Friday, June 13, 2014

End Time Ministries' Pastor Irvin Baxter is my radio guest tomorrow!

An old friend and fellow dedicated watcher of current events and how they may relate to Biblical prophecy is my radio guest tomorrow.  That is Pastor Irvin Baxter.  While we do not necessarily agree on all areas of Biblical interpretation, we both respect each other as dedicated students and watchers.  I am happy and proud that he is joining us in the morning.  He is just recently back from Israel and has MANY important developments to share with us.  We are live at 7 a.m. Pacific Time (10 a.m. Eastern Standard Time; 9 a.m. Central Time; 8:00 a.m. Mountain Time).  Please join us in the chatroom at and/or  You can call in live with your questions for Pastor Baxter by calling 888-747-1968.


1 – 200 of 239   Newer›   Newest»
Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

Lesson 1 of Understanding the Endtime US Discovered in Bible

people have been tearing their hair over the end times being upon us, the great apostasy (viewed as RC by reformers, viewed as Reformation by RC)
since the Reformation and before that various crazy chiliastic movements, usually also heretical.

chill out and keep your focus on Jesus Christ.

Susanna said...

However the reformers view "the Great Apostasy," the Catholic Church does not view the Reformation as "the Great Apostasy." Most Reformers still embraced the essential Christian Creeds of Chalcedon and/or Nicaea
and the Sacred Scriptures - albeit while using the Jamnian Hebrew Bible for their Old Testament Canon.

While non-Catholic Christians may not be in full communion with Roman Catholic Christians, they are not regarded by Roman Catholics as being "outside the Church."

The Great Apostasy will be a global mass rejection of Christianity. Period.

It will be one of the signs of the Coming of the antichrist.

In his book ANTICHRIST, the late Father Vincent Miceli explains that antichrist is not going to just pop up out of nowhere with no rhyme or reason.

Antichrist is going to be a consequence of the Great Apostasy.

He is not going to be the "devil incarnate" as Christ was God incarnate.

Neither will he be possessed in the classic sense of the term. But he will be freely and completely partnered with the devil and will therefore be the most evil human being who ever lived.

In comparison, Father Miceli referred to people like Hitler, Stalin and Robespierre as "mini-antichrists" and precursors of antichrist.

That word "freely" is key.....because this, according to hints given by Church Father St. Irenaeus, is the reason why God does not permit us to know the name of the antichrist in advance.

God's gift of free will to man is irrevocable. Because of the irrevocability of this gift, God will not do anything so demonstrative as to impede the operation of free will in man.


Susanna said...


Recall the Parable of The Rich Man and Lazarus in the Scriptures (Luke 16:19-31) where it says:

The Rich Man and Lazarus

19 “There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20 At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21 and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.

22 “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’

25 “But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’

27 “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’

29 “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’

30 “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’

31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”

It is to be noted, that the degree of actual sinfulness in any sinful act is always proportionate to the degree of freedom with which said sinful act is committed.

Even in cases of demonic possession where the possessed person is the innocent victim of a curse (sortelege) and has not invited the possession, any evil acts the person does while under the direct control of the possessing demon is not the possessed person's fault.

This is why antichrist is called "son of perdition" and "man of sin." He will not be possessed. He will do what he does freely.

To know the particular name of the antichrist in advance would preclude his doing what he is destined to do of his own free will - and would absolve him of any moral responsibility.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

"While non-Catholic Christians may not be in full communion with Roman Catholic Christians, they are not regarded by Roman Catholics as being "outside the Church.""

that is a recent development over the past 100 or so years.

Anonymous said...

Good write up on Iraq

Everyone should take a break from the religious back n forth and check this out!

The foolishness and sins of the US will bring these same scenes depicted in this write up to this country

Anonymous said...

The great apostasy is the mass rejection of the True Pure Gospel of Christ, not the churchianity of today, because deceived to believe the "knock-off" version that all the denominations are doing right now because so compromised. So many on the broad path, so many have stony hearts, the deceitfulness of riches and the cares of this world are choking out the word of God and the many do not turn and repent. Or want a social gospel-the do-gooder variety. And the pope is leading the way.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...


So the Pope's actions recently don't have anything to do with end times prophecy? Do you feel the end times are way off like most Catholics?

I really don't need some long post that cites how the church fathers interpret things, I think you are too wrapped up in the "church fathers" rather than the one true Father.

This was not meant as an insult as I've seen your posts over the last several years, and although never having met you, I do get the feeling that by your writing style and the you present yourself, that you are a very intelligent person and a person that someone would value as a friend if they knew you personally.

I really hope your eyes become opened. I don't need the church fathers to interpret anything for me. As a matter of fact, after being raised Catholic for MANY years, I found that as a young adult after reading the entire bible myself, with no outside interference from anyone or any denomination, that things were pretty easy to understand and actually were in opposition to many things the church fathers taught/teach.

And contrary to your post on the previous thread to another, this does not mean I'm wasn't a good Catholic.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

The church fathers you and Susanna mostly are thinking of are medieval. When you read the pre nicene and nicene fathers at and other places online, you will not find any conflict with The Bible. Things start getting dicey later.

But the one central point of conflict between protestants (other than Lutherans of those denominations of Lutheranism which adhere to Luther's teaching) and RC, the literal transformation of the bread and wine into Jesus' Body and Blood, are implied by His own words, by St. Paul warning that you eat and drink judgement to yourself if you eat "not perceiving The Lord's Body" and by Justin Martyr and I think Irenaeus mentions this also in the early to mid second century.

Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp a disciple of the Apostle John, so should know what he is talking about regarding any subject.

Anonymous said...

This not perceiving, or discerning The Lord's Body and being judged for this is judgment that,,,apart from the Lord's mercy can happen to someone not curcumsized in heart!!!!!
Like the scripture about the person without a wedding garment trying to get in to the marriage feast. It has nothing to do with transubstantiation. But to those religious folks who wander about blindly it does.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

anon 12:29 your statement is a classic case of eisegesis, reading into the text instead of reading out the clear on the face of it meaning.

The CONTEXT points to the Eucharistic meal and the shared general meal, and I have read of some Calvinists trying to get around this by saying that the body one must perceive is the congregation and all true believers the church as body of Jesus Christ.

But that is not the context at all.

Because of your prior assumptions you figure it CAN'T mean that so it doesn't.

But the testimony of early church writers of the second century, some of which were disciples of apostles or of disciples of apostles, is that this is a transformation that occurs.

YES Jesus' words will also do as His flesh and blood, if you ingest and let them transform you, consider also the thief on the cross, no baptism, no eucharistic eating of Jesus, but the salvation of a catechumen who died, especially as a martyr, before eligible to eat of this but loyal to Jesus and devoted to Him was hardly in question.

These are the mysteries of the Faith we can partake in when baptized.

When you combine the available biblical and immediately following testimony, the sacramental nature of this is clear.

The REJECTION of sacramentalism in general, that there can be a visible physical outward sign (as in manifestation) of an inward invisible grace (I use the RC format to say this) is itself a challenge to the idea of The Incarnation of God, as if He would not use a physical basis to operate in!

I doubt you see it as that, but there is this angle implicit to it, and to iconoclasm.

Susanna said...

Christine 12:37

RE:"While non-Catholic Christians may not be in full communion with Roman Catholic Christians, they are not regarded by Roman Catholics as being "outside the Church.""

that is a recent development over the past 100 or so years.

This is incorrect.

The official Roman Catholic position on non-Catholic Christians goes all the way back to the Gospels and is based on Mark 9:38-39 and Luke 9:49

38John said to Him, "Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name, and we tried to prevent him because he was not following us." 39But Jesus said, "Do not hinder him, for there is no one who will perform a miracle in My name, and be able soon afterward to speak evil of Me.…Mark 9:38-39

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

to those who make a big deal about pronouncing Jesus' and YHWH's names correctly, two points.

"The 15th edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, volume 12, p. 995,...
“The pronunciation ‘Jehovah’ is an error resulting among Christians from combining the consonants Yhwh (Jhvh) with the vowels of ‘adhonay, ‘Lord,’ which the Jews in reading the Scriptures substituted for the sacred name,..."

[DON'T LET JWS TELL YOU THE NAME IS JEHOVAH, an invention of an RC Scholar.]
"The Rabbinic tradition that after the death of Simeon the Just (fl.290 B.C.) It was no longer pronounced even on these occasions, is contradicted by the well-attested statement that in the last generation before the fall of Jerusalem (A.D. 70) it was uttered so low that the sounds were lost in the chant of the priest. After that event the liturgical use of the name ceased, but...was perpetuated in the Rabbinic schools;...also...employed by healers, exorcists and magicians, ...found on many magical papyri...."

[AND IT SAYS IN ACTS THAT SOME PRIESTS WERE AMONG THE CONVERTS TO CHRIST, and they would know the pronunciation of The Name, therefore, note this,]
"The early Christian scholars therefore easily learnt the true pronunciation.”
The same article online,
"... Clement of Alexandria (d. 212) gives Iaove or Iaovai (or in one manuscript Iaov), Origen (d. 253-54) ‘Ian, and Epiphanius (d. 404) IaBe (or Iave in one manuscript); Theodoret (d. 457) says that the Samaritans pronounced it IaBe…” (Vol. 12). Samaritan poetry employs theTetragrammaton and then rhymes it with words having the same sound as Yah-oo-ay (Journal of Biblical Literature, 25, p.50 and Jewish Encyclopedia, vol.9, p.161)....

“The pronunciation Yahweh is indicated by transliteration of the name into Greek in early Christian literature, in the formiaoue (Clement of Alexandria) or iabe (Theodoret; by this time Gk. b had the pronunciation of v)…Strictly speaking, Yahweh is the only ‘name’ of God....” Eerdman’s Bible Dictionary, 1979 page 478."
"“Such a conclusion, giving ‘Yahweh’ as the pronunciation of the name, is confirmed by the testimony of the Fathers and gentile writers, where the forms IAO, Yaho, Yaou, Yahouai, and Yahoue appear. Especially important is the statement ofTheodoret in relation to Ex. lvi., when he says: ‘the Samaritans call it [the tetragrammaton] ‘Yabe,’ the Jews call it ‘Aia’…”The New Schaff-Herzog Religious Encyclopedia, “Yahweh,” page 471.
Writings in Biblical Archaeology Review, Professor Anson F. Rainey, professor of Semitic Linguistics at Tel Aviv University,...“...evidence from Greek papyri found in Egypt. The best of these is Iaouee (London Papyri, xlvi, 446-483). Clement of Alexandria said, “The mystic name which is called thetetragrammaton…is pronounced Iaoue, which means, “Who is, and who shall be.”’"

EO Church retains ah-MEEN the Jewish pronunciation of "amen" and Hallelujah is not pronounced halleylooyah but a-ley-loo-EE-AH spelled alleluia. So if the Greek Christians got one pronunciation right, maybe they got The Name right also. shows Greek was spoken by most Jews at the time.

Secondly, this means since Jesus
means something like YHWH is Savior, the first part must be EE-ah or EE-eh, not Yah or Yeh or Y'. I am not sure of the second part.

YHWH is a great puzzle grammatically so it must be from some proto Semitic language whose rules we don't have anymore, but The Name remained when the language changed.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

Susanna, you cite the Gospels and you are correct. But I am acquainted over the years with information from pre Vatican II days, and more recent opinion from the Traditionalists who reject Vatican II (some still adhere to the pope some don't) which is contrary.

The position is, that outside the church there is no salvation, and the church is defined as those in communion with the pope of Rome, incl. of course the Byzantine Rite aka uniates, the Maronite Rite, the Melkite Rite, maybe one other, which are not Latin much more Orthodox in style, but adhere to the pope of Rome.

Marriages not conducted in RC church were considered not valid. Apostolic Succession in Orthodoxy was considered valid, but intercommunion not possible, and this validity was not announced to the general RC public.

Susanna said...

Anonymous 8:32 A.M.

ReSo the Pope's actions recently don't have anything to do with end times prophecy? Do you feel the end times are way off like most Catholics?

End Times Prophecy you say? According to whose interpretation? And it is not in any way my intention to be disrespectful here......merely to discuss.

I am assuming that since you now describe yourself as a "Bible only" Christian, that you believe all the particulars of the End Times Prophecies you are referring to are clearly spelled out in the Scriptures? Where?

The Bible doesn't say anything about this Pope's or any other particular Pope's actions relating to End Times Prophecy. This is an anti-Catholic and anti-papal interpretation of Bible prophecy that you have apparently been schnookered into believing. One that is nowhere to be found stated clearly in the Sacred Scriptures.....and as far as I am concerned, according to "Bible only" standards, it would have to be thus clearly stated in order to be a valid interpretation according to "Bible only" standards..

What I also find a bit peculiar and self-contradictory - besides the Sola Scriptura rule itself - are all the extra-Biblical "End Times" experts - each presenting his/her interpretation of Biblical prophecy as if it were the "last word".... who have written endless books on the subject which some "Sola Scriptura" Christians seem to regard as more authoritative than Holy Writ.

What's up with that?

For people who claim to despise the papacy and advocate private interpretation of the Scriptures out of a belief that the Holy Spirit will rubber stamp every private interpretation, they seem to have wasted little time in embracing a substitute papacy whose "charism" primarily involves sending the real pope to hell after "proving" that he is a secundo/minion of the Antichrist.

Susanna said...


Regarding the End Times, as a Catholic, I believe, in general, that the End Times began with the Ascension of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and the descent of the Holy Spirit on the Apostles at Pentecost. The first precursor of antichrist and "father of all heretics" was Simon Magus who is mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles. More specifically and more recently, I believe that the End Times began with the return of the Jewish people to the Promised Land of Israel.

As for the Rapture, according to the CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, the meaning of 1 Thes 4:15-17 is that at the return of Christ (v.15) and the General Resurrection of the Dead (v.16), those who survive the persecution of the Antichrist will have no advantage in being resurrected over those who died before His Coming [CCC 1001]. All will go to meet Him and be with Him forever (v.17; cf. Rev 20:17-21:27).

The Catechism provides us with a general order of events at the End [CCC 673-677]. Chronologically they are,

1. the full number of the Gentiles come into the Church

2. the "full inclusion of the Jews in the Messiah's salvation, in the wake of the full number of the Gentiles" (#2 will follow quickly on, in the wake of, #1) How this will occur is a mystery and therefore it precludes the embracing of theological errors such as "replacement theology" or its opposite "dual covenant theology."

3. a final trial of the Church "in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth." The supreme deception is that of the Antichrist

4. Christ's victory over this final unleashing of evil through a cosmic upheaval of this passing world and the Last Judgment.

Regarding #3, let me say here that I do agree with you in condemning and rejecting any false ecumenism or religious syncretism that may be in the making and I am just as much opposed to said false ecumenism and religious syncretism as you profess to be. As a great admirer of C.S. Lewis, I agree with his description of true ecumenism in terms of its being a willingness on the part of all Christians to work together in living out the Great Commandment for the sake of what they do agree on as Christians - while being willing at the same time to honestly admit their theological differences.

Re:I really don't need some long post that cites how the church fathers interpret things, I think you are too wrapped up in the "church fathers" rather than the one true Father

My belief as a Christian is Christocentric......and it include everything that I believe Christ has commanded me to in the Gospels. If I believe certain things as a Catholic, it is because Christ has said so.

For example, it was Christ who said to Peter and the Apostles after PETER uttered the revelation about who Christ is - a revelation given exclusively to him directly by the FATHER - " He who hears you hears me."

Now however you may wish to interpret this passage or others pertaining to Peter and the Apostles, there is no denying that Christ said what He said according to the Bible.


Susanna said...


Re:I really hope your eyes become opened. I don't need the church fathers to interpret anything for me. As a matter of fact, after being raised Catholic for MANY years, I found that as a young adult after reading the entire bible myself, with no outside interference from anyone or any denomination, that things were pretty easy to understand and actually were in opposition to many things the church fathers taught/teach.

Again, I mean no disrespect, but if you think that way, then your mode of thinking as a Christian tends towards Gnosticism. Gnostics privately interpreted the Sacred Scriptures in ways that would make your hair stand on end. They even invented a few Scriptures of their own which they claimed were "secretly" and directly revealed to them by God.. I am not saying that you are doing this, but you are heading into a danger zone. Simon Magus ( Magus = "magician") was the first Christian gnostic and "father of all heretics." Thinking that the Holy Spirit was the source of some sort of magical power that he did not yet possess, he offered Peter money in exchange for being allowed to receive the Holy Spirit.

And speaking of the Holy Spirit, here I have to ask you a question. I don't want you to answer me. What I want you to do is to answer yourself. Does your particular understanding of the Bible agree with <every other non-Catholic Christian interpretation of the Bible? If there is one Holy Spirit, and if this one Holy Spirit rubberstamps every single private interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures, then it follows that every single one of these private interpretations should be in perfect agreement. Since the Reformation, however, the thousands of interpretations of the Sacred Scriptures that emerged, have not been in perfect which case, why should I believe that any one interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures is more capable of giving me a correct account of Christianity than any other interpretation?


