Monday, September 26, 2011

Eurogeddon- it's coming, it's certain, it's unavoidable

60 Comments:

Blogger Cam Ma said...

It will assuredly crash - but only after our profligate and idiotic political establishment has thrown another £20bn down the black hole which is the Greek economy.

26 September 2011 at 18:51  
Blogger Prodicus said...

Well, thanks. I wish I had not seen that. Thanks.

26 September 2011 at 18:51  
Blogger Muggins said...

Terry Smith occasionally comes out and says stuff like this. You need a strong stomach to listen to it. Especially the morally bankrupt financiers and brokers. (I don't necessarily include Smith in this btw)

They might just have other reasons for saying this. They might just be wrong. They are certainly not helping the "climate of fear" they talk about

26 September 2011 at 19:53  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Your Grace

You don’t lend money to someone who won’t pay it back to you. You learn that in the playground. However, the Inspector wouldn’t want to see Greece booted out of the EU, as the Inspector is rather hoping Greece will bring the whole EU nightmare to a close, with a little help from Portugal, Ireland, Italy and anyone else who wants to join in. Official Receivers, get ready...

26 September 2011 at 19:53  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

Traders make money from volatility in markets - so I wouldn't be too surprised at one who is talking the market down, especially one who seems to be trying to make money for himself by promoting such a strategy and in telling others how to short markets http://www.leadingtrader.com/contact/

I would have thought the fact that he has been expecing the current "crash" in stock markets for the last 3 years - see the tweet he quotes on his website actually demonstrates his inability to read markets. If you say a market will fall for long enough you will soon be proved right - but holding a short position for 3 years may be rather expensive.

26 September 2011 at 20:14  
Blogger Muggins said...

TBNGU

(looking at the first letters of your name, I think you and I discussed the London Riots on another site :) - I was "Henry" there)

I hope you are right about this. There is something eerie about this video. Can he really be trying to jeopardise everything just to make money out of it?

People will no doubt laugh at me and say "Silly question". We imagine that these traders have no scruples whatsoever and want only to get richer for themselves.

If true, his greed and lack of conscience are jaw-dropping. But he seems to believe it - and his advice is not all bad. One way or another it's a scary video to say the least

26 September 2011 at 20:48  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Muggins

Could be that the commentator doesn't hold Christian values...

26 September 2011 at 21:02  
Blogger Hereward said...

These traders who make money in any set of economic circumstances have some dangerous tools at their disposal. Quantitative trading computer programs with algorithms that trigger massive selloffs when certain adverse conditions line up. Huge amounts of money move in seconds. Once these programs predict an imminent crash their automated response ensures a self fulfilling prophecy.

On 6 May 2010, the Dow Jones tanked 700 points then recovered within 15 minutes. The culprit was cascading sales by quant trading programs. Had the losses not been recovered when the programs were overridden by human intervention, the Dow would have suffered one of its biggest one-day falls in history. No one will be able to override Eurogeddon.

The video is more than a little disturbing and not easy to disregard. Who would you rather believe? A trader who is talking up the likelihood of the mother of all crashes and positioning himself to profit from the fall or politicians in denial, faced with mountains of debt who are now going to miraculously conjure trillions for the bailout fund to save the Euro?

26 September 2011 at 21:03  
Blogger DaviGoss said...

Someone else who sees economic collapse as inevitable but with a different prescription for how to be prepared: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCmgEN-F-gc

26 September 2011 at 21:04  
Blogger bluedog said...

Your Grace, your communicant has a serious proposal to make that requires another whip round, a la Biber, in order to execute. Alas, the numbers this time are immeasurably larger.

Your communicant proposes that the fourth plinth in Traflgar Square be occupied by an equestrian statue of Sir George Soros KG KT KCVO KB.

If Sir George had not slain the ERM dragon in 1992 the UK would be deeply enmeshed in the Eurozone calamity with no hope of an independent future. As it is the UK retains control of its own destiny, still has its own currency, and with intelligent management can survive.

The 1992 departure from ERM will, your communicant believes, be seen as significant as the defeat of the Spanish Armada, the Battle of Trafalgar and the Battle of Britain in years to come.

26 September 2011 at 21:31  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

Muggins

He might genuinely believe that the market will crash and he will make money out of it - he does seem quite keen in advising others on how to make money out of it. He certainly isn't correct that all traders think that the eurozone market will crash - if they did it would have done so already by a lot more than has happened to date.

My advice would be to look at the economics of the situation, where there are plenty of debates to be had, not at what dealers say on side.

26 September 2011 at 22:45  
Blogger asdfsdfadf said...

Read Zero Hedge. Then come back.

26 September 2011 at 22:47  
Blogger asdfsdfadf said...

Schematic of European Endgame

If you look in its archives, you'll see the Hedge has called it all the way. In fact, ZH was surprised that any major media--much less the BBC--ever let this guy within a foot of a mic. They never let anyone tell the truth to the general public.

Rastani was just telling it like it is: the knowledgeable who have been paying attention for the last two years will come out on top. The sheep who have been believing the BS the Leftist media has been shoving down their throats are really going to suffer. The media should probably all be lynched for their role in this mess.

The problem is that the west is all tapped out. There is no place to go. There is no rabbit up anyone's sleeve. It's beyond the point of just not spending any more. The can is at the end of the road. The fat lady is stepping on to the stage. Do what you can to protect yourself.

The social welfare state is dead. All that's left is the sobbing.

26 September 2011 at 22:57  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

No renewed Holy Roman Empire then under the control of the Vatican all ready for world domination.

Shucks. Back to the drawing board!

27 September 2011 at 00:09  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Soap-box time again. Some of you have heard this sermon from me before, but I ad-lib it every time as I'm too lazy to go through folders and cut and paste.

Forget the gnashing of teeth, hand-wringing of accountants and all that. Energy. Energy, people. Look at the history of the humankind, if you doubt me. Wood, animal power, slave power, coal, oil, wind and water power, hydroelectric, nuclear...a long march towards ever more efficient and ever cleaner and cheaper forms of energy. The magical, mystical relationship of humanity's relationship to energy.

