Vindicated AGAIN: A jury swiftly exonerates falsely accused priest Rev. Xiu Hui 'Joseph' Jiang
A civil jury in Missouri took merely minutes to decide what many of us have already known for a long time: that Rev. Xiu Hui "Joseph" Jiang and the Archdiocese of St. Louis are completely innocent of wild charges related to sex abuse of a teenage girl.
To illustrate how clear it was to the jury that the charges against Rev. Jiang were ridiculous: The jury was given the case at 12:30pm. And even with the staggering anti-Catholic atmosphere in the St. Louis area, and even though the trial's arguments and testimony took a full two weeks, the jury returned its exonerating verdict by 3pm, and that included a lunch break.
More lunacy from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch
Crappy journalism:
Joel Currier of the
St. Louis Post-Dispatch
Yet if one were to get their information from the local St. Louis Post-Dispatch – who has a well-established track record of animus against the Catholic Church – a reader missing the headline would barely even understand that a jury had cleared Fr. Jiang.
The Post-Dispatch's Joel Currier – whose rottenness in reporting the Catholic Church abuse story needs to be noted – spent much of his article about the jury's exoneration actually regurgitating the crazy accusations against the innocent priest that a jury had already determined were phony.
In truth, Currier neglected a number of very important facts in the case of Fr. Jiang:
- the teenage accuser originally did not even support suing Fr. Jiang in the first place;
- law enforcement dropped charges against Fr. Jiang after determining the case was completely bogus, a fact which Currier relegated to the very last sentence of his warped article;
- a federal judge ruled last August that the lawyer-funded hate group SNAP defamed Fr. Jiang by falsely accusing him of being a pedophile and ordered that Jiang be compensated for his legal expenses;
- the accuser was represented by tort lawyer Ken Chackes, a close collaborator and financial supporter of SNAP;
- the accuser wildly claimed that the abuse somehow happened in a family room at the very same time that seven other family members were present;
- the accuser never suffered from "Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder" as claimed.
In truth, this entire case stunk from its very beginning. Bravo to Fr. Jiang for fighting back against his false accusers and the haters at SNAP.
It should also be noted that while media outlets all across Missouri went berserk years ago trumpeting the bogus accusations against Fr. Jiang far and wide, the same media has largely been mute in reporting the news of the jury's swift and clear decision exonerating the priest. Same as it ever was.
FINALLY, AN IMPORTANT MESSAGE TO ALL PRIESTS: The lesson from the Fr. Jiang case is this: Never, ever, ever become too emotionally or personally involved with any family other than your own. It does not matter that you "baptized every member" and/or "officiated every wedding." We have seen this all too often. That family whom you thought were "like family" could become your worst nightmare. Don't say no one ever warned you. Remember:
"Behold, I am sending you like sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd as serpents and simple as doves.
"But beware of people, for they will hand you over to courts …" (Matthew 10:16-17a).
Glad to see someone get justice, and I'll be patiently waiting for God to give me justice, on Judgment Day. We won't question or assess whether Jiang was truly, "completely innocent", as others in this forum think they have the right to do, adding their nasty lies to destroy innocent victim's reputations. Thanks Dave for the Bible quote, but wonder how you can use that towards others, but fail to see how it applies to wolves in your church. You also may want to be careful about quoting the Bible. They'll start accusing you of being deranged fundie, having a fixed delusional disorder and plagued with mental infelicities.
I also couldn't help but notice that you cut off the second half of Matthew 10:17.
"But beware of people, for they will hand you over to the courts and scourge [flog or beat] you in their synagogues [churches]." Sounds like Christ was warning us more to beware of members of false cults, handing you over to the courts and punishing you in their churches. Exactly how the cowards of your church, lying priests, nuns, cops and thugs, lied as an excuse to cause me trouble, threatened me several times, and one time beating me from behind, by four thugs who were much bigger than me. Real brave, holy, kind and godly people. Only difference was they did it outside their false temples, and yet still accused me of trespassing.
I think it's time I take a break from the deception, slander and immature nonsense of this forum. I leave you with this prophecy my friend received today, if there are any in this forum who can appreciate God's Word.
I came to you as your Father in heaven. But you don't want to accept Me as your Father. I came to you with My faith. But you don't want to accept My power of strength. I came to you with My hope. But you don't want to accept My hope, instead you would rather move backwards and downwards in life. I came to you with My love. But you don't want to accept My love, you would rather live with hatred in your heart. I came to you with My peace. But you don't want to accept My peace, you just want to keep on fighting and causing wars, in this unforgiving world. I came to you with My Word. But you don't want to accept My Word. WHY?
"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves." Matthew 7:15 They'll show themselves as so sweet and gentle, disguising the evil that dwells within, deceptive, treacherous liars, children of their father, Satan. servant
Dan
You are obviously a fake and a hater. Talking to you is usless. We will pray for you. Feel the sting.
Dave has reminded us of the words of Jesus, "Behold I am sending you out to be like sheep amongst wolves, so be as shrewd as serpents and as simple as doves……". The part that we often fail to take on board is the caution… "so be as shrewd as serpents". To my mind shrewdness would mean identifying the particular wolves who orchestrated the attack. And Dave used the word rottenness in describing the media's involvement. Without any doubt there is a witch-hunt due to a complicit media. And incidentally, in Missouri, there are two newspapers now being sued by Fr. Kenneth Kaucheck… for malicious libel. This is like a warning shot aimed at the wolves. So Fr. 'Joseph' Jiang and his Bishop should now sue the St. Louis newspaper…. for libel… and discrimination, on the basis of a citizen's race and religion. Shrewdness here might mean keeping a counterattack going against the wolves.
Should have said Michigan, not Missouri, when referring to Fr. Kenneth Kaucheck….sorry.
Well, we now get to observer a genre performance that hasn’t been seen around here for a while, but should be familiar to longtime readers: the pearl-clutching ‘last concert’ departure of this or that Abusenik performer.
As usual we can expect that this ‘farewell tour’ will provide the platform for a final self-serving effort to spin the departee’s performances in just the way he would like to be remembered, regardless of that spin’s incongruity with any rational assessment of the actual material performed over time here.
There will be a succession of Wigs, sometimes precariously perched one on top of another or suddenly changed in the middle of the performance as if before our very eyes.