Susanna said...


Re:And contrary to your post on the previous thread to another, this does not mean I'm wasn't a good Catholic.

Since I do not know you or anything about your Catholic experience, the example I gave was of the "if the shoe fits" genre when I described my mother's encounter with the Jehovah's Witness. For all I know, you may indeed have been a good Catholic. I hope that it was not you who said that Catholics "worship Mary" though or I shall take that back. :-) Catholics do not worship Mary or the Pope. To do either would be a grievous offense against the First Commandment. I hope you are not confusing Roman Catholicism with a cult calling itself "Catholic" that worships Mary as the "person" of some wierd "quinternity." It is most certainly not recognized by the Roman Catholic Church.

As for me, I have spent my whole life studying my Catholic faith. I am still studying it. Not only my own Catholic faith, but also the beliefs of other non-Catholic Christian communions. Not to worry. My eyes are wide open.


Susanna said...


I mean no disrespect, but I would like to point out that the so-called "Traditionalists" who do not adhere to the Pope are in schism and do not speak for the Roman Catholic Church. Only the Popes and the bishops in full loyal communion with the Pope speak officially for the Roman Catholic Church.

Re: "The position is, that outside the church there is no salvation.....

This is a statement made by the Church Father known as St. Irenaeus. While it is true that "outside the church there is no salvation," the precise definition of who is actually "outside the Church" is known only to God.

There are two extremes that have morphed out of this "outside the church" statement. Both are known as forms of "false irenicism," in reference to the statement once made by St. Irenaeus.

One extreme form of false irenicism states that unless a person explicitly professes Roman Catholicism, he is on his way to hell in a hand basket. It is this form of false irenicism that is held by certain extreme "Traditionalists" who are often also anti-Semitic.

The other and opposite form of false irenicism
is precisely the false ecumenism that Anonymous 8:32 A.M. is rightly concerned with. In false ecumenism everyone pretends to theologically agree where they actually disagree. It is like everyone theologically holding hands and singing Kumbaya when a better name for the tune would be "Theological picking and choosing."

Susanna said...



Re: Marriages not conducted in RC church were considered not valid. Apostolic Succession in Orthodoxy was considered valid, but intercommunion not possible, and this validity was not announced to the general RC public.

Where parties are free to marry. marriages conducted outside the Catholic Church are most certainly valid although the Roman Cathoilic Church may not necessarily regard every marriage as a Sacramental one.


As you can see, marriages between Catholics and non-Catholic Christians are considered both natural and Sacxramental.

Anonymous said...

Wow Susanna..... Christine gets blasted for long winded, rambling posts,,,,"hot air blasts" etc. But really you have over the last several years posted more "hot air than Christine has. All niceties aside you are an expert at twisting reality. Sometimes very subtly, sometimes very obviously.

For instance " private interpretation ". True believers do not have private interpretation! We,,,,along with the Holy Spirit, and prayer,read the scriptures seeking our Lord to enlighten us to the scriptures meaning. We all see through a glass darkly. None of us fully understand all of the scriptures! Especially the pope, who seems to not really understand them well at all. You constantly attempt to defend a filthy, vulgar man made religious institution that is completely indefensible!!!!!
Your commited to your pope at least seemingly more than you are to the Savior,,,,however you choose to spell His name!!!!

Susanna,,,can you really see our Savior,,, if He was with us on the earth in the flesh being impressed with RC???? Would He think that people bending the knee to an old fart in fancy clothes is just fine??? How about all the hail Marys, and all the prayers to this saint, and that saint???? Is that just fine? If you think so your clearly mistaken. In Mexico the drug lords pray at shrines to banditos they elevate to saintly status! If the institution you tied up in taught, and proclaimed the simple/straight forward gosphel this kind of nonsense should not exist.

I have prayed with faith as have others for you to see the truth,,,but your soul is locked up tight!

Anonymous said...

4:46 P.M continued

Susanna, you criticize Protestantism's great number of denominations and the fact they do not agree on everything in the scriptures. Does this make catholicism superior when they have perverted so much of those scriptures?

Is this not human nature? Has the enemy kept his hand from protestantism? Of course not! Sit twelve physicists in a room,,,will they all be in agreement? How about twelve lawyers? Twelve politicians? Twelve doctors? The thing protestantism for the most part has,,,apart from some of the more remote quasi cults is that we agree that salvation is in Christ alone. And that He is the head of the church,,,,not some plain/regular guy who is called the pope. The biggest reason I do not believe catholicism is a part of main stream Christianity is for my own observation. My fist childhood friend's family were devout catholics. Kids went to catholic school grad school through college. The parents were BIG time into Edgar Cayce. Had everything he ever wrote. Big into Nostradamus! Read science fiction like it was going out of style! I remember Bobby's mother telling me in the early 60s when I was only around 6 or 7 years old that in the future humans would be engineered until all there would be is "super people". This woman was New Age before it was cool. Today I took a walk into this tiny village center I live in. I was passing out business cards. I stopped into a business run by a very sweet old woman who is a friend of mine. We got to talking about how slow business is, and that led to how things are not good in this old world right now. I mentioned some prophecy from scripture relating to things occurring now. The first thing out of her moth was about what Nosradomis says. That's right,she is a good catholic. Frankly I just have not been able to get a straight forward christian witness from catholics and I have met zillions,, right along with my own family! I'm sure there must be some!

Susanna said...

Anonymous 4:46

WOW anonymous! Touchy, touchy.

The fact that you are now angrily stooping to ad hominem attacks is a sign that you have no sound rational arguments to offer in defense of a "rule of faith" ( Sola Scriptura and its accompanying private interpretation ) which contradicts
itself. You cannot get away from private interpretation if your rule is Sola Scriptura. The two go tandem.


The beliefs of the "Catholic" woman you mention as being into Edgar Cayce and Nostradamus is hardly what could be regarded as authentically Catholic. What she is into is New Age heresy and the occult.....which has nothing to do with Roman Catholicism.

If you are the same "anonymous" who is claiming to be an ex Roman Catholic,( and I am beginning to doubtr that you are ), you should know that.

And if you have read this blog over the years as you claim you have, you will find that I rarely challenge those whom I know to be life-long Protestants. However, I do make it a point to challenge ex Catholics who trash their former faith and their former fellow Catholics who choose to remain Catholic.

Which leads me to ask....can you really see our Savior? Because if your religion consists primarily in trashing other peoples religious beliefs as it does here, then I doubt that you really can see the Savior. Where in the Bible did Our Lord ever command anyone to go around trashing the beliefs of others? Such behavior can hardly be said to epitomize the living out of the Great Commandment. Moreover, Mark 9:38 and Luke 9:49
explicitly precludes such trashing of other peoples Christian beliefs. So if we want to talk about who is perverting the Scriptures.....

Oh, and one more thing before I give you the last word.. This is Constance Cumbey's blog, not yours.

If Constance ever wants me to stop posting here, all she has to do is ask me not to. She wouldn't have to ask me twice.

But as long as I do post here, I will defend my beliefs against ignorant remarks made by people like you.......even if it takes me five yards of postings to do it.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

"Re: "The position is, that outside the church there is no salvation.....

This is a statement made by the Church Father known as St. Irenaeus. While it is true that "outside the church there is no salvation," the precise definition of who is actually "outside the Church" is known only to God."

Susanna, while I agree with this mostly, as being the reality, as I said, the church is defined as those in communion with the pope of Rome, on the basis that he speaks for Peter and peter is the rock on which the church is founded.

regarding everything else you said, not all Traditionalists are in schism, some as I said adhere to the pope, but they reject Vatican II and developments after that.

Everything you said is post Vatican II.

Pope Benedict XVI statement that protestant churches are sodalities, in which one can find salvation, but without Apostolic Succession there is no sacramental life, is quite a departure in itself in that it recognizes any kind of Protestant legitimacy.

I repeat, everything you say is drawn from the modern RC catechism etc., and while they recognize marriages of non Catholics to some extent, if a Catholic is in a non sacramental marriage they were viewed as ipso facto living in sin at one time, even if that has changed.

Go back to RC of the 1800s or of the 1600s, even. Consider the whole motivation of the creation of the Jesuits, to by hook or by crook bring all back under the pope which if they had viewed things they way you do would not have been viewed as all that necessary.



Susanna bashers, while sniping at RC corruption, bad doctrine, and outstanding failure to properly train or discipline or put fear into most of its adherents and clergy, not to mention that they do not hear Peter themselves so thereby you are hardly hearing Peter when you hear them,



full on possession is rare, influence and attacks and effects another, like the woman Jesus freed from being bound by satan for 18 years so she couldn't stand upright, no possession involved.

I put holy oil on a bad wound on a cat that exposed tendons, THE VET WAS AMAZED AT HOW FAST HE RECOVERED.

AND MY FIRST EXPOSURE TO CHRISTIANITY ASIDE FROM THE BIBLE WAS A VISIT TO AN RC CHURCH, and I was given some wisdom when in great pain I went into one and talked to the statue of Jesus, I said "You went through more than I ever did," long before I got my act together to really commit to Him.

RC in theory is mostly true, RC in practice is a mixed bag of tricks. The latter makes them more dangerous than merely claiming the pope is supreme, though that has its problems also. The filioque can be mindlessly recited without thinking about or accepting its heretical potential or even what it means (earlier double origin, nowdays softened).

Susanna said...




Not at all. LOL As you can see, I have simply been busy elsewhere.

Peter was indeed the first bishop of Antioch before he became Bishop of Rome.



According to church tradition, this ancient Patriarchate was founded by the Apostle Saint Peter. The patriarchal succession was disputed at the time of the Meletian schism in 362 and again after the Council of Chalcedon in 451, when there were rival Melkite and non-Chalcedonian claimants to the see. After a 7th-century succession dispute in the Melkite church, the Maronites began appointing a Maronite Patriarch as well. After the First Crusade, the Catholic Church began appointing a Latin Rite Patriarch of Antioch, though this became strictly titular after the Fall of Antioch in 1268, and was abolished completely in 1964. In the 18th century, succession disputes in the Greek Orthodox and Syriac Orthodox Churches of Antioch led to factions of those churches entering into communion with Rome under claimants to the patriarchate: the Melkite Greek Catholic Patriarch of Antioch and the Syriac Catholic Patriarch of Antioch, respectively. Their Orthodox counterparts are the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch and the Syriac Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch, respectively.....

The Orthodox do in fact have Apostolic succession. This is why the Roman Catholic Church accepts Eastern Orthodox sacraments as legitimate even though the Orthodox are not in full communion with Rome. If the Orthodox communion did not possess Apostolic succession, the Roman Catholic Church would not recognize the legitimacy of Orthodox Sacraments - especially Holy Orders.

When all is said and done, it is clear that the New Testament Church was an apostolic church. Its leadership consisted of the apostles, who were given this authority by Our Lord that included the powers to bind and loose (Mt 16:9; Mt. 18:8), forgive sins (Jn 20:21-23), baptize (Mt 28:18-20), and make disciples (Mt 28:18-20). We see it exhibited in numerous ways throughout the New Testament, including teaching that the Church is built on Christ and his apostles (Eph 2:19-22), deliberating and pronouncing within an episcopal structure about a theological controversy (Acts 15:1-30), proclaiming what constitutes an appropriate reception of true doctrine (1 Cor 15:3-11), rebuking and excommunicating (Acts 5:1-11;Acts 8:14-24; 1 Cor 5; 1 Tim 5:20; 2 Tim 4:2; Titus 1:10-11), judging the adequacy of a believer’s penance or penitent state (2 Cor 2:5-11; 1 Cor 11:27), the ordaining and appointing of ministers (Acts 14:23; I Tim 4:14), choosing successors (Acts 1:20-26), and entrusting the apostolic tradition to the next generation (2 Thess 2:15; I Tim 2:2). The Catholic properties were all in place, albeit in embryonic form.

I will close by saying that our disagreements here and elsewhere are not over whether or not our respective communions are Apostolic. Both are< Apostolic.

Anonymous said...

Christine and Susanna,

Please keep the long embellished posts coming!

I print them out, shred them, and add them to my flower garden soil. You should see them grow! Your saving me money on fertilizer. Thank you.

Christine,,,, if I were to sprinkle holy water on my plants, would it work as good, or better than the crap you guys are furnishing me now?

Anonymous said...


You confuse me with the dear saint who posts here who is an ex catholic.

You also confuse me with someone in a Messianic congregation, and a tricker of Jews. Among other confusions and extrapolations you seem to have license with here. Kinda shows how confused about reality you are. Its the finger print of deception.

Susanna said...

P.S. Christine

Re:Susanna, while I agree with this mostly, as being the reality, as I said, the church is defined as those in communion with the pope of Rome, on the basis that he speaks for Peter and peter is the rock on which the church is founded.

regarding everything else you said, not all Traditionalists are in schism, some as I said adhere to the pope, but they reject Vatican II and developments after that.

Everything you said is post Vatican II.

I would just like to point out that not every jot and tittle of what has always been believed by the Roman Catholic Church vis a vis the ordinary magisterium has been officially defined "ex cathedra."

Before Vatican II,for example, there was a Roman Catholic Jesuit priest named Father Leonard Feeney who was excommunicated for condemning people to hell who did not explicitly embrace Roman Catholicism. His was an extreme rigorist interpretation of "outside the church no salvation" which I have previously discussed.

_______________________hetsram cause



Today, certain radical factions of Catholic "Traditionalists" are also Feeney sympathisers. In fact, two deceased priests – Father Denis Fahey and Father Leonard Feeney – serve as the primary inspiration for today's radical traditionalist Catholics.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

Holy Water on your plants, try it out.

don't forget to use shredded paper for kitty litter if you run out of the regular stuff, they are puzzled at first but it works fine.

Susanna, the whole point about Antioch is that if Peter as first bishop is the basis for anything, then ANTIOCH IS EQUAL TO ROME.

If instead the primacy given to Rome was as was stated in the canon that gave Constantinople second place instead of Alexandria, that Rome was first city of the Empire so should be first city of the Church, or its patriarch first among equals, therefore Constantinople the second city of the Empire its patriarch should be second among equals,

then Roman claims evaporate.

you don't need an organization to tell you about Jesus the information is out there. But you need organizations to preserve and defend truth and exclude error though you can and indeed are responsible to do so on your own regarding your own mind and heart.

Anonymous said...

"Please keep the long embellished posts coming! "

Ah yes! Here we see the whole problem with the religious spirit in people......(never done telling us what is what-and never arrive at a true resolve of a matter because of the adding and taking away from the scripture itself---and forbidden you should notice as the Bible tells us) the multitude of words there lacketh not sin. Proverbs 10:19

But ........ a word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in a setting of silver. Proverbs 25:11

That is how the Spirit of the Living God speaks with the Living Word.

Neither Susanne nor Christine can do a proper sum up for the issues they never run out of...their words are pot metal......their words are plenty, cheap and not durable!

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

" because of the adding and taking away from the scripture itself---and forbidden you should notice as the Bible tells us"

that is what people like you do. you focus on a few proof texts out of context and miss the big picture which DOES include some "romanish" points, those held in common with Eastern Orthodox, and some of which Luther retained!

When I did my research, I was not precommitted to any position RC vs. EO, and I had moved from a totally anti RC position slowly.

I looked at the Bible, I looked at arguments based on linguistics, I looked at history.

I joined EO because it is the only church that doesn't have some serious biblical flaw (that I first noticed in all the PROTESTANT churches!) aside from the occasional incursion of problematic stuff at a non official basis which will, like most such, get rooted out eventually.

EO has it own pop Orthodoxy problem just like RC has its pop Catholicism problem and Protestantism has pop protestant problems.

Right now you got bigger problems looming on the horizon with the charismatics and "non denominational" (read: no accountability) churches and blasphemous and heretic doctrines filtering into mainline denomination populations and deceiving many into leaving them.

Even those who don't buy into the worst of "the deep things of satan" will still be crippled by their sloppy use of Scripture and focus on experience and feelings as guide, walking in the flesh while they think they are walking in the Spirit, and demonic manifestations being thought to be manifestations of The Holy Spirit.

"religious spirit"? I have seen that phrasing used by such people against those who won't tolerate their garbage. Rarely is it about an obsessional kind of religiosity.

Are you sure you people here who use that phrase regarding me and/or Susanna aren't part of that far worse problem than mere Catholicism?

Anonymous said...

Christine (or Susanna) why come to anyone one of us with this issue for an answer--especially since you believe we know nothing of what we speak?

Your round robin of non-stop issues/questions/debates exactly proves the point that was made. Thanks.

Anonymous said...

Susanna 3:35 & 3:37

What a COP OUT!!

You believe the end times started with the ascension? With that logic we might as well say that it began with right after creation, as everything that begins, start a process toward ending.


