HE IS RISEN - HAPPY EASTER TO ALL!
Among all the present chaos, all the sadness, all the violence, all the confusion we now face, we may still with confidence view our future -- the event that will be in all of our futures one day -- our eternal future -- whether with or without God.
This day, Easter Sunday commemorates in the Christian world the resurrection from the dead of Jesus Christ. The scripture, "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved," (Romans 10:9) should give us hope for the long run -- not our transitory lives, but the eternal future promised us. The Resurrection of Jesus Christ was about hope.
Today, let us rest in that promise. Happy Easter to all!
CONSTANCE
534 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 534 Newer› Newest»6:54 PM Naw, it's always been controlled opposition, that was the career of mama Angelica as well. It is excellent for understanding their tactics as they can NOT help but brag and put it in your face. The devil's weakness is always overplaying his hand and arrogance.
Constance
at
12:23 AM
The pope of Rome is the spiritual head of the UN and all of it's applications but thanks for getting us into the weeds again, yet again, look over here....no pay attention to this...no watch my hand...
"UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on Tuesday hailed Pope Francis as "a spiritual leader of the world" and emphasised goals of social justice shared between the Vatican and the United Nations."
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/afp/130409/un-chief-hails-pope-global-spiritual-leader
Social Justice is communism, Marx was a Lucifarian, social justice was invented in a papal encyclical ...bangs on computer screen....hello Constance...read any encyclicals for your research, I notice you didn't.
Spot on, Paul, you've summed her up for the jesuitically deceived and deceptive she-viper she clearly is!
No , Jesuitina (you who knows everything about nothing and not to much about that, despite you're blind gnostism no doubt encouraged by your co-fornicator blind resident seer " ex" Satanist with whom you are shacked up): you're as occult and NAM as the RC cult and EO cult to which you belong!
Anonymous said @ 4:15 AM to RayB ...
“Do you think God is being inconsistent in commanding ancient Israel to make statues of cherubim (Ex 25:18), having earlier given the 2nd Commandment? Please include a clear Yes or No in any answer you give. If not, why not?”
Anonymous,
God is not being “inconsistent” in the slightest. With Him, there is NEVER any “variableness, neither shadow of turning” and He is never the “author of confusion.”
The 2nd. Commandment deals specifically what MAN cannot do ON HIS OWN volition; the “making of images.” What you are citing for comparison to the two (Exodus 25:18) is part of GOD’s SOVEREIGN INSTRUCTIONS regarding the making of the tabernacle, the mercy seat, the candlestick, the two cherubims, etc. Again, in the 2nd. Commandment, the strict LIMITATIONS are put upon MAN. In Exodus 25, God is giving INSTRUCTIONS for the making of the tabernacle in accordance to HIS will (not man’s). God is God, and He is Lord over even the Sabbath, as illustrated by Jesus Christ while on earth, where he (according to the legalistic Pharisee’s understanding, Jesus violated their man-made teachings of Sabbath laws).
Regarding Catholic statues and images; they are made in violation of the 2nd. Commandment because for centuries, the Roman Catholic hierarchy has chosen to make these statues and images based upon their willful defiance and in clear opposition of God’s expressed will as stated in the 2nd. Commandment.
"anon. 5:53, Scripture NEVER says original sin passes only on the male side, "adam""
Adam was answerable in a way that Eve was not because he is head over Eve and ate willingly.
You wouldn't get this, of course, because you have no idea or understanding of submission to have a man over you in marriage, which God's order of things. Go reread Genesis for goodness sake. Because you are bankrupt in spiritual counsel, and rogue in the matters of faith and practice according the Bible, it is no wonder why you would not be able to grasp what God teaches about the roles of man and woman on the earth.
Your she/he amazon mess of a mind gets nearly everything wrong from a Bible standpoint.
By the way...Jesus doesn't "need" you to interpret His word for the rest of us. Oh but, you need Him.
Desperately and you don't have clue why.
To Mary Christine Erikson:
I'd rather attend church with messed up people seeking after God, than religious people who think they're His enforcers.
You are fueled by bitterness. No wonder your conduct does not honor God.
For those that want to "ban" certain topics, specifically, the exposure of the falseness of the Roman Catholic Church, I hope you would consider the fact that the Vatican is very much part of the New Age Movement. Its leaders, most recently, JP II, Benedict, Francis have all called for Global governance. They have all called for the worlds FALSE religions to "unite" under the guise of "world peace." All have held conferences at the Vatican promoting the union of the world's religions. Francis recently had Islamic "prayers" along with the reading of the Koran take place at the Vatican. The Book of Revelation clearly teaches a false system of global government united with global religion is the work of Satan himself. Yet, Rome stands for BOTH of these goals. Those that think that the NAM will bring this system into place WITHOUT Rome playing a supporting, primary role are greatly deluded.
You can concentrate your efforts all you want on the New Age Movement, but if Rome isn't part of your awareness, you are missing the mark ... or perhaps ... you are receiving the "mark?"
Paul 1:57 P.M.
Re: Mary is not the "Mediatrix".
Mary is not the "Co-Redemptrix".
Neither of these proposed titles has been formally defined as dogma by the Roman Catholic Church.
In August 1996, a Mariological Congress was held in Czestochowa, Poland, where a commission was established in response to a request of the Holy See. The congress sought the opinion of scholars present there regarding the possibility of proposing a fifth Marian dogma on Mary as Coredemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate. The commission unanimously declared that it was not opportune to define a fifth Marian dogma on those titles. The Declaration of Czestochowa observed that such "titles, as proposed, are ambiguous, as they can be understood in very different ways".
In the nineteenth century, Father Frederick William Faber wrote that such a dogma might limit, in popular understanding, the redemptive role of Jesus Christ. Faber recognized that the term "co-redemptrix" usually requires some explanation in modern English because so often the prefix "co" tends to imply complete equality, which, of course cannot be the case since God creates nothing equal to or greater than His Word.
When asked in an interview in 2000 whether the Church would go along with the desire to solemnly define Mary as Co-redemptrix, (the then) Cardinal Ratzinger responded that, the formula “Co-redemptrix” departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings...Everything comes from Him (Christ), as the Letter to the Ephesians and the Letter to the Colossians, in particular, tell us; Mary, too, is everything she is through Him. The word “Co-redemptrix” would obscure this origin. A correct intention being expressed in the wrong way. ( Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, God and the World: A Conversion with Peter Seewald. Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 2002, p. 306 )
________________________________________
cont....
cont....
Re: Mary is not the "mother of God".
Jesus existed before the universe was created.
Mary was his mother when He decided to be
incarnated as a man, which is why she is blessed
among all women.
How could Mary be the mother of God?
_____________________________________________
Jesus Christ is truly God and truly Man. Mary is the Mother of Jesus Christ. Therefore Mary is the Mother of God.
But I can understand exactly the point that you are making.
Although Mary is the Mother of God, she is not his mother in the sense that she is "older than God" or "the source of her Son’s divinity," for she is neither.
Rather, we say that she is the Mother of God in the sense that she carried in her womb a divine person—Jesus Christ, God "in the flesh" (2 John 7, cf. John 1:14)—and in the sense that she contributed the genetic matter to the human form God took in Jesus Christ.
The actual title, by the way, is "Theotokos" which is Greek for "God-bearer," "Birth-Giver of God" and "the one who gives birth to God."
Less accurate translations include the primarily Western title "Mother of God" (Latin: Mater Dei). Perhaps a more accurate WESTERN rendering of "Theotokos" would be "Mother of God-made-Man" or "Mother of the Word Incarnate."
A little history here.....
In the fifth century, Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople (428-431), incited a major controversy. He stated that Mary gave birth to Jesus Christ, a regular human person, period. To this human person was united the person of the Word of God (the divine Jesus). This union of two persons--the human Christ and the divine Word-- was "sublime and unique" but merely accidental. The divine person dwelt in the human person "as in a temple." Following his own reasoning, Nestorius asserted that the human Jesus died on the cross, not the divine Jesus. As such, Mary is not "Mother of God," but simply "Mother of Christ"--the human Jesus. Sound confusing? It is, but the result is THE SPLITTING OF CHRIST INTO TWO PERSONS AND THE DENIAL OF THE INCARNATION ( the "spirit of the antichrist ).
St. Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria (d. 440) refuted Nestorius, asserting, "It was not that an ordinary man was born first of the Holy Virgin, on whom afterwards the Word descended; what we say is that, being united with the flesh from the womb, (the Word) has undergone birth in the flesh, making the birth in the flesh His own..."
On June 22, 431, the Council of Ephesus convened to settle this argument and 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.
Paul 9:57 AM
The Catholics say no to that. They disagree with Jesus. The Roman Catholics bring up "Sola Scriptura" every time and say that the Bible doesn't teach that anywhere. That's just not true:
What does; "Behold I come; in the volume of the book it is written about me" sound like to you? (Psalms 40:7 AND Hebrews 10:7)
Or_ "This book of the Law shall not depart out of thy mouth but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, and observe to do according to all that is written therein. Then thy way shall be made prosperous and thou will have good success." Joshua 1:8)
Or read II KIngs 22, the whole chapter, but I'll just quote verse 13: " Go ye, inquire of the Lord for me, and for the people, and
for all Judah, concerning the words of this book that is found: for great is the wrath of the Lord that is kindled against us, because our fathers have not hearkened unto the words of this book, to do all that which is written concerning us."
Or see Nehemiah chapter 9 where all Israel returned to the Torah.
Or just read the Psalms which are replete with references to the "Word of God", such as #130: "Thy testimonies are wonderful_
the entrance of thy words gives light and understanding to the simple.
Or Isaiah 8:20 "_ To the Law and to the testimony..."
****************************
NOWHERE in any of those passages you quoted do I see any indication that the Bible is the ONLY source of divine revelation. Not a single "SOLA" to be found.
Protestants - albeit sincerely I am sure - derive their religion from a mere reading of the Bible which they interpret according to their own private judgment. Catholics derive their doctrines from the Church which they equally sincerely believe propounds to them infallibly the teachings of the Bible and of Tradition.
Which of these two formulas is supported by the Bible itself and by the facts of history, and which consequently is correct?
The Bible makes it clear that Christ established the Church as a teaching organization to speak to the world in His name and with His authority. The Church was to teach men whatsoever He had taught - nothing more and nothing less: What does "All power is given to Me in heaven and earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you" (Matthew 28:18-20) sound like?
Christ placed on all men the obligation of hearing His Church as they would hear Himself: "He that heareth you, heareth Me" (Luke 10:16); "Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be condemned" (Mark 16:15-16). He promised to be with the Church and guide it until the end of time: "And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world" (Matthew 28:20). He sent the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of infallible truth, upon the Apostles and their successors in order that they might be illumined and assisted in the work of continuing the teaching mission of God's own Son.
cont....
cont.....
Our Lord Himself wrote nothing. He commanded the Apostles not to write but to teach and preach: "Going, therefore, teach all nations" and "preach the Gospel to every creature." Christ's disciples and the Christians were commanded to hear the Church, not to read the still nonexistent or at best incomplete New Testament Scriptures: "He who hears you, hears Me."
The teaching Church was in existence long before a single line of the New Testament was written. The Apostles evangelized different peoples, not by presenting to them a copy of the New Testament which did not as yet exist, but by preaching the Gospel, the oral message of Christ to them. Thousands of men became Christians and adhered to the whole truth of God before they saw or read a single book of the New Testament.
It was the leaders of the existing teaching Church who wrote the books of the New Testament. It was the Church which collected and preserved these books, and distinguished them from spurious books which might have otherwise found their way into the Bible. It was from the Catholic church that the Protestants of the sixteenth century took their Bible and also their belief in its divine inspiration.
How illogical, then, it is for a group to step in fifteen hundred years later, wrest the Bible from its historical and lawful possessor and fosterer, put the Bible in the place of the Church, and pretend to possess a true understanding of the purpose and meaning of the Bible?
The different books of the New Testament were for many centuries scattered in the various Christian communities of the Orient. Being written on papyrus which was fragile and breakable, these books could not be widely circulated and hence were read by a comparatively few groups. It was only in 397 A.D. that the Council of Carthage finally decided which books belong to the Bible, and it was about this time, too, that the books of the Bible were combined into one volume. Yet prior to this, the Church spread rapidly to many lands, converts were received into the Church by the thousands, the faith of the people was so strong that it peopled heaven with countless saints and martyrs.
Before the invention of printing in the sixteenth century, copies of the Bible written by hand were so rare and costly that only the rich could procure them. To own a Bible during this period was to own a fortune, and in many instances the Bible had to be chained in order to prevent its being stolen. Were the poor, then, during all these centuries, without a religious guide and teacher?
Was God indifferent to the salvation of the countless souls that passed into eternity during these fifteen hundred years? Did not our Lord provide for the salvation of these unnumbered millions, event though they could not procure, or read, or understand the Bible? We are sure that even our non-Catholic brethren would hardly subscribe to these blasphemous conclusions.
That the Bible is not self-explanatory is apparent, for example, from a mere casual reading of any chapter of the Epistle to the Romans or of the Apocalypse. That it is not self-sufficient is evident from the countless commentaries and books on Sacred Scripture. St. Peter himself was aware of certain difficult passages in the Pauline Epistles when he wrote: "Our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you, as also in all his epistles speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, to their own destruction" (II Peter 3:15-16).
"Scripture NEVER says original sin passes only on the male side"
Question.
Jesus' mother is human and his father is God.
Are you implying that Jesus had a sin nature?
"can none of you here answer Dan Bryan? I am not surprised. your accusations show you incompetent to deal with REAL new age issues. assuming you are not new age sneak defenders with fake Christian personas.." _yada yada yada...
Maybe it's the "You People" attitude all the time tossing out blanket accusations at everyone here even though there aren't
even two people here who are exactly the same, and you've never met a single one from this blog!
"new age sneak defenders with fake Christian personas of the most obnoxious sort to make us all look bad."
That's truly rich coming from you of all people, Ms Erikson.
By the way, who is the "us" from the "make us all look bad"?
Paul: Maybe the "us" as far as Ms Erikson is concerned are her "in house" lodgers, as in Legion?
No doubt her unrepentant "ex" Satanist co-fornicator and "resident seer" is harbouring his own occupants too!
Anonymous Susanna said... Paul 1:57 P.M. 12:55 PM
Re: Mary is not the "Mediatrix".
Mary is not the "Co-Redemptrix".
Neither of these proposed titles has been formally defined as dogma by the Roman Catholic Church.
+++++++++++++++++
You might add, not yet?
I am saying that because of the recent historical, evolution of the attributes of Mary are mostly new revelation.
The assumption of Mary
The perpetual virginity of Mary,
The immaculate conception of Mary
The queen of the universe/heaven
Mother of the Church
Mediatrix of All Graces
Do I understand correctly of the RC Church, that a consensus or a majority of bishops in council can initiate a dogma? I also understand that if enough of the faithful petition dogma or belief set, it can be granted or initiated?
+++++++++++++++++
Anonymous Susanna said... 12:55 PM
On June 22, 431, the Council of Ephesus convened to settle this argument and 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.
++++++++++++++++
And I say, what a bunch of gobly-gook. Maybe it wasn't hypostatic at all but a combination of electrostatic, microstatic, magnetostatic, or an epistatic in nature?
I believe that it is not possible for man to convene, debate and then decide for God how he took his divine Word, creating the divine seed, with which the Holy Spirit then incarnated Jesus in Mary's womb. Don't ask me, I will not pretend to understand this!
++++++++++++++++
Susanna said... Paul 9:57 AM 1:19 PM
What does "All power is given to Me in heaven and earth...... (Matthew 28:18-20) sound like?
++++++++++++++++
Said of Protestants:
they put the Bible in the place of the Church, and pretend to possess a true understanding of the purpose and meaning of the Bible?
Said of Catholics:
they put the Church, Mary (dispensing all graces) its Works of Penance, its Priests, the perpetual sacrifice of Eucharist between a person and the work of Jesus' death burial and resurrection?
Hopefully baring private interpretation; ~All power is vested in Jesus.~ No transference of this power to the Apostles/Disciples is stated. We can do nothing outside the Will of God.
You quote scripture yet deny it's words......He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved;
You should say (according to your tradition) He that is baptized, shall be saved independent of belief;
The tradition/scripture clearly states the order of condition/transition Believe~Baptize~Salvation.
Does God have to comply with man's infallibility?
Who IS the church, that man is to listen to? I understand where you arrive at your hierarchical structure, (upon this Rock) but to say that this structure 'Is The Church' and the laity are something else to themselves? Don't lay Catholics and Protestants both evangelize proclaim their good news? Can you deny the working of the Holy Spirit in a Christian...to lead us into all truth? Can one limit the Holy Spirit? Can one blaspheme the Holy Spirit, as God, by denying his power to direct all men (women) into All truth?
++++++++++++++++
Anonymous Susanna said... cont..... 1:24 PM
How illogical, then, it is for a group to step in fifteen hundred years later, wrest the Bible from its historical and lawful possessor and fosterer, put the Bible in the place of the Church, and pretend to possess a true understanding of the purpose and meaning of the Bible?
Was God indifferent to the salvation of the countless souls that passed into eternity during these fifteen hundred years?
That the Bible is not self-explanatory is apparent, for example, from a mere casual reading of any chapter of the Epistle to the Romans or of the Apocalypse.
++++++++++++++++
I hold the bible in reverence as God's word.
Susanne you are absolutely correct that the Catholic Church has/have been the sole keepers of the script. (albeit no longer)
They are the ones that decided which book is good and can be added and which not. So if anyone has reason to fear the wrath of God related to his word regarding adding to or taking away, it is the RCC.
To have a pagan Constantine oversee a major portion of the compilation of the New Testament is telling in itself.
Regardless of this, I believe that the infinite power of God has preserved his Word in context of it's revelation of his Son.
The straw-man argument of the salvation of the countless souls who never had the bible is ridiculous. The bible answers this back in Genesis 8:25
" That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?"
The Bible is self-explanatory if one diligently searches the scripture and studies it. The biggest crisis the RCC has faced is the ability of all to read the Bible for themselves. Mere casual reading is what we are not to do, and the only accurate interpretation of the Apocalypse can be accomplished only in context of the ancient prophetic of the Old with the New Testament.
Susanne, thanks for sharing your faith.
1 Peter 1:21 tells us what is the Holy Canon.
The BIBLE. Basic instructs before leaving earth. Maybe you think that is corny or something?
But I know it is all we need.
Jesus said so in Matthew 4:4, Susanna.
The doctrines formulated around Mary are extras, and not needed.
My ex-catholic aunt told me so. She was old when she left the Catholic Church. She was not angry, she was tired of the endless round of ritual and who to pray to besides Jesus. She just simply died turning to no one but Him. No rosary, no prayer book, no priest, no saints. That woman died in utter peace and it was beautiful.
