Posted on 01/14/2014 12:05:53 PM PST by matthewrobertolson
**It took no effort for Abraham to have faith.**
Let’s look at some instances where Jesus Christ acknowledged faith:
Mark 3:5 “When Jesus SAW their faith..” (the men that lowered the palsied man down through the roof).
Jarius believed that he HAD to ask Jesus to lay his hands on his daughter in order for her to be healed and live. Jesus saw the man’s faith, or he wouldn’t have bothered to go to his house and perform the miracle.
The woman with the issue of blood believed that she HAD to make physical contact with Jesus. Jesus FELT her faith, saying “Who touched me?”
Peter showed faith by walking on the water....even though he wavered and started to sink, and the Lord said to him, “O ye of little faith..”.....the faith that Peter showed is still impressive to me.
By the testamony of the woman from Canaan, who wouldn’t take no for an answer, saying that the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from the master’s table, Jesus replied: “For this saying go thy way; the devil is gone out of thy daughter”. Mark 7:29
The centurian heard of Jesus, sent elders of the Jews with his request to heal his servant. His testamony, of speaking the word only, so impressed the Lord that he responded to the people around him: “I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel”.
This disecting of faith to the point that it applies to the mind or heart in full effect, without a physical reaction, doesn’t match the Lord’s faith recognition in the above cases.
**Because Abraham had faith, he made the effort.**
If he hadn’t made the effort, his faith would have been vain.
John 11:25-26 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?”
Think of it this way...If Abraham never moved he would not have faith. It would be distrust or disbelief. He moved because he believed God. He believed God’s promise to him because God called him.
Who is the author of Abraham’s faith and movements?
|
See comment #5. Like I said, "I put that there in order to make what I think is an interesting juxtaposition." No you did not, as instead you listed Revelation 16:6 as support for “the Eucharist, a gift from God,” when in reality this “gift” is that of forcing enemies to drink blood (by turning water into it) as punishment. And not by transubstantiation either, while nowhere in Scripture do we see any positive affirmation of eating human flesh or blood, especially to gain spiritual life, in interpreting the texts which Catholics invoke for so doing. And as for comment #5, that simply examples more examples of RC wresting of Scripture, and provides an opportunity to expose it, in addition to what has already been posted. Roman Catholics condemn private interpretation (based on an interpretation of 2Pt. 1:20, but which is not what it is not what it refers to) when it exposes Rome, but quite freely engage in it themselves, often wresting Scripture in order to support traditions of men. Here in post 5, you the author, “Matthew Olson” or whoever you lifted this from without the required attribution, engages in such from the book of Revelation. There is a reason why cults major on this book, which is due to its highly interpretive nature, and what you have done is simply use things from it in order to contrive support for the Mass. But which examples are not unique to the Mass, , nor do they validate it, for what purpose such things serve is the issue. And in examining the Roman Catholic use of them it is made manifest that (even) Revelation fails to support what you seek to Scripturally substantiate (even though scriptural substantiation is not your basis for assurance of truth.) Instead, this attempt ends up serving as yet another scriptural argument against the legitimacy of Rome. Note that the original did not contain actual Scripture verses, only references, but which I usually added, or pertinent parts threof , in brackets. Another the preliminary note is that because of my stiff fingers I am using text to speech software to write this, so in case you see any really strange grammar, its , because it misunderstood me and I missed it. 27 refutations of a Catholic's contrivances of Scripture, by God's grace
Protestants also also engage in Sunday worship. It is not meeting on Sunday that makes such Scriptural but what they meet for and what they do. Which for RCs is a amalgam of Christianity, traditions so men and paganism. In Scripture the NT church meeting on the first day was not that of a priest dispensing bread as human flesh in order to gain life from a person, which is actually something some forms of endocannibalism have engaged in (gaining attributes of a deceased relative they physically ate of), and nowhere in the Bible is spiritual life gained by physically eating. Moreover, nowhere in the NT church is a pastor (not "priest") even described as dispensing literal bread made real flesh to anyone, but “breaking bread” in the Lord's supper — in its only manifest description, and which is interpretive of the Last Supper — is that which is to illustrate remembrance of Christ death by a communal meal “feast of charity,” (Jude. 1:2) manifesting the compassionate recognition each other as being part of the body of Christ for whom He shed His sinless blood. (See here on 1 Cor. 11, cf. Acts 20:28.) And rather than a 10 min sermonette when the church came together to break bread on the first day, Paul was long preaching. (Acts 20:7ff)
Once again this is contrary to Rome, for Christ is the ONLY pastor the Holy Spirit titles "priest" (hiereus) in the NT church (more in this under #4), while all believers constitute the only priesthood of the NT church, as Peter writes, (1Pt. 2:5,9; Rv. 1:6; 20:5) as all engage in offering spiritual sacrifices, (Rm. 12:2; Heb. 13:15) And Christ is the ONLY high priest Christians look to, for by Him they have "boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus," (Hebrews 10:19) to meet with God directly, not via a saintly secretary as Catholicism promotes.
