Saturday, February 15, 2014

Are we experiencing weather related Judgment?

It clearly is not popular to say so, but one cannot help but wonder.  Are we under judgment?  Is the weather a sign of "global warming" n/k/a "climate change" or "extreme weather" or is God possibly sending us a wake up call?

Most interestingly, the countries not succumbing to same sex marriage n/k/a "marriage equality" are having lovely weather.  Those giving into same are having ecological disasters.  This is winter. It is one of the harshest, most brutal winters I can recall in my lifetime which is now longer than I usually care to confess.

Recently, against the pleas of a concerned British public official, David Cameron signed a bill allowing same sex marriage into law for that country.  Almost immediately killer gale force and flood calamities have plagued his country.  The Godly public official warning against it is Councillor David Silvester from Henley-on-Thames.  He is catching no small end of ridicule for suggesting this could be Judgment.  He is urged to end his "outmoded" world view.  In my view, he is quite possibly right.  He said the prime minister, David Cameron, had "acted arrogantly against the gospel."

I suspect Lot once received similar chiding from the Sodom & Gomorrah residents who thought it could never happen to them.  

Russia has outlawed homosexual proselytizing of its children.  We have outlawed in at least two major states:  California and New Jersey, counseling of children who are gender confused.  In effect, we have legalized homosexual proselytizing of our children.

California is experiencing a historical drought.  Our other states are experiencing historical brutal snow and cold.  

Russia is having lovely mild weather this winter.  Today as I write, it is in the thirties in Moscow.   The low temperature in Sochi, Russia today is 43.  It will climb to 55 on Sunday.

Here in the Detroit metropolitan area where I live, it is 18 degrees Fahrenheit in Detroit today.  Lake Orion, where I live is only 8 degrees Fahrenheit as I write at 8:13 p.m. on Saturday night.  This is warmer than it has been in sometime which is not saying much.  Lake Orion will rise only to 22 tomorrow.  We had no January thaw this year.

Further, I pray for a gradual thaw.  If the mountains of snow that have accumulated on our ground between December and the present time melt at once, flooding is a virtual certainty.

I just can't help but wonder.  Have we collectively thumbed our noses at God for too long?  Is God sending us a serious wake up call in the form of our weather?  We were warned scripturally that it would be difficult to maintain our Christianity in the prophesied perilous times to come.

In my humble opinion, those times may well be here.

May the Lord help us all!

Stay tuned!



1 – 200 of 291   Newer›   Newest»
Looking Up said...

God's Judgment is coming down, but most of the world are not going to see it. It's just bad weather, be it hot or cold. It is just bad laws being passed, be it abortion or extreme sexual corruption. Or, it is just inflation, be it GMO or a $5.00 loaf of bread.

We have taken The Bible out of public schools, when one of the main reasons for opening public schools was so children could learn to read The Bible. That's true. Look it up.

Our Country has turned its back on God as a people. Political correctness, what we used to call peer pressure, has become the conscience of our people. The new religion. The Big Crush of Deception is just settling in. What should we expect? Did anyone catch a glimpse of The Grammys? It was one big Luciferian Play Party.

I know we are used to seeing things "collectively", and that is a New Age perspective. But we can call on God individually and He will hear each one of us. We have to go to God through Jesus Christ, or it is mysticism, and that is not going to bring any protection or blessings from God.
We also, individually, have to read and DO His Word, or we fall blindly into "traditions of men", which is what has happened to the protestant churches. This war has been fought over the centuries. Look at the 605 years of horror of the Inquisition. Somebody wants us to move away from God.

This is not the place to get into quoting Bible passages, although what I am saying can be backed up. I don't like to argue religion. People who argue religion are not convinced yet. Argument implies that there is more than one answer. There is only One answer, and it has to be taken by each person individually. That was what the Reformation was all about, and I am grateful.

We are in the last days, the "end times". The Generation of the Fig Tree sprouted in 1848, and that generation is getting lots of gray hair by now.

The Word of God is the only Truth (The Authorized KJV with a reliable Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic Lexicon - Strong's Concordance). The True Bible is Christ Himself (John 1:1). The seal of God's Word must be in our foreheads (our minds), or we will be struck with the Mark of Susceptability and Deception (The Beast). We will fall at the Anti-Christ's feet, thinking he is Jesus. That is the way it will go down.

The litmus test is, if you see Jesus on the Nightly News, and can reach down and pinch yourself, then brother, that being on the news ain't Jesus. We cannot see Jesus in this dimension. When Jesus comes, we will be changed into our spiritual bodies. Read about it for yourself if you are interested. It's all in The Bible. If you don't want to read a Bible, then get out of the way of those who do. Real Christians do not try to take hostages for Jesus, and that must go both ways with other beliefs.

I love the rain, and there has been none this year. But if that is the way God wants it, then that is fine with me. God knows what He is doing, and He knows what must happen in order for His Kingdom to be restored.

It is going to be ok. Just trust in God; Trust in Jesus Christ. Stay in God's Word, God's Sanctuary, God's Sabbath, His Rest, which is The Lord Jesus Christ Himself.

I am often concerned about writing about these things on this blog because it is a political and intellectual format. I don't believe in mixing The Four Winds, but since you brought up this concern, I have given all I can, and I hope someone will find rest and get a good night's sleep.

Take Care.

Anonymous said...

All you trolls out there beware, there's a psychological profile of you now:

Anonymous said...

Constance, I think that we cannot know. Here in England we have had plenty of weather-related misery in the 20th century including when we were a much more God-fearing nation. I am not going to disagree with you, and heaven knows we deserve it, but I am not certain that his is direct divine judgement.

Bill Koenig has, however, noticed a VERY clear correlation between weather catastrophes in the USA and American policy being harsh to Israel. The USA is a player in the Middle East in a way that the UK is not, but was a few generations ago.


paul said...

The first country on earth with a backbone regarding Islam:

That's one country out of 195, which sees the very real danger to it's people and is doing something about it.

There are currently about 50 countries where it's
illegal (in varying degrees) to be a Christian.
Angola is the FIRST country on earth to return the favor to the bloody, intrinsically violent and vicious Islamic cult.

Marko said...

This might have been covered here before, but I have a question.

To start with, let me quote several passages of scripture:

"As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. "Tell us," they said, "when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?" Jesus answered: "Watch out that no one deceives you. For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ,' and will deceive many.

--Matt. 24:3-5 (NIV, 1984)

"Don't let anyone deceive you in any way, for [that day will not come] until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God."

--2 Thess. 2:3-4

Has anyone done a word study or understand the original texts enough to say whether the following is possible as an interpretation of these passages?


When Jesus said many will come saying "I am the Christ", I've always thought this was talking about specific individuals rising up and claiming to be Jesus Christ returned. it possible that he is instead referring to the New Age doctrine of people who in general start to say things like "I am a little God, I have the Christ consciousness", or, essentially, "I am Christ"?

We are told that we are the temple of the Holy Spirit ("Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and that God's Spirit lives in you? If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him; for God's temple is sacred, and you are that temple." -- 1 Corinthians 3:16-17). Could the 2 Thess. passage above be talking in general about the New Age doctrine of proclaiming ourselves to be God - of setting ourselves up as God in his temple - our bodies? This "man" (a type of man, not a specific one) will be destroyed when Jesus Christ returns, which parallels what the passage from 1 Cor. says will happen.

I'm not an expert at proper exegesis, and this probably isn't, but just wondering what others here thought.

paul said...

I believe this to be true.

I would also recommend checking out lectures by one Walid Shobat. They're easy to find on You Tube.
He says that:
Iran will nuke Saudi Arabia.
Islam is the Beast and Mecca is the Whore of Babylon.
Please check out the link above.
I now believe that this N.A. tidal wave IS the Great Apostasy that precedes the second coming, but not necessarily the Beast itself.
The Antichrist will come out of Turkey, and rule from there.

paul said...

I need to add that I'm aware that Constance is keenly aware of definitive statements that have been made by NewAge leaders, to the effect that a war will be/is being, actually forced upon Islam and Christianity, who are being goaded into and pitted against each other using all devious means possible.
No doubt it's true. Albert Pike said this a long time ago when he wrote "Morals and Dogma" as the go-to guide for Freemasons.
But that doesn't mean that Islam is not thoroughly
Anti Christian and bloodthirsty. Because it is, notwithstanding all the passive quiet Moslems in the world (mostly Sunni). The truth is that whether they are involved in jihad or not. Their false god
is the very same god as Baal of old and their religious practices are identical to the religion that
Nebuchadnezzar forced everyone to practice.
And their symbol is the mark of the beast; on their
right arm bands and forehead bands, complete with the number 666.

Craig said...

When Jesus said many will come saying "I am the Christ", I've always thought this was talking about specific individuals rising up and claiming to be Jesus Christ returned. it possible that he is instead referring to the New Age doctrine of people who in general start to say things like "I am a little God, I have the Christ consciousness", or, essentially, "I am Christ"?

In this context, the definite article (the) is used before Christos indicating particularity, i.e., individuals will say, in so many words, “I am the Christ” (the LXX {Septuagint} used the genitive {possessive} form of Christos {Christou} as “his anointed”, or “his Christ”, but in the NT Christos and Christou, etc. are always meant as the equivalent to the Hebrew “Messiah”). However, by the overall context, I see this more broadly, though constrained by those who do so ‘in His name’. I understand this to include only those who claim to be a Christian, a disciple of Christ. From my perspective, this certainly includes those who are the ‘termites’, as Constance would call them, those claiming to be a part of the Church, and speaking in Christian pulpits. Specifically, this would include Bill Johnson of Bethel Church in Redding, CA, whose claim is essentially that Jesus became the Christ just after His baptism when the Holy Spirit descended as a dove upon Him, with his concurrent claim that we are to receive this same “Christ anointing” (his exact words), which implies we too become “christs”.

Of course, this is essentially identical to 2nd century Gnostic texts, and is also found in Levi Dowling’s work, as well as New Age / New Spirituality doctrine. And, given that, one may interpret that these are also included in the words of Jesus as recorded by Matthew. They may have a very obviously distorted Christology, yet they may possibly be construed as ‘coming in His name’ in a broader sense as compared to Johnson.

As for the 1 Corinthians passage, the larger context reveals that Paul is speaking to Christians as being the dwelling place of God. I understand this to mean that it’s only Christians who are seen as the dwelling place of God, which would seem to preclude its application to 2 Thess 2:3-4. 2 Thess 2:3-4 seems to be a parallel to Matthew 24:15. F.F. Bruce (Word Biblical Commentary, Waco, TX: Word Books Publishers, 1982) sees this not as the body as a temple (pp 168-169), but in the place of the literal one:

…It may be best in conclude that the Jerusalem sanctuary [ED: not a 3rd temple] is meant here by Paul and his companions, but meant in a metaphorical sense. Had they said, “so that he takes his seat on the throne of God,” few would have thought it necessary to think of a literal throne; it would simply have been regarded as a graphic way of saying that he plans to usurp the authority of God. This is what is meant by the language actually used here, although the sacral associations of vaos [seat] imply that he demands not only the obedience but also the worship due to God alone (p 169).

Earlier, Bruce stated that the apostasia (rebellion) in verse 3 is “more probable…a general abandonment of the basis of civil order…This is not only rebellion against the law of Moses; it is a large-scale revolt against the public order…It is, in fact, the whole concept of divine authority over the world that is set at defiance in ‘the rebellion’ par excellence.”

I’d say we’re getting there quite quickly!

Anonymous said...

But Paul, Constance has stated that
muslim's believe in the same God as christian's do.

paul said...

Well, that is their claim, when talking to non Muslims.
But their own Koran tells them that it's alright to lie to Christians in order to bring Sharia to the whole world.
Allah is an idol that hates women.
Allah is an idol that hates Jews and Christians and his book says so.
Allah is a god of fortresses.
Islam is a cult and Islam is a form of government more than a legitimate religion.
The Ottomans Turks murdered countless Christians and Jews, such as the over one million in the Armenian Genocide.
There is NO RESEMBLANCE to Jehovah God, only a lie.
The crescent and star that sits atop the Dome on the Rock in Jerusalem is the exact same symbol that the Babylonians used for Baal, and the Egyptians used for
Osiris, and the Romans used for Apollo, and the Greeks used for Zeus. It's the very definition of Pagan.

I'm beginning to see much more relevance to this modern day in all those warnings that begin with "The burden of
Egypt, the burden of Tyre, the burden of Moab, etc etc in
Isaiah chapters 15-30 and Ezekiel and other places.
Every one of those prophetic warnings, no, curses, every one of them is a Moslem nation.
None of them is a warning to European countries.
Jesus is coming back to make war with the Moslems, and
completely annihilate them; Libya, Sudan, Lebanon, Syria,
Egypt, Jordan, Arabia, Iraq, Iran and others to number around 20 nations.

Behold, He comes.

Marko said...

Thanks Craig! Great explanation.

And yes, the stage seems to be all set, at least in regards to the passages being discussed.

Anonymous said...

Allah and Yahuweh...

As a Christian I take the Bible as ultimate truth. If I were to translate the Bible into Arabic 1400 years ago I would keep 'Yahuweh' untranslated as it is a name (just as I would keep it untranslated into English today), and I would use 'Allah' to translate some of the other words for 'God'. It is short for 'al-illah' meaning "THE god"; 'illah' is the Arabic form of ELOAH (Hebrew) which is the singular of ELOHIM as found in the OT (and a hint at the Trinity).

Today, though, the word 'Allah' has gained overtones that weren't present in the pre-Islamic era. It is nowadays invariably taken to mean the god described in the quran. So let's see what the quran says (remaining free to agree or disagree with it and working under the authority of the Holy Bible).

The quran is explicit that 'Allah' is the same creator god spoken of in the Jewish scriptures. The trouble is that the quran ascribes a very different personality to Him than does the Bible. I don't think that there is a Yes-No answer to the question "Is Allah Yahuweh?" For the question ASSUMES that a volitional being exists called Allah, that created the world and has the personality spoken of in the quran. In fact no such being exists. There might have been an impersonating spirit that whispered to Muhammad, but none such created the world, and the creator has a different personality.


Constance Cumbey said...

What does this discussion have to do with the obvious sins of Same Sex Marriage?

Constance Cumbey said...

Does anybody here deny that God brought severe judgment on Sodom & Gomorrah for similar acts?

Anonymous said...

Walid Shoebat is committed to the view that Islam is the one-world endtime system that Jesus Returns to trash. I think that Islam and secular humanism square of in what I call Satan's world cup final - World War 3 - and secular humanism wins, the Antichrist rising by promising no more wars if he is let rule and a world shattered by WW3 taking the deal. Last time I looked Shoebat reckoned that Istanbul (not Mecca) would be New Babylon, an identification I agree with. It is also obvious that Islam has a masculine spirit, not a feminine one as would be required to fit the whore of Babylon. (Think of the worst features of the male and female personality and then think of Islam and you will get the idea.)

Anonymous said...

"Does anybody here deny that God brought severe judgment on Sodom & Gomorrah for similar acts?"

Quite possibly not. See Ezekiel 16:49-50 for a list of Sodom's sins that brought judgement, and although "detestable things" probably include homosexual acts they is not specified explicitly, whereas several other sins are.

Anonymous said...

Leviticus 20:13
Romans 1:26-27
1 Timothy 8-10

And "Sodomite"

Anonymous said...

The greatest of the Fathers of the West and one of the great Doctors of the Church, Saint Augustine laid the foundations of Catholic theology. In his celebrated Confessions, he thus condemns homosexuality:

"Those offences which be contrary to nature are everywhere and at all times to be held in detestation and punished; such were those of the Sodomites, which should all nations commit, they should all be held guilty of the same crime by the divine law, which hath not so made men that they should in that way abuse one another. For even that fellowship which should be between God and us is violated, when that same nature of which He is author is polluted by the perversity of lust."

Anonymous said...

