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

675 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 400 of 675   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

Well, since this thread was initially about how “omots doesn’t get it”, let me post a few more thoughts from my warped perspective. Let the reader discern, find fault, see error, judge. If I am wrong about something, show me where. If I am seeing things accurately, take note. For what it’s worth, here’s what I think:

Islam is a sword raised over the land of Israel. It was designed as a weapon to be wielded specifically against the Jews in the last days.

The tiny nation of Israel is surrounded by some 22 Islamic states. The Israeli government has tried to forge economic ties and peace treaties with the more secular of these states, i.e. Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, etc. because they view such ties as vital to their security. Yet, we are all witnesses of the fact that even in these more “secular” nation states, Islamic “fundamentalism” is on the rise. As a result, the tenuous friendship Israel has built with these “moderates” is close to crumbling. Eventually, the Israeli’s will figure out they have virtually no support in the world at all.

As long as American politics was dominated by conservatives, we were Israel’s firmest ally. But with America’s swing to the left, (a so-called “more moderate” stance), that support has weakened. The current Israeli government understands that their most steadfast supporters have been, and continue to be, Bible believing Christians. This is why tourism is so vitally important to the Israelis. Besides the economic boost it brings, one of the best ways to strengthen ties is to continue hosting and encouraging what are predominantly “Christian” tour groups from around the world.

Continued…

Anonymous said...

Continued…

Over the last decade or so, the Israeli government has welcomed the olive branch extended in their direction by the Catholic church. But recent developments are alarming. The Vatican’s increasing support for the Palestinians and open criticism of the Israeli “occupation” is of great concern. The olive branch apparently comes with conditions that have serious prophetic implications.

The western world is being fooled into believing “moderate Islam” is good and means no harm. It’s just a handful of radical jihadists who are the problem. We are told they are “radicalized” by imperialist Americans who support an oppressive Israeli “occupation”. Even “moderate” muslims have been fooled into believing this lie. The fact is, that in every single nation where the religion of Islam dominates, the “moderates” are eventually overshadowed and the most radical Islamists assume control. Sharia law becomes the norm. Franklin Graham has declared the truth- moderate Islam doesn’t exist. It is merely a ruse designed to neutralize Israel’s remaining “friends”.

If you believe Alice Bailey was telling the truth, then you believe Lucifer hates all three of the three “great monotheistic” religions equally because they all portray “one god” who is ruler and judge of all. But we know that Lucifer himself desires the throne. He desires to be the one worshipped by all. Most of all, Lucifer wants to destroy God’s chosen people. This is why Bailey, speaking under the control of the demonic, equated “Allah” with the God of the Bible. If Allah is God, then to hell with the Jews.

Anonymous said...

OMOTS,
First of all, yes, Islam is a tool of which to stir Ishmael against Isaac even further. It is by a large an overall understanding beyond constance or bailey to equate allah with yahweh in terms of "people of the book." The religion of Islam is a great evil and it of itself gives a twist to truth. The time is coming sooner and sooner of a great war. The lines are being drawn as the allies mentioned in Gog-Magog are drawing closer together. God's intent will be served. The issues are really broad and complex. And yes, Islam has a very clear and distinct dominion take on the world. True followers of Islam see that the "whole world" is to be transformed to Islam, then the world will be right. It is disturbing that there are many within the body of Christ, knowingly or unknowningly have that same "take dominion" view as a role of the "church." In part such contrasting and similar views fueled the "crusades" as well. The church is ripe with a history of "forced conversion" of proclaim Christ, be baptized or die.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 9:40

If you think that's chilling read this:
http://worldvisionportal.org/wvpforum/viewtopic.php?f=52&t=1031

Maybe that's why The Clear Act allows the gov't to spend $900 million a year for the next 40 years. Buy up the land cheap in the Gulf states once people start dying and fleeing in droves.

Lot of horrible stuff going on in the Gulf states, but no one in the MSM is talking about it.

Oh yeah, and the gov't basically exonerated BP today of any 'willful' safety infractions. What a joke.

Anonymous said...

It is also interesting to note, since mentioned domionist agenda, is that a big focus on the domionists is "Islam." Take the views espoused by such in the documentary "Jesus Camp" for example.

Anonymous said...

peacebringer7

How is Islam the big focus with dominionism?

Carolyn

Anonymous said...

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4198

Have a look at the Guide Stones.
Population control or what?
Melinda

Anonymous said...

OMOTOS,

You need to get your facts straight. There is no uniform consensus on Mid-East politics at the Vatican. To assign every single thing a priest or Bishops says to the official views of the Vatican is mis-leading.


Savvy

Anonymous said...

PeaceBringer,

The first and second crusades were fought because Muslims were banning Christian pilgrims from Jerusalem and also to re-gain lands seized by Muslims by force. This time around Islam has no empire.


Savvy

Anonymous said...

Carolyn,
It is part of the "evil" that needs to be corrected. It is something that is focused on. In the film Jesus Camp one of the subjects went on and on about needing to be like "Muslims" in terms of a particular militancy and such. It sounds okay on paper but really is messed up view of trying to "change the world" and "taking dominion." So yes, Islam and the evils there in is part of "dominionist" focus.

Anonymous said...

savvy,
there are many "reasons" behind the crusades, some genuine, some less than genuine, kind of like believers wrapped up in the varied domion streams who do not grasp the twists of dominion centered theology.

Anonymous said...

Peacebringer,

Dominion centered theology is possible, when you have a state church, when you take spiritual things and turn them into civil rights.


Savvy

Anonymous said...

Savvy,
your statement seems to open a can of worms and not really sure where you are coming from. Yes, it is possible for societal changes and "dominionist" influence to occur. It is very possible for individuals to engage in the very things that Christ alone will make right. IT is very easy to confuse life on this earth and building kingdoms of flesh versus the kingdom of God. And yes, taking spiritual matters and making them matters of the power of the sword in terms of government has a long history. There is really a great many threads this discussion can unfold that is part and parcel to what is going on and the influences of world and NAM and the related twists of dominion theology.

Anonymous said...

Savvy,

Thanks for the response. But are we splitting hairs here?

I am guilty of assuming the final statement issued by the 200 Bishop's who recently attended the Vatican’s Middle East Synod carried more weight than it did. While I understand such statements do not represent the Church's "official" position, is it fair to say such recommendations do have influence? In my opinion, the synod statement is a harbinger of things to come.

As Susanna correctly pointed out, Archbishop [Cyril Salim] Bustros’ most biased and egregious comments were edited out of the final synod statement. Yet, as has also already been pointed out, the document remains strongly biased against Israel.

In any case, the conclusions of this latest “synod” have been met with alarm in Israel, and rightly so. While it remains to be seen how much of the synod’s recommendations become a part of any formal position statement from the Vatican, it doesn’t bode well.

http://www.jpost.com/JewishWorld/JewishNews/Article.aspx?id=192647

http://tinyurl.com/29wwt9s

Anonymous said...

"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."

Well you have a big problem in comprehension then Connie. He was denounced by his own fellow churchmen for teaching that we pass through toll houses in the spiritual realm before getting to heaven, which is an historic Egyptian Gnostic teaching. Now, just because he didn't say that in the book you read doesn't mean he didn't teach it. He obviously did. Since you apparently can't research it yourself for some reason, let me give you the special version for the research impaired:

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Seraphim_Rose

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

Just two of the more than 500 pages I found discussing his gnosticism. He taught the Gnostic heresy in his book "The Soul After Death". So it seems you were (gasp!) wrong!! Now I know the fans here will literally seek to have me crucified for merely suggesting that the great and mighty 0z..err..Constance was wrong, but there it is. Now Constance, will you stubbornly cling to your Gnostic friend or finally admit error? Your response will be very telling.

Now that you have been told of that fact don't you think you have the responsibility to cease supporting and recommending him, or at the very least look into his heretical Gnostic teachings more? Or instead, rather than admit you just might be (and are) wrong in this case will you go on to throw more accusations out about others, anything to keep from actually admitting that you might have made a mistake. Just like with your "Allah" position. And who can forget your comment "muslims have an acceptable worship"...your EXACT words. And I am STILL waiting to hear your justification for remaining somewhere that promotes anti-semitism, while refusing to even consider going to Blogtalk simply because New Agers also use it. Well Constance, some might say neo-nazi types use your network. Why the double standard? Or is it that vanity has gotten the best of you and you think you need or deserve the "larger audience" as you put it? Come on...with your following you would have a succesful program elswhere too and you know that. That makes your desire to remain where you are all that more curious to me. I believe you when you say you stand up to racism. I really do. However, your hesitance to take a stand on it now, when it is an inconvenience to you, is what matters most. And no, I'm not Richard Abanes. As I said, I didn't even know the guy until you tried to use him as a smokescreen. So please, deal with the substance rather than your strawmen.

Anonymous said...

OMOTOS,

The Archbishop made a religious statement that was out of line. As for positions on Israel. Just because someone is concerned about Christians in the PA areas, it does not make them anti-Israel or somehow pro-Arab. It's a fine line that has to be walked here.

Pope Benedict met with ADL leaders recently. Assured them Israel will not be isolated.

http://www.adl.org/PresRele/VaticanJewish_96/5896_96.htm

Savvy

Rich Peterson - Medford said...

Constance embracing Allah as her God? It looks like someone is outright speaking lies on this board. Now cite your source. Don't tell me Constance said it. If she did, I want an exact quote and a location to find it.

Constance Cumbey said...

If 6:14 is not Abanes, then I challenge him to reveal his/her real identity to all!

My name is out there, why not yours? If you don't reveal, I will continue to assume it is Abanes!

Constance

Craig said...

Joel's Army (Manifest Sons of God) mobilizing?

http://www.charismamag.com/index.php/prophetic-insight/29536-a-time-for-justice#readmore

I have been teaching for several months that we are in a "set time" for the manifestation of God's people. We are standing in the midst of what God has been prophesying for generations. The kingdom of God is here, and I believe it is our responsibility to wrap this age up.

There ya go. It's the church's responsibility to get the job down.

In Psalm 102:13 David makes a prophetic statement during his prayer saying, "You will arise and have mercy on Zion; for the time to favor her, yes, the set time, has come." In this passage, "Zion" refers to the church and “set time” to an actual chronological moment in history when something will occur.

And, here we have Replacement Theology -- Replacing promises of Israel with the "church."

Constance Cumbey said...

Well, Rich just assisted me with Google Analytics. Soon we shall know!

Constance

Constance Cumbey said...

Speaking of Seraphim Rose, here is an interesting analysis of New World Religion from a site dealing with his work:

http://www.apostle1.com/New-World-Ecumenism-One-world-church.htm

Anonymous said...

Well just did a bit of examingin of seraphim rose and it is rather a remarkable servant. Clearly his writing on tollhouses is highly controversial. Some of the research point it a common theological bent of Russian Orthodoxy. There is great debate among varied orthodoxy over said concept. In examing the issue there are even traces going back to origen. Now note that personally view it as either bad methaphor or poor theology. There are many "men of God" who have spoken things of serious error. This leads to a question I have asked elsewhere. When someone we teach and respect and are touched by says things of profound, impactful truth and later says or teaches things of great error, what are we to do? Dismiss what was done and said that was impactful and dismiss it because of the errors? I have seen reference to Seraphim using the image to counter the "rosy" after death experiences of his day and age. It is clearly an error and quick dismissive to label it as "gnosticism" in comparision to his other works and the varied documentations of interactions with Fr. Seraphim Rose. So mr. not Abanes, please highlight a little be more why you would label Seraphim as such given the wide controversy and discussion in russian orthodoxy as a whole?

I can list a few respected "teachers" who have words that are wrong or strange and clearly relying on extra-biblical mythos

OswalD chambers
Martin Luther
Paul bunyan
Watchman Nee
and so on...

Now I have all seen reference that there is much mix in Fr. Seraphim's writings and should be engaged widely with full discernment. Yet, the label and the chastisement for recommending a particular writing is odd to me.
Tell my mr. not richard abanes who do you respect and what is your true intent, for you have twisted a great many things, and yes your tone does come across as Mr. Abanes.

Anonymous said...

Of the interesting details of Fr. Seraphim Rose he turned away from "Eastern relgions" after having even learned chinese to study taoism. He made a distinct repentance from homosexuality. Fascinating to learn more about this individual.

Anonymous said...

Here is an excellent debate between Robert Spencer and Peter Kreeft regarding the merits/demerits of Islam. Very enlightening!

http://patrickmadrid.blogspot.com/2010/11/peter-kreeft-and-robert-spencer-debate.html

Pax!
Lisa

Constance Cumbey said...

Found this on an Islamic board just now:

"First, "Allah" was not one of the 360 idols which were in the Ka'bah, although Morey has claimed this without evidence. When the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) entered Makkah victorious he went into the Ka'bah and broke the idols therein.

Second, the word "Allah" has been used all along for the name of "God" in the Arabic Bible for Jews and Christians alike. The proof is easy to verify; simple go to any hotel or motel on the earth and look in the drawer next to the bed and take out the complimentary Bible, placed there by the Giddeons and then look on page 5 or 6 where they list the examples of translations they have made into other languages. The second example given is for Arabic speakers. The verse is from the Gospel of John, chapter 3, verse 16. Everyone knows this one; "For God so loved the world..." and the word in Arabic for "God" is "Allah." Then if you have a Bible in Arabic, look on page one in Genesis, and you will find the word "Allah" 17 times.

Pasted from

Constance Cumbey said...

That preceding material was from this website:

http://www.godallah.com/moon_god.php

Constance

Constance Cumbey said...

A conflicting opinion to the preceding material from another person obviously of Arabic descent is this:

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/skm30804.htm

Although this writer seems to imply that ALL monotheistic religions have pagan roots.

Constance

Constance Cumbey said...

To Anonymous 11:47

Thank you for this reference which also led me to the very interesting on line book, THE APOLOGY OF AL-KINDY. It is new material to me and worthwhile reading for background on Mahomet/Mohamed.

Constance

Constance Cumbey said...

The site with the Al-Kindi book has much that appears to be of interest. I am now exploring it and it may be found at this link:

http://www.answering-islam.org/index.html

Constance

Anonymous said...

From The Cutting Edge Newsletter, Nov 10, 2010 -
NEWS BRIEF: "Pope calls his cardinals to Rome for sex-abuse summit", Belfast Telegraph News, 7 November 2010

"The Pope has summoned the world's cardinals, including Ireland's Sean Brady, to Rome next week for a summit meeting to respond to the clerical child sex abuse crisis. This will be the first time that Pope Benedict XVI has placed the abuse scandals, that have rocked the Catholic Church, for consideration by a summit of 203 cardinals."

Is this Sex Abuse Summit a good development for sex abuse victims or is it a public admission that sex abuse by Catholic priests has reached such a high level of exposure that the Vatican had to do something?

Or, is this summit simply a smokescreen designed to appear to be concerned while really accomplishing nothing?

