Right Divider
Body part
Quote the Bible.
chrysostom
- Thread starter chrysostom
- Start date
Quote the Bible.
Ephesians 5:30
For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
1 Corinthians 12:27
Now you are the body of Christ, and each of you is a member of it.
Right Divider
Body part
Thanks for ignoring the scripture that I quoted. It really helps the discussion of the topic.
In BOTH of those verses that you quote, Paul is NOT talking about Jesus Christ in the flesh as a Jew.
Mat 1:1-17 KJV The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. (2) Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren; (3) And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram; (4) And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon; (5) And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse; (6) And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias; (7) And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa; (8) And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias; (9) And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias; (10) And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias; (11) And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon: (12) And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel; (13) And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor; (14) And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud; (15) And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob; (16) And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. (17) So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Got Rules for Radicals today. Thanks for sparking my interest, I'll let you know how it goes.
three johns
A Strange Introduction
that doesn't get enough attention. Combine this with John being told to "prophesy again" after eating the little book. Is there a record of him prophesying again? Yes but the record of John prophesying the first time is missing except for a few clues. The dog that didn't bark. Eusebius and Victorinus did not mention Antipas or the seven churches. Were they looking at the first Apocalypse written by John the Baptist?
Home
A Strange Introduction
that doesn't get enough attention. Combine this with John being told to "prophesy again" after eating the little book. Is there a record of him prophesying again? Yes but the record of John prophesying the first time is missing except for a few clues. The dog that didn't bark. Eusebius and Victorinus did not mention Antipas or the seven churches. Were they looking at the first Apocalypse written by John the Baptist?
Home
Antipas
A Missing Martyr
in the Church History by Eusebius. Martyrs from Pergamus are not missing. Carpus and Papylus, and a woman named Agathonice are mentioned as martyrs in Pergamus but not Antipas. Victorinus doesn't mention Antipas or the seven churches. Eusebius mentions six of the seven churches but never associates them with the Apocalypse. There is a reasonable explanation for this. Their copy did not have them. The first version written by John the Baptist.
Home
A Missing Martyr
in the Church History by Eusebius. Martyrs from Pergamus are not missing. Carpus and Papylus, and a woman named Agathonice are mentioned as martyrs in Pergamus but not Antipas. Victorinus doesn't mention Antipas or the seven churches. Eusebius mentions six of the seven churches but never associates them with the Apocalypse. There is a reasonable explanation for this. Their copy did not have them. The first version written by John the Baptist.
Home
not proof but
A Reasonable Explanation
for all the issues surrounding the Apocalypse. When was it written? Who wrote it? Why was it written? John the Baptist was preparing the way for the first coming. John the Apostle was told to prophesy again to the seven churches. John Chrysostom convinced Jerome that the little book belonged in the bible. And the rest is history. Pay attention to history.
Home
A Reasonable Explanation
for all the issues surrounding the Apocalypse. When was it written? Who wrote it? Why was it written? John the Baptist was preparing the way for the first coming. John the Apostle was told to prophesy again to the seven churches. John Chrysostom convinced Jerome that the little book belonged in the bible. And the rest is history. Pay attention to history.
Home
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
I'm back with an update from Rules for Radicals. 
He makes an interesting observation about how societies "discourage and penalize ideas and writings that threaten the ruling status quo." As a result, "the literature of a Have society is a veritable desert whenever we look for writings on social change," while there's an "unceasing flood of literature justifying the status quo." Makes sense, doesn't it?
The Have-Nots of the world, swept up in their present upheavals and desperately seeking revolutionary writings can find such literature only from the communists . . . . Since in this literature all ideas are embedded in the language of communism, revolution appears synonymous with communism."
Before you say it, I'm aware in that last sentence that he says democracy is not an end. I don't know what the end is according to him, I'll have to keep reading. But it doesn't sound so far like the end is Marxist totalitarian communism:
He makes an interesting observation about how societies "discourage and penalize ideas and writings that threaten the ruling status quo." As a result, "the literature of a Have society is a veritable desert whenever we look for writings on social change," while there's an "unceasing flood of literature justifying the status quo." Makes sense, doesn't it?
Religious, economic, social, political, and legal tracts endlessly attack all revolutionary ideas and action for change as immoral, fallacious and against God, country, and mother. These literary sedations by the status quo include the threat that, since all such movements are unpatriotic, subversive, spawned in hell and reptilian in their creeping insidiousness, dire punishments will be meted out to the supporters. All great revolutions, including Christianity, the various reformations, democracy, capitalism and socialism, have suffered these epithets in the times of their birth. To the status quo concerned about its public image revolution is the only force which has no image, but instead casts a dark, ominous shadow of things to come. . . .
The Have-Nots of the world, swept up in their present upheavals and desperately seeking revolutionary writings can find such literature only from the communists . . . . Since in this literature all ideas are embedded in the language of communism, revolution appears synonymous with communism."
