Friday, June 27, 2014

We are WORSE than Sodom & Gomorrah!

The other day, I sat in one of our area Circuit Courts.  To protect the privacy of the players and 'protect the guilty,' I won't say which one.  It may well become big news later.  It was the courtroom of a Judge I respect.  A segmented continuing domestic relations bench trial was in progress.  I noticed that both sides to the litigation had very large files. I thought undoubtedly it had to be because there was a large divorce estate.  That was not the case.

Listening to the public courtroom testimony and the cross-examination and objections, it was clear that what was transpiring was a clear segment of an ongoing war on Christianity and morality.  It was one of the greatest exercises in good becoming "evil" and evil becoming "good" I have personally witnessed.

What was actually going on was a religious war between the "LGBT" community and those electing to flee it.

On the stand, undergoing grueling cross-examination was a repentant ex-lesbian.  She had two children who, from the testimony I heard, were carried in pregnancy by her.  She had received in vitro fertilization from sperm evidently donated by a male activist in the homosexual community.  He evidently was a person of some professional standing who was involved in a very long term same-sex relationship with another man.  

The woman on the stand had become a Jehovah's Witness and had totally abandoned her formerly "gay" lifestyle.  

She was mercilessly grilled by the man's attorney and the Judge allowed, over objection, sarcastic and argumentative questioning about her suitability to be a parent when she now had a belief system that those practicing homosexuality would not spend eternity with God.

Obviously, the sperm donor male and the ex-partner of the repentant woman had teamed up to try and take custody of the children this woman had carried in her womb from her.

Needless to say, I sat in that courtroom boiling and wondering, "How long, Lord Jesus,how long, how long?!"

I plan to follow this case, which was assigned another segmented trial date.  While I do not approve nor agree with Jehovah Witness theology, for that woman coming from the scene she had, it was definitely a step in the right direction.  She courageously refused to deny her determination to adhere to Scripture in raising her children.  I am praying for her.

I plan to talk about this very sorry scene on my radio program in the morning.  Last week, I asked the network to please rerun the Ervin Baxter program from the week before because he had some critical information that was new to me.  I went to Indiana to help celebrate the new high school graduates in our family and the high honors and scholarships they have received.

I headed this by saying, "we are worse than Sodom & Gomorrah."  Yes we are.  As bad as they were, they had the good sense to choose a judge who disapproved of their lifestyle.  His name was Lot and scripture records that his righteous soul was vexed at what he witnessed in that venue.  These days, we want to disqualify, as Canada is apparently doing, and too many places here, those who even raise an eyebrow at what the Scripture plainly calls "abomination."  

May the Lord help us all, especially the young woman struggling in court who turned from that lifestyle.



1 – 200 of 210   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

I'm saying a little prayer for the ex lesbian too Constance. Its wonderful when you hear that even ONE person has turned away from this life style. Thank God.

From OZ

Craig said...

How awful to have had to endure such grilling, as allowed by a 'judge' - one who is supposed to uphold impartiality.

She most certainly needs our prayers.

Craig said...

Sarah Leslie has written an excellent synopsis of New Age beliefs and its infiltration into Western culture, citing Constance's work:

My only point of departure is her depiction of Eastern mysticism as both pantheistic and panentheistic. While there may be some that are a mixture of this sort, the New Age-flavored belief is panENtheistic with the understanding that God is in all, and, just as importantly, all is in God, i.e., ‘god’ envelopes all of creation. Thus it can sound much like the Christian Transcendent God (“all is in God”), along with its corollary of an Immanent (Omnipresent) God (“God is in all”). I’ve written about that here:

Craig said...

From the previous thread Susanna, in answering this: Does meeting with Kenneth Copeland, Joel Osteen and the Arnotts fall under Mark 9:38-41?, wrote:

You mean the Pope's meeting with Kenneth Copeland, Joel Osteen and the Arnotts I presume?

I would say that since none of these non-Catholic Christians, to my knowledge, passes the test of the antichrist, yes it does.

The spirit of the antichrist is spelled out in 1John 4:1-6

While I would say that all three mentioned above fit the Apostle John's description implicitly, Copeland in particular is more explicit. On his own website currently is his definition of “the anointing” which boils down to ‘Christ’ as a tangible “force,” as opposed to the unique Messiah - Jesus:

This is basic Word of Faith (WoF) theology, a doctrine promoted by all three, with Osteen perhaps less overt than the other two. Another WoF teaching is an implicit denial of the Atonement, a doctrine which amounts to auto-soterism - self-salvation. In addition, re: Copeland, I have in my possession letterhead with Copeland very explicitly promoting the Jesus Died Spiritually heresy.

Bad company...

Craig said...

For good measure, in the following are known statements by Copeland (and Benny Hinn - not "Himm") - statements neither individual has subsequently denied/repented of:

Here's a large sample of Copeland:

Faith is a Force (like Star Wars).
(Spirit, Soul and Body, #01-0601, Tape #1)

God did not create the world out of nothing, He used the Force of His Faith.
(Spirit, Soul and Body, #01-0601, Tape #1)

Jesus has a beginning and an end.
(What Happened From the Cross to the Throne, Tape #00-0303)

Jesus has not remained the same, he has changed.
(What Happened From the Cross to the Throne, Tape #00-0303)

The plan of redemption BEGAN when Jesus said “It is FINISHED”.
(Classic Redemption, p.13)

Jesus was reborn in the pits of hell.
(What Happened From the Cross to the Throne, Tape #00-0303)

Jesus is in a higher position now than before He died on the cross.
(What Happened From the Cross to the Throne, Tape #00-0303)

The biggest failure in the whole Bible is God.
(Praise-a-thon, (TBN) recorded 1988

Earth is a copy of the mother planet (Heaven).
(Following the Faith of Abraham, Tape #01-3001)

God’s reason for creating Adam was to reproduce Himself.
(Following the Faith of Abraham, Tape #01-3001)

God and Adam looked exactly alike.
(The Authority of the Believer IV; Tape #01-0304)

Jesus and Adam looked, acted, and sounded exactly alike.

All of God’s attributes and abilities were invested in Adam.
(The Authority of the Believer IV; Tape #01-0304)

Adam was God manifested in the flesh.
(Following the Faith of Abraham, Tape #01-3001)

God made Adam the God of the earth.
(Following the Faith of Abraham; Tape #01-3001)

God could not intervene since He had made Adam the god of the earth. God was left on the outside looking in.
(Following the Faith of Abraham; Tape #01-3001)

God is approximately 6’2″ to 6’3″ tall.
(Spirit, Soul, and Body; Tape #01-0601)

God weighs approximately 200 lbs.
(Spirit, Soul, and Body; Tape #01-0601)

Jesus existed only as an image in the heart of God, until such time as the prophets of the Old Testament could positively confess Jesus into existence through their constant prophecies.
(The Power of the Tongue, pp. 8-10)

Jesus death on the cross was not enough to save us.
(What Happened From the Cross to the Throne, Tape #00-0303)
(Believer’s Voice of Victory, September 1991)
(Doctrinal Statement dated March 12, 1979)

Jesus took on the nature of Satan when He was on the cross. (Jesus lost His divine nature).
(What Happened From the Cross to the Throne, Tape #00-0303)
(Classic Redemption, p.13)

Jesus was dragged down into the bowels of Hell where He was beaten and bruised by Satan and his demons until Jesus could finally fight His way out of Hell 3 days later.
(Believer’s Voice of Victory, September 11, 1991)
(Classic Redemption, p.13)

Jesus was born-again.
(Substitution and Identification)

Every Christian is a god.
(Force of Love; Tape #02-0028)
(Believer’s Voice of Victory, broadcast July 9, 1987)

There is a god class of beings.
(Force of Love; Tape #02-0028)
(Praise the Lord broadcast (TBN), recorded 2/5/86)

Anonymous said...

Craig ~

Thank you so much for exposing Copeland!!!

paul said...

I moved into a new apartment this spring and immediately began to seek a housemate to
share the rent with. There's plenty of room for
two grown ups and it's a nice place.
I found out that an old friend was looking for a place and I contacted him and he eventually moved in.
Within a week or so, to my complete surprise, he announced one morning that "I'm here, I'm queer,
get used to it."
That was uncomfortable enough but he had payed his portion of the rent and what could I do without committing a federal offense ?
From there it just got worse as it became apparent that he was attracted to me. He would barge into my bedroom and tell me some stupid joke and then leave, then he would barge in and say something else equally as pointless and stand there. After a while I began to voice my discomfort
at the invasions of my privacy but that didn't seem to matter at all either.
At one point I was in bed and almost asleep and he came in and sat on my bed. He wanted to talk.
I didn't, but at that point I began to close my door
It was a few weeks later that he came into my room three or four times in one evening uninvited and my patience began to leave me.
I had to get up and physically escort him out and tell him to please respect my privacy at which point he got a very hurt, stunned, look on his drunken face and the next day when I came home from work there was a note on the table.
He accused me of threatening him ! He actually had the audacity to accuse me of threatening to kill him ! He said he had been up all night and that he had barricaded his door and that he was considering moving out. I said yes please do and he did, thank the Lord Jesus.
But I wonder; if he could write such lies to me, about what had transpired that night, what's to keep him from telling anyone else all that and more?

Gays, I mean Sodomites, are not passive any more. Sodomites are not nice and sweet like they are on EVERY TV show. They are aggressive and relentless
and they want the whole world to bow to them as superiors.

"Just as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it also be before the coming of the son of man. For they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage right up to the time that Noah entered into the ark."

Anonymous said...

Paul that was terrible. God protected you but wow...'some friend'. Homosexual private business (deviation-better known as sin) is now publically the business of all of us--like it or don't. And if you don't you'll (we'll) pay--obviously as he repaid your kindness with total disrespect--actually beyond disrespect. Behavior just like described in the Bible when the sodomites surrounded Lot's house in sodom. Brazen and shameless and soon to experience God's judgment-the whole world is about to the max in it's unrepentance. As in the days of Noah indeed.

paul said...

You know, as I considered his actions and his words
over the course of the month that he lived here, the only conclusion, or explanation that I could come up with is that they actually believe that all men are,
deep down homosexual like them, and that they are simply the ones who have the courage to "come out".
Otherwise would he have kept trying and trying to
tempt me like that ? Why couldn't he tell that I'm not interested ?
I also wonder what percentage of them are NOT alcoholics ? I'm beginning to think that they are all either alcoholics or drug addicts. Either way the devil has them by the throat.

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

Craig 12:09

good analysis, but Mark 9 has nothing to do with this, and your phrasing is puzzling though you come to the right conclusion.

Mark 9 is where someone was casting out demons in Jesus' Name and the disciples had forbidden him to do so because he didn't follow with Jesus and the disciples in their travels, and Jesus said to forbid him not,

which is not relevant to this situation at all,

while the I John 4:1-6 IS relevant.

addendum on Jesus' trip to hell, and never mind distinguishing between current hell and lake of fire.

Peter in his epistles twice refers to activities of Jesus in hell, including speaking to spirits in chains, and Paul speaks of Jesus having made captivity captive, descending and rising and this picture is fleshed out in the tradition that Jesus crippled the devil in hell. Partial binding.

Sure Jesus went to hell when dead, BUT NOT TO SUFFER, He said just before He died on the Cross "it is finished."

Jesus went down into hell to kick the devil's ass and free those who would follow Him. Hades in those days including both a realm of suffering, and a realm that was nice, the OT saints being taken from there to heaven or itself being relocated from under the earth in eyeshot so to speak of the realm of suffering, up to heaven. speculations vary.

Anonymous said...

Jesus went down into the paradise side of the grave, like a holding tank so to speak, and brought out the souls of those who were there for that time period. He did not go to the grave to suffer any hell. His hell was having His Father turn His face away while He was wearing the sin of the whole world upon Himself. That was His absolute anguish, to be separated from God the Father, because He became sin for us who knew no sin. The Sinless Son of God became sin for us-------what torture beyond description. That was hell enough. Praise God He has overcome death and the grave-sin and what it deserves-banishment--as our Great Redeemer and is seated at the right hand of the Father as the Lord of All. No one else deserves His Place in our hearts. No one.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

you say He went to the paradise side of the grave, not because you read that
in Scripture (it isn't there as being the only part of hades He went to)

but because you have been taught this tradition of men, invented as an interpretation to be rid of something too close to RC concepts. If it resembles romanism it can't be the right interpretation, no matter how clear the Scripture is.

I Peter 3:18

18 For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;

19 in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison,

20 who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water.


Anonymous said...

Clearly, on the paradise side of the grave were those who were believers. Abraham's bosom. PAll the people who believed the promises God gave in His word. He went to them and took them out with Him at his Resurrection and He gave us that picture of the two 'compartments' of the grave, if you will, in the story about the poor beggar named Lazarus and the rich man of Luke 16:19-31 which reads---(read carefully Christine)

Luk 16:19 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:
Luk 16:20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,
Luk 16:21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.
Luk 16:22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
Luk 16:23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
Luk 16:24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
Luk 16:25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
Luk 16:26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
Luk 16:27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:
Luk 16:28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
Luk 16:29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
Luk 16:30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
Luk 16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

Jesus' words. Not the tradition of men.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

I did not say anything about this was traditions of men.

READ CAREFULLY, even casually you should have got it.

I said the traditions of men were that Jesus went ONLY to the paradise side of hades. He invaded BOTH realms.

Anonymous said...

I did not dispute that. That is why I did not bring it up.

Stick to what is before you instead of trying to find more to talk about than what is there. But that is how you can keep steering 'conversation' here and get into debates. The endless verbage you cannot resist 'sharing' or some such idea you have, that we always need a last word from you. Whatever. (And part of why you are so easily dismissed here).

Craig said...


I was quoting someone else re: Mark 9. I believe the original poster's point was the "whoever is not against us is for us" thing, and, hence was asking Susanna if she believed this figured into the Pope's meeting with the three mentioned. My point for quoting the original comment with Susanna's reply was to provide broader context to the central points I wanted to make re: Copeland, Arnott, and Osteen and the antichrist issue.

But, I think a point you are missing is that the Jesus Died Spiritually heresy, of which Copeland adheres, entails that not only was the Cross not enough, but the attendant claim is that Jesus took on Satan's nature (I have a book with Hagin stating same) and was subsequently 'born again' in Hell.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

I didn't steer anything. This is one of the list of things Copeland raves about, that Jesus went to hell to SUFFER, not to CONQUER. That list was in the post earlier.

If you didn't dispute that Jesus went to hell to conquer, why did you post that statement from Jesus which has no bearing on the issue, after saying He only went to the paradise side in response to my saying He went to all of it?

you are the one playing games. Or you need a whole pot of coffee before you post.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

the harrowing of hell by the way is a doctrine RC inherited fro EO and given the ignorance of many in popular sloppy technical Catholicism, if Copeland and company are accepted into RC, or get enough credibility by dealing with the pope to get credibility with RC, which has already been infected with the tongues talking nonsense, you can expect still more apostasy in RC.

Anonymous said...

All is did was quote that portion of scripture to clarify my point about this:


And, I actually agreed with you with this statement:

"He did not go to the grave to suffer any hell."

That is all I brought to the table.

One cannot even agree with you without you taking-and yes-steering topics to keep up the rant.

Be careful. You might be thought a ty..rant with that attitude.

Anonymous said...

Christine 5:53 P.M.

We all need a whole pot of coffee to wash the Prozac down before we try to tackle any of your long sermons.

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

""He did not go to the grave to suffer any hell."

That is all I brought to the table. "

nope, "Clearly, on the paradise side of the grave were those who were believers. Abraham's bosom. PAll the people who believed the promises God gave in His word. He went to them and took them out with Him at his Resurrection and He gave us that picture of the two 'compartments' of the grave, if you will, in the story about the poor beggar named Lazarus and the rich man of Luke 16:19-31 which reads---(read carefully Christine)"

to which you then added,
"Jesus' words. Not the tradition of men."

Now, I had said that the tradition of men was that Jesus did NOT go to the
hellish part, (and the reason this tradition in protestantism developed was to eliminate the idea of prayer for the dead),

and you were pretending that I had dismissed the existence of a paradise part, or of ANY descent to ANY part of hades by Jesus as tradition of men.

you are a smooth liar, carefully segmenting things over enough time and space that people will lose the whole context, lying more by diversion and giving an impression than directly.

doesn't work with me. you are playing out of your class.

I repeat, the tradition of men is that Jesus only descended to the paradise part, and not to the hellish part ALSO.

the blasphemous notion is that He went to the hellish part to suffer.

the correct notion is that He went to the hellish part to conquer, and liberate whoever would accept Him.

I Peter 3:19, 20
I Peter 4:6
both kerygma and euangelion are the words used, so it is not only mere announcement but invitation also.

Ephes. 4:7-9

"7 But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ's gift.


9 (Now this expression, "He ascended," what does it mean except that He also had descended into the lower parts of the earth?"

When you mix this with "with God all things are possible," said regarding the rich man who loved his possessions, and could not be converted by human reasonings, but is one of those rare stand alone statements, applicable in other contexts,

with Rev. 1:18

"I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death."

and the example of St. Paul's prayer for the deceased Onesephorus


Always you people like to quote the proceeding verse, ignoring the implication of "mercy of the Lord IN THAT DAY," i.e., judgement day, "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad."
2 Cor. 5:10

and besides which Paul speaks here of Onesiphorus only in past tense.

Rev. 22:11 is often cited against any chance after death, but that statement is in context of conditions AFTER THE LAST JUDGEMENT. Not now.

None of would validate purgatory, a notion invented by RC as some place separate from hell, after the Great Schism of AD 1054.

Anonymous said...

you are playing out of your class.

Fine, judge me then.

So why do you care? I never argued the point about the other side of the grave because I did not disagree with it. You made that point well enough was not the point I was after so your emphasis was one thing and mine was another. And when I clarified what, even I thought I should have said better in the first place, you still were not satisfied. So i am supposed to lick your shoes or something?

I could not care less what you think of me or think I said or meant... or whatever.

I'm not in your class--yes....for your own words of constant debate, just for the sake of arguing, mark you to be one very dissatisfied soul. Your heart and head have no rest, and you try to spread your misery here. You have my pity.

Perhaps you should get out to that garden. You need at least 40 acres worth of actual work to do.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

Constance,you are absolutely right, we have come a long way....down.

There was a time when unchastity especially perversion would brand someone, especially a woman (double standard again), as an unfit parent,
that was back 30 years or more ago.

Anonymous said...