"But the unprecedented move was received skeptically by victims of paedophile clerics who claimed that most cardinals have poor records in dealing with abuse cases. Dublin victim Andrew Madden, author of 'Altar Boy, A Story of Life After Abuse', said: 'If the talks are anything like the Irish bishops' visit to Rome earlier this year, they will amount to nothing'."

"The head of a victims' group in America said the proof would be, not in the discussion but, in the results. 'To be swayed by mere talk is to betray vulnerable children and wounded adults', said Barbara Blaine of Chicago, president of SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests."

If history is any guide, this summit will be nothing more than an attempt to mollify world opinion so that the breach of the 'public relations dam' can be closed. To accomplish this task, the Vatican must produce a public document which pretends to be concerned about sex abuse victims while really doing nothing about the disaster!

After all, the very Cardinals called to the Vatican for this summit undoubtedly have coverup skeletons in their own closets. Our research over the past 10 years has revealed that sex abuse by the priests has been so prevalent over the past 1,000 years that coverup by Bishops and Cardinals has been routine. Do you remember the Boston scandal of Cardinal Bernard Law? He was accused of massively covering up the sexual sins of his priests, and just as the arm of the law was reaching out to arrest him, the Vatican snatched him out of the country, giving a job within its walls of political immunity.

In other words, Pope Paul II carried out the most public of all coverups as he hastily provided a job for Cardinal Law, a position which placed him above American jurisprudence!

Since the last Pope proved that protection of his Cardinals is more important than Justice for Rome's victims, what makes us think that this Pope is interested in bringing Justice to this entire sordid mess?
P.

Constance Cumbey said...

That debate (Spence/Kreeft) are well worth watching.

Constance

Craig said...

100,000 have already "ascended:"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKx4MeBybkc&feature=channel

Her words starting at 5:14:

"...No, this is not mental illness. I know it sounds that way to people who this is not happening to; but I have over a 100,000 people on this planet that are having the same experiences I am having. This is not insanity, this is ascension…."

Anonymous said...

All I know of Richard Abanes is that he wrote a book against the Harry Potter series. He saw the real point: that regardless of how morally good the heroes act, or how well it is written, or of JK Rowling's own beliefs, her books promote the view that the occult is morally neutral and can be used for good or evil. The Bible, in contrast, says steer clear at all costs - for your own good. 'White' witches suffer from the same delusion as Potter, which encourages our children to mess with dangerous stuff. Abanes 'got it'.

What has he done since then that is New Agey, please?

Craig said...

Anon 8:03:

Abanes is a Rick Warren apologist and he also espoused Ken Blanchard -- a known New Ager. He's also a very nasty person who I have personally traded comments with on another blog a couple years ago.

Anonymous said...

Those who argue that Allah is Jehovah generally suppose that since they both claim to have created the world and the human race they must be the same. But what if one is lying and Muslims are consequently wrong that monotheistic Abraham is their spiritual father as well as their bloodline father?

In the qur'an (4:157), Allah goes out of his way to deny the divinity of Jesus. Now read 1 John 4:3, "every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not of God, and is an antichrist". For the Bible-believing Christian this is decisive: Allah is not Jehovah. A loving father does not deny his own son.

It is therefore a mistake to translate "Jehovah," or Adonai or Elohim, as "Allah" when rendering the Bible into Arabic. (Indicentally "Allah" is a concatenation of "al illah", meaning "THE god" - the Islamic declaration of faith runs: "There is no illah but Allah...")

Don't take my word for it. Ask converts from Islam to Christianity whether Allah is Jehovah. (I mean those who were and are serious believers.) They should know, and the ones I have met say: Not the same.

I agree that there is no reliable evidence of Allah having been one of the pluralism of gods worshipped at Mecca before Muhammad, but that is not the point.

There is, logically, one further alternative: that Muhammad did not write down the qur'an under inspiration of some kind, but out of his own head. But that too invalidates Islam.

JD said...

Constance,

I posted the 11:47 link. I don't know why it posted as anon as I was signed in, and I even posted explaining this after I saw that it posted anonymously, which I now don't see. Since there was a actual conversation on the subject I thought I would add a piece.

Anonymous said...

Craig,

Thanks for that. Please educate me further. Rick Warren gets slammed here. His famous Purpose-driven book looks OK to me and I am an evangelical Christian. I do understand that Warren is overly keen to get Christianity into the political arena (something Jesus never did), and might be a postmillennialist rather than a premillennialist, but what is the evidence that he is using his influence at high levels to further a New Age agenda rather than a Christian social one, please? Others I have put this question to have told me that he hangs out with compromised Christians and secular politicians, but that is not proof that he is compromised. You can't influence dubious people if you don't get close to them. I am not disputing what is said about RW but I would appreciate a summary of the hard evidence from his own words or actions, if you are willing.

Anon @ 8.03am

Anonymous said...

Constance 10:41,

Christians and Catholics who use the name “Allah” outside of Arabic speaking nations, such as Malaysia, are being accused of blasphemy and targeted for persecution by their Muslim neighbors.

While it is not uncommon for Arabic speaking Christians living in Islamic states to use the name “Allah” when referring to the God of the Bible, Christian use of the term in Malaysia has been banned for decades. The ban has been a ping pong ball in the Malay courts.

Malaysia is indeed a very interesting example. Islam is the official state sponsored religion in Malaysia. “All ethnic Malays are Muslim (100%) as defined by Article 160 of the Constitution.” (wikipedia). In spite of this, there is a small but growing Christian population in Malaysia, and some of them want to use the name “Allah” in their publications and worship services.

The Malaysian government granted permission for Christians to use the term, but withdrew that permission in 2009 due to the violent backlash from the majority Muslim population. In January of 2010, the High Court ruled to overturn the ban yet again, less than a year after the government had re-instituted the ban.

Why all the back and forth?

Realizing this ban might actually hinder the spread of Islam, certain clerics argued that it is in Islam’s best interest to equate Allah with Christianity and Catholicism. A ban on the use of the term “Allah” might retard the acceptance of “Allah” as the “God of all”.

The decision has once again set off a wave of protest and violence from the Islamic community directed at Christians who would dare use the term. A coalition of Islamic clerics has accused the Malay government of promoting blasphemy, because “Allah has no son”.

Civil unrest is on the rise over this very issue. It really does go to the heart of the matter.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1952497,00.html#ixzz14suMRdjH

http://tinyurl.com/yetfwfg

Anonymous said...

Was Allah the god of Abraham? Allah even tells Muslims that he is a deceiver (qur’an 3:54, 8:30 in *accurate* translation of the Arabic)...

Craig said...

Anon 8:03/8:41:

Warren is a member of the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations), on the board of Tony Blair's Faith Foundation which is furthering UN Millennium Development Goals as is Warren's own P.E.A.C.E. plan. Note that in Warren's acrostic that of the two "E"s none are for "evangelism." Blair is ecumenical terming Judaism, Islam and Christianity as the "Abrahamic faiths" in an effort to presumably homogenize them.

Warren Smith wrote a book on Warren's 'purpose driven' called Deceived on Purpose.

I'm running out the door right now and that's off the top of my head.

Anonymous said...

Yesos khenoronhkhwa.

omots

Anonymous said...

Craig,

Thanks for that. More on RW would be welcome. I don't need educating about Tony Blair as I lived under his premiership while he wrecked my country for 10 painful years.

Anonymous Contributor said...

Constance 10.41

Just because the Gideons (in slight ignorance) wrote thet, does not mean it is 100% accurate or that it is a correct translation into Arabic. Many times the Bible has to be translated into different languages. Many of these do not have perfect words to convey in their own language. For example English has just one word for love, but Greek has 4 words, so the Greek had to use our one word love (or charity).

So, in Arabic they had Allah to mean God. Those who do the translating do not always know the origins of these words but are trying to speak in a language the people can understand.

In Genesis, the original for God was Elohim in Hebrew. As the only word they have for God in Arabic is allah, they had to use that, but it doesn't mean that the pagan god that Islam borrowed is the same as the Allah word which was translated.

That was rather difficult to explain, but I hope you "got it"

Craig said...

Anon 9:13:

Ken Silva has loads of info on RW at Apprising Ministries:

http://apprising.org/

Unknown said...

Craig,

I just watched that video that you posted at the 7:24 post. I was expecting Tommy Lee Jones and Will Smith to come out and that this was just another sequel to Men in Black. She is definitely "out there."

Craig said...

BC David,

She's on her own astral plane -- along with 100,000 others...

Anonymous said...

Still throwing out smokescreens while broadcasting from an anti-semitic network, eh? You do your best to avoid taking a stand don't you Constance?

-Lee

Anonymous said...

Anon@ 6:47 a.m.

Cardinal Law resigned, which means it's no longer the church's business what the guy does. Most abuse victims I have come across want to be left alone in peace. They are fed up of the court fights this is all turning into.

You should also know that SNAP is headed by a group of people who are pushing for female ordinations and gay marriage too. I don't trust their motives, because they have ulterior motives.

Bring me some victim groups, who have no ulterior motives.

Savvy

Anonymous said...

Peacebringer,

With respect to dominion, a lot of churches in Europe grew out of state law. Some still have to consult the state before making changes. The Church of England is a state church where the Queen is the supreme head, a change in church policy means that changes have to be made in the laws of England. The church of England is now working on installing same-sex marriages. The same applies with several other churches. A Lutheran church was taken to court in Finland for refusing to ordain women, because the church is a state church.

A lot of these churches have sister churches in the U.S. and other countries, so what decisions they make is going to affect churches in other countries too.

Everybody is so focused on the Vatican on this blog, but they are the only ones who seem to be getting the fact that sacraments are not civil rights.


Savvy

Anonymous said...

To "P" @ 6:47 AM:
Re: ". . . what makes us think that this Pope is interested in bringing Justice to this entire sordid mess?"
___________________________________

Because if the Pope wasn't 'interested in bringing justice' there would be no reason for him to even bother to call his cardinals together to Rome for a summit to discuss this issue in the first place.

(By the way, this subject has been addressed / discussed / rehashed on this blog over the past several years too many times to count.)

Anonymous said...

Dear Susanna,

The only places where the English word 'cousin' exists in the New Testament is in Luke 1:36 (cousin)
and Luke 1:58 (cousins).

I am using the KJV here, as does the interlinear Bible [at biblios.com] when giving the English Equivalent.

Luke 1:36

And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.

Luke 1:58

And her neighbours and her cousins heard how the Lord had shewed great mercy upon her; and they rejoiced with her.

In both of these passages, in the more reliable Textus Receptus, the word in the original Greek is translated as, relative.

Luke 1:36 συγγενίς (sungenis) = relative

http://biblos.com/luke/1-36.htm


Luke 1:58 συγγενεῖς (sungeneis) = relatives

http://biblos.com/luke/1-58.htm


Although the specific Greek word for cousin, ανεπσιοσ (anepsios), is not used in these two instances, neither is ἀδελφὴ(adelphē [sister]) or ἀδελφαὶ (adelphai [sisters]) used in them. Nor is ἀδελφὸς (Adelphos [brother]) or ἀδελφοῖς (adelphois [brothers]) used in them.

(Obviously, the word ἀδελφὸς ((Adelphos [brother])) would never have been used anyway in Luke 1:36, as Elizabeth is clearly a woman.)

It is poignant to juxtapose Elizabeth, Mary's cousin, with
John 2:12 (it is clear that the word brothers here refers to Jesus actual brothers and does not refer to his disciples in this passage. We know this because immediately after we read, 'his brothers', we then read, and 'his disciples'.

This is clearly not a reiterative refrain, as the word καὶ (kai [and]) separates the two meanings.

John 2:12

After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples: and they continued there not many days.

Μετὰ τοῦτο κατέβη εἰς Καφαρναοὺμ αὐτὸς καὶ ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ καὶ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐκεῖ ἔμειναν οὐ πόλλας ἡμέρας.

http://biblos.com/john/2-12.htm

Continued...

Anonymous said...

Response to Susanna Continued...

It is clear in the Textus Receptus that the word brother in the Greek is correspondent with that in English. It is used only where (a) genetically familial brother/s is/are used (this would include any adopted brother into the family nucleus), or where a brother or brothers are so-named because they are spiritually so, by virtue of their belonging to the spiritual family of the Biblical Ecclesia. The only 'exception' here, is where Paul, both in the Greek and English, refers to false brothers

Galatians 2:4 (King James Version)

4 And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage (:).

Galatians 2:4 Greek Study Bible (Apostolic / Interlinear)

διὰ δὲ τοὺς παρεισάκτους ψευδαδέλφους οἵτινες παρεισῆλθον κατασκοπῆσαι τὴν ἐλευθερίαν ἡμῶν ἣν ἔχομεν ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, ἵνα ἡμᾶς καταδουλώσουσιν (,).

The key word in the above passage being, ψευδαδέλφους (pseudadelphous [false-brothers]).

On your claims of what various well-known protestants said or were purported to have said, in the same manner as one must dismiss the contrivences of well-known Roman Catholics that err from the Holy Bible and its meaning, so too must these, in light of what I have written above, be dismissed.

Luther was a raving Anti-Semite and an upholder of the heretical Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, and Calvin was an unrepentant murderer, a twister of the truth whose writings on predestination make God out to be an arbitrary tyrant, and moreover drew even from those heretical portions of the Roman Catholic Augustine’s writings (though Augustine was obviously correct, and must be agreed with, where he rightly shows Jesus Christ to be the Rock of the Church and not Peter), which Augustine in turn had taken the heretical portions of his writings, directly and indirectly, from the heresies of the heathen Aristotle!

Continued...

Anonymous said...

Response to Susanna Continued...

It is clear in the Textus Receptus that the word brother in the Greek is correspondent with that in English. It is used only where (a) genetically familial brother/s is/are used (this would include any adopted brother into the family nucleus), or where a brother or brothers are so-named because they are spiritually so, by virtue of their belonging to the spiritual family of the Biblical Ecclesia. The only 'exception' here, is where Paul, both in the Greek and English, refers to false brothers

Galatians 2:4 (King James Version)

4 And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage (:).

Galatians 2:4 Greek Study Bible (Apostolic / Interlinear)

διὰ δὲ τοὺς παρεισάκτους ψευδαδέλφους οἵτινες παρεισῆλθον κατασκοπῆσαι τὴν ἐλευθερίαν ἡμῶν ἣν ἔχομεν ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, ἵνα ἡμᾶς καταδουλώσουσιν (,).

The key word in the above passage being, ψευδαδέλφους (pseudadelphous [false-brothers]).

On your claims of what various well-known protestants said or were purported to have said, in the same manner as one must dismiss the contrivences of well-known Roman Catholics that err from the Holy Bible and its meaning, so too must these, in light of what I have written above, be dismissed.