This refers to the Temple of God in heaven, which is the anti-type of the Hebrew Tabernacle, (Heb. 9:24) while the altar that the New Testament eats at is essentially spiritual, as the sacrifices which the priesthood of the New Testament church are. Which Peter again refers to. (1Pt. 2:5) Nowhere is any manner of sacrifice restricted to the New Testament pastorate. As far as the physical structure, evangelical type churches among others also typically use an altar for the Lord's supper, and what is done is what matters. An altar in the NT was a table in which the communal meal took place, in which eating the bread and wine that represented the Lord's broken sacrificial body and shed blood took place. Just as the water did that David said was blood of his men, and thus poured it out on the ground, as consuming human blood was forbidden. (2Sam. 23:15-17; Dt. 15:23) More
This is simply etymological extrapolation based on imposed functional equivalence, assigning to pastors a unique sacrificial function which they nowhere are given, and thus taking presbuteros which means senior/elder, to have the same as meaning as hiereus, which is never used by the Holy Spirit for NT pastors, but which are part of the general priesthood of all believers, as said, and shown. See more here. And as i am quite sure Rome does not have any official position on who the 24 elders are, and the NAB notes offers that they represent the twelve tribes of Israel and the twelve apostles, then Olson's private interpretation that seems to make these into Roman Catholic priests carries less weight than that. And in any case, as the NT has no separate class of priests, much less Roman Catholic ones, then they are not represented by what is in Heaven.
This attempt is another absurdity, as it refers to Jews out of the twelve house of Israel, as a result of God reversing the curse of the blindness, as foretold in Romans 11, and which end time repentance the CCC (674) even affirms. It cannot refer to the Catholic priesthood, only because the only one is that of all believers, but because many priests were defiled with women before they became priests, and in fact a few are actually married, not simply Roman Catholic, but also many of the Byzantine rite. In addition, the fact is that the New Testament makes it clear that the normative state of New Testament pastors is that they are married. Not only were the eleven apostles married, and those that were not yet retained the right to be married, (1Cor. 9:4) but the stipulated NT requirements for pastors is that they, “must be blameless, the husband of one wife...One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity..” (1Tim. 3:4) Thus, even if 1Tim. 3 (cf. Titus 1) does not strictly require marriage for all pastors, it certainly was nominative, while the same celibate apostle who wrote this also stated that celibacy was a gift. (1Cor. 7:7) Therefore, to require celibacy even as normative for the pastorate, presumes the majority have this gift, which is highly presumptuous — and asking for trouble.
This is representative of the churches , in the second instance that of a church which is in danger of being a castaway. Which the church of Rome overall is, though it maintains it's outward form, as do many institutionalize Protestant churches. However, as with other things, this does not require that we have physical representations in the church, such as candles, incense, etc. though they are not forbidden, and can be fitting. Yet in Rome such appeal to the senses are much used to take the place of spiritual reality.