Your economy, my economy, everyone's economy before, now and in the future were all fueled not just by good ideas, but by effective enrgy retrieval systems. By learning how to burn a few sticks, the dirtiest, least efficient way to eke out a few calories from matter, we learned to live in the harshest of climates. But by making charcoal from those sticks and adding goatskin bellows, we revolutionized energy retrieval and got copper, bronze and iron, and when we got coal, we learned to use the metals to harness steam. Then with the "black gold" we still depend on, and rightly so, we hit on internal combustion and an unforseen range of fuels, after which it was a hop, skip and a jump to jet planes, nuclear reactors and space ships. It always was, is and will be about energy. Please frame and nail that one up on your walls, if need be. Extract more energy from matter more efficiently, bring down its price to optimal levels, and watch the boom happen literally overnight.

This is not sci-fi. We have stupenduous oil and coal reserves, especially in Africa, where if allowed to be exploited, they could lift that unlucky continent from its misery in less than a generation. There is still a lot of oil, especialy here in Canada and who knows where else, much in reserve, more to be found, and all a few short years for attainable technological solutions for economic extaction. There are also the deep and massive deposits of gas waiting for us, in North America and Europe...even in and off Israel. These promise to keep us going for a long, long time. And, they are already starting to make some a little nervous, like the Saudis trying to shut down a Canadian "ethical oil" promo campaign which reminds the US that our oil sands are preferable to those from Middle Eastern tyrannies. Or, the Russian minister of Gasprom who screeches that "fracking" for deep gas will endanger American housewives at their kitchen sinks. Ever so kind and chivalrous, those Russians.

Down the road, the tentative chain of thorium reactors developed in Israel and the US, are already running in Germany and India, and will kick-in economically within several decades. China is developing molten-salt thorium processes and our Canadian CANDU reactors can use thorium already. And just to remind everyone, we are, after all, living on a thin crust of earth and rock bobbing on a ball of magma worth gazillion gazoodles of nuclear reactors...an engineering and materials sciences solution in the waiting.

Lack of political will, not shortage of resources or environmental risks is what there is shortage of. With the sources available now, we are inexplicably gasping on a "sustainability" track with panic over a concocted "global warming" scam, regularly scheduled announcements of "peak oil" and policy and regulation-created states of artificial scarcity. Why aren't more of us asking, "what's up?"

How we got ourselves into this idiotic predicament, where we are meekly cooperating in our bureacratically planned impoverishment is academic at this point; how we get out of it...well, I haven't the foggiest, but a wild guess would be revivals of truly free enterprise systems, the scary "unfettered capitalism," with the attendant risks, which brought us the first historically transformative energy booms. So, there, gebtlemen load your counter-arguments and thank you for your time.

27 September 2011 at 01:26  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

The Way of the Dodo said 27 September 2011 00:09

'No renewed Holy Roman Empire then under the control of the Vatican all ready for world domination.'

What's the rush. Patience dear bird and all will be revealed in His own perfect time.

In Romans 11:25-26, Paul declares:

"For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part if happened to Israel, until THE FULLNESS OF THE GENTILES be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob."

and it was spoken by Simeon at the birth of Jesus:

"For mine eyes have seen Thy salvation, which Thou hast prepared before the face of all people; a light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of Thy people Israel… Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel… " (Luke 2:30-34)

Here the same point is stressed: the completion of God's purposes with the Gentiles marks the beginning of His renewed grace to the people of Israel. After the time of the Gentiles has been fulfilled, after the fullness of the Gentiles has come into the kingdom, then all Israel will be saved - the "times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord." (Acts 3:19)

This agrees with the many Old Testament passages which clearly refer to an eternal purpose of God for His ancient people - eternal promises that will be fulfilled to them, not just in a temporary way as if they were only God's example from ancient times for the "Church Age," but fulfilled practically, literally and completely.

Paul declared
"I say, then, hath God cast away His people? God forbid?" (Romans 11:1)
It is obviously the plan of God to receive them back in mercy:
"For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance." (Romans 11:29)

There are many Old Testament prophecies, which have not yet had their fulfillment, and cannot in all honesty be explained away as having been spiritually fulfilled through the first coming of Christ. The New Testament also makes clear reference to prophecies that are yet to be fulfilled. Only in the light of these New Testament verses do the as yet unfulfilled Old Testament prophecies make sense.

Watch and see old bird

"Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fullness?… For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?" (Romans 11:12-15)

There is a global crisis threatening, an arab spring that demands a response from the West with difficult decisions and the continual problem of the peace of Israel and yet you see nothing?
Signs serve such purposes as imparting information and giving a warning ahead of time. Thus road signs and looking into the sky to see what kind of weather may be coming are an important, practical part of our lives.

cont'd

27 September 2011 at 02:06  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Cont'd

Jesus knew the value of signs as well. When the Pharisees and Sadducees tested Jesus by asking him for a sign, he told them, “When it is evening you say, ‘It will be faith weather, for the sky is red;’ And early in the morning you say, ‘Today will be stormy weather, for the sky is red and gloomy.’ On the one hand you know how to distinguish the appearance of the sky, but on the other hand you are not able to distinguish the signs of the times.” (Matthew 16:2,3) The signs of the times to which Jesus referred were his miracles and preaching. These should have told the Pharisees and the Sadducees who he was.
It is clear that Jesus will not come as a "thief in the night" for watchful believers, because in the very same passage, Paul tells us, "But you, brothers, are not in darkness so that this day should surprise you like a thief." In fact, Jesus exhorted, "If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief" (Revelation 3:3)

Jesus rebuked those who did not understand the signs of the times in His day: "O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky, but can ye not discern the signs of the times" (Matthew 16:3).

Are you watching?

Ernst S Blofeld

27 September 2011 at 02:11  
Blogger Nicodemus said...

What "jaw dropping" arrogance not to say untainted selfishness. Thankfully, as Christians we understand that Goldman Sachs does not rule the world; but Jesus is Lord, and this is a source of great encouragement for the meek in difficult times. Fear may well rule in the hearts of those who have put their trust in mammon, but it shouldn't rule us. Our political leaders are impotent, like rabbits caught in the headlights, but we speak of another king, the true King, the Light of the World - Jesus, at present Lord in His Church and over all creation.

27 September 2011 at 07:40  
Blogger G. Tingey said...

Way of the Dodo & Avi Barzel, repectively.

Hate to agree with you WotD, but, I've just finished reading a history of the 30 years war, where in the conclusions, the author refers to the "EU" as another HREotGN ...
Also "the BBC" have been allowing/pushing this line for well over a week now - if you listen to "Today" that is.
Every commentater I've heard has said: "Well, yes, of course Greece is going to default - the problem is (now) how bad is it going to be, and what's next?"