Just Discovered this Site, will be reading it from now on. Constance GOD bless you for NOT caving into the Sick Filth the Liberal Media which is 95 % controlled by Homosexuals is trying to Foist off on America. I'm from Hawaii and please Except my Aloha & Mahalos !! The Filth of Homosexual marriage in our State was forced on us by 49 Renegade Legislators and a Dirtbag Governor !!

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

Daniel chapter 7, long viewed as a rehash of the prophecy interpreting the dream of the statue, and referring to ancient civilizations, is being looked at as referring to times closer to the present by some interpreters.

They get the eagle winged lion as relevant to Britain and America, but dither over the rest.

Prophecy hinges on Israel and the Middle East, if some nation or kingdom is not a major player there, then they won't get any more than passing mention, if at all.

The winged lion has its wings plucked from it, and then made to stand upright like a man. A step down in power no longer a beast, but a step up in quality, now more like made in the image of God.

"and a man's heart was given to it."

A major smackdown followed by repentance? Judgement on America and the British and NATO scene now heavily an American puppet? Lion has long been an English symbol, and the specificity of "eagle's" wings points to the USA.

The two following beasts should be interpreted in terms of modern views, because this is for the latter days, and the whole sequence moves smoothly to the Second Coming of Christ.

The bear then would be Russia. That the ribs in its mouth speak to it encouraging aggression, point to them being regions acquired willingly and encouraging more action. Probably peninsular to some extent in appearance geographically. (Crimea would be a start.)

Russia is being drawn increasingly into the Middle Eastern conflicts, several jets and attack helicopters were just delivered by them to Iraq and are in use right now against the insurgents.

China could be the leopard. The modern range of leopards is Asia, with less in Africa and least if at all in the Middle East. India could be the leopard also, but I suspect it will be China for this reason.

The leopard has four wings "of a fowl." not an eagle, a "fowl." China is big on chickens, ducks, and geese, maybe some other fowl I don't know.

The multiplicity of wings might point also to flight capability, China is positioning itself in military and maybe commercial flight, and space flight (landed probes on the moon) and aiming for a manned probe to Mars in 2020. This could mean a four point quality to the wings - commercial, military, local space, and deep space.

The four heads of the leopard four loci of power currently positioning itself in South America, Africa and has ties to the Middle East. South America has the leopard analog. might conquer or join India which has leopards. Chinese displeasure with islamist separatists, and support of Iran could bring it to the Middle East, if they decide to take the fight home to the source of the trouble. One head would be China itself.

IF this interpretation is correct, then it is unlikely the antichrist is even alive yet, much less a grown aging man (the pope) or a middle aged man (Obama).

The FOURTH beast is the one to pay attention to, indescribable, not even a chimera of known animals monstrous with teeth and talons of iron (or bronze as the LXX says).
At that point, if it is the beast the harlot rides, since it has the head of a lion, the body of a leopard and the feet of a bear, it might be an English influenced culture with the guts and driving power of it from Chinese derivation (or from India also has leopards), bear feet might mean its mode and style of action military infrastructure of Russian origin.

This beast tramples and crushes the previous beasts. And out of this beast comes the antichrist. It is not the same as the antichrist, but is the source of him.

I suspect this might come from Africa but might arise from the Middle East. Or from Asia. South America is unlikely but not impossible.

Anonymous said...

Christine is the beast of the blog, who tramples and crushes other posters.

Anonymous said...

Thanks Christine for your commentary on end time players. Maybe even South America!!?? Does that include the Falkland Islands also? You bring so much clarity to an already difficult enough study. I'll file it under the heading "stuff".

Thanks so much.....carry on!

Anonymous said...

I'm someone who as been warning about the New Age movement for over 30 years. This was a good place, but not the only one, to let others know how things are changing. Deliberately I've not posted for two month. This comment starts another two months. As weeds take over an untended garden, so weeds take over an untended blog.

Anonymous said...

You will answer Christine for how you lean on your own understanding of scripture instead of on the trustworthiness of scripture alone. You have no chapter and verse to back you up on that long and even dumb post at 10:41. It is a beast of an answer-getting nowhere near the truth. A disgrace that you would have us think you an expert in this field too by your sheer volume to overwhelm this blog and it is only more the big nothing you are known for. Get a clue and for goodness sake get a life.

Susanna said...


Thank you for the information.

Since I tend to stay focused on theological controversies and heresies pertaining to Roman Catholicims, I am not up to speed on theological controversies and heresies among non-Catholic Christians.

What I do know is that this meeting of the Pope with Kenneth Copeland, Joel Osteen and the Arnotts took place through the auspices of Tony Palmer who is a personal friend of Pope Francis and knew Pope Francis when he was Bishop of Buenos Aires in Argentina.

Here is the article from Catholic News Service:

POPE-UNITY Feb-20-2014 (590 words) xxxi

In unusual video, pope speaks of his longing for Christian unity

By Cindy Wooden
Catholic News Service

The late Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen once said that being a good Christian involved being both tolerant and intolerant.....tolerant of people, but intolerant when it came to the truth.

The late Pope John Paul II was a very practical, man as well as a very spiritual one. He pointed out on more than one occasion that kicking people in the shins was not the way to win friends and influence people - or win them to Christ.

I don't know much about Tony Palmer, but from what I have read, the "convergence movement" he is involved with is to be distinguished from

"Convergence Christianity" popularized in more recent years by progressive Christian leaders such as Eric Elnes and Brian McLaren, which envisions a new configuration of "post-evangelical" and "post-liberal" Christians.

By the way, I never was involved in the Charismatic Movement either so I am not tuned in to all the niceties of their mode of worship.

Thanks again.

Anonymous said...

It doesn't matter who set the meeting up, or who was a friend of who. The main thing is the meeting between the pope and these charlatans took place, bottom line.

In a perfect world, this meeting appears great, and yes, we can say the pope is doing a good thing, trying to show them the true way which is what we are supposed to do. But, these people have been given every chance to change instead of making money from the Lord's name by teaching false doctrine. These people are every bit as bad as Benny Hinn or many of the ones Constance rails against.

Remember, the Word also states that "you shall know them by their fruits" and that you should not associate with these people.

Anonymous said...

Who among Christians - and I include Catholics and protestants - does NOT long for Christian unity? But does unity mean the unification of denominations ie of hierarchies (regardless of 'winners' and 'losers'); or does it mean the renunciation of hierarchy above congregations, so as to restore the NT system?

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

"You will answer Christine for how you lean on your own understanding of scripture instead of on the trustworthiness of scripture alone. You have no chapter and verse to back you up on that long and even dumb post at 10:41"

apparently you don't know Scripture or how to locate it.


The post deals with that chapter and none other, then refers to the beast in Revelation, which you should be able to locate real quick.

You want chapter and verse so you can read ONLY the verse cited?

you are on track to be deceived easy, if you aren't primed to read several verses before and after each verse cited to make sure context means the meaning ascribed is valid.

you can read the ENTIRE CHAPTER DANIEL SEVEN at your leisure. I suggest you do so.

chapter and verse is only to help you quick locate, not to limit you.

If you can't be bothered to read the entire book of Daniel in one or two days, at least use google with part of a sentence and you can find what you want.

I had to trim that post to get accepted because of the slightly over 4,000 character incl. spaces and punctuation marks limit these boxes to write in allow. If I quoted the entire verses I'd be strewing the blogs with several posts at once, and you'd be bitching about that.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

3:41, is the only thing that matters to you mere organization style?

FAR MORE SERIOUS ISSUES DIVIDE US, and restoring something that can only function in small populations in small towns (the ancient great cities were the size of our suburbs or less) will not change that.

It will simply reduce things to the level of the no accountability non denominationals whose rulers teach heresy and blasphemy and channel demons and practice energy projecting manipulation at will without any authority above them to shut them up and kick them out. (and exorcize the congregation.)

IS that what you want? The whole hew and cry against denominations seems to have started largely with the ideological ancestors of the modern word of faith and new apostolic reformation crew.

Do doctrinal issues, history facts vs. fantasy, translation issues, canon of Scripture issues, morality issues, interpretation issues and serious issues like the filoque, christology and pneumatology and Eucharist vs. symbolic communion mean less to you than mere organization?

you do have the cart before the horse.

Anonymous said...

Christine, this is 3.41pm. I consider that at 4.45pm you are responding without having genuinely thought through what a church system without any hierarchy above congregations would be like. Fallings-out would be limited to the local level rather than leading to schism into denominations - which is a scandal all too visible to the world who sees multiple church buildings along every main street and understands exactly how much we love each other. No wonder we (all!) find evangelisation difficult. OK there are some genuine doctrinal differences between denominations but in the NT system they would be discussed in congregation, whereas today they are never get discussed - people go to the denomination they think is right (often for social rather than theological reasons, moreover) and perpetuate the schism. I believe that schisms represent mainly failure of love rather than purity of doctrine, and theological differences were mainly used as excuses to cast others out. Horrible. As for hierarchy above congregations providing oversight, the track record of such hierarchy is consistently to cover up for abuses lower down. There is an obvious example at present in one denomination, but the tendency is general. In ANY church system the buck has to be passed from earth to heaven at some point - that is inescapable whether you have presbyterianism, episcopalianism, a Papal system or anything else.

Look at the Chinese house church movement. Western missionaries imported schism. Mao kicked them out. An indigenous movement grew based around the NT and the NT church system, which is the only system that flourishes under persecution. It comprises only a few percent of the population of China, but that is a few percent of 1.5 billion people making it something like the largest movement of the Holy Spirit in human history. These brothers and sisters call themselves just Christians and regard Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox simply as terms in European church history. Way to go!

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

And you could say the same thing to Constances' guest the end times studies preacher, since he doesn't rely on Scripture alone, but looks to current events and overview of history to see if there are any similarities.

well, we will see. If the USA and EU and NATO are given a crushing blow, military, natural disaster or combined, and great repentance follows (not only of our tolerating gays but of our empire and greed and ambition and allowing the parasite nazi and interest charging banksters to operate through and rule us),

and meanwhile Russia rules Europe Turkey and maybe Alaska, maybe takes over the pacific NW and China rules land and air and space you will be on the lookout for the fourth beast.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

5:23 schisms rarely come from "falling out" they come over doctrinal disputes and sometimes clashing ambitions, and the NT system would in no wise prevent this because.....

without an authority level above the congregation consisting of a meeting of bishops and priests to hash things out and impose discipline, you will have one congregation decide one thing and another decide another,

and the sheep will not be protected from wolves who teach heresy.

And exactly the same multi church and hostilities thing will develop.

The house church movement in China is under the gun and not about to experiment. Give them time, peace and freedom and you will see all the stuff develop you complain of.

Hierarchies do not create schisms, they actually restrain them to some extent.

Anonymous said...

"without an authority level above the congregation consisting of a meeting of bishops and priests to hash things out and impose discipline, you will have one congregation decide one thing and another decide another"

Perhaps, but if so then it is less bad that individual congregations differ than that entire denominations (defined by hierarchy) differ, which is what happens today.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

the entire denominations differ, not because they have hierarchy, but rather the hierarchy enforces the belief system,


the hierarchy didn't create the belief system.

If there is no identifiable church with one same universal (aka "catholic") from city to city, country to country, doctrine, then you will have no way of knowing what you are fellowshipping with.

At least this way there are labels, but the most non denominational format is precisely the most heretical, the hyper charismatic and NAR crew. They always scream about denominations being a scandal what they really mean is that they can't have their own way in more controlled environments unless they manage to infiltrate infest and take over church by church in a denomination.

Anonymous said...

"the entire denominations differ, not because they have hierarchy, but rather the hierarchy enforces the belief system"

And then there is no chance of reconciliation, is there?

Yes of course there is an identifiable church in a system comprising a congregation in each place with no hierarchy above that. If you move to a new place you get to know the local believers. We all have the Bible in common, and although Satan can create (and has created) divisions around that, you can in such a system argue your position within the body from the scriptures - much better than schism into denominations that coalesce around and never discuss those differences.

Susanna said...


I am so sorry to hear about your horrific experience!!!

It sounds like he was probably narcissistic enough to imagine that your contacting him about sharing a rent was the equivalent of your wanting to "share" a lot more.

I am not a lawyer, but I would say that as long as you don't rise to the bait and reply to his sick, puerile little note in writing, there is not much he can do. He played the game....and lost. If he had decided to stay, you might have had a very hard time evicting him - especially if he is an alcoholic.

My own question is why did he feel compelled to tell you - "ex post facto" and in writing - that he had barricaded his door?

It sounds to me like you had more reason to barricade your door than he did his.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

those differences get discussed all the time, to denounce opposition, books published hashing it over, debates, etc.

no one is interested in finding out if they are wrong, only to refute the other. Both rely on verses that support them and ignore or twist ones that don't.

In the first few centuries possibly within the lives of the Apostles, the practice of sending people with letters of identification with them when going from one church to another developed, I think there is such a reference in The NT, because with strangers you could have infiltrators either from persecutors or heretics.

Ongoing communications between congregations and their leaders and recurring meetings between leaders or the representatives at which matters were hashed out discipline decisions appealed above the congregation leader to his equals to see if they would agree and uphold or disagree are an obvious necessity.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

a thing you are missing in all this, is that ALL the congregations are local branches of ONE GREAT CONGREGATION, there is no hierarchy outside it.

Anonymous said...

Christine Daniel ch 7 does not back all of the speculative nonsense you posted. But prove to me how you can see Daniel ch 7 fits all the criteria of your ideas that includes other verses to dovetail the how and the who, etc that you delve into---not your speculations.

We answer for how we treat or mistreat scripture and overall the facts of history and you play fast and loose with it often on this blog. Because of you, I caution others about visiting this site, because your posts are often atrocious in the comment section.

paul said...

When we talked on the phone the next day, I'm pretty sure he actually had no recollection of what happened
and he was fishing for information. He only had a lingering anxiety. I think it was all a blackout for him.
He actually apologized later when he came to move his stuff out. It was almost a week later and he said
that he hadn't had a drink since then. That part I believe.
Still I can only imagine what he's told all the people we know in common.

Anyway, I thought that the incident was relevant
to the current topic that Constance brought up,
I'm still under the impression that this is her blog, not Christine's.

Susanna, have you checked out any of Walid Shoebats essays on or speeches on You Tube?
In my mind he has really demolished all this
hysterical posse mentality about the Roman Catholic Church, which has always preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
How in the world can all these seemingly intelligent people completely overlook what Islam is? Islam is Antichrist. Who can deny it?
I was raised Catholic and I'm glad I was. Oh I
became a Protestant when I was seventeen, but it wasn't to dump the Catholic faith, only to embrace
the faith in Jesus on my own as a grownup. It was the Roman Catholic Church that taught me all the basics of the Bible. There was summer catechism
classes with Franciscan brothers who showed me compassion and Christian love.
By the way, who is the Pope supposed to meet with
if he wants to bring reconciliation to the major
branches of Christianity? Those clowns like Copeland and Hinn APPEAR to be the representatives of Protestantism! Personally I wish he'd meet with my beloved pastor, whose name
I'll leave out of this. He's a real Christian man and
the furthest thing from a con artist. But Protestantism is indeed decentralized so how can the Pope meet with the real ones when they are all
virtually anonymous on the world scale?
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
People who come to Christ later in life should learn some humility before they start preaching.

Anonymous said...

There is a huge point not to miss about the longing for unity in Christ. There is a tremendous difference between unity and uniformity. True unity in Christ is coming when HE makes the peace. The false peace of the book of revelation is man made and is a uniformity (deep compromises). Just as there is a huge difference between actual peace-making and mere peace-keeping, we can see that the global push for religious and political peace is fulfilling prophecy--that is, if we are reading with the light of the Holy Spirit of the Lord to give us that discernment and wisdom and stick to only what Scripture reveals of the the bits and pieces but progressive nonetheless. Many are not relying on the Bible but their favorite church/denomination teaching and take on it instead-relying on their church's history and doctrine to interpret for them. (or make it up as they go as per Christine. A grave error--especially for the very lateness of the hour.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

anon 8:08 all the explanation you ask for is in the post you disdain. I do not deal fast and loose with Scripture or history it is the people you are used to idolizing who do so, I used to idolize them also and learned better.

Daniel 7

"3 And four great beasts came up from the sea, diverse one from another.

4 The first was like a lion, and had eagle's wings: "

lion a historic emblem of Great Britain, eagle's wings bespeak an eagle, symbol of USA these two are culturally historically and somewhat politically linked. NATO is the American puppet the UN used to be. EU is tied up with NATO.

"4 I beheld till the wings thereof were plucked, and it was lifted up from the earth, and made stand upon the feet as a man, and a man's heart was given to it."

The military engine of this setup is the US, and depends on air superiority as well as the ravening power of a lion on land. The air power of this US EU NATO combination and probably land power will be struck down. the lion raised upon its feet like a man loses power as beast but gains quality as man. "and a man's heart was given to it." heart in The Bible is not emotion so much as deep parts of the mind, emotion is related to liver or bowels.
I won't defend that statement either, research it yourself. recall the phrase "bowels of mercies" and google more info.

So repentance will come.

"5 And behold another beast, a second, like to a bear, and it raised up itself on one side, and it had three ribs in the mouth of it between the teeth of it: and they said thus unto it, Arise, devour much flesh."

Again, rule number one in understanding prophecy, which is in your face obvious if you are not blinded by amerocentric or eurocentric delusions and false teachers prophecy experts and founders of seminaries etc. is this.

Prophecy centers on Israel in particular and the Middle East in general. Britain and the USA have been major players in the Middle East. This vision smoothly merges to The Second Coming, so the implications of the animals should be seen in light of modern views of them if we are in the latter days.

The bear is for centuries related to Russia Notice the encouragement to expand empire comes from the ribs in its mouth, which one would absent their words, think of as victims not encouragers.

"6 After this I beheld, and lo another, like a leopard, which had upon the back of it four wings of a fowl; the beast had also four heads; and dominion was given to it."

The parallels to China I explained already. India is a possible alternative, but less likely.

"7 After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns.

8 I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things."

The parallel to Revelation chapter 13 should be obvious.

9 I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire.

10 A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

" (or make it up as they go as per Christine."

I have been studying The Bible and church and other history for over 37 years. almost all you are used to give only part of the picture and zealously discourage anyone from listening to those segments of Christendom with the rest of the picture.

Anonymous said...

Chapter(s) and verse(s). Come on, be specific, Christine.

Anonymous said...

The world scale? Do true believes want to be recognized on the world scale? How can the pope bring reconsilation to the major branches of christianity when popery is not christian? I posted words from pope Francis recent sermon from Rome on the last thread. I asked Constance if what was spoken by Francis represented biblical salvation, or represented christianity? I'm supposing by Constance's and also Susanna's silence that those words from the popes mouth were simply to far from biblical christianity to be defensible.