Luther was a raving Anti-Semite and an upholder of the heretical Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, and Calvin was an unrepentant murderer, a twister of the truth whose writings on predestination make God out to be an arbitrary tyrant, and moreover drew even from those heretical portions of the Roman Catholic Augustine’s writings (though Augustine was obviously correct, and must be agreed with, where he rightly shows Jesus Christ to be the Rock of the Church and not Peter), which Augustine in turn had taken the heretical portions of his writings, directly and indirectly, from the heresies of the heathen Aristotle!

Continued...

Anonymous said...

Response to Susanna Continued...

Furthermore, we are both aware that there is argument on both sides as to whether Matthew originally wrote his Gospel in Hebrew (or, more precisely, Aramaic [i.e., Syro-Chaldaic, the vernacular language of the Hebrew Christians in Palestine]) or in Greek.

The overriding point (which is based on external evidence as opposed to the Gospel of Matthew’s internal evidence) in favour of the Hebrew camp is that the citations of the Ante-Nicene ‘fathers’ in favour of a Hebrew origin is unanimous. This point rests mainly on the testimonies of the unreliable (noted to be a man of weak judgment [by Eusebius and others]) Papias, Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius, Epiphanius, and Jerome (as well as Gregory Nazienzen, Chrysostom, Augustin, Isidorus Hispalensis, Theophylact, Euthymius and others asserting the same.

However, there is ample evidence to show that the vast bulk of their testimonies (e.g., Irenaeus, Epiphaneus, Jerome, etc) relied upon the heretical ‘Gospel according to the Hebrews’ (not to be confused with the Biblical Paul’s Epistle to the Hebrews).

Later, of course, Irenaeus attempted to modify his opinion, though was not bold enough to refute it altogether, and likewise, Jerome.

Jerome, in his, ‘de Viris Illustr. 3.’, claims to have seen the original of Matthew at Boroea by favour of the Nazarenes, and had copied it.

Written some years later is, however, his commentary on Matt.ii. , in which he states:

‘in Evangelio quo utuntur Nazaraei et Hebionitae, quod nuper in Graecum de Hebrew sermone transtulimus, et quod vocatur a plerisque Matthaei authenticum, &c.

Even later, he writes in Dialog adv. Pelagianos, Lib iii, ‘In Evangelio juxta Hebraeos, quod Chaldaico quidem Syroque sermone, sed Hebraicis literis conscriptum est, quo utuntur usque hodie Nazareni, secundum Apostolos, sive ut plerique autumant, juxta Matthaeum, Quod et in Caesariensi habetur bibliotheca, narrat historia...’ (He then continues with an apocryphal anecdote).

Jerome is therefore neither consistant nor reliable, especially as the evidence points to him having been misled by the Nazarenes and Ebionites into accepting that the Heretical ‘Gospel according to the Hebrews’, was the veritable Gospel of Matthew, which it definitely was not, and his having believed that the original Gospel of Matthew was none other than the Hebrew MS in the Caesarean library!

Continued...

Anonymous said...

Response to Susanna Continued...

Obviously apparrent among the assertions of the abovementioned early Church ‘fathers’ is the confusion between the (SUPPOSED) Hebrew original of St. Matthew (for there is no hard evidence to show than any such Hebrew original existed), and the heretical ‘Gospel according to the Hebrews’ from which Jerome copied and quoted from. Much which is present in the heretical ‘Gospel according to the Hebrews’ is absent in the reliable Gospel of Matthew written in Greek, and there are things absent from the heretical ‘Gospel according to the Hebrews’, which are yet present in the reliable Gospel of Matthew written in the Greek.

So what can we conclude? We cannot be satisfied with the assertions of Papias, for such comes from a man of poor judgment. Neither can we be rely on the claims of, Epiphanius, Jerome, et al, for, where they are not insecurely anchored to the poorly judged utterings of Papias, they are lost in the turmoil of heresy that wreeks its tempestuous havoc from the destructive ‘Gospel according to the Hebrews’, and their allusion to the existence of a Hebrew original of Matthew’s Gospel, is but an empty mirage with no discoverable place when checked against the map of evidence.

The argument for a Greek original of Matthew’s Gospel, however, is favorable indeed, and in view of what I have already written, we must therefore employ the same rules when judging the first Gospel as we would apply to the second and third! The present Greek text is established on exactly the same grounding as the other Gospels, being cited as early and as constantly as they are.

Moreover we cannot but help see the wealth of internal evidence for such a Greek original.

A hypothesis for a Hebrew original is unable to account for the identity we may observe in the three synoptic Gospels. If a‘translator’ existed, he must have either been overwhelmingly aquainted with the other two Gospels, in which case it is inconceivable that in the midst of present coincidences in many passages, such divergences should have occurred, or unaquainted with them, in which case the identity itself would be completely inexplicable.

Continued...

Anonymous said...

Response to Susanna Continued...

When we examine more closely the coincidences and divergences, we cannot but conclude that the argument for the Greek original must be upheld.

The synoptic Gospels overwhelmingly coincide in the ‘discourses and words of our Lord’, though diverge in their narrative portions; and as verbal identity abounds primarily in the former, the latter exhibit the phenomena either of independent translations from the same original, or of independent histories.

The interconnectedness between the four Gospels is highlighted, morreover, by the harmony of the Hebreistic or Helenistic Greek with the same peculiarities used by those who were obviously Hebrew/Aramaic speakers conversant in Greek, as was the norm in 1st Century Palestine, especially among the middle classes, of which Matthew (having been a tax-collector) was obviously a member.

I think I have said enough to support my position and will therefore now leave it up to others to do their own research beyond the overly circumscript and misleading assertions of the Catholic Encyclopedia.

God bless,

R.

Anonymous said...

Anon@12:12 p.m.

Luther, Calvin, and the rest were heretics. So know we learn that Protestants are not even Protestants.

Not fully Catholic, not fully Protestant. Just confused.

Anonymous said...

P.S. [Caviat] , many of the popes were also Anti-Semites and unrepentant murderers on a far greater scale than either Luther or Calvin.

R.

And to the person who has just posted, there were Protestants long before Calvin & Luther and before the Reformation. I admire the Waldenses, of whom the Roman Catholic Church murdered in what can only be described as a holocaust! I also admire Tyndale, John Wesley (though I'm not a Methodist, and neither was he, and I'm not an Anglican either), and others.

Protestantism is far less confused with heresies, heathenism, Babylonian idolatory, and breaking God's Commandments than Roman Catholicism, which is rife with such, is that's for sure.

God bless,

R.

Anonymous said...

Still, I would rather that people focus on my response to Susanna, rather than allow themselves to play ping-pong with the likes of Anon [who I suspect is a New Ager coadjutor clinging to the words of the likes of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin ].

R.

Anonymous said...

Still, I would rather that people focus on my response to Susanna, rather than allow themselves to play ping-pong with the likes of Anon at 12:25 PM [who I suspect is a New Ager coadjutor clinging to the words of the likes of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin ].

R.

Anonymous said...

To Anon @12.25pm

The idea is to follow the Bible, and where Rome or Luther or Calvin depart from it then "we must obey God rather than man" (Acts 5:29). Real Christians rather than nominal ones have the Holy Spirit to help them understand the scriptures - most of which are pretty obvious - and have love in their hearts so as to keep differences in perspective. Never mind for now about Sola Scriptura - if Rome, Constantinople, Canterbury and many others simply did nothing *inconsistent* with the scriptures which they hold in common then that would be a good start.

To R:

Please don't forget the Lollards either, my brothers in Christ and in kin (I'm English). They came together round the teachings of John Wycliffe, as great a man as Tyndale and Wesley. They were rooted out and burned by others who looked to see whose lips stopped moving when prayers to Mary and the saints, rather than to Jesus, were offered in Catholic churches in England. In a field outside Amersham in the south of England is a memorial close to the spot where several of them were burned - as heretics, although one might wonder whether the view that heretics should be executed, and prayers should be addressed to Mary, are not the real heresies...

Anonymous said...

To "R" @ 12:07 PM:
Re: "the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation"
___________________________________

Do you, "R" on November 10, 2010 @ 12:07 PM, really want to go on record as calling Jesus HIMSELF a 'heretic' for instituting HIS doctrine of Transubstantiation, which most definitely IS supported in the Bible?

John 6:53-56 (New KJV):
53 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For My flesh is food indeed,a]"[a] and My blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him."

Anonymous said...

Actually, the real 'heretics' here are the Lutherans who REJECTED the doctrine of Transubstantiation in the 16th century.

http://www.catholicculture.org/cult
ure/library/view.cfm?recnum=3013

Newbie said...

To Anon 2.08

I can see what you are saying, but I am confused.

Does that passage you quoted actually mention that the bread is His flesh and the wine is His blood.
Or does it actually say that the bread becomes his flesh and the wine becomes His blood?

As far as I can see it doesn't mention bread or wine. It seems Jesus is saying we literally eat his body and drink his blood, doesn't it?

To my ears that sounds very weird. Couldn't it just be symbolic of digesting His life in us and not His body? I mean, that we should be completely full of him?

I seem to remember Jesus saying "i have food to eat that you don't know about" and that food was "doing the will of God"???

Anonymous said...

Issues regarding the doctrine of transubstantiation:

1. Did transubstantiation take place at the Last Supper?

2. The mediaeval Catholic philosophers who formalised the notion of transubstantiation fought tenaciously against the notion of atomism, which they regarded as fatal to their doctrine. Today atomism (the notion that matter is not indefinitely indivisible) is universally accepted as a result of scientific advance, but the Vatican never revisits the mediaeval arguments by which atomism wrecks transubstantiation. Perhaps Catholics should re-read Aquinas and reconsider?

3. Communion - how often? St Paul quotes Jesus as saying “Do this every time you drink it, in remembrance of me” (1 Cor 11:25). Every Christian family meal with wine should therefore be a Communion. The need for an ordained priest to be present is, of course, incompatible with this scripture...

Anonymous said...

Really do not want to get into communion in full detail as still sorting out issues self a bit. However, communion has deviated from the orgin extensively. The deviation is that the bread and wine were particular aspects of the passover meal. The cup Jesus proclaimed was a particular cup and the bread was the 'Afikomen' so his statement came at a particular time. Also something that makes it a bit more confusing is the "showbread" in temple was considered "the presence" however have not examined or heard as much about that. Basically right now all our "communion" theology or means of practice I think fall short and falter for at a minumum it fails to grasp the passover aspects to the meal.

Anonymous said...

To Newbie @ 2:45 PM:

Jesus could not be MORE clear when He spoke these words:

"unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you."

Anonymous said...

R,

You should know that Henry V111 killed more than 30,000 non-Anglicans in one day.

The Waldenesians were gnostics.

The early reformers were not into freedom of speech and religion. Check your history.

There is no evidence to prove that there were Protestants before the Reformation.

The early church did not subscribe to Sola Scriptura.

Anonymous said...

To Anon @ 3:14 PM:
Re: "Did transubstantiation take place at the Last Supper?"
___________________________________

Yes, it did.

Anonymous said...

R,

The Anglicans are called the Catholic-lite. They have traditions that most Evangelicals would not recognize.

There is also a strong anglo-Catholic wing in the C of E.

Anonymous said...

To: Anon @ 3.32pm

I do not agree that the Waldensians were gnostics; what is the evidence for this claim of yours (preferably Waldensian documents rather than claims by the people who burned them)? Are you perhaps thinking of the Cathars/Albigensians?

Anonymous said...

To: Anon @ 3.35pm

If transubstantiation took place at the Last Supper, then how could Jesus' blood be in the cup given that it was still in His body (which was holding the cup) and that it had not yet been shed for the remission of sins?

paul said...

We eat the Word of God when we
read the Bible.
We also eat the Word of God when we
listen to it being preached.
Jesus is the Bread of Life.
Jesus is the Word of God.

Anonymous said...

Anon@3:42 p.m.

The merchant of Lyon was the founder of this sect. They did merge with the Protestant reformation, but were not Protestants.

Just another breakaway sect.

Anonymous said...

From Matthew 26:26-28
Douay-Rheims version):

[26] And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body. [27] And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. [28] For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.
__________________________________

Note:
"This is my body"... He does not say, This is the figure of my body, but This is my body. (2 Council of Nice, Act. 6.) Neither does he say in this, or with this is my body; but absolutely, This is my body: which plainly implies TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 4.30pm

Breakaway might be of concern to you, but not me. Fidelity to God's word does concern me. What is the evidence that the Waldensians were gnostics?

Anonymous said...

THE LAST SUPPER

Roman Catholic Christians share with most Christians the faith that Jesus Christ, on the night he was betrayed, ate a final or last supper with his Apostles. This final meal was also the celebration of the Jewish Passover or Feast of the Unleavened Bread which commemorated the passing over of the Jews from the death in slavery to the Egyptians to life in the Promised Land.

Catholic Christians together with other historical Christian Churches (e.g., Eastern Orthodox and Byzantine Christians, Lutherans, Anglicans and some Episcopalians, etc.) believe the literal words of Jesus - that the bread and wine are truly his body and blood.

The beloved disciple, John was an eyewitness to the events of the Last Supper....

John 6:53-56
Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him."

For more...
http://www.catholicapologetics.org/
ap060500.htm

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 4.31pm

Jesus spoke in Aramaic or Hebrew and in either case there is no "IS" - He would have said "This, my body/blood, is given...". You can fill in the missing verb yourself. Represents? Is? Certainly "is" has the NT Greek going for it. But how can the cup that Jesus held at the Last Supper contain his own blood before He had shed it?

Anonymous said...

Anon@4:39 p,m.

I have no evidence to prove that they were Gnostics. So you might be right about this one. However, to say that they were Protestants is also not true. This was before the Reformation.

The early church did not subscribe to Sola Scriptura.

Anonymous said...

Note:

The Lutherans started out believing in the Transubstantiation - but later rejected the LITERAL words of Jesus in the 16th century.

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 4.50pm

The point is that the Waldensians were evangelical Christians pre-Reformation. (Ditto the Lollards in England.) I find it pointless to discuss whether they were 'protestants' or not.

Anonymous said...

To Anon @ 4:43 PM:
Re: "But how can the cup that Jesus held at the Last Supper contain his own blood before He had shed it?"
__________________________________

According to John 6:60,66...
Then many of his disciples who were listening said, "This saying is hard; who can accept it?" ... As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.

Had these disciples mistaken the meaning of Jesus' words, Jesus would surely have known and corrected them. He didn't. They had clearly understood his meaning--Jesus' flesh was to be really eaten; his blood to be really drunk.

Non believers often respond that even at the Last Supper, the apostles did not sense that they had flesh in their hands and blood in their cup. But Jesus is GOD. The creative literalness of the words: "This is my body; this is my blood" must be believed. God cannot LIE. And God can turn bread into flesh and wine into blood without the appearances of bread and wine changing.

Medieval philosophers and theologians called this expression of Divine Truth and Creative Power "transubstantiation".

Yes, God can change the substance of any created matter while the appearances remain unchanged. And this demands FAITH!!!

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 5.08pm,

It certainly does require faith! Every other miracle in scripture is dramatic and visible, which is the point. This one, if genuine, is totally invisible.