As for energy supplies, there is one problem with coal.
It's FILTHY stuff. It kills (quite a lot) more people than nuclear power, even including ALL the victims opf Chenobyl.
We need nuclear/fission for 50-100 years as a stop-gap, whilst proper energy-sources - read fusion are sorted. And it will take that long, it's a diffcult problem.

27 September 2011 at 08:07  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

"For most traders we don't really care about having a fixed economy, having a fixed situation, our job is to make money from it," he said. "Personally, I've been dreaming of this moment for three years. I go to bed every night and I dream of another recession." - Alessio Rastani


He seems to finding common cause with those who have been dreaming of the breakup of the EU for thirty years.

27 September 2011 at 09:31  
Blogger Preacher said...

Ernst.
Excellent! I read Luke 21:5-38, too long to reproduce here, but I trust that those with Bibles will look it up & compare with the news.

27 September 2011 at 13:24  
Blogger Preacher said...

Two things come to mind.
1/
The Church must preach the gospel, in full, not seeking to entertain.
2/
The Wise will listen & seek the Lord while he may be found.

Goldman Sachs do not rule the World & even those that think they can profit from the situation will fail, it's fools gold!.

27 September 2011 at 13:49  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Ernst and Preacher

I was being ironic!

This old bird keeps his feet firmly planted on God's good earth and is not taken to flights of fancy.

In my opinion, it's dangerous to base one's actions on speculations about the possible meanings of particular sections of scripture and to string various passages together as a predictor for the course of world events.

My preference is to deal with daily life and its challenges as they arise. Lead a decent Christian life as best one can in the private and public sphere. The rest is in God's Hands.

I'm a simple creature.

27 September 2011 at 13:54  
Blogger G. Tingey said...

A decent christian life.
Making sure your wife is subservient.
Killing your children if they disobey you
Getting a good price for your slaves
Making sure all witches are killed
etc ....

You sure about this?

27 September 2011 at 14:41  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Mr Tingey,

Thanks for your response. You said, "As for energy supplies, there is one problem with coal.
It's FILTHY stuff. It kills (quite a lot) more people than even including ALL the victims opf Chenobyl."


Granted, coal is "dirty," but it is cleaner and less ecologically damaging than firewood, which people resort to when nothing else is available, and the scrubbing technologies have improved tremendeously. You'll forgive me if I don't accept figures about coal killing people; they are sourced to environmental activists, who simply make stuff up. Balanced against the health risks of coal, must be effects of famine in the Third World, especially Africa, and here we are talking about deaths in the millions, versus the difficult to count effects of poverty everywhere. His Grace put it very well when he said, "This is an undoubted moral issue, for people are reduced to hardship and depression, firms are condemned to closure, more workers to unemployment and more families to homelessness through unprecedented levels of repossession. The total number of suicides, heart attacks, divorces and mental breakdowns is never known."

There are no magic solutions, yete can safely dismiss solar and wind as the prctically useless crony capitalism shams they are. The nuclear options you mention are certainly a good strategy (although we should have had far more reactors by now) and so are extraction of the massive gas reserves through "fracking" and exploitation of oil sands. Thorium promises good things, including ways to burn off safely spent nuclear fuel we've been holding, but it will be a few decades until it becomes practical. Oil and coal, even with all the risks, are still far preferable to social and political disintegration due to famines and severe economic downturns we are beginning to experience. Look at this way; automobiles kill thousands every year, more than the dirtiest of fuels we can imagine, and yet stopping them would be unthinkable, for the simple reason that our infrustructures would collapse and cause the deaths of millions, if not billions.

27 September 2011 at 15:07  
Blogger Preacher said...

Dodo.
There are many who claim the title Christians & are content to sit back, ignore the warning signs of scripture & watch the world toddle of to Hell in a handcart.
The book of Revelations warns of being lukewarm.
This may or may not be the fulfillment of Jesus' words in Luke, but it ought to make us aware & willing to examine ourselves & the message we are giving to the world.

27 September 2011 at 16:39  
Blogger len said...

Dodo, I am glad that the Prophet Daniel didn`t have your cavalier attitude towards God`s Word, prophesy in particular.
How can you pray "His Will be done" if you don`t have a clue what His Will is? with particularly regard to these end days?.

27 September 2011 at 18:08  
Blogger Oswin said...

Hey, it's not often one is treated to a rat's opinion of the condition of the ship; I reckon he's just about got it right.

Greg Tingey:

Yep, coal is filthy, and it does kill; but I suspect it doesn't distort/mutate/deform/whatever down the generations.

27 September 2011 at 18:18  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Preacher

Absolutley!

Isn't this why the Pope has been urging Christians to set aside doctrinal differences and focus on the fundamental message of the Gospel?

The challenges of secularism, the exclusive reliance on positivism and the loss of moral reasoning as the basis of modern values, threatens to pull the world into a new dark age and we squabble amongst ourselves!

And what comes from some of the evangelical wing? A message that Rome is Satanic, intent on pulling people to Hell and preparing the way for the anti-Christ. Unbelievable! They blindly follow the 'authority' of the likes of 'Pastor' MacArthur who attacks all Apostolic Christianity.

"And many false prophets shall rise and shall seduce many."

The place Israel and Jerusalem will play in 'end time' prophetic speculation is also concerning. It seems to me some actually want a conflagration there believing it signals the immediate prelude to Christ's return.

"But of that day and hour no one knows: no, not the angels of heaven, but the Father alone."

If Jesus Himself could not foresee His future return, isn't it presumptious to believe we have greater insight?

27 September 2011 at 18:20  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

len

I'm not being cavalier, just know that I'm not a prophet called to a special mission like Daniel.

I'm an ordinary foot soldier trying to lead a Christian life. As such, I don't try to second guess God. I just know His Will will be done - in His time and in His way.

27 September 2011 at 18:30  
Blogger len said...

Dodo, Daniel was a 'foot soldier ' who by studying the Word of God realised what God`s intentions for Gods people were.
Daniel then aligned himself with Gods will and started praying that Gods will be done.
God works His Will thorough people(when they make themselves available to Him.)