And who said anything about prophecy specifically mentioning the Pope? It calls for discernment and we are told to recognize the signs. That could be many things, it just so happens that this Pope looks to be a POSSIBLE SIGN, and NOT A GOOD ONE!!

You seem like a very intelligent person, know what The Lord says:

"Man's wisdom is foolishness in the eyes of God".

Anonymous said...

"Neither Susanne nor Christine can do a proper sum up for the issues they never run out of...their words are pot metal......their words are plenty, cheap and not durable!"

Really? And who died and made you the Pope? Susanna is right. Sola Scriptura contradicts itself. The Bible does not teach Sola Scriptura.

Your words are "sticks and stones."

Bravo Christine.

Re: "Right now you got bigger problems looming on the horizon with the charismatics and "non denominational" (read: no accountability) churches and blasphemous and heretic doctrines filtering into mainline denomination populations and deceiving many into leaving them."

Not only "no accountability." There is no such thing as "non-denominational" to begin with.

Anonymous said...

Anon. 9:46 A.M.

"I print them out, shred them, and add them to my flower garden soil. You should see them grow! Your saving me money on fertilizer. Thank you"

You should pour some over your head. Maybe it will make your brains grow.

Anonymous said...

Anon. 9:46 A.M.

"I print them out, shred them, and add them to my flower garden soil. You should see them grow! Your saving me money on fertilizer. Thank you"

You should pour some over your head. Maybe it will make your brains grow.

Anonymous said...

Christine 1:01 P.M.

The plants in my garden thank you!

mere catholicism????

So we do indeed see apostate protestants as being part of the end time spirituality of the antichrist and false prophet. They are in bed, all comfy cozy with "mere catholicism"!!!!

Anonymous said...

"And who died and made you the Pope?"

I'm glad I'm not the pope. Would not want to be in his shoes fulfilling Scripture as one who is a hearld of the false peace of prophecy!

Stay ignorant of the Word of God then-it has been doing all the warning you choose to ignore. It All By Itself Is The Authority All Alone it stands-God's Voice is SOLO--No Equal-Sola Scriptura--all else bows to it (as all people will soon find out) so go ahead and kick and claw against or deny and try to rewrite. Would not want to be in your shoes either........

Anonymous said...

Islamo Nazis

June 16, 2014 post

Anonymous said...

Like I posted in the last tread,,,its not if, but when.
June 16,2014 poster

Anonymous said...

Re my 3:19 P.M. post.

I do not at all think our only source of persecution in the west or in all this world will be Islamic,,,, but I feel it will be a large part of it.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

"Anonymous said...
Susanna 3:35 & 3:37

What a COP OUT!!

You believe the end times started with the ascension? With that logic we might as well say that it began with right after creation, as everything that begins, start a process toward ending.


ah yes, spoken like a true Bible thumper, try READING IT ENTIRE EPISTLES AND BOOKS AT A TIME.

1 John 2:18 - Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

Hebrews 1:2 - Hath in these last days spoken unto us by [his] Son,

1 Peter 1:20 - Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

1 Corinthians 10:11 - Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.

Granted, I had to look it up on the Internet wouldn't remember where to find it leafing through The Bible, BUT I REMEMBERED IT WAS THERE.

Apparently you didn't.

Anonymous said...

Christina 3:29


Your EO is almost as bad. Just a pervertef cousin of Catholicism.

Constance Cumbey said...

I would caution all that he well defined strategy of the New Age strategists and their "spirit guides", e.g. "Dhwhal Khul/Alice Bailey), Peter LeMesurier, et al was to pit the monotheistic target groups (Jews, Christians, Moslems) off against each other so that finally a massive religious war would erupt where the "massed forces of the Old Age" (Lemesurier) would go on to destroy each other in a massive mutal venting of 'long pent up aggression." Then, they, the New Agers, globalists, etc. would be the "Phoenix" to arise from our ashes and build the New Society.


Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

anon 4:33, do your research better. The points you don't like we share with RC the sacramental view for instance they got from us.

We are not their cousin, we are their ancestor.

Though some individuals in EO (which is more sloppy than RC but that also means an error takes longer to percolate and one jurisdiction can suspend communion with another) have played with Immaculate Conception of Mary, it is rejected officially and on the laundry list of things RC has to repent before there can be union between us

Which means not us coming home to rome, but them coming home to us.

none of us view Mary as co redemptrix, something believed by many RC who push for its becoming a formal doctrine, and you only need one pope with his head up his ass who believes this also, and it will happen in RC.

We do believe, though not as part of the Creed or anything like that, that Jesus resurrected Mary and took her bodily to heaven, the only reason I believe this is likely, is that when this happened she told people not to tell of this, lest it distract people from her son.

But the story leaked out 500 years later from the small circle who knew of it from those who told them back in a chain of information.

Even so, being a mere human, she can't hear from such a distance, but God tells her and any other saint to pray for so and so.

Some EO do make a bigger deal about saints than others. Some saints have quite a reputation for activity. Some don't.

The real action is in the blessed oil from a relic lamp.

Again, this sort of thing has BIBLICAL VALIDATION in Paul's blessed cloths that healed people, and Elisha's bones raising the dead, this validates blessed objects and relics.

paul said...

You're foul-mouthed, petty, insincere
and you wouldn't know Biblical validation
if it came up and bit you on the nose.

Paul was an Apostle and Elisha was a
true great Prophet of God. How does some
layman's piece of cloth being pedaled as
having healing properties, "validate blessed
objects and relics" ?
Is that part of the big picture that you claim to have since you read all the way through the Bible?

Your words:
"I looked at the Bible, I looked at arguments based on linguistics, I looked at history."
_are brimming with hubris and an almost comical

Anonymous said...

"We are not their cousin, we are their ancestor." (by Christine)

(That is also the argument many catholics have argued for a long time as well). The one-up-manship religious hierarchy that mostly the high churches practice is the very opposite of ministry of the Holy Spirit. (but the true church grows under the persecution of such). It is particularly the leadership of these types and not necessarily the common church-goer who commits this brand of spiritual pride.

Sheer arrogance. And grieves the Spirit of God.

Anonymous said...

The blog is now all about whether Susanna's cult or Christine's cult rules!

Anonymous said...;_ylt

The pot calling the kettle black.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 10:19 P.M.

Re:"The blog is now all about whether Susanna's cult or Christine's cult rules!"

Perhaps....but the blogsters I most often see rabidly allowing their keybords to overload their butts here are anti- Catholic trolls.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm! Seems like Constance just made a very good point!

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

""We are not their cousin, we are their ancestor." (by Christine)

(That is also the argument many catholics have argued for a long time as well). "

Like I said, I studied history of it. It is EO who is ancestor and RC who is schismatic. RC lies (so what else is new?) not that Susanna is a liar, she is committed to untrustworthy sources.

Biblically and church historians from the first several centuries, Christianity was founded in Asiatic cities.

none of the Ecumenical Councils, or any of the regional councils they refer to in their canons, were held in Rome, all in ASIA.

Rome didn't get any Christians until AFTER Christians were first called that in Antioch, except maybe a handful of Jews who went to Jerusalem at Pentecost and converted.

Rome's Christianity was originally ASIATIC and developed later along Frankish lines with input from North Africa.

Get it? Got it? Good.

Anonymous said...


You made a good point but, with all due respect, there are instances that bear watching and discussing without worrying about pitting religions against each other.

Did you ever do a piece on the Pope and Kenneth Copeland a few months back? Or about the Pope getting involved with the two state solution?

If you did and I missed it then I apologize. Don't these issues need to be discussed without fear of offending Catholics? Does any of that seem like it might be a little fishy?

I am not interested in bashing Catholics or debating denominational issues. I just think that we need to look at all the POSSIBLE players, regardless of what religion they belong, or who's flock they lead.

Anonymous said...

June 16, 2014 post

We all should be seeking the Lord's guidance for preparing our soul's for the things that are coming our way soon.

Anonymous said...

Constance is all for exposing the rainbow and unicorn crowd, but even though we have one of history's most subversive figures as our president,,,, not a word,,,,or little said about anything catholic,,,even though it is in bed with all of the spiritual, political, and financial principalities of this word. Its interesting that the deeply religious crowd are leading the "fight". Which is in reality a fight against YHVH. It is written that strong delusion is sent from Him! Its an amplification of the original lie that we can be as gods etc. This is the same dark light of new age teachings. The hardened religious cultist fight this cuz they love their own flavor of religion, and like Susanna, and Christine they zealously guard it!
For ten years I lived next door to an atheist couple from Israel. Their daughter was married to a really nice guy from Israel, and they had a baby girl during that time. After a few years I stopped seeing the husband visiting with his wife and daughter. Now it was two women with the daughter. When I asked Marylin why I was not seeing the husband she told me her daughter had discovered she was a lesbian. She told me how upset she was,,,,,not about the new relationship,,, nothing ever mentioned about that,,,,but how her daughter, and her lover had opened a New Age bookstore together. I guess NA upset her own flavor of the atheist religion. What I'm trying to say here is if you are not grounded in Y'shua,,,and Him alone sans the pomp and ceremony,, any personal stand against NA is meaningless. Is is OK to have a good solid understanding of NA, but there simply is no fight against it without fighting against YHVH.

Anonymous said...

Right on the mark 8:33 a.m.!

The Truth is the Truth is the Truth. People's favorite denominations and all other hobby-horses are up for scrutiny in this highly deceptive time. We must reckon with the truth without a cynical, hateful, or prejudiced, compromised, and/or 'lording it over you' attitudes, letting God's Word declare the Truth by cutting through all humanistic preferences! (and we must realize that the ground in level at the foot of the Cross--would be a whole different tone here if that was considered). The Lord Alone is All-knowing (not certain people here who have that approach with folks) so why are people relying on their human understanding? (the arm of flesh will fail you!) Iron sharpens iron but so very many people are refusing to be open to let the truth of the Bible--the whole counsel of God in those 66 books guide them, but instead fall back on what they think they know in their long held views--any one of and no doubt all of us-have things wrong somewhere. (self-righteous types would suppose to tell us all in long-winded and blindly boring discourses of their "right" way of seeing these matters) Get over yourselves!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is very murky water and not one denomination, preacher, priest and yes the pope is included, is stellar in telling us the times we are in and upholding us in the midst of it. Our trust must be in the Lord. People need to repent---this means all of us---Now!

Anonymous said...

Government Arresting People For Anti Obama Facebook Posts


Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

Since this blog is: What Constance Thinks,,, let's see if we can get Constance to "weigh in" on the pope, and his two state solution. How about also "weighing in" on my post at 10:37 A.M. concerning folks being arrested for negative Facebook comments????

Anonymous said...

The Golden Report will tell it.

June 17, 2014 post

Anonymous said...

" Sit twelve physicists in a room,,,will they all be in agreement?"

In all high school and degree level physics the answer will be Yes. (Not the case in economics, ha ha...) Differences occur only at the research front, which is normal.


(For the record this is my first contribution to the present thread.)

PS I would, respectfully, differ with Susanna's criticism of "private interpretation" of scripture. The usual argument against private interpretation is schism of sola-scriptura protestants into multiple denominations. This ignores two key points:

1. The notion of "interpretation" enters only when a verse is hard to understand, but those verses are very much the exception rather than the rule. The great majority are easy to understand,

2. Schism into denominations is possible only if you adopt a hierarchical model of church, but I claim to be able to derive from the NT a model of a congregation in each location, each congregation run by a council of men, with no hierarchy above it. Schism was simply not possible had the church stuck to its scriptural structure, and I take the unhappy schisms to which Susanna refers as God subtly reminding us of that. The rabbis held differing interpretations of the OT but maintained unity within Judaism, after all. Moreover every doctrine was private interpretation once.

Finally, it is not great to hear "private interpretation" criticised by Catholics and Orthodox when their own churches differ over the interpretations of certain verses. In those circumstances, what's a poor protestant to do but go back to the Bible?

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

since when is a hierarchy needed for a schism? all you need is a dispute. In Orthodoxy most disputes do not lead to schism, jurisdictions with practices differing enough to cause schism in protestantism ignore such differences as long as core faith is held to and stay in communion.

The kind of church government you picture leaves no room for accountability of the top people, for keeping track of what congregations teach truth and which don't and ensuring sameness of core doctrine among them, which requires the leaders of each to meet in an authoritative synod or meeting periodically. As population increases the hierarchy inreases.

And what you depict IS STILL A HIERARCHY, the ruling group over the rest of the laity, they are all of the same congregation, but different ranks and jobs.

St. Paul says to obey those who have the rule over you because they have to make accounting for your souls to God and not make this hard on them, and elsewhere tells them to rule by example more than by command.

This again presupposes a hierarchy.

RC complains there is no Orthodox CHURCH because there is no one head, or one top council, to deal with, to make an arrangement with that all others have to put up with.

Susanna said...


Heads up.

This quarrel, which began a couple of threads ago by certain individuals referred to as "trolls" by one "anonymous," is not with you.

While I believe you to be the kind of person who is prepared to respectfully agree to disagree about certain theological positions that still divide Catholics and Protestants in the knowledge that the two communions do agree on the essentials such as Christology, others are not.

Enough said.

Anonymous said...


I believe there were more than a few anon posts that were genuinely interested in dialogue about the Pope being involved with the two state solution and that there could be POSSIBLE prophetical ramifications. And JUST THAT, POSSIBLE not fact.

If you disagree and take that as a personal attack on your denomination, that is your right.

And quite honestly, much of the dialogue about differences in denominational interpretation was between you and Christina.

So I ask you this- is the Pope currently in the news in any way concerning the Israeli's and Palestinian's peace process and the two state solution?

Is this prophetically significant or not? And why?

Was the Pope's recent interaction with Kenneth Copeland a good thing? Why or why not?

I'm not targeting the Pope because he's the Pope. It could be anybody on the world scene and I would ask the SAME questions?

It's just that when something or someone seems too good to be true, it usually is, especially in the times we live.

That's all, nothing more, no attack on your religion. No disrespect intended whatsoever.

I think it's pretty sad that something like this can't be discussed intelligently, especially on a blog that should foster this very kind of discussion, whether it involved the Pope or not. If Solana were involved in this, this blog would be "LIT UP".

Anonymous said...

Very well said 7:57 p.m.
Thanks very much.

Anonymous said...

Susanna said...


Heads up.

This quarrel, which began a couple of threads ago by certain individuals referred to as "trolls" by one "anonymous," is not with you.

Sorry Susanna. That is not true.
Your quarrel is with the Scriptures (that is why your debate is endless).

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

Susanna's quarrel is with Scripture and history, her first loyalty is to an organization whose interpretation runs a bit at odds with the Orthodox who have not changed since the Ecumenical Councils RC in theory acccepts.

therefore she doesn't consider they lie.

My argument is not with Scriptures however, it is Scripture that validated Orthodoxy rather than Orthodoxy interpreting Scripture for me.

But ultimately, organizations mean nothing, they are validated by loyalty to the Apostles, whose words are recorded by themselves and passed on through hands not all of which were worthy, but who knew how to write copies.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

The Fall of Iraq - What You Aren't Being Told

Anonymous said...

Dear All

This is Physicist. I'm *choosing* to join at this point in the debate on "private interpretation"; that was partly the point of my comment above. (The present comment is my second.) I intend to do it respectfully, unlike - unfortunately - some anon protestants on earlier threads.

In emails in which Susanna and I have discussed the Pope's 2-State comments, I can assure everybody (without going into private details) she did not take my differences from Pope Francis at a personal level.

Christine at 6.27pm, I'm sure you know what I was meaning but let me phrase it in words hopefully having the same meaning to both of us. I assert (and will explain on request) that the NT describes a system in which each congregation - one in each place - is run by a council of men (ie not one man), and that it is otherwise autonomous under God, at least once its founding apostolos has passed on. In such a system, it might be possible for the church at place "A" to fall out with the church at place "B", but you will never get rival hierarchies across many towns and the horror of towns having main streets with Catholic, Orthodox and several protestant church buildings along the same drag. The world looks at that and sees that we do not love each other as Christ commanded.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

that situation began as follows.

first, the nestorians went their way (but I read something that wasn't too far from orthodox small o christology of theirs) and the monophysites went their way, kicked out the eutychians who died on the vine and were the classic mnophysite position, and developed ideas closer to othodox christology. In Egypt, politics played a role.

in AD 1054, the Roman Orthodox Patriarch aka pope (title also used in Egypt by its patriarch just means "papa") went his way, taking all Europe with him.

Then after a few fits and starts, the Protestant Reformation broke in a back to the Bible attempt that wasn't entirely successful. Bogomil type concepts managed to get into the mix, so we have the idea of Constantine paganizing everything. Bogomils were a heretical group in asia that got into the Balkans and filtered west.

AFter the dust settled at first the king's faith was that of the country, now in USA with no established (state supported) denomination, and rabid splitting among protestants, you have the scene you describe now.

