Thursday, October 28, 2010

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Is Europe in a mess because "Javier retired" or did Javier retire because Europe was in a mess?

UPDATE:  QUOTE OF THE WEEK:  
"Secondly, the ECLJ wants to recall that the concept of “defamation of religions” is incompatible with Human Rights. More than that, that concept is a threat to Human Rights, in particular to the rights of religious minorities.
"To accept the use of the concept of “defamation of religions” would give an international legality to repressive laws working against religious minorities, such as the laws against proselytism and blasphemy. We should not forget that in many countries, the simple public expression of the content of a minority religion, most of the times Christianity, can be considered as an offense, a “defamation” of the State’s official religion. Thus, to accept the concept of “defamation of religions” would in fact, reinforce, straighten, the arsenal of repressive laws directed against religious minorities.
As a conclusion, it should be greater respect for religious freedom, as provided by the existing international law. Only respect of religious freedom can effectively help to combat the growing “bipolarization” of the world."  From Presentation to UN Human Rights Council by European Centre for Law and Justice

The above quote and the current post below may seem unrelated, but with all the push by the Alliance of Civilizations, The European Union, the World Economic Forum and others for a type of "New World Religion" where everybody in effect bows down to everybody else's god, it was refreshing to see that others recognize the dangers inherent in this type of forced syncretism and are boldly and eloquently pointing them out.
Constance
Nothing seems to have gone that well for the European Union since Javier Solana "retired" or maybe "laid low" in December 2009.  Things haven't been going all that great on this side of the Atlantic either and the global governance crowd is making real hay over both.  This is what a hard hitting editorial in THE GUARDIAN (United Kingdom) said today:


Europe is in a mess. The European Union is in trouble. Today's summit in Brussels is unlikely to do much to help. David Cameron, like his fellow leaders, can only hope to limit the damage: and even as he does so he can hear the ghoulish sound of Tory Euroscepticism rising from the grave.
The summit faces trouble from three directions. The first is the enfeebled condition of many European governments. To pick the news almost at random, this week the Romanian government narrowly survived a confidence vote; talks on the Portuguese budget collapsed and President Sarkozy was battling (successfully) to pass his pension reforms. Ireland is preparing for another round of spending cuts; Belgium hardly exists at all. These are not promising times for effective deal-making between strong leaders.
Second, the European Union is in the middle of an indulgent institutional upheaval. The Lisbon treaty was necessary, but some of its consequences were not. Lady Ashton, Europe's new foreign minister, announced the other day that she will spend £10.5m a year on new offices; the European parliament has voted for a 6% increase in EU spending next year, including a 4.5% rise in administration costs. At a time when most EU governments are cutting their domestic budgets, such things are provocative – and British Tories have been duly provoked. Yesterday Lord Tebbit warned Mr Cameron that he risked a "Vichy-style surrender" if he agreed to a budget rise. Last week 37 Tory backbenchers voted against one. The coalition provides some ballast: Mr Cameron is playing a more co-operative role at the summit than he ever could have done as a purely Tory prime minister. But his freedom is limited: even conceding a 2.9% increase in the EU budget will bring him trouble in his party at home.
Third, and most serious, is the European Union's response to economic crisis. Germany, with a growing economy and unemployment now below 3 million for the first time in 18 years, fears being dragged down by its EU partners. Germans bailed out Greece and stabilised the eurozone. Now the German government wants to overhaul the rules to prevent future budgetary implosion. But the existing rules were not the reason Greece went bust and Ireland overspent. Changing them – which could require a controversial reopening of European treaties – is a distraction.
Britain is still hoping to secure a freeze in the EU budget – which would be a success for Mr Cameron. He could tolerate the more probable 2% rise. But these things are trifles compared to Europe's search for economic growth. That is the challenge the EU is facing – and failing.

I can't irreverently wonder if things are going badly because Javier picked up his marbles and went home? OR, did he pick up his marbles and go home because he saw the trouble coming and wanted others to take the blame for it?  $64 question!!!

Well, I wonder if anybody is going to come to rescue the "European Project"?   I suspect I know somebody who'd like to, provided, however, he isn't already too, too busy with the CRISIS=OPPORTUNITY global government, whoops, GOVERNANCE, front.  Wonder how the cell phones are going between Strobe Talbott, George Soros, Lord Malloch-Brown, Maurice Strong, and Javier Solana?
If only I were a mouse in that corner?  

Stay tuned!

CONSTANCE

Comments: 1 – 200 of 433 Newer› Newest»
Where is Suzanne? Did the Catholic bashers scare her off? She is a valuable contributor here, as JD will attest.

Constance
 
I found a lovely, most informative new site (new to me, at least) on global governance, and I have added a link to it. Check it o ut!

Constance
 
The European Centre for Law and Justice has critical information and these timely remarks were just presented to the UN Human Rights Council on its behalf:

"Secondly, the ECLJ wants to recall that the concept of “defamation of religions” is incompatible
with Human Rights. More than that, that concept is a threat to Human Rights, in particular to the
rights of religious minorities.
To accept the use of the concept of “defamation of religions” would give an international legality to
repressive laws working against religious minorities, such as the laws against proselytism and
blasphemy. We should not forget that in many countries, the simple public expression of the content
of a minority religion, most of the times Christianity, can be considered as an offense, a
“defamation” of the State’s official religion. Thus, to accept the concept of “defamation of religions”
would in fact, reinforce, straighten, the arsenal of repressive laws directed against religious
minorities.
As a conclusion, it should be greater respect for religious freedom, as provided by the existing
international law. Only respect of religious freedom can effectively help to combat the growing
“bipolarization” of the world."

Would like to hear from Rich of Medford on this one!

Constance
 
Constance,

Susanna is on a mini vacation and will be back in a couple days. On a similar note, as of Saturday I will be offline for a few days as well.
 
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/140226

http://tinyurl.com/37g4con
 
http://tinyurl.com/3333hsc
 
Constance:

Susanna will be off line for the rest of this week.

(Also, no one could ever 'scare' Susanna . . . or the rest of us Catholics off this blog!!!)
 
Dear Constance

Why is it that you always support the Catholic position over and above that of evangelical Bible believing Christians who take the Bible as their authority rather than church tradition?

I was first attracted to your site because I was informed that you were a protestant and not ecumenical. However, It is clear from the comments you make that you are either a Catholic or ecumenical with a strong leaning towards the RC.

If (as other have said) you do not promote one over the other, why do you only ever criticise our comments (whenever you make a criticism) but never criticise comments made by Catholics?

I used to write here but gave up because I felt I was casting my pearls before swine. Jesus told us not to do this because our pearls would be trodden underfoot and we would be attacked. This is how it feels on your site.

I am referring to the comments you used to make 6 months ago when I last wrote on your blog.

At that time I was consistently attacked by your Catholic contributors for the things I wrote (which were designed to be helpful not critical). Some of what they wrote back was downright NASTY.

You NEVER said anything against those comments, but if a Protestant said something, you DID often make comments.

Your comment here about "Catholic Bashers" speaks volumes about your support of Catholics.

Where is your equality and fairness?

Unless this inequality and the aggressiveness of this site changes you will never see me again on this site.

Where is the Christian love and compassion we should be showing one another. We are instructed to be "kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another" also "let your speech be gracious, seasoned with salt". Actually, your blog is more like a war field
 
Anti-Semites and Catholics....strange bedfellows.
 
Yes, Anon 9:27...

"Where IS the 'Christian' love and compassion"?

We're certainly not feeling it coming from YOU!!!
 
I speak those words out of a heart full of compassion and concern. I am deeply troubled by the way the "so called " Christians attack each other on this site.

I write these things to highlight something serious. Some of my Christian brethren have used this site and come away hurt and confused by the way they have been treated. THIS concerns me.

I am trying to make the point that if this site is a "christian" site, why such animosity?

As I said, if this animosity continues I see no purpose in participating on this site any further.

So, I guess (again) I am saying goodbye and God bless
 
To John Chingford,

Your admission that you were attracted to Constance's blog because you were informed that she is "protestant and not ecumenical" is quite telling. I understand the human preference to listen only to those who agree with us, but I am hoping that you will read the following links with an open mind.

And I would also like to know how you can believe that the Bible is the sole source of authority when within its pages are the following words (and I know you take them literally):
The LAST verse in Matthew (28:20): "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world."
The LAST verse in John (21:25): "But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written."

This is where 2000 years of Roman Catholic Tradition comes in...

This is sincerely meant to be helpful and not critical.

http://www.evangelizationstation.com/pamphlets/029%20authority%20of%20the%20catholic%20church.pdf

http://www.sanctepater.com/2010/08/teaching-authority-of-catholic-church.html

Lisa
 
John said:

I speak those words out of a heart full of compassion and concern. I am deeply troubled by the way the "so called " Christians attack each other on this site.

I write these things to highlight something serious. Some of my Christian brethren have used this site and come away hurt and confused by the way they have been treated. THIS concerns me.

I am trying to make the point that if this site is a "christian" site, why such animosity?

Yes, John, ask your "Christian brethren" where all their animosity comes from. I would like to know, too!

Could people like John Chingford (who are offended by anyone who might have a strong leaning toward the Roman Catholic Church) be encouraging their brethren in their anti-Catholic bias.

My "outsider" impression is that the majority of the animosity I see on this blog is from the Protestants who put Catholics in the position to have to defend their faith to the blind!

"Compassion and concern"...lol!!!!!!!
 
Just because someone says something against the Pope/Vatican does not make one a Catholic basher or a hater of the people. Obviously, Protestants do not believe in the things Catholics believe in, but that does not mean we think all are going to hell. I have several family members who are Catholic and love Jesus very much. They do not necessarily believe or accept everything that comes out of the Vatican. This is similar to many Protestants today. For me, being a Baptist, I do not see eye to eye everything the Baptist doctrine holds. I know I have seen some things within the Protestants that seemed un-Biblical and I have said as much.

Just maybe, some people are way to sensitive. I understand some come here posting bashing material. You know they are just trying to get a rise out of you all who are Catholic. Don't give them the satisfaction. There ways are not Biblical. Retaliating (sp?) is not Biblical either.....
 
John Chingford @ 10:13 AM said:
"I am trying to make the point that if this site is a 'christian' site, why such animosity?"
___________________________________

Any animosity, dear John, is coming directly from SOME of the so-called 'christians' - although not ALL of them, thank God!!!
 
That's absolutely correct.

Whenever Catholics are attacked, and DARE to stand up and defend their faith, they are attacked AGAIN.
 
Catholics are never the attackers; they are always the attackees.

This has been going on for the past 4 years that I have been posting on this blog.
 
You NEVER see Catholics getting on this blog and saying things like: "Some of my best friends are Protestants . . . so that doesn't mean that I believe that ALL Protestants are necessarily going to hell."

You Protestants would be absolutely OUTRAGED if any Catholic were to come on this blog and start posting such statements Yet, we are expected to put up with this and sit back and say nothing.
 
The fundamentals are only important until Catholics are in the equation. Then hyper-ecumenism comes into play. Even with all the evidence of the Vatican promoting non-Biblical teachings, humanism, and participating in Hindu ceremonies, Buddhist rituals,being involved in international intrigue, having been infiltrated by groups like the Alta Vendita etc. Cumbey still defends the corrupt institution.

Not quite what you expect from a self proclaimed "watchman", is it?

Wheat and tares.
 
JPII False teachings:
1.Muslims worship the One True God. CH: 141, 1994

2.The New World Order is holy unity. PA: 39, 1987

3.Masons are sons of God the Father. LOR, 05/22/1984

4. Buddhism is a great religion.
PM: 147, 06/17/1984

5. The New World Order is needed for the world. PP: 809, 09/02/1981

6. In Hinduism men take refuge in God with love and trust. CH: 80, 1994

7.Buddhists by higher help reach liberty and supreme illumination.
CH: 80, 1994

8. Buddhism is a religion of salvation. CH: 84-85, 1994

CH= Crossing the Threshold of Hope, by John Paul II, Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. 1994

PP= Path to Peace: A Contribution. Liturgical Publications Inc., Brookfield, WI, 1987

PM= Peter Lovest Thou Me? Abbe Daniel Le Roux, Angelus Press

LOR= L'Osservatore Romano, Vatican City, Italy, English edition

This is just a little of what Cumbey is defending.
 
To Anonymous 12:02:

Of course Satan is going to twist everything that comes from the Catholic Church. The evil one hates the authentic Church founded by Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. You are fitting right into the plan of the evil one and helping him along! at least do your homework, for goodness sakes, before you post ridiculous and out of context statements such as these.

You want to hate the one true Church. Because if the Catholic Church is correct (and it is), then you have to admit that a lot of what you believe is wrong (and it is). Your pride (the most deadly of sins) will not allow you to do this. Humble yourself and seek the Truth - Eternity is worth it. People study their way into (never out of) the Catholic Church. try it! I will pray for you.
 
Anon 12:28

None of those things is out of context and I know you haven't done your homework since you made such a stupid comment, so please don't insult anyones intelligence with your silly and unintelligent postings. You're just vomiting the same pablum on the screen as any other pathetic Vatican apologist.

Your institution is clearly Satanic. You need the prayers of Christians, we have no need of prayers from the lost Catholics.
 
Anon 12:40:

I happen to have all of the information you referred to right here in front of me. I didn't copy and paste my message from some random website...

You seem very angry, I will also pray that you receive the Peace of Christ into your heart.
 
To Anon 12:40:

And your comments are a clear example of a 'NASTY' post (which are obviously not coming from the Catholics).
 
