Monday, January 12, 2015

So much happening that it's hard to summarize everything of concern!

Jesus told his disciples that the end would come as a flood.  He also analogized it to birth pangs.  They were warned that "in such a moment as ye think not" it could come in an admonition to stay always ready.  He also made references to Sodom and Gomorrah and the suddenness in which it hit that culture.

The birth pangs are especially interesting.  They increase in intensity, coming closer and closer together as they strengthen.

Developments of the last few years have certainly proved interesting.  An anti-New Age Pope Benedict XVI (formerly Cardinal Ratzinger) made an unprecedented retirement.  He was replaced with Argentina's Cardinal Bergoglio.  Liberal Catholic author Robert Blair Kaiser had Bergoglio on his short list of "pro-change" Popes.  Ratzinger had been on his list of "no-change" Popes.

Today, per news reports, Pope Francis has blamed the ISIS-Al Qaeda violence on deviant fundamentalist religion.  He also expressed hopes that 2015 would bring about progress toward a "climate change agreement."

As bad as the violence both past and threatened are, I cannot help but wonder if this is setting the stage for  renewed and accelerated "New World Religion" calls.  Rich of Medford has written guest columns for us on the past on the United Nations "Alliance of Civilization."  They have a global conference set for this May 18-19, 2015 to be held in Indonesia.  It will have an old, familiar New Age theme:  Unity and Diversity" with the same buzzwords I viewed when first discovering the Movement's existence in 1981:  UNITY AND DIVERSITY because "we live in a GLOBAL VILLAGE".

There will be many attempts to force compromise in a new global pantheon.  Simultaneously, I foresee many attempts to play the old time honored games of "Watch the Fundamentalists Run" in an attempt to use as Exhibit 1 of claimed hysteria provoking excesses from more easily panicked members of the Christian Community into creating a legal and moral justification for the long claimed New Age religious goal where all would say, "Blessed be THY God" rather than "Blessed be MY God."  In the best Karen Armstrong advocated position, they would have us bow to each other's gods in the New Age pantheon as a condition of being deserving to live in the New World Order.

Of course, the "Internet of Everything" for which drums are also now furiously beat would help keep tabs -- not to mention the drones.

The Christian community, particularly the Evangelical Christian community has been sold out for a long time.  Glenn Clark founder of Camps Farthest Out wrote glowingly of the New Age in a book he wrote during World War II.  Glenn Clark was a spiritual director to Mrs. Aymar Johnson (Marian Johnson) who held yearly New Years' Day retreats for "The Twelve."  It now appears very clear from my recent intense reseach which I've been discussing at length on my Saturday morning internet program that "The Twelve" were Christian in name only -- their roster was a panel of nearly all mystics and part of the gang was Roland Gammon.  Marian Clark checked her "guidance" to take a large home on Embassy Row in Washington, D.C. to be "God's Living Room".  This was where Abraham ("Abram") Vereide got his start.  Both Harald Bredesen and Doug Coe successively worked for Abram Vereide.  Paul Nathaniel Temple, the co-founder and chief financial benefactor of Institute for Noetic Sciences, was part of the core group of that organization since 1944.  Although he is now in his 90s, he still writes very large checks annually for both Fellowship Foundation (C Street Group) as well as his Institute of Noetic Sciences.  I suspect they will play no small role to help "swing the masses into step" as Alice Bailey happily put it in her book, THE EXTERNALISATION OF THE HIERARCHY.  (pages 502-503)

At any rate, much is on my mind and it is difficult to summarize.  I've long delayed my finishing of my series on "The HiJacking of Evangelicalism" both here and on NewswithViews.  I'm now close to completion.  I have recently obtained Glenn Clark's autobiography, A Man's Reach, which confirmed many of my suspicions concerning the origin of the Washington group which was discussed by mystical enough Norman Grubb in his biographical book about Abraham Vereide:  "Modern Viking."  When thoroughly analyzed, one cannot help but think that this group of 12 at least perceived of themselves as "illuminati,"  After reading Clark's THE MAN WHO TAPPED THE SECRETS OF THE UNIVERSE, I don't know what else to believe.  Clark was summoned by eugenist/physician Alexis Carrel to help him find a man who was fully cosmically attuned.  Clark believed he had found them in some of the men that were part of their group of 12 meeting at Marian Johnson's Washington mansion (e.g. Rufus Jones, E. Stanley Jones, and Frank Laubach).  His book was about another he claimed to have discovered,

Thanks for sticking around.  I do the radio program every Saturday morning, 10 a.m. Eastern Time.  I share tremendous amounts of information there during the two hours of programming.  Consider tuning in there as well as staying tuned here.

Happy New Year to all!



1 – 200 of 725   Newer›   Newest»
Craig said...

While I’m concerned about what the Pope may have in mind regarding this ‘urgency’ of a “climate change agreement,” I’m willing to sit back and wait to see the actual content of his forthcoming Encyclical. Having stated that, I’m disappointed with some of the Pontiff’s phraseology, as Constance points out.

I don’t care for Francis’ equating “deviant forms of religion” with “religious fundamentalism.” Unfortunately, in modern secular parlance, “religious fundamentalism” is akin to “religious extremism,” meaning, at least in this case, violence in the name of religion. I think this negative connotation, apparently initially adopted by opponents of some forms or particular aspects of organized religion, should not be used by the faithful; as, to provide an analogy, if I were to use “mathematical fundamentalism” I believe most would think I was speaking about the rudiments of math (1 + 1 = 2, multiplication tables, e.g.). Conversely, if I were to use the phrase “mathematical extremism,” one might think, e.g., of the misuse of statistics to make one’s own slanted point. In short, I find “religious fundamentalism” quite unhelpful.

On the other hand, I’m in agreement with the Pope in his position to have (according to the author of the piece) “stepped up his call for Muslim political, religious and intellectual leaders to vocally insist that Islam doesn't condone such violence.” Many non-Muslims have stated that, according to the teachings found in the Koran, the true faithful MUST kill the “infidels” and “heretics” in the name of Allah, while some Muslims claim the Koran does not teach this; hence, it is absolutely incumbent upon those who assert that Islam is a peaceful religion to vocally speak out against the atrocities of ISIL/ISIS, Boko Haram, etc. But, I think they should go further. I’d say even more direct action is necessary, e.g., real attempts by Imams to meet with leaders of these violent organizations, in order to quell the onslaught of innocents. Absent that, claims by Muslim clerics and leaders that these groups do not represent true Islam come off as merely empty rhetoric.

Anonymous said...

Pope Francis: 'You Cannot Be a Christian Outside the Church'

end time

Anonymous said...


"real attempts by Imams to meet with leaders of these violent organizations, in order to quell
the onslaught of innocents"

Yes, that will fix this whole mess! Satan will back off then!

As far as waiting to see what the Pope may have to say about the weather, before passing judgment?
Then what? Will we know then, if he is a true minister of the gospel?
Has his speech not given him away yet? Does he spend all his energies glorifying Jesus, and refusing veneration, and even worship directed toward him? When he speaks, does it sound similar to Christ? Or, does he glorify the mother church, and the queen of heaven? Does he separate himself from religions that are in opposition to christian doctrine. Or, does he sup with them, and seek to bond with them? Are the words spoken by the Pope strange, or do they edify?????? Does he speak like a lamb, or like a dragon?

We all know that you, Craig, as the other intellectuals here, are quite brilliant, learned, etc. Will intellect help you, and those you influence, help get us all through the strong delusion that is at work now, and will greatly increase? Or, should we trust in the decernment that the Holy Ghost provides those who are in Christ the Lord? Regardless of whether we know Greek, or Hebrew, or have an IQ of over 160? Because it seems obvious that there is a great deal of blindness amongst the brain trust here.

Anonymous said...

It's actually Daniel, rather than Jesus in the gospels, who said that the end would come like a flood.

Craig said...

Anon 2:09,

While I can understand the need for anonymity, it would be really helpful if you – and other anonymous posters here – used some sort of non-disclosing pseudonym so that readers could differentiate between you and the others, thus enabling all to see the totality of your comments in order to get a better grasp of your positions. For example, you could choose something like:


…or something of the sort.

Without this background, I don’t know if you are, e.g., the one who keeps insisting the Pope is the false prophet (and, if so, why couldn’t this figure be Rick Warren instead?).

We may also be able to determine if, by your words, you are “a true minister of the gospel,” who makes statements that “sound similar to Christ,” and if you are one who spends “all his energies glorifying Jesus,” etc.

Because I use a consistent identifier you can always go back and read my posts to see the various positions I hold. And, should you look at the previous thread and really read what I’d written regarding Chrismation and the NT use of and hiereus (or hieros), “priest,” you’d see my implicit criticisms of the RCC (and EO). Just because I wish to give the Pope the benefit of the doubt before he actually makes a statement does not mean I agree with him in general or that I agree with the whole idea of Pope-as-head-of-Church – and if you were to read some of my even older comments, you’d see more overt criticism of the RCC.

As for my comments about Imams doing more about so-called “religious fundamentalism” within Islam and your criticism of my comments, what might you suggest?

Craig said...

Anon 12:01,

And why would this statement surprise you? Isn’t this a consistent teaching of the RCC?

Even so, this statement can be absolutely congruent with Protestantism. If we agree that “the Church” is only made up of true Holy Spirit-indwelt Christians, then by definition such individuals are a part of “the Church,” and, hence, “You Cannot Be a Christian Outside the Church.”

Anonymous said...

Moreover, those who deny Jesus Christ will be witnessing what exactly?

Anonymous said...


In Islam they are allowed to lie, called Taqiyya and lie by omission called Kitman. There is no "Thou shall not bare false witness against thy neighbor". A Muslim can lie in business, to his wife and to keep the peace and to all non-Muslims. In other words they can lie all day. There are small rules fir strangers in Muslim lands but these can be contradicted by strict rules that define acceptaable abuse against Infidels. The majority of 'leaders' are actually the Muslim Brotherhood members who have strong political objectives, work well with elites from other 'tribes' (and I mean tribes of elite from other nations and countries) like international bankers and illuminated individuals. A good example is Ingrid Mattson, from a Catholic home her sister converted to Judaism and she became a Muslim running the largest Muslim Brotherhood front group in North America ISNA. She is also a Lucis Trust world server. I confronted her once and she has no problems lying while being hosted by her Catholic apologist friends.

Therefore you will never get what you seek, a reliable Muslim voice that can tell convince you that Islam is peace, They mean peace as in 'when everyone is converted or killed".

For communication, sorry but I forgot to put my *** on all my posts because I get on a roll.

Most recently, I discovered the Moody/Blackstone connection.


Constance Cumbey said...

I just received an email update from NOW THE END BEGINS website.

According to it, former President Jimmy Carter is blaming the Islamic violence on the Israelis!

I would like to say I'm surprised, but I'm not. Ruth Carter Stapleton was into the New Age Movement when she was living.


Craig said...


Here are Jimmy Carter's actual words:

“Well, one of the origins for it is the Palestinian problem,” Carter replied. “And this aggravates people who are affiliated in any way with the Arab people who live in the West Bank and Gaza, what they are doing now — what’s being done to them. So I think that’s part of it.”

Anon 12 said...


I wonder if you would give me your input on this quote from Pope Francis recently:

"Christ and his mother are inseparable."

"Mary is so closely united to Jesus because she received from him the knowledge of the heart, the knowledge of faith, nourished by her experience as a mother and by her close relationship with her Son," said Francis.

"The Blessed Virgin is the woman of faith who made room for God in her heart and in her plans; she is the believer capable of perceiving in the gift of her Son the coming of that 'fullness of time' in which God, by choosing the humble path of human existence, entered personally into the history of salvation," he said.

"That is why Jesus cannot be understood without his Mother," said Francis. "Likewise inseparable are Christ and the Church; the salvation accomplished by Jesus cannot be understood without appreciating the motherhood of the Church."

I am not asking to be inflammatory and I do not wish to debate the whole Mary thing. Just using this as an example of some of the LUDICROUS things the Pope has said and done this year. One absolutely DOES NOT need to know Mary to understand Jesus. And I was a faithful and practicing catholic for over 30 years, so, I UNDERSTAND very well the teachings of RCC. I mean, this is absolute BS!!!

You are right to say that we shouldn't judge him on what we THINK he might say. We shouldn't judge any man as such.

Having said that, this is one of many indications of how we might be able to expect what he may say in general, and its NOT GOOD.

And why can't Rick Warren be the false prophet? Because, he's an idiot and most people outside of his circles know that. And he does not have the power or influence to be the FP the bible speaks of.

Of course the Pope communing with him doesn't help, it gives him a whole new load of credibility with people outside his circle that he didn't have before, which is very unfortunate as this will bring him into people's lives that ordinarily wouldhave thought otherwise, until the Pope basically endorsed him as a fellow Christian leader. This is not a good thing.

And I'm not the one who has been insisting that he is the FP, but I think it's very possible considering his actions the past year.

And it really doesn't make sense to ask anyone here for an opinion on that who are catholic. What do you really expect them to say?

Craig said...

Anon ***,

Thanks for making it easier to identify posters. While I was somewhat aware of the claim that Muslims are allowed - in fact, supposed - to lie, I had not seen the two terms and the delineation you make. It may well be just as you say it is; and, I've taken that (at least what little I know) into account. This is what I meant by "real attempts," that is, they should get on planes and go to Nigeria in a real effort to stop the killing of innocents. They should put their lives on the line in the name of their "peaceful" religion. Without such efforts, I'm unimpressed.

Anon 12 said...


Just wanted to be clear that I was not the Anon from earlier in this thread.

I tend to agree with them but I as Anon 12 only posted at 1:46.

Not a big deal, just wanted to let you know.

Craig said...

Anon 12,

Thanks for making a distinction between your comments and other Anons. The statements you assert are by the Pope are not inconsistent with RCC beliefs. Their rule of faith is the Bible plus capital “T” Tradition, i.e., the Magisterium. As a believer whose belief system is mostly in line with Protestantism, I reject the RCC Magisterium (though portions are consistent with my beliefs), hence I reject those words of the Pope in part; however, that implies that I also accept some as consistent with my beliefs (e.g.: “Virgin is the woman of faith who made room for God in her heart and in her plans”). Having stated that, the term sola Scriptura is argued from the RCC side as self-refuting, a position I can understand. However, as long as Protestants understand that we DO have a “tradition” – one that is based upon the cumulative illumination of the Scriptures by the Holy Spirit, then we get away from what one has called “solO Scriptura”, i.e., every man and his own interpretation of the Bible.

You wrote: And it really doesn't make sense to ask anyone here for an opinion on that who are catholic. What do you really expect them to say?

I understand that. But, while I think the RCC makes too much of Mary, I think many Protestants make too little.

However, we must keep in mind that, at root, the RCC asserts Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Yet, does the RCC church go too far in some other areas? I think so. I don’t like the bloated RCC structure and hierarchy (among other things); but, then again, I don’t like the way individual Protestant denominations ‘tow the party line’ on issues either and their hierarchical structures either.

And yet, the more I learn, the more I realize things are not as black and white as I formerly supposed – though some things are more b&w.

Oh, I'd like to add that those who criticize Susanna are out of line - and I'm not suggesting you are one of those. Would they not expect her to express views consistent with her belief system?

Anonymous said...

"Real" in terms of the Christian definition of real as in truth and honesty as one plus one equals two, sorry Craig this is not the way the people think in other cultures and religions. You are asking then to do something they can't comprehend and goes against their religion.

I lived in Turkey, it was worse than living with liberals (US definition) as in communists as in two plus two equals five. They do not and most will never be able to think that way Craig. I would not have believed it but I lived there, they must obey their god Allah (NOT the god of the Bible sorry catechism 841 wrong again)and lying to infidels is part of that worship. I left saying there are a billions Muhammads with a first grade education who believe in fighting for Allah on this planet and we could not build enough mental hospitals to help them in ten lifetimes. This is because to us, Islam is insane.

