OK, turing.

<- leave blank

Wed Apr 17 23:47:13 EDT 2024

xinit: XFree86_VT property unexpectedly has 0 items instead of 1
xinit: Unable to run program "xterm": No such file or directory
Specify a program on the command line or make sure that /opt/local/bin
is in your path.

xinit: connection to X server lost

waiting for X server to shut down

Wed Apr 17 15:44:46 EDT 2024
From 7f0f4210b60b912032737146fb036cefd71d670b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Amavect <amavect@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2024 23:38:40 -0500
Subject: [PATCH] fix backspace deleting login prompt

devkbd directly echos to the terminal,
but it doesn't know the line buffer length.
Instead, let devcons control the echoing.

Move kbd functions from devcons into devkbd.
Remove kbdputc from fns.h
Create consreadkbdline to reduce indentation.
Remove the now unneeded precondition in the echo function.

Backspace now deletes a UTF-8 codepoint during the login prompt.
Visual mismatch may still happen if a codepoint is not a glyph.
It's good enough for now.
---
 kern/devcons.c | 139 ++++++++++++++++++-------------------------------
 kern/devkbd.c | 58 ++++++++++++++++++++-
 kern/fns.h | 1 -
 3 files changed, 108 insertions(+), 90 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kern/devcons.c b/kern/devcons.c
index 8c94993..aa4438d 100644
--- a/kern/devcons.c
+++ b/kern/devcons.c
@@ -4,8 +4,6 @@
 #include "fns.h"
 #include "error.h"

-#include "keyboard.h"
-
 #include <authsrv.h>

 #undef write
@@ -267,68 +265,16 @@ echoscreen(char *buf, int n)
 static void
 echo(char *buf, int n)
 {
- if(kbd.raw)
- return;
	if(screenputs != 0)
		echoscreen(buf, n);
	else
		write(1, buf, n);
 }

-static int
-_kbdputc(Queue *q, int c)
-{
- char buf[UTFmax];
- Rune r = c;
- int n;
-
- if((n = runetochar(buf, &r)) > 0){
- echo(buf, n);
- qproduce(q, buf, n);
- }
- return 0;
-}
-
-/* _kbdputc, but with compose translation */
-int
-kbdputc(Queue *q, int c)
+static void
+echochar(char c)
 {
- static int collecting, nk;
- static Rune kc[5];
- int i;
-
- switch(c){
- case 0:
- case Kcaps:
- case Knum:
- case Kshift:
- case Kaltgr:
- case Kmod4:
- case Kctl:
- /* ignore modifiers; see nextrune() of kbdfs */
- return 0;
-
- case Kalt:
- collecting = 1;
- nk = 0;
- return 0;
- }
-
- if(!collecting)
- return _kbdputc(q, c);
-
- kc[nk++] = c;
- c = latin1(kc, nk);
- if(c < -1) /* need more keystrokes */
- return 0;
- if(c != -1) /* valid sequence */
- _kbdputc(q, c);
- else
- for(i=0; i<nk; i++)
- _kbdputc(q, kc[i]);
- nk = 0;
- collecting = 0;
- return 0;
+ echo(&c, 1);
 }


@@ -517,13 +463,58 @@ qreadcons(Queue *q, char *buf, int n)
	return qread(q, buf, n);
 }

+static long
+consreadkbdline(void *buf, long n)
+{
+ char ch;
+ int eol;
+
+ while(!qcanread(lineq)){
+ eol = 1;
+ if(qreadcons(kbdq, &ch, 1) == 1){
+ eol = 0;
+ kbd.line[kbd.x] = ch;
+ switch(ch){
+ case '\b':
+ if(kbd.x > 0){
+ kbd.x--;
+ /* attempt deleting a codepoint */
+ while(kbd.x > 0 && kbd.line[kbd.x] < (char)-0x40)
+ kbd.x--;
+ /* codepoint == glyph?  One can hope...  */
+ echochar(ch);
+ }
+ break;
+ case 0x15:
+ kbd.x = 0;
+ break;
+ case '\n':
+ kbd.x++;
+ echochar(ch);
+ /* fallthrough */
+ case 0x04:
+ eol = 1;
+ break;
+ default:
+ kbd.x++;
+ echochar(ch);
+ }
+ }
+ if(kbd.x == sizeof(kbd.line) || eol){
+ qwrite(lineq, kbd.line, kbd.x);
+ kbd.x = 0;
+ }
+ }
+ return qread(lineq, buf, n);
+}
+
 static long
 consread(Chan *c, void *buf, long n, vlong off)
 {
	char *b;
	char tmp[128]; /* must be >= 6*NUMSIZE */
	char *cbuf = buf;
- int ch, i, eol;
+ int i;
	vlong offset = off;