God's word was enough for her. Just like Jesus said.
No "safety net".
Just Jesus.
Susanna,
You keep saying that the RCC gave us the Bible. It did not.
The Old Testament that was quoted by Jesus, ( practically every thing that He said ),
existed for hundreds of years before any one was called Pope and before anyone
ever claimed that Rome was somehow the seat of God's Kingdom on earth.
The New Testament was written almost exclusively by the Apostles, ( even though you imply
that Jesus didn't want them to write anything down ), before the Medici's
invented the Roman Catholic cult and took everyone's eyes off Jerusalem.
The Medici's were mighty powerful banksters and businessmen and they were the first of
the Popes. They are the ones who collected and preserved all the Gnostic writings
of Egypt and Babylon, and kept them in the Vatican, where they still are.
_Indulgences, Marion worship, a liturgical calender that disregards every Holy Day in the Bible
and invents all sorts of pseudo holy days, statues of things in heaven and things on earth,
gargoyles, enormous wealth and enormous sins are the legacy of the Vatican, which is drunk
with the blood of the saints.
I grew up RC. I know how it poses as the world's schoolteacher and the worlds' conscience.
So I guess I'm a dropout from that school, thanks.
They apparently haven't even tried to fix the pedophile priest issue, which is horribly evil,
and just KEEPS GOING on and on. What kind of environment fosters and protects
these things? Nothing has changed! Children are being violated right now by "priests".
Is it too big to fail ?
How can the Pope justify the Jesuits? He has to. He is a Jesuit himself.
Susanna, were the Jesuits formed to irradicate Protestantism, or not?
What is/was their Primary Objective if it's not to defame, marginalize, slander
and even murder Protestants, whom you claim to have a respect and compassion for ?
"Is it too big to fail ?
How can the Pope justify the Jesuits? He has to. He is a Jesuit himself.
Susanna, were the Jesuits formed to irradicate Protestantism, or not? "
So now we have the Chief Enforcer, this political powerhouse Jesuit Pope, with a bully pulpit to do the bidding of globalists with an agenda against Christians who don't comply.
Ahh, that's nice.
RayB,
So you are against all painted portraits, including those never painted for religious purposes but to preserve what people looked like in the era before photography? And against all statues and busts made for the same reason?
""new age sneak defenders with fake Christian personas of the most obnoxious sort to make us all look bad.""
"That's truly rich coming from you of all people, Ms Erikson."
No joke, Paul.
The "bible nazi" is the bane of this blog.
Christine at 8:41 wrote re the witness of her defacto relationship...
"ARE YOU or any critics of this DIVORCED AND REMARRIED? if so shut up. you are living in sin. (Jesus didn't rescind the Mosaic allowance, just told them they weren't that pure.)"
Attn Christine...
Jesus said at the incident of woman accused of adultary "he who has not sinned cast the first stone" it points out all have sinned and need to repent.
Claiming others have sinned does not provide an excuse to continue in sin nore does the presense or absence of accusers negate the individuals responsibility to God... for the law of God in the consience of man bears witness against sin.
Jesus clearly stated to the woman "go and sin no more"...that applies to every sinner.
To Dan and RayB etc,
I note that when you clearly show that certain peoples dogmas is wrong using scripture than then attack the validity of the Bible.
You can never reason or debate with people that hold religious tradition equal to scripture after all these traditions started when men departed from the scriptures in the first place.
Attn Sussanna,
Re when the books of the Bible where put into one volume.
Regardless as to when that happened does that excuse the false representations of scripture and the attacks on the authority of the Bible so blatantly made on this site on a regular basis.
Paul said women ought not to teach.... this blog is the case in point when considering the authorship of some of the weird comments posted here to Constance and others.
Anonymous said to RayB @ 5:52 PM ...
RayB,
"So you are against all painted portraits, including those never painted for religious purposes but to preserve what people looked like in the era before photography? And against all statues and busts made for the same reason?"
Clearly, the 2nd. Commandment is referring to images of the spiritual realm. The 1st. Commandment sets the tone for the 2nd. with "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Making images and statues was a pagan practice in antiquity, and God forbid such practices as He stated it. Virtually all pagan societies had their statues and images. The fact that this practice is thoroughly forbidden by God, and, the fact that the making of images was a pagan practice, WHY would Rome then make their statues and images? THAT is the question you need to be asking, not regarding your deflection into photography, etc.
I suggest you read Acts 19:23-41 which gives an account of craftsmen that "made no small gain" in the sale of "silver shrines" for the pagan goddess Diana of the Ephesians. Pagan religious images is nothing new, and it has continued into the age in which we live.
Maybe this blog should be shut down.
But then that probably is the ultimate goal of certain individuals that are obviously into weird new age and occultic practises as shown in their posts yet proclaim they are orthodox.
Following the money trail?
The Panama Papers are headline news here in the UK.
https://panamapapers.icij.org/
Leaders, criminals, celebrities
A giant leak of more than 11.5 million financial and legal records exposes a system that enables crime, corruption and wrongdoing, hidden by secretive offshore companies.
~ K ~
Anonymous Anonymous said...7:20 PM
To Dan and RayB etc,
You can never reason or debate with people that hold religious tradition....
Never say never!
In Jeremiah 35 there is a story of the Rechabites.
Their ancestral father told them that his children in perpetuity would never drink wine, build houses to live in, not to plant gardens or vineyards, nor plant any garden/field/ with seed of any kind but live in tents and be strangers in whatever land in which they lived.
It is not that a tradition is necessarily right or wrong, as long as it does not go contrary to the laws of God? Here these people honored their Father/parents forever.
I believe one can have a tradition that is arbitrary and strange, provided it does not offend or run counter to the laws of God?
If a tradition is held in equal to or a requirement of salvation counter to the simple faith that was handed to us by the Apostles, there may be a problem, but only for the tradition holder?
https://www.discerningtheworld.com/2015/10/22/william-branham-and-his-false-christ/#more-24504
From Anon 7:20 to Dan 10:23pm...
Very well put.
RayB,
You made a blanket statement that the Second Commandment forbade the making of images. Now you suggest it forbids only the making-and-then-bowing-down to images. I take the latter view, but you are changing your position without admitting it. And please stop talking about Rome to me. I am as protestant as you are.
7:01 PM wrote: ..."for the law of God in the consience of man bears witness against sin."
Yet MCE's conscience is nigh on seared, 7:01 PM!
Ray B hasn't changed his position at all, 4:59 AM. He has merely clarified his position in response to others.
What makes you say Ray B is a Protestant? I have never seen him call himself such, which is a label foisted upon Christians by the RC cult. You may be a Protestant, 4:59, though there's something of the Jesuit about you (they'd say black is white if the Jesuit General / Black Pope demanded it be so), that doesn't mean Ray B calls himself one.
By his fruits and conduct here, Ray B is a born again Christian and a serpent hissing in the grass such as you I doubt will stop him exposing that Harlot Rome, whether or not you or anyone else likes it!
Deal with it!
""anon. 5:53, Scripture NEVER says original sin passes only on the male side"
Adam was answerable in a way that Eve was not because he is head over Eve..."
answerable is not the issue. hereditary passing on of sin is the issue. it is PHYSICAL INHERITANCE but cuts deeper than genes something in the soul which Hebrews chapter 7 presupposes is itself inherited from the soul material of the parents, traducianism.
""Scripture NEVER says original sin passes only on the male side" Question.
Jesus' mother is human and his father is God. Are you implying that Jesus had a sin nature?"
No. and how does my statement resemble or imply such a thing? I have repeatedly said that God had only to block sin transmission in Mary's womb, not in her mother's womb, for Jesus to be without sin. This statement PRESUPPOSES JESUS' SINLESSNESS. Immaculate Conception unnecessary, aside from too new - LESS THAN 1000 YEARS OLD - an idea to be credible.
"full of grace" is not really what the Greek means, but what is said of Stephen in Greek DOES mean that, so it clearly is not about inherent sinlessness, but about graces from The Holy Spirit given during your life.)
Rayb "....Those that think that the NAM will bring this system into place WITHOUT Rome playing a supporting, primary role are greatly deluded."
The issue is not RC as an institution whose leaders play games. the issue is RC doctrine and liturgics. Rome is infiltrated. Jesuits are run by masons, and problematic to start with.
"Maybe this blog should be shut down. But then that probably is the ultimate goal of certain individuals that are obviously into weird new age and occultic practises..."
NO, that's YOUR goal. you anonymice some with names added, flood the blog over and over with attacks. and its not wierd new age occultic practices, its exorcism and entity rejection and repelling. you attack not just me but everyone who isn't in your little clicque, and even try to get Constance to stop talking about the occultic origins of the NEw Age by calling it out of date. you don't want anything but politics. when have you posted anything on the occultic practices of charismatics (mind blanking to let something else take over identical practice to mediums over and over I read of this) and the "spiritual formation" stuff? When Dan Bryan asked about the latter, NOT ONE OF YOU SAID A THING. I had to deal with it.
"Paul said women ought not to teach.... " Paul said that referring to church public services. this is not church. and your remark attacks Constance also (nothing unusual here in itself).
Dan Bryan, to answer all your points I'd have to write a book. on the Bible, The Apostles wrote NT, handed it off to the churches and that unwritten tradition of what was Apostolic was the canon, as Irenaeus shows in AGAINST HERESIES c. AD 180, he a hearer of Polycarp who was a hearer of John the Apostle. That later council only put teeth to rejecting various other books that many liked, and resolved disputes about a few episles and Revelation which got a bad reputation because of the Montanist misuse of it. An unfortunate tradition of avoiding it probably dates from then, with Origenism encouraging "spiritualizing" things that are obviously literal.
You would not have the Bible if RC had not been copying, translating and preserving it in Europe. EO did the same elsewhere.
as for marriage, I have already shown why my relationship Biblically is not sin. read on past threads. someone else noted no ceremony just negotiation, public move in and consummation regarding Isaac and REbekah.
Meanwhile, the massive data leak known as the "Panama Papers" is exposing vast corruption among the rich and powerful. George Soros is funding the team of international investigative journalists reporting on the leaked data. The team is obviously going out of its way to dig up dirt on various "bad guys", i.e. Vladimir Putin, Assad, etc. but the over all goal is to expose how corrupt the world's financial system is, and, (surprise, surprise), build support for a new global financial/political authority under the auspices of the UN.
http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/03/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-panama-papers
You poor clueless deceived soul, 10:55 AM.
No Holy Spirit anywhere in all your many meaningless words.
The letter kills but the Spirit gives life. You have absolutely no understanding of this.
Is it too late for you?
"Dan Bryan, to answer all your points I'd have to write a book. on the Bible"
Whatever you write would be heresy at the opening sentence.
It is was a book in print it would equal a warehouse full of toilet paper.
Take that back. It wouldn't even make good toilet paper.
Dear Ms. Erikson, This is 2:22 PM.
Your answer is not a good one. You have not connected the dots. Your answer about the physical is missing the point completely. Based on the physical aspect you give, Jesus would have inherited a sin nature. The answer is spiritually discerned. There's your problem.
Dear 9.44am,
Thank you; I await RayB's reply.
Anon@4.59am
Attn: Anonymous 7:37 PM
Re: Attn Sussanna,
"Re when the books of the Bible where put into one volume.
Regardless as to when that happened does that excuse the false representations of scripture and the attacks on the authority of the Bible so blatantly made on this site on a regular basis."
************************************
It certainly does matter when the books of the Bible were put into one volume and by whom.
Catholics are not denying the authority of the Bible. They are saying that the Bible is not the ONLY authority to discern revealed Christian truth. They are saying that Scripture and Sacred Tradition are.
As for "false representations" you have not only NOT proven that Susanna's representations are false, but you also haven't even made your case for your own false representations of Scripture ( i.e. "Sola Scriptura," etc.).
If Sola Scriptura is a false representation of the Scriptures, it is because the Scriptures themselves DO NOT TEACH "Sola Scriptura." Nor do the Scriptures teach "private interpretation," ( in fact, the Bible mandates against it in 2 Peter 1:20 ) or that "the Bible interprets itself." Nothing in the Bible mandated the elimination of the Septuagint O.T. either.....even though it was the Old Testament canon in use in the days of Christ.
***********************
Re:Paul said women ought not to teach.... this blog is the case in point when considering the authorship of some of the weird comments posted here to Constance and others.
As for "women teaching," neither Susanna nor any other Catholic posting here would presume to officially "teach." That is the official role of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.
Nevertheless, we Catholics do have a right and a duty to defend our faith against those who continue to bear false witness against it with no credible evidence......on the hypocritical pretext that they are "serving God" when Jesus Himself forbade such sectarianism in Luke 9:49-50.
49 Now John answered and said, “Master, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow with us.”
50 But Jesus said to him, “Do not forbid him, for he who is not against us is on our side.”
"Dear Ms. Erikson, This is 2:22 PM.
Your answer is not a good one. You have not connected the dots. Your answer about the physical is missing the point completely. Based on the physical aspect you give, Jesus would have inherited a sin nature."
No. clearly you don't believe in God being Almighty to do a miracle. Do you even
believe in the divine Incarnation in the first place? or do you think God provided
a Y chromosome?
based on your line of thought, either The Father or The Holy Spirit is physical enough to have semen and a Y chromosome, or had an angel impregnate her ditto and just CALL it God in the flesh, or else Jesus had to have been female, because Mary had no Y to provide. (Jesus was circumcised so He was male.)
God had to have specially created a Y or tweaked an X into a Y. The whole thing perhaps from any one cell in her womb wall, or from an egg that was modified.
Now, that being the case, why do you balk at God blocking original sin being transmitted to Jesus? The Immaculate Conception assumes the woman passes original sin as much as the man. (In fact you might be able to argue from Eve being the first
to eat the forbidden fruit, that it comes only through the mother instead of through the father, which I don't buy.)
The problem is, if she had to be immaculate for JEsus to be immaculate, then her mother had to be immaculate also back matrilineally to Eve. Or, she was made immaculate at the Annunciation. Or, the Holy Spirit surrounded the preborn Jesus preventing original sin from entering Him.
The miracle of making her immaculate at conception could just as easily been done
for JEsus at His conception instead and not His mother's conception.
" The answer is spiritually discerned. There's your problem. "
no, there's YOUR problem. you do not understand spiritual, fleshly, whatever, just
some prideful display of biblical lingo, without understanding or application. Jesus said we are to love God with all our hearts, strength AND MIND.
the only spiritual thing to do, if you can't figure the puzzle out, is just accept on God's word that JEsus is without sin and whatever you don't understand about it will be shown you later maybe only at the Second Coming. Even the figuring out
shown above still at one point must give way to "its a mystery" because the exact
how and which options were involved, can't be known most likely.
if you were using normal common sense and language skills, you wouldn't even think that I was thinking Jesus had a sin nature.
Jesus would have inherited a sin nature IF HE WERE NOT GOD INCARNATE, But being God
Incarnate He was NOT ALLOWED to inherit a sin nature. The physical and spiritual overlap, it is GNOSTICISM to think they are radically separate. and sin nature travels in both. and was, in JEsus' case, blocked in both.
I knew you wouldn't disappoint me.
And you blew it. No connected dots for you, blog nazi LOLOLOL!
God can and still does the miraculous and you still don't get it? You missed it by miles what is to be understood here. And I won't share what you missed because you are so cocksure of yourself, you cannot receive it.
The answer has no gnosticism in it whatsoever but I won't waste my time on your undiscerning answer.
So thanks for the fun watching you miscalculate,,,again....LOL!
Jesuitina, the masons ... already based on much of the Satanic (like your co-fornicating "seer") Knights Templar of old and like the SMOM , we're ripe for being infiltrated by the Illuminati. Who were /are the Illuminati? Well, in 1776, they were disgruntled Jesuits getting revenge for their banning by Clement XIV in 1773! Yet where did the Jesuits emerge from? Ironically , from the Alumbrados aka the Spanish Illuminati: which related to Rosicrucianism , took much from the Gnostism of the Knights Templar!
You know what Gnostism is , don't you , Jesuitina? You should do: you're puffed up with it!
anon 2:41
you are so blinded by your hatred you don't get it that I said God does the
miraculous, but if you are led by charismaticism read the link on Branham
who started the slain in the spirit and passing anointing and he got that
from a man in India NO WONDER IT ALL ACTS LIKE KUNDALINI AND SHAKTIPAT!
Of course if you are arguing Jesus had original sin and God kept it from
operating, this is something no one can tell from the Scripture, only that
Jesus is without sin, and had to be the pure offering, which if He had
original sin He wouldn't be pure!
anon 3:10 you don't even know what Gnosticism is. it is rejection of the physical creation being good, denying God made it, and ascribing it to some lower being
than YHWH, or else claiming YHWH is a lower being and "the most high" is someone
above Him, and that Jesus was not fully human and was not physical once Resurrected. In case you think your pedigree religiously goes to albigensians and bogomils, they thought something like that also.
Wycliffe wasn't so much persecuted for translating as for the denying the Eucharist. But in AD 107 Ignatius referred to heretics who reject that the Eucharist is the flesh and blood of Christ and deny His physical resurrection. So you are keeping real good company aren't you if you are one of this radical anti RC anti Eucharistic Christ people here. and Ignatius testimony, not authority TESTIMONY shows the EARLY CHURCH BELIEVED THE SAME AS CORE RC DOCTRINE except of course immaculate conception of Mary and papal supremacy.
"I said God does the miraculous"
That is the only part I agreed with you on.
The rest is wrong because the answer lies in bypassing the physical completely. Most definitely gnostic spin won't touch it, either.
You think this is hate?
No. I have total pity for you, but you make me laugh how hard you have to strain any topic to be so right and miss it. Don't blow a gasket and hurt yourself trying.
Your posts do have a slight entertainment value, though. With a vengeance you must correct everyone and end up wrong so often. So mostly your posts are a waste.
Jesuitina, you wrote:
"anon 3:10 you don't even know what Gnosticism is. it is rejection of the physical creation being good, denying God made it, and ascribing it to some lower being than YHWH ".
Then do tell me the description of Gnosticism you think I gave which led you to such a puffed up declaration that I "don't even know what Gnosticism is "?
I don't need your pathetic patronising attitude, you gnostic she-viper! You who is puffed up with Gnosticism, leaning on her own 'understanding' (which is the product of her confused mind), you who consult and adore an "ex" Satanist "seer" whom you are shacked up with!
You who follows the EO "priest" convecting and conjuring behind the screen like the Wizard of Oz, you who adore and worship icons, you who rely on a "Patriarch " on Earth.
My Heavenly Father , ABBA YAHWEH (as his adopted son I may say his name) is my Patriarch and my High Priest is none other than Jesus Christ Himself!
Yes, Jesuitina, you are poor and wretched and blind and lost following the blind: and if the blind follow the blind both shall fall into a ditch!
