Thursday, May 17, 2012

Memory Lane - 1970-1971


BEV TRAN IS MY RADIO GUEST TONIGHT ON WWW.THEMICROEFFECT.COM, 7 p.m. Eastern, 4 p.m. Pacific time.  We will be discussing the "Hidden Dangers" of "Child Protective Services."




I did have a life, even before becoming an attorney and a published author.  That life was a political one which taught me many good lessons before coming into the extreme controversy I encountered after releasing my research on the New Age Movement in 1981-1982.  Pictures from my attic which I just found might be of slight interest to some.  One is my leaving the legislature to work as "Executive Assistant to the Mayor" of Highland Park, Michigan, the Honorable Robert B. Blackwell starting September 21, 1970.  The other is of me presenting a City Council Resolution to Dave Bing (now the Mayor of Detroit) in early February, 1971.  Wish I could look like I did then, but know what I do now.  Don't we all!


The Highland Parker September 24, 1970
The Highland Parker, February 15, 1971


Keep the discussion going on the last post and stay tuned.  I'm off to Indiana for my 50th High School class reunion (Class of 1962).

CONSTANCE

Comments: 1 – 200 of 353 Newer› Newest»
If you are curious to read the stories, click on the picture which will expand it to readability size.

Constance
 
have Jesus' idea of a good class reunion, travel safe there and back.

In Jesus' Name, Amen.
 
My thanks to Bev Tran and Dorothy for an informative and helpful radio program tonight.

Constance
 
boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Why the "boo"? The pictures or Bev Tran or what?

Constance
 
Why the "boo"? The pictures or Bev Tran or what?

Constance
 
I received an email from someone who does ministry in Israel "opening portals" through worship music. This person had received a video clip from an upcoming IMAX movie. The link to the movie is www.jerusalemthemovie.com

Here is the response that I wrote regarding the movie:

It was certainly breathtaking to see so much of Israel/Jerusalem from a "birds-eye" view. I was enjoying it until I saw the name at the end. You may be interested to know who made the film, "An Arcane/Cosmic Picture Film". (www.arcanepictures.co.uk

Arcane is not a word we hear commonly. Synonyms are esoteric, occult, hidden, secret, hermetic

Although the filming was beautiful and exhilarating (I can imagine what it would be like to watch it in an Imax theater), I would be hesitant to promote it. The mission of Arcane Productions is to create films with an occult/New Age message. I noticed in the description of the film from the website that "The Project will seek to build trust and respect between Jews, Christians and Muslims by showcasing their common heritage and will inspire them, and the public, to better understand each other’s beliefs and practices."

Of course, I'm not arguing that we need to be respectful of our fellow man. But that is not really what this is about. This is an interfaith initiative that declares that all "faiths" are valid and equal paths to the same god. There is a deadly agenda in that message and the purpose of the film. The philosophy behind this film is that not only are Jews, Christians, and Muslims joined by monotheistic tradition, but that all mankind is evolving spiritually into one consciousness. That is what is meant by the term "cosmic". That One reality is known as the Cosmic Christ.

The attention on Jerusalem is not just from Christians. Revelation 13 tells us of a time when all the world will be joined together in one government (New World Order/One World), one economy (Globalism), and one religion (Interfaith/Ecumenism)*. Statements made like the one this film represents sound so innocuous on the surface. But any form of Christianity that believes that there is only one God, and faith in the blood atonement by the death, burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ is the only way to Him cannot be tolerated by them--only religions that are ecumenical in nature. Some day soon (I believe very soon) one will stand in Jerusalem, in the Holy place and declare a false "peace". The Jews will make a deadly alliance with him.

...
 
When we were in J'lem, we toured a little "museum" operated by The Temple Institute. The little Jewish girl who was our guide glowed with exuberance when she described the painting that depicted the 70 lampstands standing in the Holy Place. She declared that each lamp represented a different country and that the purpose was to dedicate the temple as being a place where all the world's religious would be able to come and worship freely. I believe that is a direct fulfillment of the prophecy in 2 Thess. 2, "Let no one deceive you by any means; for [that Day will not come] unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God."

The Greek word for "falling away" is apostasia" from which we get our word apostasy. There is a great movement in churches today toward accepting all religions as valid. This is known as universalism, Universal Reconcilliation, Christian Universalism, or Big Tent Christianity. The denial of or even the lessening of the preaching of the Gospel of salvation is facilitating this apostasy. May God bring us back to the pure preaching of the Gospel!

...
 
...continued

I leave you with one more thought. Beginning around 1875 a woman by the name of Alice A. Bailey received demonic transmissions from an entity she called DK. She wrote profusely of these messages. Alice came out of a philosophy called Theosophy. She organized what is now known as Lucis Trust (originally Lucifer Publishing). Lucis Trust operates what is known as The Arcane School. Bailey (influenced by DK) taught that the church would need to be infiltrated by skilled teachers who would transform terminology (doctrine) in such a way that definitions and terms would be redefined. Bailey: "The church as a teaching factor should take the great basic doctrines and (shattering the old forms in which they are expressed and held) show their true and inner spiritual significance [ED: occult/esoteric meaning]. The prime work of the church is to teach, and teach ceaselessly, preserving the outer appearance in order to reach the many who are accustomed to church usages". Bailey: "Without mysticism there will be no “deep ecumenism,” no unleashing of the power of wisdom from all the world’s religious traditions…The promise of ecumenism, the coming together of religions has been thwarted because world religions have not been relating at the level of mysticism. The Western tradition appears to have nothing to offer on a mystical level because its religious traditions are unaware of their mystical heritage…"

Bailey taught her followers to keep their teachings a secret for 100 years. One hundred years later, in the early 70's the New Age movement began to emerge (remember The Fifth Dimension, The Age of Aquarius? Ouch! I just showed my age!). Over the last 40 years, the New Age has certainly infiltrated churches. The mysticism that Bailey speaks of is very nebulous. What may feel like the Holy Spirit or seem to be the anointing needs to be discerned by the only constant and standard--The Bible. When I watched this Jerusalem film, I felt my heart move in exhilaration as remembered my tour in 2008. I was so drawn to it. That's the power that is behind the film. Bailey's goal was to use the power of spirit, Presence (capital "P"--remember Bailey redefined terms), feeling and the mystical to determine reality. It is a diabolical bait and switch. By drawing us into the J'lem film, we are led to let our guard down and receive the demonic message that all is one, all is god, we are christ, we are god. And I can imagine how magnified that power will be when the film is shown in an Imax theater!

The producers say that the film will be released in 2013. I strongly suggest that we reject it and warn others.

Note to Constance: Thank you for your ceaseless and tireless service to the body of Christ in exposing the enemy!
 
"She declared that each lamp represented a different country and that the purpose was to dedicate the temple as being a place where all the world's religious would be able to come and worship freely."

Good God! surely she must mean that people from everywhere would worship YHWH there, give Him honor even if they didn't leave their "religions" entirely.
 
exhilaration, eh? I like the term in Star Trek "false transcendence."

A lot of so called spirituality, even in christian context, is actually fleshly. The "spiritual" angle on blood and soil is still fleshly.
 
SpanishTown,
Thank you for that information from Israel and the film that is coming out in 2013. It is interesting that the European Council just announced they will have a big "Neighborhood Policy" summit in the autumn of 2013. This neighborhood policy includes Israel as well as many nations around the Mediternean.
 
To YesNaSpanishTown & John Rupp:

Thank you both for sharing this latest information - as we all continue to 'connect the dots.'
 
A very large article in the New York Times this morning is further illustrative of the very wicked machinations of the GLBT community in bullying psychiatrists into changing their professional reports and opinions to suit the "Gay Agenda." I posted my opinion to the article -- let's see if it makes it up on THAT site. Here is what I wrote there:

Well, what a case study in the politicizing of medicine and morals! This so reminds me of the situation a few years ago when cochlear implants were publicized as a welcome potential cure for deafness. Those in the deaf community with axes to grind promptly denounced it as "genocide for the deaf community." As I have observed at my own blogspot, not only does the GLBT community demand our "tolerance." It demands our blessings. Do I advocate "gay bashing," or "gay bullying"? NO! Conversely, I do not plan to allow the "gay" community to bash orthodox monotheists and others with convictions consistent with thousands of years of moral codes to bash and bully us out of our rights, especially our rights to protest /protect our innocent children from their predations, our insecure teenagers from their suggestions in their insecure, acne ridden years that "perhaps you are 'gay'" and our babies from adoption into the "Heather has two mommies," "Peter has two daddies" self-styled "families."

Like many who have been active in public life over the years, I have known and even liked those we suspected to be "gay." However, they had an old fashioned virtue against flaunting one's sexual activity -- 'gay' or 'straight' which was once upon a time known as DISCRETION!

Here I definitely and defiantly stand!

Constance E. Cumbey

 
"cochlear implants were publicized as a welcome potential cure for deafness. Those in the deaf community with axes to grind promptly denounced it as "genocide for the deaf community.""
they wanted to stay deaf? so they could have a "community?"
fine,have an ex deaf community.
 
THE NEW YORK TIMES? I was confusing it there for awhile with THE VILLAGE VOICE, an openly pro-homosexual rag!

Constance
 
Hi, Constance. Thought you and any of your readers in/around Michigan might be interested in this upcoming conference: False Eschatology Arising! (if y'all weren't already aware, that is).

Here's the schedule of speakers: Quantum Mysticism 2012 & Beyond: Understanding the Deception
 
I'm in Michigan and definitely am a known resource on the subject, wonder why I wasn't approached to speak! Hmmmmm. . . .

Constance
 
I noticed from the article that you were a Democrat at the time, Constance. Are you still a Democrat? Just wondering.

Love your work. I have an original copy of Hidden Dangers of the Rainbow.

Have you read any of Des Griffin's books?
 
I was a Democrat then and was for many years. Every time I got around the Republicans I remembered why I was a Democrat. But I have had no home with the Democrats for the past 30 years after their emphasis changed from RIGHT TO LIFE which was my boss's firm position then (State Representative, Speaker of the House William A. Ryan), to the shocking positions it later took. Now given the same sex marriage stance, I have no option but to change parties. When I was politically active in the 1970s it was Republican senators (Lorraine Beebe of Dearborn) who were publicly advocating abortion rights campaigns. The Democrats had stood firmly against same.

NEITHER TO THE RIGHT HAND NOR TO THE LEFT, BUT STRICTLY IN THE PATH OF THE LORD, at least that's how my Bible said the Godly king Josiah walked.

Constance
 
I know what you mean about Josiah, Constance. I never had much use for either party, because I always believed they were both pretty much the same at the top of the pyramid. The only difference was at the bottom, in the blind factionalism of the base.
 
Spanish Town,

Jews and Arabs do accept common ancestry in Abraham, and I have even heard of genuine unity between them against secular communism in what was then part of the Soviet Union, but it must never be forgotten that Islam denies the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ - that's right there in the Qur'an - and denies His atoning death on the cross.

Someday Jerusalem will indeed be a house of prayer for all nations, but this will be after a world government whose leader is overthrown in the bodily return of Jesus to this world. Not before. I agree with you.

The Temple Institute has the menorah (lampstand) ready for a rebuilt Temple. You can see it in Jerusalem. There is some debate about the size of the units of length specified in the Pentateuch. When they tried to build it to the specifications with the larger guess for the units, they found that the gold was not strong enough to support the weight of the branches of the menorah. Instead of taking this to mean that the shorter guess for the unit of length was correct, they constructed their menorah to the larger size using gold mixed with other metals that were stronger. Big mistake!
 
@ anonymous 1:48 PM
While I think it is great to attack flase ideals... I think we do a great disservice to ourselves and others when we make our attacks on our fellow human beings.
 
"When they tried to build it to the specifications with the larger guess for the units, they found that the gold was not strong enough to support the weight of the branches of the menorah. Instead of taking this to mean that the shorter guess for the unit of length was correct, they constructed their menorah to the larger size using gold mixed with other metals that were stronger. Big mistake!:

pure gold is not as strong as mixed, 14 k is not pure it has silver. This discovery should have told them, that the smaller unit was the correct one - unless of course God was miraculously keeping the lampstand intact, and since He isn't doing so now perhaps this is again, not a good idea.
 
Galatians and creeping romanism - ideas are held by people. but anyone would be pleased to see an apparent hardliner like Ratzinger take office, only it turns out he is part of the problem with the church scandal coverup, and may be soft in some other ways.

Rome is not the anti christ. When has a pope ever required an act of worship of him as God and taking a tattoo to prove this has been done, in order to legally engage in commerce?

Vatican is not Rome, never was the formal secular ruler, and actually outside the city limits and not on any of the hills.

I am anti papacy first as protestant then as better educated and became Eastern Orthodox, but I know this idea of rome equals beast etc. is garbage.

Luther ARBITRARILY REMOVED from the Bible the "deuterocanonical" books which have been accepted throughout church history, in the East not just in the Roman West, and WOULD HAVE REMOVED THE EPISTLE OF JAMES if he could have got away with it.

James focusses on acting out the faith, Paul presupposes belief with result in right action. James spoke to the inconsistent who kept faith in one pocked and "real life" in another.

Luther was on the right track, but deviated in his own way.

Luther DID NOT DENY the literal presence of the literal Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist, and held The Virgin Mary (Theotokos, Mother of God) in high esteem. But because Rome made a racket out of prayers for the dead, Luther went too far and opposed them altogether, when this again goes back to the early days of the church and the martyrs.
 
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
It's still my blogspot!

Constance
 
"Comment deleted
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator."

Interestingly, the last deleted items, eg, that at 1:48PM that smallfarm comments on was removed without this failsafe.

("SmallFarm said...
@ anonymous 1:48 PM
While I think it is great to attack flase ideals... I think we do a great disservice to ourselves and others when we make our attacks on our fellow human beings.

2:38 PM")

Maybe theres more to this blogspot ádmin thing than meets the eye ---- oh I´m not asking you to trust me ... nor CC Con-stance just do your own research, think for yourself, and trust Almighty God through Jesus Christ only! Nothing personal, just being a watchman, YES IT´S STILL HER BLOGSPOT, YES IT´S STILL IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN FOR FREE COMMENT! THANK YOU.
 
Constance,
I don't agree with everything you have to say, but it seems some think that you have to be perfect as Christ was, otherwise you are a deciever. Talk about straining at gnats.
 
Christine,

Luther was a mixed bag but protestants believe he got more right than wrong. Incidentally the 'Apocrypha' were not regarded as canonical by St Jerome, who translated the Bible from its original languages into Latin more than a thousand years before Luther. So that school of thought is ancient, not medieval.
 
Small Farm, I know your blinded by her erhem ... stardom ... but if it is the only the straining of gnats why has she removed the posts? And what about the posts she removes without the comment "... removed by a blog administrator"? She´s controlled opposition, but the Vatican which controls the US Govt and has done since the jesuits forced the Revolution with the front of Illluminati! Oh she´ll poo poo this ... do your own research!!! Very old books exposing jesuits, illuminism & the French & US Revolutions, that´s where to start. You can do it ... go on. God bless!

She´s got you running down the New Age rabbit hole, just like Alex Jones with the Illuminati, or John Phelps who pretends to expose the Vatican and put across his disgusting racist ideology, but who is in fact a Vatican insider just like these others and the lying David Ike, without telling you the Vatican´s behind it all! Haven´t you heard of the red mass and Thomas Moore mass in the US attended by Bush, Clinton, Obama and many others? The TM mass is the mass for Politicians and Lawyers alike. STRANGE HOW SOME OF CUMBEY´S ARTICLES HAVE THOMAS MOORE LAW CENTER OR SUCH LIKE WRITTEN ON THEM ...NO? WAKE UP!!!!

Do your own research ... you´re fast asleep ... wake up!!!!

http://galatiansfour.blogspot.com.es/2010/11/constance-cumbey-and-catholic-church.html
 
I see it now suits her purpose to leave the comment there. I wonder for how long? She may leave this too! WHY TRUST ME? I AGREE! WHY TRUST CONTANCE BLINDLY TOO? DON´T YOU KNOW THAT IF THE BLIND LEADS THE BLIND, BOTH SHALL FALL INTO A DITCH?

TRUST GOD ONLY IN JESUS CHRIST´S HOLY NAME! DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH SUBMITTING TO HIM ALWAYS, TESTING EVERY SPIRIT,EXPOSING DARKNESS BY SHINING THE LIGHT OF TRUTH ON IT, LET GOD BE TRUE AND EVERY MAN (INCLUDING CONSTANCE CUMBEY) A LIAR!!!!
 
Revelation was disputed in early times, because it was misused by the Montanist sect so the tendency was to stay away from it. The early undivided church (before the RC schism in AD 1054) accepted it, but did not use it to establish doctrine or read in liturgy to now.

The only solid argument against it would seem to be the difference between it and John's Epistles regarding grammar, etc., but John wrote this alone, without a proof reader, while his Epistles were written under conditions he could have had help formatting so to speak, and he was not educated much.
 
anon, I don't think Constance expects you to trust her blindly, I think I recall her posting something about not being perfect herself.

Of course when I say get out there and dig don't rely on a single link or two but research it I get all kinds of attacks. Though perhaps not from you.

Solana may be a waste of time, but this happens when you have a eurocentric or euro-americacentric mindset. Then, that might not be entirely wrong either, even if partly wrong.

Reason to oppose the Vatican DOES NOT INCLUDE the doctrine of transformation of bread and wine into The Body and Blood of Christ, which is to be found in Justin Martyr's writing in the second century, and it takes presuppositions and twisting not to see it in Scripture.

Does not Paul warn in one of the Corinthian letters that those who eat and drink it without perceiving the Body (which he just spec. is Body of Christ a few sentences before) eat and drink judgement to themselves? This means something REAL and objective is present that is not just bread and wine.

I think Calvin argued that while the bread and wine remained bread and wine, there was a literal communion with the Body and Blood of Christ through faith of the believer when taking the Eucharist.
 
Anonymous poster, I find your statements hypocritical. The very blog you're spamming removes all voices of dissent (yes I looked it up, lots of holier-than-thou hypocrites who love the smell of their own farts). There's a reason that Christ hung out with the publicans and sinners of his day, rather than the pharisees.
I close with my final statement to you: however you judge will also how you will be judged.
 
SmallFarm what course and vile communication proceeds form your heart, it is a shame to repeat but so that others are aware of your tactics, you state: "who love the smell of their own farts"

Repent.

Btw, you are in amongst a nest of vipers and I see you are poisoned by them. Beware!
 
To anon who is criticizing Constance:
Constance is a quite humble person knowing as I myself know that we are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. We do not believe in our own works saving us. Constance has been very honest and fair in her research on the New Age Movement. I have researched her findings for 30 years and found she is very well documented and thorough in her research. Her resources are very authentic and many times right from the "Horses Mouth" so to speak. I do not blindly follow Constance's research and she herself doesn't expect anyone to follow her blindly. If all you are going to do is come in here and rip down Constance's character I don't care to see your blogs here. That is not what her site is all about. Thank you.
 
Sleep on John Rupp, sleep on!
 
Christine - do you believe transubstantiation took place at the Last Supper...??
 
The truth is, that there is no one denomination that contains Christ. Rather, Christ is all in all and we are IN HIM. Christ knows his sheep, and his sheep know him.

Anonymous, there is no Christ in using the truth as a battering ram. Even Satan knows scripture and quotes it to the harm of many.

What will be the "true religion" of the millineal kingdom? What will be the purified form of worship that Lord Jesus institutes for the 1000 year reign? Will it be RCC or Southern Baptist? SDA or Amish? The answer is none of the above.

The truth is that we shall know Him as He knows us. Keep the faith and knock the dust of your shoes as appropriate.
 
Constance has her personal flaws just as we all do. She's human like the rest of us. She would never claim otherwise. This is not the place to discuss them.
They have nothing to do with her excellent research ability.

But if you want to discuss flaws, there are a lot of people who should try to see if these ideas fit them.

It appears there are a lot of people who have never created anything, much less a universe, who feel they are equal to God and can speak in his name and for him. They expect us to believe in them.

I want to tell the Galatiansfour blogspot person to just shut up. He goes on and on about thing he hasn't read in any of the Cumbey material. He might fool others who haven't read the material either and needs to read the quote starting "You can fool some of the people..."

As far as the Catholic Church, it has a lot of strengths and a lot of weak lengths. It is a huge organization with a long history compared to some of the teenier Protestant groups, so of course there will be more weak links. If God wanted to wipe out the Catholic Church, he would have done. He has his own reasons for allowing its continuation. Over thousands of years it has done a huge amount of good.

A lot more than the small minds who come here to cause trouble.
 
transubstantiation at the Last Supper - yes. Christ is infinite in His divinity, and just as He multiplied the loaves and fishes, He could have multiplied (and transported) available flesh and blood of His.

Now, the prohibition on eating meat without any exsanguination, ignored by most Christians now, not of Moses but Noah and reiterated in Acts, is always about blood of DEAD animals. Christ was alive then, and alive at all later times. This was blood of the living.

Christ said, "THIS IS MY BODY," and to argue representation symbolic only is to ignore that precisely such a symbol is the transmission point for reality.

