Thursday, June 18, 2015

Lt. Col. Michael Aquino and General Vallely Connection - I wrote about this in 1986!

My very first two issues of my former newsletter, CONSTANCE CUMBEY'S NEW AGE MONITOR dealt with Michael Aquino and his military protectors, the chief of which was General Paul Vallely.  I have located that back issue.  If you would like your own .pdf copy of same, email me at cumbey@gmail.com and put "Aquino Newsletter" as your subject line.  I will do a search for those requests and promptly forward it to you just as I did the Dennis Cuddy chart and the NCEA Muller resolution material that I handled this way in the past.

For the record, here's what appeared in my first issue of NEW AGE MONITOR as a "tease" to what would be in the second issue:

New Age Monitor, Vol. 1, No. 1, May 1986


The next issue, June, 1986 had extensive reporting on both Michael Aquino and then Brigadier General Vallely.  Email me at cumbey@gmail.com with the subject line "AQUINO NEWSLETTER" and I'll send you by reply email your own pesonal copy.  You are free to copy the docu ment and "pass it on."  My information source was Linda Blood who is also the author of the book THE NEW SATANISTS.  She was once closely associated with Michael Aquino and his Temple of Set and subsequently repented of that involvement.   I can email you a .pdf copy of that book as well, upon request.

 Stay tuned!

CONSTANCE

Comments: 1 – 200 of 263 Newer› Newest»
The N.A. monitor refers to, "Major James Aquino," instead of Major Michael Aquino, is this just a typo or does he also go by James?
 
What about the big news of Pope Francis encylical on climate change?

For those who have said for months that they would wait for to come out before commenting, which is responsible, albeit naive, as many of us knew that it would be exactly as it is. But we were labeled bashers.

Can't wait to hear how he is teaching us to be good stewards. What a joke!!!!!!

I'd like to hear from the Craigs and Markos who are more worried about offending Susanna and Constance than God himself.
 
"James Aquino" was an obvious error. It should have read "Michael Aquino." It is correct in the next newsletter where the full article appears on page 7. I was scrambling "Jim Channon" and "Michael Aquino" in my brain and was probably putting it together about 4 am one morning.

Sorry!

Constance
 
to 2:06 pm. Your sarcasm is unnecessary. I have not yet seen the Encyclical nor did I hear news this morning. When I went to bed very late this morning (3 a.m.) the big news was the Charleston church shootings.

Constance
 
I'm just now reading the coverage on Pope Francis which I just googled after reading 2:06 a.m. My husband subscribes to home delivery of the NYT which would have alerted me when bringing it in, but they discontinued home delivery for all days except Sunday approximately 2 months ago.

Needless to say, I'm disturbed and so are many of my friends who suspect he may be campaigning for anti-pope, False Prophet. I can't help but wonder if Benedict XVI were removed under secret coercion.

Constance
 
Here in English is Pope Francis' encyclical on ecology and the environment including "climate change", from the Vatican's own website:

http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html

From para 23: "a number of scientific studies indicate that most global warming in recent decades is due to the great concentration of greenhouse gases... released mainly as a result of human activity... The problem is aggravated by a model of development based on the intensive use of fossil fuels, which is at the heart of the worldwide energy system."

Dear Pope Francis, how then do you explain that it hasn't got warmer for nearly two decades although global carbon dioxide levels have continued to increase?

From para 175: "The same mindset which stands in the way of making radical decisions to reverse the trend of global warming also stands in the way of achieving the goal of eliminating poverty... The twenty-first century, while maintaining systems of governance inherited from the past, is witnessing a weakening of the power of nation states... it is essential to devise stronger and more efficiently organized international institutions, with functionaries who are appointed fairly by agreement among national governments, and empowered to impose sanctions. As Benedict XVI has affirmed...: “To manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration: for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political authority, as my predecessor Blessed John XXIII indicated some years ago".”

World government anyone? And can we imagine the Catholic church agitating for a "true world political authority" without seeking to be part of it?

A lot of the trouble with this encyclical is that it states what it thinks should be done without stating that to get it done would involve international socialism. Pope Francis increasingly appears to have been deeply influenced by the political views of those who shared his principled opposition to Argentinian fascism during his formative years.
 
Constance

Anon 2:06 here

That wasn't sarcastic. It was the truth. Considering the RCC has/does propagate the biggest new age lie in the history of mankind but is defended by many here including you is the truth, not sarcasm.

I base my comment on Craig and Marko on previous comments made by both of them to the effect of, susanna is only sticking up for what she was raised and taught.

Should we afford Muslims the same excuse?

Athiests? Buddhists? Members of the occult?

I think not. Jesus said the only way to the Father is THROUGH HIM.

Not Mohammed, not Mary, not the Pope, not Buddha.

And what some consider sarcasm, others consider truth. Jesus did use some harsh language when describing false religious leaders. I believe He said, He did not come to bring peace, but a sword that would divide families. This didn't mean we must be super courteous to those who do not believe in Him, or afford excuses to those raised or not raised in a certain faith when discussing His Word. Sometimes the truth hurts and is VERY harsh.

Jesus is the ONLY WAY!!
 


Anonymous

meanwhile.....


Anonymous said...

http://www.esade.edu/newsletter/eng/gtae/rrii/convocatoria_estandar/ESADEgeo_EUROPA

He is still out front on these things.
(like none other)

11:34 AM
 
To: 2:06 and 4:01

You use both sarcasm and innuendo to infer something clearly not true. I'm glad God is my judge and NOT YOU!

The test of antichrist is a denial that Jesus is the Christ. The Catholics clearly affirm (for the most part, New Age and secularist type Catholics excluded) that Jesus is the Christ.

I was probably the first major voice to call out New Age Catholics for what they were (Matthew Fox, Theodore Hesburgh, Cardinal Bernardin, Basil Pennington, Thomas Berry, etc.)

I can show you even more serious apostasies among the Protestants, many of whom supported and still support Matthew Fox and have seriously advanced New World Religion causes.

I know who helped and who hindered.

Constance
 
Catholics affirm that Jesus is A Christ, but many of them also treat Mary as one.
 
Well said 5:25, 2:06 and 4:01

It's good to know there are those bretheren who still, in this wicked age, defend the gospel, and the truth in Christ our Lord.

Never back down from Pharisees, Cultists, or the Luke Warm!
 
Constance

Sorry but you are wrong. I've said on this blog before when you stated the "test of antichrist" that verbal affirmation means NOTHING!!

They preach a different Jesus which we are warned about. Once again verbal affirmation means NOTHING!!!!!!

Even demons recognize He is Christ and shudder in fear of Him.

So because they verbally affirm that he is Christ does that mean they are ok?

I think not!!!!


 
From the Daily Mail (06/19/15)

'The beginning of the end of the eurozone': Greek PM predicts his nation's 'Grexit' will cause the COLLAPSE of Europe's currency
•Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras warns that his country's exit from the eurozone 'would be an irreversible step'
•Emergency meeting of EU leaders called for Monday after crisis talks to stop Greece leaving single currency failed
•Russia says it is willing to consider giving financial help to Athens to protect its 'investment projects and trade'
•Chancellor George Osborne says Britain is 'prepared for the worst' as Greek crisis reaches the 'eleventh hour'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3131100/Greek-PM-predicts-nation-s-Grexit-cause-COLLAPSE-Europe-s-currency.html#ixzz3dWVMjoNx


 
Regarding the Charlston, South Carolina church shooting, look for a crisis equals opportunity for these possible 'solutions'....

1) Attack the Second Amendment (gun control).

2) Attack the First Amendment (label certain forms of 'freedom of speech' a hate crime).

3) Advocate a federal takeover of state and local police.

Also, look for a fed up public demanding 'protection' from these dangerous murderers on the loose (as in those two upstate New York prisoners who have yet to be caught). Finally, you will have the 'sheeple' (I mean people) all too ready and willing to give up their rights in order to accept the final frosting-on-the-cake 'solution' of having a microchip implanted in every man, woman, child, dog and cat in America... so that everyone can be tracked and located by our government who only 'cares' about our welfare.

 
4:01 is an uneducated opinion. Such opinions exploded post-1920 as the Detroit auto revolution provided previous peasants with lots of money. These newly "rich" autoworkers then hired pastors who had attended "Bible School" to preach to them whatever was popular in reactionary circles at the time.

The truth is quite complex, yet these people want to think it is simple. They do not value studying and so say things in places where they have no understanding.


 
Anonymous 8:29 What have you and your groupies done to make the world a better place. With your ugly attacks you've brought destruction, hatred and division. You say you have faith in Jesus. Your faith is only in your own sense of superiority, a pride that is beyond measure. The Catholic church, even with its failings, has done much good in the world, if only to spread the knowledge of morality Jesus came to emphasize. Jesus didn't come to start a cult. Twelve followers would be a pretty lame cult. He came to teach. Why don't you try to learn what he taught.
 
2:35

I did learn what he taught. Like the only way to the Father is through Him!!

Not Mary or the saints.

Like His Word teaches to watch for those that preach a different Jesus.

I think it is you who SERIOUSLY NEEDS TO LEARN what He teaches!

Instead of your bishops and popes.
 
"Greek PM predicts his nation's 'Grexit' will cause the COLLAPSE of Europe's currency"

He would, wouldn't he? He's using scaremongering to try to get more money out of the EU (ie the Germans) for pensions for his civil servants who retired in their early 50s. EU has to decide whether to throw more good money after bad or cut their losses. They can easily stand the losses but worry about the resulting instability, ie who's next?

Better for the Greeks if they get thrown out - two years of real pain and then a bounce back as the exchange rate makes their stuff cheap, instead of 20 years of recession as decided according to the interests of other nations with different financial positions. 20 years of high unemployment among the young is fertile breeding ground for extremism of both left and right.

 
Catholics are NOT taught and do not believe that Jesus is A Christ.(He is THE CHRIST) And certainly do not believe Mary is a Christ. We would not have the Catholic church without Jesus Christ (obviously). Period.



From OZ.


 
Yes but the Catholic cult does NOT preach the straight forward gospel.

That's why Catholics are so fond of their cult.

If they truly knew, and loved Yahshua, they would NOT need all the religious nonsense!!!
 
Dear OZ,

Despite his claims to the contrary, the Anonymous at 2:44 P.M. and 7:44 P.M. is the one who needs to learn what HE ( JESUS ) teaches. Because if he really did know what HE ( Jesus not Yahshua ) teaches and put those teachings into practice, ( i.e. Love one another as I have loved you. And the Golden Rule of "Do as you would be done by." ), he would have other more convincingly Christian things to do besides being an "accuser of the brethren" on this blog.

Not only that, but the Bible doesn't back up one jot or tittle of his anti-Catholic "theology fiction" no matter how hard he tries to weasel word the Scriptures under the guise of "discernment."

He yaps about "religion" but he doesn't even know what "religion" is. If he did, he would know that religion by its very definition is "the lifting of the mind and heart to God"....that there are light years of difference between natural and supernatural religion......and that Roman Catholicism and those Christian communions that do not "sever Christ" are authentically supernatural Christian religions.

Anon's views of "religion" is redolent of the heretical 2nd century gnostics beginning with Simon Magus who also wanted to get rid of the pope so that they could substitute their own bizarre subjective snake-oily opinions for the objective body of public divine revelation transmitted by Christ directly to the Apostles.

Anon can talk about "discernment" and "learning what HE taught" all he wants, but when all is said and done, except for when his "discernment" is accidentally in conformity with the Scriptures he is merely passing off his own opinions/wishful thi8nking as "something the Bible says."


 
My dear friends Johanna Michaelsen and Caryl Matrisciana will be joining me on my radio program in the morning. Both are very important authors and Caryl is a brilliant and talented film producer as well. Both had prior New Age involvement before becoming solid Christians. Johanna is the author of THE BEAUTIFUL SIDE OF EVIL and LIKE LAMBS TO THE SLAUGHTER. Caryl Matrisciana is the author of GODS OF THE NEW AGE. Both are very brilliant and well informed women. Johanna will join me first at 7:30 Pacific time. The first half hour, I will be discussing the disturbing new (AGE?) encyclical issuing out of the Vatican that has undoubtedly had the New Agers dancing in the streets. I will also be sharing additional information on the Aquino/Vallely fiascos.

Join us at www.TMERadio.com.

Constance
 
Catholics clearly teach that Jesus is THE CHRIST, not A CHRIST. Catholics HONOR Mary. They do not WORSHIP her!
 
I don't know what "other" Jesus Catholics teach. God the Second
Person of the Trinity (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) Who became
incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary and was crucified
for us, died and was buried, came physically not just spirituall
back to life, ascended to heaven in His flesh, lives forever and
will come back down from heaven to rule and judge the living
and the dead.

what is your problem?

there is a hyper focus on Mary but while pop Catholicism is a bit
more extreme that official Catholicism and there are problems
like the filioque, immaculate conception, mechanistic thinking
and view of mechanistic merits of saints being applied and so
forth, papal supremacy and a laundry list of lesser things
one Orthodox posted, it is way preferably to Unitarianism,
presby homo marriage favoring church, or extreme double
predestinarian Calvinism or pop evangelicalism wallowing
in sin and delusions and spiritual deception. or Holy Name
precise (they hope) pronouncing followers of mosaic holy
days Paul told us to ignore. (Granted some of this
stuff turns up in RC but that's another story.)

the "religion" complained of is the very same church government
structure Paul traced the outlines of and the Eucharist Jesus
enjoined and Paul said you had to eat perceiving the Body of
the Lord or be at risk of some judgement.

go download a copy of the Mass and see for yourself it is
very Jesus focused.
 
refutation of papacy as antichrist pdf linked in prior blog comments, already
I pointed out a vicar is the appointed approved representative of someone not
an upstart or a fake copy. cited three dictionaries. continuing:

"In order to introduce ourselves to our subject, we have taken it for granted that
the system described by Paul in the passage we have just quoted is the papacy.
This is the thing to be established."

a. he TAKES IT FOR GRANTED therefore will not learn from Scripture but read into
it and engages in circular reasoning.
b. therefore he twists Paul's words when he says Paul describes a system. Paul does
not describe a SYSTEM but actions that can only be done by an individual.

various wrong history and shows near total ignorance of some events. Constantine
for instance did not put Rome in the hands of the pope when he moved the capital.
the Patriarchates did not see a conflict for first position between Rome and
Constantinople as he says happened, but a conflict over whether Constantinople
was to be added to the patriarchates as the second city (bumping Alexandria down
to third place) or at the end of the list. Rome backed Alexandria's protest but
eventually they lost.

"About this time, moreover, the equality which had reigned among the pastors of
the church in the primitive age was broken. The bishops claimed superiority above the presbyters."

Actually this precedence is evident in the Bible, Paul installed Timothy as bishop
of Ephesus and Titus as bishop of all of Crete (which would be more than one city)
to direct the believers and elders there and select worthy elders. that the term elder could incl bishops does not mean the bishops didn't outrank the other elders, because Peter and Paul both speak of themselves as "elders." so within that
category you can have ranks.

the writer claims an event in AD 606 gave primacy of honor to Rome among the
Patriarchates, but this is clearly false, he has misinterpreted the event involving
an imperial argument, because Rome was already first in honor in the Church councils
in the Council of Chalcedon AD 451.

"The Emperor Constantine, by his last will and testament, was made to bequeath to Silvester, Bishop of Rome, the whole Western Empire, including palace, regalia, and all the belongings of the master of the world. A goodly dowry, verily, for the poor fisherman. Then came another "windfall" to the papacy, in the shape of the decretals of Isidore. This last showed the church, to her equal surprise and delight, that her Popes from Peter downwards had held the same state, lived
in the same magnificence, and promulgated their pontifical will in briefs, edicts, and bulls in the same authoritative and lordly style, as the grand Popes of the Middle Ages. Both documents, it is unnecessary to say, were sheer forgeries. They are acknowledged by Romanists to be so. ... The fabrications of Isidore were made the substructions of canon law, and that stupendous fabric of legislation is still maintained to be of divine authority, despite that it is now acknowledged to be founded on a forgery."

correct. And given these are forgeries, it might be a good idea for Rome to review all canon law and customs that derive from these or even refer to these, and cancel them. And for the Traditionalists, sedevacantist and otherwise, to review whatever changes have occurred already and see how many are merely a rejection of these forgeries.
 
"Mary, ever lovable and full of grace, always has delivered the Christian people from their greatest calamities and from the snares and assaults of all their enemies, ever rescuing them from ruin… The foundation of all Our confidence… is found in the Blessed Virgin Mary. For God has committed to Mary the treasury of all good things, in order that everyone may know that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is His will, that we obtain everything through Mary" - from Pope Pius IX's encyclical Ubi Primum (1849).
 
"Jesus, ever lovable and full of grace, always has delivered the Christian people from their greatest calamities and from the snares and assaults of all their enemies, ever rescuing them from ruin… The foundation of all Our confidence… is found in Jesus Christ. For God has committed to Christ the treasury of all good things, in order that everyone may know that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is His will, that we obtain everything through Christ" - that would be a great statement of the Christian faith!
 
AMEN 11:09 AM.

What vast difference--makes all the difference--between your statement and the statement posted @ 9:27 AM.

I love the testimony of Mary the mother of Jesus in scripture, she was humble and knew she needed salvation herself that came from the son she birthed Who was Very God. But some have elevated her beyond her station and go against scripture to do so.

JESUS the Son of God and Son of Man is LORD, and shares His Glory with no one----no one.
 
Constance
This shoots holes in YOUR test for the "spirit of antichrist."

Matthew 8:28-29
28 When He came to the other side into the country of the Gadarenes, two men who were demon-possessed met Him as they were coming out of the tombs. They were so extremely violent that no one could pass by that way. 29 And they cried out, saying, “What business do we have with each other, SON OF GOD? Have You come here to torment us before the time?”

James 2:19
You believe that there is ONE GOD; you do well: the demons also BELIEVE, and tremble.

Furthermore, you are confused in your interpretation of 1 John 4:3.

The meaning of the word "antichrist" below shows that this does not mean a "verbal profession" but rather someone who is "against Christ" of which, preaching a DIFFERENT Jesus also more than applies.
The meaning of the word

What is the spirit of antichrist? Antichrist is a Greek word transliterated into the English. It is a compound Greek word made up of a preposition Anti and a noun Christos. First, the word "anti" means "against" and/or "instead of." By being "instead of," it is also "against." What that means is that it replaces the real with a counterfeit that deceives and works against the cause of Christ.

Christos is a Greek noun meaning "anointed" and is also used of the person of Christ, the anointed one. Thus, the two words together profile the antichrist as a super-deceptive spirit who deceives the spirit of man into destroying the life of the body of Christ. We often only see the "against" aspect of the word "anti" spirit. But the "instead" aspect of the meaning has a very egocentric aspect to it. The antichrist spirit is vulnerable because of indifference and because it replaces the existing "anointing" of God with it's own. It is because of this replacing aspect that it becomes against. From the very beginning of Jesus' ministry, people from the outside, have been "against" Him and His body. It wasn't till later on, that within the body of Christ, that man became against by replacing His anointing with their own anointing.
 
