Thursday, April 01, 2010

Western European Union (WEU) and Javier Solana -- Who caused the alleged "confusion"?








update:  See Newsweek article


Germany has announced it has pulled out of the Western European Union (WEU) because NATO and the EU have "done its job."  The Western European Union itself announced it was going to dissolve -- effective in June, if possible.  France and the United Kingdom (Great Britain) have also confirmed the imminent dissolution of that 10 nation military federation.

This is not the first time I have heard this announcement.  Both Herb Peters and I heard it -- in November 1999.  That was when Javier Solana was handed control of the Western European Union, in addition to his EU CFSP portfolio -- under the guise that he would have it "for its last year of operation."  Six months after he was appointed to the job obviously written about his specifications by EU codified documents, "Section 666," he introduced equally infamous "Recommendation 666" into his Western European Union Assembly for them to recommend to the EU itself.

That year sure lasted a long time -- through 2009 and beyond!  It was in the WEU Assembly that Javier Solana introduced his infamous Recommendation 666 -- proposing emergency powers for himself in the event of an "Emergency" in that he would be able to convene the Council of Ministers of the European Union should what he deem an emergency occur.  No matter how deficient his religious education may have been, he should have seen the symbolism of that one would raise "apocalyptic suspicions" -- including among the Americans -- even including perhaps a raggedy gang of Michigan trailer residing militia types perhaps looking more like "the gang that couldn't shoot straight." 

I suggest that between the two, the incendiary language did not come from those who reported, but for those who waved the big expected 666 flags of Section 666 creating a coveted EU job and Recommendation 666 recommending boosting its powers.  Solana and confederates had only themselves to thank for that.  Not only Protestant Bible thumpers had that expectation -- so did Catholics who have an apocalyptic season of scripture readings every November and December of liturgical years and for that matter, watchers of the then popular Movie trilogy series -- THE OMEN.

What's going on here?  I don't know for sure, except to note that Google is still playing games with the number of hits on Solana and that I don't believe for even one minute that the EU/WEU thinks EU military is in the safe hands of Catherine Ashton and they need no further military.

Something's happening here!  In 60's parlance, "what it is ain't exactly clear."   I suspect that Javier Solana is far from out of the picture, but then again, if this is the time, if he is the person -- your guess is as good as mine, but  he has only himself to blame for arousing attention -- he certainly played the symbolic cards to full advantage, unless  he expects all the rest of us to have unlimited faith in "coincidence."

I for one, do not.  The use of the 666 symbolism was, to my mind, just as revealing as a swastika might have been.  I sincerely hope I am wrong.

Constance

374 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 374 of 374
Susanna said...

Craig,

Good point, and true as far as it goes.

But, as I see it, if the demons were being successfully driven out in Jesus' name by those who were not specifically of the company of the apostles, then would that not suggest that other true followers of Christ who were not "one of us" had power to cast out demons?

What you and many others do not seem to understand is that whatever the Protestant policy is with regard to Catholics, the Catholic Church does not send Protestants to hell simply in virtue of the fact that they are Protestants.

If a person is BORN into a particular religion and living to the highest good that he does know ( i.e. the Law of God as written on the human heart.... called conscience), he can be saved - although all salvation is in Christ whether he happens to believe it or not.

This concept is embodied in The Chronicles of Narnia: The Last Battle by C.S. Lewis.

Susanna said...

P.S.

The test of the spirit of the Antichrist - which I happen to agree with as a Catholic - is in the Bible. It involves the "severing of Christ" in such a manner as to deny either Christ's divinity or humanity!!!

Anonymous said...

FYI I found this article on herescape blog. I found it helpful in understanding better how my own congregation and many mega churches are incorportating New Age thought. From following this blog I have suspected this but hadn't quite put the pieces together.

One of the common themes at my church has been the statement "Change your thinking and you will change your life".

The bible is preached but there is this positive thinking undertone that I was unsure whether was connected to new age thought. This article helped me to connect the dots.

http://www.discernment-ministries.org/NL_MarchApril2010.pdf

m in dallas

Anonymous said...

I meant herescope

Anonymous said...

http://www.wikileak.org/


"WikiLeakS.org release de-crypted US Military Apache helicopter TADS video showing 30mm cannon and Hellfire missile strike on civilians in Baghdad in 2007 - 2 Reuters journalists killed, 2 children wounded, probably at least 10 other unarmed civilans dead
By WikiLeakon April 5, 2010 8:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)
WikiLeakS.org have now, after a couple of weeks of media hype / teaser campaign via Twitter and via email press release, finally released some de-crypted footage, from a US Military Apache helicopter Target Acquisition Designation Sight (TADS) video recording, showing 30mm cannon fire and Hellfire missile strikes on civilians in Baghdad in 2007.

Interestingly this shocking video footage has not been released via the WikiLeakS.org main website, but via a specially created one:

http://collateralmurder.com [88.80.28.193] which is also hosted by PRQ Internet in Stockholm, Sweden, like the main WikiLeakS.org website is.

This website does has background links to the original mainstream media reports about the deaths of the two Reuters journalists.

It is interesting to note in the end credits, that the famous hacker / entrepreneur Rop_Gonggrijp is credited as the co-producer of this video.

There are versions of this video available initially via YouTube etc. (although these will probably be censored soon, as any slightly politically controversial videos seem to be)

Our impression of the video:

The first 30mm cannon attack seems to have killed about 11 unarmed people, including 2 Reuters photojournalists. The Hellfire missile attack might have killed none of its intended targets, but several innocent passersby and "Good Samaritan" rescuers were caught in the 3 missile blasts.

The Apache pilot somehow managed to mistake their telephoto lens SLR cameras for, initially AK-47 assault rifles, but then , incredibly, the same camera was mistaken for an RPG anti-tank rocket launcher.

Their video footage clearly shows that the rest of the group of civilians in the open street were not carrying any such items, but they still shot them all."


http://www.wikileak.org/

Anonymous said...

The wikileak.org link was down all day after the info was leaked.

Thanks google / CIA

Craig said...

JD, you wrote:

As for Bentley, not only was he preaching a different Jesus, but if I understand correctly was messing with things that if he knew the Lord, should have known not to be.

Maybe, maybe not. By that I mean the question is whether he is misguided. I'm of the opinion that he is a wolf in sheeps clothing which means he's quite aware of what he's doing.

Craig said...

Susanna,

But, as I see it, if the demons were being successfully driven out in Jesus' name by those who were not specifically of the company of the apostles, then would that not suggest that other true followers of Christ who were not "one of us" had power to cast out demons?

I agree with this; but, the question is can we really tell if a demon is truly cast out? I'm serious on this as I've seen/read all kinds of strange things coming out of what I call "charismania."

What you and many others do not seem to understand is that whatever the Protestant policy is with regard to Catholics, the Catholic Church does not send Protestants to hell simply in virtue of the fact that they are Protestants.

I'm sorry; but, I do not ascribe to the view that all _________________ (fill in the blank) do not automatically go to hell and then eventually to the lak of fire. And, I've never "sent anyone to hell" nor have I stated anything remotely as such.

If a person is BORN into a particular religion and living to the highest good that he does know ( i.e. the Law of God as written on the human heart.... called conscience), he can be saved - although all salvation is in Christ whether he happens to believe it or not.

I believe this 100% -- although it's only been very recently that I've come to this conclusion.

Craig said...

Susanna:

The test of the spirit of the Antichrist - which I happen to agree with as a Catholic - is in the Bible. It involves the "severing of Christ" in such a manner as to deny either Christ's divinity or humanity!!!

Yes, this is true. For example, the charismaniacs who believe they too will become sons of God on par with Jesus are, in effect, denying Jesus Christ's exclusive Divinity.

Anonymous said...

To Craig @ 8:15 AM:

I am quite sure that Susanna was not referring to you 'sending anyone to hell' . . . but rather to some of the more specific, vicious rants against Catholics, posted on Part I of this thread over the past couple of days by anonymous posters.

For example:

"You Catholics need to get out of the whore before you are made naked, desolate and burned."

and another one:

"Ye ride thine feather beds to hell then!"

Constance Cumbey said...

To Tony Cox:

I personally have enjoyed your participation and input. Everybody here is not expected to agree on everything. Please stick around and participate.

Constance

Craig said...

Susanna,

I see I misread what you wrote regarding "sending people to hell." You stated:

...the Catholic Church does not send Protestants to hell simply in virtue of the fact that they are Protestants.

Yes, I understand. I don't think this is your viewpoint at all, nor do I believe it is the viewpoint of other professed Catholics who contribute here; but, I've seen some things in print that seem to connote that if one is not a "Catholic" -- meant that Catholicism is the "church universal" -- then, one is not truly saved. I can't cite a source right at the moment; but, I've definitely seen this.

JD said...

Craig,

From Bentley's associations and practices I would say you are most probably correct to think he was intentionally deceiving. Only the Lord truly knows his heart, so I reserve that judgement for Him.

JD said...

Anon 5:30,

The wikileak video is heartbreaking. The poor kids in the van and the samaritans who were obviously unarmed are tragic. I am begining to see video like this and the above statements regarding use of nuclear weapons as part of the reasoning and change of the US position in the world.

Not that the current administration neccesarily intends to forfeit the lead role of the US. Just that they intend us to lead by example, straight into the New Age/UN utopia. I expect more and more pieces like this video may be around the corner as justification for the "lead by example" changes which are becoming prominent.

Susanna said...

Craig,

Re your comment:

Yes, I understand. I don't think this is your viewpoint at all, nor do I believe it is the viewpoint of other professed Catholics who contribute here; but, I've seen some things in print that seem to connote that if one is not a "Catholic" -- meant that Catholicism is the "church universal" -- then, one is not truly saved. I can't cite a source right at the moment; but, I've definitely seen this.

I don't doubt that you have seen the "Catholic" things you describe in print. Most likely in the writings of radical Traditionalists who are not in line with official Catholic teaching.

These people are the successors of the Feeneyites and what they are peddling is a "false Irenicism" based on an erroneous interpretation of St. Irenaeus' saying "outside the Church no salvation."

Since only God can know the human heart, no one can say with any exact certainty what constitutes being totally "outside the Church" and beyond the reach of the saving power of Jesus Christ.

As for Father Leonard Feeney who did pretty much "send everyone to Hell" who was not explicitly Catholic, it was Father Feeney who, in a sense, wound up "outside the Church," because on August 8, 1949, the Holy Office sent an official declaration of the meaning of the dogma "extra Ecclesiam nulla salus,"("Outside the church no salvation")which Feeney refused to accept.

After repeatedly refusing summons to Rome, Feeney was excommunicated on 13 February 1953 by the Holy See for persistent disobedience to legitimate Church authority, and the decree of excommunication was later published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis.

Holy Office, Aug 9, 1949, condemning doctrine of L. Feeney (DS 3870):

"It is not always required that one be actually incorporated as a
member of the Church, but this at least is required: that one adhere
to it in wish and desire. It is not always necessary that this be
explicit... but when a man labors under invincible ignorance, God
accepts even an implicit will, called by that name because it is
contained in the good disposition of soul in which a man wills to
conform his will to the will of God."

Vatican II, #16: (1964 AD)

For they who without their
own fault do not know of the Gospel of Christ and His Church, but yet
seek God with sincere heart, and try, under the influence of grace,
to carry out His will in practice, known to them through the dictate
of conscience, can attain eternal salvation."

John Paul II, #10 (Dec. 7, 1990):

"The
universality of salvation means that it is granted not only to those
who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the church. Since
salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely available to
all. But it is clear that today, as in the past, many people do not
have an opportunity to come to know or accept the Gospel revelation
or to enter the church... . For such people, salvation in Christ is
accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious
relationship to the church, does not make them formally a part of the
church, but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their
spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is
the result of his sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit.
It enables each person to attain salvation through his or her free
cooperation." [emphasis added].

Anonymous said...

susanna you seem to be following the teachings of man instead of the written word of God. blessings connie

JD said...

A follow up to the original theme of this thread. It appears that with the disolution of the WEU, there are currently no current plans on how the military power structure within the EU will be reorganized.

Parliamentary scrutiny of CFSP and CSDP: the way forward
Paris, 2 April 2010 - On Wednesday President WALTER yesterday spoke at a hearing of the Belgian Senate Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee on CFSP and CSDP issues and on the future of parliamentary scrutiny of those EU policies, in the light of the recent announcement by the British Government to withdraw the United Kingdom from membership of WEU and the subsequent announcement by all 10 signatory states concerning the winding up of the organisation by the end of June 2011.

The President said that with the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty a transition period had begun during which various options regarding the future form of parliamentary scrutiny of European common foreign and security policy would be studied. The proposed demise of WEU was already serving as a catalyst to ongoing efforts to find the most suitable mechanism to ensure proper involvement of national parliamentarians in the European Security and Defence Policy. He regretted that governments had started a movement to close down WEU before a new arrangement was established, rather than the other way round. “As a consequence”, he said, “it is important and very necessary for interparliamentary scrutiny to continue in the Assembly until the new mechanism is up and running”. It was important too that the new mechanism was not simply a conference model because this would only allow for exchanges of views between parliamentarians, not scrutiny of EU actors and actions.

