Friday, November 05, 2010

Posted this to comments, but think it needs to be mainstreamed here

To my readers:  We have had an ongoing discussion and even debate over Islam and other forms of religion which clearly deviate from the Christian gospel.  Despite drastic differences between Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, we cannot afford to disregard the New Age battle plan which also correlates so very clearly with prophesied persecution of those who keep the Faith of Jesus and the Commands of God.  The prophecies may be found so very clearly set forth both in the Book of Daniel and in the Book of Revelation.


The New Age game plan is here set forth in Alice Bailey's THE RAYS AND THE INITIATIONS which may be read on line at this link:

http://tinyurl.com/37wmgcp

"There are certain areas of evil in the world today through which these forces of darkness can reach humanity. What they are and where they are I do not intend to say. I would point out, however, that Palestine should no longer be called the Holy Land; its sacred places are only the passing relics of three dead and gone religions. The spirit has gone out of the old faiths and the true spiritual light is transferring itself into a new form which will manifest on earth eventually as the new world religion. To this form all that is true and right and good in the old forms will contribute, for the forces of right will withdraw that good, and incorporate it in the new form. Judaism is old, obsolete and separative and has no true message for the spiritually-minded which cannot be better given by the newer faiths; the Moslem faith has served its purpose and all true Moslems await the coming of the Imam Mahdi who will lead them to light and to spiritual victory; the Christian faith also has served its purpose; its Founder seeks to bring a new Gospel and a new message that will enlighten all men everywhere. Therefore, Jerusalem stands for nothing of importance today, except for that which has passed away and should pass away. The "Holy Land" is no longer holy, but is desecrated by selfish interests, and by a basically separative and conquering nation.

The task ahead of humanity is to close the door upon this worst and yet secondary evil and shut it in its own place. There is enough for humanity to do in transmuting planetary evil without undertaking to battle with that which the Masters Themselves can only keep at bay, but [755] cannot conquer. The handling of this type of evil and its dissipation, and therefore the release of our planet from its danger, is the destined task of Those Who work and live in "the center where the Will of God is known," at Shamballa; it is not the task of the Hierarchy or of humanity. Remember this, but remember also that what man has loosed he can aid to imprison; this he can do by fostering right human relations, by spreading the news of the approach of the spiritual Hierarchy, and by preparing for the reappearance of the Christ. Forget not also, the Christ is a Member of the Great Council at Shamballa and brings the highest spiritual energy with Him. Humanity can also cease treading the path to the "door where evil dwells" and can remove itself and seek the Path which leads to light and to the Door of Initiation."

I for one hope to avoid playing into this New Age game plan of pitting all monotheists violently against each other so that they Aryan, blue-eyed pagans can be the Phoenix to arise from our ashes. Eventually it will happen. It is prophesied. But I have no desire to help it along. Jesus said, IT IS INEVITABLE BUT THAT EVIL COME, BUT WOE TO HIM THROUGH WHOM IT COMES."

I deeply respect OMOTS and his opinions, but I believe this time he has not seen this aspect of the New Age picture and how close he and others who are like minded are coming to acting out that portion of THE ARMAGEDDON SCRIPT -- pitting "Old Ager" against "Old Ager." I further suspect the agent saboteur (whom I strongly suspect to be Rick Abanes acting on behalf of Rick Warren) has to have deep connections with what he purports to battle here inasmuch as John Esposito is closely connected to the very people Rick Warren works so closely with at the World Economic Forum as well as the ALLIANCE OF CIVILIZATIONS.

Constance
Comments: 1 – 200 of 670 Newer› Newest»
Constance,

Going back to my previous post on population control. An eco-extremist (as I like to call them), brought up the fact that Christianity and Islam both encourage population growth, not caring for the planet and it's resources.

The result they claim will be war, famine, food shortage, over fights for the world's resources, which will have to bring out the four horsemen (Yes, that exactly what they said), to enforce population control on the world, by force.

These people were kind of like born-again green's. Control the population or it will be too late. The four horsemen will come get you.

How will this target Muslims?

What did they mean by the four horsemen

Savvy
 
Savvy, they want us all. The New Age concept of population control is so very similar to the old Nazi concept of Lebensraum or "living space." The Alice Bailey books on death and dying call death "the act of restitution." They believe that energy can be neither created or destroyed -- that there is only so much energy to go around and that too many people dissipate the energy so that the "superman" (antichrist to us) cannot emerge.

Constance
 
Interestingly, during the 1980s there were Moslems who teamed up with Catholics at the UN to fight population control measures.

I heard about this at the time from Jean Guilfoyle who then worked with Human Life International where I was frequently an invited speaker during those years.

Constance
 
Speaking of hate incitement, this is another extremely disturbing site I found that looks like it is trying to incite racial hatred:

http://tinyurl.com/3yx3f7o
 
THE LORD IS MY SHEPHERD

The Lord is my shepherd,
I shall not want;
He makes me lie down in green pastures.
He leads me beside still waters;
He restores my soul.
He leads me in paths of righteousness
for His name's sake.

Even though I walk through the valley
of the shadow of death,
I fear no evil;
for You are with me;
Your rod and Your staff, they comfort me.

Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me
all the days of my life;
and I shall dwell in the house of the
Lord forever.

Psalm 23
 
Sorry, I have to agree with OMOTS and a few others here. Your position on Islam is not consistent with scripture. I think you've driven off the cliff on this one Constance.The Nazi's also hated and targeted JW's, does that mean they have an "acceptable worship" as you put it, and so are also fellow Christians? Do I stop pointing out the errors of JW's? I strongly encourage you to look into the very real pagan origin of Allah and not simply discared it because a few New Agers also accept what is historical fact. You're weakening your position horribly Constance, and you're losing listeners.
 
Sorry, Anonymous;

You are incorrect to say she's losing listeners. I'm sure over time she's lost some, but has gained some as well. And, if anything, she still has you. You seem to listening, otherwise you wouldn't respond to the things she has written. Besides, is your faith completely dependent on what Constance says? Will your Christmas be a blue one if she doesn't agree with your position? Will you say to your family and friends, "my Christmas is totally incomplete because Constance doesn't agree with me"? I'm making an assumption that you celebrate Christmas; please forgive me if I'm wrong about that.
 
Well, again, if Alice Bailey said it, it must be true.

Now it makes sense why Constance so adamantly defends Islam, Catholicism, and Judaism. All three monotheistic “religions” must stay united in the battle against a common adversary, Alice Bailyianism.

But that is not what God’s word says in the Old Testament/Torah. It is not what Jesus taught, or the apostles, including Peter. Nor is it even what "Allah" teaches in the Koran, or Mohamed in the Hadith.

Agreed, none of us see perfectly, especially me. (I had trouble finding my reading glasses this morning!) But that is why this forum has been so beneficial, it brings imperfect world views to the fore. Let us continue this discussion, for it seems to me we are getting to the very heart of the matter, and much closer to the truth.

God Himself will defend his holy hill, Zion.

omots
 
I agree with anon934. I will stand up against every false religion no matter what the New Agers say or promote. There is one true Gospel and One Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. I know there will come a time when open persecution will come to America and those who hold to Christ and His GoodNews. (It is already here in many countries.) His grace will strengthens us then. My question is, will American Christians recognize the Truth vs their American dream? Or will we be like the Pharisees and Sadducees?
 
Alice Bailey was a liar. She was deceived and in the business of deceiving others. Her satanic purpose was/is to get the world to convict God of being a terrible “governor”, of not acting in man’s best interest. He must be replaced. In this regard, Islam fits the bill.

Islam denies God as revealed in the OT and the NT. But it is this God who is making the whole world focus on Zion. It is this God who has become a stumbling block to the nations.

When Muslims living in Judea and Samaria pray towards Mecca, they turn their butts towards Jerusalem, their backsides defiantly aimed at God’s holy hill. This speaks volumes about their "god".

Choose this day whom you will serve.
 
Omots,

You don't have to believe in Islam. But, you can prevent a fight or a war that is not necessary, because it's sole purpose is destruction. It does not look nice when Bush calls for a war and calls himself a Christian. The average person is not going to say ,"Oh, look it's the New Age, making us fight.".

Protestants and Catholics disagree, as do Jews and Christians. It is not grounds for a war.

EDL in the U.K. organize street protests against Islam. They call themselves Protestants for the Queen. The last thing we need is a civil war.

Wilder's, I don't think he should be put on trial for insulting a religion, but he also calls for people joining him to fight Islam.

We don't wrestle against flesh and blood.

Savvy
 
Amen to Savvy! I don't agree with Mormons, nor with JW's, nor with Moslems, HOWEVER, that does not mean we have to play into New Age hands by entering into a war with them. It also does not mean that we have to stand defenseless. The Manifest Sons of God network which Craig has been researching lately also calls for shedding Christian blood which disagrees with their theology that they are "gods" themselves and as such, those who will "overcome the bonds of death."

Constance
 
OMOTS,

I've heard you defend some of the Native American spiritualities and staunchly repudiate others. Given the Hopi prophecies about a "true white brother" coming "from the east" and leading the charge to behead those who have the sign of the cross, how do you feel about those Hopi prophecies?

Constance
 
Dear Constance

You miss the point.

The plan of the Illuminati (through the Jesuits) was to bring in counter reformation by infiltrating the protestant churches. It will use whatever means it has.

One of these was in using the renamed "New Age" which historically came from Babylon pagan religion. New Age is a tool used by the Catholic church to infiltrate the Monotheistic religions with ultimate intention of bringing all religions into submission to the Roman Catholic church.

The evidence of this comes from the following Catholic document re Vatican II


http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=6056&CFID=56857488&CFTOKEN=47450169

Vatican II & Ecumenism: What did the Council Really Say?
by Peter John Vere, JCL/M (Canon Law)

Ecumenism Upholds the Real Presence
see End of 3rd paragraph

"The Council Fathers, by promoting ecumenical dialogue, seek to bring our separated Christian brethren back to full communion with the Catholic Church by means of the Holy Eucharist"

and:

http://cin.org/vatcong/direcum.html
DIRECTORY FOR THE APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES AND NORMS ON ECUMENISM

go to number 11.

11. The council situates the mystery of the church within the
mystery of God's wisdom and goodness, which draws the WHOLE HUMAN FAMILY and indeed the WHOLE OF CREATION into UNITY with himself. (11)

These statements show that the Catholic church will only accept those who adhere to Catholic doctrine and give allegience to the Pope and that everyone should do this. The implication is clear. The whole world should come under the Catholic church.
 
A public commission should be set up to discourage the teaching of highly questionable religious doctrines to young people

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/nov/05/christianity-preaching-children
 
Constance

Psalm 23, Amen!

Dave in CA
 
Anon 1:21

You are interpreting Catholic doctrine to suit your own ends. Even if we assume only for the sake of argument that interpretation is correct, that "The whole world should come under the Catholic church," I fail to see the problem here. I presume you are some sort of non-Catholic Christian who believes that "the whole world should come under" whatever form of Protestantism you follow.

If you answer that you "aren't a Protestant" merely a follow of Biblical Christianity, would it be correct to say you believe that the whole world should come under Biblical Christianity?
 
To Anonymous 1:21 p.m. Funny, I was raised on my mother's "The Jesuits dunnit" theories. My own investigation showed that while substantial numbers of them had gone "New Age" others were staunch defenders of the faith. I just scanned on some material she sent me which was almost identical to what you just posted, however, I have to respectfully disagree with the thesis. The test of antichrist was a denial that Jesus was come IN THE FLESH and that Jesus was THE CHRIST.

True practicing Catholics affirm those fundamentals of the faith, not deny them. The apostates we have always had with us and will until the end of time.

Constance
 
To Anonymous 1:21

Thanks for the heads up on this one -- ALLIANCE OF CIVILIZATIONS propaganda -- in fact, exactly what AOC proclaimed they would be doing under their various "Group of Friends" "Implementation plans" by now.

Constance
 
For the record, there were TWO "Anonymous 1:21" posters.

Constance
 
Is this 'the smoking gun' on the BP oil spill?

From AOL News (Nov. 6th):

Scientists have found dead coral in the Gulf of Mexico only a few miles from where the BP oil well blew out six months ago, raising new concerns that damage from the massive spill may be worse than reported.

"The compelling evidence that we collected constitutes a smoking gun," Charles Fisher, a Penn State University biologist and expedition leader, said in a statement. "The circumstantial evidence is extremely strong and compelling because we have never seen anything like this -- and we have seen a lot."

For more...
http://tinyurl.com/2ceeywa
 
Constance, I recently described Islam as a kaleidascope religion, one whose overview is all fractured up. There may be a little Judaism and a little Christianity thrown in, but these bits are mixed in with a lot of destructive commandments coming from somewhere else.

To me it is unclear whether you are protecting the image of Muslims in general or the entire religion of Islam.
God, being ultimate truth as viewed through the monotheistic religions of Judaism and Christianity, could not give conflicting moral codes to different communities.

It is my opinion at this point that Judaism, Christianity and Islam are not targeted by New Age leadership because they share the same moral code. They have been targeted because there are segments in each group who will not bend their knee to one world leadership. Judaism has the Orthodox community. Christianity has those who are called fundamentalist Christians. The Catholic church has large segments who are organized and devoted to a firm moral code as well as a large organization which can back them up. The number of Muslims in the world is huge. For right or wrong goals they are a very stubborn people. Among them there must be those who hold to a moral code similar to that found in Judaism and Christianity. I don't know who these groups are, but they must be there among so many Muslims in the world. Muslims are not flexible people.

It's not a matter of holding our tongues so we don't turn against members of the three religious groups. Just as we are supposed to condemn Jews or Christians who violate an extended interpretation of the Noahidic laws, so we must condemn Muslims who do so. (Just for the record I'm not talking about Noahidic establishments, the Noahide movement. I'm talking about the theological interpretation of the laws.)

That is where most people are going wrong these days. That is where others are being used. Many Muslims act as if any criticism of the actions of Muslims is an attack on Islam. The liberal Jewish and Christian view is that saying anything negative about the actions of Muslims is an attack on Islam.

On that basis there would never be any criticism of the actions of anyone who labeled themselves a Jew or Christian. They would have a perpetual Get Out Of Jail Free card.

Criticisms of Muslims, followers of Islam, are condemning the actions of these Muslims. Criticisms of Islam are few because very few people know anything about that religion.

Dorothy
 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/nov/05/christianity-preaching-children
 
Very, very serious info

D-A-N-G-E-R-O-U-S

"Some things children should not be taught.

"A public commission should be set up to discourage the teaching of highly questionable religious doctrines to young people

Thomas Prosser
guardian.co.uk, Friday 5 November 2010 12.00 GMT
Article history
"Religious ideas that are taught during childhood very often stick for life. Cursory reviews of the number of believers who come to faith during childhood or adolescence reveal this to be the case. According to research cited by the evangelical Christian group Youth for Christ for instance, 85% of Christians come to faith before the age of 23, with 15 the average age of conversion. Such figures should make the antennae of secularists twitch, for they suggest that taking on religious faith is often done by minors who are emotionally and intellectually vulnerable to the claims of adult religious authorities. Given the propensity of religious groups to inspire in young people long-term allegiance to their particular faith, questions also arise concerning the potency of the doctrine that religious institutions preach to youngsters.
 
Part 2 of Prosser article:

"A scrutiny of the youth evangelism strategies of one of the UK's largest faith groups, evangelical Christians, should give liberals serious cause for concern. Let us take as exemplar the work of Soul Survivor and Audacious, two large British youth evangelical organisations that run holiday camps attracting British youth in their tens of thousands. One striking aspect of these camps is the intensity of the doctrine that is preached and the zeal with which it is delivered. Leaders passionately inform children and teens of their conviction that evangelical doctrines, all of which are of course highly questionable when considered soberly, are absolutely true.

"Children at Soul Survivor meetings have, for instance, been told that their generation can help bring Jesus back to Earth within their lifetimes. The "conversions" of children on the basis of such techniques is exploitative and can cause emotional pain when, in later life, it is discovered that such beliefs simply do not bear rational scrutiny. Other lessons preached at these camps are even more potentially damaging to children. At recent Soul Survivor meetings that have been featured on God TV, leaders have told young people they will be judged by God on the content of their thoughts when they die, that witch doctors can stunt the mental and physical capacities of children by cursing them, and that Jesus can heal children of medical ailments.