Roman Catholicism teaches that “the Roman priests are mediators, because … the sinner cannot for himself draw near to God through Christ and obtain pardon and grace, but can secure those blessings only through their interventions.” But the Reformation destroyed these pretensions of priesthood and liberated believers from the tyranny and insecurity of the Roman Catholic concept of salvation.The biblical doctrine of the priesthood of all believers is found throughout the Scriptures (Ex. 19:6; Hos. 14:2; Ps. 50:23; Ps. 51:17-19; Ps. 141:2; 1 Pet. 2:5-9; Heb. 13:10-16) and was practiced in the early church.
In our one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus, Christians come immediately and directly to God. They have no further need for any fallible human priest, whether Roman Catholic or evangelical. In Christ they are set free from all slavery and granted the dignity of a royal priesthood. As God’s elect, believers have been given new birth into a living hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Pet. 1:3, 23). As living stones who trust in the living foundation stone, Jesus Christ, they are built into a new spiritual temple.
A Christian looks to Jesus alone as a priest.

One last thought'trying to live the Christian life' is an impossibility and will lead to a life filled with disappointment and frustration(as Luther found out)there is only One who can live the Christian Life and He gives us the ability through His Holy Spirit.

27 September 2011 at 21:16  
Blogger Sam Vega said...

Rastani has now been outed as a fantasist who has never worked as a trader and is actually in debt.

The BBC were taken in (especially Robert Peston) and so were many others.

Coming soon: a Nigerian gentleman offers to solve the banking crisis if you email him a few personal details....

27 September 2011 at 22:20  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

len

Charles Hodge overstated and misunderstood the concept of priesthood in Catholicism.

The Catholic priesthood is a participation in this priesthood of Christ. The New Testament says that as high priest, Jesus has made the Church "a kingdom of priests for his God and Father."

We believe all who are baptized are given a share in the priesthood of Christ; that is, are conformed to Christ and made capable of offering true worship and praise to God as Christians. "The whole community of believers is, as such, priestly."

However, a priest is also one who presides over a sacrifice and offers that sacrifice and prayers to God on behalf of believers. So the Catholic concept of priesthood is directly related to the Eucharistic offering.

Catholics believe that it is the same body, sacrificed on the cross and risen on the third day which is made present in the offering of each Eucharistic sacrifice.
Catholic priests in presiding at the Eucharist join in union with the sacrifice of Christ. Catholic ordained ministers are known as priests because by their celebration of the Eucharist, their offering makes present the one eternal sacrifice of Christ.

So there is no misunderstanding, Catholicism does not teach that Christ is sacrificed again and again, but that "The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice."

The Catholic Church holds the Jewish concept of memorial in which "..the memorial is not merely a recollection of past events....these events become in a certain way present and real." and thus "...the sacrifice Christ offered once and for all on the cross remains ever present." Properly speaking, in Catholic theology, expressed by Saint Thomas Aquinas, "Only Christ is the true priest, the others being only his ministers." Thus, Catholic clergy share in the one, unique, Priesthood of Christ.

This isn't that good an explanation but it is all expounded fully in the Catholic Catechism if you want to study the actual theology rather than misrepresenntations of it.

27 September 2011 at 23:13  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Oswin,

Dodo and len are at each other's theological gizzards again. They are transferring their scuffle from post to post, like two battle-crazed samurai in a Kurasawa flick crashing through walls and floors, katana blades twirling, blind and oblivious to us poor civilians screeching and diving for cover.

Not that it worked too well last time, but shall we try to distract them with recipes again? The fate of Christendom may be at stake. I would be willing to even sacrifice my secret for tomorrow night's Rosh Hashana brisket recipe.

28 September 2011 at 01:14  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

For Catholic Catechism read 'Rome's definitive interpretation of scripture'

We (Roman Catholics) believe all who are baptized (So you don't even need to believe just be baptized)are given a share in the priesthood of Christ; that is, are conformed to Christ and made capable of offering true worship and praise to God as Christians. "The whole community of believers is, as such, priestly." Not biblical therefore unfounded!

'However, a priest is also one who presides over a sacrifice and offers that sacrifice and prayers to God on behalf of believers.' Where does it state this in Scripture?

"Catholics believe that it is the same body, sacrificed on the cross and risen on the third day which is made present in the offering of each Eucharistic sacrifice.
Catholic priests in presiding at the Eucharist join in union with the sacrifice of Christ. Catholic ordained ministers are known as priests because by their celebration of the Eucharist, their offering makes present the one eternal sacrifice of Christ." Catholic dogma and not biblical!

"So there is no misunderstanding, (chuckle) Catholicism does not teach that Christ is sacrificed again and again, but that "The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice." but to be done on a daily basis as a one off is not sufficient! Pure euphenism.

"Catholic Catechism if you want to study the actual theology" Take it then that the catechism is your Holy Scripture and the basis of Roman Catholic theology? How revealing!

Ernst Blofeld

ps

Avi 28 September 2011 01:14

"They are transferring their scuffle from post to post, like two battle-crazed samurai in a Kurasawa flick crashing through walls and floors, katana blades twirling, blind and oblivious to us poor civilians screeching and diving for cover." LOL, so hard my ribs hurt!

Kill Bill vol 3 the revisitation?

"I would be willing to even sacrifice my secret for tomorrow night's Rosh Hashana brisket recipe." A Rosh Hashana brisket you say, Very Tempting?

28 September 2011 at 01:26  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Hello, Mr Ernst, it's a pleasure to have amused you, thereby repaying a small portion for the great giggles an guffaws you have been providing us with on a regular basis, almost as a public service.

You did though, I see, throw down a gauntlet of your own, but I suspect our valorous combattants are down for the night, all spent and exhausted, their womenfolk clucking and binding their wounds, troubadours composing chansons to pass down through the generations. Or else, they received peremptory orders to get themselves unstuck from the computer, to wash up the dishes and to get their lazy arses to bed pronto, before things get really rough.

So, in the worthy cause of inter-denominational concord and as a reminder to my fellow males to frequently honour and delight their ladies with delicacies prepared with their own hands, here's my Rosh Hashana brisket secret: Coke. As in Coca Cola, or not be stuck on brands, any fizzy cola drink. Brisket being a tough group of muscles, roughly corresponding to our pectorals(what a ghastly thought!), it requires good marinating before long, slow cooking. So, twelve to twenty-four hours in the fridge, covered with cola. Something in the stuff just seems to break down the toughness better than any other trick I've tried...although cranberry or pomegranate juice aren't too bad. After marinating, I dump the cola, rinse the meat lightly, stuff slivers of garlic and add spices (I'm partial to bay leaves, whole pepper corns and one or two grains of allspice) and add beef broth for long, slow cooking with a lot of basting in the oven, timing dependent on preferences and size of meat...but don't overcook to the point of stringiness. As the liquid evaporates, replace with a fairly decent, rich-bodied and slightly sweet red wine, leaving aside (or guzzling secretly straight from the bottle) sufficient quantities for enjoyment in the usual manner.