Repent of your Gnosticism!
I did not bypass the physical at all. God intervened in the physical and soul level of existence whether He made Mary Immaculate with no sin nature to pass on, or whether He only blocked it from Jesus. THE PHYSICAL AND SPIRITUAL OVERLAP.
if you are relying entirely on the physical, you are LIMITING God and proposing that He is bound by laws He is subservient to.
back to Gnosticism ultimately, if there are laws God must obey not by an agreement on some timing or other single point (which He almost never made), but by the nature of the laws and Himself, then one could ask who made these laws? did they not also make God? and at that point unless you say NO UNDER ANY AND ALL CIRCUMSTANCES you can start thinking there is something higher than God who made God and the laws He is supposedly subservient to. (the Godhead is either The Father or the Trinity and the divine essence is shared by all of The Holy Trinity, it is not a fourth deity above the rest.)
you see where this mechanized way of thinking goes? things have to go certain hidebound ways and no other and even God is viewed as slave to natural law!
this is blasphemous.
This is also the kind of thinking of those who package prayer, revival etc. under the heading of LAWS and PRINCIPLES if you understand these you can supposedly control God!(occultic thinking.)
the dominionists think in similar ways, that Adam lost legal dominion over the earth to satan, and God supposedly had given it all to Adam so had to respect that, but in fact God's legal rights are higher than those of any, Adam was under God's dominion, and the dominion God gave Adam and Eve was the sort exercised by pagans and atheists and believers in false religion worldwide every day! strictly physical stuff!
"Then do tell me the description of Gnosticism you think I gave which led you to such a puffed up declaration that I "don't even know what Gnosticism is "?"
accusing me of Gnosticism shows you don't know what it is. I don't adore Mike. you are the hissing snake in the grass, John 6:50-69 Jesus said we were to eat His flesh and when others were offended HE DID NOT QUALIFY THE STATEMENT ONE LITTLE BIT.
Paul warned that not perceiving the body of the Lord when you eat HIs flesh brings
judgement on you.
May God have mercy on you.
Nor should you put anyone on a pedistall to be worshipped, Jesuitina. Yet you do so with your so-called priests, your so-called 'Patriarch ' (EO pope) , with your gold leafed icons and not least , with the fornicating "ex" Satanist "Resident Seer" whom you are shacked up and shackled in sin with!
You are a gnostic blaspheming reprobate who hates even her own mother, full of doctrines of demons whilst falsely accusing others: you know nothing of love or forgiveness!
Dan,
Re:Re: Mary is not the "Mediatrix".
Mary is not the "Co-Redemptrix".
Neither of these proposed titles has been formally defined as dogma by the Roman Catholic Church.
+++++++++++++++++
You might add, not yet?
____________________________________
You have already been informed that "Mediatrix of all Graces" and "Co-Redemptrix" are not official dogmas of the Catholic Faith.
That is not my opinion. That is a fact. If you acgtually read my post, you would know that I even quoted Pope Benedict XVI who wrote in the year 2000 when he was still Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger as giving the reasons why these titles are unlikely to become dogmas. I will repost it here:
When asked in an interview in 2000 whether the Church would go along with the desire to solemnly define Mary as Co-redemptrix, (the then) Cardinal Ratzinger responded that, the formula “Co-redemptrix” departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings...Everything comes from Him (Christ), as the Letter to the Ephesians and the Letter to the Colossians, in particular, tell us; Mary, too, is everything she is through Him. The word “Co-redemptrix” would obscure this origin. A correct intention being expressed in the wrong way. ( Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, God and the World: A Conversion with Peter Seewald. Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 2002, p. 306 )
____________________________________
cont....
cont....
RE:To have a pagan Constantine oversee a major portion of the compilation of the New Testament is telling in itself.
Regardless of this, I believe that the infinite power of God has preserved his Word in context of it's revelation of his Son.
According to my sources, Constantine had publicly declared that he was a Christian by the time he commissioned what came to be known as the "Fifty Bibles of Constantine."
The "Fifty Bibles of Constantine" were Bibles in Greek language commissioned in 331 by Constantine I and prepared by Eusebius of Caesarea. They were made for the use of the Bishop of Constantinople in the growing number of churches in that very new city. Eusebius quoted the letter of commission in his Life of Constantine, and it is the only surviving source from which we know of the existence of the Bibles.
Constantine publicly declared himself a Christian after issuing the Edict of Milan which decriminalized Christian worship in 313 A.D. Were it not for Constantine the Great, the Church would have had a much more difficult time preaching the Gospels.
The Council of Nicaea was not until 325 A.D. Nicaea dealt primarily with the Arian controversy. Constantine himself was torn between the Arian and Trinitarian camps.
Unlike Constantine who DID convert to Christianity and whose mother St. Helena was a devout Christian who prayed fervently for his conversion, the Emperor Vespasian, remained a pagan and it was at his pleasure that the so-called "Jamnian School" convened, and it was he who oversaw the retooling of the Old Testament canon at Jamnia around 70-90 AD by anti-Christian Jewish rabbis who ditched the Septuagint and weasel-worded the Scriptures - especially altering the translations of words pointing to Jesus as the Messiah. Adding insult to injury they appointed an apostate Aquila ( a Jewish convert to Christianity who apostatized ) to make a Greek translation of the "new and improved" Hebrew Bible which was frequently passed off as the Septuagint in the synaguogues.
As has been rightly pointed out before, either the Ethiopian Jews did not recognize the authority of the Jamnian rabbis to tinker with the Scriptures or they never got wind of the "new and improved" Hebrew Bible because they are still using the Septuagint to this very day.
_________________________________________
cont....
cont...
Re: And I say, what a bunch of gobly-gook. Maybe it wasn't hypostatic at all but a combination of electrostatic, microstatic, magnetostatic, or an epistatic in nature?
If you do not believe in the hypostatic union,( affirming the union of the two natures - divine and human - in the one Person of Jesus Christ) then your Christology is not authentically Christian.
In any case, You can refer to Catholic councils as :"gobbledy gook" all you want, but it still doesn't change the fact that you are unable to credibly make your case for "Sola Scriptura," "private interpretation," and the bizarre notion that "the Bible interprets itself"... especially given the fact that Martin Luther ditched the Septuagint even though the Septuagint was the O.T. canon in use in the time of Christ and the Scriptures most often quoted by Christ and the Apostles. We are not talking exclusively Bible here. We are talking History.
______________________________________________
A Pope cannot make infallible proclamations without ascertaining that they are beliefs already held in some form throughout the Catholic church. Truths of the Catholic faith have been declared dogmatically throughout the ages, but the instance of a Pope doing this outside an Ecumenical Council is rare, though there were two instances in recent times: the Immaculate Conception of Mary in 1854 and the Assumption of Mary into heaven in 1950. However, both Pope Pius IX and Pope Pius XII consulted the bishops worldwide before proclaiming these dogmas. This was before the Second Vatican Council.
According to my sources, new Marian dogmas such as "co-Redemptrix" and "Mediatrix" are not going to be officially proclaimed any time soon, if at all... and for the reasons given by the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger ( Pope Benedict XVI ) whom I quoted above.
Thank you for sharing YOUR faith.
Jesus Christ said, "do this in REMEMBRANCE of Me" not in 'perpetual sacrifice' and 'literal consumation'.
What blaspheming heresy is the doctrine of transubstantiation and even Luther's consubstantiation. What an abomination is the cantation of convecting the 'host' which the EO does behind its Wizard of Oz screens (not even the RC does that anymore)!
Jesus Christ died as a sacrifice ONCE and for all. He cried out, "it is FINISHED" and the veil was torn in two!
You deny Christ's finished work on the cross, and in so doing, Jesuitina, you commit the worst of blasphemies!
What you do not get is that no pope , no patriarch, no so-called priest is needed, not even Luther or Calvin, to have a relationship with Jesus Christ!
No wonder you are yoked and shacked up in sin with an unbeliever of the worst kind, for you are an unbeliever yourself!
"if you are relying entirely on the physical, you are LIMITING God and proposing that He is bound by laws He is subservient to."
You are the one making it all about that like I told you @ 1:10 PM! Can you be more daft @ 3:54 PM ?
You just can't stand it can you? Yours must be the last word and have to be "right" (when you're not).
I said you don't get it and you proved it to me. Go ahead and blow that gasket trying.
LOL!
Your dots did not connect because it is a spiritually discerned. There's your problem like I told you.
You really need to go back to the drawing board with everything. It's no surprise you have to live in virtual world, and Mars alien world, paranormal world, etc---the real world doesn't register with you because your "spiritual" life is from the wrong spirit. The Holy Spirit gives life. You need to get one.
I've had enough fun. Now your back to the same old boring as hell again.
"I don't adore Mike"
Love ain't keepin' it together for this Captain and Tennille.
Is unholy alright,,,no matter how much explaining she does.
Call it what it is-----2 ticks and no dog.
"Jesus Christ said, "do this in REMEMBRANCE of Me" not in 'perpetual sacrifice' and 'literal consumation'."
do this refers to the ceremony. READ CONTEXT. READ HIS WORDS IN JOHN CHAPTER SI ABOUT EATING HIS FLESH AND BLOOD and how many were offended, AND HE DID NOT SAY IT IS ONLY A METAPHOR.
It is not a redo of the sacrifice, what is sacrificed is the bread and wine "the unbloody sacrifice" returned to us transformed into His Body and Blood, granted some think they are doing a re sacrifice but that flesh and blood which He offered on the Cross and is alive again He invisibly (except at Lanciano and a few other cases) puts in the bread and wine or somehow makes it that, He can multiply loaves and fishes and walk through locked doors, don't tell me He can't feed us with however many tons of His flesh it takes.
I don't have to have the last word I am CORRECTING YOUR ERRORS as for your "spiritually discerned" that sounds like mystical nonsense. if it doesn't fit the plain meaning of Scripture then it isn't spiritual it is fleshly self deception.
and the plain meaning is, however God did it, JEsus was kept free from original sin and from personal sin to be the perfect sacrifice. you can speculate HOW, but Scripture doesn't really say how.
YOU are the one blaspheming and your denial of sacramentalism bespeaks a subclinical Gnosticism which dislikes the idea of God operating through matter.
Jesus led me to the Orthodox Church. deal with it.
Of course do this refers to the ceremony! What is communion about? It is about sharing.
Jesus Christ also said He is the door , yet He didn't mean he was made of oak with a brass handle! He said He is the Vine and those who abide in Him are the branches: do you think therefore that born again Christians, ie, those who abide in Him are covered in bark and large flat green leaves?
The RC and EO doctrine of transubstantiation us blasphemy and utter nonsense!
""Scripture NEVER says original sin passes only on the male side""
""Question.
Jesus' mother is human and his father is God. Are you implying that Jesus had a sin nature?""
"I said God does the miraculous"
That is the only part I agreed with you on.
The rest is wrong because the answer lies in bypassing the physical completely. Most definitely gnostic spin won't touch it, either.
Catch that?
Connect. the. dots.
Oh that's right, you can't. All you've got is orthodoxy with a gnostic twist.
Deal with it.
You would need the Holy Spirit for that.
Many were offended because they thought he meant his literal body and blood, he did not! He was speaking metaphorically!
He was talking about being joined together as one Ecclesia, and showing harmony and equal value through sharing and working together as the Ecclesia is symbolically the body of Christ, therefore the true Ecclesia (born again Christians) should cooperate in love, truth and peace, laying their lives down for one another, following the example Jesus Christ gave!
So, as I said: RC and EO doctrine of transubstantiation are blasphemy and utter nonsense!
Christine, that's at least a weeks worth of posts from you!
IF, Constance truly loved you, she would totally ban you from posting so that you could possibly get a life!!!!!
anon 6:42
you are a liar. The plain statement of Scripture is that people were offended at His words, they asked how can He give us His flesh to eat, and HE DID NOT SAY IT WAS METAPHORICAL, HE DID NOT TAKE ONE STEP TO DEFUSE THE SITUATION. HE DID NOT EVEN
SO MUCH AS HINT IT WAS NOT LITERAL.
here were followers ready to desert Him. AND HE LET THEM GO. HE DID NOT ARGUE
ABOUT WHAT HE MEANT.
you are a blaspheming liar who adores your false teachers who tell you lies and teach you "spiritual discernment" from the pit of hell.
Christ's more immediate disciples were there, He asked if they would leave also.
HE DID NOT SAY HE DIDN'T MEAN WHAT HE HAD SAID LITERALLY, those who took it literally LEFT HIM and now He asked if these would leave Him too, and He again DID NOT SAY HE DID NOT MEAN IT LITERALLY.
and they said He had the words of eternal life, He is Christ the Son of the living God, and they did not say they understood Him metaphorically, but rather, that whatever He had to say was right. There was nowhere to go but to Him. Jesus Christ is the only game in town.
READ SCRIPTURE FOR YOURSELF SOLA SCRIPTURA WITHOUT INTERPRETATIONS YOU'VE BEEN TAUGHT,
and it screams from the pages CHRIST'S BODY AND BLOOD TO BE OUR FOOD TO MAKE US MORE CONNECTED TO HIM. you are what you eat the saying goes.
There was plenty of room and occasion to say the ecclesia thing you say, and suchlike things were said.
BUT NOT REGARDING HIS BODY AND BLOOD.
The problem for Chritine is that she gets too literal when she should be spiritual (another word for mystical if in the right vein) and at other times she gets mystical (as in gnostic, even occultic) when she should look at something as literal (appropriately natural).
Screwed up in other words.
anon 6:28
Christ used metaphors and He spoke literally, and HE MADE IT CLEAR HE WAS LITERAL IN JOHN 6 ABOUT HIS BODY AND BLOOD and Ignatius and the early church of c 100 AD took Him literally and Paul took Him literally when he warned about eating without perceiving THE BODY OF THE LORD and he said this after reciting the words of institution, and this communion is NOT SHARING but COMMUNION WITH GOD and was
in the early days DONE AT THE END OF THE AGAPE FEAST POTLUCK WHATEVER, or during it,
as a separate meal, as Christ did at THE LAST SUPPER.
your teachers are devoted to materialism.
"The rest is wrong because the answer lies in bypassing the physical completely. Most definitely gnostic spin won't touch it, either. "
BUT THAT IS GNOSTICISM TO TRY TO BYPASS THE PHYSICAL ENTIRELY except where God chooses to do so or where the situation is inherently like that.
The Gnostics mostly denied the Eucharist literality and even denied the physical incarnation of Christ some of them and the Resurrection it all had to be "spiritual."
YOU ARE THE GNOSTIC.
If He meant THE ecclesia in John 6 HE WOULD HAVE SAID SO instead of letting people leave because they took Him literally. he did NOTHING TO CORRECT THEIR IMPRESSION.
neither did HE make such an effort regarding the Apostles, but asked if they were
offended and going to leave also?
NEVER EVER EVER DOES HE EVEN HINT HE MEANT THE ECCLESIA AND/OR WAS SPEAKING METAPHORICALLY.
try letting the Bible speak for itself, instead of your teachers telling you what it means and doesn't mean.
Some who do this same approach to hermeneutics deny the Resurrection also. Some deny the Second Coming. Some deny The Incarnation was anything much more than mere appearance.
if you are in any of these categories YOU ARE NOT CHRISTIAN and need not call yourselves "born again" because you ain't.
paul,
Re: You keep saying that the RCC gave us the Bible. It did not.
It is from the Church that the Bible has been handed down to us. Not the other way around
The Sacred Tradition - the revelation orally transmitted by Christ directly to the Apostles which they in turn preserved intact and handed on to their successors in both oral and written form - preceded the written tradition. We are not just talking Bible here. We are talking history.
The Old Testament quoted by Jesus did exist for hundreds of years before the coming of Christ......originally in Hebrew and then in the Greek translation known as the Septuagint made at the request of the Greek king of Egypt, Ptolemy II for inclusion in the Library of Alexandria.
The New Testament was first PREACHED exclusively by the Apostles or by the disciples of the Apostles. The Gospels that were included in the New Testament canon were the teachings of those Apostles who were eyewitnesses to the Resurrection of Our Lord. Matthew was an apostle, Mark was St. Peter's disciple , Luke was the disciple of St. Paul and knew the Apostles, and St. John was an Apostle.
The only reason why the Catholic Church is referred to as the "Roman" Catholic Church is because the see of Rome was pre-eminent amongst the four major sees.......Rome, Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria. This is attested to by Church Fathers such as Irenaeus who was a disciple of Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna and martyr who in turn was a disciple of the Apostle St. John the Evangelist, inspired author of the fourth Gospel and the Book of Revelations. The writings of the Church Fathers are HISTORICAL documents. If the Bible is the truly the Word of God, it will not contradict the truths of history which is ultimately His-Story.
The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church, is the largest Christian church, with more than 1.25 billion members worldwide. Headed by the Bishop of Rome, known as the Pope, its doctrines are summarised in the Nicene Creed.
True, there have been some very evil popes in the history of the Catholic Church, but the Catholic faith itself does not depend upon the personal sanctity of those who are charged with the mission of preaching and teaching it. It depends on Christ and on the Holy Spirit. In the Gospels we are told that like Judas, Peter betrayed Christ. But we are also told that when the cock crowed, unlike Judas, Peter repented.
cont...
"try letting the Bible speak for itself"
That is something you never do, making you a hypocrite.
"BUT THAT IS GNOSTICISM TO TRY TO BYPASS THE PHYSICAL ENTIRELY except where God chooses to do so"
Yes, but still does not answer why you cannot connect the dots ;) LOL!
cont...
Re: _Indulgences, Marion worship, a liturgical calender that disregards every Holy Day in the Bible
and invents all sorts of pseudo holy days, statues of things in heaven and things on earth,
gargoyles, enormous wealth and enormous sins are the legacy of the Vatican, which is drunk
with the blood of the saints.
I really don't know what "Holy Days" you are referring to. The "Catholics worship Mary" mantra is as old as cat dirt besides being false. There may be certain heretical groups who worship Mary ( i.e. Marie Paul Giguere and her Army of Mary), but they are either excommunicated or not affiliated with the Roman Catholic church however much they may claim to be. And although there have been plenty of abuses regarding indulgences, selling relics, etc. there have been just as many if not more abuses within Protestantism involving avarice, greed,( i.e. the "prosperity gospel") lust, and sex abuse scandals involving children - many of which were enumerated by someone on another thread. And if we want to compare atrocity statistics, Protestants can be said to be just as drunk with the blood of the saints as "the Vatican." But what does that all mean. It simply means that there are some bad Catholics and some bad Protestants. And if the behavior of bad Catholics - whether clergy and laity - invalidates Catholic beliefs, then by that same standard Protestant beliefs are likewise invalidated by the behavior of bad Protestants - whether clergy or laity.