This transubstantiation is also consistent with the whole Incarnation, as is the notion of sacrament, an invisible grace in a visible form. Jesus Christ Himself is a living sacrament in that sense.

Transubstantiation technically is not just the change itself, but the scholastic idea of mode and timing and amount of change and amount if any or lack thereof of bread and wine remaining.

The early Church did not quibble over such things, Justin Martyr in the second century AD said that we believe this is not normal bread and wine but the flesh and blood of Christ we receive.

Eastern Orthodoxy, the original undivided church as it developed through the ages (and the protestantism you know now is not the protestantism of the Reformers, e.g., the altar call is an innovation), calls it The Transformation.

Eucharistic miracles, where blood and occasionally entire change into visible flesh and blood, also testify to this. The most powerful one was that of Lanciano.

The blood-wine became five clots of dry blood, which in those days weighed the same separately AND ALL TOGETHER. This feature was lost over centuries.

But modern testing shows that the flesh is heart muscle.

and the dried blood is type AB, which is that on the Shroud and on the Cloth of Oviedo, AND IT TESTS AS BEING FRESH BLOOD, no enzyme breakdown,

WHICH IS IMPOSSIBLE IN BLOOD ONLY A FEW DAYS OLD LET ALONE OVER A THOUSAND YEARS OLD.

Yet there it is.

RC gives lip service to The Holy Spirit being the One Who makes the transformation, but relies on the power of the priest given at ordination to do it, with a minimal epiklesis or invocation of The Holy Spirit, while EO depends almost entirely on the epiklesis and is very explicit in the ritual. Also this is in all sacraments of EO.
 
anon who complains of coarse talk - well, sometimes such talk is appropriate. One should not overdo it, like one person I oncew knew, who used the f word at least once more lie 2 or 3 times per sentence. Spoken. "fuckin' hell" was a favorite term of his also.

Someone else said about him, :he can take his fuckin' foul moth and go somewhere else."

unfortunately that person didn't follow through, but followed the foul mouthed person around to greater insanity and drunkenness. Things got a bit better, when the foul mouthed person went to Colorado, got into AA and came back demanding everyone go also. Then, thank God, disappeared again.
 
aztexan,

I see no evidence that anybody at that Quantum Mysticism conference has any understanding of quantum theory. Nobody should be taken seriously on the subject who cannot solve the Schrodinger equation for a particle in a rectangular box (one of the simplest quantum calculations possible).

Quantum theory is part of physics, which is part of science, which is the part of the Western tradition of thought that studies the material creation. The notion that quantum theory overthrows the Western worldview is absurd.

Physicist
 
physicist, i absolutely agree. The oddities like the uncertainty principle, and one or two vague possibilities than an observer can affect the observed in some situations, are taken out of context and blown up as "proof" of the crazy subjectivist new age position in general.

quantum physics being a bit hard for the public to understand, it is easy to twist it.

Then flat statements are made about some people in antiquity knowing this stuff and mayans and whatnot, sure, there is evidence of electroplating and batteries and the vimana craft were certainly engaging some wierd side of physics but that doesn't mean it was UNDERSTOOD, it was just, you do certain things you get certain results and that's all that matters.

Theoretical stuff was mostly a Greek obsession.
 
Christine,

If Christ's hand, which is part of his body and contained his own blood, held the elements at the Last Supper yet those elements became his body and blood whiile continuing to look like bread and wine, then we can have no confidence that anything is what it seems. Yet God created the world and created us in his image, so we perceive the world in basically the same way that he does.

You say that, in regard to the samples from Lanciano, "modern testing shows that the flesh is heart muscle. and the dried blood is type AB, which is that on the Shroud and on the Cloth of Oviedo, AND IT TESTS AS BEING FRESH BLOOD, no enzyme breakdown."

Please would you provide a reference for these claims?
 
Lanciano


http://en.gloria.tv/?media=35108

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

I agree, things are not always as they seem. Consider for instance the Incarnation of God the Second Person of The Holy Trinity Himself, did He look like God in the flesh in those days? Of course not. But He was and is.

Our own sight is limited to a narrow range of light, some few can see a bit beyond into infrared and ultraviolet. Animals often see much farther into these.

So called spiritual sight is often little more than this. Peripheral vision controlling sections of the retina are in play.

However, it can be more.

What you touch that feels solid is a mass of atoms frozen in relationship to each other by lines of force, and yet in motion to some extent, but it SEEMS solid and SEEMS motionless.
 
Physicist & Christine:

Are we reading the same promotional webpages here? I see no evidence that the conference aims to "overthrow the Western worldview" using quantum theory, or any theory, for that matter. Quite the contrary: It is a discernment gathering put on by the folks who run Herescope, the focus of which is to warn against false eschatologies which purport to use quantum theory and other such mumbojumbo to justify novel readings of Scripture.
 
It doesn't matter what the conference paperwork claims to be about or not about. It is about New Age Quantum whatnot is it not?

Overthrowing the western worldview is a key New Age issue, so anything done by them with an appeal to wacky physics misapplications is going to have that as a possible and desired effect.
 
aztexan,

There is a tendency on blogs to suppose that a comment on something is intended as a refutation. My earlier comment was not primarily intended as such, and I (Physicist) am aware that Herescope is against the abuse of quantum theory by the New Age (as am I). However:

(1) Some of the outlines of the talks suggest to me that the speakers are at best confused. At least one speaker appears to be denying the counter-intuitive but scientifically confirmed findings of quantum mechanics. Human intuition is schooled in classical physics and can easily come unstuck when applied to the very carefully prepared systems that are involved in testing quantum theory nowadays. But that is no more witchcraft than man flying in aeroplanes (of which mediaevals would have been intensely suspicious).

2. Some of the talks about chaos, order, consciousness and quantum theory sound, from the synopses, like they could have come from a New Age conference on the subject.

I gladly acknowledge that these folks have their heart in the right place. But unless they are technically competent in quantum physics, and also understand something of the history and philosophy of science, and then are Bible-believing Christians, they might have been wiser to stay silent and seek better informed speakers.

Physicist
 
Anon at 7:09 PM,

how do you know that the Galatiansfour blogspot person is a he?

Christine, what filth spews forth from you. You need deliverance.

It is not about certain folk being perfect, it´s about them deliberately leasding others astray. Pretending they´re something they´re not.

When does CC ever expose that Jesuit of old, New Ager Chardin? Unless pretending he was excommunicated, which if you read his life story you´ll find out he most certainly was not!

Where was the major coverage and exposure by her of the all religions are relative nonsense held at Assisi last year? And what about her exposure of JPII and his Assisi false religion conference in the 80´s, with shamans, witches and all sorts?

She´s controlled opposition. Wake up!!!!
 
Christine: You have an interesting way of reasoning. I guess it's just over my head.

Physicist: Thank you for the clarification. I do not and cannot vouch for the speakers, their good (or bad) intentions, or their bona fides (or lack thereof); I linked to their promotional materials as a courtesy to interested parties in the Michigan area.

Notwithstanding, let me as a geographically remote and philosophically disinterested party encourage you to contact Herescope and have your name added to next year's list of speakers.
 
aztexan,

Thank you for the implicit compliment, but I am a lot more remote from Michigan, the location of that conference, than anywhere in North America!

Physicist
 
Anonymous,
You seem so full of righteous indignation and
zeal.
How odd that you can't let anyone know who you are.
If God is your witness and your motives are all for Him, then what are you afraid of ?
Jesus himself was in the temple, OPENLY teaching every day; a fact which he pointed out when they came, in secret in the wee small hours of the night, to arrest him.
If God be for you, who can be against you ?
Where is your faith ?

The RCC is not the enemy, despite what they say on countless skinhead type blogs. The RCC has been preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ for the last two thousand years. It has the same problem that every organization has, it's made up of imperfect people.
And being so large it becomes the biggest target for
self appointed judges of all stripes.
I agree with some of the criticisms that are commonly presented, but it seems to me that in every case, both Roman Catholic and Protestant, that the problems go to the leadership much more that the people in the pews.
God knows.
God will judge.
 
Oh sure, there was the pretext (damage limitation as the conditioning of the people to NAM ideas shouldn´t be over hasty) of pretending some of the Roman Curia were displeased with some of his ideas (though he was never excommunicated or seriously reprimanded, because he "was only following orders", no doubt!

Indeed, "some of Teilhard's views became influential in the reforms of the Second Vatican Council. More recently, Pope John Paul II indicated a positive attitude towards some of Teilhard's ideas. In 2009, Pope Benedict XVI praised Teilhard's idea of the universe as a "living host".[1]"

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

Yes, that same Benny XVI that CC stated, "Cardinal Ratzinger is Pope Benedict XVI -- and, personally, I couldn't be happier!"


http://cumbey.blogspot.com.es/2005/04/cardinal-ratzinger-is-pope-benedict.html
 
Constance Cumbey, the least compensated double agent of all time. Sorry, to get this one over you're going to need to get away from people who have personally met Constance, or at the least away from us who have been to her home.
 
Thanks Christine, so it happened once in Lanciano and maybe at one or two other times and places but not in the millions of undivided Catholic (before 1054) and then Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Eucharists held since?

As for the Shroud... In 1390, Roman Catholic Bishop Pierre d'Arcis stated that the Shroud was a forgery and that the artist had confessed. That date is consistent with the radiocarbon dating tests performed on a small piece the shroud. The pollen is generally Mediterranean and does not localise to the Holy Land. And the Shroud has been reproduced since, using only mediaeval techniques, by draping cloth over a bas-relief and painting it. Moreover it strains the account in John's gospel to suppose that the Shroud is as described there. But apart from that...
 
Lanciano is only the most extreme case, and the best proven, NOT the only case by any means. There is a book titled EUCHARISTIC MIRACLES that is an eye opener. Yes, these events happened AFTER AD 1054.

The purpose of miracles like this is to reinforce faith, and the literal presence of the Body and Blood is not a doctrine usually doubted in RC or EO circles.

In one case some time in the past several centuries, it seemed to be a rebuke to someone who had stolen a host or something like that.

The Shroud has not been reproduced in its entirety, and if you would get into the second half of that video link I posted you would see there are things about it that show up in certain kinds of data analysis that do NOT show up in other images.

The C14 dating is admittedly wrong, because of two things, the scorch parts and mends the samples came from, and the very fact of the fire and its smoke permeating the cloth even where it didn't mark it would contaminate it.

The "confession" should be taken in light of the underground polluted river of heresy against the Resurrection that along with more overt demonism was a problem all along, and the Shroud's provenance in its European phase, connects it to the Templars and the Crusades, and if Holy Blood Holy Grail is correct that some notion of not only worldly power but divine descent from Jesus (false, but believed) played a role in the Crusades' leaders at first, then such secret heresy once the heresiarchs realised the implications of the Shroud would be a motive to lie about it.

Just study that video.
 
naturally CC would be happy for Ratzinger being pope AT FIRST as was I because his style and reputation would make one expect he would put a stop to a lot of nonsense. This seems to have been an error on our part, though he has made some minor moves.

The latest nonsense about RC is that it is back of the islamic false religion and so forth. Totally insane, RC didn't even EXIST when Mohammed got going.

There are enough things wrong with RC without inventing stuff.

By the way, anon., do you recite the Creed in the form "I believe in the Holy Spirit Who proceeds from The Father AND THE SON,"? If so, you are clinging to an error that was produced in what became the RC and was the main breakpoint aside from papal pretentions, with the EO. It is totally unscriptural, since Jesus speaking of The Holy Spirit says He proceeds FROM THE FATHER not "from The Father and Me," proceeding is about ground of being and origin, like The Son being begotten of The Father is, not about being sent into the world or The Church or any other action especially in time instead of eternity outside of time.

See to your own house first.
 
Christine: Theologians recognize a distinction between the temporal and the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit. St John's gospel makes it clear that the procession to the church of the Holy Spirit, taking place in chronos-time, was a decision of God the Father alone. Whether the Holy Spirit proceeds INTRINSICALLY from the Father alone, or from the Father and the Son, the Bible does not say. Roman Catholics insist on both and unilaterally changed the creed. Eastern Orthodox insist on the Father alone. This led to schism over something that scripture is silent on - which, as an evangelical, I regret. But I am a different Anon than the one you were addressing.
 
Christine,

Can you exclude the possibility that the samples tested at Lanciano had been switched for human heart tissue?

In any case, transformation of the elements to physical human tissue and blood doesn't happen in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches in my nearest town...

"The Shroud has not been reproduced in its entirety, and if you would get into the second half of that video link I posted you would see there are things about it that show up in certain kinds of data analysis that do NOT show up in other images."

I watched the video in its entirety, all 4.29 minutes of it, and there was no mention of the Turin Shroud.

"The C14 dating is admittedly wrong, because of two things, the scorch parts and mends the samples came from, and the very fact of the fire and its smoke permeating the cloth even where it didn't mark it would contaminate it."

The scorching would affect only the outermost layers, which do not comprise the bulk of the material tested. Also, most of the strand came from the original shroud material. Those scientists were not so stupid as to take material intended for dating from an obvious patch. These things would have only a small effect on the relative abundances of carbon isotopes and therefore on the date inferred from radiocarbon dating. The Turin Shroud is medieval, just like Bishop D'Arcis said at the time. The medieval Roman Catholic church rightly regarded it as heresy to deny the Resurrection (it burned people for less, not that I approve), and if you prefer to believe people who assert that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and started a family (ie the authors of Holy Blood Holy Grail) then you are dancing with New Age heretics. Where is your discernment?
 
1. The smoke would permeate the Shroud anyway, but some scientists later raised the issue of thread source.

http://www.innoval.com/C14/
"Based on . . .
Chemistry Today (vol 26 n4/Jul-Aug 2008), "Discrepancies in the radiocarbon dating area of the Turin shroud,"
Los Alamos National Laboratory findings (Ohio State Shroud of Turin Conference report (August 2008),
Thermochimica Acta (vol 425 2005) and
findings of Georgia Institute of Technology chemist John L. Brown,

. . . it can be stated that the 1988 carbon 14 dating of the Shroud of Turin is invalid."

and google for more information.

2. miracles by definition do not happen routinely, at least not visible miracles, but the transformation into flesh and blood does happen invisibly EVERY time, the miracle merely made it visible and testable.

in the 1800s some satanists had a host they presented to a dog to defile it, and instead the dog worshipped it.

That something changes in the case of Holy Water, is indicated in some Romanian experiments where the refractive index of water changed to a slight degree, and this wasn't a full Holy Water blessing just making the Sign of the Cross over water. An unbeliever had a trace effect. A layman believer more effect. A priest, still more effect.

Among my cats, I have seen discernment between regular and Holy Water and a preference to drink the latter.

3. where is my discernment? Where is your reading and comprehension?

My point was that Holy Blood Holy Grail makes a real good case for heretical belief being secretly held by some people of influence, and that they believe this themselves is not the point. The point is that the heresy was in play in the crusades.

Whatever legitimate issues the crusades may have had, there were illigetimate ones as well.

A good case can be made for Leonardo da Vinci being a homosexual or bisexual, which contrary to gay propaganda does not validate homosexuality. Da Vinci is not the measure of all things.

And a good case can be made he believed heresy. Not surprising. Very smart people can be very arrogant and very stupid in some ways.

Again, IF there is something encoded in his art, and there is reason to question that, it only INVALIDATES DA VINCI as a Christian, it does not prove that the encoded information is correct, only that he believed it.

Some of the best dirt you can dig up on individual satanists is to be found on alt.satanism the older posts where they were all at each other's throats. That doesn't mean you have to believe any of their "theology" to use them as information sources on what they've been up to.

Constance has denounced Teilhard, and as I recall he was FORBIDDEN TO TEACH AND PUBLISH, and if she didn't denounce him by name she certainly denounced all his ideas which are classical New Age, and spew from many mouths and pens besides his.

Some confusion as to whether or not he was excommunicated might well exist because it WAS on the table.

"In 1922, he wrote an essay which treated Original Sin in a way contrary to Church teaching. By mistake it went to the Vatican, and Teilhard was nearly excommunicated. He was forbidden to teach or preach; but he wrote secretly, and his pamphlets were passed from hand to hand. He wrote several books formulating a Christianity which bowed to total evolutionism. His books were refused a Church Imprimatur and remained unpublished."
http://www.salvemariaregina.info/SalveMariaRegina/SMR-153/Chardin%20and%20New%20Religion.htm fourth paragraph.
 
Christine,

I am the Anon who is skeptical of transubstantiation, certainly skeptical that it has ever involved transformation to PHYSICAL blood and flesh, and skeptical of the Turin Shroud. I have not commented about Teilhard, nor do I intend to.

It seems to me that you will uncritically believe almost any report of a physical miracle. While I accept as a Christian that these things can happen, that does not mean every report of a miracle is true. And it certainly is not an excuse for ignoring what science has learned.

In science, evidence is weighed, not counted. You can find someone who will argue against almost anything, but do their arguments make sense? Googling for someone who disagrees with your protagonist, finding a reference, then quoting it, is not a genuine mode of argumentation. Are you capable of explaining (ie, do you genuinely understand) the basic principles of radiocarbon dating? It seems to me that the answer is No. The scientists who carbon-dated the Turin Shroud stated that the sample came from the main body of the shroud, well away from any patches or charred areas. For a decent discussion with minimal technicalities, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_14_dating_of_the_Shroud_of_Turin
 
no I don't uncritically accept miracles, but when it is extreme it is extreme.

A good case of a miracle I reject, is a photo and video allegedly showing blood stains on an Orthodox bread before it is mixed in the wine. In fact, it is only purply fluid on the bread, like wine. Either fraud or accident and foolish misinterpretation.

Even if the information on that link is correct, that does not change the fact that the smoke from that fire, since it was that close, would have permeated The Shroud.

Guess what is in smoke.

Carbon!

Guess what it came from.

Wood and so forth that was medieval period burning.

Aside from this, contamination by the frequent handling and the subtle bacterial colony layer would also contaminate and affect the results.

This was not something hidden away from the world in a pharoah's tomb or whatever for thousands of years.

And if this is a medieval product, then how could it have features only of relevance to 21st century data mining technology, not to mention that no, such a precise kind of picture is NOT made by reproduction efforts.

There is a natural phenomenon that makes images, but this is supercharged.

have you watched the video second half where the image is analyzed to make a 3D picture of Jesus?

And note, it is very close in result to the traditional image of Jesus from the Byzantine tradition.
I think the cheekbones need to be a tiny bit higher for a match to the data, and reversing the process to make a solid form and an image off that, results in a Shroud semi duplicate that is weaker in cheekbones than the original Shroud image.

Another problem is that in all the Middle Ages, traditional iconography has Jesus nailed through the hands.

The Shroud shows the damage was through the wrists, probably at an angle that would end in the hands, but the standard picture of straight through the palms, not angled, is not like this.

Now, medical experiments on cadaver hands with weights attached, showed that the human palm will not support the weight. The nailing HAD to engage bones in the wrists to make it work.

SO THE SHROUD SHOWS THE CORRECT PROCEDURE, LONG FORGOTTEN SINCE CONSTANTINE'S TIME WHEN CRUCIFIXION WAS MADE ILLEGAL, and no one thereafter remained after several generations who would have seen one done. Even so, the average spectator would probably not have been close enough to see the proceedure. And many were tied instead of nailed.

The Shroud shows a detail NO ONE KNEW TO INCLUDE in the time it was supposedly made by fraud.
 
Christine,

OK, let's play iconography with the Turin Shroud... Fashions in the artistic representation of Jesus changed with the centuries, and the Turin Shroud was dated by an expert in the history of art to within a century of the (subsequently determined) carbon date. (More on that medieval date in a moment.) That is also the era in which a Roman Catholic bishop said that the forger had confessed. The Turin Shroud image has hair and a beard, but Isaiah (50:6) stated that the facial hair of the suffering servant, whom we Christians understand to be Christ, was pulled off during the tortures of His Crucifixion day. What do you make of that, Christine?

The amount of carbon from smoke, in the samples of the shroud that were tested, is small compared to the amount from the cloth. Think about it. You would need a layer of soot nearly as thick as the cloth itself to change the result radically. As for one wrist being pierced... a good forger (rather than artist) would be aware of that; I believe it is not unknown for Muslims to crucify Christians in their warlike interactions, so the knowledge that palm-piercing did not work would not in fact be unknown. And 3D effects can be reproduced by draping cloth over a statue.

If you want to take this further, please state IN YOUR OWN WORDS EXACTLY what features of the Turin Shroud supposedly cannot be reproduced by medieval methods.

"have you watched the video second half where the image is analyzed to make a 3D picture of Jesus?"

I watched (as I said) all of the video on gloria.tv to which you gave the web address, and it did not mention the shroud at all; all 4 mins 29s of it were about Lanciano. Please explain.
 
JD, I have no option but to recognize that you´re naive at best, and blindedly sycophantic.

Rivera, and no he was not a fraud in his exposure of the Vatican, had a family who knew nothing about who he really was! You´d be amazed at the lengths those who sell their souls to Rome will go to, until in the case of a few exceptions including Rivera they repent.