For example, Yuri Bezmenov states in his lecture about communism concerning liberals (US definition) that "you are stuck with them" it takes 10 to 15 years to educate a person, he says you MUST educate the next generation, you can't fix or change the liberal mind (nor the Islamic mind) there are an exceptional few who make the transition.

This is why we are so desperately trying to stop the new schools for the revolution, communist core. The next generation will not think about 'reality' the way we do.

Yuri's lecture

Warning to those who have not lived overseas, I was once like you. I promise you that the American media is equal to Gobbels and unless you have lived overseas in some capacity, you are lacking in some form of truth concerning what happens in the world. It's just fact.


Constance Cumbey said...

Susanna's contributions are extremely valuable, if not indispensable to this site!


Anon 12 said...


I understand and appreciate your feedback. I too, think many of the hateful criticisms of Susanna are wrong and not very Christian.

I myself was very critical and at times hateful towards Paul, of which I am not proud and I guess makes me as bad as those that treat Susanna in a similar manner. But I am sorry for that and hope God and Paul will forgive me for that.

BUT, I do feel that while we don't have to take ONLY what the bible says, we must be VERY CAREFUL when accepting extra biblical translations from any religious leaders, regardless of who they are.

My fear is that, one can preach or affirm that Jesus is the Son of God and Savior, but still "preach a different Jesus".

Many of us are caught up in recognizing or exposing outwardly false teachers without realizing that "preaching a different Jesus" does not always mean that one is denying his divinity.

I may be wrong, but I personally feel that people/groups assume that recognizing Jesus' divinity means that said persons/groups are truly Christian, when it is still possible to do such, but, "preach a different Jesus".

Thanks for your time.

Craig said...

Anon 12,

You wrote:

My fear is that, one can preach or affirm that Jesus is the Son of God and Savior, but still "preach a different Jesus".

Many of us are caught up in recognizing or exposing outwardly false teachers without realizing that "preaching a different Jesus" does not always mean that one is denying his divinity.

I may be wrong, but I personally feel that people/groups assume that recognizing Jesus' divinity means that said persons/groups are truly Christian, when it is still possible to do such, but, "preach a different Jesus".

I agree 100%. As an analogy of sorts, I’ve written extensively on false teachings within what I term hyper-charismaticism on my blog, and in particular the teachings of Bill Johnson of Bethel Church in Redding, CA; and, I’ve made it plain that Johnson is teaching “another Jesus.” There are quite a few Johnson detractors who think I’m partially wrong in my assessment, deeming his Christology as orthodox (though problematic) because he continues to claim things like “Jesus is 100% God” and “He is eternally God,” etc. But, it’s his other statements in concert with these that induce me to conclude that he’s a deceiver (purposeful or not, I don’t and can’t know) preaching “another Jesus.”

Anon ***,

You wrote:

"Real" in terms of the Christian definition of real as in truth and honesty as one plus one equals two, sorry Craig this is not the way the people think in other cultures and religions. You are asking then to do something they can't comprehend and goes against their religion.

I understand this, which is why I made my initial “empty rhetoric” statement and why I’m requesting something more concrete. Absent that, I am unpersuaded by this empty rhetoric.

Also, for the record, I spent two years on Crete, Greece (30 years ago); so, I do understand a little about other cultures and religions. In addition, about a year ago I met an Egyptian Coptic who told me how bad it is for a Christian living in his former homeland.

Craig said...

Anon 12,

Sorry, I meant to add that I believe those under the influence of Johnson's teaching may well be true believer's, though ensnared by this false belief for a time. Moreover, there is a mission field there, in those who've been following signs and wonders and not Jesus at all.

Anonymous said...

4:04 PM

got it ***

Anonymous said...

Constance at 1:09
Carter was one of the worst presidents we ever had and well into what I believe is a string of presidents that were helped into office by interests other than the average American taxpayer.
One thing I should mention about Islam and Muslims is that Muhammad often had a hard time getting them to behave as psychopaths like he was and he complained openly about this. Bill Warner from did count the verses in the Koran, Hadiths and Suri and found that in fact an argument can be made that Islam is about Muhamad and his desires and much less about allah. Again my perception (with serious study and experience living there) is that Muslims tend to think tribally and will in fact follow Islamic doctrine that requires them to behave like the host country or in the case of Afghanistan behave subservient (the majority will) to the Americans until such time as they have enough population to overthrow the powers that be. Also, most Muslims can’t read and have a limited understanding of Islam so we can’t overlook the fact that they think again in terms foreign to us, tribally. They take orders from and get their Koran doctrine from the Imam in general or local tribal leaders or in the case of Turkey the local rich families. My Turkish friend told me outright that the US completely controls Turkey and her father was a high rank in the military. The leaders just cash in; we pay a lot to rent the bases.
This means that there are a few Muslims in charge of the thinking and directions of the many. If a group can control the few at the top, much can be controlled in these countries. What I mean is that in the face of overwhelming power from a perceived tribe, Mulsims don’t generally attack because they are waiting for the group to become powerful. Because counties like Saudi and Qatar work hand in hand with The West, it’s obvious the time is not right. I am suggesting some other provocation is needed for the level of violence we see now from Muslims, but who is behind that? That’s the question, obviously Carter blamed Israelis.
Telavi is an ICLEI city (UN Development program) Israel signed Agenda 21, and there are many New Agers who are part of the Israeli population.
I don’t know which Israelis Carter was talking about but I have already determined that Orthodox Jews and secular Jews are not in support of Zionism which the state of Israel is the result of. I can see Carter as a man deliberately stirring up anti-Semitism, however the bigger question is why and who is he specifically talking about, and do I care? I hope you were not intending to give all Israelis a free pass in all areas of governance and behaviors by pointing that out or giving all Israelis a pass when it comes to provoking Muslims, by the very nature of Muhammad’s thinking he is outrageously easily provoked. It is a breeze for anyone who wants to get into a tangle with a Muslim to do so. In Turkey you will go to jail for a simple complaint about the country.
I see Israel like I see Europe and the US a really messed up place. I do know that Christians are banned from marrying Jews in Israel by the government. I also know that many Christian Zionists who defend Israelis would receive no support from many of them.
Lucifer is an equal opportunity employer. He makes no distinction between races, religions, tribes, nationalities or anything else. He’s just looking for a few lost souls.

Anonymous said...

"to get into a tangle with a Muslim LEADERSHIP"

Anonymous said...

Dear Three-Star, I am a Zionist Christian (with no Jewish ancestry) and I agree with much of what you say at 5.05pm, especially about Carter. Jews who are not Christians can be as hard to love as anybody but as a Christian I am meant to love all men. I do my best and count myself honoured to have Jews among my friends. A secular Jew is in a unique position - in covenant with a God in whom he does not believe! I don't wholly agree with you that secular Jews are against the State of Israel; the original Zionists were secular and all for it, as are many secular Jews today as Israel provides a refuge for Jews suffering from rising anti-semitism worldwide. On biblical grounds - stated above in this thread - I support the existence of the State of Israel but not unconditionally all of its actions.

Anonymous said...

"the original Zionists were secular and all for it, as are many secular Jews today as Israel provides a refuge for Jews suffering from rising anti-semitism worldwide. On biblical grounds - stated above in this thread - I support the existence of the State of Israel but not unconditionally all of its actions."

Great answer. Also when God does what he will be doing shortly with the Jewish nation I wonder how many of them will be secular then. Some will still turn away but many will come to the God of their fathers in droves.

Incredible times we live in.

Craig said...

I offer the following tips for those who may want to bold or italicize but do not know how. If you look underneath the comment box you’ll see “You can use some HTML tags, such as…” with a series of letters enclosed in left and right arrows (located below the K and L keys, respectively). The first of these is the bold tag, the second the italics tag. I cannot show you exactly how to do this, as the left and right arrows disappear in the body of the comment. However, it’s pretty simple to explain, using the visual just below the comment box.

To bold a word or phrase:

1) Place the left arrow, b, and right arrow combination just as it’s depicted under the comment box (no spacing between these characters) in front of the word/s you wish to bold.

2) Then, you must “close” the tag by using the same sequence, except you add a forward slash ( / ) just before the “b”, placing this sequence just after the last word you wish to bold. That is, to close the tag type left arrow key, forward slash, “b”, and right arrow.

To use italics, just follow the same format, substituting the “i” for the “b”. You can even use the two in combination.

Anonymous said...

I don't support the state of Israel except that I do support all humans and Jews to live where they please and where they support themselves. It was created before I was born, it’s there, but I would vote for American taxpayers NOT to fund Israel. Certainly they can fund themselves.

I know of an extremely wealthy Israeli man who is a descendant from Holocaust survivors who gave his billions to a "sustainability" department at a famous American University, money he should spend on his country and NOT making my universities more green (communist). It's not about loving him it's about rejecting this man and his elitist friends who think I should be funding Israel while he funds UN programs that ‘develop’ my country. He is on the board of an organization who calls Christian Zionists who warn Americans about Shariah Law, bigots and yet they support him no questions asked.

Like I said, the local synagogue is building an Islamic school on their campus. They have NO use for Zionist Christians, I know because I had a unique experience there. There they importing their own anti-Semitism and no doubt will blame Americas when the first attack happens. The city of Paris funded the building of Mosques there while a line of people and huge crowds spoke out in disgust. Someone must have had big bucks and influence.

The local Jewish paper called anti-shariah law activists, bigots in my town. I called the author and challenged him. He agreed that not all anti shariah activists were bigots but refuse to retract the article. The Holocaust Museum here has a ‘survivor’ from Auschwitz but curiously his tattoo was in the wrong place and became belligerent when I pointed it out.

This is about far more than love my friend; I am talking about criminal behavior and deception that gets little attention and people who get passes and are never help accountable because, “God is for it” and “It’s the end times” and don’t worry “Jesus is coming”. I don’t see Zionism in the Bible but since I do read it maybe someday I will see it.

Anti-Semitism can be a useful to many people, groups, ideologies and political movements. I can’t believe what I read on the internet but I can learn from my PERSONAL EXPERIENCES. I was a Christian Zionist, maybe the strongest one in my community, but from the inside I saw things made me go, hmmm.

I am Christian and I have much Jewish ancestry, although I am not sure if that is DNA or conversion to Judaism, I didn’t ask the g-grandparents. I do not have any more Jewish friends. They were all Zionists and didn’t think much of me anyway despite the fact that I thought highly of them and worked hard to prove it.

What can I say? The Lord blessed me and the deception is gone.


Susanna said...

Dear Craig 11:51

I am not happy with Pope Francis’ equating “deviant forms of religion” with “religious fundamentalism” either.

Unfortunately, the original meaning of Fundamentalism has gotten lost in the politically correct shuffle.

For example, up until the Iran hostage crisis in 1979, the term "Fundamentalist" was not a term commonly associated with Islam at all. Neither was it a term used to refer to "deviant forms of religion." It was a respectable term primarily associated with Protestant Christianity ( beginning with the Presbyterians )which sought to reaffirm key theological Christian tenets and defend them against the challenges of liberal theology and higher criticism.

However, it was the Iran hostage crisis of 1979– 1980 that marked a major turning point in the use of the term "fundamentalism".

Thanks to the illustrious news media,( many of whose members make one wonder if they ate lead paint chips when they were little ) in an attempt to explain the ideology of Ayatollah Khomeini and the Iranian Revolution to their Western audience came up with the scathingly brilliant idea of describing it as a "fundamentalist version of Islam" by way of analogy to the Christian fundamentalist movement in the U.S.

Ergo the term "Islamic fundamentalist", which would come to be one of the most common usages of the term in the following years.

Unfortunately, the term "fundamentalist" has also become a pejorative term used by secularists to bash Christianity when Christian morals come into conflict with amoral or outright immoral secular values.

The aforementioned theological tenets which came to be known as "the five fundamentals" were as follows:

1.Biblical inspiration and the inerrancy of scripture as a result of this
2.Virgin birth of Jesus
3.Belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin
4.Bodily resurrection of Jesus
5.Historical reality of the miracles of Jesus

That doesn't look too "deviant" to me.

Moreover, if these are the "fundamentals" defended by "fundamentalists", then I guess I must be a fundamentalist too, because I certainly defend them!!!

Craig said...


From an old article I wrote as a very basic primer to New Age is the following, which completes part 1 of this two-part series:

The goal of infiltrating the churches to destroy from within seems to be well underway. As but one example, Rick Warren, who is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), on the advisory board of Tony Blair’s ecumenical Faith Foundation, and who is even recognized as a New Age guru among New Agers, has stated that fundamentalism will be:

“…one of the big enemies of the 21st century.”

“Muslim fundamentalism, Christian fundamentalism, Jewish fundamentalism, secular fundamentalism – they’re all motivated by fear. Fear of each other.”

I’m really annoyed when perfectly good words are redefined to further an agenda. In my old Webster’s dictionary the word “fundamentalism” is defined:

1. Orthodox religious beliefs based on a literal interpretation of the Bible (e.g., complete acceptance of the story of creation as given in Genesis and rejection of the theory of evolution) and regarded as fundamental to the Christian faith.

2. the movement among some American Protestants emphasizing this belief; opposed to

Does Warren have a problem with that? Well, obviously, he’s not opposed to modernism; but, it seems his use of the term “fundamentalism” is more one of extremism. He’s bought into the negative stereotype of the term as portrayed in the liberal media. Personally, I’m quite fine with both definitions above; but, I’m vehemently opposed to both extremism and modernism. However, it’s apparent that Warren does not mind watering down Christianity in his bid for ecumenism; and, in so doing, he marginalizes the Faith.

Anonymous said...

W E Blackstone’s group BIOLA has their take on fundamentalism above with dates.

And interesting below:

The constant categorization and defined attitudes values and beliefs of each group feel planned. I am neither Dem nor Rep, neither fundamentalist nor believe in the fundamentals, I am neither Zionist nor anti-Semitic. I don't want common core or "school choice", I don't like Fox or MSNBC. I am neither Occupy nor TEA party. I am neither fully Protestant, nor evangelical nor Catholic.

Fundamentalism seems to mean anything NOT new age, new world order, unity or global.


Anonymous said...

About the controversial encyclical:

Anonymous said...

Dear Three-Star, WE don;'t have to like or agree with the actions of individual Jews who are not followers of Jesus Christ; all I'm saying is that I find Zionism in the bible for the reasons given in the preceding thread and that I personally have a heart for the Jews (and yes, I do know some personally).

"Like I said, the local synagogue is building an Islamic school on their campus."

Where is that, please?

Susanna said...

Craig 8:16 P.M.

Re:The goal of infiltrating the churches to destroy from within seems to be well underway. As but one example, Rick Warren, who is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), on the advisory board of Tony Blair’s ecumenical Faith Foundation, and who is even recognized as a New Age guru among New Agers, has stated that fundamentalism will be:

“…one of the big enemies of the 21st century.”

It is not only the New Agers who have infiltrated the church with a view to destroying it from within. This was a goal of the communists as well. Today they are not commonly referred to as "communists" any more. They are called names like "social democrats", "progressivists", etc.
But make no mistake..... socialism and communism are the political arm of the New Age Movement. Many try to say that Socialism differs from Communism. Maybe. But in degree not in kind. To quote Vladimir Lenin "The goal of socialism is communism."

In the 19th century, many French Republican occultists ( as opposed to the Monarchists and Royalists ) such as the infamous Alphonse Louis Constant ( a.k.a. Eliphas Levi ) embraced socialism. Levi was jailed on numerous occasions for his radical socialist revolutionary tracts with titles like "The Gospel of Liberty," etc.

The first currents of modern socialist thought was called "utopian socialism" and is described in the writings of Henri de Saint-Simon. After Saint-Simon died, a few of his followers made something of a religion out of utopian socialism called "Saint-Simonianism."

Among the more notorious founders of this ersatz religion was Barthélemy Prosper Enfantin. But soon a schism resulted when Enfantin announced his theory of the relation of man and woman, which would substitute a system of "free love" for the "tyranny of marriage".