I don't know what your experience was as a Roman Catholic, but mine was NOTHING like what has been described by anti-Catholics posting here.
cont....
paul,
Re:Susanna, were the Jesuits formed to irradicate Protestantism, or not?
What is/was their Primary Objective if it's not to defame, marginalize, slander and even murder Protestants, whom you claim to have a respect and compassion for?
The formal name of the Jesuit order is the Society of Jesus. The Society of Jesus is a male religious congregation of the Catholic Church. The members are called Jesuits The society is engaged in evangelization and apostolic ministry in 112 nations on six continents......also education which became the main Jesuit ministry.
While the Jesuits were dedicated to challenging heresy, this was not exclusively confined to Protestantism. The Jesuits were involved in the counter-Reformation. One of the truly great counter-Reformation Jesuits to receive instruction from Ignatius before undertaking his mission was Saint Peter Canisius.
Canisius' record of educational beginnings is impressive: Ingolstadt, Vienna, Prague, Strasbourg in Alsace (where he was involved in the opening negotiations). In addition, he managed time at the Council of Trent, where his very practical advice to the Council Fathers about the Reformation in Germany was highly regarded. Strong as his defense of Catholicism was in day-to-day relations with German Protestants, he favored the approach of peaceful coexistence. Some saw this as betrayal, but Canisius felt (and later convinced Rome) that a calm, firm, and educated approach would help Catholics win an intellectual battle they had previously been losing. All of this is not to suggest that his career was solely oriented to academia. His sojourn in Vienna proves otherwise:
Many parishes were without clergy, and the Jesuits had to supply the lack as well as to teach in their newly-founded college. Not a single priest had been ordained for twenty years; monasteries lay desolate; members of the religious orders were jeered at in the streets; nine-tenths of the inhabitants had abandoned the faith, while the few who still regarded themselves as Catholics had, for the most part, ceased to practice their religion. At first Peter Canisius preached to almost empty churches, partly because of the general disaffection and partly because his Rhineland German grated on the ears of the Viennese; but he found his way to the heart of the people by his indefatigable ministrations to the sick and dying during an outbreak of the plague. The energy and enterprise of the man was astounding; he was concerned about everything and everybody, from lecturing in the university to visiting the neglected criminals in the jails. (Thurston and Attwater, Butler's Lives of the Saints, 2:168-69)
No doubt such accomplishments could have been recounted in any of the cities where Canisius spent any length of time. Christopher Hollis, in his study of the Jesuits, sums up the work of this saint, now venerated as a Doctor of the Church:
The general effect of Canisius' work was immense. He turned the course of history. In each of the great colleges he built there were up to a thousand students. He was the first Jesuit to enter Poland. By 1600, there were 466 Jesuits there. When he entered Germany in 1550, he entered with 2 Jesuits as his companions. When he left it over 30 years later there were 1,111 Jesuits at work in the country. (Christopher Hollis, The Jesuits: A History (New York: Macmillan Company, 1968), 25.)
cont....____________________
cont....
The Catholic Church was facing the crisis of the Protestant Reformation when the Jesuits were founded. By seeking to break away from Rome, the Protestants encouraged efforts at reform within Catholicism. The Council of Trent clarified Catholic doctrine, the popes largely turned from political power games and art patronage to religious revival, new religious orders sprung up—Capuchins, Ursulines, and Oratorians, besides the Jesuits.
Initial Jesuit growth was slow in northern Europe but rapid in Spain and most rapid in Portugal and Sicily, where Islam was the threat, not Martin Luther. By 1565 there were 3,500 Jesuits, by 1626 the Jesuits probably reached the zenith of their influence and counted 15,544 members. Their growth was slower during the next century, largely because they lacked the money to train candidates.
The first Jesuits made their mark as preachers, convent reformers, and missionaries, but in 1548 the Jesuits opened their first college intended for lay students at Messina in Sicily. It was an instant success, and petitions for more Jesuit colleges flowed into Rome from most of the cities of Catholic Europe.
Quickly, education became the main Jesuit ministry. By 1579 the Jesuits were operating 144 colleges (most admitted students between twelve and twenty) in Europe, Asia, and Latin America. By 1749 the Jesuits were staffing 669 colleges and 235 seminaries world-wide. The Jesuit system of education, building on the curriculum devised by Renaissance humanists, was codified in the Ratio Studiorum of 1599. This approach controlled Jesuit education until the late nineteenth century, when American Jesuit universities began to make adjustments to the conditions in the United States.
cont......
cont....
In addition to their counter-Reformation evangelization, the Society of Jesus was also involved in Missionary work.
Missionary work has always been among the most prized of Jesuit ministries, from Francis Xavier to the present. In Loyola’s lifetime, missions were opened in Africa, India, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Japan. Later there were Jesuit missionaries working in North and South America.
Jesuits often had to work underground in countries whose rulers persecuted Catholics, and many suffered martyrdom— as did Edmund Campion, Paul Miki and Miguel Pro.
The Jesuits have made many enemies for many different reasons during their long history. In the mid-eighteenth century they were hated by the philosophers, many of them deists, for their religious faith. The Jesuits were distrusted by the Enlightened Despots because they opposed growing state control of religion and supported the pope. The kings of Portugal, France, Spain and Naples, urged on by advisors who were disciples of the philosophes, first drove the Jesuits from their own lands, then forced the pope to suppress the Order around the world in 1773. Thanks to a technicality in the Brief of Suppression and the benevolence of Catherine the Great, the Jesuits survived in Russia.
Because of the Suppression, the Jesuits played only a small role in the first decades of the American Catholic Church, but a former Jesuit, John Carroll, was the first American bishop. Other former Jesuits, notably Pierre de la Clorivière, played crucial roles in the establishment of congregations of teaching nuns, who were to be the backbone of American Catholic education in the period 1850-1960.
After the era of the French Revolution and Napoleon, there was a reaction to the ideas of the Enlightenment and a religious revival. Pope Pius VII restored the Jesuits worldwide in 1814. By 1830 there were 2,137 Jesuits, by 1900 there were 15,073. The high point came in mid-1960s with 36,000 Jesuits. The Jesuits remain the church’s largest male religious order.
______________________________________________________________
While there have been apostate Jesuits to be sure, they have been far outweighed by the good done by the Society of Jesus.
Among the many Jesuit martyrs are the North American Martyrs who were murdered by the Mohawk Indians. The National Shrine of these North American MArtyrs is located in Auriesville New York.
NATIONAL SHRINE OF THE NORTH AMERICAN MARTYRS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Shrine_of_the_North_American_Martyrs
cont....
cont....
By the way, contrary to what many conspiracy theorists erroneously believe, Adam Weishaupt, founder of the infamous Illuminati was not a Jesuit. He was trained by the Jesuits and held a position ordinarily held by Jesuits, but he himself was not a Jesuit.
Quote: Weishaupt was a Jesuit Priest who was involved in “Illumination” or Witchcraft.
Not true, on both counts. As I had written before, in the notes to “Illuminati Conspiracy Part One: Exegesis on the Available Evidence” in 2005, “Weishaupt was indeed taught by the Jesuits, though he himself wasn’t one of them. Many prominent thinkers – such as Voltaire, Descartes, and Diderot – were trained by Jesuits, but I’ve yet to see the same inaccuracy applied to them.” Don’t take my word for it, though. Feel free to consult real historians on the Bavarian Illuminati: René Le Forestier, Les Illuminés de Bavière et la franc-maçonnerie allemande (1914; PhD dissertation); Leopold Engel, Geschichte des Illuminaten-ordens (1906); Peggy Pawlowski, Der Beitrag Johann Adam Weishaupts zur Pädagogik des Illuminatismus (2004; PhD dissertation). Also, in addition to Peggy Pawlowski, see the work of the three living experts on the Illuminati: Dr. Hermann Schüttler, Reinhard Markner, and Dr. Monika Neugebauer-Wölk.
None of the foregoing historians repeat the falsehood that Weishaupt was a Jesuit; and neither do Barruel (1798) or Robison (1798), even Vernon Stauffer (1916). There’s no need to argue the point further. The Illuminati contemporaries, and the later experts on the subject, are unanimous. They get it right that Weishaupt was only educated by the Jesuits, had never been one himself, and was in fact pathologically hostile toward the Jesuits or Jesuitism – anything to do with monasticism, religious absolutism, or “superstitious folly” and obscurantism. Before and after the suppression of the Society of Jesus in 1773, his quarrels with the Jesuit staff at the University of Ingolstadt were legendary. Another interesting fact – as opposed to the made up ones – is that the feeling was mutual.
http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/2015/02/08/illuminati-conspiracy-part-two-sniffing-out-jesuits/
You're boring Christine.
Try another vacation.
What the heck, try another planet.
Any suggestions anyone?
So is Susanna, 7:40 PM.
The only blaspheming liar betwixt the two of us, is you Jesuitina! You are of your father Satan the father of lies and accuser of the brethren! You are forever learning and never understanding, following whitened supulchres full of dead men's bones who wear long robes and love to be greeted in the street.
Firstly, the Last Supper is the first time Jesus Christ's words regarding communion were heard. So how could the bread and wine have changed into His physical body and blood when He was still with them and had not yet been crucified? Jesus Christ is no liar! He was therefore speaking metaphorically and added they were to do so in Remembrance of Him for the reasons I gave earlier.
To not have repented and not be in harmony with the true Ecclesia and yet take communion with the Ecclesia is forbidden as it goes against the spirit of such love, truth, and peace of Jesus Christ! This also means to hold no heresies such as the false doctrine of transubstantiation, or aliens on Mars in need of the Gospel or anything else which may cause division among the true saints (born again Christians). The members of the Ecclesia (which is made up of those whose true home is in Heaven in the New Jerusalem, and no longer are to look to the Old Jerusalem on Earth, nor to Rome or Constantinople!) are to care for and one another as members of one body, with one life source which is Jesus Christ Himself!
My explanations given here and earlier are well illustrated by and in agreement with Paul in 1 Corithians, Chapter 11:
17Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. 18For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. 19For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. 20When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. 21For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. 22What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.
23For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: 24And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. 25After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. 26For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
27Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. 29For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. 30For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. 31For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. 32But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.
33Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. 34And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.
But Susanna is nice and can be helpful, 7:49 PM.
"Firstly, the Last Supper is the first time Jesus Christ's words regarding communion were heard. So how could the bread and wine have changed into His physical body and blood when He was still with them and had not yet been crucified? Jesus Christ is no liar! He was therefore speaking metaphorically and added they were to do so in Remembrance of Him for the reasons I gave earlier."
Yes. Thank you.
Yep .... those Jesuits were held in high esteem by everyone that knew what they were all about. Here are just a FEW quotes re: this "religious" order:
"My history of the Jesuits is not eloquently written, but it is supported by unquestionable authorities, and is very particular and very horrible. Their (the Jesuit Order’s) restoration (in 1814 by Pope Pius VII) is indeed a step toward darkness, cruelty, despotism, and death. I do not like the appearance of the Jesuits. If ever there was a body of men who merited eternal damnation on earth and in hell, it is this Society of Ignatius de Loyola."
John Adams (1735-1826; 2nd President of the United States)
“I do not like the reappearance of the Jesuits. Shall we not have regular swarms of them here, in as many disguises as only a king of the gypsies can assume, dressed as printers, publishers, writers and schoolmasters?” “Like you, I disapprove of the restoration of the Jesuits, for it means a step backwards from light into darkness.”
Personal Letter to John Adams from then President Thomas Jefferson
"It is my opinion that if the liberties of this country, the United States of America are destroyed, it will be by the subtlety of the Roman Catholic Jesuit priests, for they are the most crafty, dangerous enemies to civil and religious liberty. They have instigated MOST of the wars of Europe."
Marquis de La Fayette (1757-1834; French statesman and general who served in under the command of General George Washington in the American Revolutionary War).
Susanna writes @ 7:33 PM:
“The Council of Trent clarified Catholic doctrine, the popes largely turned from political power games and art patronage to religious revival, new religious orders sprung up—Capuchins, Ursulines, and Oratorians, besides the Jesuits.”
RayB writes in answer to Susanna:
Did you know there are over 100 “Anathemas” pronounced by the Council of Trent, and, that Vatican II reaffirmed ALL of the Council of Trent’s declarations, including its "anathemas" put upon those that disagree with their declarations? Here are just a few that you may find interesting …
Do YOU believe that salvation is by grace through faith and not of works as stated in Ephesians 2:8-10? What says Rome?
COUNCIL OF TRENT: SIXTH SESSION, CANONS CONCERNING JUSTIFICATION CANON XXIV
“If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.”
Do YOU deny that Christ is literally present in body, blood, soul and divinity in the Eucharist? What says Rome?
COUNCIL OF TRENT: THIRTEENTH SESSION, CANONS ON THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST CANON I
"If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema."
Do YOU believe that Christ's sacrifice on the cross is the only sacrifice that will offer forgiveness of sins (Heb 10:12-14) and therefore deny that we receive forgiveness of sins by taking the Eucharist? What says Rome?
COUNCIL OF TRENT: THIRTEENTH SESSION, CANONS ON THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST CANON V
"If any one saith, either that the principal fruit of the most holy Eucharist is the remission of sins, or, that other effects do not result there from; let him be anathema. let him be anathema."
Do YOU believe that we should not worship the bread of the Eucharist as if it were Christ complete? What says Rome?
COUNCIL OF TRENT: THIRTEENTH SESSION, CANONS ON THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST CANON VI
"If any one saith, that, in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, is not to be adored with the worship, even external of latria; and is, consequently, neither to be venerated with a special festive solemnity, nor to be solemnly borne about in processions, according to the laudable and universal rite and custom of holy church; or, is not to be proposed publicly to the people to be adored, and that the adorers thereof are idolators; let him be anathema."
Do YOU believe that sacramental confession is not necessary to keep your salvation and that confessing secretly to priests is a doctrine made by man, not Christ? What says Rome?
COUNCIL OF TRENT: FOURTEENTH SESSION, CANONS CONCERNING THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF PENANCE CANON VI
"If any one denieth, either that sacramental confession was instituted, or is necessary to salvation, of divine right; or saith, that the manner of confessing secretly to a priest alone, which the Church hath ever observed from the beginning, and doth observe, is alien from the institution and command of Christ, and is a human invention; let him be anathema."
Thanks for that response @ 9:12 PM, RayB.
Do YOU believe that the Mass is NOT a real and true sacrifice offered to God because the Bible specifically says that there will be no more sacrifice for sins (Heb 10:18)? What says Rome?
COUNCIL OF TRENT: TWENTY-SECOND SESSION, CANONS ON THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS CANON I
“If any one saith, that in the mass a true and proper sacriflce is not offered to God; or, that to be offered is nothing else but that Christ is given us to eat; let him be anathema.”
Do YOU believe that the Mass is NOT a propitiatory sacrifice that should be offered for the sins of both the living and dead saints for forgiveness of sins, punishment, etc.? What says Rome?
COUNCIL OF TRENT: TWENTY-SECOND SESSION, CANONS ON THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS CANON III
“If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits him only who receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema.”
Do YOU believe in the priesthood of the believers as stated in 1 Peter 2:9 and therefore do not believe that Catholic priests have the power to retain and forgive sins? What says Rome?
TWENTY-THIRD SESSION, CANONS ON THE SACRAMENT OF ORDER CANON I
“If any one saith, that there is not in the New Testament a visible and external priesthood; or that there is not any power of consecrating and offering the true body and blood of the Lord, and of forgiving and retaining sins; but only an office and bare ministry of preaching the Gospel, or, that those who do not preach are not priests at all; let him be anathema.”
Do YOU deny the legitimacy of the bishops appointed by Rome? What says Rome?
COUNCIL OF TRENT: TWENTY-THIRD SESSION, CANONS ON THE SACRAMENT OF ORDER CANON VIII
“If any one saith, that the bishops, who are assumed by authority of the Roman Pontiff, are not legitimate and true bishops, but are a human figment; let him be anathema.”
Anonymous 6:49 P.M.
Re: "So, as I said: RC and EO doctrine of transubstantiation are blasphemy and utter nonsense!"
Your denial of it is blasphemy and utter nonsense. As God, Jesus is perfectly capable of performing the miracle of transubstantiation......changing bread and wine into His body and blood which is then received by the Catholic faithful under the appearance of bread and wine. Are you denying that Jesus is truly God as well as truly man?
Would you have been among those who walked away and broke off all ties with Jesus when He said:
"Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you." John 6:53
The faithless "disciples" who walked away certainly didn't think Jesus was speaking "metaphorically." The Bible is as clear as crystal on this teaching and there is nothing to credibly indicate that Jesus was speaking metaphorically unless a person chooses to misinterpret the Scriptures.
JESUS IS NO LIAR!!!
When Jesus said "Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you" and "This is my body.....this is my blood"......He meant exactly what he said."
This has already been discussed at great length on a previous thread. If you don't want to believe what Jesus said, that is your choice, but when you accuse others of committing "blasphemy" you are accusing others of the very thing you are doing by attempting to interpret the Word of God in such a way that it becomes the word of man. That makes YOU doubly the liar by falsifying the Scriptures and bearing false witness against those who believe what Jesus said so clearly and unequivocally.
Ray B
As a Roman Catholiic, I believe all the teachings of the Council of Trent. Moreover, it is true that the anathemas of which you speak were not withdrawn during Vatican II.
The fundamental false assumption and misunderstanding of said anathemas is that anathemas applied to non-Catholics. This is incorrect. The fact is that the anathemas were only put on Catholics. You had to be a "card carrying Catholic" in order to "qualify."
Anathemas never applied to non-Catholics. Anathema was the most severe form of excommunication.
Someone can't be "ex-communion-icated" if they were never in communion with the Church in the first place. Also, the canonical penalty of Anathema was removed from Canon Law (Catholic Church law) in 1983. It is not in the Catechism.
P.S. RayB
Martin Luther did plenty of "anathematizing" himself.....especially of the of the Pope as well as those who disagreed with his pronunciamentos.
Some of his statements made the Trent declarations look like a "Hallmark" Easter card.
I don't care what Martin Luther said Susanna, I believe everything my Savior said.
If you have no good twist of scripture for us, you deflect.
You love your cult more than you love the Savior.
Your addicted to the religious vibe you get from your phoney cult, and that goes double for you nasty brother who posts nonsense here too.
"Someone can't be "ex-communion-icated" if they were never in communion with the Church in the first place"
As in, sorry, no salvation for you. You can't get kicked out because you were never in to begin with.
Gee, thanks. No sweat though, no matter how lousy that salvation plan is.
Jesus receives sinners. He took this one, who was broken by sin and it's shame and went by faith to the foot of His cross, without all the fancy hoops to jump through.
9:47 PM, the truth is clearly an offence to you. I have addressed the futile points you attempt and successfully refuted them with sound Scripture.