Members of the Belgian Senate Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee supported President Walter’s call to the Belgian EU/WEU Presidency (second half of 2010) to launch an initiative for a follow-up mechanism that could eventually replace the Assembly. Philippe MONFILS suggested adding this question to the programme of work of the Belgian Presidency.

The new mechanism would have to be compatible with the Lisbon Treaty, have the formal recognition of the EU Council and the High Representative, be given sufficient financial means and also involve European NATO member states. “Norway, Turkey and others are significant contributors to our operations and deserve to be associated in our interparliamentary cooperation”, said Mr WALTER.

The President of the Belgian Senate, Armand De DECKER, who presided over the hearing, said that national parliaments needed to make sure that their debates on EU policy were not confined to the national level. They needed to have an instrument available to them at the European level for interparliamentary dialogue and scrutiny by national parliamentarians. Another Senate member, Hendrik DAEMS, the Assembly’s Rapporteur for “CSDP monitoring by national parliaments and in the European Parliament”, added that the change now being imposed could offer the prospect of some significant improvements. Parliamentary scrutiny should in future be extended to deal with the wider issues of security, rather than being limited to purely military matters.

http://tinyurl.com/ybzolzq

JD said...

Sorry that should have read "currently no formal plans". I wish my brain and hands worked in unison all the time. lol

Tony Cox said...

To Constance:

I appreciate your input. I do not expect everyone to agree with me, actually, I welcome disagreement in a respectful manner - it causes me to reevaluate my position, and either solidifies it, or causes change in my thinking.

I guess I just expect everyone to reply respectfully - which is wishful thinking.

If I am ever disrespectful in my responses (which I have been guilty of also)I EXPECT to be called on it.

JD said...

With the EU looking to build their government around their economy, I thought this was a interesting piece.

EU keen to enshrine culture in economic planning

EUOBSERVER / BARCELONA - Europe should invest more in its creative industries as a source of future growth the European Commission has said, while EU ministers have called for culture to be put at the "heart" of the bloc's new economic plan, the Europe 2020 strategy.

The EU executive is in late April set to adopt its "Green Paper on Cultural and Creative Industries," aimed at unlocking the economic potential of cultural and creative industries in Europe - a sector that generates 5 million jobs and represents 2.6 percent of GDP in the 27-nation bloc.

The sector includes areas as diverse as cinema, music, publishing, the media, fashion, interior and product design, cultural tourism, performing arts and heritage.

Speaking at the European Forum on Cultural Industries in Barcelona, the director general of the European Commission's education and culture department, Odile Quintin, outlined the general lines of the upcoming commission document.

According to a study on the economy of European culture, commissioned by the EU executive: "The cultural and creative sector is a growing sector, developing at a higher pace than the rest of the economy ...and the sector's growth in terms of jobs out-performs the rest of the economy."

'Cultural diversity, not mono-culture'

German conservative MEP Doris Pack, also speaking at the forum, warned that while Europe should insist on the economic value of cultural activities, it should not neglect cultural diversity, however. "We don't want a mono-culture," she said.

Along the same lines, Andy Pratt - the head of the Centre for Culture, Media and Creative Industries Research (CMCI) in London - cautioned that there is a danger of homogenising European culture.

"We have to be careful if we mainstream culture in European policies," he said. "Culture would be everywhere, but nowhere."

more at link
http://euobserver.com/9/29802

Anonymous said...

Obama Limits When U.S. Would Use Nuclear Arms


President Obama: Walk loudly and carry a small stick, LOL.

Anonymous said...

I hope this blog comes down with a resounding thud.
You people are hypocrites, intractable, and love to poke eyes of any and all who post truth that does not fit in with your paradigm.
Good luck with that.

Anonymous said...

Anon 2:02,

Thanks for your well wishes.

Anonymous said...

GAY COVER-UP MUST END

April 5, 2010

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on two news stories released today by the Associated Press:

One of the AP stories on priestly sexual abuse admits that "The overwhelming majority of the victims were adolescents. That means very few guilty priests were pedophiles, a term mental health professionals reserve for those who target pre-pubescent children." Fine. But then it says something which is positively remarkable: "Even though about 80 percent of victims were boys, the John Jay researchers and other experts on sex offenders say it does not mean the perpetrators were gay." So what would they be? Heterosexual?

The AP article relied on the extraordinary remark by Margaret Smith, a professor who worked on the John Jay study. She said that while Donohue "quoted the study's data correctly," I nonetheless "drew an unwarranted conclusion." What? That most of the molesters have been gay? Here is what she said: "The majority of the abusive acts were homosexual in nature. That participation in homosexual acts is not the same as sexual identity as a gay man." So if two men sodomize each other, no one really knows if this qualifies as gay sex. Now I must admit that when I was studying for my doctorate in sociology at NYU, they never taught me such logic.

Both AP stories say the reason why there were so many male victims is because the priests did not have access to girls as altar servers. Nonsense. There have been girl altar servers in some U.S. dioceses since 1983, and almost everywhere since 1994. The statistics actually show that the more priests have access to girls, the less likely it is for girls to be abused.

Here's the tally. As reported in 2004, between 1950 and 2002, 81 percent of the victims were male; in 2005, it stayed the same; in 2006, it dropped to 80 percent; in 2007, it climbed to 82 percent; in 2008, it jumped to 84 percent; and in 2009, it stayed at 84 percent.

In other words, even though priests have less access to males, homosexual priests are molesting them at a higher rate. It's time to end the gay cover-up once and for all.

http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1821

JD said...

Anons,

And nothing like this has never happened in a protestant church? Neither has there ever been millions of dollars bilked from a churches congregation? Of course in none of the cases like Swaggart, Baker, Haggard or others was it ever covered up by their church right? Just like there isn't any current cover ups for men like Hinn, Warren or others currently either is there? Just as I am sure that you can say with 100% certainty that nothing in your church has never been buried right? I am not condoning the actions here, but before you start casting stones you need to examine yourself for ANY SIN!

Anonymous said...

Anon 2:58

You should be careful, with them being the one true church, and the infallibility of the pope(s), and having put the bible together and all.

They couldn't possibly be capable of harboring criminals, child molesters and covering up sex crimes. That would be demonic.

Anonymous said...

To Anonymous @ 3:32 PM:

As long as there are human beings on this earth, NO CHURCH has either a monopoly / or is exempt from sin . . . or the temptations of the devil . . . not the Catholic Church or any of the Protestant denominations.

Satan knows his time is short . . . and is stepping up his attacks in every direction.

Tony Cox said...

I wanted to pass along a link that some of you may be interested in - it is a blog by a gentleman in England that deals withe NA movement, emerging church, and how these things relate to end times, as well as equipping believers with information on how to help unbelievers. It is very informative and all views are accepted - but it is not for the thin skinned - any who are easily offended by information that may not agree with their denomination would not like it.


Those who are not opposed to viewing all information with an open mind, and are then in disagreement are welcomed to comment on how they feel about any topic.

I think some of you may like this -although I do not agree with every statement, he sets a good example of how to carry yourself as a believer whether he agrees with you or not. His name is John Chingford and here is the link:

http://www.watchmanforjesus.blogspot.com/

Check it out.

Anonymous said...

JD,

Well said. I don't know why some Evangelicals think they are going to be immune from persecution and not face the tribulation or be raptured without being put to the test.


Savvy

Tony Cox said...

Just want to ask a question - before I do, my entire family who I love deeply are devout Catholics, some of my dearest friends are Protestants, Muslims and Hindus - after studying prophecy and Revelation to some extent ( I am not an expert and do not claim to be) and seeing just how great the deception will be in the last days (so strong that it would deceive God's very elect if it were possible) and that the membership to these various organized religions numbers in the BILLIONS - Do you really think billions upon billions will be saved?

I fear that it is actually the other way around if you study prophecy - I wish it were not so - but I think it will be billions upon billions who will be lost.

The truth is out there for all of us - and I THINK it lies outside of our heartfelt loyalties and organized religion.

paul said...

Off subject, but;

I've followed the U.S Geological Survey
for a few years now, but the past two
days have got to be some kind of a
record.
It looks like California is just
continually shaking, and shaking
and shaking. From Northern Cal
to Baja Cal.

http://tinyurl.com/yfwwxo2

You tell me.

Anonymous said...

Tony Cox,

I just checked out Mr. Chingford's blog. One of his subheadings reads
"Why Catholic Church is not a Christian Denomination." Wanting to keep an open mind, I clicked on the subheading to review the posts. The second post under that subheading links to a book called "The Two Babylons." This book has been discussed and debunked here more than once.

Dorothy posted earlier on this thread about the vast disinformation network. It appears that Mr. Chingford is part of that network, knowingly or not. Realizing you are new to this blog, I am quoting from one of Susanna's old posts about "The Two Babylons":


After clicking onto the link, I noticed that the material "about the Roman Catholics" consists of an infamous work by Alexander Hislop entitled THE TWO BABYLONS: PAPAL WORSHIP REVEALED TO BE THE WORSHIP OF NIMROD AND HIS WIFE - described on the website as "The very important hidden history of the Vatican."

It was a Franciscan priest, Father Benedict Groeschel who once said that if anyone wanted to say bad things about the Roman Catholic Church, he didn't have to go around making stuff up; all he had to do was to tell the truth.

After clicking onto the link for the online version of THE TWO BABYLONS, one will find that the actual text of the book is preceded by a caveat.

The bottom line here is that while both clerical and lay heretics and evildoers do indeed exist within the Roman Catholic Church, it does not follow - either from history or from the Bible - that the Roman Catholic Church has a monopoly on heresy or evil.

Neither does any other Christian communion.

In my own experience, moreover, I have found that those "accusers of the brethren" who have been the quickest to throw stones at others are usually the ones who have the most to hide themselves.

The following are links to critical evaluations of THE TWO BABYLONS - the last link being to the Ralph Woodrow Evangelistic Association - in case anyone is interested.

http://tinyurl.com/45m2ah

http://tinyurl.com/6gbcye

http://tinyurl.com/5u46fx

Anonymous said...

Tony Cox,

Only God can decide who will be saved and who won't.
We can't conclude that millions will be saved, but we can't conclude that millions will be lost either.

Savvy

Tony Cox said...

Anon 5:44

I do not doubt you -Then please post a comment on his blog stating such - I would like to see his response. I want the truth whether it suits me or not.

Tony Cox said...

Savvy

If you noticed, I said I THINK - you seem to have concluded what we can and cannot conclude.

Anonymous said...

Anon @5:54

It's strange that Protestants think that Babylon is Catholic, there have been some Catholic saints who have taught it would be Protestant.


"I saw enlightened Protestants, plans formed for the blending of religious creeds, the suppression of papal authority… I saw no Pope, but a bishop prostrate before the High Altar. In this vision I saw the church bombarded by other vessels… It was threatened on all sides… They built a large, extravagant church which was to embrace all creeds with equal rights… but in place of an altar were only abomination and desolation. Such was the new church to be…

—Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich (1774-1824 A.D.), The Life and Revelations of Anne Catherine Emmerich, April 12th, 1820

Anonymous said...

Tony Cox,

I am still learning. I just know that I can't numerically prove how many will be saved.

Savvy

Anonymous said...

Tony Cox,

I am happy enough to simply present the information from Mr. Chingford's website here at this blog. I don't wish to join the dialogue as a commenter at his site.

Here is the link to his post about the Hislop book. It is dated 15 March 2010:

http://watchmanforjesus.blogspot.com/search/label/Why%20Catholic%20Church%20Is%20Not%20A%20Christian%20Denomination

As JD wisely reminded us yesterday, just "DON'T LET IT GET TO YOU."

By the way, thanks for the sage advice JD.

Tony Cox said...

Savvy

I am learning also - I stated that I was not an expert - you know the numerical number I used was a figure of speech to make a point.

Must you always be so condescending and sarcastic in responses you do not approve of?

Is this how you carry yourself on a daily basis?

Anonymous said...

Tony Cox,

I don't see anything condescending in Savvy's remarks. Savvy is a straight shooter with no hidden agenda. She has a terse style. I've been reading her posts for ages.

Stop being so defensive and just give people here the benefit of the doubt, at least until you get to know their style a little better.

JD said...

Savvy,

Sadly, I am unsure either. If the idea of a pre-trib rapture were the correct view, it would appear to me that the majority of the churches teaching such a view would fail to make it, as these tend to be in the most error.(disclaimer: if your church teaches pre-trib, and you do not feel your church falls into error, I must not be talking about yours)

As it is in large part these churches teaching prosperity gospel, new thought principles, etc. I have stated before that mine is not a pre-trib view, and I am left wondering if the combination of this teaching in correlation with the error filled teachings are meant to leave the Body ill prepared to deal with what is to come. I can say that I grew up in a church were pre-trib was the dominant teaching, and I understand it well, it just does not hold with me.

