Did an orphan girl from an exiled people dream of one day becoming queen of all Persia?

When the king’s order and edict had been proclaimed, many young women were brought to the citadel of Susa and put under the care of Hegai. Esther also was taken to the king’s palace and entrusted to Hegai, who had charge of the harem. 9 She pleased him and won his favor

And Esther won the favor of everyone who saw her

17 Now the king was attracted to Esther more than to any of the other women, and she won his favor and approval more than any of the other virgins. So he set a royal crown on her head and made her queen instead of Vashti.

—Excerpts from Esther 2, NIV

Commenter Robin Munn raised an interesting question in response to my last post:

I have to disagree with the Esther example, at least as an example of a woman pursuing a man for marriage. She didn’t pursue Ahasuerus for marriage; his “talent scouts” picked her out for his harem and she had no choice in the matter. She later pursued him to solicit his favor for her people, but that illustrates a different point than the one you’re going for here.

Ruth, OTOH, is a perfect example to illustrate your point.

This encouraged me to go back and read the beginning of the Book of Esther again.  He is right that we aren’t told that Esther wanted to become the queen of the land.  We also aren’t told that her “uncle” Mordecai instructed her to try to become queen of Persia.  All we know is that she was found to be one of the most beautiful virgins in all of Persia, and was therefore brought to the palace to compete with all of the other beautiful virgins for the king’s favor.

What happens next depends on your worldview.  Imagine the story from the perspective of a Hebrew woman.  Right off the bat, Esther is declared one of the most beautiful women in the ancient world.  Esther is then forced to undergo a full year of luxurious beauty treatments & pampering in order to compete in something similar to the reality series “The Bachelor”.  She also has no choice but to wear the best fashion in the world and have sex with the most powerful (and therefore sexiest) man in the ancient world.  Esther, the nobody from nowhere, beats all of the Persian bitches and becomes revered throughout the land.  She was the it woman in the ancient world.  Her status was so high that when she threw a dinner party, everyone wanted to be invited.

If you are familiar with the story you will remember Haman, the man who was so powerful he was able to have it decreed that the Jews would be killed and their wealth plundered.  At the height of Haman’s power and prestige his greatest boast was that Esther selected him and only him for the honor of attending her dinner party (Esther 5:10-13, NIV):

Calling together his friends and Zeresh, his wife, 11 Haman boasted to them about his vast wealth, his many sons, and all the ways the king had honored him and how he had elevated him above the other nobles and officials. 12 “And that’s not all,” Haman added. “I’m the only person Queen Esther invited to accompany the king to the banquet she gave. And she has invited me along with the king tomorrow. 13 But all this gives me no satisfaction as long as I see that Jew Mordecai sitting at the king’s gate.”

Lowly Esther won the women’s intrasexual competition jackpot.  She was literally the world champion of the competition!  And all of this was just setting the table for her to be forever remembered for saving her people.

But we see things differently in the modern world.  If you are a women’s studies major you will view the same story through a bitter feminist lens:

I feel very, very sorry for Esther. I hate movies and books that portray her and Xerxes’ relationship as a love story. She had to “audition” for a night to be chosen by him, and that’s pretty darn ugly, no matter how you slice it. We need to stop romanticizing it. She was taken into a harem. It’s basically sex trafficking.

But the moral of the story, to me, is that God will use us even in our worst situations, and that God sees even in our worst situations, and sometimes allows things to happen for the greater good. But He always sees.

We don’t need to “pretty” things up. Life can be awfully ugly. But God still sees!

I should clarify here that I don’t think Robin Munn is a bitter feminist.  But the bitter feminist lens has affected the way the Book of Esther is interpreted in our feminist age.

Either way, we aren’t told in the Book of Esther whether Esther wanted to have sex with the sexiest man in the world and become queen of all Persia.  While I think it is fair to assume that the original audience of the book would expect that she did want this, the Bible is silent on the question.  But regardless of how you answer the question, it doesn’t change the fact that it was Esther who had to win over the king, not the other way around.  This is true not only when she has to beat the other women to become queen.  It is also true (as Robin Munn notes) when she has to save the Jews.  In fact, in order to even speak to the king Esther has to first risk death to win his favor.  Where the Courtly Love rewrite of the story would have King Ahasuerus submitting to Esther in an effort to win a sign of her favor, Esther has to demonstrate her submission to King Ahasuerus in the hope that he will point his scepter in her direction.  If she fails to win his favor, she and all of the Jews will die.  Esther is so submissive that she tells the king she wouldn’t have even bothered asking him to intervene if she and her people were merely sold into slavery (Esther 7:2-4, NIV):

…the king again asked, “Queen Esther, what is your petition? It will be given you. What is your request? Even up to half the kingdom, it will be granted.”

3 Then Queen Esther answered, “If I have found favor with you, Your Majesty, and if it pleases you, grant me my life—this is my petition. And spare my people—this is my request. 4 For I and my people have been sold to be destroyed, killed and annihilated. If we had merely been sold as male and female slaves, I would have kept quiet, because no such distress would justify disturbing the king.[a]”

But even the question of whether Esther wanted to become queen of all Persia has a feminist root.  In many ways Esther is like Daniel, another Jew who ended up in Persia after the Jews were carried away.  Both Esther and Daniel found themselves and their people on the wrong end of a death decree by the king as a result of trickery by Persian enemies.  Both found favor with the king, glorified God, and saved their people.  We don’t ask if Daniel wanted to become an adviser to the king, because either way it was a tremendous honor, and more importantly it was a required part of God’s plan.  Daniel was faithful to God and played the cards he was dealt.  So did Esther.  In Esther’s case this meant first winning the competition to become queen, and then winning the king over again to save the Jews.

This entry was posted in Courtly Love, Esther, Sheila Gregoire, Submission, Ugly Feminists. Bookmark the permalink.

134 Responses to Did an orphan girl from an exiled people dream of one day becoming queen of all Persia?

  1. Hmm says:

    My wife and I were talking this over today (before you published), and we both agreed with your analysis.

    By the way, there’s one other Biblical woman who went after the man and got him – Tamar with Judah. She’s also in the lineage of Jesus through her son Perez.

  2. earl says:

    What this proves and what feminists don’t get…is just how powerful being submissive can be. It can save lives.

  3. Pingback: Did an orphan girl from an exiled people dream of one day becoming queen of all Persia? | @the_arv

  4. feministhater says:

    She later pursued him to solicit his favor for her people, but that illustrates a different point than the one you’re going for here.

    Even Robin accepts that she pursued him, if only to save her people of course. Robin, you don’t just pursue a King, this woman was granted a unique opportunity to do so and thus did so and won favour. It’s exactly the example Dalrock talks about. Most women waste these opportunities because they want the men to pursue them instead…. stupid is as stupid does.

    She saves the lives of her people by submitting and gaining favour with a powerful King who stops the annihilation of her people. And this is a bad thing? It was far better for her life and for her people, she got to live the life of a queen and was spared the life of a slave; but yes, feminists are right again, the King should have sent her back to be sold into slavery and used and abused. Her people? Whatever… as long as she didn’t submit to a man, amiright ladies?!

  5. feministhater says:

    Modern women do the same thing, they all compete for the number one spot in the modern ‘Harem’ of the dating scene. No matter how you slice it, they all want to be the queen.

  6. Zippotracks says:

    While not directly related to the biblical story of Esther, my wife and kids just watched the original Swiss Family Robinson and it is interesting to not only note the strong Alpha / Beta relationship between Fritz and Ernst but also the way Roberta clearly pursues the attention of Fritz in order to win his favor.

  7. dvdivx says:

    The only woman of the bible feminists admire is Jezebel. Delilah did her betrayal for money. Jezebel rebelled against God out of spite.

  8. earl says:

    Posted this on another feed but I’ll put it here too because of the relevance…feminists will do anything to make sure that women never ever do something powerful like submitting. It might just turn a man into a gentleman.

    ‘Also note this story…it claims this statement is ‘misogynistic’.

    ‘The more you act like a lady, the more he’ll act like a gentleman.’

    https://www.kare11.com/article/news/misogynistic-quote-above-hisd-middle-school-lockers-goes-viral/285-585244043

    Of course the wailing and gnashing of teeth of the sisters of Shelia came out claiming that it absolved men of responsibility…however I can see it as any act trying to tell women to act feminine is ‘misogynistic’.’

  9. Jed Mask says:

    I think there’s too much ” wrong hype” over Esther “wanting” to be king Ahasuerus’ new queen.

    Even if it “was the case” it’s not supported at all by Scriptures that Esther desired to be the queen of Ahasuerus. Now perhaps later she may have “grown to desire the king” but no where in the Book of Esther is that supported by SCRIPTURES which is the only source to be taken seriously.

    Esther was simply an unfortunate case as many women of the time were who were “rounded up” BY FORCE whether they wanted to be or not as virgin marriage candidates for the king. It’s IRRELEVANT whether Esther was “attracted” to Ahasuerus or not; that’s not the theme or focus of the whole Book of Esther at all.

    Just like I don’t think Daniel was going “Oh yeah, I want to be taken hostage to Babylon away from my homeland Israel and have my genitalia removed and be an eunuch for my new overlord who destroyed my home country and people to smithereens. Yeah…”.

    That’s just not the case for either Esther or Daniel.

    The real point is BOTH INDIVIDUALS faced life circumstances that were out of their own control that they most likely did not want and that GOD in His Omniscience planned out His Will in their lives as their lives unraveled to *FULLFILL HIS WILL*. That’s it. Amen.

    ~ Bro. Jed

  10. Anonymous Reader says:

    dvdivx
    The only woman of the bible feminists admire is Jezebel

    This can be tested easily. Observe the names of feminist publications.
    QED.

  11. Anonymous Reader says:

    earl
    Of course the wailing and gnashing of teeth of the sisters of Shelia came out claiming that it absolved men of responsibility…

    Squid ink. What actually bothers them is assigning any responsibility for their own actions to Strong, Independent Women.

  12. Luke says:

    Feminists are p*ssed off over the story of Esther because she was pretty, had to earn her way/exert some effort to some extent to improve her status, had to prove herself to the king, and was offered being queen. A happy ending to a feminist would have been for a fat fugly warpig off the street to be coronated king in 15 minutes, with a rotating set of hot but cringing male models assigned to paint her toenails/whatever else she wanted.

  13. Oscar says:

    @ Hmm

    By the way, there’s one other Biblical woman who went after the man and got him – Tamar with Judah.

    Tamar is a terrible example. Judah was her father-in-law, and she “got him” through deceit and literally acting like a whore. She’s an example of how God can take even people’s worst actions and bring something good from them.

    The best examples are Ruth, Esther, and Abigail*, all of whom won over high status men through submission and obedience, first to God, then to relatives who had authority over them, then to the men they were trying to win over. Esther and Abigail, in particular, won over powerful men, one was a warrior, both conquerors, through wisdom, grace and submission.

    Going through those books, I advised my daughters that they’ll get a lot more from their future husbands by behaving like Abigail and Esther, than by nagging and honey-do-lists.