Enfantin wore a badge on his breast with his title of "Père", was referred to by his preachers as "the living law", declared himself to be the chosen of God, and sent out emissaries in a quest of a woman predestined to be the "female Messiah," and the mother of a new Saviour...............

After Enfantin, there was Simon Ganneau and his disciples that included Eliphas Levi and Flora Tristan. Flora Tristan was the grandmother of the famous painter Paul Gaugin. By this time Utopian Androgyny was all the rage. This can be seen in some of the art work displayed at the Rosicrucian salons hosted by occultist Josephin Peladan - a disciple of Eliphas Levi and contemporary of Gerard Encausse (a.k.a. Papus) also a disciple of Eliphas Levi (and one time member of H.P Blavatsky's Theosophical Society) who wrote a book entitled TAROT OF THE BOHEMIANS.


Susanna said...


The candidates for "woman messiah" were the modern proto feminists. Speaking of "woman messiahs," among the "woman messiahs" of the 20th century that morphed out of the occult revival of the 19th century was Sheena Govan who was an early influence on what would become the Findhorn Foundation. Among her disciples was Eileen Caddy. Sheena Govan was the daughter of evangelist John George Govan and some were peddling the idea that her career demonstrated some of the links between Evangelicalism and early New Age thought.


When it comes to communist infiltration of the Church, one of the more notorious 20th century communists who admitted to assigning male communist agents to enter the Catholic seminaries was Bella Dodd who testified before the House Unamerican Activities Committee. She was a leader of the Communist Party of America - CPUSA - in the 1930s and 1940s and claimed that Soviet strategy actually included infiltrating the Roman Catholic priesthood for the purpose of destroying the faith of Catholics from within.

In her book, School of Darkness (1954) she states that that Communist Party's structure "was in reality a device to control the 'common man'".[4]

She also claimed that the communist party actively infiltrated agents into seminaries; and she told her friend Alice von Hildebrand, the theologian, that "when she was an active party member, she had dealt with no fewer than four cardinals within the Vatican 'who were working for us'."
Here is a link to Bella Dodd's book SCHOOL OF DARKNESS which can be read for free online.


Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

Interesting the direct link between Eliphas Levi and Findhorn, even if it went through a few individuals, considering Levi's luciferian tendencies and promotion of ritual magic, and the entity that appeared to someone at Findhorn.

Gaugin's art doesn't seem to have any androgyny to it in the collection at Google images, one is creepy, a woman asleep on her face and a blacked shrouded man lurking with white blank spots for eyes, but look past not at her.

"Combe [her first husband] was a follower of the group called Moral Rearmament (MRA), and insisted that his wife follow the traditions of the group, which included joining the group's "quiet times", during which they would listen for divine guidance. Though diffident at the time towards the practices which she found restrictive, she later acknowledged the importance of her early attunement to "quiet times" and "listening to inner guidance", regarding it as an important milestone on her spiritual journey.[5]"

after meeting Govan, this quiet times originally Jesus of The Bible focussed morphed into more problematic stuff.

The latter seems to have been the daughter of the founder of Faith Mission which was a missions focused evangelical group, but "Govan's unconventional spirituality was something of a challenge to the Faith Mission founded by her father in 1913."

These proto feminists however, were nothing like the original feminists, who got us the vote, women's higher education, women's right to property and income apart from their husband's control, women in sports, politics, driving cars, in business beyond small shopkeeping, and many things we take for granted, all of whom opposed abortion as an evil thing that was an outcome of situations created by male supremacism, and only one high profile feminist of the 1800s was for "free love," but came to believe that the natural tendency was towards monogamy. Most of them had their origin in the abolition movement, and few had any "spiritual" tendencies other than protestant Christian.

Looking for inner guidance seems to be an opening door for all kinds of stuff, even when one is technically Christian, either protestant or RC.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

an object lesson, in how the same thing can be done for opposite reasons, is the first two states to give women the vote: Wyoming and Utah.

In Wyoming, women towed their own weight and did most things men did, so why not let them vote?

In Utah, the men had harems, while the "gentiles" (non Mormons) did not. Thus a man could take his wives to vote as he told them to, to the polling place, while a "gentile" man only had himself and his wife, thus the Mormons would outvote the "gentiles."

Anonymous said...

and the local Bishop...

Exposing the Bishop Video must watch for Catholics

I can link this Bishop right to Alinsky, he was trained in Chicago.

Both the synagogue and the local liberation theology Catholic church regularly invite the local Muslim Brotherhood mouth piece to lecture and deceive the people.

{"People don't know what sharia means, it's a foreign word," Foxman told JTA. The proposed anti-sharia laws, he said, are "camouflaged bigotry."}

We know what it means sir..
Shariah Law for Non-Muslims:

The Muslim Brotherhood(CAIR) St Louis co-opting ferguson activists (naturally, eyes rolling):

I am not a very smart person. So don't tell me these Catholics and Jews don't know the history of The Muslim Brotherhood and Hitler.

This is a controlled plot. I can't do anything about "never again", they want never again. I don't. I think Jews can live anywhere and if they want Islam on campus, go for it but DO NOT come crying to me when the shit hits the fan. Besides I won't have a head by then.


Susanna said...

Craig 8:16 P.M.

Here is a better link to SCHOOL OF DARKNESS by Bella Dodd.

Many thanks to Dorothy for bringing it to my attention.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

looking at Babylon the Great, riding the beast, the concept is familiar. There is only one false god, durga, of hinduism who actually rides a lion. dionysus is sometimes shown riding a leopard, and may wear a leopard skin and various false goddesses are shown on lion thrones or in lion drawn chariots, but SITTING ON one is rare.

Looks like this is a hint, that when the final Babylon arises, it will have a major overt pagan angle on it, and that paganism will involve some features of Middle Eastern paganism, but will be heavily hindu, of an aggressive sort.

false goddess of hinduism, durga (worshipped along with
kali by the thugs, by the way) rides a lion.

"Durga's Vehicle - the Lion

The lion represents power, will and determination. Mother Durga riding the
lion symbolises her mastery over all these qualities. This suggests to the
devotee that one has to possess all these qualities to get over the demon
of ego."

this is a nice philosophizing or spiritualizing of this. But more to the
point, this character is depicted as being a director of the power, will
and determination of the lion, who has these qualities, and they are put
at her service.

in this case, only one example is shown of a "deity" standing on not really
riding a lion, the direction is more indirect. The similarity of cybele on
her lion throne to the Catal Huyuk figure is obvious. But it isn't quite
like what is shown in Revelation, while in some cases, durga IS like that.

Dionysus is male, but is often shown riding a leopard. Women in a frenzied
murderous cruel state were his devotees.

pursuing this farther, it seems shiva and parvati are also sometimes shown riding or seated on a lion, but sometimes it is a tiger that is ridden or sat on by these.

The primary source of lion or tiger riding false gods, seems to be India, at least at present. The other sources associated them with false gods, are more ambiguous.

Thiruvananthapuram and Tirumala are cities on seven hills in India. "One of the hill town of Tirumala is precisely where the Temple of Seven Hills, the Tirumala Venkateswara. This temple is affirmed to be the most active place of worship in the world." of these two, the former is near the coast.

America might be end times Babylon, with a political and/or physical breakup leaving only New York City and its environs as Babylon, but by the time Revelation speaks of, it may have gone the New Age conveyorbelt route to full fledged hinduism of the worst sort, human sacrifice included.

Anonymous said...

Matthew 24:36King James Version (KJV)

36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.


Craig said...


Thanks for providing some historical background and making the delineation between the political arm and spiritual arm of the New Age Movement.

Anonymous said...

Pope visits Buddhist temple to pay his respects, Gathered with Buddhist monks as they chanted and prayed

Anonymous said...

Jimmy Carter being a part of THE ELDERS team was a bit of a giveaway as to his ideals.


The Vatican knew exactly what path the nuns who befriended Barbara Marx Hubbard were on and so its hard to fathom why the Pope would be on that same path(generally speaking re New Age) when his team have made a point of letting people know that that path is not the Catholic way. I wonder too why we've heard Francis thinks he won't be around too long. Either way, we must wait and see what this Climate Change meeting reveals. Catholic people know the teaching of the church and Jesus Christ so no one will pull the wool over their eyes, I'm sure. Praying for Francis.

Anonymous said...

From OZ

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

interesting source of influence on the occult in the Renaissance and even on Kabbalism.

Anonymous said...

Pope: Please stop insulting those barbarians who beheaded more than 100 saints.

Not being allowed to insult the prophet of Islam is Shariah Law.


Anonymous said...

Above link : What did the Saints say about Islam?

The Bishops and Islam today:

Anonymous said...

Catechism of the Catholic Church

841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

Craig said...

To my utter surprise, Newsweek published Dr. Michael Brown's rebuttal to last month's Kurt Eichenwald article:

A Response to Newsweek on the Bible

I've been somewhat criticial of Brown and his tacit approval of some with aberrant theology within Pentecostalism/charismaticism, but this article does a fantastic job. Brown also does not hold back as regards the Biblical view on homosexuality.

Anonymous said...


Thanks for the info. It reminds me of the book published by Tan called


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

Constance wrote:

" I have recently obtained Glenn Clark's autobiography, A Man's Reach, which confirmed many of my suspicions concerning the origin of the Washington group which was discussed by mystical enough Norman Grubb in his biographical book about Abraham Vereide: "Modern Viking." When thoroughly analyzed, one cannot help but think that this group of 12 at least perceived of themselves as "illuminati," After reading Clark's THE MAN WHO TAPPED THE SECRETS OF THE UNIVERSE, I don't know what else to believe. Clark was summoned by eugenist/physician Alexis Carrel to help him find a man who was fully cosmically attuned. Clark believed he had found them in some of the men that were part of their group of 12 meeting at Marian Johnson's Washington mansion (e.g. Rufus Jones, E. Stanley Jones, and Frank Laubach). His book was about another he claimed to have discovered,..."

That other person he discovered, was WALTER RUSSELL discussed in the previous blog comments.

That Clark thought he found some similar among the supposedly conservative supposedly Christian group, comparable to Walter Russell, shows how gnosticated and occultified that core Vereide, Bredesen, etc. group was.

The very use of the term "modern Viking" to describe Vereide, by his biographer, says something about the mentality of these people in general.
Presumably Alexis Carrell got on pretty well with the people Clark pointed him to?

That they had a group of TWELVE meeting sounds very much like they were engaging in Apostolic pretensions. With Marian Johnson playing the role of Jesus Christ, it looks like?


Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...


From The French Edition

This book is a dramatized Catherine said to Susanna, " It reminds me of the book published by Tan called


From The French Edition

This book is a dramatized presentation of
certain facts which are occurring in the Church
and which are perplexing to many of the
All resemblance to persons or contemporary
events are not to be considered as purely
accidental. "

A pity it is "dramatized" and doesn't name names merely relies on presenting resemblances.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

" The first great turning point in Abram’s (Abraham Vereide) life had been his emigration to America. The second was the experience gained through the Christian ministry, in the practical application of the dominating passion of his life—to bring Christ to men and men to Christ. The third, yet to come, was the channeling of this redemptive stream."

I don't like the sound of that last sentence.

Anonymous said...

The Swiss Bank probably has intelligence that the European Central Bank will begin "monetary easing" or printing of money to attempt to stimulate the European economy. This is why the removed the currency floor today and the market responded by massively buying Swiss Francs.

The Euro is in danger of collapsing with the irresponsible southern European members gathering huge debts in the past decade and a half. We are at a time that the current EU system could break apart at any moment, and a new European coalition of 8,9 or 10 countries could form a new union.

Anonymous said...

Occupy part 2 the Ferguson files funded by Soros a Lucis Trust World Server, that's Lucis funded occupy part 2. Soros shows up more than any other in the video. Includes Gates (common core) Oprah (TM in public schools) and Mattson, (Muslim Brotherhod)


Anonymous said...

Pope Francis left it unclear whether his statement that one should not insult other faiths meant as a matter of conscience or a matter of law. It would have been good to know.

Susanna said...

Catherine 11:53 AM

I have the book "AA-1025 THE MEMOIRS OF AN ANTI-APOSTLE" published by TAN. The author,
a nurse named Marie Carre, eventually became a nun.

You might find the following article of interest.

Infiltration of the Catholic Church?

July 28, 2003
By Toby Westerman

Susanna said...

To All:


"Islamberg" - Special Report With Bret Baier 03/23/09

Sharia and Islamberg

According to several articles including the following there is a jihadist training camp right here in Springfield Massachusetts.

Homegrown Muslims of America Terrorist Camps in the US – 31 of Them! Just Another Guy in Your Neighborhood

by Maggie • August 6, 2013

Anonymous said...

Rick Warren bridge to Islam, Hinduism, new age Jan 2015

Anonymous said...

nope that one was 2012

Constance Cumbey said...

WELL, DEEP CONCERN ON THIS -- I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE SHOEBAT DEBATE, BUT THIS VIDEO BY HIM APPEARS IMPORTANT TO ME -- Shoebat reports and shows video footage of Pope Francis' visit to a Buddhist Temple in Sri Lanka, handling Buddhist relics. I frankly don't like it and am wondering more and more if Cardinal Ratzinger was the victim of a type of Vatican coup d'etat.

Here is a link where you can watch the video thing. I agree with Shoebat's observations about Buddhism.


Constance Cumbey said...

Here is the link to Shoebat's article. This is very current news!


I have learned Catholic friends very disturbed about this seemingly syncretistic turn of Vatican events. What is Susanna's take?


Anonymous said...

I know an old gnostic who swallowed a lie,
To sell us her lie oh how she does try,
We ain't gonna buy: oh won't she go?

Be it from a witch doctor near Lima or Accra,
Or some New Age take on Hindu so-called chakras,
Aliens on Mars or fables of Nibiru,
Boy does she cling to things most untrue:
Perhaps she'll go!

She swallowed the lie of chakras and auras,
of ether and whether it's served with pakoras,
she defended kabbalah then went for the throat,
of a seasoned blogger whilst she left in her mote,
she blamed her dear mother for being a vampire,
the woman's insane, a blog pain, oh how does it transpire: she's a hypocrite and a liar,
We ain't gonna buy: she ought to go!

She posts and she posts and she posts and she posts.... Àaaaaaaah!
She rejects the power of our Lord and Savior, She thinks it's a drink that gives deliverance its flavor,
We hope she'll be humble and do all at this blog a favor: Perhaps she'll go!

She tests the patience of physicist and Craig,
with long-winded babblings obfuscating and vague,
She clogs and she hogs as she bogs down the blog,
with coarse words and thoughts absurd, she sees herself as a sage,
Perhaps she'll repent if she's any sense, or at least the old beast will our long patience recompense: let's hope she goes!

Anonymous said...


What do you know about the following programs? They appear to be sweeping across many churches.

Alpha for Catholics
Christ's Life

Also, check out:

"Save the Earth !"



Anonymous said...

Constance, this problem goes right back to about 320 A.D.when Emperor Constantine infiltrated Chrisianity and mingled it with Roman paganism. He caused more damage than Nero could have ever dreamed of!

Most here, I'm sure, have seen John Paul II and Benedict XVI reverently kissing and handling the Unholy Koran! And we all surely know about JP2's One World Religion gatherings (incl. animists, pagans, wiccans, hindus, buddists, Muslims, and apostates, etc.) held at Assisi in 1986 and 2002.

The Catholic Herald excused this abominable meeting, with its article (Thurs April 14, 2011), 'Assisi Alone is Reason Enough to Beatify John Paul II', at the end of which, the author, Francis Phillips exclaims that he would have gladly prayed alongside a Muslim woman (the contextual implication being that the Muslim woman would be praying to the moon-idol, Allah; not a prayer of repentance and conversion to the one true God of Father, Son and Holy Spirit; and surely the prayers of the worldly author would not be heard)!