Doctor of the Church, cardinal and a great reformer of the clergy, Saint Peter Damian wrote his famous Book of Gomorrah against the inroads made by homosexuality among the clergy. He describes not only the iniquity of homosexuality, but also its psychological and moral consequences:

"Truly, this vice is never to be compared with any other vice because it surpasses the enormity of all vices.… It defiles everything, stains everything, pollutes everything. And as for itself, it permits nothing pure, nothing clean, nothing other than filth.…

"The miserable flesh burns with the heat of lust; the cold mind trembles with the rancor of suspicion; and in the heart of the miserable man chaos boils like Tartarus [Hell]…. In fact, after this most poisonous serpent once sinks its fangs into the unhappy soul, sense is snatched away, memory is borne off, the sharpness of the mind is obscured. It becomes unmindful of God and even forgetful of itself. This plague undermines the foundation of faith, weakens the strength of hope, destroys the bond of charity; it takes away justice, subverts fortitude, banishes temperance, blunts the keenness of prudence.

"And what more should I say since it expels the whole host of the virtues from the chamber of the human heart and introduces every barbarous vice as if the bolts of the doors were pulled out."

Anonymous said...

Pope Saint Gregory I is called “the Great.” He is both Father and Doctor of the Church. He introduced Gregorian chant into the Church. He organized England’s conversion, sending Saint Augustine of Canterbury and many Benedictine monks there.

"Sacred Scripture itself confirms that sulfur evokes the stench of the flesh, as it speaks of the rain of fire and sulfur poured upon Sodom by the Lord. He had decided to punish Sodom for the crimes of the flesh, and the very type of punishment he chose emphasized the shame of that crime. For sulfur stinks, and fire burns. So it was just that Sodomites, burning with perverse desires arising from the flesh like stench, should perish by fire and sulfur so that through this just punishment they would realize the evil they had committed, led by a perverse desire."

Anonymous said...

Commenting upon Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (1:26-27), Saint Thomas Aquinas, the Angelic Doctor, explains why the sin of homosexuality is so grave:

"Given the sin of impiety through which they [the Romans] sinned against the divine nature [by idolatry], the punishment that led them to sin against their own nature followed.... I say, therefore, that since they changed into lies [by idolatry] the truth about God, He brought them to ignominious passions, that is, to sins against nature; not that God led them to evil, but only that he abandoned them to evil....

"If all the sins of the flesh are worthy of condemnation because by them man allows himself to be dominated by that which he has of the animal nature, much more deserving of condemnation are the sins against nature by which man degrades his own animal nature....

"Man can sin against nature in two ways. First, when he sins against his specific rational nature, acting contrary to reason. In this sense, we can say that every sin is a sin against man’s nature, because it is against man’s right reason....

"Secondly, man sins against nature when he goes against his generic nature, that is to say, his animal nature. Now, it is evident that, in accord with natural order, the union of the sexes among animals is ordered towards conception. From this it follows that every sexual intercourse that cannot lead to conception is opposed to man’s animal nature."

Anonymous said...

Saint Bernardine of Siena was a famous preacher, celebrated for his doctrine and holiness. Regarding homosexuality, he stated:

"No sin in the world grips the soul as the accursed sodomy; this sin has always been detested by all those who live according to God.… Deviant passion is close to madness; this vice disturbs the intellect, destroys elevation and generosity of soul, brings the mind down from great thoughts to the lowliest, makes the person slothful, irascible, obstinate and obdurate, servile and soft and incapable of anything; furthermore, agitated by an insatiable craving for pleasure, the person follows not reason but frenzy.… They become blind and, when their thoughts should soar to high and great things, they are broken down and reduced to vile and useless and putrid things, which could never make them happy.... Just as people participate in the glory of God in different degrees, so also in hell some suffer more than others. He who lived with this vice of sodomy suffers more than another, for this is the greatest sin."

Anonymous said...

Saint John Chrysostom is considered the greatest of the Greek Fathers and was proclaimed Doctor of the Church. He was Archbishop and Patriarch of Constantinople, and his revision of the Greek liturgy is used until today. In his sermons about Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, he dwells on the gravity of the sin of homosexuality:

"But if thou scoffest at hearing of hell and believest not that fire, remember Sodom. For we have seen, surely we have seen, even in this present life, a semblance of hell. For since many would utterly disbelieve the things to come after the resurrection, hearing now of an unquenchable fire, God brings them to a right mind by things present. For such is the burning of Sodom, and that conflagration!…

"Consider how great is that sin, to have forced hell to appear even before its time!… For that rain was unwonted, for the intercourse was contrary to nature, and it deluged the land, since lust had done so with their souls. Wherefore also the rain was the opposite of the customary rain. Now not only did it fail to stir up the womb of the earth to the production of fruits, but made it even useless for the reception of seed. For such was also the intercourse of the men, making a body of this sort more worthless than the very land of Sodom. And what is there more detestable than a man who hath pandered himself, or what more execrable?

Anonymous said...

Dear Anon@6.51pm, nobody suggested that the Bible does not condemn homosexual behavior (it does and you give the correct scriptures), but unlike 6.23pm you are not addressing the very specific question that Constance asked. Also the word "sodomite" is not found in the Bible in the original languages except perhaps in the literal meaning to denote an inhabitant of that town.

Anonymous said...

Athenagoras of Athens was a philosopher who converted to Christianity in the second century. He shows that the pagans, who were totally immoral, did not even refrain from sins against nature:

"But though such is our character (Oh! why should I speak of things unfit to be uttered?), the things said of us are an example of the proverb, 'The harlot reproves the chaste.' For those who have set up a market for fornication and established infamous resorts for the young for every kind of vile pleasure – who do not abstain even from males, males with males committing shocking abominations, outraging all the noblest and comeliest bodies in all sorts of ways, so dishonoring the fair workmanship of God."

Anonymous said...

Saint Catherine, a great mystic and Doctor of the Church, lived in troubled times. The Papacy was in exile at Avignon, France. She was instrumental in bringing the Popes back to Rome. Her famous Dialogues are written as if dictated by God Himself:

"But they act in a contrary way, for they come full of impurity to this mystery, and not only of that impurity to which, through the fragility of your weak nature, you are all naturally inclined (although reason, when free will permits, can quiet the rebellion of nature), but these wretches not only do not bridle this fragility, but do worse, committing that accursed sin against nature, and as blind and fools, with the light of their intellect darkened, they do not know the stench and misery in which they are. It is not only that this sin stinks before me, who am the Supreme and Eternal Truth, it does indeed displease me so much and I hold it in such abomination that for it alone I buried five cities by a divine judgment, my divine justice being no longer able to endure it. This sin not only displeases me as I have said, but also the devils whom these wretches have made their masters. Not that the evil displeases them because they like anything good, but because their nature was originally angelic, and their angelic nature causes them to loathe the sight of the actual commission of this enormous sin.

Anonymous said...

Augustine of Hippo, Gregory the Great, Thomas Aquinas, Peter Damiani, John Chrysostom and Bernardine of Siena were all able to condemn homosexual acts with such authority because they got it from the Bible. Good for them but I prefer to cut out the middleman - 6.51pm gives chapter and verse.

paul said...

Islam may appear to be a masculine religion
but, just like the Nazi's, the cult is homosexual at the top. Most rank and file are probably unaware of this.
They also practice child abuse in it's many forms.
These things were the Ideal among the Greeks of
classical antiquity, whom they emulate.
The tough dominating male usually had a soft young boy to play with. And they had the amorality to consider themselves to be very honorable and
respectable even while they despised the effeminate ones that we today think of as "gay".
They were and are deeply depraved.
They can't reproduce life but they can propagate death.
See the book "The Pink Swastika" published in the early 90's.
The highest ranking Moslems are the same way.

I'll never understand how modern gays have managed to seize so much power in the very age of AIDS. I mean why hasn't anyone mentioned that it's a HEALTH HAZARD to the public !
All I ever hear is that it's really cool to be gay: they're so fun and funny and lovable and they rule the world of fashion and "good taste". Those sitcom writers can't seem to push the agenda enough. They've convinced everyone that their 3% numbers appear to be more like 50%.
But then it's all there in their manifesto, which is a book called "After The Ball".
It's a book that would have made Machiavelli proud.
The fact that homosexuality is a clear and present danger to the public health, on a par with smoking cigarettes, is completely lost on the public.

God help us.

Dan Bryan said...

Climate Change/Weather Modification? GMO's? ChemTrails? HAARP?

Apocalyptic disasters are more the deeds of evil men and should not be ascribed to that being the works of an angry God.

Anonymous said...

That, my good sir, is science fiction masquerading as science.

Anonymous said...

I agree with you Paul. God's Genesis mandate has both elements to go and subdue and populate the earth but in the warped mindset of Islam is the excusing of abhorent behavior making it an abomination to the Living God and the Word He spoke to begin the world and an antithesis to the Gospel.

The lust for power to subdue is played out in the very violence of much of Islam's culture and the lust that drives for power coupled with sexual prowess (that is worshiped by those most adherent as it is full of idolatry of this nature from it's inception by mohammed),lust, makes males in large quarters of their population, readily able to fall prey to perversion. Women are used for the pro-generation of their race and the practicals of that but they are given no equality which makes for at least (in healthy minds) a curb of the lust for power that drives godless people to do godless things.

Since the homosexual cannot reproduce it becomes necessary to recruit. By violent means and/or by manipulation of young innocents they quietly excuse themselves and openly condemn others of weakness for letting their culture get out of step with their version of "godliness" that they expect the world to appreciate and immulate. How dare the world refuse...

Lust and power are driven by pride-the deep seated poison-that ruins men to ultimately become God's (which comes through humility and acknowledged brokenness at breaking His Commands before Him-to accept and receive how God paid for all that in giving His Son buying back-redemption price-what was lost in the fall)and of God's Order for the world as He planned in the beginning. Pride wrests away/tears away from God and from all others the beauty of right relationship between creation and Creator, and therefore, right relating between people/s. The complete picture of this is marriage between one man and one woman (before God and man) but is distorted when men set out to trash what God at the beginning has said and make their own "order" to the world. Hence the extremes that have all gone on "under the sun"...then as in now, but coming to a close when God says it is done. This, among many others, bring the whole issue to a crescendo. Islam is rampantly gaining ground in the world as a powerful influence and so is the homosexual agenda. The new age agenda has a way to compromise with both to grab power too. God Himself has His answer to this, and more, coming up on the horizon...

Anonymous said...

Christine help!

The post's have stopped!

Anonymous said...

Livestream from Kiev.

From the Washington Post and other sources, it appears that the opposition tried to push through governmental reforms which were denied late last week. This lead to the right-wing elements (Neo Nazis) of the anti-Russia pro-Western protesters to instigate escalations in the protests. The President then ordered Maidan square to be cleared by 6pm, and then the police and protestors each begin attacking the other using bullets and fire.

As soon as the closing ceremonies of the Olympics happen, I predict Putin will massively support the government of Ukraine, including using attack helicopters. The protesters know this, and are taking the first steps in a civil war by conquering certain military outposts using small arms from friendly police departments. The protestors will shortly have conventional arms with which to fight the Ukrainian and Russian armies.

There is now a greater than 50% chance of civil war in Ukraine.

There is a slight, but growing chance of a conflict between the US and Russia.

Anonymous said...

9:57 p.m. Please don't taunt. Posts will come back when there is more respect shown all the way around.

Constance Cumbey said...

There is a DANGEROUS new book out, THE COMING INTERSPIRITUAL AGE by Kurt Johnson. It is endorsed by the likes of excommunicated Catholic Priest, now Episcopalian, Matthew Fox. I've ordered a copy and will be discussing it. I just watched one of the promotional videos for it and it is a bold thrust in the wrong direction.


Constance Cumbey said...

If I can figure out how to hook up my Skype for his network, I'm doing a Skype television interview for Cliff Kincaid's network Wednesday (tonight).


Constance Cumbey said...

The site to go to for the program


Anonymous said...

Anon@12:40 p.m.

Most of the kids I teach are male, because learning disabilities are now higher in the male population.

The main reason being that the feminist take-over of education has neglected boys, because they do not believe that sex differences are real.

This engineering is geared towards the promotion of gender identity movements, where you are are heterosexist for even suggesting men and women are complementary.

It's an all out war on traditional Christians.

paul said...

If your having trouble hooking up Skype,
just look for the nearest 14 year old and

Anonymous said...


Matthew Fox, can relate to the universe without a personal God. He's entitled to that, but he cannot insist the rest of us do the same.

Anonymous said...

The weather is controlled by haarp and Doppler radar precipitation facilitators across the US. They do think liked try to create the look of global climate change with big storms so we will submit to the nwo. They can create a drought when we have the dollar crash, people will starve.

Anonymous said...

Dear 11:13 am,

It's not.


Anonymous said...

Former Planned Parenthood nurse calls abortion clinic 'sad, evil place'....

Anonymous said...

"Global Spring"

This is now appearing on Twitter regarding Ukraine, Venezuela and so forth.

Anonymous said...

In Australia gay marriage has not been legalised, yet we have sweltered through our hottest summer on record with temps staying around 43C for weeks at a time. This is simply not natural, and after researching the issue am included to believe that HAARP is indeed being used as a weapon to force countries into signing global climate change legislation that removes national sovereignty.

Anonymous said...

Dear 5.07 am

After researching the issue? How? Please google Cumbey + HAARP + Physicist to see that this absurd claim has already been debunked here.

As for Australia's NOT unprecedentedly hot summer, see


Constance Cumbey said...

To Anonymous 11:13

The HAARP people may be "good," but they are not THAT GOOD. God still, IMHO, controls the weather.


Anonymous said...

"....temps staying around 43C for weeks at a time. This is simply not natural...."

This is the conspiratorial mindset at its finest.

Nature is full of extremes, and weather is certainly a prime example of this. There are short-term cycles and long-term cycles. The "normal", in this case, is just an average of these extremes over time. It is *unusual* for these extremes to occur, but not *unnatural*.

"I know there is an evil cabal controlling the weather, and this must be proof of it, because if there *were* an evil cabal, certainly they would do something like control the weather, so they can ruin our crops and bring us under their control."

Circular logic at its best.

Anonymous said...

Pope Francis talks to Pentecostal Conference in Texas via Iphone video

Anonymous said...

Chief Rabbi of Kiev orders all Jews to flee immediately from Kiev and to leave Ukraine if possible.

Constance Cumbey said...

Just going on the air in another 5-6 minutes -- with the slight delay, you can listen live in another 8 minutes. Please go to and give yourself a name/handle and join us there and click listen live to hear the broadcast. Call in to 888-747-1968 to participate in broadcast.


Paul said...

Constance i would recommend looking up John Caseys work regarding the Suns cycles.
His book cold sun details strongly a coming calamity of the order seen in the 1600 and 1800 with cold being the new order not global warming, bring with it famine and death.

PS i am not opposed to our Sovereign God intervening or passing judgement.

However the new testament would suggest he gives us over as nations to our sins, and in that sense we already can see HIS judgement in the Western world.

Marko said...

Israel often was invaded and/or taken captive as part of God's judgment. Perhaps that is what we face in the not-so-distant future.

Anonymous said...


You might want to read this.

Women religious and the new cosmology.

Anonymous said...

Hi Constance, that was funny when you made note of your life number/duration, being longer than you like to admit,........well like i tell my mother in law, "Mary, you wait till you get ta be my age." Well, if looks could kill!!!/ tony in vt. blessings to you*

Anonymous said...

There is definitely a New Age tie to the revolution in the Ukraine. And we do like the idea of the bad guys and the good guys being clearly defined for us. The picture we are getting is brave protesters winning against mean Communists. In reality it's not all that clear.

Think back to the '30s. Were the New Age people on the side of the communists or the Nazis? There is evidence for both. Is it possible that larger forces think of us as the toy soldiers, plastic or lead, that young boys staged battles with? Or could it be like those computer war games where both sides are created by the same gamers? Or maybe it's like the scenario set up in Brave New World where the battles continue only the sides change?

There is no end to the people who will claim to give you the "true" picture.

With something this complicated I suggest you do your own web search. Here are suggestions for groups of words that can be put in to them. (Ukraine New Age) (Ukraine occult) (Ukraine European Union) (Fascist New Age Ukraine) (Ukraine Third Position) (Ukraine Euromaidan) (Ukraine revolution Soros)

Here's a lead. where you will find "Denys: “I understand that, but here in Ukraine, apart from the New Age things, they are also very fascinated by the proper fascists, such as Mussolini, for example. They somehow are trying to mix it with anarchism." Also

Anonymous said...

Although it's called a New Age vocabulary, it has nothing to do with the New Age movement. Yet, it's funny.

paul said...