    *Abigail wasn’t actually trying to “get” David, but she was trying to persuade him to not slaughter her entire household, and it worked so well she actually did “get” David.

  14. pariah says:

    According to some interpreters, especially Jewish ones, the book of Esther is considered to be comedy.

  15. dudedont says:

    “beats all of the Persian bitches”

  16. Sharkly says:

    What Feminazis fail to see, is that humility, in a woman is a very endearing character. It is endearing, because it is right and good and as God intended, for a woman to express her desire to be humbly devoted to a man. A woman who is demure is also a precious and rare thing these days.
    I, for one, am attracted to shy women. I find them much more appealing to approach, and they are generally more appreciative of my conversation with them, and usually seem to enjoy my having singled them out to spend my time with.
    Loud and bossy women are revolting. I think they become quickly aware that I don’t even see them, but They seem to be completely ignorant of why I’m not looking for them. I think, in their minds, I’m somehow wrong for not being attracted to their revolting loud brash forwardness. They seem to think if they just keep running their mouths something they say will eventually be endearing to me, while I just find their non-stop foolish chattering and cackling to be repellant. They probably wonder how did the shy girl who rarely said a word win him over, while they were the assertive conversationalist, and the constant center of attention? The answer is; because I suspect that there may be yet more virtues lurking undetected in the quiet spirited one, but the mouthy one has made plain her lack of self-control, her indiscretion, and her being ill-bred.
    1 Peter 3:4 [To wives] but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious.

  17. Sharkly says:

    ~ Bro. Jed,

    Now you’re saying things that aren’t supported by scripture. Where does the Bible ever say that Daniel was a eunuch. The Bible refers to Daniel as a man. The Bible call eunuchs “eunuchs”. Why do you have to emasculate the prophet of God?

    FWIW I’ve had this argument before and won. There is nothing in the Bible that ever implies that Daniel was a eunuch, and it specifically calls him a man.

  18. Splashman says:

    @Zippotracks, I watched that same movie a few weeks ago with my family. While you’re right about Roberta, did you notice the husband/wife dynamic? She was happy enough to enjoy the protection afforded by her husband and sons, but the rest of the time, whatever she wanted/demanded, she got. Even my girls noticed it.

  19. Splashman says:

    For those who fear God and follow Christ, there’s a “big picture” reason why we should not pursue a wife, but let women pursue us. God intended that marriage be a scale model of our relationship with Christ. Thus we submit to God, we become God’s suitable helpers, etc. For us men to pursue women would be like God pursuing us — which he doesn’t. God is gracious enough to provide an avenue for relationship with him, but it is up to us to pursue that relationship with him, learn more and more about him, and live our lives in submission and devotion to him.

    Up has become down, black has become white.

  20. Robin Munn says:

    One interesting point in this discussion is that if you’re Catholic, then you’ll have a different interpretation of Esther than if you’re Protestant. Because Catholic doctrine is that the books known as the Deuterocanon (which the Protestants usually call the Apocrypha) are canonical as well. One of those books is the “Additions to Esther”, in which the following is found in Esther 4:43-44. Esther is praying to God (God is not mentioned even once in the “classic” book of Esther, but is mentioned a lot in the Additions), and says, “You have knowledge of all things, and you know that I hate the splendor of the wicked and abhor the bed of the uncircumcised and of any alien. You know my necessity—that I abhor the sign of my proud position, which is upon my head on days when I appear in public. I abhor it like a filthy rag, and I do not wear it on the days when I am at leisure.”

    Now, I’m a Protestant, so I’m not required to believe the Catholic doctrine that the Additions to Esther are canonical. (And in fact, it is my opinion that they are not canonical and not part of the original story, but were added later: the Hebrew manuscripts contain the “shortened” form of Esther, while the Septuagint contains the “longer” version.) But what’s most interesting about this for the point you’re making, Dalrock, is that the Additions (which were written no later than 132 BC, the date at which the Septuagint was finished, and were probably written a lot earlier than that) suggest that Esther “abhor[red] the bed of the uncircumcised”, e.g. that she didn’t want to have sex with the king of Persia, precisely because he wasn’t Jewish. This isn’t quite the same as the bitter feminist position (it attributes religious motives to her rather than modern-day feminist “I should have been allowed to consent” motives), but it does suggest that the “Esther didn’t like her position” frame is very, very ancient.

    I should also mention that on further consideration of the first few chapters of Esther, I need to partially retract my earlier position. The text doesn’t say that Esther wanted to become the next queen of Persia, nor does it say that she did anything special to try to catch the eye of the king’s “talent scouts”… but once she did catch their eye, then the text does imply that she tried her best to win the competition, and was smart about how she did it. Esther 2:15 says, “When the turn came for Esther […] to go to the king, she asked for nothing other than what Hegai, the king’s eunuch who was in charge of the harem, suggested.” So instead of trying to decide for herself how to make herself look beautiful (as we can infer that the other candidates did), she asked advice from the expert (the person who would best know the king’s taste apart from the king himself), and followed the expert’s advice. If she had been trying to sabotage her chances of winning, she would not have followed Hegai’s advice. So canonically, the Bible says that after the initial step (that of being selected for the beauty contest), Esther did pursue the man who would become her husband. (This is also part of why I think the Additions to Esther aren’t canonical, because the attitude she shows in Esther 4:43-44 from the Additions isn’t consistent with the attitude she shows in Esther 2:15 from the Hebrew version). The Bible is silent on the initial step, and I still believe that it wouldn’t have occurred to her that it was possible for her to become queen until the king’s “talent scouts” picked her out, precisely because she was an orphaned exile. That is not the same as saying she wouldn’t have wanted to: after reading your article and Esther 2:15, I have changed my mind and decided that she did want to win the king’s favor, once she knew it was even remotely possible. I just think that until the king’s “talent scouts” picked her out, becoming queen was on the order of a pipe dream, something she was not pursuing because she didn’t think it was possible at all. But once she knew it was possible, she tried her best to achieve it, and succeeded by being the opposite of Vashti. (Given the attitude that Vashti displayed in Esther 1, I can’t imagine her humbling herself enough to take the advice of a eunuch and not trying to “improve” on his advice).

    So overall, I now think that Esther is a good example of a woman pursuing the man who would become her husband. It’s more complicated in Esther’s case than in Ruth’s case, since Ruth initiated while Esther didn’t initiate (which is why I initially objected) — but you’re right that once the possibility was there, Esther pursued to the best of her ability.

  21. Splashman says:

    Oscar, not sure why you separated the examples of Esther and Abigail from Ruth. Ruth also got herself a rich, powerful husband, attracting him by her beauty, hard work, generosity, and loyalty. But he didn’t pursue her. Scripture tells us that Ruth’s mother-in-law Naomi was aware of the opportunity, and shrewdly instructed Ruth how to seal the deal with some, ahem, womanly wiles. Ruth obeyed, and that was that.

  22. Boxer says:

    Ruth also got herself a rich, powerful husband, attracting him by her beauty, hard work, generosity, and loyalty.

    Ruth is a very good role model for young sisters. She’s not only depicted as loyal, but also modest and feminine, which are very attractive qualities, in the eyes of quality men.

    Contemporary sloots whine about not being able to land a successful man, and in the next sentence they boast about tattoos, loudly curse their fathers, and talk about all the men they’ve been plowed by. It’s especially amusing to see so-called Christian and Jewish women behave this way, when their own literary and mythological characters clearly point out all the simple strategies to attracting a husband.

    You bitches actually don’t need to be debt-free virgins. You simply need to get the gang’s “property of” tattoo lasered off your ass, buy some dresses, and learn how to shut your cocksmokers. You’re all too stupid to follow these simple rules, and it astounds you when you suffer the natural consequences.

  23. Splashman says:

    Boxer, as you mention, it’s simple (uncomplicated) for women to make themselves attractive in the eyes of men. Simple, but not easy, because they must resist the curse of Eve that’s built into female DNA: dissatisfaction with being female (under man’s authority).

    For all of human history, until the last hundred years or so, women’s pragmatism allowed them to resist that temptation better. “If I don’t attract a man and at least fake submission, I won’t survive.” But once men (via government) gave women the ability to survive independently, there was no longer a need for women to resist the temptation. And here we are, smack dab in a disaster of our own making.

  24. Robin Munn says:

    On the subject of Tamar and Judah who were mentioned earlier: I wouldn’t agree that Tamar “got” Judah in the sense that Ruth “got” Boaz. Tamar wasn’t after a husband, she was after a son, which meant economic security for a widow. (And ended up getting twin sons). But the Bible specifically says that Judah did not sleep with Tamar again after the prostitution incident. Whereas Ruth got not just a son, but a rich husband.

    @Sharkly –

    When you mentioned being attracted to shy girls and “suspect[ing] that there may be yet more virtues lurking undetected in the quiet spirited one”, it made me think of my paternal grandparents. My grandmother was a quiet, reserved woman, and when she spoke it was usually in a soft tone of voice. But at eighty years old, she was a beautiful woman. Not in the same way that a twenty-year-old is beautiful, of course. But looking at my grandmother’s example, I have often said that at twenty, a woman’s beauty depends on her genes, but at eighty (and even at sixty), her beauty depends on her character. My grandmother was the most beautiful eighty-year-old I have ever met, and it’s because of her quiet, gentle character. When I read 1 Peter 3, I think of her.

  25. Jeff Strand says:

    Please tell me you guys don’t actually take the Book of Esther seriously in the literal sense? It never happened. If it had, we would surely have all kinds of corroboration for it in secular histories and chronicles. I mean, c’mon…how many millions does it say Esther connived to have executed as revenge for Haman’s plan? And not a single word in any history or chronicle? No even MENTION of it???

    It didn’t happen. Period. (Which doesn’t violate the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture. The doctrine of inerrancy says that the Bible, as properly interpreted, will not contain error. There’s nothing in error in regards faith and morals in relating a fantasy story like Esther. Think of it as a parable. It’s not meant to be taken literally, as if the events actually occurred IRL.)

  26. Boxer says:

    Please tell me you guys don’t actually take the Book of Esther seriously in the literal sense?

    I think you need to look up what “literal” means, and begin using it correctly.

    If it had, we would surely have all kinds of corroboration for it in secular histories and chronicles. I mean, c’mon…how many millions does it say Esther connived to have executed as revenge for Haman’s plan? And not a single word in any history or chronicle? No even MENTION of it???

    You sound like some of my goony atheist friends. They babble about how there’s zero historical evidence for Jesus, Mary, Joseph, Noah, Moses, etc.

    The proper response is: big deal. Who cares? These stories are read and taken seriously by, what, a billion people in the world? In contrast, my great-grandfathers all existed. There’s reams of historical evidence for their existence. No one knows anything about them today. There must have been eight of them, and I can name only one.

  27. Oscar says:

    @ Splashman

    Oscar, not sure why you separated the examples of Esther and Abigail from Ruth. Ruth also got herself a rich, powerful husband, attracting him by her beauty, hard work, generosity, and loyalty.