You speak of mediaeval philosophers and theologians. These are the men (including Thomas Aquinas) who determined that atomism would be a death blow to the doctrine of transubstantiation. Today atomism (the doctrine that you cannot indefinitely divide matter) is undisputed - look at the periodic table of the elements. Now please go and read the Roman Catholic church's greatest theologian knocking down the doctrine of transubstantiation.

Anonymous said...

The Catholic church calls the alleged change ‘transubstantiation,’ meaning that the ‘substance’ of the bread and the wine has changed although the ‘accidents’ of its appearance (its physics and biochemistry) have not. The notion of ‘substance’ derives from Aristotle and expresses the ancient Greek view that the world we perceive is not a genuine reality, but only an ‘accidental’ world of appearances of things more fundamental. In contrast the scriptural worldview holds that the world we see was created, and is therefore real; and that (although we can be fooled by illusions, or by our sinful nature) we see the world in the same way as its Creator because we are in his image. When Jesus turned water into wine (John 2), it tasted like wine. What we see is what we get, and in Communion nobody experiences human blood, which Christ’s blood would resemble in look, smell and taste. So I do not believe in transubstantiation. God is never inconsistent, and real blood is forbidden to humans (Genesis 9:4) - a command reiterated to Jews (Leviticus 3:17) and Christians (Acts 15:29).

Anonymous said...

Catholics use John 6 to advocate transubstantiation. It follows one of Jesus’ miraculous feedings of the hungry multitude. In another of his great “I AM” statements, Jesus calls himself the bread of life which people eat (6:35), just as he called himself the door through which people pass (John 10:9). This was a Messianic claim, recognisable by those who knew their scriptures (Deuteronomy 8:3 stated that man lives off every word from the mouth of God). At the same time Jesus is giving spiritual illustrations of Christian living; we do not physically eat the bread of life, just as we do not physically pass through Jesus Christ as a door. In John 6 Jesus chides his audience for misunderstandings of this sort, and he explained that those who came to him would never go hungry (6:35). What does he provide to feed them? His word, which is life (6:63); and (at 6:51) his flesh, to be given for the life of the world (not just for the faithful – i.e., he means the cross). In the same verse he goes so far as to say that his flesh is the bread of life. But he has described his flesh as bread, not vice-versa (as transubstantiation has it). When he goes on to say that people must eat his flesh (and drink his blood), the preceding verses indicate that this is a dramatic metaphor for the bread of life. Why does Jesus choose such a startling phrase, which is contrary to Mosaic Law about dead bodies (Numbers 19) and ingesting blood? He often addressed a crowd in an elliptical way which would be heard differently by the faithful (who knew their scriptures) and the indifferent, whereas to an audience of committed followers he makes things clearer (see Mark 4:33-34). Here he is testing the crowd in this way. Transubstantiation drives an ox-cart through the subtlety with which Jesus speaks here.

Moreover, this teaching came long before the Last Supper; Catholics who assume that Jesus had Communion in mind with these words are assuming part of what they wish to prove. We may, of course, suppose that Jesus had this teaching in mind when he instituted Communion at the Last Supper, for he chose words (“this is my body, this is my blood”) which can hardly fail to evoke the incident. Why did he do that? In Communion we should remember that we feed on Jesus in the ways he stated during that discourse – just as God sustained his people on manna-bread during the Exodus.

Anonymous said...

To Anon @ 5:18 PM:
Re: "Every other miracle in scripture is dramatic and visible..."
___________________________________

I have to disagree. There are many mysteries of faith that are not 'visible' and that we do not understand. One that comes to mind is the mystery of the Blessed Trinity. How can God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit all be ONE and the SAME GOD; and, yet, be SEPARATE but EQUAL? (Most of us accept this mystery based on our FAITH.)

And when we pass over to the 'other side' (beyond the veil) and meet Jesus for the first time...I have faith that He will make SURE that we understand exactly what HE meant when He spoke those words quoted in John 6:53-56!!!

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 5.50pm

The Trinity is a mystery, not a miracle.

Yes, we shall find out who is right while sitting at the feet of Jesus in heaven. I expect to see you there and I hope you expect to see me there.

Anonymous said...

John 6:53-56

Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him."

Anonymous said...

To Anon @ 5:54 PM:

I see it as BOTH a mystery and a miracle.

Also, I hope to see ALL of us in Heaven one day!!!

Anonymous said...

Anon@ 4:54 p.m.

They could not have been Evangelicals because of their belief in the priesthood and the sacraments.

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 6.22pm

It's a matter of definition of terms, not really a big issue.

You or another invited me to comment on Sola Scriptura, perhaps under the impression that I believe it. I believe that all authority in heaven and on earth rests with Jesus Christ, not with a a piece of writing even though divinely inspired, and not with His church. But with HIM. The early church's task was not to write scripture but to recognise it - and, having done so, to live and obey it. Catholics, Orthodox and protestants are in thankful agreement over the NT canon, and in debate with Christians holding views other than my own I start from what we have in common, ie the NT. Debating without first establishing common ground is a fruitless and frustrating (for both sides).

Rich Peterson - Medford said...

Lee's argument would suggest that ministries who broadcast on CBS, ABC, NBC, BET, etc. are also anti-Semitic and anti-Christian because those networks also provide programming which is hostile towards these faiths.

Anonymous said...

Anon@5:30 p.m.

Protestants are often very literalist about a lot of things in the Bible, but when it comes to John 6, you like to turn away completely. Maybe you should examine your own reasons for doing this.

Susanna said...

Response to "R."

Since I am among those who does not acknowledge the King James Version as THE authoritative translation of Holy Writ, your arguments are as unconvincing to me as mine probably were to you.

Moreover, as long as we are going to be critical of Scripture scholarship, the scholars who translated the King James Version ought not to be excempt from such criticism.

The truth of the matter is that the King James Bible has undergone at least three revisions since its inception in 1611, incorporating more than 100,000 changes....begging the question as to which King James Bible is therefore inspired?

Although it is often asserted that heretics produced some of the New Testament MSS we now have in our possession, there is only one group of MSS known to be produced by heretics: certain Byzantine MSS of the book of Revelation. This is significant because the Byzantine text stands behind the KJV! These MSS formed part of a mystery cult textbook used by various early cults. But KJV advocates constantly make the charge that the earliest MSS (the Alexandrian MSS) were produced by heretics. The sole basis they have for this charge is that certain readings in these MSS are disagreeable to them!

But how can they accept that the Textus Receptus is perfect and error free when Acts 9:6 is found only in the Latin Vulgate but absolutely no Greek manuscript known to man? Further, how come in Rev 22:19 the phrase "book of life" is used in the KJV when absolutely ALL known Greek manuscripts read "tree of life"?
How can we trust the Textus Receptus to be 100% error free when the second half of 1 Jn 5:8 are found only in the Latin Vulgate and a Greek manuscript probably written in Oxford about 1520 by a Franciscan friar named Froy (or Roy), who took the disputed words from the Latin Vulgate? (we are not disputing the doctrine of the trinity, just the validity of the last half of this verse)


Last but not least is the following....which is NOT from the Catholic Encyclopedia.

NOTES ON THE KING JAMES VERSION AND THE SO-CALLED TEXTUS RECEPTUS

http://www.theology.edu/journal/
volume1/tr.htm

Anonymous said...

Sigh sigh o dear they are still playing ping-pong! Will sit it out for now! Create your own blogs re this topic: Catholic- this- Protestant- that!
Melinda

Dorothy said...

Constance, why not make lemonade out of the lemons this blog is drawing.

So many Christians like to hear themselves talk,so is there some way to make a profit by supporting this? Maybe.

Start a subscription website. For $100 a year, they can post as many times as they want on a paid blog or website. They can do as much missionary work as they want to do. They can argue as much as they want with others who are willing to pay $100 to argue with them.

You could monitor to keep the language decent, correct information to keep it factual and to stay on topic.

I think I would be willing to pay $100 a year to post to a blog that would deal solely with the New Age movement.

Anyone could read the website or blog, but there would be no posting to it without payment. A password wouldn't be enough to gain access. I believe all computers have some kind of address. The posts would have to come from one of the paid addresses.

I don't have the technical skills to do this kind of thing. If I did, I might try it.

Dorothy

Anonymous said...

From the Brisbane Times (11/08/10):

Cookie Monsters: Browser Beware As Political Websites Plant Spy Devices

http://tinyurl.com/39r63u7

Anonymous said...

People with mental health issues blocked from voting across EU

09.11.2010 @ 17:48 CET

EU OBSERVER / BRUSSELS - People in comas obviously cannot vote, and those with the mental age of a 12-year-old probably should not either, but what about people with down syndrome? Or manic depressives? Or anorexics that are in a home? Should they be banned from the voting booth? A new report suggests that across Europe, that is precisely what is happening.

For more...
http://euobserver.com/9/31234

Anonymous said...

LIFE WITH BIG BROTHER

Americans line up to join 'no-fly' list

Tolerance maxed out for TSA security's voyeurism, molestation, radiation blasts

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?
fa=PAGE.view&pageId=226533

Anonymous said...

From Bloomberg...

U.S. Debt Proposal Would Cut Social Security, Taxes, Medicare

http://tinyurl.com/24tf4wn

Anonymous said...

Dear Susanna

I am not "R" but I am the one to whom you apologised on a previoius thread for misunderstanding my comment re the Albigensians. (I gladly accepted your apology.) I am a protestant of a certain type. And I agree in full with your critical comments on the King James Bible. What needs to be done today is: (1) make a new Textus Receptus in the light of all the letters and manuscripts that have been discovered since the late mediaeval one; then (2) translate it into English and other languages.

Even then, the debate about Alexandrine and Byzantine manuscripts would go on, with both sides having good arguments.

I selcome Catholic input into this debate.

King James is out of date if only because the meaning of English words has changed over the last 400years. Jesus saying "Suffer little children..." and John talking about a woman "taken" (rather than "caught") in adultery are certainly going to be misunderstood today.

Slumdog said...

http://tinyurl.com/2eh49m9


http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1110/christians_in_iraq_flee.php3

Sorry if someone else posted this!

Anonymous said...

Lisa thanks for the Kreeft Vs Spencer debate.

Pat from Manila

Anonymous said...

To: Anon@7:49pm

From: Anon@5:30 p.m.

When Jesus said those things to the crowd, they wondered what it meant. He chose not to be explicit, but you can be sure that an answer was available THERE AND THEN or he would not have spoken. Yet transubstantiation (if it occurs) was not available before the Last Supper. So it's not that that he's talking about.

You are free to believe that my understanding of John 6 is motivated solely by anti-transubstantiationism, but I know my own heart. Asking whether someone believes a passage is 'literally true' is no differnt from asking them if it is simple true, since it is a *literary* account ie, written down. The question is: Is it material truth? Spiritual truth? Substantial truth? etc etc...

Pax.

Anonymous said...

Susanna at 10:00 PM,

with the great respect, your inference that my using the KJV somehow means I believe there are no minor errors with it, nor have been, is mistaken.

I believe the KJV to be, overall, the better of the English translations, I do not, however, claim it is free from minor errors or deviations. You will note that I referred to the Greek of the interlinear Bible on biblios.com.

Are you refuting the Greek therein? For it is logically evident, given the points in our discussion, that my focus would be, and indeed was, on the Greek in this matter, in responding to you, and not centred on the KJV, although I've referred to it, as I am convinced it is the better of the English translations though not without minor faults.

God bless,

R.


I agree Anon 1:43 PM,
I regognise there are many more groups and individuals I could’ve mentioned. Your point to Anon at 12:25 PM is spot on.

God bless,

R.


Anon at 3:32 PM, there most certainly were protestants before the Reformation, perhaps your Church history is a little rusty.

There is no evidence from the Waldenses themselves, or reliable others around at the time to suggest they were gnostics. I think you are confusing them with the Albegensians..

On Henry the VIII, firstly let me add that I have already stated I am Not an Anglican, and though Henry the VIII was right to stand up and confront the scourge of popery, his motives for doing so were on the most part not right. Henry VIII murdered even his own wives, mostly on a whim of lust for blood and for more women, in the end he died of syphillis.

I certainly do want to go on record as denying transubstantiation, as NOT to do so would be calling Jesus Christ [who said on the cross, 'It is finished'] and St. Paul, whose words cannot but refute such a notion of transubstiation (most notably in his Epistle to the Hebrews) a liar.

Yet I know Jesus is God the Son, and so let God be true and every man a liar!


To Anon at 245 PM.

Jesus also says He is the Door, and that He is the Vine, but you don't think he has hinges, is made of wood, and has a brass handle to boot do you? Or that He is really planted in a literal field and made of vine-wood, waiting each year for Chianti season to come round? It is called allegory.

God bless to you all,

R.

Anonymous said...

You can tell Constance is an attorney. Never answer direct questions, obfuscate, misdirect and blame someone else.

My real major issue with her is her refusal to leave an anti-semitic network while, like another poster said, refusing to go to a different one because they have new agers there. If you're really taking your message to the pits of darkness then the New Age place would be better for an anti-New Age message. And you would be taking a stand when again like the other poster said it isnt convenient for you. THAT is real ethic.

I've lost so much respect for you Constance its pathetic.

-Ann

Anonymous said...

Nb: I meant to write Albigensians (also called Albigenses)

I have also written 'with the great respect', clearly, I had unwittingly written a hybrid between, 'with great respect' and 'with the greatest respect', both are equally valid regarding my intentions.

R.

Anonymous said...

Rich Medford..sorry to burst your bubble,but your hero Constance states herself that her network is anti-semitic and has said that she should leave there in the past. She has options, yet refuses to use them. Not very consistent.
She also, in another thread on this blog, states that Allah is the Biblical God and that "Muslims have an acceptable worship"..her exact words.

Also, to even try to compare hostility toward faith which I agree those networks show, to outright hatred of Jews as a race as on MicroEffect is a really stupid stretch. Try sticking to something you know. Obviously polemic isn't your cup of tea.

Anonymous said...

Ann at 8:24 AM,

I do not mean to attack you, but I think the baiting of Constance has gone on for long enough. The issues have been milled over.

Please calm down from your anger and recollect your thoughts. There is nothing to be gained by venting anger continually here, you will only get people's backs up, and will not, rightly or wrongly, be taken seriously.

I am sure Constance or anyone else here is not perfect, I know for sure I'm not perfect. This does not mean to say we should not approach issues and rebuke at the right moments, but, more often than not, it is better to enquire in a gentle way. If Constance is using a platform which is tainted with Anti-Semitism, I have faith that Constance will not be mute in rebutting and denouncing Anti-Semitism there. The chance for listeners to hear a balanced and reasoned rebuke of Anti-Semitism, may in fact save some of them from having such repulsive Anti-Semitic ideas and feelings drilled into them.

Please consider this.

God bless you,

R.

Unknown said...