Anonymous said...

those segments of Christendom with the rest of the picture.

Which you clearly do not have.

Nice try 'paul harvey' who alone can tell "the rest of the story".

Your ego is massive.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

you try telling the rest of the story since you imply you know so much.

Anonymous said...

I knew you would say that.
Won't do that because all you would do is hijack the topic and ruin the conversation. I go to other forums where things are talked about with chapter and verse in the attempt to understand the scope of what is before us in these end days. But not possible here--because of you.
Just thought I'd see if you could actually quote chapter and verse for the 'stuff' you believe.

You cannot. I knew it. (or you already would have and we would be having a good discussion already).

paul said...

Your use of the word massive is juvenile.
( I tried to weigh my ego and it didn't weigh anything.)
And ego is a psychology term, based on
Greek mythology, recycled through the atheist
Sigmund Freud.
So where are you coming from, since the fruit of the Spirit of God is such things as love, joy and peace and judging ones brother is ...well you know what Jesus said about that, because you're a Bible scholar.

Anonymous said...

Oh pardon me. The pride she displays to tell us 'the rest of the picture' is massive. I'll go with that instead.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

"Just thought I'd see if you could actually quote chapter and verse for the 'stuff' you believe.

You cannot. I knew it. (or you already would have and we would be having a good discussion already)."

I gave chapter and verse and posted the Bible verses not just cites but the WORDS from KJV no less and you filthy liar dare to say this?

shame on you.

I showed the parallel then between those statements of Daniel and major nations now.


and those ignorant pompous praters of nonsense who made millions and taught preachers who taught you and dominated the airways, such as the disgusted Jack van Impe and his revolting wife and Hal Lindsay


so much for them.

Anonymous said...

You have my pity.

Anonymous said...

Paul should really return to Carholicism.

There was a time on this blog that Paul was considered a massive bully, inconsiderate, rude, insulting and egotistical.

Nothing has changed, he's still the same. He has just learned to kiss the right butts.

Anonymous said...


How is that you had an "old friend" and actually ask him to share a residence with you, and didnt know he was gay?

Not very perceptive or DISCERNING are you?!?!?!?!?!

Ahhhh- that explains many of your posts.

Anonymous said...

Christine, of course there are two meanings of the Greek word ekklesia in the New Testament, referring to (1) the geographically dispersed organisation of all believers in Jesus Christ on earth, or (2) a particular congregation of believers in a particular place. Which meaning is meant depends on context, and it is always clear. (The word ekklesia is used often to denote a gathering in the ancient Septuagint translation of the Old Testament, when God calls the people of Israel together.) This has nothing to do with the point I am making about hierarchies above congregations. Nor has the fact that when a Christian moved from one location to another, the leaders of his new congregation sensibly sought information about him from the leaders of his old.

Look at Rev 2&3. Jesus takes personal responsibility for the oversight of seven congregations that, due to their geography, would obviously be under a single overseer in the hierarchical system you advocate. He sent seven letters to seven churches, not one letter to a human overseer of those seven. He said that he would close unfaithful congregations himself. This structure is described rather than explicitly commanded in the NT, but precedent set by scripture should be taken very seriously, and the question asked: By what authority was that structure changed?

Paul, you wrote (on the subject of hierarchy), "who is the Pope supposed
to meet with if he wants to bring
reconciliation to the major branches
of Christianity?... Protestantism is indeed decentralized so how can the Pope meet with the real ones when they are all virtually anonymous on the world scale?" In answer, NT Christianity is a grassroots movement that proceeds bottom-up, whereas hierarchs typically think top-down. "Decentralized" is an ambiguous word - do you mean multiple hierarchies, or the no-hierarchy-above-congregations model that I am advocating? If the top man in any church hierarchy, whether the Pope (RC), the Moscow Metropolitan (Russian Orthodox), the Archbishop of Canterbury (CofE) or any other, wants to bring reconciliation among Christians, let him dissolve his hierarchy and urge the leaders of other hierarchies to do the same.

Yours scripturally...

Anonymous said...

Meanwhile, news items from the world that are of some relevance to the blog post and to the wider subject of this blog:

1. Elton John says that Jesus would have backed gay marriage:

In fairness he's secular, so he's just badly informed, rather than a hypocrite like some liberal Christians who say the same thing.

2. The ISIS Sunni rebels in the Middle East proclaim a Caliphate:

In one town, ISIS insisted that unmarried women join their jihad by offering sex to their fighters:

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

" This structure is described rather than explicitly commanded in the NT, |


"but precedent set by scripture should be taken very seriously, and the question asked: By what authority was that structure changed?"

gradual morph and if you have house churches in the same city as the main church itself, yet all under one main elder as indicated in at least one Pauling letter addressing various people and the church in the city and the church in someone's house in the same city, then you have the embryonic form of more than one congregation under shared leadership,

and if the binding and loosing power applies as protestants think to all Christians as a group "where two or three....."

then that would be the authority.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

"1. Elton John says that Jesus would have backed gay marriage:"

next time you hear that Jesus said nothing about homosexual acts, remind the speaker that Jesus addressed Jews when He said "repent of your sins," and Jews already knew that homosexual acts are abomination (more serious than most sins), and knew that needed to be quit of if they were doing that.

Paul on the other hand addressing pagans with corrupt pop culture (even when the laws or official respectable notions were against some of this) had to detail all kinds of sins including homosexual activity as sin.

So, since Jesus said quit sinning to people who knew homosexual acts are major sin, and DID NOT explicitly exclude homosexuality from the category of sin, it follows He in effect DID denounce homosexuality.

Tell someone "do not eat rotten fruit" when they have rotten apples and oranges and peaches, and do not specify "except the rotten peaches" is the same as saying, "don't eat the rotten peaches as well as don't eat the rotten apples and oranges."

Anonymous said...

"rotten peaches"

Hey Peaches, way to hog the blog!

We know you by your "fruit".

Anonymous said...

"gradual morph and if you have house churches in the same city as the main church itself, yet all under one main elder as indicated in at least one Pauling letter addressing various people and the church in the city and the church in someone's house in the same city, then you have the embryonic form of more than one congregation under shared leadership"

No, that's another of your slides, they are all in the same city and under the same elders, it's no different from the fact that the congregation I am in has several homegroups.

"and if the binding and loosing power applies as protestants think to all Christians as a group "where two or three....." then that would be the authority."

WHICH protestants, please? I do not know any who think that that verse grants carte blanche.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

it is a basis for defining a church or valid grouping of Christian believers is it not? This has certainly been brought up at times in some books I read years ago.

No that isn't one of my slides.

Read church history and I don't mean from the Reformation or Medieval times on. Get at the earliest known writings, and the Ecumenical Councils (whose dogmatic definitions are subscribed to by all protestants, though they don't usually credit the councils with this, they don't have to, you can re invent the wheel on this out of Scripture) and you will see a gradual evolution.

There are church historians like Eusebius and Sozomen and others who can shed some light.

In the NT however you do see ONE BISHOP over the congregations in a city, such as Timothy and Titus appointed by Paul to be such. Not a council of elders, those would be under the bishop.

And once any one meeting place couldn't handle the growing convert population and kids born into the faith, you are going to have another congregation and meeting place and elders in the same city, but under the same bishop.

The trouble with your approach is twofold

firstly, you make ecclesiology the primary thing when it is merely to support the faith. Since it is to support the faith, the church being the pillar and ground of the faith, i.e., its housing, and everything about the church being to support and promulgate and defend the faith, there is no reason it can't or shouldn't adapt to changing situaitons if that helps its purpose.

In doing this you echo the Roman Catholic thinking that church is defined by organization not faith. In their case, it is top heavy and hierarchy above hierarchy organization, in your case it is no hierarchy except a parish council, but it adds up to the same thing, definition by organization.

Christian unity as shown in Orthodoxy is a unity of shared faith and recognition of each other's bishops and priests, not a visible unity.

RC complains the same about Orthodoxy it does about protestantism, that there is no one overarching hierarchy and ruler that can be dealt with to strike a deal the rest have to agree to.

The Orthodox hierarchy dead ends in Christ Himself, and at the visible top consists of Patriarchs or Metropolitans, who are bishops over bishops but equal a council of elders if you will who normally don't meet much. The Roman model on the other hand is the result of the churches under Rome absorbing secular west Roman Empire ways of thinking and doing things.

Secondly, you think church history ended with Revelation. It didn't. If you study the pre Nicene and Nicene Fathers, you will see some surprising things.

To create unity by merely eliminating extensive hierarchy, does not eradicate the more serious issues of false doctrine, such as the filioque and a laundry list of other things, and the false notion of double predestination and once saved always saved, the latter being explicitly contradicted by Jesus' warnings about The Last Judgement regarding believers. these are notions in protestantism, along with a shorter list more negotiable.

And in eliminating denominations you would break the last barrier to exclusion of heresies even more extreme that are evident in the word of faith and NAR movements and of course even without them, gnostic heretical notions masquerading as Christian.

So if you are not a wolf, you are one who helps clothe such in wool.

Anonymous said...

Christine, you always presume that you have read more, but I am familiar with early church history, with the apostolic era, the era of wider persecution, the change under Constantine, the Councils, the schism of 1054 and what led up to it (the filioque was simply the last straw on both sides), Luther. If you make assumptions then you are liable to be held up publicly as wrong. I do not "make ecclesiology the primary thing when it is merely to support the faith". I agree with that. I disagree with you about what church structure does that most effectively. I have stated the merits of the decentralised structure above.

Where there is one man over a congregation in the NT is it its founding apostolos or a man appointed by him while the congregation is still teething. After he had passed on, the congregation in that place is described as being run by a council of male overseers or elders - same set of guys. I've given the references before here and I do not plan to repeat myself again unless asked.

I wondered if you'd get around to advocating Orthodoxy. As I've also said here before, it asserts that the unordained are NOT PRIESTS because its ceremony of ordination says that the candidate is ordained AS A PRIEST. The unambiguous implication is that Orthodoxy regarded him as NOT A PRIEST before the ceremony. You can't get out of that by talking about ordained and unordained categories of priesthood. And to regard a believer as not a priest is contrary to Rev 1:6 and 1 Peter 2:9. Your church system contradicts scripture, and the outworkings of that contradiction, in the notion of an officer class among God's people, is grievous.

Anonymous said...

"Your church system contradicts scripture, and the outworkings of that contradiction, in the notion of an officer class among God's people, is grievous."


and a great big...................touche!

Anonymous said...



Once again, a testament to your DISCERNMENT.

Anonymous said...

Teens found dead

Latest post

Anonymous said...

Dear 4.07pm, I'm a regular Anon here and have a longstanding interest in Walid Shoebat but have never commented here about him. Can you point me to some critical material about him, please?

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

" You can't get out of that by talking about ordained and unordained categories of priesthood. And to regard a believer as not a priest is contrary to Rev 1:6 and 1 Peter 2:9."

Exodus 19:6
"And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation."

The NT cites you give are quoting Exodus 19:6

And we all know that "priesthood" in its absolute form was limited to a particular family in a particular tribe, though the term went beyond the Aaronic lineage to some extent.


The NT presbyters were ordained by laying on of hands, note St. Paul speaking to Timothy or Titus about not quickly laying hands on anyone,
before that, they would be NOT an elder.

and you mention "changes under Constantine," just what changes do you consider happened?

What were your church history text books? the usual garbage (WHICH I USED TO BELIEVE) from baptist and suchlike sources and Alexander Hislop?


Hislop just to start with makes Nimrod contemporaneous with Semiramis, when they were in different millennia. And while he couldn't bring himself to go anti trinitarian, at least not publicly, The Two Babylons devotes a lot of space to triads of false gods, so that anyone depending on him alone would be easily persuaded to be anti trinitarian.

or did you read original source material from nearer the times?

Everything you've heard about radical changes in the Church whether of doctrine or practice due to Cosntantine is a total lie, and given the list of abominable heretics that landmark baptists claim as true church continuity simply because persecuted by Rome, I suspect the story had its origins among the bogomil aka paulician sect which would have been comfortable in the New Age infected versions of Christianity.

Yes, before ordination a priest full status as such, and normally the only one called that, is NOT a priest.

and before ordination in the NT a presbyter is NOT a presbyter.

All bees are bees, all the workers are female and lay drone eggs if they lay occasional unfertilized eggs.

The queen is a bee who was fed royal jelly as a larva or in the first few days in emergency after pupating, her unfertilized eggs are drones, her fertilized eggs are workers.

But all the bees are bees. The workers support each other and the queen which keeps the hive going, the queen produces more workers, and likely provides some direction via pheromones. All together support each other.

Meanwhile, notice what happened to Korah and Dathan who took your line of thought to the point of rejecting any rule incl. Moses' over them.

tell me, are you one of those who thinks The Nicene Council created major changes? I used to believe that, I was wrong.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

"The three Israeli teens who were kidnapped several days ago have been found dead. Our condolences to the families of the Israeli teens. There are reports that Israel will decide to launch a major military operation against Hamas. Hamas is now in Gaza and the West Bank, so we must look at those two areas, especially Gaza.

Hamas is warning the gates of hell will open up. The new Islamic State of ISIS may get involved in the near future. There is possible talk of a new Middle East war involving Israel.

Russian military equipment is arriving in Baghdad, and we know Iranian soldiers are in Syria. "

Heh, heh, this is the usual stuff drawn on to figure the Gog Magog war is around the corner.

But note: At present, Israel is supporting ISIS etc. against Assad, but since this event, if they go ahead and I hope they do and attack Hamas, the whole scene will shift.

Thank God for Putin. American money and arms are back of ISIS/ISIL so naturally Obama dragged his heels in fulfilling a contract for jets to Assad, while Putin delivered jets and attack helos a few days ago and they were being put to work yesterday.

Thank God for Russia.

Iranian forces are against ISIS/ISIL because Iran supports Assad, and because Iran is shia and the rebels are sunni.

yes please give us proof Shoebat is phony incl. especially any evidence of misappropriation of funds given to the operation.

I want to contribute but don't want to waste money so I need to do research on this.

While Shoebat's take on the identity of the antichrist might be wrong, that doesn't make him disreputable.

Anonymous said...

Anon 5:12

There is loads of information on Shoebat just by googling. Obviously there are many pro-Shoebat as well as many anti-Shoebat sources.

It is really up to the researcher to decide on which side they land.

I was very interested in Shoebat when he became known a few years back and although many would disagree with me, I feel that there TOO MANY wholes in many of his stories, and have gut feeling that he is not credible and pretty much a phony. There are many who would agree (maybe not on this blog) with me on this.

It's really up to you to decide, but you really have to delve into his background.

Anonymous said...

Dear 6.00pm, that is most unhelpful. I am well aware that it is up to me to decide, but I want to make an informed decision and you said that Shoebat had been "exposed numerous times by... credible sources". I had assumed, possibly out of ignorance, that he was trustworthy. You claim to have info to the contrary yet you won't tell me share it with me or tell me where to find it. I regret that.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

well, I see one point shows he's a liar,

the revelation that he was never in jail or prison in Israel, was answered on the grounds that he was in under a false name AND used his US passport not his Israeli ID.

but the alleged bombing he was allegedly jailed for, occured decades before he became an American citizen.

However, you don't need Shoebat for plenty of dirt on Islam and terrorism and the easy interface between moderate Islam and terrorism.

the wikipedia article of course mentions his allegations about Nazi connections to islamic terrorism, without saying it is specifically an error, but this fact is well documented, which is why he would have claimed a family friendship with the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem as distinct from any other terrorism big wig.

While Shoebat's explanation of family denial being because they are terrorists or terrorist supporters also, and mad about his conversion to Christianity is credible,

this wild contradiction in his own accounts is too much.

Probably he brought a certain Arab self exalting and con man tendency mindset to his conversion and financial interests. I am sure his instructions to police are spot on, but not because of his background.

It is easy enough to document terrorist mindset without ever knowing one. The information is out there, and if he is an avid reader he could concoct anything.

That means his overall info is good, but he himself not to be contributed to.

Anonymous said...


The other things you raise, we can discuss later. Meanwhile, the Eastern Orthodox ceremony of ordination says that the candidate is ordained "as a priest". Does Orthodoxy regard him "as a priest" - of any category whatsoever - before the ceremony? I have taken your thoughts about various categories of priest into account in that question. It is a Yes/No question and, whatever else you say in response, please include a clear Yes or No. Then we can take this forward.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

anon 6:28 as I said before,

no it doesn't, and the presbyter in NT is NOT A PRESBYTER before ordination by laying on of hands either, and presbyter is the word that morphed into priest.

It was an ORthodox priest who in answer to a question someone made about the priesthood of all believers, in a catechetical class,
or adult education as they called it,

who said that indeed they believe in that, the laity are a lesser priesthood that offer the sacrifices of praise and prayer. gives a good overview with NT cites to read.

Clearly, these elders were over the congregation, and were replaced by those trained and appointed by elders. The category elder incl. subcategories presbyter diakonos and episkopos and the poimen were pastors who were teachers and so forth under the elders or counted among them.

again, you do not deal with the Exodus citation which is the basis of Peter's remarks.

In case you didn't know it, there are at least 143 quotes from the OT in the NT and many of these are LXX not Masoretic, thought LXX agrees with Masoretic enough places that the Apostolic quotes are probably all LXX and the supposed Masoretic are just LXX that agrees with Masoretic.

A priestly role is burning lamps and incense offering, and the laity are free to burn lamps, candles and incense to God at home, so clearly even if most laity and priests may not be savvy to this, the laity ARE functioning as priests in this regard.

Anonymous said...

Anon 6:19

I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to avoid giving you any specific info or links as I am not able at this time to access actual info and links that I would like to supply you with and don't want to give you disreputable info that trashes him for the sake of an agenda. I will get back to you as soon as I can.

While I'm not exactly sure where Christina falls on this, her 6:22 post highlights a few of the reasons I find him to be a fraud after researching his background.

Anonymous said...


I asked: "the Eastern Orthodox ceremony of ordination says that the candidate is ordained "as a priest". Does Orthodoxy regard him "as a priest" - of any category whatsoever - before the ceremony? I have taken your thoughts about various categories of priest into account in that question. It is a Yes/No question and, whatever else you say in response, please include a clear Yes or No."

You replied: "no it doesn't..."

Thank you for your clarity. In that case Orthodoxy contradicts the NT wherein it is implied that all believers are priests (ie of some category at least): Rev 1:6, 1 Peter 2:9.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

anon 6:53,

where I stand is, don't waste money on him, but the information he provides is documented elsewhere so he is not providing any false information to police in his anti muslim and terrorism seminars. While he validates this from his own alleged experience, the information itself is supported by other sources.