This may be because the church was a AoG denomination, and I have since come to realize the enormous amounts of error that the church was teaching. Or it may be that I believe deliverence of the Body from persecution does not fit with most other instances as it pertains to believers, particularly since the time of Jesus. Or maybe it is because prophecy specificly states believers will be persecuted and I don't believe when Matthew refers to the very elect that he is refering to a group of babes in Christ.

Of course these are simply my views, and I don't mean offense to anyone who holds this view. I think it might be easier if I still held this view.

Anonymous said...

To Tony @ 5:22 PM:

Why even be concerned about the numbers (billions) being saved? Let God be in charge of the number.

If the New World Order has their way . . . their goal is to reduce the population of the world down to 500,000,000.

Let's all just continue to pray for one another, try to lead others to God by our example, and remain focused on strengthening our OWN relationship with God.

Anonymous said...

JD,

Interesting commentary on the pre-trib view. I found Mariel's comments the other day on why she is pre-trib to be equally interesting and quite poignant.

Anonymous said...

JD,

It's more comfortable to believe that we won't be persecuted. Nobody likes it. But we have to remember that the crucifixion always comes before the resurrection. I sometimes wish I was not alive at a time like this.

But if God has chosen us for such a time as this, it's for His purpose.

Savvy

Tony Cox said...

Anon & Savvy

I am sorry, but I am concerned about the numbers - do we not have a duty to help save others and not just sit back and let God worry about it? Isn't that a purpose for SOME of us?

And Savvy, I apologize for the way I responded - I still do not agree with how you respond in some manners, but I should not have been insulting.


I was genuinely wondering - did Savvy or myself say something that implied pre or post trib? If so, I missed that.

Anonymous said...

Tony Cox,

I think all the Christians here feel they have a duty to help save others. Speculating about numbers however does nothing to accomplish this end, in my opinion.

"Salvation of souls is always the supreme law of the Church."

JD said...

Tony,

The pre-trib conversation stemmed from a comment Savvy made to me. I don't believe Savvy intended to imply that we should not worry about those that are lost, simply that we may not want to focus on the over all number as that is out of our hands.

Savvy,

I try to focus on what He has put on my heart and His will, as beyond that it is far too much for me to contemplate. I serve where I can, share what I know, and generally try to keep ME out of the way.

Anonymous said...

LOL . . .

Thanks to an earlier anonymous poster for providing me my LAUGH for the day - in checking out that outrageous web site regarding such 'gems' (for example): "The Two Babylons" . . . "The Papal Worship proved to be the worship of Nimrod and His Wife." (Oh, brother!!!)

OK . . . garbage in / garbage out.

Anonymous said...

To JD / Savvy:

AMEN!!!!!!!

Tony Cox said...

I was just making a point about so many be deceived - again the number was a figure of speech.

I am curious - and I am sure this will offend some. Did I miss any comments in previous weeks about Tony Blair and his Faith Foundation teaming with Rick Warren for their "North American Faith Offensive". If they are here somewhere, let me know, because I don't read every comment in the last month.

I hope there is something here - because that is about as New Age and ecumenical as you can get - and good ol' Tony has the ear of the Pope.

Anonymous said...

Paul,

Not only is Baja shaking - CNN just reported a 7.8 off Sumatra. Wolf Blitzer made a comment to Jack Cafferty that the earthquakes are coming one on top of another, do you think someone is trying to tell us something?

VW

Craig said...

Billions saved?

I want to point out there are different "churches" or what may be better termed "sects" of "Christendom" which have declared that a billion souls will be saved very near the end times. My opinion is that these are "christianized" New Age "churches" which makes better sense as billions LOST rather than saved.

Not to mention this "billions souls saved" seems to contradict Jesus' words about the narrow vs. wide gates.

Anonymous said...

Tony Cox,

Thanks for clarifying your position. I am sorry if I offended you.

And no Tony Blair does not have the ear of the Pope. He and his wife are both pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage etc. I am not sure how Catholic he is. Tony just thinks if he's nice he might get the Catholic Church to change it's mind on these issues. He's like those Cafeteria Catholics who pick and choose what they want to.

Savvy

Anonymous said...

JD,

God Bless you as you continue to live the Gospel without compromise.


Savvy

Anonymous said...

Tony Cox,

This headline shows exactly how much of a narcissist Tony Blair actually is. He seems to think he can order the Pope around. I guess he just got too used to ordering everybody around.

http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/04/tony-blair-expects-bible-to-change-with-whims-of-society/

There are devout lay Catholics who see through Tony and Cherie Blair. I'm sure the Pope does so as well:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1231944/Cherie-Blair-disowned-miracle-man-U-S-Catholics-criticism-Church.html

Anonymous said...

Tony Cox,

This headline shows exactly how much of a narcissist Tony Blair actually is. He seems to think he can order the Pope around. I guess he just got too used to ordering everybody around.

http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/04/tony-blair-expects-bible-to-change-with-whims-of-society/

There are devout lay Catholics who see through Tony and Cherie Blair. I'm sure the Pope does so as well:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1231944/Cherie-Blair-disowned-miracle-man-U-S-Catholics-criticism-Church.html

Craig said...

Tony Blair is pursuing UN Millenium Development Goals with his Faith Foundation:

http://tinyurl.com/ctkle5

His Faith's Act is similar in scope to Rick Warren's PEACE Plan [interesting none of the "E"s are "evangelism"] which is also pursuing UN MDGs. Warren is on Blair's Advisory Council:

http://tinyurl.com/ygeu9xh

Birds of a feather...

Not surprisingly, Blair -- also like Warren -- are pushing a false ecumenism.

Tony Cox said...

The pope see through what? From John Paul II kissing the koran to Benedict in Turkey turning towards mecca to pray.

Honestly, if any of you have an excuse for that - it is just plain sad.

paul said...

Whenever I read in Revelations about
the merchants in their ships standing
far off and bemoaning Babylon the
Great as it burns to the ground, and
how it was so full of riches and
precious things and how it led the
people of the world astray, I can't help
but see Los Angeles. I've always seen
Los Angeles in that prophetic picture.
Talk about leading people astray !
How about the average Hollywood
movie, repleat with paganism,anti
Christian propaganda, and let's not
forget that along with it's G rated
offerings, it's GP and R ratings,
Hollywood is also the porn capital of
the world.That's a far cry from what
some people perceive to be doctrinal
errors in the RCC.
And who else on earth besides the
Roman Catholic Church is going to
defend the family and marriage ?

This comment is really just a
follow up to what I earlier pointed out
regarding earthquakes.
The RCC is imperfect. Protestantism
is imperfect. But Hollywood is perfectly
evil. And right about now it's shaking
like an off balance washing machine
on spin cycle.
The seismo readings from yesterday
alone, around California, outnumber
some whole weeks readings for the
whole world !

Tony Cox said...

To clarify my last post - the koran is a book that denies Jesus Christ's divinity and claims it wasn't even Him on the cross - I would die before my lips would kiss such thing.

Anonymous said...

Tony Cox,

Discussion of why the Pope kissed the Koran. My take--as a guest presented with a gift which he wanted to receive graciously, he made an error in judgment.

http://www.chnetwork.org/forum/ecumenism-other-religions-misc-apologetics-and-human-wisdom/this-is-an-old-subject-but-please-explain-the-pope-kissing-the-koran/

Not his finest moment, but not exactly apostasy. He is a human being after all.

It often happens that I awake at night and begin to think about a serious problem and decide I must tell the Pope about it. Then I wake up completely and remember that I am the Pope.
--Blessed Pope John XXIII

Tony Cox said...

Anon

That is your take, and I respectfully disagree with you on every point.

It is a glowing example of apostasty, whether an error in judgement or not - if I invited you to my home having never met you and presented you with something that denied the very belief in Jesus as Lord, and you excepted it as an error in judgement, then I would say you were not being led by the Lord, and we are told the pope is always led by the Lord - and don't bother mentioning how Peter denied Jesus, because he was not being led by the Lord at that time either (and he didn't deny his divinity, he denied knowing Him).

What about Benedict in my earlier post - catholicism was and is still the only denomination I know, and we are told the pope is infallible when he speaks on doctrinal issues. Does this only mean verbally? Is it not a major doctrinal issue for one pope to kiss the koran, and another to pray towards mecca?

No sense in arguing this any further - I think it speaks for itself, and obviously some don't.
Despite all my faults and errors, I can gauruntee, you could not get me to do such a thing.

Anonymous said...

Tony Cox,

You clearly don't have a clue what "papal infallability" means, which I find quite strange since you claim to have been raised Catholic.

I will say this and only this: do you ever watch anything on television or in the cinema that promotes or glorifies highly immoral behavior? I certainly do. I even listen to music by some artists I know are atheists and agnostics. Does this make me an apostate?

Anonymous said...

Tony Cox,

In case you're wondering, my musical "guilty pleasure" is Neil Young. My TV "guilty pleasures" are thirtysomething (An old 1980's/early 90s show. Michael Steadman goes to temple once or twice, no one goes to church or ever mentions Jesus, and everyone has slept around) and "The Wire" (a few minor characters go to church, several gay characters, nearly everyone else commits adultery or fornication).

Anonymous said...

Paul,

Speaking of Hollywood. Hollywood's Cardinal Mahoney spent $660 million of abuse lawsuits, and nobody blinked . But now that he's been replaced by a Orthodox guy and the Liberals are up in arms.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/04/mexicoborn-archbishop-to-lead-los-angeles-catholics.html


Savvy

Constance Cumbey said...

Susanna,

THANKS much for the very useful information on Feeney. I have had cemany Feeneyites send me materials over the years and I didn't know quite what to make of them. Thank you for putting it into perspective for me!

Consta

Constance Cumbey said...

There was another massive earthquake in the world this afternoon -- 7.8 in Sumatra, close to the site of the 2004 tsunami.

Constance

Tony Cox said...

I must say that I was disappointed - but now that I see since my first post yesterday morning at 7:42am, and subsequent ones thereafter have fueled most of the debate leading to 270 comments. I have done my job - I had mentioned that disagreement is healthy in that it causes me to reevaluate, I will either change my position, or it will solidify my position - well thanks to most of you - I have firmly solidified my position. None of the pro-RCC comments offered me any scriptural proof whatsoever as to the authority and validity of the RCC as being an institution of God. The only scripture offered was filled with the dogma you learned while growing up just as I did.

Some of you were very gracious in your opposition - and thanks to some for your support (although there was very little - I didn't realize that most followers of this board were so PRO-Catholic, that any opinion otherwise is deemed as an attack or defensive response, sorry if that is inaccurate - but that is how it seems to be), and Constance - no disrespect to you at all - I respect and appreciate what you are doing here.

So, when you discover the RCC is the driving force behind much of the NA and ecumenical movement, and will endorse a global religion in the near future - you have been warned - as I am sure many times before also.

My work is done here. GOD BLESS all of you.

Anonymous said...

To Tony Cox:

Many have wondered, why did Pope John Paul II kiss the Koran?

Is it not a book that speaks directly against the Catholic faith? Does it not reduce the Son of God to a mere prophet? Did not the popes of the past demand its burning? The answer to all these questions is YES, and yet what the Holy Father did was more complicated than what the anti-Catholic and/or sedevacantist spin-doctors might say about it.

One critic argues that it was a blasphemous act, showing his “hatred” of God and his apostate defection from the true faith. It was none of these things. The Pope is on the record about the differences between Catholics and the followers of Islam. Let us look at the situation. The Pope has longed to go to Iraq in order to walk in the footsteps of Abraham, claimed as a father in faith by Muslims, Jews, and Christians. Pope John Paul II has seen first hand the debth of man’s inhumanity to his brothers and sisters. Our history as a world is written in blood. As illustrated in his many Mea Culpas, he strives for a new understanding between peoples where dialogue, tolerance, and cooperation will replace anathemas, persecution, and rivalry. Abraham is an integral figure of unity in turning things around politically. Looking at the incident in question, the Holy Father received a delegation that included the Shiite Imam of Khadum Mosque, the Sunni President of the council that operates the Iraqi Islamic Bank, and a member of the Iraqi Ministry of Religion. The invitation of a papal visit was renewed. They even went so far as to say that it would be “a grace from heaven”. While Iraq has been guilty of real violations of human rights, this Islamic state has been the most tolerant of Christians than any of its islamic neighbors. Many Catholics hold positions in government, commerce, education, etc. The Chaldean Patriarch of Babylon (Iraq), His Beatitude Raphael I Bidawid, who was a major spokesman for the delegation. He applauded the Pope’s actions and words as a true sign of concern from the Successor of St. Peter. (Christians represent 5% of the 20 million people in Iraq. Catholics of the large Chaldean rite [implementing the Aramaic language] and of the smaller Latin rite represent 80% of all Christians there.) It was said that a papal visit would confirm the faith of Christian believers while showing forth a genuine love for all in this mostly Muslim nation.