More New Age lies from the Vatican:

"Such a day seemed to express, in a visible manner, the hidden but radical unity which the Word has established among men and women of this world... the fact of having come together at Assisi is like a sign of the profound unity of those who seek spiritual values in religion... The Council has made a connection between the identity of the Church and the unity of the human race. (Lumen Gentium 1 and 9; Gaudium et Spes, 42)

-Keep in mind Assisi was a gathering of every false religion you can think of, and even allowed idols of Buddha and Hindu deities to be placed on their Catholic altars. hmmm...who is the wolf in sheeps clothing? I think the Vatican is showing its fangs.

Lets not forget this pope (JPII) is even being considered for canonization as a saint. The same false teacher who:
Kissed the Quran, participated in all forms of non-Christian worship, including that of the Hindus, the American Indians, the Polynesians, etc., praise the voodoo religion and even took part in a voodoo "blessing" ceremony, and said that Muslims and Catholics worship the same God(May 31, 1980 in a speech to the Moslems in Paris.)

For anyone here to claim to be a watchman and yet defend this garbage demonstrates just who really is the wolf among the sheep. Cumbey can call this "Catholic bashing" all she wants, but to speak the truth about the false teachings of Rome is not bashing, any more than exposing the New Age is bashing. If the self proclaimed watchman really cared, the watchman would warn them to come out of Rome.
 
Anon 12:50

Attack the messenger because you can't refute the facts.

Typical scheme of Satan. Totally expected of a Catholic.
 
BREAKING NEWS...

Check out Drudge/CNN/FOX/MSNBC:

"UPS Planes Isolated at Philadelphia & Newark Airports"

"One Plane Held in the UK"

"Multiple Suspicious Packages Being Investigated in PA & NJ"
___________________________________

(The timing is very suspicious. Is this possibly the 'October Suprise' planned to manipulate or interfere with the November elections?)
 
You're behind on your news "watchman". lol

It was nothing but an ink cartridge. Crisis over.
 
Catholics do not need to respond to SLANDER!!!
 
Anon 1:12

Well, it would be most wise for all of us to pray and stay tuned until the November elections are OVER with before breathing any sigh of relief.
 
Why does everyone always want to act like any of these are simply Catholic issues? Protestant churches are in as bad of shape, and some are in far worse shape. Yes I have problems with Catholic doctrine, but to say come out of her, a clear reference to the Whore of Babylon, is bigoted and completely unpassable. To imply such is to state that your denomination or any other church is in a better position. Fact: No church today is biblically correct. Sure some are better than others, but the Lord makes no distinction on apostasy.

I have said time and again that I am all for discussing these issues, but taking a bigoted holier than thou position is not a discussion. It never fails with these tirades either, as I have challenged others in the past to show me how any group at this time in history is spot free. It always fails and reverts back to the same trash.

If someone wants to discuss anything with one of the Catholics I know for a fact that they are more than welcome to. But lets be real about this for a minute, none of the examples here could even relatively be considered conversation or a two way exchange. They are slanted positions attempting to get a group to denounce their church.

Now many are going to come forth and call me a Roman sympathizer, etc. Go for it, it's slanderous because I have never once defended the Vatican, but if it makes you feel better. I am just not going to stand in judgement when there is enough garbage in my yard for me to clean up. Do you have concerns? Noted, so do I. Now why not try talking to someone instead of jumping on a soap box that has a ton of cracks in it?
 
Anon 12:53 PM says:
"to speak the truth about the false teachings of Rome is not bashing . . ."
___________________________________

Well, you might as well just call Jesus Christ HIMSELF a liar for creating the Catholic Church in the first place!!!

(Which makes YOU an anti-Christian as well as an anti-Catholic.)
 
Anon 1:28

Christ did not found your pagan institution. The fact remains that you can't refute the facts presented so you hide behind the tired old facade of "we don't respond to slander.."

Pathetic. Catholics are no more Christian than a JW or Mormon. Why don't we schmooze with them as well? After all-no church is perfect. Right? Right?

Your position is in itself an indication of being infected with the spirit of this age. i.e. New Age.

Now, back to your regularly scheduled Vatican schmoozing and promotion of a radio network that has programs promoting racial hatred.
 
Anon @ 1:28:

The Catholic Church compiled the Bible and wrote your Creed. If there were no Catholics , there would be no Protestants. Every Protestant who subscribes to the Apostles Creed professes belief in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Don't you know that it's a sin to bear false witness.

Most Catholics do not attack Protestants, but most Protestants attack Catholics, because you constantly feel the need to justify your existence through Catholic bashing. Leave us alone.

Savvy
 
Anon 2:15

"And the gates of Hell shall NOT prevail against it" (the Catholic Church). . . in spite of evil attempts from people like you!!!
 
To Anon. 12:53:
Have you read the Old Testament?
Muslims do, indeed, worship the same God - the God of Abraham. The Muslim view of God is distorted - they see Him as master, to consider Him father is blasphemy in the Muslim faith. This is because they are descendants of Ishmael, the son of Abraham and Hagar (a slave - Abraham was her "master"). Different faiths, however both are monotheistic and worship the same God.
 
Jesus would have also reached out to Buddhists, Moslems, Hindus, etc. etc. etc.
He loves us all and wishes for us all to be saved (even hateful, naive, deceivers like "Anonymous 11:52).
 
Last night was the first time I heard Dennis Cuddy. I only caught a little of what he said, since I was getting kids in and out of the shower. But, he really seemed to have a firm grasp on things. I'm glad I listened to part of what he said.
 
Please explain:

Well, you might as well just call Jesus Christ HIMSELF a liar for creating the Catholic Church in the first place!!!

I have never read this in the Bible.

What God created was the Church....not Baptists, not Methodists, not Catholics, etc...

Sounds like you believe the premise that only Catholics are believers and everything else is false. At least that is what it sounds like.
 
John Chingford and others,

Your position appears to be that because Cumbey isn't anti-Catholic enough for you that this makes her pro-Catholic. Who set you up as sole judge and jury as to who is, and who is not, sufficiently "Christian?"

It likes like the only people you consider to be "real Christians" are those who are expressly anti-Catholic.

Where in the Bible does it say that Catholics are not Christians, and that people like Cumbey who are insufficiently anti-Catholic are "bad Christians"?
 
JD, the issue that I see is that Catholics have the Vatican and all these Bishops which make all kinds of comments that are un-Biblical. While many Protestant faiths have a head group, they rarely come out and make such statements. Do they yes, but not nearly as often. I think we all know there are many wolves in the Protestant churches today, but I do not believe Catholics can accept the same thing.
 
To Agie95 @ 4:48 PM:

According to Matthew 16:18 (KJV):

"And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall NOT prevail against it.

(Jesus created His Catholic Church and made Peter its first Pope in a long, UNBROKEN line of Popes.)
 
For a complete list of all of the Popes of the Catholic Church
beginning with Peter (32 - 67) through Benedict XVI (2005 - ?)

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/
12272b.htm
 
Anonymous posting PROMOTES the type of abuse we are experiencing here because there is no way of holding people accountable for their words.

Anyone can post the most outrageous statements as an anon, then come back later and refute their own words, again, posting as anon. I have done so myself, to prove the point. There is simply no way of discerning how many different people are making comments, or if one very sick schizophrenic is finding it entertaining to play all sides. The anon option should be eliminated. Hit and run individuals too spineless to stand by their own opinions and pronouncements should NOT HAVE A FORUM HERE!

I’ve made it a point NOT to respond or argue with "anons". that said, occasionally I make an exception to my own non response policy.

Anon 2:49 PM declared that Allah and the God of the Bible, Elohim/Yahweh, are one and the same. “Different faiths… worship the same God.”

That is a lie. The Koran itself contradicts all basic teaching of the Bible and the Bible contradicts the Koran. If God were the same entity DESCRIBED IN/BY BOTH, that would be impossible. IT IS ONLY POSSIBLE FOR SUCH A CONTRADICTION TO OCCUR IF ONE BELIEVES THE KORAN.

All one has to do is compare the attributes of Elohim/Yahweh in the Bible to Allah in the Koran. Allah is a “schemer”, a master “deceiver”, “capricious”, a god who can “change his mind”, a god who is not concerned with man’s “sin”, a god who has made no provision for redeeming mankind, a god who cannot possibly bear a “son”, etc.

See: Sura 4:142; 3:54; 7:99; 8:30, 9:51; 10:21; 13:42, many others.

Allah is the author of sin/evil itself: “Verily Allah has fixed the very portion of adultery which a man will indulge in, and which he of NECESSITY MUST COMMIT.” Sahi Muslim #6421; 6422

There are countless more examples if one does the research. Obviously, a lot of the anons posting here simply don’t want to work that hard. Come out of the shadows, all ye anons who cast stones, and then contend for your faith as honest men, and women.


omots
 
As you folks read this, bear in mind that Javier Solana is now a member of the Brookings Institute and good buddies with Strobe Talbott.....which means that in terms of Javier Solana's so-called "retirement" there is "retired" and then there is RETIRED.

Reset Reloaded: The Second Phase of Obama's Russia Policy Should Now Have a Major European Component

October 14, 2010


INTRODUCTION

The Obama administration’s "reset" policy with Russia has been a diplomatic success. It has eased tensions with Moscow and helped the U.S. gain Russia’s cooperation on key priorities outside Europe, such as Afghanistan, Iran and nuclear non-proliferation. It is now time, however, for the reset to also have a major European component. After all, tensions stemming from developments in the European post-Soviet space — most notably the Russian-Georgian conflict of August 2008 — convinced the Obama administration that a reset with Moscow was needed in the first place to avoid a new era of confrontation. More broadly, Moscow’s dissatisfaction with the evolving post-Cold War European order is at the root of recent Western-Russian disagreements.

Phase II of the reset should involve European countries more fully in the West’s engagement of Russia. In fact, Washington should signal to its allies that closer substantive cooperation between Europe and Russia would lessen the U.S. imprint in the post-Soviet space and on European developments more broadly.

A new transatlantic agreement for Europe could define NATO’s remaining responsibilities while empowering leading European countries to engage Russia directly on the issues where the EU currently seems better positioned to attain progress. Moscow’s cooperation in such a second phase of the reset is far from assured, but the potential payoff would be nothing less than a new European order — a large part of the reset’s very rationale and arguably its best possible legacy.


http://www.brookings.edu/papers
/2010/
1014_europe_russia_alessandri.aspx

________________________________

See the following article about Solana's joining the Brookings Institute.

Javier Solana, Former NATO Secretary General and European Foreign Policy Chief, to Join Brookings as Distinguished Senior Fellow

http://www.brookings.edu/media/
NewsReleases/2010/0209_solana.aspx
________________________________

It is also to be noted that the former Soviet Union despised NATO and did everything in her power to undermine the NATO alliance.

The term "Nuclear winter" is said to have been a term invented by Soviet propagandists in order to discourage the Pershing missiles from being positioned in Europe.

It looks like the Russians had better luck preventing Obama from positioning missiles in Poland than the former USSR had in trying to persuade Ronald Reagan to deploy Pershing II missiles in West Germany.


RUSSIA SIMULATES NUCLEAR ATTACK ON POLAND

November 3, 2009

http://www.weeklystandard.com/
weblogs/TWSFP/2009/
11/russia_simulates_nuclear_attac.asp
 
Agie and others, you are misguided about Catholicism. This may be a lack of education on your part or it may be something more sinister.

The only thing I can think of that may help you is to listen to Peter Kreeft's lecture on C.S. Lewis's book "Mere Christianity." Lewis was a Protestant. Kreeft himself is a professor of philosophy who has written many books. He was raised as a Calvinist but he later converted to Catholicism. He knows all about both Protestantism and Catholicism, probably far more about both than either of you judging from your posts.

You can listen to the lecture for free at Peter kreeft's website and it lasts about an hour.
 
Anon 6:39 PM

Sorry, but it looks like you're the one who is 'misguided.'
 
6:44, well, if you want to disregard an intellectual giant like C.S. Lewis that's your perogative. Kreeft is also a very smart man who knows his Bible.

I have yet to hear of any first-rate Christian thinker who peddled anti-Catholicism as a key component of his writing. Do you know of any?
 
I don't promote Catholicism and I don't promote apostate protestantism.

And I don't promote anti-Semitism.
 
Agie95,

Maybe you should read the statements that you claim the Vatican is making for yourself. Instead of reading someone else's interpretations of it. There are enough judges in the U.S. who do this already. Stick to the actual text.

Savvy
 
To Anonymous (6:39 PM):

Yes, C. S. Lewis and Peter Kreeft are both highly regarded and well respected - not to mention fair and objective.
 
Agie and others, you are misguided about Catholicism. This may be a lack of education on your part or it may be something more sinister.


I was raised roman catholic by a mother who almost became a nun, she left before she took her final vows (mother superior CURSED her too upon leaving) I am totally informed and reject the lies and errors.
 
Anonymous 7:56 PM:

With all due respect, you are making the common mistake of blaming the Church for the behavior of its human (FALLIBLE) members. Or, more specifically, assuming the Church is false because the members are not living up to the beliefs of the Church. I guarantee that the official Church would never condone a mother superior cursing anyone.

Before condemning the Catholic Church, make sure you understand its teachings. But go to the source, not someone else's version of what it teaches. You owe it to yourself.
 
The Church of the Sacred Hologram
Oct 28, 2010 gizmodo.com

http://gizmodo.com/5652380/the-church-of-the-sacred-hologram

http://tinyurl.com/2w7uru5

~HM
 
To JOHN CLINGFORD and everybody else:

I believe there are two very false gospels circulating out there and I will no doubt offend everybody by this, but here goes again

1. BELIEVE ON THE LORD JESUS CHRIST AND BE A MEMBER OF THE ABC CHURCH AND THOU SHALT BE SAVED.
2. BELIEVE ON THE LORD JESUS CHRIST AND BE A MEMBER OF THE NBC CHURCH AND THOU SHALT BE SAVED.