"At an Audacious event, a boy about 13 years old described how he had been healed while at a meeting of the organisation.

Such lessons can potentially cause serious emotional and physical damage to the children receiving them and should anger anyone who cares about child welfare. Nor are such youth organisations on the Christian fringe. Anglican clergy are involved in the management of Soul Survivor for example. Rather, the intensity of evangelisation efforts at mainstream youth ministries suggests that youth evangelism is even more extreme in pockets of UK Christianity.

"All of this raises the question of what is to be done. Given the emotional impact such ideas potentially have upon children and youth, it appears to me highly desirable that some form of public action is taken. Two minefields present themselves.

The first is the view that religious institutions, under the aegis of religious liberty, have the right to preach whatever doctrine they wish without state interference. This position is rebuttable. Christian churches would not be able, under hate legislation, to advocate slavery or the killing of witches (as many once did) on the basis of certain Old Testament verses for instance. Twenty-first century child welfare standards mean that other doctrines should join the list.

"A second objection, that parents have the right to take their children to the religious services of their choosing, is trickier to negotiate. The state placing limits upon children's attendance of religious services with their parents is clearly unacceptable in a liberal society.

The proposal that I would like to make thus falls far short of this. I believe a public commission should be established that issues non-legally binding guidelines on the forms of doctrines that it is desirable that children are taught. The preaching of hellfire or of divine faith healings to children could form part of such guidelines. Non-compliers could be "named and shamed" by such a commission.

"Such a venture would carry the advantage of leaving intact the parental right to educate children in their faith tradition, but would also go some way towards recognising the potentially damaging impact of certain religious doctrines upon developing minds."
 
savvy wrote:

"But you can prevent a fight or a war that is not necessary, because it's sole purpose is destruction."

and Constance wrote:

"...that does not mean we have to play into New Age hands by entering into a war with them."

What strange comments, especially considering I have not, and do not, advocate a physical war against anyone.

However, I do believe it is better to declare the truth and cause division, even if it leads to war, than remain silent and live in peace.

As far as bloodshed goes, I/we/you cannot prevent the end times, including war, from unfolding exactly as written.

Bailey created her own interpretation of the prophetic word and put forth a strategy to discredit and counter it. Bailey attempted to change the script.

Constance brings up an unproven interpretation of Hopi prophecy in order to discredit and counter a critique of her own distorted view of Islam. Constance is attempting to change the discussion.

In order to try and prevent war, (a.k.a. end times conflicts), where nation will rise against nation, we are being steered into adopting the A.O.C. line, which declares that compromise is good and speaking the truth is evil.

(Sound like a good plan savvy?)

As far as the so-called "Hopi prophecies" go, watch out that no one deceives you. While I have indeed studied many of the indigenous traditions, (including those of the Hopi, Nez Perce, and Lakota), I've learned there is a wide range of variance between what indigenous people themselves, let alone what others say, about "prophecy". One obvious problem is a lack of written record.

My old Lakota friend, a traditional "medicine man" and a descendant of Sitting Bull, confronted me many years ago about this very thing. He said, "Why do you ask me about the prophecies of the Lakota when you have the Word of GOD written down for you? Do you not believe it? Truth is truth, and lies are lies."

So, Constance, check your sources. We are without excuse because we have been given God's Word.


omots
 
I agree with Jesus!

He said, "Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword." Matthew 10:34

The context is the people He talking to expecteda and were looking with anticipation the establishment of the Kingdom of God in fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies.

Christ wanted His disciples to understand that it was not yet time for Him to establish the peaceful Kingdom.

Instead, He warned that Christians would face hostility for living God's way of life.

It's not that Christ was stirring up animosity, but, that unconverted people resented God's truth by nature.

Paul said it this way in Romans 8:7"Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be."

When all people repent and are converted, God's way of life will bring peace to the entire earth (Isaiah 2:2-4; 9:7).

But, until that time, Christians will encounter conflict and opposition over what they believe and what and how they practice what they believe.

That's my two cents.

The truth that Jesus still speaks today through HIS written word will always offend.

Guess who's going to change? :)

Lucinda Warner
 
Constance,
Repudiating the pagan Islamic religion is hardly the same as starting an intercontinental conflict based on political ideologies. In all of your defense of Islam and your embracing Allah as your God, did you forget that the anti-semitism you claim to fight (and which I found out is broadcast at your chosen network), is also very much a part of the fabric of Islam (ethnic cleansing) with particular emphasis on Jews? Your supporters rightly state that you are taking the "message" into the darkest of places. Yet you yourself made a judgement on using a network that promotes New Age ideas in a previous post. You can't have it both ways Constance. Evil is evil. There are no divisions or degrees of rebellion against God. You are either for Him, or against Him. If we are lukewarm we get spit out. So I sincerely don't understand your position, nor do I see any consistency in your viewpoints. I agree with OMOTS- you're so wrapped up in doing the opposite of what the New Age teachers like Bailey say, that you've lost sight of clear Biblical and historical truths. I sincerely hope you realize your error soon.
 
This discussion on Islam is an important and necessary one. That some have used it as a means for personal attacks on Constance is inexcusable, however. My own view is that Constance is wrong about Islam but this has to be taken in the context of all her other work. If she is challenged on her views respectfully I have faith that she will respond to those challenges in kind.

To this end I echo the question of a previous poster about Islamic anti-Semitism. How do you see this fitting into the picture Constance?
 
Athletes wear power balance wristbands that have holograms in them.

http://tinyurl.com/38mkbe7
 
Anon 3:44 PM tells Constance:
"....you've lost sight of clear Biblical and historical truths. I sincerely hope you realize your error soon."
___________________________________

And just what 'error' is that???

Constance Cumbey is more of a Christian (deep within her heart and her soul) than a few of you who prefer to hang on to your own false pride and outrageous arrogance.

Just remember one thing: Constance is not on trial here. Her only judge is the same one who judges all of you.

If those few of you 'malcontents' are that unhappy here....why don't you leave and form another blog with each other?
 
Protestant ONLY (anti-everybody else) blog: step this way please
------------------------------>
 
Do you people believe everything Alice Bailey says?

OMOTS has it right!

Just maybe some of you might remember when HK-91 said: I don't think there is anything more obvious than the fact that Islam is, and always has been militantly in opposition to Jews or Christians, so the intent of New Agers to equate Islam to either Jewish or Christian faith should be considered part of the illusion they wish to create, and we should not let them succeed at that."

HK-91 had it right, but I'm unclear whether he, or others here connected all the dots to the truth HK-91 spoke.
 
To 3:44 P.M.

Well, hello again, Richard Abanes!

Constance
 
Alice Bailey probably created nothing of her own. It was all "doctrines of demons! And OMOTS definitely does not get the point.

In 1981 as I was first researching this, I opened a file 'WAR ON FUNDAMENTALISM" . . . that is exactly what is presently transpiring -- and so many of you are playing right into the script -- with demons of self-righteousness aiding along.

Constance
 
Islam is error, Gnostic Christianity is error, Kabbalistic Judaism (mixing Eastern paganism with God given teachings) is error, mixing Christianity with Gold Lake is error. Just because I don't subscribe to a shaky theory about the Islamic views of God which they call "Allah" being a "moon god". Mohammed sure had his faults and was syncretizing a number of Jewish, Christian and God only knows whatever threads, but all the accounts a I have read say that his perception, deluded as it may have been (and it had to have been) were that he was FIGHTING IDOLATRY.

I still say that this bunch is being suckered into being bit players in the ARMAGEDDON SCRIPT and Karen Armstrong, John Esposito, Maurice Strong, and probably Richard Abanes are all sitting back smirking about now.

Constance
 
Today the Pope met incredible picketing ugliness in Barcelona. Sure looks like accelerated war on Christianity to me, even though he (like the rest of us) is not perfect.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/149677.html

Constance
 
Anticlericalism plays a huge role in the prophesied events. It was part of what happened in Mexico between 1926 and 1935 and it is part of the scene in modern Spain -- Javier and Luis Solana are both staunchly and openly anti-clerical as was Salvador de Madariaga who would not permit his daughters to be baptized:

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9JAJ67O0.htm

"Pope Benedict XVI has criticized what he calls an "aggressive" anti-church sentiment that he says is flourishing in Spain.

"The pope arrived Saturday on a two-day visit to rekindle the faith in a key Western nation.

"Benedict said the anti-clericalism being felt today in Spain harks back to the 1930's, when the church suffered a wave of violence and ill feeling as Spain lurched from an unstable democracy to civil war."

"Speaking Saturday to journalists en route to Santiago di Compostela, Benedict said he had created a new Vatican office to fight such secular trends worldwide. He said Spain was a particular focus since it had played such an important role in reviving Christianity in centuries past."
 
And another sign of the time -- Sodom and Gomorrah days here again -- that's one of the things Jesus warned us would take place at the end!

"Thousands of gays and lesbians plan a kiss-in in Barcelona in the pope's presence as he leaves the grounds of the city's actual cathedral on Sunday morning, puckering up en masse to protest against the conservative pontiff, whose opposition to gay marriage is well known."

http://tinyurl.com/28x77p4

Constance
 
Obama Invokes Gandhi, Whose Ideal Eludes Modern India.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/07/world/asia/07gandhi.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss
or
http://tiny.cc/5dqct
 
"Incentives for settlement freeze likely on agenda as Netanyahu heads for U.S."
Netanyahu envoy arrived in Washington earlier this week to meet chief Palestinian negotiator on ways to renew negotiations.

http://tiny.cc/t126uthnu6

or

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/incentives-for-settlement-freeze-likely-on-agenda-as-netanyahu-heads-for-u-s-1.323293
 
"Muslim Group Sues Okla. Over Sharia Ban"

http://tiny.cc/1unaw
or

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20101106/muslim-group-sues-okla-over-sharia-ban/
 
"Oklahoma Voters Approve Sharia Ban"

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20101103/okla-voters-approve-sharia-ban/
 
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/Allah/moongod.html
 
Constance wrote:

"I still say that this bunch is being suckered into being bit players in the ARMAGEDDON SCRIPT and Karen Armstrong, John Esposito, Maurice Strong, and probably Richard Abanes are all sitting back smirking about now."

You left out David Rockefeller and Solana. I'm sure they are all so consumed with the goings on over on the Cumby blog they just can't wait to talk about it.

Un huh, and camels fly.
 
Dear Constance

You miss the point.

The plan of the Illuminati (through the Jesuits) was to bring in counter reformation by infiltrating the protestant churches. It will use whatever means it has.

One of these was in using the renamed "New Age" which historically came from Babylon pagan religion. New Age is a tool used by the Catholic church to infiltrate the Monotheistic religions with ultimate intention of bringing all religions into submission to the Roman Catholic church.

The evidence of this comes from the following Catholic document re Vatican II


http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=6056&CFID=56857488&CFTOKEN=47450169

Vatican II & Ecumenism: What did the Council Really Say?
by Peter John Vere, JCL/M (Canon Law)

Ecumenism Upholds the Real Presence
see End of 3rd paragraph

"The Council Fathers, by promoting ecumenical dialogue, seek to bring our separated Christian brethren back to full communion with the Catholic Church by means of the Holy Eucharist"

and:

http://cin.org/vatcong/direcum.html
DIRECTORY FOR THE APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES AND NORMS ON ECUMENISM

go to number 11.

11. The council situates the mystery of the church within the
mystery of God's wisdom and goodness, which draws the WHOLE HUMAN FAMILY and indeed the WHOLE OF CREATION into UNITY with himself. (11)

These statements show that the Catholic church will only accept those who adhere to Catholic doctrine and give allegience to the Pope and that everyone should do this. The implication is clear. The whole world should come under the Catholic church.
 
re my comment 8.20

I see that these things have not been properly addressed and ignored.

The quotes from Catholic sites (of which I could show many other similar quotes) show that the underlying purpose of Vatican ii is to bring everyone to allegiance to the Pope. The Catholic church teaches that salvation can be ONLY found in the Catholic Church. So, if they are preaching that God will save everybody, this MUST mean that the goal of the Vatican is to make everybody Catholic - the whole world. Incidentally, the SAME aim of the NEW AGE to turn the whole world into one world religion.

The RC and NA have exactly the same goal! Is that not another indication that they are working together because God wants everyone to be saved. We do know that the Illuminati have some very similar practices to those of NA.

The RC may (at present) be talking !peace, peace" within countries where they do not have total political control. Those countries where the RC has more power are more violent in the way they try to bring non RC into allegiance to the Pope.

You only have to look at the RC in the centuries where they had virtual global control during times like the Spanish Inquisition" to see what they are capable of.

The fact is that statements like bringing the "separated brethren" ie protestants back into the RC fold shows that this is the mission and they will use whatever tools are available to do so.
 
Using the NA to blame is a deliberate distraction to the truth of what is really happening, ie the RC wants one world religion, the Catholic variety.
 
and they are actually working with the NA to bring this about as a "tool"
 
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
A1,
If one were to read the documents of the Vatican from around 1963 on the New Age tone of them is so obvious its frightening. Go into almost any Catholic bookstore and you'll find books on meditation, the enneagram, and even zen for Catholics. The fact that some don't recognize the Vatican connection tells me that those same individuals are either completely stupid, or are a part of the Plan itself.
 
I could show many other similar quotes) show that the underlying purpose of Vatican ii is to bring everyone to allegiance to the Pope. The Catholic church teaches that salvation can be ONLY found in the Catholic Church. So, if they are preaching that God will save everybody, this MUST mean that the goal of the Vatican is to make everybody Catholic - the whole world.

I assume you are a non-Catholic Christian who believes that salvation can be found only in Jesus Christ and that the only form of authority for religious matters is the Bible.

The reason Protestantism has been so easily infiltrated by the New Age is because in Protestantism ("bible only") every man is his own Pope. The Bible can mean anything a Protestant says it does, and they all claim to be inspired by the Holy Spirit. Luther claimed it and so did Calvin. So do Dave Hunt, Rick, Warren, Richard Abenes, Jim Wallis and Billy Graham. All these men are living Protestants who own a copy of the Bible same as you. On what basis can one you claim that your brand of Protestantism is true and theirs is "false"? Or do you believe these people all teach true Christian "Bible only" doctrine?

Catholicism teaches that when Jesus Christ set up the Catholic Church he did so to ensure that hundreds of competing claims about "what the Bible actually means" would not lead his sheep to chaos.


So your repeated attempts to point fingers at the Catholic Church in order to deflect from the flaws in the "Bible only" model you follow merely reveal your anti-Catholic prejudices. This fact has been "talked to death" here in response to the disinformation that gets posted about Catholicism regularly at this forum, but you choose to ignore it.

You think salvation can be found through "Bible only" and the Catholic Church teaches that salvation is found through Jesus Christ who set up a Church to speak for him in matters of Faith and Morals. Your claim to "exclusivity" is no less offensive to Catholics than Rome's claim is to you, my dear. What a hypocrite you are.
 
If one were to read the documents of the Vatican from around 1963 on the New Age tone of them is so obvious its frightening. Go into almost any Catholic bookstore and you'll find books on meditation, the enneagram, and even zen for Catholics

That's your interpretation of the documents. Fortunately, Jesus Christ did not leave interpretation about doctrine open to individuals like you, he left it in the hands of the Magisterium.

How many times do Catholics here have to explain that these occult/syncrestic teachings you cite are being promulgated by Apostate Catholics? One of the gravest offenders, Matthew Fox, is now a Protestant. The "Catholics" who embrace these New Age teachings have more than likely excommunicated themselves from the Catholic Church through these apostate beliefs and are now Protestants whether they realize it or not.

By the way, this has been explained about fifty times at this blog already but people like you choose to ignore it. Amazing how expert people like you are in reading the Bible but how you "play dumb" when it comes to comprehending posts by Catholics at the Cumbey blog.
 
http://beforeitsnews.com/story/253/206/Aevus_Lucifer_pt.1_Aquarius_NEW_WORLD_ORDER_2012_Dajjal.html
 
http://beforeitsnews.com/story/253/206/Aevus_Lucifer_pt.1_Aquarius_NEW_WORLD_ORDER_2012_Dajjal.html
 
RESPONSE TO CATHOLIC-BAITING

You only have to look at the RC in the centuries where they had virtual global control during times like the Spanish Inquisition" to see what they are capable of.