This is another misappropriation of a Scriptural aspect of faith, that doing “works meet for repentance,” (Acts 26:20) which manifests faith in the Lord Jesus who loves righteousness, and hates iniquity. (Heb. 1:9). However, in the institutionalization of Rome this is turned into required confession to its unScriptural priesthood, most themselves being unregenerate, and to whom are ascribed powers they do not have. In the words of Alphonsus Ligouri, whose writings were declared free from anything meriting censure by Pope Gregory XVL (1839) in the bull of his canonization, With regard to the mystic body of Christ, that is, all the faithful, the priest has the power of the keys, or the power of delivering sinners from hell, of making them worthy of paradise, and of changing them from the slaves of Satan into the children of God. And God himself is obliged to abide by the judgment of his priests, and either not to pardon or to pardon, according as they refuse or give absolution, provided the penitent is capable of it. " Such is," says St. Maximus of Turin, " this judiciary power ascribed to Peter that its decision carries with it the decision of God." 2 The sentence of the priest precedes, and God subscribes to it. .” – Dignity and Duties of the Priest, St. Alphonsus Ligouri, Vol. 12, p. 2 The supreme power of the priestly office is the power of consecrating...Indeed, it is equal to that of Jesus Christ...The priest speaks and lo! Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows his head in humble obedience to the priest's command...For the priest is and should be another Christ. — O'Brien, The Faith of Millions, 255-256. What the power of binding and loosing is manifest to be in the New Testament is that of exercising discipline such as in 1 Corinthians 5, and special cases of intercession such as James chapter 5. Nowhere do we see disciples coming to NT pastors to have sins forgiven. And when a New Testament pastor did tell his soul he was guilty, he told the man himself to pray to God that perhaps the thought of his heart would be forgiven him. Upon which the man asked for intercessory prayer, which is scriptural, but there is nothing there about Peter granting absolution. (Acts 8:22-24) What Catholicism has done with its sacrament of confession is take the aspect of binding and loosing out of its Biblical context. In the Old Testament the judges would adjudicate hard cases, and the decision was to be accepted, and thus they were bound in their guilt or loosed from it. (Dt. 17) And which applies to Matthew 18.15-19. Men such as the apostles had more veracity and power than they, as we see in acts chapter 5 with two dead people. However, this does not constitute Roman Catholic confession in which the people regularly have to come to pastors to find forgiveness of sins. Confession itself is good and right, the only confession commanded in Scripture, is that which is exhorted in James 5, which is a general expectation to confess in this one to another, not simply to pastors. “Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.” (James 5:16) And they are promised, If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. (1 John 1:9)
Here we see not simply incense but harps, and if we want to use such as a justification for that a church building may contain we can add more things, but which are not necessarily unique to Rome, and thus the issue remains what are they used for. The offering of incense simply represents prayer, evidently after the OT memorial sense, (Lv. 2:2,15,16; 24:7; Num. 5:15) but which does not support prayer to departed saints with angels serving as a postal service and to whom souls pray to.
I never saw a book used in the Roman Catholic Mass with 7 seals, that only the Lamb of God could open, and not until the time of Tribulation. As for the Bible, once again reading that in service is not unique to Rome, and it is far from a thorough reading, even going daily to Mass would be needed to get just 12.7% of the Bible over the two year reading cycle. Nor has Rome historically opened it up for all the masses to read, as instead it basically hindered this for a long time until it could not, and affords it a second place states at best. Meanwhile it is evangelicals who engage in the most personal reading.
This is simply another contrived attempt to wrest support for the Catholic Eucharistic out of Scripture. This verse is not even speaking of a contemporary reward, but like the other “to him that overcometh” rewards (the tree of life; not being hurt of the second death; power over the nations; go no more out of the temple; write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God; to sit with me in my throne; inherit all things), and commemorating the Lord's death only is top take place until He comes. In addition, as said, nowhere are believers told to take part in the Lord's supper to gain life in themselves or have eternal life (as Roman Catholic interpret Jn. 6:53,54), as instead this comes by believing the gospel, by which they are washed, sanctified, and justified being made alive by the Holy Spirit. (1Cor. 6:11; cf. Acts 15:8,9) And then they “live by” Jesus by following Him. For Christ taught in Jn. 6:57, “As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me,” which was not by eating the flesh of His Father, but by living according to His word, (Mt. 4:4) and thus to do His will by the Lord's “meat,” (Jn. 4:34) More on the Catholic Eucharistic versus the Lord supper here.
