Is there life beyond Daniel and Revelation?

[Gustave]

Gustave,

Wake up! I already check mated you on that one. But you are in denial!

[Guest DennisKean]

Gustave,

Like I said before. Kids love to talk superlatives and hyperbole and they can't even comprehend the subject. None of this is relevant, Gustave. You are distracting from the center of the discussion to make some childish point of your own! What is relevant is WHY the Savior died. Unlike you I do not speculate on things which are not ascertainable. How in the world do you propose to convey the nature of Christ and how He could have come into our word with His identity preserved. You grasp at things which cannot be understood because of lack of information and possibly even lack of intellect.

But like a one pony show you have figured out a half baked argument about a subject that you cannot discuss authoritatively and you want to mentor the whole forum with it hopping from one thread to another. Grow up already and look in the mirror. Wipe the foam from your mouth.

The fact remains as follows. The Godhead did not die. And that is because there are three distinct living beings in the Godhead. The Catholic TRIUNITY does not allow for that and you cannot make it work in your doctrines. So Ellen G White was correct in what she conveyed. If not so, who would have held the reigns of power until the Savior was resurrected. So, our immediate Creator, Yashuah died and He rose after the three days. As regards the blending of natures and so forth, none of that can be ascertained from the Bible. So, I do not need to argue that argument.

You are trying to derail the conversation of Why the Savior died! You do not know that and you need to get away from that. I understand that, but that makes your arguments weak and it forces you to hide behind Predestination and fragmented arguments! But that betrays dishonesty on your part because this is a political maneuver in a debate.

You have already been dismembered on your one pony show by others. You just can't get over it so you want to pursue it hoping to find one victim you can trap with your personal concoction. But you are out of your league. You ask me to discuss things which none of us can discuss authoritatively. CHILDISH! And none of the parts of our original discussion depend on this one bit! And that is why you are seeking to prevail in at least one element, if you can just find one.

I'm not entertained with your one pony show, Gustave. Either you can follow the discussion or you cannot. You have an agenda and it is most likely that cheapest trick in debates, which every lame participant tries to use to get even. "If I can find one fault, then I won!" Well, you are behind on far more than one and we are not saying anything yet. But if you pull that, you are done. You have a lot of ground to cover to get up to even.

So, strap on your seat-belt and, put your pony in the stable where he belongs and get to the center of the discussion if you know how. You refuse to recognize it but you lost the debate already. So, you need to bark and drag it into the ground. Bark on, Gustave.

The Savior came, died and never defended Himself only thinking of others. He demonstrated the Character of God and was consequently victorious. His power was restored to Him and now He is the Supreme Judge having All Power in His hands. Love triumphed, not Power! That is the body of the discussion and your distractions are irrelevant, Gustave. You have suggested nothing to dismantle that theme. And that is not how you and your doctrines see this.

With you it is all power. God died because He was predestined to die! God put on a Hollywood show and went through the steps that He had to go through in order to fulfill all the expectations and voila! Politicians do that all the time, Gustave!

This is a dead doctrine you have on your hands. It does not speak of love or anything noble and wholesome. You lost your debate. You cannot explain the verses I supplied. There is no rationale to your doctrine. It is nothing but a dry traditional step by step process without meaning. You do not know, nor can you allude to anything noble in the events which took place and that implies that there is no catena in your story!

Yet you want to debate on this foreign subject??? Fulfilling all the steps to get an honor in achievement is not a test of character. And it cannot even test the intellect or skill of the testee! You just cannot see how short your doctrine comes to explaining the events of the Cross! The Savior is so foreign to the Catholic doctrines that it is appalling! And the Dark ages have shown the lack of Brotherly love which the followers of this doctrine have shown to others who do not subscribe to their views! History spoke, Gustave. You cannot erase it with your lips! History spoke with a clear voice.

No more silly and irrelevant distractions, Gustave.

[Lysimachus]

I'm glad somebody is willing to be Gustave's match.

[Guest DennisKean]

Gustave is a one pony show!

He has one or two things he figured out how to trip SDAs with and He sticks to it.

Dennis

[Guest DennisKean]

Quote:

...Jesus KNEW exactly what was going to happen to Him.