Of course, this happened 13 days before the Vatican declared unashamedly and euphemistically that Benedict XVI was to host a, 'day of peace and reconciliation', at Assisi. In other words, he hosted yet another day of feast and abomination with the World's major false religions and witchcraft!

Anonymous said...

The Alpha Course has been around for more than 20 years. It started at a large Anglican church in London as a course for Christians to strengthen their faith but then changed and became an outreach tool. Its Trinitarian theology is a bit biased toward the Holy Spirit and it under-emphasises sin and repentance but they are there and clearly put; the doctrine is solid. The genius of Alpha is its format: a (free) meal at a convenient time, followed by a presentation of part of the course material, followed by a Q-and-A at each table, on each of which there will be a couple of experienced Christians. It is making genuine converts!

paul said...

Oh so Shoebat is okey now?
I've been trying to tell y'all that for quite a while.

But again, it's not about the messenger but the message.
If you're anything like me, you have to dismiss the Shoebats where they launch off into Christian militancy, the Crusades not withstanding.
Jesus didn't even defend himself against the lies and false accusations...
A disciple is not above his master.

Islam will grow and spread and metastasize.
But "Those who live by the sword must be killed by the sword"
Read Revelations chapter 13.
It seems obvious to me that that chapter describes the fruition of Islam to a T

Vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord.

paul said...

...On the other hand, I wish my sovereign country
would wake up and expel all these muslim groups
here in what's left of America.
The United States has the right and the duty to defend itself.
Islamabad in New York state?
What a perfect place to drop a bomb. A fire bomb would be apropos. It's too bad our Commander in Chief is on their side and he in fact hates America.

Anonymous said...

To the Anonymous poster at 4:46 PM (on page 3 of the previous topic) who misapplied Ezekiel 36 to support Zionism and God ignoring disobedience [rather than reading the passages in question on context (Ezek, chpt 33 to 37)] I have replied to you there.

Conclusion: modern Zionism is UNBIBLICAL!

Anonymous said...

And the Rabbi said "let's build an Islamic center" and the people said ok

and the Submerging Pastor said, let's build a bridge to Islam and the people said ok

and the Bishops said, let's travel with the Muslim Brotherhood for interfaith dialogue and the people said ok

and the Pope said don't make fun of Islams and the people said ok

and the Imam said even if you don't fee radical, you must be for allah, and the people said ok

And the Christian said hey watch out! and ALL the people pointed their fingers and shouted BIGOT, FUNDAMENTALIST!

and the eugenicist said we hate all your stupid gods and our brains are better then yours you must die now

and the public schools sent homework that said "define race war"

Washington DC said let in, more Muslims and said, give them amnesty!

and Al Gore said we shall have Al Jazzera like Paris! Radical MB TV because we can't sell out station to Glenn Beck, nobody likes him.

and Tony Blair said Islam is peace.

and round and round and round all while

Lucifer laughed


Anon 12 said...


I think I'm one of the only ones who questioned Shoebat. And I still do.

My problem is a few weeks back he had an article on the Pope going to Turkey and how participating in prayers was not really a good thing, then right after he starts talking about the guy like he's some kind of hero.

Now he has an article on the visit to India. Is he going to turn around in a few days and tell us how great the Pope is again?

No offense towards you personally, this is one of the problems with Shoebat. Yes we all mistakes, but I don't think you can play different sides like that when it comes to religion. It just muddies the water.

Anonymous said...

Shoebat is a Zionist Catholic. He is wrong about calling Islam a 'Christian Cult'. Muhammad did receive teaching from a Jewish mystic and the verses express this.

Paul is correct here: "it's not about the messenger but the message."

Shoebat is a nice guy. I listened to him speak. He did say some sort of thing like-- bubba from the south needs to say, you ain't from these parts get out.-- A powerful Zionist Jew from NYC told me he wanted the middle east to be nuked into a glass skating rink.

So murder is satan again. We must stop importing them. Good luck, the ones who want multiculturalism are dedicated. I suggest that since Egypt expelled the Muslim Brotherhood and their radical TV channel and we have NOT expelled our MB sympathetic President and still have Al Jazeera that we are more controlled by the perps than even Egypt. This is a clue as to who the perps are.

Anonymous said...



Anon 12 said...

Here is an article from yesterday NBC News. Notice how he wants the encyclical to carry weight for the big meeting in Paris next year. Yes, we should wait to hear what he says but, if he wants it to carry weight for the meetings in Paris, it seems that it will help further the climate control agenda. Any thoughts out there?

Pope Francis Says Climate Change Is 'Mostly' Man-Made

Pope Francis said Thursday he is convinced that global warming is "mostly" man-made and that he hopes his upcoming encyclical on the environment will encourage negotiators at a climate change meeting in Paris to make "courageous" decisions to protect God's creation. Francis has spoken out frequently about the "culture of waste" that has imperiled the environment and he elaborated en route to the Philippines. While there, Francis will meet with survivors of the 2013 Typhoon Haiyan, which the government has said was an example of the extreme weather conditions that global warming has wrought. "I don't know if it (human activity) is the only cause, but mostly, in great part, it is man who has slapped nature in the face," he said. "We have in a sense taken over nature."

"I think we have exploited nature too much," Francis said, citing deforestation and monoculture. "Thanks be to God that today there are voices, so many people who are speaking out about it." Francis, who pledged on the day of his installation as pope to make the environment a priority, said he expected his encyclical on ecology to be released by June or July. He said he wanted it out in plenty of time to be read and absorbed before the next round of climate change negotiations opens in Paris in November after the last round in Lima, Peru, failed to reach an agreement. The ultimate goal of U.N. climate negotiations is to stabilize greenhouse gases at a level that keeps global warming below 2 degrees C (3.6 F), compared with pre-industrial times.

Anon 12 said...

If his goal is to encourage us to be "good stewards" then he should know better than to get involved with this by joining the powers that be and other religious leaders that will almost certainly advance the agenda by lending his name to the cause.

Anonymous said...

Vatican In Full Damage Control Mode After Pope Francis Justifies Islam Attack In France


Susanna said...

Dear Constance 2;49 A.M.

The Pope is not only the visible head of the Roman Catholic Church, but also a head of state ( Vatican City ).

The visits paid by the Pope to foreign countries - including those with non-Christian majorities ist only for reasons of diplomacy, but also for reasons of evangelization. He goes in search of the lost sheep.

As I recall from the Acts of the Apostles, St. Paul's evangelization strategy once involved commending a Greek pagan community for an altar they had erected "to an unknown god."

Instead of telling them they were going to hell in a handbasket for worshipping idols, Paul used the altar with the “unknown god” inscription as a “launch pad” to share God’s truth. That incident has never been described as "syncretistic" to my knowledge.

The following article paints a different picture of Pope Francis's visit to the Buddhist temple in Sri Lanka than Shoebat. It certainly does not portray the Pope as "paying respect to Buddhist idols."

Buddha was a real person and the founder of Buddhism. The disciples of Buddha whose relics were being venerated by Buddhist monks in the presence of the Pope were also real persons. There is no question of "idols being worshipped" either on the part of the Pope or on the part of the Buddhists who were offering the Pope the highest honor and respect they could give him by allowing him the rare opportunity to see relics which are so precious and sacred to them.

Shoebat should be ashamed of himself for his bigoted pope-bashing screed.

The following report is from Associated Press......a secular publication.

Pope visits Buddhist temple, sees relics in rare honor

January 14, 2015

COLOMBO, Sri Lanka (AP) — Pope Francis became the second pope to visit a Buddhist temple on Wednesday, changing his schedule at the last minute to pay his respects at an important place of worship in Sri Lanka's capital and to witness a key ritual for Buddhists: the opening of a casket of relics of two important disciples of the Buddha.

Francis listened respectfully as Buddhist monks chanted and prayed while opening the stupa, or casket, containing relics in the Agrashravaka Temple, the Vatican said.

Usually, the relics are only put on display once a year, and Buddhists from around Sri Lanka line up for days to pay homage to them since it is such a rare privilege.

The head monk at the temple, Banagala Upatissa, told The Associated Press that allowing the pope to witness the relics "is the highest honor and respect we can offer to his holiness."......

Here is the diplomacy aspect of the visit.....

.....Wednesday’s surprise drop-in at the temple was especially meaningful, given the Buddhist reaction the last time a pope visited Sri Lanka, which came with John Paul’s 1995 visit.

It came shortly after John Paul II had angered Buddhists by calling their faith “in large measure an atheistic system” in an interview with an Italian journalist. Some Buddhist leaders boycotted an inter-religious meeting during that trip in protest........


Susanna said...


Pope Francis is only the second pope to visit a Buddhist temple

Pope Francis changed his schedule at the last minute earlier today to visit a Buddhist temple in Sri Lanka’s capital where relics were being put on display.

The opening of a casket containing relics of disciples of the Buddha is a key event in the Buddhist calendar. People line up for days to pay homage to the relics.

A Vatican spokesman said the Pope did not pray during his visit but listened respectfully while monks chanted.

Banagala Upatissa, head monk at the Agrashravaka temple, told the Associated Press that allowing the Pope to witness the event was “the highest honour and respect we can offer to His Holiness”.

Pope Francis is the second pope to visit a Buddhist temple. St John Paul II became the first to do so during his trip to Thailand in 1984.

Vatican spokesman Fr Federico Lombardi said the visit was brief. “There was not a time of silence in this sense,” he told reporters, referring to prayer. “I can only say the Pope was listening with great respect, and listening also to the prayer of the monk showing the relics and this was all.”

As for Walid Shoebat, he may be sincere, but in this particular instance, he is sincerely wrong.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

Walid shoebat is a Protestant convert from islam, his son Theodore is a Roman Catholic.

complicating any situation like this, is that to RC-ers, the Roman Church isn't just another religious organization you can leave if the leader or members get weird. it IS the Church, it IS the body of Christ in a mystical sense, and to be outside of this organization visible and mystical, is to be outside of the ark of salvation.

Since the Church (in a more general sense) has faced and fought heresy among hierarchs from early times so I guess they figure that if some evil infects now and then, they have to grin and bear it and resist it if it touches them personally, but the man is distinct from his office and that office is essential to be in the Kingdom of Heaven because the Roman Catholic Church (in its various rites that are in communion with/accept the pope as head on earth we are used to the Latin Rite) IS the Kingdom of Heaven, in its earthly manifestation before the Second Coming.

So don't be too hard on Catholics who don't scream for the pope's head or leave. (some DO leave, and join Orthodoxy as less modernized.)

Anon 12 said...

Did ANYONE REALLY EXPECT Susanna's response to be any different?

Anonymous said...

And then there is Christine licking RCC toes again. She'll bite them again soon enough when she goes on a rant about EO as the more perfect version of religion. Lots of luck with that...

Anonymous said...

Would Jesus Christ have visited a pagan temple?

Anonymous said...

Seems to be the only explanation for the actions of this pope.

Jesus never needed excuses for what He said and did.

Anonymous said...

what is this?

Anonymous said...

..."when she goes on a rant about EO as the more perfect version of religion."

Even so, she can't resist mixing it up with all manner of delusions and occultic herbs and gnostic spices from the cauldron of false belief and blasphemy!

Anonymous said...

Little Red Riding Wolf, trampling in on her beast, the blog-hog of shameless ramblings and deception; one has but to wonder: people like that really exist?! She's as mad as a bag of frogs and as lost as a vampire-bat without sonar!

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

I don't lick RCC toes. My statement did not relate to Roman Catholic CHURCH but to what Roman CATHOLICS believe about it.

you seem to think that being able to understand how someone thinks, or how an organization presents itself, or what a doctrine is, is the same as approving or accepting.

It isn't.

Neither is it accepting a group of doctrines or an organization to recognize when there is a true doctrine among some false in a complex presented, or recognizing when an organization is right about some things but still wrong on others.

It is NOT all or nothing.

you are either venomous and slanderous and a deliberate false accuser,

or you are severely confused, or unable to comprehend what is stated.

As for anon 11:40 assuming you aren't the same people, though you phrase it as if answering another, herbs are not occultic in themselves, though some perhaps thanks to the curse on the land because of Adam are mutated into being able to make mind altering chemicals.

Herbs are medicines made by God, as well as food. Most of the medicines your doctor gives you now, if you use them, have their origin in herbal medicine, but were synthesized often tweaked and ramped up, and then new chemicals developed without derivation from herbs. Antibiotics started out as mold cultures.

Are you of the opinion that the physical is to be deplored?

If so it is YOU who are gnostic, because that is the core belief behind gnosticism.

Craig said...

I viewed the video of Francis at the Buddhist ceremony, and the account Susanna provides seems plausible to a degree. By appearances, the Pope witnessed the event out of respect and diplomacy – hopefully for future outreach – rather than participating in the ceremony. However, it’s difficult to compare this to Paul on Mars Hill exactly, because Francis was not invited in order for the Buddhist monks to find out more about the Pope’s belief (see Acts17:16-21), nor does it appear that Francis proclaimed his beliefs to them (Acts 17:22-34). A better Scripture might be 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 – especially verse 22: “…I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some” (NIV 1984).

On the other hand, the relics are the subject of veneration to Buddhists, and clearly they were being venerated at the ceremony. Setting aside my own opposition to the veneration of relics for a moment, while realizing that Catholics venerate relics as part of their Tradition, there is an important distinction between what these relics signify to the Buddhist monks as compared to RCC relics. As I read through Paul’s words in I Corinthians 10:14-33 and on to 11:1, I see Francis’ actions in violation, for Paul’s words in conclusion seem instructive here:

27If an unbeliever invites you and you want to go, eat whatever is placed before you, without raising questions on grounds of conscience. 28But if someone says to you, “This was offered in sacrifice,” do not eat it on account of the one who called attention to it and on account of conscience; 29I mean not your own conscience, but the other’s. For why should my freedom be determined by someone else’s conscience? 30If I partake thankfully, why am I reviled for that over which I give thanks?... 31So whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do everything for the glory of God. 32Avoid giving offense, whether to Jews or Greeks or the church of God, 33just as I try to please everyone in every way, not seeking my own benefit but that of the many, that they may be saved. 1Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ (NAB).


Craig said...


Of course it is not the case in our present example that the relics were offered in sacrifice, but my contention is that the principle stands. To make my point I direct you to this site:

Venerating relics is included among other “expressions of piety [that] extend the liturgical life of the Church, but do not replace it.” (CCC #1675)

“In his Letter to Riparius, St. Jerome (d. 420) wrote in defence of relics: ‘We do not worship, we do not adore, for fear that we should bow down to the creature rather than to the Creator, but we venerate the relics of the martyrs in order the better to adore Him whose martyrs they are.’” (Saunders, “Keeping…”)

So, it would seem to follow that the Buddhists venerate the relics of the disciples in order the better to adore him [Buddha] whose disciples they are. The analogy to Paul’s words above should be obvious: Though these relics were not sacrificed to idols, they are recognized as representing disciples of Buddha; so, for the conscience of the Buddhist monks, “the others” (1 Cor 10:29), the Pope should not have attended this ceremony. Moreover, I’d say it gives offense to the “Church of God” (v 32).

Anonymous said...

Was John Paul II and Benedict XVI reverently kissing the Unclean Koran just diplomacy as well?

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

Craig, excellent point. However, this was in Sri Lanka, so these were theravada buddhists, aka hinayana buddhists (lesser vehicle, so named by the self styled mahayana or greater vehicle buddhists).

That means they do not adore the buddha, because he is not considered a god. The mahayana sects, which are the ones we mostly hear about, do view him as a god and have various additional buddhas, though some like zen seem to not view him as a god and though technically mahayana are somewhat of a fast track approach reversion to theravada.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

anon 12:05,

kissing the koran was inexcusable. However, when Benedict entered that mosque, he did not bow down and pray, and the video shows he held his fingers though down at his side in a non obvious way, in the Trinitarian statement gesture, thumb forefinger and second finger out, The Father The Son and The Holy Spirit, and ring finder and little finger curved in, the Two Natures, divine and human, of Christ.