ABC=ANYTHING BUT CATHOLIC
NBC=NOTHING BUT CATHOLIC

The GOSPEL is simple: BELIEVE ON THE LORD JESUS CHRIST AND THOU SHALT BE SAVED.

Besides that, I am well aware of the New Age game plan strategy which is to pit the target groups against each other. It worked in Mexico from 1926 to 1935; it worked in Europe in the 1930s and 1940s, and they hope to work it now in a worldwide campaign against "fundamentalism."

Also, I am well aware of the agenda of some prominent Catholic bashers (Dave Hunt) to steer people back to a most subtle form of New Age occultism packaged as William Law. William Law was the translator of Jacob Boehme's books into English. Jacob Boehme was Madame Blavatsky's inspiration for THEOSOPHY.

As John Wesley wrote to William Law, " you call it THEOSOPHY, I call it DEMONOSOPHY."

The test of antichrist was a denial that Jesus was the Christ and that Jesus Christ had come in the flesh. Some Catholics unfortunately meet that test, some Catholics do not. Catholic creeds as I understand them, AFFIRM that Jesus is the Christ and that he came in the flesh. New Age Catholics such as Matthew Fox (now excommunicated), Basil Pennington, Thomas Keating, Thomas Berry (recently dead) steer the Catholics away from those basics.

Some Protestants affirm those fundamentals. Some, unfortunately, do not.

In God we trust. All others pay cash.

Constance
 
God formed the Jewish religion and placed Aaron firmly at its head as its first leader. Aaron clearly was not perfect. Aaron built the golden calf and let the Israelites dance naked before it. Nevertheless, God admonished the Jews to stay together as a people and not build independent altars on every other hill.
 
Constance:

Thank you for your input, and you certainly haven't offended any of us Catholic regulars on this blog who believe in the traditional teachings of our church....that Jesus Christ came in the flesh and died for the sins of ALL mankind.
 
As someone who was brought up in a household that was half Catholic and half Protestant, I have as much reason as any to be confused about religion.At the age of 26, by the grace of God I met the Resurrected Saviour and He cleared up the whole mess for me. It's about a person not a religion.
The Catholic church can not save. the protestant churches can not save. Only Jesus saves.In these last days it's imperative to bow to Him and no man, be he catholic or protestant.
 
"And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall NOT prevail against it.

(Jesus created His Catholic Church and made Peter its first Pope in a long, UNBROKEN line of Popes.)

This is your proof that God ordained the Catholic church as THE church. Seriously? You people need to get overselves.
 
glennchristopherson 9:34,

I can relate. My family is also divided along Protestant and Catholic lines. Such division is historically and spiritually apparent in the tri-color national flag of Ireland:

"Officially the flag has no meaning in the Irish Constitution,[6] but a common interpretation is that the green represents the Irish nationalist [Catholic] tradition of Ireland and the orange represents the Orange [Protestant] tradition in Ireland, with white representing peace between them."

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Ireland

It would be more appropriate for the middle of that flag to be colored red as a symbol of all the blood that has been spilled by both sides, and in the name of Christ no less.

omots
 
Anon @9:57,

"This is your proof that God ordained the Catholic church as THE church. Seriously? You people need to get overselves."

There's a lot more proof. It's funny how people can just read history from the point when Protestants broke from the Catholic church, but not read anything before that like the Apostolic Fathers, the Early Church Fathers etc. Those eyewitnesses who knew many of the apostles and who eventually compiled the Bible.

I find it hard to believe that Holy Spirit went on a sabbatical for a centuries and and then came back with the Reformation. A lot of people say that there were Christian communities of Biblical followers etc, but nobody can come up with proof. If these communities existed, then why did they not leave any writings, any evidence.
 
God did not ordain the Catholic church "The" church. Nor did he anoint Peter as the leader. I believe Jesus Christ is the leader and the rock/corner stone ....Ephesians 2:20-22

having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord,
in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.

Matthew 16:18 does not say Peter is the rock. It says upon this rock and per Ephesians 2:20 Jesus is the corner stone...in other words the rock.

When was the Catholic church formed? Sometime during the 300's when Constanstine wanted to unite the Pagans and the Christians.

If Peter was the first pope then were Paul and the other Apostles his bishops.......I don't think so. Jesus never anointed Peter over the other Apostles. Paul had a lot to do with the early church. As early as 95 AD, God had a problem with the church who has lots of idols. They forgot their first love......
 
Constance,

Anonymous 8:57 PM is spot on.

I am Catholic and you certainly have not offended me with your statement.

Each of our communions has its fair share of apostates as well as its fair share of ignorant bigots -ours being people like the late Father Leonard Feeney who apparently enjoyed sending Protestants to hell almost as much as his Protestant counterparts ( i.e. Jimmy Swaggart) enjoy sending Catholics to hell.

I think that insofar as such apostates and bigots have wandered off the reservation by their apparent self-righteousness, their lack of charity and their malice, they may be safely ignored - other than to pray for them.

Because as I see it, anyone who would be so arrogant and self-righteous as to tell me that I am "going to hell" on account of my beliefs ( taught to me by my parents ) is already well on his way there himself and needs all the help he can get.

At the end of the day, we may disagree over our ecclesiology ( idea of "church"), Rule of Faith and certain aspects of theology, but when it comes to our Christology, we are in complete agreement.

It is my understanding that most Protestants as well as Roman Catholics embrace the Creed of Chalcedon.

CHALCEDONIAN CREED

We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.


http://carm.org/christianity/
creeds-and
-confessions/chalcedonian-creed-
451-ad
__________________________________

This is the Creed we Catholics recite each Sunday at Mass.

NICENE CREED

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, light from light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father;
through him all things were made.
Who for us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
was incarnate of the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered, died and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father [and the Son],
who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come.

http://www.creeds.net/ancient/
nicene.htm
_____________________________

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11049a.htm
 
Constance,

Anonymous 8:57 PM is spot on.

I am Catholic and you certainly have not offended me with your statement.

Each of our communions has its fair share of apostates as well as its fair share of ignorant bigots -ours being people like the late Father Leonard Feeney who apparently enjoyed sending Protestants to hell almost as much as his Protestant counterparts ( i.e. Jimmy Swaggart) enjoy sending Catholics to hell.

I think that insofar as such apostates and bigots have wandered off the reservation by their apparent self-righteousness, their lack of charity and their malice, they may be safely ignored - other than to pray for them.

Because as I see it, anyone who would be so arrogant and self-righteous as to tell me that I am "going to hell" on account of my beliefs ( taught to me by my parents ) is already well on his way there himself and needs all the help he can get.

At the end of the day, we may disagree over our ecclesiology ( idea of "church"), Rule of Faith and certain aspects of theology, but when it comes to our Christology, we are in complete agreement.

It is my understanding that most Protestants as well as Roman Catholics embrace the Creed of Chalcedon.

CHALCEDONIAN CREED

We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.


http://carm.org/christianity/
creeds-and
-confessions/chalcedonian-creed-
451-ad
__________________________________

This is the Creed we Catholics recite each Sunday at Mass.

NICENE CREED

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, light from light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father;
through him all things were made.
Who for us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
was incarnate of the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered, died and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father [and the Son],
who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come.

http://www.creeds.net/ancient/
nicene.htm
_____________________________

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11049a.htm
 
Agie...
Stop, for your own sake! You don't know what you are talking about. You are perpetuating error. Constantine did not found the Catholic Church - this is so easily disproven. Constantine didn't even become a Christian until he was an old man on his death bed. He simply changed the laws so that it was no longer illegal to be a Christian. So it is quite a stretch to say that he "founded the Catholic Church".
If you are interested in the truth, here is a good link:

http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/did_constantine_invent_catholicism.htm
 
Agie95,

You should read the writings of the early Christians. They all identified Peter as the Rock. Peter and Paul established the church at Rome.

http://www.churchfathers.org/
 
Constance,

Anonymous 8:57 PM is spot on.

I am Catholic and you certainly have not offended me with your statement.

Each of our communions has its fair share of apostates as well as its fair share of ignorant bigots -ours being people like the late Father Leonard Feeney who apparently enjoyed sending Protestants to hell almost as much as his Protestant counterparts ( i.e. Jimmy Swaggart) enjoy sending Catholics to hell.

I think that insofar as such apostates and bigots have wandered off the reservation by their apparent self-righteousness, their lack of charity and their malice, they may be safely ignored - other than to pray for them.

Because as I see it, anyone who would be so arrogant and self-righteous as to tell me that I am "going to hell" on account of my beliefs ( taught to me by my parents ) is already well on his way there himself and needs all the help he can get.

At the end of the day, we may disagree over our ecclesiology ( idea of "church"), Rule of Faith and certain aspects of theology, but when it comes to our Christology, we are in complete agreement.

It is my understanding that most Protestants as well as Roman Catholics embrace the Creed of Chalcedon.

CHALCEDONIAN CREED

We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.


http://carm.org/christianity/
creeds-and
-confessions/chalcedonian-creed-
451-ad
__________________________________

This is the Creed we Catholics recite each Sunday at Mass.

NICENE CREED

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, light from light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father;
through him all things were made.
Who for us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
was incarnate of the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered, died and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father [and the Son],
who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come.

http://www.creeds.net/ancient/
nicene.htm
_____________________________

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11049a.htm
 
Constance,

Anonymous 8:57 PM is spot on.

I am Catholic and you certainly have not offended me with your statement.

Each of our communions has its fair share of apostates as well as its fair share of ignorant bigots -ours being people like the late Father Leonard Feeney who apparently enjoyed sending Protestants to hell almost as much as his Protestant counterparts ( i.e. Jimmy Swaggart) enjoy sending Catholics to hell.

I think that insofar as such apostates and bigots have wandered off the reservation by their apparent self-righteousness, their lack of charity and their malice, they may be safely ignored - other than to pray for them.

Because as I see it, anyone who would be so arrogant and self-righteous as to tell me that I am "going to hell" on account of my beliefs ( taught to me by my parents ) is already well on his way there himself and needs all the help he can get.

At the end of the day, we may disagree over our ecclesiology ( idea of "church"), Rule of Faith and certain aspects of theology, but when it comes to our Christology, we are in complete agreement.

It is my understanding that most Protestants as well as Roman Catholics embrace the Creed of Chalcedon.

CHALCEDONIAN CREED

We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.


http://carm.org/christianity/
creeds-and
-confessions/chalcedonian-creed-
451-ad
__________________________________

This is the Creed we Catholics recite each Sunday at Mass.

NICENE CREED

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, light from light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father;
through him all things were made.
Who for us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
was incarnate of the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered, died and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father [and the Son],
who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come.

http://www.creeds.net/ancient/
nicene.htm
_____________________________

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11049a.htm
 
Anybody see any parallels between this and the Catholic Church:

"God formed the Jewish religion and placed Aaron firmly at its head as its first leader. Aaron clearly was not perfect. Aaron built the golden calf and let the Israelites dance naked before it. Nevertheless, God admonished the Jews to stay together as a people and not build independent altars on every other hill."

I do!
 
My mothers training... we moved a lot, so to prove we kids were ready for first confession and first communion and confirmation we were tested several times by several different dioceses.

We always scored the highest in the class stunning each nun who thought our "gypsy" lifestyle left us knowledge impoverished, when we informed them we were raised by an ex novice, they said ahh, that's why.

How is it now I am just taught wrong or stupid or sinister because I reject the errors of church?

Now who is bashing? I have real life experience and you just cant take that away, it does not disappear because it angers you ...
 
Anon 11:48

First of all, no one on this blog ever said that you were 'wrong or stupid or sinister' because you reject what you perceive as the 'errors' of the church.

And finally...why would anyone be 'angry' over your sad life experience?

Just stop trashing other people's RIGHT to continue to believe and practice their Catholic faith.

(If you made such good grades - as you claim - then, you should be SMART enough to figure that out.)
 
Anon 11:44 PM

No, but I definitely see parallels between your anti-Semetic and your anti-Catholic RANTS!!!
 
'Small, small, small' EU Treaty to deliver 'quantum leap'

For more...
http://euobserver.com/9/31163
 
NB.
I am about to answer Constance. Please note that my initial question was to Constance and to her only. I will not respond to any other person's comments because I asked her and her only the questions

Dear Constance

Part 1
Thankyou for replying. Seeings you have replied I will now respond to you and to you alone.

You said "The GOSPEL is simple: BELIEVE ON THE LORD JESUS CHRIST AND THOU SHALT BE SAVED."

Yes, I agree with you. However, consider the letter of Paul to the Galatians. He told them that they had fallen from grace. What did he mean? Well, they were following "another Jesus" a Jesus that included works. Ever since the time of Babylon a false pagan religion developed. You find it everywhere and it is all about the mother and the child and about the son dying and being reborn as the Sun. This is where the Sun God or Baal came from. These pagan religions spread this throughout the World.

This pagan religion was still rampant throughout the Roman Empire (at the time the letter was written to the Galatians. So the Babylonic religion (which depended upon works) together with Judaism which also depended upon works for salvation was already starting to infiltrate the church.
 
Part 2
This is why Paul mentioned they were following "another Jesus". Basically, they were being influenced to follow Jesus PLUS works and not relying on the unmerited favour (grace) of God. As Paul wrote in Eph 2 "you are saved by grace through faith, NOT of works".

So I agree that we are saved by faith in Jesus, but is it a faith from head knowledge or from the heart? James says "even the demons BELIEVE and shudder" So BELIEF in itself is no good unless it accompanies repentance and dependence on CHRIST ALONE (not JESUS PLUS) for salvation.

