Finally getting his long overdue apology: Rev. Xiu Hui 'Joseph' Jiang
The lawyer-funded hate group SNAP has issued a formal apology to St. Louis priest Rev. Xiu Hui "Joseph" Jiang, whom it had falsely accused of abusing children and maliciously branded a "pedophile."
The apology was released this afternoon by the Archdiocese of St. Louis but first reported by Robert Patrick at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch Jeannette Cooperman at St. Louis Magazine.
SNAP's apology reads as follows (emphasis added):
"The SNAP defendants never want to see anyone falsely accused of a crime. Admittedly, false reports of clergy sexual abuse do occur. The SNAP defendants have no personal knowledge as to the complaints against Fr. Joseph Jiang and acknowledge that all matters and claims against Fr. Jiang have either been dismissed or adjudicated in favor of Fr. Jiang. SNAP acknowledges that false claims of clergy sexual abuse injure those clerics falsely accused and the Roman Catholic Church. SNAP apologizes for any false or inaccurate statements related to the complaints against Fr. Joseph Jiang that it or its representatives made which in any way disparaged Fr. Joseph Jiang, Archbishop Robert J. Carlson, Monsignor Joseph D. Pins and the Archdiocese of St. Louis."
As regular readers of this site already know, SNAP's apology caps a long, five-year battle by Fr. Jiang to clear his name and restore his trashed reputation. Along the way:
- Law enforcement dropped all criminal charges against the innocent Fr. Jiang;
- Fr. Jiang discovered his accuser already had a long and sordid legal past;
- A federal judge ruled that SNAP indeed defamed Fr. Jiang and ordered that SNAP reimburse his legal fees, totaling $25,100;
- Another judge ordered one of Jiang's bogus accusers to pay the legal expenses of both Jiang and the Archdiocese of St. Louis, totaling $48,516.84; and
- A jury took mere minutes to swiftly exonerate Fr. Jiang in a two-week civil lawsuit.
Bravo to Fr. Jiang for fighting the good fight for truth and justice.
Good to see!
My heart went out to Rev. Jiang from the beginning. The man escaped religious persecution in China only to be falsely maligned here in the United States.
SNAP should have been sued out of existence!
I think it speaks volumes that the plaintiffs only asked for the defendents to cover costs and gave SNAP opportunity to publicly correct their mistake. If SNAP had done that to me, I'd have crushed them.
Funny thing. I was thinking of the Rev Jiang earlier today. This is good news. Too bad Barbara Blaine never aplogized before leaving. In fact, she continued to smear this priest on her Facebook page and what was so disturbing was that everyone seemed to buy her lies. https://www.facebook.com/search/top/?q=barbara%20blaine&ref=eyJzaWQiOiIwLjQ4ODk2MDQyOTQwOTI5MDg1IiwicXMiOiJKVFZDSlRJeVltRnlZbUZ5WVNVeU1HSnNZV2x1WlNVeU1pVTFSQSIsImd2IjoiYmVlMDlmOTNmYTczMmNmYTU5YTFjYjZkOWY0NTBkMzg5MjQyNGU0OSIsImVudF9pZHMiOltdLCJic2lkIjoiY2M4MWI3MDIyYjg4NTkwNmIwY2Q5MGZlYTUyOGQ0NWIifQ
Will Fr. Jiang sue SNAP? If not why not?
Love in the apology SNAP chose to say, "Admittedly false reports of clerical sex abuse do occur." Was that sentence necessary to apologize to one priest? And then later "SNAP admits that false claims of clergy sex abuse injurs those clerics falsely accused and the Roman Catholic church." Why did they admit that as part of an apology to one man? We all know that a false accusation is the worst thing you can do to someone regaurding sex abuse of children but why is SNAP being so destructive towards other victims with real claims. What lawyer would agree to an apology like this if they were advising SNAP? Will any possibility of a suit by Fr. Jiang against SNAP be dropped because of this apology?.
I hate to break it to you, Jim, but Fr. Jiang sued SNAP over two years ago.
http://www.themediareport.com/2015/06/30/rev-jiang-lawsuit-snap/
-
I see how the church should be included in this apology even though the church has hidden hundreds and transferred thousands of perpetrators of sex abuse of children. False accusations do hurt the church. But SNAP wasn't supposed to be making false accusations. It never had before yet it did. After 27 years of keeping themselves clean they blow a more recent claim and right in St. Louis their hometown. A miracle.. The odds of that happening if SNAP were truely a lawyers front would be zip. Just an error with a national apology as the scandal winds slowly down. All planned by SNAP's real owners the church.
You, here, think all or a large part of victims' accusations are false but thy're not. The vast majority are true.
TMR, after dealing with P you expect me to remember anything you post?
So did Fr. Jiang settle the case? Win the case? Or withdraw the case? Is the apology SNAP has given a part of some settlement?
This really is the result of people making the right decisions. In particular deciding to put up a fight for those falsely accused. I guess Archbishop Robert Carlson made that decision… and so I give much credit to him. Incidentally the apology made by SNAP is lacking in one respect. Because whilst working as an auditor I learned that any organization is only as good as the people who run it. In particular their honesty, diligence, and dedication. Meaning that certain people in SNAP must have made the decision to defame the priest. Yet they were not named? They should have been.
I'm glad to see that "the Church" is able to come up with the few, cherry-picked cases of fraud, and we're sure going to hear about it shouted from the rooftops. Malcolm, I'm glad to hear of your experience as an "auditor" has helped you learn "that any organization is only as good as the people who run it. In particular their honesty, diligence, and dedication", although that knowledge should be available to anyone with an ounce of common sense. Let me add that it can only be as good as its members, also.
So why don't we consider how "the church" stacks up to those qualities. a) honesty – I have never come across such a large number of liars and deceivers from one group or religion. b) diligence – "the church" has been most diligent in denying, excusing, minimalizing, hiding and transferring the pedophiles and perverts of their cult, in order to keep their malfeasances secret. c) dedication – The church has displayed an uncanny dedication to protect it's horrible reputation, by any means, in order to preserve the impression that it is the One True Church. Possibly only true to itself and the hypocrites who run it".
Why don't we have an unbiased discussion in regards to the 99% of other cases, where the perverts were convicted, admitted guilt, "the Church" found accusations to be credible, those weasels who got off on the Statute of Limitations, or the other lucky ones who died before they could be charged and convicted. I would say that would be a fair way to "Separate Fact from Fiction". "It's About Time!"
Hi Dan. Funny that you should bring up SOL’s. Cus’ in most states, SOL’s in sexual abuse cases are nil to none on the criminal side, yet those same states have SOL’s for sexual abuse cases on the civil side. That means that any accuser can simply dial 911 and report it as a crime, yet they don’t. They instead -choose- to circumvent civil SOL’s by claiming “Repressed Memory Syndrome”. Why is that?!?!