The Koran was a gift to him from the delegation. Islamic peoples are not casual in the giving of gifts. It represents the giver. They knew perfectly well that the Pope was a Catholic Christian, but they gave to him that which was regarded as most important in their life, their own holy book. Thus, at the end of the audience, the Pope showed his deep appreciation to this intimate self-donation, by bowing and kissing the Koran as a sign of respect. Such a gesture ran totally against the grain of crusades and condemnations. It did not mean that the Pope accepted all that was in the book, only that his love for the Muslim people, and the Iraqis in particular, was genuine. He makes the first move, not in the capitulation of our faith, but in the recognition that the followers of Jesus and those who cherish Mohammed should not be engaged in name-calling, or worse, killing each other. The Pope appreciated the suffering of the Iraqi people, particularly the women and children. It showed he did not look down upon them but had a genuine respect for them within the brotherhood of man.

Anonymous said...

Tonight I saw in the half price bin at Barnes and Nobel a book by Michael Baigent called Racing to Armageddon. If anyone gets a chance, read the customer reviews at Amazon. Talk about pushing an agenda.

Anonymous said...

Living a good life isn't good enough....

John 3:16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

John 3:7 You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’

Acts 4:12 Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.”


Dave In CA

Anonymous said...

Anon at 11:p.m.

When popes burnt Qurans they got into trouble, and when they kiss it they get into trouble too. What on earth is wrong with the world?

People pick on Catholic for sending people to hell, and then pick on them for not sending people to hell.

Tony Cox,

As for the New Age you need to read Constance's book. The homosexualist/feminist movement is destroying all our churches. And we still don't get it.

Savvy

Anonymous said...

Tony,

Good grief - do you really expect that every single person here is simply going to bow down and agree with you because you cite "The Two Babylons"?

Even the support of a number of posters here, anonymous and named (connie) in your condemnation of Catholicism isn't enough to keep you happy. Even JD has stated he does not agree with Catholic doctrine, but I would not call him "Pro-Catholic" anymore than I would call Susanna "Pro-Protestant."

I guess in your book, anyone who doesn't see the Catholic Church as the "Whore of Babylon" is automatically "pro-Catholic," Protestants included? You remind me of Bob Mitchell, who had the support of about half a dozen named posters still felt all "victimized" and left in a hissy because one or two lone, minority Catholic voices challenged him.

Constance clearly feels you are welcome to participate here. Remember, the door swings both ways.

I agree with the above anon poster -- your ignorance of Catholic doctrine as regards papl infallibility undermines your claim that you were raised in the Catholic faith.

The Tooth Fairy

Anonymous said...

Has anyone heard from DouginMI?

I haven't seen his name in a long time, and I think he was having some health problems. I hope he is okay.

Good to see Dave Butterfield's name again.

The Tooth Fairy

Anonymous said...

This blogspot has in common with the hutaree militia a belief that havier solana is the antichrist.

This is my swing back at the head of the anonymous that stated, belief that rome is the whore of babylon is a belief shared by christian identity believers, and some christians posting here.

There ya go, more fodder for the internet hate machine.

Anonymous said...

Still laughing my butt off over the poster, who thought veronica leuken was a catholic secret not widely known about.

Anonymous said...

This concept is embodied in The Chronicles of Narnia: The Last Battle by C.S. Lewis.

When will you stop using pop culture references, and stop holding them in equal authority with scripture?

this reminds me of the time I had to convince someone that we don't have teleportation technology like in star trek and that star trek is a tv show and not real.

Anonymous said...

Telling someone they are riding a feather bed to hell is to tell someone that, the easy way is fraught with deception and puts christians to sleep.

How can you miss that meaning and infer that means someone thinks they can send someone to hell?

Anonymous said...

This news post has been threadjacked and godwinned,
anonymous is proud of you as you are learning the traditions of the internet.

May mudkips do barrel rolls.

Anonymous said...

I just read on Last Days Watchman
that Messianic Jews have a keener eye to spot apostasy in the churches than we do.

I learned from Messianic Jews that the Catholic church is the mother church whom has gone apostate, and the protestant denominations are her daughters whom also have gone apostate. I then remember the part in the Bible where it states in Matthew 10 34:36.

34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

Is this talking about the house of God? Are we all not brethren, and members of the same body? Some hands some feet some heart? Yet all the body of Christ?

Anonymous said...

Anon at 8:34 am.

Catholics are going to hell.
Protestants are going to hell.
We are all apostates, except for you and your self-righteous camp.


Are you happy now?

Anonymous said...

@anon 9:13 AM
You miss the point.

It was from messianic Jews that I was able to see the catholic church as the mother church and protestant denominations as her daughters.
That being said, I also believe that they are all the body of Christ, yet the apostasy has spread to all of them.

I know its frightening to leave a church home, but if you are the saved out of that denomination, staying will become almost impossible in the coming days as Matthew 10 states

34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

We are the House and Body of Christ.

May God trouble your waters as He did mine, and may you find all truth and blessings, God bless you every one on here.

Constance Cumbey said...

To Tony Cox,

You need to take a closer look at your Brits to see a much bigger force behind ecumenism and the New World Religion than the Pope of Rome -- check out MARTIN PALMER and PRINCE PHILIP. It was they and NOT Pope John Paul II who organized the 1986 Assisi Conference which writer Kitty Muggeridge said had clearly been the low point of the Catholic Church. Google my Amazonon.com review of Martin Palmer's New Age book (mostly about his dislike for me by the way) CHRISTIANITY AND THE NEW AGE published by AQUARIAN PRESS (1993).

Martin Palmer is a top advisor to British royalty and claims to head a trillion dollar consortium of churches and their money on environmentalism.

Constance

Tony Cox said...

Constance:

Sorry if I was unclear - I did not mean to imply the pope was the only force behind such issues - just a strong one along with others. I can see I did not make that clear.

And just for the record, I am not a Brit - I am from the Philadelphia, PA area - where I currently reside.

Show Thyself Approved said...

Anonymous 8:28 A.M.

Re:"When will you stop using pop culture references, and stop holding them in equal authority with scripture?"

Since the Bible doesn't teach "Sola Scriptura" or allow "private interpretation," why are YOU holding the extra-Biblical private opinions of a 16th century "pop culture" figure named Martin Luther ( who invented Sola Scriptura, by the way ) in equal authority with the Scriptures???

Anonymous said...

My threads.

1)
Council of Nicea myth debunked...
12:50 PM


2)

DEAR BROTHERS & SISTERS IN JESUS CHRIST,
THIS IS A CHRISTIAN VIDEO. PLEASE WATCH!... 7:56 PM


3)

The video @ 7:56 PM debunks the fabrications told by Dan Brown...[&] ...also exposes the gnostic 'gospels'...for the heretical pretences they are, whilst... showing that the Holy Bible as we know it was firmly compiled ...well before the Council of Nicea (which Constantine commissioned Eusebius to call the scattered and long persecuted Churches to, many rightly weary as Rome had been, and was to again become, a ((if not the)) foremost persecutor of Bible believing Christians.)

The Council of Nicea dealt with the heresies of Arianism. The Holy Bible as we know it was compiled and agreed upon long before the Council of Nicea.(the so-called and dubitable Apocrypha being added much later at the Council of Trent, as a way to try and oppose the Reformation.)

When the Council of Nicea was formed, no Pope existed, No one over-seeing earthly Mother Church existed. Anyone that tells you otherwise, is lying to you or ignorant. The Council of Nicea was a gathering together of scattered churches, often in communication with one another, but without one individual overseeing all of them as a super-bishop or pope.

[INTERJECTION: SO NO, SAVVY, PETER WAS NOT THE FIRST POPE! Also, there is nothing in the Holy Bible to show that Peter ever even went to Rome. Go on, cite Holy Scripture, if you can, in accordance with true Biblical Canon! Stop deceiving people! Stop Lying!]

[INTERJECTION; HERE, I am gravely mistaken: Protestantism did not begin at the Reformation. It is a return back to the teachings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, and therefore to the Original Church itself.] IT IS NOT THE TEACHINGS OF THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS WE SHOULD GET CAUGHT UP IN, WE SHOULD RETURN SOLELY TO THE TEACHINGS OF THE HOLY BIBLE ITSELF!

Both Hebrews 9 and 10, refute the heresies of the Roman Catholic Doctrine of transubstantiation.


Please, please, read your Bibles before the NWO merchants confiscate them. Right them on your hearts, remember them.

8:43 PM



4)


And Write them on your hearts.

8:58 PM



5)
9:20 PM
CONTINUED

Anonymous said...

FROM LAST THREAD...CONTINUED

6)


Thank you JD., I am the anon poster at 7:56. The points I have made in my comments are also pertinent to this.

David, it is not regardless as to how the Creed came into being at all!

'...it represents the core Christian faith principals. It affirms the belief in the Holy Trinity--Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It correctly identifies Jesus as the Son of God and affirms the Immaculate conception, His birth, His suffering and death on the cross, His resurrection, and his ascension into heaven.'

[INTERJECTION HERE! I HOPE BY, 'Immaculate Conception' you mean the virgin birth of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and not the heresy of Roman Catholic Pagan blasphemy that Mary was immaculately conceived herself, David in Battle Creek, or is the not so subtle Rome dominated ecumenism that poisons this blog throughout deluding you so?]


All these things were already agreed upon by all the Churches except those who were ALREADY deemed heretics! The Council of Nicea primarily dealt with countering the heresies of Arianism.

Peace be with you.

Please refer back to my earlier comments. They are intended, and do, STAND AGAINST NAM teaching and also stand against the falsehoods of the ancient mystery religions with which Roman Catholicism is mixed (her cup of fornication and mixture), YET TRUE CHRISTIANITY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PAGANISM! THERE WAS NO POPE AT THE COUNCIL OF NICEA, AND NO ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH WITH ITS BLASPHEMIES AND HERESIES DESPITE WHAT SOME MAY HAVE YOU BELIEVE.

Please read the writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers.

[INTERJECTION: I HAVE ERRED GREATLY HERE! IF YOU READ THE ANTE-NICENE-FATHERS, READ THEM CAUTIOUSLY, BUT TRUST THE BIBLE ONLY!!]

Peace be with you all in the Name of our Beloved Lord Jesus Christ.

Bye.

Anonymous said...

FROM LAST THREAD...CONTINUED

As to you Paul, it is easy to pick out my threads and see who I am. There's even someone mocking me a little later on, there's a big clue for you. Perhaps for legal reasons my name is not here. The Lord still has work for me. When talking of spines, perhaps yours could do with some humility and a lot less mockery. This place is a den of vipers. It is a stage for the ecumenical movement. Just another road to Rome, where the Kabala is pushed on unchallenged, where the Love of the Truth is undefended. What is happening in this blogspot is the antithesis of the Hegelian dialectic to the Thesis of the Emergent Church, both ecumenical, both cuddling up to Rome, and both edging towards dominionism. Do you really believe the real, and not a false, Armageddon is about to happen mid 2010? DO NOT BE TAKEN IN SO EASILY. Most people that have been prominent in exposing this stuff honestly have been murdered or falsely imprisoned! Ask yourselves questions. Do your own research. TRUST IN THE LORD JESUS CHRIST. WE SHOULD OBEY GOD RATHER THAN MAN! Humble yourselves. Read your Bibles. Add nothing and take nothing away. Contend for the faith in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour. REPENT!

WE ARE IN THE LAST DAYS. BIBLICAL ACCURACY, A DEFENCE OF THE FAITH WE ONCE RECEIVED FROM JESUS CHRIST, THE PROPHETS AND THE APOSTLES, IS NECESSARY! AND HISTORICAL ACCURACY IS SOMETIMES NECESSARY AS PART OF REFUTING HERESIES, AND ATTACKS UPON THE FAITH!

STAY AWAY FROM THE EMERGENT CHURCH MOVEMENT! STAY AWAY FROM HYPER-CALVINISM! STAY AWAY FROM THE HEBREW ROOTS MOVEMENT! STAY AWAY FROM DOMINIONISM! AND STAY AWAY FROM ECUMENICISM! STAY AWAY FROM KABALISTIC TEACHING, AND REBUKE AND REPROVE FALSE TEACHING AND HERESY WHEN AND WHERE IT IS FOUND. WE ARE TO LOVE JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD AND SAVIOUR MORE THAN OUR POPULARITY!

I SHALL NOT POST HERE AGAIN. THE RESPONSIBILITY IS IN YOUR HANDS.

REPENT!

Ezekiel 3:16-18 (King James Version)

16 And it came to pass at the end of seven days, that the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,

17 Son of man, I have made thee a watchman unto the house of Israel: therefore hear the word at my mouth, and give them warning from me.