You should stop filling you mind with the poison of the RC cult's catechism!
You are lost in the lies of the Mother Harlot, Mystery Babylon herself, which is Rome. You are possessed with the spirit of cannibalism, just like your spiritual mother which is drunk on the blood of the saints,
of which the RC cult murdered millions!
The exposer of the heresies in the Roman Catholic Church is hardly new.
Reading some of the comments here however has shown me how dreadful it really is when papist dogma gets hold of someone.
On the one hand, Rome teaches that there is NO SALVATION outside of RCC:
"There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all can be saved" (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)
"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff" (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)
"The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and teaches that none of those who are not within the Catholic Church, not only Pagans, but Jews, heretics and schismatics, can ever be partakers of eternal life, but are to go into the eternal fire 'prepared for the devil, and his angels' (Mt. xxv. 41), unless before the close of their lives they shall have entered into that Church; also that the unity of the Ecclesiastical body is such that the Church's Sacraments avail only those abiding in that Church, and that fasts, alms deeds, and other works of piety which play their part in the Christian combat are in her alone productive of eternal rewards; moreover, that no one, no matter what alms he may have given, not even if he were to shed his blood for Christ's sake, can be saved unless he abide in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." (Mansi, Concilia, xxxi, 1739.) (Pope Eugene IV, The Bull Cantate Domino, 1441).
No SALVATION outside of RCC ... then they claim "the plan of salvation" includes Muslims!
RCC’s weird and strange relationship with Islam, as illustrated in the following:
"The Church's relationship with the Muslims. 'The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day' " (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1994, p.223).
Apparently, the ONLY REAL PROBLEM Rome has is with BIBLE BELIEVERS!
Who are the “blessed” according to Jesus, the RCC’s version of “Mary” or His true followers?
“And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked. But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God and keep it.” (Luke 11:27,28)
Ray B, thank you for defending the Faith once delivered unto the saints (320 years before Constantine set up his cult)!
Dear RayB,9:04 AM
Apparently, the ONLY REAL PROBLEM Rome has is with BIBLE BELIEVERS!
You are firing on all 8 cylinders!
Dear Constance,
I think you should consider updating your basic statement of faith and heresy list?
I think RayB has a point here, with the latest pontiffs professing Buddhist, Muslims, embracing Atheist as having a path to God.
God is only Pissed-Off at those born again believers (aka Protestants)
I believe personally that there are two enormous heresies floating about out there:
1. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be a member of the ABC Church and thou shalt be saved.
2. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be a member of the NBC Church and thou shalt be saved.
3. Believe on your faith path to God, and be a member of A BBC Church and thou shalt be saved.
The first heresy is a Protestant one.
The second heresy is a Catholic one.
The third heresy is a Catholic one.
The truth is BELIEVE ON THE LORD JESUS CHRIST AND THOU SHALT BE SAVED. IF YOU BELIEVE THAT JESUS IS LORD AND IF YOU CONFESS HIM WITH YOUR MOUTH, YOU SHALT BE SAVED.
Oh, and what do the acronyms ABC and NBC mean? And yet a third?
ABC=ANYTHING BUT CATHOLIC
NBC=NOTHING BUT CATHOLIC
A-BBC=Anything But(those)Born Again Christians
http://arcticbeacon.com/books/The_Oath_of_the_Knights_of_Columbus.pdf
(This is an extract of the Congressional Record of
the House of Representatives dated February 15,
1913, where the oath is entered as pu
rported to be of the Knights of
Columbus and is most identical
almost word for word to the
Extreme Oath and Induction of the Society of Jesus
thus giving evidence
that the Jesuits were the origin
ators of this demonic oath ).
------My question is this: Is there any secret society linked to the RCC that does NOT use the Dracula cape??? Knights of Malta, Knights of Columbus ....etc..
It's comical and yet...creepy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAzYShtIiWc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDQUnUchOdU
Apostate religion whether Protestant, Catholic, and/or every other stripe of religion will comply and have a slot to fit in to in the global plan. But Jews and Born-Again Christians will not. The falling away of 2 Thess is in full swing so folks that want to opt out of apostate whatever Christianity will be coming out of them as the pressure becomes untenable. (choose you this day whom you will serve-remember dear folks these are Jesus' words, not mine: ye must be born again from John Ch 3).
Those lines are being drawn against these more decisively every day.
"Jews and Born-Again Christians will not"... born again Christians are the spiritual sons of Abraham. Only Jews of the flesh who become born-again Christians will not receive the mark of the Antichrist.
For there is neither Greek nor Jew for those in Christ Jesus!
Anonymous @ 3:27 PM ...
I absolutely agree with you. "For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus." Galatians 3:26
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to promise." Galatians 3:28,29
Putting those unconverted Jews on the same level as ALL true converts in Christ has been the work of the false teachings of the Scofield Reference Bible which heavily promoted the false doctrinal system known as Dispensationalism. Virtually ALL the modern Bible colleges, etc. this system, with Dallas Theological and the Moody Bible Institute being the two original American flagships. It has since been picked up by virtually all Baptist Colleges, Bob Jones University, etc. It's all more evidence of the "times" we are living in .. "they shall not endure sound doctrine."
"and have a slot to fit in to in the global plan. But Jews and Born-Again Christians will not. "
Settle down. That statement refers those who will be to persecuted under the globalists. I did not equate them as believers.
The Lord has a plan in place to introduce the Jews to Himself all in due time.
They will look on Him who they have pierced and know their Messiah. Not too far out there either.
Anon. @ 4:02 PM ...
With all due respect, you've been wrongly influenced by Dispensationalist teachings. The Zachariah 12:10 prophecy WAS FULFILLED at Christ's crucifixion. Scofield's notes for Zachariah's 12:10 prophecy wrongly puts this into the prophetic "end times" for its fulfillment, when in fact, Scripture tells us clearly that it was fulfilled when Christ went to the cross.
"For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken. And again another scripture saith, "THEY SHALL LOOK ON HIM WHOM THEY PIERCED." John 19:36,37
Anon ....
To take it one step further, the only other place in scripture this verse is referenced is in Revelation 1:7, and it isn't about "knowing their Messiah" ... they will see Him, but it will be too late!
"Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen."
Compare the "wail" in this verse with "The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be WAILING and gnashing of teeth." Matthew 13:41,42
i had a great one, hope urs was awesome too :)
Many prophecies have a dual fulfillment. This being just one of them. several have what you could consider a "micro" fulfillment that are coming around again to be fulfilled in the "macro". Somethings are one time events, but not all as some prophecy beautifully broadens and deepens throughout Scripture till it finishes in a crescendo.
I stressed being born again if you noted what I said. However, we can disagree about the other. Don't care if you agree or not. The Lord has something to finish with the Jews. His Bride is the church, but He has unfinished business with His divorced adulterous Wife Israel (the book of Hosea describes this) whom He will forgive and reinstate in right relationship to Him, in the not too distant future.
Won't be long and it will be known who will flee Judea when "someone" stands up in the holy place (someone with a shortened time) for the abomination of desolation (another prophecy with dual fulfillment) in Matt 24:15-22, Luke 21:20-27, and Mark 13:14-25. Armies surrounding Jerusalem forcing the division of the land to wrest it from Jewish hands, do you suppose? Is that not a most abominable thing to God, that the land that is His (He says My name is there) will be trampled by the godless in the full out times of the Gentiles, and His holy mount claimed by hell's minions? That will bring Him here to take care of business like none other, as the rest of the chapters I quoted and further in Revelation passages tell us.
So keep watching events and see what plays out. Isn't it becoming more news worthy everyday what is happening with the "burdensome stone"? We ain't seen nothing yet to what will be happening with persecution and that will involve the Jews also. Many of them will perish that the Lord is bringing back to that land being driven out of the other nations, but a remnant will come to the Lord (finally knowing it is Jesus their long awaited Messiah) who was wounded in the house of His friends-the house of His Jewish brethren.
""THEY SHALL LOOK ON HIM WHOM THEY PIERCED." John 19:36,37"
I meant to copy and paste this to the top of my 4;50 PM post.
To Paul:
I'm catching up on the reading -- busy between cases, tax preparation, and State Convention this weekend. Cliff Kincaid will be guest hosting my radio program this Saturday morning. What troubles me about your argument is what I know about the New Age agenda to rid ourselves of Christian holidays and convert Easter to a pagan one. They especially would like to get rid of Christmas and change it to a Winter Solstice one instead. Why? As long as we have Christmas, whatever day it is celebrated, it's pretty hard to forget Jesus.
Constance
To 10:01 am.
I suspect the Pope has some influence at UN, this one probably more than the last two ultimately did; HOWEVER, it is probably fair to say that the Dalai Lama and various New Age gurus had/have more influence in that venue. (e.g. Sri Chinmoy)
Constance
Dan said, above:
"The truth is BELIEVE ON THE LORD JESUS CHRIST AND THOU SHALT BE SAVED. IF YOU BELIEVE THAT JESUS IS LORD AND IF YOU CONFESS HIM WITH YOUR MOUTH, YOU SHALT BE SAVED."
Well that's what it comes down to, isn't it??
Can a person be a Catholic, remain in the Catholic Church, and fulfill the requirement above? If so, then who are you to judge them differently? Are you God? Are you Christ? They are the ones who get to judge men's SOULS - nobody else!
Being part of a deceived group of people does not disqualify you from salvation. If it did, none would be saved, because there is no perfect "church" who has 100% of the Truth. Well, none except the body of believers who fit the requirement above.
Are there any further requirements? For example, does a person need to be baptized to get to heaven? No. If a person believes in their heart in Jesus Christ on their deathbed, and confess Him with their mouth, they are saved. I don't think God is going to say when they go before Him "Well did you get baptized? No? Oooopppssss....sorry." Of course I don't know for sure, but I'm basing that on the kindness of God.
Well, there's another way to obtain salvation - same Person being looked to as the wource, slightly different method - the verse in Joel (repeated often in the NT) that says "whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved." A good study would be to find out exactly what it means to "call on the name of the Lord". There is power in that Name! (Read the following in Acts for an interesting overview of "the Name" of Jesus: Acts 3:16; 4:10, 12, 18, 30; 5:28, 40, 41.)
Can a person call on the Name of the Lord and be saved, in the final moments before death seizes them? God is kind and stern - stern to those who live in disbelief, but kind to those who have been "grafted in" by their belief (Romans 11).
Yes, "belief" or "faith" saves, as long as the object of that belief or faith is Jesus. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing from the Word of Christ (Romans 10:17). Is the Word of Christ preached in at least some Catholic churches? Of course it is! And who are you to say that those in attendance do not hear and believe? This is referring to the Jews hearing / not hearing, but can be applied here as well: v. 18 from Romans 10:
"But I ask: Did they not hear? Of course they did: 'Their voice has gone out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world.'" (quoting Psalms talking about the Heavens declaring God's glory, but Paul uses it to refer to the preachers of the Word.)
Horrible it will be for that church, of ANY denomination or label, that did not preach the Gospel, so that it's people could HEAR!
The end of chapter 10 in Romans considers that the Jews had rejected God, and didn't hear. "But concerning Israel he says, 'All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and obstinate people'".
cont....
...cont.
So let's go to Romans 11.
If you are Catholic, think of the "Jews" of this passage as the Protestants, and likewise for the Protestants - think of God's people as the Catholics. Is it such a stretch? Not in principle, no. I do not think it twists scripture here to at least consider it. So what does chapter 11 say?
Remember this is Paul talking, who says in v. 1 that "I am an Israelite myself..."
"I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew. Don't you know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah - how he appealed to God against Israel: 'Lord, they have killed your prophets and torn down your altars; I am the only one left, and they are trying to kill me.'. And what was God's answer to him? 'I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal.' So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. And if by grace, it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace."
Let's let God's grace determine who is His, and who isn't. You who are Protestants do not know the inside of every Catholic church all over the world, and whether or not they are proclaiming and believing the Gospel of Jesus Christ. You who are Catholics do not know the hearts of those who sincerely try to serve God daily by living according to His Word alone.
We have church leaders in the limelight from both camps to look at, and to be frank, there are few in either camp that I consider to be good examples of Christ. Most of those who were have already lived out their lives here in this dark place, shining the light of Christ in the best way they knew. But then again, I do not know for sure. As blundering and idiotic as some of them may sound, they may yet be on that narrow path that leads to salvation.
We do not decide who serves, and who does not. We don't see who is saved, and who isn't. We just aren't privy to such knowledge. To think we are is the hieght of arrogance, don't you think? We can guess, but wasn't the example of Elijah given as proof that we are bad guessers?
I come back to what was said a while ago, and it bears repeating:
In essentials, unity.
In non-essentials, liberty.
In all things, love.
Show others the grace you expect to be shown on the Day of the Lord.
Anonymous Marko said...
Dan said, above:
Marko, What I had said above was a reiteration of Constance simple faith description and the errors people fall into. I just suggested to her a third.
I agree with most all you said in your segments. I try not to be too judgmental, but I slip often. I will stand and contend for my faith. I like to think there is a difference. I think debate is good as iron sharpens iron. My positions on many points have changed as the Lord by his Spirit provides light.
I see allot of questions that I take to be rhetorical? If you have a pointed question for me, forgive me and point it out, again? Thanks
Anonymous RayB said... 3:55 PM
I absolutely agree with you. "For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus." Galatians 3:26
RayB, I believe there is a dual redemptive effort, working in and from the single redemptive act of his son's obedience to the cross.
There is no Jew or Greek in the spiritual redemptive effort, but yet there is a physical Israel, (The house of Judea and the house of Israel)
There are detailed events that have to do with the Jews and the House of Israel that are detailed, physical and not allegorical that is yet to be fulfilled. See Ezekiel starting at around chapter 40 pertaining to Israel in particular.
So I do not believe it is either or, but rather neither nor exclusive.
Dan,
I only used your comment as a starting place, none of the questions are directed at you - they are more or less rhetorical.
Like you, my positions on many points (the ones that fall under "non-essentials") have changed over the years. I try to let my studies and the truth I dig up from scriptures, history, the experience of others, the realization that there's so much yet that I DON'T know, and the guidance of Holy Spirit be my guide. And yes, I often fail.
Marko@ 9:32
AMEN.
Well put and very important.
It reminds me of the words of Jesus in John 3:8
"The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest
the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh
and wither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the
spirit."
Even so, as we near the return of Christ, who will use His rod of iron to bring complete change of order,,, the lines of distinction between those who serve and seek the Savior, and those who do not, will become more pronounced. Those who are LUKEWARM will be spewed out of the Lord's mouth. Not to be forgotten, those who remain in Babylon will partake of the judgement that is now at the door!
I would rather be overzealous toward hot, and avoid the consequences of being found LUKEWARM!
There is no reason to compromise the truth in this late hour. Those who join in the One World Religion with the Pope, and the Antichrist etc. will not have a pleasant future. I'm planning on not being guilty of misleading any soul who may believe the ecumenical movement is a good thing!
Facsimiles of the arches of Baal
For Whom the "Bel" Tolls-Will It Toll For Us?
endtimeforecaster.blogspot.com
Tuesday, April,5,2016 post
Largely Catholic Latin America is home to 44 of the 50 most violent cities on earth!
What KIND of gospel are they 'preaching' there????
www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-05/50-most-murderous-cities-world
Top Iranian General: We Are Preparing for War and US "Won't Do a Damn Thing" About It
www.breakingisraelnewsnews.com/165124/top-iranian-general-iran-preparing-for-all-outwar-with-us-middle-east/#HVZRMq5gCTion8he.97
Article can also be accessed at raptureready.com latest series of posts
Interesting, considering POTUS enabling Iran, and Daniel chapter 8 prophecy.
11:05am....
The article you cited makes NO reference to Catholicism. Your comment tries to blame the high murder rates on a failure of Catholicism to change the culture. The blame could just as well go to any other religious group, or to the widespread return in these areas to Animism, Occult practices, and other heathen / non-Christian religions. Or it could be that these cities are major illegal drug distribution points. The linkage to Catholicism is purely arbitrary and coincidental.
But thanks for providing an example of how to incorrectly assign blame and jump to wild conclusions.
5:11 PM
The occult communicates by way of symbols, the UN symbol is the Roman laurel leaves. Rome (The Vatican) is a country, it's own country. Rome is a pagan society that worships Isis/Horace, Babylonian junk including Mithraism and yet it maintains a veil of deception: Christianity. Rome is the seat of the anti-Christ and we have all know since the Protestant Reformers. The UN is ROME's platform and reading Robert Muller made it clear that World Core is Roman Babylonia Mystery religion education-NOT that Muller was interrupting them, NOT at all. The letter about Muller to Rome was a deception or completely ignorant.
YOU however have made a very deceptive case for your conservative catholic readers that there is a separate mysterious new age movement infiltrating Rome. Either you have failed miserably by not reading a single encyclical, or you are one of them, or you are afraid of them and unable to stand for Jesus. Because you started on Angelica's show with your amazing discovery, I am much more inclined to call you controlled opposition. It's clear that spending at the Vatican is out of control and they NEED the money from the members and can't afford to lose them en mass even though they have and continue to.
The UN was Rome's venue for global take over. They just did it. My state only contemplated the UN broad band surveillance system last year and are in process of establishing First Net which is the final nail. Those of us who get it and are able to articulate it will be targeted for all kinds of nastiness. I regret that I can sit here and post under slow and multiple various attacks when my desire was to be burned at the stake screaming for my LORD in full public display, but then again if they did that.....people would get it and fight back. *That means we can all be hopeful. This tiny weak Babylon will be short and they never had enough people to be for it. Mass surveillance, electronic attacks and mass destruction of the food supply along with chem trails was the only option they had. MANY LOVE the LORD and PRAISE HIM!! The Truth of The Lord Endurith Forever, HIS Truth Endurith Forever. Blessed are Thou oh Lord!!
The blame could just as well go to any other religious group-1:10 PM
No it can't. The USA was Protestant and it was the greatest nation that was ever conquered by Rome. Mission accomplished said the drudge deception as Obama showed by a powerful image we are Cuba now, a Roman Catholic country. I have already posted the encyclical that proves "social Justice" and "liberation theology" was started by ROME. All the ISISM INCLUDING the Holy Roman Empire -Nazism were created by Rome. (and Islam). The truth shall set our minds free.
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/brussels-attacks/justin-shults-american-missing-belgium-confirmed-dead-n546031
RIP
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio
Operation Gladio (Italian: Operazione Gladio) is the codename for a clandestine North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) "stay-behind" operation in Italy during the Cold War. Its purpose was to prepare for, and implement, armed resistance in the event of a Warsaw Pact invasion and conquest. Although Gladio specifically refers to the Italian branch of the NATO stay-behind organizations, "Operation Gladio" is used as an informal name for all of them. The name Gladio is the Italian form of gladius, a type of Roman shortsword.
https://www.technocracy.news/index.php/2015/10/05/obamaun-announce-global-police-force-to-fight-extremism-in-u-s/
and Bingo was his name O
Constance
You say that the Dalai Lama and other new age gurus have more pull at the UN than the Popes,current and past.