You only have to look at post-reformation England to see what Protestants obsessed with political control are capable of.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forty_Martyrs_of_England_and_Wales

By the way, I would never ordinarily post a link like this at this site since I consider Protestants who adhere to the substance of the Nicene creed to be my brothers in Christ, and this includes several posters here. Snce people like you, however, keep trying to coerce Constance into turning this site into an anti-Catholic hate site, I felt it was in order. When you provoke people enough, they will usually fight back.
 
Sorry Anon 1:35 regarding your

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/Allah/moongod.html

Allah IS A DEMONIC PRINCIPALITY NOT ANOTHER NAME FOR JEHOVAH "CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE" GOD

SORRY!!!
 
Anon 10:36

I know... It is important to understand what the "other side" so to speak... believes!!
 
Oddly enough people such as Cardinal Ottaviani, Cardinal Siri, and many, many other prelates agree that the documents of Vatican II are humanistic at best, New Age at worst. So your magesterium hasn't exactly been in one accord (still isn't) on these issues. There are a number of Catholic prelates I can name right now who agree that the church is experiencing mass apostasy within its own heirarchy. It is only the uninformed and uneducated Catholic who clings to the infallibility dogma that are so easily fooled by these demons in cassocks.
 
Well, Islam, the UN, and the New Age Movement are strange bed fellows!

How many here are connecting the dots?

How you people can't see with your own eyes, feel with your own hands and hear with your own ears is just childish.

"The Organization of the Islamic Conference supports the murderous Muslim regime of Sudan. Hence the UN supports the murderous Muslim regime of Sudan. This is genocide. This is jihad. Millions dead over the past twenty years."

http://tinyurl.com/298gp8h
 
Hi

Maybe someone can explain a few things which puzzle me.

Does the Catholic church still teach that the teachings of the pope are still infallible and that priests are also anointed to interpret correctly?

Surely history shows how very fallible these men actually are, for example the disgusting immorality of many and the clear errors and contradictions and vaccillations, that the present pope teaches. If a pope is infallible in what he says, how can he contradict himself?

In fact when we put our trust in the interpretations of mere flesh and blood (no different from you or me) we allow ourselves to be deceived IF this man falls from grace (as some popes have done throughout history) and is not actually anointed by the Holy Spirit (because of a sinful heart, for only God knows the heart of a man, surely not the church.

How can the church say that priests are anointed if they live godless lives. "By their fruit you will know the false prophets".

Please clear this up for me.

Thanks
 
Anon @3:34 p.m.

There are no perfect people, not even the Pope. Catholics read the Bible, it's when disputes arise on a particular issue that we have a teaching authority to help solve things.

When you read Shakespeare in school, we have guides to tell us what they mean. We don't pick up the texts and self-interpret them. It's not possible.

The Bible is a even more intricate text. We rely on commentaries written by the early church that compiled the Bible, as well as the exegesis of theologians throughout the centuries.

Who do Protestants turn to when their churches cannot agree on something?

History has proved that you have split and created new churches, because these disputes could not be resolved.

The same thing is happening all over again. This has nothing to do with what Catholics do or do not do.


Savvy
 
"New Age is a term used by Catholic . . ." NEWS TO ME! Terminology sure didn't originate with Catholics, although for sure there were plenty of New Age Catholics (Rembert Weakland, Cardinal Bernardin, Matthew Fox, Basil Pennington, Brother David Steindl-Rast" who used terminology with knowledge of its occult connections.

Constance
 
Oddly enough people such as Cardinal Ottaviani, Cardinal Siri, and many, many other prelates agree that the documents of Vatican II are humanistic at best, New Age at worst. So your magesterium hasn't exactly been in one accord (still isn't) on these issues. There are a number of Catholic prelates I can name right now who agree that the church is experiencing mass apostasy within its own heirarchy. It is only the uninformed and uneducated Catholic who clings to the infallibility dogma that are so easily fooled by these demons in cassocks.

This post is meant to be a joke, right? Please tell me it is, and that you forgot the sarcasm tag, because I have a hard time believing that anyone who bothers to follow this blog could be this incredibly stupid.

I sincerely hope you were trying to poke fun at how some Protestants are so blinded by anti-Catholic conditioning that they can't even be bothered to do basic due diligence to make sure that they understand the meanings of terms like "magisterium" and "papal infallability" before they go on their anti-Catholic tirades.

Or perhaps you are deliberately distorting the terms "magisterium" and "papal infallibility" in order to bait Catholics and incite more anti-Catholic bigotry. If so, how do you justify this under God's law? Or do you think you are no longer accountable to Him for your actions because you follow that heretical teaching taught in some Protestant churches called "Once Saved Always Saved"?
 
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
It is sad the state of discussion that derives a lot around the ideas and pride of self. From Islam, to Catholicism, a lot of back and forth has happened.

Know this, though the church is the church. It is neither protestant or catholic, and apostacy is rampant in many forms and everywhere people are sleeping. The back adn forth, point, counter point really does nothing to draw attention to Jesus. Remember, in the Revelation letters, there were all sorts of difficulties and no one is clean.

As to Islam, it is ripe with decay and twisting as a religion. They are deceived from knowing Yahweh truly. Yet, there are those within Ishmeal who will and do. It has nothing to do with the "global" and everything to do with the individual. Perhaps we all need to take another look at the story of the Good Smaritan. Also need to be focused on reconciling others to Jesus, not speaking on the "evils" of islam, catholics, protestants or the like.

We are to be "sober-minded" and "alert" and there have been those that have come and sought to sow seeds of division to there own means. It has been done to great effect. So let me ask you this? What are you missing? Did anyone check out the think of England and Israel?

Are you excited or concerned about the state of politics in US?

How can we move this beyond this back and forth? Or is it simply that what really stirs is the discussions over that which debatable and the back and forth "I am better, you are worse, blah, blah, blah"

Note, the US elections swung the pendulum of how the structure is being set. Watch for the court decisions and the laws agreed on. Pay close attention to immigration politics and national "control"
 
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
To understand why the Catholic Church puts an emphasis on analysis by religious academics rather than the "do it yourself" system of Protestants one has to understand how Jewish law came about. The court system was used to analyze the words of the bible and turn them into law to be followed.

http://www.aish.com/jl/m/pm/48936377.html

"The Sanhedrin was the supreme council of Israel. As long as it stood, it was the supreme court and legislative body in all matters of Torah law. As such, the Sanhedrin was entrusted with keeping and interpreting the Oral Torah.

"It is a positive commandment to set up courts to interpret and decide questions of Torah law. It is thus written, "You shall appoint judges and officers in all your gates, which God is giving you" (Deut. 16:18).

"The commandment includes the communal responsibility to appoint a duly ordained Sanhedrin. This precedes the establishment of other courts."

Understanding the Jewish court system then and now can get complicated.

http://rivkinsociety.com/documents/Pharisees/Beth%20Din,%20Boule,%20Sanhedrin.pdf
http://tinyurl.com/26v6kjy

The followers of Jesus hoped that their teachings were to move the community forward into their interpretation of prophecy. They were going to use the same establishment model that came before them.

Dorothy
 
looking into the Hopi prophecies is not wrong, you can see which side of the fence they are on... they are not christians yet they have a piece of the puzzle, hatred of the white man and the soon beheading of christians, what did the white man bring? knowledge of Jesus, which they reject, anyone with eyes can see they are headed to hell with their false religion, their "spirits" lied to them giving a kernel of truth wrapped in a big lie, meant to appeal to the HEART, which is wicked and no man can know the depths of said wickedness.
 
you delete my posts about forced teaming, a tactic of grifters and con men, now i am certain it is no mistake, you are hiding the truth and know full well what you are doing.
 
I feel like a substantial number of demons from hell are coming out to play on this board. Because I said I don't think the erroneous perception of our God and his teachings equate to "Moon God" does not equal "apostasy." I have worked so very hard over the years and have asked for nothing for myself.

I have personally met and I respect Bob Morey even though I have not always agreed with him; however, I still am unconvinced that when somebody prays to Allah (that's what Mideastern Christians call God as well) that they are referring to a "Moon God." According to the Wikipedia article, at least, Mohamed considered himself a descendant of Ishmael, the older son of Abraham. Abraham was called out of an idolatrous culture when the entire post-Flood world had lapsed into idolatry. Ishamael had much contact with Abraham after he and his mother had been banished after the birth of Isaiah. According to the Scriptures, he came back and assisted in the burial of Abraham.

I would never say Islamic theology is compatible with Christianity, ON THE OTHER HAND, I am much more worried about the very real apostasy of CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE institutions such as Point Loma University in Southern California where professors such as Dr. Dwayne Little proclaim "certain parts of Nazarene theology are compatible with Theosophy. (He never answered my email as to "which ones?") I am concerned about the professors at Evangelical seminaries now proclaiming evolution.

Bad as Moslem theology may be, as I understand it, they have not denied the Creation, the Biblical Flood, etc. These professors who profess to be "evangelical" have denied the very foundations of any belief in God by proclaiming nothing from nothing in a form of "natural selection."

Constance
 
To 6:40 p.m.

No, your post was so ugly and I am human too. You are full of ugly and false accusations. You have an agenda and I don't suppose it is one friendly to God or Jesus Christ in any respect that I can presently discern. I'm human too!

Constance
 
Deleted posts mean someone has something to hide.
 
Constance said: "I would never say Islamic theology is compatible with Christianity, ON THE OTHER HAND, I am much more worried about the very real apostasy of CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE institutions . . ."

Really! You are much more worried about some apostate NAZARENE . . . than Islam?

http://usataxpayer.org/view.asp?Get=islam&ncid=4590240

http://tinyurl.com/3y8ptmt
 
Dorothy,

Thanks for that analysis. Sola Scriptura was never part of Judaism either.


Savvy
 
To Anon @ 6:40 PM:
Re: "....and know full well what you are doing."
___________________________________

I would say that you are the one who knows 'full well what YOU are doing' in your obsessive compulsive bashing....with your transparent attempts to distract everyone from the purpose of this blog.
 
And deleted posts can also mean that somebody has posted a commercial message here or that it is too vile to retain.

Constance
 
To Anonymous 3:34

The Catholic Church, as I understand it, does not and has never taught that all papal teachings are "infallible." There is a Catholic belief that when the Pope speaks "ex cathedra" that there is infallibility. Interestingly, even this was a comparatively new Catholic doctrine coming into existence in 1870, only five years before the birth of the Theosophical Society in 1875.

Constance
 
Constance,

Just for the record, I for one never claimed Allah was the "moon god". I merely refuted your claim that Allah was the same entity as the God of the Bible.

omots
 
To Anonymous 3:34

The Catholic Church, as I understand it, does not and has never taught that all papal teachings are "infallible." There is a Catholic belief that when the Pope speaks "ex cathedra" that there is infallibility. Interestingly, even this was a comparatively new Catholic doctrine coming into existence in 1870, only five years before the birth of the Theosophical Society in 1875.

Constance
 
Book Review- Hidden Dangers of the Rainbow and A Planned Deception

“Constance Cumbey deserves credit and appreciation. But, although she has succeeded more than anyone else at waking the church up to the New Age movement, the “New Age movement” that the church awoke to is decidedly different from the New Age movement that is really out there as our “test” [refutation] of Cumbey’s theory has shown.”

Elliot Miller

http://www.equip.org/articles/constance-cumbey-s-new-age-conspiracy-theory
 
To OMOTS

And I never claimed that the Islamic concept of "Allah" was compatible with true teachings given us of the God of the Bible; HOWEVER, I did say that the Moslem perception is that they are worshiping the one and same God of the Bible. The "Moon God" story, I believe started with Robert Morey. I believe he was well-intentioned enough, but there are others who had vastly different agendas of pitting target groups against each other who employed it. I firmly suspect that this will be used to speed up the process of bringing now well developed Alliance of Civilizations machinery down against us!

Constance
 
Eliot Miller was never a friend of my work to expose the New Age Movement. In fact, he has been a profound agent of disinformation and his girlfriend was deeply into the "holistic movement" when I was doing my prime work in the 1980s. He was part of the cabal that brought J. GORDON MELTON into try and suppress my work at what was obviously a disinformation conference at the Denver Seminary on March 14-15, 1985. You can read J. Gordon Melton's summary of it in his 1991 NEW AGE ALMANAC, page 312.

If a bigger New Ager than J. Gordon Melton (an open adorer of Ramtha the '35,000 year old man' and an open practitioner of Vampirism) ever existed, I have yet to hear of one. And yet, the brought him to that Denver Seminary to give a talk entitled A CHRISTIAN RESPONSE TO THE HIDDEN DANGERS OF THE RAINBOW. Eliot Miller was very much in on that mess!

Constance
 
Anon 6:40:

This is Constance's blog. She has the right to delete any posts she feels like deleting. I sincerely doubt she would ever delete a post, no matter how provocative, unless it was vulgar and/or off-color. I wish she would use the "delete" key more often, to be honest.

Furthermore, whether Constance wants to or feels a need to answer any question is HER CHOICE!
 
Re Church of the Nazarene, check this:
http://thankgodforevolution.com/node/836

"Can God Love Darwin, Too?

"Newsweek
September 11, 2007
Evolutionists Fight the 'Godless' Rap

"By Sharon Begley
Sept. 17, 2007 issue - There may be some battlefields where the gospel's "blessed are the peacemakers" holds true. But despite the work of a growing number of scholars and millions of dollars in foundation funding to find harmony between science and faith, evolution still isn't one of them. Just ask biologist Richard Colling. A professor at Olivet Nazarene University in Illinois and a lifelong member of the evangelical Church of the Nazarene, Colling wrote a 2004 book called "Random Designer" because—as he said in a letter to students and colleagues this year—"I want you to know the truth that God is bigger, far more profound and vastly more creative than you may have known." Moreover, he said, God "cares enough about creation to harness even the forces of [Darwinian] randomness."

"For all the good it's done him, Colling might as well have thrown a book party for Christopher Hitchens ("God Is Not Great") and Richard Dawkins ("The God Delusion"). Anger over his work had been building for two years. When classes resumed in late August, things finally came to a head. Colling is prohibited from teaching the general biology class, a version of which he had taught since 1991, and college president John Bowling has banned professors from assigning his book. At least one local Nazarene church called for Colling to be fired and threatened to withhold financial support from the college. In a letter to Bowling, ministers in Caro, Mo., expressed "deep concern regarding the teaching of evolutionary theory as a scientifically proven fact," calling it "a philosophy that is godless, contrary to scripture and scientifically unverifiable." Irate parents, pastors and others complained to Bowling, while a meeting between church leaders and Colling "led to some tension and misunderstanding," Bowling said in a letter to trustees. (Well, "misunderstanding" in the sense that the Noachian flood was a little puddle.) It's a rude awakening to scientists who thought the Galilean gulf was closing.
Colling's troubles come as more and more researchers are fighting the "godless" rap, emphasizing that evolution does not preclude a deity (though neither does it require one). One approach is to interpret evolution as the mechanism by which a creator creates. Physicist Karl Giberson of Eastern Nazarene College takes this tack in "Saving Darwin," which will be published next year. Michael Dowd, a former anti-evolution crusader who is now an itinerant minister, argues in "Thank God for Evolution!," out in November, that understanding evolution can deepen and strengthen faith. He's in good company . . ."
 
Re Theosophy at Point Loma Nazarene University:

http://tinyurl.com/mbeftz

Constance
 
Well your trust in Constance is misplaced then. I saw one of the posts she deleted and there was nothing crude or "vile", as she put it, in the post. She is simply dodging the issues put to her in that case. She was challenged to provide Biblical justification for things she has said, and challenged on her inconsistency regarding where and where not to broadcast. While I sure don't think everything said about her here has been fair, I have noticed her ducking issues she knows she can't defend, and avoiding answering direct and legitimate questions asked of her. The post she deleted made a good point. You can't keep running from the responsibility of your stated positions by constantly throwing out the "they're just out to get me" card. It isn't holding water anymore, and I for one, though I've been a supporter for some time, am very disappointed in Constance's response and what I feel has been a woeful lack of Biblical clarity.

