White outfit, wrong occasion, Cherie (Cherie Blair didn't wear black to meet the Pope)

It isn't about disagreeing with Havoc. Havoc is immaterial to the facts. Havoc is a label you use to avoid the facts for sake of argument here and now. Anyone here can go someplace online and talk to a Jewish Rabinnical professional and find out what Binding and loosing means. Chabad.org has 'ask the Rabbi' as many other places of the sort have. But, you already know what Binding and loosing means from it's Jewish origin up through the time of Christ (never changed). Because we've had that discussion and I was not the person that offered it. It was someone of Jewish background.. remember.

It isn't about sincerity. It's about the facts. Or perhaps demonizing Bush by calling him a liar repeatedly over Iraq is just a matter of democrat 'sincerity'? Not to compare you with them, just the situation. I really don't dislike you so don't take that impression. And there is no bombast here. It is simple argumentation. Simply making the case strong as possible so it cannot be misconstrued.

Off to work, I'll check in later tonight. Have a restful evening.

You aren't making a case, you are presenting a closing argument.

Don't tell me that I can go "ask the Rabbi." Present the facts. You are the one supposedly arguing something about binding and loosing. Present the argument.

SD

I have presented the argument. And it's not anything new to you. Angelo noted this to you long ago in this same format. This isn't a matter over which there is or can be any question. Binding and Loosing means the same thing to Judaism now that it meant in the time of the first temple. It references only a judicial capacity to interpret what a given law means and expand upon it if and only if it is deemed too vague. An example of this would be the commandment to rest on the sabbath. They felt it was too vague and went overboard in defining what constituted work so as to avoid breaking the commandment. That was and is Binding and loosing in it's proper context. They couldn't create new doctrine if they wanted to because it wan't their doctrine to begin with - it was God's law. See, Scripture isn't a bunch of ideas of men. This is stuff that came from God. They knew the length of their reach and though the still overstepped their bounds, they were always weary as a larger group of overstepping - crossing the line. Exceeding their office was to step on God's perogative. As for making a closing argument, I don't need to. It closes itself. The term means what it means. Under judaism it never meant what Rome has made it out to mean within Catholicism. Never. As for the matter of overstepping their authority on the Old covenant. That too is black and white. Judaism according to the Apostle Paul - no less - clearly had the authority over what is and was their canon of Scripture. No contest. If you wanted something added to Jewish canon, it had to be properly vetted and they were the only ones with the authority to do that. They rejected the apocryphals as scripture. No ifs, ands or buts. Utterly rejected them. Rome has contended and states in current literature that the Jews cut the apocryphals or "deuterocanonicals" from scripture at a council in Yevnah (Jamnia) in about AD 90. Problem is, it didn't happen. Here is a white paper on the subject that deals with it directly. In reviewing the actual records from the time, Canon was not fixed or altered at Yavneh (Jamnia). There isn't any question about it. One can say whatever one pleases; but, the historical facts tell the story plainly and simply - it didn't happen. And to be honest, it's an absurdity to imagine that it could. It is, more boldly, a slander against Judaism to suggest they would spit in God's eye in cutting out 'God's' word in order to spite some group of upstarts.. The deuterocanon (not proto, deutero) doesn't really add anything to Christianity. And the Gospel can be taught solely from the Old Testament scriptures. If the Jews were so incited by the "deuterocanonicals" as to remove them to spite the Christians, why is it that they didn't remove what would actually do damage to Christianity - the Gospel in the old testament.. It isn't that it just doesn't pass the sniff test, it's utterly absurd on it's face if you know scripture at all. The assertion on it's face is preposterous. And the evidence as it exists is contrary to Roman Catholic claim. Rome had no authority to tamper with the old testament. And the Jews set that canon, according to them, more than 200 years prior to this perported council that Rome cites. By the time Rome would state that the Jews hacked up their own religion to spite Christianity (without spiting Christianity as it were), the Judaic canon was already ancient. And that is noted in the Talmud. One need not believe me, one can go out and read these things for themselves. It isn't rocket science. On the other hand, as I noted prior, it is it's own case and closing argument. Two cornerstones of Catholicism - Binding and loosing, and canon.. both shot to pieces in 10 minutes. It's that easy.

fixed

I have presented the argument. And it's not anything new to you. Angelo noted this to you long ago in this same format. This isn't a matter over which there is or can be any question. Binding and Loosing means the same thing to Judaism now that it meant in the time of the first temple. It references only a judicial capacity to interpret what a given law means and expand upon it if and only if it is deemed too vague. An example of this would be the commandment to rest on the sabbath. They felt it was too vague and went overboard in defining what constituted work so as to avoid breaking the commandment. That was and is Binding and loosing in it's proper context. They couldn't create new doctrine if they wanted to because it wan't their doctrine to begin with - it was God's law. See, Scripture isn't a bunch of ideas of men. This is stuff that came from God. They knew the length of their reach and though the still overstepped their bounds, they were always weary as a larger group of overstepping - crossing the line. Exceeding their office was to step on God's perogative.