REALLY?
Please tell me you are kidding!!
Pope John Paul addressed the UN in 1979 and 1995.
Benedict in 2008.
And Francis in 2015.
Pope John Paul received the Congressional Gold Medal (the highest honor bestowed to a civilian).
And Francis addressed Congress last year.
And SQUAT for the Dalai Lama!!
The RCC has 1.2 billion followers. I'm pretty sure there are not 1.2 billion people following the Dalai Lama.
How does anyone not call you out on this???
It's ABSOLUTELY hilarious that you would even say that.
But.... 75% or more of your followers here are RCC and the rest......well, you ignore them as if someone would dare to question you.
You don't ignore all non-RCC commentators, like the few here that always try to play kumbaya (they know who they are) and are not interested or brave enough to speak the truth.
It's kind of strange that someone who professes to expose new age, completely misses the biggest new age lie in the history of mankind.
http://www.nano.gov/sites/default/files/pub_resource/2014_nni_strategic_plan.pdf
Oh boy another long read and how much have the learned in 24 mths...
I sure hope this is 'good' for America.
https://zosotruthtalk.wordpress.com/2011/03/26/catholicism-and-the-kabbalah/
Is the next level of roman catholicism...kabbala? Dorothy, didn't you go from the RCC to Kabalah? I forget now.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/517091/how-smart-dust-could-spy-on-your-brain/
ahhh...ok it's mind control brain dust...yeah well it don't take magic fairy dust to find people who don't believe in climate change and a global Babylon. The internet is enough. I guess they figured out we just agreed with their stupid college tests and questionnaires to get our degrees and get to work. Magic fairy dust is more for fooling the people they need to poison the population or harass those who openly disagree because they know not what they do and most people in our GOVERNMENT which is GOOD and FINE and made up of REGULAR people would not want to soak their neighbors in smart dust, NOT even their Muslim and Jewish or Black or Latio neighbors. Americans and still very good. Must be hard for them to find enough people to do mean stuff here.
God bless even you Constance.
http://climateoutreach.org/resources/climate-change-faith/
This has a new (feb 2016) pdf and the focus is the idea of global warming is obviously a religious idea and needs to be evangelized specifically by the religion of the person being targeted. Contributing author is from a jesuit university, naturally, I expected nothing less. So Jesus is the truth and real sola scriptura Protestants (as stated in the Yale data paper I posted many moons ago) will be the least inclined to believe in roman global babylon transformational change and we have even seen some professors call openly for the death of those who don't 'believe' in fairy dust, I mean climate change/global warming/fabianism/ yeah whatever. Do you believe in Magic? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mI7uHI1x09A Yeah, it's all demonic but this is the nature of our world and our condition as fallen men. I do believe that 100% of corrupted/controlled professors do believe climate change science.
In case you missed it....the arched entrance that stood before the Temple of Baal in Palmyra is coming to New York on April 19th. Some are calling it a "welcome mat for the anti-christ." Regardless of what you believe, or don't believe, the Palmyra Arch is a timely and fitting monument for a nation spinning headlong into the darkness.
"It will be uncanny and thrilling to see this arch from an ancient desert civilization set against the bright lights of New York."
Yes indeed, thrilling.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/20/opinion/sunday/life-among-the-ruins.html?_r=0
http://www.nanowerk.com/nanotechnology-news/newsid=42934.php
If I find plastic in my dog food or candy bar.....? Is that plastic or nano? What exactly have we not been informed of?
Didn't miss it, OMOTS. Thanks for posting the link.
Seems like it is only right that it be in NY and London. The ole devil standing up with one foot on one continent and one on the other. Must be he's near 'bout ready for his "rep" to show up with his wares for the sell out to the sold out.
The two financial capitals, City of London and New York.
Wonder what that is signaling? Could be the new financial system that will be ushered in when the Phoenix rises out of the ashes of the petrodollar system. Just a thought.
Interesting how the two countries in the World which have been the most traditionally prominent as Protestant countries are targeted for this abomination: most assuredly by the Romish power behind the UN!
Here is a good write up on the Palmyra Arch everyone here should read!
parablesblog.blogspot.com
Tuesday, April 5, 2016 post
Re the entrance arch to Baal's temple......the latest info is that three arches will be erected for simultaneous display on April 19th. One each in London, NY, and Dubai. I've updated my blog post as new info comes in, including the following:
This is a global demonstration of advanced 3-D printing technology that will allow many ancient sites to be restored/rebuilt in the years ahead under the auspices of UNESCO and the Venice Charter.
The Venice Charter went into effect in 1964 and calls for the restoration and reconstruction of ancient archeological buildings and sites. With 3-D printing technology now available on a large scale, the Charter has taken on a life of it's own. The entire Temple of Baal, which was destroyed at Palmyra last year by ISIS, can and will be rebuilt. Thousands of photographs and precise measurements of the old pagan temple are already being compiled at the Institute for Digital Archeology.
It is also possible that the ancient Jewish Temple can be rebuilt using this same technology. There are already several UNESCO World Heritage designations within the borders of Israel. Could it be that the Jerusalem "problem" will be settled by a World Heritage designation for the entire Old City, including the Temple Mount? Israel may look favorably on such a designation if it means the Venice Charter could/would be invoked on the Temple Mount in the years ahead.
So in 3 places.
And it's interesting that it is the entrance arch.
Enter what? Enter who? That's what it makes me think about...
(and rival to the Temple Mount in it's timing it would appear?)
We live in amazing times.
Omots,
Not sure that Muslims would take kindly to that idea. In fact, all hell will break loose if anything resembling the Temple were to be put there. As it stands Jews are not even allowed to pray on the Temple Mount.
There is a man in Colorado who is going to make a replica of the Temple in Colorado.
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/colorado.man.wants.to.build.a.full.size.replica.of.ancient.jerusalem/83366.htm
The Panama Papers scandal might be used to control the rich and their money. Like most people my first reaction was disgust that the rich people could hide their money instead of paying taxes, but then I realized that this scandal could be part of forcing everyone, rich and poor, to take the mark of the beast.
3:31....
The Panama Papers, like Wikileaks, could also play a role not in forcing anyone to do anything, but to further change the perceptions of most people to be in favor of Hitting The Reset Button, which is what I see happening all over the world.
Hitting The Reset Button is the option preferred by more and more people, especially younger people who have attended college and been indoctrinated to hate America, hate the current "system", and hate anyone and everything who is part of the "old ways", which as they all know are unjust, hateful, narrow-minded, and need to be ignored at the very least, and, well, why not just get rid of it all and start over?
Building a New World, after all, is so much fun, especially if I get to help tear the old one down!
The French Revolution magnified 100x.
Changing perceptions is what all the revolutionary movements are about. It is a process that has been going on here (America) for generations.
And it's been going on since the Garden of Eden. Nothing new.
Notes on the Trending Time Signs
theopenscroll.blogspot.com/2016/04/notes-on-trending-time-signs.html#comment-form
Pope Francis calls to accept gays
www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/210567
The latest from the Man of Sin:
The Pope: "A pastor cannot feel that it is enough simply to apply moral laws...as if they were stones to throw at people's lives," he wrote in the paper, cited by CNN. "By thinking that everything is black and white, we sometimes close off the way of grace and growth."
Fine example moral relativism at its best. Christ REALLY didn’t mean it when He said to the woman caught in adultery: “Go, and sin no more.”
The Pope: "I understand those who prefer a more rigorous pastoral care which leaves no room for confusion. But I sincerely believe that Jesus wants a Church attentive to the goodness which the Holy Spirit sows in the midst of human weakness," he added.
God’s Word declares: “What shall we say? Shall we continue in sin that grace might abound? God forbid!”
The Pope: "Every person, regardless of sexual orientation, ought to be respected in his or her dignity and treated with consideration."
The Bible clearly declares that, when it comes to breaking God’s Law, God is “not a respecter of persons.”
The Pope: At the same time, he writes, "there is no stereotype of the ideal family, but rather a challenging mosaic made up of many different realities, with all their joys, hopes and problems."
More moral relativism. The Vatican is clearly setting a “new standard” via incrementalism by watering down God’s ONLY marriage “stereotype” of ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN as father vs Satan's “many different realities.” This “pope” and the Vatican are promoting lawlessness; this is all by design in order to destroy any vestige of true Biblical Christianity. The only thing standing in the way of the global atrocity of a One World Religion, which the Vatican is planning on leading, is Biblical Christianity. Make no mistake about it, this is precisely why this “pope” continues to hammer away at the ONLY true standard we have; God’s Word.
Anon 11:28,
The odds are definitely against the building of a third Temple on the Temple Mount. There have been numerous articles published in Israeli and Arab news outlets about what the building of such a structure would mean for those on both sides of the issue. Obviously, it would only be possible if something major happened to change the status quo.
However, support and preparation for the idea continues to grow. A recent opinion poll showed that a third of all Jews living in Israel would favor such an endeavor. The technology exists to recreate such a structure accurately and fairly rapidly. The Temple Institute has already recreated most of the furnishings. This 3-D virtual tour shows that the dream remains very much alive.
http://jerusalem.com/tour/jewish_temple_3D
It should also be noted that Jordan nominated the "Old City" of Jerusalem for inclusion in UNESCO's WORLD HERITAGE uumbrella back in 1981. This designation would of course include the Temple Mount. UNESCO has not formally designated Jerusalem as a "World Heritage Site", yet they have recognized Jerusalem officially as a "World Heritage Site in Danger".
The latest (2013) UNESCO statement on Jerusalem's status:
"Following certain media announcements reporting on the cancellation of the UNESCO Mission to the Old City of Jerusalem, Director-General Irina Bokova wishes to underscore that contrary to such information, consultations are being pursued by the Government of Israel, and the Palestinian and Jordanian authorities with a view to finalizing the terms of the mission and determining its date."
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/mother-says-sex-son-incredible-7712560
real life Isis/Horace? Eww
Looks like the pope made the drudge front page and he is starting to crack down on people who know the truth. Age of mercy running fast into age of controlled thought. Is this what Jesus would do? Nope but the vicor of Jesus does his own thing. What erks me is the headline years from now, "Pope apologizes!(photo:kneels for forgiveness at some pagan place on some pagan holiday while licking some pagan's feet) SORRY for holocaust now that climate science has been debunked. Millions dead and families think apology falls short, but elite happy with depopulation numbers claiming it matches the shortage of resources. New pope said old pope just looking at what the scientific community was saying back in the day, can't be blamed, not the 'official teaching' of RCC so he moves to make him a saint anyway."
bleck!
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/04/08/exclusive-un-starts-toward-new-control-over-worlds-oceans.html
Thank goodness, I feel better now.
Marko 9:31 P.M.
Re: Are there any further requirements? For example, does a person need to be baptized to get to heaven? No. If a person believes in their heart in Jesus Christ on their deathbed, and confess Him with their mouth, they are saved. I don't think God is going to say when they go before Him "Well did you get baptized? No? Oooopppssss....sorry." Of course I don't know for sure, but I'm basing that on the kindness of God.
You are absolutely correct, Marko. The Catholic Church teaches that there are three kids of baptism. Baptism of water, Baptism of desire and Baptism of blood. If a person believes in his heart in Jesus Christ on their deathbed, and confess Him with their mouth, that is baptism of desire, even if only implicitly.
Anonymous 10:20 P.M.
Re:If you have no good twist of scripture for us, you deflect.
You have not successfully made your case for "Sola Scriptura" or "private interpretation" which is a "good twist of the Scriptures" par excellence in its own right.
You continue to gloss over and/or deny the glaring contradictions of your own rule of faith and desperately try to change the subject when confronted with what should be an embarrassment to any rational person capable of thinking hard and thinking clean.
All you are doing is preaching to the choir ( a.k.a. those who already agree with you) on this blog.
Calling the Pope the "Antichrist" and calling the Roman Catholic Church the "Whore of Babylon" - neither of which is explicitly stated in Scriptures, but is an invention of Martin Luther and his fellow apostates - is not going to change the fact - at least not to Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox - that your rule of faith CONTRADICTS ITSELF.
The only one doing any "deflecting" here is you. Since Sola Scriptura is YOUR rule of faith, you are the one who has to provide a "good twist of scripture" and/or "deflect" whenever the Bible doesn't back up your little denominational version of Christianity which is one of 20,000+ other versions which often contradict each other as well.
Susanna,
Not sure who your addressing concerning the Whore of Babylon, but that was not me.
Do you love your 'church' more than you love Jesus?
Do you think the Pope is a good representative of Jesus?
The only alternative to private interpretation involves elevating one particular interpretation to the same level of authority as scripture itself. That is blasphemy whether it is done by one individual or by any collective.
When it is asked where sola scriptura appears in the Bible, the question is not clear because the meaning of "sola scriptura" needs unpacking. Would those asking the question please phrase it as a self-standing and grammatically correct English sentence?
Anonymous 7:43
Re: Do you love your 'church' more than you love Jesus?
Do you love your "bible" more than you love Jesus? Jesus never taught "Sola Scriptura." Jesus never taught "private interpretation." The Bible Jesus DID quote most often was the Septuagint which is not part of the Protestant Bible.
I love Jesus more than anyone or anything.
Jesus said that if we loved Him we would keep his commandments John 14:15. If I love Jesus' Church, it is out of obedience to Jesus Who, according to the Gospels, not only established His Church with Peter as His first universal Vicar, but also said to Peter and the Apostles "He Who hears you hears me." Luke 10:16
Whether or not any particular Pope is personally a "good representative of Jesus," Catholics believe that the Pope is specially prevented by the Holy Spirit from teaching error "ex cathedra" in matters of faith and morals.
You can believe that nonsense if you enjoy it, but it is BS!
" Catholics believe that the Pope is specially prevented by the Holy Spirit from teaching error "ex cathedra" in matters of faith and morals."
Susanna,
I am following along and reading this discussion you are having with 7:43 PM. I do not doubt that you love Jesus. I believe you are sincere and I am glad for our common belief that He is the Son of God, the Lord our Savior. But I cannot see how the pope teaching (posted far and wide now in multiple places) against the Scripture concerning the current culture issues of acceptance of homosexuality and climate change (just 2 examples) can be listening the the Holy Spirit or he would not be promoting these very things. This is very compromised.
How can you think that he is rightly representing the Lord Jesus and go against the Bible? That is a major disconnect and represents what is unholy-so he is very much in error. Error you say he is supposed to be prevented from.
Sorry, dear, but I don't understand how you can say that.
Doesn't this present a conflict for you?
But what does the goddess Kali from her perch on the Empire State building think of this upstart Baal? Hey, jealousy.
Does anyone know here that in chapter 69 of the Book of Enoch we have one of the rebel angels teaching men how to 'smite the embryo in the womb so that it does not live'?
The connection between abortion and Baal is quite clear.
Perhaps Rockefeller is behind this thing in NYC. I am sure Planned Parenthood is happy about it.
Could the US media be the 4th head of the leopard, to accompany the 3 branches of Government.
I'm in Lansing, Michigan for a snow laden weekend where I'm serving as an elected delegate to the State Republican Convention. Cliff Kincaid is guest hosting my radio program in the morning at www.tmeradio.com.
He's great, join him at 10 am Eastern time, 7 am Pacific time.
A large stone cracked my windshield as I was driving in Lansing from the hotel to the Convention Center. Nothing to eat before and too late to stay for the ongoing parties in the nearby hotel where food was allegedly in abundance. I guess I'll lose more weight this weekend -- but I guess that involuntary fast won't hurt. Well, if I'm going to catch the 7 am shuttle to the Convention, I'd better retire for the night right now.
Pray for me!
Constance
'Orthodox Church': Branch of the Harlot
http://galatiansfour.blogspot.com.es/2011/04/orthodox-church-branch-of-harlot.html?m=1
"Whether or not any particular Pope is personally a "good representative of Jesus," Catholics believe that the Pope is specially prevented by the Holy Spirit from teaching error "ex cathedra" in matters of faith and morals."
I personally don't doubt your love for Jesus Christ, Susanna, and as a former Roman Catholic I do believe there are true Christians within the Roman Catholic system. However, I am convinced that it is despite and not because of the Roman Catholic system, which itself is thoroughly ungodly and all true Christians should run from it as fast as they can!
Regarding the part of your post which I have cited above, in that case, Clement XIV was right in everything he said about and against the Jesuits when, on the 21st of July,1773, he issued a Papal Bull EX -CATHEDRA banning and banishing them forever!
I am sure you'd agree with me that the Holy Spirit is infallible, and God is not a God of confusion. Therefore, it must have been, using your logic, an evil and rebellious act of grave error when, on the 7th of August, 1814, Pius VII readmitted the Jesuits despite the Papal Bull issued nearly 41 years earlier EX-CATHEDRA banning them forever!
Susanna,
How can you say: "The Bible Jesus DID quote most often was the Septuagint which is not part of the Protestant Bible." ?
It's EXACTLY THE SAME, with the exception of the handful of Apocryphal books which are clearly labled as such.
Anonymous 7:51
The answer to the LOADED question about the term Sola Scriptura is that the term Sola Scriptura is not found anywhere in the
Bible. It's a Latin term which is indeed not found. Why would it be found? Why should it be found?
It's a ploy and it would be like challenging someones Last Will and Testament and saying that since the term "Sola Testimonia is not found in grandpa's Will, the Will itself is not binding and that other members of the family can write their own versions of what it should say, in order to correct it and clarify any questions. In fact family traditions must be considered and given equal weight.
Maybe if God were an earthly lawyer He would have put the term in there, but He assumed that since the Bible is His Holy Word
that no one will have the audacity to question it.
For that matter He also neglected to sign His full name at the end, or have it notarized.
the books are the same but the CONTENT of them, the wording, often differs. many OT quotes in NT are barely recognizable in the Masoretic version the KJV is based on.
http://www.oodegr.co/english/protestantism/masoretic_vs_septuagint.htm
" Though the consonants differ little from the text generally accepted in the early 2nd century (and also differ little from some Qumran texts that are even older), it has numerous differences of both greater and lesser significance when compared to (extant 4th century) manuscripts of the Septuagint, a Greek translation (made in the 3rd to 2nd centuries BCE) of the Hebrew Scriptures that was in popular use in Egypt and Israel (and that is often quoted in the New Testament, especially by the Apostle Paul).[5]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masoretic_Text
apparently the Ethiopian Jewish OT includes some of the deuterocanonicals that Rabbi Akiva threw out. https://knightword.wordpress.com/2009/09/22/ethiopian-canon-is-that-maccabees-or-meqabyan%E2%80%A6/
(This post follows on from my previous post at 6:02 AM.)