18 When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.

Anonymous said...

FROM LAST THREAD...CONTINUED


Ezekiel 3:19-21 (King James Version)

19Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.

20Again, When a righteous man doth turn from his righteousness, and commit iniquity, and I lay a stumbling-block before him, he shall die: because thou hast not given him warning, he shall die in his sin, and his righteousness which he hath done shall not be remembered; but his blood will I require at thine hand.

21Nevertheless if thou warn the righteous man, that the righteous sin not, and he doth not sin, he shall surely live, because he is warned; also thou hast delivered thy soul.

Anonymous said...

Anon at 11:30 a.m.

John Henry Newman said "To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant."

I hope you will read the writings of the Ante-Nicean Fathers and realize that they were not Protestant.

"Anatolius' attempts to subvert the decisions of Nicea are futile. But at the present time let it be enough to make a general proclamation on all points, that if in any synod any one makes any attempt upon or seems to take occasion of wresting an advantage against the provisions of the Nicene canons, he can inflict no discredit upon their inviolable decrees: and it will be easier for the compacts of any conspiracy to be broken through than for the regulations of the aforesaid canons to be in any particular invalidated."

Pope Leo the Great [regn. A.D. 440-461], To Maximus, Epistle 119:3 (A.D. 453).

"[T]he Sacred Synod of Nicea...Ephesus...[and] Chalcedon...to be received after those of the Old or New Testament, which we regularly accept."

Pope Gelasius [regn. A.D. 492-496], Epistle 42 (A.D. 492).

"Besides those which are contained in the Decretal of Gelasius, here, after the Synod of Ephesus 'Constantinople(I)' was also inserted: then was added: But even if any councils thus far have been instituted by the holy Fathers, we have decreed that after the authority of those four they must be both kept and received."

Pope Hormisdas [regn. A.D. 514-523], Epistle 125 (A.D. 520).

No pope at the council of Nicea? Even the ante-nicean fathers disagree with you.

Don't you read what you post?


Savvy

Show Thyself Approved said...

Anonymous 11:23

re:"Both Hebrews 9 and 10, refute the heresies of the Roman Catholic Doctrine of transubstantiation.

Please, please, read your Bibles before the NWO merchants confiscate them. Right them on your hearts, remember them."
_____________________

Please, please go back and read your own Bible. I think you may have missed a couple of passages.

In Matthew 26, 14-16

14 15 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, "Take and eat; this is my body."
27
Then he took a cup, gave thanks, 16 and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you,
28
for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.


In John 6:52-53 we read,

.....How can this man give us His flesh to eat? 53 Jesus therefore said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.'"

In 1 Corinthians, we read:

1 Cor. 11:27, " Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord."

Where in the Bible does it plainly state that Jesus was speaking "symbolically?"

While it is true that the Bible doesn't plainly state that Jesus was speaking literally, it is, nevertheless, clearly implied in the passage where people started to leave him. Jesus didn't say, "Hey guys, I was just speaking symbolically." when some of his followers started walking away.

In any case, I am not the one trying to prove my position from the "Bible only" which is itself not taught in the Bible.

Moreover, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Roman Catholics, who together constitute the majority of Christians, hold that the consecrated elements in the Eucharist are indeed the body and blood of Christ; they also believe both a valid sacramental priesthood and the Words of Institution are necessary to make the sacrament present. Among Reform and Protestant Christian churches, some Lutherans and Anglicans hold the same belief. They see as the main scriptural support for their belief that in the Eucharist the bread and wine are actually changed into the body and blood of Christ the words of Jesus himself at his Last Supper: the Synoptic Gospels and Saint Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians (which I have already quoted) recount that in that context Jesus said of what to all appearances were bread and wine: "This is my body … this is my blood" or, in the case of what appeared to be wine, "… this cup is the new covenant in my blood". Belief in the change of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ is based on these words of Christ at the Last Supper as interpreted by Christians from the earliest times, as for instance by Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, and Clement of Rome (who may have been the same Clement as mentioned in the Bible).

In any case, what you have presented is your private interpretation
of the Bible.

And if private interpretation is allowed, (which it isn't.....see Peter 1:20-21) then why should I believe that your interpretation of the Bible is any more correct than mine or anyone else's???

Also... if the "Bible only" is all I need in order to know how to be a good Christian, why would I need you or anyone else to tell me what the Bible means to begin with???

All I need is the Bible, right???

Anonymous said...

The Word becomes flesh. You “eat” the Word by believing it. “He who believes has eternal life”. Jesus says in John 6, the flesh profits nothing. How could it possibly be the key to eternal life? You have three problems; that's what I discovered as a Catholic.

The first problem was on one hand I was being told that the sacrament of the Eucharist was the key to eternal life, but the catechism told me salvation comes by the sacraments of baptism and penance – that’s how sin is taken away. It contradicts itself. Which sacrament saves? Now in fact by reading the Bible I came to realize no sacrament saves – Jesus saves. It's not an ex opere operato ritual called a “sacrament”. The sacraments are emblems; it’s believing in Him through faith and repentance. That is the first problem. How can the Eucharist be the key to eternal life if your own catechism says it’s other sacraments?

The second problem: Once more, in the first church council of the book of Acts of the Apostles chapter 15, the apostles, including Peter, outlawed the consumption of blood as a pagan demonic practice. Cannibalism was outlawed as pagan and demonic. Christians were told not to do it. If it is literal blood, you can’t drink it. The apostles were told by the Holy Spirit to forbid its consumption. “The flesh profits nothing”. That’s the second problem.

The third problem is, again, Jesus was a Jew. This had to be celebrated at Passover in Jerusalem. What He would have said, the Hebrew prayer, would have been, “Za guphe sha ani ashbar b’ad’chem zot asu l’zichroni; ha’cos ha’zot he ha’brit ha’had asch zot asu l’zichroni.” “This is my body I’ve broken for you, this cup is the cup of the new covenant of my blood poured out for you, do it in remembrance of Me.” (Lk. 22:17-20) The apostles and Jesus were Jewish; they understood it would have been a memorial if they understood what it meant at all. Obviously the Sanhedrin and the people they influenced did not. It’s a memorial. “Do this in remembrance of Me”. Consumption of blood was a pagan practice, not a Jewish one.

That is my question. If your own catechism says salvation comes by baptism and penance, how can it come by the Eucharist? If the flesh profits nothing, how can it be talking about literal flesh, given the fact that the apostles condemned its literal consumption? The doctrine of transubstantiation was formulated in its present form in the Middle Ages by Thomas Aquinas based on Aristotle’s “philosophy of accidents” which was debunked by modern science, chemistry, and physics. I won't go into that now, but that is my question. If the flesh profits nothing, if Jesus said the key is belief – eating His flesh is believing the Word, if the consumption of blood was outlawed, how can it be what I was told as a Catholic and what you were told? It can't possibly be if you’re not allowed to consume blood and the flesh profits nothing. Please answer my question. I've yet to find a priest who can, maybe you can.

Anonymous said...

The Word becomes flesh. You “eat” the Word by believing it. “He who believes has eternal life”. Jesus says in John 6, the flesh profits nothing. How could it possibly be the key to eternal life? You have three problems; that's what I discovered as a Catholic.

The first problem was on one hand I was being told that the sacrament of the Eucharist was the key to eternal life, but the catechism told me salvation comes by the sacraments of baptism and penance – that’s how sin is taken away. It contradicts itself. Which sacrament saves? Now in fact by reading the Bible I came to realize no sacrament saves – Jesus saves. It's not an ex opere operato ritual called a “sacrament”. The sacraments are emblems; it’s believing in Him through faith and repentance. That is the first problem. How can the Eucharist be the key to eternal life if your own catechism says it’s other sacraments?

The second problem: Once more, in the first church council of the book of Acts of the Apostles chapter 15, the apostles, including Peter, outlawed the consumption of blood as a pagan demonic practice. Cannibalism was outlawed as pagan and demonic. Christians were told not to do it. If it is literal blood, you can’t drink it. The apostles were told by the Holy Spirit to forbid its consumption. “The flesh profits nothing”. That’s the second problem.

The third problem is, again, Jesus was a Jew. This had to be celebrated at Passover in Jerusalem. What He would have said, the Hebrew prayer, would have been, “Za guphe sha ani ashbar b’ad’chem zot asu l’zichroni; ha’cos ha’zot he ha’brit ha’had asch zot asu l’zichroni.” “This is my body I’ve broken for you, this cup is the cup of the new covenant of my blood poured out for you, do it in remembrance of Me.” (Lk. 22:17-20) The apostles and Jesus were Jewish; they understood it would have been a memorial if they understood what it meant at all. Obviously the Sanhedrin and the people they influenced did not. It’s a memorial. “Do this in remembrance of Me”. Consumption of blood was a pagan practice, not a Jewish one.

That is my question. If your own catechism says salvation comes by baptism and penance, how can it come by the Eucharist? If the flesh profits nothing, how can it be talking about literal flesh, given the fact that the apostles condemned its literal consumption? The doctrine of transubstantiation was formulated in its present form in the Middle Ages by Thomas Aquinas based on Aristotle’s “philosophy of accidents” which was debunked by modern science, chemistry, and physics. I won't go into that now, but that is my question. If the flesh profits nothing, if Jesus said the key is belief – eating His flesh is believing the Word, if the consumption of blood was outlawed, how can it be what I was told as a Catholic and what you were told? It can't possibly be if you’re not allowed to consume blood and the flesh profits nothing. Please answer my question. I've yet to find a priest who can, maybe you can.

Anonymous For Now said...

Anonymous said...
Tony Cox,

My Question again who decides who's Jesus is the right one. I know you're going to say read the Bible. But then so does TBN, Benny Hinn and a host of other people. Next you'll say ask the Holy Sprit for guidance, but these people do that too. So now I am confused as to why you think you're version of Jesus is the right one.

My Reply:

As far as I recall the TBN crowd do not encourage you to read the bible. They quote scriptures (out of context) and get you to read the passages they give you. They do not train you to compare scripture verses with scripture verses to get everything in context. Of course they don't because they don't do it themselves.

Regarding the Hoy Spirit, they teach the "experiential, unholy spirit" all about experience than biblical truth.

paul said...

What's hard to understand about
"Do this in REMEMBERANCE of me" ?

To read is to consume words and
thoughts. To read is to ingest and
digest thoughts, through one's eyes.
It's just like eating food, nothing
more or less, but it's not by way of
the mouth, but the eyes.
Jesus is the Word of God.
To read Gods Word is to worship
Jesus; to read the Bible with a
humble attitude is to ingest
Jesus flesh.

To hear the Word, (as in preaching)
is to consume and ingest words
and thoughts through the ears,
including thoughts about God
and beliefs about God.
Jesus said "Faith cometh by hearing
and hearing by the Word of God."

"When ye do this, do it in
rememberance of me."

Anonymous said...

The whole Mary adoration thing is not even 200 years old, the transubstantiation doctrine was not there by your early church fathers.

What more do you need? These are doctrines of men, not instituted by the early church.

You will be held accountable.

Anonymous said...

Anon at 12:39 p.m.

All early Christians believed in the real presence. Go back and read the writings of the Early Christians and how they interpreted Jesus' words. No, it was formulated in the Middle Ages.


Theodore

When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, "This is the symbol of my body" but, "This is my body." In the same way when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say. "This is the symbol of my blood," but, "This is my blood," for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought . . . not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup) but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit

(Catechetical Homilies 5:1 [A.D. 405]).

The Cathecism of the Catholic doesn't say other sacraments are more important. Where did you get that idea?


1324

The Eucharist is "the source and summit of the Christian life." "The other sacraments, and indeed all ecclesiastical ministries and works of the apostolate, are bound up with the Eucharist and are oriented toward it. For in the blessed Eucharist is contained the whole spiritual good of the Church, namely Christ himself, our Pasch."

To use your analogy of cannibalism. Jews reject the idea that the Messiah would die on a cross because they argue that human sacrifice is against Judaism too.

Savvy

Anonymous said...

Anon at 1:50,

You clearly have not read the Early Church Fathers. Go back and read them .


Savvy

Anonymous said...

Keep quoting from MEN.

You will be held accountable.

Anonymous said...

Show Thyself Approved,

You are quite correct, the Bible does not mandate sola scriptura. It is a man-made tradition.

I've always thought it was hypocritical of some of these people (Hi Tony, Hi Bob) to lash Catholics for following the "traditions of men" whilst they simultaneously cling to a Rule of Faith which CANNOT EVEN BE FOUND IN THE BIBLE!!

I have no problem with them following sola scriptura any more than I do if they want to drink a Shrek slurpee for breakfast on Tuesdays (the Bible doesn't prohibit this either), but I DO have a SERIOUS PROBLEM with them claiming they are "correct" and Catholics "in error" simply because they follow a man-made tradition which Catholics reject!