Fortunately, Ann, there are plenty here who do respect Constance. I think Constance should charge double the price for posters who want to spew nothing but venom, if she had a sight where people paid to post.

Unknown said...

She could also sell special advice on how to write as if one is a theological genius. You can even use your Paypal account.

Unknown said...

That last comment was not a swipe at Constance; only for those who post long comments claiming they and only they have come up with the only right interpretation of the Bible.

Anonymous said...

David,

I'm one of the Anons and I regard disputing the meaning of the scriptures as a healthy activity provided it is done with an awareness of the greater unity in Christ. In Proverbs this activity is called "iron sharpening iron". I have had my mind changed by it on occasion.

But I'm wary of the word 'interpretation'. It presupposes that the scriptures are difficult to understand. That is true of a few parts, but "Thou shalt not commit adultery" (for instance) needs no interpretation. Mostly scripture is harder to obey than to understand.

Susanna said...

Anonymous 5:05 AM

First of all, thank you for accepting my apology. I was mortified when it dawned on me how I had misunderstood you when all you were doing was making a perfectly legitimate inquiry.

Regarding the King James Version of the Bible, the only reason I pointed out the translation problems is because of "R's" criticism of Catholic belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary - a belief that was held by some of the early FOUNDERS of the Reformation - whose credibility as good Protestants "R" has also impugned - and on grounds that he hasn't adequately revealed to us.

Now don't get me wrong here. I am not condemning "R" for his/her beliefs. I am willing to assume that "R" is very sincere in his beleifs. ( For convenience, I will refer to "R" as "he.") And if "R" chooses to disagree with the perpetual virginity of Mary, fine. But the argument he uses to try to convince others - including certain other Protestants - that he is correct is simply not very convincing.

Moreover, "R" seems to have forgotten that "Sola Scriptura" is not the Catholic rule of faith. It is the Protestant rule of Faith.

The Catholic Rule of Faith is Scripture and Sacred Tradition. As a Catholic, I don't have to prove my beliefs from the Bible only. Unless I am mistaken, "R" does.

Perhaps this is why "R" also feels it necessary to impugn the credibiity and integrity of the Church Fathers - many of whom were martyrs......such as Polycarp, Justin Martyr,Irenaeus, Hippolytus, etc.

I should think that the shedding of one's blood for one's faith ought to at least preclude doubts as to the question of a person's integrity!

I can only speak for myself, but I know that I would have enough trouble dying a hideous death of torture for something I knew to be true. I certainly wouldn't put my life on the line for something I even suspected might be false or doubtful.

Having personally read the work of St. Irenaeus known by its shorter title Adversus Haereses, I would beg to differ over the suggestion that in his Biblical exegesis he made use of any of the heretical writings that were making the rounds in his time.

Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp. Polycarp was a disciple of the Apostle, St. John. As a disciple of Polycarp, Irenaeus would have been in a far better position to know whether or not Jesus had any actual "brothers" than any of the Reformers - especially since Jesus' mother Mary was commended to the care of St. John by Jesus from the foot of the Cross.....even though Mary was NOT St. John's physical mother.

This is not intended to be argumentative. It is intended as an example of why Catholics believe what they believe about Mary.

At the end of the day, I, as a Catholic, would not presume to tell a Protestant Christian what Bible to regard as "the final authority." Neither is it my intention to gratuitously criticize anyone's Bible.

However, when a non-Catholic Christian tries to use a version of a non-Catholic Bible ( whose translation is disputed even among other non-Catholic Christians )to refute a Catholic belief - that was originally held even by several Protestant Reformers - then I certainly do feel it incumbent upon myself to challenge such an attempted refutation.

Good to hear from you, Anonymous 5:05 AM. Have a great day!

Susanna said...

Anonymous 5:05 AM

First of all, thank you for accepting my apology. I was mortified when it dawned on me how I had misunderstood you when all you were doing was making a perfectly legitimate inquiry.

Regarding the King James Version of the Bible, the only reason I pointed out the translation problems is because of "R's" criticism of Catholic belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary - a belief that was held by some of the early FOUNDERS of the Reformation - whose credibility as good Protestants "R" has also impugned - and on grounds that he hasn't adequately revealed to us.

Now don't get me wrong here. I am not condemning "R" for his/her beliefs. I am willing to assume that "R" is very sincere in his beleifs. ( For convenience, I will refer to "R" as "he.") And if "R" chooses to disagree with the perpetual virginity of Mary, fine. But the argument he uses to try to convince others - including certain other Protestants - that he is correct is simply not very convincing.

Moreover, "R" seems to have forgotten that "Sola Scriptura" is not the Catholic rule of faith. It is the Protestant rule of Faith.

cont...

Susanna said...

cont...

The Catholic Rule of Faith is Scripture and Sacred Tradition. As a Catholic, I don't have to prove my beliefs from the Bible only. Unless I am mistaken, "R" does.

Perhaps this is why "R" also feels it necessary to impugn the credibiity and integrity of the Church Fathers - many of whom were martyrs......such as Polycarp, Justin Martyr,Irenaeus, Hippolytus, etc.

I should think that the shedding of one's blood for one's faith ought to at least preclude doubts as to the question of a person's integrity!

I can only speak for myself, but I know that I would have enough trouble dying a hideous death of torture for something I knew to be true. I certainly wouldn't put my life on the line for something I even suspected might be false or doubtful.

Having personally read the work of St. Irenaeus known by its shorter title Adversus Haereses, I would beg to differ over the suggestion that in his Biblical exegesis he made use of any of the heretical writings that were making the rounds in his time.

Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp. Polycarp was a disciple of the Apostle, St. John. As a disciple of Polycarp, Irenaeus would have been in a far better position to know whether or not Jesus had any actual "brothers" than any of the Reformers - especially since Jesus' mother Mary was commended to the care of St. John by Jesus from the foot of the Cross.....even though Mary was NOT St. John's physical mother.

This is not intended to be argumentative. It is intended as an example of why Catholics believe what they believe about Mary.

At the end of the day, I, as a Catholic, would not presume to tell a Protestant Christian what Bible to regard as "the final authority." Neither is it my intention to gratuitously criticize anyone's Bible.

However, when a non-Catholic Christian tries to use a version of a non-Catholic Bible ( whose translation is disputed even among other non-Catholic Christians )to refute a Catholic belief - that was originally held even by several Protestant Reformers - then I certainly do feel it incumbent upon myself to challenge such an attempted refutation.

Good to hear from you, Anonymous 5:05 AM. Have a great day!

JD said...

I was asked to relay a message so here goes:

"Sorry to burst your bubble Anon 8:31 but you are spinning about as
gracefully as Bullwinkle in ballet shoes. Your arguments consist of
throwing out a few words surrounded them quotes, add a bit of insult
and expect us to take your word for it. What you present is
inconsistent with Cumbey's research and what she is on record as
saying. So I call upon you to back up that mouth of yours which so
far you have failed. Present your case. Properly source these
quotes. I want to read them if Constance Cumbey is departing from her
original message. Surely since you've decided to use these words
against her you must have them sourced somewhere.

Incidentally I define my own heroes, not you. Until you provide solid
proof of Cumbey being an anti-Semite and follower of Islam, you
arguments are about as idiotic and distorted as I've ever seen. Get a
grip and pull yourself together and source your material.

Rich Peterson"

Rich Peterson - Medford said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Would those who demand that Constance answer their questions please remember that she is not in your courtroom? If you disagree with her - and I do occasionally, if some of her quotes on Allah are reproduced accurately - then consider keeping your tone as if you are having a face-to-face with a sister in Christ over a cup of coffee? Because it doesn't read like that at the moment...

Susanna said...

R. 7:51 AM

You did seem to come across as if you regarded the KJV as error free. I am indeed sorry if I misunderstood you.

And apart from my specific objections, I will say that the KJV is well known for its eloquence and beauty. Certain Catholic liturgists could learn a great deal from the KJV about how the English language might be better used to convey the sense of the sacred.

Re:Are you refuting the Greek therein? For it is logically evident, given the points in our discussion, that my focus would be, and indeed was, on the Greek in this matter, in responding to you, and not centred on the KJV, although I've referred to it, as I am convinced it is the better of the English translations though not without minor faults.

If you are referring to the Greek of the Textus Receptus, then yes I do have problems with it.

Again...If the Textus Receptus is an error free text, then why are the last 6 verses of Revelation absent from the Textus Receptus,and yet present in the KJV? Did you know that for these verses, the Latin Vulgate was translated into Greek which was then translated into English - a translation of a translation of a translation?

While the King James Version represents a scholarly translation from the Greek, because of the Greek text which lies behind it, it is for that reason somewhat less deserving of such high esteem than some other translations. Bruce Metzger, a recognized authority on the text of the New Testament, writes:

So superstitious has been the reverence accorded the Textus Receptus that in some cases attempts to criticize or emend it have been regarded as akin to sacrilege. Yet its textual basis is essentially a handful of late and haphazardly collected minuscule manuscripts, and in a dozen passages its reading is supported by no known Greek witness. (The Text of the New Testament, p. 106)


As I have said before, if you are trying to defend your position according to the Sola Scriptura rule, then the translation - regardless of what language we are talking about - is going to have to be indisputably authoritative.

As I have already stated before, I do not believe that to be so.

As a Catholic, my Rule of Faith is Scripture and Sacred Tradition. This is why I believe the Church Fathers' claim that the Gospel according to Matthew was originally handed down in the Hebrew language and later translated into Greek. WhileI am well aware that this issue is still heavily disputed, proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a so-called heretical "Gospel of the Hebrews" was the basis for the tradition of the origin of Matthew's Gospel has not been forthcoming.

For Catholics and Orthodox, Scripture and Sacred Tradition go tandem and the one cannot contradict the other.

Now I am aware that certain non-Catholic Christians claim that Sacred Tradition does contradict the Scriptures, but when it comes to proving such a claim, the weight of evidence does not weigh more heavily on the Protestant side of the polemical scale - especially in view of the fact that the Bible does not teach Sola Scriptura.....or private interpretation....or even which books belong in the Bible to begin with.

But as I have said earlier, regardless of our disagreements, I do believe that you are a sincere Christian.


God Bless,

Susanna

Susanna said...

R. 7:51 AM

You did seem to come across as if you regarded the KJV as error free. I am indeed sorry if I misunderstood you.

And apart from my specific objections, I will say that the KJV is well known for its eloquence and beauty. Certain Catholic liturgists could learn a great deal from the KJV about how the English language might be better used to convey the sense of the sacred.

Re:Are you refuting the Greek therein? For it is logically evident, given the points in our discussion, that my focus would be, and indeed was, on the Greek in this matter, in responding to you, and not centred on the KJV, although I've referred to it, as I am convinced it is the better of the English translations though not without minor faults.

If you are referring to the Greek of the Textus Receptus, then yes I do have problems with it.

Again...If the Textus Receptus is an error free text, then why are the last 6 verses of Revelation absent from the Textus Receptus,and yet present in the KJV? Did you know that for these verses, the Latin Vulgate was translated into Greek which was then translated into English - a translation of a translation of a translation?

cont...

Anonymous said...

Dear Susanna

This is Anon@5.05am to whom you replied. Thank you; because of transatlantic time differences I can report that I did have a great day!

How about if you and I show some others here that Catholics and protestants can dispute over something while remaining courteous and acknowledging our unity in Christ? Feel free not to respond, but I'll start by saying that I do not believe in Blessed Mary's perpetual virginity. My reasons are:

1. Matthew’s words about Mary in verses 1:18 and 1:25, that Joseph “had no [carnal] knowledge of her until she bore him a son.” I acknowledge that this sentence says nothing about what happened afterwards, but it is not how Matthew would have written if the couple had continued to abstain.

2. The gospels also refer to Jesus’ adelphoi and adelphai – ‘brothers’ and ‘sisters,’ which in John 2:12 & 7:5 cannot refer to the spiritual sense. The words generally imply the same mother rather than more distant relatives, since delphys means ‘womb’.

3. I know that belief in Mary's perpetual virginity goes back a lot earlier than its formal pronouncement in the 7th century, but as soon as the gospel went out among gentiles it was in a totally different culture, and this disjunction is more important than closeness in time. Hebrew culture was into chastity (seeing sex and children as blessings of a marriage), Greek culture was into ascetic virginity. I am not aware that any *Jewish* converts believed this of Mary.

Blessings in Christ.

Susanna said...

cont...

While the King James Version represents a scholarly translation from the Greek, because of the Greek text which lies behind it, it is for that reason somewhat less deserving of such high esteem than some other translations. Bruce Metzger, a recognized authority on the text of the New Testament, writes:

So superstitious has been the reverence accorded the Textus Receptus that in some cases attempts to criticize or emend it have been regarded as akin to sacrilege. Yet its textual basis is essentially a handful of late and haphazardly collected minuscule manuscripts, and in a dozen passages its reading is supported by no known Greek witness. (The Text of the New Testament, p. 106)


As I have said before, if you are trying to defend your position according to the Sola Scriptura rule, then the translation - regardless of what language we are talking about - is going to have to be indisputably authoritative.

As I have already stated before, I do not believe that to be so.

As a Catholic, my Rule of Faith is Scripture and Sacred Tradition. This is why I believe the Church Fathers' claim that the Gospel according to Matthew was originally handed down in the Hebrew language and later translated into Greek. WhileI am well aware that this issue is still heavily disputed, proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a so-called heretical "Gospel of the Hebrews" was the basis for the tradition of the origin of Matthew's Gospel has not been forthcoming.

For Catholics and Orthodox, Scripture and Sacred Tradition go tandem and the one cannot contradict the other.

Now I am aware that certain non-Catholic Christians claim that Sacred Tradition does contradict the Scriptures, but when it comes to proving such a claim, the weight of evidence does not weigh more heavily on the Protestant side of the polemical scale - especially in view of the fact that the Bible does not teach Sola Scriptura.....or private interpretation....or even which books belong in the Bible to begin with.

But as I have said earlier, regardless of our disagreements, I do believe that you are a sincere Christian.


God Bless,

Susanna

Anonymous said...

Just a word to the Protestants: Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the First Commandment is fulfilled chiefly by "reading the Bible." Catholics believe it is fulfilled primarily through the Mass.

I am not denigrating people who read the Bible at home, but it is not a replacement for the Mass (where the Bible is read every time). I am not knocking Protestants who are sincere in their faith, only those here at this blog who seem to believe that those who read the Bible at home every day are somehow closer to Jesus than Catholics who attend Mass faithfully.

Anonymous said...

Dear Anon@2.15pm

Neither is the Eucharist a replacement for reading the Bible at home! I'd say that all Christians need both.

The First Commandment is to have no other gods before Jehovah. This command involves both do's and don'ts. The Don'ts mean keep clear of paganism. Presumably you see Bible study and/or the Eucharist as the Do's?

Anonymous said...

Neither is the Eucharist a replacement for reading the Bible at home! I'd say that all Christians need both.

