We Are In The Last Hour-- Heed The Trumpets

Originally posted by LittleBlackEagle

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by defcon5
There are really only two sources for information on these topics, recorded history and the privately maintained documentation of the church itself. Information that they keep locked away in the Vatican Archives, and they keep it locked away for a reason.

If it's "locked away in the Vatican Archives", how would you know that it exists?

The archives are open to accredited scholars, you know, and not just Catholic ones, and has been since the 1880s. Documents are kept secret for a period of time to protect privacy, but then historians are granted access. The proceedings of the Inquisitions, for example, have been made public in all their gory detail.

They've even had exhibitions of the stuff, for Pete's sakes.

sure they are open to "certain" scholars but i'm afraid an organization that has been murdering millions of people for several thousand years, will have a separate area for such records, wouldn't you think?

If that was the case, why would they have released the proceedings of the Inquisition? (Read the first link.) It doesn't show them in a very good light, and as a sovereign entity, they didn't have to show them to anyone if they chose not to.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by LittleBlackEagle

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by defcon5
There are really only two sources for information on these topics, recorded history and the privately maintained documentation of the church itself. Information that they keep locked away in the Vatican Archives, and they keep it locked away for a reason.

If it's "locked away in the Vatican Archives", how would you know that it exists?

The archives are open to accredited scholars, you know, and not just Catholic ones, and has been since the 1880s. Documents are kept secret for a period of time to protect privacy, but then historians are granted access. The proceedings of the Inquisitions, for example, have been made public in all their gory detail.

They've even had exhibitions of the stuff, for Pete's sakes.

sure they are open to "certain" scholars but i'm afraid an organization that has been murdering millions of people for several thousand years, will have a separate area for such records, wouldn't you think?

If that was the case, why would they have released the proceedings of the Inquisition? (Read the first link.) It doesn't show them in a very good light, and as a sovereign entity, they didn't have to show them to anyone if they chose not to.

certainly not everyone working at the vatican is a bad person, much of it is very compartmentalized because it has to be, cannot be giving everyone the vaticans dirt to walk around with you know. they show you what they feel like showing you, no different than any other shady organization with a huge budget and propaganda mill to serve them. the US government, along with many others, have learned a great deal from the vatican on how to lie to and control the masses.

after all who else has thousands of years of experience in lying, cheating, stealing, oppression, genocide, military coup's and so forth, other than the vatican?

reply to post by LittleBlackEagle


so then i should have no problem going to the vatican and requesting access? i want the library list. just the list will be fine for now. can i get that?

Originally posted by LittleBlackEagle

Originally posted by adjensen
If that was the case, why would they have released the proceedings of the Inquisition? (Read the first link.) It doesn't show them in a very good light, and as a sovereign entity, they didn't have to show them to anyone if they chose not to.

certainly not everyone working at the vatican is a bad person, much of it is very compartmentalized because it has to be, cannot be giving everyone the vaticans dirt to walk around with you know. they show you what they feel like showing you

But why would they want to release details of how people were tortured and killed during the Inquisition? How is that to the church's benefit? This wasn't an "Edward Snowden" leaks thing -- it was an institutional decision to make those materials public, when they could just as easily have said "no, it's none of your business" or "sorry, we burned them back in the 1700s."

It's wryly amusing that even their acts of disclosure are seen to be suspicious by ardent anti-Catholics. There's just no winning with some people, I guess, and it's a wonder that they even try.

Originally posted by filledcup
reply to post by LittleBlackEagle

 

so then i should have no problem going to the vatican and requesting access? i want the library list. just the list will be fine for now. can i get that?

Here are the rules and qualifications for entry: Access and Consultation. Basically, you need a college degree, a legitimate scholarly reason for wanting access, and a letter from a academic institution accrediting you.

They were in the process of digitalizing a lot of the archives and putting them up on the web for public access (there were a number of news articles about that several years ago) but I can't figure out where that site is now. I don't know if it was taken down, was never up in the first place, or they've just made it hard to navigate to. I'll post a link if I find one.

ETA: This might be what you're looking for -- it's in Italian, but I think it's an index of the documents, because there are a bunch of maps in there (all those "Carte"s -- as a geographer, I know what carte means, lol.)

Originally posted by adjensen
The archives are open to accredited scholars, you know, and not just Catholic ones, and has been since the 1880s.

Not all of it by any stretch.
Yes, you can go look at original manuscripts and such, if they consider you qualified to do so. Again though there is the rub, are they going to allow anyone who is going to potentially speak negatively of them the same access that they will allow an apologist?

reply to post by adjensen

I just don't understand why its not getting through to you that a single word on one side is being used to excuse whole libraries of twisted “cannon law” on the other side.

