Friday, April 18, 2014

Guest article by "Rich of Medford" (Rich Peterson) on "Global Warming" n/k/a "Climate Change"

To my readers:

I am presently in beautiful Roseburg, Oregon near Eugene and Cottage Grove where I also spoke a few years ago (2006).  I'm speaking for a group of really nice people in Canyonville, Oregon, Lighted Way Ministries.  I return to Michigan on Tuesday, April 22nd.  Richard Peterson, known to most of us as "Rich of Medford" has prepared an article and kindly submitted it for publication here which I am more than honored to do.  He would appreciate your "on topic" comments.  So would I.

Constance

"CLIMATE CHANGE"

by Richard Peterson

Last month the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a report on the impacts of climate change.  The message that civilization is on the brink of collapse ought to raise a sense of déjà vu in those familiar with the 1972 Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment materials, in part, because that is the IPCC’s template.  The Stockholm Conference served to consolidate the environmental movement and provided it with a political voice.

Stockholm’s message was one of urgency: exponential growth would cause the planet to exceed its capacity to sustain human life.  Earth’s carrying capacity was estimated to be one-half of the 1970 population level, or approximately 1.7 billion people.  We were quickly approaching an irreversible environmental crisis caused by the pressures of industrialization and overpopulation.  The crisis later manifested itself as global cooling which changed to global warming and today is called climate change.  The solution proposed was to achieve balance following drastic population reduction with each nation sharing proportionately in the reduction.  Failure to take immediate action would lead to repercussions felt as early as the 1990s; a breakdown in civilization was inevitable.

While some may be unfamiliar with the political process started at Stockholm its subsequent constructs are well known.  Stockholm’s 20-year follow-up was the Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro.  Conference participants introduced what they considered to be a world constitution known as the Earth Charter.   (The Earth Summit is also commonly known as Agenda21 while the Charter is known as the biodiversity treaty.)  More recently, the 2012 Rio+20 Conference, concentrated on mobilization and the implementation of the framework.  The Occupy Movement is closely connected to this political process.

Stockholm Conference Secretariat Maurice Strong set the stage saying that the environmental crisis transcends national boundaries and that “no one nation can go it alone”;  global problems require global solutions and need to be managed by a supra national authority.  Yet Strong understood the sensitivities developing nations had about yielding sovereignty so he worked to alleviate their fears.  Nonetheless, the Stockholm Conference preparatory committees indicate otherwise:  erosion of national sovereignty would be necessary but would not be accepted for at least a generation or more.

The adopted environmental crisis would need to be prostituted if Stockholm’s political agenda were to be advanced.  The April 14-16, 1972 preparatory Conference on the Environmental Crisis-International Justice states “In global environmental control…politicization of issues is necessary and desirable if action on environmental problems is to be forthcoming.  Although politics…can be counterproductive, action can be obtained only through the effective use of political processes…International politics, in the Bismarkian sense, can and generally do lead to the prostitution of issues in order to get the upper hand.”




This year we are witnessing politicization of the climate change “crisis” in full swing.  Secretary of State John Kerry set climate change as a top priority for all US ambassadors.   Hillary Clinton called for mass mobilization that demands political change.  Senate Democrats held an all night talkathon to bring attention to the crisis.  The Obama Administration announced the establishment of regional climate hubs to assist farmers and landowners deal with the crisis.  These hubs, one might expect, will take the lead role in the Administration’s war on cow flatulence and wood burning stoves.

The International Justice preparatory committee was charged with identifying the environmental crisis for Stockholm.   Whitman Bassow, Stockholm Conference’s Public Affairs Officer, delivered the keynote address.  Participants were asked “what kind of vehicle will get the world community along the road that we’ll have to travel?”  The vehicle would be given to Earth Watch the newly created environmental watchdog.  The selected issue would serve a purpose:  “this very pedestrian nature of the Stockholm Conference may be an advantage for another reason:  in a revolution you have to have an idea and an ideal.”

While the preparatory committee brainstormed for a crisis to avert they were hard pressed to identify one.  “It is quite difficult to state what the major problem is on a global scale, and it is extremely difficult to set priorities…Sometime something is going to happen that is truly irretrievable, but we have not come to this.  What is most likely to become irreversible?  Should this be the topic of the Stockholm Conference?  Not really because Stockholm is looking to world-wide situations and there is no particular environmental (pollution, at least) issue that needs an immediate global response.”

The committee, however, did conclude with a recommendation.  “Earth Watch as a global effort at environmental cooperation, should obviously be directed to a global problem.  The problem priority for Earth Watch should involve that global problem which may most easily become irreversible.  We suggest that seas and oceans…represent a prime global concern.”

The crisis which underlies the rising seas and oceans is global warming.  Stockholm’s roadmap for averting this crisis includes:  1) global governance; 2) the erosion of national sovereignty; 3) the erosion of private property rights; 4) the redefinition of religious beliefs; and 5) the formation of a supra national moral authority (a role now claimed by the UN’s Alliance of Civilizations initiative).

The time for debate is over declare those convinced of human caused climate change and they really mean it.  The UK now seeks to severely restrict climate change critics to be heard.  CNN’s Carol Costello declared the climate debate over and used a discredited survey to portray a 97 percent consensus amongst climate scientists that humans have caused global warming.   President Obama’s “we don’t have time for a meeting of the Flat Earth Society” message reflects a strategy of ridicule and marginalization typically employed by the radical left.  The marriage of politics and environmentalism has made is especially difficult for dissenting scientists.  The media has shown itself to be, more or less, escorts.

Evidence shows that climate scientists are far from unanimous in their agreement.  The US Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works posted a report showing more than 700 international scientists dissent that man is causing global warming.  The International Climate Science Coalition exists to counter the global warming scare.  The 2009 Copenhagen Climate Conference was overshadowed by “climategate” where hacked e-mails suggested that dissenting scientific opinion had been suppressed by IPCC scientists.

The Stockholm International Justice committee concluded “we respectfully ask all to consider the world’s resources as the common property of all man.  No person or nation has an absolute right to any property.  Private or national property exists merely to offer to an individual or nation a decent quality of life.  It carries with it the responsibility to share with those in need.  We suggest that all consider the proposition that the right to property (whether individually or nationally held) must be looked on as a guarantee of the capability and obligation to share it with those in need.”


Repackaged communism is being delivered to us through the vehicle of the environmental movement.  History has demonstrated Marxism does not work.  The people of the United States need to carefully consider and resist any attempts to yield national sovereignty and property rights to a supranational authority which, upon scrutiny, shows it holds very different values than those of a free people.



Comments: 1 – 200 of 260 Newer› Newest»
“we respectfully ask all to consider the world’s resources as the common property of all man. No person or nation has an absolute right to any property. Private or national property exists merely to offer to an individual or nation a decent quality of life. It carries with it the responsibility to share with those in need. We suggest that all consider the proposition that the right to property (whether individually or nationally held) must be looked on as a guarantee of the capability and obligation to share it with those in need.”

superficially it looks good, Christian in fact, with support
arguable from God warning His people that even they were mere sojourners
(transients) on the land, and giving rules that forbade full harvesting,
leave what wasn't got the first time over to gleaners and the edges of
lands unharvested for the hungry passer by.

But in fact what is aimed for, is the management and control and exploitation
of lands and resources by the rich for the rich, at the expense of the
poor (any excess of which are I suppose eventually to be humanely euthanized)

The exact opposite of God's stated goals!
 
I agree with all that Rich says, although it deserves to be pointed out that the science should precede the politics. The fact is that it hasn't got any warmer in the last 16 years (taken over the entire globe - some bits have, others have cooled) even though China and India continue to industrialise and CO2 levels in the atmosphere have never been higher in the modern era. There is no 'lag' in the effect of CO2 so the IPCC's models are proven wrong. There is no point in my going into what's wrong with those models. In science the data is king.

Here is a collection of quotes made by IPCC members and clones in unguarded moments, showing their real agenda:

http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2013/11/ipccs-foul-weather-friends/

The best (skeptical) websites on the science, with most articles written for the intelligent layman, are Climate Audit, Jo Nova and Watts Up With That:

http://climateaudit.org/

http://joannenova.com.au/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/


Physicist

 
Excellent article, Rich!

Physicist wrote, "...The fact is that it hasn't got any warmer in the last 16 years (taken over the entire globe - some bits have, others have cooled) even though China and India continue to industrialise and CO2 levels in the atmosphere have never been higher in the modern era. There is no 'lag' in the effect of CO2 so the IPCC's models are proven wrong..."

That bit right there is persuasive to me.

I see, well, I suppose it's obvious, that the whole Bundy affair as a test of sorts towards confiscation of private property. We'll see where it goes.
 
Richard,
Thank you for the good research and article. That is all very interesting.

 
"I see, well, I suppose it's obvious, that the whole Bundy affair as a test of sorts towards confiscation of private property. We'll see where it goes."

Exactly.

Plus the eminient domain case in Colorado.
 
"There’s a great quote in Unit Economic’s report that puts this all into context:

“If one accepts the notion that the sun, which provides over 95% of the heat energy to the surface of the earth, has the potential to impact temperatures, it would be logical to incorporate observations and predictions of solar activity in climate models and forecasts – something most meteorologists and virtually all global warming enthusiasts fail to take into account when modeling earth’s climate. We believe this is because solar cycles explain climate cycles on earth too well, leaving too little room for CO2 to influence their models.” Weiss and Naleski, Unit Economics’ 2014 Report on Global Cooling.

"The Real Inconvenient Truth is that there is enough flawed data to question just how serious Global Warming is, or if it’s real at all in the short to medium term. Is the hysteria warranted? Keep your mind open, despite the intense politically correct forces out there who make that a crime on this issue."

http://news.yahoo.com/not-hot-facts-global-warming-150900216.html


 
Here is an excellent climate skeptics case video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gDErDwXqhc
 
Dear 8.40pm,

It's a bit more complicated than that. The sun's energy output to the earth varies only very little, and is easy to account for. BUT the amount of cosmic ray puts out by the sun is a lot more variable, and there is a speculative theory that the particles formed when cosmic rays hit molecules in the atmosphere acts to seed clouds - and cloud is a key factor in this debate, because it reflects more incoming sunlight straight off into space. Svensmark is the guy behind this interesting theory, which the IPCC does not factor into its models.

As for flawed data - you bet! As a physicist I am appalled at the "corrections" routinely applied to thermometer readings for all sorts of effects. I'd call it sloppy except that these changes invariably have the effect of improving the IPCC's case. Conspiracy? Yes and No - I don't believe that anybody has instructed those changes to be made specifically for that purpose, but climate scientists sense which side their bread is buttered on and blow with the wind. Academic prostitution is a better description. The best data come from satellite measurements, because they truly look at the whole world at once rather than a randomly placed grid of weather stations, and it is *global* warming that is the issue here. It matters not a whit if the last three summers have been warmer in Place A if the winters have been colder in Place B, and comments from people in either place about global warming or cooling on the basis of their own experience should not be taken seriously. The satellite measurements show no global warming for nearly two decades although the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has continued to rise in that time due to the industrialisation of China and India.

Physicist
 
Help! I'm on the air right now on
www.themicroeffect.com
or
chatroom.themicroeffect.com

Almosts forgot because I'm used to doing this at 10 am. on Saturdays.

Join us in the chatroom or call in live to 888-747-1968.

Thanks

Constance
 
I recall some evidence that CO2 rises in response to temperature rise not vice versa
 
Christine at 10.51am,

Yes, that does appear to have happened in some epochs in history, and global warming zealots didn't look closely enough and made their usual alarmist claims, but it *is* true that CO2 causes warming. The mechanism at work in those previous situations was different.

What is at issue is *how much* warming is induced by CO2. We don't know, because the atmosphere contains water vapour which enormously complicates the situation. Without water vapour, the calculation was so easy that it was first done a century ago, by Arrhenius.

Physicist
 
warming causes CO2 and methane release, which then causes more warming but also blocks sunlight a bit and ice melt causes dilution of salt water which affects thermohaline circulation which combines to cause cooling.....?
 
Happy Easter to all believers. This is an excellent message.
http://biggeekdad.com/2014/04/resurrection-painting/
 
http://intellihub.com/scientists-warn-rise-ai-will-lead-extinction-humankind/

they key problem is the tendency of artificial intelligence to work on
self protection.

while this is not immediately relevant, and Rich of Medford's focus
is globalists who would not of course
want to be eliminated along with the rest of humanity,

might not some who DO want to eliminate humanity even themselves,
and who work in Artificial Intelligence, jump the gun and help these systems develop self protection
quicker than they would normally?

might some globalists who want a much lower population put such IA
Terminators to work in that direction, not expecting to be
targets themselves, or to escape this by being cyberneticized and not
recognized as human?

Transhumanism isn't that incompatible with the environmentalist scene.

I think the fellow whose book was reviewed under the heading "we're all
gonna die," is taking the tack that our only hope is to become transhuman
a new species, able to survive but not as normal humans any more. This shows the potential compatibility.

The Georgia Guidestones and their number one rule, to keep population
at no higher than five hundred million, comes to mind....
 
If co2 warms the earth which results in more vapor or clouds and, in turn, reflects the sun’s radiation, wouldn’t this have a cooling effect? Shouldn’t the global warming scientists have stayed with their original global cooling prediction?

It seems they’ve looked at clouds from both sides now and really don’t know clouds at all.

 
Anon 5:54

You wrote, It seems they’ve looked at clouds from both sides now and really don’t know clouds at all.

Was this a purposeful allusion to Joni Mitchell? Clouds is the name of an album containing the song "Both Sides Now," so, I was wondering. Or, is it just a coincidence?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clouds_(Joni_Mitchell_album)
 
A blast from the past. No commentary needed. Written in 2008.

http://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/morford/article/Is-Obama-an-enlightened-being-Spiritual-wise-2544395.php
 
Afrocentric is another name for New Age paganism, only for those in the black community. It's coming to Chicago schools. http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/04/racist-curriculum-chicago-public-schools-will-teaching/ "...The curriculum covers kindergarten through tenth grade and is designed to align with Common Core. It includes a web link to TheAfrican.com, a website whose publisher decries “fake-Jews” and calls the United States a “Zionist-occupied enemy territory...."
 
"If co2 warms the earth which results in more vapor or clouds and, in turn, reflects the sun’s radiation, wouldn’t this have a cooling effect? Shouldn’t the global warming scientists have stayed with their original global cooling prediction?"

No, it means that CO2 would still warm but less so than without water vapor. The IPCC's models say that water vapour amplifies rather than reduces the warming effect of CO2, by a factor of 3. NB there is more to the effects of water vapor than cloud reflecting sunlight. The world's most distinguished climatologist is Richard Lindzen of M.I.T. and he argues that H2O mitigates the warming effect of CO2, for which he has been unfairly castigated.

Physicist
 
Here are some of the quotes (all Sourced) at

http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2013/11/ipccs-foul-weather-friends/

"I am not going to rest easy until I have articulated in every possible forum the need to bring about major structural changes in economic growth and development. That’s the real issue. Climate change is just a part of it." - Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC Chairman, whose qualifications are in railway engineering and economics rather than atmospheric sciences.

Former Senator Timothy Wirth, when representing the Clinton-Gore administration as Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs: “We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy” and “We called the Weather Bureau and found out what was historically the hottest day of the summer…so we scheduled the hearing that day, and bingo, it was the hottest day on record in Washington, or close to it…we went in the night before and opened all the windows so that the air conditioning wasn’t working inside the room.”

Maurice Strong, who was head of the United Nations Environment Program when it joined with the World Meteorological Foundation to set up the IPCC: “We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrialized civilization to collapse. Isn’t it our job to bring that about?”

"the life of all mankind is in danger because of global warming resulting to a large degree from the emissions of the factories of the major corporations; yet despite that, the representative of these corporations in the White House insists on not observing the Kyoto accord, with the knowledge that the statistics speak of the death and displacement of millions of human beings because of global warming, especially in Africa" - Osama bin Laden.

Ottmar Edenhoper, Co-Chairman of the IPCC Working Group III, and a lead author of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report released in 2007: “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore... One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.”

 
"One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.”"

sounds like they are talking about sharing with the less fortunate.

but they aren't. It is the rich getting richer at the expense of the poor
and of the middle class. Everywhere.

Not trickle down trickle up.
 
http://www.khouse.org/enews_article/2014/2233/print/

interesting information on Earth Day, the origin (Christian stewardship then co opted by New Age) and the latest craziness from the gaianists.

The rest of the site, though conservative Christian in theory, involves some problems but this is one of their occasional good articles.
 
The catholic institution integral to the revealing and acceptance of the AC and the beast system.

theopenscroll.blogspot.com
Friday, April 25, 2014 post

 
Necessary step leading up to Psalms 83 battle?

www.tedmontgomery.com
April,24 2014 post
 
anon 9:08 openscroll, I can take this one apart at the seams.

Firstly, you can't relate modern art to the core of the belief system. The positioning of the arms is NOT similar to that of baphomet, who has one hand up and one hand all the way down. The fingers don't resemble
masonic gestures, and focus on His heart.

The cup is the Chalice of Valencia, which is a jasper cut cup in a later medieval frame or holder, the most likely actual "holy grail" used at The Last Supper.
http://www.catedraldevalencia.es/en/el-santo-caliz_historia.php

the sign of peace or kiss of peace is mentioned by St. Paul Romans 16:16

X is an ancient reference to Christ, X being the Ch letter in Greek.

"Holy tIHS" is not "holy shit," shit is an anglo saxon term and
IHS is Latin shorthand and has no relationship whatever to this.

"What IHS really means – Jesus
The name “Jesus”, in Greek, is written ιησους which is transliterated as “ihsous” and pronounced iēsous. This is the Holy Name as it was written in the Gospels....in Latin, the Holy Name is written Iesus which gives us the English “Jesus”, since the “j” often replaces the “i” at the beginning of a word (as well as between vowels).

Chi (x) and Rho (p), CHRist
The insignia “IHS” comes from the Latinized version of the Greek ιησους, [UPDATE: In Greek capitals this would be ΙΗΣΟΥΣ or IHSOUS in Latin letters] taking the first three letters in capitals IHS(ous). Much as the popular “chi-rho” symbol (pictured right, X – P) comes from the first two letters of the Greek word for Christ, χριστος (Christos) – XPistos.
This is the true meaning of IHS, it is the first three letters of the Greek spelling of the Holy Name of Jesus. The insignia is nothing more (and nothing less) than the symbol of the Holy Name.... [there is also]
Latin phrase Iesus Hominum Salvator, “Jesus the Savior of (all) Men”. While this is a fine devotion,...
first known use of the IHS abbreviation comes in the 8th century: “DN IHS CHS REX REGNANTIUM”, the first three words being abbreviated from “DomiNus IHeSus CHristuS” – “The Lord Jesus Christ is the King of Kings”....

In Hoc Signo vinces – ... “In this sign, you shall conquer”. It was taken as a reference to the victory which Constantine won against Maxentius at the Milvian Bridge on 28 October 312. Before the battle, the future Emperor saw a sign in the sky (probably the Greek chi-rho X-P, the symbol of “Christ”) and heard the words εν τουτω νικα, which is Greek for “In this [sign], you shall conquer”...."
http://newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com/2012/01/what-does-ihs-stand-for-meaning-of-holy.html scroll down.