If Roman Catholics wants to make the cup they drink to be golden vials full of the wrath of God, then they can, and if they trust in that to give them eternal life than it essentially is. Otherwise this is another example of a careless Catholic's abuse of Scripture, as indeed it is used as servant by such to support Rome with, rather than being their master for determining Truth .
More contrivance by a Roman Catholic exercising his own private interpretation, but only which gives it a bad name. You might use this to support wearing a Jesus is Lord baseball cap, but it is not speaking of making the sign of the cross, which was another post-apostolic invention.
A wonderful extollation of praise, but which is more evangelical than Roman Catholic, as they give more appellations to Mary and offer up equal or more praise to here, at least on the level of laity. In contrast, the Reformed cry is “Soli Deo gloria.”
Again, nothing unique to Rome here, and such praise is far more evident among Protestants, and whom i believe is safe to say, have written the most amount of classic hymns since the Reformation. For when you really are born again, you have someone and something to really sing about. Of course, as the salt loses its savor in appealing to the flesh, we also have the hard rockish aberration in which the words are in subjugation to the music, and or songs that are so lacking in depth that inane.
Somehow this also is supposed to validate the Mass, but which is hardly unique to the the Mass, and which cannot validate it in the light of its erroneous misconstruance of of the Lord's supper, and basically the sum total of the congregational meeting. The Lord's supper is only manifestly described in 1 Corinthians, and in which, as said, the focus is not upon the elements eaten as the body, but upon the corporate body of Christ and how they would to show their remembrance of the Lord's death by their care for each other. In the two other descriptions of the church gathering that have much detail, we see that preaching had the preeminence in Acts 20:7ff, and full and non-liturgical congregational participation in 1 Corinthians 14, has led the Holy Spirit with basic rules of order. “For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.” (1 Corinthians 14:31)
Nothing unique to Rome here, and the supremely classic hymn, “Holy, Holy, Holy” was not even written or put to music by a Catholic but by Anglicans, which deny the Catholic Real Presence (though they apparently responsible for the wide use of the name). Same as #12.
Also nothing unique to Rome, except by her erroneous Eucharistic theology, but, which this does not refer to or validate. The death of Christ is efficacious to all who believe the gospel, and the moment they do so, and regeneration and the giving of eternal life does not await participation and the Lord's supper, nor does it come by physically eating anything. That is simply gospel truth.
This is a classic Catholic contruance of Scripture in seeking to make it conform to their doctrine, but speaks of Israel, for in Joseph’s dream, (Gn 37:9-11) “the sun and the moon and the eleven stars made obeisance to me.” The sun represented Jacob (Israel) and the moon Rachel, of which Jacob said, “Shall I and thy mother and thy brethren indeed come to bow down ourselves to thee to the earth?” The 12 stars on the woman’s head represents the 12 patriarchs, “and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.” (Rm. 9:5) And which was and will be persecuted, but God keeps her through it. This view is more fully articulated here: http://www.eternal-productions.org/PDFS/Revelation12Woman.pdfand Moreover, Rome does not even provide an official interpretation for this that i know of, and the sanctioned notes of the RC NAB not back up Olson on his, but right from the Vatican web site it states, The woman adorned with the sun, the moon, and the stars (images taken from ⇒ Genesis 37:9-10) symbolizes God's people in the Old and the New Testament. The Israel of old gave birth to the Messiah (⇒ Rev 12:5) and then became the new Israel, the church, which suffers persecution by the dragon (⇒ Rev 12:6, ⇒ 13-17); cf ⇒ Isaiah 50:1; ⇒ 66:7; ⇒ Jeremiah 50:12. Nor can Olson turn to the early “fathers” on this. “The modern Mariologists like to turn to [Revelation 12], seeing in it an allegory of the Virgin Mary. But whatever can be thought of their interpretation, it is a fact that none of the early interpreters before the end of the fourth century see the Virgin Mary in the woman of the Revelation. They all understand her to be the Church and so they continue to make most of their interpretations in the following centuries. Ticonius is the first to suggest the Marian interpretation” [Giovanni Miegge, The Virgin Mary (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1955, pp.101-102)]. — http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/02/revelation-12.html Roman Catholic theologian Father Hubert J. Richards agrees that the Revelation 12 woman refers to Israel. In his book, “What The Spirit Says to the Churches: A Key to the Apocalypse of John,” (Nihil obstat and Imprimatur), Richards writes: The vision proper, then, begins with the figure of a Woman clothed with the sun and the stars. We think naturally enough of our Lady, to whom this description has traditionally been applied. After all, we say, of whom else could John be thinking when he speaks of the mother of the Messiah? However it is clear from the rest of the chapter that this interpretation will stand only if the verse is isolated: what follows has very little relevance to our Lady. Nor is it any honor to Mary to apply any and every text to her without thought.