I just read the Denys interview link from Anonymous
@ 1:32 above.
After reading the entire interview, all I'm sure of
regarding Ukraine is that I don't understand it at all.
It's extremely complicated.
I've got that part right, I'm sure.
Many Ukrainians would like to join the EU but the country does so much trade with Russia that that approach could be disastrous.
They've got Anarchists, Green anarchists, Red/Green Sythesists, Red Green Syndicalists, Green and Black (feminist), Communists, don't
forget the Orange Revolutionists, of course the Workers Trade Union, Russian intervention, EU intervention, Polish comrades and Greek comrades,
"trots", and "thugs" and oil and gas giants playing games with people's lives in a cold climate.
The summation can only be that it's so confusing that the only solution must be a "global unified system".
No surprise there.

Anonymous said...

That's the report I was pointing to at 1:32

Here are two more articles, copied from other sources:

Anonymous said...

There are many articles at which are of value to those who want to understand how Fascism operated and what ties there are in Europe now between such groups. Do you want to know who McCain met with in Europe? It's there. What role did the Dali Llama play in the Nazi movement it's there. Though never mentioned by the term New Age, anyone with knowledge of that movement can put the pieces together.

Part 2 describes the kind of television reality shows that were planned for the years ahead.

Anonymous said...

There is a website named It's a very ambitious project. One of the pages offers the complete history of the New Age movement. This is one of the pages that shuts down my browser though other pages do not. From what I've seen, it's not a neutral source. If you have enough power, you might be able to get to it. If you do, let us know what's on it. I can get to the New Age blog, but not the history.

Anonymous said...

Have you ever heard of David Wilkerson's prophecy? Here is a youtube summary. I guess he has a book, but I haven't read it. The short answer is: absolutely it is judgment. And it is just the beginning.


Anonymous said...

Is Pope Francis taking steps that are laying the groundwork for the emergence of a one world religion?

This article has all of the Christians and Muslims coming together. I do believe there are a few other religions. I wonder what he has in mind.

Cathy said...

From 11/9/2001 to 16/6/2014 is exactly 666 weeks counting inclusively.

Cathy said...

Pope JPII was buried in a trapezoid-shaped coffin on 8/4/2005. We should all know what this trapezoid shape implies.
Pope Francis I is going to Israel on 24/5/2014, exactly 3,333 days later.This is 9 yrs 1 mth and 16 days or 3+3+3 yrs plus 3x(3+3+3+3+3+0.3333333recurring)days.
QEII visits Pope Francis I on 3/4/2014 and 33 days later is 24/5/2014 when Pope Francis I visits Israel.
QEII is 88 on 21/4/2014 and exactly 8 weeks later is 16/6/2014.
Obama visits Pope Francis I on 27/3/2014 and 9 x 9 days later is 16/6/2014
Clearly all this is just coincidence.

Cathy said...

Sorry for the error but the 33 day gap is from when QEII is 88 on 21/4/2014 to 24/5/2014 when Pope Francis I visits Israel.

Anonymous said...

David Wilkerson was a fine man of God but he didn't have a 100% record as a prophet... he gave a timescale for some things which turned out to be untrue or at least premature. Re bad weather we tend to forget how bad it has been in the past but newspapers tell a different story. Have a look at

and Bill Koenig's other material (books) to see clear correlations between US weather disasters and US policy towards Israel.

Anonymous said...

"Pope JPII was buried in a trapezoid-shaped coffin on 8/4/2005. We should all know what this trapezoid shape implies."

It implies that dead bodies when laid out flat are most economically contained within a trapezoidal shape. That is why not only Jophn Paul II but most people in Western civilization are buried in trapezoidal coffins.

"Clearly all this is just coincidence."

Yep. Are you serious?

paul said...

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

Had to post this update, be prepared just in case,
whether it is persecution like Constance said on show
a while back to prepare for or a disaster. Prepare for
one you are prepared for the other.

good sane stable source, Yellowstone now showing rare form of helium far
more than normal, this presages eruption at other

article he references

vision from a Christian who cleaned up his act
and got rid of a demon, month to watch for is August from the 20th on, no year specified.

Hmmmm. maybe this year? A new fault divinding CA and NV has been recently found would allow part of this.

Indonesian sea floor progressive uprising and earthquakes could mean a big one that tsunamis the west coast. This vision is, therefore, credible.

Anonymous said...

Handbook of information on how internet trolls attack serious posters. The first article show how the government has been doing it. Know what is happening when your comments are attacked. The comments at the second link are extensive but very informative.

Susanna said...

Dear Constance @ 6:07 P.M.

For what it is worth, this is a Catholic prophecy from the German Catholic stigmatist Therese Neumann;

Therese Neumann was a German stigmatist and mystic, who for many years did not sleep and lived without food or liquids except for the daily Eucharist.

When asked by an American GI if the United States would ever be destroyed or invaded in a war, her answer was: "No, but at the end of this century America will be destroyed economically by a series of NATURAL DISASTERS."

Those who study prophecies know that "the end of this century" does not necessarily mean directly before or immediately after the year 2000, because prophecies are not always fulfilled at an exact period of time. However, we also know that this prophecy has already partly come true because during the past few years the following disasters have occurred with greater frequency and/or greater intensity: flooding, heat waves, drought, hurricanes, severe storms, cold waves, tornadoes, wildfires, earthquakes, and odd weather patterns.

As with many prophecies, they are fulfilled to the extent that people are willing to amend their lives, truly practice their Faith, and live by God's Laws as given through the Holy Bible and the teachings of the Church. A punishment can be very severe, or lessened in intensity, depending upon the number of people who are willing to return to the Lord and follow HIS teachings, rather than the temptations of the devil and the teachings of the world.

Because the Lord is not quick to punish, many people foolishly believe no punishment will ever come. The lessons of the previous century, and the great sufferings of the millions who were killed, tortured and imprisoned at the hands of atheistic madmen have been forgotten. A new generation awaits proof of the existence of God.

When disasters & wars take place, the vast majority of people, (even leaders within the Church) do not recognize they are coming from the Lord since He is ALLOWING them to happen. Many express "compassion" for those who have suffered harm, but very few have the wisdom to truly see or express WHY "natural" disasters & wars happen. Others remain ignorant because as in all punishments, the INNOCENT suffer along with the GUILTY and they lack the spiritual knowledge to understand why that is GOD'S WILL.

In addition to their indifference, lukewarm spiritual state, and approval of abortion, what are the other reasons God would inflict a punishment upon the people of the United States?.........

Anonymous said...

Just wanted to update my comment about David Wilkerson's prophecy. It seems he made some prophecies with dates in the past that didn't come true. I wasn't aware of this when I posted his link. My apologies.

Anonymous said...

Thank you, Anonymous 5:09, just saw your comment. I agree David Wilkerson has some excellent teaching and seems to be a godly man (though there's much you can't know without personally knowing him...). But yes, he has made some errors, so it his prophecies are untrustworthy.


paul said...


" in all punishments, the innocent suffer along with the guilty..."

What ???
Says who ?
That's not what happened in the deluge in Noah's time.
That's not what happened in the Passover.
I don't believe that that's true at all, on a day to day basis.

And who says who is innocent ?

paul said...

Please see this;

paul said...

No birthday for you this year ?

Susanna said...


There was also Sodom and Gomorrah.

In any case, I clearly stated at the beginning of my comment that Theresa Neumann's prophecy is a CATHOLIC prophecy. As such, it comes under the heading of private revelation. I simply mentioned it because of how it related to this particular thread. :-)

Susanna said...

Anonymous 9:02 P.M.

RE:Is Pope Francis taking steps that are laying the groundwork for the emergence of a one world religion?


Q: Is Christian unity a priority for you?

Pope Francis: Yes, for me ecumenism is a priority. Today there is an ecumenism of blood. In some countries they kill Christians for wearing a cross or having a Bible and before they kill them they do not ask them whether they are Anglican, Lutheran, Catholic or Orthodox. Their blood is mixed. To those who kill we are Christians. We are united in blood, even though we have not yet managed to take necessary steps towards unity between us and perhaps the time has not yet come. Unity is a gift that we need to ask for.

I knew a parish priest in Hamburg who was dealing with the beatification cause of a Catholic priest guillotined by the Nazis for teaching children the catechism. After him, in the list of condemned individuals, was a Lutheran pastor who was killed for the same reason. Their blood was mixed. The parish priest told me he had gone to the bishop and said to him: "I will continue to deal with the cause, but both of their causes, not just the Catholic priest's."

This is what ecumenism of blood is. It still exists today; you just need to read the newspapers. Those who kill Christians don't ask for your identity card to see which Church you were baptized in. We need to take these facts into consideration...........

paul said...

I didn't mean to be rude.
Sorry if that's the way it came out.
But the statement; "_the innocent suffer along
with the guilty"... do you think that it's accurate?
I mean, you mention Sodom and Gomorrah and
I say yes exactly.
And the 12 Plagues of Egypt and Noah's Ark, and
The Passover and Korah's Rebellion and at Meribah,
and others. These events all seem like examples of remarkably selective judgements, not at all a killing of both sinners and righteous at the same time.

Susanna said...


First of all, I didn't perceive your remarks as rude....simply non-Catholic Christian. And that is OK.

Without getting into religious polemics Catholics and Protestants have different perspectives on suffering.

And when all is said and done, who was more innocent than Christ???

Anonymous said...

On behalf of all of the anonymouses, HAPPY DAY BEFORE YOUR BIRTHDAY.

(or is it anonymice?)

Constance Cumbey said...

Re my morning radio program:

Cliff Kincaid will join me the first hour and we will be updated on the Ukrainian situation. Second hour is so far open lines. Join us in the chatroom at
by this address

Call in to 888-747-1968.

Thanks for all the non-birthday wishes!!!!


Marko said...

Dear Constance (or whoever else may know):

Is there any way to hear a recording of your Saturday morning shows? I am never available to listen to them on Saturday mornings, and it would be great to be able to hear them.

Thanks so much!

Susanna said...


Anonymous said...

All 5 of the Great Lakes are approaching 100% ice cover for the first time on record!!!

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

well, its Mar. 2, the birthday for the anonymice who are mad March Hares has past.

Male education problems – these have less to do with denying sex differences,
than with trying to enforce on BOTH sexes the limiting of mental and
physical capability usually done only to girls. If you think boys are psychologically
castrated, apply that concept to what we think is normal for girls. It is the female equivalent of being psychologically castrated.

There is also deliberate dumbing down of everyone, as per Charlotte Iserbyt and others.

World wide regardless of culture or bloodlines, children tested in the 1950s and
maybe early 1960s, showed two things. Boys raised the usual way scored high math
and spatial low verbal, while girls raised the usual way scored low math and spatial,
high verbal. With this noteworthy exception.

Boys raised overprotected scored in the female pattern of low math and spatial skills,

while tomboys scored in the male pattern of high math and spatial skills.

Brain development of some kinds depends on getting used to your body in relation
to objects and space around you, a kind of subconscious math I guess goes on in
figuring the next move split second by split second especially with competitors.
The writers reluctantly concluded that to get female math skills up,
at some point in her development she had to be a tomboy.

Gender stereotypes are not Christian, a lot of so called male traits and needs and female
traits are just baptized sin. Take The Bible at face value and forget those Focus
on the Family freaks and their males supremacist type pagan baggage brought into Christianity, you would raise both
sexes the way boys are usually raised, because Eve was created to be Adam's partner fit for because able to stand face to face with him “ezer neged” no
hint of gender roles until the curse on her AFTER The Fall. mitigating the hard work curse on Adam isn't called sin, so teaching women not to default isn't sin either.

The virtuous woman of Prov. 31 is close to being amazonian. operates independently, a sharp businesswoman, SHE IS PROVIDER WHOSE HUSBAND HAS NO NEED OF "SPOIL" thievery or wheel and deal or whatever, girds up her loins and envigorates her arms, is fearless.

Not very "feminine" at all.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

exactly one of the reasons I oppose female ordination.

this is also a classic exercize in New Age non sequiturs.

There is no logical connection between any kind of science and any theology
especially given the revealed status of our religion. And the omnipresence of God
does not identify Him therefore with the earth spirit whatever that is, if there is
some “world soul” of hermeticism, then it is just another creation of YHWH's and
is not YHWH Himself.

And there isn't any logical connection between theology and issues of science
and the issue of women's ordination.

The classical pagan philosophy, and occultism until the 20th century, posit the female as receptive,
the male as active, therefore the male should be priest. Pantheism and panentheism were primary features of these philosophies, but did not produce any sex equality notions. Plato had women warriors in his Republic, but argued against this in practice.

St. Paul said women were not to usurp
authority over a man, but used the term AUTHENTEIN not used elsewhere
in the NT and is almost obscene in its implications. Clearly a domineering
and erotically appealing woman who is exploiting some men's desire to
worship a sexy dominatrix BDSM mistress sort.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

From an email
““Through humility, soul searching, and prayerful contemplation we have gained a new understanding of certain dogmas. The church no longer believes in a literal hell where people suffer. This doctrine is incompatible with the infinite love of God. God is not a judge but a friend and a lover of humanity. God seeks not to condemn but only to embrace. Like the fable of Adam and Eve, we see hell as a literary device. Hell is merely a metaphor for the isolated soul, which like all souls ultimately will be united in love with God.”
In a shocking speech that is reverberating across the world, Pope Francis declared that:
“All religions are true, because they are true in the hearts of all those who believe in them. What other kind of truth is there? In the past, the church has been harsh on those it deemed morally wrong or sinful. Today, we no longer judge. Like a loving father, we never condemn our children. Our church is big enough for heterosexuals and homosexuals, for the pro-life and the pro-choice! For conservatives and liberals, even communists are welcome and have joined us. We all love and worship the same God.”
In the last six months, Catholic cardinals, bishops and theologians have been deliberating in the Vatican City, in discussing the future of the church and redefining long-held Catholic doctrines and dogmas. The Third Vatican Council, is the largest and most important since the Second Vatican Council was concluded in 1962.
Pope Francis convened the new council to “finally finish the work of the Second Vatican Council.”
The Third Vatican Council concluded with Pope Francis announcing that…
Catholicism is now a “modern and reasonable religion, which has undergone evolutionary changes. The time has come to abandon all intolerance. We must recognize that religious truth evolves and changes. Truth is not absolute or set in stone. Even atheists acknowledge the divine. Through acts of love and charity the atheist acknowledges God as well, and redeems his own soul, becoming an active participant in the redemption of humanity”

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

WEATHER - natural cycles and human intervention doesn't rule out God's wrath, He can tweak weather. Radar doppler DOES NOT MAKE WEATHER it only TRACKS it. HAARP is too complicated to comment on here. But the fact a treaty was signed against using weather for war shows it was in the works and operational almost by then. BECAUSE YOU DON'T MAKE TREATIES PROHIBITING SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T EXIST.

God can use evil men to accomplish His wrath, like He did with Babylonia, then took them down because they did worse than He liked, and they did not willingly serve Him but unknowingly and worshipped only their own strength.

The sun makes more weather conditions on earth than often recognized, electric
universe theory shows why, and this predicted electric discharge when the probe
landed on the asteroid, and this
which has NASA scratching its collective head.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

On suffering of the innocent with the guilty Catholic vs. Protestant concepts of
suffering – perhaps a better term would be comparatively innocent? Since no
one is absolutely innocent and pure except our Lord Jesus Christ?

However, some masochistic and dubious notions have infected Catholicism thanks to some visionaries, whose messages the Magisterium has repeatedly said are not mandatory to accept and can be rejected, these being mere personal revelations and not additions to Holy Scripture or Tradition.

It has become traditional however.

But no one is entirely innocent, one way or another. When one really looks in one's own heart and mind honestly, one can see this.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

Looking Up "The litmus test is, if you see Jesus on the Nightly News, and can reach down and pinch yourself, then brother, that being on the news ain't Jesus. We cannot see Jesus in this dimension. When Jesus comes, we will be changed into our spiritual bodies."

That is not what The Bible says. It says that when He comes He will be in the sky visible to all, and all the nations will see Him and mourn (knowing the end of their power and time of wrath has come).

The Second Coming is not something that is "spiritual" we will be changed into our resurrection bodies like His, but what was His? VERY PHYSICAL, the same PHYSICAL body He was buried in, but now rendered indestructible and immortal.

He comes back to rule PHYSICALLY forever (a revolt occurs but is put down).