Craig said...

In defense of Christine @ 10:54PM, she merely spoke from the perspective of an RCC-adherent, not as a proponent. That should have been clear.

Moreover, this constant name calling, etc. of Christine is both unhelpful and not Christ-like. Criticisms should be based on the content of her posts (and not to continue on ad nauseum), not attacks on her person. Enough already.

Craig said...


The AP article Susanna cites states explicitly that the relics represented “two important disciples of the Buddha.” While I know little about Buddhism and was not aware of the sect you named, it seems that the AP staff understood the relics as per my explanation above. Moreover, the 2nd article Susanna cited states something similar:

The opening of a casket containing relics of disciples of the Buddha is a key event in the Buddhist calendar. People line up for days to pay homage to the relics.

This seems to indicate the same as the AP piece. That is, clear the Buddha is revered in some measure, even if he’s a sort of ‘lesser deity’ of some sort.

Anonymous said...

11:40 and 11:51 do not represent how I feel about Christine either though I really don't find her input here to be Christian. Her beliefs and teachings do not square with the Bible theme and the dead giveaway of the things she speaks about her personal life and experiences are enough to suffice that she has read the Bible but does not really know it in the truly spiritual sense. That is why her 'teachings' are off.

To know the Bible you must know the Author of it so mere head knowledge does not cut it.

Craig said...

Anon 12, re: 3:39PM:

Now instead of having one eyebrow lightly raised, both are raised. Given that article you cite, it seems Francis has bitten of the not proven to be true man-made-climate-change apple. The following seems to be indicative of that belief:

"I don't know if it (human activity) is the only cause (of Typhoon Haiyan), but mostly, in great part, it is man who has slapped nature in the face," he said. "We have in a sense taken over nature."

Anonymous said...

Craig 12:54 PM, your comment is superfluous. You should be careful of those pips of pride you're beginning to swallow from the golden delicious Christine's been tempting you with!

Anonymous said...

To 12.05pm: John Paul II kissed the Koran on May 14th 199 and a sorry sight it was, but I am not aware that Benedict XVI did. When and where, please?

Susanna said...


Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

I would just like to make the observation that the difference between Sri Lanka and Areopagus is that the Buddhists - unlike the Areopagites - already know about Christianity but for reasons known only to God have not accepted Christ as their Lord and Savior.

In fact, Sri Lanka is one of the countries where religious persecution of Christians is most severe. Therefore, the rare honor recently bestowed upon the Pope by the Buddhists in Sri Lanka is even more of a big deal for this very reason.

In the wake of the persecutions as well as the comment made in the past by Pope John Paul II to the effect that the Buddhist faith was in large measure "an atheistic system," Pope Francis probably didn't think that trying to convert his hosts while they were taking such trouble to honor him would be the better part of valor.....or even polite!

Officially, as a socialist democratic republic, Sri Lanka is a secular state. However, its constitution puts Buddhism first, strengthening the Buddhist radicals' power over religious minorities. Led by Buddhist monks, these groups are widely perceived to be tacitly supported by the government. They monitor, threaten and stir up mobs to attack Christians. At least 60 incidents were reported across the country in 2014, where Christian services and prayer meetings were disturbed and disrupted both in church buildings and private homes....

Sri Lankan Buddhists assail Christian minority

By Julia A. Seymour
Posted Sept. 30, 2013

With regard to relics, there are always misguided or corrupt individuals who are going to go to extremes and in so doing give scandal.

In his Letter to Riparius, St. Jerome (d. 420) acknowledged this possibility when he wrote in defense of relics: "We do not worship, we do not adore, for fear that we should bow down to the creature rather than to the Creator, but we venerate the relics of the martyrs in order the better to adore Him whose martyrs they are."

As for those who so vehemently decry the veneration of relics, they might want to rethink attending funerals or visiting the graves where the remains ( a.k.a. "relics" ) of their departed loved ones lay buried beneath the earth.

That said, I am very well aware of the kind of abuses that took place during the days just prior to the Reformation with regard to the "relic industry."

My own particular favorite was the story about one pre-Reformation trafficker in bogus relics who was trying to peddle "a feather off of the wing of the Archangel Gabriel."


Susanna said...

Regarding the Quran-kissing event, Jimmy Aikin rightly pointed out:

"the infallibility of the pope and the indefectibility of the Church do not extend to such actions.

A pope is not attempting to make anything remotely like a dogmatic definition in an act of this nature. And so, however misguided the action may have been and however good the motives for it may have been, it would constitute an error that does not touch upon papal infallibility or ecclesial indefectibility.

It would be one of the mistakes that all fallen humans are heir to, even the vicars of Christ.

Good thing Pope Francis didn't do anything more than look at those relics when he was in Sri Lanka!!!

Craig said...


You wrote, Pope Francis probably didn't think that trying to convert his hosts while they were taking such trouble to honor him would be the better part of valor.....or even polite!

Actually, that’s a point that was in the formulation of my comment, but was taken out before I posted. Perhaps I should have left it in there, but I figured my “future outreach” was enough to make my point implicitly.

I suppose we’ll have to see – if it can be later shown in any tangible way – if the papal visit would translate into less persecution of Christians in Sri Lanka. I hope Francis voiced concern about this persecution to the monks.

You wrote, As for those who so vehemently decry the veneration of relics, they might want to rethink attending funerals or visiting the graves where the remains ( a.k.a. "relics" ) of their departed loved ones lay buried beneath the earth.

With all due respect, I don’t see attending funerals as akin to venerating relics. It’s a way to collectively mourn the loss of a loved one, or to support another in their loss. In fact, a funeral can well open someone to the Gospel message (“do you think s/he’s in heaven”?).

Speaking for myself, I don’t visit gravesites, as I know the dead aren’t really there at all, though I have gone with a loved one in support.

Anonymous said...

"You wrote, As for those who so vehemently decry the veneration of relics, they might want to rethink attending funerals or visiting the graves where the remains ( a.k.a. "relics" ) of their departed loved ones lay buried beneath the earth."

Memorializing someone is not akin to worshiping them, Susanna. Let's please make that distinction.

That said: Man was made for worship. (see Rev 4:11) God made us for himself and to reduce worship to graven (man-made or earthly) things is what the 2nd commandment is all about. Spelled out specifically as something and or someone (an image of a thing or person even in the mind) that is taking God's rightful place in the throneroom of our hearts.

Symbols have their place but that place is not above actual worship to God and he is specific to say of Jesus "this is My Beloved Son, hear Him" (worship Him). Without being born again in the spiritual as Jesus said You must be born again in John 3 and no one comes to the Father but by ME John 6) all people will fall short (for all fall short of the Glory of God in Romans 3) in this to worship the created rather than the Creator. Romans 1 tells us what is wrong with that and how extreme that can go. Until and not until Jesus Christ has our own personal and exclusive worship each one of us would be worshiping things and people above Him.

The good is always the enemy of the best. The best is Jesus.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

veneration is not worship. It is possible to start with veneration and end with worship inappropriately directed, just like you can have a proper love for family or a proper being in love with a mate, and it morph into an idolatry so that you apostasize to please them (or keep them alive), or consider Jesus of value only insofar as He serves your family interest and keeps your marriage going.

Anonymous said...

Piers Morgan: Pope's Comment's 'Endorse Violence' Against Satirists

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

while it doesn't explicitly endorse it, PERHAPS he was talking about caution, the way he phrased it, by talking about how he would punch someone who cursed his mother, made it look too sympathetic to the muslims.

A better phrasing would have been, if you are going to do things you know from other's experience, results in violent reactions, however inappropriate and excessive and morally wrong the reactions are, you should hire security.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

Benedict at the Mosque


Anonymous said...

The Heresies of Benedict XVI

powerful video with multiple quotes from his 24 books and speeches

Susanna said...


RE: With all due respect, I don’t see attending funerals as akin to venerating relics. It’s a way to collectively mourn the loss of a loved one, or to support another in their loss. In fact, a funeral can well open someone to the Gospel message (“do you think s/he’s in heaven”?).

With all due respect, the difference is only in the degree of veneration.

First class relics of Saints are their remains. In fact, the Latin word reliquiae means "remains."

Dom Bernardo Cignitti, O.S.B., once wrote, “...The remains of certain dead are surrounded with special care and veneration. This is because the mortal remains of the deceased are associated in some manner with the holiness of their souls which await reunion with their bodies in the resurrection.”

The veneration of sacred relics has a long history in the Church. It is commonly held that the first account of such veneration stretches back to the martyrdom of St. Polycarp, bishop and martyr, who was killed by being burned at the stake in the amphitheater at Smyrna around the year 155 A.D.

There are several scriptural passages that support the veneration of relics. For example, the Israelites took Joseph’s bones when they departed Egypt (Ex. 13:19). The bones of Elisha came in contact with a dead person who then was raised to life (2 Kings 13:21).

Now if you choose not venerate remains/relics, fine. I am simply pointing out that it is not without Scriptural precendent.

By the way, since Buddhists do not believe that Buddha was a god, they do not worship him as a god. Buddhists do not engage in this sort of worship since Buddhism is something of a "nontheistic" religion to begin with..

Craig said...

Susanna (and Christine),

The present Buddha, the fourth, Gautama Buddha, will be succeeded by the fifth Buddha, Maitreya. The following Wikipedia article, the way I understand it, sure presents each Buddha (assuming I’m correct in that the fourth is essentially equal to the fifth) as god-like, including in the Theravāda tradition:

“According to Buddhist tradition, Maitreya is a bodhisattva who will appear on Earth in the future, achieve complete enlightenment, and teach the pure dharma. According to scriptures, Maitreya will be a successor to the present Buddha, Gautama Buddha (also known as Śākyamuni Buddha).[1][2] The prophecy of the arrival of Maitreya refers to a time in the future when the dharma will have been forgotten by most on the terrestrial world. This prophecy is found in the canonical literature of all major schools of Buddhism, including the Theravāda, the Mahāyāna, and the Vajrayāna.

“One mention of the prophecy of Maitreya is in the Sanskrit text, the Maitreyavyākaraṇa (The Prophecy of Maitreya). It implies that he is a teacher of meditative trance sadhana and states that gods, men and other beings:

will lose their doubts, and the torrents of their cravings will be cut off: free from all misery they will manage to cross the ocean of becoming; and, as a result of Maitreya's teachings, they will lead a holy life. No longer will they regard anything as their own, they will have no possession, no gold or silver, no home, no relatives! But they will lead the holy life of oneness under Maitreya's guidance. They will have torn the net of the passions, they will manage to enter into trances, and theirs will be an abundance of joy and happiness, for they will lead a holy life under Maitreya's guidance. (Trans. in Conze 1959:241)

If this is not tantamount to deity – a being that can teach “gods” – I don’t know what is! Moreover, by specifically mentioning “gods” this religious belief is not non-theistic – either than or the Wiki article is way off base.

Anonymous said...

"There are several scriptural passages that support the veneration of relics. For example, the Israelites took Joseph’s bones when they departed Egypt (Ex. 13:19). The bones of Elisha came in contact with a dead person who then was raised to life (2 Kings 13:21)."

Acknowledgment (a show of faith) and esteem (to honor) are one thing......worship is a whole other category.
Problem is many stop at those and do not take this higher. That is when a good thing becomes competition with God himself and therefore idolatrous.

Many love and serve God for the sake of being blessed. Loving the blessings more than the Blesser.
Many focus on created matter before their eyes and not on the invisible Creator. Without faith it is impossible to please God Paul wrote in Hebrews.

Not only a matter of degrees but WHO is that very center of faith. People are lacking there much more often than not. I know personally how this is true in my own life and why I must go back to center to keep my heart and mind stayed on the Lord.

Many believe in God rather than actually believe God.

The difference there is huge.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

acknowledgement and honor are veneration, adoration is worship. One Orthodox writer on an egroup years ago observed, that Protestants don't really worship God, they venerate Him, ergo can't tell the difference between that and worship.

If that is the case, then it is better to save what little one is capable of, veneration, strictly for God, and leave the relics and icons

as for "gods" in theravada, they are a category of being like any other, but are not an object of worship or veneration, just another thing that takes its arising from something.
Therefore not the ultimate being.

buddha originally took the position that, since even they had origins and so forth they could not be the highest thing, and he couldn't find any account of any that would fit the bill, of taking its arising from nothing else. Therefore, don't bother worshipping them, not even pray to them, just ignore them and work on stopping the round of rebirth by not generating any more karma to pay off. Try to achieve nirvana in this life, or at its end.

Mahayana proceeded to acquire as much if not more gods than hinduism had, many of them multitudes of buddhas and boddhisatvas and various local demons bulldogged into being guardians or tutelary deities or some damn thing, and this crew you see all over the Tibetan art.

If someone had introduced buddha to YHWH, Whose very Name, Self Existent Eternal Creator, implies that He takes His arising from nothing and no one but Himself, buddha would probably have accepted Him. But this being in the 500s BC, it wasn't an option.

I always liked the minimal buddhism the original sort, because even though the reincarnation thing is wrong, and the concept of the goal, a kind of cessation though not really non existence, is wrong, he saw through the falsity of hinduism and all paganism and set it aside and went his own way without it.

This is why of course hinduism hated buddhism, because it attacked the religion ergo temples ergo income. buddhism was driven out of India except for sri lanka, and to compete, hinduism adopted the buddhist idea of ahimsa or harmlessness.

the mahayana crew would probably have been more acceptable to hinduism, which has always had room for every cult it ran into.

Anonymous said...

"One Orthodox writer on an egroup years ago observedthat Protestants don't really worship God, they venerate Him, ergo can't tell the difference between that and worship"

There you go again pitting denominations against one another.
You and your EO as superior again.

..."nobody does it better" coin a phrase from a song.

Your self-worhip here is beyond the pale.

Craig said...

Christine (and Susanna),

The end-goal of Buddhism is nirvana, an end to the cycle of reincarnation. This is achieved by conscious effort – or one could say non-effort. Essentially, this amounts to autosoterism, i.e., self-salvation. We can split hairs as to definitions, but the concept is, at root, self-deification (“complete enlightenment”). And the Buddha provides the means for “complete enlightenment” via his example and his teachings. Therefore, venerating the relics of disciples of Buddha is not too dissimilar from “venerat[ating] the relics of the martyrs in order the better to adore Him whose martyrs they are.” Again, we can split hairs and state that Buddhists don’t “adore”, i.e. worship, Buddha, but given that his teachings provide the means to achieve nirvana, essentially self-deification, it’s tantamount to same.

Craig said...

I should add that I see this as not much different than New Agers/Theosophists who deem Jesus merely a man who attained to Ascended Master through self-effort (self-salvation), providing the example for others to do same.

Kate E said...

I appreciate your Blog Constance. It’s nice to see a general discussion about what’s going on in the world from a spiritual perspective. It is very difficult to define what is happening in the world today, but evil definitely does appear to be on the rise. There are many Satanic forces coming at us from so many angles that we can be overwhelmed if we don’t have a strong knowledge of God’s truth which is only achievable through reading the Word and praying for understanding (the “armor of God” described in Eph 6). I appreciate the information you have provided on the new age movement because it has enabled me to more easily spot this type of doctrine, but I believe “the problem” it is way bigger than this movement alone impacting the entire world through religion, government and other forces. To ensure I don’t diminish the extent of “the problem” I keep in mind that many are on the broad road to destruction and few will find the narrow road to salvation.

I have noticed that the hexagram seems to link some and perhaps all organizations that are following Satan. The hexagram has been worshipped since ancient times by Israel (the Star of Remphan aka Saturn Acts 7:43 & Amos 5:26) and pagans alike. It is known as the Seal of Solomon to Muslims, the Star of David to Zionists, and both to Freemasons . In addition to being used very visibly by Zionists and Israel, it is found in mosques – in ancient times and today . There is a detailed article on the hexagram on Wikipedia which shows us that the hexagram is everywhere today, and what this means is that many people (some knowingly and other unknowingly) are worshipping Satan. I’m not sure if you have mentioned this symbol in any of your books or on your blog but I would appreciate your opinion on its meaning.