The Tooth Fairy

Anonymous said...

Old Testament Jews Did Not Believe in Sola Scriptura

To give two examples from the Old Testament itself:

a. Ezra, a priest and scribe, studied the Jewish law and taught it to Israel, and his authority was binding under pain of imprisonment, banishment, loss of goods, and even death (cf. Ezra 7:26).

b. In Nehemiah 8:3, Ezra reads the Law of Moses to the people in Jerusalem. In verse 7 we find thirteen Levites who assisted Ezra and helped the people to understand the law. Much earlier, we find Levites exercising the same function (cf. 2 Chr. 17:8–9).

So the people did indeed understand the law (cf. Neh. 8:8, 12), but not without much assistance—not merely upon hearing. Likewise, the Bible is not altogether clear in and of itself but requires the aid of teachers who are more familiar with biblical styles and Hebrew idiom, background, context, exegesis and cross-reference, hermeneutical principles, original languages, etc.

The Old Testament, then, teaches about a binding Tradition and need for authoritative interpreters, as does the New Testament (cf. Mark 4:33–34; Acts 8:30–31; 2 Pet. 1:20; 3:16).

Anonymous said...

Hi Bob,

Where in the Bible does it say people who "quote from men" instead of the written Bible will be "held accountable?"

I am reading the letters of St. Paul at the moment. In 2 Thessalonians (which I am sure EVERYONE who reads this blog is familiar, even Dorothy), Paul tells them:

1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, 2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. 3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. 5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? 6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. 7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. 8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: 9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, 10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Seems pretty clear to me that Paul was TEACHING the Thessalonian Church orally before he even wrote them that first letter. Notice, he doesn't say, "Disregard everything I told you when I was with you, and look only to my written letters for instruction. Anything I say to you is a tradition of man, not the Word of God, and if you rely on it, you will be held accountable!"

The Tooth Fairy

Show Thyself Approved said...

Anonymous 1:50

Regarding the false "Mary worship" accusation........

Now THERE's a convincing argument! ROTFLOL

Tony Cox said...

Tooth Fairy

I only get these comments because they are forwarded from earlier posts as you know - the only reason I responded earlier was to a post from Constance.

I really have no further interest in dialogue with some of you, so show some respect for people. I am no longer participating here, I left my email address on an earlier post, so feel free to contact me.

And by Bob, are you referring to Bob Mitchell? I think he has alot more class and dignity then most of you on this board, so whether you agree with him or not show some respect, and I doubt he would be lurking around posting under an anonymous, made up name as some do.

Show Thyself Approved said...

Anonymous 2:11

RE:"Keep quoting from MEN.

You will be held accountable."


Right back at you, O pot who callest the kettle black. LOL

Tony Cox said...

Savvy

You seem to be doing a fine job of that on your own.

Honestly, I do applaud your passion, however misplaced it may be.

Anonymous said...

Tony Cox,

The way I see it everyone here is coming up with their own private interpretations of scripture and accusing the other of being wrong. LOL.


Savvy

Anonymous said...

I think he has alot more class and dignity then most of you on this board

Tony,

You have told us you are a devout Christian and from this I infer that Christ is your guide in all things. Keeping this in mind, I have further inferred that when you refer to those on this board who lack class and dignity, you are referring to the individuals who write things like this:


They are intended, and do, STAND AGAINST NAM teaching and also stand against the falsehoods of the ancient mystery religions with which Roman Catholicism is mixed (her cup of fornication and mixture)

the catholic church is the whore mother of the whore daughters, the apostasy the great falling away is happening now.

I really believe the Catholic church is the whore that will be burned by the beast.

You catholics need to get out of the whore before you are made naked desolate and burned.

The catholic view of Jesus is one of an angry God whom needs His mother to soothe Him, and to talk Him into mercy for sinners.

no wonder the stigma of sexual scandal has never left rome, she became a pornocracy, and as such is cursed of God.

So you prove the point that rome is the enemy of true christians and will persecute them.

Thank you savvy.


Me mum pray for me?

She is the unforgiving... a true blue catholic.

where the next inquisition will feature angry as hell catholics spilling non catholics blood, calling us "christian identity"
for daring to stand up against the false teachings of rome.

ignorant catholics ... I must go now

but I will be back for some more of your attack the man and not refute the argument attacks


I can assure you that I heartily concur--these posters do lack class and dignity.

Their claims that they are "Christian" are as believable to me as those of a committed vegetarian who cites the "Big Mac Extra Value Meal" as his favorite food.

The Tooth Fairy

Tony Cox said...

Tooth Fairy

I do not dispute that some of those quotes could have been expressed in a much more respectful manner.

I think I have stated many times that I know many Catholics, as well as people from other denominations who have led a more respectable life than I.

I think it was pretty clear that my issues are with the hierarchy of the church.

In all fairness - would you say that all Catholics who have posted in defense of thier faith on this board have conducted themselves in a dignified and respectful manner?

It is not about putting blame on any of us here, - I think it shows that we all fall short.

Anonymous said...

Tony,

Not only do I think the Catholics posting on this thread have been respectful--I think they have been remarkably RESTRAINED given the deliberate provocation they were laboring under.

I think it's time for us to "put a sock in it" and go back and consider what I wrote yesterday about this thread:

I am just going to throw an idea out there and it is this: I suspect this name-calling anonymous who is insulting the Catholics is a New Age plant who is deliberately trying to sow division between the participants of this blog.

I suspect he or she doesn't believe in the Bible at all, either the New Testament or the Hebrew Bible.


For those of you who didn't catch JD's response to the quote above, please go back and read it--it is well worth your time, and contains some extremely valuable insight.

Hope you stick around Tony. There is a lot to learn here especially about the New Age movement.

Finally, let's not allow this thread to be hijacked anymore.

The Tooth Fairy

John Chingford said...

It is nonsense to say that Jesus was not talking symbolically. Jesus often spoke in parables (which are symbolic of an important message).

So you say that the bread is the body of Jesus. Jesus said he was the door. How does that work, if it is not symbolic? We are called sheep "baaaaaah" oh I turned into a sheep for a moment.

Using common God given sense it is clear that Jesus was talking about commitment to Him.

Unless we eat we are not worthy of Him, meaning that we need to become so intertwined with Jesus, in our fellowship with him and the Holy Spirit in us that we become ONE with Him. This is what it means.

This is why many people stopped following Jesus because the commitment required was too great.

In the same way that the door illustrates that we need to enter into salvation through our commitment to Jesus.

The one who suggested that my website stated that Messianic Jews were more attuned. I did not say that, look again. This is what I wrote on my site "They seem to be much more aware of the apostate movement in our churches than most churches".

Clearly I am not stating it as fact but saying what SEEMS to be the case. Also I am not writing off all gentile churches (I am a gentile, by the way)simply saying that most (not ALL) churches are not so discerning.

This is what the evil one (and those influenced by him)always do. They are in the habit of deliberately misquoting to distort truth.

This is all I have to say.
For those who are truly born-again of God's Holy Spirit, be strong and couragious. Always remember to bless and not curse, always practicing the love of Jesus, showing compassion to all men.

God bless

John Chingford said...

My blogsite as below

John Chingford said...

Whoops, I mean my blogsite as per clicking on my name. To make it clearer http://www.watchmanforjesus.blogspot.com

Anonymous said...

Maybe one of you Protestant Evangelicals can answer this question for me.

Since the Bible is the 'Word of God' . . . why have the Protestants taken it upon themselves to publish so MANY different versions???

Why wouldn't just ONE (the Kings James, for example) be enough?

It seems to me that the WORD of God is what it is . . . it does not have 'versions.'

Anonymous said...

John Chingford,

Who decides what interpretations of the Bible are right and what are wrong.? The idea that only born-again people can understand the Bible is absurd, since there have been many scholars who have not even been Christian, but have done a fair job of Scripture study , like the people who translated the dead sea scrolls etc.

To claim that only a few are enlightened by special knowledge is a Gnostic or New Age concept and is repeatedly use by the New Age themselves to interpret scripture, which has led to so much apostasy.

If I want to know about a product, who better to ask than the manufacturer?

Savvy

Anonymous said...

I am not negative the gifts of the Holy Spirit or the ability to prophecy either. I am just asking you how do you test it. A book can't prove a book. There has to be an objective source.


Savvy

John Chingford said...

Anonymous. Did I say that????
Anyway, on that subject,

Peter said that "scripture is not to be understood by private interpretation, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God". It makes sense that as men brought the scriptues as inspired by the Holy Spirit that uqually individuals need the Holy Spirit to interpret scripture.

In reply about what Bible to use, I share your thoughts on the matter. The introduction of ridiculously large number of translations is part of the apostasy. Please see my post entitled " Clearing The Tables Of The Money Changers" on my blog.

It tackles your question.

paul said...

Anon. 5:23,

They don't.
They should be called translations,
not versions, and almost every
one of them says the exact same
thing, at least virtually. Each one is
another persons' ( or groups' )
attempt to render the original
Hebrew and Aramaic into the clearest
English that it can.
The difference between the KJV and the
NRV is just the difference between
olde Englishe and modern English.

There's really no point in splitting
hairs, unless you're just trying to
impress people.

John Chingford said...

By the way, isn't that what the Vatican and cardinals do. ie state that only THEY can properly interpret scripture and do not encourage "ordinary" catholics to study the Bible.

At least this is what Catholics have told me. They told me "whether the Bible says it or not, does not matter because the Catholic Church has the final authority and what it says is binding, so we don't read the Bible, we do not need to".

On another issue, regarding Charismatic Catholics. In the 1980's I attended a catholic church for a course on Charismatic meetings. I thought that they were "real Christians" at that time. We worshipped the Lord singing Pentecostal type songs. One week, the priest stood up and said "okay now to worship the Queen of Heaven".

I could not believe my ears. I suddenly realised what this was. The scripture came to mind from Jeremiah regarding Babylonic worship. "they bake bread for the Queen of Heaven". Immediately I left!

Anonymous said...

John Chingford,

The Catholic Church does not say that ordinary Catholics can't read the Bible or that the Bible is not the word of God or that it's not important, just that it needs to be interpreted in context. The same context used by Christians through the ages.

Catholicism does not teach things like let's worship the Queen of heaven.

I am not sure you were Catholic to being with.

Savvy

Anonymous said...

Holy Writ informs us that the Word of God will be preserved; that God will preserve His Word unto all generations. That is, the Providential Preservation of the Scriptures. Taken collectively, it is apparent from the modern bible revisions that the intent of some involved was to change essential doctrine of the Christian faith by numerous changes, some subtle and some not so subtle. That hidden hands, working to a hidden agenda, worked to destroy the continuity of the transmission of the Word of God and so deny the preservation of His Word thereby denying present and future generations proper knowledge of It. Notwithstanding the fact that the original Autographs of the Apostles are no longer in existence and that copies of these either perished from overuse or were destroyed during the persecutions, we can we be assured that God's Word has been preserved. Why? Because His Word is settled in Heaven and His faithfulness endures unto all generations (Psalm 119:89-90). That is, God has promised that He would preserve His Word, according to the heavenly pattern and even during the tortuous process of translation from one language to another.

An exhaustive survey of the lionhearted defense of the Textus Receptus mounted by John W Burgon, Frederick H A Scrivener, Herman C Hoskier and others would take many pages. However, a summary is sufficient to show their devastating condemnation of the premises, conclusions and consequences of the Westcott and Hort enterprise. An enterprise that was in truth the plot by the Secret Societies (using its well placed agentur) to supplant the Word of God contained in the King James Authorised Version with the neutered Word contained in Westcott and Hort's erroneous and viciously corrupt New Greek Text.

For more information please note the below mentioned website. It is very elegantly written but, I have yet to find out who has written it or who might be its collaborators. There is no source. It is packed with information, like an encyclopedia, which I have often used to cross-reference.. But do be warned, that some of its content is political.
overlordsofchaos dot com/secret societies attack upon the holy bible.

L

Anonymous said...

One week, the priest stood up and said "okay now to worship the Queen of Heaven".

Interesting. Didn't Susanna mention before that some aspects of the Catholic church too have been infilitrated with apostasy?

Anonymous said...

To Paul @ 6:01 PM

With all due respect, it has been my experience (one day, quite by accident, I might add) that when I Googled several biblical passages, I was startled to see that, with SOME passages, the wording had been altered slightly (if not to change the actual meaning - to at least call it into question).

Some of you may just have to Google your favorite passages (comparing several different versions or translations) to see what I am talking about.

I just feel very strongly that the 'WORD of God' should not be just that - THE WORD OF GOD - and should not be tampered with in any way.

John Chingford said...

I did not say I was a Catholic. I said I attended catholic meetings because I thought they were Christian. Whether you accept it or not, the catholic priest definitely said "let us now worship the Queen of Heaven".