Gustave,

Quote:

Mat 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

He knew exactly what was going to happen to Him! Right Gustave??? Right!

Dennis

[Guest]

I'm just a bystander who likes the bottom line. So here it is. Dennis Kean is right about what you guys are discussing. He may be wrong about some other things that I don't know about, or isn't being discussed.

And Gustave is wrong. Although he can't help it. At least not right now. Maybe we should pray for him.

Carry on...

[Guest]

:)

[Lysimachus]

Gustave's problem is that he does not know how to harmonize the concept of an eternal plan being laid out and understood verses the risk of the ultimate conclusion of that outcome.

If God took no risk in giving up His son, then the entire beautify of the plan of redemption is smashed to pieces. It was just a "procedure"...."let's get it over with.... you'll get through it, don't worry" type of deal.

To say there was no risk, or that Christ did not have the choice to fail, is to think superficially and very carnally. Why did Christ ask to let this cup pass me by? Obviously Christ understood the great risk that He was taking.

[Guest DennisKean]

Of course, it goes without saying. But he is so dull that he cannot grasp that idea! So, I have to beat it into him by taunting him and giving him alternative perspectives. But nothing will do. How dense can one be!?

Good to hear it from someone else how obvious it is. I'm here aghast wondering what it will take to click that ratchet in his melon.

I'm actually trying to tire him out and I know that he is a pit bull, but he needs to experience that public diss to pull back. So, I'm walking him about so he will either bite himself or show his lick of insight. After that, it will be easier to dismiss him. Otherwise he will be a pain forever.

Dennis

[Lysimachus]

For Gustave, because he thinks there is a contradiction between Ellen White and the Bible concerning God's foreknowledge, he uses this as his "hook" to dismiss her and Adventism altogether. He gets so preoccupied by this "hangup", but he won't dare spend the time to discuss the OVERWHELMING and LOOOONG list of contradictions between the Catholic Church and the Bible!

But you see, for Gustave, Ecumenical Creeds supersede the Bible!

[Guest DennisKean]

That betrays his motivation. Clearly he is not here to share Christian ideas and discover and I never thought he was. But I wanted to see the level of denial.

[Guest DennisKean]

Quote:

>>Now, I know that you are an old fox and astute, from prior experience, so I favor the latter. You are hoping to be able to deny that this is the VERY SAME EVENT, Jasd.<<

Non, non, DennisKean, same event; however, it is irrelevant as I spoke of matter, ie: "an entirely different matter" -- whereas you speak of "event".

I know that you've hosted dinner parties, everyone has. Have you not noticed that the dinner party is an event where a number of different matters are discussed?

It is as I've already noted that: the active subjunctive and the passive infinitive do not conflate. Moreover, St John provides us with the text:

John 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on [them], and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

Perhaps, the small matter of Gd-breathed Holy Ghost, was beneath Doctor Luke's consideration as author?--or were different matters separated by the act of Jesus Christ breathing the HS upon the Desciples -- after which He uttered the imperative, "Whose soever sins ye remit..."

It is only by predisposional or wishful esegesis that one attempts to construct a mysterium profundum -- contradicting the explicit words of Jesus Christ. It is dishonest treatment of Writ.

What is dishonest, Jasd, is for you to try to imply that these ideas are compatible.

Quote:

47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

48 And ye are witnesses of these things.

Jn 20:23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; [and] whose soever [sins] ye retain, they are retained.

Now that takes the cake, Jasd. Why would they need to preach that the Savior is the final say so, as you stated in a former post, if they are capable of forgiving sins on their own? Furthermore, John does not report that there was a condition on this novel idea, something like IN HIS NAME! Nothing connects and you have the audacity to press on...

But given a chance you would make a thirsty horse bathe in crystal clear waters and talk him out of drinking it!

Well now you are in the same mud pond as Gustave!

They are both talking about the same idea with different perceptions and you decide that the mentioning of the Holy spirit being breathed on them makes for a different and compatible idea. Do you also by some chance own the Brooklyn Bridge and it is up for sale?

So, let me ask you this. Given the opportunity to privately confess to God and seek His forgiveness, which He is very willing to give, would you rather go to a man and spill the beans of your personal life to him to get an absolution, which is not even forgiveness? And how is man going to be sure that you offered a genuine repentance before he pronounces you as absolved of your sins??? Explain that to me, Jasd?