The situation you describe of church govt. isnt that different from Orthodox, with adjustments to accomodate population increase and to fight heresy, the main driver behind increasing organization.

hierarchy didn't play that much of a role, because you could still see what you see if there was no cross congregation accountability and doctrinal and practices enforcement and each congregation went its way in doctrine and practices.

paul said...

For the anonymous Pope haters;
This kind of thing is not going to make
him popular in these States where
Feminism rules the college campuses,
and young girls are being raised to be
man-haters and feminism is so entrenched
that many women and girls are hard-core
feminists and don't even know it.

Would you say that Pope Francis is trying
to please men, or is he trying to please

Anonymous said...

Nevertheless physicist it would be nice to see Susanna answer 7:57 P.M questions openly here on this thread.

Whenever controversy arises concerning possible NA ties with religious institutions especially catholic, we get silence from the hierarchy. The hierarchy internalizes! If there is obvious error involved in a group within protestantism we protestants not only do not seek to vigorously and endlessly defend said group, we agree, and even publish links exposing the group in error.

Perhaps this is because some folks here are religious, while others here simply believe?

On this blog everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others.

Anonymous said...


I'm the anon 7:57. Was my post disrespectful or were you referring other anons?

I do not think my post could be considered disrespectful or trolling. You say you and Susanna discussed personally in emails. So it must be discussed in private? Can we not talk about this here? Or, are certain leaders off limits if they conflict with the personal beliefs of the blog owner and many regulars here.

If I have not understood your post correctly, I apologize as this is not an attack on you or, someone trolling.

I have seen many that post on here that do engage in "catholic bashing" or trolling, trying to get a rise out of members that are catholic, so I can understand trying to avoid quarrels by posting back and forth with the people.

But, all of us are not like that, and I think it's usually obvious when these posts appear.

Anonymous said...

Dear 8.06 and 8.36 am,

I wasn't commenting on 7.57pm when I wrote "I intend to do it respectfully, unlike - unfortunately - some anon protestants on earlier threads." I welcome all debate conducted in good faith.

Dear Christine

I don't believe that "Constantine paganiz[ed] everything" but I do believe that Bishop Sylvester of Rome went along with Constantine's vision of political Christianity (which was born at that point), and that political Christianity is not gospel Christianity.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

Physicist, firstly all religion was political in all places for the most part.

secondly, Constantine didn't have a vision of politicized Christianity, that was more like Justinian.

The Secret History (I think that's the right title) of Procopius recounts events that make me suspect Justinian was possessed. Certainly his moves, while seemingly very pro the Church were in fact deadly to it.

1. in every situation where there was a dispute, no matter how wrong and corrupt the church official was, Justinian sided with the church official, and other things like this.

2. Justinian made Christianity the official religion, and while I don't know for sure I assume this meant you couldn't be in politics or get much done without being a bona fide Church member.

That meant that hordes of nominal Christians who were indifferent to outright pagan in secret swarmed into the Church.

This in turn meant that there weren't enough priests and bishops available, more were needed, so the quality of such men selected necessarily decreased as the number needed increased.

This also meant that ambitious nominals could more easily become clergy.

Justinian is venerated as a saint in Orthodoxy, from an early enough time that he was inherited with other pre schism saints by RC, I assume.

But while a formal process of inquiry and looking for miracles developed many many centuries later in RC and was adopted to some extent in Orthodoxy, in those days and even to fairly recent centuries, Orthodox sainthood was bestowed by the masses venerating a person, and then included in church mentions on feast days, not sure when the "feast day" custom developed.

This means that in times and places when "Orthodox" Christians were largely nominal, some dubious characters may have slipped through the cracks. two or three in Serbia and definitely Justinian.

Some saints delisted by RC they say they didn't uncanonize, just removed feast days from the calendar. whatever. But the impression of some even Orthodox that unusual specimens like St. Christopher or St. George were merely legendary inventions, is false.

They hinge on two things, that in all possibility histories of more than one George or more than one Christopher got compounded into the respective saints, which doesn't prove they didn't exist or didn't do some of what was ascribed to them.

And on the supposedly fantastical nature of them. St. Christopher was a cynocephalus, read, sasquatch. I am not going to get into a debate about their existence. At the very least, remnant homo erectus would fit the bill. Details like fangs and totally dog faced would perhaps be the reaction of hysterical sorts who met them when they were in a bad mood (which was most of the time, and were for that reason put to work in one Pharoah's army.)

St. George killed a dragon. While you can argue that the Perseus legend of killing a monster probably a crocodile and rescuing a maiden who was to be sacrificed to it might have gotten tagged onto St. George, the main objection is "dragon."

Well, "dinosaur" as a word didn't exist before the 1800s. And an elephant or a rhino or hippo candidates for being leviathan does not have a tail as thick as a great cedar tree.

Tyrannosaurus Rex remains have been found with soft tissues and identifiable red blood cells. That rules out the animal in question having died millions of years ago.

The Tarasgue of French legend was definitely an ankylosaurus compare pictures.

Anonymous said...

How is it catholic bashing, and/or pope-hating when all of apostate christianity has been brought into the conversation? (many times) Lots of nominal christians can be for the same things that Paul mentions the pope is speaking to in today's world. Well, good on ya---but still does not address what is really the topic here, that is the severe lack in understanding of the times, that is bringing on the tribulation time of the Bible which is leading directly to the false peace of the great tribulation (last half). Again, the pope is an end times player because of his ignorance of the Word of God (therefore unbelief) and actually helps God's enemies (just like the Bible says the apostate will do). The pope is heading this up as a spokesman for basically all of christianity (churchianity) and his words and actions are promoting the devil's plan for the world which is destructive as never before on earth. I have read all the way to the end of the Book...(God Almighty wins)---He overthrows and destroys all of the devil's minions (that includes the apostate religious among them). If everyone would cease and desist their arguments and simply read the Book, then clarity would come, and understanding of the 'who is who' and the 'what is what', will become apparent to them. People really need to think and pray this through with the aid of the Wisest of All-the Holy Spirit of The One True God. James 1:5 is the promise that we can know the wisdom it takes to live in such a time as this. (but who among people here is humble enough to go God rather than their own prejudicial views and the leading/leaders of their favorite brand of religion?)

Anonymous said...

"I don't believe that "Constantine paganiz[ed] everything" but I do believe that Bishop Sylvester of Rome went along with Constantine's vision of political Christianity (which was born at that point), and that political Christianity is not gospel Christianity."

Look at the poliltics of the vatican carefully folks. The modern day counterpart to what is said above is being fulfilled in Pope Francis (with lots of help from many camps and has been going on for many decades).

Anonymous said...

"all religion was political in all places for the most part."

Yes of course it was. Gospel Christianity is an exception to that very worldly rule. Jesus never got political; politics came to Him.

"secondly, Constantine didn't have a vision of politicized Christianity, that was more like Justinian... Justinian made Christianity the official religion"

Constantine attributed his victory at Milvian Bridge outside Rome in AD312 to Christ and, entering the city, would obviously have sought out its bishop, an African called Miltiades who lived only months longer. Constantine then spent a decade forging a church-State partnership with Miltiades' successor Sylvester before decamping to Constantinople for the last 12 years of his life. He ended the persecution of Christians (good!) and he did not make Christianity the religion of State, but it is not seriously doubted that he saw it both as a personal faith and as a tool to political ends; see especially Hal Drake's book "Constantine and the Bishops".

Christianity was made the only religion recognised by the authorities throughout the Roman Empire, and paganism was banned, in AD381 by Emperor Theodosius. Look him up on Wikipedia. What you ascribe to Justinian was done by Theodosius 150 years before Justinian.

"I assume this meant you couldn't be in politics or get much done without being a bona fide Church member. That meant that hordes of nominal Christians who were indifferent to outright pagan in secret swarmed into the Church."

Couldn't agree more.


Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

And why should not some kind of government protection be given to the TRUE Faith of the TRUE God, eh?

Maybe I goofed on the Justinian vs. Theodosius thing. But Justinian still did a lot of harm while supposedly helping, read Procopius.

Do you doubt Constantine had that vision, and that Christ did appear to him? Why should God not take some action in the political scene that affected His people?

Too tight a relationship between church and state is a problem, corruption and backing up corruption for one thing.

Orthodoxy never had the kind of relationship with the state that RC had or tried to have, instead of either one ruling the other, Orthodoxy thinks in terms of a symphony between church and state.

Exactly this used to exist in the USA, where no denomination was to be tax supported by the fed, though that amendment said nothing about states and one or two states had a state religion for several decades later I forget which.

But Christianity per se, The Bible and Ten Commandments, were a vital part of American political life it was pointed out that in order to be free a people must be virtuous (i.e., police yourself as individuals and groups, or get policed), and this meant Christianity.

Tax money used to go to support protestant run schools in the 1800s, but when RC started angling to get in on this the protestants starting yelling separation of church and state in terms hitherto unthought of and closer to modern ideas, so the RC wouldn't get any gain.

Anonymous said...

"why should not some kind of government protection be given to the TRUE Faith of the TRUE God, eh?"

Because pagans say that about their gods too and we share the earth with them. We are not yet in heaven (or the millennium), where it will be obvious who is the true God. If you want to persecute pagans for their faith (rather than simply enforcing laws against, say, human sacrifice as murder) then you will be going against the NT, which says offer them Christ and if they reject him then move on - and be willing to accept persecution just as He did.

"Maybe I goofed on the Justinian vs. Theodosius thing. But Justinian still did a lot of harm while supposedly helping, read Procopius."

I have. It was not my aim to comment on Justinian, but to correct your error.

"Do you doubt Constantine had that vision, and that Christ did appear to him?"

You bet I doubt it. Constantine, at the time a sun-worshipper, had a dream or vision which he interpreted as Christian shortly before winning the battle that confirmed him as Emperor, at the Milvian bridge over the River Tiber just outside Rome. That is not the gospel pattern of conversion by inner conviction and repentance. Was Constantine’s vision really from God? A pagan would routinely consult diviners before a battle, opening a door to forces of darkness just as King Saul did when he consulted the witch of Endor (1 Samuel 28). Constantine's military victory prefigured Christianity’s enlisting of the sword. Although Constantine seems to have grown in personal faith later in life, he continued to regard Christianity as part of politics, and church leaders let themselves be part of that vision. I reckon that Satan changed his tactics against the church from persecution (under which the church had actually grown) to his oldest trick, temptation.

"Too tight a relationship between church and state is a problem... Orthodoxy never had the kind of relationship with the state that RC had or tried to have, instead of either one ruling the other, Orthodoxy thinks in terms of a symphony between church and state."

Orthodoxy is organised by a hierarchy within each language group. This sounds scriptural - Tower of Babel etc - until war breaks out between the two peoples, and the Orthodox church in each country assures their respective generals that God is on their side. Yet another problem with supra-congregational oversight (which everybody but you understands by the word "hierarchy").

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

first off, your application of NT is strictly Jesus' words to those sent to Jews in the land of Israel.

Second, the only reason we have laws against human sacrifice and other restrictions of paganism is because of Christian influence on the laws.

yes, we cannot fall into the dominionist error and build the Kingdom of Heaven on earth, that doesn't mean we shouldn't enforce righteousness by God's standards as far as this doesn't result in some situation where paganism and so forth infiltrate the church while running underground.

Constantine's mother was a Christian, and sure he was zig zagging it seems, looking for stability and the two main religions were Christianity and sun worship.

That doesn't mean God didn't intervene and end most of the persecution against Christians by doing this.

(some persecution remained in remoter parts of the empire in europe for a while i think.)

Orthodoxy is NOT organized by a hierarchy in each language group. A lot of this impression is the result of the impact of the Ottoman empire.

Another reason, is that when Christianity (Orthodox mostly) came to a place, it adapted to the people to some extent, Christianized what of the customs could be Christianized, in the case of the slavs created an alphabet for them (Cyrillic, named after St. Cyril of Cyril and Methodius the evangelizers of the slavs, though St. Andrew had made some impact centuries before that),

and made sure people could understand The Bible and The Holy Liturgy. (Church slavonic is an esperanto of slavic languages and someone once said, that everyone can understand part of The Holy Liturgy done in that language, but nobody can understand all of it, unless of course they speak Church slavonic. Some now treat it like RC treats Latin, in both cases the language was originally a vernacular not a special "sacred" language.)

coming to the USA were several ethnic groupts traditionally ORthodox, and missionaries from Russia to Alaska and maybe the Pacific NW. It is possible the appaloosa origin is with some spotted stallions brought by a ship, and some Indians claimed they had horses before the Spanish brought them to other Indians.

When these people, Greek and Arab mostly, started bringing over clergy and building churches, you have an anomalous situation where several jurisdictions exist side by side in the USA and probably elsewhere.


Those who treated Christianity as a social club, to be found in all denominations one way or another, made it an ethnic club in the Orthodox context, but there were those also who opposed this, such as St. John Maximovitch of Shanghai and San Francrisco, one of ROCOR's priests later bishop.

Anonymous said...

Christine I consider that you have not come to grips with my main points at 2.36pm and I'm happy to let readers decide for themselves.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

you mean this?

"You bet I doubt it. Constantine, at the time a sun-worshipper, had a dream or vision which he interpreted as Christian shortly before winning the battle that confirmed him as Emperor, at the Milvian bridge over the River Tiber just outside Rome. That is not the gospel pattern of conversion by inner conviction and repentance. Was Constantine’s vision really from God? A pagan would routinely consult diviners before a battle, opening a door to forces of darkness just as King Saul did when he consulted the witch of Endor (1 Samuel 28). Constantine's military victory prefigured Christianity’s enlisting of the sword. Although Constantine seems to have grown in personal faith later in life, he continued to regard Christianity as part of politics, and church leaders let themselves be part of that vision. I reckon that Satan changed his tactics against the church from persecution (under which the church had actually grown) to his oldest trick, temptation."

flawed as hell. here's why.

the Gospel pattern of conversion by inner repentance is the primary one now, but in Israelite times and later during the days of the Apostles there were signs and wonders that got your attention, that was their purpose.

A zig zagging Constantine of course gave satan opportunity, but Constantine's personality and bias towards order are not unlike the issue of St. Paul's personality and biasses being a plus once he became Christian,

Constantine saw the division between arians and orthodox and ordered the Church to hold an Ecumenical Council and hash this out and settle it once and for all. (the previous councils were regional.)

This was a great strike against heresy, and before this Jesus had appeared in to St. Athanasius the Great in a dream, with His clothing torn, and St. Athanasius asked Him, "who did this to You Lord?" and Jesus answered, "Arius."

This is biblically sound also insofar as the church as body of Christ is clearly mystical and metaphorical more than literal, while heretics like the MSOG and excess ecclesiasticalism focussed people in liturgical churches as I call RC and Orthodox both treat the idea of Church as Body of Christ too literally.

In this dream, Jesus did not appear with a black eye and a broken arm, it was His CLOTHING that was damaged, Jesus is The Truth, and Paul says the church is the ground and pillar of the truth, it is in effect Christ's clothing and it is only in the context of learning and acting that we see the members as His Body in an organic metaphor.

The Nicene Council was the work of St. Constantine the Great, Equal to the Apostles as we call him.

A battle between rival govt. agents is not the church taking up the sword, but even so, the first "christians" if you can call arians that to use govt. power violently against opposition were the arians, when they had an emperor on their side.

This is iiself makes the Holy Inquisition a dubious undertaking, but some of its actions were well grounded, I am not going to debate the reality of the witch cults in the middle ages, which had moved from holdover paganism to full on devil worship.

I have every reason after a lot of research to believe the accusations were true. Individual exceptions of course. Reasons why would take a book to explain.

Once you have Christians in govt., they must bring righteousness into play and perform the Romans chapter 13 role of fighting evil and rewarding good.

I see nothing wrong with Kievan Rus destroying the image of perun even if all had not converted (but the king and many more had converted). This thing was a spiritual menace to the land and a righteous king gets rid of it.

Consider the example of the kings of Israel, who were NOT commended by God when they were "tolerant."

Anonymous said...

"you mean this?"

That. But not only that.

"flawed as hell. here's why"

I disagree with you and consider that you have presented no counter-argument of any substance. For that reason I am unable to respond, which is why I am happy to let readers of this blog make their own choices between us.

Where it is not a question of historical fact or elementary logic, but requires some qualitative expertise - in other words, where you cannot be checkmated in your own eyes - you put up clouds of verbiage and never alter your position, whether you are confronted on physics by a postdoctoral physicist or in some other situation of that sort. Well I am happy to do your advertising for you and suggest that readers here glance at your book on Amazon about intelligent life on Mars.

Anonymous said...

Hot air IS substance. There is "stuff" in it!

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

clouds of verbiage, eh? sounds like you didn't bother to read it.

Simple restate Romans 13 says govt. role is to serve God by retarding or punishing evil and rewarding good (a secondary thing) that it is not govt. of by and for the people, but of the people, by the people or whoever, and for God.

This means that a certain amount of govt. action against anti Christian efforts is appropriate, but shouldn't go overboard to where you have martyrs and operational groups running underground where you can't keep an eye on them and denounce them.