The operation is I think run by his son Theodore seems to have a mixed view of them negatives being more their smallness and liklihood to make mistakes.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for staying on point with Scripture and on point with your comments 7:03.

Christine really never brings closure (too busy arguing or smacking down other bloggers) let this place breathe and rightly address topics and seldom brings clarity either. Maybe a case of you are what you type just like you are what you think?

paul said...

By their fruits you will know them.
The fruits of Walid Shoebat are his words, really.
He is a speaker and a commentator but he is also
a fundraiser. He is not in any clergy.
He raises funds to rescue Christians who are being persecuted. This is actual persecution. Not the persecution of, say, gay people today which is not, and has not been, real persecution except in a few isolated instances of idiotic violent behavior on the part of people some people who belong in a cell.
No, this is real persecution and the videos of Christians being murdered and beheaded is not being concocted by Walid Shoebat, only reported.
But congratulations Christine, there's one more
thing that you've talked yourself out of contributing to, since you really don't want to contribute anyway and probably don't have any money to anyway..
If Walid Shoebat is simply stealing all the goodwill monies that he collects, that's one thing, and my anonymous HATER is correct: I have poor discernment. My Anonymous hater shouts out that I have no DISCERNMENT, like she's an expert on discernment and she possesses that GIFT from
God in spades, which I'm pretty sure she doesn't.
She shouts it out over the rooftops like a glorious victory cry...from a safe hiding place in the weeds.
Walid Shoebat is a bonafide SAINT, I think of the highest order, and you ignore him because you don't want to look at what's going on, nothing more, nothing less.
I'm glad Christine has passed judgement on him and that she doesn't need to contribute because maybe he's a fraud, even though she admits that he MIGHT be legit...Wow.
Did you ever consider that your very convenient "discernment" is just another name for your avarice and ignorance ?
You're the fraud, Anonymous.
Walid Shoebat is exposing what's really going on
with the Merzlim Brthrhd. They are murderous, bloodthirsty demon-possessed lovers of their own
wickedness with absolutely no connection to the one true God. Islam=Antichrist.
Thanks for the heads up that he's been "exposed by numerous sources" followed up by ZERO documentation of such a slanderous accusation.

But I feel good today.
The hissing snake in the weeds hates me, and hates Walid Shoebat too.
I'm in great company. This man is risking his life
for the preaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

I've brought closure and Scripture but you don't like the directions they point in.


sure he or she stays on point with the Scriptures that he or she can use to support his or her position, BUT WILL NOT DEAL WITH THOSE THAT DON'T.

and maybe some of you are trolls of the gatekeeper sort.

let's see. What draws fire?

tools to hit the New Age where it lives, in some of its own core concepts using its own arguments against it.

possibility of major cataclysm and need to include preparedness in your plans.

aliens as earth originating genetically modified humans some or all of who made a deal with the devil at some point, in addition to the fact that some are plain demons themselves. (The usual argument is either physical or demonic, both ignore evidence so Occam's Razor says BOTH play a role.)

biblical legitimacy of Eastern Orthodoxy, however, this is understandable in terms of the propaganda most RC and protestants have absorbed over many centuries. So let's leave that angle out.

For now.

Daniel 7 pointing to a destruction of America and its European allies and the rise of global powers alien to our system and preferences.

In general this probably relates to dislike of America as Babylon. This subject is not brought up here much, though Constance has said she believes it.

There are unbiblical assumptions and out of context misuse of Scripture as "inspiring" literature of nationalism in USA history for much of its life.

NWO is fine to attack, as long as you don't point out that the NWO IS THE AMERICAN EMPIRE for the most part, though this is partly the work of elements that infest and control and will eventually aim to destroy us when we have outlived our usefulness in destroying their rivals.

What no one likes to consider is that such elements played a role in the creation of the USA in the first place, though THEY WERE SHARPLY RESTRAINED BY CHRISTIAN AND SECULAR INFLUENCES CONTRARY TO THEIR GOALS AND SOME OF THEIR METHODS.

Any support of govt. having a valid role in anything much.

This of course is due to liberatarianism rather than gate keeping trollism, but libertarianism in its pure form when looked at closely, is just another manifestation of illuminism, and makes historical and economic claims that are false.

Susanna said...

Anonymous 5:40

I have been trying to be polite as long as you have been raving on about me and my faith, but now that you have dumped on Paul, whom I regard as my brother in the Lord, I think the time for polite has expired.

You have a lot of rotten nerve telling Paul "Not very perceptive or DISCERNING are you?!?!?!?!?!."
implying that he may have known his friend was gay.......
as you hide like the lying weasel coward you are behind the weeds of anonymity.

In fact, you have a lot of nerve using the word "discern" period since in terms of the way you "discern" things, it is nothing more than a euphemism for "private interpretation" which is denounced in the Bible.

And even the term "private interpretation" to describe what you do is being kind since what you do looks more like a form of divination called "BIBLIOMANCY" - which involves using the
Bible to foretell the future.....

Yes, I know, you would use the word "discern".........

But given that and your other vicious, ignorant unbiblical comments on this blog, I am compelled to conclude that you probably wouldn't be able to "discern" a pile of cow manure if you were standing in a bag of it.

I cannot speak for Constance, but do you really want to know why I am silent?

Because I do not cast my pearls before swine.

Anonymous said...


I wouldn't talk. You still haven't mentioned how you could have an "old friend" that you invited to live with you that was gay.

Honestly, that is some of the worst discernment of a situation I've seen.

So, even if you were right about something or had something credible, I would definitely have to check it out seeing as how you can be fooled so easily. You seem to be an expert on recognizing sodomites and there sinful abomination, EXCEPT WHEN IT IS RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOUR FACE.

That's not being a hater, that's just good common sense when listening to anything you have to say in the future.

Anonymous said...


What a joke!! I was implying exactly the opposite which I thought was clear!

I REALLY believe he didn't know, which is why I say he is NOT a very discerning person for not knowing an "old friend" was gay.

Wow! You are just as much a joke and phony as well!!

Anonymous said...


As I've said to Paul before when he complained about anons posting under anon.

Susanna who? What's your last name? Where do you live? How old are you?

That's what I thought. Susanna is just as anon as any anon who posts here, other than your groupies or clique.

You surely jumped out to defend Paul, but I've never seen you do that for Christina. She is not always right, but does not deserve some of the horrible words sent her way, including from Paul.

You are a phony! Uh-oh, now I'll wait for all the regulars who will come out to defend you because you are such a saint. Lets not forget, if you weren't on a pro-catholic blog, some of your posts are just as LONG and BLATHERING as anything Christina has posted. And you would be told about it. BUT NOT HERE!!

Susanna said...

Paul, 8:09 P.M.

RE: Still I can only imagine what he's told all the people we know in common.

I would be willing to bet that he has said little or nothing about you to the people you know in common. What would he say? That he made a pass at you and you rejected him??? Not to be vulgar, but I don't doubt that most people would think you would have been justified if you HAD beat the living snot out of him. I know I would.

Your story is very relevant to tis thread. Here in the Peoples Republic of Massachusetts, we had gay marriage imposed on us by judicial fiat. And then the politicians - including some so-called Republicans - arranged things so that we were never allowed a referendum on the issue of gay marriage. It would have been bad enough if the gays were merely content to "marry" and then walk off into the sunset to live happily ever after. But just as soon as gay marriage was imposed on us, the gays started their indoctrination of children in some of our public schools - as young as kindergarten. A man named David Parker was one gentleman who challenged this when he discovered a book entitled KING AND KING in his six-year-old son's book bag. Mr Parker didn't try to tell the school what to teach either. He merely asked to be notified when such propaganda was going to be peddled in class so that he could opt his child out. The fact that Mr. Parker was not allowed to opt his son out is what defines the school's agenda as the indoctrination of children in my book.

Another incident that happened here in Western Massachusetts had to do with a baby that was abandoned in a church near where I live. In spite of the fact that this was the baby's legal domicile, and dispite the fact that there was a heterosexual couple who would have adopted the baby, the DCF ( Dept. of Children and Families ) removed the child from her legal domicile and shipped her to Northampton so she could be adopted by a lesbian couple there. The sermon given by the pastor of that church was broadcast on television. In the sermon, he said that under our laws this lesbian couple might have the so-called "right" to live their alternative lifestyle, but they did not have the right to use an innocent little baby in their attempt to "normalize" it.


In answer to your question, I know very little about Walid Shoebats. I will have to do my homework on him.

Whatever your reasons for leaving the Roman Catholic are between you and God. But at least you are not trashing it.

I am a cradle Catholic. At first it was my parents faith, but then, after studying it myself, it became my faith. My grandmother, who was also my godmother, gave me her Holy Trinity edition of the Catholic Bible which has an excellent commentary. I read it from cover to cover. Of course, you know as a former Catholic that the whole first part of the Mass called the "Liturgy of the Word" is devoted to Scripture reading and the singing of the Psalms. So anyone who thinks that Catholics do not read the Bible are very much mistaken.

As for the Pope, he meets with everyone with a view to spreading the message of the Gospel. He is not under any delusion that he agrees with everyone he meets or that he will personally bring about unity among Christians. He has said that whatever Christian unity comes about will be the Lord's doing, not his.

To work for Christian unity is to honor the prayer of Our Lord when he prayed to the Father "that they may all be one." John 17:21

There is an old saying repeated by my pastor just this past Sunday at church. "Pray as if all depends upon God, but act as if all depends upon you." This seems to be how the Pope thinks.

Anonymous said...

This is getting ridiculous around here.

Christine-the expert.
Susanna-the defender (but in some instances of what?)
Paul-the one who would rather err on the side of grace...but then sometimes not.
Anon-the one who needs to not shout his 'discernment'.
Another Anon-the one to make his point clear (and Christine still argues-pointless and pointlessly)
And me?...I'm a no one. Just wondering why I come here.
Someone made a statement years ago that I never have forgotten: people are people...but...God is GOD.
I think we all need prayer. All of us. Put Christine last on the list but for this reason only: when you start praying for what she really needs you'll start praying and might not even get to the rest of us.

paul said...

Since I brought it up;
Constance Cumby has something in common with Walid Shoebat: namely that she has put it all out there and signed her name to it, more than once.
I don't want to belabor the point because I want her to be safe and sound, but the things that she has exposed are_ have got to be, very irritating to certain people in high places.
Gee Constance why not do it all anonymously?
She, and Walid Shoebat have a lot more courage and, well, faith than I do. That's why I frequent both of their websites. Not to wrangle over the Filioque, which is probably just a semantics problem, or split any other hairs..
I admire them both.
Maybe they believe the scripture that says:
"The Lord has prepared a table for me in the presence of my enemies. "
And bless you Susanna; child of the living God.


Anon 9:32

You are correct. But it's not getting ridiculous, it's been ridiculous around here.

When Paul, who over the years has been more malicious and insulting to some on this blog, just as much or more so than any other poster, whether anon or named is defended as a brother in Christ.

And Susanna, the brainwashed catholic zombie who interprets the Word to letter as her church fathers have instructed her is considered so wholesome and saintly.

And Constance who can tell you everything you want to know about Helen this, and Barbara that, and Javier so and so, but remains silent on any current events that may actually be relevant.

I will take the advice of the anon on the last thread, and leave this blog. It couldn't possibly be anymore one sided. If you agree with the regulars, you are welcomed with open arms and declared a brother in Christ, and if you disagree, you a branded a basher, hater and weasel.

Anonymous said...


Why don't you show us the biblical gosphel in the words the pope spoke from Rome last week? Its over on the last thread.

You lambaste a different anonymous, but you come back all gushy over that great saint the pope. You praise your pope regularly but rarely mention Jesus? He is Truth, He is the Door!!!!! The pope is not the door! He is an old guy who allows followers to bend the knee and kiss his ring. That's is perverted! One of the other anonymous posters is spot on,,,,your a phony!

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

I thin it is unfair to criticize Constance on this issue, because she unlike probably most here, has a very busy life and career as a lawyer.

And she does deal with current issues like the gay agenda.

Javier Solana was a red herring she fed herself, thought NOT ENTIRELY WITHOUT MERIT, because like most prophecy and world developments watchers she had (perhaps still is) been brainwashed by the prophecy interpretation crew that dominated the publishing and broadcast scene for decades. I was too for some years.

This takes the tack that the 10 heads are a revived Roman empire, and thanks to the euro american focus of news and culture and history, and near total lack of education on the rest of the Roman empire in school, the only thing that this could be would be the EU or a similar successor.

Given the attention in comments on some current events of importance, I don't think she needs to focus on these that much, but it never hurts to remind us and teach new comers about the theosophical etc. connections of the NWO and globalism and UN and so forth.

there are many New Agers who are more anarchistic inclined and who dislike the NWO. and the sooner they realize that it is the political arm of the New Age, and the New Age is the religious arm of the NWO the better.

And stopping by here, they might learn that. Or might learn it from someone who reads this blog.

Anonymous said...

Well said 10:08 P.M.

That's the truth indeed!

Anonymous said...


Oh great. Another apostate joining the Pope in Rome. This is really getting scary.

Anonymous said...

Anon. 8:24 10:08 and 10:17

Why don't you all go and "discern" something?

Anonymous said...

I do not agree with or condone the gay lifestyle, as I see that Paul and Susanna do not as well.

Over the years, studies have put the percentages of gay catholic priests from 23%-58%. And we are not talking just the molesters, we are talking total population.

Are you going to tell me it's like less than 5%? Come on, really?

I believe this is fair game and a legitimate question, since Paul and Susanna made clear their disgust for homosexuals.

It just seems ironic to defend the church so vehemently when these numbers may be accurate. Even if its 23% and not 58%, it's still absolutely horrendous.

And Paul, why don't you just go back to Catholicism when all I've seen is you gushing over it.

And Susanna, how is that when an anon on the last thread stated that they were born and raised catholic but left the church, and did not "attack" the faith but more respectfully disagreed with doctrine, you said they must have not been a "good catholic?" But earlier you did not take that tone with Paul, you said you didn't know why he left but at least he didn't trash it? Was it because he agrees with you on many points? He left the church as well, so how can one who left be a bad catholic, and another not?

Anonymous said...

Anon 10:51

Another groupie! Hoorayyyy!!

Craig said...

Anon 10:28,

For the record, James Robison is hardly a 'new' apostate, as he's been associated with the whole hyper-charismatic, manifested sons of God (MSoG) scene for quite a while now, though he's been more covert of late (as most of these guys have been). He was associated directly with the late Earl Paulk, whose book Offspring: The Generation the World is Waiting For... is indicative of the MSoG teaching prevalent within this group.

I'm not even sure Robison qualifies as apostate by its strict definition, i.e., I'm not sure he ever actually 'fell from grace', as I can't be sure he was ever 'in grace' to begin with. That's not an indictment, just an observation; but, of course, I cannot know for sure. Perhaps he was at some point 'in the faith.'

One of my planned-to-do-but-never-finished projects was to write an article around various quotes of Earl Paulk in order to explain Latter Rain / MSoG doctrine, and I was going to reference Robison as well. I've got all the Paulk material, quotes highlighted (with Robison strongly endorsing at least one of Paulk's works), but I don't have the desire to put it together. Maybe some day...

Anonymous said...

"Javier Solana was a red herring she fed herself, thought NOT ENTIRELY WITHOUT MERIT, because like most prophecy and world developments watchers she had (perhaps still is) been brainwashed by the prophecy interpretation crew that dominated the publishing and broadcast scene for decades. I was too for some years."

She is not brain-washed.

Your hidden agenda is not so hidden, Christine. The very reason you demand so much space for your loud-mouthed opinions and crap for facts is because you are flat jealous that Constance has a webpage and blog (comment section that is worn out by your bad neighbor policy) that actually does take a good stab at the new age lies that are everywhere. You blog is a dump of a place.

Then you dump here. And dump and dump...

It is a very manipulative approach to piggy-back on her name and reputation like tick in need of a dog. You really have much to be ashamed of. Really.

And you go on defending your ways like you are the blog real defender and true fighter.

Would be funny if not so pitiful.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

11:05, I am not jealous that isn't my style anyway. I am very glad she has a blog and keeps the spotlight on the
background of the NWO.

Since SOME people have a tendency to accuse others of their own trip, your repetitive accusations (totally lacking discernment) make me suspect YOU are jealous, and that is why you attack good information good analysis incl. mine, and whine there is nothing good here anymore.

If you are who I think you are, you were whining some years back that there is no leader to fight the New Age, apparently Constance wasn't gung ho enough for you, or maybe didn't spotlight you enough.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

two things regarding homosexual RC priests, more of my crap for facts I suppose.

one was anecdotal, this guy on TV was saying that it was Catholicism's big secret, whenever anyone in an RC family had a son who was showing signs of homosexuality, they would shove him into the priesthood.

The other was more substantial. A man who had experience in seminary and had reports from others, said that there is (to use my words) a homintern in place. And a heretictern i would add from what he said.

It is hard to get into and stay in seminary if you aren't gay, you get
all kinds of push in this direction.

And if you are not heretically inclined you tend to get weeded out, though obviously this process is not uniformly effective.

Anonymous said...

"I am not jealous that isn't my style anyway"

You said Constance is brain-washed. That is why you are here to "rescue" her blog cause it is a dead end over at yours. You do God and Constance and all of us a great big favor don't you? Pitiful.

Jealous and arrogant too.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

I was still thinking somewhat along the same lines when I first came here, though I had my doubts about antichrist around the corner, too easy EU too simple.

It took time to figure things out.

Saying she was brainwashed by the pop prophecy expert crew does not add up to jealousy.

Constance has her thing to do I have mine, I couldn't have dug up or managed what she did, and her life and background probably could not lead her to the things I have found. Everyone has a piece of the puzzle.

My orientation is more combative and more primed to spot deception on an individual level. Too bad that that Crouch creature being nice to her and hosting her on TBN fooled her, I am sure he is frying in hell.

Personally I can't stand that whole style. Pat Robertson was always ugsome to me, Jim Bakker I couldn't tolerate more than a minute, literally. This before I knew anything specific about either of them.

Constance validated my discomfort with Robertson, and Bakker did himself in. Crouch, Robertson and Bakker especially the latter have a disgustingly posh worldly fleshly appeal which says much bad about American Christians since these people get so much money.

Anonymous said...

I think you are jealous because of your statement that one ups her---she's (still) brain-washed while you on the other hand are not (your take) and that attitude and the judgmental statements have happened a number of times. How ungracious when she is gracious to let you be here. And why do that? Because she has attention you do not get. You'll take even the negative from folks because it is attention you are after (and at this blog's expense). She has what you do not. Jealous.