I do not understand how people can read The Bible and get all this "spiritual" stuff like another dimension and He is never going to be visible to everyone.

No, the litmus test is, that He's not just on TV (unless the cameras are aimed at the sky) and the antichrist has already been here, persecuting the Church. 2 Thess. and Matt. 24.

Marko said...


Your 6:50 am post is ridiculous. It's obvious you don't check your sources.

Those "quotes" from the Pope are made up, and are from a satirical article. Here's one explanation of what it's all about:

And as for HAARP, while I think it's *possible* that HAARP may have some slight effect on weather, it is probably only short-lived and localized. And besides, it's been shut down since last May. Here's an article from EarthSky magazine:

Anonymous said...


The issue with women's ordination is self-centered rebellion, rather than a sincere desire to serve God.

If you have to fight for a vocation, you do not have one, regardless of whether you are male or female.

The concept of vocation and calling is not understood.

It's like a kid whose parent takes away their iphone or ipad, and they complain and complain about how they are going to die, and their parent is just so cruel.

These people point to examples of courageous women saints, etc, but none of them held the same attitudes about vocation.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

Marko, while I didn't check anything till now, that original site

does not have any satirical content disclaimer on the page with the article, it is buried under the title "disclaimer" at the top of the blog, the sort of thing no one reads expecting it to be something to do with copyright or blame sources not the writer sort of stuff and might not even see at all since you normally read the article not the other stuff unless you want to explore the blog.

If one doesn't keep that close track on the Vatican, the possibility of such a council - and the factual information regarding conditions under Islam in Africa recited in the article - is not an automatic tip off.

Pardon me and the rest who got taken by that one.

But the way Pope Francis talks, this is a logical next step. Certainly one he might not take, but certainly one that IS taken by a lot of hearers. What he has said has been rather disconcerting as it is.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

10:15 I agree. There are enough male clergy who are there for career issues and ego already without adding women to this.

I can't think of any woman I have read about demanding female ordination who are doing so for the right reasons. Always it is to position women in a power slot, or
represent women, or whatever.

The biblical and SOME archaeological (but not the majority) arguments are sound.

The fact that Nicea I prohibited any more female presidents (presbytides, female presbysters, the term priest morphed out of) tells me they used to be there. But circumstances and people change, and whatever worthy manly minded women were once presbytides these seem to have become vain or problematic in other ways.

Just because something is valid in itself, is it necessarily a good idea? "All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient" I Cor. 6:12.

These women priest wannabes are also mostly carriers of the plague of New Age corrupted theology.

Original feminism was more amazonian. Difference feminism took over, which exalts alleged inherent differences instead of sizing up what are good and bad regardless of gender, and stop clinging to what is bad whether male or female.

Under this influence, more insipid nonsense of love peace and tolerance to the point of exalting various things can be expected to be hallmarks of this.

Again, we have enough male clergy like this, do we need more? Draw from the population that is male, you get a mix, but draw from the female population that is interested in ordination you will have far more of it now.

In ancient times women who were interested in ordination were likely no nonsense and theologically sound - especially given the serious credible immediate threat to life and limb for being Christian.

That is not the case now.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

as I suspected, sacramental symbolism arguments do NOT date back to the first several centuries of the Church. Peter Lombard started them c. AD 1157 and Bonaventure developed them further in commentaries c. AD 1250.

Before that, the arguments were primarily social presuppositions and baggage, and some biblical issues and canon rules about women not touching articles used in the Mass and so forth which would rule out them being priests. The problem that made all this open to argument, and the arguments did occur in the early Middle Ages, is the question, was this just ecclesiastical originated rules open to change, or based in divine law in itself and not open to change?

Lombard and Bonaventure shifted the ground to sacramental.

Now, again, I emphasize I OPPOSE WOMEN'S ORDINATION, for pragmatic reasons. But an extremely bad argument is that the priest must be male because he is married to his church which is female he representing Christ Who is male and married to The Church at large which is symbolized as female.

Well, why then can priests be shifted from congregation to congregation, and bishops occasionally shifted around? isn't this symbolically divorce and remarriage or polygamy?

Indeed, the bishop over or married to all the congregations in his diocese, isn't this symbolically adultery or bigamy, polygamy?

the sacramental symbolism argument is really weak.

Marko said...

My apologies, Christine, for my "attack" tone. You're right, it wasn't obvious. But the content should have raised all kinds of red flags about its authenticity, for example saying a "3rd Vatican Council" has just concluded. That alone would have made me look further before posting.

Marko said...

Looks like Russia is indeed invading the Crimean region of Ukraine. Whether it will stop there or invade all of Eastern Ukraine, who knows?

Some news feeds if you want to follow developments:

This is a twitter feed from Lindsey Hilsum, from Channel 4 News (British news channel):

And here is a live blog at RFE/RL's website:

That one is interesting, as they gather live tweets and feeds from various sources.

Marko said...

For you RT (Russia Today) fans, can you finally admit that RT is nothing but a Russian propaganda mouthpiece? Why do you read or listen to ANYTHING it says???? Shame on you.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

you don't need RT, just Nuland's own words - that 5 billion with a b was spent to move the Ukraine towards the EU (run by the same bankster elites that run us), and see this analysis course the infamous leaked taped phone call
where you see that the US is messing with setting up a new government there. (interspersed is commentary to try to defuse the implications of this.)

The US and Russia had a reset, and the US has been doing everything it can to undo that. Russia offered a much better location for ABM placement to target incoming Iranian missiles, but no, it has to be in position to use either rearmed ABM as nuclear or just use them as kinetic weapons on Russian targets.

US to FSR, Qadaffi will not be taken down. FSR backs off, Qadaffi taken down. FSR has learned its lesson, and won't back off regarding Syria.

Russia is not all holy and wonderful and pure and Christian any more than USA is, but are you a Christian? Then consider this.

Everywhere the US supported Arab Spring came to power, and the Iraqi overthrow, persecution of Christians has increased. In Syria, US backed insurgents are massacring Christians and doing worse than a quick kill, torture and even rape at times.

(meanwhile these holy warriors who are supposedly against western depravity, accept the sexual services of Islamic women from Tunisia, who come as "sexual holy warriors" to service these men and return pregnant, this under a permission fatwa from some depraved mullah there. )

Russia's support of Assad has worked to the protection of Christians in Assad controlled locations. Assad may be a heathen so to speak, but he doesn't persecute Christians.

And democracy does not produce virtue, except where the electorate are themselves virtuous, and the candidates virtuous. Democracy is as much a false god, another institution expected to function on its own, as monarchism and any other "ism."

The situation has changed and there are more important issues than American supremacy and hegemony to think about.

Anonymous said...


The church rejected women priests, long before the difference feminism, that you speak of existed, as a political movement.

These were the days of St.Barbara and Catherine of Alexandria, anything but docile women.

Religious life is an option for women in Catholic and Orthodox churches.

There are some Anglican and Lutheran nuns too.

The nuns who want to be priests have issues.

Healing will not take place through these solutions.

On our part, we need to thank them for what the do, encourage them to be faithful.

Pope Francis: A church without women religious is unimaginable.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

Gregory Reid Spiritual Warfare videos part 1. part 2. part 3. part 4.

Greg's 5 books two on kindle. TROJAN CHURCH is an important look at bad developments some of here monitor in the evangelical scene. Preview available.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

12:32, difference feminism has nothing to do with the issue of rejection of ordination for women by the church, it has to do with MY rejection of ordination for women, read more carefully.

The examples you give, if they had lived in the first two or three centuries would probably have either been presbytides or itinerant preachers. THEY WERE LONG AFTER THE TIME AT ISSUE.

Nothing you said has any relevance. The evidence is, that the sacramental symbolism argument BEGAN NOT IN THE EARLY CHURCH OR MUCH AFTER,

it BEGAN IN THE CENTURY FROM AD 1157 to AD 1257 whatever.

And developed from there.

ALL the arguments before consisted of baggage from the world about sex roles, or Bible references out of larger context, or collision of female ordination with rules that developed historically much later forbidding women to touch altar chalices and so forth, or just its inconvenient so no more of this.

IF you think RC has always held the same ideas you are used to ecclesiastically or regarding sacramental role playing, you are in for a nasty shock when you dig into history.

IF you are EO and think likewise, then ditto and double shock, because the sacramental role playing argument to be found in the EO today is an obvious borrow from RC which had considerable influence in EO for two or three centuries before the 20th century. Some Russian Orthodox call this the Roman Captivity of The Church because RC was supplying most of the teachers for EO seminaries and so forth.

This was bad enough that Peter Moghila (Mohyla) had included mechanistic merits and transferability of same of saints and immaculate conception of Mary and purgatory in his Orthodox Catechism, and the Synod of Jassy had to remove these before approving the document.


Before that, the arguments back and forth were identical to those in the protestant scene pro and con. No arguments about imaging Christ ergo have to be male.


Now, if things were so settled why did anyone question it enough for a dispute to exist in the first place?

St. Bridget I think it was whichever is depicted with a bishop's crozier, was not only appointed abbess of her nunnery, but because of a divine sign was also anointed bishop. Subsequent writers tried to write this off as the guy who did this was drunk.

I suggest your read the article before you argue any more.

Of course, if you are devoted to development of doctrine over centuries then this shouldn't bother you. but it should strike you as odd that such important notions take so long to develop in an institution led by an infallible man. The argument over this matter predates the 12th century as can be seen by a brief google for the subject change the search terms to get more articles.

no more presytides female presidents means they were there up to then.

president according to Justin Martyr is title of the leader of the assembly and the one who makes the Eucharistic prayers.

presbytide is not wife of presbyter, that was and still is prebytera.

therefore, those few congregations with a female president, had a female doing the Eucharistic prayers.

That this is not impossible because of sacramental role playing imaging Christ Who is male, is proven by the fact that this argument wasn't even in play for the first 1125 years of the Church. It has a specific origin, Lombard and Bonaventure, then was taken up by Thomas Aquinas and others.

therefore you cannot argue that because of this doctrine there could never have been female priests, because this doctrine didn't exist back then.

Anonymous said...


The church here is the mystical bride of Christ, as a WHOLE, rather than a particular church.

This is why religious life is open to men and women alike, and a religious makes vows directly to God.

Only a priest must be received by a Bishop.

Anonymous said...


Nobody is saying that this was highly developed theology in the early church.

Simply, that it existed.

For instance, I know nuns who receive the call, to be brides of Christ, when they were atheists.

They did not take a theology class on this stuff.

This still happens today to people who have never been exposed to the theology you speak of.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

irrelevant. the argument of sacramental iconing or imaging in action, is that the priest must be male because the congregation being the church or part of it is the bride ergo female. of course the church as a whole is the bride of Christ, but this is the explicit argument.

you have an interesting way of always talking slightly beside the point.

But I have more important things to talk about today.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

A good answer to give who say regarding so called "space brothers"

that technologically advanced societies are “spiritually advanced” - well, maybe
they are in the sense of a bad spirituality – is this point: In the 1930s and 1940s,
the most technologically advanced country on the face of the Earth was Nazi
Germany. Go figure.

Also you could point out the lack of kindness, environmental responsibility (itself Biblically valid within limits), presence racism, deception and war with the most technologically advanced societies now leading the charge.

AND that the majority of technological development gets going in a military context, then filters to the rest of society.

Anonymous said...


You brought up the fact that the Bride/bridegroom analogy was an invention of certain theologians.

I do not think it's that simple.

Even if we develop a new theology per say. It won't make someone have a calling.

At then end of the day it's about whether someone has a vocation or not.

Anonymous said...


Holy Orders would not be sacrament, if sacramental imaging/icon was not relevant.

You might want to explain why it's a sacrament, when religious life is not.

Anonymous said...


Nobody reads a book, and thinks, gee, I am going to being this to life.

It's not because of doctrine that someone has a vocation.

Anonymous said...

Good Lord Christine, can't you see you've being a blog troll?

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Congratulations Christine! You have accomplished exactly what you have set out to do - caused all of the regulars to abandon this web site - and now, it is all about YOU. It is now Christine's blog, and people are saying 'Constance who???' Hope you're happy.

- From a former regular, who now drops in once a month (max).

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

2:54 As usual your question is beside the point. Holy Orders a sacrament aren't you forgetting that marriage is also a sacrament? So is confession and baptism. Each of the seven sacraments are different so such a question makes no sense.

Sacraments do not have to involve imaging. The Eucharist is not an image but a reality, for instance.

Baptism can in emergencies be done by anyone of either sex. Hmmmm.

The sacrament of Holy Orders lies in the ordination the creation of a priest or the creation of a bishop. This person then performs other sacraments.

In RC the focus on doing a sacrament is on the priest doing it, by power transmitted at ordination.

In EO though this concept is present, The Holy Spirit is invoked to accomplish all sacraments and the dependency is directly on Him.

Now, supporting the idea that there is real power in ordination, is this experiment out of some lab in Romania. Water's refractive index can be changed various ways, one of them is signing the Cross over it.

A priest did it, the change was greater, than when a layman did it. Guess what. An atheist did it also, and a slight change occurred also, the weakest change.

So there is something objectively real about The Cross, a sacramental shall we say that anyone can do, but has more power when done with belief and still more when done by a priest, whose ordination's power makes up for whatever he personally lacks in belief or intent.

RC throws the focus on the priest's ordination AND intent.

Whatever the EO teaches in seminary now, the liturgical tradition of the epiklesis (invocation of The Holy Spirit to accomplish the sacrament) implies there is more to this than the ordination and intent of the priest.

In RC the sacrament list is seven, in EO we have these as the major sacraments, but several minor sacraments also.

monastic tonsuring would be in the category of a lesser sacrament.

Also the early canons mention the ordination of deaconesses with the same style as of deacons, while later on this changed.

And do not forget, a sacrament is an outer sign involving something physical of action or material object, that bespeaks a inward or invisible grace and is the result of the action of God.

The Incarnation Itself is an extreme example of God working through material means, is it not?

3:12 blog trolling - As I have said before, I can't have a conversation back and forth in a reasonable time frame if I limit myself to one post a day.

So absent a serious reason otherwise, I limit myself to ONE DAY A MONTH wherein I am active on the blog.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

3:44 one of the March Hares someone wished happy Mar. 1 as birthday of spoke. (Mad as a March Hare the saying goes, unable to count also.)

There are 116 posts here, counting this one. Of these only 16 (counting this one) are mine.

Sorry you dropped in on the one day this month I will be posting here, absent a really serious reason to post before next month after today, try again another day.

Anonymous said...

Does anyone else feel pounced upon again by Christine "zero self-control" "take no prisoners" Erikson? This is your idea of conversation?

Anonymous said...


You still do not get it.

Every sacrament needs the correct intention.

If two marry for the wrong reasons, will it be a marriage, even if God is the one blessing the union?

Deaconess had a different function in the early church , so this is not relevant.

"The Incarnation Itself is an extreme example of God working through material means, is it not?"

Yes, it is.

You're the one picking and choosing what matter of the sacraments you will accept and what you won't.

I am not interested in further argument, because you do not get the basics to begin with.

Anonymous said...

"The sacrament of Holy Orders lies in the ordination the creation of a priest or the creation of a bishop. This person then performs other sacraments."

Yes, but why is a priest necessary for the Eucharist, but not for baptism?

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

4:53, I am not interesting in argument because you sidestep the basics. maybe there is something wrong with the catechizing you got, too much Vatican II maybe?

"What is a Sacrament?

A Sacrament is an outward sign of inward grace, ordained by Jesus Christ, by which grace is given to our souls."

THAT is the basics of a Sacrament.

And you of course sidestep the issue of the history of application of imaging in action to the issue of gender of priesthood. And the lack of this argument before AD 1157, as that link I posted documents.

Again, I oppose ordination of women, but I don't like arguments barely 1,000 years old and therefore invalid against it.

Anonymous said...


I know what a sacrament is.

"the history of application of imaging in action to the issue of gender of priesthood. And the lack of this argument before AD 1157, as that link I posted documents.

So a priest never represented Christ before AD 1157?

No serious historian would agree with you and neither would your church.

The only way you can come to this conclusion is by rejecting the sacrament of Holy Orders.

Protestants are more honest here.

You want to have your cake and eat it too.

Marko said...