As for making a closing argument, I don't need to. It closes itself. The term means what it means. Under judaism it never meant what Rome has made it out to mean within Catholicism. Never.

As for the matter of overstepping their authority on the Old covenant. That too is black and white. Judaism according to the Apostle Paul - no less - clearly had the authority over what is and was their canon of Scripture. No contest. If you wanted something added to Jewish canon, it had to be properly vetted and they were the only ones with the authority to do that. They rejected the apocryphals as scripture. No ifs, ands or buts. Utterly rejected them.

Rome has contended and states in current literature that the Jews cut the apocryphals or "deuterocanonicals" from scripture at a council in Yevnah (Jamnia) in about AD 90. Problem is, it didn't happen. Here is a white paper on the subject that deals with it directly. In reviewing the actual records from the time, Canon was not fixed or altered at Yavneh (Jamnia). There isn't any question about it. One can say whatever one pleases; but, the historical facts tell the story plainly and simply - it didn't happen. And to be honest, it's an absurdity to imagine that it could. It is, more boldly, a slander against Judaism to suggest they would spit in God's eye in cutting out 'God's' word in order to spite some group of upstarts.. The deuterocanon (not proto, deutero) doesn't really add anything to Christianity. And the Gospel can be taught solely from the Old Testament scriptures. If the Jews were so incited by the "deuterocanonicals" as to remove them to spite the Christians, why is it that they didn't remove what would actually do damage to Christianity - the Gospel in the old testament.. It isn't that it just doesn't pass the sniff test, it's utterly absurd on it's face if you know scripture at all. The assertion on it's face is preposterous. And the evidence as it exists is contrary to Roman Catholic claim. Rome had no authority to tamper with the old testament. And the Jews set that canon, according to them, more than 200 years prior to this perported council that Rome cites. By the time Rome would state that the Jews hacked up their own religion to spite Christianity (without spiting Christianity as it were), the Judaic canon was already ancient. And that is noted in the Talmud.

One need not believe me, one can go out and read these things for themselves. It isn't rocket science. On the other hand, as I noted prior, it is it's own case and closing argument.

Two cornerstones of Catholicism - Binding and loosing, and canon.. both shot to pieces in 10 minutes. It's that easy.

Nice of you to note that it's "possible" I wasn't lying. Thank you. But, you missed a point. 3) I took part in and was affected by what others said in discussing the article.

When others offer things, sometimes what they offer can be as easily remembered as the article or more so because what they said is fresher in mind. Read the discussion. What I said played off it, not the article specifically. If I wanted to do a 'drive by' on you guys, Petronski demonstrates how much more easily that is to be done. I've got no use for it and it doesn't serve any purpose.

For all the opportunity I've had on this thread to demean Catholics specifically, I have not. Moreover, I've gone out of my way to aim my points, specifically, at doctrine and those who penned it. That, as it would happen, would completely exclude everyone on this thread from any possible direct or indirect attack. Further, I'm not selling anything. I'm defending Christianity. I don't aim anyone at a particular church or even a particular minister. I do that purposedly to avoid any hint of salesmanship. The only thing I will sell is Christianity to the extent someone is interested in it and seeks me out. Even then, I have no horse in the race, it is ultimately about their soul, not me. I'd like to see them in heaven; but, if they reject Christianity, it is their own boat they're rowing. I can pray for them; but, beyond that, I'll defend Christianity from perversion and attacks to the best of my ability. And I don't need to lie about Catholicism to do it. There is so much truthful and factual information out there that lying is literally a waste of time. Telling the truth is far more damaging than any lie one could make up. And in all honesty, it would take a pretty sick mind to make up what happens to be the truth in many cases. You and I specifically both know that to be the case without having to drone through specifics to no real end.