Thus the curtain rises now on ‘Dan’s on the 10th at 712PM.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 712PM:
He opens with the Wig of Sober and Mature Evaluation, piously intoning that (with the results of Fr. Jiang’s jury trial) he is “glad to see someone getting justice”. A nice opening, but this is the ‘Dan’-verse and the experienced reader will wait.
But won’t have to wait for long because instantly thereafter ‘Dan’ claps on the general Wig of the ‘Dan’-verse: using the pious bleat merely as a pretextual opening, he quickly launches into how he will “be patiently waiting” for “God” to “give [‘Dan’] justice” … although, in the sly way of an FDS, he doesn’t expect that outcome until everything is beyond examination or assessment or ‘proof’, i.e. “on Judgment Day”. Thus, the ‘Dan’-verse will be able to roll on and on.
Me thinks you talketh too much
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 712PM:
Then however – but who can be surprised? – ‘Dan’ quickly retracts whatever import his opening pious bleat might have held: “we” shall not “question or assess whether Jiang was truly, ‘completely innocent’”. Because – apparently – nobody has “the right” to do that; nobody has “the right” to take the jury results as definitive.
One could take this point as holding some legitimacy, but ‘Dan’ himself – doncha see? – has long demonstrated “the right” to make broad and deep accusations against priests, the Church, and Catholicism on even far less definitive grounds than a jury-trial’s results. He can do this – doncha see? – because he has speshull knowledge and is God’s deputy-dawg. And that stuff overrides any piffling concern for evidence or rationality, which are merely forms of “worldly knowledge” anyway and the Bible says … and so on and so forth.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 712PM:
Then – quickly – the Wig of Victimized Innocence: we all know to whom ‘Dan’ refers with the pearl-clutching riff on “adding their nasty lies to destroy innocent victim’s reputations”.
His grammar fails to keep up with his slyness here, however: in order to avoid seeming like he is referring to his most singular self, he avoids using any singular limiting adjective such as “an” to describe that “victim’s” … but without the singular limiting adjective there can only grammatically be plural victims and he should have said “victims’”, yet he actually did have his mind focused on himself and so he has kept the singular “victim’s”.
Thus the twisty intricacies of a character far too sly for its mind’s capacities.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 712PM:
Then an effort to somehow make it seem that on this site anyone who puts forward a Scriptural pericope will automatically be labeled a “fundie” and a “deranged fundie”.
But that isn’t true at all. It’s not the mere deployment of a pericope that would engender such a classification. What engenders that classification is the fundie-type effort to use a Scriptural pericope as a weaponized tool of manipulation for fomenting one’s own purposes, rather than accepting the pericope in its integrity for its message.
And what triggers the “deranged” bit is not any simple deployment of a Scriptural pericope but rather the proffering of a large body of material that clearly leads to the sense of “derangement” strongly suggesting “a fixed delusional syndrome” and being “plagued with mental infelicities” – such as happened in ‘Dan’s case.
Indeed, I would say that the greatest example of “blasphemy” on this site remains ‘Dan’s myriad efforts to shoehorn Scriptural pericopes into his own scare-visions for his own purposes.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 712PM:
On then to a ‘final’ demonstration of ‘Dan’s Scriptural chops: he “couldn’t help but notice” (lah-de-dah) that DP’s article “cut off the second half of Matthew 10:17”.
And DP did leave out the final clause of 10:17, i.e. “… and scourge you in their synagogues”.
Now clearly, this pericope refers to Jewish places of worship, and that makes sense since in this early era of Christianity early Christians are seeking to distinguish themselves from the regnant Jewish religion of that time and place. It would clearly be irrelevant to any matters at hand here, and DP thus appropriately leaves it out (while noting through that “17a” notation that there is indeed some ‘b’ bit of the pericope that has been left out).
And so what?
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 712PM:
And here ‘Dan’ demonstrates his usual modus operandi, so familiar in fundie usage: ‘Dan’ merely and slyly equates “synagogues” with “churches” – thus opening the way for his usual rants and riffs about how he has encountered so many of his legal and psychiatric misadventures while seeking to bethump Catholics in or near their parish churches.
And so – on the basis of that utterly gratuitous and self-serving presumption – ‘Dan’s cartoon can roll merrily along .. as it does for the rest of that paragraph.
Which includes his now-familiar bit that all his problems have been caused merely and solely by being made the subject of ‘lies’ told by those whom he had accosted “as an excuse to cause [him] trouble”. That any of his own words and actions might have had anything to do with his extensive legal and psychiatric record is something ‘Dan’s indenture to his FDS cannot even begin to contemplate, let alone accept.
That’s what a nice, tight FDS will get you.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 712PM:
And – as an added pearl-clutchy touch – ‘Dan’ doth add here that the “thugs” were “much bigger than” he is … so he is, with a trendy nod to current excitements, the victim of bullying on top of everything else. He’s just a victim. And – as I said – he’s all about making excuses for himself that will blame others for his (notable and profound) whackeries.
As I have said on the immediately prior thread, who – confronted with ‘Dan’ in full-blown ‘prophet’ mode – wouldn’t dial 911?
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 712PM:
All of which leads, then, to the Great Farewell Tour Announcement: he shall “take a break”.
Because it’s all just “deception, slander and immature nonsense” in “this forum”. Readers may judge as they will.
But wait – there’s more. By amazing coincidence , his “friend” just happened to have “received today” – had you been waitingggggggggg forrrrrr itttttttttttttt? – a “prophecy”. (Does a prophecy-maker not make prophecies rather than receive them? Or is this another oh-so-convenient Fax From The Beyond?)
But – we are assured – this “prophecy” is “God’s Word” (The content of these faxes apparently deserve capitalization as if they were themselves Scripture.)
On then to ‘Dan’s further Farewell message (the 10th at 731PM), which now gives us the text of the “Word”, which appears not to be anything from the text of Scripture at all.
And this whole bit just happens – by amazing coincidence – to make it seem as if ‘Dan’ was bethumped not on the basis of his legal and psychiatric issues or the content of his material, but rather simply because he – like Jesus and all the actual Biblical prophets – was rejected on the basis of his – as it were – ‘message’.
He’s not plagued with mental infelicities – doncha see?; he’s just like Jesus is all.
And in this bit ‘Dan’ self-servingly bleats about “love” and “peace” and against “hatred in [one’s] heart”. Readers can consider the content of ‘Dan’s myriad comments here and see how much “love” and “peace” they don’t find, and how much “hatred in [the] heart” they do find in his rants and epithets and accusations and stories and claims.