    Because David and Xerxes are more like each other than Boaz.

    Esther and Abigail demonstrate the power a beautiful, submissive woman has over a man, even one who is impulsive and unreasonable, as both Xerxes and David were prone to be.

    That being said, if I had the opportunity to advise one of my daughters to marry one of them, I’d choose Boaz. Women find kings and warriors more exciting, but a kind, generous, godly, successful man like Boaz makes a much better husband and father (David was a terrible father, and Xerxes was assassinated by one of his officials, not to mention both had harems).

  28. Oscar says:

    how many millions does it say Esther connived to have executed as revenge for Haman’s plan?

    It doesn’t.

  29. Jeff Strand says:

    Boxer,

    Lol. Did you really compare the life, death, and resurrection of Our Blessed Lord to the laughable story contained in Esther, an absurd Jewish revenge fantasy?

    No wonder Martin Luther has this to say about it: “The book of Esther I toss into the Elbe. I am such an enemy to the book of Esther that I wish it did not exist, for it Judaizes too much and has in it a great deal of heathenish foolishness.”

    Again, Scripture being inerrant means it won’t lead you astray in the realm of faith and morals. It doesn’t mean you should take everything in the OT literally. Some things obviously yes, but other things no. Esther teaches nothing of faith and morals, and doesn’t even mention God. It is simply an absurd Jewish revenge fantasy. Like Luther, one can be forgiven for wondering what the heck it’s even doing in the Canon of Scripture in the first place.

    But regardless, it is certain that the events described therein didn’t happen. Not only is there not a single mention of such momentous events in the secular histories, but the story itself is laughable. Because the Persian king had the tingles for a Jewess and took her to his bedroom (and remember, he probably had dozens of women in his stable/harem), he OK’d her murderous request to have Jews slaughter 75,000 of his own people? Which was then carried out? Are you even kidding me? Give me a freakin break!

    If you insist that the fable of Esther literally happened, it is YOU who are helping the atheists and the enemies of Scripture. Because you are giving the impression that you have to be stupid (and/or incredibly gullible) to be a Believer.

    Follow Martin Luther’s example and toss the Book of Esther into the River Elbe.

  30. Jeff Strand says:

    Oscar: “how many millions does it say Esther connived to have executed as revenge for Haman’s plan? It doesn’t.”

    You’re right. That was my bad, I should have taken a minute to look it up first, in order to be accurate. I just remembered it was a ridiculous, laughable claim. And it is. But it wasn’t millions, it was 75,000. Which is still a joke.

    You’ll see that in the post immediately above (my reply to Boxer), I reference the correct figure. For the record.

  31. Sharkly says:

    @JeffStrand
    LOL Must be part of the fantasy fiction sections of the Bible. /S Like everything else you don’t agree with. Just say it ain’t real. I’d attempt to debate with you, but if you start by throwing out the word of God as a fiction, then I can already see that there is nothing I can use to convince you that you will not also throw out.

    I for one believe the story of Esther to be true, historically and factually accurate, and inerrant in its recounting of actual events, and useful for application to our lives today. I have the faith to believe it, and the wisdom to disbelieve anything Jeff Strand says to the contrary. I don’t intend to sway you. I’m just taking this opportunity to say publicly that I am on the Lord’s side, and I believe His word.

    You’re not the Jeff Strand that writes macabre fiction books are you?

  32. Oscar says:

    Jeff Strand August 18, 2018 at 10:02 pm: … how many millions does it say Esther connived to have executed as revenge for Haman’s plan?

    Jeff Strand August 18, 2018 at 10:35 pm: … he OK’d her murderous request to have Jews slaughter 75,000 of his own people?

    That only took 33 minutes.

  33. Robin Munn says:

    The book of Esther opens with a claim that it happened at a specific time in history: the banquet at which Vashti refused to obey was in the third year of King Ahasuerus / Xerxes’ reign. So if you claim that it didn’t happen, by logical necessity you must claim that the Bible contains error. To claim that you believe the Bible to be inerrant, and yet to claim that the book of Esther is fiction, is not logically supportable: those two statements contradict each other.

  34. earl says:

    No wonder Martin Luther has this to say about it: “The book of Esther I toss into the Elbe. I am such an enemy to the book of Esther that I wish it did not exist, for it Judaizes too much and has in it a great deal of heathenish foolishness.”

    So on the one hand you call our pope a heretic any chance you get…on the other you quote an ACTUAL excommunicated heretic about his opinion about a book in Scripture because of his hatred of Jews.

    I really don’t know what faith you ascribe to anymore…although it sounds like you are about to pull a Luther and go down the Prot route.

  35. earl says:

    Must be part of the fantasy fiction sections of the Bible. /S Like everything else you don’t agree with. Just say it ain’t real.

    Or toss the book out like the heretic he agrees with.

    I’m also still waiting for him to tell me where the real pope is since he doesn’t agree with the one we currently got.

  36. Don Quixote says:

    @ Jeff Strand:
    Jesus taught: “Whosoever [Ahasuerus] shall put away his wife [Vashti], and marry another[Esther], committeth adultery against her.
    I can see why this book is problematic. It doesn’t reconcile with what Jesus taught regarding divorce and remarriage.

  37. Zippotracks says:

    @Splashman noticed the same thing. The movie deviated significantly from the book where the father is the spiritual head as well as the brains.

  38. Peter says:

    @Robin: “Robin Munn says:
    August 18, 2018 at 8:18 pm
    (This is also part of why I think the Additions to Esther aren’t canonical, because the attitude she shows in Esther 4:43-44 from the Additions isn’t consistent with the attitude she shows in Esther 2:15 from the Hebrew version).”
    Don’t forget that Esther is a woman, so she has all the female conflicts going on – wanting to be the queen, the most beautiful, etc., and yet help her people, etc. This gives a better idea of her motives, etc. She is, after all, a woman.

    As for the Bible, the Septuagint is the true Bible, the “Hebrew” scriptures are the Massoretic text which was rewritten, purged, and changed to be as anti-Christian as possible. They didn’t complete the final changes in the Massoretic text until around the 6th Century A.D. The Septuagint is the Bible of Christ and the Apostles, and quotes from the scriptures by them confirm this.
    And, the Jews like their changes because it represents for them the victory of the Jews over the Gentiles which they celebrate every year at Purim.

    @Don Quixote: “It doesn’t reconcile with what Jesus taught regarding divorce and remarriage.” Vashti was not bound by the Mosaic covenant as a non-Jew, this was prior to Christ. And, in point of fact, Christ noted that Moses had allowed divorce. So your point is not valid.

  39. Sharkly says:

    Don Quixote,
    A person wouldn’t expect a heathen king to follow Jewish marriage laws.
    Esther 1:19 If it please the king, let there go a royal commandment from him, and let it be written among the laws of the Persians and the Medes, that it be not altered, That Vashti come no more before king Ahasuerus; and let the king give her royal estate unto another that is better than she. 20 And when the king’s decree which he shall make shall be published throughout all his empire, (for it is great,) all the wives shall give to their husbands honour, both to great and small. 21 And the saying pleased the king and the princes; and the king did according to the word of Memucan:

    However it does not seem like the king divorced Vashti, it seems more like she was stripped of her queenship, and she was no longer allowed in the king’s presence. so I would guess that she likely was kept as a wife or concubine but forbidden to ever be with any man again. Guarded by the eunuchs that kept the women in the palace that belonged to King Ahasuerus. I doubt the king who would kill people who entered his presence without an invitation, would want his wife out banging some other dude, and claiming she had traded up.
    I don’t see why a heathen polygamous marriage would be expected to line up with Jesus teaching. Or why that would make the book problematic.

  40. Don Quixote says:

    Sharkly says:
    August 19, 2018 at 1:20 am

    I don’t see why a heathen polygamous marriage would be expected to line up with Jesus teaching. Or why that would make the book problematic.

    I agree with your remarks regarding Ahasuerus, but if it doesn’t reconcile with Jesus’ teaching it should be removed from our [Christian] canon.

  41. Splashman says:

    Jeff Strand is back again to tell us how awesome he is and how moronic we are. Good times.

  42. Paul says:

    @Splashman “For us men to pursue women would be like God pursuing us — which he doesn’t. ”

    That’s inaccurate

    The OT is literally full of imagery where God is pursuing Israel, and pleading to return to Him again and again. The NT confirms this image

    Jn 6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day.

    1 Jh 4:10,19 This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.We love because he first loved us.

    2Tim2:13 if we are faithless, he remains faithful, for he cannot disown himself.

  43. Paul says:

    @Peter : “The Septuagint is the Bible of Christ and the Apostles, and quotes from the scriptures by them confirm this.”

    i do value “the” septuagint, but NT quotes are NOT always from the LXX, but from the MT version too as documented in e.g. Longeneckers’s “Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period”

  44. info says:

    There is good reason for Esther to be in the closed Canon placed there by divine providence. And Luther despite being straight on in many points is wrong about Esther being noncanon.

  45. info says:

    Esther is descriptive not prescriptive. In many places

  46. Luke says:

    earl says:
    August 18, 2018 at 11:16 pm

    “Or toss the book out like the heretic he agrees with.
    I’m also still waiting for him to tell me where the real pope is since he doesn’t agree with the one we currently got.”

    Methinks the founder of the Christian Church would be Jesus. My understanding is that He’s in Heaven at the moment, but will be coming back at some point to personally take charge of His church again. Glad to clear that up for you. Anything else I can help you with?

  47. feministhater says:

    Lol!

  48. earl says:

    Anything else I can help you with?

    No, because I wasn’t debating who founded the church. Jeff seems to have an issue with who is His current Vicar.

  49. Opus says:

    As I was reading I kept thinking of your current POTUS and FLOTUS – except for the bit about having to slaughter six million Hebrews – even POTUS most fanatical opponents have yet to accuse him of slaughtering Slovenians.

  50. Jeff Strand says:

    Earl: “No, because I wasn’t debating who founded the church. Jeff seems to have an issue with who is His current Vicar.”

    Earl, you believe that Bergoglio is the Vicar of Christ on Earth. This is the man who has denied the existence of Hell, several times…most recently to a reporter this past Holy Thursday. He has said atheists go straight to Heaven. He has said the Old Covenant is still in force, and today’s Jews have no need to come to Christ and be baptized in order to be saved. He has said that when looking at the many different religions of the world, “all we can know is that I believe in love.”

    When it comes to homosexuality, he has said “who am I to judge?” (For which The Advocate magazine named him their Person of the Year). He has said that unmarried couples living together in sin (fornication) “have all the graces of Holy Matrimony” as long as they are faithful to each other. On the other hand, he said that the “vast majority” of people married in the Church have an invalid marriage (because they don’t comprehend that marriage is supposed to be forever, or some such nonsense).

    In a papal encyclical, Amoris Latetia, he has proclaimed that those living in adulterous relationships, with no intention of amendment, can licitly receive the Holy Sacrament whilst in this state of objective mortal sin.