-Ann
 
From the Point Loma Walking Tour which I just gave you the link to:

" Dr. Little promoted not only historic preservation but also new use of
Theosophical architectural elements such as flattened arches, open-air curved stairways, and skylights.
Remaining buildings were restored with an eye toward continued educational use. The Spalding house,
designed with geometry in the naturalist/moralist tradition of Orson Fowler’s popular The Octagon House:
A Home for All, was beautifully restored inside and out. In 1983, Dr. Little spent the summer in a local
garage working with others to re-create the globe-skylight which now stands above the Spalding
house/Mieras Hall. What is now called Point Loma Nazarene University continues many of the best of
Point Loma Theosophist traditions: education with a spiritual bent and emphasis on ancient religious
wisdom; promotion of fine arts and theater in the San Diego region; a deep appreciation for creation and
Creator; and encouragement of social and political progress. . . ."
http://tinyurl.com/mbeftz
 
Who is "Ann"?
Who is "Lee"?
 
You know, there are only so many hours in a day, Constance is 66 years old and sometimes she gets tired too. Unlike most of the others, she has never passed the hat for monetary contributions, she has a disabled husband, and her hands very much full on many fronts. What do you expect of the woman??

BE REASONABLE!
 
To Ann @ 8:15 PM:
Re: "....in Constance's response and what I feel has been a woeful lack of Biblical clarity."
__________________________________

Excuse me, but Constance continues to make herself quite CLEAR.

The problem is that some of you are determined to play a game of 'gotcha'....and I would like to remind everyone once again that Constance is NOT ON TRIAL here....and that her only Judge is the same one who is going to judge all of you.

If a few of you don't agree with her, then what is stopping you from finding another blog....or forming one with each other? (Somehow, I have a feeling that even leaving this blog wouldn't solve your 'problem' though.)
 
22Because with lies ye have made the heart of the righteous sad, whom I have not made sad; and strengthened the hands of the wicked, that he should not return from his wicked way, by promising him life: 23Therefore ye shall see no more vanity, nor divine divinations: for I will deliver my people out of your hand: and ye shall know that I am the LORD.
 
Constance,

The Magisterium has 12 people, just like the 12 apostles. The Pope is one of the 12. Whenever there is dispute about something, the 12 have to examine, debate it, and then Peter has to approve of it, like he did at the Council of Jerusalem.

The primacy of Peter has been there since the earliest days. It's an organic development. There can be a development of doctrine, but there cannot be a new one.

Savvy
 
Dear Savvy,

Thank you for the clarification. Interestingly, Foster Bailey wrote in THINGS TO COME that as long as the magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church was in place, they could not hope to implement New Age plans. But then, disturbingly, he said that Pope John XXIII had changed all of that in one week at Vatican II and that now (then when he wrote that book) the Roman Church was in a position where it could be used to advance "The Plan."

Benjamin Creme showed similar optimism until early in the 2000's wrote a book answering questions about "Maitreya"/Betraya and said that as long as Pope John Paul II were there they could not hope to accomplish what they needed done.

Constance
 
Savvy,

As I recall it also without getting the book out to write, Foster Bailey commented in THINGS TO COME that the Curia had been "stripped of its power" in Vatican II.

I don't know if that was the case or not, maybe you can enlighten.

Constance
 
Constance,

Vatican 2 was a pastoral conference. It did not teach new doctrine.

It did permit greater dissent, because a lot of dissenters were not held to task by Bishops and priests who had mis-read church documents.

The council sought to address the needs of the universal church, where Catholicism could be adopted into local cultures. It did produce fruit and people also went too far with it, esp. in the Western world.

Pope John Paul 2 was aware of the problems, and introduced reforms in the priesthood, whose results we are now seeing with much younger priests.

It's hard to find a Liberal among any priest born after 1980.

Most of them are baby-boomers.

The Liberals still continue to fight on. The task ahead would be to challenge them to prove their points from Vatican 2 documents itself.

There's no point in debating personal views anymore when the poison of subjectivism as C.S Lewis would call it is rampant.


Savvy
 
Constance,

I will also add that I am way to young, to know what things were like in church management before Vatican 2 and what exactly changed. Perhaps someone who was around, might be able to answer this question a lot better.


Savvy
 
I've finally finished part II of Bill Johnson's 'Born Again' Jesus:

http://notunlikelee.wordpress.com/2010/11/07/bill-johnsons-born-again-jesus-part-ii/

or

http://tinyurl.com/3xalhgz
 
I should have stated (I'm very tired at the moment...) that Johnson, part II shows New Age implications on Johnson's theology and Word of Faith/Latter Rain doctrine.
 
I've skimmed through the latest comments here. I do want to point out that Jesus lambasted the Pharisees for putting their "tradition" (oral law) first while they “neglected the more important matters of the law – justice, mercy and faithfulness” [Matthew 23:23 NIV] creating a more works-based religion than one with a personal God.
 
Constance / Savvy:

Here is a link listing the changes within the Catholic Church with Vatican II (beginning in November, 1964).

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/st
ories/cns/0506013.htm
 
From Anon 3.34pm
To Constance 7.50pm

Thanks for your answer and to others who have answered.

I asked those questions because I noticed (a lot of times) when someone quotes the Bible verses (which seem self explanatory) to back up their argument, some of our Catholic writers have criticised that person for their interpretation. In fact the criticisms seem overly harsh to me.

They state that only the Church Fathers can interpret the Bible correctly. Mere humans like you and I have no right to come to conclusions from the Bible. That tells me that some of our catholic brethren believe these interpretations to be infallible.

So does that mean that I should not read the Bible but read the writings instead because they are infallible whereas my understanding of the Bible is very fallible?

But what if I misinterpret the Fathers Writings? Wouldn't it be better to read the Bible direct rather than the risk of getting completely confused by secondary writings?
 
Obama's "Islam distorted by a few extremists" defends Islam.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article872701.ece

Constance Cumbey's "I do believe that the Moslems (apart from the clearly New Age mystical Sufis) believe their Allah, the Jewish Jehovah, and "Our Father which art in Heaven" are one and the same." Defends Islam.

Anonymous said...

Constance said: "I would never say Islamic theology is compatible with Christianity, ON THE OTHER HAND, I am much more worried about the very real apostasy of CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE institutions . . ."

Really! You are much more worried about some apostate NAZARENE . . . than Islam?

Her answer in part:
"By Sharon Begley
Sept. 17, 2007 issue - There may be some battlefields where the gospel's "blessed are the peacemakers" holds true. But despite the work of a growing number of scholars and millions of dollars in foundation funding to find harmony between science and faith, evolution still isn't one of them. Just ask biologist Richard Colling. A professor at Olivet Nazarene University in Illinois and a lifelong member of the evangelical Church of the Nazarene, Colling wrote a 2004 book called "Random Designer" because—as he said in a letter to students and colleagues this year—"I want you to know the truth that God is bigger, far more profound and vastly more creative than you may have known." Moreover, he said, God "cares enough about creation to harness even the forces of [Darwinian] randomness."

Wow, that answered that! Did you check out those links?

I believe you-al talked about this before, but the juxtaposition with Constance Cumbey's answer begs for it, but you-al will continue to ignore the clear and present danger that is Islam.

"They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other. This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favour of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such."
"Pope Benedict concedes there is substantial proof to support theory of evolution!"


http://usataxpayer.org/view.asp?Get=islam&ncid=4590240

http://tinyurl.com/3y8ptmt

You people have quite the knack for cognitive dissonance when circling the wagons; let me see, Obama and CC are on the same side; how often does Constance Cumbey actually criticize Obama?
 
"And I never claimed that the Islamic concept of "Allah" was compatible with true teachings given us of the God of the Bible; HOWEVER, I did say that the Moslem perception is that they are worshiping the one and same God of the Bible."

I find this statement very confusing Constance CONCEPT being the questionable word here. Is Allah God (our Creator) or isn't he? Would be a clearer approach if you asked me.

omots is clear!
anon 10:36 is clear!
 
They state that only the Church Fathers can interpret the Bible correctly. Mere humans like you and I have no right to come to conclusions from the Bible. That tells me that some of our catholic brethren believe these interpretations to be infallible.

Again, you misunderstand the teachings of the Catholic Church as regards "authority." Catholics are free to come to their own conclusions about matters in scripture so long as those interpretations do not conflict with teachings of the Magesterium in matters of Faith and Morals. In these matters, individuals are free to come to their own conclusions or follow their theologian of choice.

The idea that the Bible is self-interpreting in all matters is simply contradicted by the evidence. Take antinomianism and Arminiasm, for example, and witness the number of splits that have taken place over the centuries because Protestants couldn't disagree on these particular matters.

Protestants on this very blog cannot even agree amongst themselves about an objective meaning of Matthew 16:18 and this is only one single verse. Yet you expect Catholics to accept the claim that scripture is in all instances "Self explanatory"? Sorry, but I cannot park logic at the door when I talk about the Christian faith.
 
Take antinomianism and Arminiasm, for example, and witness the number of splits that have taken place over the centuries because Protestants couldn't disagree on these particular matters.

Sorry - that should have read:

....because Protestants couldn't agree on these particular matters.
 
Sorry, but can anybody else see the flaw in Anon 7.10am's argument?

Anon is basically saying that it is okay to interpret the scriptures but you cannot have your own interpretations because it MUST match with the experts.

What is the point of reading the Bible if you cannot interpret for yourself?

This is why the vast majority of Catholics do not read the Bible but follow the teachings, advice of the "experts": the Pope, Cardinals and priests instead, because they are not trusted to study the Bible for themselves, in case they start believing differently from the Catholic Church.

It is true that there are difficult passages in the Bible which (as Paul pointed out) the unscruplous abuse and misuse to their destruction. It is true that (in these days) there are many false groups within the Protestant evangelical churches who do this very thing of twisting the scriptures.

However, any sincere seeker of God, who has received the Holy Spirit can be taught by the Holy Spirit the correct interpretations by applying the context of the whole Bible together.

Much of the Bible (for a person without a closed mind)is easy to understand. Once all the easier passages are collated together and understood, the more difficult passages become clearer and easier to understand. You then simply apply what has been learnt already to the more difficult passages until they have been understood and keep progressing in this way.

Has it never occurred to you that those who make arguments for trusting the "experts" are afraid that the mere child of faith may see the truth if they study the Bible, looking to God alone for help in interpreting?

This is what people like Benny Hinn, Todd Bentley etc do, they twist the scriptures bringing in what the "experts" say like Kenneth Copeland and put curses on anybody who shows them what the scriptures actually say. In fact, a lot of false protestant groups and their organisation operate very similarly to the hierarchy of the Catholic institution, like the apostolic Restoration movement. Their leaders behave like Cardinals and Popes, also.

Could they be co-workers with the Vatican, maybe as agents to bring about ecumenism?
 
I meant to say

Are the Catholic leaders afraid that a mere child of faith might learn the real truth (within the Bible) of their faith and see (for themselves) the many contradictions and false dogmas within the Fathers writings?
 
Here is a good site explaining the close ties between the Vatican and Islam -

http://tiny.cc/xzn0x

Snip - "And where will they pray together?

Do you think The Pope in May entered the Temple Mount to go for a stroll to watch the beautiful view? It was both a display of new Catholic-Muslim unity, and a chance to debate the last practical solutions before a final agreement can be reached."

P.
 
Constance,

Okay fine. Then I am refuting Islam's claim that Allah is the same entity as the God of the Bible and wondering why you find it necessary to so firmly support Islam (which you admit is error).

Dorothy stated:

"To me it is unclear whether you are protecting the image of Muslims in general or the entire religion of Islam."

In my opinion, you are protecting the image and religion of Islam because you have put too much faith in the insane utterances of demons. You admit Bailey's was a doctrine of demons, but then you've gone on to build your entire theology around what she said, as if it were the gospel truth.

You're wrong. I do get it.

Constance, I would advise you take a vacation, get your head out of the doctrines of demons and back into the word of God.

No, I'm not trying to shut this blog down. But I would just like to see what a month of Bible reading and rest would do for you. No new age crap, just you and the Lord. Think about it. Hey, just for the heck of it, take 40 days.



omots
 
Good idea 40 days but please not Rick Warren's 40 days to read Purpose Drivel but simply the Bible ONLY (without reading the uninspired Apoc.)
 
Ann,

I think any comment that shows disrespect to Constance should get deleted. Slumdog, I believe the sky is blue and I'm sure Barack Obama believes the sky is blue, too. This doesn't mean we are the same. OMOTS, Constance's Christian faith is not dependent on what she believes about Islam. She could believe Muslims worship chocolate cake and it would have no baring on her own faith.


I for one could care less about what Muslims believe and more about how they have placed themselves in enmity towards Christians. Whether or not they are cheered on by new agers or not. Like Adam and Eve, they have a choice. They choose (well, maybe not all Muslims) to persecute Christians. There are other sources of Christian persecution. We know this. Islam is a big source of it, though.
 
FYI, Savvy,
It was James who sent the letter and put forth the conclusion of the Jerusalem council. It was not Peter.
 
FYI, Savvy,
It was James who sent the letter and put forth the conclusion of the Jerusalem council. It was not Peter.
 
Do you know what is sad here? Instead of working together as Christians, you are arguing over topics which have been argued over for centuries. There are lots of things going on currently in the world which everyone on this blog can talk about, research, and discuss that effects our world today. Not that the topics reguarding the differences between Catholics, and Protestants are not important, because they are. It is just that there are so many things that we can work together on, that we are missing the opportunities to do so. In the end times, when the Antichrist is in power, are we going to continue our fighting among ourselves, or are we going to stand up for our one and only Savior Jesus Christ? We will still have our differences, but will they matter, would they stop you from working with someone who is ALSO a Christian but does not believe exactly as you do? Lets look at what is currently going on in our world, and work together. There are other forums that we can go to so that we can argue over our differences. Constance, you are doing a good thing at this blog, please continue to uncover and post things which are happening.
 
Anony 9:38 it is sad. Basically it simply takes one to come in, stir up the "differences" and get people to the back and forth arguing. It is not hard, particularly when people feel that what is important is attacked. It is done with intent and purpose. Loaded words, exchanges back and forth and truth and untruth.
Yet in all this, the command of "considering others and more important than self" gets lots. The starting point for each of us is surrender to God. God is sure and capable. Yet, we get bent out of shape, sure of self and own attachments. We miss the humility and gentleness that we are direct to walk in via Ephesians 4.
Humilty- an accurate evaluation of self before God. And Gentleness, acting with the appropriate measure at the appropriate time.

So the question here then is "bearing with one another" and "showing patience" and not attending to differences a "false ecumenicism" or is there a level of trying to love one another as Christ loves the church? Does that mean stand for falsehoods, be no means. Rather, it is a focus on building one another up, walking in patience. It is speaking truth in love. There are many differences. Differences are endless. Yet, God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. So those seeking to "Corret" others here that they may "learn and get it right" or "be exposed" the question I have is are you "Bearing with one another?"
Here is the thing, there are very specific things going on in the world and church that need light shined on them. The light needs to be shined so that others may wake up. And here is the pointed question, right now where is your love, where is your passion where is your focus? Have you lost sight of Jesus? Have you lost sight of what it is to serve him and him alone? Anything beyong that is empty words sewn of self. Here is a suggestion. Before you respond and respond further take time and read EPhesians 4 and ask God to show you how it applies today. For there are important things to be awake, alert and sober minded. The devouring of one another with the back and forth simply is not founded on God's love and truth. Again James poitns to where such conflicts come from, the evil desires within... So what are the desires that are prompting the devouring of one anothers flesh? Are any of us Jesus that we may seperate wheat and tares?
 
Sorry, but can anybody else see the flaw in Anon 7.10am's argument?

Anon was basically saying that it is okay to interpret the scriptures but you cannot have your own interpretations because it MUST match with the experts.

What is the point of reading the Bible if you cannot interpret for yourself?