The first Christians to use govt. power to persecute rivals were not the orthodox but the arians, as the Nicene Council did not eliminate them (except from Church membership) and sometimes they had an arian on the imperial throne.

This point in itself raises questions about the legitimacy of the church using the govt. sword against heretics, though a certain amount of control and limitation is another matter, as otherwise they infect and harm the people at large (especially if they are pagan not just heretics).

So I semi agree with you.

Constantine ordered the Nicene Council the first ecumenical council to settle this arian vs. orthodox issue. In doing this, he made the Creed formation possible.

Yes he himself was of questionable orthodoxy in his Christian phase at times, and as emperor did apparently participate in some of the pagan ceremonies. To avoid racking up post baptismal sin, which the early church considered NOT covered by baptism but requiring penance as well as repentance, he was only baptized almost on his death bed. This was not unusual by the way.

Miraculous actions by God - why not? God has a history of doing this, to get the attention of those He wants to impact others, or to get the attention of the others.

Even if you don't open yourself up to dark deceptions by pagan practices, you can STILL run into such. And in the case of Saul, God rebuked him by sending the real Samuel to rebuke him, as is evident from the terror of the witch of Endor, who expected her familiar to be pretending to be Samuel.

The content, results, and long range effects (freeing the church from persecution, and making it easier to make converts because they wouldn't have to fear anything but social dislike) do not point to a demonic deception.

This is not a pre set notion, this is WHY I am of this opinion, while your ideas are limited to the protestant experience which itself operates in a context of Christianity friendly (until recently) governments and societies themselves the result of the vision to Constantine.

Anonymous said...

"clouds of verbiage, eh? sounds like you didn't bother to read it."

Unlike those who have grumbled about your contributions and been exhorted by Constance to use the collapse-comment option, I read it. Working out what you meant with that rhetorical style was another thing. Extracting content after that was still another.

"this is WHY I am of this opinion, while your ideas are limited to the protestant experience which itself operates in a context of Christianity friendly (until recently) governments and societies"

You are joking aren't you? Protestantism was forged in the heat of persecution by Catholic authorities. Thankfully I now count Catholics among my friends while continuing to disagree with their ecclesiology. And if the criterion of protestantism is sola scriptura then the enormous and persecuted Chinese house church movement is protestant, even though it would, with justification, simply say that it was Christian and that Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant are merely terms in European church history.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

I am past thinking in terms of european Christian history. I am talking about longer ago and outside of europe.

And those Catholic countries were Christianity friendly to put it mildly, even though they went after heretics they considered were against Christ because against His Church meaning the Roman hiearchy, etc.,

the typical protestant evangelist was not dealing with a non Christian or anti Christian population, it was a matter of getting them from one (and error infiltrated) way of approaching Christ to another.

Since the dust settled in those disputes, a few centuries ago, the situation in europe and usa has been much more peaceably christianity friendly.

We are talking past each other. you have your head in one context, mine in another.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

Contantine etc. has no bearing on the RC vs. Protestant problems, and those wars are long over. The laws and concepts of morality that inform protestant lands and their govts. are mostly inherited from the RC days anyway.

Anonymous said...

"The laws and concepts of morality that inform protestant lands and their govts. are mostly inherited from the RC days anyway."

O what nonsense! For historical reasons the USA was deeply influenced by the Puritans, and what they have on common with Roman Catholicism is due exclusively to their points of commonality due to scripture. North and South America have a very different "feel".

"you have your head in one context, mine in another."

I couldn't possibly comment!

Anonymous said...

Yeah but Christine can. Windbag "theology" and "history" for your reading pleasure---or not!

Mere Religion and much ado about--you guessed it......


Anonymous said...

Paul, and all, check out June 19 post @
Concerns antichrist arising from Islam

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

Constance and all, I realize that one New Age agenda is to set the Abrahamic religions to kill each other, but the fact is that this was already in play, this would be merely NAM exploitation of an existing on again off again reality.

It is also a fact, that the dangerous aspects of islam are embedded in unchangeable Shariah law, whose time of development has officially been closed.

And Shariah is embedded in islam.

And once you get a large enough moslem population to be a voting bloc, you have a push for shariah to become the law of the land, either bits and pieces, or as in some places in Canada and US already, an effort perhaps success I forget, to have disputes and crimes among moslems decided by shariah and the decision enforced by courts that are supposed to enforce the law of the land.

The best intentioned and moderate to liberal moslems (who in turn may often be sufic which is a New Age kind of islam from before the NAM of course but the same kind of idea) are conveyorbelts for shariah.

"the religion of peace" peace means not being in opposition to allah, which means submission (islam) to allah which means submission to shariah (despite occasional conflicts with the koran).

The official designations of various lands is dar al salaam, house of peace, applied ONLY to officially islamic countries and dar al harb, house of war, applied to countries that are not islamic.

"peace" doesn't mean what we mean by it, just like when NAM and various cults use Christian terms with a very different meaning from what we mean by them, to deceive us,

likewise islam uses the term "peace" knowing we will take it one way, but they mean it as, successful completion of accomplishing empire.

where there is no opposition to islam, where it rules, there is peace.

Now within islam there are individuals and trends that can be of use to us, to promote actual peace meaning not war and not sneak infiltration with an intention to take over, and persecute anyone not willing to put up with it.

and right now, whatever the future role of shia and Iran, they are standing against the estabishment of the sunni caliphate by ISIS aka ISIL in Syria and Iraq, this caliphate movement (anti Assad rebels) being financed by US tax dollars.

Anonymous said...

"where there is no opposition to islam, where it rules, there is peace."

What is wrong with you?

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

of course, shia has mostly the same shariah and the same general concepts, and will persecute anyone who converts from Islam or converts someone from Islam.

But they are not on the warpath covertly or overtly to establish islamic empire throughout europe, america, and elsewhere. Sunni is on such a warpath, and in Syria and Iraq it is overt.

Sunni also seems to be able to accomodate itself nicely to western depravity. Tunisian women have gone to Syria in "sexual holy war" meanning they are prostitutes to the holy warriors. a fatwa allowing rape of non sunni women has been issued by a sunni mullah.

shariah prohibits most of the stuff we don't like either, but wait, you need FOUR EYEWITNESSES to get a conviction, and a woman's word is worth half that of a man.

The only other way of conviction is a confession.

Now, if you complain of rape and no eyewitnesses or not enough, and the police cannot get a confession out of the perpetrator, guess what, YOUR COMPLAINT IS A CONFESSION OF HAVING HAD SEX WITH HIM, a confession of fornication if you can't prove force. THAT MEANS YOU GET PUNISHED.

Homosexuality? who is going to complain of activities that don't go on among people who don't approve?

The koran stipulated this 4 witness thing ONLY is the case of a woman accused of adultery, because too much motive of jealousy by other women to make a false accusation, and too hard to prove. Shariah changed it to ALL crimes.

So in any "land of peace" where shariah is the law of the land, you have effectively a lawless hell hole.

any corruption and perversion that is entrenched secretly in a culture will prevail. No four eyewitnesses to testify and probably if they are going to a judge who is into this, something will happen to them to shut them up (bribery or murder).

in one north african situation I read about, it was mentioned that it was normal family tradition to lie under oath to give an alibi to the accused.

you like that word "tradition?"


Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

anon 10:58, what is wrong with YOU? you can't read?

I was explaining exactly what islam means by its words. get educated. read their own definitions. you don't like Shoebat (who being ex moslem knows what he is talking about)?

find another source. islam 101 or 102. THESE ARE ISLAMIC TERMS AND WHAT THEY MEAN BY THEM.

and Constance and many others are fooled by it.

Anonymous said...

"I was explaining exactly what islam means by its words".

We know what they are about and not stupid as you suppose in needing to 'educate' us imbeciles again.

Why quote their lies? And who made you blog sheriff? By all of your words thrown around here you sure do like to make sure there is no peace for this place.

You are here to keep things in a tailspin and away from the real topics that should be discussed.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

Why quote their lies? to refute them. Some people are so wrapped up in worry that the New Age intention to pit Abrahamic religions against each other, will be served by any "islamophobia," that they play into the hands of the moslems only too willing to play a part in destroying other Abrahamic religions.

Always we hear they are for "peace," which means one thing to us and another to them.

Who made YOU blog sheriff? everyone can say anything here, me included. Seems I am very unpopular because I see too big a picture, and challenge some sacred cows.

Also,there is a NEW AGE AGENT HERE.
given the fire I draw whenever I give tools to use to against New Age arguments that would cause some of the new agers or their conversion targets to question the ideas, because drawn from some ideas they exploit, turning their stuff against them, which is more dangerous to them than quoting Scripture they don't believe and their typical secularist convert target doesn't believe
When you draw fire you are over the target.

would that by any chance be you?

A new idea making the rounds is that the Vatican created Islam. This is the craziest notion I ever heard. The history and origins of islam are well documented, and any Christian contacts in his early days WERE NOT LATIN BUT COPTIC MONOPHYSITE OR BYZANTINE ORTHODOX there were no Latins to talk to in Arabia, AND THE LATINS WERE ORTHODOX BACK THEN ALSO. They had not started so strongly to go astray yet. Rome had no interest in Arabia.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

"You are here to keep things in a tailspin and away from the real topics that should be discussed. "

No one's post prevents another's post, there is no limit to the number, once a page space is used up another page you get to by clicking "newer" or "newest" starts.

Why don't you post a list NOW or admit you are a fraud?

Anonymous said...

People will go to any length to protect their precious religion.

Anonymous said...

Why quote their lies? to refute them.

Christine you draw fire because we have to refute you in the endless stream of the unnecessary, redundant, common knowledge that needs no explaining, your penchant for too much info even about yourself, or plain pighead wrong.

Anonymous said...

"Seems I am very unpopular because I see too big a picture, and challenge some sacred cows."

Do you really think that that's the reason you are unpopular here?

Anonymous said...

Article titled...Just Released-Barack Hussein Obama:Coincidence

Not saying one way or the other,but the videos do raise questions!

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

this is what islam does when it can. the only reason it doesn't do it here is because it cannot.

the New Age having a pipe dream of having Jews Christians and moslems kill each other off is no reason to toady to islam, who was busy doing that sort of stuff long before the New Age started.

while to some extent there is potential anti New Age elements in islam, and this can be used to stymie some New Age use of some of them, other critical points of New Age view (non divinity of Jesus a major point) are shared with islam.


you can work with them against A B and C but not against D E F and G.

choose your friends wisely, most of them are potential or actual enemies part of the time.

the enemy of my enemy is only my friend as long as the shared enemy is still his or her enemy, and that can change overnight. and without you knowing about it.

Spudy Bug said...

I know that we are talking the end times but something very disturbing happened the other day. I read "Hidden Dangers of the Rainbow" several years ago. A few days ago, on the talk radio station in Pittsburgh, PA, an advertisement read "The Great Invocation" in its entirety and referred people to the Lucis Trust website side to obtain a card copy so they could begin to recite it. That is scary. Things that This is the externalization of the hierarchy.
Sue V.

Anonymous said...

Here are the roots of hierarchy that led to the papacy going against the first church model some time after Pentecost. Those roots formed rather early. One who seeks preeminancy-to lord over others-that Paul warned the early church of and specifically notes this to the Galatians (o foolish Galatians...)over time abandoned the ministry of the Holy Spirit to lead people by more and more rules then under threat. That is the "roman" model and led the world to the dark has morphed further to become what we have today as the leader of apostate Christianity with all other apostate believers just as compromised and willing to socially engineer right along with the globalists--in fact part and parcel of that directive from the pit.

Who Were the Nicolaitans, and What Was Their Doctrine and Deeds?

But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate. Revelation 2:6

Have you ever wondered who the "Nicolaitans" were, mentioned in the book of Revelation? Whoever they were, Jesus loathed their doctrine and hated their deeds. Let's delve into this subject today to see if we can ascertain the identity of this group. What was their damnable doctrine? What deeds were they committing that elicited such a strong reaction from Jesus?

Let's begin in Revelation 2:6, where Jesus told the church of Ephesus, "But this thou hast [in your favor], that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate." Jesus was proud of the church of Ephesus for their "hatred" of the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which He also "hated." The word "hate" is a strong word, so let's see exactly what it means. It comes from the Greek word miseo, which means to hate, to abhor, or to find utterly repulsive. It describes a person who has a deep-seated animosity, who is antagonistic to something he finds to be completely objectionable. He not only loathes that object, but rejects it entirely. This is not just a case of dislike; it is a case of actual hatred.

The thing Jesus hated about them was their "deeds." The word "deeds" is the Greek word erga, which means works. However, this word is so all-encompassing that it pictures all the deeds and behavior of the Nicolaitans - including their actions, beliefs, conduct, and everything else connected to them.

The name "Nicolaitans" is derived from the Greek word nikolaos, a compound of the words nikos and laos. The word nikos is the Greek word that means to conquer or to subdue. The word laos is the Greek word for the people. It is also where we get the word laity. When these two words are compounded into one, they form the name Nicolas, which literally means one who conquers and subdues the people. It seems to suggest that the Nicolaitans were somehow conquering and subduing the people.

Ireneus and Hippolytus, two leaders in the Early Church who recorded many of the events that occurred in the earliest recorded days of Church history, said the Nicolaitans were the spiritual descendants of Nicolas of Antioch, who had been ordained as a deacon in Acts 6:5. That verse says, "And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch."

to continue go to:

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

While proliferation of rules and problems and finally heresies (not all you consider such are such by the way such as the Eucharist but the filioque you accept IS heresy and contradicted by Jesus' own words in His promise of The Comforter in John's Gospel) is true but THESE WERE NOT THE DEEDS OF THE NICOLAITANS. This is all deduced from his name, ignoring that he had this name from his birth, and may or may not have the implication ascribed.

Here are the facts.

Irenaeus of Lyons wrote c. AD 180, a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of the Apostle John, and a contemporary to the action he denounced in Against Heresies. So he ought to know.

"The Nicolaitanes are the followers of that Nicolas who was one of the seven first ordained to the diaconate by the apostles.2956 They lead lives of unrestrained indulgence. The character of these men is very plainly pointed out in the Apocalypse of John, [when they are represented] as teaching that it is a matter of indifference to practise adultery, and to eat things sacrificed to idols. Wherefore the Word has also spoken of them thus: “But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, which I also hate.""

"John, the disciple of the Lord, preaches this faith, and seeks, by the proclamation of the Gospel, to remove that error which by Cerinthus had been disseminated among men, and a long time previously by those termed Nicolaitans, who are an offset of that “knowledge” falsely so called, that he might confound them, and persuade them that there is but one God, who made all things by His Word; and not, as they allege, that the Creator was one, but the Father of the Lord another; and that the Son of the Creator was, forsooth, one, but the Christ from above another, who also continued impassible, descending upon Jesus, the Son of the Creator, and flew back again into His Pleroma; and that Monogenes was the beginning, but Logos was the true son of Monogenes; and that this creation to which we belong was not made by the primary God, but by some power lying far below Him, and shut off from communion with the things invisible and ineffable."

"Clement of Alexandria says, “They abandoned themselves to pleasure like goats, leading a life of self-indulgence.” Their teaching perverted grace and replaced liberty with license.

"Other commentators believe that these Nicolaitans were not so called from any man, but from the Greek word Nicolah, meaning "let us eat," as they often encouraged each other to eat things offered to idols."

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

An important point to make right here is that one must be careful to separate between the leadership of denominations and those that follow. Many devout and lovely people who love the Lord are unaware of what their leadership is doing and has done already. They are (sadly) ignorant of what God actually says in His Word because have too deep a loyalty/reliance to church leadership. The wool is going to be pulled off of eyes though--I pray that is soon.

People need the truth but really and by now it is not too hard to see the bad fruit of the bad seed that infiltrated long ago.

ladyinwaiting said...

The definition of apostasy is not mass rejection of christianity. It is the falling away from the Truth. In order to fall away from the Truth, you have to have known it. "christianity" is a religion. you can be a christian and have a relationship with the One True Living God, but you can also be a "christian" and not have one. Jesus/Yeshua was not a christian and neither was Peter, John or Paul. As Believers in Messiah, we are the body of Messiah. It is not, nor has it ever been the world/enemy against christians. It is about The Lie masquerading as Truth to deceive if it were possible, even the elect, the body of Messiah.

Anonymous said...

the conservative

Anonymous said...

Very good article on the currently expanding police state by Servando Gonzalez. Will help to bring understanding as to why our government has purchased hundreds of millions of hollow point/killer bullets.

Constance Cumbey said...

I just returned from a short trip to Indiana. I asked the MicroEffect to rerun the Ervin Baxter program for yesterday morning -- sorry it was not live, but Ervin gave some interesting information that I thought deserved repeating.

In the meantime, I am deeply disturbed by discovering postings of a woman who evidently comes here fro time to time named QUEENY CAMERON.