I guess you´ve a lot to learn yet.
 
oops i could have sworn I posted that link about reconstruction of 3D from the Image, here it is, my apologies

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvAJRp4CXdU&list=FL857_vrTmxXnC2niPR9kDWw&index=9&feature=plpp_video
 
oops i could have sworn I posted that link about reconstruction of 3D from the Image, here it is, my apologies

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvAJRp4CXdU&list=FL857_vrTmxXnC2niPR9kDWw&index=9&feature=plpp_video
 
Sorry, I'm not going to spend 90 minutes watching a program on something that a medieval bishop said was forged, that the radiocarbon dating and the iconography both agree is medieval, and that is inconsistent with Isaiah and scarcely consistent with John's gospel. Yes I am interested in the 3D claims, but in view of that mountain of contrary evidence I believe it is a lot more likely that they've made a mistake.

Christine, Please do some work rather than just flagging websites; please summarize what they say about 3D that supposedly can't be replicated by draping over a 3D shape of a human body. And please comment on the clash with Isaiah.

Physicist
 
All you have to do is click on the moving line at the bottom of the video and drag it to fast forward to wherever.

HOW is this inconsistent with Isaiah
and HOW is this inconsistent with John?

Please give me the verses at issue because I have read The Bible and I do not recall anything (though I might misrecall) that is a problem vis a vis The Shroud of Turin.

If perchance there is some issue like wrists aren't hands, in fact the "hand" incl. the wrist which is the connection to the arm bone, not part of the arm itself, and the only nailing style that is capable of supporting the weight drives at an angle through wrist AND palm so the whole thing is compatible.

that antiquity recognized the wrist as part of the hand, is evident from heraldry the red hand of the O'Neils, based on a legend, and the hand clearly includes the wrist.
 
"HOW is this inconsistent with Isaiah?"

You could try reading my post of 4:38AM immediately above.
 
I read it, you do not mention Isaiah or John, and this is the first time I have EVER heard ANYONE claim there is any conflict between The Shroud and The Bible, in fact, one of the points in favor of The Shroud is that it reproduces the biblical account exactly with details that would not have been known to the typical medieval artist.

As for how the Shroud can't be reproduced by medieval means, the negative effect for one, the image itself is a photo negative type thing, and the exactitude is not duplicatable. Sure you can get AN image, but not the same KIND of image or quality.
 
Okay I see the bit about Isaiah, since when does ALL the facial hair have to be pulled off to fit a statement like this? The amount of hair on the sides of the chin is different, and something about the lower cheeks by the jaw, consistent with some hair being ripped out.

so what about John?
 
Wild goose chases are as useful as sexcapades in detracting all from serious talk about the growing control of us. Who cares about freedom anyway! Let the music play on! There are too few of us left to work for so many others.
 
Christine is a serial distractor. She's good at keeping people off of the real topics of focus by flooding this site with minutia to weary them. Collapsing comments reveals slim pickings for real information as so many good posters have left this site already. She does the devil a favor over here at this blog by that tactic and she comes off quite rude to boot. Too bad she seems to have no conviction over her actions.
 
Considering how some reacted to my raising Agenda 21 as an issue, a while back, I don't think you have any idea about how the growing control is going on.

The global warming thing is a major excuse, and theproposals to deal with it all serve the big banks and elites power grabbing, via the UN. According to christopher Monckton, a monkey wrench is now in the system.

Seems the EU was giving the UN especially Agenda 21 related stuff advice on how to slowly increase the control and move to global government, until they realized this would conflict with their own step by step game of doing the same in Europe, so are now backing off helping.

A good way to fight this, is to study the proofs against global warming, which incl. that it is currently stalled, and fight the policies that are supposedly to do with solving all this.

Meanwhile, looks like Obama really WAS born in Kenya after all!

Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Arizona's Maricopa County has been looking into this, and it looks bad.

That birth certificate presented to us IS PHONY after all. Seems that each key stroke being by hand on an old typewriter leaves a slightly different strength of imprint, while the typewritten stuff on that long form copy is even, so is a typewriter imitating font, nothing more.

Other things are surfacing. Alex Jones who can be found on youtube.com didn't used to be a birther and neither did I, but the evidence is surfacing.

There is also an interesting body count starting among people who were in a position to know he was bisexual in college. Starting with a guy who claimed to have done it with him.

And an okay to go to war with Iran is moving through Congress. Which makes the plan to impeach Obama if he takes any more military action without prior congressional approval a moot point on this one.

Meanwhile, I do not see that matters relevant to The Faith in Christ, qualify as distractions except maybe to atheists who are of course helping the antichrist agenda themselves whether they realize it or not. Ditto closet new agers. I recall one person here pretended I knew nothing about the new age, and failed to respond to TWO challenges to define the new age movement.

I noticed a similar hostility to another researcher a while back, I forget her name, who got driven off but the reaction was to her information relevant to occultism and so forth of elites.

Apparently this very IMPORTANT issue is considered of no importance or even distractive by someone or someones who post anonymously.

Since the new agers have heavily infiltrated the truth and anti nwo movement, because either it is a useful bandwagon to be on to push their "theological" and "consciousness" agenda, or because they personally don't like the interference in their lives that the NWO is bringing, I suspect some of this complaint of "distraction" is coming from someone who feels allergic to serious investigation of and opposition to the new age movement, which is only partly about european politics.

I was TOTALLY AMAZED that someone was surprised how much new age occultism is acceptable to the American public. That person either lives in a well where they imagine that their America is the only one there is, or has had other blinders on.

The new age type eastern mysticism and occultism has been pandemic in the USA for decades and infiltrating churches a LOT under redefinition of Christian terms to disguise it, also throwing a focus on selfishness by twisting the issue of God's mercy and care for the individual.
 
Christine,

I'm glad that you successfully located my comment on Isaiah. The relevant Hebrew speaks of making the cheeks smooth. If you genuinely consider your response to be consistent with what Isaiah said then I am arguing with someone who might equally well deny that 2+2=4. I'll leave it to Constance's readers to decide between us as it is principally to save them from your errors that I am writing nowadays.

"this is the first time I have EVER heard ANYONE claim there is any conflict between The Shroud and The Bible"

I'm not responsible for what you aren't aware of. Read John 19:40 and 20:6-7 and see whether you think that the Shroud of Turin is consistent with those descriptions of Jesus' wrappings.

And please summarize in a short paragraph what that program claims about 3D that supposedly can't be replicated by draping over a 3D shape of a human body. It would be good to see that you understand the material that you quote so freely.
 
Christina - Justina, even after looking at your profile it appears you are still an anonymous person. Putting a name on top of a comment doesn't make one less anonymous. Would it make me less anonymous if I called myself Wallace? The only thing that's known about you for sure is that you are well read.

There is little hope of making this blog productive again, so type away.
 
making cheeks smooth - most of the cheek above the jaw IS smooth, and the segment missing from the front of the jaw looks smooth.

Hebrew is flexible and context driven. If someone is going bald, to say his head is smooth might mean to one person all his head and the speaker only meant the top part.

The wrappings of the corpse were in two parts, and the part that went on the head folded in a separate place.

The video goes into details about this kind of thing, a cloth right over the face and a larger cloth from which part of the material was taken to be a tie winding to contain the whole.

In my own experience of how people talk, rather different phrasing is used to describe the same thing, some phrasing being interpretable different from what is described.

Now, draping a cloth over a death mask as I said does not give the same detail and doesn't give a photo negative effect.

Secondly, the information coded in the image when analyzed comes out differently than when you do this on a normally produced image.

coherent light would give one effect, normal scattered light another, but light applied like a
scanner on a copy machine alone is able to give the same effect.

Now stop being lazy and watch that because he can give technical details I can't describe easily.

In the time it takes to stew and write all these posts, you could have watched the relevant parts.

that the RCC had custody of The Shroud does not validate everything the RCC is into, if that is your problem.

It sounds like you only want to read the stuff that tries to refute it, not the stuff that supports it.

I have read both, and am satisfied with the answers to the attempted refutations.

The refuters have as much of an atheist agenda as anything else, I might add. This is motive to ignore or misstate. So stop lazing and study. Look at the original stuff yourself.

The statements in John are both vague enough and detailed enough to support The Shroud, and the Oviedo cloth would have been directly on the face, while the The Shroud looped over the top of the head coming up from the feet behind and down to the feet in front, then the whole tied up, meaning The Shroud image on the head was made THROUGH the Oviedo cloth and the blood seeped through the Oviedo cloth.

Again the image has a photo negative and DETAIL and lack of blurring from a cloth drape and more like it was produced using a scanning light.

Which didn't exist back then.

But if the Resurrection began with the brain coming to life first, which makes sense, then the energy associated with it would fit the scanning pattern style.

Just watch that last 1/2 or 1/4. Take the time to do this. I am sure you can skip the video past the boring stuff.
 
Too busy with the rest of my life, sorry. That the iconography was dated as medieval before the radiocarbon results; that a medieval bishop said the forger had confessed; that the radiocarbon dating on a representative part of the shroud found it medieval; that you have to torture the scriptures to make the Shroud compatible with them: all of these things tell me that it is a fake, and a medieval one. People have been making daft claims about 3D effects for 30 years, and within a year or so somebody comes along and shows either that the claim in question is inaccurate or that it can be done with a medieval technique that nobody today had yet tried. I have sufficient reason to suppose that the same will happen again, and I have better things to do - like physics - than knock over a series of hurdles that you put before me one by one because you are impervious to reasoning.

This has nothing to do with faith in Christ, of course, and almostookover little to do with the Roman Catholic church's reputation.

You are the final arbiter of your beliefs, Christine: but not of their consistency.
 
all your points were refuted long ago, that is NOT medieval iconography which was going through a transition from stiff to natural in the Renaissance, this is totally natural type look.

As for consistency, I fail to understand your point. What exactly do you find inconsistent and how?

I don't put hurdles before you one by one because I am impervious to reasoning.

They get put there as they become relevant.

As to "reasoning" human reason's value depends on the value of facts it is dealing with. Garbage in garbage out, like any computer.

Usually it is a mix.

And some things are beyond reason, others beyond reason until enough is known to figure it out. For instance, heavier than air flight.
Considered officially impossible until it was figured out and done.
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ls2j3aI_lRw&feature=related

Webster Tarpley, elite's plan for world depopulation. eugenics, extermination, the Bush family, the present crew with Obama and other stuff.

Holdrin, Obama's science advisor, is in this line of thought as per his own publications in the past.
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CdyezX3T08&feature=related

Interesting stuff on British royal history and connections to trouble from Civil War to WW I and Nazis.
 
http://herescope.blogspot.com/2010/10/uncertainty-principle.html

from herescope, one of Constance's recommended links on the side of this blog, is something, part of a larger series, that explains how quantum physics is misapplied.

Also, why it is attractive to the New Agers. It is viewed as presupposing chaos and potential annihilation underlying order.

Interesting is the fact, that Lorenz found an error was the basis of the so called butterfly effect.

Even so, since Paul says that Jesus as The Word of God maintains and supports all creation, it follows that indeed, if there is an inherent chaotic and unstable quality to things, which would make sense since they are not self existent, then that is corrected for by YHWH and is a proof of His reality since such a system, aside from how would it come into existence in the first place, could not last as long as it supposedly has, or even for as long as The Bible indicates it has, without His help.
 
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ahmadinejad-farrakhan-new-black-panthers-shocking-new-details-on-their-meeting-the-beast-alliance-that-was-forged/

Any truth in this `beast alliance`?
Some dots we never thought of connecting if it is true.
regards
melinda
 
well it sure sounds like some effort was being made to contact possible fifth column types here to support Iran in case of a war, and the feeling was mutual. How effective it might be is another matter.

a certain fraud is involved, so called Black Muslims aka Nation of Islam doesn't worship the same allah or have the same Koran as the real muslims, its another thing entirely some critter of the man in black type (google MIB and John Keel) met the founder in jail just appeared to him, and made some revelation and off we go to another potential race war.

I think most moslems of both categories are totally ignorant of this difference.

When Malcom X visited Arabia, he got wise, he also softened on the race thing (his hatred was partly due to the fact that his father was a white man who raped his mother, and her father went to prison or got lynched or whatever for shooting him, something a white could have got away with easy back then avenging his daughter, but whites were supposed to get away with rape of blacks so the black girl's father got legal problems).

Anyway, this all led to his assassination.

back to modern times, I don't see where "beast" comes into this, however there is a peculiarity about Ahmedinejad. Seems he belongs to an extremist marginal sect within Shia, and expects the 12th Imam mahdi to come up out of some well or something.

er, kinda reminds me of the beast that comes out of the earth, which is supported by a dragon that comes out of the sea and the beast out of the earth is the antichrist. Perhaps that is the connection being made by the post URL.
 
The link on Herescope about quantum physics and the New Age which Christine provided, should be taken with a pinch of salt.

http://herescope.blogspot.com/2010/10/uncertainty-principle.html

I gladly accept the author, Pastor Larry deBruyn as a brother in Christ, and as a professional physicist I agree that some people are misusing quantum theory to push a New Age agenda, but Pastor deBruyn does not have the scientific knowledge to deal with it. In just two paragraphs he confuses what physicists call 'exponentially sensitive dependence on initial conditions' found in some wholly deterministic equations that determine how a system will evolve with time (the 'butterfly effect'), and the uncertainties involved in certain quantum calculations. These latter are part of quantum mechanics and would require a deeper theory to dispel.

The reasons for failure to predict exactly in quantum theory and in deterministic differential equations with imperfectly known initial conditions are wholly different.
 
imperfectly known initial conditions, eh?

well, the exact reason in detail for the failure in these two systems might be different, but one thing you can count on,

if conditions, initial or otherwise, are imperfectly known,

you cannot guarantee a correct prediction. Whatever track that plays out on, the way it fails in quantum stuff or the way it fails in the other stuff, it doesn't matter.

imperfect knowledge of conditions, means failure to predict, except when by accident it doesn't.
 
Christine,

"that is NOT medieval iconography which was going through a transition from stiff to natural in the Renaissance, this is totally natural type look."

Take that up with the professional art historian WSA Dale, who before the radiocarbon dating results dated the Turin Shroud on the basis of its iconography to within a century of the subsequent radiocarbon date. Dale gave his reasons and he knows a lot more about art history than you or me.

"all your points were refuted long ago"

On the contrary, yours were. The samples from the Turin shroud that were radiocarbon dated were from the main weave and were from a part that had not been significantly blackened by fire damage. Most of the carbon in the sample was from the linen, not from pollutants. Carbon dating is highly accurate on the timescales involved of centuries. There was no obvious reason for medieval Bishop d'Arcis to lie when stating - to a man he regarded as Pope - that the forger had confessed. And matching the shroud to Isaiah and John's descriptions is highly problematic, a fact that you can blithely deny as much as you like but the verses are specified earlier in this thread for all to see.

Christine: Do you believe that the Turin Shroud is or is not the burial shroud of Jesus Christ? If Yes, what do you regard as the strongest item of evidence for it? Clear answers please.
 
yes it is. The first and most telling is the indications of nails more in the wrist than palm, which NO iconography was savvy to, and only in the last couple of centuries did anyone do any experiments on this.

Second, it fits biblical description. No I don't blithely deny it, this is another example of your dishonest way of dealing with anyone who presents something upsetting to your world view.

I SHOW the match. YES, there are places on the image face and front of chin that are missing hair, this has to be from being pulled out.

And the John Gospel supports it fine, especially the part about part of the grave clothes very carefully folded - like this was something important - while others were not.

it is how you please to interpret some of this that is the problem, and guess what, right now on an egroup some idiot is arguing that dawning to the first day must mean Saturday nightfall simply because day ends therefore begins at sundown, which is not the same issue as detail timing sun starting to barely show.

I do not just blithely deny it, I show that the apparent conflict is not a conflict.

Third, no my points weren't refuted and you or someone refuses even to look at the most startling evidence, indications the image was made by light applied in a scanning fashion.

Neither apparently do you care to deal with three or four scientific sources on which an article I linked to based the statement that the carbon dating was WRONG.

Fourth, you can't get the exact same kind and quality of picture by trying to reproduce this.

Fifth, Oviedo and Lanciano have the same blood type. That on The Shroud is the same, except some debate if it is really certain on type, but it is human in any case. More blood on the Oviedo cloth.

Too much of a coincidence.
 
Christine,

You win an argument by quality of reasoning, not quantity. Isaiah 50 says that the suffering servant whom we understand as Christ had his facial hair pulled out to the extent of revealing smooth skin - by obvious implication a significant area of it; which part of the Shroud of Turin face does that correspond to? John 19:40: The two of them wrapped Jesus' body, with the spices, in strips of linen. John 20:6: Peter saw the strips of linen lying there, as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus' head. The Turin Shroud is a whole, not strips. If there was a blanket as well as the strips, why did John not mention it?

The group of the blood on the Shroud cannot be identified according to the specialist ancient blood laboratory at State University of New York, so assertions that the group is AB are over-confident. Don't believe everything you read - especially about the carbon dating being wrong. The method is tried and tested, is good for the timescales involved, and the samples were from the main weave and uncharred so that most of the carbon was from the linen. These are facts you have not refuted.

"The first and most telling is the indications of nails more in the wrist than palm, which NO iconography was savvy to, and only in the last couple of centuries did anyone do any experiments on this."

Crucifixion is mentioned in the koran and is officially a penalty in some Muslim lands today, so knowledge of its details would have been preserved among the people that the Crusaders interacted with. And when you assert that no medieval images ever had the wrist nailed, can you back this up with a reference from a decent art historian?

Furthermore, medieval Bishop d'Arcis wrote to a man whom he believed was Pope that the forger had confessed. D'Arcis would not lie in such circumstances and had no obvious motivation to.

The 3-dimensional aspects of the image are often held to be impossible if the Shroud is not authentic. Time and again that has been shown to be false. Let us see how well the latest such claims survive.

If the Shroud were false, would it affect your faith?
 
"You win an argument by quality of reasoning, not quantity."

WRONG. the more evidence the better."

"Isaiah 50 says that the suffering servant whom we understand as Christ had his facial hair pulled out to the extent of revealing smooth skin - by obvious implication a significant area of it; which part of the Shroud of Turin face does that correspond to?"

I already told you, TWICE. Go look at a copy of the picture yourself.

HAIR IS MISSING ON THE FRONT RIGHT SIDE OF THE CHIN, the right hand of the viewer's side, and THERE IS MORE IRREGULARITY OF HAIR INDICATING IT IS MISSING on some of the cheek. That is substantial.
" John 19:40: The two of them wrapped Jesus' body, with the spices, in strips of linen. John 20:6: Peter saw the strips of linen lying there, as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus' head. The Turin Shroud is a whole, not strips. If there was a blanket as well as the strips, why did John not mention it?"

John 19:40 "bound it in strips of linen" do you suppose the Jews used nothing but rolls of strips like the Egyptians? NOTE John 20:5,6 only says cloths. Luke 23:53 "wrapped it in linen." MATTHEW 27:59 "WRAPPED IT IN A CLEAN LINEN CLOTH." notice A cloth. A major cloth, any strips not important enough to mention.

conflict between gospels? or just different details? the main wrapper, the shroud would be the linen cloth, and the strips went around to hold it and the body together like a body bag effect, remember Lazarus had to be untied when he hobbled out of the tomb.

There is an indication a strip was cut off then sewn back, makes no sense unless after the Resurrection it was restored to the main cloth.

"Crucifixion is mentioned in the koran ...details ...preserved among the people that the Crusaders interacted with.... you assert that no medieval images ever had the wrist nailed, can you back this up with a reference from a decent art historian?"
Many crucifixions were done by tying on not nailing, unless you were the one nailing or close when it was done, you wouldn't see the nail exit the hand through the back of the wrist into the wood. The hand would cover this.

decent art historian? Go crack a lot of books of church art and look for yourself, don't rely on what some "art historian" says, USE YOUR OWN EYES. Shroud books will give bibliographies, use them. Don't try to educate me until you learn how to use a library.

Alleged confession of forgery 1. the bishop's motive would be jealousy incl. financial if his location wasn't where The Shroud and its pilgrims (think tourist trade) were. Also, secret unbelief.
Also, could have been fooled by the man confessing, same motives for him.

IF YOU WOULD BOTHER TO EDUCATE YOURSELF A LITTLE, you would know that the Shroud IS A NEGATIVE, the image is dark for light and vice versa a photo negative, WHY would anyone do this before photography existed? Talk about lack of obvious motive.

And I have seen on TV a product of such an effort to duplicate the image, sure you get AN image but
its a POOR image. Not like The Shroud.

3D angle on image - do you refer to the depth perspective of the image, or to the result of computer analysis? You can get a little such, BUT NOT THE SAME. That is the issue.

My faith doesn't depend on The Shroud, but it is strengthened by it.
 
speaking of the problem of phony relics, yes I know about this. I read once that no less than three or four heads of John the Baptist were in Europe and some fool RC apologist said God miraculously multiplied them to help the faith of the people.

Probably none of them were his, given that his head was last heard of Iraq. I think it is still there. Bone fragments are another matter.

Then there are the alleged prepuces of Jesus, enough to fill a box. and multiple bodies of Mary Magdalene.
 