You said:
"Also, I am well aware of the agenda of some prominent Catholic bashers (Dave Hunt)"

Again here you go with this "Catholic Bashing tag" again, which is. What about the bashing I have received on this thread from Catholics? As far as I understand it, bashing means to "seek to criticise a faith just for the fun of it and for no constructive reason, only destructive".

Actually, what people like Dave Hunt and myself do is simply to inform and warn of the dangers of false faith for the purpose of saving people from hell. We are not criticising you just for the love of it.

We have been instructed within the scriptures to expose falsehood. Many of us have thoroughly examined the Catholic faith and its history, so we know what we are talking about.

The true born-again believer will speak from a heart of compassion and love, trying to be tender and gentle in our approach. (I know that many on this site do not speak in such ways, but the true believer - who has the Holy Spirit, will speak in this manner).

We are simply trying to "lovingly" but firmly, warn against unscriptural faith or faith that is based on twisting the scriptures or taking verses way out of context. It is not our intention to be Catholic Bashers but simply exhorting ALL people to trust in the BIBLICAL Jesus.

God bless
 
Jesus asked "who do men say that I am?" ...... Peter replied "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" ...... "Jesus said "flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father who is in Heaven" .......

"and upon this rock, I will build the church"

The last time a rock was mentioned by Jesus was in Matthew 7. Jesus said "the wise man built his house upon the rock". What was the rock? Jesus said the rock was His teachings and that a wise person would build their life upon His teachings.

In the same way, Jesus is referring to Peter's faith in Jesus as being the rock that builds the church. The faith that comes from the Father, a revelation that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

It is that faith and obedience to that faith (ie following the teachings of Jesus) that is the rock. It is NOT Peter but his faith!!! John says "but to all who received Him (Jesus) He gave power to become children of God"

It does not say that those who come under Peter's authority become children of God but those who follow Jesus.

Where does the Bible mention Peter as the first Pope? He was one of 12 Apostles. He was the main speaker of the 12 before Paul came on the scene, but then took a backseat to Paul afterwards. In fact Paul had to tell Peter off for his hypocrisy.

Where does it mention in the Bible "the Catholic church". It doesn't!

I exhort everybody to start reading the scriptures with "non denominational" glasses and let it speak to your heart and mind without biasses, rather than following the traditional teachings of an organisation or men.

Jesus told the religious Jewish leaders that they had made null and void the Word of God because of their traditions (their Oral Law) which was NOT handed down by God and was NOT the inspired Word of God.
 
By the way, you cannot completely rely on the church Fathers who knew the apostles. Look at this evidence from the BIBLE:

Acts 20:29-31

"I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears."

Notice these words EVEN FROM YOUR OWN NUMBER MEN WILL ARISE AND DISTORT THE TRUTH.

Quite honestly, no-one should trust the mere words of men or the church traditions if it is doesn't match the clear teachings of the inspired Word of God.

It is clear that these men did come in and mess up the church. Just read the letters to the churches in the Book of Revelation and also (later within Revelation) the description that a whore or apostate church would arise.
 
We have been instructed within the scriptures to expose falsehood. Many of us have thoroughly examined the Catholic faith and its history, so we know what we are talking about.

John Chingford,

Are you saying here that your interpretation of scriptures is superior to that of Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)?

If so, what is your basis for making this claim?
 
It's time to call a common bluff of the globalists. They often use the phrase "International law". There is no such thing. A legal syatem has to have a meaningful means of enforcement - that is, by the police of each nation. "International law" is an oxymoron. There are only international treaties.
 
Thomas Aquinas believed that heretics - meaning those who dissent from Rome's understanding of the scriptures - should be burned (Summa Theologiae, II-II, Q.11, art.3.). I don't. Go to the New Testament and see if you think my interpetation is better than his.
 
JohnChingford

Not bashing you or anything but in your last post you say that you're only answering Constance....then you go back and try to answer every argument on the thread. Little of it had anything to do with Constance's reply to your original post.

It looks to me like you're enjoying the fight more than you're interested in expressing your concerns to Constance. Perhaps you should put the bottle down and clear your head before attempting to represent us protestants? Just sayin'.
 
Hi Steve

yes you are right. The first two comments were for Constance. After I said this, I had a real conviction in my heart that God wanted me to share the last 2 comments. Although Constance did not mention these things direct, she has (in the past) supported the doctrines of Catholics regarding the things I addressed.

Because that reply to Constance was going to be the last thing I ever said on this blog, I believede God wanted to address those issues before I left. It was to be my last comment. I wasn't going to (and will not) answer anybody's rantings, but seeings you asked so nicely, I have answered you, personally.

If Constance replies to my 1st 2 comments, I may respond further, but only to her.

I hope you can understand why there is little point in answering bad mouthed and bad tempered comments. As i said earlier because "our pearls would be trodden on and we would be attacked"
 
Hi Steve again

I mistyped in my last comment, so want to correct it'

I wrote "Because that reply to Constance was going to be the last thing I ever said on this blog, I believede God wanted to address those issues before I left."

That should have read "Because my reply to Constance was going to be the last thing I ever said on this blog (the 1st 2 comments), I believe God also wanted me to address those issues (last 2 comments) before I left"

By the way, I am not writing those things "because I enjoy the fight" because I (of myself)am NOT interested in a fight and hate fights. What I am presenting is not a fight but trying to speak words in a spirit of love.

If I have a conviction from the Holy Spirit to "speak the truth in love" or to expose false teaching, then I must be obedient to my calling but (as Jesus told us) NOT before those who are only interested in attacking us and who are not prepared to listen with an open and sincere heart.
 
Anon 7:11

Martin Luther hated Jews and believed they should be persecuted. He even wrote a book to this effect after he broke with Rome. Can this be supported in scripture?
 
To Anon0845: This is Anon0711 replying. What makes you think I agree with Martin Luther over that? I don't.

NB Luther, after breaking from Rome, initially believed that the Jews would come flocking to Christ when the authentic gospel was preached to them, but they didn't and sadly he became embittered toward them.
 
Anon 8:53,

You seem to be arguing that because Thomas Aquinas was wrong about one thing (call it "A") that he was also wrong about the Catholic Church (call it "B"). If you are going to be consistent you have to apply that same exact standard to all other theologians.

Ergo, applying that same rule to Luther, since Luther was wrong about the Jews (call that "C") he must also have therefore been wrong about the Catholic Church ("B").

Since both Luther and Thomas Aquinas cannot simultaneously be wrong about the Catholic Church without violating Aristotles law of contradiction, we can conclude that one of them, either Luther or Aquinas, was right. As shown above, however, you have done nothing to support your claim that Aquinas was wrong.

So once again, what is your basis for your claim that your interpretation of scripture is correct and Thomas Aquinas's was wrong?
 
Anon0919: This is Anon0711/0853. Please don't put words into my mouth. It's perfectly possible that on some issues they were both wrong! BTW 0711 was my first contribution to this thread. My points are (1) anybody is free to query Aquinas (or Luther, or any other Christian) on the basis of scripture; and (2) if somebody says "I agree/disagree with Aquinas/Luther" then it is necessary to specify what you agree/disagree about before going any further.
 
9:36 Anon,

What is your basis for claiming that scripture is the sole authority for truth, including Christian doctrine?

Where did authority for Christian doctrine reside before the books of the Bible were compiled?
 
Anti-Semites and Catholics....strange bedfellows
 
To Anon0943: Where did I say that? I am making here only the slightly weaker statement of faith that scripture is God's word and that anything contradictory to it is wrong. If you want to know where authority lies, see Matthew 28:18.

All who believe in Jesus Christ of Nazareth as the only son of the only creator are my brothers and sisters, regardless of denomination.

Anon0711/0853/0936
 
Sorry but I can't help myself. I just have to answer that last question as it is the whole crux of the matter. Historical Protestantism claims that the Bible is God's final authority but other religions (including Catholics) deny that the Bible is God's final authority and often replace its teachings with different teachings.

I wrote an article (after a lot of hard work and research) into the proving the authority of the scriptures.

This was my article on: http://watchmanforjesus.blogspot.com/2010/09/proving-why-bible-is-inspired-inerrant.html
entitled "How The Bible Was Put Together and Proving Why It IS The Inspired Inerrant Word Of God"

This will answer that whole question.

But (for now) just a few brief evidences. 2Tim 3:15-17

"and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

Throughout the scriptures there are serious warnings to those who add to or take away from the scriptures". If you do not believe me, do a search on a Bible site and do a search on "do not add to".

Then Jesus said "my words will never pass away". He often referred to the Books of scripture in His quotations and teachings. So did the Apostles. Jesus was telling us that the Scriptures were the ALL authoritative guide for doctrine, as it says in the quote I gave in Timothy.
 
Anon 9:55,

Matthew 28:18 gives authority to Jesus Christ, not to a book. When Jesus uttered those words the New Testament did not even exist.

Where did Christians who were alive before the books of the Bible were compiled derive their authority on doctrine?

Jesus did not leave us a Bible, he left us a Church. See Matthew 16:19 and Matthew 18:18.
 
John Chingford,

Reasonable minds disagree with your interpretations of the Bible and salvation history. I know you are convinced in your heart that you are "right" and have a direct line to Jesus and that Catholics are "in error" and you will probably go to your grave thinking that. In fact you feel so strongly about it you criticize Cumbey for failing to share your opinions.

Other people who have studied the issue disagree with you:

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/

Keep preaching to the choir.
 
John Chingford, that quote from Timothy does not say what you claim it says. Please find a quote on the Bible that says that scripture is self-interpreting and the sole source of doctrine.

Hint: You can't because it's not in there.
 
Anon1015: The early church had the task of deciding what was scripture. Orthodox, Roman Catholics and protestants are in agreement (thank God) over what comprises the New Testament, and that the scriptures are authoritative. I didn't come here to discuss the authority of anything else.

Anon0711/0853/0936/0955
 
Let's get down to bottom line thinking here to make the discussion productive.

First of all you have to have faith that there is God, otherwise all of this is just squabbling about the moral systems possible.

Second, you have to accept that God provided a system of things to believe that would help guide individuals and communities throughout time and place in the world. How he did that is subject to dispute. Who did the best job of analyzing and carrying forward through time those moral standards.

Third, it is important to see what are the basic things being taught about the standards by which to live. Is there any agreement about this by all posting here?

Fourth, putting aside all minor squabbling how does this discussion affect discussion about the New Age movement which is what this blog is about?

MORALITY is the important topic. The New Age leadership wants to make the government the determiner of what standards the community is to live by. Are you noticing how the changeover is taking place? Do you see how under communism or Nazism the government determined what was moral behavior for those who lived under those systems? Look for other examples through history. All are in opposition to the standards set by Judaism and Christianity and the main supporters of these religions.

While I'm irritating readers here, I might as well go all the way. Did Jesus promote standards by which to live? I think so. Was that why the new books of the Bible continue to resonate among readers? I think so. Jesus was not a cult leader, someone to be put on a pedestal or whose picture was hung on a wall. He reinforced the standards of Judaism. Where he differed can be attributed to his followers and their writings. He did not say pagan or occult practices were just fine. He did not say adultery was acceptable or that coveting was a good business practice.

When all of the squabbling is done, what do you see as the standards by which you are to live and what are the standards of your community which you are to support? Those are the only things of importance if you are going to fight the government takeover of determining what is moral. Remember, morality is not the same as spirituality.

Dorothy
 
John Chingford:

1. There truly were no leather bound New Testaments dropping from the sky immediately after the resurrection.
2. Christianity truly has prospered in times of limited literacy.
3. Very few early Christians could have afforded the cost of a complete Bible in times when they had to be transcribed.
4. It is quite possible to be a good Christian with limited Bible knowledge.

And the "protest-ant" faith did not exist until the 1500s. And the founder of the protest-ant faith (whichever division you are a part of), Luther, actually did "add to" and "took away from" the Bible. Hmmm...does the term "false prophet" come to mind? How can the fruits of that be good? Especially seeing how within the protest-ant faith there is no Truth - only each individual interpretation of it. Man as god, making God in his own image...
 
Anon. 9:55,
How can you say, as a protestant, that anything contradictory to scripture is wrong when protestants have no final authority and cannot agree as to what scripture even says?
 
Totally agree Dorothy, God judges non-covenant nations not by their spirituality but by their morality. That is explicit in Proverbs 14:34. A study by JD Unwin ("Sex and Culture", 1934) found that without exception nations whose sexual morality conformed closely to biblical standards (even if they had never heard of Jehovah or Jesus) rose in influence, whereas nations that went promiscuous fell within 2-3 generations at most. Unwin is secular (which actually increases the force of these facts); he had a strange Freudian explanation, but he separated his observations from his ideas and Christians are free to propose alternative explanations - in heaven, divine judgement; on earth, the fact that morality and commitment are learned most deeply in the family, so that if the family goes to pieces then so does morality generally (including business) and so then does society. The West is, unhappily, in serious trouble.
 
The absurdity that is Protestantism has helped to spawn all of the other absurdities of the world in which we live in this anti-Incarnational era of Modernity. Most men live their lives in the mistaken, heretical belief that it is possible to know personal and social order without subordinating every single aspect of their lives at all times in all circumstances and in all places to the Deposit of Faith that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ has entrusted exclusively to the Catholic Church that He founded upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope, for its eternal safekeeping and infallible explication. This leads to many things, including to the deification of man as a result of the dethronement of the Social Reign Christ the King. Protestantism is the basis only for the continued degeneration of men and their societies over the course of time, having begun as a diabolically-inspired revolution against the Divine Plan that Our Lord Himself had instituted to effect man's return to Him through the magisterial authority and sanctifying offices of His Catholic Church.
 