This is why the vast majority of Catholics do not read the Bible but follow the teachings, advice of the "experts": the Pope, Cardinals and priests instead, because they are not trusted to study the Bible for themselves, in case they start believing differently from the Catholic Church.

It is true that there are difficult passages in the Bible which (as Paul pointed out) the unscruplous abuse and misuse to their destruction. It is true that (in these days) there are many false groups within the Protestant evangelical churches who do this very thing of twisting the scriptures.

However, any sincere seeker of God, who has received the Holy Spirit can be taught by the Holy Spirit the correct interpretations by applying the context of the whole Bible together.

Much of the Bible (for a person without a closed mind)is easy to understand. Once all the easier passages are collated together and understood, the more difficult passages become clearer and easier to understand. You then simply apply what has been learnt already to the more difficult passages until they have been understood and keep progressing in this way.

Has it never occurred to you that those who make arguments for trusting the "experts" are afraid that the mere child of faith may see the truth (if they study the Bible for themselves, whilst looking to God alone for help in interpreting)?

Are the Catholic leaders afraid that a mere child of faith might learn the real truth (within the Bible) of their faith and therefore see and realise (for themselves) the many contradictions and false dogmas within the Fathers writings?

This is similar in false protestant evangelical circles. This is what people like Benny Hinn, Todd Bentley etc do, they twist the scriptures bringing in what the "experts" say like Kenneth Copeland and put curses on anybody who shows them what the scriptures actually say. In fact, a lot of false protestant groups and their organisation operate very similarly to the hierarchy of the Catholic institution, like the apostolic Restoration movement. Their leaders behave like Cardinals and Popes, also.

Could they be co-workers with the Vatican, maybe as agents to bring about ecumenism?
 
Sorry, but can anybody else see the flaw in Anon 7.10am's argument?

Anon was basically saying that it is okay to interpret the scriptures but you cannot have your own interpretations because it MUST match with the experts.

What is the point of reading the Bible if you cannot interpret for yourself?

This is why the vast majority of Catholics do not read the Bible but follow the teachings, advice of the "experts": the Pope, Cardinals and priests instead, because they are not trusted to study the Bible for themselves, in case they start believing differently from the Catholic Church.

It is true that there are difficult passages in the Bible which (as Paul pointed out) the unscruplous abuse and misuse to their destruction. It is true that (in these days) there are many false groups within the Protestant evangelical churches who do this very thing of twisting the scriptures.

However, any sincere seeker of God, who has received the Holy Spirit can be taught by the Holy Spirit the correct interpretations by applying the context of the whole Bible together.

Much of the Bible (for a person without a closed mind)is easy to understand. Once all the easier passages are collated together and understood, the more difficult passages become clearer and easier to understand. You then simply apply what has been learnt already to the more difficult passages until they have been understood and keep progressing in this way.

Has it never occurred to you that those who make arguments for trusting the "experts" are afraid that the mere child of faith may see the truth (if they study the Bible for themselves, whilst looking to God alone for help in interpreting)?

Are the Catholic leaders afraid that a mere child of faith might learn the real truth (within the Bible) of their faith and therefore see and realise (for themselves) the many contradictions and false dogmas within the Fathers writings?

This is similar in false protestant evangelical circles. This is what people like Benny Hinn, Todd Bentley etc do, they twist the scriptures bringing in what the "experts" say like Kenneth Copeland and put curses on anybody who shows them what the scriptures actually say. In fact, a lot of false protestant groups and their organisation operate very similarly to the hierarchy of the Catholic institution, like the apostolic Restoration movement. Their leaders behave like Cardinals and Popes, also.

Could they be co-workers with the Vatican, maybe as agents to bring about ecumenism?
 
By the way, the scriptures teach that you cannot mix light with darkness. We are told to expose darkness. This means darkness within the churches.

Joining Catholics and Protestants together in false unity with compromise is called ecumenism and is forbidden in Scriptures "do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers! "what fellowship is there light with darkness"
 
Hi Peacebringer 9.28.

You made a very important point. If Peter was the Pope, how is it that James made the decisions and indeed sent St Paul off to deliver the message. It seems that James was the head apostle or The chairman (at that time). How does that fit in with the idea that Peter was in charge as the first Pope?
 
Referring to this event Paul wrote to the Galatians in chapter 1:19
"I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother."

James (not the first James who was killed by Herod) presumably took the place of the first James as a replacement Apostle but became head.

Notice he was the brother of Jesus. This means that Mary had sexual relations AFTER Jesus was born. The gospel accounts say that there were other brothers and sisters too.

How does that fit in with the doctrine of Mary? Does that make all the brothers and sisters sinless too? What about their children. Were their children also sinless? Or was Mary simply a tool in God's hand to be used by the Holy Spirit to give birth BY the Holy Spirit?
 
To Jesus
 
Peacebringer,

James concluded with agreeing with what Simeon has said. Read the chapter again.


Savvy
 
"But what if I misinterpret the Fathers Writings? Wouldn't it be better to read the Bible direct rather than the risk of getting completely confused by secondary writings?"

Scripture and Tradition do not contradict each other, that is the point we are trying to make. It could be that your particular interpretation of scripture might contradict it. So you need to find out where you are getting these ideas from. If it is the Holy Spirit, then why don't your ideas match that of another Protestant on the same subject.

Savvy
 
Anon @11:39 a.m.

"The idea that Mary had other children first surfaced from a guy named Helvidius around 380 A.D. and it caused quite a stir cause no one held that belief at the time. Jerome, responded with a treatise called On the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mary. Jerome had access to much documentation from the early Church and he cited earlier well known Christian writers such as Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, and Justin Martyr. Helvidius was unable to come up with a reply. His theory died and lay dormant for over 1500 years until it recently resurfaced among modern Evangelicals.


What about the recently "discovered" James Ossuary?

A couple of years ago a huge archeological discovery gave the world the "James Ossuary" which said "...James brother of Jesus." It was in Newsweek magazine and the Evangelical press covered the find extensively as proof that Catholics were wrong about Mary's perpetual virginity. The person who discovered the ossuary, Oded Golan, was arrested July 21, 2003 and appeared the next day in court, where police revealed forging equipment -- stencils, stones and yet-to-be-completed forgeries -- they said were found in his home, according to the Associated Press. The Israeli Antiquities Authority (IAA) found him to be part an extensive forgery ring that has sold millions of dollars of artifacts to museums. Since then news of the ossuary has quietly disappeared from Evangelical apologetics.2



So who were the "brothers"?

Catholics think it is likely that they were cousins of Jesus. There was no other Greek word for cousin. Catholics think they probably lived in the same household as the Holy Family and Mary's sister, their mother. It was a common practice of the day and still is in middle eastern cultures to live with relatives. Jesus said "a prophet is not without honour in his own town, his own kin and his own house." (Mk 6:4)

They could also be the children of Joseph from another marriage where he was a widower. Tradition places Joseph considerably older than Mary. This is found in early Church fathers writings including the Infancy Gospel of James from 300A.D. Origen mentions the Book of James (and the Gospel of Peter) as stating that the 'brethren of the Lord' were sons of Joseph by a former wife. This is the first mention of it, and shows us that the book is as old as the second century.

IX. 1 ....And the priest said unto Joseph: Unto thee hath it fallen to take the virgin of the Lord and keep her for thyself. 2 And Joseph refused, saying: I have sons, and I am an old man, but she is a girl: lest I became a laughing-stock to the children of Israel. And the priest said unto Joseph: Hear the Lord thy God, and remember what things God did unto Dathan and Abiram and Korah, how the earth clave and they were swallowed up because of their gainsaying. And now fear thou, Joseph, lest it be so in thine house. And Joseph was afraid, and took her to keep her for himself. And Joseph said unto Mary: Lo, I have received thee out of the temple of the Lord: and now do I leave thee in my house, and I go away to build my buildings and I will come again unto thee. The Lord shall watch over thee. (Infancy Gospel of James aprox. 2nd century.


http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/mary_perpetual_virgin.htm
 
Sorry, but if Mary were a perpetual virgin she did not live up to her marriage covenant as per the Apostle Paul in 1st Corinthians 7. On top of that she disobeyed God's command from the Garden to be "fruitful and multiply." Further, having no children in the Jewish culture of the day was viewed that the woman must be barren at a time when motherhood was held in high esteem.
 
Criag,

A virgin marriage might seem bizarre, but so does the virgin birth.

Evangelicals have pointed to Mt 1:25 that says "but had no marital relations with her until she had borne son". They say it is proof that she had children after she had Jesus. The word "until" implies that an action did not take place up to a certain point. It says nothing of what happened after that point. For example, 2 Sam 6:23 says, "Michale the daughter of Saul had no children until [heõs] the day of her death." This doesn't mean she had children after her death. In heõs 1

The Reformers' Views on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary

Martin Luther on Mary's Perpetual Virginity

Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.

{Luther's Works, eds. Jaroslav Pelikan (vols. 1-30) & Helmut T. Lehmann (vols. 31-55), St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House (vols. 1-30); Philadelphia: Fortress Press (vols. 31-55), 1955, v.22:23 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }

Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that 'brothers' really mean 'cousins' here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.

{Pelikan, ibid., v.22:214-15 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }

A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ . . .

{Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:199 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) }

Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity . . .

When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom.

{Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:206,212-3 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523)


John Calvin on Mary's Perpetual Virginity

Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ's 'brothers' are sometimes mentioned.

{Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, sec. 39 (Geneva, 1562), vol. 2 / From Calvin's Commentaries, tr. William Pringle, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949, p.215; on Matthew 13:55}

[On Matt 1:25:] The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called 'first-born'; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.

{Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 107}

Under the word 'brethren' the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity.

{Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 283 / Commentary on John, (7:3) }
 
Huldreich Zwingli

He turns, in September 1522, to a lyrical defense of the perpetual virginity of the mother of Christ . . . To deny that Mary remained 'inviolata' before, during and after the birth of her Son, was to doubt the omnipotence of God . . . and it was right and profitable to repeat the angelic greeting - not prayer - 'Hail Mary' . . . God esteemed Mary above all creatures, including the saints and angels - it was her purity, innocence and invincible faith that mankind must follow. Prayer, however, must be . . . to God alone . . .

'Fidei expositio,' the last pamphlet from his pen . . . There is a special insistence upon the perpetual virginity of Mary.

{G. R. Potter, Zwingli, London: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1976, pp.88-9,395 / The Perpetual Virginity of Mary . . ., Sep. 17, 1522}

Zwingli had printed in 1524 a sermon on 'Mary, ever virgin, mother of God.'

{Thurian, ibid., p.76}

I have never thought, still less taught, or declared publicly, anything concerning the subject of the ever Virgin Mary, Mother of our salvation, which could be considered dishonourable, impious, unworthy or evil . . . I believe with all my heart according to the word of holy gospel that this pure virgin bore for us the Son of God and that she remained, in the birth and after it, a pure and unsullied virgin, for eternity.

{Thurian, ibid., p.76 / same sermon}



Heinrich Bullinger

Bullinger (d. 1575) . . . defends Mary's perpetual virginity . . . and inveighs against the false Christians who defraud her of her rightful praise: 'In Mary everything is extraordinary and all the more glorious as it has sprung from pure faith and burning love of God.' She is 'the most unique and the noblest member' of the Christian community . . .

'The Virgin Mary . . . completely sanctified by the grace and blood of her only Son and abundantly endowed by the gift of the Holy Spirit and preferred to all . . . now lives happily with Christ in heaven and is called and remains ever-Virgin and Mother of God.'

{In Hilda Graef, Mary: A history of Doctrine and Devotion, combined ed. of vols. 1 & 2, London: Sheed & Ward, 1965, vol.2, pp.14-5}



John Wesley (Founder of Methodism)

The Blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as when she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin.

{"Letter to a Roman Catholic" / In This Rock, Nov. 1990, p.25}
 
Evangelicals say that the idea of a marriage with no sex is bizarre. Sure. But a virgin birth and having the Saviour as your kid are also pretty out of the ordinary. Catholics think Mary and Joseph had a very special relationship. They were a very cool family. They were visited by angels, had prophetic dreams, and were running from town to town, from country to country, trying to keep from getting their only child killed. They were bringing up the Saviour who would redeem all mankind from the beginning to the end of history. Sure they were special. This was not an average Brady Bunch middle class comfy-cozy family. God had a very special plan for them and Catholics have no reason to doubt that part of that plan would include chastity. Catholics think God wanted it that way and let them know that that was his will from the outset. In that context, Mary's question "How can this be since I am (will always be) a virgin?" makes perfect sense.

Evangelicals have pointed to Mt 1:25 that says "but had no marital relations with her until she had borne son". They say it is proof that she had children after she had Jesus. The word "until" implies that an action did not take place up to a certain point. It says nothing of what happened after that point. For example, 2 Sam 6:23 says, "Michale the daughter of Saul had no children until [heõs] the day of her death." This doesn't mean she had children after her death. In heõs 1
 
Martin Luther on Mary's Perpetual Virginity

Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.

{Luther's Works, eds. Jaroslav Pelikan (vols. 1-30) & Helmut T. Lehmann (vols. 31-55), St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House (vols. 1-30); Philadelphia: Fortress Press (vols. 31-55), 1955, v.22:23 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }

Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that 'brothers' really mean 'cousins' here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.

{Pelikan, ibid., v.22:214-15 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }

A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ . . .

{Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:199 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) }

Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity . . .

When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom.

{Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:206,212-3 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) }


John Calvin on Mary's Perpetual Virginity

Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ's 'brothers' are sometimes mentioned.

{Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, sec. 39 (Geneva, 1562), vol. 2 / From Calvin's Commentaries, tr. William Pringle, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949, p.215; on Matthew 13:55}

[On Matt 1:25:] The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called 'first-born'; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.

{Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 107}

Under the word 'brethren' the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity.

{Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 283 / Commentary on John, (7:3) }
 
Criag,

It's the Protestant dis-continuation with everything from the church fathers to even Protestant reformers, makes it very clear that Protestants just make things up as they go along, without any historical basis.
 
BattleCheekyDave has waved his wand and all is well!

" Will your Christmas be a blue one if she doesn't agree with your position?" (A little sarcasm, hey Dave)

"Ann,

I think any comment that shows disrespect to Constance should get deleted.(Really?) Slumdog, I believe the sky is blue and I'm sure Barack Obama believes the sky is blue, too. This doesn't mean we are the same.(Keeping it simple hey stupid) OMOTS, Constance's Christian faith is not dependent on what she believes about Islam. She could believe Muslims worship chocolate cake and it would have no baring on her own faith."

(Well,that's having your cake and eating it too!)

Dave, we could spend a substantial amount of time on this, but I will forgo the sad state of your dismissive banalities; yes, you are trying to be true to your friend, but are you true to the truth? You say: "Constance's Christian faith is not dependent on what she believes about Islam." If it is true faith, it does, for if one believes other than faith in the shed blood of Christ for the propitiation of sin (Salvation), then it is questionable whether one understands Christian faith!
What I understand is that a serious contributor as OMOTS is treated like Juan Williams by NPR, because OMOTS sees a chink in your idols' armor. You folks have avoided the Islamic sham for far too long. Every incursion has been met with ridicule or silence; now that sham has been breached, you have no excuse for dismissing it, not that you did before.
 
Anon 1:03,

Catholics and Protestants have differing views on parts of "history."
 
Speaking of Shams, your blog has become just that!
 
Hurry Constance, delete before reason has its fruit!
 
Criag,

Yes, I agree that Catholics and Protestants disagree on history. I was talking about teachings of the faith. Protestants disagree with even Protestants.

I have no issues with this, because it's obvious that Protestants tolerate different teachings amongst themselves. If only they were kind enough to do the same with Catholics.
 
To Anon 12.58

What about John The Baptist

This is what it says about him:

Matthew 11:11
"Truly I tell you, among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet whoever is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he."

Was Mary NOT born of a woman?

If she was, then John the Baptist is said to be greater than Mary. Again: "there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist".

It even says "whoever is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he". That means you and I could be greater if we are humble enough.

Do we need "experts" to interpret what was said about John?

By saying that "traditions do not contradict" would be correct if no contradictions could be found, but anyone examining the Bible with an honest heart, by comparing scripture with scripture will find many contradictions in the traditions and writings compared to the Bible. I have pinpointed the one above.
 