Similarities to anything satanic should be noted as the latter
copying the former (to mock it) not vice versa.

as for "anti bread" nonsense,
Matt. 26:1-29 shows judas' plot was already in the works before The Last Supper, and Jesus said that he who dipped his hand into the dish with Him would betray Him, and the Eucharist was instituted AFTER that later in the meal. (AFTER eating regular food.)

John 13:26-30 shows that this event was during the supper, and Judas left BEFORE the Eucharist was instituted immediately after dinner.

pre Eucharistic fasting was a notion that developed sort of by accident 200 years later.

Because of the bread dipped in soup thing, some have treated intinction (done in the East) as not so good, but that is silly.

The idea that the words of institution done by the priest acting role of Christ does the transformation, without an epiklesis still depends on a power given by God in ordination.

However, the Eastern way and most likely original, is that The Holy Spirit is called on to make the transformation AFTER the words of institution.
 
An unbelievably crammed week given my return from Oregon on late Tuesday and then hitting the floor running again as a lawyer this week. I'm on the air now with an interesting discussion. Patty Hunter will be wtih me second hour.
Please join me in the chatroom at chatroom.themicroeffect.com or callin live at 888-747-1968.

Constance
 
11:51 P.M.

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

Well I guess if the Pope/who is a false prophet, baptizes who ever the AC will turn out to be, then Bobs post will cease to be speculative? And your only partially correct post will be just more blah blah blah blah.

There was no letter J in the Greek alphabet until more recent times. The Saviors name has always been Y'shua however you want to spell it.

Christine, you are bound up by a religious spirit. It levens the whole lump!!!

 
The issue is not the Hebrew pronunciation, but the Greek and Latin pronunciations and spelling, and the meaning of some single or multiple Greek and Latin letters to refer to Him.

The article draws on a bunch of lies, probably Alexander Hislop who
is a ridiculous person refuted several times, and relies on
superficial similarities to prove identity.

Regarding the Trinity, he wouldn't apparently go against that,
I have said he was anti Trinitarian because he goes into detail
about false god triads in paganism. Only by being pre devoted to
Trinitarianism, however, did he avoid rejecting this publically
(though he may have privately I don't know). The information he gave
regarding this, saying it was a warp of a prior known truth or
something like that, is the SAME KIND AND QUALITY OF INFO USED TO REFUTE
EVERYTHING ELSE.

Nimrod = Ninus depends on an ancient writer Cteseis (sp?) who was
considered unreliable by his contemporaries and others of the time.

Nimrod in the Bible is over a thousand years before the historical
Semiramis. Which blows the whole thing out of the water.

And while RC uses round wafers, EO does not separate the bread and wine
but mixes them as a slurry of sorts. Before that developed, to root
out certain hidden heretics who would not use wine so would stay away
from the Eucharist, it was broken off chunks of bread.

So the Eucharist being Body and Blood of Christ way predates any possible
resemblance to a sun disk, and from early centuries such an apparent similarity has been impossible.

AD 150 this doctrine was in play. Greek "rememberance" implies more
than English "memory" it is re enactment reliving.
 
Top climate expert's sensational claim of government meddling in crucial UN report


A top US academic has dramatically revealed how government officials forced him to change a hugely influential scientific report on climate change to suit their own interests.

Harvard professor Robert Stavins electrified the worldwide debate on climate change on Friday by sensationally publishing a letter online in which he spelled out the astonishing interference.

He said the officials, representing ‘all the main countries and regions of the world’ insisted on the changes in a late-night meeting at a Berlin conference centre two weeks ago.

Three quarters of the original version of the document ended up being deleted.

http://tinyurl.com/ltstnjd

Dave In CA


 
you want climate change? I'll give you a tip about climate change. How about a 10 to 20 degree drop in temperature worldwide due to ash clouds blocking some sunlight, reduced growing seasons, and the American heartland of grain growing shot to hell with several inches of ash you have to sweep away and dig through and pile up to be able to plant or harvest?

Yellowstone just might be due this June, certainly this year the
way its been acting.

http://politicallyunclassifiable.blogspot.com/2014/04/yellowstone-will-probably-go-ballistic.html

not to mention marie's disease several articles incl. one on it
when caused by volcanic ash inhalation.

https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&site=&source=hp&q=marie%27s+disease&oq=marie%27s+disease&gs_l=hp.1.0.0l4j0i22i30l6.31047.34160.0.38476.17.17.0.0.0.0.380.2013.5j11j0j1.17.0.chm_loc%2Chmss2%3Dfalse...0...1.1.42.hp..4.13.1238.0.IYpYEvL5d1M

bear in mind this stuff will ruin engines.

Expect all transportation to be shut down, and anything you routinely buy
check for point of origin. If it has to be flown or trucked in from out
of state, stock up on it or find a local supplier. preferably both.

anything you plan to order online do it NOW because it get to you via
UPS and USPS and FedEx all of which will be impacted.
 
Here's a related post from oldmanoftheski:

http://oldmanoftheski.com/2014/04/29/argos-the-watcher-living-in-a-surveillance-society/
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qj2gNtMqOC8

the more things change, the more they remain the same...or get worse.
 
Christine,
Who is the idiot singing (badly) along with Bob Dylan and what the heck is the point, if not to ruin a good song ?
Hideous.
 
Had to try it out to see how bad it was Paul. You're right. Hideous. Christine are you tone deaf?
 
"I've suffered for my music... now it's your turn."
 
I don't hear another singer, i hear an echo chamber effect.

The message and music are more important. written in 1979 it could have been written today.

The refrain "strengthen the things that remain" is from Revelation the letter to the Church at Ephesus.
 
Operation Zero Footprint

the conservative wife.blogspot.com
Thursday May 1
 
Christine,

Your "proof" of hush-up regarding Yellowstone is that geologists have been saying it is overdue and are now saying that it will not blow for a million years.

These are not contradictory statements. If a train is timetabled to arrive at 1045 and I hear the whistle in the distance at 1057 I say that it is overdue but that it won't be here for another three minutes. The analogy is accurate in the essentials.

As you (rightly) say, you are not a geoscientist. So I am most impressed that you specify not only the year but the month that it will blow, putting in a few "most likely to"s to cover yourself. Shall we reconvene in July?

 
overdue on a 600,000 year cycle and not due for a million years are statements radically at odds with each other.

there is no similarity to your comparison.
 
no I didn't put that in to cover myself. I said that because as I said, we don't know, NO ONE KNOWS, if a caldera volcano acts like a cone volcano, and in some critical ways they don't act alike, so might not act alike in this point.

When a Utah scientist said in 50 years of observation he never saw such behavior out of Yellowstone, and another said that the present activity is much greater than the upsurge in the 1970s that petered out, its time to sit up and take note.

Now, it is possible it will die down again, and start up again in another 20 or 30 years, and THEN blow THAT time. But I for one am stocking up on things that get shipped in from out of CA, because all transportation will be at a standstill if it happens now.

I base that due in June estimate, on the seven months of helium venting by El Hierro, and an article somewhere saying the helium increase report was in Dec. of AD 2013.

It might be a lava flow, it might unzip and be catastrophic, it might be somewhere between these extremes.

But it is going to happen in our lifetimes.

Meanwhile Mt. St. Helens is repressurizing, and Kohocti or whatever its called in Lake County near Clear Lake, in CA, is acting up.


 
Christine,

According to Wikipedia

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

the last three supereruptions were 2.1, 1.3 and 0.64 million years ago. Assuming that eruptions are due to a mechanism that has not itself changed, then there is evidence for periodicity in those three numbers and a supereruption is indeed overdue. But this assumption is a questionable one; see

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

which explains in a bit more detail why nothing might happen for a million years. A volcano is not like a clock. On the other hand the possibility of another supereruption is not definitively excluded, so it is important to do realtime monitoring of Yellowstone and compare what is found with how volcanos act when preparing to blow. If you read

http://www.scmp.com/news/world/article/1498382/experts-deny-rumours-imminent-eruption-yellowstone-supervolcano

then you find that the guy doing real time monitoring and comparison says that a supereruption is not imminent and that any such would occur on a timescale of tens of thousands of years. NOT this June. The isotope guy who quotes millions of years in the same article is arguing on the basis of isotopes ONLY, and would obviously agree that realtime monitoring is more accurate.

As you said, you are not a geoscientist...

 
Fortune tellers with their crystal balls say a lot of things to their mark. If one of them happens to come to be, that's the one the mark will remember. He will forget the other 99%. The fortune teller is counting on that.
 
anon 10:08,

I don't have to be a volcanologist or the larger category, geoscientists, to be able to read what such scientists say incl. the refrain that we are overdue now, and other things, connect dots, and come to conclusions.

In any event, this will play out however it wants to, as one volcanologist said, volcanos do whatever they want to do and there is nothing much we can do about it.

http://www.isthisthingon.org/Yellowstone/daythumbs.php?glayout=1

is a good thing to keep an eye on, it tells more than the usgs yellowstone watch does.


 
"I don't have to be a volcanologist or the larger category, geoscientists, to be able to read what such scientists say incl. the refrain that we are overdue now, and other things, connect dots, and come to conclusions."

Not to read them, but certainly to understand them. Your evasive reply shows that you have not understood the things I was explaining at 10.08am.

"In any event, this will play out however it wants to, as one volcanologist said, volcanos do whatever they want to do and there is nothing much we can do about it."

Whoever denied that? The idea is not to change what happens in Yellowstone but to study it in order to broadcast a warning. Just like you did, except that you did it on the basis of inadequate scientific understanding. Anybody who took you seriously would get into a panic and make some bad decisions; do you take responsibility for the consequences of your usurping the advice of scientific experts? Let us reconvene later in the year when the sell-by date on your prediction will have expired.
 
anon 5:11, I did not answer evasively at all. And as for the travelling hot spot that is part of the overall picture, which I ALREADY SAID could be either catastrophic or non catastrophic.

as for experts, these people and everyone working there have to sign confidentiality agreements. same in a lot of other scientific situations that overlap to national interest. you don't tell the truth if told to lie, or you at least lose your job at worst go to jail.

The mutually conflicting arguments I have read as to why helium venting does not mean trouble are a red flag in themselves that something is wrong.

Assuming it isn't fraud, a law enforcement officer in the vicinity emailed a prepper who published the info not the source, that evacuation measures were being examined for Bozeman MT and Cody WY.

Independently of that, Idaho seems to be getting nervous.

DO NOT LISTEN TO WHAT THEY SAY, WATCH WHAT THEY DO.

Frankly, I don't think this would be as damaging as the potential collapse of Cumbre Vieja in the Canary Islands, which may have been put off if it shares a magma source with El Hierro by the latter venting off magma.

Janet Napolitano in her outgoing speech said that her successor would
have to deal with simultaneous disasters in different locations. Sounds like they know something we don't know, and your remark about bad decisions and panicking is part of the reason for keeping quiet.

After all, if you warn and nothing happens, everybody is mad and also won't pay attention the next time.

So this is understandable without relying on this silence being part
of a global depopulation plan. (Let as many as possible die we got too many people sort of thing.)

I still think that IF calderas and cones operate the same on this, we got June as a possible due date. In any case, if they don't operate the same, it will be this year or next year.

And if nothing happens, preparedness for this means you are prepared for anything else (like more economic down turn, lose your job, major illness, whatever).
 
btw, it was remarked on a radio show that Yellowstone, Nevada and Long Valley Caldera share the same magma source, well, perhaps it is all flowing towards Yellowstone. Reno had a lot of earthquakes incl. harmonic tremors a few years ago that started and then stopped after several weeks. Long Valley Caldera is making a few indications of activity but not much.
 
"anon 5:11, I did not answer evasively at all."

I consider that you did. Let Constance's readers decide for themselves.

"as for experts, these people and everyone working there have to sign confidentiality agreements. same in a lot of other scientific situations that overlap to national interest. you don't tell the truth if told to lie, or you at least lose your job at worst go to jail."

Universities are not the CIA, are they? And even in intelligence we get whistleblowers over matters of national concern. This line of yours gives you a convenient excuse to ignore experts when they reach different conclusions from yours over technical matters about which you know little - for, as you have said, you are not a geoscientist.

"I don't think this would be as damaging as the potential collapse of Cumbre Vieja in the Canary Islands"

Why throw that in? To try to show how knowledgeable you are? Cumbre Vieja is a clear and present danger but it has nothing to do with the subject under discussion.

"Janet Napolitano in her outgoing speech said that her successor would
have to deal with simultaneous disasters in different locations. Sounds like they know something we don't know"

With your track record of inaccuracy there is no reason to accept your paraphrase. Given a change of one letter ("could" instead of "would") your thesis about her comments would collapse. If you want to be taken seriously, give a sourced quote.

All these warnings you give of catastrophe, either natural or human... the Book of Revelation makes clear that such things will happen, and possibly soon in view of globalisation, but you are too trigger-happy. If, unhappily, you are addicted to fear, that is not a reason to alarm others. You have got away with multiple posts here despite Constance first asking you to keep to one per day and then telling you that she would enforce it. She didn't, and I regret that she ever said it if she won't, but it's her blog. Please do not use it for alarmism.

 
Jesus said that famines and earthquakes and waves roaring and wars and rumors of wars would happen but these are the BEGINNINGS of sorrows, and "the end is not yet."

someone once said, "its not the bullet with your name on it you have to worry
about, its the one marked to whom it may concern."

The main disasters in Revelation are apparently mostly against the antichrist who isn't here yet. Forget pre trib rapture by the way. escape through the event like Noah in the Ark is finding a safe place, not flying totally off world.

Now, as for whistleblowers, the scientists who hollered "not for a million years" may, with such an
extreme idiocy have been flat out lying
to deceive, HOWEVER knowing that the routine remarks were that we are
overdue, MIGHT have been deliberately warning us all is not as it seems by saying something so outrageous.

The leaks about the helium venting, they then fell all over themselves
trying to explain away are another example.

Another leak, from a worker who had to sign a confidentiality agreement,
is that cables are being laid to be able to monitor from a real safe distance.....Texas. I can't dig up the source at this point without trawling through too much stuff online.

Not the CIA? CIA is a just a public whipping boy at this point. confidentiality agreements
are normative in many industries and when a govt. agency of any sort is in
play you have more sanctions possible
than just a demotion or getting fired.

All the martial law preparations and FEMA camps people have been worried about, thought they COULD BE USED FOR THE WORST PURPOSES IN A CHAOTIC SITUATION, are most likely anticipating
something major, which could be anything from an asteroid hit, WW 3 or Yellowstone or Cumbre Vieja.

Put that last one in to show how knowledgeable I am? not at all. It is part of the whole overall picture.

Another absolute when not if.


 
part two, couldn't fit this in one post. I will not post any more for a few days after this.

Janet Napolitano

"You also will have to prepare for the increasing likelihood of more weather-related events of a more severe nature as a result of climate change, and continue to build the capacity to respond to potential disasters in far flung regions of the country that could occur at the same time."
http://www.dhs.gov/news/2013/08/27/remarks-secretary-homeland-security-janet-napolitano-national-press-club

allright so I misremembered could as would, but it adds up to the same
thing, expecting this to happen. Remember that there is a lot of spin in that speech, bragging about
accomplishments in response to disasters that in fact was not such a great response.

Which means also that such a mealy mouthed speculation thrown in probably reflects a near certainty.

Bear in mind that the real first and primary focus of FEMA and DHS (which has absorbed FEMA) is only secondarily disaster relief for us.

the primary focus is Continuity of Government, and the underground bunkers are not for us. The surface camps are for us.

Some scenarios however would make an underground bunker a death trap, I wouldn't go in one if invited.

There was quite a lot of paranoid hullabaloo online about the preps in
FEMA Region III a while back, last October was the deadline for a bunch of stuff.

That was also the end of the fiscal year, so as one person with experience with govt. agencies
and so forth pointed out, they were just looking to spend all their money
allocation so as to claim they needed at least the same amount next fiscal year.

But why the concentration in exactly the location that would
a. be a (but not the only) major point of influx of refugees driven by Yellowstone related problems
farther west and by New Madrid Fault breaking loose maybe with the Ramapo
Fault doing likewise; and
b. be exactly one of the hardest hit but not obliterated locations in the event of Cumbre Vieja collapsing?

Again, don't listen to what they say, look at what they do.

scorn doesn't substitute for street smarts, and when experts disagree the best thing to do is to stop trusting them, especially when they have motives to lie, and start looking out for yourself, and advise others to do likewise.

I encourage everyone to google these subjects, ignore the nay sayers and look at what HAS happened and what COULD happen.

One thing going on for a couple or more years now, is strange booming noises (inadequately explained as related to ice) which also preceded the previous New Madrid quake in 18whateveritwas, and went on during it.

And look at the overall world picture. Earthquakes are more common and MORE INTENSE than they were 20 years ago, world wide. Volcanos are acting up.

So it is prudent to study up on how to deal with what might happen.

FEMA preps include tens of thousands of body bags, and graveliners to put coffins in, that in a pinch would double as coffins themselves, to put up to four people in each. This of course is interpreted in terms of a planned massacre, but you don't dispose of bodies from such activity that way, you burn or dump them sans coffin of any kind and sans body bag into mass graves, and maybe put most of the grave diggers in with them to hide the truth.

FEMA/DHS has been prepping for something horrendous for several years.
 
O what a smokescreen Christine for the fact that you were called on your knowledge of the science of Yellowstone. If I insist on going back to that subject I suppose that you will say that you have moved beyond it and are looking at the big picture. But the big picture is a mosaic, and you get most of its points wrong. If I want the big picture I'll find a reliable synthesizer of it rather than someone who reckons we are Martians.

"I will not post any more for a few days after this."

Let us be grateful for small mercies.

 
The problem is simple to understand here. Christine's big alligator mouth is backed up by a canary behind. If she would simply pose questions for our consideration instead of her flat "knowitall" statements, there would be an actual conversation here. Even when (on those few occasions) she is right, she is wrong, for that very reason. She has a deadly effect upon meaningful passage of information. Good thing she is held accountable here. Thanks to those of you who don't give her an easy pass. We can still find what we come for, if we take what she posts and cut it in half (and perhaps cut it in half again). Her credibility has suffered by her own attitude.
 
I keep coming here hoping someone else is also following what pushers of the New Age movement are doing. It's lashing the shore of civilized life and yet no one here is talking about it. Instead I see nothing but squabbles about minutia. There was a time when this blog was important. It was unique. People could come here to see what great thinkers were doing, unearthing, following, explaining, fighting against, and sharing their thoughts. Now....nothing. It's as if New Age ideals have taken over so completely that there is no one left to take a stand against it. Even talking about New Age to a larger audience has been reduced to simplistic conspiracy information. What is left here which was once a valuable source of information is a tinkling of whatever Christine's latest whim is. Christine has a passion for Christine's beliefs and the air around the blog is sucked in. Occasionally something about New Age is posted but nobody follows up and it gets ground underfoot like dirt, swallowed by Christine's latest meanderings. No problem about Christine. There is a vacuum and she fills it.

Yet those pushing the one world government and one world religion theme keep quietly working, destroying freedom of both. There are disturbances aplenty with many on both sides, yet there is no one who is showing how all of this is part of the the big picture labeled New Age.

Everyone reading this I am sure can say about what is going on "That's communism" or "That's Christianity" in action. They can even say "That's Christine." No one is saying "That's New Age" because no one knows about New Age any more.