I was amused to learn that I was wealthy and that I had "borrowed a million dollars." Those of you who have followed my work over the years know I have never begged for money and have never sought to even commercialize, let alone profit from my work.

Please beware of this woman calling herself "Queeny Cameron" and I would appreciate receiving more information on her as a subject.


Anonymous said...

I just typen in Queeny Cameron and numerous links appeared.

Anonymous said...

1:57 P.M. should say typed in

Anonymous said...

Obamas speach to gay community.

Click on video link at bottom of brief article. At the end of video Obama wishes a Gods blessing to audience, and to America!

paul said...

They passionately despise the West because we're
so immoral...

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

Queeny Cameron near as I can tell is either confused or a shill
out to denounce and expose everyone, and either is lying or can't
do a search properly as she claimed
there is no info on Constance's
professional life or background doing a wiki search. Well, I suppose that
depends on the wiki you use. IF you
mean wikipedia there is plenty of info.

So Queeny is a liar or can't spell or something is wrong.

I can't stand her voice and personality enough to locate where
she said Constance borrowed a million dollars. This bit I saw is enough to
show Queeny is a mess.

Anonymous said...

"where there is no opposition to islam, where it rules, there is peace."

Were that so then it would be a real feather in Islam's cap compared to the endless wars among the Catholic States of Europe in medieval & Renaissance times. But it is not so. Look at the history of the Middle East, not only Sunni vs Shia but plenty of other wars with Islam on both sides.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

anon 2:35, try a reading and comprehension course. I was using ISLAM'S DEFINITIONS to show WHAT THEY MEAN BY PEACE.

no matter how much war might exist between Sunni and Shia, each would view each other as House or Land of Peace because at peace with allah, NOT BECAUSE OF PHYSICAL NON VIOLENCE.


That's why the worst of them can straightfacedly tell you it is a religion of peace,


And since they wait to do their sexual abominations until they have a special fatwa or something, which makes it okay, they can straightfacedly say their morals are better than ours.

(Of course in this matter a lot of them don't know these little quirks in shariah, just like some never find out how it works against rape victims and in some divorce situations where the couple change their minds and want to get back together, oops, not until she has married another man and had sex with him and they've divorced, can't be marriage in name only) until they run afoul of it themselves.

get it?

if you really can't understand what I said, you need to read more carefully.

if you are trying to make me look bad, you are only making a fool of yourself among those here who are more literate and/or have a better memory for recently read things than you think they do.

And you are showing considerable contempt for the rest of the blog readers here if that is what you are doing, because I suspect most of them can read, understand what is read, and remember what they read.

Anonymous said...

"That's why the worst of them can straightfacedly tell you it is a religion of peace,"

Who cares what they say---words are nothing Christine (get it?)

The history is there to prove the motives of this religion too. Many chapters in the bible are devoted to what will become of these who practice lawlessness that is defined by the real God.

Why spend so much time and space explaining how bad we already know that is? Those who still want to buy the lie that islam is a religion of peace are not going to believe your mere words.

What people (who bother to know about this) need to focus on is being ready for the entire middle east to be up in flames and how that will come to bear upon America (soon) in tragic circumstances, as they all target the sitting duck--Israel. The burdensome stone of Zec 12:3. And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it.

The world governments become one in this evil. The world 'religions' participate. All preparing and working together (Now!) for the brief though horrific reign of the man of sin (who does a bring a temporary makeshift 'peace'). This is what is on the horizon. There's your big picture view. (Christine)

paul said...

The muzlums don't ask whether you're Catholic or Protestant before they behead you, which should bring some perspective to all the doctrinal hair-splitting that's been going on here.

paul said...

I meant to post this link to the above.

They don't care if you're Jehovah's Witnesses either, just like Hitler's SS troops, who rounded
up and murdered many many JW's.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

""That's why the worst of them can straightfacedly tell you it is a religion of peace,"

Who cares what they say---words are nothing Christine (get it?)"

NOT KEEP A WARY EYE ON THEM, and that is why it is important to
understand what they mean when they say something like that.

They say Islam is a religion of peace and jihadis are unusual, you hear,
islam is a religion of no physical violence and only polite verbal
conflict, and jihadis are a perversion.

But that isn't what they mean.

Then after being ignored enough of them collect in the country to
start trying to have shariah recognized as legitimate option to
American law or even get it legislated

When the population reaches 80% you can kiss your religious freedom
and other freedoms goodbye. Many of the converts may be won by the koran and presentations of it that do
not show shariah which sometimes is different or occasionally in conflict
but once the moslem population is entrenched,
shariah which is embedded in islam is entrenched with them, and in the legal codes that become law
of the land.

Why do you complain of analyzing islam and its misuse of language,
but don't mind similar analysis of how heretics and New Agers use words
that Christians and many others mean
one way, and they mean another? Unless of course you do object to that also.

As for the man of sin even if he is on the horizon, which i doubt for reasons
regarding Daniel 7 which I detail on my blog in a couple of places,
many many moslems will also die rather than accept the mark
of the beast, because to get it they will have to offer him worship, or worship his image,
and that is the A Number One in islam.

Conversely, a lot of sufi and some shia may go for it. But standard sunni? I doubt it. Majority of shia? I doubt it, because once they see him demand worship they will know if they are not too mystical, that this is
not the 12th imam mahdi.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

"and that is the A Number One in islam."

should have been

"and that is the A Number One sin in islam."

Anonymous said...

"Those who still want to buy the lie thatislam is a religion of peace are not going to believe your mere words."

So take it to them. Go convert those folks by your multitude of mere words. Use your blog because you are preaching to the choir here.

Anonymous said...

It isn't hair splitting.

The muslims will behead you if you are not one of their faction. They are completely under the influence of Satan,,,,,no less.

Anonymous said...

Christine could tell the muslims that there is life on Mars.

Anonymous said...

Me thinks Christine is stuck in the paralysis of analysis.

Notice that a root word above is anal..........

Anonymous said...

"try a reading and comprehension course. I was using ISLAM'S DEFINITIONS to show WHAT THEY MEAN BY PEACE."

Try a writing course, to make clear what you want to say.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

try reading the whole context of the statement you pulled out to critique.

Anonymous said...

Try the less is more approach Christine.

Anonymous said...

Come on people! Finally a thread on end times and, no one is discussing end times.

2 Corinthians 11:14
«And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.

Does anyone know this verse?

To the Catholics who were offended and Paul who calls everyone Pope haters if they dare mention his name:

I am not saying IT IS the Pope, it could be a number of different people.

But do you think this person(s) is going to be outwardly bad or evil?

NO!! They will come as an angel of light!! Not someone that you can look at and say, oh wow! That is a really bad person, and look at what they are teaching!

It will be someone that is perceived as a wonderful person who appears to be working for the best of of humanity.

All I'm saying is, the current Pope deserves a look considering his actions and the times we live. Many others deserve a look as well.

No one cares to discuss?

Anonymous said...

Well, I am one who has been. But not deterred by being called a pope-hater, etc. The Lord gives discernment to those whose first loyalty is to Him, meanwhile others may be in denial, because their loyalty may be ? being proven to be in the arm of flesh (man) and all the supposed 'righteous' acts of the 'social gospel' that is the path of the new age. Folks need to check their own hearts to see if this describes their own self-righteousness attitude and works (that pleases man and not God). (examine yourselves the bible admonishes--see Matthew 7:21-23 to see if this is YOU dear friends)

Anonymous said...

Anon 12:43

I apologize, there a few of us who have been trying to discuss.

But it seems to get muddled in all the doctrinal crap.

Your post was right on!!

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

As for the social gospel, while clearly charity is exploited by the New Age,
its origin is pretty much Judaism and Christianity.

When Julian the Apostate tried to revive paganism, to compete with Christianity he had to have charity operations run out of pagan temples, something very new to them.

New Age co opts this.

But notice that Jesus throws a very big focus on works of righteousness, or lack thereof, in all His descriptions of the Last Judgement.

To reject the social gospel in its entirety is to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Charity may be individual optional in terms of the law of the land.

It is not optional with God, we are under command and promise of punishment if we do not do so.

"When did we see You naked, hungry, or in prison [for no good reason or for The Faith presumably] and did not minister unto you?"

"Insofar as you did not do it unto the least of these you did it not unto Me."

Guess where those people are being sent off to in that word picture? The fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

So much for eternal security once saved always saved no matter what you do or don't do.

paul said...

So I call everyone "Pope haters if they dare mention his name" ?
Hardly. I'm a Protestant who loves his RC brethren.
But since the internet has almost as much Catholic-bashing going on as it does porno, and since some people, who might have faith in Jesus, (though it may be a brand new faith or an immature faith), _don't realize that God himself puts every power on earth in it's place, and that even if the Pope is a radical anti christian, that doesn't give you or anyone else the authority to rail against the largest denomination of Christianity with God only knows what percentage of called AND chosen Bible believers, with mighty archangels deeply concerned about every aspect of what is going on. You hardly have the standing before God to rail against His largest institution on earth, when even the Archangel Michael didn't dare
do such a thing to the devil, but only said God rebuke you.
Everybody is an expert on the end times, but nobody knows when the end is.
I could be all wrong but I'd rather be all wrong in compassion than all wrong in hate.

Anonymous said...

"try reading the whole context of the statement you pulled out to critique."

I did. It was as clear as most of your posts.

Anonymous said...

Calling out behavior (not judging the soul-God's job) is appropriate and should be distinquished. That is the attempt...but...people get their 'back up in the air' when they do not need to! Why? Why be so afraid to call a spade a spade? The truly righteous won't be offended! They have no fear of the truth. It is a loving thing to let the truth come forward so why suppress it?

Christine, are you muddling things here? The Gospel is not the 'social gospel'. It is the good news that there is a Savior-you claim to know Him right?-with a mouth telling that good news like one beggar telling another beggar where to find bread--lending one's personal hands and feet to any good to their neighbor in Jesus' name that others may know Him too. But the cart before the horse is the 'social gospel'--in fact it is a cart (of who knows what) with no horse--just a push and pull of human means and not powered by God at all! This is what political types and apostate religious types want to do and take credit for. What the 'enlightened' want to counterfeit is the real Gospel by putting the new age spin on it. The angel of light is very glad for this message to be watered down or twisted.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

"social gospel" is the I think originally derisive term invented in the 1830s to describe churches who made a big deal about charity as essential to the faith, as opposed to those more into social respectability as indicative of being good church people, and the latter wouldn't go near the downtrodden with a ten foot pole. Especially if they'd had a moral fall and were female, though I guess males were always given a pass no matter what, if the poor were dealt with at all.

As it used now, it is replacing The Gospel with just one of Christ's commands. Morality and doctrine go out the window.

I am not muddying anything. If you throw the social gospel out altogether, you throw out the baby with the bathwater.

If you swallow it whole hog, you strain at a gnat, swallow a camel, and some toxic waste with it.

Anonymous said...


Not everyone is railing and hating. Some are genuinely watching and trying to discern, and genuine watchers do not discriminate, we watch all, whether they are from our own flock or of another.

Just remember- he will come as an angel of light.

Anonymous said...

re: "All I'm saying is, the current Pope deserves a look considering his actions and the times we live. Many others deserve a look as well.

No one cares to discuss?"


Now that the well has been poisoned by "accusers of the brethren," no one "cares" to drink from it.

Anonymous said...

Anon 2:48 again

I do think we need to WATCH the Pope. I also think we should watch Putin, Obama, China, Syria and MANY OTHERS.

Most of those seem obvious, but I will NOT leave out the Pope because that may offend my Catholic brethren, which by the way, includes almost 100% of my blood relatives.

paul said...

"..though I guess males were always given a pass no matter what.."
Christine your Feminist slip is showing.
In the United States males have likely accounted for 95% of the prison population, whatever your latest feminist countercultural deep thinkers may have told you.
Men built a system called a Democratic Republic. They called it America.
That's where I am.
It has tried to adhere to the Rule of Law.
Prisons were built to remove criminals from
society from the beginning.
The prisons soon filled to overflowing with male prisoners, and occasionally... a female prisoner.
Free pass.

Anonymous said...

Paul, you have made statements about the catholic institution that are not true! You said catholicism was always supportive of women. Well in a nation wide poll,,,yes, subject to plus or minus error,it was found that 50 percent of catholics believe abortion should be legal. I'm not sure how you define supportive? You say catholicism is the largest christian denomination. False! It is NOT christian. It is a quasi christian cult. It is not Christ centered. It has no teaching to those bound up in it of any straight forward, honest gosphel presentation. If that makes me a catholic basher than so be it.

Suddenly your all sweetness and light when often times you have been a bully here?

Yes, we are to be in subjection to governing authorities. My governing authorities are all those with legal jurisdiction in this country,state, and my locally. The Lord can cause his children to have favor even with those in rule who are evil. How ever if those who are the Lords violate laws they should receive the same treatment as all.
My spiritual authority is Y'shua,,,,not the pope! If I am in a christian congregation, I should respect that congregations pastor.

There is, and will be increasing 'strong delusion'.The catholic institution has, and will continue to play a role in that right along with NA, and other institutions now active, and perhaps new ones yet to come. It is the Lord's will.

We as believers in the one true Yah, and His Son Y'shua are called to be His witnesses, and to warn others who are deceived, or falling into deception. This is not rebelling against governing authorities.

paul said...

Anon @ 3:18
Yes that does make you a catholic basher so, as you say, so be it.
And neither am I sure what you mean by "supportive of women".
Does it mean that they should have the right to murder their children ?
Do you think God cares about an opinion poll?
Put down your hand held device for a minute.
Do you think Armageddon will have a running poll
regarding it's progress online?
As far as the correct way to pronounce Jesus' name and the Father's name, what's with the phonetic transliteration of a Hebrew name when you don't speak Hebrew ? At least you're not speaking Hebrew here, so why the occult "special knowledge" of how to pronounce a name which is now pronounced Jesus in English, which I'm sure God can understand. He created all the different languages.
As far as the Fathers name, it is holy and therefore
separate. We only know some of his titles; like I AM.
But we can know a very lot about him and his character by reading the Bible, IF the Holy Ghost guides us. And God is faithful so what we learn about him applies forever.
It's always a cult that possesses special secret knowledge. See Irenaeus "Against Heresies". It's
free for the reading to both Protestants, Roman Catholics, & Eastern, Greek, and Russian Orthodox
and Coptics, as well any cult.


Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

""..though I guess males were always given a pass no matter what.."
Christine your Feminist slip is showing."

nothing to do with it. THE DOUBLE STANDARD. A man who sleeps around
is a stud to be admired, a woman who
sleeps around is a ho to be despised.

St. Paul had to hammer on the subject of male unchastity and barely if at
all mentioned female unchastity, because that was already an issue
for respectability.

But men were held to a different standard in pagan days, and this
attitude despite efforts occasionally to correct this, was incorporated into "Christian" nations and cultures the world over. pop Christianity.

In the early 1800s, charitable efforts were not extended to retrieve women who were fallen, in general the poor had to be "deserving" meaning
not criminal, but a woman who had given in even once to sexual nagging by a boss or who had a child out of wedlock were turned away, the strictly Christian operations did not make such distinctions, though obviously reform of these people was intended also.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

From the Facebook group

Kingdom Now Heresy. (New Apostolic Reformation Heresy)

"Are you ready Church? The apostate church is rapidly forming.
Yes that is Kenneth Copeland"

while this blog complains about the problems RC has presented at times, and in another article refers to "the Roman Catholic Church whose Vatican headquarters sits on the famed Seven Hills in Rome" IT DOESN'T, IT IS OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS BOTH OF OLD AND PRESENT DAY ROME,

a more serious issue I see which MIGHT be relevant to some
end time worries here, is the radical infiltration of RC with the
blasphemous and heretical notions of the Latter Rain and Word of Faith charismatic movements.

Latter Rain and Joel's Army (exemplified by the New Apostolic Reformation which often denies
these movements but teaches their doctrines) would be a real potential
revival of the inquisition.

All you need is some well placed bishops and cardinals and a pope of this mentality.

Because Joel's Army and similar ideas, hinge on a prophecy in Joel of a seemingly superhuman army that attacks backslidden Israel.

Joel's Army (Manifest Sons of God notions involved also), teaches that the perfected superhuman church which they say will be the real Second Coming because the church is Jesus' body, will attack and purge the church of the unbelieving heathen scum who don't buy into NAR etc. anointing (that's us, folks)

but they ignore the rest of the prophecy, which says that Israel repents, and God DESTROYS THIS ARMY,
which is not an army of super believers, but a foreign army of heathens.

amazing what people do with Scripture.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

What I read some years ago about a plan the Vatican had, was not religious
indifferentism, but rather, a position that some degree of truth existed in all religions and Christianity is THE truth and RC is THE true Church.

So all the world's religions should be organized in concentric circles, with Christianity at the center as the top religion and RC at the center of that, ruling all.

It is however a bit uncomfortable. Like, maybe proselytizing won't be allowed much though conversions as a result of private research will be allowed?