So do we not see precisely in the whole of ‘Dan’s performance a “false prophet” who comes piously bleating “in sheep’s clothing” that really only serves to be “disguising” the whackery and ranting “that dwells within”, “deceptive and treacherous” … ?
may I ask, who will pay tzhe moral end emotional damage caused by these false accusations?
The false flagged SNAP will pay nothing. they will just evaporate like the church always planned them to.The church created SNAP to do exactly this. that all victims might be smeared by SNAP's false accusations.( I'm no longer interested in watching P and co. blow smoke and filling these comment sections with nonsense). Your church is criminal as are other religions. You are not alone there but yours is the only church to create a fake victims group to control us by "representing" not our needs but your church's needs. Fuck you P and SNAP and Fuck their inventor Tom Doyle O.P.!
So now we return, back to Cartoon Time, with more mocking ignorance, lying stupidity and insinuating nonsense. And inform the grammar police (pig), that I was speaking in the plural, in regards to all the innocent victim's reputations, your deceiving cult has destroyed. You've made your own mistakes in grammar, that none of us have pointed out, Mr. Know-It-All. [sic] No, you're sick! Just to annoy you, I may throw in a verse or prophecy now and then. servant of God
Per Dan on April 10, 2017 at 7:12 pm he is “glad to see someone get justice” as long as that justice is given to Dan. Dan has received justice but is not happy with how that justice has been applied to his conduct and who can blame him. Having been arrested six times for doing the same thing again and again having not learned your lesson the first time must be frustrating. He is also not happy that his material has been questioned and doesn’t believe anyone has a right to assess his material unless you swallow Dan’s story that he has been a victim. As Publion has pointed out to Dan and the like, there are websites out there that are willing to swallow whatever story you put out there regarding the alleged abuse being claimed. This website is not the place for such stories to be taken as fact. The stories presented by those claiming to be a victim have been loaded with questionable material and when assessed have led to conclusions that don’t lead to where the story tellers wish the readers to be led. Dan prefers you buy his story and disregard all the red flags he himself has presented. There have been no nasty lies added to Dan’s story from the outside that have led to Dan’s reputation being ruined. No one knows who Dan really is so no need for Dan to be worried about his reputation being ruined. If Dan’s reputation in the real world has been ruined and his story, as he has presented on this website is true, then Dan is responsible for his reputation being tarnished. Apparently, Dan has been bitten enough times to have learned his lesson in the real world because he has decided to take his show on the internet where he is safe from incarceration. I am sure there are “hundreds” of people out there who are happy about that.
Justice is only just if it produces truth. When it declares the liars of your deceiving cult, honest or trustworthy, then that's a disservice to all justice. You and your mentor, publyin', are a joke, but I ain't laughin'.
As regular readers may recall, there was another element to the Abusenik ‘farewell concert’ phenomenon: they come back.
Thus ‘Dan’ not only returns (the 11th at 421PM) within a matter of hours after his farewell bleat, but he is clearly revealed to have been monitoring the site closely even after he had finished his final and farewell keystroke.
And do we get any examples of “mocking ignorance, lying stupidity, and insinuating nonsense”? Not a bit. I don’t think this omission is attributable to “stupidity” on ‘Dan’s part; “lying” would be closer to it, and we can never forget that beneath the indenture to the FDS there remains a manipulative and deceitful character to begin with.
After all, nobody with a Wig collection as big as that of the various types we have seen on this site and with a practiced capacity to slip from one Wig to another or to pile one on top of another … can really be committed to truth or – for that matter – reality.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 421PM:
And he then tries to establish a charge without any evidence: I have made grammatical mistakes too, he whines. It’s just that … “none of us” bothered to point them out, doncha see?
First, if I made any such mistakes, anyone – including ‘Dan’ – had every right to point them out. If they existed and he merely refrained from pointing them out … how credible is that? Did he exercise such (uncharacteristic) restraint out of an abundance of politesse?
Second, some grammatical errors are mere typos. Some, however, yield insight into the writer. That’s what I saw and still see in ‘Dan’s victims’/victim’s error.
And then – the final juvenile fallback position – he “may throw in a verse or prophecy now and then” but “just to annoy”. So … he just puts up all this stuff just to “annoy” … ? So much for the serious work of a speshull ‘prophet’. ‘Dan’s just an unripe juvenile mentality who gets a kick throwing mud and plop and then claiming he’s a victim of “lies” and of being bethumped by bullies.
Ridiculous, publiar. Prophecy, as I previously said, is for those who can "appreciate God's Word". That wouldn't include you. The fact that they annoy you gives me added pleasure. I far from put up "all this stuff just to annoy", as you insist on twisting whatever I say. servant
I doubt that average folk often get the chance to a) observe these types and their material b) in a forum where they are put under sustained analysis.
Certainly, the Abuseniks never expected such a thing to ever happen. ‘Dan’ – more significant for his fundie ranting and his indenture to his FDS – was probably never rational enough to strategize sufficiently so as to expect or not-expect analysis. But neither of these types is happy with sustained analysis. They are a caricature form of vaudeville hoofers, content to do a turn on stage, get some applause and their next booking, and go back into the night whence they came and wherein they dwell.
Your analogies are as big a joke as you. Apparently, you're content to remain in darkness, eternally. No comment to the rest of the garbage and lies. servant
After Christ tears into religious hypocrites, warning them that "blasphemy [mocking] against the Spirit, will not be forgiven", calling them a "brood of vipers", and cursing their evil generation, this is how he treats his mother, your "Hail, Holy, Queen of Heaven". Matt ch.12
While he was still speaking to the crowds, his mother and his brothers appeared outside, wishing to speak to him. [Someone told him, your mother and your brothers are standing outside, asking to speak with you."] But he said in reply to the one who told him, "Who is my mother? Who are my brothers? And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my heavenly Father is my brother, and sister, and mother." Matthew 12:46-50 (NAB) Your catholic Bible quotation.
Catholics, If you prefer to allow deceivers and lying hypocrites, tell you that they honor, venerate, adore, but never do they worship their false goddess, then Jesus leaving his mother out in the cold, will never be understood. This is the Word of God, and let no one brainwash you, that your teaching supersedes the Lord's Word. They deceive others, but truly are themselves deceived. Yeah! I'm back. If you don't stop, then I may never stop. servant
In the civil case, in St. Louis, the jury exonerated Rev. Joseph Jiang. The jury took less than three hours to decide the case was without real substance. The plaintiff (accuser) was represented by tortie Ken Chackles, a backer and collaborator of those bigots in SNAP. Perhaps I am sinning against charity, but I would have liked to have seen the look on his greedy face when the jury announced their verdict. Hopefully the judge will make him look even sicker…. when costs are awarded against the plaintiff…. Ouch!
