Posted on 04/03/2013 3:43:07 PM PDT by NYer
Q: Okay, so what is the Christian account of how revelation occurred?
As Elmer Fudd might say, “Vewy, vewy swowly.” Divine revelation didn’t happen in a blinding flash—such as God dropping the Summa Theologiae on top of a mountain and waiting for people to invent the Latin language so they could read it. (Though He could have given them magical spectacles that would translate it for them….) It seems that God preferred to slowly unfold His personality and His will for us through the course of tangled, messy human history. We might wonder why, and call up the divine customer service line to ask why in heck human nature arrived in the mail without the instructions. I don’t pretend to know what He was thinking here, but I find it aesthetically fitting that our knowledge of God evolved in much the way that animal species did, over a long time and by fits and starts, with sudden leaps whenever God saw fit, until finally the world was ready to receive the final product: in creation, man, in revelation, the Son of Man. God seems to prefer planting seeds to winding up robots.
So we start with traces of a primitive monotheism among some scattered peoples of the world—which might have been long-faded memories of what Adam told his children about the whole “apple incident,” combined with crude deductions that boil down to “Nothing comes from nothing.” But mankind pretty much wandered around with no more than that for quite some time, and this was when he employed the inductive method to discover the hemorrhoid god.
The first incident in Jewish-Christian scriptures that suggests God revealed Himself to us after that is the rather discouraging narrative of Noah. According to the story, the human race went so wrong so fast that God decided to backspace over most of it, leaving only a single righteous family, trapped on a stinky boat with way too many pets. When they landed, they had no more idea of what to do with themselves than the cast of Gilligan’s Island, so God gave them instructions: We call this the Covenant of Noah. The Jews believe that these are the only commandments God gave to the Gentiles—7 of them, instead of 613—and that the rest of us can please God just by keeping them. That’s the reason that Jews don’t generally try to make converts. (Who are we to run around making things harder for people? Feh!) The Jewish Talmud enumerates the 7 laws of Noah as follows:
Most of this sounds fairly obvious and commonsensical—though we might wonder why it was necessary to tell people to stop pulling off pieces of live animals and eating them. They must have gotten into some pretty bad habits while they were still stuck on that ark.
Q: That ark must have been the size of Alabama…
I know, I know.
Q. …to fit all those elephants, hippos, rhinos, tree sloths, polar bears, gorillas, lions and moose…
Okay, smart guy.
Q. …not to mention breeding pairs of more than 1,000,000 species of insects. Sure they’re mostly small, but those creepy-crawlies add up.
Spoken like a true-believing member of Campus Crusade for Cthulu, complete with a bad case of acne and involuntary celibacy. Maybe you should focus on Onan instead of Noah.
Look, there’s a reason why Catholics don’t read the bible in an exclusively literal sense, and haven’t since the time of Origen (+253). The Church looks at the books of scripture according to the genres in which they were written (history, allegory, wisdom, prophecy, and so on). And this story, clearly, was intended as allegory—which means that on top of some historical content (and there’s flotsam from flood-narratives in the basement of most ancient cultures) the writer piled up details to make a point. Unlike liberal Protestants, we don’t use this principle to explain away Jesus’ miracles and the moral law. Nor are we fundamentalists who take everything in the bible literally—except for “This is my body,” (Luke 22: 19) “Thou art Peter,” (Matthew 16: 18) and “No, your pastor can’t get divorced.” (Cleopatra 7: 14) The Church responded to biblical criticism with appropriate skepticism at first, and accepted the useful parts (like reading original languages and looking for ancient manuscripts), without throwing out the traditional mode of reading the bible in light of how the Church Fathers traditionally understood it.