The First Commandment is to have no other gods before Jehovah. This command involves both do's and don'ts. The Don'ts mean keep clear of paganism. Presumably you see Bible study and/or the Eucharist as the Do's?
_________________

I was actually thinking of the first of two (Mark 12:30) not the first ten -- I should have been more clear, sorry about that.

The idea that home Bible Study is EQUAL TO OR SUPERIOR TO THE EUCHARIST is not to my knowledge found in the Bible. YOu are entitled to your opinion about it, but it cannot be called "Biblical."

Catholics tend to think prayer is more important than Bible study. I am not knocking Bible study, just explaining that it is only one of many ways to "Love God with all your heart, soul, and mind." It is not the only way or even arguably the most important way.

THe Protestants I know think it is and I respect their right to feel that way, but not their right to use that as the measuring stick by which they evaluate the "Christian-ness" of other Christians.

My only point it that it is not Biblical to privilege personal reading of the Bible above all other forms of worship.

Susanna said...

Anonymous 1:26 P.M.

Thank you for your kind invitation, but I must humbly decline.

The reason why is because this is Constance Cumbey's blog and as far as I know it does not exist for the purpose of engaging in religious polemics however courteously done. As far as I know, it exists primarily for the purpose of exposing the encroachments of the New Age Movement into both the religious and secular spheres of our lives - including its encroachments into BOTH Catholic and Protestant Christian communions independently of our Christian denominational differences.

Moreover, not only do our respective Rules of Faith differ, but we also do not use the same Bibles. The Catholic Old Testament, like the Orthodox, is based on the Septuagint, whereas the Protestant Old Testament is based on the Hebrew Bible.

Besides, I think that you and I have already demonstrated that Catholics and Protestants can indeed engage in religious debates while remaining courteous and without impugning one another's sincerity or integrity.

If you profess the Creed of Chalcedon or Nicaea, then we are essentially in agreement as Christians and I regard you as my brother/sister in Christ no matter what our other disagreements might be.

I am not ordinarily the first one to bring up specifically Catholic beliefs on this blog unless I feel it necessary to correctly explain what Catholics actually believe when confronted with misinformation about Catholic beliefs and practices.

I will say one more thing before I close this message.

The things we Catholics believe about Mary are not important because of what they say about Mary. They are important because of what they say about our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

We Catholics believe that just by freely agreeing to be what God made her, Mary protects us from the most dangerous Christ-severing heresies ( prominent in the New Age Movement) that directly attack the Person of her Son Jesus Christ.

Because while Mary's humanity bears witness to the humanity of Christ, her virginity bears witness to Christ's divinity.

JD said...

Susanna and Anon 1:26,

Before anyone dismisses the idea too quickly, I think I could be of service. I would be willing to open a thread for a civil presentation from both sides of the aisle if participants willing. Fact is, if done properly it could put to rest some misconceptions concerning either side, which I am all for. I also think if in the right moderated context, we might be able to do something that might alleviate tension here.

Keep in mind, I am talking about a truly fair discussion and not simply rails. If interested either party can contact me, obviously Susanna knows how, but Anon can check my Signature to do so.

Anonymous said...

Susanna: you wrote: "while Mary's humanity bears witness to the humanity of Christ, her virginity bears witness to Christ's divinity."

You bet it does! Hallelujah! It is what happened after Jesus' birth that we differ over.

Blessings in her Son,
Anon@1.26pm

Susanna said...

Anon 1:26 P.M.

That is exactly the point where we disagree.

Blessings to you in return,

Susanna :-)

Rich Peterson - Medford said...

Anon 1:09

Re-read my post. I have demanded that Constance's ACCUSER provide the source of the Allah quotes. Are you that person?

I already know what Constance has to say. Anyone leveling accusations such as 1) Constance is Islamic; and 2) Constance is anti-Semitic needs to prove their case in this smear campaign. If this call for them to prove their position offends you, so be it.

Dorothy said...

http://www.peacenow.org.il/site/en/peace.asp?pi=32&docid=942&pos=3

A lot of other major New Age links you'll find as you move through these sites.

Dorothy said...

Somehow the entire top of that last comment disappeared.

I'm on this mailing list because I'm watching what is going on. The email read:

Dear Dorothy,

In our amazing times, the physical and spiritual worlds are beginning to merge
and become one. That's why our focused aligned thoughts and intentions have the
power, more than ever before, to co-create our reality.


Tonight, 11/11, at 11:11 pm eastern time, hundreds of thousands of people
around the world will be focusing on co-creating a new reality, a world of
good. I don't know anything about the organizers of the event, but I'm
definitely on board with the goal... enough to join this project myself, and
enough to want to share it with you.

We are all different, and each one of us may connect in a different way ... but
a world of kindness, oneness and peace is something I believe we all desire at
our core.

If you feel the same way, you can check it out here:

http://www.newrealitytransmission.com

With blessings for a transformed and illuminated world,

Shifra

P.S. If you haven't yet registered for my current interview series, Quantum
Healing and Soul, you might want to do so now. The experts featured on each
show are literally on the cutting edge of healing and human potential, and are
here to share their knowledge with you. You can check it out here:
www.quantumhealingandsoul.com

Kabbalah Of Transformation
3 Shenandoah Place
Morristown, NJ 07960

continued....

Dorothy said...

continued:

-------------------------------SO THEN I PUT "NEW REALITY TRANSMISSION" INTO A SEARCH. ONE OF THE SITES THAT
CAME UP WAS
http://www.danreed.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=29:wwwnewrealitytransmissioncom&catid=2:news&Itemid=13


SO WHAT ELSE WAS THAT WEBSITE CONNECTED WITH? UNDER COMMUNITY AND LINKS I FOUND
http://www.danreed.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=11&Itemid=17

WHERE YOU CAN FIND:

www.onemillionvoices.org
OneVoice is an organization you can reach for getting involved in the Two State
solution for Israel and Palestine.AND

www.peacenow.org.il
Peace Now is the largest extra-parliamentary movement in Israel, the country's
oldest peace movement and the only peace group to have a broad public base. The
movement was founded in 1978 during the Israeli-Egyptian peace talks. At a
moment when these talks appeared to be collapsing, a group of 348 reserve
officers and soldiers from Israeli army combat units published an open letter
to the Prime Minister of Israel calling upon the government to make sure this
opportunity for peace was not lost. Tens of thousands of Israelis sent in
support for the letter, and the movement was born.

WHERE YOU WILL FIND
http://www.peacenow.org.il/site/en/peace.asp?pi=32&docid=942&pos=3

Many other New Age links as you go through the various threads. Seems the New Age community wants to make sure Israel gives in.

Anonymous said...

Rich,

This is Anon@1.09pm. My comment was aimed at Constance's more manipulative detractors, not you. I'm agreeing with you, please cool down! The reason why I wrote "If you disagree with her - and I do occasionally, if some of her quotes on Allah are reproduced accurately" is simply because it would have taken me hours to check up on what some people here are saying she is saying.

Allah isn't Jehovah, because Allah denies Jesus' divinity (qur'an 4:157) and 1 John 4:3 states that “every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not of God, and is an antichrist.” But if Constance wishes to disagree or prefers not to engage with this argument then she is certainly free to.

Rich Peterson - Medford said...

Anon 7:23 PM

We are on the same page.

Rich Peterson - Medford said...

I do know that Constance believes Moslems to be in error.

There are several posts here which place quotes around words and claim they are hers. I cannot find these words and know them to be inconsistent with her material. The burden of proof is on the accuser.

Susanna said...

Dorothy,

Yikes!

At new Reality Transmission it reads:
On 11-11, 2010, one million people across the globe will mentally project a unified vision of a new paradigm for our species... a new reality. The very real physics that connects human consciousness with molecular structure will be harnessed en masse during the largest scale simultaneous manifestation transmission in recorded history.

One is reminded of THE MEN WHO STARE AT GOATS!

It is also redolent of the so-called "Global Consciousness Project."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Global_Consciousness_Project which was privately funded through the Institute of Noetic Sciences.

Anonymous said...

11/11 11:11

http://www.sacredpursuit.org/gpage33.html

Anonymous said...

http://www.sacredpursuit.org
/gpage33.html

Dorothy said...

Whoever you are anonymous 7:45, you get 100 points for that addition to the information. Great find.

Constance Cumbey said...

I am just getting acquainted with Synthia Esther's website. Rich of Medford called it to my attention. So far, it looks very valuable and I may soon add a link to it.

http://www.synthiaestherministries.com/

Constance

Constance Cumbey said...

Ann,

You must think I have unlimited strength and energy and nothing else to do.

Constance

Constance Cumbey said...

More on the Global Consciousness Project. Barbara Marx Hubbard, not surprisingly, appears to be involved.

http://noosphere.princeton.edu/links.html

Constance

Anonymous said...

Why doesn't somebody tell these sublime members of the "new species Homo Noeticus" that we have organized another one, THE MEN WHO STARE AT BOATS, and had the remaining sane ones project them out to sea, hopefullyin a tsumani?!

Dorothy said...

Susanna
Thanks for the reminder about the Global Consciousness Project which Constance picked up on again with the links page.

It's a particularly important website because of the political connections thread.
http://noosphere.princeton.edu/political.html

Why? Because one can pick up on the political ideas and causes that are incorporated into the New Age networks. Too many people still only think of New Age as an occult, pagan touchy feely mystical belief system. Just looking at the links one can find Keith Olberman's name, Barak Obama's name and a reference to microfinance, something JD has been researching in extensive detail.

New Age networking works on all of us in very seductive ways. There are hundreds, if not thousands of organizations involved internationally. The drivers of the movement don't really care if a new organization or leader pops up or then dies away. One starts another drops off, and those who encounter these myriad organizations think they've found a new idea, adopt it voluntarily and emotionally and praise themselves for their intellectual astuteness. Since they voluntarily adopt these ideas, they are loathe to see themselves as being seduced and being wrong.

And, as Constance said many, many years ago, they have bragged they have something for everybody. People who believe they are immune to seduction by New Age ideas are people who know very little about the New Age movement.

Dorothy

Anonymous said...

Susanna,

I am the protestant with whom you have recently debated courteously. I am also an academic physicist. I can assure you that New Agers are talking rubbish when they speak of "The very real physics that connects human consciousness with molecular structure will be harnessed en masse..."

The New Age is dangerous, but not in this way.

Slumdog said...

BattleCreekDavid said...
She could also sell special advice on how to write as if one is a theological genius. You can even use your Paypal account.

Constance Cumbey, you deleted my jab at Dave, but his jabs are OK?

This blog is double-talk (Fork-tongue)double-cross.

I had deleted your blog and was resigned to forgetting that it exists, but unknown to you and your BLIND followers, others here have asked me to continue; I will try, and that to the disappointment of the Lemmings.

Slumdog said...

http://tinyurl.com/2cej8qs

How often does CC inform her crowd about the present danger Christians face?
Did you see the number of Christian killed in Iraq this week; noting the number of Christians killed all over the world shouldn't be a problem for a "Christian" blog!

Anonymous said...

Constance literally stated in the Lee Penn thread that Allah is the Biblical God just a different name, and that Muslims have an acceptable worship. For her to now sit in silence rather than admit her errors is telling.

Also I'm still waiting to hear her justification for her support of an anti-semitic network by her presence there.

Anonymous said...

Yep Connie has taken to deleting posts that actually expose the errors and lies here. She will of course paint it up in some other way but that is what she's doing. Several of us have had it happen and she tries to claim the posts were personal attacks when they were exposing error without personal attack. She defines personal attack as whatever shows her to be wrong.

About Synthia Esther said...

Constance,
I just checked out Synthia Esther’s blog. I am seeing very conflicting statements. Nearly everything she writes seems to be “correct”. But the graphics scream otherwise. I am asking you to reconsider your endorsement of her and to not link to her site.

I have recently heard one blogger refer to “file cabinet theology”. In other words, the published statement of faith is all “kosher”—what everyone would accept. Tuck it away in the filing cabinet, because the reality of what we live and promote is quite different.

Synthia Esther is talking about ministering to people with sexual abuse and yet is showing pictures of herself as very “hot” and sexually provocative. Click on “About Us” and you’ll see her strap fallen off her shoulder with her breasts nearly bared, and her eyes with a “come to my chamber” look. The picture above the “Library” option is absolutely stereotypical of certain types of pornography—black leather, etc. Her bio page has a red-letter headline, “Sex Sells”. She is certainly using her own sexuality to sell her ministry.

Her bio describes her as a social justice activist. That term carries much meaning with it as we know, so I wonder how she defines it.

Something stinks here. I would recommend we run from it—especially men who may struggle with pornography issues. To me, the incongruity between the written words and her pictures are a mockery. It would be laughable if it were not so sad.

YesNaSpanishTown

JD said...

Yesna,

To be fair the "Sex Sells" is a tag for the following paragraph on human trafficking into the sex trade. That being said the pictures are a bit conflicting with the message.

Response to JD re. Sythia Esther said...

JD,

Yes, I agree, the headline is a tag for the paragraph following. I was noting that it is ironic that she uses that line as if to decry sex trafficking, when in fact she is using her own sexuality to "sell" her ministry.

There is much danger in this ministry. It is not a safe haven for those seeking healing from sexual abuse.

Put in another context...If I were to advertise counseling to victims of child sex abuse by RC priests, would it be wise to hang pictures of priests in my office or post them on my website?

Ms. Esther's blog talks about beauty and casting pearls before swine. She writes:

“A women who is truly beautiful both inside and out, uses this gift in honor of her loving creator, for it was He who was so gracious the giver. When we give our God given gifts back to God, we show the world the hidden pearl within the clam shell, as well as the grit (sand), that God ordained in order to create the pearl (Prov. 3:11-12; Heb. 12:5-7; Heb. 12:11; Rom. 5:3-5). So don't cast your beautiful God given pearls among swine, cast them at Jesus feet (Matthew 7:6).”

She is applying physical beauty to the "pearls" mentioned in Matthew 7. This has nothing to do with the context of the passage. The passage is referring to the message of the Gospel as the pearl and those who continually reject that message.

It seems from the pictures on her site that Ms. Esther is marketing her "pearls" to Christians particularly Christian men.

As a pastor's wife, I have this all too often. If we play with this fire we will be burnt. Women are told to be chaste and to wear modest apparel. Whether she intends to or not, this woman is mocking godly Christian conduct for women.

Her bio suggests a long rich Christian heritage with years of Biblical apologetics counseling and experience. If that is the case she should know better.

Craig recently posted a YouTube of a woman who claims to be "ascending". Did you click on it? Did you notice her plunging neckline? Did you read the first comment below the video? (at least it was the first when I viewed it. It was a vulgar comment about her breasts.)

By comparison, that woman's top is "modest" when compared to Ms. Esther's clothing and her provacative poses. What are non-Christian men thinking when they view her pic? Unfortunately, probably the same thing that Christian men are thinking.