Am I the only one who remembers when there was a time when New Age was discussed? Let's see how many can come here and fill in the blank "New Age is.........." It might show if the battle is worth fighting any more.
 
Dear 3.23pm, I do not agree that it is not Christine's fault. OK, ultimate responsibility lies with Constance because the blog itself is hers, but for the same reason it is not proper to criticise her using virtual pen-and-ink which she herself supplies; and Christine has done much to wreck this blog down as a forum for critiques of the New Age.

I am someone who came here to read about New Age. I know plenty about it but learned plenty more here. I also made occasional comments about New Age, sometimes in the hope of eliciting helpful replies - my hope was often fulfilled. Then came Christine... I am one of several persons who challenge her when she talks nonsense (distressingly often). I am curious why she is permitted to get away with it but I don't agree with those who have imputed malign motivation to Constance. Perhaps Constance places loyalty to an old friend above the quality of her blog. Whatever the reason, let us thank her for the past rather than criticise her for the present, and if she really isn't going to bar Christine or even limit her to one post per day then let us see if we can agree on a new forum, with Christine excluded and with cross-references to this blog (to which Constance is now apparently too pressed by life and work to add very much nowadays - something that should be seen as a fact rather than a cause for criticism).

I've been meaning to write something like this for a while but recent exchanges have brought it to a head for me.

 
How has the New Age influenced the evangelical church? See the following videos series:
The Church as a Vehicle to transform the world.

The Biblical Mission of the Church
https://vimeo.com/92417323

Satan's Mission: One World Society
https://vimeo.com/92564041

The Infiltration of the Church
https://vimeo.com/93055719

The New Age Movement
https://vimeo.com/93080090

The Church as an Instrument to bring in a New Age.
https://vimeo.com/93186346

Parallel Message, Aim, and Strategy
https://vimeo.com/93202401

Parallel Spirituality
https://vimeo.com/93217033

Rosa
 
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140503/04264427106/us-government-begins-rollout-its-drivers-license-internet.shtml

"driver's license for the internet"

internet of things?

id needed to buy or sell?
 
every time I shut up the board goes pretty silent. This puts the lie to the idea that my posts prevent anyone else posting.

“I keep coming here hoping someone else is also following what
pushers of the New Age movement are doing.“

There is always plenty of that some of it you may not recognize as such.
New Agers exploit any situation to their advantage. The Christian
biblical analysis makes more sense of all available information than
the New Age analysis does.

With Barbara Marx Hubbard talking about a cleansing (also a
feature of some other global mysticism writers) or whatever, I am
sure a little thinking will get you to see how relevant seemingly
irrelevant posts are.

Take Yellowstone and Cumbre Vieja. When these things happen,
New Agers will say “mother earth” is cleansing itself and its all
good and you just need to meditate more, some might see earth
as protesting lack of paganism, and/or a phase in evolution incl.
Impending “cleansing” of excess and undesirable (i.e., non New
Age) people. Eugenicists would see it in similar terms, an
upcoming bottleneck for genetics and survival of the fittest.

Yeah well how do they explain obvious cataclysms that went on
on other planets and moons and even in space itself? What or who
needed cleansing out there? Isn't the whole universe not only earth
alive and conscious? Maybe their analysis is flawed from the get go.

AND I ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO NOTE AND USE THESE
ARGUMENTS TO REFUTE NEW AGE IDEAS.

Christians will say (the ones not deceived by neo charismatic and
liberal doctrines) that God is allowing or doing what He warned
would be happening and this is just the start of troubles and we
need to get back on track with Jesus so we will go to heaven if we
die of these cataclysms, or be given the brains and insight to
survive without compromising our faith in Jesus Christ or our obedience
to Jesus' standards of morality and decency. To seek to God to give us
wisdom, ask with all our hearts as St. James said, not wavering. Not
being double minded about it. Catacysms in space might be the
rule of thumb that God protects Earth from most of the time.

Any subject without exception can be exploited for a New Age
agenda.

These are the fields the New Age plays its game out in.

These are the fields we have to confront them on.

Some of these are where the next New Age attack on sanity and The Faith
in Christ will come from.

“earth changes” and “climate change” has been an object
of exploitation by globalists and more overt New Agers.
Globalists are finance and monopoly capitalists but their goals
are New Age compatible. (Some New Agers who like the inidivual
godhood and ergo supremacy and freedom, oppose this.) New
World Order is the political arm of the New Age, and New
Age is the religious arm of the New World Order.

The Christian (or biblical Christian) sees climate change
as possibly indicating God's wrath, or at least a wakeup call.
And frankly this fits known FACTS better than the New Age
mystical interpretations.
 
"every time I shut up the board goes pretty silent. This puts the lie to the idea that my posts prevent anyone else posting."

It means that you've driven a lot of people away, and those who still read are tired of being hijacked.

"Take Yellowstone and Cumbre Vieja. When these things happen,
New Agers will say “mother earth” is cleansing itself"

I think we all knew that already...

"The Christian (or biblical Christian) sees climate change
as possibly indicating God's wrath, or at least a wakeup call.
And frankly this fits known FACTS better than the New Age
mystical interpretations."

And most people here are Christian and don't need persuading, although regarding climate change it hasn't got any warmer in the last 15 years even though India and China industrialising continue to raise the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration.
 
Rosa,
Thank you for the videos by Pastor Good. He is right on the money and knows what he is talking about. He was easy to follow. He really knows how the New Age Movement is working today.
 
Anonymous said...(re:Christine)

"every time I shut up the board goes pretty silent. This puts the lie to the idea that my posts prevent anyone else posting."

"It means that you've driven a lot of people away, and those who still read are tired of being hijacked."


Perfectly summed up. Thanks 1:28 p.m.
 
I meant someone other than you Christine. Without bragging I would say I know twenty times more academic information about New Age than you do. In all of the years you've been posting, I think I only learned something valuable once.

I don't want to be taught as much as I would enjoy a dialog. No matter what I've posted, it gets swamped by your postings, most of which lack credibility though they sound fascinating and can be read as stranger than fiction material by some.

Oh well, you are trying to help.
 
This has nothing to do with the climate change issue but I just wanted to leave Constance this article. 2 yrs ago we saw a sixty minutes interview from US interviewing rep from LCWR and I was so cross as the real reason behind the issue between Vatican and LCWR was not mentioned at all. We all saw the vid by Barbara Marx Hubbard drooling over the fact she got to be keynote speaker at the conference for the LCWR and we know what that means in and of itself. I came across an article today actually naming Barbara Marx Hubbard and her 'conscious evolution' bizzo put out by the church. It goes on to mention its concerns over the LCWR having invited guests like Barbara to a catholic nuns gathering. About time it was put in print !!

http://ncronline.org/news/vatican/head-vatican-doctrinal-congregation-confronts-lcwr-noncooperation

From OZ.
 
"And most people here are Christian and don't need persuading,"

Its not the people here (except perhaps for at least one New Age agent whose posts exposed them but anon., and maybe a few others) who need persuading.

Its the people you talk to, the other boards you post on, your kids in school and their friends you can get your kids to talk to.
 
How many different sites do you post at Christine? Would you care to be honest and list them for us? You certainly didn't get all of those followers from this site? You are a busy little bee, aren't you.
 
I don't know or care if I have "followers," that is apparently an ambition of yours. (and I didn't add Cumbre Vieja in to show off my knowledge but to get some knowledge in your heads.)

let's see, I post comments on all kinds of youtube videos. There are a few Orthodox blogs, some political blogs, various yahoo egroups, and any place that takes a comment and i feel like making a comment when I stumble on something and then go away and forget it. just google infowolf1 and see what you find. (There was an infowolf no 1 at aol some years ago, not me, a male.)
 
Y'all be nice! Stop feuding...see John 13:34-35 then 1st Corinthians 1:10 and Romans 15:5-6. Then go back and read Constance Cumbey and Dave Hunt. Get a copy of The Aquarian Conspiracy and compare agenda (1980) to current events.

I am a retired geoscientist, but that's not necessary to understand the "Climate Change" hoax. Go to C-SPAN video and watch James Delingpole, "Watermelons," from BOOKTV archives. While you're there, check out Rep. Tim Ryan's (D-OH) promotions of "mindfulness" (new name for Transcendental Meditation). See also recent news article of Goldie Hawn at Davos.
 
I'm saving this just in case it gets blocked as one of my last posts was. If it's too long, I'll add what was cut off.

Sweetie pie, retired geo-scientist, please don't talk down to me. I'm retired also. Want to do some New Age research. Check out the operation that ties systems, universities and New Age together. I have probably a two inch stack of research on that. Want to discuss the Afrocentric movement on which I have about four inches and which I will put up for sale on Ebay one of these days because it is being connected to Common Core in the Chicago area. I did the research by going to at least a dozen places over a period of time that were pushing it. If its books you are into, look into Mark Booth's Secret History of the World. Not in any way close to the Webb books, but informative. Which Lucis Trust book do you want to talk about. I have about two thirds of them, some old ones in hard back. Do you know that the contents change from edition to edition? Lucis Trust is still being sold in major bookstores and they have a strong connection to the UN. I was the first to post Gates connection to New Group of World Servers. We could discuss Prophecy on Trial if you have that one. Today I just checked out some more on Satanism. Did you know that Harvard will be holding a Black Mass. They did drop using a consecrated host and now are using one that wasn't consecrated. http://cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/harvard-will-host-reenactment-satanic-mass. http://www.meetup.com/Chicago-Satanists/messages/boards/ Satanic Temple, same connection to the group trying to set up a large statue of Baphomet in Oklahoma because the Ten Commandments were posted there.

The political side is all around us. It's being led here in the US by the guy that the Princeton New Age group wrote a promotion book on Obama, you know obamamessiah.blogspot.com. It's that one world thing.

I doubt I'm the only one doing that level of research. Every time I try to post something encouraging others doing that level of research to share posting, Christine butts in and tries to explain New Age to me. That's Christine Erickson, Infowolf1, who has a Facebook page that does no warning about New Age, probably because as she says why be specific when everything can be connected to New Age. Like why be specific about weather when everything is connected to weather. I'm saving this just in case it gets blocked as one of my last posts was. If part
 
Sorry for not checking in as much as I should -- the Oregon trip really took it out of me and I had to hit the floor running upon my return and running ever since. I have been working on archiving my research collecion in scanned digital form and have been focused on that. I will be posting soon. So much happening and so little time to digest it!

Constance
 
To Geoscientist:

I for one am very glad to hear from you! Good advice on the "stop feuding".

Constance


 
To Anonymous 10:51

THANK YOU for the National Catholic Register article on LCRW. For background some of my writers who missed it might want to read my article about the Barbara Marx Hubbard event and 60 Minutes coverage of it. "Little Sisters of the New World Religion" (March 17, 2013) and in NewswithViews archives.

Constance
 
"That's Christine Erickson, Infowolf1, who has a Facebook page that does no warning about New Age, "
That statement is totally false.

with respect to Constance, therefore not to squabble just to set the record straight.

Several posts deal with New Age arguments and the links section to the right side is full of things that are either directly or indirectly relevant.

I don't just warn "this is New Age watch out" I ATTACK. This consists of things that undermine some of their positions, of the philosophical occultic sort, and some political issues that they use. Non Christians and New Agers coming on some of this might well think twice about some stuff they are accepting blindly.
 
BTW my name is spelled E-r-i-K-s-o-n
no c in there.

This is my latest post. I was not thinking about New Age when I wrote
it, but since the focus is how things can get restated dishonestly, using words that might be technically sort of correct (after all, the hanging WAS an important civic function since they
had photographers there something not
that easy and usual then, and if not in his honor certainly centered on him) but which give a totally different impression than the
actual facts were.

This issue of unpacking spin and looking twice might be of relevance
in sorting through propaganda, New Age and otherwise.

A classic example is calling mass extermination of anti New Agers
sending them to a higher plane.

How Sen. Harry Reid spins the family history of a horse thief in the family tree
The following was on an egroup I am a member
of and is a real lesson in political spin.

Remember folks, these are the kind of people
you are dealing with at least to some extent, with
most politicians, this being the most egregious
example of "spin," or restating facts in terms that
have radically different implications, of course.

"Judy Walkman,a professional genealogy
researcher in southern California, was doing
some personal work on her own family tree.
She discovered that Senator Harry Reid's
great-great uncle, Remus Reid, was hanged for
horse stealing and train robbery in Montana in
1889. Both Judy and Harry Reid share this
common ancestor.

The only known photograph of Remus shows
him standing on the gallows in Montana territory:
On the back of the picture Judy obtained during her
research is this inscription: 'Remus Reid, horse
thief, sent to Montana Territorial Prison 1885,
escaped 1887, robbed the Montana Flyer six
times. Caught by Pinkerton detectives, convicted
and hanged in 1889.'

So Judy recently e-mailed Senator Harry Reid
for information about their great-great uncle.

[NOTE: I assume she didn't include any of this
information.]

Harry Reid: Believe it or not, Harry Reid's staff
sent back the following biographical sketch for
her genealogy research:

"Remus Reid was a famous cowboy in the Montana Territory .
His business empire grew to include acquisition of valuable
equestrian assets and intimate dealings with the Montana
railroad. Beginning in 1883, he devoted several years of
his life to government service, finally taking leave to resume
his dealings with the railroad. In 1887, he was a key player
in a vital investigation by the renowned Pinkerton Detective
Agency. In 1889, Remus passed away during an important
civic function held in his honor when the platform upon
which he was standing collapsed."

Now THAT’s how it’s done, Folks!
That’s real Political Spin!!"


Let's look at that again to be sure you get the picture.

"Remus Reid was a famous cowboy in the Montana Territory .
His business empire grew to include acquisition of valuable
equestrian assets [he was a horse thief] and intimate dealings
with the Montana railroad. [he robbed the railroad.] Beginning
in 1883, he devoted several years of his life to government
service, [he was in prison] finally taking leave [he escaped] to
resume his dealings with the railroad. [he kept robbing the
railroad.] In 1887, he was a key player in a vital investigation
by the renowned Pinkerton Detective Agency. [he was the
object of the investigation.] In 1889, Remus passed away
during an important civic function held in his honor when
the platform upon which he was standing collapsed." [he
was publicly hung, and the trapdoor he stood on with the
noose around his neck was opened so he was hung by
the neck till he died.]

Justina (my EO baptismal name, after a saint who fought off demons and
spells and ended up converting the magician hired against her, both died as martyrs so are in special status
in heaven.)
 
http://www.conservativehq.com/article/17132-stop-common-core-porn-and-f-bombs-your-school

http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/education/item/18212-father-arrested-while-protesting-porno-novel-assigned-to-9th-grade-class

If you want many conservative news stories on one site, check out http://badblue.bitnamiapp.com/trendr8.htm
 
http://www.snopes.com/politics/humor/horsethief.asp

And that's doing what is called research.
 
follow up post i made

After I posted this on another blog, someone dug up this:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/humor/horsethief.asp

apparently several versions of this with identical story
but changed names circulated in AD 2000.

http://therionorteline.com/2013/08/16/snopes-got-snoped/

But what of the possibility that the other stories were
circulated to make the original true story (whosever it
was) look fake?
Meakes, Daryl. Drunkcow Landmines.
Infinity Publishing, 2004. 0-741-42257-3 (p. 175).
Robertson, Ken. "Sen. Reid's Swinging Family Tree a Mere Web Spoof."
[Kennewick] Tri-City Herald 9 January 2009.
are snopes sources on this story.

at least one of those stories has to be true, down to the spin put on it, regardless of which politician did it,
because, let's face it, there's a photo. And it had to start somewhere.

Skeletons in the closet is nothing unusual in itself. But regardless of the truth of the story, the fact remains, this is a spectacular example of spin.

And it happens all the time in more serious matters than skeletons in the
family tree. So it is still a valid lesson.


 
Always defending yourself and your merely googled poor research aren't Christine? When someone is forever in an excessive explaining and defending mode of their message it means they don't really have one. I looked at your blog and thought what an immense waste of time..you are not a warrior against the new age. Your attacks amount to letting the real info be buried in the verbose you offer ........and then of course you have to bring your pet ideas here.


Talk about spin...........
 
Constance, you don't dialog with Christine on her let's call it varied information. Never a solitary word. You don't clean up after Christine posts nonsense. That's left to others, and when we do, you let someone call it feuding. The definition of feuding is "long and bitter hostility between two families, clans, or individuals; vendetta." Most people associate the word with lower class mountain people with little intelligence.

Christine ignores your requests as she knows she can get away with it. You let her as do that as it seems she is some kind of pet spokesman.

Again, I posted information which would be helpful to those researching New Age. Again she covered it by posting a long piece of nonsense that has been making the rounds for years.

You say you don't like bullying. Here's the definition of bullying which fits very well what Christine does to those who have tried to make this blog useful. "a blustering browbeating person; especially: one habitually cruel to others who are weaker"

I'm marking the calendar. I'm out of here for the next two months. I need to break the addiction.
 
snopes relies on google also. However, is there any way to check the legitimacy of the sources they used?

person who is leaving, you are very oversensitive indeed if you consider any opinion or information other than yours to be bullying and cruelty. Now I also will abstain from posting for a few days.

oversensitivity is often a manifestation of the sin of pride. I wonder how much time you spend online or in person combatting New Age ideas in the world or the church?

 
Analysis of Bill Clinton's interview April 2nd on the subject of alien disclosure

the open scroll.blogspot.com
 
Constance, just updating you on Barbara Marx Hubbards upcoming event:
In June, at the River's Edge in Cleveland, Ohio, I will be presenting a week-long retreat entitled, The Evolutionary Christ As An Inspiration For The Cocreative Human.

http://www.riversedgecleveland.com/rivers-edge This is a link to Rivers Edge (Sisters of St Joseph). I am speechless really,,,what sort of sisters are these? anyhow, this is where Barbara's week long conference will be held and we already know what she will be trying to push - as in her idea of the New Testament etc. We all know her twist on that but I'll leave her write up about it -
The Evolutionary Christ As An Inspiration For The Cocreative Human, River's Edge, Monday, June 2 - Sunday, June 8



In this sacred time we will embark together on an evolutionary journey to discover new meaning and guidance from the life of Christ and the New Testament when seen with "evolutionary eyes." Meditations, contemplation and evolutionary sacraments will nurture dormant genius in us all. During this seven-day seminar - morning, afternoon and evening discussions will bring us toward a communion of pioneering souls at the growing edge of our own emergence.

We will probe deeply into the mystery of the New Testament envisioning the Christ as the embodiment of the next stage of human evolution. Jesus told us: "You will do the works that I do and even greater works will you do...in the fullness of time." St. Paul told us: "We shall not all sleep, we will all be changed." It appears that this is coming true. We are the first species to face our own devolution, by our own acts, and our own evolution toward a glorious and truly new future through our own conscious evolution. When we combine Christ love with the radical new capacities of humanity we see the outline of the next stage of life itself.

We will imagine the world and our roles in it from the evolutionary perspective, with inspiration from great Catholic theologians such as Teilhard de Chardin, Ilia Delio, John Haught and Beatrice Bruteau.

We will be assisted by Sister Judy Cauley, CSJ who has been my partner in the exploration of the relationship between the conscious evolution of humanity and the life of Christ. She will add her understanding of whole-making to the week.