Q. Why should the Church be the interpreter of the bible?
In the case of the New Testament, the Church had transcribed the books; shouldn’t we own the copyright to our own memoirs? When the list of accepted gospels and epistles was drawn up, there were more surplus candidates milling around than in downtown Manchester, New Hampshire, before a primary—some of them inspirational but probably inauthentic, like the Protoevangelium that tells the story of Mary’s childhood; others creepily gnostic, like the “Gospel of Thomas,” which has Jesus using His “superpowers” to wreak revenge on His schoolmates. (That gospel is always popular, since it shows Jesus doing exactly what each of us would really do in His place.) The decision on which books were divinely inspired was based largely on the evidence of the liturgy: which books had been used in churches for services in the most places for the longest. As I like to tell Jehovah’s Witnesses who come to my door: that bible you’re waving at me was codified by a council of Catholic bishops who prayed to Mary and the saints, baptized infants, and venerated the Eucharist. So you could say that as the original, earthly author and editor, the Church has a better claim of knowing how to read it than the reporters at National Geographic—who every Christmas or Easter discover some new and tantalizing scrap of papyrus containing gnostic sex magic tips or Judas’ “To-do” list.
In the case of the Old Testament, the Church draws heavily on how Jews traditionally read their own scriptures—but with one important and obvious difference. We are the descendants of the faction of Jews who accepted Christ as the Messiah and evangelized the gentiles, all the while considering themselves the “faithful remnant” who’d remained true to the faith of Abraham. So we see throughout the Old Testament foreshadowings of Christ, for instance in Abraham’s sacrifice, and Isaiah’s references to the “suffering servant.” The Jews who were skeptical of Jesus believed that they were heroically resisting a blasphemous false prophet who’d tempted them to idolatry. As the Church spread and gained political clout, and Christians began to shamefully mistreat the people from whom they’d gotten monotheism in the first place, there surely was genuine heroism entailed in standing firm. I often wonder how many Jews would be drawn to Jesus if they could separate Him from the sins committed against their great-grandparents in His name….
The version of the Old Testament that Catholics and Orthodox use is different from what Jews use today. Our version, based on the Septuagint translation into Greek, is somewhat longer, and includes some later documents that Jews accepted right up to the time Saint Paul converted—books that illustrate a lot of the mature developments in Judaism which led up to the coming of Christ. The very fact that Christian apostles were using these books may have led the rabbis to eventually reject them. (Since the biblical references to Purgatory can be found in these books, Martin Luther and the Anglicans also excluded them.) Ironically, the Book of Maccabees exists in Catholic bibles but not Jewish ones, and right up until Vatican II we had a Feast of the Maccabees—which means that you could call Chanukah a Catholic holiday. But don’t tell the judges in New York City, or they’ll pull all the menorahs out of the schools.
I've given you this link before, please take a few moments to look up a passage to get the real point rather than have a knee-jerk reaction to words ripped from their context and designed to give the false impression of the speaker being "nasty, heretical and evil". When I went to http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/search?q=did+luther+say+jesus+became+a+sinner, I find out:
Scholars know how difficult, if not impossible, it is to link the lapidary "table notations" of Luther's friends to Luther's own views. The editors of the American Edition speculate in a footnote that the "probable context is suggested in a sermon of 1536 (WA 41, 647) in which Luther asserted that Christ was reproached by the world as a glutton, a winebibber, and even an adulterer" (LW 54:154).
A more probable context is Luther's account of the atonement. One of his basic assertions is that our sins become Christ's and Christ's perfect righteousness becomes ours by faith. This idea of "the happy exchange" is found in many Luther texts. Given his central soteriological and christological concern, the theological irony in Schlagenhaufen's remembered notation becomes clearer: The "godly" Christ becomes or is made a sinner through his solidarity with sinners, even to the point of dying as a God-forsaken criminal on the cross. This is how Luther understood Paul's statement, "God made him who knew no sin to be sin for us so that in him we might become the righteousness of God" (2 Cor. 5:21).
So Christ "becomes" an adulterer, though he does not actually commit adultery with Mary or anyone else. He puts mercy front and center, and rejects the legalism which demanded that the woman caught in adultery be killed and the woman at the well and Mary Magdalene be shunned. The holy one becomes the sinner by putting himself into the situation of sinners, by loving and forgiving them, and ultimately by taking their sins on himself. For this gospel reason, Luther could also remark that God made Jesus "the worst sinner of the whole world," even though he also acknowledged that the sinless, righteous Christ actually committed no sin himself.