Citation taken from 'cruxnow.com'
"Under Francis there's a new dogma: Papal fallibility"
"When the First Vatican Council formally declared the dogma of papal infallibility in 1870, it was very carefully circumscribed. According to the council’s formula, a papal edict is regarded as incapable of error only if:
It pertains to faith and morals
It does not contradict scripture or divine revelation
It’s intended to be held by the whole Church
As Benedict XVI put it in July 2005: “The pope is not an oracle; he is infallible [only] in very rare situations.” Benedict reinforced the point when he published his book “Jesus of Nazareth,” actually inviting
People to disagree with him."
Given that Clement XIV's Ex-Cathedra Bull banning the jesuits and their order, and given the specific and direct language used therein, it is clear this Bull fulfilled all the criteria for such to be considered an 'infallible proclamation' by Roman Catholic standards! The problem then arises when Pius XII (through his reinstatement and re-admittance of the jesuits) contradicts that which was intended for the whole church FOREVER! It can, therefore, only be construed that Pius VII's Papal Bull in question is and was void, null and forfeit, and therefore invalid!
This means that (Francis) the current pontiff's position as Pope is untenable and invalid by the fact that he himself was and remains an unrepentant member of the Jesuit Order banned forever by Clement XIV and 'infallibly' so! This, therefore, makes a mockery of the RC dogma of papal infallibility and shows such to be fallicious given the Roman Catholic church's claim to be the original church established by Jesus Christ against which the gates of Hell would not prevail!
Christine;
"the books are the same but the CONTENT of them, the wording, often differs. many OT quotes in NT are barely recognizable in the Masoretic version the KJV is based on. " (sic)
Different wording doesn't even have to mean or imply different meaning or content:
"I'm going to work now."
"I'm leaving now to go to work."
"It's off to work I go now."
"My work calls and I must go now."
"Now it's time for me to get to work."
"I must needs attend to my labors at this time."
"Work is my reason for leaving here at this time."
"I go now to do that which Christine Erikson never does, namely, work"
__etc etc etc___
Thanks for that quote which may or may not be true, followed up by no examples. You don't even give an example of what kind of hair-splitting confusion you're referring to. Not that a hair splitting example would change anything.
Obviously it's language and syntax that have changed considerably over the centuries: Hebrew, Aramaic, Ethiopian, Greek, and Latin, not God's Holy Word.
You're full of baloney, Christine, and your direct quote from some, probably non-believing, unnamed "scholar", is an example of you firing off an academic sounding Wiki response without even reading into the matter.
Go back to your prescription induced semi-sleep.
no paul its not always that simple. Jeremiah in LXX has less than Masoretic which added. some of it is not in the same location. Cain's sin is made clear in the LXX
that though he brought the offering rightly he did not divide it rightly.
WIKIPEDIA IS A QUICK SOURCE TO RESENT INFORMATION I KNOW FROM YEARS OF STUDY. the articles have SOURCES footnoted.
EXAMPLES ARE IN THE url http://www.oodegr.co/english/protestantism/masoretic_vs_septuagint.htm
How is the Masoretic text different from the Septuagint?
Psalm 22:16 the word “pierced” has been replaced by “lion”.
Psalm 145: 13 omitted entirely.
Isaiah 53:11 the word “light” is omitted.
On 134 occasions the Tetragrammaton, the name of God, has been replaced by “Adonai”.
Psalm 151 was omitted entirely. (It is now omitted by almost all Christian Bibles !)
Exodus 1: The number 75 replaced by 70
Genesis 10:24 some generations removed.
Deuteronomy 32:8 “Angels Of Elohim” replaced with “children of Israel.”
Jeremiah 10 verses 6 and 7 have been added in the Masoretic.
Psalm 96:10 “Say among the nations, YHWH reigns from the wood” omitted.
Isaiah 19:18 “city of righteousness” changed to the “city of the sun” or in some versions “the city of destruction.”
The Masoretic scribes purposely and willfully rearranged the original chapter order in the prophetic Book of Daniel, so that the chapters make no sense chronologically.
Isaiah 61:1 “recovery of sight to the blind.”. Omitted.
In Psalm 40:6 “a body you have prepared for me” was replaced by “you opened my ears.”
Deuteronomy 32:43 ‘Let all the messengers of Elohim worship him.’” Omitted.
Genesis 4:8: “Let us go into the field” is omitted.
Deuteronomy 32:43. Moses’ song is shortened.
Isaiah 53 contains 10 spelling differences, 4 stylistic changes and 3 missing letters for light in verse 11, for a total of 17 differences.
Isaiah 7:14. “Virgin” replaced by “young woman.”
(When Aquila made his Greek translation of the Old Testament at the behest of Rabbi Akiva, he changed the Septuagint’s “virgin” into “young woman”. The Masoretic compilers may have followed his lead.)
The Masoretic text differs from the Septuagint in hundreds of places.
(Citation taken from www.jesuswouldbefurious.org/Catholic/papalinfallibility.html )
"When the First Vatican Council defined papal infallibility, it claimed it was the ancient and constant faith of the Church. In fact, the first statement on personal infallibility came from Pope Leo the Great in 457: 'By the power of the Holy Spirit he needs no human instruction and is incapable of doctrinal error.' It is clear and precise. But there's a snag. Leo was referring not to himself but to the new Roman Emperor.
In Origins of Papal Infallibility 1150-1350, Brian Tierney showed that the doctrine of papal infallibility was invented by enemies of the papacy between 1280 and 1320 in an attempt to limit the power of the reigning pontiff. The more rebellious they became, the more they exaggerated the infallibility of past popes.
No pontiff ever claimed that he personally could propound dogmas, that is, irreformable doctrines to be held by all Catholics. Popes were chiefly interested in their supremacy. Integral to this was ultimate authority in doctrine and discipline."
" Why didn't they want infallibility as well? Partly because history showed beyond question that many popes had been heretics and apostates. There was also a more important political reason: it would limit their personal power. How? If they were infallible, so were their predecessors. If a predecessor had spoken infallibly they would be bound by what he said. Popes held that only Christ could not err. This meant that they were only bound by scripture and definitions of Councils which interpreted scripture."
"Incidentally, to suggest that the pope was above General Councils makes nonsense of the whole history of the early and medieval Church. The pope had no choice but to accept the doctrinal decisions of the early Councils, especially the first four, for a Council is greater than a pope. Popes could err; Councils could not."
"When Pope John XXII (1316-34) heard that some upstart Franciscans had proposed papal infallibility, he was furious. They were accusing him of being a heretic for denying his own infallibility when no pope had ever claimed it. What John XXII's foes were implying was he had contradicted his infallible predecessors, therefore, he should be removed from office and handed over to his own Inquisition to be burnt."
"In his Bull, Quia quorundam of 1324, John XXII quoted those who said, 'What the Roman Pontiffs have once defined in faith and morals stands so immutably that it is not permitted to a successor to revoke it.' This was a lie, he said, and inspired by the 'Father of lies'. He was not infallible. He, the Pope, retained the right, in principle, to be a heretic, like anyone else, but he didn't intend to exercise this right by espousing the new heresy of papal infallibility."
"The first pope to hear of papal infallibility called it insane, the teaching of the devil."
Susanna, you wrote:
"Whether or not any particular Pope is personally a "good representative of Jesus," Catholics believe that the Pope is specially prevented by the Holy Spirit from teaching error "ex cathedra" in matters of faith and morals."
I personally don't doubt your love for Jesus Christ, Susanna, and as a former Roman Catholic I do believe there are true Christians within the Roman Catholic system. However, I am convinced that it is despite and not because of the Roman Catholic system, which itself is thoroughly ungodly and all true Christians should run from it as fast as they can!
Regarding the part of your post which I have cited above, in that case, Clement XIV was right in everything he said about and against the Jesuits when, on the 21st of July,1773, he issued a Papal Bull EX -CATHEDRA banning and banishing them forever!
I am sure you'd agree with me that the Holy Spirit is infallible, and God is not a God of confusion. Therefore, it must have been, using your logic, an evil and rebellious act of grave error when, on the 7th of August, 1814, Pius VII readmitted the Jesuits despite the Papal Bull issued nearly 41 years earlier EX-CATHEDRA banning them forever!
The following citation is taken from 'cruxnow.com'
"Under Francis there's a new dogma: Papal fallibility"
"When the First Vatican Council formally declared the dogma of papal infallibility in 1870, it was very carefully circumscribed. According to the council’s formula, a papal edict is regarded as incapable of error only if:
It pertains to faith and morals
It does not contradict scripture or divine revelation
It’s intended to be held by the whole Church
As Benedict XVI put it in July 2005: “The pope is not an oracle; he is infallible [only] in very rare situations.” Benedict reinforced the point when he published his book “Jesus of Nazareth,” actually inviting
People to disagree with him."
Given that Clement XIV's Ex-Cathedra Bull banning the jesuits and their order, and given the specific and direct language used therein, it is clear this Bull fulfilled all the criteria for such to be considered an 'infallible proclamation' by Roman Catholic standards! The problem then arises when Pius XII (through his reinstatement and re-admittance of the jesuits) contradicts that which was intended for the whole church FOREVER! It can, therefore, only be construed that Pius VII's Papal Bull in question is and was void, null and forfeit, and therefore invalid!
This means that (Francis) the current pontiff's position as Pope is untenable and invalid by the fact that he himself was and remains an unrepentant member of the Jesuit Order banned forever by Clement XIV and 'infallibly' so! This, therefore, makes a mockery of the RC dogma of papal infallibility and shows such to be fallicious given the Roman Catholic church's claim to be the original church established by Jesus Christ against which the gates of Hell would not prevail!
(Post continues ...)
Continued from 8:22 AM.
(Next citation taken from www.jesuswouldbefurious.org/Catholic/papalinfallibility.html )
"When the First Vatican Council defined papal infallibility, it claimed it was the ancient and constant faith of the Church. In fact, the first statement on personal infallibility came from Pope Leo the Great in 457: 'By the power of the Holy Spirit he needs no human instruction and is incapable of doctrinal error.' It is clear and precise. But there's a snag. Leo was referring not to himself but to the new Roman Emperor.
In Origins of Papal Infallibility 1150-1350, Brian Tierney showed that the doctrine of papal infallibility was invented by enemies of the papacy between 1280 and 1320 in an attempt to limit the power of the reigning pontiff. The more rebellious they became, the more they exaggerated the infallibility of past popes.
No pontiff ever claimed that he personally could propound dogmas, that is, irreformable doctrines to be held by all Catholics. Popes were chiefly interested in their supremacy. Integral to this was ultimate authority in doctrine and discipline."
" Why didn't they want infallibility as well? Partly because history showed beyond question that many popes had been heretics and apostates. There was also a more important political reason: it would limit their personal power. How? If they were infallible, so were their predecessors. If a predecessor had spoken infallibly they would be bound by what he said. Popes held that only Christ could not err. This meant that they were only bound by scripture and definitions of Councils which interpreted scripture."
"Incidentally, to suggest that the pope was above General Councils makes nonsense of the whole history of the early and medieval Church. The pope had no choice but to accept the doctrinal decisions of the early Councils, especially the first four, for a Council is greater than a pope. Popes could err; Councils could not."
"When Pope John XXII (1316-34) heard that some upstart Franciscans had proposed papal infallibility, he was furious. They were accusing him of being a heretic for denying his own infallibility when no pope had ever claimed it. What John XXII's foes were implying was he had contradicted his infallible predecessors, therefore, he should be removed from office and handed over to his own Inquisition to be burnt."
"In his Bull, Quia quorundam of 1324, John XXII quoted those who said, 'What the Roman Pontiffs have once defined in faith and morals stands so immutably that it is not permitted to a successor to revoke it.' This was a lie, he said, and inspired by the 'Father of lies'. He was not infallible. He, the Pope, retained the right, in principle, to be a heretic, like anyone else, but he didn't intend to exercise this right by espousing the new heresy of papal infallibility."
"The first pope to hear of papal infallibility called it insane, the teaching of the devil."
Susanna, I have already indicated, the Holy Spirit is infallible and God is not the author of confusion. Yet the mess of such an RC dogma of papal infallibility is indeed deeply flawed and confused and therefore, ipso facto, false, as my posts clearly show!
Post Scriptum to my posts at 8:22 AM and 8:26 AM:
Pius XII should read Pius VII in my posts.
Chritine, once again, when you post your merely googled informatiom it is about as helpful,
tasty, and satisfying as chewing a mouth full of sawdust.
The letter kills but the Spirit makes alive, so see? There's your problem.
And once again, since you are also into repetition, then I will repeat for you, that your posts are flat lining.
DOA.
What a pompous, boring nag, you are.
Add blind to that, as well.
the letter kills but the Spirit makes alive? perhaps blasphemy is too harsh a
word for this disingenuous garbage of a response, and that line (which shows how biblically ignorant you are) is about keeping the mosaic law if I hand copied from a book, you would complain I got it in a book instead of going to seminary and if I
did the latter you'd complain about the non value of higher education.
what your real issue is, is that you can't stand to be proven wrong.
it is you who are pompous boring and nagging.
"The Bible Jesus DID quote most often was the Septuagint which is not part of the Protestant Bible."
Clarification please Susanna! What do you mean by "the Protestant Bible" and in what language do you think Jesus was speaking at the time?
The things you write are so empty and meaningless, every time you say anything about the Bible it comes out as a letter that kills. DOA. You don't get the Bible, you don't believe the Bible. You believe your own private interpretation of the Bible. The Holy Spirit won't touch your pompous, empty words with a 10 ft pole.
If you were indwelt by the Holy Spirit you wouldn't have to be told that because you wouldn't do that. You would KNOW the difference.
Consider yourself told, and for the last time, warned.
warned? by who? someone who has no appreciation for or understanding of the Bible who treats it apparently as a prop for your subjective self delusion you think is The Holy spirit? HE IS THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH it says so in the Bible but you wouldn't
know about truth would you? the primary truth the embodiment of it is Jesus Christ, but truth is also facts. specific historic down to earth FACTS. like you hate to see in context of the Bible.
Jesus is a very historic factual person, not just an idea or a collection of values of use to you cobbled together with a title.
private interpretation is about how prophecy does NOT come, read context both you and RC.
and the facts are, that the Masoretic text is more flawed than the Septuagint text of the same books. you can get a copy of the Septuagint online read it free and see for yourself on those passages listed.
Apparently, you have not been paying attention because I have been very clear about what I mean by the Protestant Bible.
As for the language Jesus spoke, it is very likely that Jesus was bi-lingual since Greek was the "lingua franca" in the days of Christ. The evidence for this is from Protestant as well as Catholic sources.
http://www.episcopalcafe.com/jesus_spoke_greek/
All the Gospels have come down to us in Greek. The only Gospel said to be written in Aramaic or Hebrew was the Gospel according to Matthew and we only know about this from the writings form the writings of the Church Fathers ( i.e. Irenaeus).
Ergo, if the "lingua franca" in the days of Jesus and the Apostles was Greek, then it makes sense that the Greek translation of the Old Testament known as the Septuagint would have been the Bible most quoted by Jesus and the Apostles.
The Protestant Bible is the Bible whose Old Testament is the Hebrew Bible which was put together at Jamnia between about 90 A.D. by a group of anti-Christian rabbis whose were allowed to gather at Jamnia at the pleasure of Emperor Vespasian.
It is this Hebrew Bible which was substituted for the Septuagint by Martin Luther during the "Reformation."
In any case, here is the clarification you requested.
___________________________
One of the first things one notices when one compares a Protestant Bible with a Catholic or Orthodox edition, is how much thinner the Protestant Bible is. This thinness has nothing to do with smaller print or finer paper, but is because seven entire books and significant sections of some other books have been removed from the Old Testament of Protestant Bibles. This seems an amazing thing to be done by people who claim to love and revere the Bible.
How did This Happen?
Most people know that Martin Luther translated the Holy Bible into German, making it more widely available to the general reader. Luther's Bible was by no means the first German translation. It was, however, enormously successful.
As is explained in Bible Truth, Martin Luther opposed many of the ancient teachings of the Church. But how could he convince people that the historic church was wrong in its beliefs, and that he was right? He needed an authority that he could appeal to, and claim was higher than that of the Universal Church. He seized upon the Bible, introducing a new doctrine, Sola Scriptura, which said that Scripture Alone could be used to define Christian doctrine. The ancient teachings,and Apostolic tradition of the Church could then be discarded as of no value whatsoever.
cont......
cont...
Authority
But what gave the Bible its authority? Jesus did not leave us the Bible. The New Testament books were not written until many years after his death. The Old Testament did exist, but its individual books were kept as separate scrolls and not bound together. Books as we know them, with bound and turnable pages, were "new technology" unknown in the 1st Century, They did not come into use until the 4th Century.
In fact the Bible as we know it dates from the Council of Rome, called by Pope Damasus in 382 AD, which decided on the number and order of the books that were to be accepted as Scripture. This was considered final by all the churches until 1520. The Bible therefore did not precede the Church, it was a creation of the Church.
Luther's Next Problem
Another problem immediately arose for Luther. Although many of his teachings (and those of the other Reformers) could be backed up from certain Bible passages, read in isolation, other Bible Books clearly refuted them.
Luther, however, wanted a bible that agreed totally with his teachings. He disliked books in both the Old and New Testaments that disagreed with his teachings. He particularly disliked the New Testament Book of James, which condemned his teaching on Salvation by Faith Alone, (see Faith and Works), and the Old Testament Book of Maccabees, which advocated Prayer for the Dead, and therefore could be used to justify the doctrine of Purgatory. (see Heaven and Hell). He called the Book of James the "Epistle of Straw."
Cutting Down the Bible.
Luther therefore took the golden opportunity of his translation of the Bible into German to try to cut certain Books out of the Canon of Scripture. Of James he said, "I will not have him in my Bible in the number of truly principal works." He didn't dare remove books from the Bible entirely - that was too big a step for even him to take. What he did was to take them out of their accepted places in the Bible, and put them in a separate section, which he termed the Apocrypha. These books, he said, were not inspired by God, though they contained "many good sayings." (Luther’s Works, 35, 397)
From the Old Testament he removed the Books of Judith, Tobit, 1 Maccabees 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus and Baruch, as well as Esther and part of the Book of Daniel.
From the New Testament he removed the Books of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation.
What Authority Had He For This?
cont....
None. One would have expected that the modification of the Bible, which all Christians hold as the highest authority, would have required at least a Council of the Church. But no such Council was held. Cleverly, Luther did not remove the books entirely, he merely sidelined them.
