against
him. Paletz was afterwards joined by Michael de Cassis, on the part of the court
of Rome. These two declared themselves his accusers, and drew up a set of
articles against him, which they presented to the pope and the prelates of the
Council.
When it was known that he was in the city he was immediately arrested, and
committed prisoner to a chamber in the palace. This violation of common law and
justice was particularly noticed by one of Huss's friends, who urged the imperial
safe-conduct; but the pope replied he never granted any safe-conduct, nor was he
bound by that of the emperor.
While Huss was in confinement, the Council acted the part of inquisitors.
They condemned the doctrines of Wickliffe, and even ordered his remains to be
dug up and burned to ashes; which orders were strictly complied with. In the
meantime, the nobility of Bohemia and Poland strongly interceded for Huss; and so
far prevailed as to prevent his being condemned unheard, which had been resolved
on by the commissioners appointed to try him.
When he was brought before the Council, the articles exhibited against him were
read: they were upwards of forty in number, and chiefly extracted from his
writings.
John Huss's answer was this: "I did appeal unto the pope; who being dead, and
the cause of my matter remaining undetermined, I appealed likewise unto his
successor John XXIII: before whom when, by the space of two years, I could not be
admitted by my advocates to defend my cause, I appealed unto the high judge
Christ."
When John Huss had spoken these words, it was demanded of him whether he had
received absolution of the pope or no? He answered, "No." Then again, whether it
was lawful for him to appeal unto Christ or no? Whereunto John Huss answered:
"Verily I do affirm here before you all, that there is no more just or effectual
appeal, than that appeal which is made unto Christ, forasmuch as the law doth
determine, that to appeal is no other thing than in a cause of grief or wrong
done by an inferior judge, to implore and require aid at a higher Judge's hand.
Who is then a higher Judge than Christ? Who, I say, can know or judge the matter
more justly, or with more equity? when in Him there is found no deceit, neither
can He be deceived; or, who can better help the miserable and oppressed than He?"
While John Huss, with a devout and sober countenance, was speaking and
pronouncing those words, he was derided and mocked by all the whole Council.
These excellent sentences were esteemed as so many expressions of treason, and
tended to inflame his adversaries. Accordingly, the bishops appointed by the
Council stripped him of his priestly garments, degraded him, put a paper miter on
his head, on which was painted devils, with this inscription, "A ringleader of
heretics." Which when he saw, he said: "My Lord Jesus Christ, for my sake, did
wear a crown of thorns; why should not I then, for His sake, again wear this
light crown, be it ever so ignominious? Truly I will do it, and that willingly."
When it was set upon his head, the bishop said: "Now we commit thy soul unto the
devil." "But I," said John Huss, lifting his eyes towards the heaven, "do commend
into Thy hands, O Lord Jesus Christ! my spirit which Thou has redeemed."
When the chain was put about him at the stake, he said, with a smiling
countenance, "My Lord Jesus Christ was bound with a harder chain than this for my
sake, and why then should I be ashamed of this rusty one?"
When the fagots were piled up to his very neck, the duke of Bavaria was so
officious as to desire him to abjure. "No, (said Huss;) I never preached any
doctrine of an evil tendency; and what I taught with my lips I now seal with my
blood." He then said to the executioner, "You are now going to burn a goose,
(Huss signifying goose in the Bohemian language:) but in a century you will have
a swan which you can neither roast nor boil." If he were prophetic, he must have
meant Martin Luther, who shone about a hundred years after, and who had a swan
for his arms.
The flames were now applied to the fagots, when our martyr sung a hymn with so
loud and cheerful a voice that he was heard through all the cracklings of the
combustibles, and the noise of the multitude. At length his voice was interrupted
by the severity of the flames, which soon closed his existence.
Then, with great diligence, gathering the ashes together, they cast them into
the river Rhine, that the least remnant of that man should not be left upon the
earth, whose memory, notwithstanding, cannot be abolished out of the minds of the
godly, neither by fire, neither by water, neither by any kind oof torment.
Jarrod and Eva Williamson
Teresita, Mercado wrote:
> In article <35DE00C5...@pacbell.net>, Jarrod says...
>
> > Teresita:
> >
> > How do you feel about the burning of heretics?
> >
> >jarrod
>
> It was necessary to compel individuals to keep their private opinions to
> themselves, and to cease public propagation of their errors. In the good old
> days both Church and State cooperated to prevent such men from corrupting the
> faith of others and from subversive activities against the legitimately
> established order.