    He has told a woman in Argentina who complained that her local priest won’t give her Holy Communion (because she is living in an adulterous situation) that the solution is for her to secretly go to a neighboring parish, where she is unknown, and unworthily receive the Body and Blood there. He has just altered the Catechism to state that the death penalty is intrinsically immoral and contrary to the Gospel, which is certainly formal heresy.

    He is going to canonize (later this year) Montini, aka Paul VI, who was an open Communinst sympathizer, a raging homo who committed acts of sodomy with his Italian movie actor boyfriend even while supposedly the pope, and who presided over the collapse of the Church in the decade and a half following the Council. Yet he has refused to canonize a truly holy and heroic pope, Pius IX, because some Jewish groups object to it. So I guess the Jews now determine who is worthy to be proclaimed a Catholic saint? Hey, that’s FrancisChurch for you!

    He has condemned the Catholic dogma of the Social Reign of Christus Rex by stating (on several occasions) that the State should be separated from the Church. This is direct, formal heresy that was specifically condemned by Gregory XVI, Pius IX (in his famous Syllabus of Errors), and St. Pius X (“To say that the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error.”)

    He has said that when it comes to the doctrine of justification, “Martin Luther did not err. This is very important – he (Luther) did not err!” He has said the miracle of the Loaves and Fishes never happened. There was no actual multiplication of the foodstuffs, you see, because that would make Jesus some kind of magician. No, what happened was that Jesus showed the people how to share…and when they all shared with each other, they realized there was enough to feed everyone. This is why he calls it the “Parable of the Loaves and Fishes”, instead of the “Miracle of the Loaves and Fishes”.

    He has said that it’s inadmissible to attempt to convert anyone to the Catholic Faith, because doing so is “a grave sin against ecumenism” and “proselytism is solemn nonsense”.

    He condemned Trump for daring to claim that countries have a right to enforceable borders, but he uttered not a word to try to sway the outcome of two plebiscites in Ireland that legalized first gay marriage, and then abortion on demand. And subsequently, both passed.

    He was invalidly elected to the papacy by the so-called “St. Gallen Mafia” (led by homo predator Cardinal Daneels, with assistance from now-disgraced homo predator Cardinal Theodore “Uncle Ted” McCarrick, and others.) Even according to the rules of the Vatican II Sect (issued by JPII), if there is lobbying, canvassing, and vote-counting during a papal conclave, those cardinals who participated are excommunicated…and their candidate pope, if he was elected due to their efforts, is to be considered that his election is null and void. This applies to the election of Bergoglio.

    I could go on and on. This is the man you regonize as the successor to St. Peter and give your unquestioning obedience to? This is the Vicar of Christ on Earth? YGTBSM!

    I know a lot of good, faithful Catholics who now pray daily that God will take Bergoglio’s life, as an act of mercy to the Faithful. Many others consider him the probable False Prophet forerunner to the Antichrist. But you consider this reprehensible apostate and enemy of the Catholic Faith to be the valid pope. Unreal.

  51. Boxer says:

    Earl, you believe that Bergoglio is the Vicar of Christ on Earth. This is the man who has denied the existence of Hell, several times…most recently to a reporter this past Holy Thursday. He has said atheists go straight to Heaven.

    You have no source for this lunacy. Moreover, Earl already specifically disproved it.

    He has said the Old Covenant is still in force, and today’s Jews have no need to come to Christ and be baptized in order to be saved.

    Another lie. For someone who bows down and prays to the Jew Jesus, the Jewess Mary, and who reads the holy book authored by the hook-nosed (((Saul of Tarsus))), you seem to have lots of funny conflicts.

    As an aside, why not abandon this religion, started by all the people you hate, and move on to Hinduism or Buddhism? Most guys like you enjoy paganism (Wotan and Thor and such), which is also an option.

    He has said that when looking at the many different religions of the world, “all we can know is that I believe in love.”

    Even if he did say that, it means nothing in the sense that you want to communicate.

    Go and pray to your god for forgiveness for spreading so many falsehoods, and come back to try again.

    Boxer

  52. Jeff Strand says:

    Don Quixote: “@ Jeff Strand:
    Jesus taught: “Whosoever [Ahasuerus] shall put away his wife [Vashti], and marry another[Esther], committeth adultery against her.
    I can see why this book is problematic. It doesn’t reconcile with what Jesus taught regarding divorce and remarriage.”

    Agreed. Like I said, the Book of Esther is a straightforward Jewish revenge fantasy. That’s it. The events described therein certainly did not literally happen. Can you imagine the Persian king authorizing the Jews to kill 75,000 of his own people, because some Jewess hottie whispers into his ear that he should do so? And it is actually carried out? And not a word of such shocking, momentous events is ever mentioned in any secular history or chronicles? An absurdity.

    As a traditional Catholic, I disagree with Martin Luther on almost everything. But I have to say, I have tremendous sympathy for him when he says the Book of Esther should be thrown into the River Elbe. Anyway, based on the Councils of Hippo and Carthage that set the Canon of Scripture, I must accept Esther as canonical. And so I do. But I don’t think it has any more meaning for we modern Christians than all the lengthy passages of the OT that describe the ceremonial requirements of the Mosaic Law (exactly how long a woman must sit in the mikvah to be purified of her menses, all the requirements for the Levitical priests, the exact requirements for the goats or turtledoves to be slaughtered, etc).

    We just ignore all that stuff as being Holy Writ, yes, but really having no relevance to us. I submit the Jewish revenge fantasy known as the Book of Esther should be considered in the same category. Just ignore it. It’s not relevant to us.

  53. Oscar says:

    @ Boxer

    Most guys like you enjoy paganism (Wotan and Thor and such), which is also an option.

    I believe that’s called LARPing.

    Or, is it cosplay? I can’t keep up with these kids and all their silly terms.

  54. Jeff Strand says:

    Boxer,

    LOlL. Everything I said about Bergoglio is 100% true. It just seems like I’m making it up, because when you see it all laid out in black and white like that, it’s absurd to think that kind of perniciousness could be coming from a valid pope. And that’s the whole point! He’s NOT the valid pope!

    Btw, I’m sure there is a whole bunch of stuff I’ve left out!

    P.S. Thanks for the suggestions, but I’m all set in my religion. In order to save my soul, I adhere to the One True Religion, which is the Roman Catholic Church. Which is the Faith that was taught by the Apostles and the Church Fathers, as can be easily seen if you actually read their writings (as I have). But it needs to be emphasized, the Roman Catholic Church is most definitely NOT the same as the Bergoglio-led Vatican II Sect, which is a false, heretical religion led by an open apostate. Even if most of the world thinks the two religions are one and the same, they are not.

    I and my family attend a valid, Tridentine Latin Mass at a parish that is led by a validly-ordained (in the Old Rite) Catholic priest, who has no connection to the ordinaries of the false and heretical Vatican II Sect. We regularly receive the Sacrament of Confession there as well. It was the True Faith for over 1,900 years, that’s good enough for me!

  55. earl says:

    Earl, you believe that Bergoglio is the Vicar of Christ on Earth.

    He was selected from the college of cardinals after Benedict XVI resigned.

    Until proven otherwise…yes I believe this.

  56. earl says:

    As a traditional Catholic, I disagree with Martin Luther on almost everything. But I have to say, I have tremendous sympathy for him when he says the Book of Esther should be thrown into the River Elbe.

    And as a Catholic…I agree with the church that he’s a heretic and was excommunicated as such. There’s no need to agree with anything he says.

    See that’s the difference…rather than making some assertion someone is a heretic because I say so…the church actually judged Martin Luther to be a heretic.

  57. earl says:

    Jeff might call himself a trad Catholic…but he seems to have problems with the other facets of church authority…specifically the living Magisterium.

    ‘Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium are so closely united with each other that one of then cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.

    Ref. CCC 95’

  58. feministhater says:

    Earl, Jeff and Boxer enter a bar…. the results are always hilarious!

  59. earl says:

    He was invalidly elected to the papacy by the so-called “St. Gallen Mafia” (led by homo predator Cardinal Daneels, with assistance from now-disgraced homo predator Cardinal Theodore “Uncle Ted” McCarrick, and others.) Even according to the rules of the Vatican II Sect (issued by JPII), if there is lobbying, canvassing, and vote-counting during a papal conclave, those cardinals who participated are excommunicated…and their candidate pope, if he was elected due to their efforts, is to be considered that his election is null and void. This applies to the election of Bergoglio.

    This particular point has not been made so by the church yet. You can not make these assertions, lay-man. You can not take it upon yourself to dictate what church authority has not stated yet.

    If and/or when the church does this…then you can shine this statement for all the world to see, because it has backing from church authority.

  60. earl says:

    Earl, Jeff and Boxer enter a bar…. the results are always hilarious!

    Jeff suffers from what a lot of us do…namely wanting to personally rebel from his lawful authority.

    He may claim he disagrees with a lot of what Luther says (until he digs into what Luther thought of the Jews)…but he seems to be a lot closer to Luther when it comes to the Magisterium.

  61. Jeff Strand says:

    Earl: “This particular point has not been made so by the church yet. You can not make these assertions, lay-man.”

    For heaven’s sake, they have admitted it! McCarrick admitted it on video, you can watch it yourself on YouTube!

    Btw, notice Earl completely ignores the long litany of Bergoglio’s blatant heresies that I listed a couple posts back. That says it all. He has no choice but to ignore, as the case I made is just too devastating to his position that the Argentinian Apostate is a valid pope. Or else he’d be forced to admit that it’s possible for a valid pope to be a formal heretic!

  62. Opus says:

    Bishops of Rome come and Bishops of Rome go and of course Catholic bashing serves the narratives of various unpleasant groups and probably far worse than the Catholics who seek power. Jeff Strand may be right (for all I know) in all he alleges yet he seems to me so much like Martin Luther in his condemnation of the failings of the Roman Church. For myself: I am as much wary of Jesuits as I am of Argies.

    All British coinage on the Head side contain the letters f d which is short for Fidei Defensatrix which translates form the Latin as Defender of the Faith – a title given by Pope Leo X to his late Majesty the eighth Henry in 1521. It has been used in perpetuity by the reigning monarch since that date and though her Majesty as Supreme Governor of the Church of England has never said any of the things of which Bergoglio is accused of saying she has nevertheless done nothing to stop the rot. I think there will be a lot of very angry Atheists should they subsequently discover that their final destination is Heaven – even worse than being dropped off at some obscure Highland railway station for eternity with merely the heather, the sheep and the incessant drone of the pipes for company.

  63. Oscar says:

    If it’s any consolation, El Papa Socialista is definitely not worst Pope you’ve ever had.

  64. earl says:

    For heaven’s sake, they have admitted it! McCarrick admitted it on video, you can watch it yourself on YouTube!

    The church authority has not admitted that Pope Francis’s election is null and void. Do you have the declaration of admittance of this?

  65. earl says:

    Btw, notice Earl completely ignores the long litany of Bergoglio’s blatant heresies that I listed a couple posts back.