Christine,

You wrote: "Don't try to educate me until you learn how to use a library."

I spent half my life in university libraries but I gave up on trying to educate you some time ago (as I said at the time); I now write here to prevent Constance's readers from being misled by the rubbish you speak. You could not even find the reference to Isaiah when I told it to you on this page. When people lose arguments they often resort to insults, and I am sorry to see that you conform to that pattern.

Nobody would write as Isaiah did of a man who retained as much facial hair as the image on the Turin Shroud.

"Luke 23:53 "wrapped it in linen." MATTHEW 27:59 "WRAPPED IT IN A CLEAN LINEN CLOTH." notice A cloth. A major cloth, any strips not important enough to mention."

An accurate translation of the Greek would be just "wrapped it in clean cloth". Don't put much weight on the indefinite article when you are dealing with a Greek original. John simply gives more details - the cloth was in strips. And note that Matthew says they WRAPPED the body. You don't wrap a body in something shaped like the Turin Shroud - you drape it.

"decent art historian? Go crack a lot of books of church art and look for yourself, don't rely on what some "art historian" says, USE YOUR OWN EYES. Shroud books will give bibliographies, use them."

I ask you for a reputable reference and you explicitly say that you prefer references that are amateur or are not disinterested? QED...

Only a professional art historian would know whether there were NO medieval representations of the Crucifixion in which the wrist was nailed.

"the Shroud IS A NEGATIVE, the image is dark for light and vice versa a photo negative, WHY would anyone do this before photography existed?"

It is an artifact of the forger's technique. Plenty of people have got similar results using medieval techniques by draping cloth over a horizontal statue.
 
I found the Isaiah quote did I not? I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO EDUCATE YOU, it is you who speak rubbish half truths and often misquotes of me in the past.

Try ripping out some of your own hair, a handful, you will see that enough to leave a smooth spot will be a serious enough experience to be worth mentioning in a prophecy, and one or two smooth sections is enough to fulfill it.

Ever notice that Jesus took a very short time to die? He only was on the Cross long enough to accomplish what was necessary.

Just like you don't need to take all day or several days to die on a Cross you don't need to strip the entire face. Use your head.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1218457/Shroud-Turin-replica-proves-medieval-techniques-make-relic-say-scientists.html

you'd have to be half blind to not see that there is a serious difference between these two images.

Next question, WHY WOULD A MEDIEVAL FORGER TRY TO MAKE A NEGATIVE? such
a thing didn't exist as photography then using negatives, WHAT WOULD BE THE POINT?

Here is something I found googling in less time than it took you to write your ignorant rubbish.

"To his credit, Allen has actually achieved what he set out to accomplish. He has, without
question, used medieval raw materials to create a faint but good quality photographic
image on linen cloth. As I will show however, his own results provide the best evidence
against the validity of his theory."

This is against the photo forgery
theory, read it.

http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/orvieto.pdf

"Allen has not been able to provide even one example of this medieval proto-photography
process anywhere in art or photographic history,"
 
Christine,

Your rhetorical techniques are being laid bare here: accuse others of what you do, and insult when you run out of logic. I'm content to let Constance's readers decide for themselves between us.

"I found the Isaiah quote did I not?"

On your third attempt, after I had explicitly given it to you twice! (To verify this, read the thread above.)

Re Isaiah and hair ripped out - you are simply ducking my question. A much larger amount of hair/beard would have had to have been ripped out than the Shroud shows for Isaiah to have prophesied what he did. You are just repeating a failed argument in slightly different words each time.

I think you don't understand what "artifact" means in my preceding post. The negative qualities of the Shroud image were not deliberate, but a by-product of the forger's method. Just as the article in the Daily Mail which you linked to makes clear. Therein a very good replica image was created - not identical, but if the forger did it again then neither would his be.

Schwortz' essay to which you also linked knocks down Allen's very specific theory of how the Shroud was forged. It does not invalidate others.
 
Christine, when oh when will you shut up?!
 
Christine, you got more baloney than shop dog sam!

watch?v=vVOID53WCaU

You see, there ain´t no sign to them that go seeking yonder sign but that there sign of Jonah. Sure is gonna swallow yáll up girl!
 
There´s somethin of the New Age about Shop Dawg Sam, but then again so there is about foul mouthed Christine who believes that some aliens are not demons (YES THEY ARE) but are real aliens with flyin saucers and all after all. Now ain´t that right Christine. You sure is unusually quiet for once!
 
Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

" The latest nonsense about RC is that it is back of the islamic false religion and so forth. Totally insane, RC didn't even EXIST when Mohammed got going. "


Yes it did! Since Constantine in about 320 AD. Mohammed was 607 AD!
 
Oh please cease and desist on the phony shroud Christine! Writing about the beard and all that jazz has you really "splitting hairs" this time! Whew!
 
Christine, since you´ve posted you´ve come across as an intelligent though wacky, foul mouthed, stubborn and a real blogger-hogger. Occasionally kind, feigning sincerity, but often showing an erroneous, pompous and beligerent attitude even in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary of what you say.

Sorry Christine, but I trust Isaiah and John´s account rather than yours.

You really should get out more often.
 
Alex Jones Connection to Project Mockingbird through Pat Buchanan and Thomas Braden on youtube

/watch?v=DnkngpSTZ-0


WHY DOES CONSTANCE KEEP PROMOTING ALEX JONES NONSENSE?
 
The Pope Denounces True Christians

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfIPnw1KS0A
 
http://www.whateverycatholicshouldknow.com/wecsk.htm


"Today, many Roman Catholics do not know what official Roman Catholic teaching is or what it means to be called Catholic. In light of this, many are unaware that numerous contradictions exist between the Bible and the Catholic faith. This web site has been designed to help you understand both Official Catholic teaching and the truth found in the Holy Bible."


"We have integrated numerous video clips throughout this site to create a interactive learning experience for you. On the left of the screen, the pages have been organized topically so you may better navigate and investigate the various teachings of the Catholic Catechism and the contrast you will find with the Bible."

"For ease of communication the textual references for information have been limited to the Official 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Authorized version of the Holy Bible. These two sources are readily available online as well as in most bookstores. The reader is invited to look up each topic in the context of the Scriptures as well as in the Catechism. We encourage your personal study and the exercising of your religious liberty. These topics are of grave concern and should be studied with all diligence. These are matters in which you are required to rest your eternal soul."
 
The Biblical Uncovering of the Pope and the Papacy


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=al-Npc-wKBc


"None, but the Lord God, could have described beforehand, office of the Pope and Papacy.Man could never have anticipated the Papacy only God foretells it. That a power claiming to act for God, to be "as God," in the midst of the Christian Church, flouting His truth and mocking His own Holiness, defies imagination. Yes a fraudulent sacramental system and false pretenses have ruled the world for ages from the very same seven-hilled city where the pagan Roman Empire once ruled by military force. None the less we trust the Lord of Grace to save many precious Catholics from this system. All the powers of darkness and apostasy cannot shake the Lord God's power and promises, "For by grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast." We pray for and expect a display of His love power and grace as this DVD is viewed, to His glory and for the salvation of souls. If you personally are touched by it, please let us know."
 
Update on Emerging Church movement

The mushrooming of the Emerging Church movement in the USA, and across many nations, has made it necessary to write some new or revised articles. In the first article, "The Emerging Church and Catholic Mysticism," we deal with the formal alignment of Roman Catholicism with the "Emerging Church Movement" in the "The Emerging Church Conference," March 20-22, 2009. We also analyze Phyllis Tickle who, as she joins Brian McLaren, has surfaced as a formidable leader of this toxic movement. The fall from power of Tony Jones, a former leading light of this movement, is also dealt with.

The second article, "The Hazards unfolded by Emerging Church leaders," deals with new leaders; such as Leonard Sweet; the Catholic priest, Richard Rohr; Jason Clark; and a revised examination of Brian McLaren as the main director of this movement.

The third article, "The Catholic and Emergent Mysticism Infused into Society," investigates the pagan paraphernalia as they are now paraded as "Christian" in the Catholic Emergent Conference of March 09. It also deals with Erwin McManus, Mark Yaconelli, and with such as Rob Bell influencing Christian high schools and the Internet with his popular videos. Rick Warren, endorsing Catholic mystical prayer techniques, is also analyzed. Above all, we remember the Catholic mysticism, through the soul-destroying voices of the Emergent Church, is demolished by the direct work of the Holy Spirit through the Gospel. The Gospel alone remains the power of God unto salvation!

http://www.bereanbeacon.org/articles//Update_on_Emerging_Church_movement.pdf

http://www.bereanbeacon.org/
 
Gotta see this:

http://www.bereanbeacon.org/articles//The_DECEIVERS.pdf
 
The Emerging Church is such an amorphous movement that it cannot be taken as a whole. It has to be examined person by person, because some people prominent in it are entirely regular Christians and others are obvious heretics. I am all in favor of going deep to see what people in the same movement really have in common, but please beware of unwarranted generalization that inaccurately smears genuine brothers and sisters in Christ.
 
"Yes it did! Since Constantine in about 320 AD. " RC existence.

Constantine didn't do any of the things ascribed to him. I used to believe that stuff but I learned it was all lies when I looked at early church history and writings.

All Constantine did was:

legalize Christianity

free up the first half of Sunday from work for govt. employees and military so Christians among them could attend Holy Liturgy without time conflicts

demand the warring sections of Christianity get their act together and sort out their problem at Nicea. Have you ever actually read any of the Nicene Council documents?

They are online and at a good Calvinist institution's website too, http://www.ccel.org (I think its .org maybe .com).

NO city's bishop had headship over ALL the church none claimed this (except Rome started claiming this centuries later).

Ever hear of Constantinople and Byzantium, the eastern half of the Roman empire? Somehow I suspect you haven't, or perhaps only heard of it, little else.

NONE OF THE CORE SEVEN OR EIGHT DEPENDING ON HOW YOU VIEW THEM ECUMENICAL COUNCILS WERE HELD IN ROME.

One council even EXCOMMUNICATED A POPE.

RC as we know it was beginning to be recognizeable in the ADs 800 and the final split from the original church was AD 1074.

Some of the RC doctrines like the sacraments are rooted in Scripture. Holy Water has OT precedent, and miraculous relics, well, look at Elisha's bones bringing a dead man back to life. Blessed objects with effects? Look at the cloths sent by one of the Apostles who couldn't be everywhere at once in Acts.
 
"/watch?v=DnkngpSTZ-0
WHY DOES CONSTANCE KEEP PROMOTING ALEX JONES NONSENSE?"

considering Alex Jones fights against all the stuff that the conspiracists like CIA and others have been pushing, I fail to see how any connections could be chalked up to anything but, he had to learn over time and experience.

I used to ignore him, but in the past few years he has really gotten on the ball.

Another reason I ignored him, was that in general for decades people complaining about loss of liberty were just prideful irresponsible headstrong sorts, and the interference was minimal.

HOWEVER it has now gotten way out of control.

Jones mentioned the death count from car accidents now is around 36,000 a year, he said this probably to contrast how something else like death from terrorism is really small.

But I remember when it was 50,000 a year, and a friend of mine remembers 56,000 a year, and that was when the population - and population on the road - was smaller. So the "nanny state" did some real good.

Operation Mockingbird, an effort to influence media is precisely the kind of thing going on much worse now and that Jones attacks all the time. The whole alternative media scene, though often incl. wacky and new age stuff, exists because a lot of things are ignored by the news.

A retired professor friend of mine, has commented several times that the American media doesn't tell you anything, you have to get the foreign news to know what is really going on in the USA, and he used to travel world wide.
 
The Pope Denounces True Christians

Problem here is that the speakers apparently do not (despite the priestly background of one of them) understand what is being said. The issue is Church defined as body of believers with APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION and ability to perform sacraments.

No protestant group pretends to have this, Anglicans and some Swedish Lutherans excepted. (In Sweden some bishops converted to Lutheranism.) It is possible that an unknown to themselves apostolic succesion exists in Methodism because Wesley and his immediate subordinates got consecration from an Orthodox bishop on the run, but that is another matter.

The MOTHER CHURCH would be Jerusalem where it started. Peter was only briefly in Rome where he was crucified upside down, clearly he arrived to organize and bless Christians who were already there, since Paul says he wants to visit them and give them some spiritual gift that they be established.

As usual, the truth is neither with Rome or with the protestants.

THE POPE DID SAY THAT THESE GROUPS WHICH HAVE NO SACRAMENTAL CAPACITY, ergo are not churches like the Orthodox whose Apostolic Succession is recognized by Rome and whose sacraments are recognized by Rome, ARE PLACES IN WHICH YOU CAN FIND SALVATION, but the sacramental life of the Church, which is defined as the means to enjoy this, is absent.

Given the freedom of The Holy Spirit to do as He pleases, I am not sure about that total lack of sacramental reality. The Orthodox often say, "we cannot say where grace is not, only where grace IS" which is an issue of certainty.

However, the pope did say you can find salvation in these organizations that instead of being churches are more like sodalities.
 
Here goes a picture of the Obamas from a 1996 New Yorker magazine article..On the table next to him is a voodoo-santeria demon idol..Right above his head is a lithograph of the devil. to the left is some Indonesian false deitys...Above Michelle is some masonic symbolism...
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/01/19/090119fa_fact_cook
 
I think all three pix are balinese, and the idol is African. Santeria "gods" are done up to look like Catholic saints with some exceptions, its a syncretistic "religion."

however, people who collect such cultural artifacts are inviting trouble from spirits attached to them.

The Obamas could be a tad demonized, all things considered.

But hey, its a tossup between devil worshipping Democrats and devil worshipping Republicans. I kid you not. Ever hear of Skull and Bones and Bohemian Grove?

And both parties are controlled by the same individuals and companies.
Its a total sham.
 
Christine, I think you mean 1054 not 1074 for the split between Western and Eastern Christianity.

As to how old the Roman Catholic Church is... it's a matter of definition. You could argue for its beginning with Christ; or with Peter's ministry in Rome; or with Constantine's politicization of the church (a feature of the RCC ever since), which began in Rome; or with the final split of 1054 after which one had to refer to Roman Catholicism rather than just Catholicism. It depends on your viewpoint.

On a different subject, Alex Jones has his heart in the right place but is just too sloppy in his research to be trustworthy. He has made too many errors in the past. He is useful for bringing claims to public attention, but they should then be verified independently before being accepted as fact.
 
Christine, I think you mean 1054 not 1074
yes, sorry for the typo.

the state church alliance in earlier times was not like that of the Holy roman Empire and later and the claims of temporal authority. The Orthodoxy political theory so to speak, is one of symphony or cooperation between church and state.

Of course they mean by church specific organization, and faith, which is what our Constitution is referring to but a symphony of sorts was going on with us, until protestants upset by Catholics getting tax money for schools invoked church state separation in the late 1800s I think it was.

A kind of cooperation with neither under the other, and our very ideal of reliable Christians in office is a good example of this kind of thinking.
 
ALEX JONES IS A VATICAN AGENT! HIS COMPANY IS PART OF ABC!

CHRISTINE, YOU "FAIL TO SEE" BECAUSE YOU REFUSE TO OPEN YOUR EYES, YOU¨RE A MOLE OR JUST PLAIN STUPID.

CHRISTINE, YOUR HEAD IS SO FAR UP YOUR OWN ASS THAT YOU´VE TURNED INSIDE OUT JUST LIKE YOUR LOGIC! BREATHE!
 
Anon at 6:43 AM, to resort to the kind of base language ironically often used by Christine and others does not do any favors to your argument nor is it edifying.

I agree, Alex Jones is controlled opposition and his company Genesis Communications Network (the Alex Jones network) is an ABC affiliate!

"A nation...cannot survive treason from within...the traitor ...wears the face of his victims,...and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation—he works secretly...he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared......." Cicero, 42 B.C.E.

http://vaticproject.blogspot.com.es/2011/05/genesis-communications-network-alex.html

I do not necessarily agree with every jot and tittle about every subject at the Vatic Project blogspot but they´re spot on about Jones and Rense here.

Christine, the roots of paganism and its sacrements polluted the hijacked church at Rome & Contantin-ople (notice the name?) as soon as Constantine came to constitute it with such! Don´t deliberately pretend that the equally apostate ´Orthodox´ church(es) is/are separate from it (the RC Church) in its intense idolatories & basphemies, just because of the East–West Schism of 1054 primarily over the filioque, which:

"formally divided the State church of the ROMAN EMPIRE into Eastern (Greek) and Western (Latin) branches, which later became known as the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church, respectively"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East%E2%80%93West_Schism

Play with names and semantics if you will but the infiltrated and polluted church of the Roman Empire at both Rome and Constantinople (Now who is that city named after, eh?) was established by Constantine, just after his Edict of Milan in 313 A.D. whereby he found it politically useful to grant the freedom to worship by Christians before lulling many into his Roman Imperial ´church´ around 320 AD.

Sure the title ´Roman Catholic Church´ translated or not may have been different, but it and the so-called Orthodox branch are the same polluted beast of the Roman Empire set up by that pretender of old, Constantine! The Roman ´Catholic´ Mother of all harlots and her ´Orthodox´ daughter harlots are the same as that Mother of of all harlots Roman Imperial ´church´ set up by Constantine, yet are ever more polluted than even then at the time of Imperial Rome with its lies, blasphemies, idolatories and filth! Deal with it!

http://www.reformation.org/eusebius_and_constantine.html
 
How strange that Christine defends things connected clearly with New Age while speaking about New Age in a simplistic way.

Infowolf is the only contact in the profile given. I put infowolf into a search and came up with
http://www.atruechurch.info/wolf.html Justin (Justina). What a coincidence.

http://www.freag.net/en/t/1hvc5/my_proud_post_a Others have had questions also.

Now at the above link, the person sounding like Christina/Justina claims to be infowolf1 rather than infowolf. Put Infowolf1 into a search. Someone used to talking so much on this blog just didn't start doing that which makes the infowolf1 search interesting.

Someone comes to this blog which is supposed to be about New Age and won't define New Age except in cliche terms and only gives one contact in her profile, and that is infowolf.

And that whoever you are is how research on the New Age movement is done. It's not done by comments off the top of one's head, mixing in some information found on the internet.

Watch the rationalizations fly. Maybe Justina, infowolf1 is just here to amuse us. Watch Constance defend whoever it is.
 
Deleted once already.
How strange that Christine defends things connected clearly with New Age while speaking about New Age in a simplistic way.

Infowolf is the only contact in the profile given. I put infowolf into a search and came up with
http://www.atruechurch.info/wolf.html Justin (Justina). What a coincidence.

http://www.freag.net/en/t/1hvc5/my_proud_post_a Others have had questions also.

Now at the above link, the person sounding like Christina/Justina claims to be infowolf1 rather than infowolf. Put Infowolf1 into a search. Someone used to talking so much on this blog just didn't start doing that which makes the infowolf1 search interesting.

Someone comes to this blog which is supposed to be about New Age and won't define New Age except in cliche terms and only gives one contact in her profile, and that is infowolf.

And that whoever you are is how research on the New Age movement is done. It's not done by comments off the top of one's head, mixing in some information found on the internet.

Watch the rationalizations fly. Maybe Justina, infowolf1 is just here to amuse us. Watch Constance defend whoever it is.
 
My post regarding Christine/Justina has been deleted twice. How many times is it going to be deleted before it is allowed to stay up.
 
Third try:
How strange that Christine defends things connected clearly with New Age while speaking about New Age in a simplistic way.

Infowolf is the only contact in the profile given. I put infowolf into a search and came up with
http://www.atruechurch.info/wolf.html Justin (Justina). What a coincidence. (I couldn't resist the wolf in sheep's clothing connection.)

http://www.freag.net/en/t/1hvc5/my_proud_post_a Others have had questions also.

Now at the above link, the person sounding like Christina/Justina claims to be infowolf1 rather than infowolf. Put Infowolf1 into a search. Someone used to talking so much on this blog just didn't start doing that which makes the infowolf1 search interesting.

Someone comes to this blog which is supposed to be about New Age and won't define New Age except in cliche terms and only gives one contact in her profile, and that is infowolf.

And that whoever you are is how research on the New Age movement is done. It's not done by comments off the top of one's head, mixing in some information found on the internet.

Watch the rationalizations fly. Maybe Justina, infowolf1 is just here to amuse us. Watch Constance defend whoever it is.

Deleted once already.
How strange that Christine defends things connected clearly with New Age while speaking about New Age in a simplistic way.

Infowolf is the only contact in the profile given. I put infowolf into a search and came up with
http://www.atruechurch.info/wolf.html Justin (Justina). What a coincidence.

http://www.freag.net/en/t/1hvc5/my_proud_post_a Others have had questions also.

Now at the above link, the person sounding like Christina/Justina claims to be infowolf1 rather than infowolf. Put Infowolf1 into a search. Someone used to talking so much on this blog just didn't start doing that which makes the infowolf1 search interesting.

Someone comes to this blog which is supposed to be about New Age and won't define New Age except in cliche terms and only gives one contact in her profile, and that is infowolf.

And that whoever you are is how research on the New Age movement is done. It's not done by comments off the top of one's head, mixing in some information found on the internet.