Constance
This shoots holes in YOUR test for the "spirit of antichrist."

Matthew 8:28-29
28 When He came to the other side into the country of the Gadarenes, two men who were demon-possessed met Him as they were coming out of the tombs. They were so extremely violent that no one could pass by that way. 29 And they cried out, saying, “What business do we have with each other, SON OF GOD? Have You come here to torment us before the time?”

James 2:19
You believe that there is ONE GOD; you do well: the demons also BELIEVE, and tremble.

Furthermore, you are confused in your interpretation of 1 John 4:3.

The meaning of the word "antichrist" below shows that this does not mean a "verbal profession" but rather someone who is "against Christ" of which, preaching a DIFFERENT Jesus also more than applies.

The meaning of the word

What is the spirit of antichrist? Antichrist is a Greek word transliterated into the English. It is a compound Greek word made up of a preposition Anti and a noun Christos. First, the word "anti" means "against" and/or "instead of." By being "instead of," it is also "against." What that means is that it replaces the real with a counterfeit that deceives and works against the cause of Christ.

Christos is a Greek noun meaning "anointed" and is also used of the person of Christ, the anointed one. Thus, the two words together profile the antichrist as a super-deceptive spirit who deceives the spirit of man into destroying the life of the body of Christ. We often only see the "against" aspect of the word "anti" spirit. But the "instead" aspect of the meaning has a very egocentric aspect to it. The antichrist spirit is vulnerable because of indifference and because it replaces the existing "anointing" of God with it's own. It is because of this replacing aspect that it becomes against. From the very beginning of Jesus' ministry, people from the outside, have been "against" Him and His body. It wasn't till later on, that within the body of Christ, that man became against by replacing His anointing with their own anointing.
 
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
anon 1:07

a vicar is the AUTHORIZED STAND IN not the counterfeit.
 
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
The wrtier of that pdf showing papacy to be antichrist is totally out to lunch
he says that signs and wonders include sacraments. problem is, the supernatural
element of a sacrament is INVISIBLE while the antichrist does thngs IN THE SIGHT
OF MEN. the writer allegorizes and spiritualizes everything that doesn't fit his
agenda and admits up front he assumes the papacy is the antichrist. so he ends
up twisting Scripture like heretics and hypercharismatics and new agers do.

in his frothing eagerness he leaves out the harlot and the false prophet. where
do they fit in in his scenario? I don't think he mentions them once.
 
I'd rather hear from Catholics about what Catholics believe, Christine. Must you always answer/intervene/explain/preach?
Agree or disagree the only way to pass the test is stand in the Righteousness of Christ Jesus in that day before Holy God, because our own human righteousness falls very short (filthy rags the Bible calls it) and anyone (the whosoevers of John 3:16) whose trust is put in HIM to be their Righteousness before God passes the test, making no difference whatsoever, what their denomination is.
 
in addition the harlot is a great importer and consumer and all
the great merchants are stricken with sorrow when she is destroyed.
does that sound like the Roman church or the Vatican? for all the
wealth and jewels it has, this is nothing compared to the commerce
that goes on elsewhere, and everyone would go broke if they depended
on Vatican purchasing.
 
anon 1:50

I agree that standing int he Righteousness of Christ is key to
passing the Last Judgement but what does Christ HIMSELF say?
you have to have been obeying Him specially in matters of
charitable giving. and you can stand on His Righteousness,
count all your sins present and future paid for so you can sin
freely, and think that casting out demons and doing great works
in His Name will work, He says He will tell such to "depart from
Me I never knew you you workers of iniquity."

The roman church sacraments are about being closer to HIm and
influenced by Him. this requires cooperation by the human, of
course, not just going through the motions.
 
Mary doesn't interdcede with the Father for us, Christ does
that according to the Roman and Orthodox teaching. Yes the
stuff addressed to her, especially by the romanists is a
bit over the top at times. But the idea is that she intercedes
for us with Christ Who then intercedes with The Father. Other
saints and anyone alive you ask to pray for you is in the
same position.
 
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
anon 2:30

first off my name is Christine not Christina.

secondly, you are shifting ground and backpedaling. you addressed
what Constance said, as being inadequate. I agreed it is not
entirely adequate and added what was adequate by Scriptural
standards.

thirdly, there is a difference between official doctrine that
is essential to RC which incl. issues of pope as Christ's
representative on earth head of the visible organization you
supposedly have to be in to be in the Body of Christ (which
Scripturally is more amorphous than that), and some extreme
but allowed behavior based on visions that are not required to
be believed but allowed to be believed. this creates a big
gray zone.

the official doctrine includes the key test points and
does not include anything that contradicts them unless
misapplied.

this is not how I have experienced it myself, this is what
the situation IS. all you have to say is in the same realm
of experienced it yourself, know someone or read a book
anyway. most human knowledge is. so shut up.

there is plenty I don't know, but theology and comparative
Christian religions is something I have been looking into
since I was in my teens, much more so in the past 30 years.
how old are you?

you say RCC does not pass the test that verbal and phony
physical isn't enough. while I don't like the excess marian
focus, aside from that just what DO you consider RCC has
to do or be to pass the test of being to some extent
Christian?

and don't talk about standing on the righteousness of Christ
because that is exactly what they are about they got crucifixes
all over the place and wear them, just what do you think that
is about?

why do you think these things have power against demons and
so forth? because they exemplify that His shed blood takes
us out of the kingdom of satan and into the kingdom of God.
it is no different than when some charismatic "pleads the
Blood of Jesus" which is not just piddling along with that in
the background but forefront.

 
Christina, 2:39 PM,

BRAVO!!!!


 
P.S. Christine, 2:39,

I meant to address you properly as "Christine." I am not the same person as the one who keeps calling you "Christina." I apologize for accidentally doing so.

Again. BRAVO!!!

You may not agree with everything the RCC teaches, but at least for the most part -especially re: Christocentricity - you've pretty much got it right.


 
that's okay about the name thing.
 
http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2011/06/the-fountainhead-of-satanism

ayn rand philosophy is same as that of satanism, even helped inspire lavey
so he said, but is favorite with conservatives.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2008/03/there-satanic-symbolism-gops-logo

Republican elephant wears inverted pentagrams, lately so does flag behind
Hillary

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1709387

long list of Republican sex ofrfenders

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Illuminati/dc.htm

uses texe Marrs material but the phots speak for themselves and you can
always use some things as search terms to confirm elsewhere.
 
I don't think anyone here believes the Pope is the Antichrist. Several here do think its possible he could be the False Prophet, or that he is the FP.

The Catholics identify themselves as Catholic. The Catholic Church, which is NOT a church. It is a meeting place for Catholic religionists. The CHURCH, is any person who is saved by faith in Christ. There is no need for such deep love for ones denomination, that they identify with the denomination rather than with Christ alone. Who, is all we really need!!!

Why don't you Catholics explain to us what Pope Pius IX really said??? Because what he did say IS antichrist!!!!

Wake up Sussana, OZ, Sister B, etc. Time is short! It is time NOW, to come out of Babylon.

Call upon the Lord Yahshua/Jesus, and you will be saved. Leave the sinking ship behind. Get on the lifeboat!
 
Anon. 8;20 P.M.

Re: "The Catholics identify themselves as Catholic. The Catholic Church, which is NOT a church. It is a meeting place for Catholic religionists. The CHURCH, is any person who is saved by faith in Christ. There is no need for such deep love for ones denomination, that they identify with the denomination rather than with Christ alone. Who, is all we really need!!!"

You have just borne false witness against your neighbor. You don't know anyone here well enough to know what they love, how they think or what they identify with.

And since none of the Catholics who post here are trying to convert you or anyone else to Catholicism, they are not under any obligation to answer any of your phony Pharisaical "gotcha" questions or even give you the time of day.

We need what Jesus Christ says we need! In the Bible, Christ said, among other things, to Peter and the Apostles "He who hears you hears me." Luke 10:16.

Sounds pretty clear to me.

It also sounds to me like you haven't studied your own Bible very thoroughly, but instead are merely into cherry-picking whatever passages can serve as "proof texts" for some species of False Prophet/"Jesus Only" rhetoric YOU identify with rather than Christ alone. Because if you DID identify with Christ alone, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

If you are going to make such sweeping claims about "religion," then you had better be prepared to cite us the Scripture passages chapter and verse that EXPLICITLY backs up everything you say. And I mean EXPLICITLY and LITERALLY...... not some vague passage that you have managed to morph into your own wishful thinking about the Pope and all his "dastardly deeds."

Because the biggest evil I am seeing here at present is the desire to find evil on the part of people like you. As the saying goes "Honi soit qui mal y pense"......."Evil (or shame) be to him that evil thinks."

Oh, and while we are on the subject of "antichrist tests" and "one world religions and governments," I would like to point out that Catholics are not the ones talking about a thousand year reign of Christ on earth called "the millennium" for which an elite group of Pharisees are even now licking their chops in anticipation of sitting on a "throne" with someone they will most likely be duped into believing is "Jesus" where they will get to lord it over everyone else. The way I learned it, there are to be only two Advents of Christ, not three. The one that took place more than two thousand years ago and the one that will take place on Judgement Day. The "third rail" sounds a tad FP to me.

Indeed, time IS short. If anyone needs to wake up, smell the coffee, cut the crap and come out of Babylon, it is you and those who think like you. Physician, heal thyself!!!











 
" The way I learned it, there are to be only two Advents of Christ, not three. The one that took place more than two thousand years ago and the one that will take place on Judgement Day."

YES ONLY TWO ADVENTS OF CHRIST! 2 Thessalonians chapter two addresses people who
were worried that the Second Coming had happened and they had missed the boat. It
makes it clear that THIS WILL NOT HAPPEN UNTIL THE ANTICHRIST COMES FIRST, and it
will be to destroy the antichrist, very public. This chapter, cherry picked to
support pre trib secret rapture actually if you read the ENTIRE chapter at once
goes AGAINST ALL THAT.

now as for Judgement Day, the amillennialist position which thinks the reigning
on earth is done by the Church now and satan is bound now, only began with
St. Augustine, trying to deal with the slowness (by human standards) of Christ's
Second Coming. So he spiritualized everything. Complicating the matter were
chiliastic groups who expected a thousand year reign that would be limited to that.
The early Ecumenical Council that condemned chiliasm addressed the idea of any
limit to Christ's reign as the Creed says, "of His Kingdom there will be no end."

Revelation says the devil will be bound so he can't tempt the nations, and there
will be people left alive who, though not believers, would have rejected the
antichrist for their own reasons so will not be destroyed with him and his followers.

clearly, if satan were fully bound, he could not tempt believers, yet he does and
St. Peter warns to be ware of him for he goes about like a roaring lion seeking
whom he may devour. satan is CRIPPLED, for example an oracle that Julian the Apostate
went to could not answer him until many blood sacrifices fed the demon enough that
it could talk, and it said that the bones of a holy man nearby (I forget the saint's
name) impeded it, so Julian had the Christians remove the bones to elsewhere.

a preliminary partial rule obviously is done on earth by Christ through the Church,
but it is not political though there is a political influence (enough Christians
in power there is a Christian values bias and protection for Christianity). Also,
when Julian the Apostate tried to revive the gladiatorial events, there wasn't
much interest by the pagans, apparently the Christian presence, and the Holy Spirit
working in the area because of them had had a gentling effect on too many pagans
for the extremes of pagan culture to be restored more than a little.

The thousand year reign is just a segment of the permanent reign by Christ on
earth, during which the devil is TOTALLY bound and then he will be released to tempt
the nations under rule to rebel, there is a revolt that is put down, then the
general resurrection of all dead for judgement, then a new heavens and new earth
and the NEw Jerusalem comes down from heaven to earth. This is apparently about
1200 or 1500 miles high, wide and long think multilayer high rise and think new
laws of physics. All this is in the last two or three chapters of revelation.

Before this, someone had criticized the idea as not spiritual enough, this being
a pupil of Origen, and argued the Revelation didn't read like John's Gospel. But
Revelation was written by a less than well educated man on his own, while the Gospel
was written when John would have had people around to help smooth the presentation.
So this is actually more of an argument for REvelation's legitimacy than against it.
Irenaeus, student of Polycarp student of Apostle John said it was written by John.

This literal thousand year reign would fulfill the messianic prophecies that the
JEws were expecting to be fulfilled at first. The odd mix of forever king and messiah
who dies some thought meant there would be two messiahs, a resurrection didn't occur
to them, or if it did those people became Christians.
 
That there could be a change in laws of physics is shown in that the
five dried blood clots of the Miracle of Lanciano, when weighed
together weighed the same as each weighed separately. This feature
disappeared after several hundred years.
 
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
10:03 P.M.

Typical Catholic SPIN.

Your full of crap!
 
Just to really confuse things, I am one of the posters who believes that Rome has elevated Mary to an antichrist (as in Pius IX's statement above) and that a future Pope might be the False Prophet of the Book of Revelation, and I know personally and well Catholics who I am in no doubt are saved and love the Lord Jesus Christ.

 
Christine at 11.53pm, "could" makes the statement valueless. What evidence can you bring to bear for your suggestion and to rule out a hoax?

 
That's great that you know some who truly "know the Lord" 4:27 A.M.

If the so called Catholic Church were busy about preaching the good news, instead of cavorting with globalists, and all of the heirachy of the prince of this worlds principalities, what an incredible blessing it would be!

There are always those who Satan loses from his cults. I personally know Mormons who realized all they really needed was Jesus during the time they were active in the Mormon Church. I know an Amish woman who's testimony is that as a young girl while riding with her family in a horse drawn wagon the Holy Spirit spoke to her that all she needed was Jesus. She later left the community.
 
Pope 'All In' On Global Warming

www.tomatobubble.com/pinko_pope.html
 
Everybody says that the Amish are Christian but they put their culture above Christ for if an Amish teenager refuses to commit to being Amish then he gets thrown out even if he is a committed believer in Jesus Christ.

 
Someone in the comments said they didn't understand why menstrual blood was considered impure in the Jewish religion. In the book The Historical Figure of Jesus by E. P. Sanders 1993, page 36, it's explained this way.
"Before entering the Temple, Jews had to purify themselves. The principle sources of impurity were semen, menstrual blood, other emissions from the genital area (such as those caused by gonorrhoea and miscarriage) childbirth and corpses. (Lev.11; 15; Num 10)..Jewish law required that the bodily processes connected most intimately with life and death be kept away from what was holy and unchanging; the presence of God."
 
anon 4:36
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Lanciano

http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html
 
"Furthermore, you are confused in your interpretation of 1 John 4:3.

The meaning of the word "antichrist" below shows that this does not mean a "verbal profession" but rather someone who is "against Christ" of which, preaching a DIFFERENT Jesus also more than applies. "


YOU invent an interpretation. John makes it clear that the test of whether
someone is an antichrist or not is the doctrine they present on this core
issue, though of course someone can teach one thing and do another, teach one
thing publicly and teach another privately, or speak in ambiguities that
would tend to be interpreted one way while they mean another and speak to
deceive.

Once you have that core point the rest follows including that Jesus ascended
to heaven and will come back from there. when dealing with a supernatural
entity getting it to confess JEsus correctly would be important. in exorcism
sometimes demons are forced to state worship verbally to Jesus.

The pope's position is an overblown version of bishop as inheritor from Apostles,
and misinterpreted as bishop = Apostle further misinterpreted as bishop = Apostle
Peter (not Christ) = Jesus' approved appointed representative (that is what a vicar
is) to ignore whom is to ignore JEsus just like insulting a king's representative
sent to you is to insult the king who he represents.

that is not replacing Christ in the sense the antichrist does. that is like
claiming that instead of 12 Apostles (sent ones) or 72 sent ones, there is one
Apostle sent one and the pope is it.
 
Anion 1:28 A.M.

Re:Anonymous said...
10:03 P.M.

Typical Catholic SPIN.

Your full of crap!

BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!

Apart from the need for you to learn how to spell, yours is typical ignoramus intelligence-slightly-above-plantlife spin. Notice that I didn't say "Protestant spin" because I wouldn't think of insulting the good decent Protestants here by lumping them together with so-called "Kristians" of your ilk.

I notice you didn't address the issue I brought up of how the so-called "millennium" might be the launchpad for the antichrist. Did you think that your Catholic-bashing and Pope-bashing would shift the spotlight away from that little scenario? Nice try! Talk about being full of crap!!!

The last time anyone talked about a thousand year regime was in the 1930's by the Nazis along with their apostate "messiah/mini-antichrist" Adolph Hitler.

"Reich is a German word that generally means "empire."


MILLENNIUM

Millennialism (from millennium, Latin for "thousand years"), or chiliasm in Greek, is a belief held by some Christian denominations that there will be a Golden Age or Paradise on Earth in which "Christ will reign" for 1000 years prior to the final judgment and future eternal state (the "World to Come" of the New Heavens and New Earth). This belief is derived primarily from Revelation 20:1–6. Millennialism is a specific form of millenarianism.

Similarities to millennialism are found in Zoroastrianism. It held that there were successive thousand-year periods, each of which will end in a cataclysm of heresy and destruction, until the final destruction of evil and of the spirit of evil by a triumphant king of peace at the end of the final millennial age (supposed by some to be the year 2000). "Then Saoshyant makes the creatures again pure, and the resurrection and future existence occur" (Zand-i Vohuman Yasht 3:62).

Various other social and political movements, both religious and secular, have also been linked to millennialist metaphors by scholars.......

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennialism
______________________________________________________________________

Gee! The way I learned it, Zoroastrianism was the pagan dualist religion of the ancient Persians!!!!! Hmmmmmmmm!
 
anon 2:53

since the antichrist would be demanding personal worship and giving that
mark which allows you to participate in the economy legally (which could
be free market capitalism for that matter as easily as socialist), it is
unlikely a Christian would be deceived in the scenario you present. that is
a Christian who reads Revelation. even the pop info that, being pretrib is
wrong, gives this warning.

but if you READ REVELATION and Daniel chapter 7 where the fourth beast is
destroyed and 2 thessalonians chapter 2 and JEsus' words in Matt chapter 24
you will see that millennialism in a form similar to the Zoroastrian concept,
is correct, Zoroaster may have got his ideas originally from a Yahwehist
source, and his doctrine has been filtered through many subsequent reworks.
it was Zoroastrians of some sect that came to honor Jesus with gold, frankincense
and myrrh, following the miraculous star. Magi, remember? from the east, i.e.,
Persia.
 
http://www.firstthings.com/article/1990/05/002-why-wait-for-the-kingdom-the-theonomist-temptation
 
Christine 12:34 P.M.