Regarding Ukraine:

This has a different "feel" to it than the Arab Spring revolutions and uprisings. It is more like the goings on when Clinton was in office with Bosnia, Serbia, Croatia, and that area.

It is also similar to Russia's invasion of Georgia, but the effects have the potential to be much more far-reaching.

As far as any New Age influence, I have found none so far.

That the US is at the heart of it, or that we are the main instigators of it, is a laughable proposition. Websites stating otherwise - blaming the US for what's going on over there (the ones I've seen so far anyway) - have little understanding of the complexities involved, and only want to cram unfolding events into their own narrow narrative of "how the world runs".

The context for understanding what is happening in Ukraine is historic, and it is not a quick study. The history in that part of the world goes back millennia, and most of our Western leaders (Obama, Cameron, etc) have no idea what that is. All they want is "peace", and often, "peace at any cost". They are spineless and ignorant. They are the ones that warrior empires have conquered or beaten into submission throughout history. They cry "Peace, Peace" and there is no peace.

Anonymous said...

Christine, you charming goofball with your wacky posts ....speaking for those who post anonymously, I posted the comment on February 27, assuming Constance celebrates her February 29 birthday on February 28. I thought the comment about anonymice would be a light touch. You prefer the heavy handed wacky comments style it is what you choose. Everyone to their own.

Anonymous said...

Marko, look at the posts at
1:32 pm, 5:56 am and 11:19 am. The information connecting both sides to New Age is there. You should do the searches suggested as there is enough there to make it clear that both sides are connected.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

whoever does the Eucharistic prayers, at that point is sort of representing or imaging Christ, but also pointing to Christ HIMSELF Who first did this.

Now if you are RC and long bereft of fine points of your roots in Orthodoxy before AD 1054
(but we use a liturgy from the days of Sts Basil and John Chrysostom many centuries before that) then you rely ENTIRELY on your ordination's power and you becoming Christ and doing this again.

But the earlier scenario relied more on The Holy Spirit, Who is explicitly invoked TO MAKE THE TRANSFORMATION of the bread and wine AFTER The Words of Institution.

RC only asks The Holy Spirit to make the bread and wine holy so that they may become the Body and Blood of Christ, but assumes the transformation occurs at the Words of Institution by the power and intent of the priest, and does not follow up with an epiklesis.

One of the major differences between EO and RC is the latter's mechanistic quality.

One writer pointed out that we "do theology" differently. We go Persons, Actions (dynamic, note that) Essences, you start with Essence, like a god concept), then speak of Attributes (static, note the difference) and end with Persons.

We leave more room for the action of The Holy Spirit indeed explicitly rely on Him. The morning and evening prayers the laity are supposed to do, always involve the invocation "O Heavenly King, O Holy One, The Spirit of truth, Who is everywhere and fillest all things, come and abide in us, cleanse us from every stain, and save our souls O Good One."

(God being infinite is everywhere incl. inside things. That does not make Him consubstantial with them, or any less inifinitely distant from them as Creator is distinct from creature.)

Then goes on to "Holy God [The Father]. Holy Mighty One [The Son], Holy Immortal One [The Holy Spirit]. have mercy on us" repeated three times.

A prayer to The Father or to The Son may precede this, but it is at or near the beginning of formal prayers.

And remember that RC says that in an emergency anyone even a woman can baptize. While good order requires clergy and procedures, Luther wasn't too far off when he argued if something can be done in an emergency by anyone, why shouldn't it be done all the time by anyone, because it is either valid only by a priest, therefore no good in an emergency by anyone else, or it is valid all the time.

Which brings me to something neither RC nor Orthodox are going to like.

Tertullian in one of his rants mentioned in passing, that the laity would perform the Eucharist in absence of a priest.

While this might be from his Montanist later days, I think they had no clergy period, or rotated everyone in the role, this rotating in the role would still leave a de facto priest, not an absence of priest.

What he described, "absence" or suchlike word of a priest, "not present" is a situation that could only occur where regular static role priesthood exists.

apparently the concept of priesthood of all believers might not hold for each individual in toto, it might for a congregation, two or three.

An experiment of mine: making Holy Water, with my Resident Seer looking on. The first batch was good. The second was evil. The third had good and evil fighting in the water.

I gave up and determined to rely on priest blessed water. Quality control issue. I could only do a good Holy Water production if I was in a perfect holy state of mind, which I couldn't reliably keep. The ordination gives a presence or operation which overrides any such problems in a priest.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

Marko, I agree things are much more complex than some may think in the Ukraine, which is exactly what makes it manipulatable by the US or anyone else.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

on the matter representing Christ. yes the priest while doing the Eucharist represents Christ.

and I re enact something a man showed me on fixing a computer or a car, and say to you, "this is how he did it," I am representing that man's action to you, without having to be male myself.

As I said, you guys changed the Mass to eliminate the epiklesis done AFTER the Words of Institution. the Orthodox Holy Liturgy (what you call Mass) is the one in use from the 400s and is based on an earlier form that was similar.

yes the priest represents Christ, but it is a bit looser more fluid than your concept, and the results of this representation are NOT relied on on their own, without The Holy Spirit being called on to accomplish what the RC think the priest does almost on his own. The invocation of The Holy Spirit is done AFTER The Words of Institution.

Things got a bit less fluid in concept probably as a result of RC influence I described earlier.

But the liturgical tradition points to a looser identification of priest with Christ.

Indeed, though EO now teaches that the priest represents Christ, again, I suspect this is RC influence, at no point is this stated in The Holy Liturgy, rather that he (and the congregation) "mystically represent the cherubim."

I suspect The Holy Liturgy represents an earlier and more perfect understanding, time tends to warp things as you move farther from the source.

Therefore, the irony is, that the EO system could liturgically accomodate a female priesthood with less difficulty than RC could, but it is less likely to go that route than RC is.

And I for reasons already detailed, non liturgical reasons, oppose female ordination.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

notes on my recommendation earlier of Gregory Reid, while his spiritual warfare information is excellent and warnings to the church and descriptions of occult dangers, and his own background makes him more knowledgeable than many,

there is a slight problem. Seems he buys hook line and sinker the myth of Constantine changing everything in the Church. I used to believe that because that is what I read in most of the books I learned from in some Christian bookstore when I was a young Christian.

More research showed this was a lie.

Of course he thinks all candles and incense are pagan baggage brought into the Church, despite the fact that these were in heavy use in The Jewish Temple and lamps in synagogue which the Church ritual derives from.

Given his personal background, however, he probably finds these revolting as he would have first experienced them in a satanist context, and eagerly accept any nonsense history that would seem to confirm his reaction as a solidly correct instead of candles being triggering of memories.

The Eucharist is not a re sacrificing over and over but the same sacrifice at that time brought into the present time in some mystical time loop sort of thing sort of.

The idea that God would not operate through material objects is refuted by The Incarnation itself and by St. Paul's blessed prayer cloths, St. Peter's shadow's healing effect, and the dead man who came back to life when his body contacted the bones of Elisha.

But Reid is otherwise excellent. Also in that book Trojan Church, discussing the Emergent Church as a forerunner to the one world religion for a one world govt., mentions Constance as one of the few who fought the New Age and details the history and origin of ideas now common in the evangelical scene that are New Age.

Anonymous said...


In EO theology it's the monk that is most closely configured to Christ, than the priest.

In Latin theology, it's the priest. Religious are more closely aligned with the church, than the priest.

This is Okay.

"Therefore, the irony is, that the EO system could liturgically accomodate a female priesthood with less difficulty than RC could, but it is less likely to go that route than RC is."

It's less likely to go that route, because feminists are not interested in being monks.

They want to be decision makers in the hierarchy.

This brings me back to the fact that if you have to fight for a vocation, you do not have one.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

"if you have to fight for a vocation, you do not have one."

Most likely true. 99% of the time. Historically there were some who had
to fight, but it was AFTER they were in their vocation, and under fire by people who didn't like their opposing heresy or corruption, or who were jealous.

"A man's gift maketh room for him, and bringeth him before great men." Proverbs 18:16

there is no good reason to push to be a priest. It only matters that the Eucharist is performed, not who does it, so why should a woman insist on being the one to do it when there are plenty of suitable men already ordained?

A severe priesthood shortage might be a different matter, but it isn't nearly that severe.
Something like this occurred in the 400s and Pope Gelasius complained of this happening in Anatolia and Sicily. Suitable men were too few and some women were ordained.

Anything else a priest can do, such as teaching, is nothing women don't do all the time anyway in private or classes perhaps or as assistants.

The important thing is that the right things get done, why except for pride and vainglory should a woman seek the priesthood, or if the situation were reversed and this were a gynarchy, a man seek the priesthood? The important thing is that The Holy Liturgy be performed and so forth. One shouldn't be calculating gender or ethnicity in the matter.

Anonymous said...

"The important thing is that The Holy Liturgy be performed and so forth. One shouldn't be calculating gender or ethnicity in the matter."

St. Paul clearly calls Jesus the bridegroom and the church the bride, in the context of marriage.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

yes but this is only one of many analogies. and that bride is a collective incl. both sexes and since the priest doesn't represent Jesus but the Cherubim in the original Mass (Holy Liturgy) from the first several centuries of the Church east AND west, and this only changed later in the west, it is a poor argument.

Jesus is also the vine and we are the branches.

sorry, but the only good reasons against female ordination are pragmatic and issues of motive and possible sneaking in of New Age belief systems by them (considering what most of those seeking ordination are saying). The imaging arguments don't work.

Now, St. Paul's remarks have a context, how to behave in marriage, that the man should love the woman like he loves his own flesh and is kind to his own flesh and does not cause himself pain and should be self sacrificing to her.

This effectively turned the usual concept of marriage roles on its head, and pulled the teeth of the existing male supremacist legal and social system they were in, and bringing it as baggage into the Church with them.

The harping on this concept then, was not to harp on sacramental role playing, but to harp on men being good to their wives, being kind, affectionate, listening to them and supportive of them.

Again, this comparison is only relevant, church as bride, IF THE PRIEST IS SEEN AS REPRESENTING JESUS.

This notion is minimal and limited to the performance of the Eucharist if that, in the Roman Church before it broke from the Eastern Orthodox Church. We preserved the original Holy Liturgy you used to celebrate it, and in this both the people in general are stated to represent the Cherubim, and in another place the priest states he represents the Cherubim.

So you are arguing from a concept that is a break from the roots of the Church east and west, and ABSENT FROM YOUR MASS UNTIL SOMETIME IN THE PAST THOUSAND YEARS OR LESS.

So yes, Holy Orders are legitimate, priestly representation of Jesus is questionable at best, or a vague momentary analogy, not a one to one perfect analogy.

It is not either liturgical Christianity (RC and EO) or Protestantism.

I suspect I will find, that the decline of the epiklesis correlates to the rise of the priest as Jesus idea, because it would fit a need to ante up the focus to help intent as one falls away from relying on The Holy Spirit.

I repeat. The ORIGINAL Holy Liturgy used at Rome was the same we STILL use now, the priest says he represents the Cherubim not Jesus, and The Holy Spirit, not the Words of Institution, is relied on to accomplish the Transformation of the bread and wine into The Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

hmmm, seems the history of the development of the Mass in the west is more complicated than I thought.

Of interest is, that at one early point, Jesus Christ rather than The Holy Spirit is invoked in the epiklesis.

Either way, God rather than the priest is being relied on.

The differences were developing by the time of the Council of Florence, where Torquemada defended the Words of Institution as alone necessary while the Greeks defended both as necessary.

"In the West there has been a great unanimity in speaking of the words of Institution as consecrating, especially since St. Augustine; and the disappearance of any real Epiklesis in our Liturgy confirms this."

The writer notes that at The Last Supper when Jesus showed us what to do no epiklesis is done, but what He detailed to the Apostles after His Resurrection might be another matter. Especially since the idea of the priest representing Christ wasn't in play at that point.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

one other problem in otherwise excellent The Trojan Church, is that Reid notes that Christ did not command us to feed the poor. When Christ tells those who didn't feed the poor they are going to hell for this, this is supposedly an observation not a command.

The "observation" is effectively a command, as is the account of the rich man and Lazarus.


Jesus was speaking to Jews, who were ALREADY under COMMAND to feed the poor, in the Mosaic Law, so He didn't need to command them.

This is also why Jesus didn't have to mention homosexuality to anyone because the Jews ALREADY knew this was an abomination, just say "repent of your sins" and they knew the list. St. Paul however had to deal with rather different people.

St. James' letter denounces those who can help the poor but don't. clearly a command of this sort was present in the early Church.

But the issue of spiritual warfare and occult crime and occult infiltration of the Church is where Reid excels, and on the critical importance of fundamental doctrine.

Also, he lists things he heard from demons arguing with him when he cast them out of possessed people, which are the same things the New Age and Emergent Church teach, such as Christ was son of God but not God Himself, just a good man, no heaven or hell, and other things.

At $6.17 on kindle it is worth the money.

Anonymous said...


St. Basil and St. John Chrysostom, themselves see the priest as representing Jesus.

The priest represents the cherubim, but also leads them in worship to the Father.

St. John Chrysostom wrote six books on the priesthood. They include dialogues, with St, Basil on this issue.

You might want to read them.

It's the modern Orthodox laity that have mixed views, because they are not familiar with Holy Tradition on this issue.

Anonymous said...

"The imaging arguments don't work."

This depends on who your audience is. If you are talking to someone who is not interested in theology, then yes, imaging arguments won't work, because they could care less.

In any case, read the books on the priesthood, it explains the early liturgy.

I am done for now, God bless.

Anonymous said...

Matt 27:51 answers what is a round and round of tag team religious talk here. The veil of the temple was torn in two. The very rituals you folks are placing such immense importance to are based on what was once established as in Hebrews 7:11-28 (and became mere form and protocol in the old "letter" of the law in need of a new and better Covenant to fulfill what was begun) but were rendered useless at the death of Christ Jesus----The Covenant Keeper Himself. He is the Final Summation to all of that but by what you are writing and declaring you don't see that what He completed on the cross to pay for our spiritual bankruptcy and then was raised from death as fulfilling God's requirement of unbroken commandments the is the pivot point!!! Don't you see the symbolism there? At Jesus' death there became no more need for religious "practice" because the ritual (only foreshadowing) was replaced by the Genuine Article Who is Jesus Christ Himself. Our debt release. That is what forgiveness means, debt release. Not a mere form anymore, no symbols of any kind needed because the One and Only Advocate Himself as the Perfect Lamb of Sacrifice had come to do the works of Actual and Real Righteousness by Holy God's Standard that no mere man and his religion could do to atone for the sin we all are all about. Have you ever noticed that the thief on the cross next to Jesus was not required to jump down and go get some good work/s done? He couldn't could he? He was powerless to fix this! He was spiritually "paralyzed" to "do" anything to change his status with God. Our Savior Jesus took his repenting (I deserve to die for my sin) and calling on Jesus as LORD as all he needed to be taken to paradise with him. The long and the short of the whole issue of being saved and made righteous before Holy God!!!!!

True saving faith in God is in trusting the God Who reached down to us (in and through His Son) so it is only faith in ourselves in our (man's way) attempts to reach up to God. That is the height of pride for any man to assume that he can "attain" (good enough to go to heaven by your own vain attempts to be good) making a mockery of Jesus' perfection.

No, man cannot attain righteousness, he has to humbly repent and ask (and trust) for it by Faith Alone in Jesus' Work instead-not work for it themselves (....not by works that we have done....Ephesians 2:8-9). So Christine, you are duplicitous in saying it is not by works and then turn around to advocate that in ritual and your homemade holy water that you put stock in. Please go read the Bible for yourselves and humbly ask God to give you a heart to believe, repent, and receive His Atonement and quit trying to manufacture your own. That is the counterfeit to true salvation and that is anathema with God to put your faith in anything or anyone but Jesus Himself. He needs no vicar (instead of) or priest! He is the the Ultimate already! I'll pray for the Spirit's conviction and revelation in the Scriptures of this to your souls. Let God be true and every man a liar (Romans 3:4) as you look into this for yourselves, taking God simply at His Word. God bless this to your hearts anew as you go read the Gospel and may you be filled with Awe and Wonder at how Lovely is the Person of Jesus Christ Who Alone has power to save sinners such as we all are.

What i am talking about here is the very antithesis to what the new age belief system is all about. It is a works righteousness system too just as any other religion is. Jesus was way too radical for "religion". The Radical way, Radical Truth, and Radical Life.