You made a real show in your flesh a while back on the radio program, talking over her when she is the guest and you only a call in. So if not jealous (by your standards) you were rude most assuredly. Frankly speaking, you owe everyone here an apology. Really you do. But at least apologize to her. It is her blog afterall.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

look idiot, i was trying to finish a sentence and get something important and she was off an running and missed it.

nothing to do with the flesh.

not just Constance ALL of you are brainwashed by the likes of Hal Lindsay whose Left Behind series is hopefully beginning to wake some up to his bullshit factor, and people like Salem Kirban.

I remember years ago someone was saying that the locusts out of the pit in Revelation were Apache helicopters, like helicopters have long hair like women. Bah humbug.

And people speculating seriously, and Christian media fool enough to give such time on the air or in print, that Kissinger was the antichrist, or Gorbachev was the antichrist because of a raspberry birthmark, and all kinds of nonsense.

The famous invasion of Israel by the Soviet Union never happened, and couldn't happen in the form described anyway as long as the Soviet Union remained.

A quick look or re look (as I began to wake up and READ The Bible not just believe what was fed me) will show anyone who can read (which i can) and isn't brainwashed (but i was) that very very few arab elements are in the list of invaders.

That means Israel will either be at peace with its Arab neighbors when this happens, or they will be the target as much as Israel.

But nooooo these experts I presume to be on a par with, couldn't predict the fall of the Soviet Union, or the possible either peace between Arabs and Israel or shared enemy.

And the FALSE and UNBIBLICAL pre tribulation rapture informs all their ideas poisoning the well.


Eagle said...

Anon 11:05

Brainwashed is probably not the right way to phrase it. During many of the years Solana was prominent, he did indeed look to be a prime candidate as someone that may fulfill certain criteria and I definitely believe he was a very useful tool of satan's.

However, as the years passed, there did seem to be somewhat of an obsession on Constance's part in trying to fit him as the mastermind of certain events.

He was relevant at one time and certainly did his part to help usher in some of what we are seeing now, but I do not believe you will see him rise again to orchestrate anything regardless of his reputation or relationships he fostered.

I think he is finished and had been for a long time, much longer than Constance and others had painted him out to be.

Anonymous said...


I asked: "the Eastern Orthodox ceremony of ordination says that the candidate is ordained "as a priest". Does Orthodoxy regard him "as a priest" - of any category whatsoever - before the ceremony?... Whatever else you say in response, please include a clear Yes or No."

You replied: "no it doesn't..."

In that case Orthodoxy contradicts the NT wherein it is implied that all believers are priests (of some category at least): Rev 1:6, 1 Peter 2:9. Your response is now to bring up (again!) Exodus 19:6 about ancient Israel being a kingdom of priests, and to say that I "REFUSE... TO DISCUSS IT AT ALL." That is untrue. First, it is a matter of record that I have discussed Ex 19:6 before here, although clearly not to your satisfaction. Second, you are drawing an analogy between OT and NT and analogies have unclear limits of application, so nothing can be concluded. Third and decisively, if somebody is a certain type of priest then they are still a priest, so it is irrelevant. If I ask a black man if he is a man, Yes or No, the answer is Yes. If I ask a white man if he is a man, Yes or No, the answer is Yes. What racial category of man is irrelevant. Identical logic. I doubt that you will concede, but it is enough for me to point out this illogic to Constance's readers each time you throw in another red herring, and let them draw their own conclusions.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

drawing an analogy is not what I am doing. The OT is the basis of the NT which in turn quotes the OT at least 143 times.

It is not I who made the analogy, it was Peter, and God Himself in Revelation.

If you did discuss Ex. 19:6 I apologize for saying you didn't discuss it at all, but I don't
remember you doing so, which is my fault.

Priesthood per se, and gradations are two different things.

Priesthood per se, and the larger category with or without gradation, of being Aaronic, with one set of laws connected, vs. being Melchizedecian (as is the case with Jesus Christ Who is not from Aaron)
with a different set of laws connected, "For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law" Heb. 7:12,
is another matter.

Priests make sacrifices of various kinds and purposes (and sin and trespass offerings were not the only ones in Leviticus), and have some other liturgical rules.

sacrifices include incense and lamps or candles.

For this reason and not wanting to be presumptuous I had inquired in 1991 of an RC priest if it was proper for laity to burn incense to God at home, answer, perfectly okay.

Whenever an Orthodox or any kind of Christian, burns incense to God with or without icons, or lights a candle to God, that person is acting as a priest.

I remind you it was an Orthodox priest who stated that the whole body of the Church are priests but it is a gradation (not his term) and also pointed out that while in OT only the High Priest could enter the Holy of Holies or Santuary once a year, the rest of the priests remaining in the nave equivalent and the laity in the narthex equivalent and any non Israelite outside beyond that point,

Now with Jesus as High Priest and Him in Heaven the lead priest in a congregation routinely enters the Sanctuary section with deacons and altar boys, the laity are in the narthex and (in theory) non baptized in the narthex (in practice now everyone goes into the nave), so it is all ratchetted up once notch.

I repeat, anyone burning incense to God is acting in the role of a priest. In OT law for Aaronic priesthood, only some category of full priest could do this, in NT law of Melchizedic priesthood, any level of priest down to laity can do this.

When you become Orthodox, hair is cut off at four corners of the head, just a little, not noticeable. YOU ARE TONSURED A CHRISTIAN. If you become monastic you are tonsured a monastic. I don't know the ritual for ordination or consecration, but I assume you get tonsured a priest or a bishop also. Tonsuring is a kind of dedication ceremony.

(I asked a lot of questions so I perhaps got more explained to me than a lot of people do.)

The analogy to bees again, and your analogy to races, all bees are bees and so is the queen and drones and workers. All men are men incl. white, black and gradations between them.

the too sharp distinction between priesthood and laity that has developed over 2,000 years causes this to be lost on most, but the liturgical actions show the laity are also a bottom rung priesthood.

The Holy Liturgy is not only the work of the officiating priest, but of the laity as well, all together are saying Amen taking part thereby in part of the consecration of the bread and wine.

Liturgy by the way means "work of the people." there is an old tradition to be found in EO and RC that The Holy Liturgy aka Mass should not be said by one priest alone by himself but always and only with at least one other person.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

"laity are in the narthex" should have been "laity are in the nave."

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

the simple NO I gave was inadequate, since priesthood is a term that has come to be distinct from bishop while in fact, and historically, the bishop is either a super priest or the priest is an under bishop.

terminology has changed. And what is officially the view at present of most laity and many priests may be inadequate, but what I am giving you here was given me by an Orthodox priest, and is biblically consistent and consistent with things in development over time from their roots and in just looking the situation over - a priest makes offerings, incense is an offering, no one ever said incense can't be burned at home to God because only a priest can do it.


The Holy Liturgy itself is not the work only of the priest but of priest and laity.

In a corporation, the president is a members, management is a member workers are members, but the visible character and certain functions become more obvious at management levels.

In one sense a stockholder who doesn't work for them is as much a corporate management member as the prez (and has votes in some things per stocks held) in another other the board of directors and prez is management.

Things are blurrier in life than is it a man or not?

as for the mistaken sense that the priest is closer to God than a mere mortal who is farther from God, this same sense is evident at the emotional level however denied verbally and officially, regarding ministers vs. laity in protestantism, and plays a major role in how people fail to resist or recognize or expose abuses.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

Eagle 6:01

brainwashed might be a stronger term, but no one (incl. myself once) looks beyond the interpretation handed us over and over by the prophecy experts.

Solana is not the antichrist obviously. The first I ever saw Constance's interest in him, I knew that.


Constance's research on him and his family background shows outrageous New Age connections and a peculiarity about the pedigree that could be an effort to cover something up, or could be a case of other cultures being looser in relationship terminology than we are (and some of them are looser in such terminology).

If someone here could clarify how european Spanish tend to talk about uncles and grandparents and so forth someone who knows this personally or from someone who does, not just the Mexican and other New World Spanish speaking cultures, but Spain itself, that would be nice.

if it turns out they are as precise ALWAYS as we are, and not precise for some purposes but in casual speech not precise, then it would throw the picture into being one of some kind of cover up. (incest in the family? or some adulterous relationship involving inlaws which is constructive incest even if it didn't produce Solana? comparable to someone who is a lover of a woman who has a child being called the child's "uncle" but possibly his father like Popeye and his lookalike "nephew" Sweetpea?)

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

The Yugoslavian thing is probably a case in point of globalist game playing.

Germany was first in the scene backing Slovenian separatism. Maybe relevant maybe not.

But the depredations of the Serbs, who are anything but Orthodox spiritually and in practice (except for the few incl. Patriarch Pavle who acknowledged the guilt of Serbs in Bosnia and supported the right of Albanian students to demonstate) was something that could have been stopped earlier.

The "peace keepers" being either unarmed or not allowed to fire on anyone were a sick joke.

Comparable again, is the critical moment background to the Rwanda massacre, a UN officer told Kofi Annan of a weapons stash and evident plans and asked permission to destroy these, Annan said no, and he was of one of those ethnicities on the warpath there I forget which but same as the one with the weapons stash.

The result was the Rwanda holocaust. Mere personal tribal feeling is probably not the only reason for Annan's decision. Figuring his crew might have an upper hand in globablist games in the region when the dust settled might be a part of it, but apparently this event was desired by some outside of Africa.

Likewise at many points aggressive military action could have stopped the Serbian aggression, and sanctions and attack on Serbia itself, which was funding and ideologically supporting the aggression and releasing men from its army to allow them to go be "volunteers" in Bosnia, could have been done.

Serbs were being bussed in from Serbia to loot Bosnian homes that had been vacated under fire.

The bombing of Serbia/Yugoslavia was in response to the Kosovo thing, which was nothing as bad as the Bosnia thing, but Serbia had it coming for all the popular support of Serbian ambition.

The long delay in helping Bosnia at all, made possible the mass incursion of jihadis from elsewhere to help the Bosniak moslems being massacred and raped. The constant failure to respond at all, and when responding failure to do so in a way that would work, and this on occultist Solana's watch, brands this whole thing as a deliberate mishandling for globalist agendas.

ANY intervention and the belated bombing by NATO is branded as this by conspiracy theorists like us, but the fact is, intervention should have been done, early on after the first massacres and a quick assessment and it should have been massive and deadly, the only kind of thing such people understand is a sledge hammer.

But the failure to intervene followed by radically inadequate intervention, and finally by a bombing that had nothing to do with the Bosnian horror, shows the real nature of supposed concern regarding the ex Yugoslavia.

Now, on the big picture, Serbia had that bombing coming, and that it came in connection with losing Kosovo, a popular object of idolatry, may have been divine justice striking, but rarely did God use the righteous as agents of punishment in The Bible.

Anonymous said...

Blogging hogging, and rude as ever.
You assume you know what we believe about endtimes, even who we are taught by. (amazing in your assumptions)
You presume to take over this place and in that you take opportunity to stomp all over the host and those here for her-not you.
You behavior on the public airwaves is just another example of you, with out true regard for others, as you must be heard. Must!

That, Christine, is where you are the expert.

Your take no prisoners, amazon, crush 'em under your feet (including Constance) romp and stomp all over everyone, is like the poor pitiful ostrich of Job 39:13-18, heedless of the bad impact you have, not discerning the difference between sacred and profane, because you really don't care about sharing knowledge and the uplift in a good exchange--you care that you can make people deal with you--hoping to push as many buttons as you can. That is also why you start topics (no topic goes unpunished) in the middle of other topics (setting numerous fires like an arsonist) just to cause confusion in tying them all up in argument-often off point or bold-faced disregard for other opinions because you alone are 'the be all end all' here. You make it a competition where it is not one. That is a shame. No wonder you adore the hierarchy governing/positions of 'church'. (the opposite of the first church that did not foster preeminences and competitions among each other-and those did that fell into that trap broke away to carry on that despicable plague). Jesus will judge all of this when He returns.

Christine for your own sake, apologize. Be a human being. I am sure that capacity is in there somewhere. At least that is the hope.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

you are the one turning things into a competition, I am merely here to inform and comment. I think you want to be queen everywhere you go and think everyone else is like you.

I do not adore the hierarchy governing positions, I have appropriate respect, but they are just another category of servants of God.

I have other interests regarding EO than that. It is the only category of Christianity whose official positions (as distinct from oddities sneaking in now and then also to be found in other denominations) that doesn't have some severe biblical problem.

It is complex enough to be fluid and staunchly rejecting of core error. Todd Bentley and his crew wouldn't get a hearing probably not even in that idiot priest's congregation in Florida that got into tongues talking.

Anonymous said...

Christine, the question, "Does Orthodoxy regard an ordinand as a priest of any sort prior to ordination?" is perfectly well-defined. There is no fuzz whatsoever about the question so it is capable of a Yes/No answer, however much explanation of that answer might then be desirable. You gave the answer No and said you got it from an Orthodox (ordained) priest, so presumably you are answering accurately. And that is contrary to the New Testament (Rev 1:6, 1 Pe 2:9).

If you now want to change to Yes then I ask: Why does the Orthodox ceremony of ordination say that the guy is ordained AS A PRIEST?

I am well aware of changes of meaning of words during church history. The NT word for priest is hiereus. The English word priest comes from presbyteros, but in the NT that simply meant one of the plurality of men who governed and were part of a congregation. None of that is relevant to the question I asked.

All analogies have their limits, wherever they come from. That is why they are analogies.

Anonymous said...

"laity are in the narthex" should have been "laity are in the nave."

How you disappoint me Christine. I had thought that the narthex was where the hair clippings were stored inside the church building from the ceremony when people become Orthodox.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

" heedless of the bad impact you have, not discerning the difference between sacred and profane,"

really? just what do you consider to be sacred here vs. profane here? I assume your biasses are sacred?

"because you really don't care about sharing knowledge and the uplift in a good exchange"

firstly, only a couple have ever engaged in reasoned or bible based exchange, and

secondly, "uplift" is fleshly bullshit. the purpose of speech and writing is to determine and/or communicate truth aka facts and figure stuff out.

you want a mindless coffee klatch of jabbering silly women who are an embarassment to sensible women, pull that one off somewhere else.

"--you care that you can make people deal with you--hoping to push as many buttons as you can. That is also why you start topics (no topic goes unpunished) in the middle of other topics"

I guess some anon post on something I ignored and posted something I had to say about something else was by you and you think you are ruler here and your words must be the only things thought or talked about.

A post unless specifically referencing another post is a standalone thing outside of a chat room or email or usenet cascade.

If you are referring to dealing with one of several issues raised in a single post by someone, or pointing out the resemblance or analogy or application of something in it, then all I can say is, THERE IS NO EXCHANGE UPLIFTING OR OTHERWISE POSSIBLE WITH YOU, BECAUSE YOU CAN NEITHER THINK NOR DESIRE TO DO SO.

you want merely to "communicate" meaning people just parrot or stroke you or parrot or stroke each other, not hash over implications and extrapolations and check back to basics.

everything apparently is personal with you, nothing about facts or truth, it is all about mindless socializing.

except for content, what is the difference between your ideal and mindless drug loaded jabbering and body slamming at a metal fest?

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

sharing knowledge is exactly what I get trashed most for doing.

Anonymous said...

Well first be sure it is knowledge in the first place (not just taking up space). Plus your bludgeonings are the not about sharing knowledge but having the command here.

Uplift says and implies grace-a gracious orderly exchange. You refuse to engage either one.

You live a very defeated and disappointing life and take it out on this blog. Too bad.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

and dealing with something almost never talked about here (or anywhere else)....the Trans Pacific Partnership agreement and two similar ones.

Susanna said...

Paul 8:09 P.M.

Here is a creepy story that is not only in keeping with the topic of this thread, but is also relevant in terms of the agenda of the New Age Movement.

My husband and I were dropping off our car to have it repaired by a mechanic my husband knew from the military. While my husband was talking with the mechanic, the mechanic's wife pulled into the driveway and after the initial greetings, she announced that she had been attending "Edgar Cayce studies." Since my husband was finished arranging for the car repairs, the conversation ended almost as soon as it had begun, but that was not the last that I would hear about the mechanic's wife.

Not long after, my husband happened to see the mechanic during one of their military drill weekends and was told a very strange story. The mechanic's wife, who was still involved with the Edgar Cayce Studies," had been telling him that she was regularly seeing "spirits" coming up out of the floor and that these "spirits" spoke to her, telling her, among other things that she was to leave her husband. The mechanic was truly upset according to my husband.

The last we heard the mechanic's wife did in fact leave him and entered into another romantic relationship - with a lesbian.

Now it is not so much that Edgar Cayce explicitly promoted homosexuality.......he did not......but his belief in reincarnation enabled him to "explain" it on the grounds of a male spirit being reincarnated in the body of a woman or a female spirit being reincarnated in the body of a man.

It seems that all - or most - New Age roads seem to lead to Helena Petrovna Blavatsky. Edgar Cayce is said to have been influenced by Blavatsky's ideas. Also those of Rudolph Steiner who was a member of Blavatsky's Theosophical Society.

Olav Hammer wrote that many of Cayce's readings discussed race and skin color and that the explanation for this is that Cayce was not a racist but was influenced by the occult ideas of Madame Blavatsky.



Susanna said...


There can be little doubt that the terminology of the ideas on reincarnation used by Edgar Cayce in his readings are suspiciously similar to those used by Blavatsky and Steiner, and there is a great deal which suggests that he, or his subconscious, was affected by Blavatsky's teachings - even though there is very little - if any reference, by Cayce, to Blavatsky.

For that matter, there is no reference to the French magician Eliphas Levi ( Alphonse Louis Constant ) by Albert Pike either in his masonic tome entitled Morals and Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry - even though Pike incorporated significant sections of the magi's book DOGME ET RITUELE into his Morals and Dogma without attribution. Occultists were notorious for stealing one anothers "magickal secrets."

Unfortunately, many of the people involved with Blavatsky went by the name of "Catholic." Many were nineteenth-century gnostics whose cults were merged together by Jean Bricaud under the gnostic umbrella organization which came to be known as the Ecclestica Gnostica Catholica - the "ecclesiastical" arm of the infamous Ordo Templi Orientis whose British branch was headed by Aleister Crowley. It was under Crowley that the O.T.O. 11th degree was created. It consisted of ritual sodomy.

One of the most interesting characteristics of the Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica is that it went out of its way to acquire valid but illicit Holy Orders in order to minister the Sacraments to those who were excommunicated from the Cathiolic Church on account of their membership in masonic organizations. No doubt many of the gnostic "priests" were O.T. O. members who had participated in the homosexual 11th degree O.T.O. ritual. Moreover, there is evidence that many of these "priests" had infiltrated the Roman Catholic Church.