Re:"The pope's position is an overblown version of bishop as inheritor from Apostles,
and misinterpreted as bishop = Apostle further misinterpreted as bishop = Apostle
Peter (not Christ) = Jesus' approved appointed representative (that is what a vicar
is) to ignore whom is to ignore JEsus just like insulting a king's representative
sent to you is to insult the king who he represents.

that is not replacing Christ in the sense the antichrist does. that is like
claiming that instead of 12 Apostles (sent ones) or 72 sent ones, there is one
Apostle sent one and the pope is it."

In order to be brief, am not going to get into the weeds of who is right and who is wrong here, but you are pretty much correct. One of the disagreements between Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics is not the issue of whether or not the Pope is "the antichrist," but rather the issue of whether or not the Pope takes precedence over the other Apostles and their successors as Bishop of Rome.

Whether the Pope does or not, the Eastern Orthodox bishops are in the Apostolic succession as are the Roman Catholic Bishops and therefore have valid Holy Orders and Sacraments.
 
2:53 P.M.

There are false NA versions of the millennium.

I didn't chose to give much comment to your post as your a cultist, or cult apologist.

Why cast pearls before swine?
 
2:53 P.M. is a big ASSumer!
 
Christine 3:04

Re:"since the antichrist would be demanding personal worship and giving that
mark which allows you to participate in the economy legally (which could
be free market capitalism for that matter as easily as socialist), it is
unlikely a Christian would be deceived in the scenario you present. that is
a Christian who reads Revelation. even the pop info that, being pretrib is
wrong, gives this warning"

The Magi may have been honest pagans who did the best they could with the knowledge they had, but they were pagans nevertheless. Moreover, the gnostic dualistic error called Manichaeism morphed out of Zoroastrianism which resembled Hinduism more than it did Judaism.......if only because of an implicit - and probably unconscious - failure to consider BEING from a truly unified point of view......on account of not being privy to the most sacred name of God.

What you say concerning the "mark of the beast" would be true if it is also true that the mark of the beast is a MATERIAL and not a spiritual mark. It is not made clear in the book of Revelations whether or not this "mark" is to be a material mark or a spiritual mark.

As an Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic whose respective beliefs in the Sacrament of Baptism are the same, we are taught that in addition to cleansing our souls from Original Sin the Sacrament of Baptism confers "an indelible mark upon the soul" indicating that we belong to Christ. This mark is a spiritual mark.

Conversely, the mark of the beast could also be a spiritual mark - especially since the devil is called "the ape of Christ" ("simia Christi") - and will try to imitate everything Christ did.

St. Irenaeus seems to indicate that the mark of the beast might be a spiritual mark....that the mark of the beast on one's forehead was an indicator of the person's willful apostasy and disbelief while the mark of the beast on one's right hand indicated a persons sinful actions.......belief or disbelief notwithstanding. The Bible indicates that to receive ONE of the marks is to receive BOTH of them. An apostate can wear the mark of the beast on his forehead and "do the right thing for the wrong reason" in order to deceive people. A "believer" can wear the mark of the beast on his right hand by "going along to get along" with the beast.

In the Septuagint which is the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Old Testament canon, we have the Books of the Maccabees which describe the persecution of the Jewish people under the dictator Antiochus IV Epiphanes who is traditionally regarded by EO and RC as "the antichrist of the Old Testament."

That Antiochus IV held himself out as God is indicated by his very name "Epiphanes" ( Θεὸς Ἐπιφανής ) which means 'manifest god' in Greek.

At the end of the day, Antiochus IV was punished for holding himself out as "manifest god." He was "eaten up of worms".....probably from eating all that raw pork that had been sacrificed to Zeus.

In 2 Maccabees 6:18-31 we find the story of a Maccabeean hero named Eleazar who was put to death because he refused to "wear the mark of the beast on his right hand" by eating the flesh of swine that had been sacrificed to the pagan god Zeus.

**************************

cont.
 
cont.


Execution of Eleazar

Eleazar, one of the scribes in high position, a man now advanced in age and of noble presence, was being forced to open his mouth to eat swine's flesh. But he, welcoming death with honor rather than life with pollution, went up to the the rack of his own accord, spitting out the flesh, as men ought to go who have the courage to refuse things that it is not right to taste, even for the natural love of life.
Those who were in charge of that unlawful sacrifice took the man aside, because of their long acquaintance with him, and privately urged him to bring meat of his own providing, proper for him to use, and pretend that he was eating the flesh of the sacrificial meal which had been commanded by the king, so that by doing this he might be saved from death, and be treated kindly on account of his old friendship with them.

But making a high resolve, worthy of his years and the dignity of his old age and the gray hairs which he had reached with distinction and his excellent life even from childhood, and moreover according to the holy God-given law, he declared himself quickly, telling them to send him to Hades. "Such pretense is not worthy of our time of life," he said, "lest many of the young should suppose that Eleazar in his ninetieth year has gone over to an alien religion, and through my pretense, for the sake of living a brief moment longer, they should be led astray because of me, while I defile and disgrace my old age. For even if for the present I should avoid the punishment of men, yet whether I live or die I shall not escape the hands of the Almighty. Therefore, by manfully giving up my life now, I will show myself worthy of my old age and leave to the young a noble example of how to die a good death willingly and nobly for the revered and holy laws." When he had said this, he went at once to the rack.

And those who a little before had acted toward him with good will now changed to ill will, because the words he had uttered were in their opinion sheer madness. When he was about to die under the blows, he groaned aloud and said: "It is clear to the Lord in His holy knowledge that, though I might have been saved from death, I am enduring terrible sufferings in my body under this beating, but in my soul I am glad to suffer these things because I fear him."

So in this way he died, leaving in his death an example of nobility and a memorial of courage, not only to the young but to the great body of his nation.


2 Maccabees 6:18-31
********************************************

If we fast forward to the 21st century, we can find an analogous situation in our own time.

July 9, 2013

Forcing Christians to Eat Pork

By Selwyn Duke

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2013/07/forcing_christians_to_eat_the_pork.html
 
".......if only because of an implicit - and probably unconscious - failure to consider BEING from a truly unified point of view......on account of not being privy to the most sacred name of God. "

what the hell do you mean by "failure to consider BEING from a truly unified
point of view" this is pantheistic monism new age talk! you may have got it
from a "Christian" context but it is not Christian!

 
"At the end of the day, Antiochus IV was punished for holding himself out as "manifest god." He was "eaten up of worms".....probably from eating all that raw pork that had been sacrificed to Zeus."

that was a miraculous attack on him punishing him. the trichinosis worms in raw
pork (can also be in other meat but less likely) is microscopic and operates
slowly and causes pain and rheumatism and not "eaten up of worms" in any obvious
way that the average person would see.

 
prohibition of pork was not about health. that is materialistic secular humanism
kind of thinking. the standard for clean kosher animals to eat, was that it split
the foot (which the pig does) AND chew the cud (which the pig does not do). This
rules out many kinds of animals.

The only permanent (as distinct from fasting periodical) restriction on food that
was retained by the Apostles in Acts. 15 and reiterated in church canons in the
east, but gradually repudiated in the west, was that meat must be from an animal
that died involving some degree of exsanguination, the blood should have been poured
out. we are told to keep ourselves "from things strangled." thus chicken that the
neck had been wrung is off limits, only chicken whose head was cut off.

An argument exists that this was given just to accommodate jewish converts, but
they would be far more upset by rejection of circumcision and the rest of the food
laws and holy days as required to in covenant with God. The pour out the blood
rule is not from Moses but from Noah when God allowed him to eat all moving things
in addition to plants.
 
Christine, if Lanciano is a hoax then the laws of physics hold up, and if it is a miracle then the laws of physics also hold up. That is because a miracle - at least of this sort - is something that violates the laws of physics, like Jesus walking on water and Peter joining him and sinking as his faith wavered (Matt 14). We don't say that the law of gravity changed because Jesus violated it; we say that the law is in force but Jesus, being the God who ordained it, had authority to violate it to make a point to us. If the laws of physics really did change then Lanciano would be repeatable at will, which it is not - Physicist

 
Anon. 3:20 and 3:29 P.M.

Oh WOW!!! I'm crushed!!!

You don't dare talk about the "Millennium" because it would expose YOU as the cultist/cult apologist. Is THAT your "pearls???" I think I will pass.

Oh, and by the way, I meant to tell you a while back, THERE IS NO SUCH NAME AS YAHSHUA. It didn’t exist in biblical times and it has not existed as a genuine Hebrew name in history — until people like you who really didn’t understand Hebrew made it up, thinking that it somehow restored the “Yah” element (from “Yahweh”) into the Savior’s name.

One of the many consequences of ditching the Septuagint.






 
Physicist,

as you say, the laws were suspended or violated by God to make a point to us,
but the laws of physics were themselves created with the universe, so you can't
apply them in anti creationist arguments because they were not in force at the
beginning.

my point is, that this may be a precedent of the conditions that will obtain
in the new heavens and new earth, note that in Revelation it is AFTER there is
a new heavens and new earth that 1200-1500 mile high New Jerusalem comes down
from heaven and sits permanently all over the Middle East - roughly equivalent
if not beyond what was promised Abraham or a descendant I forget which.

so new heaven and earth, new laws of physics.
 
the new age does not posit a physical millennium in which Jesus returns and there is resurrection and judgement and existence forever, it posits
a WARPED version of this.

Zoroastrianism having a similar idea of the millennium doesn't mean that this is
false, because what is similar to Zoroastrian ideas and is in Revelation is
validated by being in Revelation. what is different in Zoroastrianism, by being
different from what is in Revelation and the rest of the Bible, is INVALIDATED by
being different from what is in Revelation and the rest of the Bible.

Zoroastrianism probably got its similarities from the days of Daniel as chief wise
man in Babylon and would later have been respected by Cyrus and Darius.
 
Christine 4:39 P.M.

Re: "what the hell do you mean by "failure to consider BEING from a truly unified
point of view" this is pantheistic monism new age talk! you may have got it
from a "Christian" context but it is not Christian!

Actually, it is right straight out of Exodus 3:14.

And God said to Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shall you say to the children of Israel, I AM has sent me to you.

**************************

Benson Commentary

Exodus 3:14. God said — Two names God would be known by: 1st, A name that speaks what he is in himself, I AM THAT I AM. The Septuagint renders the words ειμι ο ων, I AM the existing Being, or HE WHO IS; and the Chaldee, I AM HE WHO IS, and WHO WILL BE. That is, I am He that enjoys an essential, independent, immutable, and necessary existence, He that IS, and WAS, and IS TO COME. It explains his name Jehovah, and signifies, 1st, That he is self- existent: he has his being of himself, and has no dependance on any other. And being self-existent, he cannot but be self-sufficient, and therefore all-sufficient, and the inexhaustible fountain of being and blessedness. 2d, That he is eternal and unchangeable: the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever. For the words are with equal propriety rendered, I WILL BE WHAT I AM, or, I AM WHAT I WILL BE, or, I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE. Other beings are, and have been, and shall be; but because what they have been might have been otherwise, and what they are might possibly not have been at all, and what they shall be may be very different from what now is therefore their changeable, dependant, and precarious essence, which to-day may be one thing, to- morrow another thing, and the next day possibly nothing at all, scarce deserves the name of being. There is another consideration which makes this name peculiarly applicable to God, namely that he is the fountain of all being and perfection, and that from him all things have derived their existence; so that it is he alone that has life in himself: and no creature, of whatever rank or order, has so much as an existence of its own: For in him we live, and move, and have our being. And though divers of God’s attributes are, through his goodness, participated by his creatures, yet because they possess them in a way so inferior to that transcendent, peculiar, and divine manner in which they belong to God, the Scriptures seem absolutely to exclude created beings from any title to those attributes.

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/exodus/3-14.htm
_________________________________________________________________________

In other words, the most sacred name of God (JAHVEH) is an archaic Hebrew verb for absolute self-existent uncreated BEING existing in an absolute eternal NOW. In the Septuagint, the Greek equivalent for JAHVEH was KYRIOS. In the New Testament "KYRIOS" is used in reference to Christ especially frequently by St. Paul a Pharisee who studied under the famous Jewish Rabbi Gamaliel and would certainly have known what he was doing when referring to Christ as "KYRIOS."

Hardly a "New Age" concept! God is uncreated Being. Creatures are created beings.

St. Augustine once said that if a person truly understands the meaning of God's most sacred name, he could never be a dualist. While the Zoroastrians may not have been as radical in their dualism, the later Gnostic Dualists postulated the existence of two equal but opposite Absolutes - not to put it crudely, but they postulated a "Good God" and a "Bad God."

Now if God is Absolute, self existent uncreated BEING as indicated in Exodus 3:14, then the opposite of that would have to necessarily be absolute self existent uncreated NOTHING.....which is absolutely impossible as well as absurd.


 
Christine 5:01 P.M.

Re: prohibition of pork was not about health. that is materialistic secular humanism
kind of thinking. the standard for clean kosher animals to eat, was that it split
the foot (which the pig does) AND chew the cud (which the pig does not do). This
rules out many kinds of animals.

It is my understanding that man was not given permission to eat meat until after the Flood and that even then there was a designation between "clean" and "unclean."

One of the most obvious characteristics of a "clean" animal apart from cloven hooves was that it was herbivorous. ( vegetarian )

 
Ireanaeus' remark was adding a spiritual dimension to the literal.
I don't recall any denial of literal physical return and rule on
earth by Jesus Christ not to mention PHYSICAL resurrection of us
all with immortal but PHYSICAL bodies. this sort of denial is gnostic
type thinking, which assumes the supposed evilness of matter, and
was not part of Orthodox or Roman Catholic (which didn't exist then
anyway it was Orthodox) thinking until Origen brought his line of
thought into the situation, some thoughts extreme enough to get him
anathematized.
 
anon 5:05

if you read carefully, the clean animals were SACRIFICED. this clean thing was
the standard for sacrificial.

the herbivorous thing about the clean animals is not specified. it is incidental.
if an omnivore turned up or was genetically engineered that split the foot and
chewed the (partly meat) cud, these features - the sole features defining clean -
make it clean to eat.

the birds that were prohibited were mostly predator and carrion birds, but they
also were birds that played a role in various cults, and the eating of one's "gods"
to become more like them, sacred animals often being off limits except during
sacrifice, would potentially play a role, a sneak private paganism. all else was
allowed to be eaten, and all else includes chickens which eat snails and slugs
as well as grass and seeds, and turkeys which from the look of them, bare headed,
may be carrion birds. these are not mentioned as allowed, only the prohibited as I
recall are mentioned.

there are spiritual implications to splitting the foot - able to be flexible and
makes minor changes in order to keep the forward motion going and not slip and fall
because of rocks and uneven ground - and chewing the cud - not just unquestioningly
take in and accept whatever is given you, but it gets hauled out and reexamined
before finally digested, and in the case of ideas wrong ideas and wrong interpretations
kicked out.
 
Christine: new heaven, new earth, new physics is something I have no problem with, but we are not there yet and I don't see that you have negated the points I made at 5.05pm - Physicist
 
I thought chiliasm was something to do with global warming being false.
 
"THERE IS NO SUCH NAME AS YAHSHUA. It didn’t exist in biblical times and it has not existed as a genuine Hebrew name in history — until people like you who really didn’t understand Hebrew made it up"

Have you ever heard Jews pronounce the name of the man who led them into Canaan? They have been telling this tale in an unbroken tradition lasting for more than 3000 years.

 
anon 5:37

excuse me, I thought by BEING you meant being as such, existence as such, all
being(s).

I am or The One Who Is yes, but push unity of being too far and you get the
extreme monotheism of Arius. Zoroastrianism had several varieties and little
enforceable orthodoxy as far as I could tell. whether Zoroaster himself figured
the devil was an equal opposite to The Creator, or whether he figured the devil
came from an incidental bad thought of the Creator's or whether he figured the
devil began good and went bad is anyone's guess.

My point is, that Zoroastrianism had some truth in it, and in any case the
wrongness of something is only partly indicatable by looking at its source, the
primary arbiter of right and wrong is the Bible and if Zoroastrianism has an
eschatology that resembles ours, that is because it had part of the truth not
because we got infected with Zoroastrianism.

Anything that hails from north Africa ,Augustine, Clement of Alexandria who began
weaving in a too philosophical direction, Origen who staggered whole hog into philosophy
aka gnostic core belief system, Tertullian aka father of Latin Christianity, needs
to be examined closely. Even Cyril of Alexandria in defending against nestorianism
got sloppy and used a phrase he thought was from Athanasius but was from Appolinarius,
laying the groundwork for monophysitism even though he also said things that clearly
are diaphysitist but these are ignored by miaphysitists, whose whole style while
admitting both divine and human natures leaves the door open for an almost Docetism
if not guarded against, while diaphysitism does not. neither is it nestorianism.)
 
Anon 6:24

Re: "Have you ever heard Jews pronounce the name of the man who led them into Canaan? They have been telling this tale in an unbroken tradition lasting for more than 3000 years."

You mean Joshua that the same people who invented YAHSHUA pronounce YAHUSHUA?

I don't think so.

There’s no such name as Yahushua either — Joshua was pronounced ye-ho-shu-ah.

With regard to "YAHSHUA," unfortunately, some popular teachers continue to espouse the Jesus-Zeus connection, and many believers follow the pseudo-scholarship in these fringe, “new revelation” teachings.

The fringe group to which I am referring is the SACRED NAME MOVEMENT.

The Sacred Name Movement (SNM) is a movement within the Church of God (Seventh-Day) in Christianity, propagated by Clarence Orvil Dodd from the 1930s, which claims that it seeks to conform Christianity to its "Hebrew Roots" in practice, belief and worship. The best known distinction of the SNM is its advocacy of the use of the "sacred name" Yahweh (יַהְוֶה), i.e. the reconstructed proper name of the God of Israel, and the use of the original Hebrew name of Jesus, often transcribed as Yahshua.[1] SNM believers also generally keep many of the Old Testament laws and ceremonies such as the Seventh-day Sabbath, Torah festivals and kosher food laws.

History

The Sacred Name Movement arose in the early 20th century out of the Church of God (Seventh Day) movement, following on the preaching and ideas of Joseph Franklin Rutherford who founded Jehovah's Witnesses in 1931 based on his belief in the importance of the Hebrew name of God. C. O. Dodd, a member of the Church of God (Seventh Day), began keeping the Jewish festivals (including Passover) in 1928 and he adopted sacred name doctrines in the late 1930s.

Dodd began publishing The Faith magazine starting in 1937 to promote his views. It is currently freely distributed by the Assembly of Yahweh, the oldest of any still existing Sacred Name Assembly. American religious scholar J. Gordon Melton wrote that "No single force in spreading the Sacred Name movement was as important as The Faith magazine."........

Sacred Name Pentecostals[edit]

Since the 1970s, the Sacred Name Movement has influenced many members of Pentecostal denominations (especially those with a Oneness Pentecostal background). The House of God, a seventh-day Pentecostal organization founded in 1918 by R. A. R Johnson, has become inundated with certain sacred name doctrines. The Apostolic Deliverance Assemblies, (7th Day), founded December 1983, presided over by D. L. Foster and co-founder, William H. Greggs, Jr. is an exclusively ‘sacred name’ independent Pentecostal body.