Watch the rationalizations fly. Maybe Justina, infowolf1 is just here to amuse us. Watch Constance defend whoever it is.

12:12 PM Last time it was up.
 
Deleted a third time. I can't imagine why the spam detector would delete information about Christine/Justina/infowolf/infowolf1 so many times. Maybe something about that group can be associated with spam. I'll try deleting one of the links, leaving only one.
 
Folks, there's a limit to how much Constantine is to blame for politicizing the church. Remember that he came to Rome as a pagan who had simply had a Christian vision.

The then Bishop of Rome, Miltiades, scarcely interacted with Constantine as the latter did not stay there long and Miltiades then died. his replacement, Silvester, is the man to point the finger at. Silvester could have said to Constantine, "Great Emperor, we acknowledge your temporal power and we pray for your wellbeing, and we should be deeply honored to instruct you in the Christian faith; but you do not tell the church what to do, and we are willing to accept persecution from you as we did from your predecessors if necessary." Instead Silvester closed the deal with
Constantine and the church was showered with worldly wealth.

Temptation was always Satan's primary strategy...
 
I changed the post a bit for clarity.

How strange that Christine defends things connected clearly with New Age while speaking about New Age in a simplistic way.

One also has to look at where the name infowolf1 began.

http://www.freag.net/en/t/1hvc5/my_proud_post_a Others also have had questions.

Now at the above link, the person sounding like Christina/Justina claims to be infowolf1 rather than infowolf. Put Infowolf1 into a search. Someone used to talking so much on this blog just didn't start doing that which makes the infowolf1 search interesting.

Has anyone been following her Politically Unclassifiable blog?

Someone comes to this blog which is supposed to be about New Age and won't define New Age except in cliche terms

And that whoever you are is how research on the New Age movement is done. It's not done by comments off the top of one's head, mixing in some information found on the internet.

Watch the rationalizations fly. Maybe Justina, infowolf1 is just here to amuse us. Watch Constance defend whoever it is.

12:12 PM
Also deleted at 1:14 pm
 
Anonymous said...

I changed the post a bit for clarity.

How strange that Christine defends things connected clearly with New Age while speaking about New Age in a simplistic way.

One also has to look at where the name infowolf1 began.

http://www.freag.net/en/t/1hvc5/my_proud_post_a Others also have had questions.

Now at the above link, the person sounding like Christina/Justina claims to be infowolf1 rather than infowolf. Put Infowolf1 into a search. Someone used to talking so much on this blog just didn't start doing that which makes the infowolf1 search interesting.

Has anyone been following her Politically Unclassifiable blog?

Someone comes to this blog which is supposed to be about New Age and won't define New Age except in cliche terms

And that whoever you are is how research on the New Age movement is done. It's not done by comments off the top of one's head, mixing in some information found on the internet.

Watch the rationalizations fly. Maybe Justina, infowolf1 is just here to amuse us. Watch Constance defend whoever it is.

12:12 PM
Also deleted at 1:14 pm

Also deleted at 1:53 PM
 
Deleted again.

12:12 PM
Also deleted at 1:14 pm

Edited version
Also deleted at 1:53 PM

Also deleted 1:55 PM
 
Anyone following C/J/infowolf1's other blogspot?
 
"Christine, the roots of paganism and its sacrements polluted the hijacked church at Rome & Contantin-ople (notice the name?) as soon as Constantine came to constitute it with such! Don´t deliberately pretend that the equally apostate ´Orthodox´ church(es) is/are separate from it (the RC Church) in its intense idolatories & basphemies, just because of the East–West Schism of 1054 primarily over the filioque, which: "

First off, I repeat, go to ccel.org and read the early church writings from BEFORE CONSTANTINE. In Justin Martyr you will see reference to the Eucharist as not normal bread and wine but the true Body and Blood of Christ.

The fact that Christians were occasionally accused of cannibalism in secret rituals during the persecutions, proves that this doctrine existed (but was misunderstood by pagans who heard of it and thought murders and baby eating was going on) long before Constantine.

Remember that Paul says that it is the body and blood of Christ and those who eat and drink it without perceiving the Body eat and drink judgement to themselves.

That's the Bible.

Instense idolatry - yep, some people do that, even now, but the official idea is that - like Paul warns regarding giving honor to pagan deity images, which are nothing, but something hides behind them - the honor given to the symbol or image goes to the original of it.

A clear distinction is made in theory between veneration and worship, what some people do as individuals is another matter.

you keep photos of your loved ones in your wallet or on a desk, and sometimes kiss the photos, don't you? Same thing.

The Iconoclasm movement was an overreaction to such abuses. Orthodox iconostasis and placing of icons on walls and only one or two on days relevant out for quick veneration was to prevent such excesses as did occur, and were rebuked by a priest or bishop when a wealthy and powerful woman did this, and she reacted by getting him trouble.

The term priest is derived from presbyter or elder, the Greek term for priest from pagan times was hieros or something like that.

The focus on Mary originally developed as a reaction against denials of Christ's full humanity and physical reality, since the Incarnation and baby in manger and so forth highlight this.

Eastern Iconography shows Mary pointing to Jesus and Jesus as an adult featured midget, implying He is much older than He appeared as a baby, being from before the beginning and only lately incarnated, and older than His mother (His Person is older not His flesh).

Every heresy you have been taught to reject that the various cults teach, was first fought and rejected by the undivided church, in councils beginning with Constantine's call to sort things out, though the fight on a local and publishing level began before Constantine.

I repeat, go to that CALVINIST site and read the writings of the ancient church, or get started by buying a copy of THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS (ante means pre not anti against).

I used to think like you do, but I was wrong. THERE ARE PROBLEMS with RC, beyond the filioque, which has the potential left to itself without limiting provisos to restore every heresy that ever happened and even produce generations of gods and semi gods and restore polytheistic paganism, see St. Photios the Great's analysis to which I think I added a point he may have missed in an online post somewhere.

Yet when you recite The Creed you keep the filioque, do you not? Do you not say The Holy Spirit proceeds from The Father AND THE SON (filioque in Latin)?

The list of problems the RC must abandon in order to become Orthodox, is long. it incl. PAPAL SUPREMACY, a mechanistic notion of STORED UP AND ACCESSIBLE MERITS OF SAINTS, and nit picking mechanistic rationalistic views of how and when the transformation they call transubstantiation occurs, and many other things, incl. the Immaculate Conception of Mary, something NEVER taught by EO but played with by some.
 
For the record, I don't agree with all the Constantine bashers. Anybody the New Age Movement hates that badly couldn't have been all bad. Anyway up until the time of Constantine, it was perfectly legal to torture Christians, throw them to wild beasts in the stadiums, and even crucify them. Constantine changed all of that, earning the everlasting wrath of the pagan community as a result.

Constance
 
Since physical flesh and blood are not experienced by communicants, this would be the opposite of every other miracle – events in which your senses inform you that God has done something extraordinary. The church calls the supposed change ‘transubstantiation,’ meaning that the ‘substance’ of the bread and the wine has changed although the ‘accidents’ of its appearance (physical and chemical) have not. The notion of ‘substance’ derives from 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. But this raises the question of the meaning of words, which is operational: What is the definition of blood? The scriptural worldview holds that the world we see was created, and is therefore real - and that we see the world in basically the same way as its Creator because we are in his image. When Jesus turned water into wine (John 2), the result tasted like wine. So I do not believe in transubstantiation, either in Eucharists held today or at the Last Supper. Real blood is forbidden to humans (Genesis 9:4) – a command reiterated to Jews (Leviticus 3:17) and Christians (Acts 15:29). If you want to see the body of Christ on earth today, it is the church (Colossians 1:24, 1 Corinthians 12, Ephesians 4:11-12). In context, that is the meaning of 1 Cor 11:29 about rightly ‘discerning the body.’ (Notice that there is no corresponding statement about ‘recognising the blood.’)

I am not demeaning the sacramental power of the rite, for St Paul warned Corinthian believers getting drunk at the Communion feast (1 Cor 11) that irreverence may have fatal consequences. The issue is whether the supernatural aspects of Communion reside in the elements. If Jesus had been pricked by a thorn and bled, would this blood have looked, smelt and tasted like Communion wine after it had been consecrated by a Catholic priest? John 19:34 speaks of a rush of water and blood when his dead body was pierced by a soldier’s spear; had it looked and smelt like wine then John would obviously have recorded the miracle.

In 2 Samuel 23:17 King David refers to water that his soldiers got him, at risk to their lives, as the blood of those soldiers. How do you interpret this saying, and why? And if Jesus can be both God and man, might it be possible to view the elements as both bread-and-wine and His body-and-blood?”

The mediaeval 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, but some churches still hold to transubstantiation...
 
Regarding Alex Jones:

Here's a very interesting article by someone who appears to have really done his homework (Cliff Kincaid):

http://www.scribd.com/doc/30102333/Alex-Jones-and-other-clowns-Agents-Provocateurs-and-the-Tea-Party-Movement

Basically, the idea is this:

There has always been an anti-Communist, pro-freedom movement in this country, mostly grass roots, but also in higher places of influence, without which we would be in far worse shape than we are now. Those who understand war strategy, would likely agree that the enemy, whoever you define that to be (for me, the most immediate threat is from primarily Iran/Russia/China/N.Korea), would have active measures in place to sow discord and confusion into that movement, making it less effective or even ineffective if possible. Toward what end? To defeat us. So, wittingly or not, good intentions or not, people like Alex Jones are doing the bidding of the enemy.
 
Here's a little interview that will make you feel all warm and cozy (sarcasm) this weekend:

http://jrnyquist.com/index.html

Find the Dr. Peter Vincent Fry interview (the one at the top at the time of this posting).

I am leaning more and more toward believing that the next "Big Event" for the US will be an EMP missile launched from somewhere off one or both of our coasts.
 
Marko: Much more likely that Islamists will get a small nuke or biochemical warfare material into US cities. to launch an EMP weapon from a submarine is so hi-tech that only Russia, of US enemies, could manage it, so it would be obvious who to hit in reprisal. Not so with the scenario I suggest.
 
Anon. 6:03.... Question:

Even if a sub-launched missile caused an EMP over the continental US, and it appeared obvious it was China or Russia, do you think we would actually strike back? We seem to have no problem going after small countries and other "obvious" enemies like Islamic terrorists, but what of striking major countries who are supposedly our friends in the "war on terror"?

Suitcase nukes aren't all that easy to use - it takes a high level of skill to move something like that into place and maintain it for use later. Skill that Russian Spetsnaz has, and if ME terrorists have that skill, you can bet it was Spetsnaz / KGB who taught them. They've been passing info like that to ME terrorists since at least the 70s, probably before.

But yeah, the scenario you describe is just about as likely. There are reasons that I have placed the EMP attack higher up on my list. Mostly from intel that people like Jeff Nyquist have gotten....
 
eucharistic arguments - first off, the scholastic rationalism of Thomas Aquinas etc. is part of the mechanistic mindset that is contrary to EO. Secondly, atomism has no relevance NOTHING has any relevance to the reality or lack thereof of anything.

David's ref. of course was metaphorical. No reason Jesus' blood drip would have resembled wine, it is not really wine but the consecrated wine is really His Blood, so you got it backward there.

Atoms, meanwhile, disappear in a fog of particles and forces the particles themselves being fogs of whatnot, so atomism in the hard ball form concept may be off after all in an absolute sense.

But it doesn't matter. Positing God did something has no bearing on material natural laws limitations.

Question to you: Do you admit God can do anything? IF so, then you admit that theoretically the transformation is possible.

The main opposition to sacramentalism comes from gnostic tendencies to disparage matter as something unworthy of God getting involved in, ergo at some point a denial, or a limiting, consciously or otherwise, of the Incarnation may come into play, unless a deliberate exception is made to this.

the warning against getting drunk and so forth was stated in context of, some have too much and some have none. This was obviously then the common shared agape charitable love feast, such as our modern after services coffee and snack time many churches have.

The warning Paul gave about perceiving the Body, was given about how you VIEW it in your mind, and had no bearing on whether you had any, a lot, or none, the issue was, you had some, ergo did you partake perceiving it AS The Body of Christ (which incl. Blood of course) or did you receive it as ordinary food?

Those who were uncaring about sharing were materialistic enough they probably also were not viewing the Eucharist as anything but bread and wine, some symbol of fellowship with Christ perhaps, if that, but not as SPECIAL and including His Real Presence.

The words of preface and warning clearly relate to the sacramental not to the common but shared meal.

There would be no point in saying such things if it were about the shared meal.

Justin Martyr in the second century AD said "we do not receive this as ordinary bread and wine, but as the very Body and Blood of Christ" (quote from memory but that is what he said, it IS the Body and Blood of Christ.

That some pagans might have ideas about eating a false god has no relevance to whether we should be eating the True God or not.

On that basis, since pagans worshipped false gods and pray to them, you could argue that we shouldn't be worshipping the True God or praying to Him!
 
How strange that Christine defends things connected clearly with New Age while speaking about New Age in a simplistic way.

One also has to look at where the name infowolf1 began.

http://www.freag.net/en/t/1hvc5/my_proud_post_a Others also have had questions.

Now at the above link, the person sounding like Christina/Justina claims to be infowolf1 rather than infowolf. Put Infowolf1 into a search. Someone used to talking so much on this blog just didn't start doing that which makes the infowolf1 search interesting.

Has anyone been following her Politically Unclassifiable blog?

Someone comes to this blog which is supposed to be about New Age and won't define New Age except in cliche terms

And that whoever you are is how research on the New Age movement is done. It's not done by comments off the top of one's head, mixing in some information found on the internet.

Watch the rationalizations fly. Maybe Justina, infowolf1 is just here to amuse us. Watch Constance defend whoever it is.

Already deleted four times.
 
wow amazing failure of research.
Infowolf and Infowolf1 are the same.
I am NOT Olympiada Kane's daughter who is probably in her teens by now. I am 60 years old. And Olympiada's a bit nuttier than I am.

That post of Oly's is from 2009. My use of Infowolf and Infowolf1 (because of the aol.com account) online goes back to the mid 1990s, on some forums, though I didn't use that name on Usenet. I was using public access terminals and webposting services without need of email. Before that I was Knowledge Wolf, but that meant my handle on a forum I frequented was KW which was the same as someone much more established in the UFO research than I was, so I changed my handle to Infowolf.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Orthodox-Lutheran_Dialogue/message/11540

for instance was a post made in 2005, 4 years before the supposed start in 2009.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.archaeology/msg/80df413147a8918a

is a post from 2000 AD. That was about the time I got my Aol.com account, but I was using Infowolf
on forums that are probably extinct. Infowolf became Infowolf1 with aol, and both have been used to sign email posts.

Justina is the name I took when I joined the EO one has to have the name of a saint. Justina was a gal who defeated demons sent against her to seduce her for a young man who hired a sorcerer, but it didn't work. The sorcerer, on finding the devil couldn't do anything against her because protected by something stronger than himself, got curious and became a Christian. Both Justina and Cyprian the ex sorcerer (not Cyprian of Carthage) died as martyrs.

My birth name is Mary Christine Erikson.

Now that you have made a fool of yourself with your superficial research, perhaps you would tell me exactly how YOU define New Age and what YOU consider to be not superficial?

Frankly I have always thought the NWO and Solana is superficial and a waste of time, especially Solana.

The NWO is another satanic plot that will fail. It is worth keeping an eye on.

But you need to keep an eye on the occultism and occultist compatible false eschatology getting into the emerging church and regular parts of it.

Are you the same one who chickened out before on defining New Age?

I repeat DEFINE NEW AGE AND WHAT IS NOT A SUPERFICIAL TREATMENT OF IT.

WHERE DO YOU THINK IT STARTED OR RESTARTED RECENTLY AND ARE YOU ACQUAINTED WITH RANDALL BAER AND CAROL MATRISCIANA AND JOHANNA MICHAELSON AND DAVE HUNT'S WRITINGS?

EXACTLY WHAT DO YOU CONSIDER SUPERFICIAL ABOUT MY STATEMENTS?
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Age
in depth article on it, almost entirely eschewing any reference to politics. BTW Reagan was heavy into astrology.

http://wayoflife.org/files/cd1d14943cf26c113b598d4d73c10eb3-94.html

here is something that gets a bit into politics.


http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NewAge/New_World_Order.htm

and this a bit more so.

http://kimolsen.wordpress.com/2008/08/25/discovering-the-new-age-movement-new-world-order-part-two/

this begins to make the connection to the UN.

http://www.jeremiahproject.com/newworldorder/nworder04.html

even more. This starts on bilderberg and look at the kosovo planned war link, to see their desire to start a regional conflict that thank God didn't quite materialize. yet.

http://www.greatdreams.com/new_world_order_database.htm

this has a lot of stuff.

now please, tell me which of these links is most important and which is most superficial and worthless and why.

The fact is, that the NAM is highly complex.
 
http://web.archive.org/web/20080312004625/http://www.timesofnoah.com/EU.html the time of Noah link on this blog is defunct, but to find most old pages, go to http://www.archive.org, and put in the URL you want, archive supplies the http part so if you cut past the whole URL erase the http at archive first.

I see the case made about Solana, but a possibility is, is that he just a secret devil worshipper and antichrist wannabe.

An elected official named Mike Nevin, a San Mateo County Supervisor in CA, is a good example, though no info on his secret life is public. Informants told me that he hopes to be the antichrist, because San Francisco is one of the many cities that sits on seven hills.

There do exist families that descend from patrician families of old Rome, and it is possible that IF this prophecy is being interpreted to refer to the antichrist, then he might come from one of these "black nobility" families. I don't recall the names of any.
 
"The fact is, that the NAM is highly complex."

Oh thank you for letting us know that. We were all getting so mixed up. (not)

Let's just say I'm part of a little circle of people who have been researching the New Age movement in depth for many years. Most have stopped posting here.

Going to Wikipedida for a definition of New Age is so cute. You are definitely here to amuse us. Thank you for the effort.
 
regarding solana, "He will put a stop to sacrifices made in Israel’s temple in the middle of the seven years (Daniel 9:27). A centerpiece of the Jewish temple services pertains to animal sacrifices. Part of the EU’s seven-year budget for external actions will be directed at what is called “thematic strategies.” Among these strategies will include an action plan geared at bringing the participating nations in line with EU standards on animal welfare. 13 The date that these new standards are to be established is 2010. That date happens to coincide with the middle of the seven year period of the European Neighborhood Policy. Animal welfare standards may be the tool used to compel Israel to stop making sacrifices in their temple in the middle of the seven years."

apparently the writer is either ignorant of the fact that NO animal sacrifices are made by Jews any more, or the failure of the Temple to be rebuilt so far prompted him to abandon his website which is now a mere place holder search engine.
 
How nice of you to lead us to the list at GreatDreams.com. It leads off with Imagine by Lennon. After looking at that website, I am even surer that you are here to amuse us. I always wondered what the basic Illuminati structure was, and there it was.

Yes, I know you don't agree with everything blah blah blah.
 
"How nice of you to lead us to the list at GreatDreams.com. It leads off with Imagine by Lennon." I don't see it in the list, probably in the article which if you had any sense or honesty you wouldn't have bothered with given the lead title.

there is a lot of anti NWO articles and descriptions to judge by the other, regardless of what the database compiler thinks of anything.

Take it up with Cumbey whose research primarily depends on New Age sources to see what they are up to.

I repeat, I notice that the people who put attention back on issues of common occultism, infiltration in the churches, or even just Christian proofs and so forth, go under immediate attack.

Political updates about tyranny, that New Agers who don't like any controls being of the anarchistic type of New Age thinking hate also, and there is a LOT of New Ager stuff against the New World Order, are fine.

But solid research like Cumbey used to focus on more gets a bad reaction, whether from me or others.

Perhaps there is an agenda here, some people want the focus on political issues and fears of slaughter, that many New Agers (incl. those who don't realize they are being misled by Christian teachers who are into a variant of that line of thought) would dislike also.

But those issues have their origin among entities outside the human race, and if aliens are physical outside them also, who want to use spiritual links to either cripple resistant persons who won't go beyond a certain point, or to lead them into a luciferian initiation.
 
I always go to the main web page to see what else is being pushed. You know the old saying, "The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend."
You'll find the things I mentioned at GreatDreams.com .

You wanted an evaluation of the other links. My opinion - they are a hodgepodge of names. I'd say that most people reading those links would say "The world is full of strange people. None of this is affecting me. Why should I worry about the New Age movement! Isn't it really about crystals and astrology anyway."
 
Then you are an idiot. The first in a list labelled "database" is not necessarily the most relevant.

you still haven't told me what you think the New Age Movement is. I forgot to mention Herescope's evaluation of dominionists like Pat Robertson and others, and the Emergent Church. The contemplative prayer thing is especially dubious.
 
BTW i did not want an evaluation. I said I wanted to know what YOU define the NAM as and I posted those to show you just what it IS considered to be by experts pro and con. The NWO political thing is part of it, but not the only part by any means. crystals and astrology aren't the only part either, and its mental stuff has been infiltrating business as stuff the staff and management are expected some places to try out to improve production.
 