It is believed by many Christians that Antiochus IV Epiphanes was a type of antichrist. The Maccabean War of independence was not only a war against Antiochus and the attempted paganization of Judaism. It was also a war against homosexuality as described in the following article by Richard Salbato who is a conservative Catholic.

Hanukkah, The War Against Homosexuals

Richard Salbato 12-08-2007



Susanna said...


Adolph Hitler was also a type of Antichrist and was very likely involved with German neo-gnostic "catholic" groups some of which were headed by apostate Catholics and included some priests. A book entitled THE PINK SWASTIKA has a great deal to say about the influence of homosexuality in Nazi Germany.....namely that homosexuality was a key element of Nazism.

Welcome to The Pink Swastika 5th (Internet) Edition.

It has been several years since we published the fourth edition of this book. In that time we have accumulated a substantial amount of new documentation supporting our thesis that the Nazi Party was conceived, organized and controlled throughout its short history by masculine-oriented male homosexuals who hid their sexual proclivities from the public, in part by publicly persecuting one group of their political enemies: out-of-the-closet effeminate-oriented homosexuals aligned with the German Communist Party.

During that same time, our detractors, mostly "gay" political activists, have increased their attacks on the book, primarily by ridiculing its premise, but occasionally by challenging certain facts or sources. They are rightly concerned that this book threatens their long-standing public-relations strategy of posing as victims to win public support for their political agenda.

When the first edition of The Pink Swastika was published in 1995, the homosexual community was heavily invested in a campaign to equate homosexuals with Jews as Nazi victims in order to exploit the Holocaust for their political advantage. The primary symbol of their movement at that time was the inverted pink triangle, which had been used by the Nazis to identify homosexuals interned in German work camps during the Third Reich, and it was common to hear "gay" activists talk about "the Gay Holocaust."

The Pink Swastika was written to challenge that campaign. Because, while there certainly were some homosexual victims of the Nazi regime, and a record of harsh public condemnation of homosexuality by the Nazi Party, the true, complete story of homosexuality in Nazi and pre-Nazi Germany does not in the least help the "gay" cause.

If The Pink Swastika were the "pack of lies" the homosexual movement claims it is, the book would not have influenced their "Gay Holocaust" strategy in the smallest degree. It would have been easy to discredit and disregard. Instead, how did the "gay" leaders respond to its challenge? They stopped talking about the Nazis almost entirely and changed their symbol from the pink triangle to the rainbow flag.

We prevailed in our campaign. And our research was implicitly vindicated. However, the attacks continued and now various, ostensibly non-homosexual surrogates have taken up the "gay" effort to discredit the book.

This edition of The Pink Swastika is designed to once-and-for-all silence the critics by emphasizing the strength of our documentation. The Internet is particularly helpful in this task because we can provide direct links to supporting documents and websites, pictures, graphics, video clips and other resources right alongside the text in an interactive format.

We hope you find The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party 5th (Internet) Edition useful and informative.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

"If The Pink Swastika were the "pack of lies" the homosexual movement claims it is, the book would not have influenced their "Gay Holocaust" strategy in the smallest degree. It would have been easy to discredit and disregard. Instead, how did the "gay" leaders respond to its challenge? They stopped talking about the Nazis almost entirely and changed their symbol from the pink triangle to the rainbow flag. "

excellent point! as has been said in a few movies, don't listen to what they say, watch what they do. (regarding anyone.)

the only reason the Nazis particularly the SA went after gays, is because of two things. public respectability issues, and the public image of homosexuals as effeminate, something whether straight or gay whether a wimpy male or a female per se, that was despised by the heroic male oriented Nazi ideal.

Susanna said...

Yes, the Nazis met in a “gay” bar.

It was no coincidence that homosexuals were among those who founded the Nazi Party. In fact, the party grew out of a number of groups in Germany which were centers of homosexual activity and activism. Many of the characteristic rituals, symbols, activities and philosophies we associate with Nazism came from these organizations or from contemporary homosexuals. The extended-arm “Sieg Heil” salute, for example, was a ritual of the Wandervoegel (“Wandering Birds” or “Rovers”), a male youth society which became the German equivalent of the Boy Scouts. The Wandervoegel was started in the late 1800s by a group of homosexual teenagers. Its first adult leader, Karl Fischer, called himself “der Fuehrer” (“the Leader”) (Koch:25f). Hans Blueher, a homosexual Nazi philosopher and important early member of the Wandervoegel, incited a sensation in 1912 with publication of The German Wandervoegel Movement as an Erotic Phenomenon, which told how the movement had become one in which young boys could be introduced into the homosexual lifestyle (Rector:39f). The Wandervoegel and other youth organizations were later merged into the Hitler Youth (which itself became known among the populace as the “Homo Youth” because of rampant homosexuality. - Rector:52).
Many of the Nazi emblems, such as the swastika, the double lightning bolt “SS” symbol, and even the inverted triangle symbol used to identify classes of prisoners in the concentration camps, originated among homosexual occultists in Germany (some, such as the swastika, are actually quite ancient symbols which were merely revived by these homosexual groups).
In 1907, Jorg Lanz Von Liebenfels, a former Cistercian monk whom the church excommunicated because of his homosexual activities (Sklar:19), flew the swastika flag above his castle in Austria (Goodrick-Clarke:109).
After his expulsion from the church Lanz founded the Ordo Novi Templi (“Order of the New Temple”) which merged occultism with violent anti-Semitism.
A 1958 study of Lanz, Der Mann der Hitler die Ideen gab (“The Man Who Gave Hitler His Ideas”), by Austrian psychologist Wilhelm Daim, called Lanz the true “father” of National Socialism.
List, a close associate of Lanz, formed the Guido von List Society in Vienna in 1904. The Guido von List Society was accused of practicing a form of Hindu Tantrism which featured sexual perversion in its rituals. This form of sexual perversion was popularized in occult circles by a man named Aleister Crowley who, according to Hitler biographer J. Sydney Jones, enjoyed “playing with black magic and little boys” (J. S. Jones:123).


Susanna said...


List was “accused of being the Aleister Crowley of Vienna” (ibid.:123). Like Lanz, List was an occultist; he wrote several books on the magic principles of rune letters (from which he chose the “SS” symbol). In 1908, List “was unmasked as the leader of a blood brotherhood which went in for sexual perversion and substituted the swastika for the cross” (Sklar:23). The Nazis borrowed heavily from List’s occult theories and research. List also formed an elitist occult priesthood called the Armanen Order, to which Hitler himself may have belonged (Waite, 1977:91).
The Nazi dream of an Aryan super-race was adopted from an occult group called the Thule Society, founded in 1917 by followers of Lanz and List. The occult doctrine of the Thule Society held that the survivors of an ancient and highly developed lost civilization could endow Thule initiates with esoteric powers and wisdom. The initiates would use these powers to create a new race of Aryan supermen who would eliminate all “inferior” races. Hitler dedicated his book, Mein Kampf, to Dietrich Eckart, one of the Thule Society inner circle and a former leading figure in the German Worker’s Party. (Schwarzwaller:67). The various occult groups mentioned above were outgrowths of the Theosophical Society, whose founder, Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, is thought by some to have been a lesbian (Webb:94), and whose “bishop” was a notorious pederast named Charles Leadbeater.

Susanna said...



THE PINK SWASTIKA is a very enlightening book. It was mentioned on this blog several years ago and has been since updated with new documentation.

Re:the only reason the Nazis particularly the SA went after gays, is because of two things. public respectability issues, and the public image of homosexuals as effeminate, something whether straight or gay whether a wimpy male or a female per se, that was despised by the heroic male oriented Nazi ideal.

The is true. There were two types of homosexuals.....what we would refer to today as the "buthches" and the "femmes."

The "heroic male-oriented Nazi ideal was the "butch" type and was less easily detected than the "femme" type.

This is discussed in THE PINK SWASTIKA.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

regarding those spirits, while in an earlier time it would be dangerous to advocate divorce and lesbianism, so spirits would rarely do that except to try to stir feelings, or risk being exposed as evil,

the present cultural trends are such they can safely come out of their ideological closet so to speak.

In studying witch scenes I found that there were two kinds. staunchly fertility oriented with concerns about balancing male and female energies wouldn't tolerate gays in the cult or ceremonies. This was gradually eroded.

The ecstasy oriented crew were different, and a constant theme in a feri anderson egroup when asked how "receiving the feri current" had affected them, was that they became more open to sexual experimentation, most of the posts were explicit that this included homosexual activity.

the feri crew track by energetic anointing so to speak to a group in Oregon, Harpy Coven, supposedly now defunct, which tracked to Ozark witchcraft which in turn relates to East Anglia English witchcraft pre Gerald Gardner and its practices are near identical (according to a neo pagan who found this embarassing) to what was said about medieval witches.

There is a definite effort by spirits to warp sexuality. This also appears sometimes in alien abduction, but whether this is a demonic experience or represents demonic influence on the aliens and accepted by the aliens is another question.

homosexual acts as a special angle on some pagan rituals and the potential implications along this line in hermetic androgyne united male female half and half figures keep cropping up in antiquity and the Renaissance, with rumors about Leonardo da Vinci.

Though androgyny with a masculine or strong bias does not have to be homosexual it certainly helps that interest.

Susanna said...

P.S. Christine,

Here is the passage from THE PINK SWASTIKA that mentions the hostile relationship between the "butches" and the "fems."

And please understand that in the Nazi context, the book is referring to what homosexuals were saying about other homosexuals - not what heterosexuals may or may not have been saying about homosexuals.

At first glance it is difficult to understand why the homosexual leaders of the Nazis would persecute other homosexuals on the basis of their sexual behavior. We alluded, in the matter of the Sex Research Institute, to the fact that the homosexual movement in Germany was divided into two diametrically opposed camps which some have called the “Fems” and the “Butches.” These terms are common among homosexuals today, as is the disdain “Butches” feel for “Fems.”
A researcher of the homosexual movement Gordon Westwood writes that masculine homosexuals “deplore [effeminate] behavior,” many considering effeminate homosexuals “repulsive” (Westwood:87). Another researcher, H. Kimball Jones, reports that reaction to “Fems” is often violent in the general homosexual community. “[They label them] ‘flaming faggot’ or ‘degenerate fag,’” with one homosexual exclaiming, “You know, I loathe these screaming fairies” (H.K.Jones:29). Jay and Young’s 1979 examination of the American homosexual movement, The Gay Report, contains numerous personal statements by masculine homosexuals critical of effeminacy. “Fem behavior can be vicious and destructive, demeaning to women and gay men,” says one. Another asserts, “To me someone who is ‘femme’ is a self-indulgent...petty, scheming, gossipy gay being whose self-image has been warped and shaped by unfortunate family situations” (Jay:294ff).
The most hostile to “Femmes” are precisely those homosexuals who deem themselves the most “masculine.” In The Homosexual Matrix, C.A. Tripp writes that “[f]ar to the other extreme, there are a number of utterly masculine, sometimes supermasculine homosexuals....They are obses- sed with everything male and eschew anything weak or effeminate....Unquestionably they represent the epitome of what can happen when an eroticized maleness gains the full backing of a value system that supports it” (Tripp:92). Cory and LeRoy, in their detailed discussion of homosexual culture, describe the scene in a typical American “leather bar”:

Susanna said...


Re: the feri crew track by energetic anointing so to speak to a group in Oregon

There is also a non wiccan "feri" group which appears to lay strong emphasis on sex magick.


The Feri Tradition (which is a different tradition than Faery, Fairy, Faerie, or Vicia,) is an initiatory tradition of non-Wiccan traditional witchcraft. It is an ecstatic (rather than fertility) tradition stemming from the experience of Cora and Victor Anderson . Strong emphasis is placed on sensual experience and awareness, including sexual mysticism, which is not limited to heterosexual expression. The Feri Tradition has very diverse influences, such as Huna, Vodou, Faery lore, Kabbalah, Hoodoo, Tantra, and Gnosticism......

Among the deities of the feri tradition is Melek Taus, the Peacock God - considered by some to be the devil.


Abrahamic interpretation of Melek Taus

Some Christians, Muslims and others identify Tawûsê Melek as Lucifer or Satan. According to the Yazidi Black Book, the Yazidi are forbidden to say the name "Shaitan" because their people would be religiously persecuted by other faiths.<.I>

See also


Sufi author Isdris Shah seems to hint that there may be one of these "Peacock cults" in England, but if so, it is very secretive and very little is known about it.

There are others who suspect that shah was involved in it.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

yes, this is exactly the problem with the idea that homosexuality is promoted by undermining or prevented by enforcing gender role stuff.

There is no actual connection between gender linked behavior and interests and sexual interests. The one exception would be the transgender type, but as for homosexual act inclined men or women, there is no reliable correlation to masculinity or femininity.

The whole Focus on the Family and other such stuff is based on a complete myth. A lot of the masculine type homosexuals are also bisexual, which when you add drug use is how AIDS moved into the female and non homosexual population. The females then can infect straight (or bi while doing hetero) males and infect their own unborn children.

I once read that hetero prostitutes are often lesbian in preference, hetero for pay.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

Susanna, yes, that is the bunch, they started with Victor Anderson (bisexual) and his Ozark wife Cora (heterosexual and nominal Christian like many of the original witches back of feri) and he added the Huna, etc., and threw in an overt satanist flavor in some statements recorded.

Then they fragmented into lineages not unlike Gardnerian witchcraft.

Harpy Coven members were also churchgoing nominal Christians, and they developed three mudras or hand gestures of power, one of which got my attention.

I forget the other two and their purpose, at least one was to help conjuring spirits. But one was the three middle fingers out thumb and pinky folded in Boy Scout salute. THIS IS TO RESTRAIN OR REPEL SPIRITS or get them under control if getting too active or trending what you don't want.

This is a disguised version of the invocation of the Christian Trinity, normally done thumb and first two fingers up, last two folded, The Trinity and The Two Natures of Christ.

So effectively those who use this signal are invoking The Holy Trinity without realizing it, that is the power behind the sign.

Voodoo people also often have crucifixes, to keep the spirits manageable. playing both sides of the street so to speak, but much more on the wrong side.

The term "feri" was adopted to distinguish it from "faerie" witchcraft I think originating in England, a lot of white light sort of stuff with connections to a Golden Dawn operation originally that took a mystical focus.

Feri had a lot of secrets most of which are out on the web now one way or another. Somehow they got a "blue god" into the mix, so when "Farmer" I think it was who used to post here years and years ago went neo pagan and mentioned this, I knew where he was coming from or getting into. Feri has moved out of the USA.

Anonymous said...

The disdain felt by the butches for the fems goes back at least as far as the gay scene in ancient Greece. It was considered a disgrace to let yourself be anally penetrated, but no stigma attached to those men who did the penetration.

Incidentally secular society is the first to recognise the concept of "a homosexual". The culture which, humanly speaking, wrote the Bible, and all other cultures both ancient and more recent, simply regard human sexuality as plastic. When you look what goes on in prisons and on board naval ships up to the age of steam, you can see the point - those men who could not contain their lust, and who acted heterosexually whenever women were available, acted homosexually under such restrictions. It is the notion of "a homosexual" and comments that "I always knew I was different" which have fooled liberal theologians into making some shockingly unbiblical statements condoning "monogamous" gay relationships. As for "I always knew I was different, such unfortunates presume that they were born different, but who knows what was done to them between birth and the age of memory, that might have twisted them?

As far as Nazi Germany goes, it is always worth looking a generation or two farther back. There is a passage in William Manchester's book The Arms of Krupp (a triple meaning!), about the Krupp family whose engineering concern built Germany's weapons in World Wars 1 &2, on this subject. This book is searchable at (not at, and if you input "Luzi" into the search engine having clicked on "Search inside this book" then you will find a couple of pages, p229-30, which would be hilarious if they were not tragic. (Luzi Wuzi was a gay nickname of the Emperor's brother.) "During one party... Count... von Huelzen-Haeseler, Chief of the Reich's military cabinet, appeared in front of the Kaiser dressed in a pink ballet skirt and rose wreath..." And, insightfully, " must appreciate the peculiar status of male homosexuality in the Second Reich. It was the vilest of offences - and, paradoxically, the most prestigious." Manchester gives references.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

interesting side, while this preacher has some problems, this video has important info on witch related use of the term "the spirit" and identical manifestations in witch cultism and charismaticism. time point 1:12:28
put cursor on the line at the base of the video picture itself and move then click when you get there it should move there eventually.

or watch the whole thing.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

anon 1:40

this is the biggest argument against the revival of monarchism that some want (and which incl. mystical RC, mystical occult, fatima followers RC and some Old Catholic spinoff or other.

It like having a nasty family and while you can escape this in civilian life so to speak, you can't help you are related to but you can help who you hang around with,

so you can and should get away from and repudiate or disown nasty family,

here it is entrenched in politics and family and class take precedence over all other considerations, while evil proliferates in family lines and cognate lines through association,

and denunciation is difficult and prosecution difficult.

Just look at the Jimmy Savile scandal and royal and noble connections.

Susanna said...

Anonymous 1:40

I had almost forgotten about THE ARMS OF KRUPP which I have in my personal library.

I will have to go and review the section on "Luzi Wuzi."

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

another good video from Mike Hoggard, again I don't endorse everything about him or ANYTHING I link to.

early on he makes the point that if its popular it isn't godly and discusses Sarah Palin's NAR dominionist connections, and Glenn Beck's Mormonism, regarding some
big get together Beck was doing having to do with America's sacred destiny or some such garbage.

Anonymous said...

A modern international look at Butches vs Fems:

Gays vs Homosexuals

Anonymous said...

I do not recall seeing anything posted about a possible link to marijuana and the feminization of men?

I know marijuana is considered a yin herb by the Chinese, and back in the 1980s there were reports that some men who were heavy marijuana users were growing female breasts. Were has marijuana use been heavy since the 1960s? San Francisco. Not to say its not used widely. Also soy has been implicated in having a feminizing effect on men. There are conflicting reports on this, but after years of studying herbs and foods and their effect I tend to believe soy does indeed have an effeminizing effect. Soy is in so much food we eat, its a hidden ingredient in many, if not most processed foods.

Just sayin

Susanna said...

Anonymous 9:24

I agree that one has to be careful about plant estrogens such as those found in soy.

Regarding the feminization of men who consume said plant estrogens, I have not researched the scientific evidence that indicates said feminizing. But this is not to say that said feminizing of men vis a vis plant estrogens isn't a real possibility.

Scientists claim that soybean isoflavone exposure does not have feminizing effects on men, but a critical examination of the clinical evidence shows that these pronunciamentos were the findings derived from experiments on rodents.