Going down the list as they appear on the screen:
On the 12th at 1227PM – perhaps forgetting his own several farewell performances here and thinking that ‘Dan’s farewell tour was actually definitive – JR seeks to put his show on the road again.
To recap its gist: 35 or so years ago the Church created SNAP / as a way of capturing the budding Stampede and save itself a lot of money / using Fr. Tom Doyle as a foil, and some nuns who let SNAP use a building under their control and somehow participate in their non-profit status / but this plan always called-for SNAP to somehow disappear when the Church decided it was time for SNAP to go / and then several years later, with SNAP failing to catch on, the Church got noted tortie Jeff Anderson to make Barbara Blaine an offer by which SNAP would front for the torties in exchange for ‘donations’ made by torties around the nation; said ‘donations’ would come from the monies the torties got from the settlements they got from the Church / so all the major players in this plan, plus media, judges, and others innumerable and unknown, were tools of the Church and its plan / and then, within the past few years, the Church decided SNAP had to go / so the Church got the now-exposed Billy Doe-Gallagher case going in Philly / with local Philly judges who would surely make a hash of the trial(s) / and then the Church got Ralph Cipriano to expose the Doe-Gallagher mess / and then the Church got SNAP to make “false accusations” against priests – and for Clohessy to admit it publicly in court / and then the Church got an ex-SNAP staffer to expose the apparent kickback scheme between SNAP and the torties / and then the Church got Fr. Jiang to bring his (successful) lawsuit / and then the Church got the Philly DA himself to self-destruct through numerous financial irregularities / and then the Church got the feds to indict him for numerous serious charges (having nothing to do with the Philly priest-abuse cases) / and all of this was done by the Church as part of its plan, successfully sustained over the course of decades, merely to make ‘victims’ look bad. Oh, and JR is the only one who has ever put all this together and knows it all to be true.
If what I say is untrue, Explain Doyle's plan from the jump when he was still head Canon lawyer in the U.S..In his secret paper, now published in his own book, about how Doyle wanted the church to fund and create "committees"? The knowledge of the creation of these committees, according to Doyle, would cause a greater scandal FOR THE CHURCH than the sex scandal they already had. Why? Would could possibly cause a greater scandal than the sex abuse coverup scandal they already had? ANSWER PLS. AND don't say you've answered this question before. You have not. You only parrot that the Bishops rejected Doyle's paper. You never mention his plans outlined in his paper. Why should we believe your church wouldn't attempt to control victims, our choice of lawyers, and our political statements? That's what SNAP gave the church. Complete control of victims and our "choice" of lawyers. You don't deal in truth. Doyle's paper showed the truth of who the church really is and how it behaves regarding its sex victims.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 12th at 1227PM:
Then – demonstrating that exact same manipulative slyness as ‘Dan’ – JR doth declare and proclaim that he is “no longer interested” in any problems pointed out with his ‘theory’ because all they do is “blow smoke” and fill the comment section here with “nonsense”. Apparently JR will yet again try to run the same ‘preemptive evasion’ bit that ‘Dan’ so often runs when his material (stories, accusations, claims) can’t hold up under analysis.
As I have always said: SNAP may have been created under the auspices of well-intentioned nuns in the early-mid 1980s for the purpose of helping, but that effort did not succeed. But in 1988 Anderson saw an opening: the torties could run their time-honored forced-settlement strategy against the Church for big big bucks, but they needed a front-organization to funnel allegants to them because they were barred by law and professional regulations from doing such hoovering of allegants themselves. And thus, when Blaine agreed, was created SNAP as we know it.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 12th at 1227PM:
It was a successful strategy (the torties have used their forced-settlement strategy in many venues against many deep-pockets targets) and had quite a run, garnering at least three billion in settlements and costs.
But over time the tortie-SNAP scam came apart and is now in something approaching dire straits.
And – having delivered his cartoon – JR will then bring it to a big finish by moving quickly on to his concluding and scheduled epitheticals about the Church (which, he presumes, his cartoon absolutely proves to have been the mastermind behind it all over all these years).
Oh, and as usual, the addition of the juvenile scatology – a standard bit for JR when he has to somehow cover up the fact of the weakness of his actual claims and ‘theory’.
We then find ourselves – surprise, surprise – with more stuff from the recently departed ‘Dan’ (the 12th at 950PM) – who is apparently back from his farewell ‘break’.
Here, ‘Dan’ will solemnly intone that “justice is just only if it produces truth”. This is an imposing and impressive declaration, until one realizes that this is ‘Dan’ and ‘Dan’s version of “truth” … is what it is, requiring attendance at ‘Dan’s Scripture-themed version of the Mad Hatter’s Tea Party.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 12th at 1135PM:
Here he evades the ‘receiving-making’ prophecy point by simply redefining prophecy for himself as being able to “appreciate God’s Word”.
Which bit he then follows up with his personal authoritative declaration that I am not included in those who can “appreciate God’s Word” (or – but of course – ‘Dan’s cartoon marvelousness, either).
And he does like to “annoy” people, he says. He neglects to include ‘amuse’ as well.
And ‘inform’, since his material has revealed just what whackery is afoot out there.
And does his cartoon material somehow never works out the way he slyly plans it? Why, that’s just because I am “twisting” it. No, it’s twisted to begin with, and I just point out the original twists.
On then to ‘Dan’s extended disquisition of the 12th at 1254PM, apparently meant to be the mainstay of his ‘comeback performance’ (the ‘farewell performance’ now to be quickly forgotten).
The 11th and 12th chapters of Matthew revolve around the theme of rejection by this generation. (And who can be surprised that they would thus be particularly attractive for ‘Dan’s 3×5 pile?)
‘Dan’ has chosen the pericope comprised of verses 46-50 of the 12th chapter.
Apparently ‘Dan’ picked this pericope for his 3×5 file because – in his mind, anyway – it seems to reject Mary as His (i.e. Jesus’s) mother.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 12th at 1245PM:
But if that’s the conclusion that ‘Dan’ would like us to draw (though he doesn’t want to have to spell it out, for reasons that are obvious) then his gambit here fails rather significantly.