Man is rootless once he "frees" himself from the authority of the Catholic Church. Protestantism convinces man that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ did not found a visible, hierarchical society to teach, to govern and to sanctify all men on the face of this earth until He comes in glory on the Last Day to judge the living and the dead. Each man, therefore, is his own "pope" or "popessa," free to interpret Sacred Scripture, which is seen as the only source of Divine Revelation (Apostolic or Sacred Tradition being thus rejected as it needs the authority of a visible hierarchy to pronounce and explicate), leading quite inevitably to mutually contradictory conclusions as to the meaning of various passages, which is why there are today over 33,000 different Protestant sects, most of them right here in the United States of America. One who believes this framework of lies will come to believe that he is "saved' by making his "profession of faith" in the Name of the Lord or that the fact of his predestination to Heaven is proved by his worldly success. The Lutheran strain of Protestantism is founded on the sin of Presumption; the Calvinist strain is founded on the belief that material success is a sign of divine election. Both lead to the ruin of men and their societies.
 
"Obey your superiors and be subject to them, for they keep watch as having to render an account of your souls; so that they may do this with joy, and not with grief, for that would not be expedient for you."
Hebrews 13:17

Martin Luther, the originator of the false man-made doctrine of Sola Scriptura and its accompanying individual interpretation of Holy Scripture, obviously avoided that verse, and many others as well. Sola Scriptura, or Bible only, means, "if it is not in the Bible, I will not believe it".
I have just shown that, even if it is in the Bible, some will not believe it if they choose not to.
I will show many more verses as examples of Scripture ignored by non-Catholics in this text.

Martin Luther was definitely disobedient to his superiors, the authority of the Catholic Church, of which he was a member. Show me from where Luther's self proclaimed authority came?
He was an Augustinian monk, and was not a Bishop. He had no authority at all. He blatantly ignored more verses from Scripture which plainly tell us wherein the final authority lies, and it did not lie with himself, but with his opposition, the Catholic Church.
"If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector."
Matthew 18:15-17,
Clearly, this is GOD given authority to His Church, from words spoken by Jesus Christ Himself.
These verses were clearly ignored by Martin Luther.
 
Anon1158: Your question to me contains false premises. Protestants are among those who believe in Jesus Christ - who said that he had been given all authority in heaven and on earth (Matt 28:18). Protestants do therefore accept a final authority. I do not understand your assertion that protestants "cannot agree as to what scripture... says". The text of the New Testament is in doubt only to about 1% and most of the variants are over single words like "if" and "but".

Anon0955
 
to anon 12:14
if that is what you think, then you haven't spoken much with your fellow protestants!
 
Anon 12:14

You are ignoring the data. If Protestants were in agreement with nearly everything in the Bible as you claim, there would be one single Protestant denomination or, at the most, 2 or 3 different ones.

In fact there are over 30,000 Protestant denominations, many of which were created after splitting off from an existing Protestant denomination over dotrinical differences.

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a106.htm
 
Anon1220: You write: "If Protestants were in agreement with nearly everything in the Bible as you claim, there would be one single Protestant denomination or, at the most, 2 or 3 different ones. In fact there are over 30,000Protestant denominations..."

Actually I want not one protestant denomination, nor 30,000, but zero. A denomination is defined via a hierarchy, but is a hierarchical church model what we find in the New Testament? The original church was modelled on the synagogue rather than the Temple. Believers in each town would congregate for teaching, worship and prayer. Under persecution, they would typically meet in housegroups. They were led by a council of male presbyteroi (elders) or episkopoi (overseers, the scriptural meaning of ‘bishop’), raised from among themselves and generally married men with family. These Greek words respectively denote maturity and function within the congregation, and refer to the same people (as at Acts 20:17 & 20:28; Titus 1:5 & 1:7; 1 Peter 5:1 & 5:2). Plurals in James 5:14 and Acts 14:23 & 20:17 imply there were several in a congregation. They were backed up by diakonoi (‘deacons’ – servants). A congregation’s founder (an apostolos – a ‘church planter’ in today’s language) might retain authority, but once a congregation was reasonably mature his role was to start congregations elsewhere, and he would soon anyway have passed away to glory. Every Christian is a priest (1 Peter 2:9; Rev 1:6), somebody who represents God. None of the New Testament letters is to ‘the priest’ (or lone pastor) of a congregation.

Central direction of the church comes from heaven (Ephesians 1:22). In Jesus’ forthright letters to seven congregations in Asia Minor (Rev 2&3), Jesus takes personal responsibility for congregational oversight. He does not criticise their mutual independence or order a diocesan merger.

The greatest impediment to church unity - far greater than theological differences - is the existence of competing hierarchies, each claiming to be the one true church. Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican, Methodist and - you are right about this - dozens more. Had the church adhered to its early structure simply of a ccongregation in each town as described in the New Testament, with no hierarchy above that, there could have been no issue of church disunity. Tell me how someone who reads the Bible and becomes interested in Christ can decide between rival hierarchies except by comparing them against the one thing they all agree on, ie the New Testament?

Please note that I have not asserted sola scriptura. I have argued from scripture above simply because it is the one thing all Christians agree is authoritative.

Anon1214
 
Anon @12:45,

You can compare competing claims made by different groups using the NT, but it still won't solve the Problem, because a book cannot prove a book.

There are divisions because one person picks up the Bible and says this is my interpretation and fights with another. Who is to test whose interpretation is the right one? You need an objective body. Don't tell me the Holy Spirit, because all Protestants claim to have the Holy Spirit.

My point is that this is the reason why Protestanism is not going to last. A house divided against itself cannot stand.

I am not hoping or wishing for your fall, but just making a self- evident observation.
 
Anonymous at 12:05
Thanks for understanding what I've tried to get through to readers here.

Judaism didn't break up into so many splinter groups over thousands of years. Only about 200 years ago under planned destruction of Judaism did the different movements come about. Catholicism has held together which is why it is so targeted by the New Age leadership.

The Protestant Christian community was easily co-opted by the Nazi movement because it was so fragmented. Nothing was holding it together. The same thing is happening now. There is no core of beliefs in the Protestant community. The Protestant community is ego driven rather than morally driven.

Dorothy
 
Anon1.03pm: But it's a book recording the words of Jesus Christ. That's good enough for me, and I trust the fidelity of the men who wrote those words down.

"There are divisions because one person picks up the Bible and says this is my interpretation and fights with another. Who is to test whose interpretation is the right one?"

Brother, that goes on inside Roman Catholic Bible study groups too, albeit over issues too minor for the Vatican to pronounce on. It's a healthy process - "iron sharpening iron" as Proverbs puts it. It becomes unhealthy only when the greater unity in Christ is lost sight of.

"My point is that this is the reason why Protestantism is not going to last. A house divided against itself cannot stand."

I'm obviously not going to dispute (against Our Lord's words) that a house divided cannot stand! But to apply this to 'protestantism' is to miss my point about division and hierarchies. Moreover, we need to define terms. "Roman Catholic" is unambiguous, but "Protestant"? There is a burgeoning house group movement today in China that is essentially indigenous. It's not Roman Catholic (or Orthodox) but I wouldn't describe it as protestant either. Certainly they do not think of themselves as such. I gladly regard them as my brethren in Christ (and I hope you do too).

Anon1249
 
TO JOHN CLINGFORD:

I believe you may be sincere, but if you think DAVE HUNT has no other agenda, then I suggest you read prayfully these three books by him:

1. CONFESSIONS OF A HERETIC (Norman Grubb was his publisher)
2. THE POWER OF THE SPIRIT ("by William Law with Dave Hunt")
2. WHATEVER HAPPENED TO HEAVEN (wherein Dave has hell disappear as a real physical spirit and claims the angels are mere "disembodied entities")

Look at those, and then, let's talk! Don't feel bad, he took me in for a long time, too!

CONSTANCE
 
AND FURTHER to JOHN CLINGFORD: For all of Dave's own 'Catholic bashing', the New Age Catholics love him. Exhibit A: THE CLASSICS OF WESTERN SPIRITUALITY book on WILLIAM LAW. Brother David Steindl-Rast is on its board of advisors along with other prominent esotericists. They endorse Dave's book. That book by Dave is a clear attack on those who read the Bible literally and use it as their standard. (Referring to THE POWER OF THE SPIRIT which features a clear 'cross of light' with a 'solar disk' in its center and furthermore, a dot in the O of power, a clear occult symbol!).

I truly believe Dave's role was to confine the damage by diverting the argument on the New Age Movement to mental health issues (Dave went out and repeatedly made statements such as "There is no such thing as mental illness . . .")

Then his books doubled people back to William Law. William Law was far too subtle for most Christians to catch on to, but it flew a huge flag to the New Agers that Dave was "cool" and I was not.

Constance
 
It will come as a complete shock to misinformed Protestants on this board, but the Catholics have far more complete bible readings than experienced in practically any Protestant sect. Each and every day, three scripture readings take place in Catholic services, the same ones world wide. The Scripture, a psalm, and then a passage from one of the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and/or John). On Sundays there are two passages from Scriptures, a psalm, and the gospel passage. The priest is SUPPOSED to base his homily on the scriptures for that day. It is structured so that if anybody goes to church every day, they will hear the entire word proclaimed in 3 years and if they can only go on Sundays, it will take 7 years.

Top that, you Protestants!
 
Further for JOHN CLINGFORD,

I will go so far as to say that Dave Hunt/William Law book THE POWER OF THE SPIRIT is the "initiation" (possession) described by Djwhal Khul/Alice Bailey as "Christ being born in the cave of the heart."

Constance
 
Brother, that goes on inside Roman Catholic Bible study groups too, albeit over issues too minor for the Vatican to pronounce on. It's a healthy process - "iron sharpening iron" as Proverbs puts it. It becomes unhealthy only when the greater unity in Christ is lost sight of.

Catholics are free to come to their own conclusions on matters about which the Magisterium has not pronounced, but if these discussions cross over into apostasy then the beliefs are exactly that, apostate. In Catholicism it is the Magisterium that determines what is correct doctrine not the individual moved by the Holy Spirit. Protestants have no such central authority which is why there are thousands of denominations teaching contradictory doctrines.

If Catholicism disappeared and was replaced by thousands of autonomous churches all teaching from the Bible without a central authority, heresy would flourish and Christianity as we know it disappear from the earth. If you dont believe me look at how Rome spent hundreds of years rooting out heresies, long before Martin Luther and John Calvin came on the scene.
 
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/
 
http://www.rc.net/wcc/readings/index.html
 
Protestant "Popes"

Billy Graham
Pat Robertson
Rick Warren
Ted Haggard
Richard Cizik
Every Baptist Preacher teaching submission to "the autonomy of the local church"

FOR GOD IS NOT THE AUTHOR OF CONFUSION
 
Anon2:11pm: I have good friends who are Catholics and I am familiar with Roman Catholic doctrine.

"Protestants have no such central authority which is why there are thousands of denominations teaching contradictory doctrines."

Brother, I don't want thousands of hierarchies, I don't want two hierarchies, Catholic and Protestant, I don't want one hierarchy if unification ever comes about (on either's terms), I want NO hierarchies. That is how the New Testament church was organised, as I detailed at 12:49.

"If Catholicism disappeared and was replaced by thousands of autonomous churches all teaching from the Bible without a central authority, heresy would flourish and Christianity as we know it disappear from the earth."

Er... it was a non-hierarchical church that WON the spiritual battle against the paganism of ancient Rome. When Julian the Apostate re-opened the pagan temples late in the 4th century, no-one came. Hierarchy really got going soon after that.

A question for you: How could someone who finds himself attracted to Christ today decide whether to join the Orthodox church or the Roman Catholic church?

Anon12:49/1:44pm
 
http://www.usccb.org/nab/
 
Catholics for clearing record is right. Except, those guys don't wear the funny hats. And my pope is Justin Bieber.
 
Anon @2:33 p.m.


"Er... it was a non-hierarchical church that WON the spiritual battle against the paganism of ancient Rome. When Julian the Apostate re-opened the pagan temples late in the 4th century, no-one came. Hierarchy really got going soon after that."

The Question is how do you know this? Do you have the writings to prove this? The early church fathers would disagree with you, because they clearly had a church with Apostolic succession.


"A question for you: How could someone who finds himself attracted to Christ today decide whether to join the Orthodox church or the Roman Catholic church?"

This is an interesting question. There are currently no theological differences between the two churches. The only obstacle that remains is the question of the primacy of Peter. The debate is whether Peter had jurisdiction over the universal church or just the Western church. The Orthodox don't disagree that Peter was in charge of the Western church. They are not sure if his role applies to the universal church.

This is on-going. Studying the church fathers and documents of this time is going to be crucial to deciding this. On the other hand Catholics are permitted to receive the sacraments in an Orthodox church because they have all 7 of them and they are fully valid.

The same is true the other way, but in I would add that the Orthodox tend to be a bit more nationalistic, which makes it harder for people looking for the word Universal to fit in.
 
Part 1
re Anon 11.55 who said
"There truly were no leather bound New Testaments dropping from the sky immediately after the resurrection."

I will again quote from 2 Tim 3:15

"and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus".

Clearly they DID have scriptures in the early days of the church. It was not the complete Bible and was probably mostly the Old testament, but these were sufficient to point To the Truth of Jesus and the kingdom of God.

To clarify: Paul wrote in 2 Corinthians 12:1-4

"I will go on to visions and revelations from the Lord. I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know—God knows. And I know that this man—whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows— was caught up to paradise."

Notice it says 14 years ago.

Compare that to Galatians 1:11-12

"I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ."

then continues Galatians 1:16-18

"I did not consult any man, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus.

Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter"

"Fourteen years later I went up again to Jerusalem" Gal 2:1

Paul knew the Old Testament scriptures extremely well, having sat under the discipleship of the rabbi Gamaliel. He then had an encounter with Christ on the road to Damascus.

He realised that his preconditioned ideas about the Messiah and Judaism and his interpretations were wrong. He went into the desert over a period of 3 years to be taught by God.

During that time he experienced revelations from God concerning the Truth. This would have included how the OT scriptures spoke about Jesus and God's coming Kingdom.

It was shortly after this that he starting preaching and teaching about the Kingdom.

So to say that you cannot rely on the scriptures because they didn't have the NT to instruct them denies what Paul told us and what was said to Timothy that the OT was sufficient to lead people to Jesus.

I am simply stating what it says - it is not an interpretation because you have it in black and white.
 
Part 2 re second question:

I would also like to clear up another error of thought. It was said that because the Catholic Institution has stayed together it proves that they are the true faith.

Jesus said "wide is the way that leads to destruction and many are on that road, but narrow is the path that leads to life and few there are that find it.

The True way is narrow. Not many find it, it is not an enormous united organisation but only a small group of born-again believers.

When I say small - it is small in comparison with the rest of the World. We are living in days when (as you say and I agree) the evangelical and protestant church has also become apostate. There are few remaining who hold to Biblical truth without compromising with the world or compromising with other faiths in a false unity.

If you say that staying together proves truth, what about Islam? They have few denominations - does that mean they are also the true faith? True unity comes from being truly "born-again" not in word but in reality. It is Jesus living in us that motivates our hearts to love each other.

So, true believers do not consider themselves of a particular denomination but consider themselves as co Bible believers who follow Jesus and hold to the truth of the scriptures. With these type of believers, minor disagreements over interpretations do not divide us.

In summing up, Jude tells us to "contend for the faith, once delivered down to us". This faith he is referring to, is the faith that the Apostles explained to us through their letters which became part of the inspired scriptures.
 
Anon 6:10pm:

I wrote:
It was a non-hierarchical church that WON the spiritual battle against the paganism of ancient Rome. When Julian the Apostate re-opened the pagan temples late in the 4th century, no-one came. Hierarchy really got going soon after that.

You replied:
The Question is how do you know this? Do you have the writings to prove this?

Yes, this is a matter of historical record. Please look up any academically rigorous and well referenced history of the early church and you will find these facts set out regardless of whether the writer is protestant, Catholic or Orthodox.

You wrote:
The early church fathers would disagree with you, because they clearly had a church with Apostolic succession.

Not so! The apostolic succession refers to an unbroken succession of episkopoi, the word translated as 'bishop'. But this word has changed in meaning. In the New Testament church there were many episkopoi per congregation (see scripture refs in my post of 12:49), a couple of generations later there was one episkopos per town/congregation, and several centuries after that there were many congregations under one episkopos. So the notion of the apostolic succession is more complex than at first sight. I wonder by what authority those changes were made from the way the church was set up in the apostolic era. (Incidentally it is enough for me that I picked up the faith from somebody who picked up the faith from... from one of the 12 apostles, from Jesus Christ himself.)

I wrote:
How could someone who finds himself attracted to Christ today decide whether to join the Orthodox church or the Roman Catholic church?"

You replied:
This is an interesting question. There are currently no theological differences between the two churches.

The filioque clause in the creed, which was the precipitating factor in the schism of 1054, remains a key point of contention. Rome would have to renounce its claim that it is incapable of making errors in its formal teaching as a precondition for meaningful talks. Some of the post-schism Catholic Marian doctrines, and of course papal infallibility, are not accepted by the Orthodox.

I'm happy to chat but you haven't proposed any answer my question. A man comes to you and to an Orthodox Christian and says that he is interested in converting but wants the right church. What do you say?

Anon12:49/1:44pm/2:33pm
 
Constance

I cannot comment re David Hunt as I don't know him personally and have only heard one of his audios. That audio didn't sound like Catholic Bashing, but maybe you have heard something I have not heard.

The point I was making is that just because some protestants behave as if they are not saved, does not make us all "Catholic Bashers". If we (out of a genuine and compassionate heart, wanting everybody to be saved)) highlight error or heresy in the Catholic traditions, does not make us "bashers".

I think using that term reveals an antagonistic attitude towards us.
 
If you're not a basher, then what are you, John? I agree though. Behind that kindness routine of the Pope, is a man with a diabolical plot. Scarier than Halloween. Everyone hide!
 
I'm not a Catholic basher. I'm a monster masher.
 
Sodomites call anyone who exposes their sick acts BASHERS.

This is how Catholics act, like angry sodomites ... hmmm
 
Don't much like Catholics who fundamentalist Protestant bash either. Let's leave the judging to God!

Constance
 
This has been at times a truly excellent site for learning of the new age super-structure that the end times are to be framed within , Solana happenings, World Religion mechanisms, and the mechanics of world government integration. Constance periodically has pulled together a picture many of us at one time very fairly blind to. However for the last couple of months this bickering between Jews, Catholics and Christians has been a rather boring distraction to many of us. Sorry there are bigger fish to fry here. Other sites are fore these sectarian things. Give it a rest.

We do not want to lose readers that very much need to see these end time perspectives but who will not wade through religion bashing. GROW UP. Most of us know who we are and what we believe. More importantly now we see that all those who believe in the Scriptural description of the end times are looking at "current event" and realizing, hey it's happening NOW. God will sort us out in heaven. Right now we need to pull together and continue to scope the horizon. Our families and friends may need to hear and know what we can pull together. If you love the Lord, we are not enemies, but comrades in arms. Keep the focus. - Nkosazana
 
In reading quickly through this thread, it appears catholics defend their "faith" by the sumations of "reasonable minds","respected authors",and the annointed of this world. The true faithfilled on this thread, have defended the faith,"by the Word".Perhaps there are so many denominations in the "protestant faith" because the enemy of our souls, seeks so hard to destroy truth? I stand on that truth. No volume of defending this new age catholic faith by Constance can disuade me. She has her education in the law tatooed on her soul, and can only display herself leavened. She has her paycheck from this system! Dorothy has so well consumated the essense of her soul in her third paragraph, begining with the word "second". I hope Dorothy enjoys great warmth, and will be so inclusive, to warm up to "new agers" for the long haul?
 
Anonymous 9:09
I have no idea what you are trying to say. Please translate your ideas into clear English.

Dorothy
 
To 9:09

WHAT PAYCHECK????!!!! Just about anybody posting here could probably buy and sell me in terms of earthly wealth.

I'm happy God is my judge and not uninformed you.

I agree with the poster who said that this Catholic Protestant bickering is a tremendous distraction from our real work on this blog.

Constance
 
I do believe 7:27 miserably failed that college class in logic!
 
From USA Today...

Electromagnetic Pulse Impact Far and Wide

http://tinyurl.com/264jv6y
 
Anon @ 6:41.

Please read the early church fathers and then get back to your arguments. You say that Christians had the Old testament, fair enough, but you should know as Dorothy will explain to you that the Jewish Torah is not the Christian Old Testament. There was no compiled Old testament with the right order or the right books at the time, so Paul could not have got them from the local store. It was the Catholic Church that compiled the Christian Bible both Old and New.

I can give you a timeline if you want.

As for the arguments on filioque, you can read this.

http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/orthodox/catholic_orthodox_filioque_father_son.htm

Yes, not all Orthodox churches accept some Marian doctrines. Some do. That is why I put the emphasis on them being more national churches.


If a Christian asked me which church was the right one, I would tell them to study and pray. I would tell them to read the fathers too, along with scripture, and let God do the rest.
 
I will add that I do not personally care if someone is Protestant, but if they start to attack Catholic teachings, then I will defend my church.
 
Constance is rich ...

wow is she ever loaded compared to me, i cant even afford glasses :(
or to have my broken teeth pulled out let alone partials ...

she has fancier clothes, can afford makeup, and i bet she even has some health insurance

she owns a house~!

what do ya mean we could buy and sell you? speak for your self ...lulz
 
Time out.

Anon 2:49 PM wrote:

“Muslims do, indeed, worship the same God- the God of Abraham”

and

“Different faiths… worship the same God.”

I tried to post a response to this new age lie earlier, but got the URL too long error again, so here’s my second attempt- I'll keep it shorter:

Compare the God of Abraham (YHWH) as described in the OT with Allah as described in Sura 4:142; 3:54; 7:99; 8:30, 9:51; 10:21; 13:42, etc. The two are clearly not the same being. The NT scriptures make the differences even clearer.

The Koran declares that Allah is not just a good liar, just an average “schemer”, but that Allah is a “master deceiver” with a profoundly “capricious” nature. Allah can change his mind, and does so quite often.
More importantly, Allah does NOT love mankind. Even his most devout followers are without a sure hope of salvation.

Islam teaches that Allah changed the rules on sex and marriage numerous times in order to satisfy the requirements of his lustful “prophet”. [Surah 33:37; 33:50; 33:51; 66:1-5; 4:24, etc. and the Hadith: Muslim 8:3309;3311; Bukhari 6:298, 6:300, 93:639; 58:234; 60:311; 62:18 etc.]

Monotheism is defined as the belief in or worship of a single god. That all gods are the same is not part of the definition.

OK, time in.

omots
 
To everyone who has posted here concerning Catholic v. the rest of Christianity:

There has been much said about what makes one argument right, and the other wrong. The question has been raised about why there are so many divisions in, to use a broader term, religion? The reason is simple: SIN!!

There is not one man, woman, or child which is able to absolutely, 100%, attain to the truth. Not because it has not been revealed to us, but because our sin prevents us from completely grasping it. This is the real reason for so many denominations, and so many religions.
 
This is a fascinating video regarding 9/11 and prophecy in The Book of Isaiah. Has anyone seen it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNjxw8BVDrE&feature=related

Pax,
Lisa
 
ATTACK ADS circa 1800,

This is as real as it gets.
http://tinyurl.com/2csq7ec
 
This REALLY will be my final word, because it seems fruitless to continue as very few are really thinking through what I have said and coming up with immature answers.

For example I gave a link to an article which strongly shows the Bible to be fully trustworthy. Actually, only one person has looked at it (according to blogger). How can you give reasonable answers unless you actually read it first? The article was compiled by getting information from a number of experts - so it is not just my thoughts. For one last time I leave it here:
http://watchmanforjesus.blogspot.com/2010/09/proving-why-bible-is-inspired-inerrant.html
It is entitled "How The Bible Was Put Together and Proving Why It IS The Inspired Inerrant Word Of God"

As a final answer, I want to answer someone's comment re the OT.

The first church DID have access to the WHOLE OT (tanach) - not just the Torah. For example Jesus and the apostles quoted from Isaiah, Psalms, Daniel, Joel to name just a few.

You are right to say that the Tanach or Old Testament had not yet been compiled together in the format we know today. However, they still had access to the scrolls.

Paul mentioned some "parchments" that they had. Not sure if these parchments were just the Tanach or whether they included some of the NT writings (in their uncompiled condition).

Certainly Luke (the physician) accompanied Paul on most of his journeys. Luke already had access to the accounts of the Apostles (probably Matthew and John) so he was also compiling his own documents. Not only was he a physician but it appears he was a historian too. Read the way he puts the Book of Acts together. Often he says "we".

Why is it whenever someone (like myself) give clear evidence to why the Bible can be trusted and quote from the Bible (for the purpose of being helpful and edifying) it is construed as "catholic bashing"?

All I am doing is answering untrue statements with correct information, but whenever I (or some other informed Protestant) do this, we get accused of attacking you.

Is this not a sign of insecurity?

In my experience if a person has a weak argument, they resort to mud throwing or sidetracking the conversation with irrelevant answers if they cannot answer it directly and logically - maybe because their weak foundation is making them feel uneasy.

"For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ." 1 Cor 3:11

Don't feel uneasy but embrace the truth, then you will have confidence to answer in a MATURE and Godly way.

If anybody wants to contact me, you can do so through my blog found on:
http://www.watchmanforjesus.blogspot.com

God bless and goodbye to you all
John Chingford
 
Yes! I just scroll past all the bickering and read the posts that matters. I agree with Constance it only distracts from the purpose of the this blog. Maybe they should start their own blog with the theme they try to ram through here.
Melinda
 
http://www.worldviewweekend.com/worldview-times/article.php?articleid=6604
 
Anon10:23pm:

This is Anon6:41pm, to whom you replied as follows:

"Please read the early church fathers and then get back to your arguments. You say that Christians had the Old Testament, fair enough, but you should know as Dorothy will explain to you that the Jewish Torah is not the Christian Old Testament. There was no compiled Old testament with the right order or the right books at the time, so Paul could not have got them from the local store. It was the Catholic Church that compiled the Christian Bible both Old and New."

Are you confusing me with another Anon? I have always given my posting times to prevent that. I didn't say that the Torah was the OT (it includes the prophets and the writings, whence the Hebrew acronym Tanakh), or that the first Christians had the OT. I would nevertheless like to defend the latter claim. Jesus Christ spoke repeatedly about "the scriptures", implying clearly that the Jews of his day knew what was God's word and what was not. The existence, roughly contemporary with Christ, of the Septuagint translation of sacred Hebrew writings into Greek, confirms this. Also, the church which collected the NT is claimed as ancestor by the Orthodox too.

"As for the arguments on filioque, you can read this. [URL]"

Sorry, I don't mean to be discourteous but I don't read URLS to which people direct me on blogs. I make the effort to put down what I know myself, and I ask others with whom I am dialogue to do the same. So often I have been told that the answer to a question I put is on such a webpage and after half an hour of reading found that it isn't. Do tell me what you believe is the position re the Filioque, please.