Oh I wouldn't want to tell you how I view the New Age movement. It would confuse you and that would be mean. If you really wanted to know, you would review the main posts in the history of this blog. It is very long and well researched.
 
i DON'T need information from you in order to learn. I want to know your definition, since you are so sure that I know nothing about the NAM.

explain your statement. I know I know a lot about it. I want to know what justification you can give, for claiming that material that everyone, pro new age and anti new age would recognize as describing the new age, YOU claim is superficial and ignorant and doesn't describe it at all.

So explain yourself.

I suspect you just don't want certain things discussed. You have now ducked the challenge THREE times.

I repeat. Anyone new ager or Christian can oppose the more obviously tyrannical and bloodthirsty and economically inconvenient - or rival power bloc that you might find in conflict with your interests - forms of the NWO.

But while we focus on the EU, we are also NOT paying attention to a bigger picture involving the UN, Agenda 21, and growing totalitarianism and possible roundup and concentration camp arrangements in future in the USA and some other places.

There is no reason to not pay attention to ALL of it. Instead of complaining of what I post, post what you want to see. Nothing I do prevents anyone posting.

What evidence do you or whoever said I drive away good posters have, that these people have left and if so that they have left because of me? Anyone of them tell you they are dumping this blog semi forum as distinct from just not posting for a while, and further because of me? or the other gal your ilk ran off last year or earlier?
 
"eucharistic arguments - first off, the scholastic rationalism of Thomas Aquinas etc. is part of the mechanistic mindset that is contrary to EO. Secondly, atomism has no relevance NOTHING has any relevance to the reality or lack thereof of anything."

So, Christine, you have read Aquinas and you can explain in detail why his arguments about the incompatibility of transubstantiation and atomism are wrong? Please do. Otherwise folks here will think you are hiding your lack of knowledge of this matter under a generalization about Aquinas, based on work by genuine scholars who have read him in detail and then adapted by his theological opponents.

"Atoms, meanwhile, disappear in a fog of particles and forces the particles themselves being fogs of whatnot, so atomism in the hard ball form concept may be off after all in an absolute sense."

Aquinas' argument could perfectly well be rephrased with 'atoms' replaced by 'sub-atomic particles'. If he's wrong, it is for deeper reasons than that.

"Question to you: Do you admit God can do anything? IF so, then you admit that theoretically the transformation is possible."

Don't put your words in my mouth. The answer to your question is No. God cannot lie. God cannot hate a committed Christian. In short, God cannot act against His nature, and that means there are plenty of things He cannot do.

But this is really about the definition of words rather than the omnipotence of God. If I went to a Roman Catholic church and, after the consecration, smelt flesh and blood in the altar as in a butcher's shop, then I'd believe God HAD done a miracle. But if it looks like bread and wine, it smells like bread and wine, and it tests chemically like bread and wine then I say it IS bread and wine. Though I am capable of being fooled, I perceive the world in basically the same way as God, because He made the world and made me in his image.

Questions for you: What is the meaning of the word 'bread'? What is the meaning of the word 'wine'?
 
Christine,

you´re taking an unusually long time to reply, are you frantically researching and searching for some info you can plagarize, misunderstand, patchwork it into your very own brand of gobbledegook and vomit it all over Constance´s blogspot?

YOU STILL HAVE NOT YET ANSWERED WHETHER TRANSUBSTANTIATION TOOK PLACE AT THE LAST SUPPER OR NOT!

To suggest that God would institute something that amounts to cannibalism is a disgrace! Answer the above about the Last Supper, as well as Anon´s points to you at 2:58 AM.

Don´t fudge and dodge the issue, deal with it!
 
Christine, do you ever get called Tokyo Rose? The amount of propaganda that you puke over the air, and the sheer demoralization of once-regulars at this blog that have left due to your blogger-hogging is incalculable.

Are you sure you don´t work for the Russians?
 
To: Anon@7.32 AM

This is the (distinct!) Anon who asked Christine whether she believed that transubstantiation took place at the Last Supper. She did give a clear answer, at 9:22 PM one day, way back up this thread: She said Yes.
 
Anon at 7:59 AM,

you wrote:

"This is the (distinct!) Anon who asked Christine whether she believed that transubstantiation took place at the Last Supper. She did give a clear answer, at 9:22 PM one day, way back up this thread: She said Yes."

I can´t find that but I´ll take your word for it. Thank you. Still, what was her premise for answering in the affirmative here? Jesus Himself was at the Last Supper was He not? Is she claiming the unspeakable?

IN FACT CHRISTINE, YOU ANSWER AND EXPLAIN IT, AND IF YOU CAN´T, THEN CEASE AND DESIST AT ONCE IN YOUR ROMAN PAGAN IDOLATORIES AND BLASPHEMIES!
 
Marko:

You asked me: "Even if a sub-launched missile caused an EMP over the continental US, and it appeared obvious it was China or Russia, do you think we would actually strike back?"

I don't know. But the question that matters is whether Russia or China is willing to gamble on it.

"Suitcase nukes aren't all that easy to use - it takes a high level of skill to move something like that into place and maintain it for use later."

Agreed - but a lot easier than launching an EMP-enhanced nuke from an underwater submarine!

"if ME terrorists have that skill, you can bet it was Spetsnaz / KGB who taught them"

Couldn't agree more, but you really can't go nuking Russia back for that. Only the direct chain of command has the moral responsibility for using a weapon. After all, the Soviets first learned nuclear bomb technology from their spies at Los Alamos...
 
to: Anon@7.32am

Search this page for the words "transubstantiation at the Last Supper - yes" and you'll find them in one of Christine's contributions. Of course I disagree with her answer and her reasoning (such as it is), but she did give a clear answer. Also she is explicitly not "Roman" - she is at pains to point out that she is Eastern Orthodox rather than Roman Catholic.
 
Christine,

You wrote above: "BTW Reagan was heavy into astrology".

That would be Nancy Reagan, who was not president of the USA. Have you any evidence that any decision made by Ronald Reagan as president was influenced by astrology?
 
"What Are Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation?"

By Wayne Jackson

"“What is the difference between ‘transubstantiation’ and ‘consubstantiation’?”"

"The word “transubstantiation” derives from Latin — trans (across), and substantia (substance). The term is employed in Roman Catholic theology to denote the idea that during the ceremony of the “Mass,” the “bread and wine” are changed, in substance, into the flesh and blood of Christ, even though the elements appear to remain the same. This doctrine, has no basis in Scripture. There are traces of the dogma in some of the post-apostolic writings and the concept was vigorously defended in the early 9th century A.D. It was adopted by the 4th Lateran Council (A.D. 1215), formalized at the Council of Trent (A.D. 1545-63), and was reaffirmed at the Second Vatican Council (1962-65)."

"“Consubstantiation” is a term commonly applied to the Lutheran concept of the communion supper, though some modern Lutheran theologians reject the use of this term because of its ambiguity. The expression, however, is generally associated with Luther. The idea is that in the communion, the body and blood of Christ, and the bread and wine, coexist in union with each other. “Luther illustrated it by the analogy of the iron put into the fire whereby both fire and iron are united in the red-hot iron and yet each continues unchanged” (The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, F.L. Cross, Ed., London: Oxford, 1958, p. 337)."

"Any dogma that attempts to place the “real presence” of the flesh and blood of Christ into the communion components, in a literal sense, is the result of a misunderstanding of the language employed in the Scriptures."

"One of the most important skills necessary for the correct interpretation of the Bible is the ability to distinguish between language that is used in a figurative sense versus that which is employed in a literal sense. Human communication abounds with figurative expressions, and a common-sense approach must be taken in the consideration of speech."

"One of the fundamental canons in identifying figurative language is this. Normally, a word should be viewed as literal, unless other considerations make it impossible to interpret the term in that light. Determinative factors that are essential to making the proper judgments are these: context, both immediate and remote (i.e., discussion of the same subject in other biblical references), grammar, consistency (the Scriptures do not contradict themselves), common sense (i.e., does a literal interpretation imply an absurdity?)."

"An appropriate application of these hermeneutic principles will force the serious Bible student to the conclusion that the biblical references to the Lord’s supper as the “body” and “blood” of Christ must be interpreted figuratively, not literally. Consider the following points." ...

http://tinyurl.com/y86ge2u
 
... "What Are Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation?"


"1.When Jesus took bread and fruit of the vine, gave these objects to the disciples, and said, “this is my body . . .this is my blood” (Mt. 26:26-28), he quite obviously was not speaking literally, for he still possessed his literal body and blood! Moreover, at the same time, Christ specifically identified the drink as “this fruit of the vine” (v. 29). The nature of the substance had not changed.
2.There is a common figure of speech that is known as metaphor. The metaphor is a dramatic image by which one thing is compared to another, but being represented figuratively as that very thing."

"Of the tribal descendants of Judah, Jacob said: “Judah is a lion’s whelp” (Gen 49:9) — certainly not literally, but having certain lion-like traits. When Jesus referred to Herod as a “fox” (Lk. 13:31-32), no one understood him to imply that the ruler was a four-legged animal with a bushy tail! Christ once said: “I am the vine, you are the branches” (Jn. 15:5)."

"Every careful student knows that the Savior employed symbolism by this language. An analogy was being drawn; the language was not to be pressed literally.
3.The fact that Jesus instructed the disciples to subsequently partake of the Lord’s supper “in remembrance” of him (Lk. 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24) contains the implication that he would not be present physically in the communion celebration."

"A favorite “proof-text” that is used frequently in an attempt to establish the “real presence” of Christ in the communion is John 6:53-54. Here Jesus declared:

“Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have not life in yourselves. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life: and I will raise him up at the last day.”"

"That this passage does not yield the desired goal can be demonstrated both grammatically and contextually."

"1.In verse 54, the terms “eateth” and “drinketh” are both present tense participles, signifying that the disciples were to be eating his “flesh” and drinking his “blood” at that very time, and continue doing so as a process."

"A literal rendition would read: “He who continues eating my flesh and drinking my blood?” (see the translations of Charles B. Williams and Kenneth Wuest). The disciples were not eating and drinking the Savior’s flesh and blood at that moment!
2.The “eating” and “drinking” are said to result in “life”; yet, in this very context, that “life” is described as being the consequence of receiving Christ’s “words,” i.e., his teaching (v. 63). It thus becomes clear that the consumption of his body and blood are the equivalent of ingesting his sacred instruction — the former is a figurative expression; the latter literal."

"This is further borne out of a consideration of the phrase, “abides in me, and I in him” (v. 56) That reciprocal relationship is said to be the result of “eating” and “drinking” the flesh and blood of Christ. However, in a complimentary passage, elsewhere in John’s writings, the apostle equates the “in me / in you” relationship with “keeping his commandments” (1 Jn. 3:24)."

"The accumulation of evidence is quite irresistible. The references to partaking of the Lord’s body and blood are figures of speech."

"With all due respect to sincere people, it is a crassly materialistic methodology that turns the sacred memorial Supper into a cannibalistic ritual."

http://tinyurl.com/y86ge2u
 
"What Are Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation?"

By Wayne Jackson

"“What is the difference between ‘transubstantiation’ and ‘consubstantiation’?”"

"The word “transubstantiation” derives from Latin — trans (across), and substantia (substance). The term is employed in Roman Catholic theology to denote the idea that during the ceremony of the “Mass,” the “bread and wine” are changed, in substance, into the flesh and blood of Christ, even though the elements appear to remain the same. This doctrine, has no basis in Scripture. There are traces of the dogma in some of the post-apostolic writings and the concept was vigorously defended in the early 9th century A.D. It was adopted by the 4th Lateran Council (A.D. 1215), formalized at the Council of Trent (A.D. 1545-63), and was reaffirmed at the Second Vatican Council (1962-65)."

"“Consubstantiation” is a term commonly applied to the Lutheran concept of the communion supper, though some modern Lutheran theologians reject the use of this term because of its ambiguity. The expression, however, is generally associated with Luther. The idea is that in the communion, the body and blood of Christ, and the bread and wine, coexist in union with each other. “Luther illustrated it by the analogy of the iron put into the fire whereby both fire and iron are united in the red-hot iron and yet each continues unchanged” (The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, F.L. Cross, Ed., London: Oxford, 1958, p. 337)."

"Any dogma that attempts to place the “real presence” of the flesh and blood of Christ into the communion components, in a literal sense, is the result of a misunderstanding of the language employed in the Scriptures."

"One of the most important skills necessary for the correct interpretation of the Bible is the ability to distinguish between language that is used in a figurative sense versus that which is employed in a literal sense. Human communication abounds with figurative expressions, and a common-sense approach must be taken in the consideration of speech."

"One of the fundamental canons in identifying figurative language is this. Normally, a word should be viewed as literal, unless other considerations make it impossible to interpret the term in that light. Determinative factors that are essential to making the proper judgments are these: context, both immediate and remote (i.e., discussion of the same subject in other biblical references), grammar, consistency (the Scriptures do not contradict themselves), common sense (i.e., does a literal interpretation imply an absurdity?)."

"An appropriate application of these hermeneutic principles will force the serious Bible student to the conclusion that the biblical references to the Lord’s supper as the “body” and “blood” of Christ must be interpreted figuratively, not literally. Consider the following points."

...

http://tinyurl.com/y86ge2u
 
... "What Are Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation?"


"1.When Jesus took bread and fruit of the vine, gave these objects to the disciples, and said, “this is my body . . .this is my blood” (Mt. 26:26-28), he quite obviously was not speaking literally, for he still possessed his literal body and blood! Moreover, at the same time, Christ specifically identified the drink as “this fruit of the vine” (v. 29). The nature of the substance had not changed.
2.There is a common figure of speech that is known as metaphor. The metaphor is a dramatic image by which one thing is compared to another, but being represented figuratively as that very thing."

"Of the tribal descendants of Judah, Jacob said: “Judah is a lion’s whelp” (Gen 49:9) — certainly not literally, but having certain lion-like traits. When Jesus referred to Herod as a “fox” (Lk. 13:31-32), no one understood him to imply that the ruler was a four-legged animal with a bushy tail! Christ once said: “I am the vine, you are the branches” (Jn. 15:5)."

"Every careful student knows that the Savior employed symbolism by this language. An analogy was being drawn; the language was not to be pressed literally.
3.The fact that Jesus instructed the disciples to subsequently partake of the Lord’s supper “in remembrance” of him (Lk. 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24) contains the implication that he would not be present physically in the communion celebration."

"A favorite “proof-text” that is used frequently in an attempt to establish the “real presence” of Christ in the communion is John 6:53-54. Here Jesus declared:

“Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have not life in yourselves. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life: and I will raise him up at the last day.”"

"That this passage does not yield the desired goal can be demonstrated both grammatically and contextually."

"1.In verse 54, the terms “eateth” and “drinketh” are both present tense participles, signifying that the disciples were to be eating his “flesh” and drinking his “blood” at that very time, and continue doing so as a process."

"A literal rendition would read: “He who continues eating my flesh and drinking my blood?” (see the translations of Charles B. Williams and Kenneth Wuest). The disciples were not eating and drinking the Savior’s flesh and blood at that moment!
2.The “eating” and “drinking” are said to result in “life”; yet, in this very context, that “life” is described as being the consequence of receiving Christ’s “words,” i.e., his teaching (v. 63). It thus becomes clear that the consumption of his body and blood are the equivalent of ingesting his sacred instruction — the former is a figurative expression; the latter literal."

"This is further borne out of a consideration of the phrase, “abides in me, and I in him” (v. 56) That reciprocal relationship is said to be the result of “eating” and “drinking” the flesh and blood of Christ. However, in a complimentary passage, elsewhere in John’s writings, the apostle equates the “in me / in you” relationship with “keeping his commandments” (1 Jn. 3:24)."

"The accumulation of evidence is quite irresistible. The references to partaking of the Lord’s body and blood are figures of speech."

"With all due respect to sincere people, it is a crassly materialistic methodology that turns the sacred memorial Supper into a cannibalistic ritual."

http://tinyurl.com/y86ge2u
 
"Also she is explicitly not "Roman" - she is at pains to point out that she is Eastern Orthodox rather than Roman Catholic."

She is Roman in her pagan beliefs regarding transubstantiation which comes from the ideas found in Pagan Rome and other pagan societies:

"The Mystery of the Eucharist
Bartholomew f. Brewer, Ph.D."

"Of all the ancient dogmas of the Roman Catholic religion, the dogma of transubstantiation is the most wicked and satanic. It is the very heart of Romanism and the key to the so-called "sacrifice of the mass." Transubstantiation is Rome's most lucrative, powerful and fixed dogma. Certainly it is her most effective control device for the perpetuation of her gigantic corporation whose existence is maintained by sacraments administered by a supposedly divinely empowered priesthood."

PAGAN ORIGIN

"The doctrine of transubstantiation does not date back to the Last Supper as is supposed. It was a controverted topic for many centuries before officially becoming an article of faith, which means that it is essential to salvation according to the Roman Catholic Church. The idea of a corporal presence was vaguely held by some, such as Ambrose, but it was not until 831 A.D. that Paschasius Radbertus, a Benedictine monk, published a treatise openly advocating the doctrine of transubstantiation. Even then, for almost another four hundred years, theological war was waged over this teaching by bishops and people alike until at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 A.D., it was officially defined and canonized as a dogma."

"Like many of the beliefs and rites of Romanism, transubstantiation was first practiced by pagan religions. The noted historian Durant said that belief in transubstantiation as practiced by the priests of the Roman Catholic system is "one of the oldest ceremonies of primitive religion." The Story Of Civilization, p. 741. The syncretism and mysticism of the Middle East were great factors in influencing the West, particularly Italy. Roman Society From Nero To Marcus Aurelius, Dill. In Egypt priests would consecrate mest cakes which were supposed to be come the flesh of Osiris. Encyclopedia Of Religions, Vol. 2, p. 76. The idea of transubstantiation was also characteristic of the religion of Mithra whose sacraments of cakes and Haoma drink closely parallel the Catholic Eucharistic rite. Ibid. The idea of eating the flesh of deity was most popular among the people of Mexico and Central America long before they ever heard of Christ; and when Spanish missionaries first landed in those countries "their surprise was heightened, when they witnessed a religious rite which reminded them of communion...an image made of flour...and after consecration by priests, was distributed among the people who ate it...declaring it was the flesh of deity..." Prescott's Mexico, Vol. 3."

READ MORE:

http://www.mtc.org/eucharst.html
 
The other parts of my comments at 8:58 and 9:01 AM have been removed

follow the link provided there
 
"What Are Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation?"

By Wayne Jackson

"“What is the difference between ‘transubstantiation’ and ‘consubstantiation’?”"

"The word “transubstantiation” derives from Latin — trans (across), and substantia (substance). The term is employed in Roman Catholic theology to denote the idea that during the ceremony of the “Mass,” the “bread and wine” are changed, in substance, into the flesh and blood of Christ, even though the elements appear to remain the same. This doctrine, has no basis in Scripture. There are traces of the dogma in some of the post-apostolic writings and the concept was vigorously defended in the early 9th century A.D. It was adopted by the 4th Lateran Council (A.D. 1215), formalized at the Council of Trent (A.D. 1545-63), and was reaffirmed at the Second Vatican Council (1962-65)."

"“Consubstantiation” is a term commonly applied to the Lutheran concept of the communion supper, though some modern Lutheran theologians reject the use of this term because of its ambiguity. The expression, however, is generally associated with Luther. The idea is that in the communion, the body and blood of Christ, and the bread and wine, coexist in union with each other. “Luther illustrated it by the analogy of the iron put into the fire whereby both fire and iron are united in the red-hot iron and yet each continues unchanged” (The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, F.L. Cross, Ed., London: Oxford, 1958, p. 337)."

"Any dogma that attempts to place the “real presence” of the flesh and blood of Christ into the communion components, in a literal sense, is the result of a misunderstanding of the language employed in the Scriptures."

"One of the most important skills necessary for the correct interpretation of the Bible is the ability to distinguish between language that is used in a figurative sense versus that which is employed in a literal sense. Human communication abounds with figurative expressions, and a common-sense approach must be taken in the consideration of speech."

"One of the fundamental canons in identifying figurative language is this. Normally, a word should be viewed as literal, unless other considerations make it impossible to interpret the term in that light. Determinative factors that are essential to making the proper judgments are these: context, both immediate and remote (i.e., discussion of the same subject in other biblical references), grammar, consistency (the Scriptures do not contradict themselves), common sense (i.e., does a literal interpretation imply an absurdity?)."

"An appropriate application of these hermeneutic principles will force the serious Bible student to the conclusion that the biblical references to the Lord’s supper as the “body” and “blood” of Christ must be interpreted figuratively, not literally. Consider the following points."

http://tinyurl.com/y86ge2u
 
... "What Are Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation?"


"1.When Jesus took bread and fruit of the vine, gave these objects to the disciples, and said, “this is my body . . .this is my blood” (Mt. 26:26-28), he quite obviously was not speaking literally, for he still possessed his literal body and blood! Moreover, at the same time, Christ specifically identified the drink as “this fruit of the vine” (v. 29). The nature of the substance had not changed.
2.There is a common figure of speech that is known as metaphor. The metaphor is a dramatic image by which one thing is compared to another, but being represented figuratively as that very thing."