	if(n <= 0)
@@ -550,36 +541,8 @@ consread(Chan *c, void *buf, long n, vlong off)
				} while (n>0 && qcanread(kbdq));
				n = cbuf - (char*)buf;
			}
- } else {
- while(!qcanread(lineq)) {
- eol = 1;
- if(qreadcons(kbdq, &kbd.line[kbd.x], 1) == 1){
- eol = 0;
- ch = kbd.line[kbd.x];
- switch(ch){
- case '\b':
- if(kbd.x)
- kbd.x--;
- break;
- case 0x15:
- kbd.x = 0;
- break;
- case '\n':
- kbd.x++;
- case 0x04:
- eol = 1;
- break;
- default:
- kbd.x++;
- }
- }
- if(kbd.x == sizeof(kbd.line) || eol){
- qwrite(lineq, kbd.line, kbd.x);
- kbd.x = 0;
- }
- }
- n = qread(lineq, buf, n);
- }
+ } else
+ n = consreadkbdline(buf, n);
		qunlock(&kbd.lk);
		poperror();
		return n;
diff --git a/kern/devkbd.c b/kern/devkbd.c
index e0921e2..6fe3143 100644
--- a/kern/devkbd.c
+++ b/kern/devkbd.c
@@ -4,9 +4,65 @@
 #include "fns.h"
 #include "error.h"

+#include "keyboard.h"
+
 static Queue* keyq;
 static int kbdinuse;

+static int
+_kbdputc(Queue *q, int c)
+{
+ char buf[UTFmax];
+ Rune r = c;
+ int n;
+
+ if((n = runetochar(buf, &r)) > 0)
+ qproduce(q, buf, n);
+ return 0;
+}
+
+/* _kbdputc, but with compose translation */
+static int
+kbdputc(Queue *q, int c)
+{
+ static int collecting, nk;
+ static Rune kc[5];
+ int i;
+
+ switch(c){
+ case 0:
+ case Kcaps:
+ case Knum:
+ case Kshift:
+ case Kaltgr:
+ case Kmod4:
+ case Kctl:
+ /* ignore modifiers; see nextrune() of kbdfs */
+ return 0;
+
+ case Kalt:
+ collecting = 1;
+ nk = 0;
+ return 0;
+ }
+
+ if(!collecting)
+ return _kbdputc(q, c);
+
+ kc[nk++] = c;
+ c = latin1(kc, nk);
+ if(c < -1) /* need more keystrokes */
+ return 0;
+ if(c != -1) /* valid sequence */
+ _kbdputc(q, c);
+ else
+ for(i=0; i<nk; i++)
+ _kbdputc(q, kc[i]);
+ nk = 0;
+ collecting = 0;
+ return 0;
+}
+
 void
 kbdkey(Rune r, int down)
 {
@@ -17,7 +73,7 @@ kbdkey(Rune r, int down)

	if(!kbdinuse || keyq == nil){
		if(down)
- kbdputc(kbdq, r); /* /dev/cons */
+ kbdputc(kbdq, r);
		return;
	}

diff --git a/kern/fns.h b/kern/fns.h
index f267781..e1fa041 100644
--- a/kern/fns.h
+++ b/kern/fns.h
@@ -78,7 +78,6 @@ int iprint(char*, ...);
 void isdir(Chan*);
 int iseve(void);
 #define islo() (0)
-int kbdputc(Queue*, int);
 void kbdkey(Rune, int);
 int kproc(char*, void(*)(void*), void*);
 void ksetenv(char*, char*, int);
--
2.44.0



Wed Apr 17 11:33:53 EDT 2024
oi, só passando para dar um oi mesmo...

Wed Apr 17 11:08:40 EDT 2024
Hello it's alex again.  We have encountered an issue with receiving replies and we
were unable to get your last message.  I use special components that can deliver
your business more customers, bookings, sign ups and more hands free!  Reply with
the word "Yes" and I will send more information!  I apologize for the second
message.  Thanks!