    I have not ignored them for you keep repeating them…as they are your justification to rebel from the Magisterium…I will keep repeating he is the elected pope.

    While there have been some good holy men as popes in history…there are equally evil & vile men who have been popes. Would you say invoking pagan gods, having sex on holy sites, adultery, murder, or selling the office of the papacy as things a pope shouldn’t be doing? I happen to think Francis is closer to the later. He won’t be the Vicar of Christ forever…but he is as of this moment.

    https://www.therichest.com/rich-list/most-shocking/the-8-most-evil-popes-in-history/

  66. earl says:

    El Papa Socialista is definitely not worst Pope you’ve ever had.

    Exactly.

    If you asked Luther he’d tell you Pope Leo X was the worst pope we ever had.

  67. earl says:

    I mean if that doesn’t at least somewhat prove how the church is divinely protected, I don’t know what would. Any other institution that had that type of leadership would have crumbled many centuries ago.

  68. Gunner Q says:

    Jeff Strand @ 11:47 am:
    “Like I said, the Book of Esther is a straightforward Jewish revenge fantasy.”

    Curious, then, that the story says Esther intended to let the Jews all die rather than risk her position. Was it misogyny porn as well as revenge porn?

  69. Oscar says:

    @ earl

    I mean if that doesn’t at least somewhat prove how the church is divinely protected, I don’t know what would. Any other institution that had that type of leadership would have crumbled many centuries ago.

    There’s a story in the Decameron that makes that exact point.

  70. Jeff says:

    Mordecai told her she needed to do it, and it is obvious she decides to because she took the advice of Xerxes eunichs who advised her what he likes.

    I see this as her willingness to submit not only to her cousin, but to advice from others and to the king himself.

  71. Jed Mask says:

    @Sharkly

    “Now you’re saying things that aren’t supported by scripture. Where does the Bible ever say that Daniel was a eunuch. The Bible refers to Daniel as a man. The Bible call eunuchs “eunuchs”. Why do you have to emasculate the prophet of God?
    FWIW I’ve had this argument before and won. There is nothing in the Bible that ever implies that Daniel was a eunuch, and it specifically calls him a man.”

    … NO.

    Read the Scriptures:

    KJV Daniel 1:3-21,

    3 ¶ And the king spake unto Ashpenaz the master of his eunuchs, that he should bring certain of the children of Israel, and of the king’s seed, and of the princes;
    4 Children in whom was no blemish, but well favoured, and skilful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding science, and such as had ability in them to stand in the king’s palace, and whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans.
    5 And the king appointed them a daily provision of the king’s meat, and of the wine which he drank: so nourishing them three years, that at the end thereof they might stand before the king.
    6 Now among these were of the children of Judah, Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah:
    7 Unto whom the prince of the eunuchs gave names: for he gave unto Daniel the name of Belteshazzar; and to Hananiah, of Shadrach; and to Mishael, of Meshach; and to Azariah, of Abed-nego.
    8 ¶ But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the portion of the king’s meat, nor with the wine which he drank: therefore he requested of the prince of the eunuchs that he might not defile himself.
    9 Now God had brought Daniel into favour and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs.
    10 And the prince of the eunuchs said unto Daniel, I fear my lord the king, who hath appointed your meat and your drink: for why should he see your faces worse liking than the children which are of your sort? then shall ye make me endanger my head to the king.
    11 Then said Daniel to Melzar, whom the prince of the eunuchs had set over Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah,
    12 Prove thy servants, I beseech thee, ten days; and let them give us pulse to eat, and water to drink.
    13 Then let our countenances be looked upon before thee, and the countenance of the children that eat of the portion of the king’s meat: and as thou seest, deal with thy servants.
    14 So he consented to them in this matter, and proved them ten days.
    15 And at the end of ten days their countenances appeared fairer and fatter in flesh than all the children which did eat the portion of the king’s meat.
    16 Thus Melzar took away the portion of their meat, and the wine that they should drink; and gave them pulse.
    17 ¶ As for these four children, God gave them knowledge and skill in all learning and wisdom: and Daniel had understanding in all visions and dreams.
    18 Now at the end of the days that the king had said he should bring them in, then the prince of the eunuchs brought them in before Nebuchadnezzar.
    19 And the king communed with them; and among them all was found none like Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah: therefore stood they before the king.
    20 And in all matters of wisdom and understanding, that the king enquired of them, he found them ten times better than all the magicians and astrologers that were in all his realm.
    21 And Daniel continued even unto the first year of king Cyrus.
    ____________________________

    The context of Scripture supports Daniel being a castrated man who became an eunuch in the court of Nebuchadnezzar. Else why is “Daniel” rounded up in the company of eunuchs?

    You don’t know your Bible Mr. Sharkly or you’re just being DECEITFUL…

    ~ Bro. Jed

  72. Sharkly says:

    @~ Bro. Jed
    LOL Esther was also guarded and kept by eunuchs in the palace. Does that mean she got castrated too? Just because the king used eunuchs in his house does not imply that Daniel was one. I have read my Bible enough to call you out on your unsupported assertions. The only thing you have shown, is that the Bible makes a point of calling eunuchs, “eunuchs”.
    The Bible always calls Daniel a man and never a eunuch.

    Daniel 2:25 Then Arioch brought in Daniel before the king in haste, and said thus unto him, I have found a man of the captives of Judah, that will make known unto the king the interpretation.
    Daniel 2:48 Then the king made Daniel a great man, and gave him many great gifts, and made him ruler over the whole province of Babylon, and chief of the governors over all the wise men of Babylon.
    Daniel 10:11 And he said unto me, O Daniel, a man greatly beloved, understand the words that I speak unto thee, and stand upright: for unto thee am I now sent. And when he had spoken this word unto me, I stood trembling.

    So, I can show from your beloved King James Bible that Daniel is never called a eunuch, but is often called a man, even by the King who would surely be the one to know who he had ordered castrated, and by one of the heavenly host, who would also not be mistaken about things.

    Why do you have to emasculate the prophet of God? And why are you too proud to admit you have zero proof that Daniel was castrated? Why can’t you admit somebody told you that, and you just gullibly believed it?

  73. From Sheila’s blog post:

    “Just because the king and his nobles thought that encouraging discord among wives was evil does not mean that God thought encouraging discord among wives was evil-“

    Sowing discord in marriages is not necessarily evil? If your God is the great feminist from the Pit.

  74. Jeff Strand says:

    Earl, you don’t even know the religion you claim to be a member of.

    The claim that a pope is “infallible” is quite different from claiming that a pope is “impeccable” (which means without sin). There may have been some real scoundrels on the throne of St. Peter. It’s even possible some former popes are in Hell as we speak. I don’t deny that at all.

    But what’s IMPOSSIBLE is that a valid pope promulgate formal heresy upon the Universal Church. This is formal, established Catholic dogma…made explicit at the (First) Vatican Council. Now go back and review my litany of heresies that Bergoglio has pronounced and/or published.

    If such a blatant, public, formal heretic as Bergoglio can be the valid pope, then in vain was Our Lord’s promise that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church, founded upon St. Peter (the rock). Which means Our Lord was either impotent or lying. Which means there’s no basis to be a Christian at all.

    So there is no God. Or at the very least, Jesus Christ was not divine. That, or the man (Bergoglio) currently claiming to be the pope is, in fact, an Antipope. Which do you consider more likely? (Recall that it’s an established fact that there have been antipopes in history).

  75. feeriker says:

    No wonder Martin Luther has this to say about it: “The book of Esther I toss into the Elbe. I am such an enemy to the book of Esther that I wish it did not exist, for it Judaizes too much and has in it a great deal of heathenish foolishness.”

    And yet this book features quite prominently in the Protestant Bible. Care to explain that?

  76. pariah says:

    Feeriker said: “And yet this book features quite prominently in the Protestant Bible. Care to explain that?”

    It’s only in the Bible because of tradition. Many commentators see it as being a Jewish comedy anyway. So it’s not even meant to be taken as historical. It’s only purpose was to poke fun at their captors. I agree with Luther. Have you ever noticed how so many (((comedians))) these days are, you know….?

  77. feeriker says:

    pariah says:
    August 19, 2018 at 7:33 pm

    “The Bible as comedy.”

    Yeah, um … no.

  78. feeriker says:

    For heaven’s sake, they have admitted it! McCarrick admitted it on video, you can watch it yourself on YouTube!

    Link, please. Surely you, of all people, would have it bookmarked.

  79. earl says:

    ‘Earl, you don’t even know the religion you claim to be a member of.’

    The one holy Catholic and apostolic church…the one with Scripture, tradition, and the magisterium. I don’t use tradition so I can justify rebelling against the magisterium. They work together…not oppose one another.

    If such a blatant, public, formal heretic as Bergoglio can be the valid pope, then in vain was Our Lord’s promise that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church, founded upon St. Peter (the rock). Which means Our Lord was either impotent or lying. Which means there’s no basis to be a Christian at all.

    Formal means ‘officially sanctioned or recognized’ like Martin Luther, the man you were agreeing with earlier when it came to Esther…the Catholic church authority (the magisterium you want to rebel against) has not stated that. You, layman, are making the judgement with no backing other than with your own judgements.

  80. pariah says:

    There are four lights! Earl seems to think there are five.

  81. Oscar says:

    @ Jeff

    I see this as her willingness to submit not only to her cousin, but to advice from others and to the king himself.

    Correct. Esther submitted graciously to the authorities placed over her, even when those authorities were downright wicked, like Xerxes.

    The books of Esther, Daniel, Ezra, and Nehemiah all give us outstanding examples of how a believer should behave when placed under the authority of wicked people, even when those wicked authorities require us to sin, like Nebuchadnezzar requiring everyone to worship his golden idol.

  82. Spike says:

    earl says:
    August 18, 2018 at 6:05 pm

    ‘The more you act like a lady, the more he’ll act like a gentleman.’

    https://www.kare11.com/article/news/misogynistic-quote-above-hisd-middle-school-lockers-goes-viral/285-585244043

    Of course the wailing and gnashing of teeth of the sisters of Shelia came out claiming that it absolved men of responsibility…however I can see it as any act trying to tell women to act feminine is ‘misogynistic’.’

    This article got me thinking, earl:
    The modern woman shows up for marriage at the end of her carousel years after an epiphany of sorts. She now ”knows what she wants”. She also has a career, but all she has to show for it are well-stamped passports, shoe and handbag collections and usually a big debt. This added to the fat that it’s 5 minutes to reproductive midnight.
    to be crude, If she wants to show up with little more than a vagina and thinking that’s enough, what does she expect?

  83. Boxer says:

    pariah sez to Brother Earl:

    There are four lights! Earl seems to think there are five.

    Always amusing to see the “new names” appear, filling the comments up with low-effort trolling, as soon as Jeff Strand gets cornered.

    Where’s my bitch MKT, anyway?

    Boxer

  84. Dale says:

    @Don Quixote
    >if it doesn’t reconcile with Jesus’ teaching it should be removed from our [Christian] canon.