Ms. Esther's site has all the markings of the Proverbs 5 woman, not the Proverbs 31 woman.

I implore all the men reading this blog to be a Joseph--RUN FROM Ms. Esther's site!

YesNaSpanishTown

Response to JD re. Sythia Esther said...

JD,

Yes, I agree, the headline is a tag for the paragraph following. I was noting that it is ironic that she uses that line as if to decry sex trafficking, when in fact she is using her own sexuality to "sell" her ministry.

There is much danger in this ministry. It is not a safe haven for those seeking healing from sexual abuse.

Put in another context...If I were to advertise counseling to victims of child sex abuse by RC priests, would it be wise to hang pictures of priests in my office or post them on my website?

Ms. Esther's blog talks about beauty and casting pearls before swine. She writes:

“A women who is truly beautiful both inside and out, uses this gift in honor of her loving creator, for it was He who was so gracious the giver. When we give our God given gifts back to God, we show the world the hidden pearl within the clam shell, as well as the grit (sand), that God ordained in order to create the pearl (Prov. 3:11-12; Heb. 12:5-7; Heb. 12:11; Rom. 5:3-5). So don't cast your beautiful God given pearls among swine, cast them at Jesus feet (Matthew 7:6).”

She is applying physical beauty to the "pearls" mentioned in Matthew 7. This has nothing to do with the context of the passage. The passage is referring to the message of the Gospel as the pearl and those who continually reject that message.

...continued...

Response to JD continued said...

...continued...

It seems from the pictures on her site that Ms. Esther is marketing her "pearls" to Christians particularly Christian men.

As a pastor's wife, I have this all too often. If we play with this fire we will be burnt. Women are told to be chaste and to wear modest apparel. Whether she intends to or not, this woman is mocking godly Christian conduct for women.

Her bio suggests a long rich Christian heritage with years of Biblical apologetics counseling and experience. If that is the case she should know better.

Craig recently posted a YouTube of a woman who claims to be "ascending". Did you click on it? Did you notice her plunging neckline? Did you read the first comment below the video? (at least it was the first when I viewed it. It was a vulgar comment about her breasts.)

By comparison, that woman's top is "modest" when compared to Ms. Esther's clothing and her provacative poses. What are non-Christian men thinking when they view her pic? Unfortunately, probably the same thing that Christian men are thinking.

Ms. Esther's site has all the markings of the Proverbs 5 woman, not the Proverbs 31 woman.

I implore all the men reading this blog to be a Joseph--RUN FROM Ms. Esther's site!

YesNaSpanishTown

JD said...

Anon 8:22,


You are woefully distorting the truth here, and since you won't provide a source I will do it for you.

From the Lee Peen thread:

Constance Cumbey said...
A misinterpretation of God based on scripture they have received does not necessarily mean they are worshiping a DIFFERENT God. It might well be that they have received a DIFFERENT GOSPEL, which in the case of Islam, they clearly have. The anathema would be on those sending the different gospel, not necessarily on those who received it in good faith. In the case of religions such as Buddhism, New Age, Hinduism, there is no representation that this is the SAME GOD -- they clearly are worshiping a different God

"those who worship Idols worship demons . . ."

There is open rejection of God the Father in the non-monotheistic religions. The Moslems (apart from the Sufis who are clearly a New Age sect - and the same goes for Gnostics among the Christians) are exceptions to this.

This is not to say that Moslem theology is acceptable as an alternative way to Heaven -- it is not, but again, Romans Chapter 2 kicks in here as I see it.

I'll bet you win far more Moslems showing them that they have an unacceptable worship of God abd that their presentation of Christ is inaccurate rather than telling them they aren't worshiping God at all!

I frankly distrust just about everybody so far who is advancing the Moon God story. So far, I have found traceable links in that camp both to Rev. Moon's largesse (LaHaye crowd) and/or Paul Temple and his money (Billy Graham/Doug Coe crowd).

Constance

1:07 PM

Note: This is the only comment she makes on Muslim faith, other than to point out that they are a New Age target group, in the entire thread. She does not say they are worshiping the same God, she says she believes they could have been and were led into error. She absolutely refutes your statement about acceptable worship when she states "This is not to say that Moslem theology is acceptable as an alternative way to Heaven -- it is not, but again, Romans Chapter 2 kicks in here as I see it."

So what is it, are you not reading her statements thoroughly enough? Are you only skimming over them? Or are you willingly twisting things out of context? Now before anyone gets on a bend, it should be noted that Constance and I have very different views here, as can be evidenced by my post on the subject in this thread. That does not however mean I will sit by while someone blatantly misrepresents her position in a attempt to pit others against her.

Anonymous said...

Friends in Christ

Please don't rush to judge Synthia Esther. I too am unhappy with the imagery on her website but what she writes seems excellent to me. I would like to know a lot more about her personal history than she reveals there before ever submitting to ministry in person from her, but she's not offering that, only her thoughts, which are good.

If you can't accept mixture, you had better start a monastic order... and see where that will get you.

JD said...

Anon 9:45,

Please read Yesna's response to me about Esther's own admission of the use of her sexuality as a tool. I have nothing negative to say about Esther, I just have no place for this type of "ministry" in my life.

Anonymous said...

"Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him. And he said 'For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father'".(John 6:64-65)

NOTE CHAPTER AND VERSE!!!: JOHN 6:66,
"As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him". THESE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO COULD NOT/WOULD NOT ACCEPT THE TRANSUBSTANTIATION OF THE EUCHARIST.

Susanna said...

Anonymous 2:58

You are spot on. I agree that the New Agers are talking rubbish. People need to wake up to the fact that New Agers are not into objective truth....not even as embodied in the natural law.

If anything that they are claiming could occur actually did occur, I would immediately suspect the causal agent to be preternatural demonic activity, not any so-called "innate powers" on the part of those trying to manipulate the physical world with their minds.

You are right in saying that "the New Age is dangerous, but not in this way."

If the New Age is dangerous, it is, as C.S. Lewis once wrote, "because of the good that it contains or imitates."

Because as Scripture implies in passages that mention the "lying wonders and deceit" of the devil and his secundos, if something deceives, it deceives by its likeness to the truth.

God Bless,

Susanna

Anonymous said...

Anon 8:22

Let's start with the Micro Effect network. Here is the broadcast schedule link.

http://www.themicroeffect.com/schedule.php

Are all these programs anti-Semitic? I can see straight away I would
not categorize Dr. Monteith and Constance Cumbey as such. I have no
use for the morning intelligence report but wouldn't attempt to
attribute their views to Cumbey's views. Has she endorsed them?
Which shows here are anti-Semitic and which are not? Is Cumbey
collaborating with bad programs to incite hatred against the Jews or
is her message a competing one?

Rich Peterson

Response to Anon. 9:45 said...

Anon 9:45,

Thank you for your response. I understand your reply.

This kind of "mixture" always leads to moral failure. These are serious and dangerous seeds with countless fruit. Please consider the many examples we have both in political and religious circles--Jimmy Swaggart, Bill Clinton, etc., etc...

Those who have walked that treacherous path and recovered with their faith intact tell a different story. One such example is Bob and Audrey Meisner of "It's a New Day" ministry in Canada. They have written a book, Marriage Undercover. Audrey minces no words when it comes to the danger of "crossing the line".

Yes, I agree with the spirit of what you say in that we would need to hide away in a convent to escape the world (but even that is a deception as the sin nature is always in us. Only submission to the Word of God and walking in the Spirit and not in the flesh can safeguard us from evil.)

But I am not talking about that. I am saying that her pictures seem to be deliberately provocative. Please consider what God said about "mixtures" in the Old Testament. He rebuked Israel for mixing pagan worship with true worship. Even the anointing oil could not be mixed as a symbol of purity.

Another example is the clothing of the priest. They were to have proper undergarments when serving at the altar so that the shame of their nakedness would not be seen.

Yes, we cannot escape mixture in the media, but we can strive to live pure so that we do nothing which causes our weaker brother to stumble.

Ms. Esther appears to do just the opposite.

YesNaSpanishTown

Anonymous said...

Anon@9.57pm,

How many of your fellow Catholics do you think agree with your understanding of John 6:66?

Anonymous said...

Are these Cumbey’s words which you refer to from the Penn thread?

“This is not to say that Moslem theology is acceptable as an
alternative way to Heaven -- it is not, but again, Romans Chapter 2
kicks in here as I see it.

“I'll bet you win far more Moslems showing them that they have an
unacceptable worship of God abd that their presentation of Christ is
inaccurate rather than telling them they aren't worshiping God at all!”

You have got to be kidding! You appear to be a bit thick in the
skull. Does the context of the preceeding paragraph mean anything to
you?

Rich Peterson

Anonymous said...

REGARDING THE WALDENSIANS:

Note: Heresies arise from a truth held out of due proportion, insisted upon to the ignoring or denial of other truths.

Think about this...

Beginning with an exaggerated doctrine on Evangelical poverty, the followers of Waldo went on to deny the power of keys to the Catholic priesthood, to deny purgatory and indulgences. They anticipated modern Protestants in their comprehensiveness and willingness to receive new heresies from any quarter. An extreme pacifism seems to point to Catharistic influence, while, as they lingered on with varying fortunes through the century, they fraternized in turn with each new heresy that appeared.

When Protestantism arose the Waldenses of the various countries infected made common cause with the new heretics and cheerfully adopted the dogmas or rather denials of their new associates. Finally they for the most part coalesced with the various Protestant bodies. Those scattered fragments which survive independently differ in name only from the other Protestant sects.

Lisa

Anonymous said...

To: YesNaSpanishTown
From: Anon 9:45

I too understand your reply. What worries me is that people whose sins are concealed behind bloggery are rushing to condemn someone who has (in my opinion) put a certain amount of her sinfulness on public view on her website. Beware the mote in your own eye.

The border between wise discernment and inwardly judging another is concealed, inside the heart. I am not accusing you of anything, but please be careful to remain on the right side of that border.

Anonymous said...

To Anon 10:11

It is nothing that is emphasized by the Catholic Church. I just personally find it very interesting how, when numbering was later added to the Bible, that particular verse had the number "666" attached.

Just food for thought...
Nothing is coincidence.

Susanna said...

P.S. Anonymous 2:58 A.M.

LOL This is not a trick question. If it seems crudely formulated, it is because I am not an academic physicist.
But I can assure you that it is utterly sincere.

Have you ever investigated the encroachments of the New Age into the legitimate scientific sphere of the quantum theory?

If you know about the quantum theory and the life of Max Planck, would you say that he allowed ( even if only unconsciously ) ready-made unorthodox religious opinions ( i.e. pantheism) to be imposed upon his research instead of allowing his opinions to be formed by the research?

If the former is true, how can Planck's research be called "scientific,?"

Max Planck once made a very interesting statement that I would like to run by you:

"a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=92318&page=2

When I read this, I was reminded of Mr. Enlightenment's pronunciamento in C.S. Lewis' PILGRIM'S REGRESS:

" If you make the same guess often enough, it ceases to be a guess and becomes a scientific fact."

:-)

Anonymous said...

Dear Susanna,

I believe you to be a sincere Christian also. Even though I continue to be at odds with some of your argumentation.

It is, like you I well believe, my position on defending the faith once received. It is for this, and out of love not bigotted hatred, that I have been so insistent. It is not that I've nothing more to add response-wise, but that I believe we have both argued our positions. I do implore others, as I am sure you do, to look deeper into this. I do have issues with much of RC tradition, as you have with Protestant tradition, naturally I am convinced in my convictions.

I am sure, however, that the central tenets of Christianity you hold dear, as I do, those being to love God with everything we have and to love our neighbor as ourselves. Also, that God is three persons of one substance, God the Holy Spirit, God the Father, and God the Son. That Jesus Christ came in the flesh, died on the cross for us in the act of propitiation, and rose again, and that He will return at the last trump.

I'm not convinced that we will not have our theological differences in the future, yet although I do not believe the Roman Catholic Church has it rightly, I do believe there are real Christians within it who are genuinely seeking God.

Thank you for your immense patience and gentleness, which for me are evidence of your being a Christian and not just a church-goer.

God bless you greatly,

R.

Anonymous said...

Lisa

The only heresies you accuse the Waldensians of is denial of purgatory and indulgences.

In that case you see me too as a heretic. For the sake of constructive dialogue, though, let us begin from the scriptures that we (Catholics and protestants) hold in common. If all you can charge them with is pacifism when they are following the Prince of Peace, and with poverty when Our Lord had no material possessions, then I don't think they need worry too much.

An Inquisitor called Borelli captured 150 of them, men, women and children, and had them burned alive in Grenoble. He continued his campaign by forcing a similar number from their homes in the valley of Pragelas and driving them up the mountain without shelter in the winter of 1400/01, causing 50 (some sources say 80)infants alone to freeze to death. The count of La Palu then hounded several thousand, inclding the entire population of Val Loyse, into a large cavern and started a fire at its entrance, choking or burning to death several thousand.

This was all done in the name of the Catholic church, which claimed to be acting in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, who had said: Do to others what you wquld have them do to you (Matthew 7:11).

Do these actions against people whom you accept were entirely pacific worry you?

Response to Anon 10:23 said...

Anon 10:23

Unfortunately your a missing my points all together. None of us is perfect, and I am not trying to condemn Ms. Esther.

I am simply pointing out danger and cautioning against promoting her website.

With Ms. Esther's strong use of her own sexuality to promote her ministry, any endorsing of her ministry to weaker brothers and sisters would be irresponsible.

She is setting herself up as an example to follow. Unfortunately sheep follow poor examples. If she has a godly message in her writings, but dresses provocatively, do we assume that other women, too, can dress provocatively and act seductive with our glances and not play with fire?

As an undershepherd (and sheep myself), I am responsible to warn sheep.

I also remind you that she took the Scriptures in Matthew 7 out of context to supposedly legitimize "showing off her 'beauty'".

I am not trying to cast a splinter out of someone's eye without caring for the beam in my own eye.

I'm attempting to warn of danger. I'm sorry you cannot see that. That is all I have to say on the matter.

BTW, Thank you, JD, for your response.

YesNaSpanishTown

Anonymous said...

Lisa,

Re: purgatory and indulgences, as rejected by the Waldensians and subsequent protestants.

I accept that there is a need for human fallenness to be undone at some point before Christ's faithful enter the New Jerusalem - it is not enough for protestants to say simply "our sins our forgiven" (which is true, but is not the point). However I do not believe that this change happens in what Catholics call Purgatory. I think that the effects of the Fall are finally and totally undone at our resurrection. When the last trumpet sounds at the resurrection of the faithful, we shall be changed (1 Cor 15). I believe we are changed not only physically, getting our glorious new bodies in a flash as Paul says, but also inwardly. When your body is made perfect, you can’t have a sinful mind any more - it simply wouldn’t fit.

As for indulgences, the things of God cannot be bought, as the example of Simon Magus in Acts 8 makes very clear.

Susanna said...