Anonymous said...

True saving faith in God is in trusting the God Who reached down to us (in and through His Son) so it is only {{empty}} faith in ourselves in our (man's way) attempts to reach up to God.

The word empty was accidently left out

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...


Chrysostom etc. yes we are acquainted with them, but they are only one or two theorists and Chrysostom's view could not have been that rock solid rather than fluid because he was the one who wrote the Liturgy we generally use and it says represents the Cherubim.

Imaging arguments don't work not in terms of audience but in terms of the history of the development of them, and so forth, inherently don't work.

If you read that article I posted you will see that the mixed views existed in ancient times as well, precisely on the issue of whether the Words of Institution alone are needed or not, which alone allow the notion of priest as representing Christ beyond merely representing Him in a depictive or play out the history sense, or whether the Epiklesis is necessary also.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

12:57 you are very confused salvation is what you say, yes, but worship is the issue here, and Revelation shows a liturgical heavenly worship going on.

Holy Water is not about getting you into the Kingdom of God and away from the Last Judgement, it is about repelling evil and correcting problems.

I am sure you have heard of "spiritual warfare" well that is part of it.

As for "works," Jesus said that faith in Him is a work, "what must we do to do the works of God?" "believe on Him Who He has sent."

Now, you should read The Bible in its entirety. And always check CONTEXT of verses.

when you do that you will find that "works" we are not saved by are the ritual works of the Law,
keeping Mosaic holy days,
food laws.

There was a "covenant" aka contract, you do these things, you are in contractual relationship with YHWH and He then has to do certain things for you.

These things get you into the contract with Him. Once in that contract, to stay in it and not have the rug yanked out from under you you also have to avoid things He hates and do things He likes because you are essentially wayfarers He has taken in to camp on His property.

That was Moses.

Now, with Jesus, to get into the Kingdom as not mere bums in the yard and on the porch, but part of God's family by adoption, you don't have these same rules.

But you DO still have to avoid things He hates and do things He likes.

the possibility of eviction (losing your salvation) is indeed warned of repeatedly by Jesus and Paul in speaking of judgement on believers,

and Jesus said that when He comes back, those believers who did things worthy of stripes but didn't know better will get fewer stripes (that's lashes with a whip) and those who did know better will get more lashes, and some who are unspeakable will get cast out with unbelievers.

Now, the forms of worship are not a matter of salvation but the desire to please God and to give Him honor and glory should be a part of one's walk with Him.

In Orthodox prayers, there is one which says something like my works are not good enough to save me please look on my faith.

But if your faith does not result in works (of righteousness and charity) then your faith is dead or nonexistent, like a dead branch doesn't produce fruit.

We are a peculiar people created to do good works, says Paul.

Salvation in Orthodox (which is more biblically consistent) concept is not a one shot deal. Sure there is a key moment when you make it official by accepting Jesus as King and God and getting baptized.

But we package justification, regeneration, sanctification into one package and note it is an ongoing thing.

Salvation also is not only from the Last Judgement, but from temporal and other dangers, and from backsliding, and from not being very much loving towards God, not thinking about Him much, and so forth.

Orthodoxy looks to someone who doesn't know the history, like a hybrid between RC and Protestantism, not because it is (it isn't) but because Protestantism rejected many of the same errors of specific points or of emphasis that RC developed and Orthodox rejected, seeks to the same Bible that shaped the Orthodox, but clings to some errors within western writers like Augustine on predestination, which he himself developed only as an overreaction to pelagianism which denied original sin and the crippled condition of the human will.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

Protestanism in America is heavily Calvinized, which is unfortunate.

Luther did not reject veneration of Mary or her ever virginity.

Luther did not reject the idea that The Body and Blood of Christ are present in the bread and wine in the Eucharist, but argued for the remaining of the bread and wine also and that The Body and Blood leaves the bread and wine left over after the Eucharist or something like that.

Protestantism in general went too far in rejecting the worship style, and the notion of incense and lamps and candles as pagan is nonsense, YHWH required all these in the Temple ceremony.

The famous line about His hating these things, is always taken out of context. He hated the bringing of these and sacrifices and new moons observation for holy days, etc. DONE BY HYPOCRITES WHO ALSO OFTEN WORSHIPPED FALSE GODS ON THE SIDE, AND DID MANY EVIL THINGS.

Go find your favorite anti liturgical passage in the Prophets and then read the surrounding verses. CONTEXT.

The monastics and others say often that fasting and vigils are not things in themselves, just as Luther (I almost wrote St. Luther) discovered, but rather are means to getting away from sin inclinations of the heart and getting your focus on God.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

if you are going to reduce the New Age issue to works vs. faith you miss the point entirely.

New Age uses works in the pop form and definitely faith without works (meditation, trancing out, etc.) to get to a false god
rather than the True God, and has a whole other concept of god anyway.

It is way beyond works vs. faith. it is the object of faith itself that is at issue. it is the goal which is not the Biblical Kingdom of God, which is at issue.

Susanna said...

Marko 6:13 P.M.

Spot on!!!

Anonymous said...

"It is way beyond works vs. faith. it is the object of faith itself that is at issue."

If you are working to keep yourself saved (by religious works) then it is still you trying to save yourself in the first place. To be saved we depend upon His works (from the cross and the empty tomb). To be sanctified we depend upon His Works (from the cross and the empty tomb). In both aspects He is the One to worship or it becomes man-centered. Old pagan religion of works of any kind and new age beliefs/works are in the same catergory. Both are man-centered. Man-centered response to God is the opposite of faith that belongs to Christ alone with no add ons. Christine people need the Holy Spirit not "holy water". When we are born again (salvation as He tells us in John 3:3) we receive the Holy Spirit so being made good and then staying good is up to Him because we have come by repentance and trust and then and only then belong to Him, producing the desire to be in submission to Him that enables us to work out our salvation in fear and trembling and in His joy and strength as well. Rituals and religion are in the way of the real message. Jesus is enough. And faith in Him without your extras should be enough. (is for me at least)

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

"being made good and then staying good is up to Him"

not entirely you sound like the people who figure you can do anything once saved always saved nonsense. NOT BIBLICAL.

" because we have come by repentance and trust and then and only then belong to Him, producing the desire to be in submission to Him that enables us to work out our salvation in fear and trembling and in His joy and strength as well."

sounds fine but note "producing the desire...."

yeah, what about all that talk of fighting the flesh? what if we don't FEEL desire to be in submission to Him?

by your system it is go with your feelings which is man centered instead of oops, my feelings are wrong, Jesus help me NOW!
which is God centered.

All the rituals and Holy Water have to do with submission to God.

I don't think you understand the importance of the physical as well as the spiritual, to worship God with all your soul and all your strength, well, your soul INCLUDES your body.

Anyway, in protestant services there is the line "lift your hearts up to The Lord" "we lift them up to The Lord" and "give thanks unto The Lord" "it is meet and right at all times to give thanks to The Lord."

did you know this goes back to the early beginnings of Holy Liturgy, reported by Hippolytus the bishop of Rome (before the RC as we know it existed) in something he wrote?

By your argument, we shouldn't engage in corporate worship at all.
OF COURSE you don't depend on Holy Water you depend on God, and He provides things for us. Incl. Holy Water if you have a problem that needs it.

St. Paul sent prayer cloths around, THAT'S A BLESSED OBJECT.

A dead came to life when his corpse fell against Elisha's bones. THAT'S A RELIC WITH POWER.

A cleansing special Holy Water made with the ashes of a red heifer was mandated in the Torah, and Elijah or Elisha I forget which mixed salt in water he prayed over this and poured it into some bad water spring to make the water pure.


Constance Cumbey said...

Well, the intense cold here in Michigan continues, shattering most records. I still suspect God is giving us a wake up call in the form of our weather!


Constance Cumbey said...

Christine, some of your recent posts had serious substance to them and I agree with Susanna that you were spot on as to those.


Anonymous said...

sounds fine but note "producing the desire...."

That is the Holy Spirit coming alongside (para-greek) my spirit. "Not my will but Thine" as in Jesus as He was submitted to the Holy Spirit in the Garden of Gethsemane. Because His Will (freewill) was submitted, He could go to the Cross and give His life for sinful man instead of call 10,000 angels to remove Him from drinking that cup (of God's wrath). The Holy Spirit of and in Christ is the Enabler for anything/everything good. Good is His Idea and mankind (and of course womankind too Christine) falls very very short to even know what God calls good when we are honest, because His ways and thoughts are higher than ours. What God calls good-not you or me. In my flesh dwells no good thing (Romans 7)and you miss the point because this is not about human feelings or reasonings and/or the physical realm even (but is "fleshed out" there) but the realm of the Spirit of God and the matter of the will of a person. That is what must be submitted to God because that is what can move the heart, the mind, and the body of any of us to do what actually pleases God. Your approach stays in the realm of the finite and shallow but the realm of the Holy Spirit is deep calling unto deep and what you seem to be missing entirely.

God can do what He chooses, using what He chooses to bless men and get glory for His name but those things are not anointed in and of themselves for us to copycat. Ritual and religious relics then become man's way to copycat Him--to replace Him and why commandment #2 is so specific. Any image that is graven (even carved in a shape (image) in our own minds (imagination) can become the object of worship rather than the Lord Himself. A created thing getting the attention (worship)(even worshiping worship falls in this slot-"religious churchy feelings") rather than the Creator, thus breaking the first and greatest commandment of all. You cite manmade (man-centered)history for practicing your faith (liturgies,etc) and I cite Scripture that Jesus actually quoted as the model. Are your authorities in these matters higher than Jesus Christ? Pope or priest etc, etc, on down the line don't cut it! (and do not wear His scars that qualify Him). They that worship God must worship Him in spirit and in truth as taught in John ch 4. This is true God-centeredness and different than what you espouse and what Jesus showed the Samaritan woman about what was lacking in her religion. She was made aware by the Holy Spirit's conviction that she needed HIM, the Spirit illumined her understanding and she saw HIM as Who and What was missing from her heart and life-and-her will, and promptly left her "faith in her faith". You appear to have faith in faith and that is misplaced. Salvation and sanctification can only, will only, hinge upon the deep inner workings of God that no religious anything can equate.

Ok I'm done.

Constance Cumbey said...

I just noticed that Farrakhan's "Final Call" paper was claiming that our cold weather was a form of God's Judgment against America.

They may well be right for many of the wrong reasons!



Constance Cumbey said...

Farrakhan would have people think Judgment is come for people not listening to him as an alleged messenger of God. More likely, it is for our embrace of ungodly values and sinful practices: blatant homosexuality, same-sex marriage, adulteries, idolatries, our abortion holocaust, etc., etc., ad nauseum!


Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

11:24, I don't put any authority over Jesus and The Bible but I am not sure what authorities you are referring to my pointing to, I pointed to incidents in The Bible, not to statements of The Fathers.

The liturgical thing is something you retain in your own services. It is itself nothing inconsistent with The Bible.

yes, icons and so forth can become idols, that is why Orthodox Churches have them up on walls and on the iconostasis and allow only a brief veneration of one on a holder, to prevent idolatrous excesses, against which the iconoclasts went too far in the other extreme.

Orthodox prayer advice is not to have mental images if you can avoid producing them. Anyone with a highly visual style of thinking however, will have difficulty doing so.

you kiss a photo of your loved ones don't you? or keep it on your desk? but you don't confuse it with them. That is the proper attitude the Orthodox is supposed to take, though what some individuals may do is another matter.

St. Paul warns as regards thinking an idol is nothing so its okay to go to pagan feasts and maybe even honor the idol as a mere cultural thing, that while the idol is nothing, demons hide in it, and the honor given to the copy goes to the original who is in that case a false god.

The principle of the honor given to the copy goes to the original, is what is in play in Orthodox veneration of icons.

I don't have faith in faith, that is a mind power type concept.

yes we worship God in spirit and in truth, and the style of worship that involves prostration to God (toward the east because Jesus said His Second Coming would be like the light dawning from the east to the west, this style of worshipped borrowed by the moslems) and lighting candles and incense and veneration of icons, and recitation of segments out of psalms enshrined in the liturgy, is worship with all the senses and the body, not mind only,

but it can however be done with the body only and not the heart in it.
But so can protestant style worship.

"You cite manmade (man-centered)history for practicing your faith (liturgies,etc) "


Anonymous said...

Russia and Ukraine are extremely close to hostile action. China said tonight that it will defend all its interests, a statement that almost seems out of place except for a scary new global development.

We are witnessing the end of "Pax Americana."

Anonymous said...


Did you ACTUALLY read, the books?

This has nothing to do with when the words of consecration are spoken. In the Western rite, the focus in on the incarnation, in the Eastern on the resurrection.

But, in both the priest represents Christ. Representing the cherubim, does not take away from this.

I understand the books are a lot to read.

You might want to try this article to begin with.

Anonymous said...

"An experiment of mine: making Holy Water, with my Resident Seer looking on. The first batch was good. The second was evil. The third had good and evil fighting in the water.

I gave up and determined to rely on priest blessed water. Quality control issue. I could only do a good Holy Water production if I was in a perfect holy state of mind, which I couldn't reliably keep. The ordination gives a presence or operation which overrides any such problems in a priest."

Ahem.....why not simply rely upon Jesus and not yourself or a priest or your resident seer(?). Looks like that is you you you relying on human human human means for something spiritual. An earlier comment was p8346842 3eople need the Holy Spirit not holy water. And as an aside for you because of your own past statements, that you should ponder and conclude for the resident seer your live-in fiance'?
(a question you should answer privately please). It is a right question but meant for your own application to judge yourself by Scripture-not your own idea or ours either-but by the word of God.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

9:59 am, do YOU actually READ what is written?

These quotes speak of the dignity and power of the priest, NOT ONCE DOES HE SAY THE PRIEST REPRESENTS CHRIST. you are reading that into the passages.

I notice this is from a Latin oriented site, so probably the writer is reading assumptions into the text that are not there.

I don't like reading Chrysostom because he is "golden mouthed" as the name means, they like fine flowery words dragging on and on I don't.

10:06 am, how am I to respond privately when you are anonymous?

yes he is my live in fiance, but we don't have sex. And if we get married we probably won't have sex because long ago when I diddled him he would get chest pains when getting near orgasm. Its like the cialis/viagra ads, "ask your doctor if you are in physical health enough for sexual activity" no.

And aside from that both of us are too screwed up physically and emotionally for it to be likely. We do keep each other out of trouble. The commitment prevents us from getting into yet more disastrous relationships.

I stumbled on the fact that he is one of those who has an inherited ability to see farther into IR or UV than most, from his father's grandmother. I tested his father (who I was warned would never admit it).

I put blessed oil on a sleeve so it was normally invisible, and when I met his father, from that point on and all evening at the restaurant he was sneaking peeks at my right arm where the glow was.

Why not rely on The Holy Spirit? why is there some conflict here?

Might as well ask, why clean your house, why use disinfectants, why not rely on The Holy Spirit?

I don't deny He could clean the house for you, but wouldn't that be presumption likely punished with leaving the house dirty?

We are given things like hands and cleaners to do things.

It is a lot harder to exorcise a house (and things sneak back when you sleep or get tired and blur out and if you have a background in the occult and/or family connections ditto you can have ongoing problems for years)

than use Holy Water to make a big impact, making the exorcism easier to do.

I know God has protected me a lot over the decades, and there have been times when I was caught out without protection and He saved me.

Funny thing, I always knew about Holy Water yet something mind numbing and distracting kept me from seeking it, until nagged by my fiance.

I recall Screwtape in C.S. Lewis' The Screwtape Letters said that demons get more work done by keeping things out of peoples' minds than by putting things in peoples' minds.

Acting on knowledge has often been a problem for me.

Recently the dangers of high fructose corn syrup became known to me and I told someone who may also have got the info from on TV. Well, I was prepared to live with it because HFCS is pervasive, but got nagged into reading labels and taking a stand against it and getting where possible HFCS free stuff.

Anonymous said...