[Gustave]

Lysimachus, Denniskean & RLH,

You all have a colossal theological problem & based on the total lack of your answers...

...It's clearly evident there isn't an answer you can provide.

...Consider the hardware fellas!

Dennis said in his initial post;

Denniskean

The question which comes to mind is this. What is the point of being an Adventist, if our God makes predictions, instead of prophecies and most of them have not been fulfilled? The SDABC clearly said, "IT IS UNDENIABLE!" Right? Undeniable! Undeniable? Has anyone on this forum read this before? Who wrote this? Was this an Adventist Atheist?

The following is what Dennis said that set me off.

Denniskean

Of course, I would not do this UNLESS I was confident that God is reliable and we CAN trust His plans which He presents through the prophets to His people. God does not predict things, nor does He fail to carry out His plans. Nostradamus predicts things. God plans and carries out His plans faithfully!

I then quoted what multiple Prophets said concerning "God's plans"....

....Such as;

Daniel 4,34

And at the end of the days I Nebuchadnezzar lifted up mine eyes unto heaven, and mine understanding returned unto me, and I blessed the most High, and I praised and honoured him that liveth for ever, whose dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom is from generation to generation: And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?

It appears Nebuchadnezzar finally figured it out....

...That, "God plans & carries out His plans faithfully".

...In case you missed that - that was YOUR quote Dennis.

These plans of God, specifically about God coming to save us...

...Is laid out MORE than any other in Bible.

Romans 16,25

Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, ACCORDING TO the revelation of the mystery, which WAS kept secret since the world began

This 'Christ', if we are to seriously consider the Prophets telling us the plans of God...

...Would have an everlasting kingdom.

Daniel 2,44

And in the days of these kings SHALL the God of heaven set up a kingdom, WHICH shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, AND it shall stand for ever. Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what SHALL COME TO PASS hereafter: AND the dream is certain, AND the interpretation thereof sure.

Now, since Dennis is such a wise-guy he must understand that he has flabergasted his own premise....

...For in his Opening Post he maintained God can be trusted to fulfill His plans.

...In fact Dennis said; God plans and carries out His plans faithfully!

This may be, for the most part what SDA's believe yet WHEN...

...Ellen White categorically repudiates THAT - EVERY SINGLE SDA, goes with Ellen White.

...She is not only the Pope she is the actual Bible for SDA's.

SDA's have their FAVORITE Prophet ( next to Ellen White ) explicitly state...

...THAT, God gave Daniel both the dream of the King AND IT'S MEANING.

...Not only that but according to "GOD" the interpretation thereof WAS SURE!!!

...Read that passage, it says GOD SAID the interpretation was SURE!

That alone should absolutely convince ANY SDA the iron claws Ellen White has dug into their brains....

...Because people like Dennis boast what they do about God not failing because He can't fail.

...Except when Ellen White said He could have failed!

The Apostles got it right fellas!

Eph 1,9

Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure WHICH he hath purposed in himself: THAT in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:

God's plan: In the fullness of Time all would be gathered unto God via the Christ...

...God was the ONLY one who could promise AND deliver such a thing.

...And Ellen reduced God to the level of Nostrodamus.

...Because she said Christ COULD HAVE rotted in the tomb NEVER to awaken.

So you guys might as well realize there are some historic Christian Doctrines...

...That you shouldn't claim you believe.

...Namely what Dennis mentioned in his O.P.

...That God can absolutely be trusted to FULFILL his purposes and plans.

Isaiah 14,24

The LORD of hosts hath sworn, saying, Surely as I have thought, so shall it come to pass; AND as I have purposed, SO SHALL IT STAND

Isaiah 14,27

For the LORD of hosts hath purposed, and who shall disannul it? and his hand is stretched out, and who shall turn it back?

Ellen White, in her prophetic stupor, answers the above question...

...She claimed ( and still does through Seventh-day Adventists ).

...That Lucifer COULD HAVE disanuled God's purpose & could have turned God back!