Well, Gee, Ken, I don't know, but I'm sure you guys will have the answer to that one, because you seem to have excuses for everyone of the crimes of your perverted hierarchy. I looked at only a few diocese yesterday in BishopAccountability.org and was disgusted with the individual stories I read. And I didn't cherry-pick and read only what I thought was a benefit to some agenda. Way too many fell under the categories I stated on Nov.29 @ 3:03am. Not only that, but some of the convictions were cases where the pedophilia or pederasty was reported at the time of the incident and nothing was done to stop the pervert and he went on for several years or decades to commit multiple crimes against innocent children. I'm sure you fellas can come up, along with liar and excuser extraordinaire publiar, with several excuses or attacks against BishopAccountability.org. Scratch that theory, TMR has already labeled them as a hate group. "Funny" how anyone exposing the disgusting filth of "the church" is labeled as a hate group or anti-catholic bigot. All you excusers and defenders of the creeps of your cult should be apalled at the deceit and filth, instead of defending it and making excuses for their nasty crimes. servant of the Lord, "The light that shines in the darkness and the darkness shall never extinguish it." John 1:5
In reply to Dan's comment on the 29th, and his damning criticism of the Catholic Church. I will just say this…. because it rests upon his own claimed knowledge of the gospels, At one point Jesus told his disciples that he was the vine and they were the branches. If they lived on in him… they would bear fruit. But separated from Him they would be pruned off… like dead wood and thrown on the rubbish heap. If we were as bad as Dan says then the power of God would have cut us off long ago. But at the moment about one fifth of the world's population are Catholics. Now that's a big vine? Dan, do you really think God lacks your smarts.? You are kidding yourself Dan, but sadly… there are many like you.
I will prove to you, using the gospels, that the size of your church has absolutely nothing to do with it's members being the saved of this world. Apparently the verses I've previously quoted have gone in one ear and right out of the other, Malcolm.
"Enter in by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and MANY are those who enter by it (like 1.2 billion). How narrow is the gate, and restricted is the way that leads to life! FEW are those who find it (those who obey God's Word, refuse to fall into the trap of greed, lust and idolatry, and then take the Word and put it into practice). Matthew 7:13-14 This does not mean that the some of the 1.2 billion can't come out and remove themselves from the deception of "the cult" and be saved.
"Either make the tree good, and it's fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit." Matthew 12:33
"Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit." Matthew 7:17
So in other words, if your cult has many bad fruits (pedophile perverts), molesting and raping innocent young children, boys preferably, then it is most definitely a bad tree, and it will be in the end chopped down and thrown into the fires of Hell. All these quotes were taken directly from the mouth of Christ, so you just might want to quit "kidding yourself", Malcolm, but it seems there are many deceived catholics that are just like you. The only reason that God is holding off the destruction of your church, is because He wants to give all a chance to be saved. "The Lord is not slow in keeping His promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." 2 Peter 3:9 You shouldn't test his patience, because it just may end any day now. servant
And Malcolm, you can't cherry pick the quotes from the Word that suit your agenda, without considering the other verses of the Bible. Read it often and appreciate God's wisdom, and if "the church" you belong to thinks they know better than Biblical truth, get clear away from them. In time they will receive the punishment they so rightly deserve. Remember, God is patient. The catholic church will suffer the destruction He has promised. Let no one fool you.
On the 28th at 720PM JR will try to salvage something of his usual shtick. Thus we get the “hundreds” and “thousands” bit of enumeration. The numbers come from … someplace in JR’s mind or agenda.
Further, that – we can take JR’s word for it – SNAP “never had before” made “false accusations” and had been “keeping themselves clean” for “27 years”. We can take JR’s word for it.
But there’s a method to all that madness: JR was working up to – had you been waitttingggg forrr itttt? – an insinuation, and an insinuation that would – tah dahhhhhhh – keep his Total Church Conspiracy thing going. Because – doncha see? – if SNAP had been doing so well all along, then why did it suddenly make such a grossly obvious mistake with Fr. Jiang … and “right in St. Louis their hometown”.
This can only be – we can take JR’s word for it – “a miracle”. Or else – JR’s actual objective here – it is clear proof that SNAP’s exposure was planned by the Church in order to get rid of SNAP because it was no longer useful (the same way, we recall, that ‘the Church’ got the feds to take down the Philly DA and maybe even got the Philly DA to commit all those things for which he has been convicted … and so on).
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 28th at 720PM:
SNAP was a front for the torties; it became that from Blaine’s meeting with Anderson in early 1988. But SNAP wasn’t run by the torties. I’ll go so far as to say that there are plenty of things the torties wouldn’t like to see come out in public, but they – at least – are to some extent covered by attorney-client privilege. Yet the checks the torties wrote to SNAP are in the record.
And with the Stampede going at full tilt, who was going to question SNAP? And secure in that sense of assurance, then things were done at SNAP and by its operational staff that they never imagined would ever come to light because nobody would ever ever question SNAP.
But that was then.
Fast-forward to the present day and Fr. Jiang fought back and suddenly SNAP finds itself exposed.
Oh, and you can take JR’s word for it that “the vast majority” of “victims’ accusations” are “true”. Since I doubt JR was present at any instance of anybody’s abuse except his (alleged) own, then how can he possibly ‘know’ that? (Short answer: he can’t and he doesn’t, but it’s a necessary bit to keep his shtick going.)
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 29th at 255AM:
‘Dan’s solution to this grossly inconvenient development in St. Louis is to wave it all away as merely being on of “the few, cherry-picked cases of fraud”.
If it were merely that, why did Clohessy head for the hills? And it is certainly within the realm of possibility that the stress of exposure contributed to Blaine’s sudden demise (unless, of course, you go the JR route and suspect that the Church did her in).
‘Dan’ then lectures on “common sense” and readers may derive from that such entertainment as it may well afford.
And his comment trails off with more of his usual stuff yet again.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 29th at 303AM:
Here he bleats as to why “don’t we have an unbiased discussion in regards to the 99% of other cases” …
After the chuckle over ‘Dan’ exhorting about “unbiased” fades, one might well ask where he has gotten that “99%” figure. Well, of course, he just ‘knows’ it – perhaps from whatever entities appear to him in those bathroom mirror séances.
He raises the point about the Church having found accusations to be “credible”.
First, the term “credible” simply means that an allegation might be rationally considered to be possibly true. It is not at all the same as, say, the term “demonstrated” (to be true), let alone ‘proven’.
Second, regular readers may recall that at the height of the Stampede in the early 00’s the parameters of that term “credible” were rather elastic; as I mentioned here at one point a while back when this topic came up, one definition of “credible” was if an allegant and an accused priest lived in the same geographical area at the time of the alleged incident; if they did share a geographical proximity (itself a term with elastic parameters) then the allegation was “credible”.
Most all dictionaries define "credible" as; able to be believed, convincing, able to be trusted, trustworthy, worthy of belief, convincing.
But when your a bonafied catholic lying, deceiving, manipulating schmuck, named publiar, then "credible" defined becomes – " SIMPLY means that an allegation MIGHT be rationally considered to be POSSIBLY true". What a bunch of gobbledygook! Then he'll turn around accusing opponents of "word-play" or "the Stampede" of having a "rather elastic" definition of the word.
Don't you understand, when you're catholic, you get to make-up your own definitions and you don't agree with Biblical truth, because you have your own catechism, where corrupt popes and bishops made-up their own teachings to supersede God's Word, with all of it's contradictions. So a lying manipulator can misinterpret the Bible and claim someone who follows the Word is mentally delusional and whacked. Does he even believe that God will allow him to change the meaning of His Word and mock Him and His servants, and there will not be a price to be paid. You will pay a high price with your eternal soul. Again, no threat, just a promise. servant of the Lord
bona fide – before jackass claims my misspelling proves my whackiness.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 29th at 303AM:
There have been far fewer “convictions” than ‘Dan’ seems to imagine. Have there been even a hundred actual criminal convictions, over the past 30 or 35 years covering the whole 70 or 80 years worth of allegated abuses?