Christine, how very obtuse and rude of you. Why did you not take up that issue with the Spirit of God as advised? But typical you, you must air that very cluttered heart and mind of yours that cannot discern between natural and spiritual and between sacred and profane. Between common sense and common decency and things in the realm of private judgment as to keep on the topic instead of mixing them. You are a mess. A spiritual mess....and you would come in all elbows and knees (amazon) with you hack hack approach to conversation and butcher real topics with your littered and scattered existence to teach us? You admit then an immoral episode/s with this fiance' though that was not required to tell, in fact was stressed not to. Since you supposedly have the Holy Spirit within you as you claim why did you not rely upon His discretion? But then why would you when you rely upon you you you in all matters to make us suppose you to be more spiritual than ourselves to show us what is what. In this instance it can be said "physician heal thyself"...yeah right. You cannot fix you (or attempt fixing us either) need JESUS Big Time. You have exposed yourself here (and indecently on top of that).

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

how hypocritical of you.

and how unbiblically mealy mouthed. separate sacred and profane and all that? exactly how is that accomplished if I lie and say he doesn't live with me, or tell a half truth and say he does and you assume we have sex?

I am not out to show how more spiritual I am than others. I am sharing the information.

you have exposed YOURSELF in your hypocrisy saying to answer privately and give no way to do so.

you are the sort of person who keeps evils going by insisting nothing er, indecent be discussed. I can just imagine you dealing with a rape victim or something like that. no, no, don't say anything about any tattoos on his private parts or anything else you couldn't know if he'd as he said kept his pants on. IDIOT!

as for my relationship and activities, I would never get that intimate with anyone not in an understood as lifetime commitment relationship.

"Common-law marriage in the United States can still be contracted in nine states (Alabama, Colorado, Kansas, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Iowa, Montana, Utah and Texas) and the District of Columbia. New Hampshire recognizes common-law marriage for purposes of probate only, and Utah recognizes common-law marriages only if they have been validated by a court or administrative order.[1]Common-law marriage can no longer be contracted in 27 states, and was never permitted in 13 states. The requirements for a common-law marriage to be validly contracted differ from state to state. Nevertheless, all states — including those that have abolished the contract of common-law marriage within their boundaries — recognize common-law marriages lawfully contracted in those jurisdictions that permit it.[2] Some states that do not recognize common law marriage also afford legal rights to parties to a putative marriage (i.e. in circumstances when someone who was not actually married, e.g. due to a failure to obtain or complete a valid marriage license from the proper jurisdiction, believed in good faith that he or she was married) that arise before a marriage's invalidity is discovered."

CA is not one of them, but if you are going to bitch at someone in such a relationship, in the states listed, and if the relationship has lasted long enough (years differ in different states) for it to have become legal, guess what.....

the couple is legally married already, and if you counsel them to separate they are going to have to get a formal divorce to do so. If they just break up and marry others later, they can get a bigamy bust.

The only reason I call him fiance instead of husband it to avoid the SSI loss, because Fed. govt. recognizes common law marriage enough to consider me married and lose my SSI if my husband isn't disabled (he almost is with considerable debt), for even CALLING him husband, but I will be going off SSI soon.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

CA is not a common law marriage state. that is not the point. the point is to conduct oneself according to the standard of heterosexual lifelong monogamy.

In Roman law, there were three forms of marriage, all equally valid. usus was the form done by living together a year and a day, and was primarily done by the social level Christianity got a lot of converts from. Yet Paul did not denounce this.

In case you are as ignorant as you are pretentious hypocritical and stupid, common law marriage is contracted by moving in together, living openly as man and wife, and generally behaving accordingly for the length of time required by those states that allow this.

Anonymous said...

I came across wording that applies to Christine as well as to Obama.

"This is characteristic of Obama's larger mindset – he sees himself and his policies as wise, necessary and above politics. He has, after all, a pen and a phone. In the domestic arena Republican opposition and the normal give and take of democratic politics are depicted as betrayal and heresy. His opponents are troglodytes and wreckers who find themselves, like Netanyahu, the victim of personal vilification as well as the occasional IRS audit."

As we begin to understand Obama, we will understand Christine in all of her pomp and verbiage.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

10:06 am

If Luther, the original sola scriptura and salvation by faith guy saw fit to retain the Eucharist as real Body and Blood of Christ and Lutherans bless the water by prayer over it they use for baptism and admission of new members, who are you to complain of such things?

If cloths from St. Paul caused healing, who are you to complain about blessed objects and relics? Acts 19:12

If St. James said to anoint the sick with oil and pray over them, and this is not mere olive oil being poured in a wound, or eaten for health, but clearly special, who are you to complain about blessed oil use?

And what make you think The Holy Spirit is not involved in these?

Anonymous said...

Her "your gonna hear this or else attitude" is overbearing. Her lack of consideration of others is appalling. Her need to way over "inform" (especially in what is unnecessary and uncalled for in even personal details not one of us desires to know and certainly did not ask but in fact the very opposite)is gross..and....sad beyond words. Zero credibility and has zero decency in any civil setting. (The Spirit of the Lord would not lead you to these kind of responses Christine). Truly no understanding between the sacred and the profane.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

"the normal give and take"

meaning whatever is agreement with everyone and doesn't look beyond brief soundbites and bumper sticker slogan thinking

"opponents are troglodytes and wreckers who find themselves, like Netanyahu, the victim of personal vilification"

After I am pushed enough I call it as I see it. That is after I get enough personal vilification etc.

"Christine in all of her pomp and verbiage."

some things cannot be hashed over in a few brief sentences. The end result is only people thinking they understand when they don't, and agree when they don't, or think the reverse when they do or whatever.
"Her "your gonna hear this or else attitude" is overbearing. Her lack of consideration of others is appalling."

don't confuse everyone here with yourself. Constance said Susanna told her there was a lot of substance in some theological posts.

Something you don't want to read about you don't have to read. Don't assume everyone else is like you.

There is no way I could phrase some things or present it "better" you don't want to hear the truth, fine, use collapse comments when you see my name.

Doesn't matter if 20 people don't like it, the 21st person will benefit, maybe it will save his or her life.

"what is unnecessary and uncalled for in even personal details not one of us desires to know and certainly did not ask"

My what a hypocritical set 'em up for a sucker punch artist you are.

you asked a specific personal question, specifying response offline which you knew was impossible.

I could have ignored you, in which case you could hold that up as guilt of God knows what, and probably would have. I chose to answer honestly.

I think you are upset that I am living chastely and you have less to bitch about than you hoped to have, and since the chastity is semi ensured by physical and psychological issues not likely to change, eliminating temptation you can't pontificate about potential temptation in living arrangements.

poor thing, sucker punched yourself on that one.

Anonymous said...

"you asked a specific personal question, specifying response offline which you knew was impossible."

Ever hear of a prayer closet Christine? That is what was meant and a commonly decent person would already know that. Kept private-as stated. (between you and the Lord) That was what was said so no sucker punch-no set up-there was no call or need for your answer then! And since when do you ever need an invite to be gross? That is like breathing for you. You have abused this blog many many times in just these kind of displays. I guess the sucker is anyone who would assume you would be decent enough to spare people the details of your personal trash but you have no discernment or discretion to be that kind.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

Nice backpedaling. Perhaps that is what you meant, if so you should phrase yourself explicitly. No one is going to take the words

"is the resident seer your live-in fiance'?
(a question you should answer privately please)"

as meaning I am to go ask God.

As for what Scripture says, I have already addressed that, and you have not answered my question about who are you to complain about rituals and Holy Water and relics when The Scriptures themselves speak of such? I give specific cites.

While as I have done before a Scriptural case can be made for the legitimacy of companionate marriage assuming it is not viewed as terminatable except on Scriptural grounds for divorce, the law in some states considers marriage in play once they've lived together a specific number of years.

If you live in Alabama, Colorado, Kansas, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Iowa, Montana, Utah and Texas or the District of Columbia, think twice before you persuade some such couple to break up on finding they have lived together for the requisite number of years but in your opinion it isn't really a marriage, because you might get sued by the abandoned partner if the law still allows this.

In my own case, sex or no sex, righteousness is better served by not having a legal marriage, because he might feel less inclined to resist reversion to his devil worship if he instead of me was the legal head of the family, and if he decided to revert to his criminal past, I could still testify against him and his friends.

A change in the balance of power might not be a good thing.

And if he secretly reverted whole hog and I failed to notice some indications in personality and deal with it, being legally married would mean in CA that he'd automatically get everything if I died.....

Anonymous said...

No back pedaling. And since it was a question posed for your own private perusal but you chose not to let it be, why did you not answer with a simple yes or no, whatever?

That would have been too reasonable. (and we would have been spared details of your can of worms life).

I answered your question. The HOLY SPIRIT---not your let's pretend it's "holy water" approach to God. And aren't you special since you have a "seer" handy? You have got it goin' on girl ;)

You need Jesus.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

What did I say already? I could have LIED and said no, or I could have said a HALF TRUTH and said yes, leaving you open to assume naturally enough that we were engaged in an experimental unchaste relationship.

My option is to ignore the question, leaving you and everyone open to say or think anything, or....TO TELL THE TRUTH.

That seems to be something (telling the truth) that doesn't sit well with you.

If I say we don't have sex and leave it at that you could launch into accusation I am lying, or that I am likely to fall into a moment's fornication as distinct from a lifetime situation equivalent to marriage.

So I add the medical issues.




No I am not special I am a mess and having someone who can see into the light range these things can show effects in, helps me know what's real and what isn't.

I stumbled on his having this ability, I forget how I first found out, it was some little thing, nothing he was announcing.

But a really strong Holy Oil or Holy Water will have an effect I can often feel without any help, especially if I am really down.

I had some olive oil I thought was normal from the store. But when I put some on my face just as oil I felt suddenly better, and suspecting some blessed oil had gotten into it asked him, and sure enough, it was blessed.

This was oil not expected to be blessed, just off the shelf, so the reaction I had to it, not like I got from oil off the shelf before, was not psychosomatic.

Must have come at least in part from a monastery, and picked up a blessing from the prayerful environment or perhaps was prayed over.

I think your behavior online shows you need to spend more time with God and reading The Bible in detail, cover to cover, or at least an entire book at a time of it, with a Strong's Concordance on the side, and spend more time in worship and prayer yourself.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

this is the original question which you have NOT answered.

If Luther, the original sola scriptura and salvation by faith guy saw fit to retain the Eucharist as real Body and Blood of Christ and Lutherans bless the water by prayer over it they use for baptism and admission of new members, who are you to complain of such things?

If cloths from St. Paul caused healing, who are you to complain about blessed objects and relics? Acts 19:12

If St. James said to anoint the sick with oil and pray over them, and this is not mere olive oil being poured in a wound, or eaten for health, but clearly special, who are you to complain about blessed oil use?

And what make you think The Holy Spirit is not involved in these?

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

note on the priest represents Christ or doesn't controversy,

this really isn't an argument against female priests, unless you treat earthly analogies to God as absolute point by point exact analogies, which is not possible.

you send an agent to do something, that person represents you.

your representative does not have to be the same gender you are.

same thing in this matter. because the priest only represents Christ if he does so at all, while doing specific things, and since we represent God in a general way being made in His image and likeness, and the believer represents Christ to the world being HIs agents in the world, and the priest ditto to us, it follows that gender is not the issue, that agency rather than identity is the issue,

otherwise the next step is worship the priest.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

interesting information on electrical fields helping vascular formation and chronic wound healing
"Physics doctoral student Toloo Taghian will present the results at the March 3-7 American Physical Society meeting in Denver. The title of her presentation is "Co-Regulation of Cell Behavior by Electromagnetic Stimulus and Extracellular Environment.""

Anonymous said...


We do not worship the bride and groom, because marriage is a covenant between Christ and the church. We simply point out that the bride and groom are necessary for the marriage.

It's the same with the priesthood and the liturgy.

I will get back to you on this.....

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

that isn't too relevant. in the RC system the marriage is a contract from Roman law concepts, but a permanent one, and the priest makes this real, the Orthodox do not have a contract or any vows, but the priest blesses the union.

Some category I am not sure which, maybe Lutheran considers it a sacrament administered to each other by the bride and groom, the clergy/priest is witness and blesser of this.

in any case, your statement has no relevance to how and in what way or degree the priest represents Christ.

your lawyer, who represents you, doesn't have to be the same sex as you to represent you. the person you give power of attorney for signing things to, does not have to be the same sex as you. your messenger or agent representing you does not have to be the same sex as you.

Biblical analogies often draw on physical earthly analogies but are of course not exact analogies, and draw on some legal concepts people understood.

Church ditto.

Which brings us back to, a person does not have to be the same sex as you to represent you. Ditto priesthood if it represents Christ.

Anonymous said...

The Holy Spirit trumps all of your religious "stuff" Christine but that is not answer enough for you. John 4:24. You just don't like my answer. And one more thing honey....your living arrangement is not godly. ( you chose to open that up but I had hope that you would take a deeper look before the Lord there. but nah). What you have there is two ticks and no dog.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

The Holy Spirit trumps everything, sure, but you have not answered, who are you to argue with the Bible where it references anointing with oil to heal with prayer, WHICH OBVIOUSLY INVOLVES THE HOLY SPIRIT, since this is not pouring olive oil into a wound or eating it, the use for nonblessed oil

or the holy relic effect of cloths from St. Paul?

or the dead man brought to life when his body touched Elisha's bones?




Why, given the Incarnation of the Second Person of The Holy Trinity God become flesh, Jesus Christ, why given this working through the physical, would God not work in lesser ways through physical objects?

you have not answered these.

I opened that other issue in answer to YOUR question so YOU opened the subject.

What is ungodly about people living under the same roof who do not have sex? They could live separately and have sex. YOUR ONLY LEGITIMATE ISSUE WOULD BE SEX. not location.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

John 4:14 CONTEXT. The issue was where was God to be worshipped, in Jerusalem or in Mt. Gerizim?

Jesus answered effectively you can worship Him anywhere.
The proper place of worship is not limited to Jerusalem (The Temple) or Mt. Gerizim. What He said, He said in answer to that question.

This has not relevance to the question about Holy Water, blessed objects, relics.

Anonymous said...

Just curious. I'm not sure what Christine is doing here.

1. Constance is learning from Christine.

2. A reader is learning from Christine.

3. Constance is doing charity, taking on a charity case.

4. Constance is keeping numbers up for appearance's sake.

5. Constance no longer thinks anything can be done about the New Age movement, it is no longer important, or nothing more can be learned.

1, 3, 4, or 5 and it's Constance doing her thing. If #2, who is learning. Can you drop a note. All posts responding to Christine are refuting her which wouldn't be necessary if she wasn't posting.

I want to see if this blog is just a waste of time and space.

Anonymous said...


Constance can represent me as a lawyer, but she cannot stand in for me. Unless she's playing me as a character.

The same with you.

In Catholic and Anglican liturgies, the priest acts in persona Christi.

I do not know of any movie till date that has a woman playing Jesus.

The Orthodox Study Bible (p. 1725) notes that the angelic powers represent the Old Testament priests who sounded their trumpets during the temple liturgy (see also Jos. 6:12; 1 Ch. 16:6; Ps. 97:6).

There were no women among the Old Testament priests.

Now, we can sight cultural reasons for this, but I think the reasons were theological.

Anonymous said...

Anon@12:54 pm.

I have decided not to respond to Christine. I am done with what I have to say.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

12:54 if you are the one who is opposing Holy Spirit blessed objects, then I am not surprised, you can't answer the question or deal with the implications to your world view of those Bible passages.

Blessed objects will not guarantee you getting out okay at the Last Judgement which is what salvation is partly about since the believers also stand before the judgement seat of Christ as Paul said.

salvation is getting into the Kingdom of God and also getting to stay there with whatever discipline thrown on you for bad behavior, but not full exclusion.

salvation in a temporal sense, from illness or evil spirits and helping strengthen you against your own evil inclinations and warps of your soul, is what Blessed objects are about.

representing someone IS standing in for that person. your lawyer stands in for you in court. if you have power of attorney you are standing in for that person when you sign for them. When you go on an errand for someone with their credit card and a shopping list, you are standing in for them at the checkout stand.

in modern times, women do not usually represent men in acting roles, because we are used to looking for an entire effect especially with TV and movies.

But in earlier times that was not the case. ALL roles in Shakespeare's time were performed by men in costume.

so these arguments don't work, especially since your argument is limited to the perspective RC developed which is very mechanistic, while the earlier view is looser. And I notice that while The Eucharist IS detailed in Scripture, issues about the priest and his representing Christ are not even mentioned, and everything we have now, and it is ambiguous, is deduced from vague things and also deduced from the writings of non Scripture but presumably wise men.