"If a Christian asked me which church was the right one, I would tell them to study and pray. I would tell them to read the fathers too, along with scripture, and let God do the rest."

I think that's a wise reply (although I would also invite him to my church). Many people take your advice, however, and end up in divergent denominations.

Finally, let me repeat that I recognise all who love the Lord Jesus Christ as the only divine son of the universal creator, as my brothers and sisters, regardless of denomination.
 
@oldmanoftheski: I agree with you that Allah is not Yahuweh. That they are the same is generally asserted on grounds that both claim to have created the world - and there can, of course, be only one creator. What, though, if one of them is lying about that? As you rightly point out, they show totally different personalities in the OT and Qur'an.

Moreover, a loving father does not deny his own son. The Bible teaches that Jesus is the son of the creator, the Qur'an denies it. In the end it comes down to one verse: "Every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not of God, and is an antichrist” – 1 John 4:3.
 
Anon 5:18:

Finally, let me repeat that I recognise all who love the Lord Jesus Christ as the only divine son of the universal creator, as my brothers and sisters, regardless of denomination.

This Catholic agrees with this statement and thanks you for making it.
 
Dorothy,

Why are you a basher of new agers?You are determined to be in their close company for all eternity. So why bother bashing?
 
JEW-BAITING ALERT

Constance, please remove the Jew-baiting post from anon 7:08 directed at Dorothy.
 
I see all these cries for ignoring "bashing" (which it isn't) as an attempt to hide the very real problem here. That is that Constance is willing to look the other way when it comes to the intrigues and New Age leanings of Rome, while claiming to be a "watchman". Not to mention she has still failed to give a reason why she can't use a free resource to broadcast her message rather than be on a network that allows anti-semitism.

"Anti-Semites and Catholics..strange bedfellows"

I agree.
 
I am leaving my very last comment. If anybody wants to contact me about anything I have written here, please join me on my blog http://www.watchmanforjesus.blogspot.com

My last comment is in answer to the Torah comment. I explained that the first churches DID have the Old Testament to refer to. By the way they also had many of Paul's letters and probably parts of Luke's records of Luke and Acts. Paul refers to the "parchments" which probably included some of the NT scrolls.

"When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, and my scrolls, especially the parchments" 2 Tim 4:13

It is clear that they had the OT to refer to (including Torah , the writings and the prophets) in scroll form, as can be seen by these words

"and how from infancy YOU HAVE KNOWN THE HOLT SCRIPTURES, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus." 2 Tim 3:15

Jesus didn't just refer to the Torah but often referred to the writings(like Psalms) and the prophets, like Daniel and Isaiah to name a few of many. The apostles also did the same. They DID have the scriptures that were able to make them wise unto salvation.
 
Part 2
As I leave let me just remind you of the article I wrote within my blog, which I compiled together with information and much research from many sources.

I already mentioned the article but (according to blogger) only one person (since I informed of the article) has looked at the page. If you want to make statements against what I am saying do the right thing first - check out what I have written before you say anything further

It is entitled "How The Bible Was Put Together and Proving Why It IS The Inspired Inerrant Word Of God" and can be found within my blog address:

http://watchmanforjesus.blogspot.com/2010/09/proving-why-bible-is-inspired-inerrant.html


God bless everybody and may you come to know the beauty and glory of experiencing your sins completely washed away with Jesus living within you, changing you from one degree of glory to another
Best regards and goodbye
John Chingford
 
You're wasting your breath John. I view this blog more as a disinformation center than anything else now. I've noted lies, slanders, compromise on the fundamentals of the gospel as well as with anti-semitism, and that this is mainly a bastion of Catholics, not Christians.
 
The name of this blog should be changed to "My Perspective: Whatever the Catholics Think"
 
Acutally the name should be "My Perspective: We are Protestant. Lets Bait the Catholics and then when they defend their religion, claim that the blog is a pro-Catholic blog."
 
I dont know who the idiot was that made the claim that muslims worship the same God as Christians, but you need a darn lesson in religion. They worship Allah, whose origin is in the pagan religion of the ancient Meccans.In pre-Islamic Arabia amongst pagan Arabs, Allah was not considered the sole divinity, having associates and companions, sons and daughters. For you to make such a blatantly stupid remark demonstrates just how infected with New Age garbage you Catholics are. Hey Constance! Where are you when this kind of stuff is posted here by your Catholic pals? Awful quiet aren't you?
 
Jacob Prasch: that person was exposed some years ago by Vicky Dillen at her website SEEKGOD.
 
May I remind a few people here of something that Constance might be too courteous to point out: It's HER blog. I and everybody else here are guests. Is she not entitled to say what she likes on her own blog?
 
Mohammad now top baby name in Great Britian....

http://abcnews.go.com/International/mohammed-surges-popular-british-boys/story?id=11995013
 
To anon 9.24

Thankyou for looking at my site. Because you have commented on my site, I need to answer.

I have checked out the article you mentioned. I will now investigate further as some very good points were made by the author.

I have had some doubts about Jacob Prasch, but he is a wealth of information and does a great job of exposing false prophets, false teachers (and the apostasy within our churches) and the reasons these people are false.

He is also very good at showing the Jewish historical background of the New Testament.

I am a Berean and always check the scriptures to see if what he is saying is true. There are some occasions where i have had to disagree with him, in the light of other scriptures. I certainly disagree with his "you can lose your salvation" view.
 
John: I see you advocate at 10:07"Once Saved, Always Saved". In that case why is the New Testaemnt full of warnings about failure to reach your destination? The failure of most of the Israelites to reach the Promised Land is used as a warning in 1 Corinthians 10 and Hebrews 4. Paul, writing in the Greek world with its interest in athletics, often compares life to a race; what counts is how you cross the line, i.e. your faith at your death. Further warnings are found in parables of shoddy servants and unready bridesmaids (Matt 25). Again, why bother if believers are ‘once saved, always saved’? Nowhere does scripture set out a clear statement of this claim; in contrast, Matt 7:21-3 warns that some who do ‘deliverance’ ministry in Jesus’ name will not be found in the New Jerusalem. Jesus says of the believer who overcomes, in Revelation 3:5, that “I will never blot his name from the book of life,” implying that names can be blotted out so they once were saved and later are not – these are the baptised who fail to grow in faith and to overcome (recall the parable of the sower: Luke 8:4-15). Peter says of certain people that “If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and saviour Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning” (see 2 Peter 2:20-22). Paul exhorted the Christians in Rome to “consider the goodness of God to you, provided that you continue in his goodness; otherwise you will be cut off” (Romans 11:22). Finally, Hebrews 6:4-6 says that “It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance”. Finally, the Greek verb tenses used in the New Testament more often denote a continuing action than conventional English translations indicate, for example ‘we who are [being] saved’ and ‘we who [continue to] believe’.

I guard my salvation and I exhort other Christians to do the same.
 
The plain fact is that Moslems, equally with paganism, though in a different way, fail to realise the true nature of God. Moslems fail to understand that He is the God of life and love, of that life which is supremely active, and of that love which is infinitely diffusive. He is not a god who dwells like a lone star apart, but the God whose pulsating life and illimitable love find expression in the gracious condescension of his self revelation. It is to one's initimate friends that one reveals the secrets of one's inner life, and consequently it is in the New Testament, with the coming of the Eternal Son of God in the flesh for the love of man, that the veil is drawn aside from the majesty and mystery of the divine life, so that we may catch some glimpse of it as it is in itself, and not merely as it was known before in its outward and visible manifestations.
 
I am the "idiot" that said Muslims and Catholics worship the same God.

I don't think the person who called me an idiot read my post carefully. I said the Muslims have a distorted view of God!

Granted, Muslims do not believe in the Trinity as we do. Nor do Jews. Yet we all believe in a Supreme Being who created and governs the universe. When St. Paul learned that the Greeks worshipped an unknown god (Acts 17:23), he identified that god as our God. Muslims worship the one God to the degree that they know him—which in our view, is a very limited knowledge.

The Muslims (and Christians) learned of God from the Jews, and they are monotheistic - "there is no God but Allah". I was only making a statement in origin, not in practice. Two entirely different things. Unfortunately some posters are unable to think below the most superficial levels. Very sad!
 
Food tyranny in Canada, CETA on the table for 2011...

CETA would subject farmers to “draconian” property rights enforcement measures, including the virtual elimination of the age-old practice of saving, reusing, and selling seed from their crops.

Under provisions in CETA, using saved seed could result in a farmer’s land, equipment, and crops being seized for alleged infringement of intellectual property rights attached to plant varieties owned by corporations such as Monsanto, Dow, Syngenta, and Bayer.

“It includes the freezing of bank accounts too, so you couldn’t even defend yourself in court. And this is for alleged infringement,” says NFU president Terry Boehm.

“These are the most draconian measures possible and they would literally create a culture of fear in the farm population....”

http://www.bilaterals.org/spip.php?article18338

Food tyranny in the USA, S.510 on the table for 2010 lame duck congress…

“Food safety” under S 510 is a red herring. But it is worse. S 510 would significantly undermine the safety of food. So, if not “food safety,” what is S 510 about then? Corporate global governance. The World Trade Organization.”

"S 510 would end the Uruguay Round Agreement Act of 1994, which put US sovereignty and US law under perfect protection."

"Given the powerful interests backing the bill, it is understandable that journalists have not covered the reality of S 510, but instead have written stories on rotten eggs and contaminated meat that divert attention away from the bill itself. The stories become corporate marketing for the bill. The public, after being frightened and then angered by the horrors of our corporate food system, is led to believe that S 510 will “go after” the corporations, with media leaving them unaware the bill was written by corporate lawyers."

http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2010/09/10/41-words-inside-s-510/
 
OT Nkosazana suggests:

Constance could you consider asking those who want to discuss off topic information like "My faith is better than yours" to use the OT before the dialogue so the rest of us could just move on.

You designate at the beginning of each blog perspective what you are wanting the discussion to entail. If people wish to respond to other topics on other subjects they should mark their posts as OT...off topic from the discussion at hand.

If they don't mark them as such then they could fairly be removed. That would allow people to post on whatever, but also allow those of us with busy schedules, looking for ON TOPIC information, to whiz on by.

Just a suggestion. Nkosazana
 
Sometimes it is hard to tell the New Agers from some of the Christians. While the New Agers believe that all is God and thus they are God, many so-called Christians do not hesitate to believe they are speaking for God, in God's name. The vanity can become overwhelming on the blog.

Dorothy
 
John Chingford wrote:
"I used to write here but gave up because I felt I was casting my pearls before swine. Jesus told us not to do this because our pearls would be trodden underfoot and we would be attacked. This is how it feels on your site."

and
"Unless this inequality and the aggressiveness of this site changes you will never see me again on this site."

And yet you keep talking and talking. Why not keep your promise and show us your word is good. Oh well, you probably will come back as an anonymous.

Dorothy
 
Yes, Dorothy I absolutely agree with your post of 1:19 PM.

Go back and read all of the many times (on this thread) that John Chingford has talked about leaving. Yet, he is still here....continuing to post his angry venom and slander....oh, but with 'love and compassion' (LOL).
 
Pride goeth before the fall.
 
I have a novel idea:

If the Catholic bashers and the Jew bashers would just STOP their attacks....and concentrate on cleaning up their own 'houses of worship'....we could actually get back to what this blog is all about and HALT all distractions.

Oh, but would that be too easy a solution? Just sayin'....
 
And where there's pride, there's a bunch of lions. But, seriously folks. I've had it and I'm gonna leave. This is the very last post. You won't be hearing from me again.
 
Oh, but we're really going to miss you, gelatin.
 
Bye Jello (waves)
 
Anon @ 5:18 a.m.



" Also, the church which collected the NT is claimed as ancestor by the Orthodox too."

Yes, because Catholics and Orthodox were in one church at this time. You should know that it was finally at the council of Florence that the 27 books of the NT were declared to be official canon, after much debate, discussion etc.

Yes, the early Christians had scrolls. These scrolls were hand-written on parchments centuries after centuries by Monks. In fact when the dead Sea Scrolls of Isaiah were discovered, they looked like the carbon copy of that preserved by the monks.


" Do tell me what you believe is the position re the Filioque, please."

There is no disagreement regarding Filioque. In Latin it makes sense, when added to the Greek it does not. There in lies the confusion.

"In the original reading of the Creed (in Greek), "proceeds" referred to the Spirit's ultimate causes and source, which both Catholics and Eastern Orthodox believe is the Father alone. Simply put: In Latin, the term used is able to be understood validly as "flows forth (from/through)" but in the greek translation, the Greek used can ONLY be understood as "origniates from/with". The meaning of the Filioque is along the lines of "Who origniates in the Father, and flows forth from the Father and the Son."

"We totally agree that:

If the Filioque was added to the Greek version, it would be a heresy.

When Catholics say that the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son, it means that the Son has to be there for the Spirit to proceed from the Father to someone else...because the Spirit is the Spirit of Sonship (see Romans 8:15-17), making the Son's presence intrinsically necessary. But, the Greeks assumed that Rome was saying that there are two "ultimate causes" or sources of the Spirit -- that both the Father and the Son "breath" the Spirit together and equally. But, that is not the Catholic position and never was."


"Finally, let me repeat that I recognise all who love the Lord Jesus Christ as the only divine son of the universal creator, as my brothers and sisters, regardless of denomination."

To this I say Amen, because so do we.
 
With respect to Islam. I am not an expert, but it is a form of Sola Scriptura. They have a book, with no authority to interpret it which leads to massive confusion.

One Muslim can say to another "this is my interpretation, and they can argue and fight over it."
Muhammad was also a political leader who fought wars, so when this is read into with current political/social events, it can breed havoc.