And it is – as I pointed out here recently – now the subject of studies and professional concern that a) the practice of ‘admitting guilt’ to avoid a much longer sentence is widespread in contemporary American criminal justice (and I would say even more so in Stampede-type trials) and b) we now know that at least one priest in that long Philadelphia Billy-Doe sequence has admitted that he took a proffered plea-bargain because he “didn’t want to die in jail”, which is a rather un-heroic but surely understandable choice, and hardly a groundless fear, since another priest in that sequence did indeed die in jail.
And ‘Dan’ then tries to bring his vaudeville performance home with an exhortation to “Separate Fact from Fiction”. Let the chuckles roll on.
The publiar oinks while stuffing his face with popcorn, "Have there even been a hundred actual criminal convictions…? If it's even possible that there were less than a hundred convictions, as I've said, the SOLs were definitely helpful in keeping that number down, secret settlements another factor and prolonged cases so the guilty creep had a chance to die before being prosecuted. What don't you get, publiar? If your cult was the True Church of God, then there would not be a single case of sexual crimes against innocent children. You have no right as a supposed Church of God to claim that it happens in secular society too. As the Scripture reads, "A dog returns to it's own vomit, and the sow [pig], after washing herself, returns to wallow in the mire [mud]." 2 Peter 2:22
"Like a dog that returns to it's vomit is a fool who repeats his folly." Proverbs 26:11
There were many criminal pedophiles and perverted priests who repeated their crimes with several, dozens or hundreds of innocent children. Also, I'll expect the popcorn eating pig to return with more of his vomit, larded on with extra fake buttered lies, slander and excuses.
Glad to see you think this is just some "vaudeville performance" and something you can chuckle about. You are one despicable immature deceiving creep.
And on to JR’s of the 29th at 457PM:
TMR had pointed out – and it clearly had to be pointed out to JR – that Fr. Jiang had indeed sued SNAP (and that lawsuit’s outcome was the topic of this very thread here).
If any reader had ever wondered if JR is a serial and chronic self-excuser, then this comment of JR’s should provide a pretty solid lead to the answer.
It’s not his fault that he made such a howler – doncha see? – because – had you been waitttinggg forrr ittttt? – it’s my fault. And it’s my fault – doncha see? – because JR had to spend so much time and energy on my material. Thus it’s not his fault that he couldn’t keep such obvious facts straight.
He is – of course – insistent that he is a reliable and credible source of “truth” when it comes to his own story and anything about SNAP and anything about ‘victims’ and anything about the Church and so on and so forth.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 29th at 457PM:
And then – in an attempt to recover his ‘creds’ by asking a series of questions – he unwittingly reveals that he hasn’t really read (or understood) the TMR article on this very thread, since a) the case was not ‘settled’ but rather a jury returned a verdict b) that Fr. Jiang did indeed ‘win’ the case (and was even awarded costs by the jury) and thus c) Fr. Jiang did not “withdraw the case” and thus d) SNAP’s statement is not part of any “settlement” since there was no such settlement.
As I have said, Abuseniks only have their pre-programmed shtick; they don’t bother to let facts interfere and apparently don’t even bother to read material (especially if it’s bad news for their shtick).
Shut up fuck face! Nobody wants to hear your shit.
Fr Jiang took no money from SNAP just his legal costs? Does that make sense to any truthful person here?
Seems like this was just another SNAP failure created by the church. No damages for harming Fr. Jiang! and now SNAP apologizes for no reason? An apology that admits harm to clerics and the church by false victims with no false victim?????? More miracles than Fatima! You all must think we real victims are idiots.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 29th at 653PM:
‘Dan’ can’t answer the question posed by ‘Ken W’. So what does ‘Dan’ do?
He goes for the childish snark: he doesn’t know, but he quickly then tries to neutralize any conclusions by anybody else by preemptively trying to spin them as “excuses”.
And then – in an effort to bolster that queasy bit – he declares that he had been doing some research himself … on the Bishop-Accountability site. This is the organization that had to be forced to put up a warning that it could not and did not vouch for the accuracy of any of the stuff on its site.
But on the basis of his ‘research’ in such a trough, ‘Dan’ can quickly launch into his usual histrionics, declaring himself “disgusted” with the “stories” and so on.
And he tries to wrap it all up with a pericope, as usual.
Popcorn alert – get some now before you settle in to read ‘Dan’s latest pair of comments.
On the 30th at 444PM ‘Dan’ doth inform ‘Malcolm Harris’ that ‘Dan’ “will now prove to you, using the gospels” that … size has nothing to do with it.
‘Dan’ does not run a “cult”, as we know. His religion-of-one, with himself presiding as speshull Deputy Dawg over himself as sole congregant, is too small to really qualify even as a cult. It’s just ‘Dan’.
But ‘Dan’ has that pile of 3x5s and he now pulls out a few periciopes that seem (to him) not only apt and relevant but utterly dispositive of his assertions.
And we must return to the immature mocking. What would you have without it? Only long- winded ignorance, stupidity and nonsense.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 30th at 444PM:
He starts off with quotation marks, properly enough, but then – had you been waitttingggg forrr itttt? – he has to lard in his own preferred take since – alas – the actual Scriptural text doesn’t seem to do the work ‘Dan’ wants it to do for him. Thus the parenthetical stage-directions that seek to manipulatively ensure that readers see in the text a) not just what is actually there but also b) what ‘Dan’ sees in the text, which – surprise, surprise – is not actually there in the text.
In fact – as ‘Dan’s own comment here demonstrates – he gets so wrapped up in his own stuff that he loses track of where the Scriptural pericope ends and the ‘Dan’-stuff begins; thus the quotation marks that begin the pericope are not closed off with a necessary end-of-quotation marks.
‘Dan’ just can’t help revealing his whackness.
"surprise, surprise" Gomer, it's actually in the text, but you refuse to see or listen. Oh! And I committed a crime because I forgot the quotes at the end of the verse. And you were dumb enough not to figure out where the verse ended? Probably where it said Matthew 7:13-14, should have tipped you off, idiota.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 30th at 444PM:
The pericope from Matthew 12:33 demonstrates ‘Dan’s Bible-interpretation game as he deploys it against Catholicism: he deploys the logically fallacious bit known in the grammar and logic fields as the Fallacy of Composition: if X is true of some part of the whole, then X is true for all of the whole.
Thus, for example, if a vehicle’s tires are made of rubber, then the whole vehicle is made of rubber. That sort of thing.
Here, ‘Dan’ will try to define all of Catholicism by the failures of some of its adherents. Thus: some (and we still haven’t actually determined how large or small that “some” is) priests have abused, therefore all priests or all of Catholicism … and so on.
Ditto with the next pericope, from Matthew 7:17.
It's terribly odd that you think all Bible verse is "logically fallacious", especially "pericopes" that apply to you and your cult. Scratch that, I forgot you're a catholic with your own catechism bible, your own goddess, and your own truths, which qualify as nothing but lies. Well done, you idolatrous deceiving hypocrite.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 30th at 444PM:
But having placed his foundation with that sand, he then proceeds to build on it with his usual effort to merge the text with his own stuff: “So, in other words” … which a) actually only provides more manipulative merging of the actual text with his own favorite fever-visions and which b) should probably more accurately read ‘So, in ‘Dan’s words …’.