Please take a few extra moments next time to find out if what you are saying IS actually what Luther said and in what context he said it and why. That way, you will look less like a slanderer and more like a truth-seeker who is kind.
That aside, your suggestion that the fat, violent, antisemitic, vow breaking, drunk (I don't mean that in a bad way) is "Godly" is risible.
Now, if you were to write that Luther was insane and, thus, perhaps, not culpable for his manifest works of evil and his fetid heresies, then, maybe, you'd find in me a sympathetic ear.
Here is The Heresiarch in his,likely, mundane insanity.
Facts about Luther
March 3, 15 19, Luther addressed another letter to the Pope overflowing as usual with expressions of the greatest loyalty and most perfect submission. In it, amongst other things, he "calls God and man to witness that he has never wished and does not now desire to touch the Roman Church or the Pope's sacred authority; and that he acknowledges most explicitly that this Church rules over all and that nothing in heaven or in earth is superior to it, save only Jesus Christ our Lord." Only two weeks before he made this pronouncement calling God and man to witness his words, he wrote to his friend Scheurl I have often said that hitherto I have only been playing.Now at last we shall have to act seriously against the Roman authority and against Roman arrogance." (De Wette i, 230.)
This detestable hypocrisy is further confirmed when ten days after sending to the Pope the letter of March 3rd, he declared to his friend Spalatinus: 'I do not mind telling you, between ourselves, that I am not sure whether the Pope is Antichrist himself or only his apostle." (De Wette I, 239.)
A putative "Godly" man who is so manifestly emotionally labile is more accurately assessed as obviously insane; ok, I could grant you that he was intentionally "duplicitous" but that would mean he was culpable for his intellectual dishonesty and bearing of false witness.
Either way, as a Catholic writing about one who was Catholic and then fell away from the Faith (2 John 9 teaches that such a man hath not God), I will rely on Catholic sources rather than protestant sources who will try and explain away his many manifest works of evil.
But what I cited was not from Luther drunk but from Luther sosber:
But Christ took upon Himself all of our sin, and thus He died upon the cross. Therefore he had to become that which we are, namely a sinner, a murderer, evildoer, etc. . . . For insofar as he is a victim for the sins of the whole world, He is not now such a person as is innocent and without sin, is not God's Son in all glory, but a sinner, abandoned by God for a short time; Psalms 8:6.
[Detailed Explanation of the Epistle to the Galatians, part 2, fourth argument, Walch edition, vol. 8, p. 2165, nos. 321-324; cf. Commentary on Galatians, translatd by Erasmus Middleton, ed. J.P. Fallowes, London: 1850; reprinted by Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids, MI, 1979, 164-165]
Ping me when they address his printed words not his slurred words when he was drunk.
“Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophesy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood . (1 Timothy 4:14) “
“14 Do not neglect the gift that is in you, which was given to you by prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the eldership.” - that’s how the Bibles I read, reads. I have consistently defended Biblical eldership. Not priesthood! Except for our eternal High Priest, Jesus himself.
OK, there is no priesthood today. Jesus is our priest. He offers Himself. There is no further offering.
“Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.” Hebrews 2:17
The “priesthood” today is all of God’s people, as addressed in 1 Peter (hey, that’s Peter talking!)
“(1) Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,
To the pilgrims of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 2 elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ:”
(please note he is addressing all the church in all these areas, not some special priests offering some sort of sacrifice on behalf of the people, but all us pilgrims)
“you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ...”
He is talking to the early church, all of us, not a special group of men. We are all priests in that sense, but not in the RC sense, where Jesus is constantly being re-sacrificed.
“e Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops to rule;) the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood (Acts 20:28)
The Church therefore has people who rule over it. “
Yes, I know. They are elders, also properly translated as bishops. They rule together. There is no head man. There is no supreme bishop.
Your diatribes will do nothing do dissuade me from admiring the bravery and honesty of a man who loved the Lord Jesus Christ enough to speak out against the injustices and depravity of the church he had loved. It's curious that on this thread it was mentioned that of the 95 thesis Luther enjoined, that on nearly two-thirds of the points, the Catholic Church DID indeed correct themselves. That tells me that they acknowledge they needed correction and that the man was not the "insane heresiarch" haters insist he was.