    This is a strange view. God is “allowed” to add additional commands if he wants. For example, first man was given fruits and vegetables to eat. Then after the flood, God gave man meat to eat (about Gen 12).
    God later gave the Isrealites the command to not marry a near relative. But earlier, Cain, Able and Seth would have needed to do exactly that.
    God commanded the Sabbath (Ex 20:8-11), and later in Romans 14 that “special day” part was rescinded.

    Jesus repeatedly extended the law, adding extra requirements that were not in the original law.
    – Matt 5:21-26: Instead of merely not murdering, do not even be angry (without cause)
    – Matt 5:27-28: Instead of merely not committing physical adultery, do not even lust after another wife
    – Matt 5:31-32: Instead of merely not neglecting the laws allowing divorce, do not divorce at all except for sexual immorality — and if you marry a divorced woman you are committing adultery.
    – Matt 5:33-37: Instead of merely taking your oaths in God’s name (Deut 6:13-15), do not take oaths at all, instead always speaking the truth
    – etc…. read the rest of Matt 5 for yourself.

  85. Sharkly says:

    Dale,
    I have a different take on Jesus and the Law. Jesus did not come to abolish the law, He came to fulfill the law. Many folks in Jesus day were fond of saying that they were in fact keeping all the law. That was against the purpose of the law, which is to convict us of sin. We were not to try to justify ourselves by means of the law, but to understand our need of a sacrifice for our guilt for violating God’s law. Jesus was our sacrifice. By pointing out that the root of murder is hate, and that if you have hate in your heart, you are already far short of holiness. Jesus was not saying that hate was being criminalized equal to murder. Jesus was saying that you can’t claim to possess the love of God, just because you’ve never murdered anybody, when your heart is full of hate. Likewise, don’t brag that you haven’t committed adultery, when the root of it is in everyman’s heart. It is important that you not be fooled into thinking that Jesus was trying to make a second glance at a woman into Adultery in a legally equal sense, which was punishable by death.
    Lots of churchians are fools that way, and justify women divorcing their husbands for looking at porn, because “it is adultery”. When in fact it is just lust, which is the root of adultery, and it is, in fact, in not only the heart of the porn viewer, but lust is also in the heart of the hypocrites telling the wife to commit divorce, over the sin of lust, instead of forgiving others their sins. The wife is also lusting for a better husband than the one God gave her. You notice these same fools will not go “Ape Shit” over hatred, which is MURDER! Because, “everybody” has hatred in their hearts, and the Feminist(man haters) can’t bash males alone for hatred, like they try to do with lust. Because the churchians know that my wife never lusted while she was having her “internet affairs” with her former sex partners during our marriage.(and consequently denying me the sex she was wanting to be having with them) Nope, I’m the only man in their church who has ever lusted. Until the next man walks into their office to have his home destroyed, by their twisting of scripture into Feminism.
    Don’t imply that Jesus was changing the perfect law of God. He was merely pointing out that we all fall far short of God’s holiness which was required in the law already.
    Leviticus 20:7 Sanctify yourselves therefore, and be ye holy: for I am the Lord your God.
    To ask a man to become lust free, is like asking him to become sin free, or to be holy. We all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. The commands Jesus mentioned were already part of the existing law. The legalistic Pharisees were just not teaching it that way. Did God not realize that men should be free from hate and lust and speak the truth when He first gave the law? Yes, He did realize it, and had forbidden it. The Pharisees just focused on laws, and words, and deeds, and ignored the heart and mind. Jesus was just reminding them of what they should have already seen in the law. Thus, Jesus said, You have heard it said(by your religious leaders, who claim to be obeying all the law), But, I say unto you(here is the extent of how the law was really intended to work to find all people quite guilty).

  86. Anon says:

    In other news, purple pill Tradcon RS McCain completely swallows feminist assumptions whole. He believes that just because most millenial women ‘don’t identify as feminist’, they somehow are not feminist :

    http://theothermccain.com/2018/08/17/poll-finds-most-young-women-do-not-repeat-do-not-identify-as-feminists/

    RS McCain, like most Tradcons, has zero curiously about polling them of whether paternity fraud is wrong, or if abortion should require the father’s consent, or if no-fault asset split and default mother custody is wrong. Just because they don’t use the word, the Tradcon is satisfied.

  87. Don Quixote says:

    Dale says:
    August 19, 2018 at 11:19 pm
    @Don Quixote
    >if it doesn’t reconcile with Jesus’ teaching it should be removed from our [Christian] canon.

    This is a strange view. God is “allowed” to add additional commands if he wants. For example, first man was given fruits and vegetables to eat. Then after the flood, God gave man meat to eat (about Gen 12).
    God later gave the Isrealites the command to not marry a near relative. But earlier, Cain, Able and Seth would have needed to do exactly that.
    God commanded the Sabbath (Ex 20:8-11), and later in Romans 14 that “special day” part was rescinded.

    I agree that my statement could be considered strange.
    But I was referring to the book of Esther only, not the books of Moses, nor the prophets. I would consider Esther in the same category as the Maccabees. Important, but not suitable for doctrine. Perhaps I’m wrong?
    Also, I am not aware of any new commands given in the book of Esther, or is there anything in the book of Esther that adds to the revealed knowledge of God?
    I don’t want to get into Law V Grace discussion on this thread, but if I’m missing something then let me know.

  88. Don Quixote says:

    Jeff Strand says:
    August 19, 2018 at 11:47 am

    Agreed. Like I said, the Book of Esther is a straightforward Jewish revenge fantasy. That’s it. The events described therein certainly did not literally happen. Can you imagine the Persian king authorizing the Jews to kill 75,000 of his own people, because some Jewess hottie whispers into his ear that he should do so? And it is actually carried out? And not a word of such shocking, momentous events is ever mentioned in any secular history or chronicles? An absurdity.

    I would hesitate to say it didn’t happen. [Perhaps there has been some embellishments along the way?] Nor do I think it’s fair to call it, “Jewish revenge fantasy”. I believe those events happened, I just don’t think it should be in the christian canon. I’m protestant btw.
    The lessons from the book of Esther can be taught from other books of the Bible, and I don’t think it adds to the revealed knowledge of God.
    Luther could be brutal, and sometimes funny in his assessment of others.

  89. Paul says:

    @Jeff: “If such a blatant, public, formal heretic as can be the valid pope, then in vain was Our Lord’s promise that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church, founded upon St. Peter (the rock). Which means Our Lord was either impotent or lying.”

    Or maybe, just maybe, the RCC has misinterpreted His words. And maybe these other people outside the RCC that acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord and died a substitutionary death to be raised by God the Father are part of His Church too, and hence His Church is not identical with the RCC.

  90. Paul says:

    Some formatting magic removed: if such a blatant, public, formal heretic as FILL IN ANY OF THE POPES WHO FIT THE DESCRIPTION can be the valid pope…

  91. Paul says:

    As St.Paul wrote in Rom 10:9
    “If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.”

  92. Paul says:

    And if the average person cannot be expected to understand what St.Paul said in Holy Scripture which are given to us for (!) teaching and training (2Tm3:16), how can the average person be expected to understand what the pope says in his encyclicals?

  93. Paul says:

    Rom 10:11 “For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.””

    Scripture says, and that is THE reason it is true and good enough for us, as St.Paul shows us.

  94. earl says:

    Some formatting magic removed: if such a blatant, public, formal heretic as FILL IN ANY OF THE POPES WHO FIT THE DESCRIPTION can be the valid pope…

    Until someone who actually has the authority of the church declares Pope (fill in the blank heretic) was null and void…I’m going to take Jeff Strand, layman, accusations with a grain of salt.

    You don’t have to agree with the pope’s statements (there are some I find questionable)…but to not acknowledge him as the elected pope is something quite different.

  95. Opus says:

    It is now clear to me how important the American Revolt of 1776 was for your nation for in its wake came the Constitution and all its ammendments. This has provided hours of nit-picking for lawyers and barrack-room lawyers alike. America is eminently suited to this because the earliest Colonists being true Protestants equally spent hours attempting to determine exactly what Scripture is saying – and you are still at it.

    In a country with no constitution and the shakiest of knowledge of scripture this is not possible and although occasionally one hears reference to Magna Carta no one knows exactly what it says or to whom it applies (and all but two sections have in any event been repealed.

  96. Bee says:

    Sharkly,

    “By pointing out that the root of murder is hate, and that if you have hate in your heart, you are already far short of holiness. Jesus was not saying that hate was being criminalized equal to murder. Jesus was saying that you can’t claim to possess the love of God, just because you’ve never murdered anybody, when your heart is full of hate. Likewise, don’t brag that you haven’t committed adultery, when the root of it is in everyman’s heart. ”

    Great comment! Some of your comments would make great sermons.

  97. Jeff Strand says:

    Earl: “Formal means ‘officially sanctioned or recognized’ like Martin Luther, the man you were agreeing with earlier when it came to Esther…the Catholic church authority (the magisterium you want to rebel against) has not stated that. You, layman, are making the judgement with no backing other than with your own judgements.”

    Wow. You don’t even know the difference between formal vs. material heresy. Clearly, I’m wasting my time debating with you.

    Hint: when Antipope Bergoglio just inserted in the Catechism that the death penalty is intrinsically immoral and against the Gospel (thereby contradicting two millennia of Catholic doctrine), that makes him a formal heretic. If the College of Cardinals demands he retract his heresy, and he refuses, then he becomes a material heretic.

  98. earl says:

    ‘ You don’t even know the difference between formal vs. material heresy. Clearly, I’m wasting my time debating with you.’

    Yes you are because I don’t think you know the difference.

  99. Jeff Strand says:

    Paul: “As St.Paul wrote in Rom 10:9
    “If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.”

    The same St. Paul said “If anyone, even an angel from Heaven, should bring you another gospel, other than what we have delivered to you, let him be anathema,”

    So by the command of St. Paul himself, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Knox, Henry VIII, and all the other Protestant Fathers are to be considered anathema. Which basically means “accursed”,

    But I get the appeal of Protestantism on an emotional level. Luther said that when a believing Christian is baptized, he can never subsequently lose his salvation. No matter what sins he commits. As long as he still believes. So Luther gives you a guarantee to go straight to heaven. You can fornicate all you want, steal, commit adultery, procure abortions, etc. etc. As long as you still believe that Christ is your savior, you’re good to go.

    Of course, such a pernicious doctrine was unknown to the early Church Fathers, as their voluminous writings show. And even to St. Paul, who warned Christians to “work out your salvation in fear and trembling, even as I do.” And St. Peter, in his epistle, added “For if the just man shall only just scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and sinners find themselves?”

    But of course, everyone wants a guaranteed reward…without putting in the effort. Human nature, I suppose. But as for me, only the Truth will do. The narrow path, if you will.

  100. Jeff Strand says:

    Earl: “Yes you are because I don’t think you know the difference”

    Dude, just stop. You were clearing saying “formal” heresy when you meant “material” heresy. You don’t know what you’re talking about. Period.