Kate E said...

I agree with Anon 12 that “preaching a different Jesus does not always mean that one is denying his divinity”. Years ago I thought that everyone preaching Jesus was on God’s side but now I see that some of these very people are producing bad fruit. We need to look at doctrine and compare it to scripture (“test everything and hold fast to what is good” 1 Thes 5:21), and look at the fruit being produced because “a good tree cannot bear bad fruit” Matthew 7:18. Deception is all around us and even “Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light” 2 Cor 11:14. In Ephesians 6: 10 to 17 that Paul recommends to “be strong in the Lord and in the strength of His might” v10, “put on the full armor of God, so that you will be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil” v11. We must be aware that “our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual [forces] of wickedness in the heavenly [places]” v12. To protect ourselves against these powerful, evil forces we need to gird our loins with “the truth” and “righteousness” v14, shod our feed with “the gospel of peace” v15, “the shield of faith” v16, “the helmet of salvation” and the “sword of the Spirit which is the word of God v17. The Word of God is a critical component of this armor to protect us from the devils deception and we must use it to test all things as instructed (1 Thes 5:21, 1 Cor 14:29, 1 John 4:1).

The danger of following doctrine other than the inspired WORD of GOD is that you could receive "another spirit" from Satan that Paul warn of in 2 Corinthians 11: 3 & 4 “as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or [if] ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with [him].” Many will think they have Jesus Christ but won’t and at the end they will be denied access to the Kingdom of GOD as we see in Matthew 7: 21 to 23 "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. "Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.' and in Matthew 15:9 "BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN." There are quite a few religions that have their own doctrine which is something to be wary of.

In Matthew 23: 8 to 10 Jesus quite clearly states that he is our teacher/instructor/master, and GOD is our father AND he forbade us from assigning anyone else these positions in our lives. This direct relationship with GOD and Jesus is supported by Old Testament prophesies that when Jesus died for our sins he became the means for us to receive GOD’s spirit which is represented in the Old Testament as a “new heart” and “new spirit” through which we “may walk” in God’s statutes and ordinances and do them Ezek 11:19 & 20, Ezek 18:31, Jer. 24:7, Jer 32:39. We need a close and personal relationship with GOD our father and his Son Jesus so we are not deceived by false doctrine and end up on the broad road to destruction.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

anon 11:09 I think it is your self worship that is showing here. anything you don't like is criticized in the most inaccurate terms possible with heavy doses of false accusation and irrelevance thrown in.

When you state something that is not your own idea or words, you give the author, or absent that some pointer in his or her direction. That is simple scholarship and writing propriety.

It doesn't pit one denomination against another, it is an observation of someone regarding the issue of veneration so misinterpreted by protestants.

AND IT ISN'T ABOUT ME. I guess you think everything is about you, and you think everyone else thinks the same way you do, so you accuse me of self worship.

Craig, you got a point there. However, in its context, buddhism in its original form, was a step away from polytheism and idolatry, therefore a step in the right direction. For a person who is Christian or one who has the option of being a Christian, to become buddhist, would be a step in the wrong direction. Just like, if you are on a freeway going from New York to San Francisco, and you are past Denver, you are going in the right direction. But if you turn back to Denver, though the actual location is about the same, you are going in the wrong direction.

YHWH said some things criticizing the rationality of the worship of idols, and of creatures in general, indicative of this being so off the wall that you should be able to see for yourself something is wrong, without divine revelation. buddha took that step of rationality away from idolatry, and dismissed the "gods" as just another kind of non supreme beings, some kind of spirit rather than solid beings, and yet another thing to ignore.

Susanna said...

Dear Craig,

Re:<The present Buddha, the fourth, Gautama Buddha, will be succeeded by the fifth Buddha, Maitreya. The following Wikipedia article, the way I understand it, sure presents each Buddha (assuming I’m correct in that the fourth is essentially equal to the fifth) as god-like, including in the Theravāda tradition:

It is more than a tad murky to be sure, and I have read that even devout followers of Buddha are divided over the matter of whether or not Buddhism is a religion or a philosophy.


Nevertheless, given the history of the Traditionalist School and the Perennial Philosophy, it shouldn't be surprising to find cross pollination between Buddhism, Hinduism and other Oriental belief systems - especially vis a vis Annie Besant & Co.

Perennialism itself is at the heart of the New Age Movement.

Moreover, the two chief vehicles for the purveyance of Traditionalism/Perennialism in the 20th century were bowdlerized versions of Sufism and Hinduism.

For an excellent description of what I am talking about, see Mark Sedgwick's Against the Modern World: Traditionalism and the Secret Intellectual History of the Twentieth Century


Apparent similarities between Buddhism and Christianity led to heightened interest among Catholics and Non-Catholic Christians in Buddhism with the rise of the New Age movement in the 1980’s and 1990’s.

Catholicism and Buddhism: Compatible Beliefs?

....Some imagined that Buddhism had many new insights to offer to Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular due to their supposed compatibilities.

But Pope John Paul II threw water on that fire in 1994’s Crossing the Threshold of Hope with comments regarding Buddhism that received a good amount of press at the time (and also a lot of debate). In his comments, our late pontiff really didn’t pull any punches, calling Buddhism “in large measure an ‘atheistic’ system’.” He pulled the carpet out from under comparisons to Catholicism by pointing out that the ultimate end of man for Christians is union with God, while for Buddhists it is Nirvana (complete detachment, or a state of nothingness).


Susanna said...


Two separate warnings concluded the Pope’s remarks on this subject. The first deals with the notion of extracting certain characteristics of Buddhism and incorporating them into Catholic practice:

For this reason it is not inappropriate to caution those Christians who enthusiastically welcome certain ideas originating in the religious traditions of the Far East—for example, techniques and methods of meditation and ascetical practice. In some quarters these have become fashionable, and are accepted rather uncritically. First one should know one's own spiritual heritage well and consider whether it is right to set it aside lightly. Here we need to recall, if only in passing, the brief but important document of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith "on certain aspects of Christian meditation" (10/15/1989). Here we find a clear answer to the question "whether and how [Christian prayer] can be enriched by methods of meditation originating in different religions and cultures".

Second, relating Buddhism to the New Age movement and its Gnostic aspects, the Pope wrote:

A separate issue is the return of ancient gnostic ideas under the guise of the so-called New Age. We cannot delude ourselves that this will lead toward a renewal of religion. It is only a new way of practicing gnosticism—that attitude of the spirit that, in the name of a profound knowledge of God, results in distorting His Word and replacing it with purely human words. Gnosticism never completely abandoned the realm of Christianity. Instead, it has always existed side by side with Christianity, sometimes taking the shape of a philosophical movement, but more often assuming the characteristics of a religion or para-religion in distinct, if not declared, conflict with all that is essentially Christian.

By means of these and other articulate remarks, the Holy Father clearly drew a sharp line between Buddhism and Christianity, rejecting any notion that the two are of like purpose and insisting that Buddhist principles are to be gravely cautioned against....

As the article concludes, ..."for Buddhists, salvation is a privation of individual consciousness; for Catholics salvation is an eternally fulfilling relationship with a loving Creator. There is no comparison.

Lastly, venerating relics does not necessarily have to be a religious activity. Vladimir Lenin's embalmed corpse was venerated for decades by communist atheists in the former Soviet Union.

Susanna said...

Craig 11:35

Re:The end-goal of Buddhism is nirvana, an end to the cycle of reincarnation. This is achieved by conscious effort – or one could say non-effort. Essentially, this amounts to autosoterism, i.e., self-salvation.

No disagreement here. As far as that goes, even atheism is a form of self-deification and autosoterism in the form of oblivion/"lights out."

LOL I was still working on my comment when you posted yours.

Susanna said...


Re:Again, we can split hairs and state that Buddhists don’t “adore”, i.e. worship, Buddha, but given that his teachings provide the means to achieve nirvana, essentially self-deification, it’s tantamount to same.

By whose definition? Regardless of which of us is trying to do the "defining?"

That is analogous to the commenter here who is constantly kvetching about Constance asking me - a Catholic - to describe Catholic beliefs and practices.

What WILL she think of next???

I am not being gratuitously argumentative here. I am simply making a point.

The bottom line is that Pope Francis did not actively participate in the rare veneration of the relics which, ironically, was done to honor him.

We will have to wait and see if his visit to Sri Lanka results in a lessening of the persecutions of Christians there.

Anonymous said...


You are wrong. It's not about Constance asking you for your beliefs on catholic practices.

It's about her asking for your opinion on the Popes actions on different topics. Completely different.

That's what is ridiculous!!

As you have proven time again, including this thread, you ALWAYS find an excuse for anything the Pope is involved that is questionable.

There is always some church father explanation or some ridiculously long post about how the rest if us do not understand what we are talking about.

It really is QUITE see through and, I believe many here know it, including the ones who are afraid to call you on it.

You are the definition of a catholic zombie.

Susanna said...


Here is an interesting article by a non-Catholic Christian:

Straying from the Buddhist Path — Why I stopped following Buddha and started following Jesus?

Susanna said...

Anonymous 12:46

Given your near-maniacal ravings on this blog which indicate your own obsession with the Pope, I have to conclude that YOU are the definition of a Catholic zombie.

Because unlike you, out of respect for the non-Catholic Christians here, I rarely even discuss the Pope - or any other Catholic beliefs and practices - unless I am invited to do so, or unless I am discussing New Age "Catholic" apostasy.

When Constance invites me to weigh in on some apparently controversial thing the Pope has said or done, she most definitely is asking me - albeit implicitly -about my Catholic beliefs and practices. Because if the Pope were not in any way related to my beliefs and practices, there would be no point of her asking me anything about the Pope's activities to begin with.

If I can validly defend the Pope, I will.

But the reason why I will reply to Constance - and certain others - and not to you is because Constance et al have a good understanding of what Catholics believe about the Pope and are aware that Catholics are not obliged to agree with the Pope about everything. It is only those who do not know how the Petrine Charism works who assume that Catholics have to agree with the Pope about everything at all times and in all places.

By the way, since you are a guest on this blog just like everybody else here, where do you get off trying to dictate to Constance who to ask about anything???

Constance has never labeled this blog as "exclusively Protestant" or "exclusively anything" although the majority of the people who post here are most likely Protestant, and for the most part have been very kind to me. They are not in the least bit "afraid" to "call" me on anything either.

FYI, for reasons of not wanting to hog the blog, I have had some very interesting debates with some of these fine Christians via e-mail in which everybody - including myself - has learned something and walked away a winner!!!

That is all I have to say to you.

Anonymous said...


Prove it by giving some rest to this blog then.

Craig said...


At 12:16, I’m glad we have a point of agreement here! I’ll differ, though, with your assertion that atheistic belief is tantamount to self-deification. The main difference between atheists and Buddhists is the non-belief in an afterlife in the former, and the belief in an afterlife in the latter. The attainment of nirvana is not an attainment to nonexistence, but rather an “imperturbable stillness of mind after the fires of desire, aversion, and delusion have been finally extinguished” according to Wikipedia, implying that the mind itself lives on. To my way of thinking, then, this moves Buddhism into the realm of religion, as opposed to merely philosophy.

The next question to answer is: Can a religion be non-theistic; and, if so, is Buddhism truly non-theistic? I suppose a religion can be non-theistic. And Buddhism’s devas aren’t revered as gods, so I suppose one can say they aren’t gods in the ‘usual’ sense. Hence, Buddhism is non-theistic. But wait a second. My contention – one with which you agreed – is that nirvana is, essentially, self-deification. By definition one who self-deifies is one who has achieved the status of deity through self-effort. Gautama Buddha is one who achieved nirvana through self-deification, i.e., he became a deity. The relics in the Buddhist ceremony were of disciples of Gautama Buddha. Did these disciples worship the Buddha? You and I may reach different conclusions.

Thanks for the link to the Buddhist-turned-Christian. I especially like her astute: Wasn't the desire for enlightenment still desire? If so, how could one ever attain enlightenment?

I’m reminded of a phrase uttered in a recording I have: “Rest and unrest derive from illusion.” To some I’m sure this sounds profound; however, it’s obviously inherently self-contradictory.

You wrote, The bottom line is that Pope Francis did not actively participate in the rare veneration of the relics which, ironically, was done to honor him.

I agree. But that’s not exactly my final conclusion. And regarding my position, I suppose we’ll have to agree to disagree.

Craig said...

Anon 12:46 and 3:00,

You wrote to Susanna, You are the definition of a catholic zombie. That’s uncalled for. You may disagree with Susanna, which is fine, but resorting to name-calling is not only unhelpful, it impedes discourse. And you do this hiding behind the cover of total anonymity. That’s cowardly.

In response to you, Susanna wrote, Constance has never labeled this blog as "exclusively Protestant" or "exclusively anything" although the majority of the people who post here are most likely Protestant, and for the most part have been very kind to me. They are not in the least bit "afraid" to "call" me on anything either.

In fact, Constance has, on quite a few occasions, stated her stance using “ABC” and “NBC”, that is, her belief does not support either of the following:

Anybody But Catholic is truly saved


Nobody But Catholic is truly saved.

That’s Constance’s position, and given that it’s her blog, I’d think you should respect it – whether you agree with it or not.

Anonymous said...

3:00 response is to Christine.

(The one who loves to stir up animosity between denominations)

Anonymous said...

Spot On 12:46 P.M. !!!!!!

Anonymous said...

Craig is such a pompous religionist he has lost his Holy Spirit given discernment. He can always find common ground with other religious minded folks no matter how obvious it is that said religion has no plain straightforward gospel presentation. Thus possibly leading countless souls to an eternity without Christ. No big deal here though, just as long as everyone is very very polite.

If you question the hierarchy here, then your labeled "a nasty one" ,and you have some "agenda". Nice double standard for Constance and her pets.

Anonymous said...

UCLA Now Broadcasting Muslim Call To Prayer On Campus (Video)


Anonymous said...

Dear 4.41pm, Craig is a class act here and I regret your comment.

Buddhists turn prayer wheels; to whom are those prayers offered because it sure aint Jehovah? In that case, it is wrong for a Christian to get involved with any aspect of buddhist worship. And taking ones shoes off on entering a buddhist temple is a sign of respect for the spiritual forces involved, which is also out of order for any Christian.

Susanna said...

Craig 3:35

"Non-theistic" religion does sound like something of an oxymoron doesn't it?

Craig said...

Susanna @ 6:16,



Perhaps a bit of comic relief is in order:

Comedian John Branyan's The Three Little Pigs"

Susanna said...

Craig 7:38

Re: Comedian John Branyan's The Three Little Pigs"


paul said...

Satan is monotheistic

paul said...

I mean what a useless designation.
Islam is supposedly monotheistic, so
monotheism in and of itself saves no one.
redeems no one, forgives no one. edifies
no one and sanctifies no one unless it leads to
the only one true God.
That would be the God of Abraham, Isaac and
He is the God of Moses and Joshua.
He is the God of Elijah and Elisha.
He is the God of David and Soloman

Nice word monotheism.
I can't see that the young men in ISIS or The Muslim Brother-hood, or Boko Haram are
particularly close to finding God because they are monotheistic.
They're just bloodthirsty hoodlums and murderers
with an CULT that justifies their every sadistic whim.

Anonymous said...

Constance I thought about what you suggested on the show. Maybe there was a coup. I looked this up and only found a Henry Makow post. I don't read him, he religiously follows a new age guy linked to the submerging church and Oprah. He follows a Muslim writer, Livingston whose books make great door stops but not much else, and he posts those videos by angry Brother 'I still hate my Jewish parents and need therapy' Nathaniel.