See #8 above. RCs attempt to extrapolate PTDS out of this, but it simply is no there. No one else but God is ever addressed in prayers to Heaven, despite over a hundred being in the Bible — except by pagans (Jer. 44) — and these prayers here are those which God heard, but are apparently being offered here in a memorial sense, (Lv. 2:2,15,16; 24:7; Num. 5:15) signifying remembrance, and in the latter case likely those which were a cry for judgment in 6:9,10, as this is the time when judgment will come. The cry of those in 6:9 is not that of departed saints interceding and response to prayers address to them from earth, but simply a query from them as to when avenging judgment shall come.
Once again there is nothing here that validates prayers to either saints or angels, as all this teaches is that Michael fights the Lords battles, and even in the Old Testament with all its prayers, there is never a prayer addressed to to any angel in heaven. Zero.
See #12. So a responsorial verse or song to be chanted or sung is unique to Rome and validates its Mass? The answer to both rhetorical questions is negative.
Ditto. See #9. And much of what Scripture is read in the Mass is repetitive.
See #2 and #4. Once again is Scripture texts devote to validate Rome actually refutes her, for is said, the only priesthood in the New Testament is that of the general priesthood of all believers, (1Pt. 2:5,9) which is what this attests to. Absolutely nowhere does the Holy Spirit give the title “priest “(hiereus) to pastors in the New Testament church, and which does not mean the same as either presbuteros (elders) or episkopos (overseers).
And which refers to the body of Christ to which He is married, (Eph. 5:25-32) the “household of faith.” (Gal. 6:10) And which modern Rome even includes properly baptized Prots as being in. But the body of Christ only consist of believers who have come to God as souls damned for their works - not saved because of them - and destitute of any means or merit whereby they may escape their just and eternal punishment in Hell Fire and gain eternal life with God. And who have cast their whole-hearted faith upon the mercy of God in Christ, trusting the risen Lord Jesus to save them by His sinless shed blood. (Rm. 3:9 - 5:1) Whose faith is thus counted as righteousness, but it is a faith that will follow Him. Which leaves most RCs out, as in her gospel salvation begins with being formally justified by interior holiness as a morally incognizant infant (usually) via sprinkling of water upon proxy faith, and (usually) ending up becoming good enough to enter Heaven in purgatory. Which thus fosters faith in one's own merits and that of Rome.
Again silent meditation is not unique to Rome was a validate her Mass. And Catholics do not not stay silent for half an hour in it, though they do more watching of the same ritual then listening or speaking as and the Biblical descriptions of church gatherings.