Wed Apr 17 05:56:52 EDT 2024
Odowidjwoidwo wojdwkslqmwjfbjjdwkd jkwlsqswknfbjwjdmkqendj kedwjdbwhbdqjswkdwjfj
eqwkdwknf okturing.com

Wed Apr 17 05:43:05 EDT 2024
Interested in maximizing your reach?  You're reading this message and I can get
others to read your ad the exact same way!  Drop me an email below to learn more
about our services and start spreading your message effectively!

Phil Stewart
Email: 7g74by@mail-to-form.xyz
Skype: form-blasting

Wed Apr 17 04:10:18 EDT 2024
Dear Perl authors ,
I hope this email finds you well.  we are reaching out to you on behalf of [Perl's
Pause] platform .
We are currently facing a critical situation as our Server has been compromised,
An attacker gained access to our servers through unknown means.

The risks are deemed to be accepted by anyone who communicates with NEILB PAUSE
Admin e-mail.
Please consider the environment before printing, sending or forwarding this email.
Temporarily we have moved to using another server and you can access your account
through it

PAUSE SIGN IN
(https://amss.phitsanulok3.go.th/smss/pause.perl.org/pause/authenquery/)

No action is required on your part
Thanks-- Best regards , The PAUSE Team

Wed Apr 17 03:48:19 EDT 2024
Claim Your $32,222 SETC Tax Credit Before It’s Too Late!

Are you self-employed, a gig worker, or run a sole proprietor business?  Have you
filed a 1099 form between 2019 and 2023?  If you answered "yes," you may qualify
for up to $32,222 with the SETC (Self-Employed Tax Credit) without the need to
repay it.

This is not a PPP (Paycheck Protection Program) loan, and it's completely
repayable-free.  Discover if you qualify before time runs out.  The deadline to
claim your tax credit is April 15, 2024.

Click the link below to see if you qualify
 https://aluzzion.com/go/setc

What is the SETC?
The Self-Employed Tax Credit (SETC) was established by Congress to offer financial
relief to sole proprietors, 1099 contractors, freelancers, single-member LLCs, gig
workers, and other self-employed individuals.  This groundbreaking legislation was
designed to mitigate the economic impact experienced by self-employed Americans
due to government-ordered shutdowns, quarantine, illness, caregiving, or other
events that reduced income.  Don’t miss out on this opportunity – the deadline to
claim your tax credit is April 15, 2024.

Tue Apr 16 23:16:05 EDT 2024
Hello,

We noticed your domain: okturing.com is listed in very few directories.

Directories have a very high Page Rank Score and provide really good back links

Company visit us on Company Registar and list your domain in all the directories.