    Your pope told you there’s no such thing as Hell. And that the lost souls are simply annihilated out of existence. (He’s actually said it several times, most recently this past Holy Thursday).

    Apparently, he can just invent doctrine like that. And you have to accept it as Truth, because the Church has not condemned him for it. Never mind that it’s IMPOSSIBLE for the Church to condemn him, as there is no higher authority than him. Which is why St. Robert Bellarmine, a Doctor of the Church, wrote that if ever the Roman pontiff should err, then necessarily the whole Church will follow him into error.

    You are a very confused man. Go ahead and follow your Antipope, good luck with that. Just remember, those stubbornly living in open adultery can receive Holy Communion, couples living together in fornication have all the graces of Holy Matrimony, trying to convert anyone to Catholicism is “a very grave sin against ecumenism”, Jews are saved as Jews and have no need to accept the gospel, get baptized, and submit to Holy Mother Church, etc etc. Oh, and there’s no Hell. The Church had that wrong for two millennia, as did Our Lord Himself in the gospels. Instead, the lost souls just cease to exist. Not to mention, the death penalty is intrinsically immoral and contrary to the Gospel….so Catholic dogma for two millennia was wrong there too.

    Those are doctrines Bergoglio has spelled out quite clearly. Since you take him to be a valid pope, you MUST accept those beliefs too, under holy obedience to the Vicar of Christ. Or else you make of yourself a de facto Protestant, setting yourself up as the final authority, over and above the Holy Father.

    This is the position you put yourself in, by your stubborn insistence that Bergoglio is a valid pope. The reality is, he’s not even a Catholic. And he’s probably an atheist! As Our Lord said, him with ears to hear, let him hear.

  101. Paul says:

    @Jeff: The same St. Paul said “If anyone, even an angel from Heaven, should bring you another gospel, other than what we have delivered to you, let him be anathema, So by the command of St. Paul himself, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Knox, Henry VIII, and all the other Protestant Fathers are to be considered anathema. Which basically means “accursed”,”

    Not so fast! That does not follow from scripture! Exactly who did bring a different gospel from what Paul told: “If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” ?

    Does the RCC deny or confirm the statement of Paul?
    If the RCC confirms it, why do I have to belief Mary ascended into heaven to be saved?
    If the RCC denies it, it is bringing a different gospel from St.Paul, and hence is to be considered anathema.

  102. Damn Crackers says:

    I don’t want to start a Catholics vs. Prots argument here, but just to remind everyone that Luther excommunicated the Pope too!

    @Opus- What is an “argy” or “argie”?

  103. Paul says:

    @Jeff: “Since you take him to be a valid pope, you MUST accept those beliefs too, under holy obedience to the Vicar of Christ. Or else you make of yourself a de facto Protestant, setting yourself up as the final authority, over and above the Holy Father.”

    So you either are part of the RCC or else you’re a Protestant? That’s really funny! Tell that to all the people in the Eastern Orthodox Churches.

  104. earl says:

    ‘You were clearing saying “formal” heresy when you meant “material” heresy. You don’t know what you’re talking about. Period.’

    No, I got the definition of formal straight from the dictionary. Unless that’s heretical too.

  105. earl says:

    “Since you take him to be a valid pope, you MUST accept those beliefs too, under holy obedience to the Vicar of Christ. Or else you make of yourself a de facto Protestant, setting yourself up as the final authority, over and above the Holy Father.”

    Yeah when he makes some infallible pronouncement.

  106. Hmm says:

    Leaving all the denominational dialogue behind, I want to go back and compare Tamar and Ruth. Both were operating from female hypergamy: both were looking for good genes for their sons (and both were looking for sons), and provision for their families. That Boaz and Ruth wound up loving each other was a bonus.

    Each woman was looking to exercise her right under the law of Levirate marriage to have a son to carry on her husband’s name. Tamar was denied that right by Judah, who after losing two sons in marriage to her, was loath to trust her with a third. So he left her barren. She took matters into her own hands, going after the father rather than the son. She got what she wanted by tempting Judah as a prostitute. But after it was all done, Judah’s verdict is the Bible’s: “She is more righteous than I.” Not a word is spoken in Scripture against her action. She is one of four women mentioned in Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus.

    Ruth the Moabitess was denied a son by God, when He took her husband’s life. Her father-in-law had moved his family into Moab because of famine. Both sons had married Moabite women, and both men and their father had died in that land. Naomi, Ruth’s mother-in-law decides to go back into Judah where there’s a chance she can make a living by gleaning, or from the kindness of relatives, and Ruth accompanies her. Ruth gleans in the field of Boaz, who is clearly attracted to her and makes sure she gets some of the best grain. But Naomi knows that Boaz is a close relative, and that his attraction might be turned into Levirate marriage. So she arranges for Ruth to go to Boaz at night and sleep at his feet – clearly a form of sexual temptation. From this came Boaz bargaining for Ruth, marrying her, and ultimately her son Obed. Ruth is also one of the women mentioned in Matthew’s genealogy.

    Ruth used attraction rather than deception to provide for a son and provision for herself and Naomi, and we might attribute the hypergamy to Naomi rather than Ruth, but the pictures are quite similar. Oh, and by the way, the elders of Bethlehem pronounce this blessing on Boaz: “Through the offspring the Lord gives you by this young woman, may your family be like that of Perez, whom Tamar bore to Judah.” ‘Nuff said!

  107. OKRickety says:

    One advantage to being Protestant: We don’t argue about who is the real pope. 🙂

  108. feministhater says:

    I love it when Earl and Jeff fight! Oh, who to believe? Both condemn you for not believing as they do and both condemn each other. Setting up a lovely circular logic that pretty much leaves you condemned.

    Keep at it gents, you’re convincing no one but yourselves.

  109. earl says:

    ‘Keep at it gents, you’re convincing no one but yourselves.’

    I wasn’t trying to convince you, hater. Join the Catholic church then if you want to be part of this ‘fight club’.

  110. Damn Crackers says:

    Catholic Gentlemen – I remember reading about a pronouncement that Protestants can be saved. Is this a Vatican II pronouncement or some agreement that occurred prior to Vatican II?

  111. Hmm says:

    @OKR: “One advantage to being Protestant: We don’t argue about who is the real pope.”

    No, we mainly argue over who’s a real Christian.

  112. Naama says:

    “Tamar is a terrible example. Judah was her father-in-law, and she “got him” through deceit and literally acting like a whore. She’s an example of how God can take even people’s worst actions and bring something good from them”
    I agree the context of Tamar getting her man was way off track, however, this response is out of the ballpark.
    The righteousness of Tamar exposed the sexual immorality of Judah and his sons. This short story tells the reason why Joseph had to go to Egypt was to prepare a place for the family to grow without being assimilated into the sexual immorality of pagan culture.
    Tamar was being treated as a whore on her own marriage bed and had to play the part of a whore in order to be treated like a wife.
    Judah’s sons used her like a blow up doll because they didn’t want the consequences of sex but Judah was willing to go all the way because in his mind the whore was on her own.

    Judah had no wiggle room and was convicted

    .

  113. Naama says:

    “So you either are part of the RCC or else you’re a Protestant? That’s really funny! Tell that to all the people in the Eastern Orthodox Churches”

    That’s the problem. The pope of the Latin church broke communion with the other bishops to be his own independent authority. The protestant church broke off with Rome so everyone could be an an independent authority.
    This is coming from a protestant

  114. Paul says:

    I’m still very much interested to hear from earl or Jeff why according to the RCC one does have to believe Mary bodily ascended into heaven to be saved and why St.Peter and St.Paul forgot to mention that?

  115. BillyS says:

    She didn’t Paul, which is one of the reasons I am no longer a part of the RCC.

  116. Luke says:

    Protestants don’t NEED a pope. We have Jesus’s direct orders, in the form of the Bible. We don’t need some guy in a white dress to hand it to us, and ESPECIALLY we don’t need him to tell us how clear words in it don’t mean anymore what they said 50 or 150 years ago.

  117. SirHamster says:

    I mean, c’mon…how many millions does it say Esther connived to have executed as revenge for Haman’s plan? And not a single word in any history or chronicle?

    You’re right. That was my bad, I should have taken a minute to look it up first, in order to be accurate. I just remembered it was a ridiculous, laughable claim. And it is. But it wasn’t millions, it was 75,000. Which is still a joke.

    Why lie?

    Dispatches were sent by couriers to all the king’s provinces with the order to destroy, kill and annihilate all the Jews–young and old, women and children–on a single day, the thirteenth day of the twelfth month, the month of Adar, and to plunder their goods.

    “The king’s edict granted the Jews in every city the right to assemble and protect themselves; to destroy, kill and annihilate the armed men of any nationality or province who might attack them and their women and children, and to plunder the property of their enemies.”

    Meanwhile, the remainder of the Jews who were in the king’s provinces also assembled to protect themselves and get relief from their enemies. They killed seventy-five thousand of them but did not lay their hands on the plunder.

    That’s not an execution, any more than Antifa Vs. Conservative/Alt-Right clashes are executions.

    The fight may have been one-sided. There may have been executions in the mop-up. But as described, there were two valid edicts in the Persian Empire:

    1.) Kill the Jews.
    2.) Jews can defend themselves.

    Jesus repeatedly extended the law, adding extra requirements that were not in the original law.
    – Matt 5:21-26: Instead of merely not murdering, do not even be angry (without cause)
    – Matt 5:27-28: Instead of merely not committing physical adultery, do not even lust after another wife

    This is not extension. That implies there is a core of the Law that Jesus is adding onto.

    It is not addition. It is not Law v1.1 or even v2.0. These are not extra things to do; they are harder, even impossible, attitudes and actions, that the perfect children of God practice.

    He is revealing that pleasing God is more than following what the Law states; that being Good is a different thing than being Legal.

  118. earl says:

    ‘We have Jesus’s direct orders, in the form of the Bible. ‘

    Then surely you know this….

    https://biblehub.com/matthew/16-18.htm

  119. Swanny River says:

    Argh, these reformation battles don’t belong here……resisting the pull………..argh…losing my grip…….
    WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? Math 16:18 does not say or even nint at something like what the RCC is. Then look at the two letters of Peter, if he was being used as the stepping stone to a papal progression, then those two letters would be entirely different.
    I have no idea who I am writing to, because Earl’s mind is unchangeable on Math 16:18. See, another reason these reformation battles are useless. I’d rather read about Earl finding a great wife than knowing I have such a fundamental divide with him.
    Since no amount of words will convince you, even though its so wrong at first and second looks, why do you foment these fights instead of just saying, “If you want to discuss Catholicism, then email me at….?”
    Don’t take the bait (unlike I did).

  120. Sharkly says:

    earl says: Join the Catholic church then if you want to be part of this ‘fight club’.

    LOL At least you’ve got a good sense of humor about it. Need more popcorn. Keep at it, I got money on this fight.

  121. Jeff Strand says:

    Earl: “No, I got the definition of formal straight from the dictionary. Unless that’s heretical too.”