OK, you've let the blog be taken over. You've forgotten why you set up the blog. You are hoping that there will be reasonable individuals who care enough about the dangers of the New Age movement to fight against the malicious strangers because it has happened over and over again on this blog.

Time to get a spine Constance and take back the blog yourself. You had the strength to take on the New Age movement. Would you let a bunch of self-centered writers take it over if they wanted to go on and on about the best way to make a turkey? You might try deleting any post that is not tied with factual information to the fight against the New Age movement.

Your mother may have told you to "make nice," with everyone, but it doesn't work with the kind of bullies who have been posting here.
 
However, any sincere seeker of God, who has received the Holy Spirit can be taught by the Holy Spirit the correct interpretations by applying the context of the whole Bible together.

Okay, if this is what you believe, let's see you put your theory into practice. Recently there was a disagreement between a couple of well-respected Protestant posters here at the Cumbey blog about the meaning of Matthew 16:18. Since their interpretations of that verse were mutually incompatible, one of them must be wrong and the other right.

Which of those posters was right and therefore by your definition a "sincere seeker" of God who is inspired by the Holy Spirit and which of those posters is wrong and therefore by your definition an insincere seeker who is not Holy Spirit-inspired?
 
MORE ANTI-CATHOLIC BIGOTRY

What is the point of reading the Bible if you cannot interpret for yourself?

This is why the vast majority of Catholics do not read the Bible but follow the teachings, advice of the "experts": the Pope, Cardinals and priests instead, because they are not trusted to study the Bible for themselves, in case they start believing differently from the Catholic Church.


How dare you make statements like this about Catholics that have no basis in fact. Why don't you tell us something about Jews and Blacks well you are at it?

Catholics do study the Bible and in fact are encouraged to do so.

Have you ever been to a Catholic mass or picked up a copy of a Catholic Church bulletin? Have you ever attended a Bible study at a Catholic parish?

If Catholics were "not trusted" to study the Bible why are they presented with scripture at every turn?

I really have a hard time believing people who claim to follow Jesus Christ can, in addition to being perfecctly comfortable bearing false witness against Catholics, can be so incredibly ignorant. No wonder more and more Protestant pastors are crossing the Tiber.
 
Thats right Constance. Continue to delete posts holding the self proclaimed watchman accountable to orthodox apologetics and Biblical theology. That is after all the only way you can continue the facade of cutting edge ministry, rather than false teaching.
 
MORE ANTI-CATHOLIC BIGOTRY

By the way, the scriptures teach that you cannot mix light with darkness. We are told to expose darkness. This means darkness within the churches.

Joining Catholics and Protestants together in false unity with compromise is called ecumenism and is forbidden in Scriptures "do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers! "what fellowship is there light with darkness"


Constance is a Protestant who isn't anti-Catholic. Get over it.

She has made it clear that in her view, Catholics are Christians in that they affirm the fundamentals of the Faith (the "ABC" argument she has posted many times).

Why can't you respect her for this on her own terms? If being anti-Catholic is so much a part of your religious identity as a Protestant why are you wasting your time here?
 
1Co 1:1 Paul, called by the will of God to be an apostle of Christ Jesus, and our brother Sosthenes,
1Co 1:2 To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours:
1Co 1:3 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
1Co 1:4 I give thanks to my God always for you because of the grace of God that was given you in Christ Jesus,
1Co 1:5 that in every way you were enriched in him in all speech and all knowledge--
1Co 1:6 even as the testimony about Christ was confirmed among you--
1Co 1:7 so that you are not lacking in any spiritual gift, as you wait for the revealing of our Lord Jesus Christ,
1Co 1:8 who will sustain you to the end, guiltless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.
1Co 1:9 God is faithful, by whom you were called into the fellowship of his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.
1Co 1:10 I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.
1Co 1:11 For it has been reported to me by Chloe's people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers.
1Co 1:12 What I mean is that each one of you says, "I follow Paul," or "I follow Apollos," or "I follow Cephas," or "I follow Christ."
1Co 1:13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
1Co 1:14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,
1Co 1:15 so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name.
1Co 1:16 (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.)
1Co 1:17 For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
1Co 1:18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
1Co 1:19 For it is written, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart."
1Co 1:20 Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
1Co 1:21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.
1Co 1:22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom,
1Co 1:23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles,
1Co 1:24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
1Co 1:25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
1Co 1:26 For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth.
1Co 1:27 But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong;
1Co 1:28 God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are,
1Co 1:29 so that no human being might boast in the presence of God.
1Co 1:30 And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption,
1Co 1:31 so that, as it is written, "Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord."
 
Anon 2.43

I HAVE been to Catholic mass. Went to Mass for a few years in my teens until I started reading the Bible for myself and found salvation in Jesus.
So I am not ignorant regarding the Catholic faith.

You say Catholics read the Bible at mass and in Bible study and on bulletins. I accept that, but that is still listening to other peoples interpretations. Let me ask you. Do you have your own bible which you study yourself at home? Do all Catholics now habitually study their own Bibles (on their own) asking God to help them interpret?

By the way, my wife was brought up as a Catholic from a baby until 18. She went to Catholic school etc etc. She tells me that they were all told "do NOT read the bible on your own because it will make you go mad and will lead you into error"

This is why I made my comment. Certainly when I went to Mass we were NEVER encouraged to read the Bible on our own.
 
I read the 2 protestant interpretations of Matthew 16:18

As far as I can see there isn't any serious disagreement. The scriptures are clear that the sayings of Jesus become a rock in our lives. Those that build their lives or faith upon my sayings build their lives upon a rock.

Jesus is also considered as a rock.

We build our lives upon Jesus and His sayings. The two go hand in hand. However, I think we both agree that it is the "confession of Peter that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of The living God" that is the foundation of our faith. It is in Jesus and putting our trust in Him as the rock, which is the bedrock of the church.

We both agree as in Romans 10 "if you confess with your mouth and believe in your heart you shall be saved". So it is the confession in Jesus (who is the rock of our salvation)and Jesus Himself.

"flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in Heaven, and upon this rock ....." That is surely referring to the confession not to Peter. However, Peter was considered a rock because of his faith. All of us who have faith join ourselves to the faith of Peter, but it is the faith Jesus is referring to.

This is the only place in the whole Bible where it is possible to consider Peter as the rock the church is built upon.

Everywhere else it talks about Jesus as the foundation or cornerstone that holds the whole building together and the church is built upon Jesus through faith.

Besides a few passages later Jesus is saying to Peter "get behind me satan" and a little while later Peter denies Jesus 3 times - hardly a rock! However, whenever Peter practised his faith he was considered strong.
 
Regarding New Age. The reason that discussion takes place between the faiths of Catholics and Protestants is because certain doctrines border on new age teaching and their practises.

New Age teaching is not new. It originated about 4000 years ago through Babylonic pagan practices. Many of these "old age" practises and rituals entered into the church through the gnostics etc.

Much of tradition today is still based upon these influences. So, if we are talking about NA we MUST talk about the old version of NA and deal with them also.
 
I HAVE been to Catholic mass. Went to Mass for a few years in my teens until I started reading the Bible for myself and found salvation in Jesus.
So I am not ignorant regarding the Catholic faith.

You say Catholics read the Bible at mass and in Bible study and on bulletins. I accept that, but that is still listening to other peoples interpretations. Let me ask you. Do you have your own bible which you study yourself at home? Do all Catholics now habitually study their own Bibles (on their own) asking God to help them interpret?

By the way, my wife was brought up as a Catholic from a baby until 18. She went to Catholic school etc etc. She tells me that they were all told "do NOT read the bible on your own because it will make you go mad and will lead you into error"

This is why I made my comment. Certainly when I went to Mass we were NEVER encouraged to read the Bible on our own.


Having attended mass or grown up in an allegedly "Catholic home" doesn't in itself make one knowledgeable about the Catholic faith. Maybe you attended a CINO Church and your wife attended a CINO school and grew up in a CINO family. Was the priest at the Church you attended an orthodox priest faithful to the Magisterium?

Interesting how you impute this statement taught allegedly at ONE Catholic school to the teachings of Catholicism in general:

She tells me that they were all told "do NOT read the bible on your own because it will make you go mad and will lead you into error"

Yes, I read the Bible. I cannot speak for what "all Catholics" do, however, because unlike you apparently I am not omniscent.

As someone stated on a previous thread, Catholics who do not know their faith often become Protestant. Protestants who know Christianity often convert to Catholicism. I know a lot of ex-Catholics and they didn't understand their faith before they became Protestant and they sure as heck don't understand it now. Their Protestant noses are so high in the air as regards Catholicism it's surprising they don't bump into things when they walk.

Finally, you seem to look down on "other people's interpretations" of the Bible, and think that each person must interpret the Bible for himself:

I accept that, but that is still listening to other peoples interpretations.

Why should I trust YOUR personal interpretations above those of the Catholic Magisterium?

Come to think of it, if the Bible is self-interpreting and teaches clear doctrine, shouldn't everyone who reads it be interpreting it in the SAME WAY? Just sayin'....
 
Anonymous 3:54
Don't they teach you not to lie in your Protestant church? Your baloney is what Protestants tell each other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_%28liturgy%29
From the description of a Catholic mass:
"Liturgy of the Word
On Sundays and solemnities, three Scripture readings are given. On other days there are only two. If there are three readings, the first is from the Old Testament (a term wider than Hebrew Scriptures, since it includes the Deuterocanonical Books), or the Acts of the Apostles during Eastertide. The first reading is followed by a Responsorial Psalm, a complete Psalm or a sizeable portion of one. A cantor, choir or lector leads, and the congregation sings or recites a refrain. The second reading is from the New Testament, typically from one of the Pauline epistles. The reader typically concludes each reading by proclaiming that the reading is "the word of the Lord," and congregation responds by saying "Thanks be to God."

The final reading and high point of the Liturgy of the Word is the proclamation of the Gospel. This is preceded by the singing or recitation of the Gospel Acclamation, typically an Alleluia with a verse of Scripture, which may be omitted if not sung. Alleluia is replaced during Lent by a different acclamation of praise. All stand while the Gospel is chanted or read by a deacon or, if none is available, by a priest. To conclude the Gospel reading, the priest or deacon proclaims: "This is the Gospel of the Lord" (in the United States, "The Gospel of the Lord") and the people respond, "Praise to you, Lord Jesus Christ." The priest or deacon then kisses the book."

Since Catholics are to attend Mass once a week, a lot of the Bible is covered.

continued....
 
Continued
Maybe you Protestants should be doing more, perhaps reading out loud a very large section of the Bible each week in your church. Jews go through the first five books of the Bible in most synagogues every year.

http://www.jewfaq.org/readings.htm

Torah Readings

"• Torah is divided into 54 portions for weekly reading in synagogue
• There are also special readings for holidays and other days
Each week in synagogue, we read (or, more accurately, chant, because it is sung) a passage from the Torah. This passage is referred to as a parshah. The first parshah, for example, is Parshat Bereishit, which covers from the beginning of Genesis to the story of Noah. There are 54 parshahs, one for each week of a leap year, so that in the course of a year, we read the entire Torah (Genesis to Deuteronomy) in our services. During non-leap years, there are 50 weeks, so some of the shorter portions are doubled up. We read the last portion of the Torah right before a holiday called Simchat Torah (Rejoicing in the Law), which occurs in October, a few weeks after Rosh Hashanah (Jewish New Year). On Simchat Torah, we read the last portion of the Torah, and proceed immediately to the first paragraph of Genesis, showing that the Torah is a circle, and never ends.

"In the synagogue service, the weekly parshah is followed by a passage from the prophets, which is referred to as a haftarah. Contrary to common misconception, "haftarah" does not mean "half-Torah." The word comes from the Hebrew root Fei-Teit-Reish and means "Concluding Portion". Usually, haftarah portion is no longer than one chapter, and has some relation to the Torah portion of the week.

"The Torah and haftarah readings are performed with great ceremony: the Torah is paraded around the room before it is brought to rest on the bimah (podium). The reading is divided up into portions, and various members of the congregation have the honor of reciting a blessing over a portion of the reading. This honor is referred to as an aliyah (literally, ascension)."

You Protestants want Catholics to learn from you. I say you should start learning from the Jews how to do it right.

All of this information is sent out with peace and love for you.

Dorothy
 
Anony 4:25
That is a serious load of nonsense. You want to deal with "doctrines" spell out what is specific and how it is new age. The varied doctrinal stances have very little to do with "New Age" and everything to do with pride and self. Now that at a corp comes down to the new age, yes. It is easy to make broad sweeping generalization and to go around beating folks about the head trying to convince them of error. It simply results in a lot of blood and very little of Jesus.
 
Anonymous 4:25
Not really. We don't need to go back to information about cooking in a cave in every recipe book.

The New Age movement that Constance has reported on goes back to the occult writings of Helena Blavatsky. There is an occult side and a political side that are blended together. It is a specific movement with a network of organizations and individuals.

The extreme fixation on Protestants vs Catholics vs Jews that takes place here
is much like needing to go on and on talking about flour before one ever gets to talking about baking a cake for supper.

Get a grip on the scope of the New Age movement. The world doesn't revolve solely around the Protestant community.
 
Anon at 12:30 PM,

Although Aramaic & Hebrew speakers in the 1st century A.D. made no linguuistic difference between cousins & brothers/sisters, the Greek at the time did. Seeing as the New Testament was originally written in Greek, it is clear therefore that the Apostles meant brothers and sisters, and not cousins!

R.
 
PROTESTANTS WHO READ THE BIBLE!

"do NOT read the bible on your own because it will make you go mad and will lead you into error

I'm not saying I agree with the above statement, but don't all these people "read the Bible"?

Dave Hunt
Joyce Meyer
Robert Schuller
Peter Scazzero
Paul N. Temple
Rick Warren
Kay Warren
Joel Osteen
Jim Wallis
Brian McLaren
Todd Bentley
Jim Swilley
Bill Hybels
Abraham Vereide
Dallas Willard
Priscilla Shirer
Chuck Colson
Beth Moore
Newt Gingrich
Pat Robertson
William P. Young
Mike Bickle
Doug Coe
et al.....
 
Sorry - please remove Paul N. Temple from that list. I was thinking of Doug Coe.
 
I cannot believe the denigration of reading the word of God. It is not the reading of the world of God that leads to evil and distortions, it is evil desires within. Lust of flesh, lust of eyes, and pride of life. It is sad to here the word of God treated with such cavalier attitudes and pointing to the need of depending on the selfishness of men. Satan tempted Jesus with the word of God. Reminder it is supposed to be all about God, not whatever twist we have come to state represents God. But alas, those looking to stir dissension did not have to try hard.
 
MATTHEW 16:18

This is the only place in the whole Bible where it is possible to consider Peter as the rock the church is built upon.

Everywhere else it talks about Jesus as the foundation or cornerstone that holds the whole building together and the church is built upon Jesus through faith.


You are leaving out Matthew 16:19. Jesus gave Peter the keys of the kingdom and the authority to bind and loose in that verse. Are you saying He didn't mean it because he didn't repeat himself several times in other parts of the Bible?
 
To Anon at 4:57 PM.

The Holy Scriptures are not for private interpretation, they must be interpreted in light of the rest of Scripture and, moreover, must also be interpreted by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. This can, therefore, only be successfully and fully be done where Christians are fully and humbly obedient to God's Commands.

So just because Apostates or Freemasons et al pretending to be Christians, or atheists etc., read the Holy Scriptures and quote from them [even Satan quoted Scripture, deliberately twisting and taking it out of context, when trying to tempt Jesus Christ in the wilderness), is not a valid argument to claim that anyone reading and quoting fromt Holy Scripture, namely obedient Christians is on shaky ground.

R.
 
To Anon at 4:57 PM.

The Holy Scriptures are not for private interpretation, they must be interpreted in light of the rest of Scripture and, moreover, must also be interpreted by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. This can, therefore, only be successfully and fully be done where Christians are fully and humbly obedient to God's Commands.