As for "assigning malign motives" to you, one only needs to read your choices of out-of-context "quotes" and nasty adjectives to see that a motive of honest exploration of the truth was not the first incentive. Why you and others seem to think that smearing this one man will ever win over others to your cause is anyone's guess. You are preaching to your own choir of fellow haters. Your words have no effect on those who look to Christ instead of men to find the truth.
“I would that all men were even as myself [i.e. celibate] [...] He that is without a wife, is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God. [33] But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided. [34] And the unmarried woman and the virgin thinketh on the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she that is married thinketh on the things of the world, how she may please her husband. (1 Cor. 7:7, 32-34) “
Yes, this is Scripture, and it is true. However, there is more Scripture than this. Paul does say he wishes all were as he is (and he was married) -
“Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?” (1st Cor 9:5)
and the marriage bed is “honorable”
“Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge.” (Hebrews 13:4)
Paul says he has no commandment from the Lord about it
“Now concerning virgins: I have no commandment from the Lord; yet I give judgment as one whom the Lord in His mercy has made trustworthy.” (1st Cor 7:25)
So we take all of Scripture together as a whole, not pitting it against itself; and we learn that it is right and appropriate for some to remain single, and for others to marry; one is not more godly than the other. We might note that Mary, who is venerated extremely among R. Catholics, was a married woman!
As for the rest of what you wrote, I can read that he is your hero and so any truthful words about him that are factual you read as a smear; so. the fault lies with you hearing the quotes through your rhetorical hearing aid that is tuned to Luther Worship and the fault does not lie with those who merely quote your hero.
Your description as "haters" those who write the truth about the execrable Heresiarch, Luther, shows flirtation with the standards (such as they are) of the Rap Industry where one is either a hater or a lover but we Christians have a different standard and the violent, hateful, base, vulgar, lying, vow-breaking , drunk illustrated in his actions what sort of "godly" man he was.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo10/l10exdom.htm
'Testis eram vivus, moriens tua mors ero Papa."
"Living I was your pest; dying, O Pope, I shall be your death."
The merry guests, delighted with his humor, sat down, and Luther "continued to vent his wit in sarcasms against his natural enemies, the pope, the emperor, the monks, and also the devil, whom he did not forget, to the delight of the frivolous and bibulous company." As the boisterous and irreverent crowd rose from the table, a report of the death of Paul. reached them. Luther, delighted at the news, cried out, exultingly, 'This is the fourth Pope I have buried: I shall bury many more of them." He that dwelleth in heaven, however, laughed at the prediction. Luther was taken suddenly ill and in spite of all the attention of his assembled guests in a few hours he was called to the judgment seat of God to render an account of his long and bitter opposition to the Church and its legitimate representative.
Living and dying as a hate-filled, vulgar, fat, violent, drunk may be "godly" to some, but I would think that even a protestant would be a mite embarrassed upon learning the facts about Luther; prolly not though
Luther before he formally separated himself from obedience to Rome and when he seemed to abhor such a course, declared "I never approved of a schism, nor will I approve of it for all eternity." In a letter written by him in 1519 to the then reigning Pontiff Leo X. and quoted in the History of the Reformation by that partisan Merle D'Aubigne, he says, "That the Roman Church is more honored by God than all others is not to be doubted. St. Peter and St. Paul, forty-six popes, some hundreds of thousands of martyrs, have laid down their lives in its communion, having overcome hell and the world ;so that the eyes of God rest on the Roman Church with special favor. Though nowadays everything is in a wretched state, it is no ground for separating from the Church. On the contrary, the worse things are going, the more should we hold close to her, for it is not by separating from the Church we can make her better. We must not separate from God on account of any work of the devil, nor cease to have fellowship with the children of God who are still abiding in the pale of Rome on account of the multitude of the ungodly. There is no sin, no amount of evil, which should be permitted to dissolve the bond of charity or break the bond of unity of the body. For love can do all things and nothing is difficult to those who are united."