28 September 2011 at 03:48  
Blogger len said...

Avi,

My Sword is.....
Ephesians 6:17
...the sword of the spirit, which is the word of God.

Hebrews 4:12
For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword. it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the attitudes of the heart.


Dodo 'sword' is not a 'Katana blade' but a rusty, dull edged sword, formed in some distant cave, in a bygone era,and on close inspection found to be useless for anything but 'show purposes' and attempts to threaten people into silence.

28 September 2011 at 08:01  
Blogger G. Tingey said...

Oswin & Avi Barzel
Actually caol does deform etc... there's quite a lot of radioactivity in it - which is then distributed. Oh dear.
Wind is, agreed a con. Solar - not so sure. Gradually, slowly the efficiency and useful "life" of solar cells of many different types are improving, and production costs are falling. Watch this space, as they say.

Comment on biblical matters:
Gideon was a shit. A murderer and a terroist.
Really nasty piece of work, almost as bad a St Cyril of Alexandria or Arnoud Amoury. Proabably worse than Bernard of Clairvaux, though.

28 September 2011 at 08:14  
Blogger Preacher said...

Avi.
Sounds good, but I'm a little concerned about the Cola marinade, having seen what Cola could do to a penny left in it overnight.

Dodo.
I realy don't wish to add fuel to the fire, but sitting back & leaving it up to a priestly class to reach the lost shows a certain disregard for the lost & a complacency that is breathtaking.
That is why I say that religion is powerless to save & thus reject the denominational trap that others fall so readily into.

28 September 2011 at 11:46  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Preacher said ...

"I realy don't wish to add fuel to the fire, but sitting back & leaving it up to a priestly class to reach the lost shows a certain disregard for the lost & a complacency that is breathtaking."

Not terribly sure this is what the Pope has been doing recently in bringing to the world's attention the plight we are facing!

All Catholics are urged to be 'militant' in spreading the Gospel on all occassions - at home, work and in their communities. You must surely be aware of the hugh number of Catholic programmes offering Christian aid and promoting the Christian message?

Len and Ernesty

It's clear you just don't get Catholicism and refuse to accept the legitimacy of the very clear Commission given to Saint Peter by Christ and the consequential Apostolic succession. It's there in the very same bible you continually refer me to as the 'sole' authority - the delegated authority to loose and bind and to forgive and retain sins.

28 September 2011 at 12:26  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dodo replied 28 September 2011 12:26

"It's there in the very same bible you continually refer me to as the 'sole' authority - the delegated authority to loose and bind and to forgive and retain sins."

John 20:23
The remark here is that Jesus confers the same power on all the apostles. He gives to not one of them any special authority. If Peter, as the Roman Catholics pretend, had been appointed to any special authority, it is bewildering that the Saviour did not here hint at any such pre-eminence conferred upon him. This passage conclusively proves that they were invested with equal power in organizing and governing the church.

Further, it is certain God alone can forgive sins; and it would not only be blasphemous, but grossly absurd, to say that any creature could remit the guilt of a transgression which had been committed against the Creator. The apostles received from the Lord the doctrine of reconciliation, and the doctrine of condemnation. They who believed on the Son of God, in consequence of their preaching, had their sins remitted; and they who would not believe were declared to lie under condemnation.

"and the consequential Apostolic succession."Must we really revisit this well trodden path that has been refuted ad nausem, old bird.
Your blind devotion would be commendable if medals were awarded for ignoring the facts of history.

Ernst, you repetive old dickie

28 September 2011 at 13:15  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

ps

Matthew 18:18

These words were spoken to the apostles. Jesus had just prior addressed the same words to Peter, Matthew 16:19. He employs them here to signify that they all had the same power; that in ordering the affairs of the church he did not intend to give Peter any supremacy or any exclusive right to regulate it.
The meaning of this verse is, whatever you shall do in the discipline of the church shall be approved by God or bound in heaven.
Obviously this promise by Jesus, therefore, cannot be understood as extending to all Christians or ministers, for all others but the apostles may err as their ministry was special and died with them.

Ernst

28 September 2011 at 13:27  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Mr Tingey,

Yes, coal contains trace amounts of uranium and thorium which can concentrate in fly ash, the by-product of coal burning plants, but of all other emissions, radiation is of least concern: "...individuals living near coal-fired installations are exposed to a maximum of 1.9 millirems of fly ash radiation yearly. To put these numbers in perspective, the average person encounters 360 millirems of annual "background radiation" from natural and man-made sources, including substances in Earth's crust, cosmic rays, residue from nuclear tests and smoke detectors." (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste)

All fuels and sources of energy have inherent dangers. Wood and cow dung, which we think are harmless "natural" fuels, are grossly inefficient and dirtier than coal and together, they kill far more people annually.

The bottom line remains that stagnant economies due to energy shortages, precipitate poverty, war, disease and famine. These are decimating and ruining countless of lives and are astronomically more lethal than any risks from even irresponsible use of coal and oil. A bella, fame et pestus, liberas nos Domine,(sp?)

However you slice it, Mr Tingey, global population increases and the rise of life expectancy are the indisputable evidence that industrialization and abundance of cheap fuel are are actually healthier for us than any alternative in history.

28 September 2011 at 17:42  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Mr Preacher,

Not to worry. You will find that "natural" and "organic" fruit juices and other beverages as well, can clean pennies even better as citric acid is far more powerful and cncentrated in these than the phosphoric acid in colas and most other soft drinks. And, let's not forget, throwing the penny into a glass of stomach acids (don't ask me where to get such!) will produce much more dramatic results.

28 September 2011 at 17:55  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

28 September 2011 at 18:01  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Ernesty and len

Come now, the scripture is very clear. In Matthew 16:17-19, in response to Peter's profession of faith in the Divine Nature of his Master, Christ thus addresses him:

"Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.


It's plain enough this is addressed personally and directly to Peter, not to the Apostles as a group.

This scene stands in striking parallelism with John 21 when Christ again singles Peter out and demands a protestation of love and confers leadership. He bestows on the Apostle an office which in its highest sense is proper to Himself alone.