Do you have any other sources for this idea? I would like to read about a possible coup. Did you write on this before?


Craig said...

Anon ***,

See here:

Anonymous said...

Obama rush to empty Guantanamo alarms lawmakers

Anonymous said...

Temple Mount insight

Anonymous said...


Susanna and you are both wrong on two counts.

She is wrong in her response that anyone dictates what should be answered on this blog. It is simply about her straight forward tunnel vision when responding to any question regarding the pope and his actions. I've seen her make every possible excuse or remain silent over major issues about the last three popes over the years.

I have no desire to dictate who asks or answers what. I was merely pointing out that you WILL NOT get an unbiased explanation from her for anything the pope does, like, EVER.

Her sometimes verbatim explanations from wiki or some other pro catholic publication along with her grammatically correct and perfectly formulated posts should not be readily digested as truth in these matters.

I feel you are wrong in that I am too harsh in calling her a catholic zombie. If you can find a nicer term to explain the following, I'm all for it.

Climate change
Look back over the years and see some of her posts. She even submitted an article published here and been against it. Now the pope is involved we have all kinds of excuses, even though he's involved with all the big guys in promoting it.

Gay Lifestyle
It is easy to see from her posts that she is not very tolerant of the lifestyle, but, the pope comes out earlier this year and voices more tolerance for such, and, silence for the most part.

Rick Warren
She has been anti-Rick Warren (rightfully so) for years. Now that him and the pope have been hanging out this year, wait for it...................
Hardly anything or excuses.

The pope kissing the Koran
I think she's made excuses for the two previous pope's blasphemous display.

There are plenty more but I hope some out there see it for what it is.

You call it uncalled for, I call it the truth.

Constance Cumbey said...

To Craig:

I like your idea for a consistent identifier of the Anonymous posters so we can tell one Anonymous from the other Anonymous!



Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said... "I also am convinced of a pre-wrath rapture, probably to take place about a year prior to Jesus' return to earth. This is explained in my two-part Rapture commentary."

prewrath is the only thing that makes sense, but NOT before Jesus' return, it would happen right at His return, while He is in the air, we are caught up and immediately He begins to rain down wrath on the antichrist and his followers.

There seems to be an obsession with separating the rapture from the Second Coming itself, which is no more Scriptural than the pre trib rapture, only slightly preferable pragmatically in terms of people being prepared to face persecution.

Anonymous said...

Christine, I agree with you about the timing of the Rapture but prewrath essentially means pretribulation ie before the terrible times associated with the Antichrist dictator's last few years. you said "prewrath is the only thing that makes sense" but that is because you were referring to a different wrath, ie Christ's wrath spoken of against Antichrist's army. Please be careful not to sow confusion!

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

anon 12:37

I am not sowing confusion. It is the pretribulation thing that is sowing confusion, the CONFUSION BETWEEN GOD'S WRATH, TO WHICH WE ARE NOT APPOINTED, AND THE TRIBULATION FROM THE ANTICHRIST.

This confusion is (a) at the root of the whole pretrib rapture heresy, and (b) exactly the devil's perspective, that the righteous wrath of God against him is "tribulation."

If you forget all you've been told and just read The Bible for yourself, you can't miss this distinction. "In the world you will have tribulation," Jesus warned.

The rapture doesn't take us from the antichrist, but from the wrath of God against the antichrist and his followers. The Bible says that when Jesus comes back it will be public, not secret, and the catching up of us to meet Him and the returning dead saints now resurrected, will be at that time. The efforts to separate the events are all dependent on cherry picking Scriptures out of context, and heavily rely on typology and allegory things that Paul used very very sparingly once maybe twice to make a point.

Heretics of all sorts rely on typology, number analysis, allegory and out of context usage of Scripture and applications that make no logical or contextual sense, but are held to be "spiritual" and evident to the "spiritual" but not the "carnal." It is all a fraud. Matt. 24 Jesus says He is coming back immediately AFTER the Tribulation. 2 Thess chapter 2 read it not in bits and pieces but all at once, like it was written.

THERE WERE NO CHAPTER AND VERSES IN THE ORIGINAL SCRIPTURES, these were added for ease of locating passages centuries later. 2 Thess. chapter 2 makes it clear that Jesus will not come back until the antichrist has been revealed, and that Jesus will destroy the antichrist at Jesus' Second Coming.

This also refutes ANY secret rapture, because Paul warns them not to be deceived by anyone, incl. a letter supposedly from him, that the Second Coming has happened. This can only refer to some notion of secret arrival, since Jesus said He would come visible to all, like the light of the sun rising in the east to the west. Since this was already known as part of the Apostolic teaching, it could only be some secret rapture notion that someone cooked up and Paul shot down, and never surfaced again for over 1600 years (if you count the RC speculation along that line instead of Margaret whatsername and Darby).

Craig said...

Staunch feminist at Canadian Catholic Saint Mary's University in Halifax suggests eliminating misogyny by replacing it with misandry:

The hypocrisy is apparent in the following:

“Women get to speak first,” Saint Mary’s University management professor Judy Haiven proposed Thursday at a misogny forum held at Dalhousie University.

“In classroom discussions, in question periods, and at public events, men should not be allowed to monopolize these forums,” continued Haiven, who was part of seven-member, all-female panel organized by the Dalhousie Gender and Women’s Studies Program and the school’s student union...

“On…television interviews, on platforms and political meetings, at any presentations — if there’s no woman speaker, then the event does not take place,” Haiven proposed. If that doesn’t occur, “the interview is forgone, the political meeting is canceled,” Haiven suggested.

That's just more of the 'more than equal rights' chant of the typical extreme leftist.

As an added bonus, I found one of the funniest pseudonyms I've seen yet in the comments section: "Wile E. Coli." That should help provide ideas for our anonymous anonymouses here.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

this almost sounds like shariah loaw on infidels under protection or dhimmi, they can't walk on the street with a muslim but out in the middle of the road, you can't wear certain clothes and can't ride a horse only a donkey and have to wear mis matching socks, and your word isn't worth much if anything in a suit against a muslim.

Anonymous said...

Christine, for heaven's sake I (12.37pm) am agreeing with you about the timing of the Rapture, but everybody before you in a 100-year tradition has used "prewrath" to refer to God's wrath poured out from bowls during Antichrist's reign as depicted in Revelation, and not Christ's wrath imposed on Antichrist's army as soon as He has returned. If you invent a new meaning for a word that has a universally understood previous meaning then you are going to sow confusion.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

any tradition only a 100 years old is false on the face of it.

and I don't read pre trib crap so I didn't know this term was in use for this. Once I read the expose of pretrib back in the mid 1970s or so, I didn't bother with any such writers unless they happened to be pretrib, so I skipped that part, but had a lot to say on something else.

Why all that wrath poured out would be considered "prewrath" I have no idea.

But "prewrath" is the term applied in a youtube video arguing for "prewrath rapture" without the delay between Rapture and second coming, that I stumbled on last year.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

anon. 9:49,

"angry Brother 'I still hate my Jewish parents and need therapy' Nathaniel."


Anonymous said...

" If you invent a new meaning for a word that has a universally understood previous meaning then you are going to sow confusion."

Too late. She already has....and on many subjects.

Anonymous said...

Is it possible for Craig and Susanna to be wrong about something? Oh my!

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

I stumbled on this, follow a trail of some matriarchalist neo pagans

seems this phiosopher had some shamanic experience where he was taken to some nameless "goddess" in an otherworld, and "reality" was explained to him. Seems that nothing can not be. that is, that all that exists always existed, since nothing can come out of nothing. therefore the universe is eternal and without origin.

While nothing is going to come out of nothing on its own, ergo Creationism, this was not what Parmenides was on about. Rather, it was that there is no point before which something that exists, did not exist.

This kind of thinking of course means either that God is identical with the universe, or the universe just is, humans as highest conscious form are effectively gods, and there was no creation or Creator.

Also on a buried page that turned up on google is a lecture on the ancient Harranians, my original target. seems they did human sacrifice, and having passed themselves off to moslems as sabians and therefore eligible for dhimmi status, they continued their ways but more secretly.

they also seem to have been the transit point into arabic science and philosophy of hermeticism, which of course found its way to europe, partly from the sack of Constantinople by the Crusaders and partly from arab sources.

and buried in the occultism of europe, incl. among some counting themselves as alchemists, was human sacrifice, which is what got Gille de Rais turned on to this, after Joan of Arc died.

Supposedly there has recently been found more of Parmenides work or some slab with an inscription or whatever. Parmenides was a pre Socratic philosopher of some influence on Plato, who apparently put the problem of eternal pre existence of everything out of the zone of pantheism, and into the zone of ideas in the mind of The One or something like that.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

anon 2:59 if I seem to be redefining words, I am in fact using them correctly as originally understood, or as obvious from context. you have been reading those who redefined them.

But I don't know what you are talking about since the current argument is the only example of a dispute over terminology I recall being involved in.

Arguing about words' meaning and arguing about the reality or non reality and implications of what they refer to are very different things.

Anonymous said...

2:22 PM

I know right? Look, nobody is perfect and he may be correct on some things but I am NOT listening to a so-called priest who is that angry, get over it dude. Anger is a stronghold of the devil.

Paul (this blog commenter) said it's the message not the messenger but with Br. Nate, I draw the line.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for link Craig.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

The refutation of the Blood Libel that answers all questions.

I posted this on the blog comments of a writer who supports the Blood Libel as real. And on my page.

where bodies turn up someone killed them. That it was Jews is another matter. That it was done by people who could pass as Jews is obvious.
Harranians are a better candidate, here's why.

The Harranian cult, coherent to ancient Mesopotamian cults, was doing human sacrifice semi secretly into islamic times, and finally shut down by the Mongol invasion of Syria. It was also the source for hermeticism transferred from the ancient world into arabic and Renaissance learning. Among alchemists there were a few who did human sacrifice, and two such turned Gilles de Rais onto this.
Initially, the Harranians deceived the moslems into thinking they were the sabians mentioned in the koran. (given the demonic origins of the koran, they probably were.) So they could go on dhimmi status instead of convert or die. Thus deception about their faith was endemic for centuries after that.

The style of killing (until AFTER the closet satanist Jacob Frank got into the game) was not kosher. Blood is absolutely forbidden to be ingested. Humans are an unclean animal because we don't chew the cud or split the foot. The picture of use of this in Passover matzoh is exactly comparable to satanist black mass desecration of the host in a Roman Catholic context, this ritual murder stuff is sacrilege in a Jewish context, which probaby originated as diaspora Harranians doing their thing, and pretending to be Jews, and many families may have lost the next generations to Judaism, the kids having seriously devoted themselves to Judaism they were raised in, before old enough to be told the truth. Ditto phenomenon among those Harranian families who passed themselves as exotic looking europeans who were into philosophy and so forth, which would have a Christian outer layer, and many younger generation may have become too Christian to admit to the family secret. Probably in any generation, remaining Harranians could fit in one room.

The style of Harranian kills is not known, or I haven't found it yet. The first reference to this puncture exsanguination style, was regarding
some sect of the Montanist Christian heretics. Not the usual scene with them, but I suspect Harranians got into it.

Where philosophy abounded, so did magic. Both would have gone into Europe and elsewhere with the Harranians.

Because of the tiny number each generation that could be told the family secret, they would always be a tiny element.

Fast Forward to the 20th century, in the USA, where no one had to pretend to be anything, they could revert to their original paganism semi openly and some could do the kills in the old way.

Hence the reversion to the multi puncture type kill in AD 1955.

Since satanists have always gravitated to positions of power, incl. local, and would have been in position to stop an inquiry, especially if the Harranians responsible were also in the police and higher up in Chicago, an ethnic melting pot no one would notice them in, the cover up is explainable. Jews would not have wanted a blood libel dragged up and riots, Harranians would not want an investigation even though it might target Jews, it is likely that one of those in the act itself was still passing as Jewish or considered such because of heavy identification with the Kabbalah, or because of the latter preferred to be viewed as Jewish, ergo the picture of a pay off by Jews and a suppression by the authorities.

the date on all this means that likely if the original perpetrators are dead or senile, at least a few of their children or grandchildren are alive and kicking....and involved in satanism of the ancient Mesopotamian paganism influenced sort.

Anonymous said...

Christine at 4.16pm, the question is whether you want to be understood or not by people who read what you write. I don't mind if you don't.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

anon 6:14,

I have never run into the wrath as anything but a confused misequation with the tribulation, and we are not appointed to wrath ergo we don't go through the tribulation.

pre wrath rapture is the term used by a fellow who finally got around to noticing that pretribulation is not possible. pre antichrist is not possible. pre antichrist persecution of the church up to the Second Coming of Jesus Christ is not possible.

I don't think he argued for a rapture at any point prior to the moment of Jesus appearing to destroy the antichrist and those who caved in to him and performed an act of worship and received the mark.

the idea of pre wrath is another way of saying post tribulation, that's all I ever heard it used as.

your idea would make pre wrath another form of pre tribulation, i.e., mid tribulation, because that would still be going on because the initial wrath bowls don't succeed in reforming people, or not enough to be worth noting in the visions shown to John.

And rapture at ANY point before the visible Second Coming is not possible if you let Scripture interpret Scripture and leave out all the typology, allegories, and numerology.

THE wrath is obviously the main destruction act, though these other things are warning presagers.

I fail to see how anyone can be confused by including the destruction of the antichrist and his followers under the heading of "wrath."

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

"your idea would make pre wrath another form of pre tribulation, i.e., mid tribulation"

oops should have said Ted Montgomery's idea

Anonymous said...

Did Francis really say don't 'breed like rabbits'? Sounds like something Darwin would say.

Anonymous said...

Top story on the Drudge Report (January 20, 2015):

Humanoids Holds News Conference; Interview 'Baby'

Japanese androids hold news conference, chat with baby droids

The female robots introduced a pair of tabletop conversation robots, CommU and Sota

Anonymous said...

The entire context of the statement that Pope Francis made on Monday, January 19, 2015....

Answering a question about birth control on Monday, Francis said that parents shouldn’t procreate endlessly, trusting in God that it will all work out, even if they have health problems.

“But God gives you methods to be responsible,” Francis said. “Some think that, excuse me if I use that word, that in order to be good Catholics we have to be like rabbits. No. Responsible parenthood.”

That doesn’t mean the Pope supports artificial birth control, though. Instead, the church preaches natural methods of preventing pregnancies.

Anonymous said...

"Did Francis really say don't 'breed like rabbits'? Sounds like something Darwin would say.

It sounds more like the Pope was alluding to comments that have been erroneously and frequently made about Catholics by ignorant allusion that seemed to be not without a subtle little hint of sarcasm.

Constance Cumbey said...

The quote I heard on the media attributed to Pope Francis was that Catholics did not need to "breed like bunnies." My news came from CNN and also from online stories most of which have changed the word "bunnies" to the more intellectualized "rabbits" today.

Here is a link to one that still uses the word "bunny." Not having heard the pope's direct speech nor knowing what language he was using, I don't know if it was "rabbits" or "bunnies" but I am fearful of Catholic playing into the "over-populated Planet" games.


Constance Cumbey said...

Speaking of apostasy, has anybody seen Franky Schaeffer's latest abomination: "Why I am an Atheist Who Believes in God". His parents (Francis & Edith Schaeffer) would both turn over in their grave!


Anonymous said...

To: Constance @ 4:03 PM
Re: I am fearful of Catholics playing into the "over-populated Planet" games.

During the Vatican's recent meeting on the family, African bishops denounced how aid groups and lending institutions often condition their assistance on a country's compliance with their ideals: allowing health care workers to distribute condoms, or withdrawing assistance if legislation discriminating against gays is passed.

"When imposed conditions come from imperial colonizers, they search to make people lose their own identity and make a sameness," he said. "This is ideological colonization."

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

Franky Schaeffer "Why I am an Atheist Who Believes in God"

I kinda suspected that his reason for going Orthodox some years ago, was rebellion against his family as much as any study he did that does show it IS the original core Church.

reminds me of "angry Brother 'I still hate my Jewish parents and need therapy' Nathaniel."