Now, this is the third day instead of just one that I've been posting here, and I think it is time to stop for the rest of the month,

since as I have said, my goal in order to not blog hog is to only do my posting one day a month (twice now it has dragged beyond that).

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

"The Orthodox Study Bible (p. 1725) notes that the angelic powers represent the Old Testament priests who sounded their trumpets during the temple liturgy (see also Jos. 6:12; 1 Ch. 16:6; Ps. 97:6)."

First, this is not a formal statement from an Ecumenical Council but the opinion of the writers.

Second, they have it backward. Earthly priests represent the angels, otherwise if the angels represent the priests on earth, who themselves represent the angels then it is a round robin with the angels representing themselves through the priests which makes no sense, and if it does it still leaves the priests relevant to angels not relevant to Jesus.

The earthly worship is patterned on the heavenly, perhaps "represent" is a poor choice of words the commentators, all modern in this case, no ancient cite by them, use.

More like, the angels do in heaven what the priests do on earth, the latter copying the former. This is too wordy so they shortened it?

"There were no women among the Old Testament priests."

One very practical reason for this, would be that women of the age the men could be priests, would still have menses and be unclean part of the time.

not an option.

And a good reason not to have female priests now.

But the OT law on priesthood is ill applied in any regard, incl. the one in the canons about who a man can be married to and be ordained, because "when there is a change of priesthood there is a change of law," see Hebrews,

and Jesus is priest after the manner of Melchizedec, NOT after the manner of Aaron or Levi, so there is no basis to draw conclusions not clearly stated as still valid.

Jesus is the High Priest Who lives forever and constantly intercedes for us with The Father, that means that the priests on earth are lesser category priests, especially since they offer no bloody sacrifice, that have been done by Jesus Christ, and what is offered by our priests is not a redo sacrifice but a kind of mystical re presentation of the same one Sacrifice, as if we somehow at that moment are in a time loop connecting back to that moment and patching into that Sacrifice, not exactly, but it is NOT an actual re sacrificing AGAIN of Jesus but a replay that invokes His Body and Blood by The Holy Spirit into the bread and wine, either eliminating all but the appearance of bread and wine, the current RC and EO understanding, the Lutheran understanding being that the bread and wine somewhat remain, but a literal presence or some transformation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ has occurred.

Female priests would also be disabled by pregnancy and the unclean time after childbirth.

you absolutely cannot have this situation regarding the priesthood of Levi. Whether the high priesthood in the image of Jesus priest after the manner of Melchizedec would be different in this regard is another matter.

But this is the biggest reason not to have female priests when only one can be High Priest and that one essential to all the major sacrifices and sin offerings. Even if this is delegatable to brothers (or sisters) you still have a serious situation potentially.

Anonymous said...

What God did with objects in the Scripture is told there because this belongs in the canon of Scripture, which is closed. God can do what ever He wants, when He wants, with whatever He wants but He does not go against His written word so when He closes a subject it is closed. (but religious types like to sew the veil that was torn back together so to speak because they have control issues with God especially and everybody else frankly). The persons God was using at those instances you site were OT prophets, and NT apostles (those who had actually been with Christ in earthly ministry though Paul was brought in to apostleship in an otherwise manner). OT prophets and NT apostles of that era have ended their ministries. The church has been given gifts of the Holy Spirit continuing to our present age. The examples of special anointings are there for our learning---however the point still must be that God must be worshiped in Spirit and in Truth--God has no competition for His glory but the foolish try (and the devil tempts them with very clever means to get folks to buy in to a counterfeit faith to take them a w a y from God). Ever wonder why pieces of the actual cross upon which Jesus died was not kept as a relic? Because people would soon begin to worship that piece of wood and soon forget the One Who was on it for their focus upon that. That is the way people are when faith is placed in faith rather than God Himself. They/or us today can quickly lose sight of the Who for the what. That is human nature. It is called idolatry and God speaks to warn every generation about this problem. Moses made the pole with the serpent on it for a specific time and purpose of miracles and then that went by the wayside in God's use, but not in the use of idolatrous people, as over time it became an actual idol to them and God told Israel in that day of the wrong they committed regarding it as written in 2 Kings 18:1-6 as a great example of this issue for our learning. Over and over God warns of the penchant of peoples of every era toward idol worship and the apostasy of the church began to set in very early so it was only the Holy Spirit, Who was given at Pentecost, that would authorize use of any certain objects as you are mentioning and that privilege was taken out of the hands of the religious of Jesus' day because they were not worshiping Him but religion and it's relics instead (even though the ark of the covenant had been missing from the holy of holies in the temple for a very long time but the high priests of those times as the only ones who knew that still kept up the practice. and then Jesus appeared on the scene as the One Who would replace what was missing by being the better sacrifice and covenant Himself and the religious leaders of His day would have none of that!

What is called the church, as an organization(I do not care if you call it catholic or protestant), still has a penchant for idolatry because it is given to apostasy and it is now time for the fruit of the bad seed to finish it's manifest. Repented and believing individual hearts who have trusted in Jesus Alone {{{{{not trinkets, relics, worship services or music, church fathers, or preachers, or religious experiences, etc, etc with a "christian flavor or feel and appeal to them"}}}}} have the Holy Spirit given to them-these are given the Holy spirit to abide within them by that faith in spirit and in truth---------not organized religious systems in their need to rule over others thereby usurping the ministry of the Holy Spirit of Christ Jesus. They are in the main given over to use of religious manipulations to get and keep followers. Your examples of what you do and many others as well are some of the very instituted and very entrenched operations that easily fit and readily continue the idolatry cycle.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

" Ever wonder why pieces of the actual cross upon which Jesus died was not kept as a relic?"

They ARE kept as relics (along possibly with some frauds). The True Cross was lost and finally it and the two other crosses the thieves were on were found. St. Helena mother of Constantine found them, and to determine which was the one Jesus was on, she brought a very sick woman to the place, and the cross that healed her was obviously the True Cross. Subsequently it was cut into smaller and smaller pieces. One piece went into space with a Russian space mission in the past few years.

relics are generally kept under controlled conditions and not out front all the time to be a temptation, since some do overdo it.

all these "trinkets" and so forth are not substitutes for God but pointers to Him. The worship services are to duplicate on earth in some small manner the worship that goes on constantly in Heaven.

This and obedience to Jesus Christ and putting Him first in all matters, IS worshipping God in spirit and in truth, as distinct from worshipping Him in one limited single location either Jerusalem or Mt. Gerizim. The latter was the dispute at issue.

Here is John 4:24 IN CONTEXT.

"20Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship. 21Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. 22Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. 23But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. 24God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth"

When we worship in a church service, we ARE worshipping in spirit and in truth, we are not limited to only one place on earth being where God has placed His Name and has a special presence.

Anonymous said...

"The True Cross was lost and finally it and the two other crosses the thieves were on were found. St. Helena mother of Constantine found them, and to determine which was the one Jesus was on, she brought a very sick woman to the place, and the cross that healed her was obviously the True Cross."

Obviously, yes.

I ask you, is it likely that the original cross survived in an era when the first Christians regarded it as a horrible thing and everybody else regarded it as nothing? It is not mentioned in the post-crucifixion scriptures or by any of the church fathers for the next two centuries. Helena desperately wanted to identify the places in Jerusalem that played a part in our Lord's death and resurrection and the city had been trashed years before and all Jews, who might have remembered what had been where, was where lost. Properly speaking it was an archeological job, even with the clues in the gospels, and Helena knew nothing of how to reconstruct the past from ruins. Her identifications are not reliable. It's like a layman going to the site of a town that was totally destroyed in AD1760 and rebuilt 60 years later and claiming to recognise things that had not been regarded as important before the destruction.

As for that tale of three crosses being found and one being responsible for a miraculous healing - very secondhand and a couple of generations later.

Wiggle as much as you like, that's all you've got.

Let people believe these things if it gives them any comfort; I take mine direct from Him who was crucified.

Anonymous said...

Amen 4:14.

Christine that is Hog. Wash.

Just a bunch more instead of.

Exactly my point. Instead of.

Instead of Jesus? Settling for the instead of and not Jesus? (breaks His heart)

My faith does not need all the props. Give me Jesus.

So try to dismantle that all you want Christine. Go on ahead and bludgeon us all with supposed facts and ages of less that the whole truth teaching, the glut of ages of bad treatment of the Word of God that came through the dark ages of abuse of true faith and set up a religious system (adding to and taking away from that Holy Word) that is still abusing. Go on and be my guest to try to support your arguments (the endless). I instead am glad the the old rugged Cross did not survive...but my SAVIOR did. HE died and rose and His Spirit is still telling us the story. The Word of God survived the torture of religious that has twisted it and the fleshly of mind and spirit like that version in particular. But the pure in heart, they shall see God. He keeps this simple for those of childlike faith and "knowledge" puffs up. Christine you are terribly terribly puffy (and huffy to boot). And love to parade your bad take on life in your personal life to the level of cringing. (unsavory info and unedifying but do we ask or need to know that?) But you make sure we know all that danged honesty of yours. So it appears that you have little or maybe even no shame. Makes me sad for you. You need much attention and don't care how you get it..

You should be exalting the Savior...but exalt all human elements (and especially your own experiences and opinion) everything surrounding Him and in that He is not the focus as you proport. You herald the everything but. I rest my case.

My faith has found a resting place, not in device nor creed...............I need no other argument, I need no other plea. It is enough that Jesus died. And that He died for me.

paul said...

The Romans crucified many thousands.
Over a million Christians were later murdered for
entertainment in the Colosseum.
I would think that crosses were probably
reused indefinitely.
I thank God that I'm not looking for any
good luck charms, or magic potions.

paul said...

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

" is it likely that the original cross survived in an era when the first Christians regarded it as a horrible thing and everybody else regarded it as nothing? "

What makes you think the first Christians regarded it as horrible, when it is the means of our Salvation by Jesus Christ? are you a Jehovah's Witness or something?

Tertullian in AD 204 mentioned that Christians repeatedly sign the cross on their foreheads and refers to us as "devotees of the cross." Three Gospel papyri from the late 200s use the staurogram instead of the word cross, the tau rho united which a later writer expains as short for "cross" "help"

St. Paul throws the focus on "Jesus Christ, and Him Crucified." When we are baptized we are baptized into His death (and resurrection) and the Eucharist is to "show forth My death until I come."

None of these "human" things point away from Christ but TO Christ.

As for locating it, you don't need fancy shmancy archaeological skills and tools when something is pretty straightforward.

The pagans had persecuted Christians, and knew where our holy sites were and defiled these with idols, so it was easy enough (with the help of some dreams and miracles backing it up) to use existing traditions and pagan opposition indicators to find them.

Why should the physical traces and locations of Our Lord Jesus Christ's earthly activities be despised?

Excavation was done and three crosses were found. Why assume God would not provide things that help strengthen the faith of the weak?

Anonymous said...

As I said Christine wiggle all you like, that's as much as you've got. I reckon the first Christians regarded the true cross as a thing of horror and if you don't, try to imagine the conversations if one of them had gone back to Golgotha after the risen Christ had explained that he was the ultimate sacrifice and grabbed the cross and brought it to Jesus and said, Hey, guess what I've found! But even if you disagree with me then you can't get round the fact that there is NO MENTION of preserving the true cross for multiple generations after the event.

Anonymous said...

PS Yes I'm a Trinitarian Christian.

Anonymous said...

right after illinois sign in the gay
marriage law, they tornado's !

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

"But even if you disagree with me then you can't get round the fact that there is NO MENTION of preserving the true cross for multiple generations after the event."

an object that bulky is not going to be an object of concern to people constantly on the run and focussing on the message to get to everyone.

"multiple generations" means what in terms of years? By the 200s people who were only three or four generations of teachers removed were using the cross as a sign of power against demons and to identify their faith. What does that tell you?

Once things stabilized in safety then you can go looking for bulky objects. The locations of all events were well known and defiled by public pagan works, so easy to locate.

if you are going to complain about cross signs in antiquity before that, the power it had against evil (the sort recognized as being inconvenient) would come from God giving the sign this power in anticipation of the Crucifixion.

Anonymous said...

....physical traces and locations of Our Lord Jesus Christ's earthly activities be despised?

Despised? You keep going to extremes Christine just to keep arguing (and explaining ad nauseum).

The Bible keeps the perspective in balance. Too bad you cannot seem to arrive at that. Are you leaning on your own understanding and forgetting to trust the Lord with these deep things of God? Maybe that is why you cannot put this to rest and keep trying to convince others using manipulative straw man arguments.

Anonymous said...

As long as Christine keeps blabbing away, no one talks about the New Age. Maybe we could get blabbermouth's view of the New Age movement and how it fits in with her getting others to convert to her religion which is definitely a new denomination.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

" her getting others to convert to her religion which is definitely a new denomination."

Eastern Orthodoxy is 2,000 years old, nothing new about it. RC split from EO in AD 1054, Protestantism split from RC. Luther kept some points calvinized protestantism doesn't recognize.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

refutes a lot of bad archaeology nonsense, sometimes taking out the good with the bad for instance thought the starchild skull is hydrocephalic when it doesn't even resemble this condition, and the hole inside the eye socket for the nerves and blood vessels to go through to the brain is also shaped totally wrong for a human and many other points.

however, his debunking of many conspiracy to cover up ancient aliens and so forth is pretty good.

I think he may be an atheist or something like that, but doesn't like dreamy New Age nonsense.

paul said...

"Once things stabilized in safety, then you
can go looking for bulky objects..."

Wow! Think of the depth of reasoning in that statement, which is spoken with such straight faced pseudo-authority !

Of course there were thousands of early Christians that wanted nothing more than just to have and hold an 200+ pound Roman execution cross, which may or may not have been the one that they used on Jesus, out of the thousands of crosses that were lying around, probably in interchangeable pieces . But they needed to wait for Constantine to legalize Christianity, so that they could make a wild guess as to which one had been used on Him a couple hundred years previous.

Christine , you really should preface your comments with a quick word as to where in the cycle of your meds you are at the time of writing.
There would be pre-medicated, medicated, and post medicated, as well as skipped medication.
Because we get: the manic Christine, the floating-in-space Christine and the not so happy Christine.
But you're always clever.

Jesus loves you, Christine. He knows all about your troubles and sorrows.

Anonymous said...

Most interesting analysis in the first 200 posts:

"Wow! Think of the depth of reasoning in that statement, which is spoken with such straight faced pseudo-authority !"

"There would be pre-medicated, medicated, and post medicated, as well as skipped medication.
Because we get: the manic Christine, the floating-in-space Christine and the not so happy Christine. But you're always clever."

Unfortunately the contrast allowed here shows Constance as the only intelligent presenter of information on the New Age movement while others are just lacking in research skills.

Anonymous said...

Christine lives in a medicated new age dreamy state. Because she is always trying to present The Answer to everything. Isn't that exactly what the new agers are all about? The Big Answer to everything if we will only "trust and obey" the Big Plan? Christine believes in her own authority (and hey she has a resident seer too!) and with great gusto she earnestly tries to make us see it her way. She is a new age plant talking psuedo-religions, psuedo-sciences, psuedo-politics, psuedo-human relationship...the be all-end all to our troubles. Oh, if we would all only listen and heed!

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

back to weather related judgedment - maybe some of it has to do with US involvement in all this?

Paul, that remark of yours either shows YOU need meds, or is very dishonest. Like any quote it should be taken in context.

The context was, answering the claim that very early Church didn't keep The True Cross safely around, and I pointed out they had a very insecure situation, persecution on and off. Keeping bulky objects, which a cross True or otherwise is, would not be done. (The head of John the Baptist was kept, lost track of twice and found twice, last heard from was in Iraq contra claims RC has it in Europe. Heads and body parts of martyrs and objects that belonged to them or bits of candle wax from a worship ceremony to God, or Holy Water or Holy Oil small flasks are not bulky, and there is no reason to doubt the claims regarding such.)

Once the situation for Christians was secure, a bulky object could be secured from wherever it was to public veneration.

Also, another reason to leave it alone, is that while it was buried because of pagan contempt, it was also SAFE from any attempt to destroy it. Another reason to not dig and sneak it out after dark to a less secure situation.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 291   Newer› Newest»