>
> Teresita
FOX'S BOOK OF MARTYRS, CHAPTER VIII: An Account of the Persecutions in Bohemia
Under the Papacy
Persecution of Jerome of Prague
This reformer, who was the companion of Dr. Huss, and may be said to be a
co-martyr with him, was born at Prague, and educated in that university, where he
particularly distinguished himself for his great abilities and learning. He
likewise visited several other learned seminaries in Europe, particularly the
universities of Paris, Heidelburg, Cologne and Oxford. At the latter place he
became acquainted with the works of Wickliffe, and being a person of uncommon
application, he translated many of them into his native language, having, with
great pains, made himself master of the English tongue.
On his return to Prague, he professed himself an open favorer of Wickliffe, and
finding that his doctrines had made considerable progress in Bohemia, and that
Huss was the principal promoter of them, he became an assistant to him in the
great work of reformation.
On the fourth of April, 1415, Jerome arrived at Constance, about three months
before the death of Huss. He entered the town privately, and consulting with some
of the leaders of his party, whom he found there, was easily convinced he could
not be of any service to his friends.
Finding that his arrival in Constance was publicly known, and that the Council
intended to seize him, he thought it most prudent to retire. Accordingly, the
next day he went to Iberling, an imperial town, about a mile from Constance. From
this place he wrote to the emperor, and proposed his readiness to appear before
the Council, if he would give him a safe-conduct; but this was refused. He then
applied to the Council, but met with an answer no less unfavorable than that from
the emperor.
After this, he set out on his return to Bohemia. He had the precaution to take
with him a certificate, signed by several of the Bohemian nobility, then at
Constance, testifying that he had used all prudent means in his power to procure
a hearing.
Jerome, however, did not thus escape. He was seized at Hirsaw by an officer
belonging to the duke of Sultsbach, who, though unauthorized so to act, made
little doubt of obtaining thanks from the Council for so acceptable a service.
The duke of Sultsbach, having Jerome now in his power, wrote to the Council for
directions how to proceed. The Council, after expressing their obligations to the
duke, desired him to send the prisoner immediately to Constance. The elector
palatine met him on the way, and conducted him into the city, himself riding on
horseback, with a numerous retinue, who led Jerome in fetters by a long chain;
and immediately on his arrival he was committed to a loathsome dungeon.
Jerome was treated nearly in the same manner as Huss had been, only that he was
much longer confined, and shifted from one prison to another. At length, being
brought before the Council, he desired that he might plead his own cause, and
exculpate himself: which being refused him, he broke out into the following
exclamation:
"What barbarity is this! For three hundred and forty days have I been confined
in a variety of prisons. There is not a misery, there is not a want, that I have
not experienced. To my enemies you have allowed the fullest scope of accusation:
to me you deny the least opportunity of defence. Not an hour will you now indulge
me in preparing for my trial. You have swallowed the blackest calumnies against
me. You have represented me as a heretic, without knowing my doctrine; as an
enemy of the faith, before you knew what faith I professed: as a persecutor of
priests before you could have an opportunity of understanding my sentiments on
that head. You are a General Council: in you center all this world can
communicate of gravity, wisdom, and sanctity: but still you are men, and men are
seducible by appearances. The higher your character is for wisdom, the greater
ought your care to be not to deviate into folly. The cause I now plead is not my
own cause: it is the cause of men, it is the cause of Christians; it is a cause
which is to affect the rights of posterity, however the experiment is to be made
in my person."
This speech had not the least effect; Jerome was obliged to hear the charge
read, which was reduced under the following heads: 1. That he was a derider of
the papal dignity. 2. An opposer of the pope. 3. An enemy to the cardinals. 4. A
persecutor of the prelates. 5. A hater of the Christian religion.
The trial of Jerome was brought on the third day after his accusation and
witnesses were examined in support of the charge. The prisoner was prepared for
his defence, which appears almost incredible, when we consider he had been three
hundred and forty days shut up in loathsome prisons, deprived of daylight, and
almost starved for want of common necessaries. But his spirit soared above these
disadvantages, under which a man less animated would have sunk; nor was he more
at a loss of quotations from the fathers and ancient authors than if he had been
furnished with the finest library.