There are other notable Pentecostal organizations that are adamant about using the sacred names such as Victorious Covenant Community, Straitway, The Rock (Panama City, Florida, U.S.) and Assemblies of Messiah in the Apostles' Doctrine....


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Name_Movement

************************************************

cont..
 
cont.

Apparently, when I talked about you and/or your cult weasel-wording the Bible, I wasn't just whistling past the graveyard.

The Sacred Name Movement consists of several small and contrasting groups, unified by the use of the Name Yahweh and for the most part, Yahshua. Angelo Traina, a disciple of Dodd, undertook the writing of a Sacred Name edition of the Bible, publishing the Holy Name New Testament in 1950 (see Tetragrammaton in the New Testament) and the Holy Name Bible in 1962, both based upon the King James Version, but changing some names and words in the text to Hebrew based forms, such as "God" with "Elohim", "LORD" with "Yahweh" and "Jesus" with "Yahshua". Each group within the Sacred Name Movement uses a Sacred Name Bible, others having been produced since Traina's.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Name_Movement

*********************************************************

Now let's see what we can find out about the SACRED NAME BIBLE.

Sacred Name Bibles or sacred-name versions are editions of the Bible that are usually connected with the Sacred Name Movement. Sacred Name Bibles "consistently use Hebraic forms of God's name in both the Old and New Testaments"

The term is not used for mainstream Bible editions such as the Jerusalem Bible which employs the name "Yahweh" in the English text of only the Old Testament, where traditional English versions have "LORD".

Most "Sacred Name" versions also use a Semitic form of the name Jesus. None of these Sacred Name Bibles are published by well-established publishers. Instead, most are published by the same group that produced the translation. Some are available for download on the Web." Very few of these Bible have been noted or reviewed by scholars outside of the Sacred Name Movement.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Name_Bibles

*******************************************************

Now what was it you were saying about the Catholic Church being a "cult?"
 
Now just to keep things fair, here is a Protestant overview of the Sacred Name Movement that either invented the name YAHSHUA or embraced it after it was invented.

The Sacred Name Movement
(A general overview of this movement)
Abbreviation SNM

Every so often a new movement comes to the forefront to challenge the historic Christian Churches teaching. Sometimes this can be good. If it is based on the truth, it can prompt us to a new understanding of the word. Sometimes it can be benign and be harmless as a challenge that goes nowhere … other times it can be just plain bogus.

None have been more bogus or ridiculous than the sacred name movement which has spiritual elitism written all over it. While there are some well intentioned people in this movement, there are also those who are prompted by pride to show how wrong and unsaved the Church is.

This movement is about using Gods correct name, restoring it and giving a revelation to people that are supposedly in darkness. (This first article is an overview and basic introduction to the movement.)

This movement is diversified and has approximately 10,000- to the most 50,000 people involved. Although we cannot be fully accurate on their membership these are the current numbers. There are assemblies range from a few to the largest of 200-250 members. Few Jewish believers are involved in this movement to their dismay since they lay claim to restoring the Hebrew name of the almighty. There are Messianic congregations that do use the Hebrew names but they do not make it an issue of salvation as those in the Sacred name movement do. Many in the SNM are involved in a metaphysical new age slant of the Bible and an added practice of legalism. So from what I can see this movement has its own leaven to purge before they able to go to the Churches of Jesus Christ (Yeshua Ha Mashiach) and tell them what to do. It’s amazing that so few have such a loud voice on the subject of the name.

With absolutely no proof historically or scholastically for their claims, they put down the name of Jesus calling it pagan and categorize all Christians that do not speak his correct Hebrew name as following and calling on a pagan God. While the Jehovah’s Witnesses have tried to do the same thing, the sacred name movement is further down the same shaky road. This movement’s claim is the Hebrew pronunciation of Yashua as his correct (in Hebrew ) and only name to be pronounced. The questions we need to ask is first is this true and if so, is God as legalistic as they present him. Because they are saying that Yahweh’s view is “if you didn’t pronounce my name right so I’m not going to save you.” The implication is that from the beginning of the Jewish/Gentile Church up until now, has been incorrect and unsaved.

Its been said it takes longer to correct error than it does to dish it out. So we need to take our time to peel through all the onion layers to get to the kernel of where the smell actually comes from
........

http://www.letusreason.org/sacna%202.htm

cont.

 
"Joshua was pronounced ye-ho-shu-ah."

naah, more likely YESH oo ah. I heard an Israeli who had become
Christian refer to "yeshuwa" or "yeshuah"

one analysis of this sacred name stuff said that some variant
pronunciations were blasphemous.
 
Lets look at their opinions of Jesus

A few (rare) have a Trinitarian theology; but most believe a variation of the Arian theology; (Jesus is not God). A small number are Modalistic (Oneness in that God is singular in person). It seems you can have what appears to be the correct name and not know the person behind the name. Many sacred namers do not believe Jesus or Yashua is God, nor do they recognize that the body of Christ (Mashiach) has the correct person of that name; since they do not believe an eternal Son of God exists. (Prov.30:4).

Assemblies of Yahweh-”(John 2:19) is sometimes presented as evidence that Yahshua is the Almighty, that He is co-equal with His Father. and that He had the power to resurrect Himself This of course is a false. trinitarian concept” (The Sacred Name Broadcaster, Lincoln Frost). “We find the trinitarian doctrine to he foreign to the Inspired Scriptures” (Doctrine #5).

The Bible warns of "ANOTHER JESUS." the context is that Paul is making reference to someone who is called "Jesus" (Yeshua). But is someone who has a different IDENTITY, he is not the same in substance, he is not God in the flesh and therefore is not the WAY, the TRUTH, and the LIFE (John 14:6). It is more important to have the MEANING of the word, when translating a word from one language to another, than it is to make sure everyone SPEAKS or pronounces it the same in all languages. The "NAME" means to describe one's identity, it is representative of either the totality of ones being or specifically ones attributes or characteristics. "God's name ...is a symbol of [His] nature, character, and person... The name of the Lord is the manifestation of His character...it is synonymous with the Lord Himself."

Many of the people in the SNM play word and sound assimilation's to arrive at their faulty conclusions. Despite their emphatic claims on the name, Yahweh or Yashua cannot be pronounced the same in every language for the simple reason that certain dialects do not have the letter pronunciations nor the written language. However they insist that it can, even to the point of breaking the rules in certain dialects.

Institute of Divine Metaphysical Research-IDMR- They claim the Greek word Christos means Krishna. But if one translated Krishna to English it is not Christos since they have no equivalent word for this in their language. "Krishna is the highest of the Hindu gods, considered the Lord, the Absolute Truth. He has had many incarnations here on earth." However this is exactly what their own sacred name group believes; that Yashua had many incarnations (in body), he was Adam and then Joshua in Moses day and eventually Jesus.

God says to Moses in Ex.23:20-22" Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared.: Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him. What is meant by this is that he is God manifested as their deliverer. Just as in Ex.3 when the angel appeared at the bush and said he was their God.

IDMR says that he is also Joshua (Yahshua) son of Nun because of a sound similarity in the name. So now we have two persons who are God manifested living at the same time. We know from Scripture that Joshua son of Nun is not the correct one since he was a sinful man who died.

This particular group of the sacred Namers disrespect God’s name by attributing it to someone that is not the God/ man. So what good is to be accurate in a name if you don't know who the person of the name is?


cont.
 
cont.

It is interesting to see a dogmatic approach from the Sacred name movement changing all the names to a Hebrew pronunciation in the English language. Yet for the most part they do not read the bible in the original Hebrew. Most in the sacred name groups don’t read Hebrew nor do they write or speak in Hebrew. But they want and insist everyone else is to pronounce God's name in Hebrew only. Even when Jesus (Yashsua, Yeshua?) did not require it. Since the model they are using is the Hebrews who wrote the Scriptures. They are betrayed by there own hypocrisy of “do as I say, but don't do as I do.” If God only hears his Hebrew name and the Jews spoke only Hebrew, why do some think they can say only His name in Hebrew and then go on speaking in their own language (English etc.). Its not only God’s name written in Hebrew but all the Old Testament Scripture. If they were true to their theology of speaking His name only in the Hebrew language it should be a requirement to read and speak Hebrew as well.

Many Sacred name teachers have used certain names for God in the past being absolutely sure they found the correct interpretation, only to find later on they were incorrect and changed it. So what is to guarantee that the name they presently are using is the absolute correct name and will not change again. It is a fact that some now claim the correct pronunciation of the name that others previously thought it was, and already abandoned it. Confusion reigns in their search for the name that will bring salvation.....


http://www.letusreason.org/sacna%202.htm
____________________________________________________

Still want to talk about who FAILS the test of the antichrist????
 
They have the Messiah wanna be's

What is disturbing and significant is they have there own messiahs in the sacred name movement. Two men that I'm aware of claim the sacred name to themselves. Now for those who hold that the correct pronunciation of the name brings salvation, these leaders show the deception at work.

Yahweh Ben Yahweh is the Grand Master of the Celestial Lodge, Architect of the Universe, the Blessed and only Potentate. (This is Mason terminology which may not be surprising with its connection to the Kabbala) he and his followers believe he is the Everlasting Father. But this is impossible because the Institute of Divine Metaphysical Research teaches Dr. Kinley is Yahweh manifested in the flesh just like Yashua (Kinley died, but this is overlooked by his devoted followers). Yahweh Ben Yahweh believes The "true" NAME of God is the world's greatest secret. That the Son of God would come to MANIFEST the NAME. If you do not know the NAME of the Father, then you will not be able to identify the Son (which is him). He is taking Gods name and attributing it to himself. But i see no outcry from the SNM only about the name of Jesus being used. He states All that you see and don't see were created through the power in the Hebrew letters. He has written a book that teaches you how to pray the Lord's Prayer in Hebrew. Much more could be said about this man and his followers but that is not the purpose for this article. I point this out only to show the inconsistency of the premise of knowing the sacred name as a revelation to some. It has bred pride and false doctrine at various levels.


http://www.letusreason.org/sacna%202.htm

*********************************

Still want to talk about the Pope as "wannabe messiah/antichrist????"

Perhaps you had better go and peddle your "pearls" elsewhere!

 
Here is the link to part 2.

http://www.letusreason.org/sacna3.htm
 
Another Protestant overview:

The Sacred Name movement consists of those persons, groups, and assemblies who use the Hebrew names for God (i.e. Yahweh, Yahvah) and for Jesus (i.e. Yahshua) in the devotion and worship. They have characterized themselves as “the True Worshippers” eschewing the name ‘Christian’ as being of pagan origin.

Sacred Namers are a group largely professing to be Torah Observant Gentiles, who believe that the only source of power and righteousness in creation is the use (and frequent use at that) of the Holy Name which the Creator gave to Moses on Mount Sinai. This group routinely pronounces anyone who does not use their terminology and their “correct” pronunciation of the name of God as Pagan.

The history of the Sacred Name Cults shows them to be derived of the Millerite sects, the Adventists and the Church of God, and thus from the false prophet William Miller who prophesied the return of Jesus in 1843 and made a subsequent false prophecy concerning 1845. Though his group self destructed by the mid 19th century the followers became the Adventists and later Church of God sects, preserving the strict legalism and false prophetic bents of the original group.

These groups are founded on a private interpretation of the scriptures which does not bear up to close scrutiny by the Word of God. Though claiming to be Torah Observant Messianics they, like the Pharisees, use their personal interpretation of scripture as a weapon to condemn…

The Sacred Name Movement (SNM) is a movement in Christianity that seeks to conform Christianity to its roots in Judaism in practice, belief and worship; This movement seeks to destroy and blot out the name of Jesus…

The Sacred Name dogma has enormous Antichrist elements inherent within its beliefs and practices.


http://fortheloveofhistruth.com/2012/02/25/the-dangers-of-the-hebrew-roots-movement-the-sacred-name-movement/
 
part of the pronunciation hinges on what the Name Itself
was pronounced like. YHWH may be the last remaining word
of a lost semitic or Protosemitic language from the time
of Babel, I have read that there are peculiarities about
it in terms of Hebrew grammar and suchlike.

In Orthodox Holy Liturgy and practices there are preserved
things from the Jewish Temple times, and I notice that
Hallelujah is not pronounced hal ley loo yah but Al ley
loo EEAA. hmmm. Okay, Jah or Yah is not "yahh" but "Eyah."

The exact pronunciation was lost back of fear of accidental
sacrilege by saying Yahweh, so it is rendered Adonai (Hebrew
for Lord, not the same as baal Canaanite for "lord"), or
"Hashem" the Name.

But various pagans had picked up on the power of The Name
and included it in their repertoire of apotropaics (repellants)
used against demons. Some of the priests had converted to Christ
and brought the knowledge with them. Eusebius (I think it was
Eusebius) said it was ieouue.

So that means YAH sound beginning is wrong on the face of it.
More lilke Iahshwah.

For simplicity I refer to Yahweh, Yahweism, etc. but is more
like Iahooeh. The Self Existent unoriginate eternal Person
Who made all things all life.

In the days of Seth men began to call on the Name of YHWH
The Bible says, but to either Abraham or Moses I forget which
He says He made Himself known as YHWH but before that this
Name was not known. Likely a scribe added the WH to the part
in Genesis which should read, men began to call on the name
of YH or Eeah.

Just as the gnostics knocked the Creator down a notch or
more claimed He was spawned by someone else and the most high
doesn't have to do with matter and Iadalbaoth made all that
nasty matter we have to be rescued from, so the pagans
developed religious ideas, that claimed someone prior gave
rise to Ea, of which NW Semitic Ya is a variant name, and
that is why we have the deity who warned Utnapishtim to build
the Ark, in historical action doing the equivalent of YH
warning Noah to build the Ark, supposedly descended as grandson
or great grandson of someone else.

Mesopotamia had a twisted version of a bit of truth and mixed
in a lot of lies, hemmed and hawed over the cause of the Flood
(the "gods" were kept awake at night by humans making too much
noise) while Genesis tells the truth, the True God was disgusted
by the sins of the humans, but the power of the Name remained.....

"seven are they" is a poem with several sections online. in
one section these seven categories of demons are said to be
agents of and/or friend with the "gods" with one exception.

They are afraid of Ea.
 
Let us distinguish the theology and textual revisionism of the Sacred Name movement, which is rubbish, from the question of how these names were and are to be pronounced. This latter issue is interesting in that authority would in principle lie not with written words but with recordings from the past, if only they existed. Despite what you say, 7.11pm, there is negligible difference between the pronunciations of Yahushua and Joshua (which you say was pronounced ye-ho-shu-ah) once it is understood which syllables were to be emphasized and which de-emphasized.

 
Regarding the previously quoted passage:

These groups are founded on a private interpretation of the scriptures which does not bear up to close scrutiny by the Word of God. Though claiming to be Torah Observant Messianics they, like the Pharisees, use their personal interpretation of scripture as a weapon to condemn…

It is not only a matter of their using their own personal interpretation of Scripture. It is also a matter of their writing their own Scriptures!!!( i.e. Sacred Name Bibles ).

Sacred Name Bibles
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Name_Bibles

 
Anonymous 7:50 P.M.

Re:Despite what you say, 7.11pm, there is negligible difference between the pronunciations of Yahushua and Joshua (which you say was pronounced ye-ho-shu-ah) once it is understood which syllables were to be emphasized and which de-emphasized.

Since I am not the one personally weighing in on pronunciations, your argument is not with me. It is with the Protestants whom I have quoted. You need to take it up with them.
 


An exposé on the Hebrew Roots / Sacred Name Movement

Intro:

His Name is Wonderful!! ... Or is it??:

Have you found eternal salvation through the lovely name of our Lord Jesus Christ? Have you found true deliverance from your old sinful past, the world and it's pleasures, in this most precious name? What about the reality of the peace of God, and the assurance nothing can separate us from the love of God? Have you seen lives changed, miracles wrought, families restored, and others responding towards God, at the preaching of this Name above every other name?

What if someone came along and said this Name you have been saved and set free by is not the correct name at all but a misnomer? What if someone came along and said the wonderful name of your Saviour was a corrupt Greek name, derived from a false god called Zeus? How would you react? What would you response be?

Beware!!! This is exactly what is happening in some spheres of Christendom today, through sources of the Hebrew Roots / Messianic / Sacred Name Movement, as it "validates" itself into the Body of Christ.


Why and how?:

Titus 1:14. Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.

Fact: The Old testament was written in Hebrew for the chosen Jewish Nation. The New Testament was written in Greek where the partition between Jew's and Gentiles was broken down so we could all become one new man in Christ.

Back in the early eighties not long after we left the established church, Don Stanton of Maranatha Revival Crusade was a dear brother in Christ we came to respect and receive much encouragement from, even sharing in our home and supplying much of our literature for witnessing and growth. After being such a blessing to my wife and myself, along with our friends, I became very alarmed when his ministry took a turn towards Judaism when he switched to substituting and teaching Hebraic names for many important biblical names, along with a passion for following Jewish feasts and customs as part of our Christian faith. He even re-wrote the Bible replacing our Saviour's name with Hebraic equivalents and today is entrenched in something our Lord Jesus came to set us free from.

This following three part article is written in response to this tragedy, along with the many people who have e-mailed me in recent months, trying to persuade myself over to the Hebrew Roots Camp. Generally I have found these people to be varied in their opinions in regards to doctrine; some moderate (scripturally still believing in the Trinity) and others into complete heresy omitting the name Jesus Christ entirely from their faith.

The sincere majority of these people have used the gentle diplomatic approach in their argument to win us across, whereas a few others have been aggressive, and down-right rude and even abusive, when we wouldn't skip to their tune. On all occasions have I found them very persistent, rabbinic centred, and usually attacking the holy name of our Lord Jesus Christ one way or another.

An in-depth study will prove the teachers who are fanatically entrenched into this movement are deliberately discrediting, tainting, and replacing the precious name of our Saviour, and attempting to lead bible believing Christians out of Christianity
..........

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Other%20Pagan%20Mumbo-Jumbo/hebrew_roots.htm


 
Quite a little string of "pearls" here.


Errors of the Sacred namers

Error #1 The tetragramaton can be determined accurately.
The precise pronunciation of YHWH has been lost to history.

Error #2 The bible, especially the New Testament, as we have is corrupted and Sacred Namers can correct it.
Like the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Sacred Namers edit the bible by inserting the "corect" hebrew name(s) especially in the New Testament.

Error #3 The New Testament was originally written in Hebrew.
This is laughable as there is no evidence to this claim.

Error #4 Jesus spoke and proclaimed the sacred name of Yaweh (YHWH).
Many Sacred Namers claim this was Christ's mission and now they are doing the same thing.

Error #5 Jesus is the pagan name of Zeus.
Not all Sacred Namers claim this but certainly some do. There is no evidence for this claim.