Which bit he also then tries to further reinforce by pointing out that the pericopes reflect statements that are “taken directly from the mouth of Christ”. Which merely seeks to merge ‘Dan’s stuff with Christ’s words. With ‘Dan’s gambits one might often be reminded of a submarine trying to sneak into a harbor by hiding under a ship legitimately passing through the anti-submarine nets.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 30th at 444PM:
And he tries to bring it all home with the text of 2 Peter 3:9. But if Peter is saying here – as he does – that God is “patient”, then who the frak is ‘Dan’ to start muttering threats about God losing His patience?
But – as we know – ‘Dan’ is never content merely to masquerade his deceitfully manipulative fever-visions as representing God’s own Mind and Will. Rather, ‘Dan’ will go even further and presume to know God’s Mind and Will (and perhaps even God’s ‘schedule’) such that you have to accept ‘Dan’s stuff or else you reject God’s.
In one fine display of demonstrating what it means to be "a wolf in sheep's clothing", publiar uses the word "frak", the fictitious substitute for f_ _k. He thinks to himself, I'm such a good person, because I would never use swear words. I only lie, slander and falsely accuse others, and excuse catholic pedophilia and perverts, because I'm a hypocrite, but I would never cuss. At the same time he demonstrates that his vocabulary is just about as fictitious (fake) as he is. servant of the Truth
I was not "muttering threats about God", only saying that it wouldn't be wise to test His patience, as you so often do with your lies and mocking. Not "threats" at all, just a warning that you refuse to hear.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 30th at 451PM:
The popcorn alert remains in force as we here have ‘Dan’ admonishing one and all that “you can’t cherry pick the quotes from the Word that suit your agenda”. Really? ‘Dan’ does this and more as his standard operating procedure – as we have so often seen here.
And that “more” includes the fact that – given the depth of ‘Dan’s manipulative delusionality – he can take just about any quote and twist it into his own stuff.
But then: he hasn’t ever resolved the problem such as the date of Jesus’ birth, with the two irreconcilable timeframes given in Matthew (2:1) and Luke (2:1-3). But “it’s in the Bible” and ‘Dan’s fundie-derived Biblical literalism is clearly demonstrated here to have some holes in it.
As regular readers may recall, he once tried to plaster over this problem by claiming something along the lines of God providing secret understanding to genuine believers that enables them – but not anyone else – to resolve the problem. It’s a ‘secret’ – doncha see? – known only to ‘Dan’ and maybe a couple-three others.
Let no one be fooled … as ‘Dan’ has so thoroughly fooled himself.
Son of Satan, Do you think you're clever enough to trick me with your manipulations and deceit? I don't believe there is any "irreconcilable" differences in the "timetable". In Matt. 2:1 states that Jesus was born in the village of Bethlehem in Judea, Herod was king (of the Jews). Luke 2:1-3 states that Emperor Augustus (of Rome) asked for the record books of the time when Quirinius was governor of Syria. Joseph went to his hometown of birth, Bethlehem in Judea, where Mary gave birth to Jesus. Absolutely no contradictions. They were all reigning in their perspective different positions during Jesus' birth. So the only holes may be the ones in your head?
Now since the Bible can be taken literally, I must say that my "perspective" is right on in claiming that catholics, especially the hierarchy and publiars, are the cowardly, abominable, murderers, unbelieving, greedy, idolaters, sexually immoral and blatant liars that shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone. And Isaiah 44, Jeremiah 44, Matthew 23 and 24, and Rev.17-18, 21:8, compounded with all your lies and deceit, definitely prove your cult to fit the description of unbiblical false teachers, idolaters, perverts and their excusers, and full of terrible liars, of which you are one of the worst. servant of God
And what does JR do when confronted with his own mistakes?
On the 1st at 941PM he first resorts to scatology and we’re back to that table in the back of the cafeteria in days of yore. But JR still expects to be considered a reliable source of thought and information. Go figure.
He then falls back on insinuation: it couldn’t be that Fr. Jiang “took no money from SNAP just his legal costs”, opines the Wig of Law. Well, if the jury only awarded costs and no damages or punitive damages then that’s all Fr. Jiang was awarded by the jury. We don’t have the actual Complaint to see what monetary categories were requested.
And in any case the point is irrelevant to the core fact that Fr. Jiang won the lawsuit.
But JR has only the one shtick and he has to keep it going. Thus to JR “it seems like” – had you been waitttinggggg forrr ittttttttttttttt? – this was “just another SNAP failure created by the Church”. Thus, then, that the Church arranged for SNAP to be exposed and arranged for the jury to find in Fr. Jiang’s success.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 1st at 941PM:
SNAP “apologizes for no reason”? If SNAP didn’t apologize after having been determined by a jury to have caused such harm to Fr. Jiang, then SNAP would damage whatever credibility it has left. It is PR 101 that SNAP would have to somehow demonstrate that it had any decency left at all.
And then JR apparently – had you been waittingggg forrr ittttt? – loses track of his thoughts: somehow the case contains “more miracles than Fatima”. Readers who can suss out the rationality in that bit are welcome to share it.
And he tries – marvelously – to bring the performance home with a self-serving advertisement for “we real victims”. As to who may qualify in the idiot department … readers may judge as they will.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 755PM:
Apparently trying to channel (or mimic) Jesus confronting this or that demon, ‘Dan’ doth address me as “Son of Satan” (he not only assigns titles to himself, but to others) and so on.
On then to the nub of the problem: the irreconcilable difference between the Matthean and Lucan birth narratives, as I noted above (comment on the 1st at 206PM).
And here – marvelously – ‘Dan’ demonstrates his abyssal lack of Biblical chops: no problem, says ‘Dan’ because while Herod was king Emperor Augustus “called for the record books of the time when Quirinius was governor of Syria”.
So ‘Dan’ has merely strung together the two accounts one after the other and declared them to have no irreconcilable difference because – popcorn alert! – “they were all reigning in their perspective different positions during Jesus’ birth”. No doubt the term ‘respective’ is what is required here, rather than ‘Dan’s “perspective”.
But Herod the Great (who was called “King of the Jews” by the Romans) died in 4BC and Quirinius was governor of Syria in 6-7AD. Herod had been dead for about a decade when Quirinius was governor.
There is most absolutely a contradiction. And the only holes are the ones in ‘Dan’s Biblical chops.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 755PM:
Having thus satisfied himself as to his creds and chops, ‘Dan’ will quickly move on to his preferred stuff, which is just the usual plop-tossing at Catholics and so on and so forth.
And threatening with the God’ll-getcha stuff and so on.
Thanks for correcting "perpective" and now I'll help you with your historical "chops" which I believe will back my "Biblical chops". "Records indicate that Quirinius was no minor figure in Roman politics", in "The Deeds of Augustus by Augustus placing him consul as early as 12 B.C.", and "was indeed governing in some capacity in this region"* at the time of Christ's birth. I've also seen the death of Herod at 4 BC/ 1 CE. Wouldn't 1 CE place him as living in the time of Christ's birth. *Quoted from BibleHistory.net
I'm sure you'll have a rebuttal, but the Bible asks that I don't undertake such arguments, so this will be the last on this subject for me. Strange how you would rather dispute and find controversy or contradiction in God's Word, rather than ever accepting His beautiful Word.