    Well that explains it. You are using the dictionary for your definitions of “formal” vs. “material” heresy. I am using Canon Law.

    So you are admitting you have no idea what you’re talking about. Go it. But then, we already knew that.

  122. Dale says:

    Sharkly,

    >Jesus was not saying that hate was being criminalized equal to murder.

    I completely agree. Jesus did however add to the OT law about not murdering; we need to also not be angry without cause. Which is what I attempted to communicate above. Jesus added extra requirements for his followers. But you are correct that he did not equate these pairings. Your concern about not twisting Matt 5:27-28 to equate adultery and lusting after another man’s wife is important and valid.

    @Don Quixote
    >Also, I am not aware of any new commands given in the book of Esther, or is there anything in the book of Esther that adds to the revealed knowledge of God?

    I think you are correct that there are 0 new commands from God in Esther.
    As for knowledge of God, the only thing I recall immediately is yet another example of how God provides for his people. Yes, it is not unique here, but the repeated examples help bring home the point that God does love us.
    Her uncle’s warning that if Ester does not do God’s will, then God may use someone else, is a valid point to consider too.

    @Jeff
    >So by the command of St. Paul himself, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Knox, Henry VIII, and all the other Protestant Fathers are to be considered anathema. Which basically means “accursed”,

    Since Luther claimed to be following the gospel proclaimed in Scripture, your statement is absurd. I say “claimed” only because I cannot see the heart of another man — only God can do that. See 1 Sam 16:7. That verse is something you may wish to consider in your rants against the false pope. By the way, since they are all false, I have no dog in your fight with Earl.

    (Let’s see if that stirs up the flames a bit hah hah)

    >If the RCC denies it, it is bringing a different gospel from St.Paul, and hence is to be considered anathema.

    Yes. Same with the Satanic claim that you need their approval to get to heaven. That is why “excummunication” is such a big deal in their false religion. Sorry Earl, I respect you as a man, but this point is clear in Romans 10. Any teaching that says a man needs ANYTHING for salvation, other than what is given in Romans 10, is a lie. Funny that Romans 10 starts off by talking about false, but genuinely sincere, religion…. almost like we should be thinking about the false, but genuinely sincere, religions whilst reading the subsequent verses… hmmmmm……
    Seriously, have you read Rom 10:1-4? Then read 5-8. Then 9-13. There is a progression there…

  123. Opus says:

    @Damn Crackers

    You surprise me – unless it was a joke and I don’t always get American humour (humor).

    An Argie is an Argentinian. Not much cared for round these parts, The Falklands being to us what Vietnam is to you with this difference that we won. Los Malvinos soy Britanicos as even the very island’s sheep sing.

  124. Sharkly says:

    Dale Says: Jesus did however add to the OT law about not murdering; we need to also not be angry without cause. Which is what I attempted to communicate above. Jesus added extra requirements for his followers.

    I guess I’m still at a loss here. I didn’t think Jesus came to add to the law. What was it that he added? Did God the Father intend through the original law that we be angry without cause? I don’t think so. I see Jesus statements as clarifying what was already intended in the first stating of the law and the prophets.

    Psalm 37:8 Cease from anger, and forsake wrath: fret not thyself in any wise to do evil.
    Jonah 4:4 Then said the Lord, Doest thou well to be angry?
    Ecclesiastes 7:9 Be not hasty in thy spirit to be angry: for anger resteth in the bosom of fools.
    Proverbs 29:22 An angry man stirreth up strife, and a furious man aboundeth in transgression.
    Proverbs 30:33 Surely the churning of milk bringeth forth butter, and the wringing of the nose bringeth forth blood: so the forcing of wrath bringeth forth strife.
    Proverbs 14:29 He that is slow to wrath is of great understanding: but he that is hasty of spirit exalteth folly.
    Proverbs 16:32 He that is slow to anger is better than the mighty; and he that ruleth his spirit than he that taketh a city.
    Proverbs 19:11 The discretion of a man deferreth his anger; and it is his glory to pass over a transgression.

    I did a search of the words anger, angry, and wrath. I read through about 500 verses in the Old Testament. Most of the time it was God who was angry, even though God tells us repeatedly that He is slow to anger. Apparently, God felt it was very important to warn all His children of what makes Him Angry. Not to Troll the usual suspects , But:
    Jordan Peterson 12 Rules For Life ~ Rule 5:
    Do not let your children do anything that makes you dislike them.

    That sounds like almost the same principle, almost Biblical! LOL Flame away Peterson haters!
    Anyhow, God seems to indicate that we are more foolish, easily deceived, and prone to seeing ourselves as being right, and others as wrong, so we should be even more cautious about not getting angry, since we are likely to be wrong. Yet even in the New Testament, anger is not forbidden, just usually advised against, since we are often wrong about it, and anger can often lead to doing evil.
    I see Jesus making things clearer, but I don’t see that God’s position on our anger actually changed at all, or that the law was expanded in ways that were not originally intended. I Think the Godly have always lived by faith, and those who hungered and thirsted for righteous have always been filled with it. Those who wanted to please God were not denied the knowledge of how to. God does not hide forever from those who truly seek him with a pure heart.
    Deuteronomy 4:29 But if from thence [idolatry] thou shalt seek the Lord thy God, thou shalt find him, if thou seek him with all thy heart and with all thy soul. I don’t see that Old Testament believers were denied a proper understanding of how anger and righteousness related to each other. “if ye seek Him, He will be found of you”
    Even though the religious leaders of Jesus day taught the scriptures wrongly, and Jesus set about to make things clear again. I don’t think Jesus came to add to the law, but to teach it correctly, to fulfill it, and to deliver the repentant from its condemnation.

  125. Sharkly says:

    Bee says: Great comment! Some of your comments would make great sermons.
    Thank you.
    I suddenly got a vision of “Pastor Sharkly”.
    I walk past the podium, leaving the microphone behind, to the edge of the stage and immediately Scream out as loud as I can:
    Fuck you wicked people!
    You profane the name of Christ by calling yourselves Christian while you love the world instead of God, and you all have contempt for your fellow man.[breaking the two greatest commandments upon which hang all of the law and the prophets] Repent! Get on your faces and repent or get the fuck out of the house of the Lord! All of you, chose who you will serve. Seek God while he may be found! If you want to serve God, you’re going to have to deny the world. You’re going to have to love those you outcast, and those who hate you. Don’t say another worthless prayer. Don’t give another fucking dime, that won’t buy forgiveness. Repent! Now get the fuck out! all of you. And don’t come back ever, until you’re ready to serve God with your whole heart. And don’t come back until you’re ready to be on God’s side, and at enmity with the world. Next Sunday I don’t want anybody here that will not repent and get on their face and seek God’s forgiveness for their wicked worldliness. Go home and think about the savior who was pierced for your transgressions. And women, dress modest, bring a head covering, and a quiet spirit, or don’t come at all. We’re going to be honoring God in this place.

    No doubt that would be the end of a “good” church … and perhaps the start of a great little one.

    I’d also like to put a door handle on a brick wall in the church, and paint the outline of a door. Then put across the top a sign that says, “Marriage Counselling Office” Below a sign that says, “Sorry we’re out. Whatever you’re fighting about, wife, submit in that thing and everything else. [Ephesians 5:24] If you’re somehow still fighting, about anything after that, come back next week and try the door again.”

  126. earl says:

    ‘Well that explains it. You are using the dictionary for your definitions of “formal” vs. “material” heresy. I am using Canon Law.

    So you are admitting you have no idea what you’re talking about. Go it. But then, we already knew that.’

    Al right if you are so well versed in Canon Law and like to use it to prove your point then you should know what schism is too.

    Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

    So Jeff are you a formal or material schismatic?

    ‘Finally, the person who refuses submission to the Roman Pontiff, whom Vatican I defined as having a universal primacy of authority over the whole Church, is at least a material schismatic. It was thus common in the past to speak of the schismatic Orthodox Churches who broke with Rome in 1054. As with heresy, we no longer assume the moral culpability of those who belong to Churches in schism from Rome, and thus no long refer to them as schismatics.’

    https://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/heresy_schism_apostasy.htm

  127. earl says:

    Sorry Earl, I respect you as a man, but this point is clear in Romans 10. Any teaching that says a man needs ANYTHING for salvation, other than what is given in Romans 10, is a lie.

    Well I don’t know what teaching I stated that you are referring to that refutes Romans 10.

  128. Paul says:

    @earl: “Well I don’t know what teaching I stated that you are referring to that refutes Romans 10.”

    1. The RCC teaching that the pope speaking ex-cathedra is infallible (“the Pope is preserved from the possibility of error”) and has final authority, more specific
    2. The Assumption of Mary into Heaven (“having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory”)
    3. Pope Pius XII declared in “MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS”
    a. Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith
    b. It is forbidden to any man to change this, our declaration, pronouncement, and definition or, by rash attempt, to oppose and counter it. If any man should presume to make such an attempt, let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.

    1-3 show the RCC teaches that one MUST believe in the bodily assumption of Mary to be saved, which refutes what St.Paul writes in Rom 10:9 what is sufficient to be saved:
    ““If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.”

  129. Paul says:

    @Billy,earl : “God said it is not good for a man to be alone, but that seems to be the only valid option now.”

    That was before the Fall. St.Paul gives the realistic options to Christians (1Co7):

    Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do.
    [..] But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.

  130. earl says:

    ““If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.”

    Then perhaps learn more about the Assumption and how the church came to those conclusions. There was also some Biblical hints about it. She was cared for by the Apostle John as well.

    https://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/maryc3.htm

  131. Jeff Strand says:

    Earl: “Finally, the person who refuses submission to the Roman Pontiff, whom Vatican I defined as having a universal primacy of authority over the whole Church, is at least a material schismatic.”

    That’s the whole point. I would not refuse submission to the Roman Pontiff if we had one. But it’s clear Bergoglio is NOT the Roman Pontiff, not unless (contra St. Robert Bellarmine) you believe that a formal, public heretic can be the pope.

    But that’s an absurdity, since Canon Law makes it quite clear that a public heretic is not a member of Holy Mother Church. So what you’re really saying is that it’s perfectly possibly for the Roman Pontiff to be a non-Catholic!

  132. Dale says:

    @Sharkly re August 21, 2018 at 6:20 am comment:
    Except for the swearing: That is fantastic. Completely.

    As for the Matt 5 discussion: Not a point that needs to be argued. Certainly Jesus shows us the correct way to fulfill the law.

  133. Paul says:

    @earl : “Then perhaps learn more about the Assumption and how the church came to those conclusions.”

    You’re not answering my question, nor responding to my explanation to your question on which teaching refutes Rom 10. Your remark is therefore evading. Furthermore, it is not *the* church that came to such conclusion, but only the RCC.

  134. Sharkly says:

    Thanks Dale. Yeah, I struggle with profanity now. I didn’t really, until after I got married at 33 years of age, and was then subject to constant intentional mental torment. God knows my heart.

Comments are closed.