First, Mary is his mother, as the Infancy Narratives indicate, so Jesus certainly isn’t factually denying Mary’s motherhood, especially in the face of all those people, many of whom may well know that He is the son of Mary.
Second, nowhere is it indicated that Mary is not ‘doing the will’ of God. Indeed, the Annunciation narrative indicates precisely and gloriously the very opposite.
That Jesus points to his disciples as He declares “Here are my mother and brothers” clearly indicates that Jesus is speaking figuratively, since none of the disciples is either a female or – not to put too fine a point on it – His actual birth-mother.
So Jesus here is simply using a figure of speech to drive home the point that anyone who does the will of His heavenly Father joins in His ‘family’, which is thus not merely a biological family but a family of belief and of common obedience to the will of the Father.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 12th at 1245PM:
But – oblivious to the consequences of his own rather vivid misreading – or his willful attempt to impose his own interpretation on the pericope – ‘Dan’ will then launch into his concluding paragraph, somehow trying to ground his scheduled epitheticals in this pericope.
And we still don’t know if, after having delivered Himself of his point about the disciples, Jesus didn’t then go outside to check with Mom and see what she wanted to talk about. Surely, she remains in the picture and the Gospels, even unto that point where from the Cross Jesus tells a disciple “Behold your mother” (John 19:25-27) … “and from that hour the disciple [traditionally taken to be John, the Beloved Disciple] took her into his home”. An instruction which the Church has continued to fulfill.
Mary will be seen again in Acts 1:14, among the disciples in the Upper Room, along with “his brothers”.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 12th at 1245PM:
And then and then and then: after a farewell break that can be measured in hours, ‘Dan’ twirls his pearls around his head and declares that “Yeah! I’m back”.
And that he “may never stop”. ‘Dan’ is the servant only of his FDS; he cannot stop and trying to put a Scriptural/divine patina on that unhappy and abyssal infelicity is simply more cartoon posturing.
Publyin', this has to be your poorest display of misinterpretation of the Bible and of Christs' words. Matthew 12:46-50
First, Christ was not in any way denying Mary as his mother, nor do I deny Mary as the birth mother of Jesus.
Second, among the apostles there would be no females. Among "disciples", which would mean a student or follower of Christ, there were both male and female.
Third, the fact that Jesus was leaving his own mother and brothers outside, is showing that they were not 'doing the will' of God. Most likely not in agreement with her son's mission, possibly unbelieving and unsaved, at that moment in time. Also shows proof of Mary having other children, contrary to catholic false teaching (i.e. Mary – ever-virgin).
To sum up, are we to listen to one making false accusations of my vivid misreading and misinterpretation of Scripture, when he fails to realize the difference between the meaning of apostles and disciples. apostles = men disciples = male and female
This is not the first time that he has totally misunderstood Scripture verse, but is under the impression that since he has an extensive vocabulary, this makes him knowledgeable in all things, even spiritual things. I've already quoted and brought his attention to the Bible verse.
For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intellegent I will frustrate." 1 Cor 1:19 Maybe it should read, I will destroy the wisdom of those who think they are wise, for publyin' thinks he is so smart, that this quote doesn't apply to him. No wonder he thinks he can get away with mocking the things of God, including His servant. Not terribly intellegent, although he thinks he is. servant
P.S. The catholic religion; Hierarchy teaching Biblical falsehoods and lies, attracting followers who believe in these lies, and becoming themselves compulsive liars, while assuming that everyone else is a liar and hates their precious, holy apostate cult.
Or maybe your best display of misinterpretation of the Bible. I'm sure the grammar police will correct that for us all.
Oh! And don't forget to catch my misspelling of intelligent twice, but remember none of us are half as intelligent as you. And you must forgive me for being mentally deranged and incapacitated, but maybe God will accept my insanity plea. You are an absolute joke.
Did any catholics ever question why your Virgin Mary was not present at Christ's resurrection? Here you title her "Mother of God", "Queen of Heaven", "Immaculately Conceived", "Assumed into Heaven", etc.etc., and yet she wasn't among the several Marys that went to the tomb. Apparently, she wasn't included among the female repentant sinners who were 'doing the will' of God the Father. No one is saying she wasn't a good mother to her son, Jesus, for she was there throughout his life. We must be careful who we put up on pedestals, adoring and honoring, and yet claiming that doesn't equate to worship. Read the Lord's Word, and you'll find a plethura of things you've been taught were God's honest truth, when they are far from being anything of truth at all. A good place to start would be to research what constitutes as idols and idolatry in the Bible, taking a good look at the 1st and 2nd commandment, in different versions. Use the wonderful mind the Lord gave you, and don't allow false teachers to brainwash you and keep you from your prize, eternal life.
Going down the list, we have JR’s of the 14th at 1211PM:
We first note that JR does not dispute the accuracy of my summary of his cartoon ‘theory’ (the 13th at 1108AM).
Whatever, then, will he do?
He brings up more of the old 3x5s from his pile, long ago dealt with here.
Doyle submitted a plan to the national Bishops organization in the early 1980s, which was rejected by the Bishops because it appeared more of a proposal for a group that Doyle and his associates would run and thus seemed to the Bishops like a bit of empire-building on Doyle’s part.
The proposal was not “secret” (the word, as regular readers will recall when we examined the text here quite a while ago) and its text did not have the word “secret” anywhere in it.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 14th at 1211PM:
Doyle – perhaps after consultation with one of his two associates (a tortie; the other was a psychologist) – was shrewd enough to realize that if it became public knowledge that the Church was open for business in the ‘settlement’ line, it would create a ‘run on the bank’, so to speak. Which – in the event – was precisely what happened anyway once Anderson met with Blaine in early 1988.
Doyle and his associates were prescient in that regard: the tortie could see how the time-honored tortie stratagem of forcing settlements out of deep-pockets defendants could be deployed against the Church and the psychologist could see how the rising tide of ‘victimism’ could be stoked to overrun any other considerations when confronting allegations. It would create – to use a phrase – a ‘perfect storm’ that would generate huge waves of cash.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 14th at 1211PM:
Thus JR’s “why” question is answered. The “greater scandal” would be the scrum that would be generated by both the hype and the scent of easy cash in great gobs.