The most bigoted of the assembly were unwilling he should be heard, knowing what
effect eloquence is apt to have on the minds of the most prejudiced. At length,
however, it was carried by the majority that he should have liberty to proceed in
his defence, which he began in such an exalted strain of moving elocution that
the heart of obdurate zeal was seen to melt, and the mind of superstition seemed
to admit a ray of conviction. He made an admirable distinction between evidence
as resting upon facts, and as supported by malice and calumny. He laid before the
assembly the whole tenor of his life and conduct. He observed that the greatest
and most holy men had been known to differ in points of speculation, with a view
to distinguish truth, not to keep it concealed. He expressed a noble contempt of
all his enemies, who would have induced him to retract the cause of virtue and
truth. He entered upon a high encomium of Huss; and declared he was ready to
follow him in the glorious task of martyrdom. He then touched upon the most
defensible doctrines of Wickliffe; and concluded with observing that it was far
from his intention to advance anything against the state of the Church of God;
that it was only against the abuse of the clergy he complained; and that he could
not help saying, it was certainly impious that the patrimony of the Church, which
was originally intended for the purpose of charity and universal benevolence,
should be prostituted to the pride of the eye, in feasts, foppish vestments, and
other reproaches to the name and profession of Christianity.
The trial being over, Jerome received the same sentence that had been passed
upon his martyred countryman. In consequence of this, he was, in the usual style
of popish affectation, delivered over to the civil power: but as he was a layman,
he had not to undergo the ceremony of degradation. They had prepared a cap of
paper painted with red devils, which being put upon his head, he said, "Our Lord
Jesus Christ, when He suffered death for me a most miserable sinner, did wear a
crown of thorns upon His head, and for His sake will I wear this cap."
Two days were allowed him in hopes that he would recant; in which time the
cardinal of Florence used his utmost endeavors to bring him over. But they all
proved ineffectual. Jerome was resolved to seal the doctrine with his blood; and
he suffered death with the most distinguished magnanimity.
In going to the place of execution he sang several hymns, and when he came to
the spot, which was the same where Huss had been burnt, he knelt down, and prayed
fervently. He embraced the stake with great cheerfulness, and when they went
behind him to set fire to the fagots, he said, "Come here, and kindle it before
my eyes; for if I had been afraid of it, I had not come to this place." The fire
being kindled, he sang a hymn, but was soon interrupted by the flames; and the
last words he was heard to say these, "This soul in flames I offer Christ, to
Thee."
The elegant Pogge, a learned gentleman of Florence, secretary to two popes, and
a zealous but liberal Catholic, in a letter to Leonard Arotin, bore ample
testimony of the extraordinary powers and virtues of Jerome whom he emphatically
styles, A prodigious man!
Doug Gilliland
>> > Teresita:
>> > How do you feel about the burning of heretics?
>Teresita, Mercado wrote:
>> It was necessary to compel individuals to keep their
>> private opinions to themselves, and to cease public
>> propagation of their errors. In the good old days both
>> Church and State cooperated to prevent such men
>> from corrupting the faith of others and from
>> subversive activities against the legitimately
>> established order.
Jarrod says...
> FOX'S BOOK OF MARTYRS, CHAPTER VIII: An
> Account of the Persecutions in Bohemia Under the
> Papacy
OUCH.
[clipped rest of story - there are many such stories].
That's not your normal style Jarrod. That's more nasty. Kind of like... my
style. ;-)
--
Doug Gilliland
Calvary Chapel FUAQ Page http://idt.net/~dougg/cc.htm
Luke 7:35 But wisdom is justified of all her children.
William R. Cousert
Jarrod and Eva Williamson wrote in message
<35E0981B...@pacbell.net>...
Jarrod and Eva Williamson
Doug Gilliland wrote:
> Jarrod says...
> >> > Teresita:
> >> > How do you feel about the burning of heretics?
>
> >Teresita, Mercado wrote:
>
> >> It was necessary to compel individuals to keep their
> >> private opinions to themselves, and to cease public
> >> propagation of their errors. In the good old days both
> >> Church and State cooperated to prevent such men
> >> from corrupting the faith of others and from
> >> subversive activities against the legitimately
> >> established order.
>
> Jarrod says...
>
> > FOX'S BOOK OF MARTYRS, CHAPTER VIII: An
> > Account of the Persecutions in Bohemia Under the
> > Papacy
>
> OUCH.
>
> [clipped rest of story - there are many such stories].