So just because Apostates or Freemasons et al pretending to be Christians, or atheists etc., read the Holy Scriptures and quote from them [even Satan quoted Scripture, deliberately twisting and taking it out of context, when trying to tempt Jesus Christ in the wilderness), is not a valid argument to claim that anyone reading and quoting from Holy Scripture, namely obedient Christians, is on shaky ground.

R.
 
I cannot believe the denigration of reading the word of God.

Peacebringer, no one is denigrating the word of God. The point is that there are many different interpretations of what the Bible means. All these people read THE SAME BOOK but come to different conclusions.

By the way, I've read many of your posts and you seem pretty orthodox (adhering to the creed) in your beliefs. By what authority do you claim that your interpretations of the Bible are more "correct" than those of the men and women on my list?

As regards those who "stir dissension" as usual, a handful of Protestants started this with their usual baiting and the Catholics are refuting their lies.

"Dissension" is not a disembodied activity. Perhaps you should hold those culpable to account instead of just turning a blind eye to the antics of some of your Protestant brethren here and then whining about people who have the temerity to defend their faith against these lies. But that would take guts and a sense of moral responsibility now, wouldn't it?
 
Annony,
5:24 yes, people misunderstand the bible. There is no one man or magistrate that will make it clear. We are search all things and continually seek to grow in truth. We are to grow in maturity. As Ephesians 4 states Eph 4:1 I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called,
Eph 4:2 with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love,
Eph 4:3 eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
Eph 4:4 There is one body and one Spirit--just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call--
Eph 4:5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
Eph 4:6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

Are you not aware at all of how the powers that be have twisted the evil that went on in Irelard for those professing to be Christians yet killing each other? What I have said applies to all. As to need for "defense" please outline in the Bible where we are to vehemently defend our views? Rather the Bible has specific words about those who are "divisive." What we see are the results, not so much in terms of anything of standing for the truth of God and His word but rather, an individual understanding of things disagreed over for years. Personally I seek to grow up and mature in Christ and continue to exmaine to see that which I hold that is faulty. For here, we all know in part. Even with God's word delivered, what we understand fails in comparison to the awesomeness of God. Yet, it seems on the accounts of many that thet focus as turned off of God, into being right or the need to "defend" or "tear down." Make no bones about it though, there are deceptions that need exposure. Yet, in that the downfall of many is covered in the book of Ephesians. The frustration you hear in the tone and words, is that too much of self and pride is being seen and very little of considering others as more important. In observing the interactions I can sit quietly by or say something. Rest assured my attempts and saying STOP IT ALREADY is done imperfectly. But this is the case. As JD said before he took off, there is much going on, yet the bickering will continue. And the ultimate point is that those engaging in stirring up the trouble are wanting to do just that. So let me ask you this, before any of you answer further and respond, take time before God, read His word. Ask God to show any of self that is coming out rather thatn reflecting God and his love. For these exchanges are not seeking anything but a tearing down adn devoring one another. And it comes from all angles. Sorry if at any level my comments at to the disorder, but this is the current state. Ask your self why. But please do not tell me well "they are doing it worst" for it is all contrary to what God directs, is it not. Please correct me if I am wrong.
 
Can two walk together, except they be agreed?

Amos 3:3
 
Amo 3:1 Hear this word that the LORD has spoken against you, O people of Israel, against the whole family that I brought up out of the land of Egypt:
Amo 3:2 "You only have I known of all the families of the earth; therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.
Amo 3:3 "Do two walk together, unless they have agreed to meet?
Amo 3:4 Does a lion roar in the forest, when he has no prey? Does a young lion cry out from his den, if he has taken nothing?
Amo 3:5 Does a bird fall in a snare on the earth, when there is no trap for it? Does a snare spring up from the ground, when it has taken nothing?
Amo 3:6 Is a trumpet blown in a city, and the people are not afraid? Does disaster come to a city, unless the LORD has done it?
Amo 3:7 "For the Lord GOD does nothing without revealing his secret to his servants the prophets.
Amo 3:8 The lion has roared; who will not fear? The Lord GOD has spoken; who can but prophesy?"
Amo 3:9 Proclaim to the strongholds in Ashdod and to the strongholds in the land of Egypt, and say, "Assemble yourselves on the mountains of Samaria, and see the great tumults within her, and the oppressed in her midst."
Amo 3:10 "They do not know how to do right," declares the LORD, "those who store up violence and robbery in their strongholds."
Amo 3:11 Therefore thus says the Lord GOD: "An adversary shall surround the land and bring down your defenses from you, and your strongholds shall be plundered."
Amo 3:12 Thus says the LORD: "As the shepherd rescues from the mouth of the lion two legs, or a piece of an ear, so shall the people of Israel who dwell in Samaria be rescued, with the corner of a couch and part of a bed.
Amo 3:13 "Hear, and testify against the house of Jacob," declares the Lord GOD, the God of hosts,
Amo 3:14 "that on the day I punish Israel for his transgressions, I will punish the altars of Bethel, and the horns of the altar shall be cut off and fall to the ground.
Amo 3:15 I will strike the winter house along with the summer house, and the houses of ivory shall perish, and the great houses shall come to an end," declares the LORD.
 
Well I suspect none of this would have come about had Constance not revealed she believes that Allah is the Biblical God, that she admires a Gnostic, and that she doesn't offer a sound reason for broadcasting anywhere but a network that she admits promotes anti-semitism. She refused to go to Blogtalk because they allow New Agers on there, but apparently finds her networks anti-semitism a lesser evil. Wow! Is that just backward as heck? If you REALLY wanted to take the message into enemy territory then Blogtalk would be the better place, would it not Constance? Or will you just delete this post as well to avoid actually answering? And please, REALLY answer, don't start the pathetic old "there is a conspiracy afoot to silence me" gambit.
 
Anony 6:57
Guess what, you, I and any of us may or may not make wise decisions. Your decision is to "tear down" and seek to disrupt and congrats you have done a good job of that. To what end? Let us say that everything you are concerned of is well meaning and intentioned. What is the loving way to go about it that is not seeking to tear down and disrupt? You have purposefully twisted what has been said to your own agenda, which has been to sew discord. You are a master at doing so, clearly. You posts fit more that of an "accusser of the bretheren." Let me ask you this, since you are so bent out of shape about Islam? What is the people of Ishmael before God? What do you do to engage muslims so they may see yahweh over allah? What do you do to point people to Yeshua? Our do you simply go from place to place, espousing the things that you do, seeking to bring others down and feel elevated and above it all? Guess what, you go looking you can find plenty to twist anywhere. So why do you twist and attack and who do you truly serve? For there is no love of Christ in your actions or deeds. Rather it is bile destructiveness. You are a "divisive" one that must quarrel over semantics and meanings of words. You must be highly pleased to go at such great lengths to try and put constance in her place. You must leave each post as the dissession brews with glee. Make no mistake, that who and what you are is not annoymous before the King of Kings. He knows your heart and motives, which is not to build truth but to sew the seeds of discord. Now I will not respond to you again. But congrats on your efforts to disrupt the blog, you have done a bang up job.
 
Annony,
5:24 yes, people misunderstand the bible. There is no one man or magistrate that will make it clear.


That's your view as a Protestant. I respect that, even though I disagree with it.

We are search all things and continually seek to grow in truth. We are to grow in maturity. As Ephesians 4 states Eph 4:1 I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called,
Eph 4:2 with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love,
Eph 4:3 eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
Eph 4:4 There is one body and one Spirit--just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call--
Eph 4:5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
Eph 4:6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

Are you not aware at all of how the powers that be have twisted the evil that went on in Irelard for those professing to be Christians yet killing each other?

Prior to the 1970's most of the killing in Ireland was done by Protestant Englishmen who viewed the Irish as an inferior race and Roman Catholicism as a pagan, superstitious religion (sound familiar?) that they were ordained and duty-bound to crush. It's true that colonization began before the Reformation, but it became particularly brutal once the Crown broke with Rome:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_Laws_(Ireland)

What I have said applies to all. As to need for "defense" please outline in the Bible where we are to vehemently defend our views?

If the view is truthful, and you are correcting someone who holds an erroneous view, defense of it is indeed Biblical. For instance (off the top of my head), see
2 Timothy 3:16 and Galatians 2.

Perhaps you interpret and apply those parts of scripture differently from me.

Rather the Bible has specific words about those who are "divisive." What we see are the results, not so much in terms of anything of standing for the truth of God and His word but rather, an individual understanding of things disagreed over for years....For here, we all know in part. Even with God's word delivered, what we understand fails in comparison to the awesomeness of God.

I think all Christians here are in agreement that our human understanding pales in comparison to our Creator.

Yet, it seems on the accounts of many that thet focus as turned off of God, into being right or the need to "defend" or "tear down."

Given that Catholics believe that Jesus Christ founded the Catholic Church, should they not defend that Church when it is attacked and its teachings distorted here by certain Protestants, since in doing so they defend Him? Ask yourself this: if people were coming here repeatedly insulting and distorting the Bible would you not stand up in defense of the Bible? Or would you view it as more "Biblical" to simply bear those attacks patiently and allow them to continue?

.... As JD said before he took off, there is much going on, yet the bickering will continue. And the ultimate point is that those engaging in stirring up the trouble are wanting to do just that....But please do not tell me well "they are doing it worst" for it is all contrary to what God directs, is it not. Please correct me if I am wrong.

You seem unable--or unwilling--to make clear moral distinctions. I do not believe the Bible teaches that there is no difference between an abuser and a victim. Some areas of Christian morality are complicated, and there are legitimate areas of disagreement amongst Christians about what Jesus's moral teachings in this area mean, i.e. how literally does one interpret "turn the other cheek?" This is a complex area of moral theology filled with shades of gray, and we are not going to sort it here on this blog.
 
PS - Peacebringer, although I have spoken a bit harshly to you here, I believe you have a good heart and are a person of good will.
 
Anony, 7:24
you misentirely the point and simply feel justified to defend. meanwhile, everyone gets there head bloody and battered. You claim that I don't make moral distinctions, when what I have said does just that. Morally we are to consider other believers as better than self. Your arguement for defense are no different than any other theological branch of church. You call me protestant based on my theology. My theology is that I follow Jesus. I hate the divisions that exist, the ways we become so self-assured of our understanding of God. Yes, we disagree on things theologically. If you care to have a discussion that is mutually edifying elsewhere I got no problem with that. Those bashing anyone "catholic" are not following biblical dictates. They have buy and large lost the love of Jesus for the pursuit of "Getting it right." Here is the thing, I stand before God has his servant. He alone is my rock, my shield, and my defense. Now let me this, are you so wrapped up in "defending" Catholic theology that you also miss what it is to love and follow the King of Kings? Is the passion more the denomination and the pope than it is for Jesus? I ask cause I know you not. I do know that what has gone on here and been plenty of varied views of self and little serving as ambassoders of the Great and Holy God. So that is the "moral distinction" I stand upon. At anyrate, I have made my voice heard.
 
Hi R 4:57 P.M.

Re: Although Aramaic & Hebrew speakers in the 1st century A.D. made no linguuistic difference between cousins & brothers/sisters, the Greek at the time did. Seeing as the New Testament was originally written in Greek, it is clear therefore that the Apostles meant brothers and sisters, and not cousins!

R.



Actually, according to St. Irenaeus who was a Chruch Father, bishop and martyr, St. Matthew's Gospel was originally written in the Hebrew language before being translated into Greek.

St. Jerome has repeatedly declared that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew ("Ad Damasum", xx; "Ad Hedib.", iv), but says that it is not known with certainty who translated it into Greek.

St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, St. Epiphanius, St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine, etc., and all the commentators of the Middle Ages repeat that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew. the Gospel according to Matthew was written in Aramaic.

Now what is my point?

As you said, the Hebrew language didn't have a word for "cousins" "nephew" "uncle" etc.

Because neither Hebrew nor Aramaic (the language spoken by Christ and his disciples) had a special word meaning "cousin," speakers of those languages could use either the word for "brother" or a circumlocution, such as "the son of my uncle." But circumlocutions are clumsy, so the Jews often used "brother."

The writers of the New Testament were brought up using the Aramaic equivalent of "brothers" to mean both cousins and sons of the same father—plus other relatives and even non-relatives. When they wrote in Greek, they did the same thing the translators of the Septuagint did. (The Septuagint was the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible; it was translated by Hellenistic Jews a century or two before Christ’s birth and was the version of the Bible from which most of the Old Testament quotations found in the New Testament are taken.)

In the Septuagint the Hebrew word that includes both brothers and cousins was translated as adelphos, which in Greek usually has the narrow meaning that the English "brother" has. Unlike Hebrew or Aramaic, Greek has a separate word for cousin, anepsios, but the translators of the Septuagint used adelphos, even for true cousins.


cont....
 
cont...

You might say they transliterated instead of translated, importing the Jewish idiom into the Greek Bible. They took an exact equivalent of the Hebrew word for "brother" and did not use adelphos in one place (for sons of the same parents), and anepsios in another (for cousins). This same usage was employed by the writers of the New Testament and passed into English translations of the Bible. To determine what "brethren" or "brother" or "sister" means in any one verse, we have to look at the context. When we do that, we see that insuperable problems arise if we assume that Mary had children other than Jesus.

By the way, Catholics are not the only ones who believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary.


LUTHER wrote on February 2, 1546 that Mary was "a virgin before the conception
and birth, she remained a virgin also at the birth and after it."

ZWINGLI wrote in January of 1528: "I speak of this in the holy Church of Zurich and
in all my writings: I recognize Mary as ever virgin and holy."

CALVIN in his Commentary on Matthew called those who interpret the gospel (Mt
1:25) to imply that Mary had other children as "pig-headed and stupid." Later,
commenting on Mt 13:55, he wrote: "we have already said in another place that
according to the custom of the Hebrews all relatives were called "brethren."


http://www.scborromeo.org/papers/
virgin.pdf
______________________________

John Wesley wrote to a Roman Catholic, as regarding what a Protestant may declare: "I believe that He was made man, joining the human nature with the divine in one person; being conceived by the singular operation of the Holy Ghost, and born of the blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as before she brought Him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Perpetual_virginity_of_Mary
 
Annony 7:53
It really does not matter what anyone says about me, or impressions I make. I am attempting to speak truth in love. I am frustrated and hurt to see what is going on, here on this board. But it is a reflection of the whole. There is truth, their are lies. There is false unity and false humility. There is the falseness of tolerance, and then there is the bond of peace founded in surrender to the King of Kings. I hope my words refelct such surrender, and what is but of me, please set aside for I am trying to speak to what God stirs within me and yelling in a crowd bickering to "WAKE UP AND LOOK UP" and REFOCUS. It is up to God to take any words and stir them within the hearts. I wish that a simple alert and alarm would do the trick, but alas we all are stubborn, each one, me no less than anyone else.

for those that wish to continue to go about bashing heads. Note, please tell me one person who has been brought to repentance from such a method...
 
Now let me this, are you so wrapped up in "defending" Catholic theology that you also miss what it is to love and follow the King of Kings?.

These two activities are not mutually exclusive. The very words you use here are biased. You characterize me as defending "Catholic theology" whereas I am (this is the Catholic perspective of course) defending the Church that Jesus Christ founded in order to speak for Him authoritatively in matters of Faith and Morals in a way that a book, on its own, CANNOT DO.

Is the passion more the denomination and the pope than it is for Jesus? I ask cause I know you not.

Well, since from the Catholic perspective the Pope is the Vicar of Christ (appointed BY CHRIST), defending Papal authority is exactly what Jesus Christ would want me to do.

If you think this is a "small matter" then you clearly have VERY LITTLE UNDERSTANDING of how the Catholic Church views itself in relation to Jesus Christ. There is no church more Christo-centric than the Roman Catholic Church, Peacbringer. No church.
 
It really does not matter what anyone says about me, or impressions I make.

Well, I was taught that when someone gives me a sincere compliment that the proper response always includes a "thank you."