"Of the tribal descendants of Judah, Jacob said: “Judah is a lion’s whelp” (Gen 49:9) — certainly not literally, but having certain lion-like traits. When Jesus referred to Herod as a “fox” (Lk. 13:31-32), no one understood him to imply that the ruler was a four-legged animal with a bushy tail! Christ once said: “I am the vine, you are the branches” (Jn. 15:5)."

"Every careful student knows that the Savior employed symbolism by this language. An analogy was being drawn; the language was not to be pressed literally.
3.The fact that Jesus instructed the disciples to subsequently partake of the Lord’s supper “in remembrance” of him (Lk. 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24) contains the implication that he would not be present physically in the communion celebration."

"A favorite “proof-text” that is used frequently in an attempt to establish the “real presence” of Christ in the communion is John 6:53-54. Here Jesus declared:

“Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have not life in yourselves. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life: and I will raise him up at the last day.”"

"That this passage does not yield the desired goal can be demonstrated both grammatically and contextually."

"1.In verse 54, the terms “eateth” and “drinketh” are both present tense participles, signifying that the disciples were to be eating his “flesh” and drinking his “blood” at that very time, and continue doing so as a process."

"A literal rendition would read: “He who continues eating my flesh and drinking my blood?” (see the translations of Charles B. Williams and Kenneth Wuest). The disciples were not eating and drinking the Savior’s flesh and blood at that moment!
2.The “eating” and “drinking” are said to result in “life”; yet, in this very context, that “life” is described as being the consequence of receiving Christ’s “words,” i.e., his teaching (v. 63). It thus becomes clear that the consumption of his body and blood are the equivalent of ingesting his sacred instruction — the former is a figurative expression; the latter literal."

"This is further borne out of a consideration of the phrase, “abides in me, and I in him” (v. 56) That reciprocal relationship is said to be the result of “eating” and “drinking” the flesh and blood of Christ. However, in a complimentary passage, elsewhere in John’s writings, the apostle equates the “in me / in you” relationship with “keeping his commandments” (1 Jn. 3:24)."

"The accumulation of evidence is quite irresistible. The references to partaking of the Lord’s body and blood are figures of speech."

"With all due respect to sincere people, it is a crassly materialistic methodology that turns the sacred memorial Supper into a cannibalistic ritual."

http://tinyurl.com/y86ge2u
 
"The Christian Church for the first three hundred years remained somewhat pure and faithful to the Word of God, but after the pseudo-conversion of Constantine, who for political expedience declared Christianity the state religion, thousands of pagans were admitted to the church by baptism alone with out true conversion. They brought with them pagan rites which they boldly introduced into the church with Christian terminology, thus corrupting the primitive faith. Even the noted Catholic prelate and theologian, Cardinal Newman, tells us that Constantine introduced many things of pagan origin: "We are told in various ways by Eusebius, that Constantine, in order to recommend the new religion to the heathen, transferred into it the outward ornaments to which they had been accustomed in their own...The use of temples, and these dedicated to particular saints, and ornamented on occasions with branches of trees; incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness; holy water; asylums; holydays and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on fields, sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant, and the Kyrie Eleison, are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by their adoption into the Church." An Essay On The Development Of Christian Doctrine, pp. 359, 360. This unholy alliance also allowed the continuance of the pagan custom of eating and drinking the literal flesh and literal blood of their god. This is actually how transubstantiation entered the professing church."


http://www.mtc.org/eucharst.html
 
The TESTIMONY of SCRIPTURE

"True born again Christians who correctly interpret the Word of God see without any difficulty whatsoever that our Lord's reference to His body and blood was symbolic. When Jesus spoke of Himself as being the bread, He was not teaching the fictitious transubstantiation of the Papal church. It is preposterous to hold that the Son of God turned a piece of bread into Himself. When Jesus said "this is my body" or "blood," He did not change the substance, but was explaining that He is the one "represented" by the passover bread and wine. Jesus did not say touto gignetai, this has become or is turned into, but touto esti, which can only mean this represents or stands for. It is perfectly clear in the Gospels that Christ spoke in figurative terms, referring to Himself as "the door," "the vine'', "the light," "the root," "the rock," "the bright and morning star," et cetera. In Luke 22:22, Jesus said, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood." In First Corinthians 11:25, 26, He said, "This is the new covenant in my blood...For as oft as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord's death till he come." "In these words He used a double figure of speech...The cup was not literally the new covenant, although it is declared to be so as definitely as the bread is declared to be His body. They did not literally drink the cup, nor did they literally drink the new covenant...Nor was the bread literally His body, or the wine His blood. After giving the wine to the disciples Jesus said, 'I shall not drink from henceforth of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come' (Luke 22:18). So the wine, even as He gave it to them, and after He had given it to them, remained 'the fruit of the vine'! Paul too says that the bread remains bread;...'but let each man prove himself, and so let him eat of the bread, and drink of the cup' (First Corinthians 11:28). No change had taken place in the element. This was after the prayer of consecration, when the Church of Rome supposes the change took place, and Jesus and Paul both declare that the elements still are bread and wine." Roman Catholicism, Boettner."

"Our beloved Saviour and His apostles repeatedly warned that there would be a great departure from Biblical truth, and that increasing apostasy would be manifest through the centuries until there would be a complete turning away from the historic faith. Any Christian, his mind illumined by the Holy Spirit, can see that these predictions have been fulfilled. He can see that Paul's prophecy of Acts 20:29, 30 came true in less than a hundred years. He can see how "the mystery of iniquity" expressed itself in vain, unscriptural teaching through the Dark Ages when unregenerate popes, cardinals, bishops and priests "changed the truth of God into a lie," substituting the authority of their religion for the authority of the Holy Scriptures."

http://www.mtc.org/eucharst.html
 
TRANSUBSTANTIATION

ACCORDING to the COUNCIL of TRENT

"When Europe was electrified by the eloquent preaching of the sixteenth century Reformation, the Roman Catholic hierarchy gathered her ablest theologians who worked for three decades in the preparation of a statement of faith concerning transubstantiation. This document remains, to this day, the standard of Catholic doctrine. As the Second Vatican Council commenced, Pope John XXIII declared, "I do accept entirely all that has been decided and declared at the Council of Trent." What did the Council of Trent decide and declare? The first sections are as follows:"

"Canon I: "If any one shall deny that the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore entire Christ, are truly, really, and substantially contained in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist; and shall say that He is only in it as a sign, or in a figure, or virtually, — let him be accursed." "

"Canon II: "If any one shall say that the substance of the bread and wine remains in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, together with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and shall deny that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood, the outward forms of the bread and wine still remaining, which conversion the Catholic church most aptly calls transubstantiation, — let him be accursed." "

"Canon III: "If any one shall deny, that in the venerated sacrament of the Eucharist, entire Christ is contained in each kind, and in each several particle of either kind when separated, — let him be accursed." "

http://www.mtc.org/eucharst.html
 
"Canon IV: "If any one shall say that, after consecration, the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ is only in the wonderful sacrament of the Eucharist in use whilst it is taken, and not either before or after, and that the true body of the Lord does not remain in the hosts or particles which have been consecrated, and which are reserved, or remain after the communion, — let him be accursed." "

"Canon V: "If any one says that the principal fruit of the most holy Eucharist is the remission of sins or that other effects do not result from it, — let him be accursed." "

"Canon VI: "If any one shall say that Christ, the only begotten Son of God, is not to be adored in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, even with the open worship of latria, and therefore not to be venerated with any peculiar festal celebrity, nor to be solemnly carried about in processions according to the praiseworthy and universal rites and customs of the holy Church, and that He is not to be publicly set before the people to be adored, and that His adorers are idolaters, — let him be accursed." "

"How frequently we hear Catholics and liberal Protestants exclaim, "Rome is changing!" What optimism prevails among religionists that Rome is heading toward a new reformation. Even professing evangelicals are convinced that Roman Catholicism is changing, changing, changing. However, true believers are not impressed by Vatican window-dressing. The Romish mass, that wicked counterfeit of the Lord's Supper, has been modernized but not renounced. The renowned Hislop states that "the doctrine of transubstantiation is clearly of the very essence of Magic, which pretended, on the pronunciation of a few potent words, to change one substance into another, or by a dexterous juggle, wholly to remove one substance, and to substitute another in its place." The Two Babylons, p. 259. The God of flour and water, produced by priestly sorcery, is still worshipped and adored to this day as it was defined in the dark years of medieval religion (bowing, genuflecting, praying to the "Blessed Sacrament" may be seen daily in any Catholic church). Modern Catholicism has produced no change in doctrine, but only a change of position."

http://www.mtc.org/eucharst.html
 
VATICAN II UPHOLDS TRENT

"Vatican II began in 1962 and ended in 1965. Some two thousand, five hundred bishops, and each with his committee of theologians, worked the greater part of four years, and spent between forty and sixty million dollars. Dozens of resolutions, called "Schemae," were passed, hundreds of similar ones were rejected, and thousands were proposed, most of which were reported in newspapers around the world. At the third session, the Council produced Sacrosanctum Concilium (The Holy Liturgy). One of its articles entitled "The Mystery of the Eucharist'' completely reaffirmed its belief and practice in the changing of the bread and wine at the mass into the very body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. It was not long thereafter that Pope Paul VI issued an encyclical, Mysterium Fidei, which reads in part: "During the Second Vatican Council the Church has made a new and most solemn profession of her faith in and worship of this mystery...For if the sacred liturgy holds the first place in the life of the Church, the mystery of the Eucharist stands as the heart and center...Those who partake of this sacrament in Holy Communion eat the Flesh of Christ and drink the Blood of Christ, receiving both grace, the beginning of eternal life, and the 'medicine of immortality,'...Indeed, we are aware of the fact that, among those who deal with this Most Holy Mystery in written or spoken word, there are some who...spread abroad such opinions as disturb the faithful and fill their minds with no little confusion about matters of faith as if every one were permitted to consign to oblivion doctrine already defined by the Church, or to interpret it in such a way as to weaken the genuine meaning of the words or the approved import of the concepts involved...the spread of these and similar opinions does great harm to the faith and devotion to the Divine Eucharist... we cannot approve the opinions which they express...We must therefore approach this mystery especially with humble obedience, not following human arguments, which ought to be silent...It is a logical conclusion, then, that we should follow as a guiding star in our investigations of this mystery the agisterium of the Church, to which the Divine Redeemer entrusted for protection and for explanation the revelation which He has communicated to us through Scripture or tradition having this from conviction that 'what since the days of antiquity was preached and believed throughout the whole Church with true Catholic Faith is true, even if it is not comprehended by reason, even if it is not explained by means of words'...we are not to tolerate anyone who on his own authority wishes to modify the formulae in which the Council of Trent sets forth the Mystery of the Eucharist for ...our belief...It is the teaching of the First Vatican Council:

http://www.mtc.org/eucharst.html
 
VATICAN II UPHOLDS TRENT Continued

our belief...It is the teaching of the First Vatican Council: 'that meaning of the sacred dogmas must forever be retained which Holy Mother Church has once defined and we may never depart from that meaning under the pretext and in the name of deeper understanding.'...the Catholic Church has held to this faith in the presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist, not only in her teaching but also in her practice, since she has at all times given to this great Sacrament the worship which is known as latria and which may be given to God alone. As St. Augustine says: 'It was in His flesh that Christ walked among us and it is His flesh that He has given us to eat for our salvation. No one, however, eats of this flesh without having first adored it...and not only do we not sin in thus adoring it, but we would sin if we did not do so.'...The Catholic Church has always offered and still offers the cult of latria to the Sacrament of the Eucharist...We therefore beseech you, venerable brothers...Tirelessly promote the cult of the Eucharist, the focus where all other forms of piety must ultimately meet and converge...May all those not yet in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, who though separated from her are honored by and glory in the name of Christian, share with us as soon as possible with the help of divine grace that unity of faith and communion which Christ wanted to be the distinctive mark of His disciples...May the Most Blessed Virgin Mary from whom Christ Our Lord took the flesh which under the appearances of bread and wine 'is contained, offered, and received in this Sacrament,' and all the saints of God, especially those who had a more ardent devotion to the Divine Eucharist, intercede with the Father of mercies so that from this same faith in and devotion to the Eucharist may come forth and flourish a perfect unity among all who bear the name Christian." Thus Pope Paul VI reaffirmed his loyalty to those canons of Trent which belched curses for those who deny them. Every Roman Catholic, under pain of mortal sin and excommunication is obliged to render religious worship to the host. Is it not then "double-talk" for Rome to consider non-Catholics as Christians or "separated brethren" when indeed at the same time they are considered accursed or damned?"

"Because of her ecumenical move toward the one world church, statues may have disappeared, rosary beads may be unpopular, limbo and purgatory may be de-emphasized, even the term transubstantiation may be unfashionable, but the doctrine of transubstantiation is here to stay."

http://www.mtc.org/eucharst.html
 
The POSITION of the TRUE BELIEVER

"Our hearts are heavy for the millions of Roman Catholics (AND ORTHODOX AND LUTHERANS) who, not knowing the Scriptures, greatly err in believing the fable of transubstantiation, undoubtedly the greatest lever of the Roman Church. How little these sincere, but spiritually lost people realize that "the worship of what is called the Blessed Sacrament is as vile an idolatry as the worship by the Egyptians of onions and other pot-herbs which grew in their own gardens," Charles Spurgeon. Any Roman Catholic who comes to a personal knowledge and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, who has sincerely repented and is truly born again of the Holy Spirit of God, is no longer a Roman Catholic, doctrinally, whether he knows it or not. However, as he feeds upon the Holy Word of God and begins to grow spiritually, he will not only abjure the hideous dogma of transubstantiation, but all Romish teachings...the whole idolatrous circus! Those who truly understand what it means to have Jesus as Lord and Saviour immediately distinguish the teachings of God's Word from the teachings of man (John 10:27) painful though it may be, the Word of God, "Come out of her my people." (Revelation 18:4, also see First Thessalonians 5:22). "

"May God's Spirit convict the hearts of false shepherds of the Roman Church who feed "the faithful" the old Roman recipes, much to their own eternal destruction and that of their misled flocks. May God's Spirit have mercy upon the simple people who so unreservedly trust their eternal destiny to a sacramental priesthood that uses the host as a charm. May God's Spirit open the eyes of evangelicals to know that Rome is not a part of the Christian Church. The Roman Church has never had God's blessing. May God's Spirit bend the wicked arm of apostate Protestant churches who are more excited about "union" than Biblical truth. Finally, may God's Spirit raise up a faithful army of bold witnesses whose weapons "are not carnal but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds; casting down imaginations and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ." (Second Corinthians 10:4, 5)."

http://www.mtc.org/eucharst.html
 
Well, 'our hearts are heavy' for all of the Catholic-bashers who are totally obsessed (and possessed) with posting anti-Catholic rants on this blog.

May God have mercy on your souls!!!
 
Anon at 10:20 am,

I´m no more a Catholic basher than I am a new ager basher. I do however stand firm against the blasphemies, errors, and idolatries of the so-called Ancient Mystery schools to which the new age movement and Roman Catholicism in large part have spawned from. I will stand up against individuals to disprove their lies but not to intentionally bash as you put it.


THE TRUTH CONVICTS! THAT´S WHAT YOU DON´T LIKE. THE DARKNESS CANNOT STAND THE LIGHT? TOUGH! God be with you and have mercy on your soul.
 
Also , our churches have been infested with the plagues of Loyola´s locusts. Our Governments have been usurped by Rome and her minions, including the SMOM and the Jesuits, along with our media and education systems. This blog has the stench of Jesuit infiltration all over it. Some of us are not as stupid as you think. The Alex Jones article? Speculation. However, the fact that he is Vatican-CIA controlled is shown by his obfuscation concerning the Vatican, just like Constance, and his company´s affiliation with ABC (The Jesuits run Russia and the US already).

Remember what David Rockefeller that Knight of Malta (pretending to be Baptist like Jesuit trained Clinton) said:

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years."

He went on to explain:

"It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries."

During his Bilderberger meeting Speech, June, 1991, Baden, Germany. (also attended by then-Governor Bill Clinton & Dan Quayle)

Here's the quote:

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected the promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world-government. The supranational sovereignty if an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries"--

David Rockefeller in an address to a Trilateral Commission meeting
in June, 1991
 
""The Christian Church for the first three hundred years remained somewhat pure and faithful to the Word of God, but after the pseudo-conversion of Constantine, who for political expedience declared Christianity the state religion, thousands of pagans were admitted to the church by baptism alone with out true conversion. They brought with them pagan rites "

THEN WHY IN THE SECOND CENTURY DOES JUSTIN MARTYR SAY THE BREAD AND WINE IS NOT ORDINARY BREAD AND WINE BUT THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST?

whether a full invisible transformation occurs, or an adding into it occurs, Christ is there.

the pagans entering the church did not bring in rites, these were under the control of the elders the presbyters aka priests, the word priest is derived from presbyter not hieros the Greek word for priest, you can see there is no similarity in sound to the latter.

the pagans did bring in too much rationalism such as questioning the general resurrection of the dead in future, already being broached in Paul's time since he had to rebuke it, and questioning how Christ could be fully man and fully God at the same time, and the foundations for heresies.
 
yes there is metaphor, but from earliest times only the baptised could eat of the Eucharist, and metaphor provides a bridge to reality especially when physical objects are in play.

Those who knew Christ in person before His death Resurrection and Ascension, did not all benefit from this association, consider Judas. We have to cooperate with Him. So if we don't eat His words or if we eat the bread without seeing it as Him it will probably do us little good and perhaps some harm.

But when He said "this is My Blood" He also said "which shall be shed"

this is a bit literal sounding to me. The metaphor makes the bridge to connect to the reality.
 
"YOU STILL HAVE NOT YET ANSWERED WHETHER TRANSUBSTANTIATION TOOK PLACE AT THE LAST SUPPER OR NOT!"

as someone pointed out, YES I DID ANSWER, right at the start.

I SAID YES.

Now as for the rest, I don't patchwork desperately any more than those extensive lectures about and against transubstantiation/transformation are such. I AM EXPLAINING IN DETAIL, EXEGESIS, WHATEVER YOU CALL IT.

And I already said that eating a (false) god was a notion in paganism. The issue here is eating the TRUE God instead of a false god.

that the technique may be similar is irrelevant. Baptism of sorts also occurred in some paganism, does that mean we should drop it?

The concept of death and rebirth figures in pagan ritual. Does that mean we should drop baptism? Because BAPTISM IS ABOUT DEATH AND RESURRECTION, we are baptised into Jesus' death, and raised with Him in His Resurrection when we come out of (or out from under if baptized by pouring) the water.
Baptize means bury. There is a washing, cleaning angle on it and and death and rising to new life angle. Mostly the latter.
 
Middle Eastern terrorists got most of their skills from the CIA when it trained them against the Russians in Afghanistan. That is where Al Qaeda started, and the very name relates to "the base" meaning a base list of members - in the CIA operation.

The elites have been working on making WW 3 for a long time, and the CIA has always represented Wall Street not the USA. That is why it makes such terrible mistakes.

Communism wanted USA destroyed. Why would non Commie Russia want to destroy us? unless provoked which we have been doing for some time now.

Why do you doubt we would retaliate nuclearly?

As for skills in nuclear stuff, anyone can do that out of a library book. THE PROBLEM IS TRIGGERING. and getting the right materials.

THERE ARE NO GOOD GUYS. It is all a struggle between varying degrees of evil or at least undesirability.

suitcase nukes can't do the kind of damage a big one can.

Until the bolshevik revolution, Russia was no enemy of the USA in fact if a tsar in the 1860s hadn't warned Britain to stand down, and not help the Confederacy, that being part of the British plan to divide and conquer, we probably wouldn't be here except as British property.
 
Reagan and occultism
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/political-bookworm/2010/04/reagan_and_the_occult.html

google for more research I always encourage people to do their own research and try to give them tools to do so. If you don't like the Washington Post, look elsewhere.
 
Are there really that many people who want to learn and discuss whether matzos and wine become something else? I doubt it.

Just part of the distraction being done here I presume.

Others should look at C/J/I's other blog. Do others see what is going on there? I'll give my opinion later.

And no, I won't dialogue with C/J/I. I'm not into game playing. If I was, I'd chose something with good graphics.
 
Christine,

According to a commenter beneath that article, Reagan stopped telling that tale as soon as he had been informed that it came from an occultist. And it is his WIFE who was into astrology. Circumstantial evidence but no smoking gun at this point.

That 'priest' derives from 'presbyter' not 'hiereus' tells us only something about the way the xhurch organised itself at the time the words were translated into English - not about the changes to the operational meanings of these Greek words around Constantine's time.
 
Christine, I tend to rely on the words of Our Lord & Savior Jesus Christ, the Prophets, and the Apostles of Holy Bible. However, your claim of Justin the Martyr supporting transubstantiation is wholly erroneous. Here´s what he did say and what other early patristic writers have said regarding transubstatiation!