>
> That's not your normal style Jarrod. That's more nasty. Kind of like... my
> style. ;-)
Many innocent people, who merely wanted to worship (or not worship) God as
their conscience dictated, and the freedom to speak their minds were burned to
death, including men, women, and children, and she spoke flippantly about it.
She deserves all the condemnation that can be heaped upon her. I showed
he comments to my R. catholic friends and they were appalled ... as would any
decent, thinking person.
Shame on you Teresita, your comments were abominable. And don't try to
pwn yourself off as the poor innocent victim who had their public, awful
statement crossposted (as though thet were some breach of nettiquette) ... you
are the vitimizer here, not the victim.
Shame on you, you self-contradicting, self-stultifying, walking Cognitive
Dissonance incarnate shameful person.
Repent of your abominable statement.
jarrod
Jarrod and Eva Williamson
Jarrod and Eva Williamson wrote:
> Teresita, Mercado wrote:
>
> > In article <35DE00C5...@pacbell.net>, Jarrod says...
> >
> > > Teresita:
> > >
> > > How do you feel about the burning of heretics?
> > >
> > >jarrod
> >
> > It was necessary to compel individuals to keep their private opinions to
> > themselves, and to cease public propagation of their errors. In the good old
> > days both Church and State cooperated to prevent such men from corrupting the
> > faith of others and from subversive activities against the legitimately
> > established order.
Subject: For Teresita
Date:Sun, 23 Aug 1998 19:51:31 -0700
From: Jarrod and Eva Williamson <jar...@pacbell.net>
Organization: Pacific Bell Internet Services
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.adventist,
alt.religion.christian.calvary-chapel
References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14
Doug Gilliland wrote:
> Jarrod says...
> >> > Teresita:
> >> > How do you feel about the burning of heretics?
>
> >Teresita, Mercado wrote:
>
> >> It was necessary to compel individuals to keep their
> >> private opinions to themselves, and to cease public
> >> propagation of their errors. In the good old days both
> >> Church and State cooperated to prevent such men
> >> from corrupting the faith of others and from
> >> subversive activities against the legitimately
> >> established order.
>
> Jarrod says...
>
> > FOX'S BOOK OF MARTYRS, CHAPTER VIII: An
> > Account of the Persecutions in Bohemia Under the
> > Papacy
>
> OUCH.
>
> [clipped rest of story - there are many such stories].
>
> That's not your normal style Jarrod. That's more nasty. Kind of like... my
> style. ;-)
Many innocent people, who merely wanted to worship (or not worship) God as their
conscience dictated, and the freedom to speak their minds were burned to death,
including men, women, and children, and she spoke flippantly about it.
She deserves all the condemnation that can be heaped upon her. I showed he
comments to my R. catholic friends and they were appalled ... as would any decent,
thinking person.
Shame on you Teresita, your comments were abominable. And don't try to pwn
yourself off as the poor innocent victim who had their public, awful statement
crossposted (as though thet were some breach of nettiquette) ... you are the
victimizer here, not the victim.
Rick
> >We are not instructed to celebrate Christ's resurrection via the use of
> >"christianized" pagan Babylonian mythos, i.e., a little easter (Ishtar)
> >each sunday, where the death and resurrection god (as opposed to the
> Biblical paschal
> >Lamb) is revered on the day of the sun-god.
> There was a LOT more than this, but this gives the gist of your
> posting. My question: since Protestants, Catholics, Mormons, Jehovahas
> Witnesses, etc., etc., don't recognize the Sabbath as the Seventh Day
> Adventists do, are they condemned to Hell! Not a trick question. I'm just
> trying to understand the Adventists' mindset on the Sabbath and why it seems
> to be the crux of EVERYTHING. Thanks.
>
> EW
They are certainly taking a big risk in the judgment day by not keeping God's
holy day holy. God looks upon the heart, but before He comes everyone will have
made a conscious choice to either obey His commandments or not to. If you don't
think that the majority of so called religions will be lost, then take these
verses in consideration:
1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the
transgression of the law.
Part of the law is Exodus 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Note
that word "REMEMBER."
Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am
not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one
tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall
teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but
whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom
of heaven.
Matthew 22:14 For many are called, but few are chosen.
Matthew 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is
the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life,
and few there be that find it
Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the
kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy
name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful
works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye
that work iniquity.