You mentioned your 'sincerity' at one point earlier. I am sincere about persuing and upholding the truth, not an ideology. If an ideology seems right but is factually in error, it isn't worth the paper it's penned on or the time it takes to consider it. If the Bible is not sacred, foundational and the rule to be led by, it isn't worth the time to read it or to consider a thing in it. And the Scriptures are not written for Intellectual giants.. they are written for everyone. The test for entering Heaven is not a PSAT and has zero to do with one's IQ. It has to do with one's heart and their decision to accept or reject Christ and the Holy spirit.

Christ was sacrificed once and sat down. He did so to break the bondage of repetitious sacrifices which could not save because they had to be repeated. His sacrifice did not get repeated and can never be repeated. His priesthood is exclusive and cannot be shared by definition. And as a testament to his action, there is no blood sacrifice in Christianity. A blood sacrifice, that of Christ, sealed Christianity into existance - created it as it were. If his sacrifice had to be repeated, then by scripture itself, it is worthless and the whole thing folds like a house of cards. That is why we harp so much on the Mass and the Eucharist. Because without thinking, you nullify everything you say by trying to repeat the sacrifice in the Mass. You literally expose yourselves as frauds by not understanding that Christ's sacrifice cannot be repeated. It is foundational, Central and unreformable. Your religion adopted a doctrine that generates multiple paradoxes substantially - not merely in appearance. But this one, is the paradox of paradoxes - nullifying everything you say blatently and publically every time you repeat it.. But enough for tonight, I'm tired and you've got a lot to digest as it is. Rest well.

I have presented the argument. And it's not anything new to you. Angelo noted this to you long ago in this same format. This isn't a matter over which there is or can be any question.

Yes, of course. Disagreement with Havoc is not possible. Get a grip.

Binding and Loosing means the same thing to Judaism now that it meant in the time of the first temple. It references only a judicial capacity to interpret what a given law means and expand upon it if and only if it is deemed too vague. An example of this would be the commandment to rest on the sabbath. They felt it was too vague and went overboard in defining what constituted work so as to avoid breaking the commandment. That was and is Binding and loosing in it's proper context.

You really don't understand Judaism either. That's not surprising. Are you familiar with the concept of keeping kosher? Do you understand the rabbinical rules and regulations and how they grew as an attempt to "build a wall" around what was required.

There's no Scriptural prohibition on eating dairy and meat in the same meal. Let alone having two seperate kitchens and sets of utensils. All of this comes from rabbinical binding and loosing.

They couldn't create new doctrine if they wanted to because it wan't their doctrine to begin with - it was God's law.

I see your source of confusion. You think the Catholic Church somehow creates new doctrine. That's wrong. So your entire argument is based upon a false premise, that God revealed "something" through Christ and the authors of Scripture and that the Church has "added new doctrine" to this.

A simple study of the concept of the development of doctrine would clear this up. We couldn't express our belief in the Trinity if we followed your rules, since you would consider that "new doctrine" since it isn't found explicated upon in Scripture.

It's an odd religion you follow which prevents us from thinking about what God has revealed to us.

As for the matter of overstepping their authority on the Old covenant. That too is black and white. Judaism according to the Apostle Paul - no less - clearly had the authority over what is and was their canon of Scripture. No contest. If you wanted something added to Jewish canon, it had to be properly vetted and they were the only ones with the authority to do that. They rejected the apocryphals as scripture. No ifs, ands or buts. Utterly rejected them.

Sure. That's why the Jews around the Empire made copies of the Septuagint including the deuteros. Cause they utterly rejected them.

That's probably also why the Old Testament quotes found in the New Testament Greek manuscripts are verbatim from the Septuagint.

You work really hard to overlook these important facts.

SD

Quick and dirty before going to work..

One, it isn't about agreeing or disagreeing with me. It's about dealing with the facts. They aren't *my* facts.

Mary ascending to heaven instead of dying isn't anywhere in scripture. You may say it's been revealed otherwise; but, that is kindof a not so subtle point to make with regard to binding and loosing. It also becomes impossible to make her a co-mediator and co-redeemer, etc in the context of scripture because scripture already prohibits the notion of anyone being a 'co' in that regard. etc...

Third and lastly, the Deuterocanonicals were not part of the original LXX from my studies. They were added in Alexandria later and never were considered Canon. So whether the LXX is quoted in the NT or not, while debatable, doesn't prove anything. The Deuteros were never scripture.

catching up