Shocking footage… of Chris throwing… sort of…
According to Bullinger-
… an heretic doth corrupt the sincerity of faith and doctrine of the apostles with his wicked doctrine; and a schismatic, although he sin not at all against the pure doctrine and sincere faith, yet he rashly separates himself from the church, breaking the bond of unity.
And now you know.
As Christian Salafia notes- remarkably accurately… well i’ll just let you read it for yourself. It was true then and it’s still true.
The University of Michigan Library’s most famous papyrus, known to scholars as Papyrus 46 (or P46), is now widely available in the form of an app for iPhone and iPad. Users of “PictureIt: EP” can flip through high-resolution images of the 3rd century codex—the oldest known copy of the Letters of St. Paul—as though through pages of a book.
“This gives an idea of what it was like to read an ancient book, with no capitals, no spaces between words, and no punctuation,” explains Arthur Verhoogt, Acting Archivist of the Library’s Papyrology Collection. The app reveals a translation from the Greek into English with a touch of a finger, either word-by-word or by the page. Readily accessible annotations explain where the papyrus differs from the Standard Version that people know from their New Testament. They also point out scribal errors, which were common in an era when books were copied entirely by hand.
The codex in its entirety was originally made up of 104 leaves (pages), of which 86 survive. The University of Michigan purchased thirty leaves in the 1930s from antiquities dealers in Egypt, and the remaining 56 leaves (which are not included in the app) reside in the Chester Beatty Library in Dublin, Ireland.
To download the free app onto your iPhone or iPad, go to the iTunes Store and search for “PictureIt: EP.” The app has not yet been optimized for the iPhone 5.
Who knew… Via Tommy Wasserman on the twitter.
UPDATE: I’ve played around with it and it’s fantastic! I recommend it. Highly.
They’re moving towards secularism which is itself a religion, of self. They’ve simply replaced God with an idol- and that idol is themselves. Everyone, you see, has a god. Some the true and living God and others a false god, an idol.
Young people aren’t abandoning faith- they are replacing faith in God with faith in themselves. Sadly what they don’t realize is that such a faith will never truly help them, any more than a drowning man can be his own life-preserver.
Many a one thinks that he has God and everything in abundance when he has money and, possessions; he trusts in them and boasts of them with such firmness and assurance as to care for no one. Lo, such a man also has a god, Mammon by name, i.e., money and possessions, on which he sets all his heart, and which is also the most common idol on earth. He who has money and possessions feels secure, and is joyful and undismayed as though he were sitting in the midst of Paradise. On the other hand, he who has none doubts and is despondent, as though he knew of no God…
So, too, whoever trusts and boasts that he possesses great skill, prudence, power, favor, friendship, and honor has also a god, but not this true and only God. This appears again when you notice how presumptuous, secure, and proud people are because of such possessions, and how despondent when they no longer exist or are withdrawn. Therefore I repeat that the chief explanation of this point is that to have a god is to have something in which the heart entirely trusts…
Thus it is with all idolatry; for it consists not merely in erecting an image and worshiping it, but rather in the heart, which stands gaping at something else, and seeks help and consolation from creatures, saints, or devils, and neither cares for God, nor looks to Him for so much good as to believe that He is willing to help, neither believes that whatever good it experiences comes from God.
Ask and examine your heart diligently, and you will find whether it cleaves to God alone or not. If you have a heart that can expect of Him nothing but what is good, especially in want and distress, and that, moreover, renounces and forsakes everything that is not God, then you have the only true God. If, on the contrary, it cleaves to anything else, of which it expects more good and help than of God, and does not take refuge in Him, but in adversity flees from Him, then you have an idol, another god.
In spite of the fact the she stumbled and fumbled for words in an inarticulate rambling, ABC is falling all over itself praising her ‘courage’ for ‘coming out’ during her Golden Globe speech. Proving what? Proving that ABC is just as agenda driven as Fox News. Proving that its interest in promoting gay marriage is not just a part of its corporate identity but a major part of it.
Look, I couldn’t care less about someone’s sexual preferences. Frankly, such is between them and God. What I don’t appreciate is the lamentable fact that for ABC it seems the overarching interest in everything they air.
So my question for ABC (and its defenders) is – just exactly how is such agenda driven ‘journalism’ any different at all from the agenda driven ‘journalism’ of Fox News (which is widely and rightly derided PRECISELY because it IS agenda driven)?
ABC is Fox News, with a different aim. That’s all. Nothing more. And certainly nothing less.
A curmudgeony gauntlet at that, which includes the following-
When you study hard for a decade to deepen your knowledge of a field that many ignore; when you spend thousands upon thousands of dollars purchasing books that many do not want but which bring you joy—and along with that joy problems with your wife; when you move from novice young student to slightly less novice young scholar; when you write and publish in a field in which you feel you can make a contribution because everyone else is out talking about P or analysing the redactional layers of prophetic oracularity; when you fail trying to convince others that the Greek Bible matters; when you pour your heart into a book and give it the title When God Spoke Greek, not because you think God did speak Greek but because you think it might make people finally want to know about this thing; when you feel that you are just starting to be read by others outside of your own society; then you will know the pain of watching an upstart New Testament lecturer who is more brilliant than yourself publish a blog post on the Septuagint, which was obviously meant to signal that he is here to take over, to end your career, to deport you from the land of scholarship to a more suitable career that doesn’t involve the mind so much, to show everyone how easy it really is and how your friend’s cloddish ‘research’ is the reason for prophecies of doom for the humanities.
I hope David pays attention. If not, the review of his next book (whatever it may be) will not be so kind as the review of his former volume… Let him who has ears to hear, hear…
The editor of the English edition of Zwingli’s ‘Original Sin’ writes
This pamphlet was in answer to a letter of Rhegius to Zwingli, which has not been discovered thus far. (See Zwingli’s Werke, Vol. VIII. (1914), 633, note 4). Rhegius had some doubts as to the soundness of Zwingli’s views regarding original sin. This appears from a letter which he wrote on January 14, 1526, to Ambrose Blaurer of Constance, in which he expressed himself rather vigorously: “I am sorry Zwingli was not at Baden [i. e., the Baden Disputation, May 21–June 18, 1526]. He would have defeated all the Papists once for all, except in the matter of original sin, which he seems to treat in a very unsound fashion. In regard to the Lord’s Supper, though he might be criticized, he certainly could not have been defeated by those counterfeit theologians.” Nor was his mind altogether set at rest by this treatise, for he expresses in a letter of September 28, 1526 (Zwingli’s Werke, VIII, 726–8) the fear that Zwingli might be accused of Origenism. Zwingli tried to remove his doubts by a letter dated October 16, 1526 (Werke, VIII, 737–9).]*
Zwingli’s views on the subject are intriguing, if not completely persuasive. Admittedly, he can at points sound a tad unorthodox but overall he is on the right track. Read the booklet for yourself and make your own determination.
*The Latin Works of Huldreich Zwingli, Volume 2, pp. 1-2.