https://okturing.companyregistar.org/okturing.com

Tue Apr 16 20:50:29 EDT 2024
I must be fully honest here, and tell you that the Trail of Blood, which you gave
me to read sometime late last year, was the catalyst to me leaving the Baptist
Church and attending the Catholic Church.  Baptist Minister James Carroll tells so
many lies in that book, that it would be humorous if they were not lies that are
meant to attack and defame.  I began researching every word of his book, and
nearly every word, barring the its and buts, were fallacious and borderline libel.
As we know, Satan is the father of lies (John 8:44), so I realized that Minister
Carroll must have been possessed by Satan when writing this book; then, I began to
wonder, what is it which Satan wants to suppress?  It was shortly after putting
this book down (as, I found it incredibly hard to finish it, and not worth the
time sink) when I began to inquire about the Catholic faith.  I profusely
apologize for not letting you know about it, and feigning that the book settled my
curiosity on the Catholic faith; for, it did the exact opposite, and I should have
told you how many lies are in that book.  Firstly, there is "Baptist
successionism," which is the most historically absurd thing I have ever seen - it
goes as such: First, there were the Montanists, then the Novationists, then the
Donatists, then the Pauliscians, then the Cathars, then the Waldenses, then the
Petrobrusians, then the Arnoldists, then the Henricians, then the Hussites, then
the Lollards, and finally the Anabaptists.  Firstly, this does not account for the
2nd century, therefore my point on St. Irenaeus remains, at least according to
Baptist Successionists.  I will go over four groups, as to not bore you, which
Minister Carroll talks about, the Donatists, the Pauliscans, the Novationists, and
the Waldensians.  Firstly, the Donatists have nothing to do with Baptist theology;
they believed in Baptismal regeneration, the real presence in the Sacraments, and
even the episcopal polity of the Catholic Church.  What they disagreed about,
however, was if Priests could be sinful or not - in essence, they believed in
order to be consecrated and to take Holy Order, a Priest must be completely
without sin in order for Sacraments and Holy Orders to be valid.  Of course, we
all fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23), so this whole organization makes
no sense; but, to say that it was a prefiguration of Baptists is a complete
fabrication, so far away from the truth that I cannot believe Minister Carroll
attempted to use it.  Next, the Novationists, which similarly to the Donatists,
agreed with the polity of the Catholic Church, the Sacramentology, etc, but they
broke off because they believed that Christians who previously denied their faith
could not receive Communion.  Of course, we know St. Peter denied Jesus thrice, so
this also makes no sense, but again, it is unrelated to Baptists.  Thirdly, we
have the Pauliscans, not much is known about this sect today (so it is truly a
wonder how a Baptist Minister in 1931 could assert that they were early Baptists),
but it is suspected that they were Gnostics, and had a completely different New
Testament canon (removing most of the Gospels, and adding a Gnostic epistle called
the Epistle to the Laodiceans); so, it is again completely unrelated to Baptists.
Finally, the Walensians, which is perhaps the most like the Baptists as they
rejected purgatory, sacraments, and the episcopate polity, however still adhered
to infant baptism, and during the reformation, they became Calvinists.  I think it
is clear that, because they were around during the time of the Reformation, the
fact they did not side with the Anabaptists is incredibly telling.  Next, which
should be a quick point, is the supposed "kill-count" of the Catholic Church,
which as Carroll says, is 50,000,000 "Baptist martyrs." Ignoring the fact that
they were not Baptist martyrs, as the term "Baptist" and the distinguished Baptist
theology only came into existence around the 17th century with John Smyth, the
Catholic Church would had to have committed around 8 and a half holocausts.  The
first appearance of a fifty-million kill count comes from Charles Buck from his
19th century work "Theological Dictionary, Containing Definitions of All Religious
Terms." However, if we count every single war and persecution the Catholic Church
has partook in (keep in mind, this even includes just wars, as well as including
Catholic deaths, such as the Crusades, the Thirty Year War, and the Dutch Revolt),
the kill count would be, including both just wars and Catholic deaths, 14.5
million, over the course of 1300 years; so, to average it, around 14,500 deaths a
year.  Of course, it is likely at least half this if you take into account
Catholic deaths, 7.25 million, and then if we account for wars which were started
by Protestants, such as the Dutch Revolt, then the numbers become even more
fickle.  This is around the point I stopped reading, as I had learned too much
about the lies this author propagates for political reasons.  In short, Baptist
successionism doesn't exist.

Tue Apr 16 18:22:16 EDT 2024


I apologize for taking a while to get back to you, but I wanted my answer to be
well-written and concise.

Regarding the relics, statues, and icons, it is expressly forbidden to pray to any
statue, relic or icon; statues and icons are made for the express purpose to show
reverence and veneration to holy men and women who serve as examples of lives to
live by (1 Timothy 5:17, Sirach 7:33, 38, Hebrews 13:17).  The Baltimore
Catechism, question 223, states “We do not pray to the crucifix or to the images
and relics of saints, but to the persons they represent.  When making an icon of
Jesus Himself, we are representing the humanity of Christ (as defined in the 2nd
Council of Nicaea in 787).  God the Father is not anthropomorphic, thus we could
not possibly depict Him using our limited understanding of the Divine.  It is also
notable that God Himself commands that Cherubim statues are to be built up in gold
(Exodus 25:18); therefore, we can determine that Exodus 20:4 was distinctly about
the worshipping of idols and statues of pagan gods, which is why God reprimanded
the golden bull, and not the golden cherubim.

I believe a common misconception with non-Catholics is the lack of distinction
between types of honor we give to Saints, the Blessed Mother, and God.  There are
three main types in Catholic doctrine: dulia, hyperdulia, and latria.  Dulia is
the due service owed to a human, and is distinct from latria.  Dulia is, as St.
Thomas Aquinas puts it, a species of observance, as we observe all those who have
excelled in dignity and virtue.  Hyperdulia a form of dulia, but given only to the
Blessed Virgin, as she is the Mother of God, and is owed a heightened amount of
reverence for her role in the salvation of humanity.  Latria, on the other hand,
is above all the other forms of honor, as it is worship, which we give to God
alone.  This distinction goes back to at least St. Augustine’s time, for he
mentions it in his “City of God,” Book 10, chapter 2, from the year 426.