In this seminar we will seek to take a step forward toward an Evolutionary Christianity for the 21st Century. It is my hope that we will all be deeply inspired and evolved!

To join me & for more details: http://www.riversedgecleveland.com/component/civicrm/?task=civicrm/event/info&reset=1&id=54

Again,, cannot believe she is stlllll in cahouts with a 'sister' as we read above. This sister is photographed here with Barbara at the LCWR conference in 2012 and this article from another of the sisters says it all - http://sistersofstjosephfederation.blogspot.com.au/2012/08/a-week-to-remember-in-st-louis-barbara.html

Now this link also mentions Barbara's efforts in 84 when she was trying to get into Congress and getting that Peace Room up and running and we know she got busy with Marianne Williamson at the time to achieve this. Their friend Mr Kucinich has since finished up in Congress so now its all about promoting Marianne for the job - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ue8QNOEFNOE&feature=youtu.be

Remember these two women were also very busy promoting the Occupy Movement a couple of yrs ago.

All in all, saddened by the whole Sisters of St Joseph thing here as they taught me in primary school. Not sure if the American and Australian Sisters of St Joseph would be one and the same.

I just don't think people realise how dangerous people like Barbara and her friends are.

And thanks for your response that couple of days ago Constance. All the best to you.

From Oz


 
Person who is leaving, you were spot-on at 11.36am.

 
@OZ,

I am a religious sister in the United States. Thank You for your post.

There is a difference between LCWR members and the leadership.

Members are not required to accept a set of views.

The leadership in many cases, has outstepped their bounds.

There are internal factions in the LCWR.

You can find a convent with orthodox sisters, and another one with outright pagans.

The recent CDF report has told them in blunt terms, that they could close their canonical status if they do not change.

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/cardinal-mueller-lcwr-stands-in-open-provocation-of-holy-see/

Based on my inside sources, the leadership does not want to change.

Most likely they will be dissolved.

Member communities will have to look at other options.

The Sisters of St. Joseph in Canada are dying out. The remaining members have decided to re-group and start over.

Hope this explains things.

God Bless,


Sister Solana.
 
Just going on air. Join us in chatroom at
chatroom.themicroeffect.com

or listen live at

www.themicroefffect.com

or

www.tmeradio.com

Talking about

David Spangler's latest doings; Conrad Satala and origins of my title THE HIDDEN DANGERS OF THE RAINBOW, ETC., ETC.

Constance

 
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/05/08/student-group-at-harvard-says-no-consecrated-host-at-black-mass-reenactment/

http://www.extension.harvard.edu/hub/news/updated-official-response-cultural-studies-student-club-event

A plan of a student group at Harvard to perform a re-enactment of a black mass and the official response from Harvard Extension.
 
Sr Solana,

Thanks for the information. Yes, I'd read the Vatican's stance on this business with the Leadership group. I am just absolutely bamboozled by the fact that outright pagans can be sitting in positions of leadership and claiming at the same time to be Catholic sisters. Barbara Marx Hubbard and her friends are dangerous people and the day I saw her so cheerful about having spoken at the LCWR in 2012 I knew something terrible was going on. They have woven a massive web, its such a worry. God bless you and those sisters who are the genuine article.

From Oz
 
Walid Shoebat makes the point that Catholicism is the only group in the US that can safely be ridiculed and openly despised, even in a politically correct world.
I almost jumped on board that freight (hate) train myself,but praise God, He ( God ) opened my eyes.

The conclusion I've come to is that it's the LEADERSHIP of so many institutions that is suspect: Whether it's The USA, the Roman Catholic Church, general Protestantism, big corporations, state governments, city governments, the Department of Education, and on and on.
Basically the Freemasons are in everything and run everything. They are judges, lawyers, state police,
city councilmen, school superintendents, senators,
governors, legislators, teachers, doctors, news
anchors, network heads, university heads, and heads of state. Obama, for instance is a Freemason of the Prince Hall Lodge. Putin is a Freemason.
Islam is Antichrist and Islam has many Freemasons.
Freemasonry is the "Unseen Hand" of modern history. Some Popes have been, and many KKK are Freemasons.
FDR, Churchill, Saddaam Hussein, Timothy McVeigh, John Wilkes Booth, and many more were Freemasons.
The Brotherhood of Freemasons just love the whole
N.A. agenda, including Agenda 21.
Meanwhile, Christians all over the Middle East are being tortured, maimed and slaughtered EVERY DAY, but our Freemason owned and controlled
media never report it.
 
Well said Paul

The main stream media will only report what makes their god happy.

I strongly feel that Pope Francis is one with the prince of this world and his minions.It is very likely he will play the biggest role in the revealing of and acceptance of the AC
 
More talk re the Vatican / LCWR-

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/nuns-vatican-quit-picking-our-sisters-n101856

I am yet to find one of these nuns who will explain their having B Marx Hubbard as a speaker at their 2012 conference.

I would love to hear any one of them try to promote Barbara as one a true Christian would pay heed to.

B Marx Hubbard and True Christianity are on opposite ends of the spectrum.

These women know EXACTLY why they are in the bad books with the Vatican at the moment but still try to persuade all and sundry that they are being hard done by.



From Oz



 
1. I think part of the vulnerability of the RC to heresies is precisely two points, also shared by the New Apostolic Reformation.

confusion of the Church as Body of Christ metaphorical or mystical with Church as literally Christ Himself.

(when Jesus appeared to St. Athanasius in a dream with a torn garment and Athanasius said, "who has
done this to you, Lord?" and Jesus answered "Arius" the founder of the arian heresy which denied the full divinity of Jesus Christ and claimed He was a creature of God albeit the highest creature but "there was a time when He was not" and Jehovah's Witnesses are very like this) NOTICE JESUS DID NOT SHOW HIMSELF AS CUT OR BLEEDING OR PERSONALLY DAMAGED, but that HIS CLOTHING was damaged.

Therefore with this confusion, mere membership in RC and liking its aesthetics and being "in communion" is all that is needed, doctrine means nothing, behavior means nothing, etc.

AND, salvation by loyalty to a specific leader, the pope in the case of RC the "apostles" in the case of NAR.


At this point one might wonder about the loyalty thing, since these women are in direct disobedience to the pope, but I guess the first clause is good enough, or they just wait for another pope to correct a previous or current pope, which is theoretically impossible.

Of course, if they are consciously infiltrators that is another matter. But those deceived by them who think they are still Christian would be deceivable because of these other points.

 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQ3aI9vMJoM

excellent expose of NAR heretical teachings some of which add up to
denying the divinity of Christ. Panentheism is discussed, but there are
many totally different things labelled
this, Eastern Orthodoxy is not really panentheistic in any of the sense
this discusses, some individual kooks aside. more in the geographic sense
of God's omnipresence that the speaker mentions as not the same thing.

psalm86 channel on youtube is a good channel to subscribe to.
 
Anonymous 9:07 P.M.

Re:I strongly feel that Pope Francis is one with the prince of this world and his minions.It is very likely he will play the biggest role in the revealing of and acceptance of the AC

And where, pray tell, does the Bible clearly state that "Pope Francis is one with the prince of this world???"

It looks more to me like your unchristian - and un-Biblical - pope-bashing is the result of your throwing in your lot with charlatans like Dave Hunt, et al, who have set themselves up as bogus substitute "popes" with a view to appealing to people just like you.

I don't see any Catholics here trashing your beliefs or those of any other Orthodox or Protestant beliefs.

If this is part of your big "mission" to win people to Christ, let me tell you that if I had never heard of Christ and were unchurched, I would rather go sign up with the Druids than have anything to do with the hate-filled repulsive un-Biblical pseudo-religion that you and your ilk have the nerve to try to pass off as "Christianity"!!!

Yes, we Catholics have had to deal with successors of Peter - present popes excepted - who have turned out to be "Judases" vis a vis their personal and scandalous wickedness.

Through the night of centuries, the devil has indeed sifted Peter's successors like wheat just as Christ said he would......sometimes successfully....more often not.

But when the cock crowed, Peter repented. Judas did not!

Therefore, take heed when ye stand lest ye fall. 1Cor. 10:12
 
There is a peculiar mishandling of the Malachy prophecy of the popes by Tom Horn.

Petrus Romanus is the title of the book. Horn argues that the last pope
is the antichrist (or if I got that wrong then the false prophet).
Actually the prophecy says that the last pope will shepherd his flock
during great persecution. That doesn't sound like the antichrist.

Also Malachy lists the popes, then says the last pope will be Peter of Rome, but doesn't specify there are no popes between the prior one and him, the way the list goes and the phrasing there is room for a lacuna.

So I don't think we are looking at the last pope.

Some argue that the list is more precise before a certain time and vaguer after, but the vague ones are in fact pretty precise when you look
at symbols and oddities in the naming or description.

Someone else argued there was some clique in the College of Cardinals
making sure the prophecy came true, but this seems shaky. What is to gain by it?
 
There is a peculiar mishandling of the Malachy prophecy of the popes by Tom Horn.

Petrus Romanus is the title of the book. Horn argues that the last pope
is the antichrist (or if I got that wrong then the false prophet).
Actually the prophecy says that the last pope will shepherd his flock
during great persecution. That doesn't sound like the antichrist.

Also Malachy lists the popes, then says the last pope will be Peter of Rome, but doesn't specify there are no popes between the prior one and him, the way the list goes and the phrasing there is room for a lacuna.

So I don't think we are looking at the last pope.

Some argue that the list is more precise before a certain time and vaguer after, but the vague ones are in fact pretty precise when you look
at symbols and oddities in the naming or description.

Someone else argued there was some clique in the College of Cardinals
making sure the prophecy came true, but this seems shaky. What is to gain by it?
 
Susana,

I throw in my lot with Y'shua. That's why I can recognize those who are of that wicked one. The pope meets with Obama who is one with Planed Parenthood. They seem to really hit it off. No surprise there. If the pope really was the vicar of Christ he would speak as Y'shua spoke. He would rebuke the murderer. But since since the LIE of peter being the first pope is just that,,,,well the liar and murderer buddy up. There is no straight forward gosphel in the catholic cult. It is a vain religious show. Like I said before Susana, Springfield is a good sized city, there must be a good christian fellowship to be found there.
 
it doesn't matter if Peter was the first bishop of Rome, or merely appointed the first bishop of Rome. The problem is the later bishops of Rome.

Antioch definitely had Peter as its first bishop so is equally as petrine as Rome.
 
"There is a peculiar mishandling of the Malachy prophecy of the popes by Tom Horn."

Not only by Tom Horn. This prophecy of the sequence of Popes, each identified by a cryptic phrase, first became known in the late 16th century. The list starts in the mid-12th century, and the prophecy is said to date from that time and only to have been discovered some 450 years later. How to tell whether that is likely or whether it is a late-16th century forgery? Anybody who does crosswords - or, more demandingly, sets them - will immediately recognise that the fit to the prophecy of the Popes from the 12th to the 16th century is like a hand in a glove, whereas the fit of subsequent Popes is very strained. That should be decisive to anybody with any literary sensitivity and the capability to reason: it's a forgery.

"Also Malachy lists the popes, then says the last pope will be Peter of Rome, but doesn't specify there are no popes between the prior one and him, the way the list goes and the phrasing there is room for a lacuna."

Perhaps, but nobody thought of doing that with the previous Popes, did they? Talk about making the data fit the theory, rather than vice-versa!
 
because apparently he NUMBERS all the popes up to the next to last, then just says that the last pope of Rome will be named Peter and shepherd his flock during great persecution, and then the great judge comes or something like that.

while that is peculiar the exact fit vs. cryptic, the cryptic is ALSO an exact fit for instance someone might be identified by something that turns out to relate to a family crest, or to a line of work he was in before he was a priest or a city of origin or something that turns out to be a feature of his reign.

At that point, one theory is that a conspiracy has gone on all these years to be sure each pope somehow fits these cryptic statements.
 
No reason at 7.30am to change what was said at 6.03am: That should be decisive to anybody with any literary sensitivity and the capability to reason: it's a forgery.
 
that does not explain how the cryptic statements are also an exact match, now does it? if it is a forgery, then it reflects as someone suggested a long term conspiracy of some hidden network that really determines who is to be pope.

Benedict XVI would have broken the prophecy, until he took the name Benedict after St. Benedict, whose order uses the olive as a symbol.

And his reign is the one labelled "Glory of the Olives."

okay, so he could have done that on purpose to fit the prophecy. if it is a forgery, then it is something that is a direction not a prediction, because it all comes true.
 
"that does not explain how the cryptic statements are also an exact match"

This statement ignores the notion of how well the pre-1595 Popes fit the "prophecies" compared to how loosely the later ones do, and how the pre-1595 prophecies are subtly more specific. These assertions are a matter of aesthetics not mathematics, and the assessment at 6.03am is apt.

"if it is a forgery, then it reflects as someone suggested a long term conspiracy"

It might simply have been a short-term conspiracy by the guy who became the next Pope: Look, here's an ancient prophecy that matches me, you better give me the job!
 
http://www.bibleprobe.com/last10popes.htm how the last 10 popes match the malachy predictions, some are much too close to ignore.

However....some of the closest might also have had illuminist help. or not.
 
http://www.startribune.com/238770511.html


This goes along with what you are saying 10:38 p.m.

The work of the devil according to prophecy and the pope is playing his part to help bring this about. Why do people who say they believe the Bible not see the handwriting on the wall in this apostate age of apostate leadership that calls itself christian (and i am meaning more than the rcc) but actually lends itself to the dark side? The pope personally spearheads much that will bring on the great tribulation. People please believe the Bible God's Word more than you believe your church leadership!
 
church leadership, whether RC or protestant or modern charismatic infested "evangelical" or in some cases Eastern Orthodox cannot be automatically trusted. It is not just an RC thing.
 
Isn't that what I just said Christine in the comment "(and i am meaning more than the rcc)"? And your EO is included...

God Alone is where we must put all of our trust. In the One Who is the Very Image of God. The Bible says in these last days--everything that can be--will be shaken. See Heb 12:24-27 to read it for yourselves. Christ is The Rock -- the True Mediator between God and man. (not popes supposedly after the image of Peter). If anyone has a problem with that they can take that up with the written Word of God.
 
EO does not claim the same intermediary position for priesthood as RC. the primary focus of the Holy Liturgy is Jesus Christ. the saints are repeatedly called on to pray for us not to act on their own accord (a typical RC prayer to a saint is fawning with terms and ascriptions that seem divine, and ask for direct action).

Meanwhile we keep a liturgical tradition that, unlike the more freewheeling form of Protestantism and extremely so in evangelicalism, is fixed, and does not allow new doctrines to slip in. For this to happen, it has to occur in the sermon. Now, there are some strange ideas cropping up now and then in books and online. But the information in The Holy Liturgy and many of the akathist services in honor of Jesus, or Mary, or a saint, has plenty of information to correct for this, IF PAID ATTENTION TO.

We keep a tradition that stabilized in response to and to keep out almost all the heresies that keep cropping up now in evangelical churches. What people as individuals do with this is another matter.

Now, BACK TO THE ORIGINAL PURPOSE OF THIS SEGMENT OF BLOG DISCUSSION, climate change and political agendas.

Any severe cataclysmic development, is going to be responded to in two ways. The first will be what is necessary to preserve the govt. (and to hell with the people) and secondarily in this segment, to help a lot of survivors.

The second response, would be simultaneous and would be to exploit the situation to promote whatever cultic or one worldist (without religious views) or nationalist totalitarian crackdown can be done, in context of disaster relief and reorganization.

Anyone want to speculate on scenarios?
 
So eo is immune huh? Uh....no. Everything will be shaken. Every institution and organization religious or not - will.be.shaken. It is coming.

What a big yawn of an answer you gave 5:57 p.m. Don't be asleep in you church service when it does.
 
Christine at 12.56pm, it's no use looking JUST at the post-1595 Popes. You have to compare the fit to prediction of the post-1595 Popes with the fit to prediction of the pre-1595 Popes. Sufficient info is given for this at

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

and readers of his blog can judge for themselves.
 
Anonymous 10:38

Re:I throw in my lot with Y'shua. That's why I can recognize those who are of that wicked one.


As I said before, anonymous "Take heed when ye stand lest ye fall." (1Cor 10:12) ........or as my mother used to say "Be careful about spitting in the air lest it land on your own nose."
 
Susanna,

There was a question of were my lot was thrown. I do not even know what
Dave Hunt is saying. I don't follow him.

The pope has nothing to do with true christianity. All his supposed authority is man given. He has no temporal authority. He is no different than the butcher, the baker, or the candle stick maker. Other than he recieves the adoration, and yes, worship of the billion or so deceived. Men of worldly high position bend the knee to this man, and kiss his ring. This is spiritual perversion of the highest order. While the protestant church is most certainly messed up aplenty, the number of child molesters and other assorted sexual deviants is seemingly in proportion with the general population, the catholic church, even by the admission of its own is a virtual den of sodomites.

Susanna you are not upset with me because I have attacked the gosphel but because I call into question the religious system you are so dearly bound up in. You have been a very good defender of that institution, but no matter how long and eloquent your posts truth is not changed.

When I have discussed the gosphel with catholics and not in any way even questioning the catholic institution at all, the vast majority I have spoken with think the spiritual rebirth in Christ is a fanatical brand of protestantism. They simply are not of the body, but of a religion. There are exceptions to this rule of course but unfortunately all too rare.

Susanna, if you left the catholic church you would be free of at least that brand of religiosity. You could persue a path with the Savior unhindered by such nonsense.




 
Here is a good post for Susanna, myself most of all, and everyone else here. It should shed new light on the cause of "fighting against New Age"

judahslion.blogspot.com
Saturday, May 10, 2014 post
 
Thanks 4:33 a.m.
That was well said and though the truth is hard, your appeal to honestly assess and grasp this was not.
While on the earth, Jesus did not so much as have a place of His own to lay His head. He set up no religious system. He did not need one then and He does not need one now. It is of the Holy Spirit that the repentant simply trusts Christ for His mercy and is reborn to become a part His body. Obedience to Himself (& the 66 books of His written Word show us His ways) not to a system which is far by inferior (and most easy to abuse). The church is actual believers who choose to come together for worship of God and go out in His call and love. What the church is not is a machine that meets in buildings (opulent no less) and handles itself as a business (with arm twisting clout). The Bible warned this will happen-and has-as the modern denominational "churches" have become the opposite of what the Holy Spirit began at pentecost. And the catholic church leads the pack.

What has this to do with climate change and global warming? The catholic church in it's political thrust has thrown it's weight behind by now most all of the global new age agendas. The pope lends his winning smile to force global change in every arena, and the latest I read is in wealth redistribution. Government and the false church are in bed together. It is soon time for Jesus to return (and by the way I read in the news that high level priests or bishops-whatever they are called-are stating that Jesus will not be returning). It is time for You to act, O LORD, for they have made void Your law. Ps 119:126

 
Christine,

There are those in the EO that want their church to re-think LGBT views.

An Eastern Orthodox defence of gay marriage.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-j-dunn-phd/eastern-orthodox-gay-marriage_b_894982.html




 
anon 11:13, that is a very dishonest description of the article.

What it says is, that what the world does has no bearing on what we do, the state does not define what is marriage or sanctified or what is not, that by the way heterosexual marriages outside the church are not really marriages (depends actually on the jurisdiction and so forth) and assumes that EO is not going to be doing gay marriages.