Luke 13:23 Then said one unto him, Lord, are there few that be saved? And he
said unto them,
24 Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek
to enter in, and shall not be able.
Luke 17:26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of
the Son of man.
28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot;
30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.
How many people were saved from the great flood of Noah? How many from Sodom and
Gomorra? How many will be save in that great day of the Lord's Coming? Will you
be one of them?
The New Jerusalem is described this way:
Revelation 21:16 And the city lieth foursquare, and the length is as large as
the breadth: and he measured the city with the reed, twelve thousand furlongs.
The length and the breadth and the height of it are equal.
That is about 375 miles wide, 375 miles long, and 375 miles high. Now that is a
very large city, in fact it is about the size of the state of Oregon. Even with
the great size of the New Jerusalem it will be inhabited by every saved person
from the time of Adam to the time of the Second Coming. Are you starting to get
the picture. There will not be as many people in that city as many a preacher as
thought to preach about. It is so sad, but when God asks such a simple request
as to keep the Sabbath holy, He means it.
teresita_mercado
>They are certainly taking a big risk in the judgment day by
>not keeping God's holy day holy.
"Bt now we are released from the law, dead to what held us captive, so that we
may sere in the newness of the spirit and not under the obsolete letter." (Rom
7:6)
>God looks upon the heart, but before He comes everyone will
>have made a conscious choice to either obey His commandments
>or not to.
Nope, wrong gospel, He will judge if one has made a conscious decision to
believe on His risen Son Jesus Christ:
"For we consider that a person is justified by faith apart from works of the
law." (Rom 3:28)
Teresita
Rick
Teresita, Mercado wrote:
> >They are certainly taking a big risk in the judgment day by
> >not keeping God's holy day holy.
>
> "Bt now we are released from the law, dead to what held us captive, so that we
> may sere in the newness of the spirit and not under the obsolete letter." (Rom
> 7:6)
Paul is not referring here primarily to any law in particular but to law as a
principle. His point is that Christians are not under law as a way of salvation,
but under grace. Law cannot save a sinner, nor can law put an end to sin or its
dominion. Law reveals sin, and because of the sinfulness of man, law as it were,
causes transgression to increase. Law cannot forgive sin, nor can law provide any
power to overcome it. The sinner who seeks to be saved under law will find only
condemnation and deeper enslavement to sin. Wherever the principle is held that
man can save himself by his own works, there is no effective barrier against sin.
But the Christian does not look for salvation legalistically, as if he could be
saved by his own works of obedience. He acknowledges that he is a transgressor of
the divine law, that in his own strength he is wholly incapable of fulfilling its
requirements, that he justly deserves to be under is condemnation, and surrenders
himself through faith in Christ to the grace and mercy of God. Then, by the grace
of God, his sinful past is forgiven and he receives divine power to walk in
newness of life. When a man is "under law," despite his best efforts sin continues
to have dominion over him, because the law cannot set him free from the power of
sin. Under grace, however, the struggle against sin is no longer a forlorn hope,
but a certain triumph.
The offer to be under grace, thus to have victory over sin, and the enabling power
for the attainment of every virtue, have been extended to every one of the
descendants of Adam. But many have blindly or stubbornly chosen to remain under
law. Even many who profess an earnest desire to be saved prefer to remain under
law, as if they could commend themselves to God and earn salvation by their own
obedience to the law. Such was the experience of the Jews, and such is the
experience of many professed Christians today, who in their pride of
self-righteousness are not willing to acknowledge their own helplessness and to
surrender themselves wholly to the mercy and transforming grace of God.
In no way is Paul here suggesting that the eternal Law of God has been abolished.
To be born again of the Holy Spirit means the creation of a clean heart and the
renewal of a right spirit, so that from henceforth the believer no longer serves
God from a sense of legal bondage and fear, but in a new spirit of freedom and
love.
> >God looks upon the heart, but before He comes everyone will
> >have made a conscious choice to either obey His commandments
> >or not to.
>
> Nope, wrong gospel, He will judge if one has made a conscious decision to
> believe on His risen Son Jesus Christ:
Sorry, but that is not what the Revelation of Jesus Christ teaches. "Here is the
patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the
faith of Jesus." Revelation 14:12 There is more to an individuals choice than
just believing, "Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils
also believe, and tremble." James 2:19
> "For we consider that a person is justified by faith apart from works of the
> law." (Rom 3:28)
I find it very interesting to hear a Roman Catholic preaching justification by
faith, especially when they are oftern heard quoting, James 2:17,18 "Even so
faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast
faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee
my faith by my works."