"But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless." Titus 3:9 Sounds like we should take that literally to me.
Oh gee, I missed the s in "perspective". Better correct that before persnickety p catches it.
Let us know Pliar when you are through lying?
On the 1st, JR makes the comment… "Let us know Pilar when you are through lying". This is an interesting question. I mean for everybody and in a general sense. How do we separate fact from fiction?. For example, an Italian monk called Padre Pio, was talking to a guy who was doubting his faith. The guy said he personally did not believe in hell. But Padre Pio simply replied "You will believe it when you get there". Should we believe the monk? Well… given that this same monk suffered stigmata, in his hands and feet, for fifty years and endured. Examined by numerous doctors, they could not explain the absence of infection. (there were no antibiotics or tetanus shots in those days) And also that his dead body was later found to be uncorrupted… after forty years in his grave.. So I would submit that his track record gave him a great deal of credibility. Fear of hell is not nice to think about… it's just a question of who we choose to believe.
Malcolm, Where do I start? First off, I don't think you're answering Jim's question at all. We all would like to know when publiar is going to stop being a liar? I really don't believe he is ever going to stop, because from my "perspective" he seems to derive great joy from lying about others, seeing that he's willing to repeat the same lies quite often, even after being corrected.
Secondly, to use Padre PeeHole as an example of honesty or "credibility" is absolutely hilarious. Are you not aware that if the stigmata in his hands was true and correct, the nails holes would have to be placed above the wrist and not centered in the palm? Are you aware that the deceiving creep was known to purchase acid, supposedly used to burn the marks in his hands. If the marks were real and not faked, then they are in the wrong place, which would more likely indicate that the miracle came from the devil and not God.
"Whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders, And with all deception of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved." 2 Thessalonians 2:9-10
And are you aware that saints they claimed were incorruptible were many times repaired with waxed faces and hands, and yet claimed by "the Church" to be incorruptible? Sounds pretty corrupt and nothing but lies and deception to me. So in the end "it's just a question of who we choose to believe?" Apparently catholics choose to believe a false cult plagued with liars and deceivers, publiar being the prime example. And as far as Hell goes, "There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment." 1 John 4:18 Nothing of Hell to fear for real Christians, only for those who are heading there.
Malcolm, If you question what I'm saying in regards to the nail holes in Christ's wrists, then take a look at the Shroud of Turin and see where the blood is at the wrist, not centered in the palm.
OMG The shroud of Turin's fabric was carbon dated to the 14th century. And Padre Pio's surety of a hell along with his stigmata are a true example of faith Malcolm: trust in horseshit.
Let's see Malcolm alchol was never used to clean wounds untill the 20th century? And self inflicted wounds have never been passed off as miraculous before now? Padre Pio's a man of faith offering his own body as a way of acting out that faith? Lying is sort of ignored for the greater good of FAITH.?
Jim, Are you even aware that when they carbon dated the Shroud, they took the piece from a repair made in the 1400's. No scientist has yet to figure out how the image came to be. Doesn't matter anyway, because the Shroud is only proof for unbelievers and I believe without seeing. He's proven his existence to me in so many ways, best of all saving me from a life of Hell on earth. Sorry you don't get it. Don't know why you use OMG when you don't believe in Him?
‘Dan’s most recent bunch appears in no time sequence so I’ll just take them as they appear on the site.
Thus to ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 227AM:
As I said, “credible” as it is used legally and in the Church parameters does not mean – and is not synonymous with – terms such as “proven” or “demonstrated”. And as it is applied to charges or allegations, it means that the charge or allegation is not ‘incredible’, and thus as a charge or allegation it can be treated as ‘possible’ and worth examining further.
If – in the alternative ‘Dan’-verse bit here – “credible” is the equivalent of “proven”, then there would never be a need for any legal trials of any allegations or charges at all; instead, the mere allegation or accusation or charge alone would, if “credible”, ipso facto establish the veracity of the allegation or accusation or charge.
So what we have from ‘Dan’ here is just more thesaurus type word-play, the little blocks and piles of play-dough that he uses to build his little plop-castles in his sandbox of cartoons.
(I would also note that it was precisely this conceptual sleight-of-hand that was a key factor in the Victimist Playbook and the Stampede: if a ‘victim’ made an allegation then the allegation was ipso facto true and had to be believed.)
'Dan' NEVER said, " 'credible' is the equivalent of 'proven'." So the publiar can now follow up with his usual immature ignorance and garbage (little blocks, play-dough, plop-castles and sandbox of cartoons), accusing me based upon a statement that I never made. Boy, you are one class-ass. Did you have some problem with missing your childhood, or are you just that senile that you're making up for it now?
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 227AM:
And he concludes the show by tossing up the childish ‘It wasn’t a threat; it was a warning’ bit that he also deploys on the 2nd at 1010PM.
Only an immature ignorant baby would ignore the warnings of their Creator. Guess that sentence speaks for itself, peewee publiar. servant
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 303AM:
Here ‘Dan’ tries to salvage what he can from his fever-vision cartoon: tip-toeing by the problem with his scare-vision of all those convictions – he glides over it all with that “even if it’s possible that there were less than a hundred convictions” – ‘Dan’ then blames the SOLs (Statutes of Limitations) for such a dearth of actual convictions of priests.
There shoulda been – doncha see? – lots and lots more convictions. Which – as with so much of ‘Dan’s stuff – immediately transports us into the realm of the not-actually-real and the realm of the phantasmic.
What doesn’t ‘Dan’ “get”? – one might ask. ‘Dan’ doesn’t get the distinction between demonstrated reality and his fever/scare/cartoon-visions. That’s what nice tight delusional system will get you, especially when seated in a person who is out to impose his whackeries on everyone else he can.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 303AM:
We also see demonstrated here one of the key elements in ‘Dan’s ranting against the Catholicism and the Church: in “the True Church of God” – waittttt forrrrrrrrrrrrr itttttttttttttttttt? – “there would be not a single case of” sin (whether “sexual crimes” or anything else).
This is the key ‘conceit’ of the ‘Dan’-script: with any “True” Christian or Christianity, there is no sin, and perhaps can be no sin.
Which is baloney, theologically and Scripturally. Why did Christ give Peter the power to bind and loose sins if there was to be no sin in the Christian community?
Are you that stupid and dense? Once you become a Christian you put away the horrible disgusting sins of your past? You won't continue in them, confessing those sins to man (priests) and then go right back committing the same terrible sins over and over again. Doesn't mean you're sinless or perfect, but you wouldn't continue as a nasty pedophile pervert or insistent habitual liar. You are neither saved nor Christian, and until you humble yourself before the Lord, repent and change you will never understand Biblical Truth. You think you're too smart even for God. You have a rude awakening coming for you, publiar. servant of the Lord
And before I forget, that's a threat, a promise and a warning!
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 303AM:
As we have seen before with ‘Dan’s stuff, he also presumes that if one sins, then one is a “pagan” or at least not a “True Christian”. Which brings us instantly to two questions.
First, if one then presumes that there is to be no sin among such a mythical beast as ‘Dan’s “True Christian”, and if ‘Dan’ is supposed to be one of those, then ‘Dan’ logically has to be without sin. He has previously tried to wiggle out of this problem … by harrumphing that a “True Christian” might indeed ‘make the occasional mistake’ but – popcorn alert – wouldn’t be committing any sexual sins. Because – doncha see? – ‘Dan’s cartoon system has focused on sexual sins as being the worst (Hitler and Stalin and Mao and the rest of that horde can rest easy).