I know you also will inevitably ask why we pray to Saints and the Blessed Mother,
bringing up Leviticus 19:31 and 20:27 as well as 1 Timothy 2:5-6, when we can pray
directly to God.  Firstly, we are not superstitious, as it is vehemently condemned
by the Church (Baltimore Catechism, Question 212).  Well, as we know from the
story of The Rich Man and Lazarus, the Saints are alive in Heaven (Luke 16:19-31),
and we also know that the Saints live in Jesus Christ, who is the absolute essence
of life (John 11:25; John 14:6).  Revelation also shows the Saints in Heaven
worshipped God in 4:10, 5:8, and 6:9-11.  We also agree that Jesus Christ is the
only mediator to the Father; when we say pray, it is not simultaneous with
worship, as in, we do not pray to the Saints and the Blessed Mother as we pray to
God, but it is like asking a brother on Earth to pray for you, but this brother is
in Heaven.  We also know that we are all members of the interconnected Body of
Christ, and since we are all members, either alive on Heaven or Earth, we can
communicate with each other, and those living spirits are not contrary with the
Will of God.  We also know that in Revelation 8:3-4, that the Saints can still
pray; who are they praying for?  I could appeal to 2 Maccabees, but I know you do
not consider that canonical, and I will get to that.

Regarding Mary being the Queen of Heaven, it is said that because in Jewish
tradition, the Mother of a King was Queen since it was common that the kings had
far more than one wife (1 Kings 11:3).  Therefore, since Jesus is King of Heaven,
which I hope you would agree with (Matthew 21:5, Hebrews 1:8), Mary would be the
Queen of Heaven.  We can see this in Jeremiah 13:18, where it says “Bathsheba, the
wife of David, mother of Solomon, was the “Queen mother” (Jeremiah 13:18) or
“Gebirah”, which literally means “queen-mother.” The queen mothers were very
respected and loved by the King; for example, in 1 Kings 2:20, Bathsheba sits on a
throne next to King Solomon, and Solomon bows to her and tells her to make any
request which she needs.  We also look to Revelation 12:1-6, the description of
the red dragon and the woman, where the woman is Mary; Mary is clothed with the
sun with the moon under her feet; who else but a Queen?  It is interesting to
note, that in the entire Gospel of John, there is not a single reference to Mary,
the Mother of Jesus, only “woman”, similarly to how St. John refers to Mary in his
vision.

In Jeremiah, the references to the goddess Astarte as “Queen of heaven” is
condemned, as she does not exist, and is not real.  It was also condemned to offer
sacrifice to her.  In no way does this relate to the Virgin Mary, who does exist,
and was chosen to be the Mother of God by God.

Regarding the perpetual virginity of the Virgin Mary, it is doctrine that the Sts.
James, Jude, and Simon, are cousins of Jesus.  There is a good paper on this
written by St. Jerome in the 4th century called “On the Perpetual Virginity of
Blessed Mary,” which articulates the point far better than I could, so I would
suggest reading that.  I can talk about the term “brethren” which is often used,
however; the Greek which is used is “adelphos,” which has multiple variations, is
not always “blood brothers,” as the same Greek is used in Acts when Ananias refers
to Paul as “adelphos.” Also, in Matthew 27:56, it states that James, Joseph
(Joses), was the Mother of Mary, wife of Alphaeus (Acts 1:13), which was the
sister of the Virgin Mary (John 19:25); therefore, they would be the Lord’s
cousins.  Again, I recommend reading the mentioned paper, it is not too long and
highly informative.

I will also talk about Matthew 1:24-25.  Firstly, it says firstborn in reference
to Exodus 13:1-2, when God says to consecrate all the firstborns to Him, which is
important for Matthew to include, since his Gospel was written for a Jewish
audience.  It also is reading more into the text to determine that since it says
“firstborn,” there must be a “secondborn.” Regarding the “knowing” part, it is
largely grammatical.  In 1 Corinthians 15:25 (which uses the same Greek as Matthew
1:24-25 for “till,” being “heos hou”), it is said ”For he must reign, till he hath
put all enemies under his feet” (KJV).  Using your logic you prescribed to Matthew
1:24-25, this means that Christ will only reign until His enemies are under His
feet.  We know that the Son will reign forever, however, as it is said in Luke
1:33.  In short, the “till” part is an idiomatic expression.