I don't think a deal like this would last long. or even get established.

Anonymous said...

Anon 3:18

There was nothing wrong with your post. You are not a catholic basher. It is ok if someone disagrees with you, by responding with a post that articulates their opposing viewpoint without insulting you. But, that's not what usually happens here. A post like yours is usually met with rhetoric above like Paul's.

And there is nothing wrong with you pronouncing our Lord's name in Hebrew. Absolutely crazy for someone to tell you it is.


Your response to anon 3:18 was more insulting than in opposition.

And I notice that after a few posts about end times, right back to the same old crap back and forth on here.

Time to get the heck out of here! I usually check in from time to time for a few days to see how it's going, as I used to follow this blog regularly.

But I end having to leave because there is usually not much here enlightening anymore.

If you want to have some spirited discussion here, it can be found, but certain church leaders and denominations are pretty much off limits, unless you want to be met with insults that label you as a "basher" and a "hater" that turn into long blathering posts about doctrinal issues rather than the conversation at hand.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

over a year ago I think it was, someone commented on the kinds of petitions I signed and posted to facebook or tweeted, that they were often left wing interests or groups whatever.

Here is what I do, and I suggest you consider doing also, if you want to have an impact.

It doesn't matter what makeyourown petition online operation hosts, it doesn't matter who is back of a petition.

The issue is, what is the SPECIFIC INDIVIDUAL ISSUE about?

If it is something working towards PETA's long term agenda of no human animal interaction at all, no pets, etc., such as their "free Tony the Tiger" campaign, or vegetarianism, which is only good for you as a short term cleanse,

Then I won't sign it. If it is pro gay or pro abortion, I won't sign it.
If it is ambiguous in some ways I won't sign it.

If it is about a clear issue of unnecessary cruelty to food animals or something like that, I sign it. If it is to keep people who are dependent on subsidies of medical or food needs from being cut off, I sign it. No one is going to take up the slack in time for them.

If it is protesting persecution of Christians or something like that, I sign it.

If it is demanding transparency about right wing funders or organizations aka "conservative" who are one and all on the military industrial and other corruption bandwagon, or otherwise opposes them without undercutting the valid issues they hijack to get power, I sign it.

and so forth.

Just like voting for someone party affiliation is less important than voting record if any, personal information, etc.

There is just about NO online information source I trust or support or recommend unquestioningly, only when they got it right will I post a link to that one article. Very few do I recommend and even they have flaws.

I am sure I have made some errors on my own blog, I think I removed a link from the link list on the side more than once realizing I had made a mistake, due to bad information or something.

Anonymous said...

"I am sure I have made some errors on my own blog"

Not remotely as many as you have made on Constance's blog!

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

starts with education and militarism and goes to psychiatric abuse and mind control. :ots of history and research.

start from the 12 minute point if you want to avoid some introductory interviews though some occur later.

Alex Jones is often a bit extreme or wrong, as in partly right or puts a sensationalistic spin on things. But this film is based on VERY good research, an overview of stuff I have read myself.

two things they got wrong. women getting the vote was long before the big drive to women working in male jobs, they were already working in janitorial, textile and so forth in the 1800s.

This woman suffrage thing also makes conservative and centrist women as available to vote as leftist women are.

The Prussian model DID NOT DEVELOP because they needed to condition men not to run away, but as someone put it, they realized they needed to have an army whose lowest soldiers were as smart as a shop keeper. Such a person has MORE initiative, and can deal with a sudden change in situation in combat and prevail, within whatever limits the command has them. Such also can more easily learn to handle and maintain weapons, handle varioius tasks, etc. Napoleon beat them, because all his soldiers were smart.

Anonymous said...


Not only has the Pope called on Catholics and Protestants (Charismatics) to come together and has met super smooth apostate Joel Osteen.

Today he met with Toronto "blessing" merchants John and Carol Arnott and Word of Faith charlatan Kenneth Copeland.

paul said...

I'd like a guest list to that Premier.
I could frame it and call it
"Who's Who to Avoid"

Anonymous said...

Yes the one world religion of the antichrist is solidifying and the pope is playing a major role!

paul said...

Oh, anon @645 knows all about the Pope.

Anonymous said...

Oh, and Paul is merely a poet!

Your 6:58 P.M. post was rediculous!
You had said, I believe in the last thread, along with other exaggerations, that the catholic church was always supportive of women, or some such statement. I was merely pointing out that catholics have such a liberal social/political mind set that half of them support abortion. You also ridiculed my using Y'shua in reference to the Savior????

Grow up, or as you like to tell Christine,,,,SHUT UP!

Anonymous said...

"Napoleon beat them [the Prussian], because all his soldiers were smart."

He instituted an IQ test for anybody wanting to join the Grande Armee? Nonsense - he introduced mass conscription as we know it today and if you had two arms and legs then you were liable, no matter how unintelligent you were. Armies defeat other armies because of a combination of better training, leadership, kit and numbers.

In the end Napoleon lost to an alliance having a major Prussian component.

Anonymous said...

Here we go... the world's first church/mosque/synagogue:

Anonymous said...

In the last several months, the Pope has met with Kenneth Copeland, the Arnotts, Joel Osteen, Utah Senator Mike Lee (R), a Mormon, Gayle Beebe, the president of the interdenominational Westmont College in California, and Pastor Tim Timmons, founder of South Coast Community Church also in California, were among many who have met the pope recently. He also inserted himself into the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, whether he will actually be involved, only time will tell..

What - do you think Constance????

What is going on here?

Does this mean anything in the times we live? Or is it coincidental? It sure does seem like a good thing but, does this sit right with you?

I would really like to hear what you have to say. I hope I’m wrong.

I do not currently belong to any denomination or organized religion, but if I did, you can be sure I’m going to take this seriously whether it’s the pope or any other pastor. Here’s an interesting quote:

“You might be saying to your evangelical self, ‘Who cares what Joel Osteen does, or what the pope does, or what a Mormon senator does? These things surely don’t apply to my faith, do they?’” she wrote. “Perhaps it’s time to stop focusing on those audacious dreams and life tips and start paying attention to your Bible and to those pesky news headlines that threaten to wake us from our slumber. ”

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

re Napoleon, the statement I made was a paraphrase from a historian. Can't recall his name. From a site online another statement

"In 1806 an army of the republic of France, led by Napoleon, marched into Prussia in a preemptive strike to protect the fledgling nation from one of its powerful monarchist adversaries.

The armies met outside the town of Jena in the German state of Saxony. The brilliant battlefield improvisations of Napoleon along with the superior training and morale of the French citizen soldiers contributed to a decisive defeat and destruction of Prussia’s highly trained professional mercenary army, and led to the subjugation of Prussia under French control for the next six years. It was not lost on the losers that their professional army was defeated by a force made up of inspired volunteers. The defeat shook the entire Prussian aristocracy and they committed themselves to literally retool their entire country to ensure that it would never happen again."

And what was going on FIFTEEN YEARS EARLIER?

"Up until the French Revolution, secondary education was only for a few people. However, as the revolution progressed, people came to believe in education for the public. This is shown in Titre Premier of Constitution du 3 Septembre 1791; it states ¡°Il sera cree et organis? une Instruction publique commune a tous les citoyens¡± (1) which translates into "Public education for all citizens will be created ' and organized."
In the early 19th century, Napoleon Bonaparte ruled France. He was quite concerned about education; he implemented many reforms to the education system of France." Education even included girls though not as much education as boys.

"inspired volunteers" may not apply to everyone, but his conscripts were educated and able to read and think. Napoleonic Wars included several women warriors disguised as men (not lesbians, often went to war with their male lovers) some of great bravery and effectiveness and aggressiveness, who like the 500 some on both sides of the American Civil War were only discovered as women when treated for wounds or dead. (One such was a cavalier, who would routinely charge "his" horse into the thick of battle, and finally was taken down when outnumbered. I don't recall if these were all also cavalry or incl. ground troops. "Airs Above The Ground" in Lipizzaner performance were originally to combat ground troops who might pull a cavalier off the horse otherwise.)

Obviously a lot of people were thinking in more flexible terms then than Prussia could handle. That education was their response to their defeat proves the education of their enemies was seen as an issue.
Also a major weakness in Prussia was a lack of nationalist feeling in the people, while France already had that. But the homeschoolers don't mind the pledge of allegiance and all that.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

the real problem of education is not that its tax supported - in one state land to be taxed was calculated to a certain percent to go to schooling, and another drive for universal literacy that occurred had more to do with being able to read The Bible than anything else as a goal.

The problem is what is in the education.

A certain amount of regimentation and discipline is not a bad thing at all. And while Iserbyt makes excellent points, when she blathers about education should include literature and poetry, precisely these have played a role in inducing dreamy fantasy states on the one hand, and undermining morality and promoting atheism and "free thought" aka modernism and eventually proto new age thinking on the other.

Paw-uel said...

You're a mealy-mouthed whiney little trouble maker who greedily gathers up other people's comments to turn against them.
You're an imp. You're a Gollum. You're a petty little
cry baby with, as you say, no denomination or religion at all, yet you have an ax to grind and someone else's blog site to mess up with your predictable lashing out at whoever you can.
You snipe from the bushes at people who have some direction in life while you yourself have
none, other than to take pot shots and kvetch and
moan like a spoiled brat. Woe is you.
What is your point anyway ?
You don't believe in Jesus but you feel okey
calling him Yeshua, presumably because it sounds
so much more interesting. It's essentially the same name as Joshua and/or Jesse.
My name is Paul but I'd prefer you call me Paw-uel,
which is the ancient, now unused, pronunciation,
which is waaay cooler.

Anonymous said...

9:33 A.M.

Direction in life? Were you not the "petty little cry baby" that was whining about being nearly homeless? Try working for a living like I do. You define petty!

Only a very crude person would accuse someone of using the proper hebrew name of the Savior just cuz its cool. That's a very serious sin to mock at the coolness of the Lord's Hebrew name assuming I use His proper name for that reason or not.

You have made your character plain here on this blog, so I'll try to keep "cool" as to my own defense.

Anonymous said...

Frederick the Great reformed the sclerotic 18th century Prussian administration into a meritocracy. They lost battles to Napoleon but ended up on the winning side of the Napoleonic wars. Who was still standing after Waterloo?

Napoleon used volunteers early on but later introduced conscription - an evil prelude to the total wars of 20th century Europe.

Anonymous said...

Thank you anonymous 6:25 A.M. for your kindness. Thank you also for speaking plainly and truthfully here.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

"Were you not the "petty little cry baby" that was whining about being nearly homeless? Try working for a living like I do. You define petty! "

HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS PERSON DOESN'T WORK FOR A LIVING? That doesn't mean rent or mortgage won't climb to where you can't handle it.

well, you may or may not have the exact correct pronunciation of Jesus (and that is debatable) but what is more important is following His dictates.

And He NEVER condemned anyone for being poor, for begging (the original way of distributing welfare, in smaller populations where people often know each other),

and REQUIRED giving to the poor.

If this guy (or gal) is almost homeless likely the person had or has a job, works for a living, and the rent or mortgage has skyrocketted to unpayable levels and has already been scrimping on food and everything else.

Remember that Jesus warned that "insofar as you have done it to the least of these you have done it to Me," context, feeding the hungry, clothing the ragged, visiting those in prison (presumably for the faith) or for that matter, NOT doing these things.

So here's a representative of Jesus who is about to get kicked out on the street. Whether you could help the person or not you do not have to heap scorn on him or her. Might just get a smack upside the head from Jesus for this at The Last Judgement even if not thrown out into The Lake of Fire (most people have helped and not helped and don't fit either designation I suspect).

Remember, Jesus said "it is not those who call Me Lord, Lord but those who DO THE WILL OF MY FATHER IN HEAVEN who inherit the Kingdom of Heaven," and I suggest you read James who warns, that your belief in Jesus if without good works flowing from it is dead, remarks that demons also believe and tremble, that doesn't save them,

now, you scorn someone if you can't help don't, but why insult them? this pride of supporting your own self is not biblical.

Susanna said...

"Paw-uel," :-)

Many are not aware that Pope Francis did not travel to Israel for the sole purpose of encouraging a "two-state solution" to the problems existing between Israel and Palestine.

In fact, the centerpiece of the pope's trip had nothing to do with the politics of Palestinian statehood at all. The Vatican emphasized that the purpose of the journey was a meeting between Francis and Patriarch Bartholomew, the archbishop of Constantinople and primary leader of Eastern Orthodox Christians.

Even though Francis did meet with Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, his trip wasn't about the Arab-Israeli conflict.

It was about Christians.

And during Pope Francis' meeting with Patriarch Bartholomew I, the two religious leaders discussed the persecution and murder of Christians in the Middle East - particularly Palestinian Christians.....some of whom are Protestant......(i.e. Palestinian Anglicans, Palestinian Evangelicals and Palestinian Lutherans, etc.)

In keeping with Mark 9:38-41 they discussed "ecumenism".....what Pope Francis called "the ecumenism of blood."

As you have rightly said, the Muslims are not asking people to identify their Christian denomination - or lack thereof -before being imprisoned, tortured and murdered.

"CHRISTIAN" is all the jihadists need to know.

By the way, a persecution of Catholic and Greek Orthodox Christians is beginning in Ukraine.....and is the consequence of these Christians being made the scapegoats for the conflict by an arm of the Stalin approved Moscow Patriarchate which has been salivating over the idea of establishing "Moscow as the Third Rome" and was challenged for such thinking by Patriarch Bartholomew I in 2004.

Read on:

"ORTHODOXOS TYPOS": Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew Denounces Moscow's "3rd Rome" Theory

Needless to say, Putin approves.

Anonymous said...

It was wrong of me to accuse Paul of being a "cry baby" about being "nearly homeless". For that I apologize Paul.

We who will not take the mark of the beast will all be homeless in the not too distant future. Some will be mrtyered, and for some the Lord will make provision in the "wilderness".

Anonymous said...

Nevertheless Susanna, if the "two state solution" was not the stated sole purpose for the popes visit or not, it was spoken of by him. This along with the ecumenical push with just about any group is cause for concern. It is a clear indication of the times in which we are living. Religious organizations will not deliver believers from persecution. He who once hindered is now allowing the fulfilment of prophecy.

Muslims do not care if your christian, budist, muslim, or whatever,,,,, there only view is if your one of their faction or not.

Anonymous said...

by their fruits ye shall know them...

Thanks 12:24 for the clear point made about the 'ecumunical' heresy that is doing new age globalist bidding. Religious talking heads who are being used to do an ultimate evil against God's land and people. Joel chapter 3 spells this out exactly. Read and see for yourselves what God thinks of people tampering with His things! This is what the pope as a world leader and all other guilty and compliant players are doing. Don't take my word for it, take His!!!

True christian love does not throw the Gospel under the bus for political calm and economic and religious 'peace'.

Jesus did not make 'political and religious peace' when He was on the earth. He had the power to straighten the whole thing out then and there but went to the cross instead, while real enemies all vying for their piece of ruling pie became fast friends to actually rage against Him because He had the audacity to expose their motives to rule over men in their own particular evil fashion. As the Lord of All and He did that from that bloody bloody tree! And that is why is is a sacrifice for us to stand against the powers that be in the same political/religious game who would determine to rule the world for their own ends. What went around then has now come around again for our time........posing the very same questions.

Multitudes, multitudes in the valley of decision! (for things decided now and soon the biggest Valley of Decision of all time!)

Who is on the Lord's side in all these current issues to stand against the tide?

Anonymous said...

Well said 1:26 P.M.

Anonymous said...

Your kidding right Susanna?

Nobody said he traveled there for the sole purpose of the two state solution. Doesn't matter if he did or not. What matters is he is involved now!!


paul said...

So there you have it folks, the Pope has been tried,
convicted and sentenced by an anonymous person on the internet. The details are still coming in but the anonymous person has gleaned enough information
from various websites on the internet to pass the sentence and let the chips of history fall where they may.
Back to you Dorothy.

paul said...

regarding the link that Christine sent to the endless video about the elite and their mind control techniques, which I could only watch for about 30 minutes:
World Cup Fever
Is anyone else feeling the pressure to absolutely
love soccer ?
I believe that we are right now experiencing brainwashing on a massive scale; ramped up and
in full effect.
This is what it feels like to be brainwashed.
I just saw an advertisement that finally came out and essentially called anyone who doesn't care about soccer an old bigoted undesirable that no beautiful model babe could ever like at all.

Ho hum. As a white male in America I'm getting used to being marginalized. It's only been most of my life now.
But seriously, for a first hand example of mind control just ask yourself why is soccer so important in your mind right now ? This is a study and a tell of the big persuasion machine in 2014. I'm being bombarded, aren't you ? Can you feel it ?
Baseball, football and basketball are American sports, and America must be torn down, so soccer,
the third world country game ( where one doesn't have anything to do with one's hands ), must overthrow those sports in the brainwashed hearts and minds of the citizenry.
Nothing could possibly be as cool as soccer.
It's universal !
It's diverse !
It's fun to be a part of mass hysteria and at soccer games anything can and does happen, including the occasional stampede.
The pomp, the circumstance, the hair and the neon colors !
Hooray fútbol !