Anonymous said...

"I kinda suspected that his reason for going Orthodox some years ago, was rebellion against his family... "

(Oh, I in no way am defending him, just exposing your hypocrisy here!)
'Kinda' sounds like the pot calling the kettle black, n'est pas?

How's that mote going, Christine? Projecting again, eh? A bit like calling your poor and undoubtedly long-suffering mother a vampire, as you've done here on numerous occasions: methinks the infowolf doth protest too much! What say ye? You are a veritable nosferatu here, and are intent on sucking the life out of this blog!

paul said...

"I fail to see how anyone can be confused by including the destruction of the antichrist and his followers under the heading of "wrath." "

Wait, "you fail to anyone can be confused,

You do ?
Christine, you are confusion embodied.
OR you are just intentionally trying to confuse
anyone and everyone.
I assume it's because you are a JAMMER, probably getting a small stipend to degrade this blog.
You very good at it and obviously you need the money because you are AFRAID OF ReAL Work.
Get a freakin' job and vanish already.

Anonymous said...

Being Orthodox has not fixed Franky's problem now has it?

And it hasn't fixed yours either Christine........

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

"(Oh, I in no way am defending him, just exposing your hypocrisy here!)
'Kinda' sounds like the pot calling the kettle black, n'est pas?

How's that mote going, Christine? Projecting again, eh? A bit like calling your poor and undoubtedly long-suffering mother a vampire,"

I joined Orthodoxy five years after she was dead. Given her hostility to the idea that spirits exist, that Jesus is God (called it idolatrous to worship Him), and strong disinclination to believe in life after death, you could as well argue that I became Christian at all in order to flip her off so to speak.

As for the vampirism thing, once I studied the subject enough and knew enough about the paranormal in general, I recognized stuff about her....and about myself.

Tell me, what would you think about your mother if she got inside your head and made you say and do things that you had no intention or thought of doing or saying, and were puzzled that you were doing or saying them, when you did or said them?

And then finally so managed a takeover, that you could barely see yourself as existing and were fully robotized, parroting back to her what she said (which she then later called having real communication with you, meaning talking to herself through you)? Very like being possessed, I guess, except it wasn't a demon it was her telepathically.

Once that momentary spell was broken by the distracting sound of my grandmother walking upstairs, I never let it happen again. I was 9 years old, I think, or nearly so.

And being Orthodox went far to fixing my own vampiric tendencies. Thought they were totally gone, then found I was doing a self feed internally causing physical problems. Paprika stopped that.

Anonymous said...

From CNN (January 20, 2015):

Air Force UFO files land on Internet

It's enough to make Mulder and Scully seethe with envy.

Nearly 130,000 pages of declassified Air Force files on UFO investigations and sightings are now available in one place online.

Declassified government records about UFOs have long existed on microfilm in the National Archives in Washington, DC. Many of them also live on websites devoted to the topic, sometimes free, sometimes not.

But UFO enthusiast John Greenewald says his database, Project Blue Book Collection, is the first to compile every single declassified document from the Blue Book project -- headquartered at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio from 1947 to 1969 -- in one place for anyone to search or download for free.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

paul I see where you are coming from on pre wrath, since this article "The prewrath view teaches that the wrath of God is poured out sometime in the final three and a half years before the end of the age, after the start of the final persecution by Antichrist. The church is raptured immediately before God’s wrath is poured out, so, like pretribulationism, a distinction is made between the coming of Christ to rapture the church and the final coming to earth, but unlike pretribulationism, the church will experience the final persecution by Antichrist."

is definitely not the picture I got from that video.

The Bible says that Christ comes back to destroy the antichrist with the brightness of His coming, and that at that point we will be lifted up to meet Him. There is no catching up some time before that.

Since Revelation speaks of some kind of scorpion that can only torment the wicked, the non wicked will be around to not be tormented. So we will be here through all these events, but protected somehow.

ANY theory of the Rapture, which separates it from the visible to all second Coming is false, biblically.

The one thread connecting them all, is the urge to see this as a promise of avoiding some major problem. This does not strike me as a Christian world view, but a worldly fleshly world view.

since he who lives by the sword will die by the sword is stated as a reason for patience of the saints, it would seem that in all the persecutions sooner or later these people persecuting Christians will be stopped by sword bearers who are either Christian, or are Christianity tolerant.

Another option is cut and run. Selling out to save yourself or anyone else, or your property, is not an option.

Prewrath seems to attempt to deal with the historic fact of persecution, and has the advantage of preparing Christians to face persecution but what happens when weird stuff and cataclysms break loose, and the Christians are still here? are some going to lose their faith?

The simplest approach is the biblical, which never distinguishes between the catching up and the Second Coming. If all those monstrous events are in fact against the antichrist, and part of what Jesus Christ sends on the earth at His Second Coming, then it is at the end of the 3 1/2 years, for a brief time, while we are in the air with Him watching all this, and the non wicked who are not stung are non Christians, who nonetheless refused to worship the antichrist, and may get cut some slack because they rejected evil of some specific obvious sorts like this, even though they had not accepted Jesus Christ. After all, He does say some things about gradations of damnation, that Sodom and Gomorrha would have it better at the Judgement than some other cities, who were given opportunities they weren't given, and didn't repent.

But you can't stay with The Bible and separate the Rapture from The Second Coming. And no one tried to until a few hundred years ago, which is very recent times.

paul said...

No Justiina,
You don't see where I'm coming from.
Right now I'd have to say I don't know the exact moment of the Rapture of the saints, but I know
that I don't believe whatever you've got to say because you're full of baloney up to your eyeballs.

And by the way, EVERY mother gets up in her child's head and manipulates them and drives them to exasperation.
But of course your situation is completely different and must be supernatural.

Like I said before, get a job.

Anonymous said...

I have a novel idea for curing all those ills Christine.

Try sprinkling some paprika into the next batch of holy water you brew. (that is, of course, if the resident seer gives you the nod).

Anonymous said...

What would I do, Justina? I would honor my parents by not defaming them publicly. It seems as though you're transfering all you feel about your mother here, yet it is you playing the vampire: you are, as they say, bats; with your NAM nonsense, away with the fairies!

I put it to you that what you convey about your mother smacks of loathing verging on outright hatred. If that is so, then you are spiritually culpable of matricide (not to be interpreted gnostically but Biblically)!

Don't they teach about getting out and evangelizing in the EO, or has the Church emplored you not to do so until you repent of your gnostic and occultic take on things? Are you well? If so you should know that if a man or woman doesn't work (at home or employed elsewhere) neither should such eat: in that case, hearken to Paul's hearty counsel and, "...get a job", "...vanish already"!

Anonymous said...

Does EO teach that living in sin with someone to whom you are not married is wrong? Does it teach also that your lifestyle is at the very least the appearance of sin that the Bible says to avoid? Doesn't sitting morning, noon, and night at a computer screen keep you from your household chores and from working to make a living? (or perhaps you are independently wealthy?)

Why doesn't the same Holy Spirit you claim you know, teach me and tell me to live and practice as you do then since your beliefs are more superior? I feel zero need or conviction for holy water to be closer to God. Is something wrong with my faith Christine?

Anonymous said...

Anon 10:34 AM,

Apparently, it only works for her if sprinkled with paprika! It must be a cheaper version of curry she learned about, perhaps she believes (on the advice of her live-in guru) that it will clear out her imaginary chakras?

Anonymous said...

Could Aka infowolf actually be the notorious Queenie Cameron? I wonder...!

Anonymous said...

She reminds me more of Alice Bailey, she too was a little familiar with Christianity, rebeled and betrayed her loved ones, diseminated New Age occult nonsense, and lived in sin with her resident seer, Forster, and was heavily influenced by Hinduism and all the hell that pagan India could throw!

Anonymous said...

Rings true for my state.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

Paul, "And by the way, EVERY mother gets up in her child's head and manipulates them and drives them to exasperation.
But of course your situation is completely different and must be supernatural."

you don't understand, and I pray God that you never do. not from experience anyway.

This was not manipulation. This was possession. Or something similar. only happened a few times.

the manipulation was akin to brainwashing cult leader stuff, and prosecutable child abuse and neglect.

Anonymous said...

With or without paprika, Justina?

Anonymous said...

World Economic Forum in Davos

Amid the Chattering of the Global Elite, a Silent Interlude By David Gelles
January 21, 2015 2:42 pm

For 10 minutes at the World Economic Forum here on Wednesday afternoon, a conference room jammed with more than 100 high-powered delegates was entirely silent.

The rare interlude of equanimity came during a panel called Leading Mindfully, a discussion of how meditation was impacting the workplace.

And with a mix of breathing instructions, management theory and personal reflection, the session provided a stark counterpoint to the frenzied discussions about geopolitical instability, currency fluctuations and climate change in nearby rooms.

“This is a very unusual event at the World Economic Forum, and it’s diagnostic of something much larger that is happening,” said Jon Kabat-Zinn, a molecular biologist who helped popularize mindfulness meditation in recent decades. “What was once considered a radical, lunatic, fringe thing has been incorporated into medicine, science, academics and more.”

In recent years, meditation has grown more prominent in the business world. Companies including General Mills, Aetna and BlackRock are teaching meditation to their employees, and students at Harvard Business School can take classes on mindful leadership.

“Even Goldman Sachs is doing it,” said William George, a member of the Goldman Sachs board who was on the panel and says hundreds of the investment banks employees regularly meditate.

At the same time, hospitals, schools, sports teams and the military are promoting incorporating mindfulness in to their training.

“Teachers are desperate to teach kids how to pay attention, rather than screaming at them,” said Mr. Kabat-Zinn.

In Davos, meditation has been on the agenda for each of the last few years. But this year, there was more interest than ever, according to Mr. Kabat-Zinn. An upcoming panel at the event will explore how meditation changes the brain, and this year, Mr. Kabat-Zinn is leading popular meditation sessions each day at 8 a.m.


paul said...

You said:
'Since Revelation speaks of some kind of scorpion that can only torment the wicked, the non wicked will be around to not be tormented. So we will be here through all these events, but protected somehow.

ANY theory of the Rapture, which separates it from the visible to all second Coming is false, biblically."

How do you know? You don't.
On one hand you keep repeating that we all need to read the whole Bible (I agree), and you say that we need to take things in context and from a whole Bible perspective, and I agree with that too.

But you then make a completely vague reference to things in the book of Revelations.
Your quote above is like a leaf blowing in the wind.
First of all your scorpion reference is from chapter nine, and they aren't scorpions but they have the power of scorpions. They are locusts, but BEFORE THAT, before the seven angels with the seven trumpets of God wrath sound, in chapter 7, we see
verse 9: After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude which no man could number of all the nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues,
stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;...(etc), up to verse 14: ..."these are they which CAME OUT OF GREAT TRIBULATION, and have washed their robes and made them white
in the blood of the Lamb.

It's after these things that the plagues begin to descend on mankind.
At that time the 144,000 chosen of Israel will
preach God's salvation and glory to the world,
but just like in Noah's day no one will listen until the judgement begins to fall on them, and just like in Noah's day, the redeemed of the Lord will be delivered. Noah and his family floated above God's wrath, up off the earth.

I think, no, I know, that the book of Revelations
is way too much for you to casually sum up and spit out the crib notes synopsis of, as you so often do.
You don't understand it at all.

The Shakers have an old saying: "Hands to work and hearts to God"

Anonymous said...

Dave in CA @ 6:21 PM

Re: 'how meditation changes the brain' and is becoming more prominent with General Mills, Aetna, BlackRock, Goldman Sachs, hospitals, schools, our military, etc.

Well, that certainly explains a LOT regarding the direction the world is moving in. Thank you for passing along this link.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

"How do you know? You don't.
On one hand you keep repeating that we all need to read the whole Bible (I agree), and you say that we need to take things in context and from a whole Bible perspective, and I agree with that too.

But you then make a completely vague reference to things in the book of Revelations.
Your quote above is like a leaf blowing in the wind.

Its called comparing Scripture with Scripture. and not blowing around like a leaf in the wind which is what all those do that try to separate the rapture from the Second Coming,

that those people came out of the great tribulation should tell you the church went through it, and don't bother with the word church isn't mentioned after a certain point, because any believers are "church."

the shakers were heretics of a hypercharismatic sort who had very abnormal manifestations hence called shakers.

as for crib note, yeah I understand it, but if I go into detail you will complain.

sorry about scorpions instead of locusts, I was going from memory.

But reading through the bible WITHOUT HELP FROM THOSE STUDY NOTES THAT TELL YOU WHAT SOMETHING MEANS EVEN WHEN IT CLEARLY DOESN'T MEAN THAT, is exactly how you get the correct picture.

you can't place the rapture before the Second Coming. Period. There is no biblical basis for it, without taking verses out of context to wrench the Scriptures as Peter said, and using all kind of number and typology and allegory games to get where you want.

And doing that puts you in bad company, because that is how most heretics of the worst sort operated, and anyone who disagreed with them was styled non spiritual.

Why don't you go study the post tribulationist exponents on youtube and the web and in books, instead of expecting a book length lecture split between innumberable posts as this runs out of space, for which I will be condemned as a blog hog anyway?

Jesus said He would come back "immediately AFTER the tribulation of those days," in Matt. 24 and that's good enough for me. Paul and Revelation speaking of this does not alter the post tribulation picture unless you tear pieces of the picture out and reassemble them into something unrecognizable.

Anon 12 said...

The pre-trib view is not that old. It's not even 200 years old since John Darby really popularized the theory. I personally think its bunk.

Not claiming it to be a salvation issue as I have more than a few Christian friends who are pre-tribbers. I just think they are going to be really disappointed when they are still "left" here and must "endure to the end".

Anonymous said...

"The Shakers have an old saying: 'Hands to work and hearts to God'"

Excellent advice for your consumption Justina, something you should take to heart and put into practice!

Another one you'd do well to remember, Justina, is: 'the Devil makes work for idle hands'!

Such counsel and caution SHOULD divert you away from ranting continually, almost continuously, here and direct you to more profitable employ, benefiting all all round.

Study the ant, you may learn much!

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

anon 7:58, it may not be a salvation issue, but it sets people up to lose faith, if they find themselves facing the antichrist, or any major persecution that someone says is being done by the antichrist (especially a "beast system" instead of an individual, or a moslem leader, and there were people in China who expected to be raptured out of the way of Mao and it didn't happen). They think the Bible says and means what their teachers say it says and means, and if things don't happen the way they expect they may lose faith.

Many pretribbers write or record excellent material on other subjects.

I also think, that pre tribbism's way of handling Scripture, acclimatizes one to bad handling of Scripture and many more serious deceptions out there. the hypercharismatic new apostolic reformation crew do this a lot. used to be called MSOG Constance exposed them in A Planned Deception.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

that last video doesn't spend that much time on the rapture.

Anonymous said...

Davis World Economic Forum Features New Age Religion Classes

Anonymous said...

The above post should read Davos, not Davis.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

looking at the Davos page, I notice an article on concern about farming. While some good points are made about fertilizer and restoring health of soil, they also talk about providing better germinating seeds.

What comes to my mind is, are these from Monsanto, the terminator type, that you can't grow more crops from the seeds that come from the crops, and have to keep buying seed?

Another problem is loans. Interest bearing? probably. this is something that Bible believers should be concerned about but we take it for granted as okay because everybody does it. We are trapped in a system that defines usury as excessive interest. But that isn't what usury means. It means ANY interest, and lending at interest with "interest upon interest" (compound interest) is mentioned in the list of sins for which God will destroy Judah in Jeremiah.

the point is made in this article that lending was usually because of someone's need, so the context of the parable of the talents is not normal lending but business lending, and whether this is something where the lender becomes liable to risk as a member of the venture or actual interest regardless of results of the venture is another question.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 725   Newer› Newest»