I don't know what objective standard Muslims use to interpret the Quran.
 
Doing some web searching I came upon two interesting sites in line with this one.

http://www.truthxchange.com/article/71-what-ever-happened-to-the-new-age/

http://tinyurl.com/23pjpvs

In addition to the above article, there are other articles of interest.

The Paganization of New Testament Studies

New Testament Response to Greco-Roman Pagan Spirituality

As I was looking over the site, I came across an interview with David Loye on Integral Evolution. Remember before the 2008 election when I did an expose on the connection between Obama and high level New Age leaders, Loye was one of them. They were promoting a New Age version of Darwin's theory, which is now called Integral Evolution.

http://www.marcgafni.com/?p=2293

Other buzzwords connected with the movement and around which websites and networks are formed are
Nonduality
Oneness or the One movement
World Purificationism


If you want to start where I did, read

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=221421

http://tinyurl.com/264n6vt
Boo! Kinder, gentler demon possession now PC

Yes, New Age paganism continues to grow and others are writing about it.

Dorothy
 
Still waiting for Cumbey ro explain why she cant use a free resource rather than compromise with anti-semitism.

And..

"Yet we all believe in a Supreme Being who created and governs the universe. When St. Paul learned that the Greeks worshipped an unknown god (Acts 17:23), he identified that god as our God. Muslims worship the one God to the degree that they know him—which in our view, is a very limited knowledge.

The Muslims (and Christians) learned of God from the Jews, and they are monotheistic - "there is no God but Allah". I was only making a statement in origin, not in practice."

Actually Muhammed learned what little he knew of the Bible from Arian heretis and Gnostics, neither of which were Christians, Everything else about Allah is derived from Meccan paganism. So even your comment on origin is a lie. You've fallen for Rome's New Age infection. Again..where is Cumbey when these New Age lies are posted by Catholics? Very quiet.
 
Anon2:54pm:
This is Anon5:18am, to whom you responded. I regard the councils' declaration of the NT canon essentially as rubberstamping what the great majority of Christians had long understood. I was objecting, mildly, to assertions that "The Catholic church decided what the canon was". Orthodox friends of mine say that the Orthodox church did. Protestants observe that the church at the time of these councils was, like themselves, far less hierarchical than subsequently...

I haven't come across your explanation of Filioque before. Interesting. Would you propose a wording in English that you believe English-speaking Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox could both assent to? Do you know whether high-ups in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches take your position, in which case there is some hope of fraternality? Why was your reconciliation not propounded in time to prevent the schism of 1054?
 
"I haven't come across your explanation of Filioque before. Interesting. Would you propose a wording in English that you believe English-speaking Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox could both assent to? Do you know whether high-ups in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches take your position, in which case there is some hope of fraternality? Why was your reconciliation not propounded in time to prevent the schism of 1054?"

I can only say that is was human pride and sin that caused the split. It's funny how people fight over trivial things.

Here is the joint Catholic-Orthodox declaration, approved by Pope Paul VI and Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras I of Constantinople. The declaration concerns the Catholic-Orthodox exchange of excommunications in 1054.

"Among the obstacles along the road of the development of these fraternal relations of confidence and esteem, there is the memory of the decisions, actions and painful incidents which in 1054 resulted in the sentence of excommunication leveled against the Patriarch Michael Cerularius and two other persons by the legate of the Roman See under the leadership of Cardinal Humbertus, legates who then became the object of a similar sentence pronounced by the patriarch and the Synod of Constantinople.

Thus it is important to recognize the excesses which accompanied them and later led to consequences which, insofar as we can judge, went much further than their authors had intended and foreseen. They had directed their censures against the persons concerned and not the Churches. These censures were not intended to break ecclesiastical communion between the Sees of Rome and Constantinople."

Rome excommunicated Patriarch Michael Cerularius of Constantinople and all of his immediate clergy. It did not excommunicate the emperor, or the patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, or Jerusalem, or the bishops of any of the other Eastern churches (especially not in the Slavonic north or Russia). Nor did the Slavs or any of the other patriarchs ever excommunicate Rome. So, strictly speaking, Romans are still technically in communion with most of the Eastern Orthodox Church. And this is especially true because we formally healed the schism at Lyon II in 1274 and at Ferrara-Florence in 1439. Our present schism dates from 1472, when the Greeks renounced the union of Ferraea-Florence -- something the Slavic Churches never formally did. Also, in 1965, Patriarch Atheneagorus of Constantinople and Pope Paul VI nullified the excommunications from 1472, which means that Romans are now technically in communion with Constantinople itself though most Greeks do not recognize this.
 
Many thanks for that. What might the relevant part of the creed look like in an English translation acceptable to both Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, please?

Anon3:09pm
 
Anon.
I disagree, and you are a fool.

Anonymous,
I agree and you are a smart man.

Anonymous,
You're a jackass.

Anon.,
Why do you hound Mrs. Cumby,
regarding your personal opinion
of what you define as Anti-
semitism, and refer to her as simply
"Cumby" which is, on your part,
not only impolite, impersonal,
and condescending, but telling,
and sounds like you think of
yourself as a judge of such
matters, but you AIN'T.

My point:
Who could possibly keep track
of all the various people who
post comments as Anonymous,
or, where any of them are
supposedly "coming from" ?

MEMO
IGNORE ANONYMOUS POSTERS
 
I agree, please ignore and delete all anonymous posters
 
Steady on folks, some of us live in countries where peacable free speech on certain subjects is starting to be prosecuted/persecuted as 'hate speech'. That Anon option is worth having. When I post here anonymously I give the time of my previous post in each subthread in order to prevent misunderstanding. And I continue to be surprised at how many people tell Constance how to run her own blog. Folks, we are GUESTS here!
 
"Why do you hound Mrs. Cumby,
regarding your personal opinion
of what you define as Anti-
semitism.."

It isn't just my definition, but hers as well since she has agreed that the network she broadcasts on carries anti-semitic programming. Nice try though.

Oh, and her name is Cumbey is it not? I've noted a variety of people named on the various blogs here using only a last name. Should we then insist she also make a rule that one must use first and last names? You're absurd.

Still waiting for Cumbey to explain why she can't use a free resource rather than compromise on what she agrees is anti-semitism.
 
Doing some web searching I came upon two interesting sites in line with this one.

http://www.truthxchange.com/article/71-what-ever-happened-to-the-new-age/

http://tinyurl.com/23pjpvs

In addition to the above article, there are other articles of interest.

The Paganization of New Testament Studies

New Testament Response to Greco-Roman Pagan Spirituality

As I was looking over the site, I came across an interview with David Loye on Integral Evolution. Remember before the 2008 election when I did an expose on the connection between Obama and high level New Age leaders, Loye was one of them. They were promoting a New Age version of Darwin's theory, which is now called Integral Evolution.

http://www.marcgafni.com/?p=2293

Other buzzwords connected with the movement and around which websites and networks are formed are
Nonduality
Oneness or the One movement
World Purificationism


If you want to start where I did, read

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=221421

http://tinyurl.com/264n6vt
Boo! Kinder, gentler demon possession now PC

Yes, New Age paganism continues to grow and others are writing about it.

Dorothy

3:04 PM
 
Or, and even better idea...

How about we ignore all posters named 'Paul'? (LOL)

It's not about WHO posts - but rather the content. You can keep track by the TIME of each post.

The point here is that the 'bashers' just want to be able to keep track of who they are attacking...lest they make a mistake and attack one of their 'own' (basher friends) by mistake. (Be careful now; your transparency is showing.)
 
Well, Anon5:25pm, I 'bashed' the views of John regarding "Once saved, always saved" above even though it is clear to me that he and I are on the same side of the Reformation. The point is to disagree with *views* expressed by people, to do it courteously, and not to assume you know what is going on in their hearts and then respond to the assumption you are making. As for the fact that Once Saved Always Saved is way off Constance's original topic, if she wants me to desist then she need only ask - it's her blog.
 
Anon 5:37 PM:

Actually, I do aree with you...but being courteous is also a two-way street.

(Do unto others, etc.)
 
Anon5:45pm: I hope I have been courteous in my (several) comments on this thread. The test - and without doubt the right thing to do - is to remain so even if you receive unpleasant flak. If I want to make a point that I think will be uncongenial to the other side then I put it as a question that I believe they will find hard to answer. Making assertions merely turns into "O Yes it is" - "O no it isn't"...
 
"Folks, we are GUESTS here!"

Another lie!

We are NOT guests here, but slaves to the blogosphere. Google owns this forum, NOT Constance. Google knows precisely who each "anonymous" poster is. In fact, Google knows more about us than we do ourselves, and willingly provides that information to the highest bidder.
 
Anon6:01pm: I share your reservations about Google but please think twice before accusing me of lying, which imputes intent. It is fairly obvious what I meant. Moreover you are nobody's slave - nobody is ordering you to contribute to this blog, I presume.
 
Anon 6:00 PM:

For the most part, I have tried to be diplomatic in my comments.

However, it's not always easy...when you have individuals like John Chingford referring to Catholics as 'swine' and the Catholic Church as 'a false pagan religion' - which is an offense against Jesus Christ HIMSELF.
 
Anon6:14pm: John Chingford called his contenders (presumably Catholics) swine only to the extent that he called his own writing pearls, but I agree that it was an inflammatory comparison.

Keep being nice back, and if God really is on your side then you will be heaping burning coals on him (Romans 12:20).
 
Anon 6:26 PM

Thanks, Anon (6:26).

It's not so much that I want God to be on 'my side'....as I want to be on God's side!!!

;~)
 
PS The best debunking of the claim that Roman Catholicism is disguised Babylonian sun-worship is by a protestant (like myself), Ralph Woodrow. While maintaining some distance from Rome, Woodrow tears to shreds the work of Alexander Hislop, the Victorian Scots minister whose book "The Two Babylons" lies behind these claims. Woodrow's short book is called "The Babylon Connection?"
 
Jesus said "do not cast your pearls before swine". He was referring to the gospel message as pearls ie The good news message as revealed through the scriptures.

The swine he was referring to was ANYBODY who not only rejected the message but also treated the message and the messenger violently in words and action.

I am not referring to my words as pearls but the scripture verses I quote are the pearls, which are NOT my words but the very words of God.

So I am not addressing just Catholics but anybody who wants to "rubbish" and attack the Word Of God of which I quote. This is exactly what is being done on this site. This is why I stated (if it continued) I would leave.

I do not intend to be inflammatory and maybe I could have explained this better earlier. The point I was trying to make is that I will attempt to speak the truth that comes from the scriptures but will not hang around if I become the brunt of attacks.

I have tried to ignore all these comments and NOT contribute any further, but I cannot say nothing when I am being slandered for something I DID NOT SAY!

I wouldn't have written anything now but when you accuse me of being inflammatory over what was meant to be a simple harmless introduction of myself, I have to say something to defend myself from serious accusations.

I realise now, how what I said could have been misunderstood and misconstrued, of which I apologise.

PLEASE read the things I write in context and not make assumptions from just a few words I write. I DO mean well in the things I say and I am trying to speak the truth in love, with best intentions.

Anyway, hopefully this accusation will be dropped and no more said. I will, in return (if there are no further accusations) promise to say a final final goodbye and say nothing further.

I still repeat (as I have done in virtually all my comments) God bless you and may you know Him personally!!!
 
God bless you too, John . . .

and we already do know Him personally.
 
Still waiting for Cumbey's response to the Catholic New Age teaching that Islam worships the same God, even though the facts of history demonstrate Allah to be a pagan idol. And the issue of her broadcasting on a network that hosts anti-semitic programming when she has free alternatives.She's been asked numerous times by several people, each time failing to answer.

Strange bedfellows indeed.
 
Peter Was Married!

"And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever." -Matthew 8:14

The Roman Catholic religion foolishly teaches that Peter was never married, and that he was the first Pope. In the first place, Peter is NOT the head of the church, and never was. Jesus Christ is the "Rock" (Greek, "Petra") upon which the New Testament church is build. This is made abundantly clear by Peter himself, in 1st Peter 2:7 ...

"Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner."

Jesus Christ is the cornerstone, the foundation, upon which all Christianity is built. It is blasphemy to teach that a mere sinful man, such as Peter, could be the head of the church. This is typical Catholic brainwashing. The name "Peter" in the Greek means "Petros" (i.e., a small stone or rock); BUT, Jesus is referred to as "petra" (a large rock or mountain) in Matthew 16:18. In the original Greek Jesus said, “Thou art Petros [a little piece of rock], and upon this petra [bedrock] I will build my church.” Clearly, Jesus was NOT speaking about Peter, because Peter was only a small stone.

Furthermore, it is very clear from Matthew 8:14 that Peter was married, "And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever." Did you read that? ... HIS WIFE'S MOTHER! So why does the Catholic church lie about this Biblical truth, denying their priests the God-given gift to marry? The Word of God goes even further on this subject by stating in 1st Timothy 4:1-3...

"Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; FORBIDDING TO MARY..."

Wow! Not only does the Bible clearly teach us that Peter was married; but it also warns about false prophets who would come to us forbidding marriage. Folks, how much clearer could the Word of God be on this issue? Please don't be an idiot. Did you know that Old Testament priests were REQUIRED to be married? (30-minute Windows Media Audio sermon by Dr. Max D. Younce, pastor).

I plead with you to forsake the Great Whore of Catholicism, who is seducing the masses of the world away from Jesus Christ and from God's Word. Catholicism is a big lie, and can easily be proven a sham, by comparing it's manmade traditions to the precious and incorruptible Word of God.

by David J. Stewart


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
1 – 200 of 433 Newer› Newest» Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]



Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]