Good! Then, according to you and others of your ilk here, you must accept everything he said! After all, if one quotes Augustine to support a specific doctrine and he is enjoined to then receive everything else the guy wrote, isn't it only fair to expect the same from y'all?
But, once again, we find dishonesty in any attempts to smear Luther and, by proximity, every Non-Catholic Christian as well. From the site http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/search?q=I+never+approved+of+a+schism%2C+nor+will+I+approve+of+it+for+all+eternity.%22 we learn the TRUTH about this:
The Facts About Luther. Written by Msgr. Patrick O’Hare in 1916 and republished by TAN Books (www.tanbooks.com) in 1987. Even though this book is a bit polemic, it is nevertheless, an important read, telling the whole story of Luther that Protestant authors and historians have failed to tell. This book is a sobering, eye-opening, record-straightening analysis of the life, thought, and work of Martin Luther.
A few years back, O'Hare's book was popular with Roman Catholic Internet apologists. I had at least a few of Steve Ray's fans cite this book to me in dialog (it's no wonder, since Ray openly recommends it). It's bad enough that Ray would recommend such a pitiful source, but he makes things worse by what he goes on to say:
How many know that Luther wrote the following to Pope Leo X a year after posting his 95 Thesis? Luther wrote, “I never approved of a schism, nor will I approve of it for all eternity. . . . That the Roman Church is more honored by God than all others is not to be doubted. . . . Though nowadays everything is in a wretched state, it is no ground for separating from the Church. On the contrary, the worse things are going, the more should we hold close to her, for it is not by separating from the Church that we can make her better. . . . There is no sin, no amount of evil, which should be permitted to dissolve the bond of charity or break the bond of unity of the body.”
Steve Ray found this quote so interesting he went on to cite it in his books Crossing the Tiber and Upon This Rock. In both instances he cites The Facts About Luther as the source and also mentions the quote comes from Luther's letter to Pope Leo X, January 6, 1519.
I debunked this reference back in 2008: Luther's Imaginary Letter to Pope Leo X, January 6, 1519. The quote is not at all from any such letter (even if it were from Luther's January 6, 1519 letter, that letter was never sent). Father O'Hare used two quotes from two different sources, neither of which were any sort of letter to Pope Leo X (the details are here). As bad as that is, Mr. Ray mis-cited O'Hare as well. O'Hare first quotes Luther saying "I never approved of a schism, nor will I approve of it for all eternity", and then mentions the alleged letter.
To help all who are anxious to come to a knowledge of the truth as it is in Christ Jesus and His Church, it may be well to recall that Luther before he formally separated himself from obedience to Rome and when he seemed to abhor such a course, declared "I never approved of a schism, nor will I approve of it for all eternity." In a letter written by him in 1519 to the then reigning Pontiff Leo X. and quoted in the History of the Reformation by that partisan Merle D'Aubigne, he says, "That the Roman Church is more honored by God than all others is not to be doubted. St. Peter and St. Paul, forty-six popes, some hundreds of thousands of martyrs, have laid down their lives in its communion, having overcome hell and the world; so that the eyes of God rest on the Roman Church with special favor. Though nowadays everything is in a wretched state, it is no ground for separating from the Church. On the contrary, the worse things are going, the more should we hold close to her, for it is not by separating from the Church we can make her better. ,We must not separate from God on account of any work of the devil, nor cease to have fellowship with the children of God who are still abiding in the pale of Rome on account of the multitude of the ungodly. There is no sin, no amount of evil, which should be permitted to dissolve the bond of charity or break the bond of unity of the body. For love can do all things and nothing is difficult to those who are united." (See De Wette, I, 233 ff.) [source].
O'Hare was not one for primary sources. In this instance, he says the alleged letter to Pope Leo can be found "quoted in the History of the Reformation by that partisan Merle D'Aubigne." That can be found here (see page 241). D'Aubigne does not say the statement is from a letter to the Pope. O'Hare mis-cited D'Aubigne.