Why ‘Dan’ has thus focused on sexual sins is food for some serious thought.
All the rest of your ignorance, stupidity and nonsense just isn't worth my time.
Found some time to waste dealing with your repetitive ignorance. You claim I've "focused on sexual sins as being the worst", and think that gives you reason for some serious thought. Aside from serious thought being something new from you, yes, crimes of sexual nature against innocent children do rank as terrible, especially with the high numbers of victims among some of your nastiest creeps. However, I've put as much emphasis on your cult's idolatry, false teachings and compulsive lying and liars, as just some of the many horrible sins of your cult. So to insinuate that I've "focused on sexual sins", as if I'm the one obsessed with that sin, when it's totally obvious that the filthy priests and bishops of your cult are the ones with that obsession, is evil, deceiving and rotten. It seems you have no problem blaming others for the faults of your fellow creeps and possibly yours also, lying hypocrite. servant
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 303AM:
Second, is it really an either-or situation that faces Christianity, i.e. that one is either sinless or else one is a pagan? Nobody – not even the Reformers at their most extreme – insisted on such a schema. There was even for them always the question of what to do in the matter of Christians who commit sin (bringing us right back to the power to bind and loose given to Peter by Christ).
Like I've told you before, you need to do some serious reading in 1 John chapters 1-5 in regards to how God and the Lord feel about sin, however when it comes to Biblical knowledge, I believe your deaf, dumb and blind. Christ's Words, "Go, and sin no more."
"For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them." Matt. 13:15
How could a compulsive liar ever understand with their heart, when they don't possess one?
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 1028PM:
Here ‘Dan’ has merely evaded his revealing failure to close the Scriptural quotation marks I noted in his comment of the 30th at 444PM with the pericope beginning “Enter in at the narrow gate … “. In the text of ‘Dan’s comment, there is – as I pointed out – no closing quotation mark.
But – doncha see? – the fact that he didn’t close the quotation marks doesn’t indicate that he has trouble discerning where Scripture ends and his own stuff begins; nooooooooo – it’s readers’ fault for not knowing where the quoted pericope ends and ‘Dan’s stuff begins. Yet again, ‘Dan’s a victim – doncha see? – of all the “lies” and “ignorance” in the world.
‘Dan’ himself – doncha see? – must be considered “True” and truthy and wise and heroic and – not to put too fine a point on it – sinless … with the exception of ‘occasional mistakes’.
Whatever the term “catechism bible” means is for readers to suss out. ‘Dan’ will stick with his bathroom mirror, thank you very much.
When attending the Mad Hatter’s Tea Party, bring your own popcorn … and don’t drink his tea.
More childish stupidity from the "Mad Hatters Tea Party", publiar's made a glutton of himself and ate all the popcorn, fortunately he had plenty of Kathlic Kult Kool aid, and drank it all up.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 1018PM:
Here we get a crystal-clear example of ‘Dan’s mendacious manipulation.
On the 1st at 201PM I had stated “The pericope from Matthew 12:33 demonstrates ‘Dan’s Bible-interpretation game as he deploys it against Catholicism: he deploys the logically fallacious bit known in the grammar and logic fields as the Fallacy of Composition: if X is true of some part of the whole, then X is true for all of the whole. Thus, for example, if a vehicle’s tires are made of rubber, then the whole vehicle is made of rubber. That sort of thing.”
Now ‘Dan’ tries to evade his whackery by claiming that I “think all Bible verse is logically fallacious” (sic). I don’t and I didn’t say anything of the sort. I pointed out that ‘Dan’s attempt to twist the text was logically fallacious. ‘Dan’s manipulations are the problem; not the text of the Bible.
And sums it up with more ignorance and stupidity due to his lack of Biblical smarts.
" 'Dan's manipulations are the problem; not the text of the Bible."
Then tell me why obviously plain requests of God or Christ in the Bible are ignored, followed by a slew of excuses as to why "the Cult" doesn't need to obey those simple requests.
Examples – a) "I AM the Lord thy God, and thou shalt have no other Gods before thee." Oh! It's OK. Because Mary is so speshull and Jesus is so "Awe-full". Cowards! b) "Call no one Father, you have one Father, your Father in heaven." And we'll not only call popes Father, we'll even call them Holy Father, for only pedophiles and perverted priests of our cult can be considered merely Father (i.e. Father Mary). No wonder they end up being fruitcakes and pedophile perverts, seeing you call them female names. Disgusting! c) "For there is one God, one mediator between God and man, the man Jesus Christ." We don't have to agree with that, because we have a Mediatrix, our "Queen of Heaven", intercessor of all intercessors. Despicable!
And I could show more examples of rebellion, like heathens babbling their prayers to false goddesses, sitting in the choice seats in the synagogues (or churches), bowing and kissing statues of their idols, even their feet, etc. etc. etc.. What would it take to convince catholics that you've been terribly deceived by filthy, lying con-artists of Satan himself and his demon forces. Read the Word and don't allow the perverts of His Word to deceive you.
And for your information, publiar, Matthew 12:33 is Christ's word, not Dan's word. Your heathen church of rotten fruit proves that the verse is absolutely the truth.
Thanks Dan, for confirming the modus operandi of all Catholic haters. You completely ignore the miraculous facts… and then search frantically for anything to distract attention. Even to the extent of using the Shroud of Turin as a distraction. Yet haters like you would normally dismiss the Shroud as another 'falsehood' of the Church. But now you are prepared to rely on it to prove a dubious point. Gimme a break. The miracle you are ignoring is that the wounds of the monk never became infected… over the fifty years. You may frantically suggest fanciful ideas as to how he got the wounds. But severe infection would be unavoidable.. and fatal… at that time… in the early twentieth century.
HAHAHA! Malcolm you are hilarious.
God would give Pio stigmata but not raise a hand to stop the holocaust? letting children die? Your "God" is either not all powerful or not all good or both by such actions and/ or lack of actions. "he", therefore, can not be the God you claim "him" to be.
When one needs magic to support one's imaginary faith? one has skipped through the looking glass wearing an "I'm a stupid" t-shirt.
I will absolutely ignore "miraculous" fiction, signs or wonders, performed by any of Satan's charlatans. I bet you believe when your idols of Mary bleed from the eyes, that it's really blood, when in reality it's rust from the metal corrosion beneath cracked paint. So easy to call me a hater, asshole? I don't believe the Shroud is another 'falsehood' of the church. I'd be more apt to believe they stole it as proof that they are really Christians, when more likely it was handed down through their ancestors, the Romans who killed Christ. I don't know why I even attempt to help lead imbiciles like yourself to the truth, when it's a royal waste of my time. I can't make the blind see or deaf hear, only Christ and my Father have that capability.
imbeciles
The People's FAITH.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 1101PM:
Here ‘Dan’ will demonstrate his historical chops.
He first proffers the quotation (irrelevant for the discussion here) that Quirinius was “no minor figure in Roman politics” – true enough. And he was appointed by Augustus to proconsular rank over Crete and Cyrenaica in 12 or 15BC. Yes and ditto as to the irrelevance.