The thing that really angers me, however, is the lies being told to women about the "safety" of artificial contraceptives and "hormone replacement therapy" where estrogen is distilled from equine sources, namely mares' urine.

Giddyup!!!! :-)

Anonymous said...

This is 9:24 P.M.

Estrogen replacement therapy is not a one size fits all thing. It should not be undertaken without proper testing done by an aware endocrinologist. A good easy to understand book on this is called The Schwarzbein Principal by Diane Schwarzbein. Western medicine is a dangerous thing to the uninformed patient.

I'm sure many of the tests done on soy isoflavones are somehow funded by the soy industry.

Constance Cumbey said...

I have an opinion about the "refugee crisis" -- a strong opinion that many of you might disagree with. I wonder how many of those out there rioting against children fleeing Latin American terrors consider themselves "Christian."

As I remember reading in MY Bible: "You were once a stranger in a strange land. THEREFORE, YOU SHALL TREAT THE STRANGER AMONG YOU WITH KINDNESS."

We would do well to remember that admonition!


Susanna said...

Question: "What does the Bible say about illegal immigration?"

....The vast majority of illegal immigrants in the United States have come for the purpose of having a better life, providing for their families, and escaping from poverty. These are good goals and motivations. However, it is not biblical to violate a law to achieve something "good." Caring for the poor, orphans, and widows is something the Bible commands us to do (Galatians 2:10; James 1:27; 2:2-15). However, the biblical fact that we are to care for the unfortunate does not mean we should violate the law in doing so. Supporting, enabling, and/or encouraging illegal immigration is, therefore, also a violation of God's Word. Those seeking to emigrate to another country should always obey the immigration laws of that country. While this may cause delays and frustrations, these reasons do not give a person the right to violate a law.

What is the biblical solution to illegal immigration? Simple – don't do it; obey the laws. If disobedience is not a biblical option, what can be done in regards to an unjust immigration law? It is completely within the rights of citizens to seek to change immigration laws. If it is your conviction that an immigration law is unjust, do everything that is legally within your power to get the law changed: pray, petition, vote, peacefully protest, etc. As Christians, we should be the first to seek to change any law that is unjust. At the same time, we are also to demonstrate our submission to God by obeying the government He has placed in authority over us....

We do not have immigration laws because we begrudge giving Latin Americans or anyone else a safe place to live or the chance to prosper in this land of plenty. Apart from preventing another 9/11terrorist attack, our immigration laws are also there to prevent dangerous communicable diseases from spreading in this country.

Because of the protection racket being run by the main stream news media for the un-American cabal - including some Republicans as well as Democrats - which is behind this immigration debacle and which has even stooped to using innocent little children for the sake of political gain, we are not being informed - apart from conservative news sources - about the chicken pox, measles,dengue fever, antibiotic resistant TB, hepatitis, scabies, lice, leprosy and possibly even ebola that are entering the country along with the illegal immigrants. And Doctors and nurses are being threatened with reprisals if they reveal what is happening. Fortunately for us there are a few brave doctors and nurses who are blowing the whistle.

Doctors and Nurses Threatened w/Arrest for Revealing Contagious Illegal Alien Diseases

July 2, 2014 by Daniel Greenfield


Susanna said...


These illegals were very often being released untreated into the population in various parts of the country by means of public transportation which is then used by the general public.

While we as ordinary Christian citizens should indeed remember the admonition to treat the stranger among us with kindness, our politicians should also get a clue about the consequences of deliberately overwhelming us with strangers for the sake of political gain.... and then using their little Marxist "conscientization strategy" to manipulate us into feeling guilty for the Cloward -Piven strategy which begins its destructive activities by overwhelming the systems.

The U.S. House of Representatives has passed immigration reform bills, but they are dead on arrival in the Senate because the regime in Washington wants immigration reform exclusively on its own terms.......amnesty for illegals with no securing of the border.

As former Rep. Alan West said in a recent article:

Ah, the ol’ “humanitarian crisis” line, which tugs at the heartstrings and allows liberal progressives to feel good about doing something worthy. That’s how you skirt the Constitution and it enables you to castigate anyone who disagrees as mean, nasty and uncaring.

And what happens next? All these young illegals will be asked where their parents are — and then we’ll be told we cannot break up families. And since these children are fleeing “violence” in their countries, of course they’ll be granted refugee status.

Heck, Chicago has greater violence, but we don’t see any compassion from liberals there.

As T.S. Eliot admonished the audience in his play MURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL.

The last temptation is the greatest treason

To do the right thing for the wrong reason

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

Anglo Saxon legal theory has a concept, that there are things prohibited because wrong in themselves, malum in se, a concept we seem to have lost (that there is anything wrong in itself), and things which are wrong merely because prohibited. Such things by being prohibited may further issues of inherent right and wrong, such as safety (and immigration) laws, but do not in themselves have moral weight outside the context though they retain legal weight (can be enforced).

breaking the law by coming over illegally is in the latter category.

But releasing disease immigrants legal or illegal into the general population untreated would be in the former category.

And it is not doing the stranger any good to send them off untreated.

Meanwhile, this whole mess is not the result of liberal this and that.

It is a deliberate effort to acclimatize everyone to the American Union plan, the infrastructure for which is I-35 extension into Canada and Mexico.

Finally, an interesting bit of research. Seems leftists and cranky people who don't care about getting along and being socially accepted generally refuse to give dangerous to lethal shocks while nice people and conservatives go to the kill following orders, in a follow up study to the famous how much electro shock will you give experiment?

Anonymous said...

It is indeed an acclimatization plan for the AU and globalization in general. Satan was really pissed about that whole language division at the tower of Babel. There's has been for a long time now a push to homogenize the mix.

Anonymous said...

The Bible does talk about our personal response to strangers, but it also talks about who is a stranger and the responsibilities of strangers. The Bible wasn't given to make us a nation of fools. A stranger who enters a house or country with the intent to rob or kill us should not be asked to sit and have dinner.

Another view of the stranger as shown in the article: "However, it is possible to see rampant immigration from those set on the destruction of our nation as a punishment from God. One of the curses that God brings on a disobedient nation is that strangers suddenly seem in control:

"The stranger that is within thee shall get up above thee very high; and thou shalt come down very low. He shall lend to thee, and thou shalt not lend to him: he shall be the head, and thou shalt be the tail."(Deut. 28:43‑44)

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

Patriot Nurse on health issues of immigration

Anonymous said...

True, I have always believed that the illegal aliens crossing our southern border would be used to punish us for our sin of abortion as well as many other gross sins!!! I had lived in Arizona from the early 70s until ten years ago. Back in the early 70s Native Americans were probably the most populous minority. Now there are likely hundreds of Mexicans for each Native American. They have literally taken over everything! I was a tree trimmer, and did some landscaping as well. When people would drive by a home were I was working they would stare and sometimes point at me. Being a white guy in that profession is extremely rare in Arizona.

Anonymous said...

Ex Arizonan again.

While I believe that the aliens from whatever Latin american country they are from as well some from non Latin countries may bring a large portion of God's judgement to this country, there will be many judgments from other sources as well. Look at the long standing drought in the west,,,massive forrest fires (several have burned large portions of Arizona), our pollinators like honey bees, and monarch butterflies are disapering. Huge cattle die off two winters ago in the north central states. The US cattle herd is below 1948 levels. Food prices will go much higher. As far as Mexico goes, they are suffering their own judgments. I believe the body count in northern Mexico alone is over 40,O00 from drug cartel violence. Also Mexico has its own illegal immigration problems from Central and South America. They like to see them continue on north to the US. I read an article in the Wall Street Journal several years ago about the Mexican drug cartels. The Mexican mafias have taken over drug trade in many areas in South America. The article said the CIA had even found cells in SE Asia which have been rooted out. The article said that the CIA had listed the Mexican gangs as the most ruthless, and aggressive of all gangs globally. My own take on this is that because of their religious beliefs, Day of the Dead Celebration,etc. that they really do not fear death like most people. I know this is a rant, but there are many factors involved in what is, and has been going on with massive immigration.

Anonymous said...

Forgot to mention the Chinese are also part of Mexico's illegal immigration problems. Again, they are encouraged by the Mexicans to continue on to the US, as well as those from the Middle East who we very much need to be concerned about.

Constance Cumbey said...

I appreciate the comments and the legal distinction. I agree the most with Suzanne's analysis. We are talking about CHILDREN and parents who tried to send them fleeing from what was unspeakable violence and poverty where they came from. I'm sure there are all kinds of agendas here. I'm equally sure that the parents were as frantic to remove their children from the dangers as Europeans were to remove their children from WWII European war zones. Again, we are to treat the stranger among us with KINDNESS, including medical care we are capable of assisting with. We would want no less should we have to flee South of the Border, a situation not hard to foresee given what I've been witnessing lately!


Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

Anonymous said...
""laity are in the narthex" should have been "laity are in the nave."

How you disappoint me Christine. I had thought that the narthex was where the hair clippings were stored inside the church building from the ceremony when people become Orthodox."

really? the narthex is the point just inside the door (should have another door or doorway after it) the nave is the center where everyone sits, and the sanctuary is where the altar is.

take a tour

also there are virtual tours online needing java and quicktime.

When modern buildings have been put to use by Orthodox, these details may be lacking.

Online and where I came into Orthodoxy, left over baptismal water, oil and hair clippings are deposited on the ground in a place no one walks or buried.

as for analogies being mere analogies, the fact remains that


in popular sense a priest is going to be the one who can perform the highest ceremonies and sacraments, so of course laity is not priest in that sense. But laity burn candles in the church and incense at home which is a lesser priestly function,


Peter didn't just make an analogy, he drew from the SAME statement vis a vis Israel, which clearly had priesthood distinct from laity though in a sense all were priests, interceders with God for the rest of the world or something like that.

Because of the predilection to burn incense to false gods, ALL ceremonial not mere personal perfuming or air cleaning incense was apparently limited to that top priesthood which was "THE" priesthood.

Since Peter RELIES on Ex. 19:6 you can't dismiss what you rely on as a mere analogy open to semi rejection and still rely on it.

I think a lot of this priesthood of all believers talk is rooted in pride and ambition, somewhere in the back of your mind you think of yourself as a priest in the sense of the ordained standing before the altar.

OF COURSE we have direct access to Jesus that is what the Jesus Prayer is all about and the example of saints lives and so forth.

The concept of priest as icon of Christ has moved into Orthodox thought somewhat due to cross fertilization with RC, and you will see it on the Antiochian page. But this is not the teaching of The Holy Liturgy itself, and in the consecration of The Holy Eucharist the laity as well as the priest take part. We all join in Amen to the prayers of consecration and invocation of The Holy Spirit to make the transformation from bread and wine to Body and Blood of Christ.

Anonymous said...
It seems that while we are busy in the south trying to patch the leaky border as we drown in illegal immigrants, President Obama and Congress are obtaining over 42,000 pairs of men’s underwear. If there are only children escaping the “really bad things” and coming to America, then why do they need 42,000 new pair of men’s underwear?

In Pennsylvania, a serial rapist was recently caught. It should come as no surprise to the people of the south that the serial rapist was an illegal immigrant from Honduras. This happens daily down south, but most people up north only see the children and women when they think about amnesty. They don’t see the terrorists, rapists, murderers, thugs, cartel members, and general bad guys that come along with it. end of quote

Government says women and children, but they refuse to let the press into the holding centers and are even keeping office holders out. You gonna trust liars and those who censor?

Well, here's your chance to encourage movement to Michigan.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

Constance I agree entirely with your perspective, I just think we need to keep track of the health issues. And since people from China and God knows where else are coming through also, that raises an interesting question about special forces troop or spy infiltration.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

It just is one big experiment to show Hillary's claim that it takes a community to raise a child. The children being sent over are just looking for such a community to raise them. Parents who send young children off with coyotes just can't be trusted to take care of their own children. By the way, some are trying to make a comparison with the Holocaust. The crime rate hasn't gone up in Central and South America. No comparison. Just one big sociological experiment. The kids need the government controlled communities to raise them. The rest of the border crossers are just to make sure the government is powerful enough to control them and everyone else.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

Central and South America don't have as much drug cartel wars going on as Mexico but there are a lot of nasty situations, and besides, "gone up" since when?

Anonymous said...

You can't get out of it by deflecting, Christine. I accept the truth of Peter's words, of course, but a priest of type A is still a priest, and a priest of type B is still a priest, so the question "Is an ordinand regarded by Orthodoxy as a priest of any type prior to his ordination?" has a Yes/No answer. If Yes, then why does the Orthodox rite of ordination say that he is ordained "as a priest"? If No, Orthodoxy is contradicting the priesthood of all believers in Rev 1:6 and 1 Peter 2:9, is it not?

Which is it?

Anonymous said...

Anon@12:23 p.m.

The church is called the bride of Christ. This makes individual Christians brides of Christ too.

Do you go around asking Christian brides on their wedding day, why should they be called brides or dress like one, as if they were not brides before?

Do you ask the groom, why is your future wife, your bride, like she was not a bride before, since all Christians are brides.

Or do you just reserve these questions for priests?

Stop fussing over a word.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

"You can't get out of it by deflecting, Christine. I accept the truth of Peter's words, of course, but a priest of type A is still a priest, and a priest of type B is still a priest, so the question "Is an ordinand regarded by Orthodoxy as a priest of any type prior to his ordination?" has a Yes/No answer. If Yes, then why does the Orthodox rite of ordination say that he is ordained "as a priest"? If No, Orthodoxy is contradicting the priesthood of all believers in Rev 1:6 and 1 Peter 2:9, is it not?

Which is it?"

The truth of Peter's words that you accept, is the words in Exodus addressed to people who had a priesthood, and a high priest within that priesthood, and the average person was NOT a priest, yet in some way they were, according to God A NATION OF PRIESTS.

If you accept the truth of Peter's words, you must also accept the context and application they were first spoken in in the OT which Peter quoted.


There is no deflection at all. It is pointing to what Peter drew on to make the correct application.

It doesn't matter what may be a commonplace understanding in Orthodoxy now or is not such an understanding.

The fact is, that the laity have to be present and participate saying Amen at a certain point with the priest in consecrating the Eucharist, so his priesthood is to be exercized in the big deal sacraments, and in this the most important sacrament, with the laity participating.

The fact is that offering incense or candles is a priestly act, which laity do at home all the time (and in church light candles rather than presenting them to a priest to light),

Which shows the laity are a low level priesthood and "priest" means in that context, regardless of what may be understood by habit now, but this is the reality displayed by the actions, priest means upper level priest and not a priest means you can't legally perform the Eucharist in an open meeting or legally do so anywhere else, nor can a priest legally do so without at least one other person with him.

Anonymous said...

The fact is, that the laity have to be present and participate saying Amen at a certain point with the priest in consecrating the Eucharist, so his priesthood is to be exercized in the big deal sacraments, and in this the most important sacrament, with the laity participating.

The fact is that offering incense or candles is a priestly act, which laity do at home all the time (and in church light candles rather than presenting them to a priest to light),

Which shows the laity are a low level priesthood and "priest" means in that context, regardless of what may be understood by habit now, but this is the reality displayed by the actions, priest means upper level priest and not a priest means you can't legally in an open meeting or legally do so anywhere else, nor can a priest legally do so without at least one other person with him.

8:16 PM

Hog. Wash.

perform the Eucharist.....there is your big big Big misunderstanding of Scripture right there.

All you have is religion.

You need Jesus.

A real relationship with Him. You need to be born-again with His Spirit in you and then you will know what is wrong with your answer.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

I have Jesus and He led me to Orthodoxy. And as long as you see the Eucharist in the way you do, it is just as well you are not in a liturgical church and expected to partake of it and doing so because expected to, but "not perceiving The Body of The Lord" as Paul warns.

I started out as a generic Christian baptized in a swimming pool, and for years believed all kinds of nonsense about these things. But reading the Bible and studying the pre Nicene Fathers and then history showing Constantine changed and introduced NOTHING, I figured out that Orthodoxy has the least if any biblical problems about it.


Anonymous said...

You keep talking the horizontal. church church church....that is first and only that you really talk about in the spiritual realm. This is mere religion. I'm not talking denomination(s) and you mistakenly think I am because you are staying in the horizontal. You prove it in how much you try to prove it (do you understand what I mean?)

Go vertical. .....Isaiah 6 vertical......And then......go horizontal. Your 'king' (religion) needs to die. When it does you'll land on your face first before the LORD.....and the...go do church....then you will go Be the church and it won't be about all the 'performances' and the higher and lower hog wash.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

like most protestant positions yours is a half truth. And frankly I've had more help in getting on my face before The Lord Jesus Christ in Orthodoxy than bumbling around outside of it.

Anonymous said...

So you say.

Christ Jesus does not come out of your speech. Religion does. Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. (look it up)

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

"religion" as you call it is what is under discussion, and "religion" also is all you hear even though a lot of it IS about Christ Jesus. In Orthodoxy the worship is not with words only but with actions the bowing and crossing and lighting of candles. "all your heart and mind and strength," remember?

One poster is hung up on priesthood. so that is discussed.

two things hammered on a lot are charity and humility. I don't see humility in rejecting any possible authority above yourself or an extreme localism that limits everything to the congregation and makes no provision for unanimity among the congregations as Paul said "to speak with one voice" or rejecting any counsel of history or wise people outside your little group.

sola scriptura - fine. but not only is it in the Bible (and relics and blessed objects are in The Bible) but can it be deduced from The Bible and does it explicitly oppose The Bible (after examining issues of context and translation)? and, is it a permissible variant form to adopt to adapt to some environment or not?

BTW patriotism and a strong sense of national identity are not in The Bible, our citizenship (KJV says "conversation") is in Heaven, earthly identities of this sort are secondary and to be put to use to The Kingdom of Heaven's advantage. And the best argument for govt. is Romans 13 stating its proper role is to punish evil and reward good, which being rather general terms have to include some economic and direction of how people are to treat each other in families and so forth type activity as well.

And the best argument for national sovereignty is quarantine, that evil ot proliferate across borders, there be a place to run to.

We are to obey the law of the land insofar as it doesn't oppose God, not because of citizenship or location but because God says to do so and not act in a way that could bring disrepute on His Name.

If you want the Scripture cites, go find them yourself. While trekking through The Bible to find them (find a dead man's bones resurrecting another dead man, and water of cleaning not baptism but a kind of Holy Water while you're at it), you will get more Bible in your head than you will get from going through it in a year and forgetting a lot, or what is quoted briefly in a sermon most of which is more story telling than anything else. Well, not all are like that.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

oh, yeah, participation in the armed forces is kind of an unsettled and perhaps unsettleable question for Christians, given context of when it was FORBIDDEN and context of when it became commonplace.