I am attempting to speak truth in love....what is but of me, please set aside for I am trying to speak to what God stirs within me and yelling in a crowd bickering to "WAKE UP AND LOOK UP" and REFOCUS

I am also trying to speak with what God stires in my heart and in my conscience.
 
anony 8:18
see I make mistakes and am flawed by all means. I can miss intent and misread reasoning. I can get too caught up in trying to make a point to where it becomes of self and miss a true intent. Thank you for the sincere comments. I understand that you, of course Sussanna, Craig and others are speaking from the heart. My point is getting lost and side tracked. We could perhaps in some constructive matter have a conversation that we both learn. Usually though when soundly convinced of certain understanding hard feelings result and comments and words become personal. Again, what does the bible direct us in these matters. When we engage in such discussions in comes more about proving a point and trying to convince others who have already reached a conclusion. Here is the deal, everywhere, in every part of the "body" of CHrist there are those who follow truly and those who are lost. There are sheep and goats, wheat and tares. So we can keep on bickering over matters of strong disagreement and trying to assure that perhaps the other "gets it" or we can recognize we all serve the King of Kings, and are all part of the true catholic church...well except for those that are not.
 
From the Drudge Report (11/08/10)

Pill to have 'embedded microchip'

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS
TRE6A754720101108
 
BRAVO, Susanna for your posts at 8:00 PM and 8:01 PM.

Great job!!!
 
To Slumdog:

You might want to consider reading Giberson's full book for yourself. I have. Saving Darwin: How to Be a Christian and Believe in Evolution," Karl Giberson

It is available on a Kindle edition so you can have it in your hands in seconds.

Constance
 
Philippians 1:18, "What then? Only that in every way whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is preached. In this I do rejoice and will rejoice."

Watch this amazing video.

http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2010/11/awesome-pop-up-hallelujah-chorus-at.html

These folks think they are just doing a "random act of culture". But whether in pretense or in truth Christ is preached.

I DO REJOICE!

YesNaSpanishTown
 
To YESNASPANISHTOWN:

Just watched the video -- AWESOME! Wish I had been there shopping to enjoy it in person!

Thanks!
Constance
 
To Anonymous 8:55

That's a hard pill to swallow! Believe I won't.

Thanks for passing it on. I've added it to my ever growing "cashless society" file.

Constance
 
To Anonymous 6:57 who I firmly believe to be Richard Abanes or a think alike: Answer this: "that she admires a Gnostic"

Who is the "gnostic" I supposedly admire? Are you referring to Seraphim Rose who clearly was not -- at least in the book I admire, ORTHODOXY AND THE RELIGION OF THE FUTURE.

Who is a Gnostic? Try WILLIAM LAW and JACOB BOEHME. It's Dave Hunt who admires them, not me!

Constance
 
Well said, Peacebringer. (7:10 PM)

It is one thing to question what somebody may have said (Constance in this case), in a loving manner. It is, however, quite another to go out baiting and collecting firewood for destruction. We all say or put up things from time to time, whether on this blog or elsewhere in our daily lives, that may be understood to be faulty by others observing/hearing us. Only God is perfect.

God bless you,

R.
 
anony 8:18
see I make mistakes and am flawed by all means. I can miss intent and misread reasoning. I can get too caught up in trying to make a point to where it becomes of self and miss a true intent. Thank you for the sincere comments. I understand that you, of course Sussanna, Craig and others are speaking from the heart. My point is getting lost and side tracked. We could perhaps in some constructive matter have a conversation that we both learn.


Thanks for your kind and thoughtful comments Peacebringer.
Questions of doctrine between Catholics and Protestants can be explored respectfully but that rarely happens on this blog. This is because from the get-go certain Protestants engage in Catholic-baiting which usually involves distortions of Catholic doctrine. This makes sincere dialogue impossible.

Many Protestants do not themselves bait, but instead watch the Catholic-baiting and do not step in until after it gets out of hand. When they do so, it is usually to get indignant toward Catholics who have defended themselves. I respectfully suggest that if more Protestants spoke up earlier instead of sitting back silently waiting for the Catholics to do the heavy lifting, the situation would not escalate and deteriorate as it has once again.

Susanna and Craig seem to be setting an example of how Protestant-Catholic dialogue can be handled respectfully. Kudos to both of them. We could all learn from this example.

The final point relates to the NA and that is, how so many Protestants here seem to want to sever their Protestant faith from its Catholic roots. This is similar to how many NA Christians wish to distance themselves from Judaism and the Hebrew Bible. Constance and Dorothy have both mentioned this before.

Protestantism cannot be severed from its Catholic roots any more than Catholicism can be severed from its Jewish roots. Just one example - if you were to hand a Bible to a stranger on a desert island who could read but had never heard of Christianity it is highly doubtful he would, after reading the entire book in isolation, come away with the concept of a Trinitarian God since it is arguable that the concept is not explicitly taught in scripture and merely only implicit. In fact it is just as likely that he would come up with some form of Arianism. It is not the Bible per se but Roman Catholicism that defined the dogma of the Trinity that so many Protestants take for granted.

I am not suggesting that you or anyone here convert to Catholicism and I don't wish to debate the trinity (a doctrine you and I agree on), but it is intellectually dishonest to believe that the doctrines you hold come independently from a book rather than from the Church through which that book came and which codified doctrine, through the creeds, that nearly all Protestants, regardless of denomination, take for granted.

Peace be with you.
 
The final point relates to the NA and that is, how so many Protestants here seem to want to sever their Protestant faith from its Catholic roots. This is similar to how many NA Christians wish to distance themselves from Judaism and the Hebrew Bible. Constance and Dorothy have both mentioned this before.

Perhaps Dorothy can add to this or clarify here - or correct me if I am wrong. She has written in the past here about how the Nazis manipulated the German populace by trying to sever the Christian churches in Germany from their Jewish roots and establish a New Age, anti-Semitic "Christian" Church.

We need to understand this history in order to see the dynamics happening today, even at this very blog.
 
Constance

The pope being persecuted. Please...LOL.

And Rick Warren worried about you? Please.... I think you are playing right into his hands.
 
Battlecreek David

You are wrong. Yes, it does matter what Constance believes when it comes to Allah.

For, if she is in error on that, then, what else might she be in error about?!?!

It does matter because there are many people here who cling to her every word.
 
anonny 6:55
Thanks for the words. Not being Catholic, nor study "roman catholicism" theology. Now clearly there are reasons that doctrine is held. We certainly would take a different view of the history of the church. The difficult theological concepts are certainly traceable to early writings in the church. Much of modern Christianity can be traced to the time of Constatine. In terms of Hebrew roots, there was much that was ill founded included being seperated from many things.
As to the "baiters" generally I go by the principle of "not feeding the trolls." Of course easier for me to state when do not have an emotional stake in the "baiting." Certainly there are issues that would make it difficult for me to hold my peace. The encouragement from me is in this all, let us not forget to consider others as more important than self.
 
Annony 8:03
Again with the twisting. Oh, my let us make sure Constance is 100% right in all she says as she has a blog that people follow. That is a line of pure twisted logic. Please give me one ounce of evidence that anyone who posts and reads takes everything constance or any of the rest of say at face value or assume that there is no error? Patently absurd that would be. No, your motives are not to "protect" folks from the likes of Constance but to sew discord and hate. You are doing a good job of it. Been some time since the forum has been so "distracted." So congrats to you. You make a good accusser of the brethern.
 
Peacebringer

Anon 8:03
That was my first post on this thread. What you call seeds of hate and dischord...others might call TRUTH! But not on this blog!
 
Peacebringer

Because I consider to be of great importance as to how Constance reflects her views on Allah, because there are many here that are so impressed with her "expertise" and do take her word as correct...that makes me hateful and sowing seeds of discord? That makes me an accuser of the brethern?

And I am the one who is guilty of twisted logic?
 
Constance suspects Abanes of being the anonymous stalker. Others timed the attacks starting with her post about concerns regarding Rick Warren and the CFR / PEACE Plan for using ALL churches, temples, mosques, and Hindu shrines worldwide as distribution centers. Here's what another site had to say about Rick Warren and Richard Abanes with him:

http://tinyurl.com/2f75vl4

"Rick Warren Apologist Richard Abanes: Going soft on Mormonism, Is this the direction Rick Warren is Heading?
"March 15, 2008 by John
This past week I had an email exchange with Richard Abanes a journalist, who on his website acts as an apologist for Rick Warren. Or should I say a cleanup man, one who attempts to, as Mr. Abanes puts it to” clarify” the controversial statements Rick Warren makes in public.

Mr. Abanes thinks everyone just misunderstands Rick Warren, and that Mr. Warren actually takes great pains to clarify his statements to his Saddleback faithful, but unfortunately not to the wider public.What generated the email exchange was an article Mr. Abanes wrote on his web site called: Rick Warren and Fundamentalists where Mr. Abanes takes apart those he calls the “Heresy Hunters” for “jumping to incorrect conclusions” about Rick Warren.

Mr. Abanes article is nothing more than rationalization and word play. He attempts to take very clear declarative derogatory statements in regards to Fundamentalists that Rick Warren makes to the wider secular main stream media and attempts to say that Rick Warren is not deriding all Fundamentalists but only a select few that Mr. Abanes says are those:

“who use their religion/beliefs to attack, hate, be intolerant of others, remain closed-minded to unfamiliar ideas, and stay cold-hearted to those who are not like them. Their goal is the manipulation of power, authoritarian influence, maintaining control over others, political/spiritual oppression, and domination by force, intimidation, or rules of dos and don’ts.”

Many loaded words in that quotation, and ones that are used quite a bit these days to wrongly generalize and actually marginalize those who truly hold to the belief that Jesus is the only way by which a man must be saved, and those who truly believe that the Bible is the final and only inerrant inspired Word of God which directs man how he must be saved and how he should live.

Mr. Abanes attempts to say that the above is one of two types of Christian Fundamentalist, the other being those who are:

“the technical, religious kind, which would actually include Warren, myself, most evangelical churches, certainly the entire Southern Baptist Convention, Calvary Chapel churches, and anyone else who holds to the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith”.
 
Annony 8:03
If you are not the same "accusser" who has gone out of way to "bash" and "generate" discord then my apologies. Your comments and posts are similar to the one doing just that.

Now as it pertains to "Allah" and constance view, what exactly has she got "wrong." Is she saying muslims are "right." I don't think so. She in general is referring to the Children of abraham that are targetted by Theosophy in particular. Did you read the quote in the post that started this thread?
Islam is a twisted religion that serves as a barrier to the truth.
Yet, there are some that paint "Islam" as the greatest evil, some argue that they are the "pale horse." Yet, let me tell you the truth. God loves Ishmael. Now that does not make "Arabs" righteous. It does not validate Islam. Because Lucifer has found many a ways to twist people into worshiping him as god. This past year personally saw a documentary on Arab culture and watched as a throng of people circled around a box multiple times, all in supposed reference to God. It was a disturbing vision with great pain as watching the deceived.

Now, do please point out to me one contributor to blog discussion that "listens" to Constance blindly. Please also indicate for me anyone of us that is not for a moment at fault in what we say?

And sir, if you are not the accuser who came her to disrupt, then please outline for me what truly motivates you? Do you consider constance a memember of the bretheren or have you labeled her apostate for not speaking hate toward the line of Ishmael, children of Abraham? Granted not all muslim's fall into that category. Yet, note that some of the comments are very little different than that which fueled the crusades. Here is the deal, God is God, and we are not. The church is responsible for preaching the Gospel and making disciples. We are to love our enemies. This includes islam and even those that are laying the structure for the coming antichrist.
Oh and regrading Constance's influence. Do you not know in the "mainstream" church as a whole she has already been marginalized and set aside. So what is to fear frow what Constance says or any influence she may have? Are readers here going to suddenly "worship Allah?" Absurd.
 
question for all those calling "Constance" to task for her comments regarding Islam. Why is it that "the powers that be" and those of influence include Islam within the "people of the book?" Is it perhaps little to do with the distortions and twists of Islam and more do to with being childen of abraham? Think about it...
 
And more from where that came from:

http://tinyurl.com/2f75vl4

Read the whole story
 
Peacebringer

You are not getting my point. yes, she has a right to believe whatever she wishes...not once did I ever say hate Muslim or ANYONE.

I believe it is dangerous (notice, I say I believe)to even lend credibility whatsoever to the fact that Allah is the same as the biblical God when the the koran denies the divinity of Jesus (and I believe this book was revealed to Mohammed from an angel through Allah)is blasephemous. These are my views (and apparently others as well)no hate...no discord.

I am sorry that my opinion differing from yours..makes me absurd..and an accuser.
 
Can we start a new day without ANY Catholic/ Protestant ping pong comments - Just get yourselves your own blog to fight your opinions! I am tired of speed reading and scrolling- through most of it!!!!

Constance -what is your opinion on the Georgia Guide Stones? The one `commandment` stating that the earth`s population be maintained 600 million!? A lot of us even the trolls here on this blog to be eliminated? Weird
Melinda
 
I realized something very chilling when watching a documentary on the Bubonic plague (Black Death) that swept through Europe - The commentator said that when the plague was over and after the millions have died there were lots of farms, businesses and merchandise available for those `left behind` to start afresh! Imagine if the Georgia Guide Stones preparing the `left behinders` that it will be `heaven on earth` when the excess humans are eliminated-creepy.
 
Annony 9:32
Sorry, if miss the point. Here is what has gone on here though. There has been no discussion clarifying "Allah" or even trying to lovingly correct. It has been "Constance is apostate" because she said that Allah can be a reference to Yahweh. Let me ask you this, how do you reach out to a muslim? Do you start out with declaring Allah a reference to a moon god? Does that bring a muslim to repentance and faith in the true messiah? Is not the history of Ishmael long and complicated far beyond the existance of the twist of Islam? Are we to take a "crusade" type stance? Here is the real absurdity. There are those that speak of "tolerance" who then chastize others for being "too tolerant." In thinking about the recent exchanges it even seems to me that in todays age the story of the good samaritan could be told as the story of the good muslim...
it would have same impact.
 
oh and annony 9:32
again, sorry for assuming you were the same initial "accuser" but rather someone with a particular bent toward a particular topic just piling along. When folks hide and do not indicate who we are that is a risk that can happen. Certainly recognize there are well meaning folks caught up, but let me ask you this, is the way to go about it saying how "bad constance is" or to engage in meaningful dialogue to clarify points easy to not understand? Particularly given the NAM focus on the children of Abarahm (by birth or adoption)
 
Annony 9:40 amazing point and worth reflection. Even the calling them guidestones seems meant to be something to point to the "left behind."
 
To anon A1

Sorry I'm not very articulate but I'll try.

By looking at the current circumstances, it is very unlikely that the Catholic Church would hunt down all the others. The "Catholic Personality" collectively is not even persuasive nor aggressive.

If you think the world will end through an established POWERFUL religion then almost all Christian denominations and Eastern Religions don't seem to be qualified.

If you've read or have an idea about the book The Brave New World or 1984, you can see that even without a forceful indoctrination the whole of humanity can be brainwashed to love their own enslavement.

Many secular countries would embrace Marxism to some extent as if it is the only possible and applicable solution to a Godless,secular or relativistic nation. Just look at Creme's site, Share International and you would see how this his new age philosophy is intertwined with Marxism implicitly. (Though it is very explicit if you're familiar with it.)

I just tried to explain things as I see it. But I hope to show you how atheism can set up itself to be a world power similar to religion.

If power, I mean force, then I don't think many established religions would qualify to rule the start of the end of the world. If it's secular,relativistic, agnostics, they are not passionate enough about life either, certainly they fuel the start of the end but they may not necessarily want to dominate the world since they are very busy with their iPod's and parties.

That leaves us then to only one possibly (the only 1 I can think about for the moment) which is a military power with both secular and spiritual aspects. Purely atheistic country leaders are not loved in the "free sense" say Mao Tse Tung. Marxism has been an atheistic position that claims to have a goal, while other positions claim to say that since there is no God we do what we wanna do. See that there can be a unity among unbelievers just to destroy the good though they themselves are doctrinally opposed.

My humble conclusion. Satan will do all means to destroy us. He doesn't need to be doctrinally consistent, in fact he just needs to be consistently inconsistent with God. He uses the NAM to fill our spiritual void, and a forceful distribution of wealth to bridge our material needs. Both fundamentally thrive on relativism which denies the absolute value of truth, consequently the denial of the absolute authority and the distinct identity of God.

Pat from Manila
 
1 – 200 of 670 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]