We have permitted a suicidal situation to unfold wherein revolution and communism have become one. These pages are committed to splitting this political atom, separating this exclusive identification of communism with revolution . . . . This is a major reason for my attempt to profile a revolutionary handbook not cast in a communist or capitalist mold, but as a manual for the Have-Nots of the world regardless of the color of their skins or their politics . . . . Believing in people, the radical has the job of organizing them so that they will have the power and opportunity to best meet each unforeseeable future crisis as they move ahead in their eternal search for those values of equality, justice, freedom, peace, a deep concern for the preciousness of human life, and all those rights and values propounded by Judaeo-Christianity and the democratic political tradition. Democracy is not an end but the best means toward achieving these values.
Before you say it, I'm aware in that last sentence that he says democracy is not an end. I don't know what the end is according to him, I'll have to keep reading. But it doesn't sound so far like the end is Marxist totalitarian communism:
Let us in the name of radical pragmatism not forget that in our system with all its repressions we can still speak out and denounce the administration, attack its policies, work to build an opposition political base. True, there is government harassment, but there still is that relative freedom to fight. I can attack my government, try to organize to change it. That's more than I can do in Moscow, Peking, or Havana. Remember the reaction of the Red Guard to the "cultural revolution" and the fate of the Chinese college students. Just a few of the violent episodes of bombings or a courtroom shootout that we have experienced here would have resulted in a sweeping purge and mass executions in Russian, China, or Cuba.
I don't eitherI'm back with an update from Rules for Radicals.
I don't know what the end is according to him,
but
I do know he is for abortion
and
against marriage, family, and religion
so
go figure
to shew unto his servants
A Revelation
of what must shortly come to pass. Who are his servants? Who is his servant? There are three different Johns. John the Baptist who bare record. John the Apostle who knew the seven churches. John Chrysostom who was in Ephesus at the beginning of the fifth century when Jerome was completing his Latin translation. The Vulgate.
Home
A Revelation
of what must shortly come to pass. Who are his servants? Who is his servant? There are three different Johns. John the Baptist who bare record. John the Apostle who knew the seven churches. John Chrysostom who was in Ephesus at the beginning of the fifth century when Jerome was completing his Latin translation. The Vulgate.
Home
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Hopefully by the time I finish the book we'll both know.
Is he actually "against" those things though? And "against" in what way? As in he didn't want to allow people the freedom to believe or not believe, marry or not marry?
Right Divider
Body part
John was an Israelite. These are the "servants" that he was talking about:
Lev 25:55 KJV For unto me the children of Israel are servants; they are my servants whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.
Alinsky is a wolf who doesn't bother with the sheep's clothing. He speaks to those who want to rationalize their not even looking for God.
There is no doubt that his servant is John who bare record. So who are the servants?
Right Divider
Body part
I just showed you. Don't you even read the posts? :doh::nono:
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
You didn't answer the question. You made vague unsupported allegations, which is what I've seen everyone do on the right who demonizes Alinsky. You didn't back them up, you just changed the subject. I'm asking for specific support for what you believe about him.
I'm not saying he wasn't a radical, or even revolutionary. I'm not saying I'd agree with him in total, because I wouldn't. And yet - most people, if what they hold dear is threatened, have the capacity to be radical or revolutionary. The difference is, does the prevailing status quo approve of the revolutionary idea? Which was his point.
the Vulgate
A Translation
of the bible by Jerome. Where did he get his copies? We have no copies of the Apocalypse older than what is in the Vulgate. Jerome had to rely on others for reliable copies. We can only speculate but it must be consistent with historical records that somehow survived. History is all we have so we must rely on being led to the right stuff. Ask for directions.
Home
A Translation
of the bible by Jerome. Where did he get his copies? We have no copies of the Apocalypse older than what is in the Vulgate. Jerome had to rely on others for reliable copies. We can only speculate but it must be consistent with historical records that somehow survived. History is all we have so we must rely on being led to the right stuff. Ask for directions.
Home
Last edited:
Alinsky dedicated his book to Lucifer. You could say he was the father of the Catholic Campaign for Human Development. It is not clear whether the bishops used him or he used the bishops but what is clear is the bishops with notable exceptions have been corrupted and should not get any support from us.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
No he didn't. He dedicated it to Irene.
Also there's an acknowledgements page naming four people who helped him with the book. Following that is a page with three quotes, one from Rabbi Hillel (his childhood Rabbi), one from Thomas Paine, and one from himself. Here's what it says: "Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer."
Alinksy didn't believe in a Lucifer, so this tongue-in-cheek reference doesn't have the substance you assign to it, but given his desire and ability to upset the status quo, it's had the effect he likely meant it to have.
Probably both, given his description of his work in the Chicago Yards I gave you initially, but whether or not you contribute to the bishops is irrelevant to whether or not Alinsky was as evil as he's made out to be. I'll give you another report soon, I'm almost finished with the next chapter.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Glad you cleared that up!
OK, I see - you're quibbling over the terms "dedicated" and "acknowledgement"