In Mathew Christ made Peter the foundation-stone of the house of God: here He makes him the shepherd of God's flock to act in His place, the Good Shepherd, until He returns.

"When therefore they had dined, Jesus says to Simon Peter: Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these? He said to him: Yea, Lord, you know that I love you. He said to him: Feed my lambs.
He says to him again: Simon, son of John, do you love me? He said to him: yea, Lord, you know that I love you. He said to him: Feed my lambs.
He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, do you love me? Peter was grieved because he had said to him the third time: Do you love me? And he said to him: Lord, you know all things: you know that I love you. He said to him: Feed my sheep.


As to succession of the primacy of Peter as Bishop of Rome there is a mass of evidence supporting this.

The first witness is St. Clement, a disciple of the Apostles, who, after Linus and Anacletus, succeeded St. Peter as the fourth in the list of popes.

In his "Epistle to the Corinthians", written in 95 or 96, he bids them receive back the bishops whom a turbulent faction among them had expelled. He says: "If any man should be disobedient unto the words spoken by God through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger"

He bids them "render obedience unto the things written by us through the Holy Spirit".

At the very start of church history, before the last survivor of the Apostles had died, a Bishop of Rome, himself a disciple of St. Peter, intervened in the affairs of another Church and claimed to settle the matter by a decision spoken under the influence of the Holy Spirit.

In the days when the Apostolic teaching was fresh in men's minds the universal Church recognized in the Bishop of Rome the office of supreme head.

28 September 2011 at 18:11  
Blogger len said...

Dodo, Its quite clear that you have swallowed 'hook line and sinker'the 'Peter is the rock thing 'and have now become entrenched into defending your 'belief system' despite all the evidence to the contrary.

I realise that accepting the truth how you have been deceived by your Church might be too difficult or painful for you to handle so you avoid the truth at all costs.You are 'locked into Catholicism'as are so may others also in other religions .

Jesus came to set the prisoners free(those bound in religion as well as those bound in sin) but He will not break the door down you have to let Him in.

28 September 2011 at 18:12  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

;en

Answer the scriptural authority and historical evidence.

28 September 2011 at 19:09  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dodo stated then expanded 28 September 2011 18:11

"It's plain enough this is addressed personally and directly to Peter, not to the Apostles as a group." Indeed, as I will explain shortly.
"In Mathew Christ made Peter the foundation-stone of the house of God: here He makes him the shepherd of God's flock to act in His place, the Good Shepherd, until He returns. "Nonsense and let me explain why Christ asked him if he loved Him 3 times.

Remember, Peter had denied Christ three times at the palace of the High Priest. Now he is given a chance to affirm his love three times. "Jesus’ threefold question and threefold commission of apostolic mission contrast directly with Peter’s three denials. Three times Peter said he did not even know the Lord; now three times he said he loved the Lord. No matter how great a person is, he may fall. But God’s grace and forgiveness will restore the repentant.
However, it's not exactly a ringing endorsement of that foundation stone you made him out to be. A very beloved Apostle the Lord loved dearly but with major weaknesses.
Ernst believes Paul would be more of a candidate than Peter as the foundation-stone of the house of God..However there is only ONE who meets this criteria and He is Our Blessed Lord.

An Old And New Testament with accordant ;
Jehovah is Our Rock
He alone is my Rock--Psalms 62:6; 18:2
Jesus is Our Rock
Christ is the Rock--1 Corinthians 10:4; 1 Peter 2:8

Jehovah is Our Shepherd
Jehovah is my Shepherd--Psalm 23:1; Isaiah 40:11
Jesus is Our Shepherd
I am the Good Shepherd--John 10:11

Here is 1 Timothy 3:1
This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

Here, for the first time in the New Testament, is there a delineation of the qualifications and duties of bishops and deacons. Both offices have been alluded to in Acts (elders, Acts 11:30 14:23 15:02 16:04 20:17; deacons, Acts 6:1-6), and both are named in Philippians 1:1.
To form a correct idea of the New Testament bishop we must get away from modern episcopacy, my fine bird.
The New Testament bishop was not diocesan, but in charge of a single church. Each church had a plurality. Elders or presbyters, and bishops were only different designations for the same office. This arrangement was not changed until after the close of the first century and the death of the last of the apostles. Of these statements, admitted by the candid learned even of episcopal bodies, the following proofs may be submitted:
(1) Paul summons the elders of the church at Ephesus (Acts 20:17), and calls them bishops ( overseers ) in Acts 20:28.
(2) In the church of Philippi the bishops and deacons are named as the officers (Philippians 1:1).
(3) Paul in this Epistle names bishops and deacons as the officers (1Timothy 3:1,12), but names elders as officers entrusted with the same duties already named as those of the bishops in 1Ti 5:17-22.
(4) In the Epistle to Titus, Paul commands to ordain elders in every city (Titus 1:5), but in turn describing the qualifications of an elder he calls him a bishop (Titus 1:7).
(5) Peter addresses elders and commands them to exercise the office of bishops over the flock (1Peter 5:1,2). The Greek word episkope, as well as the word bishop, etymologically means to act as an overseer, or to take the oversight.
(6) Dear Bird, I might add that Clement of Rome, who wrote to Corinthians about the beginning of the second century (but questions have been raised about the text's authenticity and whether it has any knowledge about Peter's life beyond what is contained in the New Testament Acts, so not a genuinely Holy Spirit inspired epistle unlike Paul's, Ernst might add), uses the terms interchangeably.
Paul's Epistle to the Romans 16 attests to a large Christian community already there, although he does not mention Peter. Seems this Apostolic Succession thing was a mystery to him too?

Ernst, (to quote DanJo..he will be annoyed), Trust that helps. ;-o

28 September 2011 at 21:55  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Ps

Jesus said, "No one comes to the Father but by Me." (John 14:6) He shares His glory with NO MAN

Ernsty Blofeld, me fine fowl

28 September 2011 at 22:01  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Ernsty

My good man you have not actually addressed the words of Christ to Peter. Fancy footwork and evasion and lots of flannel but no direct answer.

Jesus said what He said to Peter in Matthew and John. There really is no room for misunderstanding. He gave Peter the 'Keys to the Kingdom' i.e authority and appointed him as the earthly 'Good Shephard' in His place until His return. Both, as I said above, can only rightly belong to Christ but He passed them to Peter.

Plain as the nose on your face, old boy.

28 September 2011 at 23:44  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Ernsty

One after thought before bed.