More to the point, Quirinius was serving as a mentor or guide to Gaius Caesar until at least 3AD. It was not until 6AD that Herod Archelaus, a son of the deceased Herod the Great who had been – along with a brother and a half-brother – ruling one of the parts of HtG’s former kingdom as per the stipulations in HtG’s will, was sent into exile by Augustus.
Archelaus could not have been ruler of part of the deceased HtG’s former realm unless HtG – not to put too fine a point on it – was indeed deceased. Archelaus acceded to this rule in 4BC, which – again – means that HtG would have died no later than 4BC. Indeed, Josephus reports that Achelaus’s half-brother Philip died in the 20th year of the reign of Tiberius, after reigning 37 years, thus placing Philip’s accession (and thus HtG’s death) in 3 or 4BC at the latest.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 1101PM:
When Archelaus was sent into exile in 6AD, Coponius was named Prefect of Judea, with Quirinius simultaneously made Legate of Syria. Before the prefecture of Caponius there would only have been Archelaus, since the Romans didn’t exercise direct rule until 6AD and Quirinius’s Legature dates from 6AD.
So the idea that Quirinius was somehow “indeed governing in some capacity in this region” (i.e. of Judea or Syria) before 6AD cannot be accurate: before 6AD Quirinius was mentoring Gaius Caesar, demonstrated both by the dating and because there was no Roman office of rule in Judea.
We have a rather full record of the Roman governors of Syria from 65BC to 392AD. There is a single gap, for the years 4BC to 1AD, but the Lapis Tiburtinus inscription would seem to indicate that Lucius Calpurnius Piso (known as Pontifex) held the post in those years.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 1101PM:
What we have here from ‘Dan’ merely reflects efforts by fundies and some historians so inclined to somehow bring the Gospel dating problem into some sort of resolution: thus they wonder if maybe Herod didn’t die when he did, or maybe it was Quirinius who was governing in Syria for a first time around the date of Jesus birth (thus taking advantage of the missing name in the list of Roman rulers of Syria). And in that regard we see ‘Dan’s reliance on some Bible History site, which supports my point here.
Nor were the Roman rulers of Syria assigned a ‘second tour of duty’ in that post; with the single exception of Gaius Cassius Longinus during the last decades of the Republic, there were no second-tours, and certainly not in the early Imperial period (which makes sense: no emperor would want any individual high-ranking subordinate to develop too robust a powerbase).
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 1101PM:
But, having tossed up a few bits and pieces, ‘Dan’ then slyly tries to get away from the whole problem: on the basis of those hugely iffy (and perhaps dubiously motivated) bits ‘Dan’ quickly absolves and extricates himself from having to deal any further with historical problems (and had you been waitttingggg forrr ittttt?): “the Bible asks” – doncha see? – that ‘Dan’ not “undertake such arguments”.
And then he tries to spin the problem as being simply one of ‘disputing’ and ‘finding’ “controversy in God’s Word”. This is the old fundie dodge: when their own preferred take on Scripture runs into problems of actual historical facts they quickly blame the problem on such ‘unbelievers’ as notice the problem. Thus their preferred ‘idol’ – which is what they have made of the Bible – can stay in business.
Thus these are all “foolish controversies” – doncha see? But in ‘Dan’s proffered pericope Titus is referring in that Letter to “genealogies and quarrels about the law” as the text clearly states. But we are not dealing with such issues here; we are dealing with a contradiction in the historical record and it is not one to be resolved with the ‘Dan’/fundie bits about maybe-this and maybe-that and anyway-we-shouldn’t-think-about-it.
Sorry, publiar, I have no time to waste on your longwinded ignorant explanations, stupid nonsense and gibberish. I spend most of my valuable time with believers discussing God's faith, hope and love, so you might as well enjoy talking to yourself, because I'm sure not listening and can't be bothered.
Hilariass how you claim the Bible to be my "idol", when you would rather bow down, pray to, idolize and worship your false goddess and your corrupt saints and popes(i.e. Padre PeeHole, pope RATzinger, and all the rest) . Even more hilariass that you think you've got the right idols. STUPID!! Speaking of stupid, you've yet to figure out that God's True Church has no hierarchy. We are all servants, but most of all friends of the One True God and His Son. If you don't understand that, then you really don't know squat when it comes to Biblical Truth.
Biggus Dikus and Glutus Maximus were surprised to find themselves at a crucifixion that was more fiction than cross. (Actually more off a double cross.) Where "he truely was the Son of God!" was never uttered in Latin or in any other language.
Here's one small Example of the Decline of :Western Christianity, not that it had far to fall. Donald Trump's America where you can delude yourself that you are both a Christian and against the poor. A "miracle", as it were, that changes everything Jesus said into acts he was against. A bigger "miracle" than the Transubstantiation. ( By the way P's boring redundantcy: "- doncha see?" the word "doncha" is a class insult that assumes one has to speak colloquially in order to get down with the peasants) Putting one over on the poor again that the rich might run their endless rampage with zippo constraints. How Vaticanesque! How God like! How fascistic! How Evangelical! How fraudulent?
On the 4th at 845PM JR brings up the Shroud of Turin, referring (as best I can make out) to a test done in 1987. That test has been superseded by more comprehensive testing done in 2013 which was performed after it was realized that the historical record indicates the Shroud’s being damaged in the Middle Ages by a fire started by hot candle-wax dripping onto it, whereupon expert weavers of that era tried to repair the damage. It was this section that was carbon-dated in 1987. But when in 2013 a different section was tested, with more modern equipment, the carbon-dating gives a date far closer to the time of Christ (see the tenth point, below).
Readers so inclined can consult this article by a former fundie (educated at Bob Jones University) now a Catholic priest: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/longenecker/the-shroud-of-turin-and-the-facts
We have been talking about “the Bible” (which I place in quote-marks to indicate the complexity of the reality that it poses).
I would like to proffer another example of the dynamics I have been speaking of, not from the written-document(s) forum but rather from the pictorial forum: the Shroud of Turin.
The problems it poses are similar to those posed by “the Bible” in this key respect: it seems a simple and clear object (as does the scriptural text) which, at most, merely requires one to take a position or adopt an opinion or conclusion about it.
But actually, before one gets to the ‘drawing conclusion’ phase, there are tremendous complexities which first of all require that one knows the right questions to ask and second of all that one real with the evidence that examination yields.
The Longenecker article lists the facts that indicate the impossibility of the Shroud’s being a medieval artifact:
First, the problem of the image on the textile material: there is no know technology to explain the image; it is not paint, it is not anything that can be explained either by modern technology or certainly by any technology available in medieval times.
Second, the problem of the image’s 3-D capability: it can be examined successfully using modern 3-D technology, which is not true of paintings.
Third, the problem of the positive-negative: the image actually is a photographic negative, i.e. when one photographs the image, “what should be the negative appears as a positive image”. Not only would medieval painters not have the technology to achieve this, but they wouldn’t even have been familiar with the dynamics of photography in the first place.
Fourth, the problem of anatomical accuracy: the image is not only anatomically accurate, but reflects a certain blurring as if the shroud had lain on a body and suddenly fallen away.
Fifth, the problem of historical accuracy in relation to the Crucifixion: the image indicates the type of injuries and wounds not only specific to Roman crucifixion, but even specific to the particular Crucifixion of Jesus, i.e. the wounds from the crown of thorns and the lack of any broken bones and the indications of the wound in the side.