Lisa,

Your assessment of the Waldenses is an accurate one. I would like to add a few words to what you have written.

Because the Waldenses borrowed certain elements from the Cathari and the Albigensians, they were often confused with them.

The Catholic encyclopedia tells us that to their profession of extreme poverty they owed the named of "the Poor"; from their place of origin, Lyons, they were called "Leonistae"; and frequently the two ideas were combined in the title "Poor Men of Lyons". Their practice of wearing sandals or wooden shoes (sabots) caused them to be named "Sandaliati", "Insabbatati", "Sabbatati", Sabotiers".

Despite their borrowings from the Cathari and the Albigensians, the Waldensian movement was nevertheless a distinct movement which might have been allowed to continue with the blessing of the Catholic Church if they had been willing to obey the bishops since their preaching was often mixed with doctrinal error. However, these errors didn't include the Christ-severing dualism of the Albigensians and Cathari.

But in all fairness, not all the bishops were of sterling character and it is possible that they frequently withheld permission from the Waldensians to preach for no other reason than that the behavior of many of the Waldensians would have served as a judgement on the corrupt behavior of these bishops. (Similar to the way in which neo-modernist bishops have tried to suppress traditional Catholics since Vatican II)

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia:

The organization of the Waldenses was a reaction against the great splendour and outward display existing in the medieval Church; it was a practical protest against the worldly lives of some contemporary churchmen. Amid such ecclesiastical conditions the Waldenses made the profession of extreme poverty a prominent feature in their own lives, and emphasized by their practice the need for the much neglected task of preaching. As they were mainly recruited among circles not only devoid of theological training, but also lacking generally in education, it was inevitable that error should mar their teaching, and just as inevitable that, in consequence, ecclesiastical authorities should put a stop to their evangelistic work. Among the doctrinal errors which they propagated was the denial of purgatory, and of indulgences and prayers for the dead. They denounced all lying as a grievous sin, refused to take oaths and considered the shedding of human blood unlawful. They consequently condemned war and the infliction of the death penalty. Some points in this teaching so strikingly resemble the Cathari that the borrowing of the Waldenses from them may be looked upon as a certainty. Both sects also had a similar organization, being divided into two classes, the Perfect (perfecti) and the Friends or Believers (amici or credentes).

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen
/15527b.htm

As for the Albigensians, they can be said to have been the leaders of the "New Age Movement" of the Middle Ages and on account of their advocacy of abortion, suicide and anarchy ( all laws for them were part of the system of the "evil" God of the Old Testament) they were regarded as a "menace to society."

It is important to understand that the Albigensians were Manichaeans. The reason they were called Allbigensians is because they originated in the French town of Albi.

It is also important to understand that when Luciferians wax philosophical, they tend to wax Manichaean.

Anonymous said...

Dear Susanna

You asked me: "Have you ever investigated the encroachments of the New Age into the legitimate scientific sphere of the quantum theory?"

Yes I have. About 20 years ago I wrote an essay about this (which I called "Pathological Industries of the Quantum") but no forum then existed in which I could publish it, and I have not got round to putting it on the Web. If you would like a copy, send your email address to Constance (whose email address is given on this blog), and post here asking me to do the same. [Constance: I hope you are willing to verify IP addresses and facilitate this exchange - sorry if this is presumptuous.]

It wasn't Max Planck but Neils Bohr and Werner Heisenberg whose philosophical views started the rot inside quantum theory (although I should add that I have the greatest respect for both as *scientists*).

Planck's famous (and objectively accurate) comment about progress in science was most probably spurred by his experiences of trying to communicate his views about entropy to Gustav Kirchhoff and perhaps Rudolf Clausius (although some suggest Boltzmann and Ostwald).

JD said...

Anon 11:27,

If it is okay, I would like a copy of your essay, I could even pass it along to Susanna. My email is available in my signature.

Anonymous said...

JD,

Essay is on the way later today. It might take me an hour or so to reformat it as it was written before MS-WORD. Please forward to Susanna.

JD said...

Thanks and will do.

Constance Cumbey said...

JD is contributing a guest column, so I am waiting a new one of my own until we have had sufficient time to read and digest his. Thanks, JD!

Constance

Anonymous said...

Dear Anon at 10:55 AM,

I am in ageeement with your point.

R.

Constance Cumbey said...

Slumdog,

I have deleted no posts from somebody posting as "Slumdog" -- I will confess to deleting a couple of "anonymous" last weekend. I don't know what you are talking about. I'll check the spam section which Rich of Medford and JD told me about.

Constance

Anonymous said...

Lisa,

The Catholic Church would not have been concerned if the Waldesians were Hindu or Muslim. It's because they professed to be part of the church and yet refused to obey it that problems arose for them.

I am not saying that it was good to treat them a certain way, but most conflicts start in one's own family.

The Catholic church generally does not bother with the heresies of other faiths, unless they are somehow going to affect our own walk with God.


Savvy

Constance Cumbey said...

To 11:27 a.m.

I would very much like to read your essay. My email address is

cumbey@gmail.com

Thanks!

Constance

Craig said...

I want to very briefly weigh in here on the subject of the post. There is a two-pronged approach by the NAM:

1) Pit the 3 monotheistic religions against one another, let them destroy one another and let the New Spirituality arise from the ashes of these 3. This will necessarily involve the more committed of the three individual faiths. The less committed will fall into #2.

2) Those less committed will be ripe for the attempts at ecumenism/ecumenicism which are well underway. By using the term "Abrahamic Faiths," for example, it is assumed much is in common with the three faiths. In reality, they are all very different. For the Muslim, "Allah" is different from the Jehovah of Judaism as -- even though a common father in Abraham is stated -- as evidenced by the Qu'ran/Koran. Jehovah of Judaism is taken from the Tanakh which does not include Jesus Christ of Christianity. The Christian's God is a Trinitarian one: God the Father; Jesus Christ, His one and only Son, and the Holy Spirit as revealed in both the Old Testament (very similar to the Tanakh) and the New Testament.

IMO, standing up for one's faith is not tantamount to promoting Peter LeMesurier's Armageddon Script.

Unknown said...

That's okay, Slumdog. I normally collapse the comments and skip over yours. Although, I'm glad that I did read yours because I think it's very important to point out where Christians are being persecuted. We should be paying attention to this and where anti-semetism raises its ugly head.

My jabs are first and foremost aimed at commenters who not just disagree with Constance, but do so in a rude fashion. It just irks me. Second of all, my last jab was just to add to Dorothy's idea of how Constance could cash in on all of these long debates between Protestants and Catholics. I thought her idea was humorous.

Craig said...

Anon 11:27:

This post over on Herescope may interest you (and other readers here):

http://herescope.blogspot.com/2010/11/emergent-metaphysics.html

John Chingford said...

Regarding A Question Put To Me asking for an answer. I needed to treat the question with respect and give it the attention and time it deserved.

The question was initially regarding Matthew 16:18-19 and Peter being given the keys of the kingdom.

I can now give a complete answer to the question.

I know that I said I would not write anything more on this site, but this was an old question which I was unable to answer at the time.

Because I was asked the question, personally, I need to answer that person.

Therefore, I leave this answer as my final answer and will not answer any more questions. This is because quite a number of regulars do not want me to hang around.

The answer can be found within my blog on

http://watchmanforjesus.blogspot.com/2010/11/peter-was-not-first-pope-conclusive.html

Anonymous said...

Pagans on the march:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1328968/Pagans-march--harmless-eccentrics-dangerous-cult.html

Anonymous said...

John,

This is the whole Sola Scriptura argument once again. Why should anybody trust YOUR interpretations of scripture how do you know they are accurate?

You claim Catholics are not Christians, I know main-line Protestants who claim Evangelicals are not Protestant, because of the way you interpret the Bible.

Dorothy said...

Re: Synthia Esther...boy am I on a different page than others posting here.

Her pictures may seem seductive to some posting here, but the world has moved much further on. If they are tempting to anyone here, I'd say toughen up and turn off the television and stay away from any magazine racks. You aren't safe anywhere.

One of the problems I see with some of those posting here is extreme confidence that if someone joins their group, they will be morally safe for the rest of their life. Baloney. Ignoring the dangers of seduction doesn't mean the threat goes away. Inside the Christian community as well as inside the Jewish community many dark things happen because people aren't warned about the dangers of seduction by evil.

http://www.sacredpursuit.org/gpage26.html

It is obvious she has done much research about New Age and is willing to share it, her target audience being individuals who have faced or are facing seduction. This I've gathered from reading the rest of her websites. She appears to be an accomplished individual with much experience.

Would I choose her route. Probably not. But neither would I choose the route of those here who do nothing but say join my Christian group because I tell you it works, people who have done nothing to expose the New Age movement because it takes work and they don't want to put any work into exposing it. At least she says practicing Christianity works and this is why it works better than giving into seduction. From what I've seen she only gives leads to Christianity and doesn't post leads to immoral or pagan

Many need to learn how to read and not just look at pictures.

Dorothy

Anonymous said...

Dorothy, I am closer to your point of view on S. Esther than the other posters here. Appearances can be deceiving. Her piece on Dennis Rader is a wake up call in this regard. People are complex, evil is complex. We do not know it all especially about the motives and underlying character of others. Thanks for speaking up.

Susanna said...

Anonymous 11:27 A.M.

I received your essay from JD. I need time to read and digest it. Then I will certainly get back to you.

Thank you ever so much! I am truly grateful for your taking the time to share your knowledge.

God Bless,

Susanna

Anonymous said...

Susanna,

Gladly. Unless you wish to remain anonymous from me, do send me an email. Please keep me anonymous on Constance's blog.

Rudi said...

The concluding paragraph of Constances' comment (#231/433) in the Thursday, October 28, 2010
"Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Is Europe in a mess because "Javier retired" or did Javier retire because Europe was in a mess?" reads...

"...“There may be evidence out there to the contrary, but so far, I have not seen really convincing evidence that "Allah" is not God. It may well be a misrepresentation of God as most heretical teachings are, but 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.”

CONSTANCE
1:11 AM

Out of context??? As Constance herself has frequently stated while critiquing those she has labeled the "termites from with-in"
"If he had the NERVE to say it, I had the NERVE to quote him . . ."

Sorry Constance, but I'm not in agreement with you the past few weeks in a number of areas.
- Rudi

Susanna said...

R. 10:29 A.M.

I understand your disagreements and I respect them.

Re:I am sure, however, that the central tenets of Christianity you hold dear, as I do, those being to love God with everything we have and to love our neighbor as ourselves. Also, that God is three persons of one substance, God the Holy Spirit, God the Father, and God the Son. That Jesus Christ came in the flesh, died on the cross for us in the act of propitiation, and rose again, and that He will return at the last trump.

I certainly do hold to those tenets with all my heart......especially "the great commandment" to love God above all things with our whole heart, with our whole soul and with our whole mind, and to love our neighbors as ourselves out of love for almighty God.

If a person believes and acts thus, how can his heart not be in the right place before God - regardles of any other theological differences he may have with his fellow Christians?

Fortunately, these differences did not originate with us. But just think of the way in which God has been able to use these differences in order to provide us with opportunities for mutual charity and forbearance.

Wasn't it St. Paul who pointed out that when all is said and done, all that will remain in Heaven is charity?

Anonymous said...

Dorothy

Here is a link to a popular UK children's television programme; 'Ben and Holly's Little Kingdom'.

"Holly's Magic Wand"

http://tinyurl.com/37napav

Susanna said...

Anonymous 3:58 P.M.

I certainly will contact you by e-mail.

I will also respect your wish to remain anonymous on the blog.

Thanks again.

God Bless,

Susanna

Dorothy said...

Thanks anonymous 5 pm
I pulled it up, found it delightful though it moved at a child's pace. I do wonder if is teaching children to be polite, listen to their elders and slowly learn about the world around them.

Does anyone else remember the color series of books of fairy tales? The Red book of fairy tales, the green book of fairy tales, etc? Fairy tales were a great way to teach about the different kinds of people there were in the world.

Dorothy

Anonymous said...

Sorry but nobody is distorting Constance's words. Look again at what she said:

"There is open rejection of God the Father in the non-monotheistic religions. The Moslems (apart from the Sufis who are clearly a New Age sect - and the same goes for Gnostics among the Christians) are exceptions to this."

Incorrect! The Muslims do NOT view Allah as "Father". In fact, she kept distorting the Biblical word for God use din the Arab Christian Bibles. They use "alla 'alAb" (God the Father) to draw the distinction between themselves and Muslims who do indeed deny the Fatherhood of God.

"This is not to say that Moslem theology is acceptable as an alternative way to Heaven -- it is not, but again, Romans Chapter 2 kicks in here as I see it."

In other words, she is invoking a Biblical "pass" where none exists!

Regarding her comment about "aceptable worship", it appears she's gone back and edited her comment to say something else. I can allow for the possibility that she mistyped her first statement.

As for her presence at her chosen anti-semitic network; she has admitted much of the programming is racist. At the same time she refused to use Blogtalk (just one of MANY free forums she could use) to broadcast her message because they also allow "New Age" broadcasters. Well, they also have a VAST Christian presence there. And since her message is certainly more pertinent to the New Age it seems to me better suited to that platform. However, she refused because the New Agers are there, as if those broadcasting anti-semitism are a better crowd to be associated with. And while she does take a stand verbally, she should take a stand with her feet, so to speak. Otherwise her protests ring hollow.


Vanity. Period. She stays there out of vanity since I honestly believe she thinks she deserves whatever audience she has there. Meanwhile New Agers over at Blogtalk could use a healthy dose of reality, but she sure isn't the person to give it.

Anonymous said...

Susanna,

Thank you for the additional facts.
I had to cut my earlier post short, but my intention was to make an important point about heresy.

________________________

First, a quote from M.L. Cozens, from "A Handbook on Heresy" (1946):

"But whenever Faith came to a mind not prepared to give it the first and ruling place, but determined to judge and test it by its own prepossessions, its own prejudices - then the truth became perverted, one-sided: and so were born heresies: so began the first heresy: so will heresies arise until Christ returns and Faith ends in Vision."

Every heresy is an exaggeration or distortion of a truth: and the greater or more important the truth thus untruly held, the greater and worse the heresy.

All heresies will cause some minds to rebound to the opposite extreme. In most cases, Heresies (errors) arose from a sincere intention to safeguard the honor of Jesus Christ. However, it often led a falling off into the opposite error.

Throughout the centuries many heresies have arisen: Gnosticism, Montanism, Sabellianism, Arianism, Apollinarianism, Nestorianism, Protestantism, Jansenism, Modernism, etc. However, the Catholic Church alone stands today as she has ever stood, JUDGING - not judged by - modern thought, rejecting in the 21st century, as she rejected in the first through 20th, every conclusion contrary to the Divine Revelation committed to her, able to weigh, assimilate and in due time use all the truth the age or any future age can bring - to elucidate and develop her teaching of that Revelation.

Lisa

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 400 of 675   Newer› Newest»