Have you ever wondered why you use a wafer instead of bread or why it is round? Why is it that the wine is only drunk by the priests? Why yoy pray for the dead or preach about purgatory. All these things can be found in historical Babylonic worship.

You can deny it if you want to. I find this is what a lot of Catholics do, they pretend that these things are not so.

We are saved by grace (through faith) alone - not by works as in Ephesians chapter 2.

John Chingford said...

I recommend BibleGateway as a great site for comparing the different versions:

http://www.biblegateway.com/

Anonymous said...

To Anonymous @ 6:25 PM:
Re: "One week, the priest stood up and said "okay now to worship the Queen of Heaven".
Interesting. Didn't Susanna mention before that some aspects of the Catholic church too have been infilitrated with apostasy?"

_______________________________

As to your first paragraph, you are a LIAR!!!

As to your second paragraph, no one's church is immune from being 'inflitrated with apostasy' - not even YOURS.

SIGH . . . NOW, BE CAREFUL THAT YOU DON'T HURT YOURSELF WHEN YOU COME DOWN OFF OF YOUR HIGH HORSE!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

To John Chingford @ 6:30 PM:

John, I am now in my 60's and I have been a devout Catholic all of my life. I have lived in several different areas of the country, so have attended Mass at MANY different Catholic Churches and attended Catholic school for 12 years (1st through 12th grade).

I have NEVER (either at church or school) heard a Catholic prist make such an outrageous statement as you posted: "let us now worship the Queen of Heaven".

NEVER, NEVER, NEVER . . . !!!

John Chingford said...

Jesus said to pray like this "our father". Why is it that Catholics pray to Mary? "hail Mary".

Jesus taught clearly that we should pray in His name. We should pray to the Father by the Holy Spirit in the Name of Jesus.

Jesus said of those born of women there has never been one greater than John the Baptist. Mary was born of her mother, so that makes her inferior to John the Baptist.

The angels said thjat we should worship Jesus and Him alone. The apostles taught that there was salvation in no other name except the Name of Jesus.

How does the Catholic church tackle these verses and issues?

Anonymous said...

You are WRONG, John Chingford -
the Catholic Church's teaching on Purgatory most certainly can be found in Scripture . . .

"Nothing defiled shall enter Heaven" (Revelation 21-27)

There are clear references to Purgatory in both the the Old and the New Testaments. In the Old Testament in 2 Machabees X11 43,46 the Jewish practice of praying for the dead is clearly set out it the following words - 'It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may he loosed from their sins.
In the New Testament Our Blessed Lord in Matthew V 26 refers to the prison from which no one is released before his debts are repaid to the last farthing. St. Paul in Cor. 1,3 15 mentions that there are souls who can only be saved 'yet so as by fire'. It is also stated in Apocalypse XXI, 27 in reference to heaven - 'There shall in no way enter into it anything defiled". St. Augustine says that these words clearly indicate that there must be forgiveness of some sins in the world to come, which cannot be in heaven as nothing defiled shall enter therein. Therefore Our Blessed Lord is clearly referring to a place which is neither heaven nor hell and which we call Purgatory.

Anonymous said...

Holy Writ informs us that the Word of God will be preserved; that God will preserve His Word unto all generations. That is, the Providential Preservation of the Scriptures. Taken collectively, it is apparent from the modern bible revisions that the intent of some involved was to change essential doctrine of the Christian faith by numerous changes, some subtle and some not so subtle. That hidden hands, working to a hidden agenda, worked to destroy the continuity of the transmission of the Word of God and so deny the preservation of His Word thereby denying present and future generations proper knowledge of It. Notwithstanding the fact that the original Autographs of the Apostles are no longer in existence and that copies of these either perished from overuse or were destroyed during the persecutions, we can we be assured that God's Word has been preserved. Why? Because His Word is settled in Heaven and His faithfulness endures unto all generations (Psalm 119:89-90). That is, God has promised that He would preserve His Word, according to the heavenly pattern and even during the tortuous process of translation from one language to another.

An exhaustive survey of the lionhearted defense of the Textus Receptus mounted by John W Burgon, Frederick H A Scrivener, Herman C Hoskier and others would take many pages. However, a summary is sufficient to show their devastating condemnation of the premises, conclusions and consequences of the Westcott and Hort enterprise. An enterprise that was in truth the plot by the Secret Societies (using its well placed agentur) to supplant the Word of God contained in the King James Authorised Version with the neutered Word contained in Westcott and Hort's erroneous and viciously corrupt New Greek Text.

For more information please note the below mentioned website. It is very elegantly written but, I have yet to find out who has written it or who might be its collaborators. There is no source. It is packed with information, like an encyclopedia, which I have often used as a cross-referenced.. But do be warned, that some of its content is political.
overlordsofchaos dot com/secret societies attack upon the holy bible.

Anonymous said...

John Chingford,

If your looking for all these answers I would advise you to first read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, so you don't go around falsely accusing Catholics.

God will hold you accountable for slander and for bearing false witness.


Savvy

Anonymous said...

FYI - John:

We Catholic are not on TRIAL here. Why don't you concentrate on where your OWN immortal soul is going to spend Eternity - instead of trashing the Catholic church???

You - and others like you - are just becoming very BORING!!!

John Chingford said...

Anonymous aged 60

I am only stated what I heard.

By the way, the scriptures teach that Jesus is the head of the church and He also stated that no man should call the apostles "father". Yet priests are called "father" the pope comes from the word Papa which means father. He is also called Pontif, which comes from Maximus Pontif a title attributed to the Roman emperors and to Babylonic heads.

So why is the Pope called the head and the ultimate father of the church, if Jesus is the Head and He spoke against using Father as a title?

Let's face it the RC DOES encourage prayer to Mary. Have you considered why? Maybe the charismatic Catholic accidentally let it slip about the Queen of Heaven, but sometimes secrets can slip out at times.

Look, I am not meaning to offend, simply informing what I know to be true.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, I at 6.51PM sent my comment above again by mistake. My apologies. L

Tony Cox said...

Boring? There are only a few of us who seem to be speaking out defending the WORD of God.

Let us at least be accurate when we speak - most of the posts here are in defense of the Catholic Church's interpretation of the Word.

Anonymous said...

John Chingford,

I was invited to an Evangelical Bible study that turned into a Catholic trashing session. Even your Bible studies are more focused on trashing Catholicism than on Jesus. You need to start loving Jesus more than you hate the Catholic Church.


Savvy

John Chingford said...

Regarding trashing Catholics. I am not trashing Catholics (as such) but the false doctrines. The reason I have written on this site is because my blogsite got trashed on this site. I got into this because I felt I needed to get the facts straight.

Okay, if this is upsetting to you, I will leave now.

Please be assured of my best wishes and my prayers. May the Lord bless you

Anonymous said...

The important part of religion to me is how it impacts on our relation to God and our relation to each other. Aren't there any moral beliefs all of you have in common?

While you are going back and forth, the New Age idea is that the new religion will be one that can be proven scientifically. Does anyone posting here have information on on the growth of that movement?

Anonymous said...

"Call no man your father?" (Mat 23:9-10) as a reason not to call priests "father."

In the same sentence Jesus says "Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Messiah."

Using this passage to claim that we cannot call a priest "father" would mean that we could not call professors at an Evangelical Bible college "instructors." If we were to take this passage literally, it would mean that I could not call my earthly dad "father" either.

Catholics don't believe Jesus was forbidding the use of "father" in that passage. There are plenty of examples in the Bible where that the word "Father" applies to humans, and the Bible links the priesthood to fatherhood. (Judges 17:10, 18:19, 1st Thess. 2:10-11, Acts 4:25, 7:2, 8, 14, Philip. 2:22,Hebrews 12:9, 1st John 2:13, 14 , 1st Cor. 4:15, 1st Thess. 2:11-12.)

Catholics believe that Jesus was condemning the hypocrisy of unholy men who were in office at the time, he was not condemning their office.

Savvy

Anonymous said...

If we Catholics were to launch a constant verbal attack against the Protestant EVAGELICALS on this blog - day in and day out - the way some of you do . . . YOU WOULD NOT STAND FOR IT!!!

So, what makes you think that we should???

In fact, I question whether some of you are actually 'Christians' - because Jesus would NEVER treat others the way some of you do!!!

John Chingford said...

"Nothing defiled shall enter Heaven" (Revelation 21-27)

That is not talking about purgatory. Read the context and compare scripture with scripture. That is talking about unbelievers who reject the truth about Jesus. It says that they will NEVER enter heaven but will last eternity separated from God. The lake of fire is not purgatory because it is ETERNAL. It is not an interpretation. The scripture says spells it out CLEARLY.

Please, please, please (before it is too late) as the scriptures teach "come out of Babylon" and put your whole trust in Jesus alone as the Only way to the Father. Do it before it is too late.

I say this with great compassion and concern.

Anonymous said...

Attention: John / Tony / and any other Catholic-Bashers:

There is really no point in continuing a 'dialogue' (and I use that term loosely) with people like you , who are SO misinformed - and insist on spouting so much disinformation - about the Catholic Church (ad nauseam).

This is a total waste of my precious, valuable time.

You - and people like you - are barking up the wrong tree if you imagine (in your wildest dreams) that you have the ability to convince, convert, bully, manipulate, or intimidate at least 4 regular devout Catholics on this blog (Savyy, Susanna, and the two anonymous posters).

We are NEVER -- I repeat NEVER - going to abandon our Catholic faith!!!

Time to move on, folks.

Your 'entertainment' (for sport) is officially over.

CLARIFIER said...

I want to remain anonymous due to the Catholic - Protestant rancor here, but the Catholic basis for belief in Mary's "immaculate conception" was that if she had original sin, Jesus would have had it on half of his family and hence could not have been a perfect sacrifice.

Constance Cumbey said...

To Anonymous 11:25

If you are whom I am starting to suspect you are, you have done much valuable work, but fallen into your own brand of apostasy (providing you are whom I suspect you are). I have been deeply dismayed by anti-Semitic twists and turns as well as reliance on the literature of the extreme Jewish baiting forces, including but not limited to THE PROTOCOLS OF THE LEARNED ELDERS OF ZION and Henry Ford (yes, he was deeply into Theosophy).

I have admired much of your work -- in fact deeply respected it -- I tried for years in vain to make contact with you to give you additional pieces of the puzzle.

I might be wrong as to your identity even now, but I am suspecting I am not.

To the list of stay aways from (most of which I profoundly agree with), PLEASE ADD

Jew bashers
Protocols of Zion
Doug Coe/Paul N. Temple and company (if you are whom I suspect you might be, you helped me unlock that one as well)

NEITHER TO THE LEFT HAND NOR TO THE RIGHT, BUT STRICTLY IN THE PATHS OF THE LORD!

Constance

But then, maybe I am wrong as to your suspected identity, but

Anonymous said...

Controversial 'Man Jesus Christ' Pulls in Followers

MEXICO CITY, Apr 7 (IPS) - "Abba, father," call out the people gathered in the meeting hall. They raise up their hands and stare enraptured at a television screen, where they are addressed by their spiritual leader, José Luis de Jesús Miranda, or as he calls himself, "the Man Jesus Christ."

http://www.ipsnews.net/print.asp?idnews=50943

CLARIFIER said...

From the KING JAMES VERSION of the Bible:

"Verily, verily I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. I am that bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may east thereof, and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever: and the bread that I WILL GIVE is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us HIS flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. WHOSO EATETH MY FLESH, AND DRINKETH MY BLOOD, HATH ETERNAL LIFE: and I WILL RAISE HIM UP AT THE LAST DAY. FOR MY FLESH IS MEAT INDEED, AND MY BLOOD IS DRINK INDEED. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. THIS IS THAT BREAD WHICH CAME DOWN FROM HEAVEN: not your fathers did eat manna and are dead: he thaas eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

JOHN CHAPTER 6, KING JAMES BIBLE

CLARIFIER said...

PART 2, KING JAMES BIBLE PASSAGES

John 6:66 "From that time [after what he said above] many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

Constance Cumbey said...

Clarifier, what do the other Bible Versions say?

Constance Cumbey said...

The tests of antichrist are:

1. A denial that JESUS is THE CHRIST (as in one and only and undiminished)

2. A denial that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.

Orthodox Christians, Orthodox Orthodox and Protestants who have not gone over to New Age apostasies do not DENY CHRIST, they AFFIRM HIM.

Reread chapter 1 of my book, THE HIDDEN DANGERS OF THE RAINBOW (freely available on line)"The Age of Aquarius or the Age of the Antichrist?" I made it clear in there while Christians were diverted by mutual name calling, the deceiver was busy subverting our seminaries with New Age teachings.


Constance

Anonymous said...

UK Election News - Tuesday, 6 April 2010

Labour vows to rip up free speech safeguard

The Labour Party has made a manifesto commitment to abolish a free speech safeguard introduced by Lord Waddington to a sexual orientation ‘hate’ crime law.