In that era (the early 1980s) there was no “coverup scandal” – that bit would only come into play once the full Stampede team was on the field: the torties, SNAP to feed allegants to the torties and issue press releases, and the media eager for any salacious and sinister stories and claims pushed their way, especially the ‘Spotlight’ crew at the Boston Globe – under the new editor who was looking for a way to demonstrate that there was ‘a new marshal in town’ in January of 2002.
Slyly, JR then tries to preemptively neutralize all of my foregoing points by claiming that his question has never actually been answered. But it has been and it was quite a while ago.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 14th at 1211PM:
He then, apparently, tries to float the insinuation that the Bishops took and implemented Doyle’s plan without Doyle. But it was Doyle who got going with SNAP, not the Bishops; and from the outset SNAP reflected Doyle’s anger vis-à-vis the Bishops who rejected his proposal (and his little empire that would have gone with it).
JR tries further to insinuate that it would be possible for the Bishops to have been able to “control victims” … by controlling the torties who would represent them (and we’re back to JR’s ‘theory’ as I summarized it on the 13th at 1108AM). What other lawyers besides torties would aspiring allegants have chosen? Are we really to believe that all the tort attorneys involved in the Stampede were tools of the Church? Did all of the allegants who were eventually given checks actually go through SNAP to find a tortie? Under what “control” were those who went out and got a tortie without going through SNAP?
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 14th at 1211PM:
And to what purpose and to what end? The torties and their forced-settlement stratagem cost the Church and Insurers upwards of 3 billion dollars. J
R’s ‘solution’ to this problem is to insist that there were actually many more billions that the torties ‘saved’ the Church … somehow, usually involving the assertion that there are many more ‘victims’ still out there who haven’t yet availed themselves of a tortie. After the past 15 years of full-blown Stampede? After the public demonstration that you could get yourself a million dollars (minus standard tortie fees and expenses) for claiming you had a teacher stick his hand down your pants (originally claimed to have been ‘rape’)?
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 14th at 1211PM:
Why should we imagine JR’s ‘theory’ here to be anything more than a self-serving, ranting cartoon?
And he still doesn’t explain how the Church managed to get and maintain “complete control of the victims”. Are we to believe or imagine that the 500-plus allegants of the LA lawsuit were completely under the “control” of the Church?
I have put forward before my theory: a large number of people saw a way to get in on the game, garnered quite a bit through the torties’ forced-settlement stratagem, cashed their checks, and now very much don’t want to be around if – finally – questions start to be asked.
They weren’t under the “control” of the Church; they wanted a check, the torties said they could deliver and to the tune of 3 billion dollars they did so. The allegants were under the “control” – so to speak – only of their own desire, and the torties delivered, and the Church had nothing to do with the “control” of any of that.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 14th at 1211PM:
SNAP “gave” the torties a steady stream of allegants looking for a way to get into the game; and the torties delivered – to the allegants and to SNAP (and probably to any other ancillary similar types of organizations).
This “complete control” bit is nothing more than a cartoon slogan and mantra. It explains nothing, cannot even establish its own probability, and isn’t even credibly defined.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 1106PM:
As usual, ‘Dan’ tries to manipulate readers by putting out the ‘Dan’-verse party line before he even gets into putting forth his material.
If ‘Dan’ didn’t intend (the 12th at 1254PM)to deny Mary’s being the mother of Christ, then what was the point of his quoting the pericope in the first place at all? Did he himself not then say that Jesus left “his mother out in the cold”?
Granted, ‘Dan’ didn’t then explain the significance of what he presumed (i.e. that Jesus left Mary “out in the cold”) – but what then was his point if not that Jesus was somehow minimizing the role of Mary?
And – as so very often – these fundie bits have to be taken as if they were free-standing and not an organic part of the entire Gospel text. Because – as I pointed out – we have the Annunciation scene, and then we have the scene at the foot of the Cross and then we have Mary with the disciples in the Upper Room. Surely Mary was not left “out in the cold” in the Gospel text.
It's absolutely ridiculous to claim that Jesus or myself is trying to deny Mary's motherhood. What Jesus stated, "For whoever does the will of my Father is my brother, and sister, and mother." Matthew 12:50 What Jesus was saying, was that his true relatives and friends, are those who listen, obey and do the will of his Father. Those born not of the flesh, but of the Holy Spirit. He was in no way denying his birth mother, Mary. However, to claim that Christ somehow needed help in God's plan of our salvation, or with our mercy, grace, faith, hope or love, is absolutely false. He is the only Redeemer, and in no need of a Mediatrix or saint as a helper. "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6 Jesus was not minimizing the role of Mary, she has no role in our redemption whatsoever. For anyone to claim different, is to diminish the role of Jesus Christ as our Savior, and place undue emphasis on someone only human and not God. This would definitely qualify as idol worship and unbiblical, and the claims of the catholic church as to Mary's attributes, is idolatry in its worst form (i.e. Mother of God, sinless, ever-virgin, "Queen of Heaven", etc.etc.).
Publiar states that my "second point is irrelevant to the matter on the table." It is most relevant. If one doesn't know the difference between the 12 apostles being all men, and disciples, or followers being of both sexes, then why should we have to listen to his poor and false interpretations of Scripture. How dare he claim my manipulation of Bible verse, when he insistently twists and destroys the Written Word. He says I make presumptions, and then follows that with a slew of his own false presumptions, like Jesus must have gone outside later to talk to Mary. This is ridiculous, when Jesus left Mary outside to begin with, and verse, Matthew 12:50, explains why.
I'm not sure why, but catholic apologists think they can carry on with long-winded excuses as to why they refuse to follow the Bible and its truths, believing that if their answers are long enough, readers will think they know what they're talking about. Problem is that their excuses and lies, tend to be unbelievable, and only one not knowing Scripture would fall for their nonsense. Beware of those who think they possess more intelligence than the Almighty, and have to prove it by their vast knowledge of ancient Hebrew, Greek or Latin. Making a big show of all their worldly wisdom and knowledge, when in reality, only phonies and lying hypocrites, Know-It-Alls. I think we all know who we're talking about. servant
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 1106PM:
His second point is irrelevant to the matter on the table. There were – according to the Gospel texts – no women among the Twelve, but even if we grant that there were women among the larger group of disciples, the point remains irrelevant.