This is more erroneous Catholic contruance of Scripture in seeking to make it conform to her doctrines. This does not refer to the Catholic Eucharist, a while Olson strategically stops at verse 17, he proceeds to say “That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great.” (Revelation 19:18) Yet as Catholics presume they eat Divine human flesh in seeking spiritual life, supposing “eat” and “drink” must be literal despite the abundance figurative church use of language for eating, they would be consistent with their own erroneous exegesis in opposing this also speaks speaks of literally eating and drinking. This concludes this exposé of Roman Catholic egregious extrapolative attempts to wrest support for her erroneous traditions of men from Scripture, irreverently treating it as their servant in so doing, rather than being their supreme authority as the wholly inspired and basically literal word of God. Those who have most strongly held it as being so have overall historically been strong defenders of Scriptural core doctrines which we both concur on, while contending against erroneous extra biblical traditions being are taught as doctrine. By God's grace and to his glory. Have a God night. |
Not really. Just answering slanders about my faith with facts.
**hears my word**
“Therefore whomsoever heareth these sayings of mine, AND doeth them...” Matt. 7:24
“Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word.” John 17:20
Peter spoke Acts 2:38 to the souls that had just heard the gospel preached, and had asked him “What shall we do?”
Have you believed and obeyed Acts 2:38?
**Who is the author of Abraham’s faith and movements?**
The same author of Acts 2:38. Is from heaven or of men?
Aren’t you supposed to YAWN and then post the cereal picture first?
Yup. Hears and believes.
When God promised Abraham in Genesis 15 that he’d be the father of many nations Genesis 15:6 says....”And he believed the Lord, and he counted it to him as righteousness.”
That was the point of my last post. God called Abraham.
What I said was based on what you wrote, which was not that of juxtaposition, unless the rest of your Scripture texts for "the Mass in Scripture" are, while you listed for “the Eucharist, a gift from God.”
I'm not supposed to read minds, and if what you wrote does not reflect your mind I'm sorry , by it effects all of your references for the Mass in Scripture .
Meanwhile it seems that according to you, Rome must think it alone is the one true body and bride of Christ, while she reads into his mind things that are not there, as shown by His sure word, the Scriptures
Let’s look at the beginning of God’s promise to Abram (when he was 75 yrs old, and had probably been trying to have children for many years):
“Get thee out....unto a land that I will shew thee....And I will make of thee a great nation...”. Gen. 12:1,2. The promise was conditional. God saw his faith, as Abram did as he was told.
One could say, “Well, it doesn’t specifically say of him being promised children in those verses”. Hang on...
“..and into the land of Canaan they came....And the Lord appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy SEED will I give this land..”. 12:5,7.
Fastforward (famine, Egypt, and return to Canaan):
“And the Lord said unto Abram....For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy SEED for ever. And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy SEED also be numbered. Arise, WALK through the land....for I will give it unto thee. Then Abram removed his tent, and came and dwelt in the plain of Mamre..and built an altar unto the Lord”. 13:14-18
By now, the Lord has twice made his promise to Abram.
Then in Gen. 15 God makes the promise again, this time in a vision. Gen. 15:6 confirms that Abram believed God, FOR he had already followed FAITHfully the commandments the Lord had given him in chapters 12 and 13, which was required in order for him to receive the promise.
The Lord again promises to give him the land, and Abram asks: “Lord God, whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it? And he said unto him, Take me an heifer...”. 15:7-9
The Lord again promises the SEED:
“..the Lord appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; Walk before me, and be thou perfect. And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly...father of many nations,...kings shall come out of thee...And I will establish my covenant....This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy SEED after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.” 17:1-10
Then Abraham, Ishmael, and all the men of Abraham’s house were cicumcised (owWW).
**Yup. Hears and believes.**
And the Lord saw his faith..
**God called Abraham.**
And Abraham obeyed. God now calls all to believe and obey Acts 2:38. Many choose not to.
By definition, ‘faith’ is when we act on our belief. Eleven disciples believed, yet remained sitting in the boat. Only one was willing to step out of the boat based upon that same belief.
Well that is the whole point. If Abraham did not believe God’s calling and promise then he would have stayed home.
How many times on this thread must I post faith is a verb.
Spelling, spelling: faithe, as in to faithe. See my profile page regarding same
Would it be ok if I pasted a paragraph to this thread?
and that cartoon..."I don't believe I've read that paper"..LOL priceless!
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.