Error #6 Christ is pagan for Krishna.
Same comment as above.

Error #7 The real name for Jesus is Yeshua and to be saved you must use that name.
The Sacred Namers claim that you must use the correct Hebrew names for God and Jesus. Is this a form of whitchcraft? In occult ritual one must pronounce spells correctly or they won't work. The problem with the Sacred Namers is they can not all agree on which name is sacred. Some claim it is Yeshua, others claim Yahoshua, still others claim it is Yaohushua and on and on it goes.

Error #8 The Trinity is pagan and Jesus is not God.
Many Sacred Namers deny the trinity. They most often embrace Arianism.


http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/84131-sacred-name-cult-exposed-debunked.html
 
Thank you Christine for your authoritative clarification of how the Sacred Name Movement is essentially wrong and has been from it's inception. I agree with that assessment, but after that you proceed to help us pronounce Jesus' name "properly", and finish up with the notion (from somewhere online) that demons are afraid of the proper pronunciation ?
Now that's what I call confusion. But since you once " _heard an Israeli who had become Christian refer to "yeshuwa" or "yeshuah" ...well, that really nails it down. So which way is it; is it all about honesty and sincerity, or is it about a magic spell and the exact (Aramaic?) pronunciation of the name? You seem to believe both.
When God confused the languages at the tower of Babel, there were suddenly dozens of different languages. There became many different tongues; many Africans don't easily pronounce the "sk" sound. The Japanese considered the "L" sound to be vulgar, many Mediterranean countries roll their "R"s, many Europeans don't. The Hebrews have their guttural "ch" sound. Most
other languages including English wouldn't think of it, because it sounds like someone clearing their throat.
The point is, yes there is power in the name of Jesus; power in the real Jesus' name, when a believer is praying to the real Jesus. That's why so many people pepper their everyday speech with that name; because the person speaking lacks authority
in their words and intentions, but using Jesus' name indeed brings power to their otherwise worthless talk. The name of Jesus brings a kind of power to even their words and they instinctively know it. By the same token, bad movie after bad movie and junk television show after show will invoke Bible verses to bring authority to their otherwise garbage dialog.
Jesus said that the Good News of the Kingdom of Heaven would be preached in every corner of the world and that then the end would come. The Gospel is believed and beloved in Mandarin, Spanish, Swahili, Farsi, Greek and every other language.
All the languages in the world were invented by God Himself. Hebrew came from Chaldee which came from Phonecian, etc.
I've personally had hundreds of prayers answered, and I'm sure I didn't pronounce Jesus' name like they did in Israel two thousand years ago.
Christine are you one of these people who think that a little humility would be considered weakness ?
Just as a heads up, I decided long ago that I don't trust people who talk incessantly. I realized that they are actually trying to cover something up.



 
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
I agree it doesn't matter how you pronounce Jesus' Name as long
as you know who you are talking about. the zseus thing is because
Spanish has no hard J and pronounce it Heysoos which some ignorant
subhuman heard as "hey zeus" I have read this stated as what Jesus
means. ridiculous.
 
heh. Looks like the anti Catholic bashers are in full swing, spouting cliches that make those of us who actually know what Catholicism teaches laugh and shake our heads in dismay.

To understand the Pope's encyclical, you might want to spend a dozen years living in the poorer area of the third world, as I do. A lot of it is right on the mark.

The bad news:
I am critical not so much about the encyclical as on how the MSM will spin it, and if the NWO will misuse the encyclical to try to increase their influence in the church.
the Pope's encyclical will make the "greens" in the church rejoice, and may give them more power. This Pope is old, and they might get enough power to really vote in an antiChrist pope next time.

Many of these greens used to be into liberation theology and now are into ecological religion, and they ignore the good part of globalization, such as that poverty is no worse for the poor but that a lot of the poor are now middle class in third world countries like China who got rich only AFTER they discarded all that socialism stuff promoted in the encyclical. True, China is full of pollution, but hey, it's better than massive starvation.

and one wonders how many in the MSM will notice the parts that insist that marriage is between a man and a woman (he called the Obama homosexual agenda being pushed here in the Philippines "Cultural imperialism".).
 
Squabble Squabble Squabble. I prefer "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." Does someone believe God won't answer if the name called is not correct. God is not some petty idol or full of pride cult leader! What I want to know is how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? With what's going on yesterday and today, it should be fascinating.
 
someone once said the answer to angels on a pin, is that you posit a standard
angel taking up one half the head of the pin I guess, and you add one that is
12 that size, and another 1/2 the size of the second and keep adding angels that are 1/2 the size of the previous one and this should go on forever. Somehow I
suspect at some point the head of the pin will be full and one of those angels
will be dangling over the edge.
 
Christina,

I really would appreciate it if you would stick to the subject posted and be careful of your phraseology and grammar. For example, the very last post here, 1:10 am is obviously incomplete. If you have something important to say, it will come through much more effectively if it is not drowned out by a number of "stream of consciousness" posts that appear to be coming from you.

Thank you!

Constance
 
Re my post citing the test of antichrist being a denial that Jesus is the Christ, I stand on 1 John 2:22. Also, the dividing of Christ is another test of the spirit of antichrist. The posts now claiming Mary to be an antichrist because of a papal statement "elevating her to an antichrist" are just plain ridiculous unless somebody wants to make the claim that Mary apostasized in her post-Jesus' resurrection life.

The test of antichrist (or maybe better said, "A test of the spirit of antichrist" is a denial that Jesus is the Christ" as on one and only Christ. That was what distinguished in no small part the New Age teachings and New Thought religion teachings from Christianity.

The test was not an overemphasis on Jesus' mother Mary. There are New Agers (Wayne Peterson is one excellent example) who claim Mother Mary appeared to them to tell him about her true son, "Maitreya." See Chapter 1 of his book EXTRAORDINARY TIMES EXTRAORDINARY BEINGS." That chapter is entitled "A Message from Mary".

Neither Wayne Peterson's ramblings nor a former papal statement elevates Mary to an antichrist. It might denigrate the speaker, but not her important role in church history.

Constance
 
Well I see there is much majoring in the minors going on again. Indeed the Scripture is true that in the multitude of words there lacketh not sin ... truth getting lost in the overgrown jungle of way too many words ... and end up misrepresenting God by those who claim to know all about Him.






 
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B9O56Ack9wahfkFLeHB2X19pMGNxYloxSFB5T1pBOG8wNkVxeHZFQXhZR0kzMElUN2RPMVk&usp=drive_web

the situation in English schools and Christianity well, one school.
 
Well said 1:18 A.M.
 
"The posts now claiming Mary to be an antichrist because of a papal statement "elevating her to an antichrist" are just plain ridiculous unless somebody wants to make the claim that Mary apostasized in her post-Jesus' resurrection life."

Dear Constance, in ancient Greek "anti" can mean "alternative" rather than "against". With that understanding, please read the following passage:

"*****, ever lovable and full of grace, always has delivered the Christian people from their greatest calamities and from the snares and assaults of all their enemies, ever rescuing them from ruin… The foundation of all Our confidence… is found in *****. For God has committed to ***** the treasury of all good things, in order that everyone may know that through **** are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is His will, that we obtain everything through *****".

Is not the person who is referred to necessarily Christ, in Christian theology, or an alternative Christ in a theology that is apostate?

The paragraph is from Pope Pius IX's encyclical Ubi Primum of 1849, and the missing word is "Mary" - who surely looks down from heaven and weeps.

 
Let's see if the windbag blog jammer who thinks I'm a member of some Sacred Name cult or Hebrew Roots movement can tell us what Pope Pius IX really said?

Even he probably can't SPIN that!
 
Mommie Dearest - The Trouble with "Mother" Emanuel A.M. E Church

parablesblog.blogspot.com

Friday, June 19, 2015
 
Anonymous 7:59

I don't THINK you are a member of the Sacred Name cult or Hebrew Roots Movement. By peddling the bogus name "YAHSHUA" here, you have ratted yourself out as a "Sacred Namer." If not as a card-carrying member, then as a fellow traveler.

As for telling you what Pope Pius IX REALLY said.....Oh, you mean what Pope Pius IX said about the Immaculate Conception which Catholics beleive is based on the angelic salutation "Hail full of Grace" in Luke 1:28?" This is something you might have observed if you had read the real Bible instead of the ones written by your Sacred Namer pals.

But hey, Sacred Namer, we know what your little Pharisee "gotcha" question is REALLY leading up to, don't we?......Mary as "mediatrix"..... which is actually nothing new and simply refers to Mary's intercessory power with Jesus...a standard Catholic - Protestant disagreement that the REAL windbag blogjammers like you are attempting to use in order to portray Mary as "antichrist." But since you Sacred Namers are into inventing your own scriptures no one should be surprised that you would also try to invent your own Ubi Primum.

MEDIATRIX

"The title "Mediatrix" is used in Roman Catholic Mariology to refer to the intercessory role of the Virgin Mary as a mediator in the salvific redemption by her son Jesus Christ, and that he bestows graces through her. Mediatrix is an ancient title that has been used by a number of saints since at least the 5th century. Its use grew during the Middle Ages and reached its height in the writings of saints Louis de Montfort and Alphonsus Liguori in the 18th century.

A general role of mediation or intercession is attributed to Mary in Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy, and the term "Mediatrix" was applied to her in the dogmatic constitution Lumen gentium of the Second Vatican Council. "This, however, is to be so understood that it neither takes away from nor adds anything to the dignity and efficaciousness of Christ the one Mediator."

The use of the title Mediatrix and the doctrine of Mary having a higher level of saintly intercession (owing to her special relationship with her son Jesus) is distinct from the theological issues involved in the establishment of Mediatrix of all graces as a dogma, which is still being debated among Catholic theologians, but has not received Vatican approval......

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediatrix

*****************************************************

To my POrotestant friends here, I would like to point out that titles like "Co-Redemptrix" and "Mediatrix of all Graces" are NOT defined dogmas of the Roman Catholic faith. In fact, it was Pope John Paul II who cautioned against "all false exaggeration" in Catholic Marian devotions. His teaching and devotion to Mary strictly consisted in "exalting Mary as the first among believers but concentrating all faith on the Triune God and giving primacy to Christ."

So now, Sacred Namer, why don't you tell us what you REALLY mean by Yahshua and where it is found in the Bible that has not been messed with by Sacred Namers? Do you believe in the Trinity or are you a "Jesus only" devotee?

Do you believe that Jesus Christ is both truly God and truly Man? Even you probably can't spin that!
 
I belong entirely to you, and all that I have is yours. [Totus tuus.] I take you for my all. O *****, give me your heart - John Paul II.

Guess the missing name.

 
Christine, the question about angels dancing on a pin was sarcasm. I know how to do a web search, and everybody on both sides of the great divide of death knows that you live to do web searches without referencing. In your search did you come across "it is a dismissive way of saying that someone is arguing round and round in circles"? You could have gotten a clue from the repetitive use of the word squabble, something else you love to do.

And from the Urban dictionary to the Catholic bashers,
Johnny One-Note
A one-hitter who repeats the same tired mantra over and over. It's used to described some shrill, tired ideologue or academic that pompously echoes some quaint notion or idea endlessly, and expects everyone to see his supposed wisdom and bow in concurrence.
 
Anon.10:10 A.M.

Totus Tuus, a Latin phrase meaning “totally yours,” was the Apostolic motto of Saint John Paul II. Taken from St. Louis de Montfort’s True Devotion to Mary, it signifies our desire to give ourselves entirely to Jesus Christ through Mary. "Ad Jesum per Mariam."

The last words recorded of Mary in the Gospels was "Do whatever He (Jesus) tells you." John 2:5

Why did the servants go to Jesus' mother at the marriage feast of Cana? They asked her intercession to ask Jesus to help them. Clearly they asked her. However it shows that the miracle did not come from Mary, but from Jesus. Did the servants worship Mary because they asked her to intercede? Simply they implored her intercession. Then Mary leads the servants to Jesus by telling them, "Do whatever He tells you." Mary tells us to do the will of Jesus. By her intercession Christ showed His glory to us.
 
P.S.

Clarification......

“Ad Jesum per Mariam means that we must go to Jesus through Mary.”

WRONG. It may be good and holy and helpful to go to Jesus through Mary but there is no obligation to go this way. We have direct access to Jesus. “One also is the Mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ” (1 Tim. 2:5). The Church very often prays directly to Jesus, and most usually prays to the Father through Jesus Christ.
 
Constance,

The Encyclical rejects excessive consumerism, and asks the wealthy to share what they have, with those who are less fortunate. This would mean making a lifestyle change and live modestly and humbly. Monastic life is cited as an example. Big business has called him a communist for this.

On the other hand, the encyclical upholds, gender differences, and rejects depopulation/abortion as solutions to climate change. Big government yells, but, he still hates women and gays.

We are all guilty of wanting the Gospel to fit our politics and use it to beat "the other" over the head.

May God Forgive our self-righteouness.












 
"Christine, the question about angels dancing on a pin was sarcasm. I know how to do a web search,"

Actually I read it years ago in one of those Bound Optically Organized Knowledge
devices. And I do put up lots of links when I don't reference its because the
information is already in my head and if you want to verify it go search yourself.

Back in the old days people sneered at people who read it in books instead of
experiencing it themselves or whatever. now the books online and research papers
and results of compiling these online, i.e., the Internet, is sneered at instead
of going to books.
 
Anonymous 12:20

Good points!!!.....not to mention that Catholics are permitted to respectfully disagree with those portions of the encyclical that deal with science or politics.
 
Thankyou for the detailed clarification on Mary interceding with and
poiting to Jesus which you did far better than I could. however,

"the Immaculate Conception which Catholics beleive is based on the angelic salutation "Hail full of Grace" in Luke 1:28?"

Charitou, "highly favored." a couple of verses later "you have found favor with the Lord" charis. And she refers to "God my Savior." This isn't quite the same
impression the idea of Immaculate conception gives. indeed, she was puzzled,
the angel clarifying with the statement she had found favor with God and was
going to be the mother of the Messiah.
 
"I would like to point out that titles like "Co-Redemptrix" and "Mediatrix of all Graces" are NOT defined dogmas of the Roman Catholic faith."

as I have said many consider her the former and push for formal dogmatic
recognition of her as such. "mediatrix of all graces" - well, I didn't know that
wasn't dogma, and no one would to listen to what is written and said by priests
and popes and popular writers. talk about evolving dogma.
 
When Catholics pray through Christ they typically address God ("O Lord God and Father, please help us to...") and finish "through Jesus Christ our Lord". But when Catholics pray "through" Mary they typically ask HER for help; they do not address God and then end "through Mary our Lady". Make of that what you will...
 
influences on children. and adults.

before the Saturday cartoons got all that occultic, they were
somewhat "futuristic." Even consider Buck Rogers of the 21st
Century. while science fiction may prime the pump for discoveries,
people who grow up loving sci fi and become scientists and figure
out how to make it real, it also predisposes people for these
steps.

now, this isn't to say technological advances are bad. I am no
luddite. But the comic books Marvel and Dc features "super powers"
that were rarely solely technological. sometimes biological like
spiderman who, ridiculously, gets his powers from a radioactive
spider's bite. Notice when he uses his middle fingers to hit the
device to send out his super spider silk, his forefinger and little
finger are extended in the devil's horns sign. hmmmmm.

extremely futuristic stuff without occult superpowers, were in
comics and cartoons before it got overtly occultic. and who knows
what Ray Kurzweil's favorite reading was as a child?
 
Anonymous 3:15 PM

Re: But when Catholics pray "through" Mary they typically ask HER for help; they do not address God and then end "through Mary our Lady". Make of that what you will...

Anyone can "make what they will" of anything, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is true. Catholics are not REQUIRED to ask Mary for her help in terms of her intercession with her Son, Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ....just like the people at the wedding feast of Cana were not REQUIRED to ACCEPT Mary's help either.

But REQUIREMENTS aside, the Law of Love - the Great commandment Matt 22:36-40 - does not command that we love God ONLY. It commands us to love God above all things AND our neighbor as ourselves out of love for God. Our Lord Himself tells us in the Gospels "On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” Matt 22:40

Of all purely HUMAN CREATURES, no one has obeyed these two commandments more perfectly than Mary. Love of God above all things and love of neighbor out of love of God......including that key moment in human history - the very moment of Mary's "fiat" upon being invited by God's angelic ambassador, the Archangel Gabriel, to become the mother of the Word Incarnate.

But we have been over this several times. Do you think that by repeating the same falsehoods and misinterpretations about Catholic Mariology again and again that they will cease to be falsehoods and somehow become "the truth????" I don't think so.

*************************

GLORIA ( recited at Mass after the Kyrie, on Sundays outside of Lent and Advent and on solemnities and feasts. )

Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to people of good will. We praise you, we bless you, we adore you, we glorify you, we give you thanks for your great glory, Lord God, heavenly King, O God, almighty Father. Lord Jesus Christ, Only Begotten Son, Lord God, Lamb of God, Son of the Father, you take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us; you take away the sins of the world, receive our prayer; you are seated at the right hand of the Father, have mercy on us. For you alone are the Holy One, you alone are the Lord, you alone are the Most High, Jesus Christ, with the Holy Spirit, in the glory of God the Father. Amen.

*****************************************
HAIL MARY

Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee
Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary, Mother of God, PRAY FOR US SINNERS now and at the hour of our death, Amen.
*********************************************
HAIL HOLY QUEEN

Hail, Holy Queen, Mother of Mercy (Jesus), our life, our sweetness and our hope! To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve. To thee do we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping in this valley of tears! Turn, then, O most gracious Advocate, thine eyes of mercy toward us, and after this, our exile, show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus. O clement, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary.

V. Pray for us, O holy Mother of God.
R. That we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.

Let us Pray. O God, whose only-begotten Son, by His life, death and resurrection, has purchased for us the rewards of eternal life, grant, we beseech Thee, that meditating on these mysteries of the most holy Rosary of the Blessed Virgin Mary, we may imitate what they contain, and obtain what they promise, through the same Christ our Lord. Amen.

******************************************************

cont.
 
cont.

MOTHER OF GOD......THEOTOKOS

Theotokos (/ˌθiəˈtɒkəs/; Greek: Θεοτόκος, transliterated (Greek) Theotókos, translation (Syriac-Aramaic): ܝܳܠܕܰܬ ܐܰܠܳܗܳܐ‎, transliterated (Syriac): Yoldath Alloho; Latin: Mater Dei) is the Greek title of Mary, the mother of Jesus used especially in the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Eastern Catholic Churches. Its literal English translations include "God-bearer", "Birth-Giver of God" and "the one who gives birth to God." Less literal translations include "Mother of God."

The ancient use of this term is emphasised in Churches of the Syriac Tradition, which have been using this title in their ancient liturgies for centuries: the Anaphora of Mari and Addai (3rd Century), and the Liturgy of St James the Just (60 AD).