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by adjensen
The archives are open to accredited scholars, you know, and not just Catholic ones, and has been since the 1880s.

Not all of it by any stretch.
Yes, you can go look at original manuscripts and such, if they consider you qualified to do so. Again though there is the rub, are they going to allow anyone who is going to potentially speak negatively of them the same access that they will allow an apologist?

You would have to provide evidence that an otherwise eligible scholar was refused access on the basis of what they were planning to write, though the fact that non-Catholics have been given access, negative articles about past church behaviour have resulted, and access continues to be given, is an indication that your claim is invalid.

The qualifications are pretty low-bar -- I could probably get in by coming up with some topic and having my old graduate advisor write me a letter -- and would appear to be in place because of limited resources and the need to protect the documents. If you want to read the letter to the Pope regarding Henry VIII's divorce, they aren't going to give you a microfiche or photocopy, you get your hands on the real thing.

I just don't understand why its not getting through to you that a single word on one side is being used to excuse whole libraries of twisted “cannon law” on the other side.

Huh?

If you're still complaining about my issue with Luther adding a word to validate his personal theology by saying that the church has done worse, I will, once again, note that Luther changed scripture, while the church interpreted scripture, but left the text alone. I don't agree with the conclusions that those interpretations led to (the selling of indulgences) but I consider misreading scripture to be a lessor matter than changing it is.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by LittleBlackEagle

Originally posted by adjensen
If that was the case, why would they have released the proceedings of the Inquisition? (Read the first link.) It doesn't show them in a very good light, and as a sovereign entity, they didn't have to show them to anyone if they chose not to.

certainly not everyone working at the vatican is a bad person, much of it is very compartmentalized because it has to be, cannot be giving everyone the vaticans dirt to walk around with you know. they show you what they feel like showing you

But why would they want to release details of how people were tortured and killed during the Inquisition? How is that to the church's benefit? This wasn't an "Edward Snowden" leaks thing -- it was an institutional decision to make those materials public, when they could just as easily have said "no, it's none of your business" or "sorry, we burned them back in the 1700s."

It's wryly amusing that even their acts of disclosure are seen to be suspicious by ardent anti-Catholics. There's just no winning with some people, I guess, and it's a wonder that they even try.

i was raised catholic, i do not practice it but i also have nothing against people who choose to follow.
that being said i think the vatican is on the verge of great change and or collapse due to their thousands of years of doing bad things and buying, killing or covering them up.

this is why i believe they are doing this, perhaps to lesson the shock of all the information coming out these days and in the future.

Originally posted by LittleBlackEagle
this is why i believe they are doing this, perhaps to lesson the shock of all the information coming out these days and in the future.

Doing what? Opening up the archives? It's nothing new -- they've been open to academic researchers since the 1880s.

I like Pope Francis, and I hope that he is successful in reforming the Curia, a lot of which depends on him living long enough to clear out the troublemakers, though the recent arrest of the Vatican Bank guy is a hopeful sign that he's making progress.

reply to post by adjensen


Romans 3:28 could be blank and sola fide would still be affirmed by Ephesians 2:8-9.

reply to post by adjensen


Well, you must remember to that Luther was a huge antiSemite. No wonder he rejected the Hebrew-Christian epistles and Revelation which says that the Jews will be redeemed one day. (Which is odd because Romans 11 deals with this as well). You can trace Auschwitz back to Luther.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by adjensen

 

Romans 3:28 could be blank and sola fide would still be affirmed by Ephesians 2:8-9.

I agree, which raises the question as to why he did it. I have no idea, personally, apart from just wanting to reiterate what would become the core of his theology, in a passage that begged for it.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by adjensen

 

Romans 3:28 could be blank and sola fide would still be affirmed by Ephesians 2:8-9.

I agree, which raises the question as to why he did it. I have no idea, personally, apart from just wanting to reiterate what would become the core of his theology, in a passage that begged for it.

I'm not sure what manuscript Luther used. Was it from the Alexandrian or the Antioch stream? That could explain a lot.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by adjensen

 

Romans 3:28 could be blank and sola fide would still be affirmed by Ephesians 2:8-9.

I agree, which raises the question as to why he did it. I have no idea, personally, apart from just wanting to reiterate what would become the core of his theology, in a passage that begged for it.

I'm not sure what manuscript Luther used. Was it from the Alexandrian or the Antioch stream? That could explain a lot.

He used Erasmus' Textus Receptus, which was a compilation of Greek manuscripts and Erasmus' own Greek back-translation of the Vulgate where his six manuscripts were incomplete. That's a bit ironic, because Luther and Erasmus didn't exactly get along, particularly as time went by.