Justin Martyr (110-165 AD)

"Now it is evident, that in this prophecy allusion is made to the bread which our Christ gave us to eat, IN REMEBRANCE of His being made flesh for the sake of His believers, for whom also He suffered; and to the cup which He gave us to drink, IN REMEMBRANCE of His own blood, with giving of thanks."16

"Here, Justin states that the bread and the cup were given to Christians for the purpose of remembrance. Not only this, but he also indicates that the remembrance denoted by the bread and wine was that of Christ's being made flesh and suffering for us, not of a presentation of the actual flesh and blood. Thus, Justin is expousing a commemorative view of the Lord's Supper."

Tatian (110-172 AD)


"...It is not we who eat human flesh - they among you who assert such a thing have been suborned as false witnesses; it is among you that Pelops is made a supper for the gods, although beloved by Poseidon, and Kronos devours his children, and Zeus swallows Metis."17
"Here, Tatian pointedly confutes the claims of pagans in his day who attacked Christianity by misconstruing its teachings (a phenomenon as old as the faith itself). In fact, many of the very early Christian writers pointedly refused the charge that Christians "banqueted on blood", etc., a charge which very likely originated from pagan misunderstanding of the teaching of the Lord's Supper18. At any rate, Tatian certainly seemed quite opposed to the idea of eating anybody's flesh, Christ's or otherwise."

Theophilus of Antioch (115-181 AD)


"Nor indeed was there any necessity for my refuting these, except that I see you still in dubiety about the word of the truth. For though yourself prudent, you endure fools gladly. Otherwise you would not have been moved by senseless men to yield yourself to empty words, and to give credit to the prevalent rumor wherewith godless lips falsely accuse us, who are worshippers of God, and are called Christians, alleging that the wives of us all are held in common and made promiscuous use of; and that we even commit incest with our own sisters, and, what is most impious and barbarous of all, that we eat human flesh."19

"Again, a 2nd-century writer, Theophilus, pointedly condemns as "most impious of all" the idea that Christians would eat human flesh. Just as the pagans calumniated against Christianity by claiming wife-sharing and incest (likely due to the communal nature of early Christianity, see Acts 4:32ff), so also did they falsely accuse Christians of cannibalism."

"Where else BUT from a misconstruction of passages concerning the Lord's Supper could this have originated? Clearly, Theophilus did not believe in any sort of "real presence" of Christ's flesh and blood in the symbolic elements of the communion table."

Want more argument refuting transubstantiation from the Patristic writings, etc?

http://www.studytoanswer.net/rcc/rvb_mass.html
 
Anon at 12:39 PM,

"Are there really that many people who want to learn and discuss whether matzos and wine become something else? I doubt it."

"Just part of the distraction being done here I presume."

I shall fight the good fight and not even you shall stop me say what is right and deciding when is the best moment and an appropriate place to say it. Take your fascism and false accusation away. If you see this or any blog set up for open discussion as being ground only for setting up points against the NAM or anything as a hobby-horse you are mistaken. We are to warn in and out of season against anything erroneous which takes others away form a loving relationship with the Father and aims to pervert His Word!

If you´re making the point some, including yourself, at this blogspot employ jesuit tactics of subterfuge and attack and that the very same Jesuits and RCism is behind the NAM, then I couldn´t agree more.
 
My post refuting Christine has been removed ... vanished!


So Christine, I prefer to rely on the words of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, the Prophets and the Apostles in the Holy Bible. However, seeing as you´ve made a wholly erroneous claim regards Justin the Martyr, here´s the post again:


Transubstantiation is Not Traditional, A Negative Finding From the Patristics

"As with pretty much every other belief of the Catholic religion which cannot be convincingly supported from Scripture, the fallback position is to then rely upon the supposed authority of the early patristic writers. As with most everything else, this support proves to be a hollow reed for Rome, as the patristics can usually be counted on to disagree more with current Catholic theology than to agree with it (see, for example, my article about the Apocrypha). Such is the case with the dogma of transubstantiation and the "Real Presence". We find numerous examples of patristic writers from all across the breadth of early church history who, either implicitly or explicitly, denied the tenets of the Catholic Mass. And while the positions of these writers on this issue may not be completely in accord with the view held by Bible-believing Protestants, Baptists, and Independents, there is much that indicates a closer affinity for the Biblical position than anything approximating that of the Catholic religion."

...
 
..."Beginning with the earliest and going in chronological order, we first see the testimony of Justin Martyr:

Justin Martyr (110-165 AD)"


"Now it is evident, that in this prophecy allusion is made to the bread which our Christ gave us to eat, IN REMEMBRANCE of His being made flesh for the sake of His believers, for whom also He suffered; and to the cup which He gave us to drink, IN REMEMBRANCE of His own blood, with giving of thanks."16

"Here, Justin states that the bread and the cup were given to Christians for the purpose of remembrance. Not only this, but he also indicates that the remembrance denoted by the bread and wine was that of Christ's being made flesh and suffering for us, not of a presentation of the actual flesh and blood. Thus, Justin is expousing a commemorative view of the Lord's Supper."

Tatian (110-172 AD)


"...It is not we who eat human flesh - they among you who assert such a thing have been suborned as false witnesses; it is among you that Pelops is made a supper for the gods, although beloved by Poseidon, and Kronos devours his children, and Zeus swallows Metis."17
"Here, Tatian pointedly confutes the claims of pagans in his day who attacked Christianity by misconstruing its teachings (a phenomenon as old as the faith itself). In fact, many of the very early Christian writers pointedly refused the charge that Christians "banqueted on blood", etc., a charge which very likely originated from pagan misunderstanding of the teaching of the Lord's Supper18. At any rate, Tatian certainly seemed quite opposed to the idea of eating anybody's flesh, Christ's or otherwise."

Theophilus of Antioch (115-181 AD)


"Nor indeed was there any necessity for my refuting these, except that I see you still in dubiety about the word of the truth. For though yourself prudent, you endure fools gladly. Otherwise you would not have been moved by senseless men to yield yourself to empty words, and to give credit to the prevalent rumor wherewith godless lips falsely accuse us, who are worshippers of God, and are called Christians, alleging that the wives of us all are held in common and made promiscuous use of; and that we even commit incest with our own sisters, and, what is most impious and barbarous of all, that we eat human flesh."19

"Again, a 2nd-century writer, Theophilus, pointedly condemns as "most impious of all" the idea that Christians would eat human flesh. Just as the pagans calumniated against Christianity by claiming wife-sharing and incest (likely due to the communal nature of early Christianity, see Acts 4:32ff), so also did they falsely accuse Christians of cannibalism. Where else BUT from a misconstruction of passages concerning the Lord's Supper could this have originated? Clearly, Theophilus did not believe in any sort of "real presence" of Christ's flesh and blood in the symbolic elements of the communion table."

Read more from the patristic writers´ positions refuting transubstatiation:

http://www.studytoanswer.net/rcc/rvb_mass.html
 
..."Beginning with the earliest and going in chronological order, we first see the testimony of Justin Martyr:

Justin Martyr (110-165 AD)"


"Now it is evident, that in this prophecy allusion is made to the bread which our Christ gave us to eat, IN REMEMBRANCE of His being made flesh for the sake of His believers, for whom also He suffered; and to the cup which He gave us to drink, IN REMEMBRANCE of His own blood, with giving of thanks."16

"Here, Justin states that the bread and the cup were given to Christians for the purpose of remembrance. Not only this, but he also indicates that the remembrance denoted by the bread and wine was that of Christ's being made flesh and suffering for us, not of a presentation of the actual flesh and blood. Thus, Justin is expousing a commemorative view of the Lord's Supper."

Tatian (110-172 AD)


"...It is not we who eat human flesh - they among you who assert such a thing have been suborned as false witnesses; it is among you that Pelops is made a supper for the gods, although beloved by Poseidon, and Kronos devours his children, and Zeus swallows Metis."17
"Here, Tatian pointedly confutes the claims of pagans in his day who attacked Christianity by misconstruing its teachings (a phenomenon as old as the faith itself). In fact, many of the very early Christian writers pointedly refused the charge that Christians "banqueted on blood", etc., a charge which very likely originated from pagan misunderstanding of the teaching of the Lord's Supper18. At any rate, Tatian certainly seemed quite opposed to the idea of eating anybody's flesh, Christ's or otherwise."

Theophilus of Antioch (115-181 AD)


"Nor indeed was there any necessity for my refuting these, except that I see you still in dubiety about the word of the truth. For though yourself prudent, you endure fools gladly. Otherwise you would not have been moved by senseless men to yield yourself to empty words, and to give credit to the prevalent rumor wherewith godless lips falsely accuse us, who are worshippers of God, and are called Christians, alleging that the wives of us all are held in common and made promiscuous use of; and that we even commit incest with our own sisters, and, what is most impious and barbarous of all, that we eat human flesh."19

"Again, a 2nd-century writer, Theophilus, pointedly condemns as "most impious of all" the idea that Christians would eat human flesh. Just as the pagans calumniated against Christianity by claiming wife-sharing and incest (likely due to the communal nature of early Christianity, see Acts 4:32ff), so also did they falsely accuse Christians of cannibalism. Where else BUT from a misconstruction of passages concerning the Lord's Supper could this have originated? Clearly, Theophilus did not believe in any sort of "real presence" of Christ's flesh and blood in the symbolic elements of the communion table."

Read more from the patristic writers´ positions refuting transubstatiation:

http://www.studytoanswer.net/rcc/rvb_mass.html
 
..."Beginning with the earliest and going in chronological order, we first see the testimony of Justin Martyr:

Justin Martyr (110-165 AD)"


"Now it is evident, that in this prophecy allusion is made to the bread which our Christ gave us to eat, IN REMEMBRANCE of His being made flesh for the sake of His believers, for whom also He suffered; and to the cup which He gave us to drink, IN REMEMBRANCE of His own blood, with giving of thanks."16

"Here, Justin states that the bread and the cup were given to Christians for the purpose of remembrance. Not only this, but he also indicates that the remembrance denoted by the bread and wine was that of Christ's being made flesh and suffering for us, not of a presentation of the actual flesh and blood. Thus, Justin is expousing a commemorative view of the Lord's Supper."

Tatian (110-172 AD)


"...It is not we who eat human flesh - they among you who assert such a thing have been suborned as false witnesses; it is among you that Pelops is made a supper for the gods, although beloved by Poseidon, and Kronos devours his children, and Zeus swallows Metis."17
"Here, Tatian pointedly confutes the claims of pagans in his day who attacked Christianity by misconstruing its teachings (a phenomenon as old as the faith itself). In fact, many of the very early Christian writers pointedly refused the charge that Christians "banqueted on blood", etc., a charge which very likely originated from pagan misunderstanding of the teaching of the Lord's Supper18. At any rate, Tatian certainly seemed quite opposed to the idea of eating anybody's flesh, Christ's or otherwise."

Theophilus of Antioch (115-181 AD)


"Nor indeed was there any necessity for my refuting these, except that I see you still in dubiety about the word of the truth. For though yourself prudent, you endure fools gladly. Otherwise you would not have been moved by senseless men to yield yourself to empty words, and to give credit to the prevalent rumor wherewith godless lips falsely accuse us, who are worshippers of God, and are called Christians, alleging that the wives of us all are held in common and made promiscuous use of; and that we even commit incest with our own sisters, and, what is most impious and barbarous of all, that we eat human flesh."19

"Again, a 2nd-century writer, Theophilus, pointedly condemns as "most impious of all" the idea that Christians would eat human flesh. Just as the pagans calumniated against Christianity by claiming wife-sharing and incest (likely due to the communal nature of early Christianity, see Acts 4:32ff), so also did they falsely accuse Christians of cannibalism. Where else BUT from a misconstruction of passages concerning the Lord's Supper could this have originated? Clearly, Theophilus did not believe in any sort of "real presence" of Christ's flesh and blood in the symbolic elements of the communion table."

Read more from the patristic writers´ positions refuting transubstatiation:

http://www.studytoanswer.net/rcc/rvb_mass.html
 
Here´s another webpage with clear information on the Roman Heresy concerning the ridiculous notion of transubstantiation.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/rcc14-transubstantiation.htm

or

http://tinyurl.com/d45fpcc
 
Transubstantiation

"Are people really digesting Jesus' flesh and blood?"

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/rcc14-transubstantiation.htm

http://tinyurl.com/d45fpcc
 
Transubstantiation

"Are people really digesting Jesus' flesh and blood?"

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/rcc14-transubstantiation.htm

http://tinyurl.com/d45fpcc
 
Anonymous at 3:56,
The reason for this blog as shown at the top of the front page is:
"News and views of Constance Cumbey concerning "Radical Middle", New Age Movement, Communitarianism, "planetary humanism," "global governance," European Union, Javier Solana, Jeremy Rifkin, "New Age Politics," law in the USA, combined with life in general -- sometimes humorous, sometimes not!"

Only ignorance of the reason for the blog or arrogance in ignoring the reasons makes you write what you have written.

It was not meant to be an open place where any propagandist can post what they wish. There are some of us who wish for the good old days.

Everyone should have their guard up when hearing those who attack Catholicism and Judaism. Those two religions have been the targets of New Agers and Nazis. Which are you?
 
Anon at 4:39 PM

GET THEE BEHIND ME SATAN, ACCUSER OF THE BRETHREN!

Roman Catholicism was behind Nazism, and behind the Croatian Nazis known as the Ustashi - many of whom were Roman Catholic priests!

RCism was also behind the fascist Dictator of Spain, General Franco, who said of Hitler: General Franco: “Hitler fought for Christianity in Europe”
“Adolf Hitler, son of the Catholic Church, died while defending Christianity. It is therefore understandable that words cannot be found to lament over his death”.

Franco made RCism the State Religion of Spain, true Christianity was suppressed and banned!

INDEED, IT WAS THE ITALIAN FASCIST DICTATOR MUSSOLINI WHO RE-ESTABLISHED THE VATICAN´S AUTHORITY IN 1929 VIA THE LATERAN TREATY! SUBTERFUGE, PRETENDING TO BE AGAINST RCISM WHEN REALLY THESE FASCISTS WERE RUN BY IT!


How the Lateran Treaty made the Catholic Church into a state

http://www.concordatwatch.eu/showtopic.php?kb_header_id=841

or

http://tinyurl.com/ch3sh27

Roger Oakland speaks out against the New Age & states the Vatican is full of the filth of Babylon - go there and see for yourself! Assisi was not set up by the Duke of Edinburgh as CC would have you believe, but by the Vatican itself, headed by the black pope Jesuit General, and the Pope John Paul II, and then the one last year with Benedict. At Assisi there were pagans, shamans, witches and all sorts mixing with the cup of her, The Harlot of Rome´s, fornication!

Roger Oakland - Road to Babylon

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oj0U9GOxvw&feature=related
 
Anon at 4:39 PM

GET THEE BEHIND ME SATAN, ACCUSER OF THE BRETHREN!

Roman Catholicism was behind Nazism, and behind the Croatian Nazis known as the Ustashi - many of whom were Roman Catholic priests!

RCism was also behind the fascist Dictator of Spain, General Franco, who said of Hitler: General Franco: “Hitler fought for Christianity in Europe”
“Adolf Hitler, son of the Catholic Church, died while defending Christianity. It is therefore understandable that words cannot be found to lament over his death”.

Franco made RCism the State Religion of Spain, true Christianity was suppressed and banned!

INDEED, IT WAS THE ITALIAN FASCIST DICTATOR MUSSOLINI WHO RE-ESTABLISHED THE VATICAN´S AUTHORITY IN 1929 VIA THE LATERAN TREATY! SUBTERFUGE, PRETENDING TO BE AGAINST RCISM WHEN REALLY THESE FASCISTS WERE RUN BY IT!


How the Lateran Treaty made the Catholic Church into a state

http://www.concordatwatch.eu/showtopic.php?kb_header_id=841

or

http://tinyurl.com/ch3sh27

Roger Oakland speaks out against the New Age & states the Vatican is full of the filth of Babylon - go there and see for yourself! Assisi was not set up by the Duke of Edinburgh as CC would have you believe, but by the Vatican itself, headed by the black pope Jesuit General, and the Pope John Paul II, and then the one last year with Benedict. At Assisi there were pagans, shamans, witches and all sorts mixing with the cup of her, The Harlot of Rome´s, fornication!

Roger Oakland - Road to Babylon

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oj0U9GOxvw&feature=related
 
Anon at 4:39 PM

GET THEE BEHIND ME SATAN, ACCUSER OF THE BRETHREN!

Roman Catholicism was behind Nazism, and behind the Croatian Nazis known as the Ustashi - many of whom were Roman Catholic priests!

RCism was also behind the fascist Dictator of Spain, General Franco, who said of Hitler: General Franco: “Hitler fought for Christianity in Europe”
“Adolf Hitler, son of the Catholic Church, died while defending Christianity. It is therefore understandable that words cannot be found to lament over his death”.

Franco made RCism the State Religion of Spain, true Christianity was suppressed and banned!

INDEED, IT WAS THE ITALIAN FASCIST DICTATOR MUSSOLINI WHO RE-ESTABLISHED THE VATICAN´S AUTHORITY IN 1929 VIA THE LATERAN TREATY! SUBTERFUGE, PRETENDING TO BE AGAINST RCISM WHEN REALLY THESE FASCISTS WERE RUN BY IT!


How the Lateran Treaty made the Catholic Church into a state

http://www.concordatwatch.eu/showtopic.php?kb_header_id=841

or

http://tinyurl.com/ch3sh27

Roger Oakland speaks out against the New Age & states the Vatican is full of the filth of Babylon - go there and see for yourself! Assisi was not set up by the Duke of Edinburgh as CC would have you believe, but by the Vatican itself, headed by the black pope Jesuit General, and the Pope John Paul II, and then the one last year with Benedict. At Assisi there were pagans, shamans, witches and all sorts mixing with the cup of her, The Harlot of Rome´s, fornication!

Roger Oakland - Road to Babylon

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oj0U9GOxvw&feature=related
 
Anon at 4:39 PM

GET THEE BEHIND ME SATAN, ACCUSER OF THE BRETHREN!

Roman Catholicism was behind Nazism, and behind the Croatian Nazis known as the Ustashi - many of whom were Roman Catholic priests!

RCism was also behind the fascist Dictator of Spain, General Franco, who said of Hitler: General Franco: “Hitler fought for Christianity in Europe”
“Adolf Hitler, son of the Catholic Church, died while defending Christianity. It is therefore understandable that words cannot be found to lament over his death”.

Franco made RCism the State Religion of Spain, true Christianity was suppressed and banned!

INDEED, IT WAS THE ITALIAN FASCIST DICTATOR MUSSOLINI WHO RE-ESTABLISHED THE VATICAN´S AUTHORITY IN 1929 VIA THE LATERAN TREATY! SUBTERFUGE, PRETENDING TO BE AGAINST RCISM WHEN REALLY THESE FASCISTS WERE RUN BY IT!


How the Lateran Treaty made the Catholic Church into a state

http://www.concordatwatch.eu/showtopic.php?kb_header_id=841

or

http://tinyurl.com/ch3sh27

Roger Oakland speaks out against the New Age & states the Vatican is full of the filth of Babylon - go there and see for yourself! Assisi was not set up by the Duke of Edinburgh as CC would have you believe, but by the Vatican itself, headed by the black pope Jesuit General, and the Pope John Paul II, and then the one last year with Benedict. At Assisi there were pagans, shamans, witches and all sorts mixing with the cup of her, The Harlot of Rome´s, fornication!

Roger Oakland - Road to Babylon

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oj0U9GOxvw&feature=related
 
Anon at 4:39 PM

GET THEE BEHIND ME SATAN, ACCUSER OF THE BRETHREN!

Roman Catholicism was behind Nazism, and behind the Croatian Nazis known as the Ustashi - many of whom were Roman Catholic priests!

RCism was also behind the fascist Dictator of Spain, General Franco, who said of Hitler: General Franco: “Hitler fought for Christianity in Europe”
“Adolf Hitler, son of the Catholic Church, died while defending Christianity. It is therefore understandable that words cannot be found to lament over his death”.

Franco made RCism the State Religion of Spain, true Christianity was suppressed and banned!

INDEED, IT WAS THE ITALIAN FASCIST DICTATOR MUSSOLINI WHO RE-ESTABLISHED THE VATICAN´S AUTHORITY IN 1929 VIA THE LATERAN TREATY! SUBTERFUGE, PRETENDING TO BE AGAINST RCISM WHEN REALLY THESE FASCISTS WERE RUN BY IT!


How the Lateran Treaty made the Catholic Church into a state

http://www.concordatwatch.eu/showtopic.php?kb_header_id=841

or

http://tinyurl.com/ch3sh27

Roger Oakland speaks out against the New Age & states the Vatican is full of the filth of Babylon - go there and see for yourself! Assisi was not set up by the Duke of Edinburgh as CC would have you believe, but by the Vatican itself, headed by the black pope Jesuit General, and the Pope John Paul II, and then the one last year with Benedict. At Assisi there were pagans, shamans, witches and all sorts mixing with the cup of her, The Harlot of Rome´s, fornication!

Roger Oakland - Road to Babylon

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oj0U9GOxvw&feature=related
 
1 – 200 of 353 Newer› Newest» Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]



Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

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

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]