Gene G Gibbs
Gospel. Rather, you seem to enjoy controversy and holding others who differ
from you up to ridicule.
Is that the spirit of your Saviour?
Jarrod and Eva Williamson
I am not sure if you are responding to me or not, but it seems so.
Therefore, I will assume so and, if I err, please forgive me.
Gene G Gibbs wrote:
> It would appear that you do not seek truth and the advancement of the
> Gospel.
I do.
> Rather, you seem to enjoy controversy and holding others who differ
> from you up to ridicule.
No, I don't do that to people who merely differ with me. If, however, you
are speaking of people who differ from me in that they trivialize or even try to
justify the murder of innocent people who merely wanted freedom of conscience
and freedom of speech with reagrd to their right to worship (or not to worship)
God as they see fit ... then I have no problem bringing their comments and deeds
to the light of day. Do you see this as wrong?
> Is that the spirit of your Saviour?
Yes.
jarrod
p1medic
of truth is the will of God."
Walter Martin
Doug Gilliland
> It would appear that you do not seek truth and the
> advancement of the Gospel.
Jarrod certainly does.
> Rather, you seem to enjoy controversy and holding
> others who differ from you up to ridicule.
Jarrod has not had a pattern of this in the past.
As a Seventh Day Adventist, Jarrod is a strong advocate for freedom of
conscience in matters of religion. This comes historically from the
persecution that his religion has suffered at the hands of other groups.
>Is that the spirit of your Saviour?
Is Jesus a religious pluralist? Ultimately, no. Temporarily, it would seem
that would be the best way to achieve the result desired.
Phil 2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should
bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things
under the earth;
Phil 2:11 And that every tongue should confess that
Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Gene G Gibbs
reply to the woman at the well. He said to her "We know what we worship,
for salvation is of the Jews." He did not vilify her, he did not hold her
up to ridicule, he did not hound her.
We are not to tolerate the defaming of our Master. But neither are we to
bring shame to His name in holding up views which we have concocted,
thinking it is His will. Jarrod has his zeal. I admire that. But zeal
must be according to knowledge, and tempered by LOVE FOR GOD< which is
really LOVE FOR OUR FELLOWMEN. we win no one to the truths of our position
by hounding them to death. Let them reject us because we love too much, not
because our only concern is to show them how wrong they are, and to win an
argument.
Ellen White asks us to err on the side of mercy, if we have to make some
decision.
Jarrod and Eva Williamson
Gene G Gibbs wrote:
> Jesus' most direct statement on religion (maybe an overstatement) was his
> reply to the woman at the well. He said to her "We know what we worship,
> for salvation is of the Jews." He did not vilify her, he did not hold her
> up to ridicule, he did not hound her.
Niether did she make an evil statement. She, albeit being a samaritan,
believed that salvationwas for the jews and she was basically someone seeking
truth. I wonder what Jesus' response would have been had she trivialized or
justified the murder of innocent men, women, and children?
> We are not to tolerate the defaming of our Master. But neither are we to
> bring shame to His name in holding up views which we have concocted,
> thinking it is His will. Jarrod has his zeal. I admire that. But zeal
> must be according to knowledge, and tempered by LOVE FOR GOD< which is
> really LOVE FOR OUR FELLOWMEN.
Correct. My love is for my fellow man who wants to worship (or not worship)
God according to the dictates of their conscience and for their freedom of
speech, both of which are inalienable human rights not "granted" by the
Constitution of the United States, but *recognized* by the Constitution of the
United States and inalienable rights granted by God.
> we win no one to the truths of our position
> by hounding them to death.
The usage of the term "hounding them to death" is inappropriate, what
response should I have to Teresita's remark, of similar sentiments by Christian
Identity, etc.?
jarrod
Doug Gilliland
> Jesus' most direct statement on religion (maybe an
> overstatement) was his reply to the woman at the well. He
> said to her "We know what we worship, for salvation is of
> the Jews." He did not vilify her, he did not hold her
> up to ridicule, he did not hound her.
Amazing how they only tell half the story:
John 4:17b Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I
have no husband:
John 4:18 For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom
thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly.
Sounds like a bit of ridicule to me. How about an accurate quote of the
other part?
John 4:22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what
we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
Zero for two.