His third point – as I pointed out – requires a presumption that after delivering His statement Jesus did not then go out to see what Mary wanted when she arrived outside. Indeed, it also presumes that Mary was somehow excluded from the group by Jesus’ own desire and intention; yet she may well have arrived too late to fit into the building ‘inside’ or she may have arrived late to speak with Him and not to listen to His discourse. The text does not help us here, but that is no justification for the presumptions that ‘Dan’ makes to fill in the gaps in the text’s relating of the event.
How – by any stretch of a rational imagination – one can reach ‘Dan’s conclusion that the mere fact of her being outside definitively demonstrates that “they [i.e. Mary and His brothers] were not ‘doing the will of God’” is for the readers to judge.
Once again, we see the fundies’ gambit of trying to fill in Scriptural gaps with their own self-serving presumptions. And once again, when we consider the Annunciation scene and the scenes at the foot of the Cross and in the Upper Room, then the idea of Mary somehow ‘not doing the will’ of God clearly become insupportable.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 1106PM:
Thus too , how could any rational mind – taking all of the above into consideration – come to the conclusion from the text that Mary was “possibly unbelieving and unsaved”?
Do we even know from the text what Mary wanted to speak to Jesus about? We do not.
Was Mary granted to capacity to see from the very outset (at the Annunciation) exactly and completely what God had in mind for herself and her Son? She probably was not given such a vision of the future in store for her and her Son. It was her role to demonstrate in the most fundamental aspects of her life as a mother a faithfulness to God’s will as it was slowly revealed to her, perhaps – one might imagine – as the fate Jesus slowly shaped for Himself and for her began to take form and she realized what dangers lay in store for Him.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 1106PM:
Continuing with quickie pass-alongs from his 3×5 file, ‘Dan’ then takes issue with the question of whether the “brothers” of Jesus were actual biological siblings or did the term in the original languages and usages of that time and place leave open other possibilities?
Helvidius in the 4th century held that Mary had other children with Joseph after the birth of Jesus. while St. Jerome held that she remained a virgin for the rest of her life and the brothers were actually cousins, children of Mary of Clopas, since the Greek term adelphios as used in that time and place could also mean ‘cousins’.
Epiphanius held that perhaps Joseph had children by a prior marriage (he was much older than Mary when they were married and perhaps was a widower); this possibility is supported by the Protoevangelium of James and the Gospel of Peter and the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, although for one reason or another these works were not included in the canon of the New Testament.
Ancient Semitic usage used the term ‘brothers’ or ‘brethren’ in a very loose sense, as we see in Genesis 12:8 and 14:14 and 16; and Leviticus 10:4.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 1106PM:
But the Protoevangelium of James, written only half a century after Mary’s death, holds that Mary was consecrated by her mother, Anne, to be a virgin in the service of the Lord, who would need a protector, for which purpose the much older Joseph would be the guardian and protector of her virginity.
His advanced age raises the possibility that he was an older widower with children from that first marriage, seems attested by the fact that after the birth of Jesus and His early years Joseph vanishes from the Gospels, since he might well have died before Jesus matured to adulthood.
But if all of the ‘brethren’ and sisters of Jesus were actually Mary’s other children, it is very difficult to imagine her concentration on Jesus throughout His life; who would have been taking care of the others? How could she have managed to focus on Him if she were so frequently pregnant and – increasingly – the mother of many small and growing children? It seems highly improbable that she gave Jesus so many biological siblings (and from the elderly Joseph as well).
And if He had so wide a biological clutch of siblings, why on the Cross did He recommend his mother to the care of a disciple (traditionally held to be John, the Beloved Disciple) rather than to the rest of His siblings?
And on the Cross He says to Mary, ‘behold your son’, but the Gospel text in the original language has Him saying “ide o ouios sou” – with that singular “o”, rather than “ide ouios sou” which would have implied other sons.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 1106PM:
And we already know that of the ‘brethren’, two of them have identified parents: James and Joses are the sons of Alpheus and Mary the sister of Jesus’ mother Mary, making these ‘brethren’ actually his cousins.
Certainly, Luther, Calvin and Zwingli all accepted the perpetual virginity of Mary.
From all of the above, readers may thus consider ‘Dan’s self-puffing “sum up”. Are we to listen to ‘Dan’ who clearly hasn’t bothered to think his position through and isn’t really up to speed on the Scripture?
And then we’re back to the utter irrelevance of his bit about the “apostles” and “disciples”, male and female.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 1106PM:
‘Dan’ is under the impression that since he has a big pile of 3x5s and already knows what he wants to know and what he doesn’t want to know or need to know before he starts shooting his mouth off about Scripture then he is a reliable guide to Scripture.
He is a vitriolic ranter with nothing but his personally selected pile of 3x5s and the manipulative and deceitful slyness to costume his ignorant rants with Scriptural pericopes that he cannot explain except by presuming his personally-convenient presumptions, even when the text itself doesn’t support them.
And his “P.S.” seems to be nothing but some notes jotted down from wherever he read or heard somebody else’s ranting and adopts it here as his own.
Phooey and baloney.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 1136PM:
After further consultation with his 3×5 pile or perhaps the committee in this bathroom mirror ‘Dan’ then tosses up another one: why was Mary “not present at Christ’s resurrection?”. For the same reason none of the Apostles were present at the actual moment of the Resurrection either: because they weren’t.
Why did God have it that way? Readers can put that on their spiritual bucket list to ask God when they get up there. I doubt many will try to short-cut that wait for their own convenience by asking their bathroom mirror, but I bet I know who has already tried that.
Are we to imagine that none of the Apostles were doing the will of God either, and that thus they were ‘punished’ by not being on hand to encounter the Jesus immediately after His Resurrection? Nobody was actually present at the Resurrection of Jesus, as ‘Dan’ apparently has forgotten (or ignored, since it would interfere with his plop-tossing here in this comment of his).
And the rest of the comment trails off into the usual scheduled rant.
Readers may judge as they will.
Bows out. The camo is too thick.
It's Pliars' world here at TMR. He hogs everything here.
He is Mr. Piggy.
This is God's Word in regards to our holidays. Let no fool tell you it's not, because he will.
All these holidays are manmade. Like Easter, I AM the ONE that was supposed to die during this holiday. A person makes sure they definitely get to church that day. But you never think about Me again. It is a time for people to show their fake personality, they get all gussied up and make their appearance. But you never think about Me again. You go and have a wonderful Easter dinner and have a few cocktails, just to have a good time. But you never think about Me again. You listen to people who think they know My Word, inside and out, and they don't know My Word at all. But you never think about Me again. You pray to an idol that can't help you in life and worship a piece of wood, that can't even hear your prayers. But you never think about Me again. Hey, My body may be gone, but My spirit will be with you until eternity.