In quoting scripture against St Peter's priviledged postion as the earthly deputy (vicar) of Our Lord, you are directly challenging the authority of Jesus Christ Himself.

He actively chose to bestows on the Apostle Peter an office which in its highest sense is proper to Himself alone.

Are you denying Him that right?

29 September 2011 at 00:05  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dodo asked for enlightenment 29 September 2011 00:05

Answer:

The Bible uses a key as a symbol of authority. In Isaiah:22:22 And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open., we see Eliakim the priest receiving "the key of the house of David…on his shoulder."
Revelation:3:7 uses similar symbolism. A trusted servant to the king wore the key to the king's house on a hook on his shoulder. Therefore, he had the authority to open or close the king's house.

Assuming Jesus was addressing Peter in Matthew:16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven., some interpret this to mean that Peter had the authority to allow or disallow access to the Kingdom of God.
This explanation has two inherent errors.
First, although Jesus said something specifically to Peter in verse 18, He included all the disciples in His comments in verse 19.

This is reflected in related verses where the Greek for the pronoun "you" is plural ("ye" in the King James Version). Matthew:18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. says, "Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (emphasis added throughout by Ernst).
John:20:23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained. says: "Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained."

The "rock" of Matthew:16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. is Jesus, not Peter.
Peter was a leading apostle of the early New Testament Church of God for many years, but not its chief cornerstone—that was and is Jesus Christ (Ephesians:2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;).

Cont'd

29 September 2011 at 00:36  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Cont'd

Second, it's erroneous to think any man could allow someone into the Kingdom of God whom God would not allow into it. Similarly, no man could disallow someone access to the Kingdom whom God would invite into it. Res Ipsa Loquitur INDEED!

The Greek in Matthew:16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (as well as Matthew:18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. and John:20:23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.) is not always clearly translated.
These actions are called "future perfect passives" and can be rendered, "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven" (New American Standard Bible, Updated Edition. Used here for educational purposes). God is not obligated to bind an ungodly decision. In other words, Christ would lead the Church leadership to decisions that He had already bound in heaven, not vice versa.

Anciently, when one came to seek the king's help or counsel, the servant's job was to open the door to the king's house and assist him in reaching the king. Christ's servants, the ministry, have a similar responsibility to assist those God is calling in coming to their King, Jesus Christ.

Christ showed that the religious teachers of His day, who had access to the knowledge of God's ways, had failed in this duty. "Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge. You did not enter in yourselves, and those who were entering in you hindered" (Luke:11:52 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.). Occasionally, the ministry has the sad duty to inform some that because of their choices and actions, the doors to the kingdom are being closed to them unless they repent. See 1 Corinthians 5 or 2 Thessalonians:3:14 And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed..

Revelation:3:7 speaks plainly of Jesus having the key. In ancient Israel, the human king was in fact the steward of God, the true King of the land. Similarly, the divine Christ will be the steward of His Father's Kingdom. With that authority, Jesus could allow or disallow someone entrance into the Kingdom—but no man had or has that authority. Christ's statement in Matthew:16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. meant that His apostles had authority to represent Him, to teach as He taught them and to be instruments in helping people live the way the Kingdom of God. Christ still lends His authority to His true ministers today to do the same work BUT THEY ARE NOT APOSTLES. Sadly, many falsely claim this authority and misuse it (read between the lines if you will).

"Are you denying Him that right?"

Unequivocally, admitting of no doubt or misunderstanding, clear and unambiguously, my Tiberian fowl!

Nighty Night likkle dickie birdie

Ernsty 'Christ's stickler' Blofeld

29 September 2011 at 00:50  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Ernesty

Goodness me you must have been in need of bed when you wrote all this! That, or the 'water of life' had been flowing my friend.

Was Christ talking to Peter? Absolutely!

Is all the an error in translation? Was Christ passing authority to Peter or to all the Apostles? Now I'm no Aramaic, Greek or Latin scholar, but most translations I read are clear on this having being addressed to Peter.

The message is abundantly clear in both passages.

Matthew 16

"Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven."


John 21

"When therefore they had dined, Jesus says to Simon Peter: Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these? He said to him: Yea, Lord, you know that I love you. He said to him: Feed my lambs.
He says to him again: Simon, son of John, do you love me? He said to him: yea, Lord, you know that I love you. He said to him: Feed my lambs.
He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, do you love me? Peter was grieved because he had said to him the third time: Do you love me? And he said to him: Lord, you know all things: you know that I love you. He said to him: Feed my sheep."


Christ passed authority to Peter to lead His Church and to be the Good Shephard of His flock. He delegated His authority, passed to His Church roles that only He as the Christ could rightly perform. He also promised the Church the protection of the Holy Spirit so it would not err in the way you suggest.

I'm sure Jesus was fully versed in Scripture - both written and yet to be written.

I repeat:

Are you denying the right of Jesus Christ to do this?

Are you denying the truth of these passages in Scripture?

29 September 2011 at 23:58  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

"Was Christ talking to Peter? Absolutely!

As Benny Hill used to say 'Why you no rissen?

" Did he say the same thing to other disciples? ABSOLUTELY!
Did the other disciples have to declare their love to Christ 3 times. Absolutely NOT.
You have been shown why yet you refuse to comprehend it, as it goes against your dogma.

Roman Catholicism has made itself the head of all believers solely on that one verse, which Ernst believes was taken completely out of context as shown by the same thing declared to others by Jesus as a commission but solely for the purpose of claimimg supremacy in all matters, temporal or spiritual.
Hilarious, if it was not so tragic in it's consequences?

If what you say is correct however and apostolic sussion is agreed, it would have immediately been revoked by The Almighty by the treachery and evilness of all popes since, such as ;

* Pope Stephen VI (896–897), who had his predecessor Pope Formosus exhumed, tried, de-fingered, briefly reburied, and thrown in the Tiber.
* Pope John XII (955–964), who gave land to a mistress, murdered several people, and was killed by a man who caught him in bed with his wife.
* Pope Benedict IX (1032–1044, 1045, 1047–1048), who "sold" the Papacy
* Pope Boniface VIII (1294–1303), who is lampooned in Dante's Divine Comedy
* Pope Urban VI (1378–1389), who complained that he did not hear enough screaming when Cardinals who had conspired against him were tortured.
* Pope Alexander VI (1492–1503), a Borgia, who was guilty of nepotism and whose unattended corpse swelled until it could barely fit in a coffin.
* Pope Leo X (1513–1521), a spendthrift member of the Medici family who once spent 1/7 of his predecessors' reserves on a single ceremony
* Pope Clement VII (1523–1534), also a Medici, whose power-politicking with France, Spain, and Germany got Rome sacked.