Sixth, the problem of geographical accuracy: the pollen on the Shroud is found in both Jerusalem and in parts of Turkey and other locales where the Shroud is said to have been kept over the centuries.
Seventh, the Shroud’s accurate comportment with ancient Jewish burial customs: traces of the ointments and even the flowers known to have been used in anointing the body are present.
Eighth, tests of the blood traces on the Shroud demonstrate that the blood preceded the image; in a painting the blood – being painted along with the image – would test as contemporaneous to the image.
Ninth, they type of cloth that comprises the Shroud comports with 1st-century Israel but not with medieval cloths. A medieval forger would have had to have fabricated not only the image but the cloth itself, requiring a medieval knowledge of 1st-century Jewish weaves and weaving.
Tenth, the age of the cloth – as noted in a prior comment in this sequence – dates much more closely to the time of Christ, if one avoids using the medieval repair segment for carbon dating.
The 2013 testing was actually a series of tests using several modern technologies: FT-IR testing, Raman testing, and multi-parametric mechanical testing. The average of all three testing results is 33BC plus/minus 250 years.
I previously stated that the Shroud of Turin was proof for the unbeliever. So who would give his longwinded response to Longenecker's article, nobody but the unbeliever himself, publiar. Not necessarily an unbeliever per se, but a believer in all the wrong gods and goddesses and all the wrong misconstrued church teachings. You already posted the website, we didn't need your longwinded explanation, now did we. servant of Jesus Christ
JR on the 4th, said that alcohol was used to clean wounds, long before the twentieth century. Yes, but it realy depended upon the severity of the particular wound… and the promptness of treatment. For example my parents told of a friend who scratched his hand when pruning roses….it actually killed him. They said he ignored the scratch and then blood poisoning took hold (septicemia). Anti-biotics have now changed all that… and tetanus shots have prevented lock jaw (tetanus). The wounds of Padre Pio went right through his hands and feet. No amount of cleaning by alcohol would have prevented the infection of these deep wounds. And he endured them every day for the last fifty years of his life. That is a miracle….. and no amount of explaining away will change it.
Malcolm, I see you've really drank the Kathlik Kult Kool Aid, also. Did you even read what I wrote on 12/4 @ 12:03am, or are you so bent on believing that I'm a catholic hater so you paid no attantion? Padre pio is a charlatan, a fake and a phony. If the wounds were real and not done by his own actions, they would be in the proper location. The quote from the Bible describes Satan and his demons having power to perform "signs, and lying wonders". The Bible also explains not to trust those who claim to be special because of special visions. Do you ever read the Word and compare it to your false beliefs and the lying phonies of your church?
"Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind, and not holding fast to the Head … with a growth that is from God." Col. 2:18-19
The visions acceptable and acknowledged by "the Church" are usually those of their false goddess, Mary, "Queen of Heaven", telling you to babble the prayer of heathens, the rosary, an unbiblical demand. Question, are those visions from God or Satan? I'll let you answer.
Malcolm, My grandmother had infection and gangrene so bad in both legs that the doctor planned amputation of her legs by the end of the week. My stubborn Irish catholic grandfather took her home and soaked her legs in extremely warm salt water, and grandma walked back into the hospital healed in less than a month. They were both born in the late 19th century, around the same time as Padre Pio's birth. Kind of shoots all your theories of lack of infection remedies to hell, there Malcolm. I have personally cured infections using this same home remedy with table salt. "And no amount of explaining away will change it", because hard headed and stubborn catholics like you and publiar are deaf to the truth and common sense.
Hey Jim, You're still blaming God for everything evil in the world, I see. Are you at all aware that the Jewish people throughout history had turned their backs on God and His Son. Is it possible to do that, and then when you're in trouble look to God to save you from the evil in this world. God is all powerful and all good and doesn't randomly go and kill people, let alone little children. He says in the last days He shall join the lost Jewish branch of the tree back on to His tree. Maybe it would be wise for you to take a good look at yourself, rather than concern yourself with God's lack or judging how He handles the evil He has to deal with in this wicked world. Hitler and his leaders killed Jewish young and old, not God. An evil ungodly marianist of a false cult molested you, not God. There will come a day when you may need the Lord's help, do you think he'll be right there after your denials and treatment of Him. I wish you could understand that God and the catholic church have no connection whatsoever. You can't blame God for the evil things false cults and wicked people do to others on this earth. He is not at fault, period!
What utter nonsense! Pio was a fraud. The Shroud is a fraud. Why would they take samples from a patch that was obviously done later than the original material? Some believe the painting on the shroud was done by Leonardo da Vinci another child molester. Here's the empirical truth: God is a fraud and Jesus never existed. The Bible was written and rewritten by con artists serving their imaginary faith. P is a fraud.TMR and SNAP are frauds and the church is, as is all religion, a swindle.
Jim, that is your "empirical truth" and not most of mankinds truth. Even those who hate or refuse to obey and follow God or Jesus Christ believe they exist. To say that, "God is a fraud and Jesus never existed." is your poor opinion and that's all it is. A lie as big as publiar's slew of lies.
I’ll go down the most recent list of comments as they appear on the site.
Thus to ‘Dan’s of the 5th at 339PM:
The issue stems from ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 227AM on this thread.
Here ‘Dan’ – unable to deal with the actual problem he has created for himself – now tries to extricate himself by merely claiming that he “never said” (scream-caps omitted) that “credible” is the equivalent of “proven”.
Well, it either is or it isn’t. If ‘Dan’ now claims that he never meant to say that “credible” is the equivalent of “proven” and thus that “credible” is not the equivalent of “proven” (which was the point that I made in my comment), then what was his point at all in his comment of the 3rd at 227AM?
As so very often, for ‘Dan’ rationality and coherence take a way-back seat to self-excusing and plop-tossing.
Once again, dumbass, I NEVER said " 'credible' is the equivalent of 'proven'." It's another lie for you to state that I "never meant to say that". You twist and you turn, you manipulate and deceive, you purposely misinterpret and misconstrue Biblical Truth, in an attempt to confuse so you can accuse. You think you can make others believe that I'm "unable to deal with the actual problem [I've] created for [my]self, when the only problem is you, your ignorant questioning and false assessing as if you have all the answers, when in reality, especially when it comes to understanding the Bible, you don't know squat. The only one I'd like to "extricate" myself from is you and your insistent ignorance and stupidity. And I think I will do that tonite and ignore the rest of your nonsense. servant of the One and Only True God
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 5th at 353PM:
Once again, ‘Dan’ is unable to deal with the consequences of his claims and assertions.
So what does he do? Eazy-peezy: he merely repeats them: once a person becomes a Christian then s/he doesn’t sin any more.
But why, then, did Jesus give Peter the power of the keys (i.e. to bind and loose sins) if Jesus expected that Christians would sin no more once they were baptized (or however ‘Dan’ imagines that persons become Christians)?
And again: he then quickly tries to neuter his own assertion by then saying that it “doesn’t mean you are sinless or perfect” … well, one either is or isn’t sinless; one either no longer commits sins (and is thus sinless – at least going forward) or else one still commits sins, despite having embraced and been baptized into Christianity.
Not to put too fine a point on it, one cannot – as ‘Dan’ would have it here – a) be “sinless” yet still b) commit sin because one isn’t “perfect”. Being sinless is analogous to being pregnant in this sense: one either is or one isn’t.