Ellen White

Though Christ humbled Himself to become man, the Godhead was still His own. His Deity could not be lost WHILE He stood faithful and true to His loyalty

Ellen White MS 99,1903 page 3,4

He had infinite power ONLY because He was perfectly obedient to His Father's will

Ellen White, DA 131

Then as the glories of the eternal home burst upon our enraptured senses we shall remember that Jesus left all this for us, that He not ONLY became an exile from the heavenly courts, but for us took the risk of failure AND eternal loss

Ellen White, letter 119

Christ has found his pearl of great price in lost, perishing souls. He sold all that he had to come into possession, even engaged to do the work, and run the risk of losing his own life in the conflict. How then should man regard his fellow man? Christ has demonstrated the way. He says, "A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another

Ellen White

The new tomb enclosed Him in its rocky chambers. If one single sin had tainted His character the stone would never have been rolled away from the door of His rocky chamber, and the world with its burden of guilt would have perished

Ellen White

Could Satan in the least particular have tempted Christ to sin, he would have bruised the Saviour's head. As it was, he could only touch His heel. Had the head of Christ been touched, the hope of the human race would have perished. Divine wrath would have come upon Christ as it came upon Adam. Christ and the church would have been without hope.” ( Signs of the Times, June 9th 1898, see also Selected Messages Book 1 page 256)

Sounds quite a bit different from the way God described it would all work out...

...The SEED ( singular ) WILL bruise the serpents head.

Ellen White

If one single sin had tainted His character the stone would NEVER have been rolled away from the door of His rocky chamber, and the world with its burden of guilt would have perished

I guess we are all so lucky that God was, afterall, ABLE to honor that check He wrote....

...Through ALL the Prophets of the Scriptures.

...Who knew - God "could have" pulled an NSF.

...& the teller could-a-said sorry world, there isn't enough funds!

Say what you will fellas, what I've done is prove that even though I'm not "Bible Only"...

...I'm MUCH, MUCH closer to Bible Only than you all are.

[Gibs]

Gustave, You are chasing foxes!

Blessings all, it is revealing to read the back and forths.

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:jasd

It is only by predisposional or wishful eisegesis that one attempts to construct a mysterium profundum -- contradicting the explicit words of Jesus Christ. It is dishonest treatment of Writ.

And to the above "construct a mysterium profundum" -- I might add -- without recourse to relevant texts, yet; just recourse to the recycled and effusive 'yabba-dabba do!' --of Yogi.

>>What is dishonest, Jasd, is for you to try to imply that these ideas are compatible.<<

Help me out here, to which "ideas" do you refer?

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Jn 20:23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; [and] whose soever [sins] ye retain, they are retained.

>>Now that takes the cake, Jasd. Why would they need to preach that the Savior is the final say so, as you stated in a former post, if they are capable of forgiving sins on their own?<<

Umm, specificity may help. I said that ultimately, it is Jesus Christ who forgives and judges; however, it is preached because it is true. They were only given authority to act as vicars/representatives of the Gd and Redeemer -- with whom forgiveness ultimately lies.

>>Furthermore, John does not report that there was a condition on this novel idea, something like IN HIS NAME! Nothing connects and you have the audacity to press on...<<

What's so difficult with understanding the simple words of Jesus Christ? There is nothing difficult about their understanding -- except for him or her who'd perversely contradict their plain meaning and the one who uttered them?

>>But given a chance you would make a thirsty horse bathe in crystal clear waters and talk him out of drinking it!<<

That is colorful,

>>Well now you are in the same mud pond as Gustave!<<

...pastel?

>>They are both talking about the same idea with different perceptions and you decide that the mentioning of the Holy spirit being breathed on them makes for a different and compatible idea.<<

The grammar cannot validate your position; one speaks of the matter in the passive infinitive and the other in an active subjunctive. Big difference. However, the HS being breathed upon them is a demarc -- separating two "perceptions" and their separate grammatical constructs.

>>Do you also by some chance own the Brooklyn Bridge and it is up for sale?<<

Were I to offer it to you for tuppence -- you'd never buy -- preferring to 'yabba-dabba do' the time away, rather than getting down to the brass tacks of making the deal.