Anonymous said...

Paul your 3:07 P.M. is just more of your sophistry.

Your 3:41 P.M. post is spot on!

Want to stop supporting mass brain washing? Stop buying the newspaper, get rid of the television. No more cable bill!!!!!

Anonymous said...


Just letting the Scripture call it as it sees it. If that prophetic shoe fits then the pope wears it--owns it! If you won't bother to let the Scripture speak to you from that passage that nails the evil (and it's players-not by name but by pattern)then would appear that it is you who is doing the judging here. Whatever.

And....what has that got to do with Dorothy?


Too bad you just had to go there, but I take no offense whatsoever. You are free to call it as you see
it. The truth will prove who is who and what is what in this matter also. The prophetic timeclock on the move and the world scene is very fluid, but moving a very determined direction. Keep you eyes on Israel the fig tree of Matthew 24.

Anonymous said...

And yes you called on soccer frenzy!
Surely it will catch fire globally! "Oh yeah I'm in"....not!

Anonymous said...

'Christian' Singer Admits Being Atheist

Anonymous said...

Recent quote from the pope - "this Church is what makes him or her Christian"

I wonder if the pope thinks the Holy Spirit, or Y'shua has any part to play in salvation? How about our Heavenly Father????

Well, Susanna will let us know what the pope really said here, be sure of that!

Anonymous said...

Here we go... the world's first church/mosque/synagogue:

4:40 AM

Would not surprise me if one day before long there is a proposal (by the pope and others?) for this very thing to be done on temple mount. A jewish/muslim/christian come together for an ultimate poke in God's eye. Rev 11:1 makes me think of this very thing.

Anonymous said...

Paul @ 3.41pm,

I live in Britain where soccer (we call it football) is the mass sport. To a Christian like me, it's obviously taken to an extreme that I would cterm idolatrous by a significant sector of the population. You, in the USA, are more used to the idolatry that some people put into baseball, gridiron and basketball. I suggeste that you are simply experiencing the shock of the new, just as I would if baseball suddenly caught on over here. May we unite in regarding excessive concentration on any sport as idolatrous?

Anonymous said...

"America must be torn down, so soccer, the third world country game... must overthrow those sports"

Um, soccer was invented in England and the last four world cups have been won (most recent first) by Spain, Italy, Brazil and France. Since when was Europe the third world?

Anonymous said...

Christine, have you looked at when Napoleon started to improve French education and when his victorious campaigns were? If your theory that he won because his soldiers were better educated were correct, he would have been leading an army of kids. Do the sums.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

Napoleon didn't start it, what did the quote say? fifteen years prior during the revolutionary times and while an awful lot could read and write anyway, which is why revolutionary tracts worked (pamphleteering) the people getting educated would have ranged from children to teens. fifteen years later, at Jena, late teens to twenties to thirty years old. peak of violence capability age begins in mid teens. In those days late teens would be married already most likely. our sense of what is "children" is very different (and out of touch with reality).

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

The very fact Prussia turned to mass education to correct the problem of the defeat at Jena, shows they saw this as militarily relevant. A writer many years ago commented that the lowest private in Napoleon's army was as smart as a shopkeeper or clerk.

Education of course instilled the nationalist feeling the French had and the Prussian populace did not have.

But the point is, to connect Prussian education to the defeat at Jena proves the point. And historians do make this connection.

YOU CAN'T TRUST ANY SOURCE, CONSERVATIVE, CENTRIST OR LEFTIST without looking for detail and checking facts.

they will either have an agenda they will sacrifice truth to, incl. the rightists, or will be parotting what they got from those who taught them.

you only get the picture when you dig into specific facts and look at the view from both sides.

and there is no economy that cannot produce mass murdering pagans or hasn't been in use by such.

"freedom" is effectively power and power gives freedom. The libertarians right now might be a good counterweight to excesses of the present, but essentially they are feeding a dream of freedom for the wanna be economic empire builder, and their hero Ayn Rand was atheist and pro abortion and immoral, and a major inspirer for anton lavey.

libertarianism appeals to the sin of pride in the individual, classical feudalism and elitism to the sin of pride of the few.

Anonymous said...

Libertarians were a lot closer to Mosaic Law than what you seem to be advocating is, Christine. It's not so much about freedom as about personal responsibility.

As for your idea that Napoleon won because the men in his army were more intelligent - Nonsense! Armies win when they are better trained, better led, better provisioned, have better equipment and better discipline, and on occasion are larger. None of those factors has anything to do with education.

"Education of course instilled the nationalist feeling the French had and the Prussian populace did not have."

More nonsense; the uneducated are more likely to have a strong tribal sense than the educated. Perhaps the Prussian people did not think highly of their leaders and consequently were not loyal to them, but in that case they would consider that THEY were more loyal to Prussia than their leaders.

"to connect Prussian education to the defeat at Jena proves the point. And historians do make this connection."

Name them.

Anonymous said...

"libertarianism appeals to the sin of pride in the individual, classical feudalism and elitism to the sin of pride of the few."

When played out to the maximum on all counts, this understanding is right on.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

first, the issues you raise as to why armies win (and they don't always work) are greatly improved when the people being led are not ignorant or stupid.

second, a tribal sense is exactly what the problem is, it is not nationalist, tribal sense is your family, extended family, and village. not the Prussian nation, or France or whatever.

third, the people stating that you say to name include the very people cited by the article that complains of modern education beginning in Prussia INCLUDING the one I posted.

read it.

ALL these historians that connect modern education to Prussia, say the Prussian education effort began as a response to the defeat at Jena.

While they don't take the next step because it is inconvenient to do so, that very fact of the connection shows there was something to do with education, about the enemy that won at Jena, that Prussia geared up to beat later, or at least to become invincible against others in future.

use your brain.

Frankly the first experiments in wholesale education were not Prussia, obviously, they just put their spin on it. Universal literacy, though never achieved even in our time, was the goal of various people before Prussia, France on the one hand, and those trying to get everyone able to read The Bible on the other.

Jewish studies of the Torah also of course required literacy.

Literacy was not limited to a handful of scribes, though they led the way. In one of The Prophets God says to write the prophecy in such a way that one can read it while running.

pagan Rome developed the codex type binding we have now, allowing all the books of The Bible to be in one book, and seems to have had a trade in what in the 1800s were called penny dreadfuls.

Education was financed by taxes on a percent of the taxed land in at least one of our states when it was a colony and after. I forget which.

libertarianism may talk about responsibility, but the people pushing it who have money incl. the kind of big business, agribusiness, big chemical, and military industrial complex who have no sense of responsibility except to make sure they control those who make the laws so their own maneuvers stay legal.

In the 1800s unions were met with gunfire from hired goon squads, and from the army and police.

Much we take for granted now, as part of law regarding workers, was FORCED on the businessmen by government responding to enough people demanding these. Before that, it was hit or miss and could you get concessions in contracts from a strike, but only in that particular employer's turf, not uniform.

The union movement of course got co opted by the communists, which says nothing about its validity in itself, or the validity of the complaints.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

libertarianism has no inherent theological bias but tends in its founders and many followers to be atheist or agnostic.

Bible economy was mixed economy, REQUIRED support of the poor (this was not an option, disobey enough and God would send a foreign invasion to punish you) The third year tithe went to the poor, and the tither had to make a public accounting that he had not held back what was due.

There was a fixed bride price, there was REQUIREMENT that you not harvest twice over your field or trees, what you missed was for whoever came to take it (gleaning) and you could not harvest the edges of your fields, that was for whoever passing by was hungry, and therefore could not drive people off the perimeter of your property.

It was REQUIRED that except in walled cities, you could not buy property and keep it forever and to your children's children, if you were not of the same tribe as the person it was bought from, but it had to go back to him/her or descendants in the 50th year.

There was no mandate allowing different pay for same work.

There was a curse in one of The Prophets a "woe to" regarding those who add property to property until they own everything, and even name their lands and mansions after themselves.

Try actually READING THE BIBLE not what someone says about it.

The kinsman redeemer thing some make a big deal about regarding Christ, has more to do with the person who has to buy his relative out of slavery, who had sold himself because of poverty, than the levirate marriage, one form cursed in Leviticus and later tolerated in Deuteronomy IF the men were living together at the death of one, and that was a predation by the woman seeking status as mother of sons, and could be rejected by the pursued man instead of him being forced into it.

Bible economy is not straight free market, not straight collectivity or directed, not pure theory anything. It is pragmatic with one overriding principle - what God wants done, and how any given thing will serve that purpose in a given situation and time.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

we keep hearing that the USA "was founded on biblical principles," but exactly what these are are not detailed.

Far as I can figure out from what the Founding Fathers said and did, these principles are as follows.

Mankind is fallen ergo evil (not all might have believed this, but practicality and history made this clear to all of them.)

"Every man would be a tyrant if he could," - George Washington.

If they aren't bad now they will get corrupt sooner or later. SO YOU CAN'T TRUST ANYONE. Ergo, no one person should have total power over all.

(A good thing to remember when thinking in terms of ruling over your children or workers. there should be enforceable rights of such some mechanism for intervention from outside.)

THEREFORE we get separation of powers (eroded by people in the three segments of government being in the same fraternities, secret societies, and even political parties, the latter we take for granted but they were denounced as evil by the Founding Fathers and originally we had NO POLITICAL PARTIES).

Since every man would be a tyrant if he could, and will combine with likeminded for their mutual advancement and gain (you can see the same in the troikas and five-kas that run baboon troops) the govt. interventions in how business is conducted, how workers are treated, and other things under the omophorion of the interstate commerce clause, is not evil in itself,

but it CAN be used to do evil (and has been). So of course can total lack of such intervention.

government isn't the problem and individuals aren't the problem, both are the problem, and govt. only a problem because staffed by individuals who are being human fallen and evil inclined.

the trick is to play them off against each other, so that neither a private element with "de facto royal power" as the court order that broke up ATT put it, nor the government, can gain full power.

"sovereign citizen" is an oxymoron. Sovereignty ultimately belongs to no one but God, but in common parlance, only nations and governments are sovereign, vis a vis each other.

The only sovereign individual is the last man (or woman) standing after a full on shooting war between rival sovereigns.

The illuminati had a top level called priest. The wisdom lecture given the initiate of that level, was that the ideal was that every man be like Abraham, the priest and unfettered lord over his own family. (women were divided into two classes the respectable manipulated with talk of greater freedom and the non virtuous who had more use covertly and the former did not know of the existence of the latter, who were closer to the real action. Clearly from this priest lecture, the ultimate goal did NOT include freedom for women or children.)

The stated goals and ideals of libertarianism, are right out of the illuminati playbook.

Anonymous said...

I don't need you to tell me what is in Mosaic Law Christine. I agree that "liberty" can be seen as an idol but Mosaic Law encourages RESPONSIBILITY of the individual whereas your solution seems to be big government, of which there was none whatsoever in Moses, not even a king. The divinely commanded poverty relief scheme was administered at local level. If you prefer big government, why not go somewhere that has it?

"the people stating that you say to name include the very people cited by the article that complains of modern education beginning in Prussia INCLUDING the one I posted. read it"

Would you translate that into English please?

Factually, I'm not very interested in when Prussia enacted mass education. I wanted to see if you were able to give accurate references to back up your comment that "to connect Prussian education to the defeat at Jena proves the point. And historians do make this connection." You weren't, and I'm not willing to take your word for it.

Anonymous said...

In Victorian Britain well above 90% of the population went to schools and became literate and numerate. The schools were run by the Church of England, NOT the State. It doesn't have to be government or nothing, Christine; that is socialist propaganda.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...


apparently the source used by the above link.
French mass education began 15 years before Jena, ramping up something
already in play since there was enough mass literacy that revolutionary pamphlets could be read and acted on.

as for The Bible, that administration at a local level is still something that no self respecting libertarian would tolerate local govt. is still govt. and coercion at any level is still coercion and supposedly everything we produce we have sovereignly done by our own divine power and we own it absolutely (if you are talking pure Randianism) and no one has a claim on it. That is how this would have been viewed by a modern libertarian extremist sent back in time so to speak, or reading about it in detail.

God says otherwise.

Now, Israel was ensconced in a small geography, smaller than many of our state.

with a huge geography and a much larger population, you have to have some centralization (and for it not to get out of touch with local issues and getting not flexible, it needs to have real time feedback from the local situation and act on that, not on overarching planning, and the latter isn't good in city govt. either, but is in fact a key part of the Agenda 21 operation.)

In The Bible you will notice that after a while tithes were to be brought into The Temple, so as population increased centralization occurred.

God was God AND King in Mosaic times, and when later they demanded to have a king, God warned he would go beyond the "Constitution" so to speak, the Mosaic Law that limited predation by elites. But since a king has a goon squad and a lot of clout because of being, well, a king, admired, kowtowed to aside from ability to enforce, he can do what he wants.

But the points I raise, if they were put into play by a govt. now, telling you what you can and can't do with your property and produce, you could expect libertarians to complain.

why should I go somewhere there is big govt., when we got it here ALREADY or are you so blind and short of memory you not only can't see the answer to your question about citing sources WAS ALREADY IN MY INITIAL POST,

but you don't notice WE HAVE BIG GOVERNMENT NOW, and it is often running amok, what well are you living in that you don't know this from the complaints of conservatives and of anarchist inclined leftists alike?

as for the supposed freedom in a local situation, tribal custom and law and enforcement of same is often worse than shariah in islamic lands, and you can find similar developments in Balkan history and elsewhere.

despite the contrary attitude of Orthodox and Roman churches (the latter did better at stamping some of it out), the vendetta we associate with the Mafia in Italy began in Greece and is alive and well in the Balkans. Now nearly extinct, some Serbian villages used to have a tradition past centuries that when one is old and dying, a person with that special office would euthanise you speed your death. Blood brotherhood ceremonies were being denounced by Orthodox writers and practiced anyway in the Balkans for centuries, again, fading out.

Sources for this? I am not going to redo all the work to find it. Do your own work, dig your own dirt, its there. Expect to take off weeks or months from work and spend every waking hour on the Internet and in libraries.

don't forget to use the Internet Wayback Machine and if you don't know what that it, google the term and find out. When you enter a URL in it, erase first the http:// the search bar gives you or you will get two of them and therefore the search will fail.

Some google pages also have cached versions on google, but how long these are kept is another matter.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

Its not a question of government or nothing, but if you want free education you usually need government,

your blinders keep you seeing things that aren't there.

I never said govt. was the only solution in all cases, but "govt," includes state, county and city. Not just fed.

Govt. has done a lot of good, and a lot of evil. So have individuals, families, local traditions, etc. etc.


If that is your dream (probably ascribed to family and city) you need to stop dreaming. I've been there, it doesn't work. A stronger hand is needed to barge in when the individual is being destroyed often with their own hypnotized agreement.

The separation of powers concept is important and should always be borne in mind, and this means that when you apply this across the board, no one power, fed. state county city, or family or individual can be supreme or uninterfered with.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...


if a single country or group of countries can be overrun by an ideology and a covert network of likeminded elites and so forth as has happened here in the USA and elsewhere, a total unification of the world will mean:

there will be no place to go to to escape tyranny and injustice

there will be no outside competing force to rein it in.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

mandatory free education clearly wasn't something that could be done by the CofE alone, MANDATORY means a govt. order.

"In 1870, Parliament said that there had to be a school in every town and village. Groups of people called school boards were responsible for the running of each local school. Families paid a few pennies a week to send their children to these board schools."


"The 1880 Elementary Education Act then made it law that all children aged 5 to 10 must go to primary school to receive at least a basic education. In 1891, grants were made available to all schools to enable them to stop charging fees and provide free education."


Sounds like it wasn't so much Church of England as a symphony cooperation between Church and State, such as also began quickly in Byzantium once Christianity was legal and influential.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

your ideology is showing with its unexamined premises. It adds up to, apparently, Marxism invented big govt. so before Marx there was no govt. involvement.

Church and family and volunteerism should handle everything, therefore it DID handle everything (whether it did or not) and handled everything well (whether it did or not).

OOPS! you trip and stub your toe on the facts of history.

oh well, back to the drawing board.

when you learn enough history, you may become politically unclassifiable like I am.

Anonymous said...


No, I requested that you name the historians, and your first response didn't even cite a reference naming them. Now you have - grudgingly - done so. It's no skin off my nose if you don't want to be taken seriously here through not giving references to back up your assertions, or giving them only with extreme reluctance.

"In The Bible you will notice that after a while tithes were to be brought into The Temple, so as population increased centralization occurred."

Nothing to do with population increase. The Temple was always intended to be the one and only place in ancient Israel where sacrifices to God were to be enacted. It was not intended to be an administrative centre of government.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 239   Newer› Newest»