Regarding why Jesus rebuked those who were praising the Blessed Mother, it is not
exactly knocking down the Virgin Mary (as it would be rather disrespectful to do
that to His mother, Matthew 15:3-6), but He is driving home the point that those
who believe in the Gospel are Blessed.  It is also not true that this was the only
time somebody praised Mary, as in Luke 1:42, Elizabeth, who was full of the Holy
Spirit, calls Mary “blessed among women” and the fruit of her womb “blessed.”

The first part of the Hail Mary is taken directly from scripture.  It is: “Hail
Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among women, and
blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus” (Luke 1:28, Luke 1:42).  The second part
“Holy Mary, mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death,”
is so that by her intercession, she can pray for us so that we may be reconciled
before God - it is honoring the Mother of God, while also asking for the mercy of
her Son, Jesus.  As we saw from Solomon’s reverence towards his mother, I can only
imagine how Jesus Christ, True God and True Man, honors His.  Also, while you pray
the rosary, you are supposed to meditate on the life of Jesus while praying the
rosary (called the sorrowful, glorious, luminous mysteries, which are each about
the life of Jesus Christ).  Fun fact which is interesting, the Hail Mary was
actually designed by Irish monks to teach people scripture at the time when
reading was uncommon.

Also, I agree that the Bible should not be changed at all - which is why Martin
Luther was wrong when he reclassified books in the Bible, which were previously
decreed to be in the canon of the Bible during the Councils of Rome, Hippo, and
Carthage in the 4th-5th centuries, as “apocryphal,” and especially when the
British and Foreign Bible Society completely removed them to save on printing
costs in the 19th century.  The deuterocanon, or the apocrypha as you call it, was
present in every Bible until then.

In short, she was saved completely by the grace of God; Catholics do not believe
that Mary saved herself - it was through the Grace of God that she was made a
perfect vessel to bear God incarnate.

I would also like to say some things unrelated to your questions.  We were talking
about how baptism replaced circumcision, and you said St. Paul did not say that,
however in Colossians 2:11-12, he talks of the “circumcision without hands.” Also,
we were talking of the importance of baptism, and we mentioned that Jesus said
belief and baptism saves (Mark 16:16), however I was rereading some Epistles, and
in 1 Peter 3:20-21, it says:

”which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the
days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls
were saved by water.  The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us
(not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good
conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:“
‭‭1 Peter‬ ‭3‬:‭20‬-‭21‬ ‭KJV‬‬

Also, regarding Baptism of the Holy Spirit, which I believe is said to mean when
one receives the Holy Spirit, I do believe that water baptism coincides with the
baptism of the Spirit.  For it is said in Acts 2:38 “repent and be baptized every
one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you
shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.  Also, in John 3:5, Jesus says ”Jesus
answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of
the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.“
‭The “and” is inclusive, such that, by Baptism of Water, you will then be Baptized
by the Spirit.  This is illustrated in Matthew 3:16, after Jesus was baptized by
water by St. John the Baptist, the Holy Spirit descended upon Him.

We were also talking about infant baptism, specifically on the practice of
household baptisms, which are many in the New Testament (Acts 16:13-15, 32-34, 1
Corinthians 1:16).  Let us look at Acts 16:13-15, it is said that Lydia had her
heart open, and after, she and her entire household was baptized.  This text does
not state that she and her household believed; no, only that she believed.

It is incredibly notable that there was never a controversy about Infant Baptism
until the Radical Reformation and the Anabaptists in the 16th century, the
earliest of mentions (which we have) being by St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, in
the 2nd century, in his writing “Against Heresies,” which was a book made to
rebuke the gnostics, who says “He [Jesus] came to save all through Himself; all, I
say, who through Him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old
men.” Similarly, St. Hippolytus of Rome, a 3rd century writer, says in his “The
Apostolic Tradition,” “Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for
themselves let them do so.  Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak
for them.” It is said that the Gates of Hell would never overcome the Church
(Matthew 16:18), so, do you truly believe that it only took a hundred years after
the crucifixion of Our Lord, the early Christians had forgotten that you could
only baptize believers?  Further, it took a millennium and a half for this to be
found out?