Whatever secret agendas and secret lives some priests and bishops have, no jurisdiction and no pan Orthodox council if we ever have one, is going to legitimize homosexual acts or homosexual marriage. If any jurisdiction did so, it would likely be put out of communion with the other jurisdictions.

"Disclaimer: The views expressed in this post belong solely to the author and are not representative of the Orthodox Church. "

This live and let live and who cares what the world or state does, we in the Church are not concerned about it we are out of the world attitude is not entirely representative the Manhattan Declaration having some Orthodox clergy signatories I think, and EO has always supported decent legislation recognizing the state as one arm and the Church another arm of Jesus the King over all.

That the state does not always act right is not the point.

By the way the idea that the ceremony makes the two one flesh is dead wrong, that is the AUTOMATIC EFFECT of sexual intercourse, even when done with a prostitute, as St. Paul warns in I think it is I Cor chapter 6 which, Paul says, is why a man who fornicates sins against his own flesh.

Sitting outside the world and saying, it is of no concern to me I have renounced the world anyway, IS NOT THE SAME THING AS SAYING IT IS OKAY.

Can you understand the difference?


 
Christine,

In the United States clergy can act on behalf of the state, hence when you get married in the church, your marriage is also registered by the state.

You do not have to do this separately.

In the same way, the churches/religions that want to have gay marriages cannot unless, it's made legal by the state.

It would be illegal otherwise.

Churches that share a sacramental view of marriage, should opt out of the two-in one approach.

So far, we have a lot of talk, but no real action.
 
"What has this to do with climate change and global warming? The catholic church in it's political thrust has thrown it's weight behind by now most all of the global new age agendas."

Well, 11.02am, has Rome formally thrown its weight behind the (increasingly discredited) dangerous-anthropic-global-warming hypothesis? Because if not then you run the risk of looking a bit silly. And I say that as a protestant!

 
Re: Susanna you are not upset with me because I have attacked the gosphel but because I call into question the religious system you are so dearly bound up in. You have been a very good defender of that institution, but no matter how long and eloquent your posts truth is not changed.

Actually, I am not upset with you at all. I feel sorry for you.

But that doesn't preclude my not allowing your "questioning" of my religious beliefs to go unchallenged.

For your information, Catholics make a distinction between natural religion and supernatural religion. Christianity - especially Roman Catholic Christianity - is referred to in Roman Catholicism as a supernatural religion because it has been revealed by Christ who is God.

In the Gospels, Christ also revealed His intention to build His Church upon the "rock" who was Simon Peter.

You can interpret Gospel passages any way you like, but you cannot deny that the passage where Jesus states unequivocally "upon this rock I will build my church" Matthew 16:16 is,in fact, in the Gospels.

We learn from the Gospels that the reason why Simon bar-Jonah was renamed "Peter", ( Kephas/Petros )by Christ - and referred to by Christ as "the rock" upon whom Christ said He would build His church was in response to Peter's reply to Christ's question "Who do you say I am?"

http://jimmyakin.com/2009/09/the-petrine-fact-part-5.html

When Christ said to Peter and the Apostles "Who do you say I am?" it was to Peter that the Father revealed that Christ was "The Christ the Son of the living God."

…17And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18"I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. 19"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."… Matthew 16:17-19

This revelation of who Christ is is the essential truth that was preserved by Peter and handed on intact by Peter to his successors and by Peter's successors to theirs....to this very day in a concrete, historical apostolic succession.

This is also a main reason why Jesus said to Peter and the Apostles "He who hears you hears me." Luke 10:16

http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/LK1016.TXT

Ergo, you have ( albeit probably unintentionally ) attacked the Gospel.

Moreover, you have not presented any convincing Biblical evidence for your claims that Catholic beliefs about the Pope are a "lie".......

When all is said and done, if you are content with the notion that your beliefs embody the fullness of truth, far be it from me to rain on your parade.

But given your gratuitous and repeated trashing of my Catholic beliefs - ( you clearly do not understand Catholic beliefs about the papacy )which I have shown to be based on the Gospels - I cannot help but conclude that perhaps you are merely trying to disguise the fact that your own beliefs have been weighed in the balance and have been found wanting.


 
"The catholic church in it's political thrust has thrown it's weight behind by now most all of the global new age agendas."

by now most all......maybe climate change in next on their docket...increasingly they are taking an unbiblical stand in the world's issues in using the political arm of the vatican. There are fewer and fewer stands rcc leadership is taking against the global current. Just keep following the news and especially concerning israel. The "peace brokers" including the pope and his following will do what the Bible says they will do..help bring a false peace. And all of the controls that the globalists will be using against everyone will have been greatly helped by "religions".



 
"upon this rock I will build my church" Matthew 16:16 is,in fact, in the Gospels.

That is Jesus speaking of HIMSELF.
He is THE ROCK. Go back and carefully read all of the Biblical references of God Himself being declared the Rock. Oh yes, Jesus is God and no one, repeat, no one else fills those shoes as the Rock upon which the church is built. I'm sorry for you that you do not truly know that.
 


That is YOUR convoluted interpretation!!!!!


 
Anon@1:55 p.m.

Global warming is not a theological issue, there is no formal stance on this issue.

Anon@2:19

The Bible says nothing about climate change or global warming.


 
Just give it time and we will all be faced with a "moral crisis" according to the powers that be in how we let global warming issues rule over us!

And..just because it is not directly named in the Bible does not mean it will not be an issue to put a target on the backs of believers who oppose it.

Everything is shaping up for a huge showdown on the faith front---about every conceivable facet of life on planet earth.
 
The greek answers this for you: Jesus called Peter petrus-a stone (a small piece of rock). Petra means rock speaking of mass--sizeable.

Who is the Rock and who is the stone in this portion of Scripture?

Who has the mass and solidity upon which to build? Who are the mere pieces of rock? Self-explanatory right?

Jesus is The Rock. We are the lively stones as in 1 Peter 2:4-10. (Please notice Peter wrote this-he would have had a prime opportunity as he was writing this to teach your catholic doctrine right here in this passage but he does not bring himself up as the one to build upon!!! nary a mention). He is talking about Jesus as that particular Cornerstone (he is talking foundationally in a builders terms) that all other pieces join to. The Rock and the added stones--us. And also note that Peter calls us priests in this passage backing up--Heb 10:19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,
Heb 10:20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; ..so I am a priest as a believer and do not need the so-called authority of your catholic priests or pope to mediate for me before God's throne! Spelled out very simply if you take the religious spin out of it and believe it as it is straight-forwardly written!

Not an interpretation at all but a face value take God at His Word understanding. I rest my case. Argue all you want from here but your argument is with God's Holy Word--not with me.
 
Susanna and your opponent, there is a third possible interpretation of that Peter as rock thing.

Yes, he is a small stone and the big rock is what Peter confessed, that Jesus is Christ, The Son (consubstantial not adoptive like us) Son of The Living God.

BUT IF YOU WANT TO VIEW PETER AS THE ONE CHRIST FOUNDED HIS CHURCH ON.....

This was accomplished at Pentecost, the beginning of the church
(all believers united in the true faith ekklesia means assembly like formal city assembly)
when Peter preached and several thousand were converted.

That was the start of the Church, and that was the one time even
when the Church was started up or founded on Peter or rather his preaching.

HISTORICAL FACT. Christianity and The Church did not begin in Rome.
It began in Jerusalem so the church there is the true "mother
of all churches."

HISTORICAL FACT Peter was bishop of Antioch before he was bishop
of Rome,
so Antioch is as Petrine as is Rome. More so, since there is no
doubt as to Peter's episcopacy there, but the
record is a bit divided as to whether Peter was Rome's first bishop, or the
one who appointed Rome's first bishop which Rome of course lists
as Peter's successor. Doesn't matter.

HISTORICAL FACT at the first council of Constantinople (or was it the second?)
it was stated that the reasons the fathers gave Rome preeminence of honor,
NOT supremacy which wasn't claimed till later, was because Rome was the empire's capital.
(Peter was not even mentioned.)
Constantinople was to be elevated to second place after Rome, because it was the second city
of the empire after Rome. ROME OBJECTED NOT TO THIS STATEMENT
OF REASON FOR ITS PRE EMINENCE BUT TO THE ELEVATION OF CONSTANTINOPLE TO SECOND PLACE,

which bumped Alexandria down from second to third place among the Patriarchates. And Rome was backing Alexandria, but this failed.

Obviously Rome wasn't fully in charge. For some time they didn't accept this particular
clause in that Council but eventually did.

And Rome added the filioque to the Creed AGAINST THE ORDERS OF POPE LEO THE GREAT but a subsequent pope caved
to political pressure. THE FILIOQUE WAS FIRST PRESENTED BY THE EUNOMIAN HERETICS.

Now, can we maybe get back to climate change, and to
running scenarios on how govt. and conspiracy plotters might try to exploit a cataclysmic event,
and how one might counter or escape this as I suggested?

The one time I ask for conversation instead of just
throwing something out there like everyone else does (and had been condemned for not asking
for conversation) no one is conversing.
 
Anon.3:34 P.M.

That is a very admirable piece of exegetical gymnastics, but the exact unequivocal words of Jesus to Peter were:

18 And I tell you that you are Peter,[a] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[b] will not overcome it. Matthew 16:18

Moreover, according to Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History, the Gospel according to Matthew was originally written in Aramaic and the word for rock was "Kephas."

PETER THE ROCK




One of the points I try to emphasize when giving a seminar is that you can begin to be an effective apologist right away; you don’t have to wait until you become a theological whiz. Just work with what you know, even if it’s only one fact.

I illustrate this from my own experience, and you can use this technique the next time you have verses thrown at you by an anti-Catholic.

Some years ago, before I took a real interest in reading the Bible, I tried to avoid missionaries who came to the door. I had been burned too often. Why open the door, or why prolong the conversation (if they caught me outside the house), when I had nothing to say?

Sure, I had a Bible. I used it perhaps the way you use yours today: to catch dust that otherwise would gather on the top shelf of the bookcase. It was one of those "family" Bibles, crammed with beautiful color plates and so heavy that my son didn’t outweigh it until he turned five.

As I said, I had a Bible, but I didn’t turn to it much; so I had little to say about the Bible when missionaries cornered me. I didn’t know to which verses I should refer when explaining the Catholic position.

For a layman, I suppose I was reasonably well informed about my faith—at least I never doubted it or ceased to practice it—but my own reading had not equipped me for verbal duels.

Then, one day, I came across a nugget of information that sent a shock wave through the next missionary who rang the bell and that proved to me that becoming skilled in apologetics isn’t really all that difficult. Here’s what happened.

When I answered the door, the lone missionary introduced himself as a Seventh-day Adventist. He asked if he could "share" with me some insights from the Bible. I told him to go ahead.

He flipped from one page to another, quoting this verse and that, trying to demonstrate the errors of the Church of Rome and the manifest truth of his own denomination’s position.


cont.
 
cont.



Not much to say

Some of the verses I had encountered before. I wasn’t entirely illiterate with respect to the Bible, but many verses were new to me. Whether familiar or not, the verses elicited no response from me, because I didn’t know enough about the Bible to respond effectively.

Finally the missionary got to Matthew 16:18: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church."

"Hold it right there!" I said. "I know that verse. That’s where Jesus appointed Simon the earthly head of the Church. That’s where he appointed him the first pope." I paused and smiled broadly, knowing what the missionary would say in response.

I knew he usually didn’t get any defense of the Catholic position at all as he went door to door, but sometimes a Catholic would speak up as I had. He had a reply, and I knew what it would be, and I was ready for it.

"I understand your thinking," he said, "but you Catholics misunderstand this verse because you don’t know any Greek. That’s the trouble with your Church and with your scholars. You people don’t know the language in which the New Testament was written. To understand Matthew 16:18, we have to get behind the English to the Greek."

"Is that so?" I said, leading him on. I pretended to be ignorant of the trap being laid for me.

"Yes," he said. "In Greek, the word for rock is petra, which means a large, massive stone. The word used for Simon’s new name is different; it’s Petros, which means a little stone, a pebble."

In reality, what the missionary was telling me at this point was false. As Greek scholars—even non-Catholic ones—admit, the words petros and petra were synonyms in first century Greek. They meant "small stone" and "large rock" in some ancient Greek poetry, centuries before the time of Christ, but that distinction had disappeared from the language by the time Matthew’s Gospel was rendered in Greek. The difference in meaning can only be found in Attic Greek, but the New Testament was written in Koine Greek—an entirely different dialect. In Koine Greek, both petros andpetra simply meant "rock." If Jesus had wanted to call Simon a small stone, the Greek lithos would have been used. The missionary’s argument didn’t work and showed a faulty knowledge of Greek. (For an Evangelical Protestant Greek scholar’s admission of this, see D. A. Carson, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984], Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., 8:368).

"You Catholics," the missionary continued, "because you don’t know Greek, imagine that Jesus was equating Simon and the rock. Actually, of course, it was just the opposite. He was contrasting them. On the one side, the rock on which the Church would be built, Jesus himself; on the other, this mere pebble. Jesus was really saying that he himself would be the foundation, and he was emphasizing that Simon wasn’t remotely qualified to be it."

"Case closed," he thought.


cont.

 
cont.

It was the missionary’s turn to pause and smile broadly. He had followed the training he had been given. He had been told that a rare Catholic might have heard of Matthew 16:18 and might argue that it proved the establishment of the papacy. He knew what he was supposed to say to prove otherwise, and he had said it.

"Well," I replied, beginning to use that nugget of information I had come across, "I agree with you that we must get behind the English to the Greek." He smiled some more and nodded. "But I’m sure you’ll agree with me that we must get behind the Greek to the Aramaic."

"The what?" he asked.

"The Aramaic," I said. "As you know, Aramaic was the language Jesus and the apostles and all the Jews in Palestine spoke. It was the common language of the place."

"I thought Greek was."

"No," I answered. "Many, if not most of them, knew Greek, of course, because Greek was the lingua franca of the Mediterranean world. It was the language of culture and commerce; and most of the books of the New Testament were written in it, because they were written not just for Christians in Palestine but also for Christians in places such as Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, places where Aramaic wasn’t the spoken language.

"I say most of the New Testament was written in Greek, but not all. Many hold that Matthew was written in Aramaic—we know this from records kept by Eusebius of Caesarea—but it was translated into Greek early on, perhaps by Matthew himself. In any case the Aramaic original is lost (as are all the originals of the New Testament books), so all we have today is the Greek."

I stopped for a moment and looked at the missionary. He seemed a bit uncomfortable, perhaps doubting that I was a Catholic because I seemed to know what I was talking about. I continued.


cont.
 
cont.

Aramaic in the New Testament

"We know that Jesus spoke Aramaic because some of his words are preserved for us in the Gospels. Look at Matthew 27:46, where he says from the cross, ‘Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?’ That isn’t Greek; it’s Aramaic, and it means, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’

"What’s more," I said, "in Paul’s epistles—four times in Galatians and four times in 1 Corinthians—we have the Aramaic form of Simon’s new name preserved for us. In our English Bibles it comes out as Cephas. That isn’t Greek. That’s a transliteration of the Aramaic word Kepha (rendered as Kephas in its Hellenistic form).

"And what does Kepha mean? It means a rock, the same as petra. (It doesn’t mean a little stone or a pebble. What Jesus said to Simon in Matthew 16:18 was this: ‘You are Kepha, and on thiskepha I will build my Church.’

"When you understand what the Aramaic says, you see that Jesus was equating Simon and the rock; he wasn’t contrasting them. We see this vividly in some modern English translations, which render the verse this way: ‘You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church.’ In French one word, pierre, has always been used both for Simon’s new name and for the rock."

For a few moments the missionary seemed stumped. It was obvious he had never heard such a rejoinder. His brow was knit in thought as he tried to come up with a counter. Then it occurred to him.

"Wait a second," he said. "If kepha means the same as petra, why don’t we read in the Greek, ‘You are Petra, and on this petra I will build my Church’? Why, for Simon’s new name, does Matthew use a Greek word, Petros, which means something quite different from petra?"

"Because he had no choice," I said. "Greek and Aramaic have different grammatical structures. In Aramaic you can use kepha in both places in Matthew 16:18. In Greek you encounter a problem arising from the fact that nouns take differing gender endings.

"You have masculine, feminine, and neuter nouns. The Greek word petra is feminine. You can use it in the second half of Matthew 16:18 without any trouble. But you can’t use it as Simon’s new name, because you can’t give a man a feminine name—at least back then you couldn’t. You have to change the ending of the noun to make it masculine. When you do that, you get Petros, which was an already-existing word meaning rock.


cont.
 
cont.

"I admit that’s an imperfect rendering of the Aramaic; you lose part of the play on words. In English, where we have ‘Peter’ and ‘rock,’ you lose all of it. But that’s the best you can do in Greek."

Beyond the grammatical evidence, the structure of the narrative does not allow for a downplaying of Peter’s role in the Church. Look at the way Matthew 16:15-19 is structured. After Peter gives a confession about the identity of Jesus, the Lord does the same in return for Peter. Jesus does not say, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are an insignificant pebble and on this rock I will build my Church. . . . I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven." Jesus is giving Peter a three-fold blessing, including the gift of the keys to the kingdom, not undermining his authority. To say that Jesus is downplaying Peter flies in the face of the context. Jesus is installing Peter as a form of chief steward or prime minister under the King of Kings by giving him the keys to the kingdom. As can be seen in Isaiah 22:22, kings in the Old Testament appointed a chief steward to serve under them in a position of great authority to rule over the inhabitants of the kingdom. Jesus quotes almost verbatum from this passage in Isaiah, and so it is clear what he has in mind. He is raising Peter up as a father figure to the household of faith (Is. 22:21), to lead them and guide the flock (John 21:15-17). This authority of the prime minister under the king was passed on from one man to another down through the ages by the giving of the keys, which were worn on the shoulder as a sign of authority. Likewise, the authority of Peter has been passed down for 2000 years by means of the papacy.


cont.
 
cont.

My turn to pause

I stopped and smiled. The missionary smiled back uncomfortably, but said nothing. We exchanged smiles for about thirty seconds. Then he looked at his watch, noticed how time had flown, and excused himself. I never saw him again.

So what came of this encounter? Two things—one for me, one for him.

I began to develop a sense of confidence. I began to see that I could defend my faith if I engaged in a little homework. The more homework, the better the defense.

I realized that any literate Catholic—including you—could do the same. You don’t have to suspect your faith might be untrue when you can’t come up with an answer to a pointed question.

Once you develop a sense of confidence, you can say to yourself, "I may not know the answer to that, but I know I could find the answer if I hit the books. The answer is there, if only I spend the time to look for it."

And what about the missionary? Did he go away with anything? I think so. I think he went away with a doubt regarding his understanding (or lack of understanding) of Catholics and the Catholic faith. I hope his doubt has since matured into a sense that maybe, just maybe, Catholics have something to say on behalf of their religion and that he should look more carefully into the Faith he once so confidently opposed.


—Karl Keating


NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/peter-the-rock
 
Susanna, it doesn't matter. As I said, that prophecy about founding the Church on Peter WAS FULFILLED AT THE ONE TIME EVENT WHEN THE CHURCH BEGAN

in Jerusalem, NOT IN ROME, when Peter preached at Pentecost.

