Buck Ryan

if you’re not ripping your ‘Ring’ camera off your house right now and dropping the whole thing into a pot of boiling water what are you doing?

So glad I don't have to deal with insurance. @JoinCrowdHealth is the way to go.

Personally, I celebrate the fact that the Christian civilization soundly defeated the evil pagan one. Happy Columbus Day!

@Bug_Hall That is a good rule - I think I mostly adhere to it, but will be worth it to be deliberate about it.

@dragodimitrov Less biblical. Saying they're as biblical as the assumption is helping the Protestant case, not the Catholic one.

These examples are as biblical as the Assumption of Mary.

@Moderatemuch This line here is indicative: "Although I don’t agree with Sammons that the traditionalist movement is a “threat” to the Catholic faith," This seems a willful rewording of Sammons said to make him look like a heretic.

@Moderatemuch What a load of nonsense this whole article is.

Desperate clinging to lies and deceit…

I had the great pleasure of hearing @EduardHabsburg speak last night. Thank you for a fantastic talk! Looking forward to reading the book.

This was the finest and most consequential political speech of my lifetime. It was what Americans needed to hear. JD Vance earned my vote. Thank you JD. Justice for Charlie is coming. I thought about clipping this but honestly? It's the most consequential speech of our time and you all need to watch it in full.

BCE/CE is a cowardly euphemism

@THERI0NdotAI @a_westgate da Vinci was born 100 years after we know for certain the Shroud was being shown in France.

@a_westgate You want my fedora-tippingest opinion on this? It was faked by daVinci. The Church brought him the Shroud and he used his artistic and scientific knowledge to create essentially an early photograph (of himself posing as Jesus) on the cloth, which the Church paraded as a miracle.

Fedora tipper final boss difficulty impossible

@Templarpilled Notably, in the 6th century, all depictions in Eastern iconography almost instantaneously converged on the depiction on the right. There is compelling evidence the reason for this was the rediscovery of the Shroud, which had been hidden away and forgotten until then.

Today, we imagine Jesus as a bearded, long-haired man. But early Christians saw Him differently. 9 of the earliest depictions of Jesus, a🧵

Habemus papam!

@JiPSinTN @orangemorning21 @MrCasey62 In other words, you are just going to use circular reasoning. Have fun with that.

@_buckryan @orangemorning21 @MrCasey62 Ok you see when a man comes together with a woman - they consumate their marriage... a betrothal period would transpire before the man and woman come together and seal their marriage. Hopefully your parents explained this stuff to you

The OBSESSION with trying to restrict “brother” to mean blood brother in the Bible is both unhistorical AND unbiblical. It’s just another desperate attempt to make Mary appear ordinary. Catholics go with what the Bible says: The word “brother” (Gk. *adelphos*) has a broader meaning than “blood brother”. Since ancient Hebrew had no word for “cousin”, it was customary to use “brother” in the Bible for relationships other than blood brother. → In the Greek OT, a “brother” could be a: • nearly related cousin (1 Chron 23:21-22) • a more remote kinsman (Deut 23:7; 2 Kings 10:13-14) • an uncle or a nephew (Gen 13:8) • the relation between men bound by covenant (2 Sam 1:26; cf. 1 Sam 18:3) → Continuing this OT tradition, the NT often uses “brother” or “brethren” in this wider sense: • Paul uses it as a synonym for his Israelite kinsmen (Rom 9:3) • It also denotes biologically unrelated Christians in the New Covenant family of God (Rom 8:29; 12:1; Col 1:2; Heb 2:11; Jas 1:2) → When it comes to Jesus, the NT often refers to Jesus’ “brothers” (Mt 12:46, Matt 13:55; Mk 3:31; 6:3; Lk 8:19; Jn 2:12: 7:3; Acts 1.14; Gal 1:19), but these so-called brothers of Jesus are his relatives, NOT children of Mary. Numerous observations support this: (1) These brethren are never called the children of Mary, although Jesus Himself is (Jn 2:1; 19:25; Acts 1:14) (2) Two names mentioned, James & Joseph, are sons of a different “Mary” (Mt 27:56; Mk 15:40) (3) It is unlikely that Jesus would entrust his Mother to the Apostle John at his Crucifixion if she had other natural sons to care for her (Jn 19:26-27) REGARDLESS of whether they were “believers” or not (they soon would be). She needed a caretaker—not a spiritual advisor.

Your claim was that Matthew 1:18 saying that they had not yet come together showed they later consummated their marriage. I demonstrated this is incorrect. Do you agree that you were incorrect in that statement? Sounds like you agree since you're changing your argument to talk about Matthew 1:25.

Yeah - they were betrothed first. Joseph was betrothed to Mary - THEN she became pregnant (Matthew 1:18) and Joseph thought to privately "put her away" (Matthew 1:19), and then an angel instructed Joseph not to put her away (Matthew 1:20-23), so Joseph does as instructed and went through with the marriage (Matthew 1:24) and then he consummated his marriage (had sex with her) after Jesus was born (Matthew 1:25). It's plain as day. It's spelled out word for word right there. If Mary was a "perpetual virgin all her days" then scripture would have recorded that. That's a fantasy fiction introduced by what Paul said were among the very first Christians - WOLVES that had crept in.

@JiPSinTN @orangemorning21 @MrCasey62 That's not at all what that means. Jewish marriage was a two-phase process: first the couple were contracted in marriage, then the man would go prepare a home for them to live in, after which they would come together into their new home.

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. - Matthew 1:18 is EXPLICIT meaning... wait for it... THEY CAME TOGETHER!

As I'm halfway through my master's certificate program studying the Shroud, I'm currently 50/50 on the Shroud's authenticity. The carbon dating is very strong evidence that can't be brushed aside. OTOH so many aspects of the shroud are mind-blowingly unique and equally difficult to brush aside, to the point where I think even if we knew for sure the shroud came into existence in the Middle Ages, it would still have been miraculously created. I will be diving deeper into much of the science, including carbon dating, over the next few months.

Ross was just granted a FULL AND UNCONDITIONAL PARDON by @realDonaldTrump. Words cannot express how grateful we are. President Trump is a man of his word and he just saved Ross's life. ROSS IS A FREE MAN!!!!!

@GMErectheus @JackPosobiec When you have no argument so you call names and then run and hide...

@GMErectheus @JackPosobiec I did. Nowhere does the article show the Cardinal said the Shroud is not authentic. Please provide a quote from the Cardinal. Secondly, this Cardinal is not the Church, so "the Church publicly said the shroud was not authentic" requires a statement from the Vatican.

BREAKING: Mel Gibson explains to Joe Rogan the Shroud of Turin has been verified to be from the age of Christ and modern science cannot recreate it

@GMErectheus @JackPosobiec "Now you’re just getting overly pedantic because you know I’m right and you’re just trying to wiggle out of this unfortunate turn of events you weren’t expecting." don't be a dork. Provide a quote from the archbishop saying the shroud is not authentic or admit you lie.

"These tests do not close the book on the Shroud." Again, what you posted only shows the archbishop revealed the results of the carbon dating. You make the mistake of assuming that if one says "the radiocarbon dating dates the shroud to the middle ages" that means they think the shroud is not authentic.