Anonymous said...

So says you.

The Holy Spirit speaks about Jesus. Let's HIM shine.

You constantly talk religion. Your words take a 'shine' to that.

If you really knew what I was talking about you would thank me for keeping it about HIM. The Lord is no respecter of persons. Religion is all about that. (high-low, 'performing', etc, etc, etc, till the cows come home and finally tip over in the barn.....)

Your religion is the roadblock to your truly understanding.

This is not an unloving thing I say to you. It is the opposite. You must be born again. Jesus said that in John Chapter 3. (was He unloving?) He let Nicodemus know that religion was in his way. If you already were you would thank me for upholding that life-changing truth. religion is old pagan now just repackaged for the 'new age'. Religion is a dead end. Christ is Life that never ends.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

"You must be born again. Jesus said that in John Chapter 3. (was He unloving?) He let Nicodemus know that religion was in his way. If you already were you would thank me for upholding that life-changing truth. religion is old pagan now just repackaged for the 'new age'."

typical mishandling of Scripture.

I am born again, Nicodemus was not held back by the God ordained forms of Mosaic religion, whether the ritual law or the liturgical way of worship, but a misfocus on minutiae as an end in themselves and a failure to see in them hints that are made overt in the New Covenant Scriptures.

Religion is NOT "old pagan," I am sure if you saw the Temple liturgies and sacrifices presented to you in a dream you would complain when you woke up of having had a nightmare about pagan ceremonies.

But except for sexual rituals and symbolism and human sacrifice and so forth, pagan religion forms were mostly just stolen from the original primordial ways of honoring YHWH, which were directed to false gods.

"religion" as you please to dismiss all this, is about honoring God on earth in the way He is honored in Heaven which you see in Revelation where it shows ongoing worship service in Heaven.

True, to some people the forms that express facts about or embody adoration to Jesus are deadening and don't stir anything but leave you scratching your head perhaps a better understanding of WHY everything is done that is done some education on this would make it more able to speak to you.

Everything in Orthodox worship, from which derived RC worship, from which scaled down Lutheran worship, from which deviated Calvinist worship from which finally dithered into content free seeker sensitive nonsense most of the modern worship

is about Jesus and comes from The Bible. The Holy Liturgy is mostly Bible segments often in threes to honor The Holy Trinity and "Glory to The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit" added in here and there, this itself derived from what Scripture says about The Holy Trinity.

(and if you now tell me "trinity" is not in The Bible I will know you are not born again but propagandized and Obsessive Compulsive Disorderish about terminology, since that is the only word to describe what IS in The Bible.)

The very epistle to the Hebrews in focussing on priesthood validates liturgical formal worship.

Anonymous said...

"The church is called the bride of Christ. This makes individual Christians brides of Christ too."

Faulty logic. Individual Christians are PART of the (future) bride of Christ. Or do you think He is a polygamist?

Marriage involves a covenant. Christian initiation involves a covenant. It does not follow from those two statements that Christian initiation involves a marriage. That is the fallacy of the excluded middle, if I remember correctly.

Anonymous said...

Christine you won't give a direct answer my Yes/No question of 12.23pm will you? Either answer would be embarrassing for your position, of course.

People who take my position are often accused of wanting to abolish the priesthood. Far from it! I want to abolish the laity.

Anonymous said...

The function of the ordained priesthood, in those denominations that have it, is to minister the sacraments, which non-ordained persons may not do. The sacraments are essentially the supernatural facets of the faith that God systematically makes available through human beings. But according to St Paul the supernatural aspects of the faith involve the gifts of the Holy Spirit and are available to all committed believers according to 1 Cor 12. The effect of the ordained priesthood is to induce a dependence of the "laity" on them that "keeps them under control" and disempowers their personal ministries. It is a great shame, in all senses.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

on the contrary. individual ministries of various kinds often exist in such denominations. as for control, this primarily functions to limit heretical and immoral tendencies - behave or get excommunicated.

"dependence" helps humility, the primary virtue from which all others flow, vs. pride the primary vice from which all other vices flow.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

pf course if by personal ministries you mean putting yourself forth before the congregation as preacher or priestlike figure, then that is pride and ambition driving the desire not service to God or mankind.

Anonymous said...

The form of control I was referring to is "You need the sacraments and you do not have access to them except via the ordained priesthood." However if you have God's anointing, manifest in one or more of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, who else's do you need?

I preach in the congregation I am part of, and occasionally in others. Shame, shame that it took secularism to win me that freedom from people who would call me heretic and persecute me for it (a grave heresy in itself). People like you?

I gladly accept that there are committed believers in Jesus Christ in all denominations including those that ordain. I also have no taste to start name-calling denominations. (It is you who brought up Orthodoxy.) And I accept that the church is, humanly speaking, a collective and needs to organise itself as such. But I shall not be deterred by your rhetoric from pointing out the problems I have raised above.

Anonymous said...

Blogger Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

" pf course if by personal ministries you mean putting yourself forth before the congregation as preacher or priestlike figure, then that is pride and ambition driving the desire not service to God or mankind."

Does anyone see a person who needs to speak this to a mirror?

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

"However if you have God's anointing, manifest in one or more of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, who else's do you need?"

First off, since you use that terminology, I would suggest you study up on the subject of spiritual deception masquerading as The Holy Spirit in the charismatic scene. Word of Faith is heresy and some flat out blasphemous doctrines are taught by people like Copeland and others.

The New Apostolic Reformation is more of the same plus disguised satanic politics.

God is not for chaos but peace and order Paul says.

Proverbs says that a man's gift makes room for him.

If you indeed have The Holy Spirit giving you a message it can be run through a clergyman or several who review and present the subject, without pushing yourself forward.

Read the epistles to the Corinthians.

If you only left some denomination because they wouldn't let you preach in church, that is no reason at all.

What exactly is the content of your preaching? what were the doctrines of the church you left?

If you truly are with Jesus you will have humility not ambition.

Anonymous said...

"Religion is NOT "old pagan," I am sure if you saw the Temple liturgies and sacrifices presented to you in a dream you would complain when you woke up of having had a nightmare about pagan ceremonies."

Read the book of Hebrews 2:07 a.m.

Then believe it. The Old Covenant that religion still tries to hang on to has been done away with, replaced by the New Covenant.

You sure appear to be one in bondage to religion and not free in Christ. Do you have the peace of God that passes all understanding? You seem to be a person who does not know peace in the things that you write. If you are born-again then why are you still bound under the old way? Behold the old has passed away and the new has come. The New Covenant (by the blood of Christ-HE is the new and living way) brought peace to us who believe.

You must be born again.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

Hebrews doesn't say elimination of priesthood it says change of priesthood ergo change of law.

Revelation shows liturgical worship going on in heaven, which Orthododxy tries to reproduce on earth.


you have no idea what you are talking about. you need to read the whole NT and not some bits that fit your personal agenda.

Of course God is more interested in good deeds and avoiding bad deeds and bad thoughts (aka sin) than in external worship, but all else being equal what is wrong with it?


My guess is they DON'T and are already on heresy watchlists I know of.

So fess up, who are your "covering" on the one hand, or source by laying on of hands of "anointing" on the other and exactly what do you teach about Jesus?

Do you claim He had to die spiritually as well as physically and suffered in hell like Copeland does?

Do you claim that faith is substance means faith IS a substance you can increase and project like an energy to get your will done especially when you speak what you want?

"substance " is Elizabethan English for substrate something has its stance on, like a building on a foundation.

The context of faith is substance makes it clear that it is not about word of faith or other witchcraft nonesense.

Are you expecting a last days manifestation of super Christians who will take the world by storm, punish the Christians who don't believe in them and present the kingdom to Christ at His return?

Anonymous said...

"Do you claim He had to die spiritually as well as physically and suffered in hell like Copeland does?

Do you claim that faith is substance means faith IS a substance you can increase and project like an energy to get your will done especially when you speak what you want?
Are you expecting a last days manifestation of super Christians who will take the world by storm, punish the Christians who don't believe in them and present the kingdom to Christ at His return?"

No. Not one shred of that stuff. And no need to take any of the other garbage on point for point.

But nice try at deflecting the real point I made....take that back....the point that the Bible in the book of Hebrews made......maybe you are just blind to the New Covenant?

Anonymous said...

"If you truly are with Jesus you will have humility not ambition."

Don't worry Christine, you will never be accused of being humble.


you sure are ambitious with someone else's blog.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

The New Covenant says we have access to God The Father through faith in Jesus (in the Gospels the word Jesus used is Greek for turning to Him, in the Epistles the word is belief that affects action)

and the Passover sacrifice in Exodus for the Jews is a foreshadowing of Christ Who is the Passover for anyone who accepts Him as Lord (someone to be obeyed, faith produces works)

and the priesthood is changed from aaronic to melchizedecian with Jesus as High Priest.

Exodus 19:6 calls all Israel a nation of priests, and Peter quotes this when he refers to Christians as a nation of priests.

The orderly quality within the congregations is not legalism. The New Covenant text NT is totally based on and grows out of the Old Covenant text OT, and quotes it at least 143 times to makes all the NT points.

The Old Covenant said you could be on track with God if you pursued certain specific dos and don'ts and kept certain holy days, though it also spoke of the heart and spoke against walking in the imagination of the heart, which brings forth prohibited activities.

St. Paul wrote Galatians to counter judaizing legalism which would say you have to do circumcision and food laws and holy days of Mosaic Law in order to be a Christian, NOT to say you don't have to obey Jesus' words or keep the moral law shown in OT which Paul reiterates.

so what DO you preach? and don't tell me "Bible truth" get specific. A lot goes by that title that is at best incomplete and sometimes totally unbiblical.

And there are a few who preach bible truth on some subjects and not on others.

Exactly what anointing evidence and gifts of The Holy Spirit do you claim to have? How did you get the anointing?

Anonymous said...

The Bible speaks for itself and you can explain as much as you want because who will stop you?

Just be sure you are not being a foolish galatian and strapping yourself and others with religion.


your penchant for argument and constant debate are proof that you have your own designs on this blog or you would simply have agreed with me a while back and not brought up the unnecessary---proving (again and again) that is the disquieted spirit within you that pushes and pulls for time and space to be taken up with you and your needless, unresolved and conflicted religious blatherings.

Take the Bible at it's word since you say you believe it and ........move on!

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...


and you are just deflecting and not answering critical issues.

what church wouldn't let you preach and why? what do you teach? what gifts do you claim to have and how did you get the anointing?

Paul lays down rules of order in Corinthians about talking in tongues and prophesying, if anyone is going to talk in tongues and no one can interpret, shut up. If anyone is going to prophecy no more than one or two at most three in a church meeting.

Paul gives a pattern and standard that orderliness is godly.

Those are specific instances but the rule holds.

that rule is consistent with having a hierarchy and direction.

and control of the sacraments means that behavior - sin and heresy - can be controlled.

This never stopped heretics from having their own get togethers and sacraments, but absent persons with paranormal sight to act as quality control, the validity of those sacraments is up in the air no one knows.

Partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ does not guarantee you will be perfect if you don't cooperate with that grace.

lay preachers with a blessing and visiting speakers regarding something of interest are not unheard of in many denominations.

Denominations developed in order to exclude first what was recognized as heresy by the first churches, and they were the only denomination, then after the great schism of AD 1054 you had the RC and then Luther, then Calvin then a proliferation trying to define truth and exclude error.

Jesus said THIS IS MY BODY and Paul says not to eat of it "not perceiving THE BODY OF THE LORD."

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

"your penchant for argument and constant debate are proof that you have your own designs on this blog"

really? I don't just let nonsense slide. I dissect and analyze.

"or you would simply have agreed with me a while back and not brought up the unnecessary--"


If I didn't have an agenda etc. I WOULD SIMPLY HAVE AGREED WITH YOU

how delusional and/or agenda driven can you get? who do you think you are that my virtue is shown by my agreeing with you?

supposedly my virtue is proven by my agreeing with you, and my vice by my disagreeing with you.

And not bring up unnecessary?


Anonymous said...

"Religion is NOT "old pagan," I am sure if you saw the Temple liturgies and sacrifices presented to you in a dream you would complain when you woke up of having had a nightmare about pagan ceremonies.

But except for sexual rituals and symbolism and human sacrifice and so forth, pagan religion forms were mostly just stolen from the original primordial ways of honoring YHWH, which were directed to false gods"

That is one unholy piece of crap you believe.


And you say you read and believe the Bible?

You worship what you don't even know and make this crap up as you go (how sad for this blog).

They that worship the Lord must worship Him in Spirit and in Truth just as Jesus said.

You are double-minded at best (and make me wonder if you are on drugs or something) or............ outright unbelieving at worst.

Anonymous said...

"If you really knew what I was talking about you would thank me for keeping it about HIM."

If you already were you would thank me for upholding that life-changing truth"

That is where we parted company since you don't agree to that statement.

And you go on and on arguing.

You deflect that powerful truth with only more r e l i g i o n!

God help you.

Anonymous said...

You must be born again.

That's where you could have, should have agreed. But no. You went on the argue religion. Just a the pharisees did. Nobody received stronger rebuke from Jesus than them.

So you obviously do not know what the term really means.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

I draw on the Bible and you don't listen. you complain of "religion" but that wasn't what the pharisees argued, they argued that Jesus couldn't be what they were expecting.

you just don't get it.

my religion is ALL ABOUT JESUS.

your religion is apparently all about you. AND DON'T THINK FOR A MINUTE YOU ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT RELIGION, it is just another kind of Christian religion.

freedom in Christ is freedom from sin, from worshipping self, from having to follow extensive detail and sometimes painful stuff to be on track with God (Mosaic ritual law)

it is not about free to do your own thing on a whim.

and of course you don't submit your preaching content, or history of where you got your anointing from, to be evaluated. I can only wonder why. There must be something in it you have figured by now I am biblically literate enough to nail as dead wrong.

I think you are part of the spirit of lawlessness, even if you are also to some extent Christian.

Now if you left some heretic group to preach rightly fine. But I am not hearing that.

What I am hearing is you worship yourself.

your dedication to buzzwords like religion keeps you from facing bible reality.

James 1:27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

This points out that external observances of formal worship don't do much good if you don't act like Jesus.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

I AM BORN AGAIN, when I decided to obey Jesus and get baptized, and also there is regeneration in baptism according to Jesus and Paul we are baptized into His death and raised with Him to new life.

I said already I am born again. I turned from false gods and from not accepting Jesus as the coming King and accepted Him as my King and God and did so better later as He led me to realize I had sins I didn't recognize as such.

Susanna etc. think obedience to Jesus is obedience to His ordained order on earth, and that is good as far as it goes, but the order they are following is derived, schismatic error ridden and MUCH TIGHTER INFLEXIBLE order than the order He ordained on earth, which was more fluid and has no single head on earth, the Orthodox church.

All churches moderately good bad and indifferent came from EO the main trunk, or from churches that came from them.



go ahead, show your true colors. Tell me The Trinity is not in The Bible because the word Trinity isn't in The Bible and tell me Constantine changed everything (instead of being in awe of it and only demanding they sort out the arian heresy issue dividing the Church).

I have already told you I am born again, and that doesn't mean anarchism and ambition. I kinda wonder if YOU are born again.

Anonymous said...

"and of course you don't submit your preaching content,"

I let the Bible preach. Enough for me. Don't need anyone to interpret what is the plain thing, the main thing. It does not need expounding--only believing, but who insists upon making this a 'religious' competition? You do.

So we hear endlessly of your preaching content.

You fight over words and I am talking a religious concept that is the faith that based in knowing Jesus as personal Lord-personal Savior-that inward-born all over again spiritual change-that includes as a walk of the life thereafter, an outward expression of good works. (and has the accompanying peace you don't have evidently or you faith would rest there.

An example of what that looks like: (yes)
James 1:27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

That is religion as the Bible means it.

But of course you cannot leave it at that and go on into "religion" that is not about Jesus ultimately, but name drops His name, because of the requirements you strap on yourself to consider yourself good before God.
Your religion is the worldly (based in the flesh) sort that does not know what the New Covenant life is about or it would not insist on rituals and relics, religious feelings and ambiance (chock full of old pagan/new age traps), but would stick to the plain and the main. His righteousness exchanged for my/your rags (in my flesh dwells no good thing--cannot even do good works until born again from above---and-------what you miss entirely---or you would have already made a point of that and agreed with the Bible and yes, in that, me too....)

That is what the pharisees did and lorded it over others as the much better way to be 'spiritual' but missed the heart change because of the humbling they (and you?) want to avoid (and admit) to merely go 'do good' 'religious' things which were their standard of good, not God's---------------------------and that is why He was crucified. 'Religion' is still doing that today as it did then--and what you argue about!!!

I insist on this just as Jesus said: (and HE is my preacher)

You must be born again.

(you're outta "luck" with the priest thing). You need Jesus.

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

"You fight over words and I am talking a religious concept that is the faith that based in knowing Jesus as personal Lord-personal Savior-that inward-born all over again spiritual change-that includes as a walk of the life thereafter, an outward expression of good works. (and has the accompanying peace you don't have evidently or you faith would rest there. "

actually this would be the position of Eastern Orthodoxy and add what Orthodox means, right praise, based on right faith, correct belief about Jesus (fully God and fully man, died for our sins as atonement offering now denied by many "orthodox" who were infected with ideas of Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky but the standing teaching is indeed cancelling of debt incurred by sin) and right praise includes the worship thing, and the priesthood provides order instead of everyone running around doing the same thing,


where the faith meaning focussed turning to Jesus unblocked by sins and doubt, of the individual is weak, even of the priest, the ordination gives a charism that makes up for this, and the invocation of The Holy Spirit to do all sacraments and sacramentals (lesser sacraments) ensures their validity (i.e., they work).

the priest points to Jesus and if the priest is doing his job, encourages fasting prayer and self examination. counselling during confession.

Anonymous said...

And don't miss this as what I believe---God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit is the God of the Bible.

Come on. You say you are born again. That should have been your capstone statement--not your buried in the blurr admission (finally) and does not evidently just roll off of your tongue----------but 'religion' sure does.

Since you say it is true of you then simply stick to being born again only and the rest will come to you--and then you will stop arguing and finally have peace.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

"Come on. You say you are born again. That should have been your capstone statement--not your buried in the blurr admission (finally) and does not evidently just roll off of your tongue----------but 'religion' sure does."

Born again has become a slipshod popular phrase that can mean anything and often nothing.

I am more interested in details. And one can be born again but so carnal as to be virtually a heathen.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 210   Newer› Newest»