Roman Catholics and Anglicans use the title "Mother of God" more often than "Theotokos." The Council of Ephesus decreed in 431 that Mary is Theotokos because her son Jesus is both God and man: one Divine Person with two natures (Divine and human) intimately, hypostatically united.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theotokos

***********************************************

THEOTOKOS

...Theotokos specifically excludes the understanding of Mary as Mother of God in the eternal sense. Christians believe that God is the cause of all, with neither origin nor source, and is therefore without a mother or father, or any relation except for what is homoousian to Him: only the persons of the Holy Trinity. He is ontologically separate from all other beings, as Creator to creation. This stands in contrast to classical Greco-Roman religion in particular, where a number of goddesses appear as the physical mothers of other divinities which were considered gods in their own right (cf. polytheism).

On the other hand, most Christians believe God the Son is begotten of God the Father "from all eternity" (see Trinity and Nicene Creed), but is born "in time" of Mary. Theotokos thus refers to the Incarnation, when the Second Person of the Holy Trinity took on human nature in addition to his pre-existing divine nature, this being made possible through the cooperation of Mary.

Though most Christians understand Jesus Christ as both fully God and fully human, only Orthodox Christians (in the East), and Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, and schismatic Old Catholics (in the West), call Mary Theotokos. The Council of Ephesus decreed, in opposition to those who denied Mary the title Theotokos ("the one who gives birth to God") but called her Christotokos ("the one who gives birth to Christ"), that Mary is Theotokos because her son Jesus is one person who is both God and man, divine and human. Cyril of Alexandria wrote, "I am amazed that there are some who are entirely in doubt as to whether the holy Virgin should be called Theotokos or not. For if our Lord Jesus Christ is God, how is the holy Virgin who gave [Him] birth, not [Theotokos]?" (Epistle 1, to the monks of Egypt; PG 77:13B). Thus the significance of Theotokos lies more in what it says about Jesus than any declaration about Mary, according to this Catholic doctrine.


http://orthodoxwiki.org/Theotokos
 
P.S.

You keep demanding that Catholics explain themselves to you, but you still haven't answered the following questions.


What do you REALLY mean by Yahshua and where it is explicitly found in the original Bible that has not been tinkered with?

Do you believe in the Holy Trinity or are you a "Jesus only" devotee?

Do you believe that Jesus Christ is both truly God and truly Man?


I would imagine that many inquiring Protestant minds here would like to know as well whether or not your beliefs pass the "spirit of the antichrist" test.
 
There's more than protestant here as the one protesting about Rome's Mary has not been advocating particular pronunciations of the Messiah's name here (and certainly does not accept the theology of the Sacred Name crew).
 
Anon. 5:49

If the shoe fits.......
 
The fact of the matter is that the "Mary" that Roman Catholicism proclaims is NOT the Mary of the Bible. Here is why:

RC proclaims that Mary was "immaculately conceived" (i.e. the Immaculate Conception ... often mistakenly believed to be referring to Christ's birth, it is not. The Immaculate Conception refers specifically to the false RC dogma that MARY was conceived without sin). As a fallen human being, Mary inherited the sin nature due to original sin in the garden. The purpose of the Virgin Birth was to break the process of the seed of sinful man being used in the birth of Christ.

RC also proclaims that Mary was "assumed" into heaven. This dogma/doctrine came into being in about 1840. Of course, there isn't a shread of evidense in the Bible to support such a claim.

RC also assigns the title of "HOLY Father" to the pope. The Bible expressly commands to address no one on earth as "father" for there is ONE father in heaven."
What blasphemy it is to refer to a SINFUL, fallen creature as HOLY FATHER ! There is only ONE "Holy Father" and that is God the Father ... no one else!

Revelation 17 proclaims that the Great Whore is "drunk with the blood of the saints." Roman Catholicism committed horrible crimes and murder against literally MILLIONS of Bible believing people for over 620 years via the Inquistion. No institution (not even the Roman Empire) committed more crimes against REAL Christians than has the Catholic Church.

The "recent" revelations regarding pedophilia and sex crimes in the "church" is not new at all ... it has gone on for CENTURIES (Read Charles Chiniquay's "50 Years in the Church of Rome" ... former priest and personal friend of Abraham Lincoln). The "church," including former "pope" Benedict covered these crimes up and enabled these crimes to continue. Prior to becoming "pope," Benedict (Ratzinger) was in charge of the Vatican's department that handled ALL sex crimes that were committed by RC priests from all over the world against children for over 10 years ... and he did NOTHING but cover up these crimes!

Someone recently posted that "Jesus" is in the Mass. NO HE ISN'T ! His sacrifice for sin was a ONE TIME EVENT .... NEVER TO BE REPEATED. Roman Catholism teaches the doctrine that the "sacrifice of the Mass is ONE AND THE SAME AS CHRIST'S SACRIFICE on the cross. Their "christ" is sacrificed thousands of times all over the world every single day .... over and over again ... for SIN ! Christ is now where He has been since His return to His Father ... He is now sitting on the right hand of God Almighty.

I could go on but will stop here. This is a thoroughly false and sinful system that denies, in multiple ways, the Christ of the Bible. They teach a false Christ and are in fact, blind leaders of the blind!
 
Ray B.

"RC proclaims that Mary was "immaculately conceived" (i.e. the Immaculate Conception ... often mistakenly believed to be referring to Christ's birth, it is not. The Immaculate Conception refers specifically to the false RC dogma that MARY was conceived without sin). As a fallen human being, Mary inherited the sin nature due to original sin in the garden. The purpose of the Virgin Birth was to break the process of the seed of sinful man being used in the birth of Christ."

this doctrine is clearly false and based on misinterpretations of the angelic
greeting in Luke, or rather excused by it. The notion began developing some time
after The Great Schism, was opposed by Thomas Aquinas and others, supported by
others. it was finally made a formal dogma due to the visions and miraculous medal
of I forget who. HERE IS AN EXAMPLE OF HOW VISIONS DEEMED WORTHY OF BELIEF BUT
NOT REQUIRED TO BE BELIEVED AND NOT TO BE TAKEN AS NEW REVELATION CAN BECOME NEW
REVELATION ENSHRINED AS DOGMA.

it starts with an idea, then some vision backs it up, with some questionable extraction from Scripture. then people believe it a lot of people. including someone
who eventually becomes pope. oops.

"RC also proclaims that Mary was "assumed" into heaven. This dogma/doctrine came into being in about 1840. Of course, there isn't a shread of evidense in the Bible to support such a claim."

Actually the idea got going in the 400s or 500s, but was a local tradition where
she had died. THE BIBLE CANNOT SUPPORT OR REFUTE IT, SINCE IT STOPS BEFORE SHE
WOULD HAVE DIED, AND ANYTHING WRITTEN WHEN SHE MIGHT HAVE DIED WAS NOT SUCH SUBJECT
MATTER AS WOULD INCLUDE ANYTHING ABOUT HER.

Biblical silence on this is therefore not proof against it. Neither is a local
tradition proof for it.

however, I came to give it credence, because the story was that when Jesus came and
resurrected her, she TOLD EVERYONE TO KEEP IT QUIET SO AS NOT TO DISTRACT ATTENTION
FROM JESUS. This indeed sounds like the Mary of the bible. it became public only
because when a church was being built elsewhere and they wanted some relic (body
part) there were none, and here's why.

"RC also assigns the title of "HOLY Father" to the pope. The Bible expressly commands to address no one on earth as "father" for there is ONE father in heaven."
What blasphemy it is to refer to a SINFUL, fallen creature as HOLY FATHER ! There is only ONE "Holy Father" and that is God the Father ... no one else!"

push this far enough you can't call your own father "father" and Paul refers to
himself as the father of the Corinthian Christians having begotten them in the
Gospel by converting them.


 
"Revelation 17 proclaims that the Great Whore is "drunk with the blood of the saints." Roman Catholicism committed horrible crimes and murder against literally MILLIONS of Bible believing people for over 620 years via the Inquistion. No institution (not even the Roman Empire) committed more crimes against REAL Christians than has the Catholic Church."

Great exaggeration, and Islam's body count and that of many pagans is far far higher.
the only Bible believing Christians who got persecuted were Lutherans and Calvinists, and
these slaughtered a lot of Catholics. Witch cult practicers were hardly "bible
believing Christians" neither were the Albigensians or Cathars who denied the
literal physical Incarnation of Jesus Christ and other problems about them incl.
a violent potential, one manifestation of which brought the wrath of RC armies
down on them.

"The "recent" revelations regarding pedophilia and sex crimes in the "church" is not new at all ... it has gone on for CENTURIES (Read Charles Chiniquay's "50 Years in the Church of Rome" ... former priest and personal friend of Abraham Lincoln). The "church," including former "pope" Benedict covered these crimes up and enabled these crimes to continue. Prior to becoming "pope," Benedict (Ratzinger) was in charge of the Vatican's department that handled ALL sex crimes that were committed by RC priests from all over the world against children for over 10 years ... and he did NOTHING but cover up these crimes!"

Too true, but has nothing to do with doctrinal issues. Protestants are as guilty
over the same time frame and earlier. http://www.reformation.com/

"Someone recently posted that "Jesus" is in the Mass. NO HE ISN'T !"

He is the primary focus of the Mass.

" His sacrifice for sin was a ONE TIME EVENT .... NEVER TO BE REPEATED. Roman Catholism teaches the doctrine that the "sacrifice of the Mass is ONE AND THE SAME AS CHRIST'S SACRIFICE on the cross. Their "christ" is sacrificed thousands of times all over the world every single day .... over and over again ... for SIN ! Christ is now where He has been since His return to His Father ... He is now sitting on the right hand of God Almighty."

while some RC and even a few Orthodox are confused enough to be taking the attitude
you condemn, this is a re presentation of the SAME ONE TIME sacrifice. The actual
sacrifice made is the "unbloody sacrifice" of bread and wine given to God, Who
then returns it to us as His Son's Body and Blood. "as often as you do this you
show forth My death until I come." Paul's warning to the Corinthians about possible
bad effects of eating His Body "not perceiving The Lord's Body" shows something
sentient and offendable is present.

Our meaning for "symbol" as a mere designator is not what Greek symbolon means.
it is the EMBODIMENT of the thing itself, thus the Creed is called "the symbol
of the faith" and the Bread and Wine come to embody contain or turn into the Body
and Blood of Christ.
 
I would add, should have had this in the first answer, that Jerome seems to
have led the charge in developing Mariology into Mariolatry. Ambrose was
devoted to her also. Seems Jerome decided to translate the original language
texts into the Latin Vulgate, and he checked Hebrew Masoretic, Septuagint and
I think Samaritan also.

Nonetheless he (must have done this willfully) mistranslated Genesis 3:15
as that the WOMAN WOULD BRUISE THE SERPENT's HEAD, when the text in all versions
then read that THE WOMAN'S SEED WOULD BRUISE THE SERPENT'S HEAD.

This is the cause of all statues and paintings showing Mary with a foot on a
snake's head. This idea is back of all false Mariology that would have her
conquering satan and even having an "age of Mary" before the Second Coming of
Jesus Christ. while it is possible that a great conversion of the world may
occur first, since Paul speaks of a great falling away that happens before the
antichrist comes and persecutes the saints, this is not crushing the serpent's
head. only a manifestation of Jesus' crushing the serpent's head, when Jesus'
Crucifixion and harrowing of hell and Resurrection crippled the devil and his
kingdom.
 
Good grief. People lay off the coffee, caffeine tablets or energy drinks. Once you get going, there is no stopping the postings.
 
I suggest you read up on the waldenses (pre-Reformation Christians) , Christine! I also suggest you learn about Tyndale and many other true Christians besides him who were neither Lutherans nor Calvinists, put to death in horrific ways by the Bible burning Thomas Moore and Bloody Mary.

Also learn about the huge persecution of Middle East Christians during the various Crusades, not by Muslims but by the Roman Catholic heirarchy, as well as the many Roman Catholics murdered by the supposed Mother Church of Rome for the slightest deviations from complete submittance to Papal authority (see the Spanish Inquisition for instance).

Have you not heard of the Ustase and learned of the umpteen thousands of Serbian Orthodox civilians put to death in the most barbaric of ways in the 1940's, even by RC priests with the RC Church's full backing?

I am a former Roman Catholic myself and believe true Christians as caught up in her system as many are caught up in the Protestant false systems of Calvin or Creflo Dollar , etc. That is why the Holy Bible records God's words: 'Come out of her my people so you do not suffer her plagues! I am not a Protestant, as I protest as vehemently against false teachings, practices and cruelty wheresoever it may be found. I am a born again of the spirit and sanctified by His blood Christian and don't need false leaders such as Calvin , Luther, a Pope or Patriarch for I have one High Priest to turn to and He is the Alpha and Omega , Jesus Christ my Lord and Saviour!

There is no getting away from rhe fact however, that the Mother of all Harlots, Rome, has historically been far crueller per se and in sheer numbers than all her adulterous daughters (such as Eastern Orthodox, Lutherianism, Calvinism etc) put together, as history shows!
 
Yes one of the Crusades sacked Constantinople and did horrible
atrocities and sacrilege, which got them excommunicated when
the pope of the time heard about it. The body count by Turkish
muslims and more recent and throughout history by pagans is
far higher than anything Rome added up.

Tyndale and Wycliffe, that's two dead bodies. you are not mentioning
the high body count by protestants against catholics. Both sides
were bloody minded.

Eastern Orthodox is not Rome's daughter, Rome is the prodigal daughter of
Eastern Orthodoxy. We share some doctrines, and when those in RC are
attacked I will defend them, but the ones we don't share I will not
defend. it is not a matter of bootlicking. I began as a generic
Christian who quickly acquired a rabid anti catholic attitude from
propaganda, but a lot of Bible reading showed me things didn't fit
and anyway Holy Water has a reputation for working. I decided after a
while that it was time to join one of the liturgical churches as I
called them, and after some research chose Orthodoxy. Papal aupremacy
was a nonstarter in itself, aside from anything else BUT BEFORE THEN
I NEVER JOINED A PROTESTANT CHURCH BECAUSE ALL HAVE EITHER DOCTRINAL
OR PROCEDURAL/ORGANIZATIONAL DIFFICULTIES BIBLICALY. I was a
perfectionist, I guess.

I am glad you don't need Calvin or Luther or Creflo Dollar. however,
given the way Calvin ran Geneva, why not execute him if it had been
possible and done?

the Ustashe yes, I know about that. I also know that Serbians are rarely
really Orthodox in spirit and truth, and given that Croatians at one
point were rallies with the promise they not suffer banditry tells me
something.

the Ustashe of course were racist Nazis, an example of the "top race"
engaging members of "lesser races" to do things for them. and Ustashe
and technically Orthodox Romanian Iron Cross were into such extreme
behavior as were the Lithuanians and Ukrainians that some Nazis
thought it gross. Clearly these people have some serioius non Christian
undercurrents in their culture that make for this. Ever hear of the
horrors that ethnic serbs and those who came from Serbia proper to
support them in the Bosnian war in the 1990s did?

If Serbia hadn't conned Russia into backing them when they wouldn't
surrender conspiractors and maybe one assassin regarding the Archduke
Ferdinand Assassination we wouldn't have had WW I. A Serbian folk
hero is glorified in a poem that has him among other things
disemboweling a woman over a disagreement.
 
Christine says:

"Biblical silence on this is therefore not proof against it. Neither is a local
tradition proof for it."

You have a rather interesting way of "interpreting" scripture. Being that the Bible is "silent" about a lot of things, does that give us the liberty to make things up as we go along?
 
by the way, are you acquainted with the arguments for the USA being
last days Babylon? maybe it is a moving stronghold and currently in
USA and eventually will be elsewhere at the last.
 
Ray B

If the bible is silent on a matter, then it is open to personal
decision, unless it isn't as silent as made out to be. ALL the
Scripture needs to be checked not just some proof texts.

We don't doubt the story that Paul was beheaded by Nero in Rome
do we? BUT IT ISN'T IN THE BIBLE, nowhere mentioned, not once.
However Acts ends with Paul in Rome, so the tradition has no
Biblical basis to oppose it. such traditions have their origin
in the personal knowledge of people who passed it on to others
who wrote it down.

Likely Mary was dead after all the Gospels were written except
John's and there was no reason to mention her death because it
is not salvificaly relevant, and if all the Apostles were there
for it, some brought miraculously to her death bed, then John
would have been one of those she told , when she was brought
back to life, to TELL NO ONE.

This is not a story, belief in which or denial of which has any
bearing on our relationship with Jesus Christ. The timing is
such that you could not expect it to be in Scritpure, especially
since the story incl. that she said to not tell about it lest it
distract attention from Jesus Christ (which it has).
 
Yes 8:11 PM. Come out from among them...we are to stay your hearts and minds on Jesus and simply claim by faith what He has done to atone. He is the only One with the scars to prove He is God's Only Begotten Son and our Sinless Sacrifice as Lamb of God and Son of Man born of a woman. Jesus paid it all, and needed no intervention being our Savior, from another soul.



"however, I came to give it credence, because the story was that when Jesus came and
resurrected her, she TOLD EVERYONE TO KEEP IT QUIET SO AS NOT TO DISTRACT ATTENTION
FROM JESUS. This indeed sounds like the Mary of the bible. it became public only
because when a church was being built elsewhere and they wanted some relic"

Why are you even going there?
Mary was alive when the Book of Acts was being written because John took her home with him as Jesus said to him when on the cross (and was with John and all those in the upper room when the Holy Spirit came at Pentecost only days later in Acts 1:12-14). We do not know when she died - the Bible gives us no clue whatsoever about this and how is that even relevant anyway?

Are you making this stuff up as you go?





 
You must be reading my mind 8:42 PM.
 
anon 8:54

Mary was indeed probably still alive when Acts was written. I don't
recall one mention of her.

Where am I going? CAN'T YOU READ ENGLISH?

Making things up? WHAT DID I SAY? the people who were there when
she died told other people, who kept it semi secret until an incident
brought it to public attention a few centuries later.

She would have died AFTER acts and most of the rest of the NT was
written. Those who were there when she died told others who told
others who wrote it down, and later church historians drew on that
information. THE BIBLE IS SILENT ON HER DEATH BECAUSE SHE WAS
STILL ALIVE DURING MOST OF NT WRITING, AND SUCH AS WRITTEN AFTER THAT
HAD NO REASON TO MENTION HER.

but she died, and the details come from people who were there.

The Bible doesn't say anything about what happened to the 72 Jesus
first sent out, does it? maybe mentions one or two in connection
with Paul or someone. But from such church history and old records
now lost but preserved in scraps in Eusebius and Sozomen and other
writers, we know that some of them died as martyrs, when where
and how, and some were bishops of some churches also many of them
martyred.

Clement who wrote I Clement a letter to the Corinthians who were
in the midst of some chaos they started, and maybe wrote 2 Clement,
is one of those mentioned in the Bible as a pupil of Paul I think,
and Barnabas mentioned in Acts also wrote an epistle. These are not
in the bible because they were not written by Apostles.