[jasd]

>>So, let me ask you this. Given the opportunity to privately confess to God and seek His forgiveness, which He is very willing to give, would you rather go to a man and spill the beans of your personal life to him to get an absolution, which is not even forgiveness?<<

As long as we're doing hypothetical, let me proffer:

Heb 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

Heb 10:27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

Have you willfully sinned after having received the knowledge of the truth? But of course, we all have. So then, according to the author of Hebrews, is one still in grace or outside the embrace of grace? Should you be outside of grace, to whom but to the holy and Royal priesthood would you go for remission of transgressions against Gd and man?

Remember, that Moses struck the 'spritual Rock' which was Christ, three times. Is Jesus Christ destined to be struck twice more? Of course not. He, being struck the once, was for all and for all time.

When we reject and step away from His blood covering -- how are we then saved? Obviously, by the sacrifice/striking of His body, which are the saints -- the holy and Royal Priesthood. That holy and Royal Priesthood is not a thing off in the sweet by and by, but it is now present (and in part is you) and destined to be struck the twice more -- for Moses' relapse. (ever wondered at the severity of Moses' punishment?)

Admirably, RCC priests communicate in a temperate and measured manner... befitting he office of holy and Royal Priesthood.

>>and spill the beans of your personal life to him<<

What?--the .Org has renounced 'Testimonials'?--given to entire congregations...

>>an absolution, which is not even forgiveness?<<

You draw an awfully fine line for one who's derisory re details.

>>And how is man going to be sure that you offered a genuine repentance before he pronounces you as absolved of your sins??? Explain that to me, Jasd?<<

Did you see that qualifier in John 20:23?--if so, perhaps you'd apprise me. I think it's something you've simply inferred, yes? What possesses you to so quibble with a direct statement of Jesus Christ?

You seem sloowwww on the draw providing texts which might validate your various dogmatic positions; however, per this matter of 'truly-true repentence', do me the favor of sharing with me the texts proving that the thief on the cross was "genuinely repentant" -- and proffer them to me. Fact is,

we cannot know that and therefore simply assume that that must be the case -- else Jesus Christ, who knows the heart, would not have promised the thief that he would, that day, be with Him in Paradise.

[jasd]

RE: Daniel, Revelation, and the minor prophets::

Try Jeremiah vis-a-vis Revelation.

Incidentally, I've seen post after post asserting this, that, and/or the other re the conditionality of prophecies v the predestination or its null -- of the fulfillment of Jesus Christ's life, crucifixion, and the ultimate salvation of mankind; yet, the scarcity of texts proving the eternal "risk" Jesus Christ undertook in becoming a brother in flesh to man -- is stupifyingly underwhelming.

Where are the texts proving the 'risk' factor, guys? Just one, please?

"let this cup pass from me" or "why hast thou forsaken me" points to no other argument than pain avoidance and the desperation accompanying great pain -- and in the end are rhetorical arguments.

Gustave provides multiple texts from both sides of the matter -- can't y'all?

[Guest DennisKean]

If you have not figured it out by now, it means that you are in denial!

Ask Gustave... He knows exactly where it is!

I don't have time for you now, Jasd, but I'll be back and we will do another round to take care of your denials!

Sit tight and tighten your seat-belt. I have to work for a living...

Dennis

[Guest DennisKean]

Jasd,

If you think that you are going to prevail by these silly rationalizations and some witty comments, I got news for you!

Different styles come from different people, so go back and start digging up something else. This is insipid!

But I have not time for you today and tomorrow, but I will deal with you soon enough.

Dennis

[jasd]

"Yabba-dabba do!"

[Lysimachus]

JASD and Gustave may think they do not believe the same as each other, but the foundations of their ideologies are from the same source.

It's all cut from the same cloth: The Jesuit Illuminati -- the foundation of Dispensationalism and Catholicism.

[Guest DennisKean]

I was a little surprised at Gustave's Graceology. That is so unlike the RCs. But they are moving around all the time, adjusting their doctrines as per need to find resonance and compel into subjugation.

Their objectives are to confuse Protestants. I mean, can you think of a Protestant going on their forums and debating with them. It would never cross my mind.