In fact his fellow Protestants balked at removing books from the New Testament, particularly since there was no other reason for their removal than that they contradicted Luther's views. The four New Testament Books that Luther had placed in the Apocrypha, were reinserted in future Protestant Bibles, along with most of Esther. But if Luther had had his way, Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation would not be in Protestant Bibles.
Seven Old Testament Books, however, remained excluded from Protestant Bibles. Initially the seven Books continued to be placed in a section called the Apocrypha. But since it was cheaper to print bibles without them, the seven books were slowly dropped altogether. By the 19th Century, the vast majority of Protestant Bibles did not carry the seven Books at all. Protestants began to get used to not seeing these Books in their Bibles, and to imagine that their Bibles were perfectly complete without them.
In this way Catholics came to have a Bible of 73 books, and most Protestants a Bible of 66 books. Perhaps it should cause some misgivings to Protestant readers that the number of books in their Bibles is such an ill-omened one in terms of Biblical Numerology?
So Why Did Protestants continue to exclude the seven Old Testament Books?
Because Luther had another argument to use against the Old Testament Books he removed from the Bible - one which his fellow Reformers could support.
Distrusting the Latin Vulgate Bible, because it was relied on by the Catholic Church, Luther decided to translate his Bible into German from the Original languages. The earliest forms of the New Testament writings were in Greek, so Luther happily translated his New Testament from Greek. It was known that most of the Old Testament had originally been written in Hebrew. So Luther wanted to translate his German Old Testament from the Hebrew texts.
In this he was following St Jerome, who had sought out old Hebrew manuscripts to produce the Latin Vulgate Bible in 406 AD. However, when Luther obtained Hebrew manuscripts from the Jews of his time, he found that the seven Books in question were not in their Canon of Scripture. This strengthened his resolve to remove the Books. The Jews, he argued, were the Guardians of the Old Testament, so he would use their Old Testament.
cont....
cont...
Wasn't This A Good Decision?
Many thought so at the time. Even St Jerome had wanted to follow the Jewish Canon of his time, but his fellow Christians ( including the Pope ) had insisted on the full Canon.
So Were the Seven Books a Later, Christian Addition to the Jewish Old Testament?
Not at all. The oldest existing versions of the Jewish Old Testament include the Seven Books. It is from these versions that the early Christian Scriptures were made. The best, oldest and most complete version of the Jewish Old Testament we know today is called The Septuagint, and this includes the books that Luther deleted.
SO WHY DOESN'T EVERYONE ACCEPT THIS?
Because the Septuagint is written in Greek, not Hebrew. The Septuagint was translated between 300 and 200 BC for the growing community of Greek speaking Jews who lived in Egypt, Palestine, and around the Mediterranean. Many ancient copies are still in existence, and it formed the Old Testament text of the earliest Christian Bibles. Our names for the Old Testament books, (Genesis, Exodus etc.) come from the Greek Septuagint, not the Hebrew.
What About the Original Hebrew?
That is where the problem arises. The "original" Hebrew text no longer exists. When Bibles claim to be translated from the "Original Hebrew", they are being somewhat misleading, since the oldest existing Hebrew texts of the Old Testament date back only to around 1000 AD. These are the Masoretic texts used by the Jews of the diaspora. It is these relatively late texts that lack the Seven Books.
Why Are There No Earlier Hebrew Texts?
The main reason why earlier Hebrew texts do not exist is that the Jews tended to recopy their scriptures when they grew worn, and then bury the original, which soon decayed. Therefore we have nothing like a Hebrew text which goes back to the time of Christ. We do have some earlier fragments, discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls, but there is only one full book and a few disjointed fragments of all the rest.
cont....
Susanna @ 9:19 PM said:
"Do you love your "bible" more than you love Jesus? Jesus never taught "Sola Scriptura." Jesus never taught "private interpretation." The Bible Jesus DID quote most often was the Septuagint which is not part of the Protestant Bible."
It is amazing how little Catholics know of the Bible, AND, how much they really do hate God's Word. This is a fine example by our in house Bible "basher" Susanna. She always puts her Roman Catholicism as an authority over God's Word, and her above statement is just another illustration. In her blind hatred of God's Word, she doesn't even know that Christ quoted the OT, which is of course "part of the 'Protestant' Bible."
The "jesus" of Roman Catholicism is a FALSE CHRIST. Their "jesus" is presented as a little baby in manger, in art work, as a statue, as a wafer, or as an image on the cross. Their "jesus," is NEVER allowed to be a threat to their false religious system because He is granted the AUTHORITY of HIS WORD. The reason for this is clear; Rome's dogmas, doctrines and traditions cannot stand up to the light of God's Word.
Roman Catholicism is today, what the Pharisees were in Christ's time on earth. They, like Rome today, oppose Him by elevating their false system above and beyond Christ's authority. What He often said to the Pharisees, can be applied to the RCC; ""Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." Mark 7:7 And, "Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition ..." Mark 7:13a
I've said this before ... I've known hundreds of Catholics in my lifetime. I have NEVER once met a single one that had any true respect for God's Word. More often than not, they scoff at it ... the reason? Because they have been TAUGHT (brainwashed) to have that attitude by THEIR "church."
cont....
Which is the Most Accurate Version?
Luther, and most of the translators who followed him assumed that the Hebrew texts guarded by the Jews must be more authentic than either the Greek Septuagint translation or Jerome's Latin translation. Therefore most modern Bibles are based on the Hebrew Masoretic texts - which exclude the Seven Books.
However, with improvements in Bible scholarship, that assumption has been changing. Many people had been worried that the quotations of Old Testament Scripture in the New Testament were often slightly different to the versions in the Old Testament, translated from the Hebrew texts. Yet when these quotations were compared with the Greek Language Septuagint version, the wording matched far more closely. It became more and more apparent that the writers of the New Testament had used the Septuagint Version of the Old Testament as their scriptures, rather than the Masoretic version.
So too, the ancient Hebrew manuscripts found at Qumran (The Dead Sea Scrolls), generally agreed more closely with the Septuagint than they do with the current Masoretic Hebrew texts. The Septuagint is thus witness to an older Hebrew manuscript tradition.
Close examination of the Masoretic Hebrew texts also revealed a good number of errors and garbled verses that seemed to have crept into the Hebrew texts through constant recopying. Although the Jewish copyists had taken great pains to keep their copies accurate, mistakes had clearly crept in. It was clear that the once-despised Greek Septuagint version was the more accurate text.
Lets look at a couple of verses:
•2 Chronicles 9:25, says that Solomon had 4,000 stalls for horses,
But 1 Kings 4:26, in the Hebrew translation says he had 40,000
The Septuagint translations of both verses agree on 4,000.
•In the Hebrew translation of 1 Kings 11, verses 2 and 3 have Jeroboam returning to face Rehoboam at Shechem, then returning again, seemingly for the first time in verse 20.
The Septuagint omits verses 2 and 3, which the Hebrew text seems to have repeated in error from 2 Chronicles 10: 2 and 3.
•1 Kings 10.14: The weight of gold received annually by Solomon amounted to six hundred and sixty six talents of gold 15 besides what tolls and foreign trade... brought in. (Septuagint)
1 Kings 10.14: The weight of gold received annually by Solomon amounted to six hundred and sixty six talents of gold 15 besides what men and foreign trade... brought in. (Hebrew)
•Sometimes meanings have been strained in an attempt to make sense of the Hebrew verses:
In Jeremiah 11.15 The Septuagint places the word vows, where the Masoretic Hebrew places many. The Revised Standard Version uses the Septuagint:
•What right has my beloved in my house, when she has done vile deeds? Can vows and sacrificial flesh avert your doom? Can you then exult? RSV
•Other versions attempt the Hebrew with varying success, and meaning:
•"What is my beloved doing in my temple as she works out her evil schemes with many? Can consecrated meat avert your punishment? When you engage in your wickedness, then you rejoice. " NIV
•"What right has My beloved in My house When she has done many vile deeds? Can the sacrificial flesh take away from you your disaster, So that you can rejoice?'' NASB
•What hath my beloved to do in mine house, seeing she hath wrought lewdness with many, and the holy flesh is passed from thee? when thou doest evil, then thou rejoicest. KJB
I think you will agree that the Septuagint is the clearest.
cont......
NOTE: I meant to say in paragraph 3 above ... "... He is NEVER granted the AUTHORITY of HIS WORD.
You figure it out and calculate it out, then. ;)
The Holy Spirit is the Truth you deny (talk does not equal belief and obedience to) that is why you think yourself capable of His job, and don't even know the difference.
You have no fear of God (the beginning of wisdom). That is why you won't heed any warning.
Too bad for you.
Isn't it nice to have "Susanna" copy and paste vast amounts of Catholic propaganda and disinformation?
cont.....
Today most modern Bibles still use the Hebrew Text as their base, but correct and amend it using the older Greek Septuagint version.
Why Have We Digressed Like This?
Because it was necessary to show that the Greek Septuagint text of the Old Testament, which includes the books removed by Luther, is
1.The oldest existing complete text.
2.The text used by the writers of the New Testament
3.The most accurate text of the Old Testament
4.The text used by the early Christians.
So Why Does the Hebrew Text Omit the Seven Books?
Because the Masoretic Hebrew text preserved by the Jews in their Synagogues is a text that was selected and codified after Bible times.
To be precise the Hebrew scriptures were Revised by rabbis at the Council of Jamnia in Palestine around 90 AD. It was this Council that decided to remove the Seven Books from the Hebrew Canon.
Didn't These Rabbis Have the Authority to Decide What was Scripture?
For many reasons that is debatable. We need to look at the reasons they made their rulings - on which Protestants depend to justify their abridged Bible.
Twenty years earlier the Jews of Palestine had rebelled against Rome. They were defeated by General Tacitus, and in 70 AD, 40 years after the crucifixion of Jesus, they were expelled from Jerusalem, and the Temple destroyed. With the fall of the Temple, the Sanhedrin priesthood were also destroyed, so the Judean survivors were given permission to establish a rabbinical school at Jamnia, near the Mediterranean seacoast.
At this time the differences between the Jews who accepted Christ and those who did not were growing deeper and increasingly bitter. The Christian Jews had not joined fully in the revolt against Rome, and many had crossed the Jordan to avoid the conflict. For these and other reasons, the Jews who gathered at Jamnia were confined to those Jews who had rejected Christ. To emphasise this, the leader of this group of Rabbis, Gamaliel II, introduced a prayer containing eighteen curses against those Jews who became Christians. This prayer had to be recited by all Jews who joined them.
It is very clear then that the rabbis who gathered at Jamnia were both embittered, and anti-Christian. Within a few years they were to back two false Messiahs, namely Bar Kokba and Lukuas-Andreas, who led them into fatal revolts against the Emperors Trajan and Hadrian. After the last of these revolts, all Jews were expelled from the Holy Land.
Hebrew was already a dead language, the Jews of that time spoke Aramaic or Greek. Yet Hebrew scriptures were approved at the expense of the Greek Septuagint that was quoted by Christians. The Council also rejected books that contained doctrines they disliked, and all books written since the time of Ezra.
In view of this, Protestants need to ask themselves, why they choose to back the scriptural discernment of this group of Rabbis, who rejected Christ, supported two false Messiahs, and immediately led their followers to further disaster. Do they really think this group was guided by the Holy Spirit to a greater extent than the Jews who followed Christ and who relied on ALL the Old Testament books?
cont....
cont....
But I've Been Told That the "Apocrypha" are Never Quoted in the New Testament.
This is something that Fundamentalist Protestants often claim. Unfortunately for their arguments, it isn't true. See below:
Heb 11:35, "...Others were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might find a better resurrection." The only place in the O.T. that you will find reference to that is 2 Macc 7:1-29. The first half of Heb 11:35 is found in 1 Kings 17:23 and 2 Kings 4:36.
Heb 11:38, "They wandered in deserts and mountains..."
This is found in 1 Macc 2:28-30 and 2 Macc 5:27.
Jn 10:22, "Now there took place at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication..." The inauguration of this feast is found in 1Macc 4:36 & 52-59.
Jn 14:23, "...If anyone love Me, he will keep My word..." This is in Sir 2:18.
Rom 9:21, " is not the potter master of his clay..." Found in Wis 15:7
1Pet 1:6-7, "...gold which is tried by fire..." See Wis 3:5-6
Rom 1:20-23, "For since the creation of the world..." Found in Wis 13:1-7
Mt 7:12, Lk 6:31, "...all that you wish men to do to you, even so do you also to them..." Extension of Tob 4:15
Lk 25 35-36, "I was hungry and you gave me food....I needed clothes and you clothed me." Based on Tob 4:16.
Rev 21:18, "And the material of its wall was jasper; but the city itself was pure gold, like pure glass." See Tob 13 end.
Mt 13:43, "Then the just will shine forth..." Found in Wis 3:7
Mt 27:42, "...if He is the King of Israel, let Him come down now from the cross..." See Wis 2:18-20.
Lk 24:4, "...two men stood by them in dazzling raiment." Found in 2 Macc 3:26.
Rom 11:33, "...How inscrutable are His judgments and how unsearchable are His ways." Found in Judith 8:14.
1 Cor 10:20, "...they sacrifice to demons, not to God..." Found in Baruch 4:7.
Removing books from the Bible is a serious matter, and is specifically condemned in Revelation 22.19. When the authority for this removal depends specifically upon those who rejected the Christian message, perhaps it is time to question the basis of this change.
http://aprofaith.tripod.com/bible.html
_____________________________________________
RayB you just denounced the visual statement of the divine Incarnation in real flesh that went through babyhood. and Jesus' own word IN HIS WORD that we were to eat His flesh (john chapter 6) which when challenged on HE DID NOT QUALIFY AS METAPHORICAL. And you denounced the visual statement of His atoning Crucifixion.
is there any Christian core doctrine you support?
anon 12:57 you think you're so smart with your REJECTION OF THE WORD in favor of your unspecified but private interpretation, prove it. Show me a section of Scripture at least 4 verses and how you think The Holy Spirit interprets it. I suspect you are a charismatic. you reek of some dreamy mood state you think is holiness.
Anonymous 8:22
Re: Regarding the part of your post which I have cited above, in that case, Clement XIV was right in everything he said about and against the Jesuits when, on the 21st of July,1773, he issued a Papal Bull EX -CATHEDRA banning and banishing them forever!
That all papal bulls are infallible is a false assumption on your part. You also have a false idea of what papal infallibility actually entails. This has been discussed many times before on previous threads at this blog. I am not going to repeat them here.
Ray B.
Re:Isn't it nice to have "Susanna" copy and paste vast amounts of Catholic propaganda and disinformation?
I merely did so at Anonymous' request for "clarification" and I wouldn't want him/her to think that what I posted was merely a collection of my own opinions.
I also cited my source.
Read John's upper room discourse. And pray for the Holy Spirit to open your blind eyes and break your stony heart when you read it, and be ready for it to correct your grave error.
Then you will KNOW the difference.
The flesh is enmity against God and your posts all reek of your own fleshly, vain, empty and pompous interpretations of God's Word.
If you take the warning seriously, you will see your grave error.
May God grant your spiritually destitute soul repentance.
Anonymous 8:22
P.S. Your information on Papal Infallibility sounds like a rehash of Ian Paisley's unsubstantiated falsehoods
Susanna,
at what point can the pope be said to be speaking ex cathedra? only when he says he is exercising his papal authority?
Clement XIV said this banning was necessary because of issues of doctrinal problems that occurred among them and a kind of social morality of not creating chaos. that bears on faith and morals (and shows the potential for heresy or heresy compatible tendencies predates Teilhard). Also his order was that this ban be forever. ex cathedra or not, there is a problem. the later pope should have had the remaining Jesuits who were not like the ones who brought on the ban reorganize under another name, different vows, change structure maybe get rid of Loyola and his exercizes. that would not be reviving the Jesuits.
meanwhile, the other points in that article are telling. And the most telling, is the denial (not mentioned) by Pope Leo III that he had the authority to add the filioque to the Creed, that only an ecumenical council could do so.
Anonymous 1:18PM
I am not sure who you are addressing, but if it is me, your comment is a good example of the kind of clear-as-mud rhetoric used by those who are incapable of successfully making their case for what they choose to believe when challenged.
So if you are not capable of sound logical debate, or cannot successfully make your case, spare us your gnostic-sounding misty waffle on what I can KNOW if I follow your advice. Because according to your advice, I would only be added to the 20,000+ other so-called "Holy Spirit-approved" interpretations of Holy Writ that even Martin Luther lamented at the beginning of what he recognized would become "spiritual anarchy."
I will stick to obeying Jesus Christ by obeying the authority He delegated to the Church He founded, saying "He who hears you hears me."
Not still going on about the Council of Jamnia, Susanna? Nobody even believed it existed until the late 19th century and by the late 20th century the theory had been discredited; see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Jamnia
As a quick knockdown, the claim is that Jews at Jamnia de-Jesusified the Old Testament. If so then they did a particularly poor job of it, for the Suffering Servant passages in Isaiah that are the clearest pointers to Him in the entire Hebrew canon survived intact.
As for the Apocrypha, not one Apocryphal book asserts divine authority (as do the law and prophets). Moreover:
• Sirach says this on bringing up children: “He who loves his son will whip him often… If you play with your child, he will grieve you; do not laugh with him, or you will have sorrow with him… give him no freedom in his youth… make his yoke heavy” (ch. 30). That is horrible and blatantly inconsistent with the loving discipline spoken of by Paul (Ephesians 6:4), or Proverbs, or Jesus’ tender talk of children in Matthew 18.
• Tobit was supposedly alive when the Assyrians invaded Israel in 722BC (Tobit 1:3), and also alive more than 200 years earlier when Jeroboam’s revolt against Jerusalem (Tobit 1:4-5) divided Israel into northern and southern kingdoms. Yet he is said to have lived less than 130 years (Tobit 14:2).
• The Letter of Jeremiah (often printed as the 6th chapter of Baruch) says (in verse 2) that the Jews would be in Babylon for seven generations, whereas Jeremiah (25:11) stated (correctly) 70 years.
anon. 1:28 that article mentions something that kills that claim, "The Talmud relates that some time before the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE, Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai relocated to the city of Yavne/Jamnia, where he received permission from the Romans to found a school of halakha (Jewish religious law).[2]"
the arguments againt Jamnia are struck down one and all by that Talmud cite. "Moreover, specific canonical discussion at Jabneh is attested only for Chronicles and Song of Songs. Both circulated prior to Jabneh" PROVES NOTHING, if the argument was going on before Jamnia it would have been continued at Jamnia.
"The concept of the Council of Jamnia is an hypothesis to explain the canonization of the Writings (the third division of the Hebrew Bible) resulting in the closing of the Hebrew canon. ... " no it isn't. what is hypothesized is that this canonization (which was NEVER on the same standing as that of Torah and Prophets to this day among Jews) was done then.
the pompous claims of "discredited" are mere hype.
Post a Comment