That is when and where The Church was founded, on Peter's preaching, that is where it began.

Peter was first bishop of Antioch and is not mentioned in the canon
that makes Constantinople second to Rome on the same basis - status in the empire - that Rome was first in honor, bumping Alexandria down from number two to number three, over Rome's and Alexandria's protests, but Rome eventually accepted this, and their opposition was voted down by the rest of the assembled bishops

And Alexandria lost second place to Constantinople, on the same grounds Rome had first place,

that Rome was first city of the empire, PETER WAS NOT MENTIONED. The Petrine issue is a later myth.

But if you want to argue Peter, then note this, all the first five Patriarchates
had a petrine connection.

Antioch - Peter its first bishop.
Alexandria - Mark, Peter's actual or spiritual son and scribe was its first bishop.
Constantinople - built on the village Byzantium, whose first bishop or appointer of first bishop was Andrew, Peter's brother, on his was to Thrace and what is now Russia and thereabouts.
Rome - Peter was either its first bishop, after he left Antioch, or appointed its first bishop.

Looks like a distributed network like the Internet to me,
instead of hierarchical where if the head goes down it all goes
down, it is lateral, if one node
goes down, to persecution and extermination or to heresy, the other nodes remain.
 
Straight-forward. No deviation. Who is God in the passage (in Matt 16) and who is not?
The church belongs to God, not men. He is the founder and foundation.
Christ is THE ROCK. Case closed.
 
oops forgot Jerusalem where the church began, the mother city of the mother church the first church from which all other churches came, JERUSALEM, where the Church was founded by/on Peter and his preaching at Pentecost,

and its first bishop was James 1/2 brother of our Lord Jesus Christ, once it got to organizing.

Now, if petrineness was ever an issue until many many centuries of political wrangling
later, why did Jerusalem have to take so much trouble to get belatedly
listed as a Patriarchate (a city whose bishop has authority beyond his own city)?

The church at the time was operating mostly in the Roman/Byzantine Empire, and mirrored
the secular arrangement in its own geography, which in turn has
a Pauline precedent, in that he tended to go to the big cities and preach there, with a few
exceptions, which is where visitors will pick up the faith and take it to the villages and cities nearby.

Susanna, what are you going to do if the pope comes up with a
really serious unambiguous unredefinable heresy? Decide it is true if he says so?

Like, suppose he claims that Jesus' Resurrection was physical enough to empty the tomb, but He shed His body at some point disintegrated it on the way to Heaven (which means He won't come back in the same body He left in)?

Or suppose he says that Mary is in fact an Incarnation of The Holy Spirit, and was full of grace because she was The Holy Spirit incarnated and made herself pregnant?

What are you going to do then? keep the faith or keep the pope?
 
Anon. 6:03 A.M.

Re:"Also Malachy lists the popes, then says the last pope will be Peter of Rome, but doesn't specify there are no popes between the prior one and him, the way the list goes and the phrasing there is room for a lacuna."

BINGO!!! and BRAVO!!!
 
Just watch and wait.....(won't be too long really).........everything that can be....will...be...shaken. Including your religion.
 
Christine,

Re:Susanna, what are you going to do if the pope comes up with a
really serious unambiguous unredefinable heresy? Decide it is true if he says so?


This very question demonstrates your lack of understanding concerning the dogma of papal infallibility.
 
I understand the dogma exactly. It is that speaking ex cathedra (and you can't get more ex cathedra than what Leo the Great said against the filioque forbidding its use in the Mass), the pope is divinely kept from error in faith or morals.

(and the caveat that they almost never speak ex cathedra which is good weasel gaming.)

But what if a pope were to kick over the traces so to speak,
and teach formal heresy, speaking ex cathedra, saying that he, as pope, is speaking ex cathedra and this is what he has to say?

I suppose at that point you can figure there was some flaw in
his election and he isn't the real pope after all
and join the sedevacantists?

Pope Honorius is argued by RC to not have taught monotheletism
just not adequately opposed it.

But it must have been more severe than that, because he was excommunicated
by an Ecumenical Council which, by the way, is on the
list of Councils the RC accepts.

When I studied all this as a generic Christian looking
to join what I called the liturgical catetgory of churches,
I did all the research, and Orthodoxy won out.

I don't speak as one following a leader or a formal position,
I adopted that position because it fit the facts and THEN I joined EO.

There were other reasons, but that is too long a story for here.

As it is, the filioque itself is heretical enough, that modern RC
defenders of it often argue that it does not mean double origin,
though in fact that IS what it meant earlier, and was critiqued as meaning, and this was not
denied.

you protestants mindlessly recite the Creed with the filioque in it, that The Holy Spirit proceeds from The Father AND THE SON, instead
of from The Father full stop, period.

From The Father THROUGH The Son into the Church is another matter. Attempts to defend the filioque from EO early fathers, fails because of this and sometimes they got a bit sloppy but there was no Orthodox opposition to St. Photios the Great or others who denounced the filioque before The Great Schism of AD 1054.

I ask you this. Why does RC LIE and say we went into schism, when in fact we were excommunicated from RC (which really only targeted Constantinople, and lacked the authority it claimed).

Why do you call us schismatic instead of excommunicated?

Historically that is what happened.

Now, when RC excommunicated Constantinople, and then applied
this to the rest of what is now called EO, ROME WENT INTO SCHISM FROM US.

But the point is, you people call us schismatics when BY YOUR STANDARDS we are excommunicates.

Why is that? Why all the lying? you can't even get your history right.

Of course, it is you who are in schism and some degree of heresy,
but not enough to completely cut off grace to judge by some things like effective Holy Water. (My fellow EO would often disagree of course.)

Do some research, and I don't mean ask a priest. Dig in the books and online. Get the facts.

RC lies. If they lie about this what else are they lying about? They have even tried to pretend we took the filioque out of the Creed when it was never in it before Charlemagne's time and only in western Europe!
 
Maybe when the aliens land here looking to be baptized by the pope then we will know he is not of Satan??? But who do the aliens serve?
 
Re: Pope Honorius is argued by RC to not have taught monotheletism
just not adequately opposed it.


The anti-papists' "Favorite Case"

According to Fundamentalist (- and some Orthodox -) commentators, their best case (against papal infallibility) lies with Pope Honorius. They say he specifically taught Monothelitism, a heresy that held that Christ had only one will (a divine one), not two wills (a divine one and a human one) as all orthodox Christians hold.

But that’s not at all what Honorius did. Even a quick review of the records shows he simply decided not to make a decision at all. As Ronald Knox explained, "To the best of his human wisdom, he thought the controversy ought to be left unsettled, for the greater peace of the Church. In fact, he was an inopportunist. We, wise after the event, say that he was wrong. But nobody, I think, has ever claimed that the pope is infallible in not defining a doctrine."

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/papal-infallibility
________________________

Re: Now, when RC excommunicated Constantinople, and then applied
this to the rest of what is now called EO, ROME WENT INTO SCHISM FROM US.


It was Photius of Constantinople who "excommunicated" the Latin rite using the "Filioque clause" which was formulated to combat Arianism - as an excuse....

PHOTIUS OF CONSTANTINOPLE

Chief author of the great schism between the East and West. Born Constantinople, c.815; died 897. Having previously held high offices in the Byzantine Court he was intruded into the patriarchate of Constantinople in place of the rightful patriarch, Ignatius, who had been deposed and banished for seeking to correct the vices of Bardas, regent for the young emperor, Michael the Drunkard. Pope Nicholas I declared his election illegal, but Photius denied his authority and retaliated by excommunicating the Pope and the Latins, proclaiming as his chief reason for so doing that they had added filioque to the Creed. Upon the death of Michael III, Photius was deposed and banished, and Ignatius was restored to the Patriarchate. Photius, however, succeeded in ingratiating himself with the new Emperor Basil I and organized a strong party, which, upon the death of Ignatius, demanded his appointment to the see. Pope John VIII agreed, absolved him from all censure, and acknowledged him as patriarch. Photius immediately renewed the old quarrel and at a synod held in Saint Sophia's (879) which he had persuaded the pope to call, repeated all his accusations against the Latins, dwelling especially on the filioque-grievance. He was again excommunicated, and upon the accession of Pope Leo VI to the throne was deposed and sent into exile, where he died. Of Photius' prolific literary production may be mentioned the Myriobiblion or Bibliotheca, a collection of notes on, and extracts from 280 volumes of classical authors, the originals of which are now in large part lost; and Amphilochia, a collection of questions and answers on biblical, philosophical, and theological difficulties.

http://saints.sqpn.com/ncd06537.htm
 
http://catholicclimatecovenant.org/catholic-teachings/vatican-messages/



"What has this to do with climate change and global warming? The catholic church in it's political thrust has thrown it's weight behind by now most all of the global new age agendas."

Found this for you in answer to your response 1:55 p.m. where you said the following:

"Well, 11.02am, has Rome formally thrown its weight behind the (increasingly discredited) dangerous-anthropic-global-warming hypothesis? Because if not then you run the risk of looking a bit silly. And I say that as a protestant!"

Very political and powerful and very helpful to the engineered global new age agenda wouldn't you say?
 
Constance,

Had you seen this response from Barbara Marx Hubbard to Cardinal Muller who made that LCWR statement end April?

http://ncronline.org/news/vatican/marx-hubbard-response-cardinal-m-ller

From OZ
 
Susanna, the filioque was first formulated by arianist eunomians. Their approach incl. that of those who denied the divinity of The Holy Spirit combined in one heresy, having faded out, it cropped up in western Europe as a copyists accident that caught on.

It is by the grace of God that it was of any use (assuming it was
of any use) against Arianism, because you don't prove the divinity of Jesus by arguing The Holy Spirit proceeds from Him, because if you are determined that He is not fully divine, then neither can The Holy Spirit be fully divine if He proceeds in part from a not fully divine being.

St. Photios's assessment of the heretical filioque details how, left to itself to play out as it can, it can give rise again to all the previous heresies and even revive polytheism. I won't detail how this works, The Mystagogy of The Holy Spirit online somewhere will show you.

St. Photios was not engineering the Great Schism, he called those people to account for error.
And whatever irregularities existed in his first or even second consecration as Patriarch of Constantinople, his third was totally legit.

If their stiff necked sinful pride wouldn't back down, that is on them. To blame him is like blaming the person who yells "thief!" for the thief adding to their sin and crimes by stealing a car to get away faster.
The outcry didn't create the additional problem that was because of the recalcitrance of the sinner.

The filioque creates serious confusion. Even if viewed in an orthodox kind of interpretation, it is at best ambiguous, and REMOVING ambiguity was the pattern of the Ecumenical Councils' dogmatic definition.

The Father is distinguished by begetting and spirating, The Son by being begotten, but not by begetting, or else He would be a Father also. The Holy Spirit is distinguished by being spirated, or proceeding, but not Himself begetting or spirating. Other than these, The Holy Trinity's Persons are like identical triplets more or less. Same substance.

If The Son is to have a characteristic of The Father, spirating, then why does The Holy Spirit not also have this feature or even begetting also? if so, then the door is open to adding additional Persons to The Trinity, later on, and if not then The Holy Spirit is diminished beneath the others lacking a feature shared by the other two, He becomes effectively less.

That is just one of many points against this whole thing. But precisely the one which presents possibilities that if played out would resemble polytheistic pantheons of generations of deitites and/or gnostic systems of emanations from emanations.

A canon forbade adding to The Creed after the original statement about The Holy Spirit was added, and never rescinded.

Leo personally believed the filioque but held that HE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO AUTHORIZE IT, but must submit to the Ecumenical Councils and wait for a later one to decide this, meanwhile, personal use okay but no filioque in the Mass. NOT ALLOWED. Two silver shields put up with the Creed WITHOUT the filioque. Two popes later the filioque was in the Creed in the west.

Notice that at the time, there was no apparent notion of supremacy of authority or infallibility of popes, or a later pope couldn't reverse the judgement of an earlier one. Notice Leo's reason - he did not have authority above an Ecumenical Council's decision and must wait for a new EC.
 
Dear 11.55pm,

Thank you for that. Pope Benedict made a comment which suggests that he was concerned about "climate change". If he was part of or leading a giant conspiracy (and I agree that there is one re climate change) then he would have been a lot more forceful. Far more likely that, without much briefing, he was vaguely expressing the hope that everybody would get it right. But he did not commit the RC church to any view of it (and he is no longer Pope).

1.55pm

 
Susanna,

Eusebius wrote, in his the original Greek, that Papias said Matthew was originally written in "EBRAIC DIALEKTON". The first word is a Greek rendering of "Hebrew".

So, Hebrew or Aramaic (as you say)? The difficulty is that they both used the same alphabet. If DIALEKTON means "spoken language" then Hebrew it is. If DIALEKTON means written language then ambiguity remains. Scholars have, in my opinion, vastly overpumped the Aramaic view. Following the Maccabean wars there was a "fundamentalist" movement among the Jews, including a revival of the Hebrew language in which their scriptures were written. (This movement was the origin of the Pharisees.) So at the very least, we should admit the ambiguity.

Yours pedantically,
Physicist

 
Hey Christine, can you name a single serious scholar who thinks that the "Malachy" prophecy of the Popes is authentic?
 
Petros, petra... the key passage in making sense of Jesus' response to Peter's great confession in Matt 16 was written later by Peter himself, quoting Isaiah:

"You also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For this is contained in Scripture: 'Behold, I lay in Zion a choice stone, a precious corner stone, and he who believes in Him will not be disappointed'."

The point about Jesus' reply to Peter's confession in Matt 16 is that Peter is the FIRST to 'get it'. In the great edifice that is Christ's church, he was the very first stone to be cemented into place, and in a sense therefore all other stones are built on top of him.

While we all rest on Christ, I believe that I rest no more on Peter than I do on his contemporary believers. I think it would be helpful if Catholics and protestants who dispute over this passage would sketch an image of what they see as the relationship between Christ, Peter and subsequent Christians, in terms of stones and their relative dispositions and sizes; and then have the discussion with their drawings on view.

 
physicist, I love your sign off.

anon last, I don't go by reputation of scholars, and if I found one you'd probably consider he was ipso facto rendered non serious regardless of his credentials.

On the face of it, you got one of two things. Either it is legitimate - and the cryptic stuff DOES fit as the link I gave shows and I think there are other articles that show fits where this one doesn't, or.....

its a forgery, but to accomplish those odd fits the forgers were part of an ongoing plot of
some sort to make it happen.

(which would be facilitated by appealing to Malachy, or making sure all knew of it, influencing the decisions.)

I am perfectly willing to accept the second argument, which accounts, like Occam's Razor, for all observed facts - the better detail before and cryptic quality after a certain time point, and the fit that does exist after that point, and the existence of secret membership in occult philosophy networks by high ranking RC people.

Regarding the latter, you don't have to establish masonic or illuminati membership, but personal long term friendship with those who were part of such might be enough to indicate agreement.

The Venetians would be a good group to look at in this regard. Webster Tarpley AGAINST OLIGARCHY free to read online at http://tarpley.net goes into astounding details you only find if you dig into source material, and not limit yourself to school textbooks on history.

And in all of that or perhaps another location but I think it was there, a distinct occultism angle is shown regarding the venetian leadership, and the motives of behind the scenes power to ensure wealth is reason enough for their activities.

Sometimes family relationship and/or blackmail and/or bribery is as good as secret society membership for towing a line.

Susanna, canons forbade any patriarch messing around in the affairs of another patriarch incl. Rome stay out of everyone else's turf. However, because of its status, a lot of people tended to look to them to throw some weight on their side of a dispute.

This motive is probably at the root of much of the writers pre Schism, who argued for some kind of special Roman status beyond the canonical, incl. dragging Peter into the mix.

Peter never made it into the canons as reason for anything. But a drumbeat of propaganda can have a similar effect incl. pumping up Rome's swelling head.


 
http://judithcurry.com/2014/05/14/lennart-bengtsson-resigns-from-the-gwpf/

mentions threats to scientists who jump the global warming ship.

article cited for an example,

http://judithcurry.com/2014/05/14/lennart-bengtsson-resigns-from-the-gwpf/
 
Dear 3:35 a.m.
Whether knowingly or unknowingly the catholic church by way of the pope is lending itself to the global agenda. Now............wouldn't you think that someone who is supposed to be far more "connected" to God (than me the common joeshmoe)in his "elevated" station in life, as is claimed, that the pope (meaning any and all of them of all eras) because they are infallible(excuse me as I wretch) would have the insight and wisdom from God to steer the masses away from the global push and expose and condemn the agendas of the new age??????????
 
Thanks 8:45 a.m. for siting the exact scriptural reference (in my 3:34 p.m. response) as I did to make that most pointed point. The buck should stop there...but apparently not for some in this crowd.
 
pope is only held to be infallible when speaking ex cathedra, but exactly when that happens is up to debate. Presumably any "papal bull" is issued ex cathedra. But it gives the kind of weasle room that the idea that if you fall away from the faith you weren't saved to begin with gives to Calvinists and once saved always saved.

Given the apparently conflicting Scriptures on this and free will these issues are obviously more nuanced than either side is willing to admit on those debates.
 
Physicist 3:53

Your point is well taken, and I have no problem with what you have said per se. But whether we are talking about the Greek "petra" petros, of the Hebrew Aramaic "Kephas" ( "Cephas" in Latin ) - or whether or not one acknowledges the Petrine charism - or even thinks it only applied to New Testament times, there is no way that Jesus was referring to Himself when speaking to Peter in Matthew.

For that matter, if we want to apply the building stone analogy to Jesus, He is most properly referred to as the "CORNERSTONE!"

Pedantically yours as well,

Susanna :-)
 
Speaking of stones. I can see in the Savior Y'shuas perfect wisdom the whole of the Vatican city after the tribulation period, being nothing more than a field of stone and grass.The prince of the power of the air...hot air.... that kept it afloat being 'shaken out' by some powerful earth quake. Some keeper of goats will probably purchase it from the local govener
for thirty pieces of silver, as a place to pasture his goat heard.

I know there are many very humble people in the catholic religion. I sincerely hope that those people are great in number, and will be a large part of the good side of eternity. I hope my catholic relatives will be there among them. However, looking at the "fruits" of the RC religion it can not be an institution founded by my dear Savior. Any religiously unjaded 10 year old, after examining the basic facts can tell you so. It is not necessary for me to list here the religious practices of catholism to see it is perversion!!! When I have presented the simple gosphel to catholics and they are either confused by what you share with them, or they make sure you know that 'they are catholics' and they are different, then yes they are!!!! 180 degrees different.




 

Religion (don't care what flavor)is on it's way to becoming part of the entire new age agenda because to be able to continue in a global world it will have to conform.


Jesus is my Savior. Not my religion.
 
Anonymous 5:55 P.M.

You sound like one of those disgruntled fallen away Catholics who misguidedly thinks that accusing the pope of all manner of infamy ( without evidence I might add ) will somehow mitigate his/her own moral failures.

The reason I say this is because Protestants - at least the ones I have known - don't ordinarily trash their former Protestant beliefs when they convert to the RC Church.


 
Anon. 8:45 A.M.

Re:The point about Jesus' reply to Peter's confession in Matt 16 is that Peter is the FIRST to 'get it'. In the great edifice that is Christ's church, he was the very first stone to be cemented into place, and in a sense therefore all other stones are built on top of him.