Another thing was immersive baptism vs sprinkling which you brought up.  I will
appeal to Scripture, but firstly I want to bring up the oldest Christian,
non-Biblical document, the Didache, or “The Lord’s Teaching Through the Twelve
Apostles,” which is dated between the years 70-90, which means it possibly
preceded the Gospel of John and the Apocalypse of John.  The Didache is a small
catechism of some of the teachings of the Apostles, and it says regarding Baptism
in chapter 8: “But if you have neither [flowing water, immersive], pour out water
three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit.” The
Catholic Church no longer permits Baptism by Sprinkling (which is called baptism
by aspersion).  It is also unlikely that Jesus was baptized by immersion, as it is
said in John 1:28 he was baptized in “Bethany beyond Jordan,” and if you see the
baptism site of Jesus, it is unlikely He could have been fully immersed, as the
water is not that high.  Furthermore, the baptism of Our Lord of course has many
parallels and references in the Bible.  Let us take Numbers 4:1-3, you must be 30
years of age to enter the Priesthood, and of course Jesus is the High Priest
(Hebrews 6:20).  Then, they are consecrated with water by being washed (Exodus
29:1-4, Leviticus 8:4-6, Numbers 8:7), then there is the anointing of oil (Exodus
29:7), which is replaced with the Holy Spirit (Matthew 3:16), there is then a
verbal blessing (Exodus 39:43), and as we know, after Jesus was baptized, God
commended the Son (Matthew 3:17).  You may point to Mark 1:10, about Jesus coming
out of the water, but that does not mean upon His head coming out of water, but
rather, it could also mean His entire body; for example, when you tell somebody to
get out of the shower, or to get out of the sea when they are merely knee deep.  I
also misspoke the other day, saying Baptism meant immersion in Greek, but I was
wrong; it (baptizo) has multiple meanings, including ritual washing, ablution, and
washing your hands.  St. Luke uses a conjugation of the root of baptizo when
referring to such in Luke 11:37-38.  Furthermore, to stress this even more,
writings from early Christians in the 3rd century affirm this, with Pope St.
Cornelius writing in the year 251 “As he seemed about to die, he received Baptism
in the bed where he lay, by pouring.” In the year 255, St. Cyprian, answering
whether baptism by pouring would be valid, answers “In the saving Sacraments, when
necessity compels and when God bestows His pardon, divine benefits are bestowed
fully upon believers; nor ought anyone be disturbed because the sick are poured
upon when they receive the Lord’s grace.” It is clear the early Christians were
consistent with the view that pouring, and even sprinkling, was valid; some
preferred immersion, just as I do, but it is and wasn’t essential.

I also want to mention a few other discrepancies about the Catholic Church which
you brought up sometime last year.  Firstly, you mentioned the verse in Matthew
where it says to call no man father (Matthew 23:9); firstly, Jesus was not
speaking English, so the word “father” is not “abba.” Secondly, Joseph calls
himself a father to Pharaoh in Genesis 45:8, Job calls himself a father in 29:16,
Abraham is called a father in Acts 7:2, St. Paul calls Isaac a father in Romans
9:10, as well as using the word “father” constantly in Ephesians 6.  Jesus also
prohibits the word “Rabbi,” which in English is the word for “teacher,” and of
course we call people teacher.

Secondly, you bring up Matthew 6:7, and say Catholics use repetitive prayer, such
as with the rosary.  However, reading the entire verse, it says “as the heathen
do,” the heathen being pagans.  It would also be rather wrong to say that rosary
prayers are vain; as demonstrated earlier, they are based on scripture.  I also
ask, have you never repeated a prayer before?

I now want to talk about the deuterocanon, which you call the apocrypha.  Firstly,
I believe I must ask, where did you get the canon of your Bible from?  I will
answer for you; you got it from the Catholic Church

I apologize for the length of this message, but I do hope it is informative.  I
hope you know, name, all I want is the fullest truth of Jesus Christ - I do not
want a quarter, a half, or even 99%, I want the full truth; I want it for me, for
you, and for everybody, as I want to see all of my brothers and sisters in Heaven.
I do not write this merely for intellectual stimuli to defend some arbitrary
point, rather, I write this because I love you.

prev | next