Above in black bold face I highlighted one particular sentence from O'Hare's citation of Luther: "I never approved of a schism, nor will I approve of it for all eternity." O'Hare doesn't document this sentence, so if one isn't careful, one may simply assume it's from the same source O'Hare goes on to quote. It is not. It is probably from Luther's debate with John Eck. Elsewhere D'Aubigne cites Luther stating, “I do not like and I never shall like a schism. Since on their own authority the Bohemians have separated from our unity, they have done wrong, even if the Divine right had pronounced in favor of their doctrines; for the supreme Divine right is charity and oneness of mind” (p. 258). McGiffert translates the same phrase as "Never have I taken pleasure in any schism whatsoever, nor will I to the end of time." I find it highly improbable that Father O'Hare translated this statement from the Latin primary source. O'Hare relied heavily on secondary sources, so eventually the source he used will surface.
As to the content of the quote itself, Steve Ray is ignoring what Boehmer calls "the conventional, curialistic style" and the accepted means of dialog with Rome, as well the politics of the Reformation.
This isn't the first time I've covered Mr. Ray's references to Luther. Probably the oddest thing Ray was doing in regards to Luther was selling Luther's Works on his website, well, until I mentioned it.
To be deep in history for some Roman Catholic apologists isn't really all that deep. I can almost understand somebody with a website posting unverified information, but shouldn't publishing information in a book be held to a higher standard? If Roman Catholic apologists recommend incompetent secondary sources, I'll have no shortage of blogging material.
I may need to borrow some of your protective clothing and devices if I stay on this thread much longer! ;o)
I do not hate Luther. He did me no harm and is dead and by now judged.
Watching the dialog in this forum it is interesting to observe who is loved because of who they loved and who is loved because of who they hated. It is very telling of the presence of the Holy Spirit in both the historical characters and ourselves.
Peace be with you
The council at Nicea was obviously Catholic and the intent and meaning was included. Catholics love to get someone to say they believe in those words because they think it would include the same meaning as the Catholics have. Satan used those word tricks with Eve. We’ve been warned about those deceitful practices. Don’t try to use them on me.
Mary did have other children and was a sinful albeit obedient person as all other humans are and have been since Adam and Eve. The universal body of Christ (the universal church) does not mean the RCC.
That is what would be called a difference without a distinction. At the time the Creed was developed there was only one universal (Catholic) church with no need to differentiate it from any of the schisms or heresies. It is only non-Christians and the minority of Christians, those not part of the Catholic Church, who object.
Peace be with you
“sinful albeit obedient person as all other humans are and have been since Adam and Eve.”
Oh. Who taught you this? I am curious why you believe it.
Which still would give you Eastern Orthodoxy, not Protestantism. However, the clearly seen from Scripture primacy of Peter suggests that the original model had a "supreme" bishop. Consider Luke 22:32, as well as, of course, Matthew 16:16ff. I agree that room for dispute exists as to what prerogatives exactly the first popes had.
St. Paul also points out that unmarried people are best suited for having undivided attention to God (1 Cor. 32-34, already cited) so your statement is scripturally incorrect. No one said that married state is not honorable, merely not as well suited for a priestly vocation.
Where from the scripture do you take it that St. Paul was married? The reference in 1 Cor. 7 is clearly to his unmarried state, albeit one can conjecture that he, perhaps, was a widower.
eldership
Your translations are biased. The original says "του πρεσβυτεριου", "of the presbytery". The word "priest" in English derives from "presbyter". That your Protestant translations mangle the meaning is no proof of what the original means. Translate as you will, there is a status conferred by imposition of hands, i.e. sacramentally ans there is plenty of scriptural evidence (I cited some, there is more) that these "presbyters" were functioning as priests.
OK, there is no priesthood today
Cuz you say so? I count many priests as my friends.
Hebrews 2:17
Of course, but that does not mean a mortal priest cannot serve in the person of Christ the High Priest. You yourself cite 1 Peter 2:5 which positively calls a lot of people priests.
all of us, not a special group of men
In 1 Peter 2:5, indeed St. Peter describes the priesthood of all Catholic men, who have priestly duties toward their households, but as noted from scripture above, that does not mean there is not sacramental ministerial priesthood as well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.