I already hear the heathen hypocrite, denying this to be the Lord's Word, and yet it speaks of him so perfectly. I'll probably have to point out which pericopes describe him. What a joke.
The most recent crop actually does provide some food for thought. I’ll explain as we proceed down the list of comments as they appear on the screen.
Thus to ‘Dan’s of the 17th at 1236AM:
Here ‘Dan’ – having been called upon his point about Jesus ‘leaving Mary’ “out in the cold” – tries to come up with an explanation of what he actually meant (although inexplicably – but unsurprisingly – failed to explain the first time around when he had the chance):
No doubt of Mary’s biological motherhood of Jesus, ‘Dan’ says. So far so good.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 17th at 1236AM:
But then he slyly evades the import – whatever it is supposed to be – about her being left “out in the cold”. Instead he heads for the theological deep woods: he doth declare, pronounce and assert that it is “absolutely false” to “claim that Christ somehow needed help in God’s plan of our salvation”.
What this is is simply a re-run of a (conveniently, for ‘Dan’) inaccurate bit to the effect that the Church holds Mary to be a necessary co-adjutor and co-mediator of the New Covenant. As I said in comments above, Mary is not held to be a co-mediator of the New Covenant, but rather she is – as it were – ‘the human face’ of the New Covenant, i.e. that when Christians turn to the Heavenly Court they can find in Mary both a human and maternal person who will assist them in living out the New Covenant (whose sole Mediator is Christ).
So while it is perfectly true to claim that holding Mary as co-mediator of the New Covenant is “absolutely false” it is also perfectly true that I never claimed that and surely the Church does not and never has. ‘Dan’ has merely created a non-existent assertion and then refuted it – which is useful only insofar as it reveals ‘Dan’s (and the typical fundie) modus operandi.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 17th at 1236AM:
Thus Mary plays – in the Church’s view – a vital role in the ever-ongoing implementation of the New Covenant because humans are more comfortable with a maternal human rather than a divinity – even Jesus, and especially the foreboding and awe-full Christos Pantocrator of the first Christian millennium.
In those monarchical times, the Heavenly Court was quite understandably seen in the familiar terms of a human royal or imperial Court; and the average person would always seek a ‘friend at Court’, especially so human and maternally sensitive a friend.
In a way, this fundie gambit here is a consequence of the Protestant idea that the Bible – and thus God and the Heavenly Court – is immediately and infallibly available to anybody who picks up a Bible and comes up with an interpretation (or, in the extreme, a ‘prophecy’).
As I have said, such a presumption opens the door to anybody who feels an urge to do some god-talking as if they necessarily knew what they were doing and what they were talking about; thus, for example, any of the plethora of fundie stuff and – most certainly – the phenomenon of ‘Dan’ himself (or Himself).
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 17th at 1236AM:
Thus too then – and to repeat yet again – Mary is the “Mediatrix” not of the New Covenant itself but rather of its ongoing implementation in the lives of Christians.
Jesus is the sole Way, Truth, and Life … but Mary helps Christians along that Way toward that Truth and Life.
And the paragraph trails off with the usual scheduled bits about idolatry of Mary and so on and so forth.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 17th at 1236AM:
‘Dan’ then tries – with notable slyness – to claim that if I don’t “know the difference” between Apostles and disciples then why should I be trusted in the matter of any further insights? That would be the crux of ‘Dan’s assertion of the relevance of his distinction.
If we are to imagine that Jesus was suggesting that any possible female disciples were His mother, ‘Dan’ can come right out and say it. Otherwise, the point is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
But this bit gives ‘Dan’ an opening – which he quickly tries to exploit – to try to regain some high ground by then immediately donning the Wig of Righteous Outrage and denounce my characterization of his manipulations of Scripture. But ‘Dan’s manipulations of Scripture have been pointed out numerous times and explicated at length. What he’s trying to do in this bit is merely to somehow evade or neutralize all of his demonstrated problems of interpretation and Scriptural ignorance, since he cannot refute any of those problems specifically and rationally.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 17th at 1236AM:
And again ‘Dan’ slyly and manipulatively slides in the bit about “when Jesus left Mary outside”. There is nothing in the text to indicate that Mary was “left outside” by Jesus or anyone else. As I said, she could have arrived later on or she chose to remain outside in order to leave more room for folks to hear her Son’s address.
Nor do we in any way know from the text either a) what she wanted to speak to Him about or b) whether after delivering His comment He did or did not go outside to see what she wanted to speak to Him about.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 17th at 1236AM:
Nor does “Matthew 12:50” “explain why” about any of this. Nor does ‘Dan’ – of course – try to explain his selection of that verse or the significance he seems to think it holds for the matter at hand.
And then ‘Dan’ tries to bring the performance home by moving into his preferred territory of delivering his opinions. And thus the final paragraph with the usual bits now familiar to all readers here, and to anyone familiar with fundie stratagems and rants generally.
And as to the many points I have raised from the text itself, ‘Dan’ has a standard evasion: they are all merely “long-winded excuses” (for – had you been waitingggggg forrrrr itttttttttttt? – not going along with ‘Dan’ and fundie cartoons of Scripture).
And that any actual Scriptural chops are merely “worldly wisdom and knowledge”; ‘Dan’ and the fundies don’t need any actual Scriptural chops – doncha see? – because they already know what their cartoons require. One is vividly reminded of one of Goebbels’s favorite instructions larded thickly and imperiously onto German readers and viewers: “Mehr als dieses braucht ihr nicht zu wissen” (tr: More than this you don’t need to know).
On then to JR’s of the 16th at 640PM:
Here we have a problem and a gambit similar to ‘Dan’s: I had put up a series of comments (the morning of the 15th, 1143, 1144, 1145, 1146, 1147, 1149, 1150) dealing with his usual SNAP ‘theory’ and such.
How does JR deal with those problems with his ‘theory’?
Merely by tapping out this sort of stream-of-consciousness comment that at best is pure evasion and at worst indicates some sort of departure from facing reality at all.
He “bows out” – is this another of JR’s ‘farewell performance’ bits?
“The camo is too thick” – meaning what? That he cannot come up with any adequate explanatory or refutational responses?