Irenaeus was the student of Polycarp the student of the Apostle
John and tells us a few things while describing and denouncing
heresies in Against Heresies you can read online.
 
Ray B,

Re: The fact of the matter is that the "Mary" that Roman Catholicism proclaims is NOT the Mary of the Bible. Here is why:....etc.

Your claims are not only false, but also unbiblical.

RE:RC proclaims that Mary was "immaculately conceived" (i.e. the Immaculate Conception ... often mistakenly believed to be referring to Christ's birth, it is not. The Immaculate Conception refers specifically to the false RC dogma that MARY was conceived without sin). As a fallen human being, Mary inherited the sin nature due to original sin in the garden. The purpose of the Virgin Birth was to break the process of the seed of sinful man being used in the birth of Christ.


First, the Mary that Roman Catholics ( also Orthodox and some in the Anglican communion ) proclaim IS the Mary of the Bible and the Immaculate Conception is based on the Archangel Gabriel addressing Mary as "FULL OF GRACE." Nowhere in the Bible is any other human being addressed as "full of grace." This is because as a consequence of Original Sin lost the Sanctifying Grace with which they had originally been endowed along with the preternatural gifts which included their not having to experience death.

Just because YOUR interpretation of the Bible is different from the Catholic interpretation, that doesn't mean that the Catholic and the other aforementioned non-Catholic Christian communions' beliefs about Mary are "unbiblical." They are....and they are backed up by the writings of the Apostolic Fathers.

The Fathers of the Church taught that Mary received a number of distinctive blessings in order to make her a more fitting mother for Christ and the prototypical Christian (follower of Christ). These blessings included her role as the New Eve (corresponding to Christ’s role as the New Adam), her Immaculate Conception, her spiritual motherhood of all Christians, and her Assumption into heaven. These gifts were given to her by God’s grace. She did not earn them, but she possessed them nonetheless.

The key to understanding all these graces is Mary’s role as the New Eve, which the Fathers proclaimed so forcefully. Because she is the New Eve, she, like the New Adam, was born immaculate, just as the First Adam and Eve were created immaculate. Because she is the New Eve, she is mother of the New Humanity (Christians), just as the first Eve was the mother of humanity. And, because she is the New Eve, she shares the fate of the New Adam. Whereas the First Adam and Eve died and went to dust, the New Adam and Eve were lifted up physically into heaven.

Of particular interest in the following quotations from the Fathers are those that speak of Mary’s immaculate nature. We will all one day be rendered immaculate (sinless), but Mary, as the prototypical Christian, received this grace early. God granted her freedom from sin to make her a fitting mother for his Son.

Even before the terms "original sin" and "immaculate conception" had been defined, early passages imply the doctrines. Many works mention that Mary gave birth to Jesus without pain. But pain in childbearing is part of the penalty of original sin (Gen. 3:16). Thus, Mary could not have been under that penalty. By God’s grace, she was immaculate in anticipation of her Son’s redemptive death on the cross. The Church therefore describes Mary as "the most excellent fruit of redemption" (CCC 508).


http://www.catholic.com/tracts/mary-full-of-grace

cont.
 
cont.


Re:Revelation 17 proclaims that the Great Whore is "drunk with the blood of the saints." Roman Catholicism committed horrible crimes and murder against literally MILLIONS of Bible believing people for over 620 years via the Inquistion. No institution (not even the Roman Empire) committed more crimes against REAL Christians than has the Catholic Church.

Read Charles Chiniquay's "50 Years in the Church of Rome" ... former priest and personal friend of Abraham Lincoln).


Are you kidding me?????

But if we MUST compare atrocity statistics I am sure you will find that just as many atrocities were committed in the name of Protestantism as were committed in the name of the Roman Catholic Church. So if we are going to talk about ecclesiastical "whores"......

Let's begin by taking a little look at our man Chuck Chiniquay, the disgruntled, excommunicated priest and apostate to whom you referred as an authority on all things Catholic.


Chiniquy was born in 1809 in the village of Kamouraska, Quebec. He lost his father at an early age and was adopted by his uncle. As a young man, Chiniquy studied to become a Catholic priest at the Petit Seminaire (Little Seminary) in Nicolet, Quebec. He was ordained a Catholic priest in 1833. After his ordination, he served his church in Quebec and later emigrated to Illinois. During the 1840s, he led a very successful[citation needed] campaign throughout Quebec against alcohol and drunkenness.

cont.
 
cont.

In 1855, he was sued (for libel) by a prominent Catholic layman named Peter Spink in Kankakee, Illinois. After the fall court term, Spink applied for a change of venue to the court in Urbana. Abraham Lincoln was then hired by Chiniquy to defend him. The spring court action in Urbana was the highest profile libel suit in Lincoln’s career. The case was ended in the fall court session by agreement.

Chiniquy clashed with the Bishop of Chicago, Anthony O'Regan, over the bishop’s treatment of Catholics in Chicago, particularly French Canadians. He declared that O’Regan was secretly backing Spink's suit against him. Chiniquy stated that in 1856 O’Regan threatened him with excommunication if he did not go to a new location where the bishop wanted him. Several months later the New York Times published a pastoral letter from Bishop O’Regan in which O’Regan stated that he had suspended Chiniquy and, since the priest had continued in his normal duties as a priest, the bishop excommunicated him by his letter. Chiniquy vigorously disputed that he had been excommunicated, saying publicly that the bishop was mistaken. Chiniquy left the Roman Catholic Church in 1858. He claimed that the church was pagan, that Roman Catholics worship the Virgin Mary, that its theology spoils the Gospel and that its theology is anti-Christian. He also claimed that the Vatican had planned to take over the United States by importing Catholic immigrants from Ireland, Germany and France.

Chiniquy claimed that he was falsely accused by his superiors (and that Abraham Lincoln had come to his rescue), that the American Civil War was a plot against the United States of America by the Vatican, and that the Vatican was behind the Confederate cause, the death of President Lincoln and that Lincoln's assassins were faithful Roman Catholics ultimately serving Pope Pius IX.

After leaving the Catholic Church, Chiniquy dedicated his life to trying to win his fellow French Canadians, as well as others, from Catholicism to the Protestant faith. He wrote a number of books and tracts pointing out his views on the alleged errors in the faith and practises of the Roman Catholic Church. His two most influential works are Fifty Years in The Church of Rome and The Priest, The Woman and The Confessional. These books raised concerns in the United States about the Catholic Church. According to one Canadian biographer, Chiniquy is Canada’s best-selling author of all time. These books were written at a time when Americans were suspicious of foreign influence, as typified by the Know-Nothing movement.

He died in Montreal, Canada on January 16, 1899.

To this day, some of Chiniquy's works are still promoted among Protestants and "Bible-Only" believers. One of his most best known modern day followers is Jack Chick, who created a comic-form adaptation of 50 Years In The Church of Rome called "The Big Betrayal" and who draws heavily on Chiniquy's claims in his own anti-Catholic tracts.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Chiniquy

*********************************************

cont.


 
cont.

It didn't take Chiniquay very long to get into trouble after becoming a Protestant.

Chiniquy, then a Roman Catholic priest, left Canada in the wake of a series of scandals. He was offered a fresh start by James Oliver Van de Velde, Bishop of Chicago, after Ignace Bourget, Bishop of Montreal, asked him to leave in 1851. Chiniquy settled in St. Anne in Kankakee County, Illinois.

Chiniquy was suspended, on August 19, 1856, for public insubordination by Van de Velde's successor, Bishop Anthony O'Regan. He continued to celebrate Mass and administer the other sacraments and was excommunicated on September 3, 1856. About two years later, on August 3, 1858, O'Regan's successor, Bishop James Duggan, formally reconfirmed his excommunication in St. Anne. Chiniquy then left the RCC and, with many followers, joined the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America (PCUSA). He was admitted as a Presbyterian minister on February 1, 1860. Within two years, Chiniquy, in trouble with the Presbytery of Chicago over his administration of charity funds and a college, according to Elizabeth Ann Kerr McDougall in the Dictionary of Canadian Biography, sought a new connection in order to avoid an expensive presbytery trial. The college is identified in the Seventh Biennial Report of the Superintendent of Public Instruction of the State of Illinois as Saviour's College, founded in 1860; it is listed neither in Universities and Colleges nor Academies and Seminaries of various grades and courses but in the Theological Seminaries and Church Schools class of institutions. The report states it "is designed to supply the educational wants of the colony brought by Father Chiniquy from Canada to this State, and to prepare men who will be fitted to preach the gospel in the regions whence he came." The report also quotes a description of the school, attributed to correspondence from a Montreal newspaper, unnamed in the report, that people, also unnamed in the report, "examined the day school or college, as the people there delight to call it" and wrote it had five classes ranging from students learning the alphabet to students learning the "intricacies of French and English grammar, composition, and the other studies of the school, besides the elements of Algebra, Latin and Greek." Alexander F. Kemp was chairman of the Synod of the Canada Presbyterian Church committee which examined Chiniquy's admission application. According to Kemp, Chiniquy was involved in both presbytery and civil court proceedings connected with the administration of charitable funds and with what Kemp described as an educational institute. This led to the Presbytery of Chicago charging him with unministerial and unchristian conduct. Chiniquy was to answer these charges before the presbytery; at that stage of the proceedings he and his congregation resolved to separate from the Presbytery of Chicago, and the Old School PCUSA, and to request recognition from the Canada Presbyterian Church. The Presbytery of Chicago charged Chiniquy with misrepresenting that a real college was in operation in St. Anne.(pp8–9)........


cont.

 
Thank you RayB for telling it like it is!

May the ONE True Holy Father richly bless you.
 
cont.


The French Canadians founded the first of what was to be called the "Christian Catholic Church". There was in St. Anne, an incorporation of a religious society, by the name of the "Christian Catholic Church at St. Anne", incorporated in the State of Illinois; that society was a Protestant religious association. Two years later, when it joined the PCUSA in 1860, it assumed the name "First Presbyterian church of St. Anne". "You can exclude us from the Catholic Church of Rome", they said to the Bishop of Chicago, "but not from the Catholic Church of Christ", hence the name Christian Catholic Church.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Chiniquy


Maybe you should go check out the writings of the Apostolic Fathers who were taught by the Apostles how the Bible should be interpreted instead of parroting the unbiblical twaddle of "Pope Chiniquay" and his disciple Jack Chick.
 
Christine you have absolutely no solid point to make with your Mary theory.

I made a simple statement reiterating that no one knows when she died but you have some bogus point you want to make because you step away from Scripture continually to go off on tangents. A Bible scholar you are not. Just a serial googler.

Get off this blogs back (and stop being a heavy weight on Constance shoulders).

 
When a matter happened after the bible was written we have to
go to post bible sources for the history.

DO YOU DOUBT THAT PAUL WAS BEHEADED BY NERO?

guess what, it isn't in the bible. It is credible because the Bible
places him in Rome, then stops. (Acts.) for what happened after that,
we only have the church histories.
 
the things I find by search engines include things available
as books and articles in magazines. also online articles who
cite such sources.

would they be more credible if I limited myself to what I could
find in a library?
 
"Clement who wrote I Clement a letter to the Corinthians who were
in the midst of some chaos they started, and maybe wrote 2 Clement,
is one of those mentioned in the Bible as a pupil of Paul I think,
and Barnabas mentioned in Acts also wrote an epistle. These are not
in the bible because they were not written by Apostles"

Not included in the canon of Scripture because not written exclusively by the Holy Spirit.

You put too much credence in the words of men (especially your own).
Just stick with the Bible. When it is silent then you should be too. You might even be thought wise if you kept that rule of thumb.
 
Would be much more credible if you left out your own interpretations of history and stop declaring speculations to be taken as fact, because you use force with it and not reasonably thought out persuasions. You put yourself in this corner all the time and left holding the bag because you cannot reasonably and satisfactorily prove your points.

This is why you must resort to argument.
And make yourself a heavy weight on Constance's shoulders.

 
I said Clement is not included in the bible, because Clement was not
an apostle. Does that mean that his word is any less good about
conditions in Corinth than Josephus or Tacitus or Philo about events
of their times? that is the issue.

The Assumption of Mary was only made essential to believe by the Roman
church in the 1800s. it is optional (but taken for granted) by Orthodox
just like we take it for granted that Constantine gave the edict of
Milan in AD 315. that's not in the Bible either.

you didn't answer my question.

DO YOU DOUBT THAT PAUL WAS BEHEADED BY NERO?
 
I am not even interested or concerned with answering your question, and there certainly is no a doctrinal point at stake. Sorry, but I don't need to bite the "bait" just so you can occupy your extremely bored self.
However.......
Do you see how you sidestepped the Holy Spirit's authority when I said what the Bible says about Scripture itself (2 Peter 1:21) that what is in the canon had to be exclusively written by the Spirit?

Do you do that because you downplay His authority then?

Just so ya know......you don't have to answer my question either. Your answer can just hang in the balance. I really don't care how you respond.
 
If anyone knows of a site where the cultural and political parts of the New Age movement are discussed, please post it here. No one here is learning about the entire New Age movement which is turning the country into a socialist paradise New Age affects everyone who lives in the US or who lives in the world, yet posters her can find no way in common to help themselves and others. How much more selfish can it get? Are you playing a game called Can You Top This for your own entertainment? Is it a matter of how Jesus is to be addressed which will save lives? It appears this site has been hijacked with the agreement of the moderator by individuals who believe that identification with Jesus solves all problems, if not just for the individual, given time for everyone. They are betting on that. Vanity in the belief they can never be partially or completely wrong. Folks, you are human and can be wrong about what is necessary to save lives. Then again I understand you don't much care about lives before death. Some of us do however.
 
there is no doctrinal point at stake with the Assumption because it does
not in itself make her divine. it does, if true, put her in the category
of still alive in terms of issues of talking to the dead.

but this is not a doctrine relevant to our relationship to God through
Jesus Christ.

the issue in my question is, can you accept ANY writing other than the
bible as having any degree of fact? if not, throw out Foxe's Book of
Martyrs to start with, whatever its merits or demerits, throw out whatever
history of the American Revolution you got, and figure that if it isn't
in the Bible it didn't happen.

Assumption is something you can do without nicely. it need never have
happened and we are still on track with God through Jesus Christ. It can
have happened and we not believe it, not on the basis of course of Jesus'
supposed inability to resurrect her, but on the basis that you trust no
legends about people in the bible because there is too much emotional
reason to fabricate. and you will still be on track with God through JEsus
Christ.

RC pleases to make it dogma and anathematize any who disbelieve it. We
Orthodox do not have any anathemas or canons relevant to it that I recall.
It is taken for granted as historic fact, but it wouldn't get you
excommunicated to doubt it. IT is not important it is not a doctrinal
point like the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ. (most Orthodox in
practice would probably be appalled at anyone who rejected the assumption,
but this is not like RC position. and RC can't make up its mind if she
ever died or didn't die tends towards the latter. we consider she died.
 
Christine says:

"DO YOU DOUBT THAT PAUL WAS BEHEADED BY NERO?"

The Bible is actually silent as to how the Apostle Paul's life on earth ended. Being that the Bible is not only sufficient, but is more importantly, the believer's sole and final authority for all matters of faith and practice, I would have to conclude that if one doubted that Paul was beheaded by Nero, it wouldn't really matter, now would it? So what exactly is the point that you are attempting to make?
 
"Do you see how you sidestepped the Holy Spirit's authority when I said what the Bible says about Scripture itself (2 Peter 1:21) that what is in the canon had to be exclusively written by the Spirit?

Do you do that because you downplay His authority then?"

I didn't read that far. But I do not downplay or sidestep.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT CANON OR AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE. this is about history.

now, IF YOU THINK PAUL WAS BEHEADED BY NERO, YOU THINK SO BECAUSE IT IS
PART OF CHURCH TRADITIONS FROM EARLY CHURCH WRITERS, IT IS NOT IN THE
BIBLE.

Acts places him there waiting trial, so the report is credible because
the Bible which is the authority, though it doesn't tell of his death,
places him where the tradition does detail his death as being and
adds beheaded at Nero's order.

Why do you keep harping on Scripture when this is not about Scripture
or about Scritpural authority? If Scripture says A you cannot accept
B but if it says A you can accept Aplus as long as plus doesn't
contradict something else Scripture says.

In doctrine and practice, Scritpure is be all and end all. In history
it is the beginning and guideline to sorting out differing stories.

If someone says Paul was preaching Christ in Russia in AD 25, we know
that is a lie. Because the Scripture outranks any other writing, incl.
some clever forgery that would put him where he wasn't before he could
be anywhere for Christ. even a C14 test would have to be thrown out
(and sooner or later would be found to be flawed somehow).



 
Melito of sardis who died Ad 180, says he was told about her
death, resurrection by Jesus and Assumption by Jesus into heaven,
by the Apostle John, who lived past AD 100.

This does n ot mention her telling people to not talk about this,
whichis from another account.

http://www.rosarychurch.net/answers/ap082000.html
 
To Anonymous @ 9:19 PM ....

Thank you very much. May the true Holy Father bless you as well !
 
regarding ever virginity, this too is irrelevant to our salvation.
but the NT makes no mention of Joseph after Jesus was about 12
years old, which is consistent with the legend that he was a very
old man. "brothers" is a term that can and is applied by some cultures
now to refer to half brothers and first cousins. not to mention
adoptive such.

Apparently the idea was current in the early third century, which
means Hippolytus quoted below grew up with people from the second
century who believed this.

"Hippolytus was a scholar, bishop, and martyr, who lived in or near Rome and wrote in Greek; he was martyred in A.D. 235. He is considered to be one of the most important witnesses as to how the early church worshipped.

This is a brief excerpt (ca. A.D. 210) regarding the Blessed Theotokos:
But the pious confession of the believer is that, with a view to our salvation, . . . the Creator of all things incorporated with Himself a rational soul and a sensible body from the all-holy Mary, ever-virgin, by an undefiled conception, without conversion, and was made man in nature, but separate from wickedness: the same was perfect God, and the same was perfect man; the same was in nature at once perfect God and man (Against Beron and Helix, Frag VIII)."

the scriptural evidence on her ever virginity is ambiguous at best. Myself I
had some trouble accepting this, but I pointed out this ambiguity making it
possible, and agreed to not argue against it when I joined the Eastern Orthodox
Church. Before I had done so on a dogmatic protestant attitude, which was itself
as scripturally groundless as the ever virginity idea is. There is nothing explicitly
stated one way or another, and so, for this doctrine which your salvation does
not depend on, you have to fall back on what would have been believed by people
who were taught by people taught by people taught by Apostles?

Knew not until doesn't guarantee anything happened after that. didn't drink or
smoke until he died doesn't guarantee the person drank and/or smoked afterwards.

Sexual intercourse would normally happen during the marriage feast itself and
the sheets displayed showing the hymeneal blood. reference to this is in Deuteronomy
and it is still typical of many Asiatic people.
 