The story is the same as it was when Napoleon capsized the RC church by taking the pope to jail. Jesuites received a new mission to go out and contaminate every denomination they can with contradictory ideas so that the people become confused. One of their reporting books which now is tightly guarded in every library which has obtained it from the fallout of the RC church in the 1800s is called "The Travels of The Jesuits through Europe". It tells in plain language the various missions they were given and you can trace easily how and why various denominations adopted some very contradictory doctrinal points. But Protestants, not knowing this, defend the positions as if their lives depended on it.

That book is virtually impossible for anyone to access. One copy exists in the NYC Main Library. It is placed in a large and private room about 16 feet tall and as you enter into the room, there is a thick protective tightly woven wire fence on both sides and a man sitting behind a large wooden desk some 50 feet down from the entrance. Lavish!

I went down to him and asked to read the book and he looked at me out of the corner of his eye and asked. "Why do you want to read that book?" I asked, "Does it matter?" He turned back to what he was doing and said, "You can't have access to that book." I insisted, asserting that the library does not impose any restrictions and I have rights. He just shrugged me off and mumbled something ignoring me until I left.

However, I read some of the pages which some heroic fellow obtained and published some 35 years ago. What a fiasco. By subterfuge and clandestine imposition they act and imagine that they are doing God's work. What a sad reality for those devotees. I thank God every day that my Mom became an Adventist. The clarity and elegant solutions of the Adventist faith have no match.

Dennis

[jasd]

>>JASD and Gustave may think they do not believe the same as each other, but the foundations of their ideologies are from the same source.<<

Indeed, it's called Holy Writ.

>>It's all cut from the same cloth:<<

I have quite a few of them, but I have to say that I don't have any cut from cloth.

>>The Jesuit Illuminati -- the foundation of Dispensationalism and Catholicism.<<

I know nothing whatsoever of any "Jesuit Illuminati" and I daresay that you don't either. Per "Dispensationalism" -- it's in the Book, The Holy Book, that is -- except as a co-opted term used to identify some fractional ideologies seeming strange... Catholicism, well, there is much that can be said...

[jasd]

>>But they are moving around all the time, adjusting their doctrines as per need to find resonance<<

One expects some fault lines and flexibility within an .org that is almost two millennia ancient.

>>and compel into subjugation.<<

No one posting here seems "subjugated" by the RCC.

>>Their objectives are to confuse Protestants.<<

I hear this often re Satan: Satan will cause you to do such and such... Tchah. One will err willfully without the promptings of either Satan or his angels. Likewise, Protestors and any like group do not need anyone else confusing them, it is a thing inherent and springs forth naturally.

>>I mean, can you think of a Protestant going on their forums and debating with them. It would never cross my mind.<<

You don't visit Catholic Forums, eh? You'd see plenty of Protestors, and yes, even SDAs thereon, arguing, debating, whatever. Most of them seems never to have heard the concept -- 'civil tongue'.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

One of their [Jesuit] reporting books which now is tightly guarded in every library which has obtained it from the fallout of the RC church in the 1800s is called "The Travels of The Jesuits through Europe". It tells in plain language the various missions they were given and you can trace easily how and why various denominations adopted some very contradictory doctrinal points. But Protestants, not knowing this, defend the positions as if their lives depended on it.

That book is virtually impossible for anyone to access. One copy exists in the NYC Main Library. It is placed in a large and private room about 16 feet tall and as you enter into the room, there is a thick protective tightly woven wire fence on both sides and a man sitting behind a large wooden desk some 50 feet down from the entrance. Lavish!

I went down to him and asked to read the book and he looked at me out of the corner of his eye and asked. "Why do you want to read that book?" I asked, "Does it matter?" He turned back to what he was doing and said, "You can't have access to that book." I insisted, asserting that the library does not impose any restrictions and I have rights. He just shrugged me off and mumbled something ignoring me until I left.

However, I read some of the pages which some heroic fellow obtained and published some 35 years ago. What a fiasco. By subterfuge and clandestine imposition they act and imagine that they are doing God's work. What a sad reality for those devotees.

re: "The Travels of Jesuits through Europe".... I can find no evidence of the existence of such a book in the NYCL nor in any other library or private holdings anywhere in the world.

What is the name of the author? What is the date of publication? Are you quite certain of the title?

I corresponded with a NYCL official. In reviewing your above quote, he has no idea to what book or "private room" you are referring.

Are you quite certain your compos mentis?