Originally posted by filledcup
reply to post by LittleBlackEagle

 

so then i should have no problem going to the vatican and requesting access? i want the library list. just the list will be fine for now. can i get that?

OFF TOPIC
I don't know exactly what you guys are arguing about but I'll tell you straight out there is a private library at the Vatican that is restricted to only a VERY few people and definitely not the public... so if you were trying to argue that fact.. then you are indeed correct.

and no, the private library isn't cataloged with the public library and therefore you would not be able to see what it contains... there are books in there that haven't been read in hundreds and hundreds of years, no one knows what's in half of them ... do you really think the Pope or anyone at the RCC spend that much time reading old books? The process they have to take to even open a book is painstaking trying to ensure that it doesn't get damaged... and the restoration process alone takes a long time.

With their restorative processes and the amount of books they have it'll take too long to read everything their libraries contain. In a sense I can understand that because you don't want to damage anything or then no one can read it..

ON TOPIC.

(51) His disciples said to him, "When will the repose of the dead come about, and when will the new world come?" He said to them, "What you look forward to has already come, but you do not recognize it."

In my opinion these "last hour" things are all following a script that was written ages ago that certain individuals throughout history have been aspiring to.

What I mean is .. things like the "Zionist Agenda" .. where there is a belief that if we can create the apocalypse then the Messiah / Jesus / God .. .. whoever you want really ... will come back to earth.

What I get from my quote above is that there is another focus of ours (as humanity) like we are being distracted somehow and because we are distracted we are being taken advantage of... What we're looking for is already here, but for some reason there are certain people who think we have to "go through hell to get to heaven" type of thing and they're "hellbent" on making that happen by any means necessary.. instead of just recognizing we already have what we're looking for.

(97) Jesus said, "The kingdom of the father is like a certain woman who was carrying a jar full of meal. While she was walking on the road, still some distance from home, the handle of the jar broke and the meal emptied out behind her on the road. She did not realize it; she had noticed no accident. When she reached her house, she set the jar down and found it empty."

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by adjensen

 

Well, you must remember to that Luther was a huge antiSemite. No wonder he rejected the Hebrew-Christian epistles and Revelation which says that the Jews will be redeemed one day. (Which is odd because Romans 11 deals with this as well). You can trace Auschwitz back to Luther.

Originally posted by Snsoc

Originally posted by WashMoreFeet

Originally posted by Snsoc
reply to post by WashMoreFeet

 

"He shall honor a GOD of fortresses." Not a goddess.

Nice try.

Excuse me, I have to go ask Mary to pray for you.

I'm sorry, but are you actually being serious?

So I guess God was unwittingly creating a loophole for goddess worship when He said, "You shall have no other gods before me."

I'm thinking not.

edit on 7/1/2013 by WashMoreFeet because: (no reason given)

I thought I made myself clear, but it's obvious that I didn't.

I'm not promoting goddess worship.

You made a claim that the antichrist is going to promote goddess worship, and then claimed that this was somehow Catholicism, because... um...Mary. Then there was a lot of nonsense about goddesses who you claimed were connected with towers and this somehow was connected to the "god of fortresses," as if a tower and a fortress were the same thing. But most ridiculous part was the fact that Bible verses that YOU quoted that said that the antichrist would honor a GOD, and you went ahead and said that this meant GODDESS, as if a man and a woman were the same sex.

You really should read your own stuff and think about it objectively before you post it. I'll do the same with mine.

I thought I made myself clear as well.
So, I guess apparently you were serious.

I suppose I really have nothing else to say, that wouldn't be an effort in vanity, to someone who is incapable of comprehending my original argument.

It's almost as if people are so inundated within their own biased and presumptuous perspective, that no amount of clear articulation and support of fact on a matter would serve any purpose to bring light to it, for those who willfully seek to stay in the dark.

reply to post by defcon5


Umm I blame Luther because of his writings and stance on the Jews the pulpits in Germany were SILENT.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by adjensen

 

Romans 3:28 could be blank and sola fide would still be affirmed by Ephesians 2:8-9.

I agree, which raises the question as to why he did it. I have no idea, personally, apart from just wanting to reiterate what would become the core of his theology, in a passage that begged for it.

I'm not sure what manuscript Luther used. Was it from the Alexandrian or the Antioch stream? That could explain a lot.

He used Erasmus' Textus Receptus, which was a compilation of Greek manuscripts and Erasmus' own Greek back-translation of the Vulgate where his six manuscripts were incomplete. That's a bit ironic, because Luther and Erasmus didn't exactly get along, particularly as time went by.

Well that's good that he used the TR. And explains why his version would differ in many areas from the Catholic Bibles which utilized Alexandrian MSS.