While we all rest on Christ, I believe that I rest no more on Peter than I do on his contemporary believers. I think it would be helpful if Catholics and protestants who dispute over this passage would sketch an image of what they see as the relationship between Christ, Peter and subsequent Christians, in terms of stones and their relative dispositions and sizes; and then have the discussion with their drawings on view.



Well said!
 
"While we all rest on Christ, I believe that I rest no more on Peter than I do on his contemporary believers. I think it would be helpful if Catholics and protestants who dispute over this passage would sketch an image of what they see as the relationship between Christ, Peter and subsequent Christians, in terms of stones and their relative dispositions and sizes;"

Specifically-"I believe that I rest no more on Peter than I do on his contemporary believers."

Yes let's draw that out. Hey in this thinking it looks like there is no elitist offices for priests or popes....{{{priests and popes are not in the 1st Corinthians ch 12 lineup-v28 spells out the appointed by God and does not mention priests or popes}}} It appears that it is just simple disciples with different gifts and roles to fill-all built upon Christ (that Rock).
 
pope means "papa" and the term is not only in Rome but Alexandria.

Priest is a word morphed off presbyter, not hiero, and the pope is a bishop both presbyter and bishop are in NT but they are not elites but do have authority to shut down heresy and teach truth and generally coordinate and run the community resolve issues and lead by example more than by issuing a ruling.

As usual it is not either/or it is nuanced.
 
you don't need a pope to interpret stuff. All you need is a synod of bishops or an Ecumenical Council to settle a major matter of faith, and these men steeped in Scripture and in the language it was written in, not Latin translations!
 
No, all we need is the Holy Spirit to reveal God's Word the Bible to us.

Ever hear of the Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace?

(seems to me like He has all the bases covered)

Why do people go to everything and everyone-try anything---but going to this Marvelous Father-our Abba? Jesus The Son made it possible for us to go straight to Him by the Blood of His sacrifice. (Why try the detour route through fallible men that leads us away from God?)


 
Ahem. there is a problem called interpreting what The Holy Spirit guides you regarding, otherwise you wouldn't have all the wild contradictions between protestant sects all claiming the same as you.

Proverbs says "in a multitude of counsellors is wisdom."

Most people don't have the time or inclination to read the entire Bible through in a few months time, do it more than once, have the memory to keep putting the picture together, humility to not run off and start a new sect, devotion to truth to not cling to what is taught you by your sect that is problematic biblically, or have the linguistic archaeological and historical resources or access to those who do to sort it all out.


 
Ahem. Yes that is the problem. God is not first in hearts, thoughts, not first in words or deeds. The broken First Commandment is The problem. People in their choice to leave God out of their lives turn to everything but Him. He promises wisdom (James 1:5) to those humble enough to ask-to believe Him for it--but no...people want to choose to leave God on the outside of themselves. No wonder this world is a horribly broken place.
 
Strong Delusion among protestant and catholic.

Parables blog.blogspot.com
Thursday, May 15,2014 post
 
"you don't need a pope to interpret stuff. All you need is a synod of bishops or an Ecumenical Council..."

"No, all we need is the Holy Spirit to reveal God's Word the Bible to us."

"there is a problem called interpreting what The Holy Spirit guides you regarding, otherwise you wouldn't have all the wild contradictions between protestant sects"

I thought that you would say that, Christine. The real reason is that, at the Reformation, protestantism did not go back far enough. The New Testament structure of church comprised a congregation in each place with no hierarchy above it. Each congregation was run by a plurality of presbyteroi/episkopoi - same guys, and the first word ('elder') denotes seniority and the second ('overseer') denotes function. The founding apostolos had unique authority there but after he passed on the congregation, equipped with the gifts of the Holy Spirit, was autonomous under God. These words have changed in meaning since that time (by what authority?) but the structure I have described can be inferred from the New Testament itself. And all believers were priests by default.

The Reformation retained hierarchy, and "falling out between sects" is possible only when there can be sects ie hierarchies - which are unscriptural. I agree that, unhappily, there is lack of love between Reformed sects (actually mainly between hierarchs), but I see no greater love abiding within the system that the Reformation split from.

In 20th century China, missionaries from various protestant sects (and Rome) imported their schisms. Then came persecution under communism. The hierarchies were decapitated, and the result today is a flourishing house church movement organised along apostolic lines. I suspect that someday God is going to do the same thing on an even larger scale.

 
anon 6:19

yes, that in fact is still the format of the Orthodox Church, but with the increase of Christian population it became necessary to have bishops meet in local synods to settle things, review disciplinary decisions and hear complaints from parishioners. Then the Patriarhcates developed, a patriarch being a bishop who has authority beyond his own city to a larger region.

the ideal still is, one bishop per city, which in the USA thanks to immigration from many (technically)Orthodox lands, and the Russians having been the first to missionarize Alaska and maybe did some work in the Pacific northwest, but deinitely in the Fort Ross (a Russian trading town originally hence "Ross" and the bear in the CA flag) there are several "jurisdictions." Frankly, for several reasons, I think this is a good thing, and the move to unite all Orthodox churches here, and to have one autocephalous patriarchate or metropolitanate, sounds to me more driven by ambition than anything else. (Even if it is uncanonical, the canons at issue were given in a very different time and place).

The Ecumenical Councils were held to deal with heresies that had even won over many bishops.

The resulting decisions and anathemas are still followed, without realizing it, by Protestants, who defend these positions now out of The Bible, but these decisions came from men steeped in The Bible and closer to the time of Apostolic teaching and who devoted all their time to this.

Protestant splits have often over trifles that Orthodox just shrug off and retain "open communion" as you call it, among fellow Orthodox churches who align themselves with metropolitans or patriarchs who are in communion with each other.

(A recent event has suspended communion between the Antiochian jurisdiction, now run out of Damascus not Antioch, and the Jerusalem patriarchate, because the latter started up churches in locations that Antioch claims, but that Jerusalem says are not included in Antioch's turf when you look at naming and geography of those days. The patriarchates INCLUDING ROME were to stay out of each other's business, not barge in to approve or disapprove someone's consecration, for instance.)
 
"yes, that in fact is still the format of the Orthodox Church, but with the increase of Christian population it became necessary to have bishops meet in local synods to settle things, review disciplinary decisions and hear complaints from parishioners. Then the Patriarhcates developed, a patriarch being a bishop who has authority beyond his own city to a larger region."

Sorry, you have just described a hierarchy, whereas the comment at 6.19am was explicit that each congregation was autonomous under God. You are contradicting yourself, let alone the Bible! Orthodoxy also ordains men "as priests" (check the rite of consecration), raising the question of what they were considered to be beforehand. You can't get round those words in the rite by asserting that the universal priesthood is understood by all Orthodox. (Go ask a pew Othdox cold on the street if he is a priest and see how many say No as their first word of response.)

 
Christine is duplicitous in most of her answers. She is one you can count on to muddy the waters no matter the topic.

Christine it might be wise for you to make sure you yourself are not breaking the first commandment before you answer. You perhaps ought to rethink your approach in handling God's Word. The Holy Spirit always rightly divides the Word. Don't go to your many counselors (of the internet and your church even). You say you are a believer so you should go to the Lord and ask for wisdom of His Holy Spirit before you come here to answer. Others are guilty of the same. They rely on their church and mouth the words of their leadership before they have consulted with the Lord. No wonder the church (don't care which brand)of today is so powerless against evil forces in the world. The Lord is standing on the outside knocking waiting to be asked in. That is shameful and all of us will be held accountable for this.
 
I am not duplicitous but my detractors often are.

A hierarchy clearly existed in the NT church in the Bible, bishop elders deacons, laity. bishops plural might be mentioned because various churches associated with each other.

As population increases you HAVE to have such developments as I described, especially as abuses and heresies sneak in that have to be addressed, and no Apostles are alive.

The end result is a networking association of bishops who meet periodically in local synods.

The sin of pride is often at the root of fear of hierarchy, and those who are most worried they will be told what to do, are often precisely the most tyrannical over their own families.

The Illuminati initiation lecture for the priest grade, was that the plan was for each man to be like Abraham, "unfettered priest and lord over his own family." It is not hatred of tyranny so much as fear it will interfere with one's own tyranny, and George Washington warned that "every man would be a tyrant if he could,"

which is why our national hierarchy splits into three for balance of power effect at the top.

Now as for the church, the hierarchy is supposed to raise the rest of the church family in the fear and admonition of The Lord Jesus Christ just like the parents are to raise children. They are not supposed to be lords over the flock.

But you CANNOT ESCAPE THE PICTURE OF HIERARHCY in the New Testament, if you read it honestly and not through glasses tinged with your personal anarchic tendencies, or man made doctrines of various denominations.

If you don't have some authority like a synod outside your home church, where do you go when there is a problem, when the bishop teaches heresy or some decision regarding discipline or sorting out a dispute between church members has been made for less than biblical or just reasons?

Once the Apostles were dead, something had to take their place.

St. Ignatius was already fighting heresies which were present from St. Paul's time also, as you can see in the NT. The solution was to group around the bishop who in those days was the product of Apostolic teaching either directly or via a two or three man chain, and by staying with him and only such meetings and subgroups as he blessed, could keep safe from heresy and other bad stuff.

Obviously things got worse later and now, as Jesus warned, false prophets and false teachers.
 
the priesthood of all believers has to do with minor blessing and the sacrifice (offering) of praise and prayer.

By AD 160 St. Justin Martyr described a person called the president of the assembly who offered the eucharistic prayers.

"priest" is a word that morphed off "presbyter," elder, the usual Greek word for priest being hiero.

ordination is done for a priest or deacon, consecration for a bishop.
Get your facts right.

I DID NOT MOUTH THE WORDS OF My LEADERSHIP, there is hardly anything (and this is not a case of it) I believe as Orthodox, which I had not already come to believe by more careful study of The Word of God than most Protestants engage in, because they always rule out any interpretation that might be remotely "romanish" instead of facing the fact that Rome was only partly wrong, and that they themselves are only partly right.
(but a bit more right than Rome is.)

hierarhcies get abused and infiltrated. But in addition to the relationship to God as head of church, there is a relationship between churches in God, and on the human level this can only be managed through networked hierarchies, otherwise how do you know some stranger who visits, or a church you would go to when travelling, is in fact of Jesus Christ, or run amok somehow?

the letters of recommendation, assuring that someone is a legitimate Christian that were given to those travelling to be accepted in churches in other lands, have a precedent in St. Paul's recommendation of the deaconness who apparently brought the Epistle to the Romans to Rome, and who is going to issue such a letter but a bishop or elder known as legitimately such by other bishops who meet periodically in Synod, and can check on such credentials? one total stranger unknown even by name recommending another as acceptable to a distant church isn't going to make it or shouldn't.

 
"the priesthood of all believers has to do with minor blessing and the sacrifice (offering) of praise and prayer."


May the Lord reveal to you how wrong your statement is.

Ephraim is joined to his idols...leave him alone. Hosea 4:17
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-CJhPlmznA

Why I converted to Eastern Orthodoxy Scheffer (got weird later, perhaps too much of the love and non judgementalness misapplications that have snuck into all categories of Christianity)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0WY9iBKs4M

A Journey to the Ancient Church: Evangelicals Discovering Orthodoxy
 
I might add, a great many Orthodox "cradle Orthodox" grew up in the faith, know less about the faith than the typical convert. Depending on parents and godparents to catechize kids is not that effective, a lot of it becomes a mere culture or "we do it this way as distinct from others" or a social event. RC ditto, Protestants ditto regarding their faiths, though Protestants often are a bit better.


 
"the priesthood of all believers has to do with minor blessing and the sacrifice (offering) of praise and prayer. By AD 160 St. Justin Martyr described a person called the president of the assembly who offered the eucharistic prayers. "priest" is a word that morphed off "presbyter," elder, the usual Greek word for priest being hiero. ordination is done for a priest or deacon, consecration for a bishop. Get your facts right."

With no disrespect to Justin Martyr I don't need him to argue what the scriptures said 100 years earlier. Funny that you say above about the alleged Malachy prophecy, "I don't go by reputation of scholars" and you argue it by your own understanding, yet you commonly quote multiple Church Fathers (who often enough contradict each other) about what the Bible says. And just where do you get from scripture the distinction between what ordained and unordained can do?

I apologise for my confusion between consecration and ordination. It doesn't alter the point that you are carefully not engaging with, though - that ordinands are, according to the relevant rite, made "a priest" when they are ordained in Orthodoxy. So what does this wording imply about their previous status in Orthodoxy? Self-evidently, not a priest - which matches exactly with what happens when you ask cold a pew Orthodox on the street if he is a priest. First word is No, and only then might a few people make qualifications - a fact known to the hierarchy who do nothing to instruct ordained parish priests to correct it. If your rite of ordination said that the ordinand was made "a priest who is qualified to minister the sacraments" then, although I would disagree with your theology of the sacraments, you would have a case about your notion of priesthood. But given the present wording of the rite you have none.

It is true that the word "priest" morphed from "presbyteros" not "hiereus". But that is simply an example of an unauthorised change, within the church, of the meaning of key words used in scripture.

"the letters of recommendation, assuring that someone is a legitimate Christian that were given to those travelling to be accepted in churches in other lands, have a precedent in St. Paul's recommendation of the deaconness who apparently brought the Epistle to the Romans to Rome, and who is going to issue such a letter but a bishop or elder known as legitimately such by other bishops who meet periodically in Synod, and can check on such credentials? one total stranger unknown even by name recommending another as acceptable to a distant church isn't going to make it or shouldn't."

Yes there is biblical precedent for letters of commendation from someone's previous Elders when that person moves town. But to use that fact as justification to set un an unscriptural hierarchy? Surely you're joking! Nothing stops the Elders in the new location from verifying the situation by writing to the Elders in the old location, does it?

 
In the Torah it is stated that the Hebrews are a nation of kings and priests to God. Clearly not all were of THE priesthood. The concept of similarity to priestly sacrifice in offering praise (and sacrifice isn't just for sins that is only one category), is present in the psalms such as "let my prayer arise in Thy sight as incense, and the lifting of my hands as an evening sacrifice.'

Now as for unbiblical hierarchy, you don't know your New Testament very well, do you?

How about Paul's instructions for the qualifications of a bishop episcopos, overseer, or an elder, presbyter shortened to priest many centuries later, or deacon? Notice his saying you should obey those who have the rule over you in the faith because they have to make account before God for your souls, and do not make this an occasion of sorrow for them. And to not rule over the flock by command as much as by example not lording it over the flock.

Go find those slightly paraphrased statements for yourself. The extensive in context reading of large segments of epistles, even entire ones at a time, in order to find this, is what you should have been doing.

Do not tell me this is not a hierarchy.

It may be styled a low dominance gradient hierarchy (I forget the name of the social theorist who studied humans and animals and developed this term) but a hierarchy it IS.

A high dominance gradient is like among baboons, a lot of threatening and kicking ass. A low dominance gradient is more like among gorillas, much gentler.

Now if you want something unbiblical about Orthodoxy and RC and possibly Anglicanism, here it is.

The church material affairs are usually managed by the priest. Acts says the diaconate was developed to handle this. The liturgical role of bishops and elders is obvious (and "litourgos" is "work of the people," ALL are a critical part of this not just priests) but there is no reference to a liturgical role for deacons, which has developed over the centuries. But is that really important?

It might be wiser to restore this feature (in RC a deacon can preach, but the office of deacon was created so that the Apostles could spend all the time preaching and business matters such as charity be handled by the deacons who by implication did not teach, except when as individuals they had this ability evident in them, such as First Martyr Stephen.)

But it is hardly anything to start a schism or a whole new denomination over.

DID YOU LISTEN TO THOSE VIDEOS? Try to deal with that before arguing with me.

That tells how hardcore fundies and workers at reproducing the New Testament Church ended up Orthodox.

Might be an eye opener for you.
 
I don't go by authority but quote church Father - YOU TOTALLY DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE POINT ABOUT EARLY REALLY REALLY EARLY CHURCH FATHERS.

It is not about authority, and modern scholars are usually too modern to be trusted.

THESE EARLY FATHERS WERE VERY CLOSE IN TIME, AND VERY SHORT IN NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO WERE THEIR LINKS, TO THE APOSTLES.

That is why their information is important.

They show what did and did not fly in the first two centuries of The Church, before there could be any of the supposed paganization of Christianity.
 
I should have added, THAT REASON TO QUOTE THEM SHOULD BE SELF EVIDENT.

IF you are this lacking in common sense, you are hardly fit to have or pronounce an opinion on Scripture or interpret it or anything else let alone Church history. I am surprised you can
find your way around a written driving test for the DMV.


 
The great and powerful OZ has spoken!
 
Christine, it suits me fine if you lose your temper, because it shows that you are short on arguments. I'll keep on asking the questions that you are ducking and smokescreening so that people will see that you have no adequate reply.

The wording of the rite of ordination in Orthodoxy makes the ordinand "a priest". That implies that the man was not regarded as "a priest" beforehand, does it not? And that is contrary to Rev 1:6, 1 Peter 2:9, of course.

Your response is that Orthodoxy accepts the universal priesthood of believers but reserves certain functions for the ordained priesthood. In that case, though, the wording of the rite of ordination would be different and would make that distinction.

Your response to THAT might be that the distinction is understood within Orthodoxy. But it isn't, because if I go on street and ask a pew Orthodox if he is "a priest" his first word is No. Not Yes, but not ordained" but "No". The hierarchy knows this fact but does nothing to correct it, indicating that they accept the situation.

As for hierarchy... I meant of course a hierarchy ABOVE congregations. None is found in the New Testament. An apostolos would have unique authority over the congregations he founded, but once he had passed on they were autonomous under God. There is no indication within scripture that he handed on that authority, which is why I reject the apostolic succession. (The fact that it has been used by both sides in the schism of 1054 to nix the opposition makes the point.)

Within a congregation there was a council of presbyteroi/episkopoi. The Greek words presbyteros and episkopos respectively denote maturity and task of oversight within a congregation, and refer to the same people as at Acts 20:17 & 20:28, where Paul sent for the presbyteroi of the congregation at Ephesus and then addressed them collectively as episkopoi; there were several in a congregation according to the plurals in James 5:14 and Acts 14:23 & 20:17. Paul told Timothy (1 Tim 3) the qualifications to be one. There were also diakonoi; as the word means 'servant' they are simply people trusted by the episkopoi to keep the congregation running smoothly by doing logistical tasks.

And that was it. Any departure from that structure is a departure from scripture, no matter how soon it happened after the apostolic era. Although change was not explicitly forbidden in the New Testament (in which the structure was described, not prescribed), the question is: by what authority were changes made to something instituted by God?

"DID YOU LISTEN TO THOSE VIDEOS? Try to deal with that before arguing with me."

Feel free not to reply if you don't like the fact that I didn't.
 


Question

Why do Catholics cling so tightly to the tradition of apostolic succession when there's no biblical support (?) for it? All you can point to are dubious opinions of a few early Christian writers.


Answer

We cling tightly to this tradition because it's true, for starters, and because all Christians are commanded to do so by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15. For biblical corroboration look at Acts 1:21-26, where you'll see the apostles, immediately after Jesus' Ascension, acting swiftly to replace the position left vacant by Judas's suicide.