Why do you take up all this space Christine, to ask questions and give explanations we don't want or need answered or expounded? You want to play tag you're it as if this is a game here for your amusement.
Seems to take a lot of space to house your massive ego and your extremely bored existence and you think this place yours to accomodate all that.
Get over yourself and just stick to the topic at hand (what Constance posted about at the top of this thread) and especially to the facts. (K-i-s-s remember?)

That should greatly limit your postings since you have so few facts to actually report.

Why not start your very own version of history blog and stop being a heavy weight on Constance Cumbey's shoulders.






 
"Do you do that because you downplay His authority then?"

I didn't read that far. But I do not downplay or sidestep."

Then why not simply agree?
Is it because you want to keep it open-ended for more of your unnecessary replies & batteries of pelting and nagging questions and have the last word instead of God??

 
stop accusing me of trying to keep a fight going and having the last word
instead of God. you started all this, and expect everyone to accept as
Gospel your take on everything.

God's word on these subject is either ambiguous or non existent. They
are therefore NOT IMPORTANT issues. if someone believes the Theotokos'
ever virginity and/or assumption that does not alienate them from the
life in Christ. If they don't believe these things, that does not
alienate them from the life in Christ.

one CAN believe these things and become so Mary focused in an easily
deceived dreamy sort of way that one MIGHT be in some spiritual danger.

If you are going to complain the RC believes them (and so does EO)
then establish from the word of God why these are wrong beliefs (as
distinct from possibly true but open to question but merely historical
facts and not tings of the importance as for instance the physical and
permanent Resurrection is.

Mary is not a mediator to the Father, neither is the pope. no one in RC
says you can't pray directly to Jesus Christ. But if you know of someone
who is a lot more holy than you and in better standing with God than you,
you might want them to pray for you. it certainly works against pride.

I already agreed that Scripture is the final authority.

I also say that you can't dismiss as false everything written since which
does not claim to be Scripture, but which is a perfectly valid historical
witness of something. In fact you can throw out any protestant great man
biography on that basis, because the book isn't Scripture!

now the immaculate conception heresy is a whole other ball of wax. It may
not be as serious as a Christological heresy, but it has problems. The
one thing in Scripture used to support it doesn't really. The rest is the
sensual dreaming of obsessed writers who try to find validation for it
in all kinds of things that have no bearing. IC was fought by many western
Church fathers. Frankly it presupposes God is UNABLE to accomplish the
Incarnation of Christ and block transmission of original sin if any of it
is present in the womb environment. which is slightly blasphemous though
of course not meant to be but it has this implication.

Show me a CLEAR DENIAL IN SCRIPTURE of these first two marian doctrines,
and I will reject them. Personally I never found any. Assumption isn't even
discussed one way or another. ever virginity is at best ambiguous. you
can deduce it from some things and deduce the opposite from others, so it
is not something Scripture really speaks to.

Is it important? probably not. but if you want to establish it being at least
possible, you have to look to what Christians believed (before Constantine
in case you think he paganized the church).
 
by the way, Scripture does not mention YOUR birth and existence,
therefore you don't exist.
 
Christine, Ray didn't mention Wycliffe; you did. But he was not martyred. Rather, a generation after his death the Catholic church dug up and burnt his bones and put his ashes in the nearest stream - where, like his message, they flowed out into the world. They couldn't get him once he was in heaven.

 
"Melito of sardis who died Ad 180, says he was told about her death, resurrection by Jesus and Assumption by Jesus into heaven, by the Apostle John, who lived past AD 100."

Whoever wrote the website article you quote didn't do their homework. All serious scholars accept that this document is a pious forgery from centuries after Melito. Its first appearance is centuries later and internal evidence suggests the same, which is why its author is now referred to as pseudo-Melito.

The definitive scholarly analysis of the earliest known sources for the Assumption of Mary is the book "Ancient traditions of the Virgin Mary's dormition and assumption" by Stephen J Shoemaker. His chart on p.33 puts the pseudo-Melito document in its proper context of other documents on the subject from several centuries after the real Melito, and his analysis makes clear why.

 
Constance

53 of 164 post are Christine's.

People have asked you many times why you allow this. I can understand why you ignore those who would appear to be baiting you.

Why would you ignore this so many times? It has made this blog a joke.

This might sound harsh but there is absolutely NO ONE HERE WHO RESPECTS HER OR ANYTHING SHE POSTS.
 
anon 5:28

even if the melito of sardis thing is fake, there is one big thing supporting this
whole story.

LACK OF RELICS.

By relics I mean body parts. you got skulls, finger bones, other fragments of
Apostles and early martyrs. Perhaps not all the Apostles left relics given the
circumstances of the deaths of some of them. But the Theotokos' death was under
conditions that she even had an undisturbed tomb (more like two, a wrong location
in Ephesus and a much more likely one in Jerusalem). Yet despite the conditions
of her death, such that only minimal attacks happened and even if the story of
the Jew whose hand was withered at the attempt to overturn her bier intending
to burn her body is false, even if her body had indeed been taken and burned, this
would not have kept relics from being available like with martyrs who had been
burned.

so where are the body bits you could expect? no one claims to have any but some bits
of clothing. This in itself lends credence to the story, whatever version you want.

but again, this is not a doctrine, any more than that of the details of some
Apostles' martyrdom somewhere, or whether a specific miracle ascribed by legend
outside the Bible happened, that really matters. Without the Crucifixion and
Resurrection of Christ, no one would be interested in the Theotokos' relics or lack
of same.


 
http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/assumption.html

casts the whole matter in a very dim light, the focus on Mary
as I already knew from a BOOK IN A LIBRARY years ago, having
gotten going because of the fight against Nestorius.

However the problem of lack of relics is not answered, and
the story I read and can't find now, that she said she didn't
want anyone hearing of this lest it distract from Jesus Christ,
would explain the lack of a local tradition (by the people
in general) the secret being kept in the clergy alone.

The conflicting dormition accounts would then be because of
the information being kept oral (which guarantees warping)
for hundreds of years before it went public.

again, where are her relics?
 
Christine, you post therefore, you are?

Why is your own personal insanity taking up space here?
 
You might expect body parts of Mary the mother of Jesus, Christine, but that might reflect more on your scholarship. If you believe those relics of the other apostles, check the dates at which they first surfaced, and consider (for instance) how many foreskins of Jesus were supposed to be circulating round Europe simultaneously.
 
I don't interest myself in relics in the west without good provenance
because of the superstitious hysteria that typified Roman Catholicism
at various times.

not one of the foreskins of Jesus can be legitimate, not one of them,
because at His circumcision no one knew what they were dealing with,
the Theotokos and Joseph knew He was something specially Holy but not
God Incarnate even the Apostles didn't fully understand for a while
and none expected His Resurrection.

there was therefore no motive to save it, the normal procedure would
have been to throw it out.
 
Slicing and dicing Jesus in this topic, Christine, figuratively and supposedly literally, is sport for you isn't it?
I am sure Jesus does not want us taken up with thinking (and your exploration/arguing) about His foreskin. But you are looking for more mind candy.

Your eyes are once again in the wrong place regarding the Lord. (do you even know Him?)

He is high and lifted up in my eyes because He is reigning high in the heavens above all things of the earth.


You should instead ponder Colossians 3:1-13. Please Jesus instead of the flesh of your mind.
 
anon 11:37

when you think of Him as high in the heavens above all things of the
earth,

do you think of Him as having the physical body He lived in (though
now more supernatural but still PHYSICAL)?
 
You ignore the point Christine, if the foreskins are unreliable (as they are if there are more than one) then so are the relics of the apostles, in which case nothing can be inferred from the absence of relics of Mary.

 
I believe the Bible, Christine. All 66 books of it. And I know some history too.
By the way, Jesus is Lord.
Act like you really believe that instead of just say it.

And that is all I'll tell you.
You will still try to pick me apart by your endless questions (like it is your business) and judge me (thinking you are my superior) by thinking you can read my mind and know where I am in belief.
Knock yourself out.
I could not care less what you think, or think about what I know or don't, believe or don't. Comprender?

Why not see to the things Constance told you to be doing (and not doing) and follow her advice?

 
anon 12:06

you are m aking the assumption that if the foreskins are not legitimate
then no relic is legitimate. your point is fallaciouis and absurd.
comparable to someone saying that if some place said to be the birthplace
of George Washington is a fraud, that means no place was his birthplace.
I am surprised you are STUPID enough to think such a thing. not being
that stupid myself it didn't occur to me that you were getting at that,
so I didn't address it.

the presence of some frauds does not render all of them frauds.

and you are missing something else.

given the cult of relics, assuming that most are fraudulent, given the
habit of looking for and claiming to have relics,

WHY ARE THERE NO RELICS FRAUDULENT OR OTHERWISE OF THE THEOTOKOS?

something had to be in play that inhibited the presentqation of such,
from an age when martyr's relics were collected and distributed
among churches. that something would logically be a belief no such
relics existed so no one would look for or dare present such. Jerome
didn't find any such tradition in his day so if it existed it did
in secret among the priests and the bishop and precisely such
authority figures could shut down any attempt to present fake relics.
 
"I believe the Bible, Christine. All 66 books of it. And I know some history too.
By the way, Jesus is Lord.
Act like you really believe that instead of just say it."

I am acting like it. we are love Him with our minds as well as our hearts
(which term in Greek means the deep level of the mind) and I have been
using my mind to serve Him.

you did not answer my question, and yes it is my business and everyone's
business here, because you present yourself as one who unlike everyone
else knows Jesus and knows Him as high in heaven above all things of
earth.

so answer me, and show me whether you are a Christ denying heretic or not.

DO YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THE PERMANENT PHYSICALITY OF JESUS CHRIST'S BODY
IN HEAVEN NOW?

 
Why are you focused on relics instead of Christ 12:15 PM?

This is not the topic of the thread either.
 
you or some anon brought them up as proof, since there were many
foreskins, that NO relic is real.

and the thread has turned into a discussion of the Virgin Mary
whether she was assumed into heaven or not, thanks to an anon
going off on RC. relics in general is part of it.
 
I knew you would come at me with your ruler and your hatchet like I am supposed to satisfy you. Whatever EO church lady.
Keep barking up all the wrong trees and fill your empty life with harassing others who have said or done nothing to you.
You argue, accuse, coerce, and harrass.
Your mind is the devil's turf.
Have a nice day.

 
Christine says:

"again, where are her relics?" ... referring to Mary. As if somehow a "Mary relic" (I guess) substantiates the RC false, and unscriptural claim that Mary was "assumed into heaven." That is, if there WAS a Mary relic (i.e. body part, etc.) that would mean (I assume) that Mary was NOT assumed bodily into heaven. Being that there are no Mary relics, I assume Christine is arguing that she could have been assumed? Somewhere along the line Scriptural authority is lost in all this. By the way, how important is Scripture? VERY IMPORTANT ... Jesus is in fact the Word of God! Reject the Word of God (add, subtract, deny, distort) and you have rejected Jesus Christ. That is precisely what the Roman Catholic church has done.

I find it utterly amazing that anyone with half a brain would fall for the Roman Catholic con game of relics in the first place. It has been said, that if all the pieces of the original cross that Rome claims to have were gathered together, one could build a large house (I'm sure that is a slight exageration, but it drives home a point). Rome has used "relics" to fool simple people into believing they must be the true "church" because it fools people into believing this is a provable link to the true early church Apostolic times. The Shroud of Turin is another, amongst many, that have been used to purpetrate Rome's fraud.

Christine, you claim scriptural authority on the one hand, and then often refer to silly, unsubstantiated sources in order to validate your arguments as in this case with relics. If you stand on scriptural authority, as you have claimed, why is it you continue to go outside the Bible in order to make your arguments? Why is that?
 
you won't confess Christ permanently Incarnate.

does that mean you deny He is still Incarnate?

if so, then you do NOT confess that Christ IS come in the flesh
(the phrasing in I John 4:1-4)

that makes you an antichrist. talk about evasiveness you won't
answer a question that is about a key point of the faith. So
I guess you maybe deny His physical Resurrection? or you think
He shed His Body or absorbed it into His divinity so it effectively
no longer exists and He is back to being pure spirit now? Or
do you have a problem with His ever having been physical as we
are, do you deny the Incarnation itself, making it out to be a
mere illusion of some sort?
 
Christine, I responded to your post about Melito. Don't accuse me of wandering off the subject. So you can tell which relics are real and false and the absence of any of Mary proves her assumption? Even if it did happen this is woeful logic.

 
"Being that there are no Mary relics, I assume Christine is arguing that she could have been assumed?"

yes, could have been.

" Somewhere along the line Scriptural authority is lost in all this."

not one bit, because Scripture says nothing one way or another, which along with
its lack of focus on her shows that excessive focus on her IS unscriptural.

" By the way, how important is Scripture? VERY IMPORTANT ..."

YES.

" Jesus is in fact the Word of God! Reject the Word of God (add, subtract, deny, distort) and you have rejected Jesus Christ. "

and how does anything about Mary as ever virgin (a mere historical issue
of no theological relevance, since once Jesus was Incarnate nothing she did
or didn't do during her pregnancy or after has any bearing on His status
and being God Incarnate) or anything about Mary's Assumption or lack thereof
(ditto) involve rejecting Jesus Christ?
 
"Christine, I responded to your post about Melito. Don't accuse me of wandering off the subject."

I did not accuse you at all of this, you accused me.

now, DO YOU CONFESS THAT JESUS IS STILL INCARNATE AND ALWAYS WILL BE?
 
I didn't, Christine; you are clearly in dialogue with two or more persons. It is my joy to confess that. (Signed, Anon@12.41pm)


 
I didn't accuse you or anyone of wandering off the subject.

 
And now Christine has 11 of 21 posts since this morning.
 
"Christine, you claim scriptural authority on the one hand, and then often refer to silly, unsubstantiated sources in order to validate your arguments as in this case with relics. If you stand on scriptural authority, as you have claimed, why is it you continue to go outside the Bible in order to make your arguments? Why is that?"

Because the Bible says nothing one way or another about the issues discussed.

and you do the exact same thing when you say anything about events in the times
after the last book of the Bible was written.

Marian doctrines are not important to our salvation. they do not support Christ's
claims nor play any part in HIs work except her agreement to bear Him.
 
I repeat

anon 11:37

when you think of Him as high in the heavens above all things of the
earth,

do you think of Him as having the physical body He lived in (though
now more supernatural but still PHYSICAL)?
 
RayB said:

"Being that there are no Mary relics, I assume Christine is arguing that she could have been assumed?"

Christine answers:

"yes, could have been."

Christine, you are committing the very same error that ALL false religions committ by giving credence to a doctrine or belief that is OUTSIDE the bounds of Scriptural teachings and authority. For almost 40 years, I've witnessed at length with Roman Catholics, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, etc., etc. ... they all have one thing in common: they ALL deny the clear teachings of Scripture, because, as Christ Himself stated: "Why do you not understand my speech? even because you cannot hear my word." Jn 8:43 Also, I John 2:5 "But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: HEREBY KNOW WE THAT WE ARE IN HIM." Again, Christ states (to Jews that professed to "believe" in Him): "Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, IF YE CONTINUE IN MY WORD, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free." Jn 8:31,32 Read the rest of this chapter, and you will see Christ condemns these so called "believers" because they rejected His Word !

When it comes to God's Word, "His sheep hear His voice and another voice they will not follow." This is the test for ALL professing believers, and precisely why the Roman Catholic church and the Papacy fails miserably.
 
Ray B.

the "doctrine" is not one relevant to salvation.

Do you have any problem with the "doctrine" that Paul was beheaded by Nero?
 
Christine says:

"Do you have any problem with the "doctrine" that Paul was beheaded by Nero?"

Please cite the chapter and verse that refers to Paul being "beheaded by Nero."
 
There isn't any. That's my point.

I never heard of anyone in any category of Christianity deny
that Paul was beheaded by (i.e., at the orders of) Nero.

do you categoricaly deny this happened because it is not
in the Bible? and on what basis do you say he died another
way where and when?
 
Apparently you enjoy arguing for the sake of ... arguing.

I don't KNOW for CERTAIN how Paul met his end on earth. Being that Paul is obviously a central figure in the NT, the fact that his death and HOW it happened is NOT recorded in scripture, it therefore does not pass the test of doctrine or, for that matter, importance. What is IMPORTANT re: Paul was sovereignly chosen by God to be His Apostle while he (then named Saul) was traveling on the road to further persecute Christians. Paul himself later wrote: "Absent from the body is to be present with the Lord." And: "For me to live is Christ, but to die is gain." WHERE Paul went is important, not HOW he went. Why it is that you are centered on what happened to Paul that is OUTSIDE of recorded Scriptural testimony is beyond me.
My only guess is that, like the RC, you hold your doctrinal beliefs based on your imagination along with the so called evidense of "relics," tradition, and heresay.
That is your choice. By God's grace, I will stand on Scripture alone as my authority.
 
"Ring around the rosie" with Mr Erikson, is a another of the devilish tactics used for wearing down the saints.

Mr Erikson is a real nowhere man
Sitting in his nowhere land
Making all his nowhere plans for nobody.


The google parrot of this blog is going...nowhere....with nothing.





 
Ray B

RE:"Christine, you are committing the very same error that ALL false religions committ by giving credence to a doctrine or belief that is OUTSIDE the bounds of Scriptural teachings and authority."

Then by your own standard, you and "Pope Chiniquy" are commiting the very same error that ALL false religions commit by giving credence to a doctrine or belief that is OUTSIDE the bounds of Scriptural teachings because NOWHERE in the Bible is "Sola Scriptura" ( a.k.a. "Bible only" ) explicitly taught.....which would have to be the case in order for the "Bible only" rule to be valid.

This false doctrine of "Bible only" was invented by Martin Luther who, as a Catholic priest like apostate Charles Chiniquy certainly should have known better.

The Catholic Church, from which the Protestant Church broke away, and against which they direct these "rule of faith" arguments, did not see Scripture and the Sacred Tradition of the faith as different sources of authority, but that Scripture was handed down as part of Sacred Tradition (see 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 2 Timothy 2:2).

So if you want to condemn "ALL false religions" for giving credence to extra-biblical doctrines, make sure you include your own, which, in addition to embracing "Sola Scriptura, which is NOT a "clear teaching of Scripture" denies the clear teachings of 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 2 Timothy 2:2 which ARE in the Scriptures.

 
RayB

I agree with you totally.

Also, RC or EO can never explain that there is no evidence whatsoever that Peter was in Rome to be the "first bishop of Rome."

When Paul wrote his letter to Rome, he greeted several people, but NOT Peter.

Wouldn't this have been very disrespectful of him? Would he not surely have greeted Peter and someone of his supposed importance?

After all, the letter is dated to have been written when Peter, according to RC tradition should have already been in Rome by that time.

You won't get a solid response for that one.
 
1 – 200 of 263 Newer› Newest» Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]



Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

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

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]