Hmmm, sort of a modern The Acts of the Popes in contrast to the Acts of the Apostles. Inspired..Ernst's ribs hurt from such nonsense and it makes Jesus a fool for so giving supposedly such a task. He is no fool and gave no such commission.

Pathetic excuses by Rome's faithful ? will not excuse such behaviour and negate any inspiration from the Holy Spirit by default or does Jesus bless and commission wickedness, skipping hand in hand with Satan.
Not exactly the behaviour of St Peter is it? or that the Holy Spirit knows how to fill the Vicarius ones with the Spirit of the Father.

You cannot have it both ways, unless of course you are Roman Catholic, QED and to which, Praise The Lord, Ernst most definitely is'nt.

It appears you are getting lost and are on a road to nowhere other than Rome. Enjoy your journey as we travel in a completely different direction!

E S Blofeld

30 September 2011 at 11:36  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

A final thought for Dodo on his way.

Dear Bird, much misunderstanding has come from the statements Jesus made to Peter after his confession as to who Jesus was.
Jesus talked about this rock being the foundation that His church would be built on. He said that He would give Peter the keys to the kingdom of God, and that whatever he bound on earth would be bound in heaven, and whatever he loosed on earth would be loosed in heaven.

We need to understand is that Jesus wasn't saying that Peter was the rock upon which He would build His church.
Dodo, if the church had been built on Peter, it certainly wouldn't have survived.
It was not even Peter's claim for exclusivity as "And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, BUT MY FATHER WHICH IS IN HEAVEN. "
A few verses later Jesus even called him 'Satan.' Peter would eventually deny even knowing Jesus not once but thrice.

"Rather, Jesus would build His church on the confession of who He is He was using a play on words, involving Peter's name.
As you must know the name Peter comes from the Greek word for 'rock.' But the word for Peter is petros, which means 'little rock,' while the word Jesus used for 'rock' when He said, 'upon this rock I will build My church' is the word petra which means 'a great rock.' Peter's confession was the great rock upon which the church would be built [upon Christ the massive Rock].

"And the keys to the kingdom that Jesus referred to are not some kind of special place that Peter would have in letting people into heaven.
The gospel is the key to the kingdom. The declaration of who Jesus is and what He did is what opens the door to heaven, allowing others to make that same declaration that will set them free.

Also we introduce people to Jesus and they trust in Him, they are bound to Him on earth and will be bound to Him in heaven. As they are loosed from their sins here on earth, so also will they be loosed forever in heaven, freed from the bondage of sin.

It is interesting that Peter was the first one of the disciples to preach the gospel and that he was also the first one to introduce the Gentiles to the gospel. But in doing so he exercised the same privilege that is ours as we take the confession of who Jesus is and share it with the lost and dying world.

Exclusivity - shutting out all others from a part or share: an exclusive right to the keys of the kingdom of heaven.

It is Jesus's special day and Peter comes up and says 'Congratulations Lord'. Jesus says 'Thank you Peter but it would have been impossible for you to have known this unless my Father in Heaven had told you this. I have a cake I would like you to have and whoever you want to have a piece can have some and whoever you don't want to have a piece will not'.
Jesus goes into the next room with Peter and both join all the disciples gathered together and says 'I have a cake I would like you to have and whoever you want to have a piece can have some and whoever you don't want to have a piece will not.'

Was the cake exclusively Peter's to give or refuse by what Jesus said or was it that he was the first person that Jesus told prior to telling the others.
No definitive exclusivity is ever pronounced by Jesus even when the perfect opportunity arose at to who was the greatest of the disciples in Matthew 18:1 shortly thereafter.

18:1 At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? would it not have been natural for Jesus to say 'Peter, as I have just given him the keys of the kingdom itself '?
Strange he said nothing or restated what he had declared to Peter to the others and ended the argument.

But you are trying to make a Church out of a little rock, are you not?. Jest intended!

Ernst 'It's plain english, you know' Blofeld. simples *squeak*

30 September 2011 at 16:09  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Sadly it is you who is running around in circles over this and not me.

You have to see these encounters between Peter and Christ within the overall Gospel. Argue all you like, Christ did place a special responsibility with Peter to be His 'vicar' on earth. He also promised the Church He established the protection of the Holy Spirit from being overcome by the influence of satan . He didn't say all the Pope's would be saints!

Salvation is build oncomes through Christ, of course. However, Jesus wanted an earthly Church and passed to Peter and the Apostles - as His representaives - His authority.

By the way, a favoured title of Popes is "Servant of the Servants". Authority and how it is used are two different matters.

Aramaic, Latin, Greek or English, these passages only make sense if you'rE prepared to read what is written, not what you think should be written. No adding or subtracting of words now like Mr Luther!

30 September 2011 at 16:26  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

"Sadly it is you who is running around in circles over this and not me."

Dear fellow, the sadness is genuinely all mine as I had hoped that Ernst would be able to get you to consider what you state and it's flawed reasoning, both historically and scripturally but you refuse and instead restate Catechism adages that are not based on the above.

Only by going direct to Christ can we give an account of our need for Him and the salvation He provides/d in full for those who do.

He knocks and asks us to let HIM in, not another and that he will sup with you, not a group of people.

It's all individual and only you can take responsibility for your sins and yours alone and respond accordingly.

Be at peace with whatever decision you choose, as eternity beckons and it is a long time within which to consider if you have made an errror in judgment and to whom or what you have placed your trust in.

Ernsty, my fine fowl.

30 September 2011 at 17:31  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Ernsty

The same pray goes to you too in a spirit of friendship.

I have reflected on the objections to these and many other passages in scripture where Christians are divided. What's so disappointing is that so many disputes centre on Church structure, the nature of priesthood and sacraments.

Under all this noise the fundamental message of loving God and loving our neighbour is often lost.

Roman Catholicism prevents no one from a direct relationship with Christ or from walking with Him. As a Catholic, I have both a personal and a communal relationship with Our Lord.

I follow the teachings of His Church because I believe it He gave it His authority. So far as I'm concerned, its plainly stated in the Gospels and I believe His word.

30 September 2011 at 19:27  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older