They prayed for guidance, asking God to show them which candidate was "chosen to take the place in this apostolic ministry from which Judas turned away." After choosing Matthias they laid hands on him to confer apostolic authority.

Look at 1 Timothy 1:6 and 4:14, where Paul reminds Timothy that the office of bishop had been conferred on him through the laying on of hands. Notice in 1 Timothy 5:22 that Paul advises Timothy not to be hasty in handing on this authority to others. In Titus Paul describes the apostolic authority Titus had received and urges him to act decisively in this leadership role.

Lastly, please do better homework on early Christian writings. The testimony of the early Church is deafening in its unanimous (yes, unanimous) assertion of apostolic succession. Far from being discussed by only a few, scattered writers, the belief that the apostles handed on their authority to others was one of the most frequently and vociferously defended doctrines in the first centuries of Christianity.

http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/what-is-the-biblical-support-for-apostolic-succession
 
Irenaeus

"It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about" (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).


"Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time" (ibid., 3:3:4).

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/apostolic-succession


 
"The Greek words presbyteros and episkopos respectively denote maturity and task of oversight within a congregation"

Thank you for making my case for me. This is exactly the picture of a hierarchy.

And the task of oversight is itself a rank above and is itself therefore a hierarchy episkopoi then elders then deacons then laity but ALL are part of the congregation.

This IS the picture of a hierarchy, a low dominance gradient one as opposed to the present pompous Roman and sometimes EO hierarchy, but a hierarchy nonetheless.

top management, God. middle management, episkopoi presyteroi and diakonoi, everybody else with some say especially if they get some insight from God directly or from The Holy Scriptures and share it, laity.

"And you shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation. " Exodus 9:6 which is what Peter quoted.

So all the Israelites were in a sense priests, but within that common priesthood there were THE priests and the high priest (whose role is now taken permanently by our Lord Jesus Christ Himself).

I HAVE NOT DUCKED ANYTHING, I have spelled it out, and I lose my temper not because I am short of arguments, but because you refuse to read The Bible without some extreme Calvinist type Protestant blinders that Luther would probably not buy into.

By your standards then, everything went to hell in a handbasket as
soon as the Apostles died, and no one kept their teaching and practices and guidelines on how to make any changes needed and still keep within the Apostolic Tradition.

This of course plus carefully closing your eyes when you hit something inconvenient such as for instance the meaning of episkopos
OVERSEER which is a hierarchical concept, a butler who gives orders to lower servants in the household, or a field crew boss.

Which is very irritating.

I assume you don't pull the same nonsense with more important issues like the divinity of Christ, His literal physical Resurrection, and the Trinity. There are those who do, like the JWs, who twist The Bible to such purposes, by the grace of God you have received a correct theological tradition and see it in Scripture, because if you didn't receive that, you probably would close your eyes to the points in Scripture that support these core doctrines.

Thank you anon. 8:16 saves me the trouble of wading through all those books of Irenaeus AGAINST HERESIES to find the cite, the message of which I remember.

Person I am arguing with, what excuse have you for accepting blindly the traditions of protestant men of a few hundred years ago to now, over 1500 years removed from The Apostles, but not the words of those close to them in time?

And The Bible itself supports what you say it doesn't, because in any village or tribal culture an ELDER is an authority figure and in any city, farming, military or whatever culture an OVERSEER is an authority figure,

and that means you are looking at a HIERARCHY.

low dominance gradient (like the gentle gorilla not the violent baboon) but a hierarchy nonetheless.
 
...For biblical corroboration look at Acts 1:21-26, where you'll see the apostles, immediately after Jesus' Ascension, acting swiftly to replace the position left vacant by Judas's suicide.

They prayed for guidance, asking God to show them which candidate was "chosen to take the place in this apostolic ministry from which Judas turned away." After choosing Matthias they laid hands on him to confer apostolic authority.



If apostolic succession is true, would it not follow that there should be successors to James, John, Philip, Thomas, Matthias, etc., as well? That is, shouldn't there be twelve in total (no more) throughout history with Peter's successor as the 'head' of these twelve? And what about Paul (Saul of Tarsus) - should there be a 'mantle of Paul'?
 
Craig, the Apostolic succession is from ANY Apostle. As one writer put it, Rome claiming to be an Apostolic see (seat) whose first bishop was an Apostle or appointed by one was unique in the west, but a dime a dozen in the east so of less importance to them. Rome took itself too seriously.

Apostolic Succession charts exist going back to James for Jerusalem, to Andrew, to Peter, to Paul and probably others I don't remember.

Most churches were not founded by an Apostle but by a missionary from another church, but its bishop would have the same Apostolic Succession as the bishop of the church the missionary came from.

while a special charism or blessing or baraka would come with the ordination, or consecration, the key issue is that presumably the same core doctrine would be passed on.

Since the Apostles wrote down their teaching (or dictated it to a scribe), this remains to check teaching against to be sure the core doctrine remains.

Infiltration of cultural features of the converted can be and is a problem, but not in what you are talking about.

Meanwhile, do you think you can actually bestir yourself, anon whoever, to READ THROUGH ENTIRE BOOKS OF THE BIBLE enough to find reference to Elisha's bones bringing a dead man back to life,

Scriptural affirmation of relics,

and the pieces of Peter or Paul's clothing sent around to heal people with in Acts,

Scriptural affirmation of blessed objects, and/or relics,

and the place where Elijah blessed water and cured a bad spring, not to mention the cleansing water of the ashes of the red heifer,

Scriptural affirmation of Holy Water?

I can dig them up quickly with google just a phrase and the verse will be found.

But you need to STUDY before you can teach and you might find your teachers should have done so before they taught you.

as for clinging to traditions because they are true and secondarily because of what was said that affirms this by Irenaeus, etc., the only way you know a tradition is true is Bible and Irenaeus etc. who testify to having heard them from men taught by the Apostles.

Paul said, "test all things, hold on to that which is good."

The tradition of the west was use unleavened bread in the Eucharist, because the seven days of unleavened bread ending in the Passover meant the first Eucharist was done with unleavened bread.

Biblically legitimate.

The EO tradition of using leavened bread is based on Paul saying to cast out the old leaven and have in you the leaven of Christ (speaking metaphorically) and using leavened bread symbolizes the leaven of Christ.

Biblically legitimate.

azymes, unleavened bread, was in use for some time in the west before the Great Schism of AD 1054, and the Miracle of Lanciano, was obviously done with separate bread and wine not mashed together as in the east, and the dried blood IS CHEMICALLY FRESH BLOOD AFTER OVER A THOUSAND YEARS, totally impossible absent a miracle, this happened before the Great Schism.

So obviously both forms of Eucharist are valid in God's sight. (the mix the elements together developed early on to eliminate a certain kind of heretic that would not touch wine, so they would become obvious by refusal to partake of the Eucharist. This style is then though most EO won't defend it on this basis, not only originating in an effort to weed out heresy, but a statement of rejection of heresy in general, so is a tradition in line with Apostolic tradition even if not invented by The Apostles themselves.

Both sides of the Great Schism then were wrong in claiming each other's Eucharists were not valid.

And this is what you get when a matter's origins are not tracked down, but people just do it without getting or asking explanation, because that is how we do it, at some point, there is sacrilege possible which happened on the part of both sides at that time.
 
Awesome,
What great authority Christine commands with
her authoritative pronouncements. She has read through the Bible "more than once".
There are no questions left to ask since she's
graced the comment section of this blog.

I'm glad that she has set me straight on so many things; all the major debates of Christian history
are answered finally and permanently.

I didn't know, for instance that the seven days of
Unleavened Bread ended in the Passover. I was
under the delusion that Unleavened Bread began
the DAY AFTER Passover, since that's what it says
in Exodus 12 and 13.
Also I was surprised to note that the Apostles
who founded churches didn't include John and his
seven churches in Asia (Turkey) . I guess he comes
under the heading of "...may be others, I don't remember."
But the main thing that I have gleaned from Christine is that true Christianity is essentially
an intellectual, academic kind of thing. In
fact it's really a kind of intellectual competition.
I get it now.

 





Thanks 2:02 a.m. and Craig @9:24 a.m. for standing on nothing but the Scripture (to which all else answers). Just as Moses (when on the mountain and came down with the law) whose face was radiant then began the slow fade as God was done using that special initiation, so it is that God let the apostolic era end that the church, in the Spirit led initiative, could become the model for faith and practice in autonomy-the priesthood of individual believers with no other idol between them and their Lord. Also John the Baptist began to see his ministry change as he heard the Voice of the Pleased Father and saw the 'dove' come down and land upon Jesus the Son (where He rose from His baptism fulfilling a righteous picture of faith and example), to be revealed as the preeminent One sent from God. From then on John the Baptist was declaring: He must increase and I must decrease and watched the crowds thin to follow Jesus as his own mission on earth was coming to a close.

The servant is not greater than his Lord.



It has always been misguided religious people who easily forget that when they do not stay focused in God's Word with humble hearts to hear the Voice of the Spirit faithfully teach them. Losing focus (on Jesus as Lord) and not keeping the context in order 9so important) is where many miss the point as they sift and scour words for meaning and begin to lean on their own understanding instead. All manner of instruction for loving God and keeping the 1st commandment from which all other issues of life will fall into line in obeying the Lord, is the Holy Spirit's specific ministry. Peter himself was the one who said: we must obey God rather than men in Acts ch 5. Yes, Peter 'got it' about who was The Rock.

The author of confusion works to keep splitting hairs and laying extra-biblical (unbiblical) constraints (rules and rituals, etc) upon people....making them have to look upon these things with regard and taking eyes off of Jesus...............................but the Spirit of God lets humble hearts see the way without the baggage--to look upon HIM----------to let the Lord Jesus rise and shine above all others.




 
paul, John didn't found those churches, he just took a message to them, they were founded by Paul, see Acts.

yes, okay in Exodus 12 Passover begins not ends the unleavened bread, but the Last Supper was definitely a Passover yet the Day of Preparation happened after that, so two calendars must have been running as some say. So it was still unleavened, did Jesus not say something about eating the Passover with them?

My error was exactly that which I condemned, relying on someone's lecture in a Bible study rather than double checking.

The point is, before I read The Bible through, I saw a list of denominations and doctrines and practices ecclesiastical theory etc and compared them to The Bible point by point and EVERYONE RC and PROTESTANT came up with at least one point wrong as per what The Bible said on the issue. That was back in 1977 or late 1976.

That's why I only attended churches, didn't join.

as Calvninists and Arminians point out, with chapter and verse backing them up, you can argue predestination and eternal security or you can argue free will and possible loss of salvation.

Since there is plenty of Scripture on both sides, it is obvious that the synergy or co working of man and God in a Mystery that cannot be fully understood by the finite mind is in play, not one or another

It is also obvious without reading through The Bible, just google "works" that the works Paul rejects are circumcision, sabbaths, food laws and so forth of Mosaic Law part of that contract (covenant is a contract) keeping which would keep you on track with God and without which you were not on track with God, and needed to do this to be Christian as the judaizers said,

NOT good works. sure, we can't say God owes us for good works, but we can say we are to obey Jesus or we are rebelling against Him, and Jesus Himself paints word pictures of judgement and punishment short of full casting out of some believers, and in some cases full casting out at The Last Judgement.
 
Right on Paul!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
yes I would agree there was a fade from Apostolic times to now, rare is the EO priest, bishop or monk who can do miracles the Apostles did (some have done so).

The Apostolic Succession doesn't give Apostolic identity, and it is questionable whether the bishops are indeed successors of the Apostles as EO claims since the Apostles in appointing bishops didn't say they were appointing apostles.

But the general attitude and kind of relationship to laity of EO clergy is in theory more biblical than the RC priest.

RC sees priest as icon of Christ and performer of deeds. EO sees priest increasingly over the centuries of RC cross fertilization influence in this light, but it runs against the earlier tradition of using the epiclesis asking The Holy Spirit to make the Eucharistic transformation instead of relying on the priest and words of institution to do so.

RC in confession and absolution states things adding up to priest as primary actor, EO sometimes uses RC form statements, but usually uses statements relating to priest as witness of the confession to God and assurer however, Jesus did say something about binding and loosing and whose sins you forgive are forgiven, whose sins you retain are retained.

On the other hand, He said this to the Apostles, and the priesthood is not successor to the Apostles, and the episcopate is only partially so, therefore an ability to read hearts, known of but rare in clergy and monastics, is not automatically present.

God may give some special word of advice into the priest's mind during the counselling that usually goes on during confession, but you don't have a full blown Apostle and prophet there.

A notion that appears in RC, and is key to its notion of being the only church, and in MSOG heresy in evangelicalism is also sometimes present in EO, but not as developed. It is identifying the Church with Christ Himself.

But when Christ appeared to St. Athanasius in a dream to warn of Arius, He did not show Himself as beaten up or otherwise damaged, He showed His CLOTHES as torn. The church is not Christ Himself but His clothing, so to speak.

Paul says the Church is the pillar and something adding up to housing of the truth. And Christ is the truth. There is a distinction.

When the distinction is lost, you have schismatic movements based on nit picky stuff and claims of only RC is the Church or only Old Calendar EO is the Church or only sedevacantist uber traditionalist RC is the church, or only MSOG is the Second Coming not Jesus in Person.

As for the priest replacing God do you really think the protestants aren't capable of putting ministers and parish councils up as voice of God now?

part of this is a HUMAN problem inclination that will crop up in any context if allowed. And it has played a role in some prtoestant/evangelical sex abuse situations. One writer said that we are about to see a sex scandal in Protestantism appear that is bigger in scope than the RC one.

RC does have teachings and prayers that point directly to Jesus.
 
Constance,

It looks like your blog has been hijacked. This thread started out fine but it quickly digressed into something that has been discussed many, many times over previous threads.
 
Constance,

It looks like your blog has been hijacked. This thread started out fine but it quickly digressed into something that has been discussed many, many times over previous threads.
 
Hey Christine, go find where it is buried and then dust off your Bible and open it and read Proverbs 10:19.
 
Once again your depth of understanding has
set me straight.
Not that I can find Paul the Apostle in any other city of Asia Minor than Ephesis. He spent two years there.
That leaves six other cities that were likely founded by John, plus the fact that God brought the whole matter
to John, in Revelations, not Paul.
But hey, if Christine says they were all founded by Paul, then Paul it must be.
 
This comment has been removed by the author.
 
"Not that I can find Paul the Apostle in any other city of Asia Minor than Ephesis. He spent two years there."

Acts chapter 16 the locations are all in Asia Minor. Acts 18:23 Galatia and Phyrgia, which are in Asia Minor not just Ephesus but other cities and villages since these are both larger geographic locations than just a city.


"That leaves six other cities that were likely founded by John, plus the fact that God brought the whole matter
to John, in Revelations, not Paul."

)

Why not John? he was the last Apostle still alive when Revelation was written. No one else to give it to.

Ephesus we know was founded by Paul so why not the others and what is the point of this anyway?

God chose to talk to John about this. That is God's call. And John was the Apostle Jesus had a special fondness for and hinted that maybe he might remain alive until The Second Coming. (John's tomb is empty. hmmmm. Maybe he and some other Christians from then are immortals, still running around in secret from those days.

All churches in Asia Minor would have eventually passed under the Apostolic Succession of Andrew, once Constantinople was consecrating bishops under its patriarchate anyway, so neither Paul nor John would likely figure in Apostolic Succession lists now.
A bishop has the succession his consecrator has whichever Apostle that ends in. Probably some other succession exists in India or Iran or Armenia among nestorians and monophysites (who seem to have moved back more towards orthodox Christology though not entirely).
I don't pay attention to them.

Alexandria and Egypt in general and Africa evangelized out of Alexandrian Jurisdiction would claim the Apostolic succession from Mark (which is de facto Peter also).
 
Hell hath no fury like a religious 'my way or the highway' woman scorned.


Christine is like a terrorist forever tossing religious grenades into this blog (and any other peaceful place she can find to molest, torture, and even attempt to destroy).

Makes me wonder if it is like a living hell at her house.



 
anon 12:45 interesting you talk about hand grenades, perhaps you can't handle it when something blows up your world view and forces you to rethink or threatens to do so.

EVERYONE, can we get back to global warming and politics,

and figure out since the (possibly legitimate) issue may soon be global cooling i.e., ice age, and also in case of cataclysm,

HOW DO YOU THINK THIS WILL EXPLOITED, THE PROCESS THAT WILL BE USED,

AND HOW CAN IT BE SHORT CIRCUITED?
 
Christine just took off her terrorist garb and now has on the blog sheriff badge.

Will she ever shut up?
 
This is all very much like the division of Muslims. Shia vs Sunni.Bearing the fruit of torture and death to incredible numbers is souls through history.

Now here we have the EO, Christine's favorite flavor of religion, and RC, Susanna's favorite religion.

Matthew 7:20

Wherefore by their fruit he shall know them!

The fruits of Islam???? Lost souls. Spiritual slavery. Torture rape,murder etc.

While I know little about EO, I know enough about RC. What are those fruits of RC? Lost souls.Spiritual slavery. Torture,murder,sexual perversion. What fruits have been born by praying to images of 'saints'??? What fruits have praying repetitively to Mary brought? What fruits have come through the homosexuality of the priests? By catholic admission approximately 50% of priests are gay!!! Is this the hiarchy that has been given us by our Savior????? Really??? Wake up!!! Splash some cold water on your face. Has the apostolic succession that has brought some very wicked popes been the system our Lord has brought for us???? Truly NOT!

A religious demon is truly a difficult one to get rid of.
 
and protestantism especially the calvinist flavor has a similar track record and now the evangelicals especially the hyper charismatics are working on some new monstrosity involving semi or more possession and maybe in the case of those who favor Joel's Army or anything similar, extermination of all Christians who don't agree with them eventually.

can we please get back to the issues raised by Rich of Medford?
 
Christine at 9.16am,

Of course the presbyteroi/episkopoi having authority over the rest of the congregation means a 2-level arrangement within a congregation, but it seems that you missed my comment that I was using "hierarchy" in my post to mean above a congregation rather than within one.

"I HAVE NOT DUCKED ANYTHING, I have spelled it out, and I lose my temper not because I am short of arguments, but because you refuse to read The Bible without some extreme Calvinist type Protestant blinders that Luther would probably not buy into."

That is your imputation. Now would you kindly answer the question that you have just ducked a third time: Does not the fact that an ordinand is made "a priest" in the Orthodox rite of ordination imply that he is not viewed "as a priest" in Orthodoxy beforehand? Bringing in categories of priest at this stage is just muddying the water; that can be discussed next, but first please just clarify whether it is Yes or No.

"By your standards then, everything went to hell in a handbasket as
soon as the Apostles died"

I did not say that and nor do I believe it. By making the change it rapidly did from the scriptural structure to one episkopos per congregation, and then some time later many congregations per episkopos, the early church was less than it could - or should - have been. But it still contained very many fine men and women of faith. These are not contradictory statements.

And to the person who wrote: "please do better homework on early Christian writings. The testimony of the early Church is deafening in its unanimous (yes, unanimous) assertion of apostolic succession."

Perhaps, but it is not in scripture and it is written by later Christians; it is later Christians who, guided by the Holy Spirit, decided what was scripture and what wasn't.

 
This comment has been removed by the author.
 
This comment has been removed by the author.
 
1 – 200 of 260 Newer› Newest» Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]



Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

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

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]