The safeguard makes clear that criticising homosexual conduct, or encouraging someone to refrain from such conduct, is not in itself a crime.

... skip

But the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, says a new Labour Government would use the Parliament Acts to forcibly remove it, ignoring the House of Lords if need be.

---

Full story and five videos of UK Christians being quizzed by police, here;
http://www.christian.org.uk/news/labour-vows-to-rip-up-free-speech-safeguard/

or tiny,
http://tinyurl.com/yfrzvz9

~K~

JD said...

Constance,

Glad to see you back, maybe this madness will come to a end now.

Anonymous said...

Same song, second verse, a little bit louder and a little bit worse...

Sound off one two
Sound off three four

All that's missing is the marching in sync.

Dorothy

Anonymous said...

Eeny meeny miney mo
Is it Barbara Aho?
Connie thinks so.

Stand up, stand up, stand up and tell us your name...

Constance Cumbey said...

I am highly suspecting that "Anonymous 11:25" might be Barbara Aho. I highly respected much of her work, but became disturbed at the threads in memorial of Jan Moser. These were some of her recent threads. As she has done extensive research that many others have not done on "Hebrew Roots", that is why I particularly suspect her. I have tried to reach her without success for years. Here are her recent threads that greatly trouble me:

"
MYSTERY BABYLON THE GREAT ~ Catholic or Jewish?
THE MEROVINGIAN DYNASTY ~ Satanic Bloodline of Antichrist & False Prophet
THE REVELATION OF THE ANTICHRIST ~ As the Second Coming of Solomon
THE FALSE GOSPEL IN THE STARS ~ Preparing the Way of the Antichrist
THE LOST TRIBE OF DAN ~ Early Jewish & Christian View of the Identity of Antichrist
ALL IN THE DRAGON FAMILY ~ Merovingian Lineage of the 2008 Presidential Candidates
THE ZIONIST CONSPIRACY ~ The Synagogue of Satan
THE 6-POINTED STAR: THE MARK OF THE BEAST ~ Star of David or Star of Remphan?
MARKS OF THE BEAST ~ TATTOOS & BRANDS ~ Junk Religion for Generation X
DESIGNER MARKS OF THE BEAST ~ Why the Mark of the Beast is NOT the Chip Implant"

Constance

JD said...

From Anon 11:25

"As to you Paul, it is easy to pick out my threads and see who I am. There's even someone mocking me a little later on, there's a big clue for you. Perhaps for legal reasons my name is not here."

We are expected this person will stand for their faith even if it means their death? Yet they blatantly show that they are not even willing to defend themselves in a court of law over what they state! If these are truly your convictions, stand up.

Anonymous said...

K,

I have been following the stories on the Daily Mail of Christians being charged with criminal offenses for "hate speech" etc. including the sad one about the Christian couple who lost their hotel business after a complaint from a Muslim guest.

What is your feeling on the ground? Do you think Brits are fed up with the Labour government for their hypocrisy on so many matters, this included? What do you think the chances are of David Cameron becoming PM?

JD said...

'Mind-reading' brain-scan software showcased in NY

NEW YORK — Mind reading may no longer be the domain of psychics and fortune tellers — now some computers can do it, too.

Software that uses brain scans to determine what items people are thinking about was among the technological innovations showcased Wednesday by Intel Corp., which drew back the curtain on a number of projects that are still under development.

The software analyzes functional MRI scans to determine what parts of a person's brain is being activated as he or she thinks. In tests, it guessed with 90 percent accuracy which of two words a person was thinking about, said Intel Labs researcher Dean Pomerleau.

Eventually, the technology could help the severely physically disabled to communicate. And Pomerleau sees it as an early step toward one day being able to control technology with our minds.

"The vision is being able to interface to information, to your devices and to other people without having an intermediary device," he said.

more at link
http://tinyurl.com/ygrv29y

JD said...

Obama Bans Islam, Jihad From National Security Strategy Document

http://tinyurl.com/yf35gkr

Islam and Jihad are out, Christian, Jewish, Patriot, Constitutional extremism in.

Anonymous said...

JD,

On the mind-reading software, I have been seeing periodic articles about this. Of all the technological developments I have read about, this one is to my mind the most frightening. I speak as one who works in the field of database technology.

Anonymous said...

I really dont believe Aho is posting anonymously here, or posting here at all.

The bible is the textbook, how can you say following God's textbook,
(which is in fact Jesus the Word/Logos)is extra biblical?

That is like saying in order to pass the exam, don't follow the textbook's instructions, just copy off the paper of the guy sitting next to you.

So catholics have a hatred of luther and anytime they hear follow the Bible they think luther.
This is sad, prejudice against sound intellectual foundations is causing a lack of knowledge. It is written, man shall not live by bread alone but by every word of God, and My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.

Please save yourselves! please!
May god bless you all with the wisdom of His Word.

Anonymous said...

Anon @9:13 a.m.

Catholics do not have a hatred of Luther. He had some good points and actually believed in a lot of Catholic doctrines as did other Protestant reformers. Modern day Protestants however, have thrown out a lot and even Luther would not recognize your churches.

Anonymous said...

IRAN VOWS TO STRIKE USA IF ATTACKED

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6371EY20100408

Anonymous said...

From www.euobserver.com

Today @ 13:27 CET (April 8, 2010)

The US decision not to invite any EU officials to a top-level security event in Prague is being seen as a fresh snub by some in Brussels.

sarah said...

Hi Constance,

Just some quick corrections:

1) Your link to Rich Medford's site needs to be corrected, it links to ProphecyProof's site.

2) The link needs to be corrected to ProphecyProof's site, you have a double http in that link redirect.

take care,
sarah

Anonymous said...

WORLD STOCKS DROP AS GREEK DEBT DEFAULT NEARS

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/2010040
/bs_afp/greeceimfeconomyfinance

JD said...

Anon 8:53,

This is something to give one pause, but then again so are many of the other technologies being pushed these days. Granted individual pieces do not seem so bad upon first glance, but when one realizes they have been designed to be interoperable and interconnected it changes the application and potential uses.

Constance Cumbey said...

Hopefully links are working now -- Thanks!

Constancce

Constance Cumbey said...

To Anonymous 9:13

None of us can save ourselves. If you have something that important to say, why don't you use your name, provided that name is NOT Barbara Aho?

Constance

Unknown said...

Wasn't the "original" Bible written in Hebrew and Greek? KJV is the original English version, but English does not completely translate from these two languages. What's the historical accuracy here?

Anonymous said...

Dear BattleCreekDavid,

I quote below from overlordsofchaos dot com. I would not usually copy such a large piece of text, nor copy from such an unusual source, but I think that some of the historical statements can be verified from further research. I hope this might partly answer your above question as I’ve been trying to find answers for some time!

May I just add, that I am on a learning curve and that if any of the below is incorrect, it is certainly not with any intent on my part to put out disinformation.

Anyway, here it is.

"Throughout Church history, there have been Two Streams of Bible transmission competing for ascendancy.

The First Stream began with the Apostolic Churches and carried the Received Text (in Hebrew and Greek) that reappearing down the Christian Era. This large body of manuscripts was preserved at Pella in Palestine following the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD and spread from here to other parts such that they represent the vast majority of the Greek manuscripts copied from original Autographs of the Apostles. That is, 5,210 manuscripts representing 99% of extant or existing manuscripts that all agree with each other on every substantive and inconsequential matter. The King James Authorised Version is based upon the third edition of the Greek New Testament issued by the Parisian publisher Stephanus in 1550: itself based squarely upon the Greek New Testament text prepared by the greatest scholar of his age, Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536).

The Second Stream, in comparison, is a small one of a very few manuscripts. These texts appear in Greek, Latin and English. The Greek versions are: The Codex Vaticanus or Codex B, in the library at Rome; and Codex Sinaiticus, or Codex Aleph; the Latin version is The Vulgate or Latin Bible of Jerome; and the English versions manifest as The Jesuit Bible (1582) and its derivative, the Douay-Rheims Bible, or Catholic Bible; and then later, many modern revised Bibles,that is, the Revised Versions based upon the Westcott-Hort New Greek Text, which introduce practically all the Romish readings of the Latin Vulgate that the Protestants of the Reformation had rejected.

Thus, the First Stream is the body of texts called the Byzantine Manuscripts, but especially, the Textus Receptus, the Received Text used by William Tyndale and others to render the Bible into English.

The Second Stream is the Alexandrian Manuscripts, the Vaticanus Manuscript comprising the Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus and the Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament, used by Westcott-Hort and others to create their modern New Greek Text and the Revised Version. Consequently, it is from the Alexandrian Manuscripts, the Second Stream of manuscripts that the modern English versions ultimately derive.

Cont/..

Anonymous said...

../cont

John William Burgon (1813-88), Dean of Chichester, the immediate and ardent critic of Westcott-Hort's New Greek Text, in his passionate critique, Revision Revised, described it thus:

"The one great fact which especially troubles him [Hort] and his joint editor (as well it may) is the Traditional Greek Text of the New Testament Scriptures. Call this text Erasmian or Complutensian, the text of Stephens, or of Beza, or of the Elzevirs, call it the Received or the Traditional, or by whatever name you please-the fact remains that a text has come down to us which is attested by a general consensus of ancient Copies, ancient Fathers, and ancient Versions. Obtained from a variety of sources, this Text proves to be essentially the same in all. That it requires revision in respect to many of its lesser details is undeniable; but it is at least as certain that it is an excellent text as it stands, and that the use of it will never lead critical students of the Scriptures seriously astray. In marked contrast with this (received) Text (which is identical with the text of every extant Lectionary of the Greek Church) is that contained in a little handful of documents of which the most famous are the Codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus."

Desiderius ErasmusThe "Erasmian" reference Burgon makes is an allusion to Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536) considered the leading Renaissance scholar of northern Europe whose criticisms of the Roman Catholic Church led to the Reformation. Erasmus divided all of the Greek manuscripts into two classes: those that agreed with the Textus Receptus, the Received Text or Traditional Text, and those that agreed with, in his opinion, the more dubious Vaticanus Manuscript. By his prodigious efforts, Erasmus restored the Textus Receptus to its rightful status as the vehicle for the transmission of the Word of God by presenting to the Reformation Christians a Greek New Testament based on the Textus Receptus, the Received Text.

Erasmus, the greatest scholar of his age, was responsible for the preservation of the ancient that Greek text commonly called the Textus Receptus, or the Received Text, upon which the King James Authorised Version is founded. Thus, Martin Luther (1483-1546) the German theologian who led the Reformation, translated the New Testament into German using Erasmus' second edition. Moreover, Erasmus' Greek New Testament was the foundation upon which many other translators rendered the Bible into the vernacular. Such as, the Zurich (Swiss) Version (1529), LeFevre's (French) Bible (1534), the Olivetan (French) Bible (1535), Laurentius (Swedish) Bible (1541), the Christian (Danish) Bible (1550), Biestken's (Dutch) Bible (1558), de Reyna's (Spanish) Bible (1569), the Czech Version (1602) and Diodati's (Italian) Bible (1607).

William Tyndale, who studied Greek under Erasmus at Cambridge University, used his old teacher's Greek New Testament to translate two-thirds of the Bible into English and was martyred for his labours. The reverential manner by which these Reformation scholars treated the Textus Receptus, the Received Text, from the first edition produced by Erasmus to the last produced by the King James redactors (with no major changes, merely minor ones) is another proof of the way in which God kept His Word throughout the ages ... that His Word be preserved for all generations ... and His Word endure throughout the ages .... That is, the Providential Preservation of the Scriptures. "

Leana said...

Even the KJV is predated in English by the Geneva Bible. I remember reading with my kids when we studied the Pilgrims that they used the Geneva Bible. Here's a website that gives a short annotated Bible translation history. I haven't read the "whole" thing, but they do have a nice timeline.

http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/

Anonymous said...

JD -

You posted this earlier in the blog in regards to "Council of Nicea debunked" video...."The video presented on the Council of Nicea are made by Chris White. While I have some reservations about some of the people White links to on his site, this video and similar videos he has made exposing Zeitgeist, New Age, Theosophy, 2012 and so forth are solid tools for reaching people who will not take the time to read."

I would be interested to hear your opinion about some of the links or associates of Chris White that you are leary of.

Thanks for your input.

KC

Anonymous said...

There are those that control which way countries move that are unseen. It is a controlling body of men that are cruel,child-like and not mentally well. They feel they have an extension in time to doing as they please to man and the movement of the world in prophecy. They would prefer to have their penis parties and taking down man to movement of the world into a one-world government. I believe G-d sends those down to see what the status of man is in respects to the world (he is a loving G-d) and these men have taken down man through the ecosystem, pharmaceuticals, demonics and those that astral project themselves to control others much like you see on the matrix. It is a whole different look on the world as seen by man because these men and their house subdue man to inhibit him from knowing what is done to him.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 374 of 374   Newer› Newest»