Saturday, May 28, 2016

Newt Gingrich as Donald Trump's running mate? I sincerely hope not!

I've been watching the TV and internet coverage on the Donald Trump candidacy.  He has now secured the necessary delegate pledges to win the Republican presidential nomination on the first convention ballot.  The Republican Convention will be held in Cleveland, Ohio this coming July 18-21, 2016.

Now for the Vice Presidential pick.  I am hearing far too often that his pick could well be Newt Gingrich.  The odds-makers are placing their bets on that.  If anybody out there has influence with Mr. Trump (I'm sure I don't), they need to talk him out of that horrifying possibility that could only play into Hillary Clinton's ready and eager hands.

Donald Trump has gained favor with many working class Americans because he has to them a "common touch" and shares their concerns about the loss of American jobs to bad trade deals above.  His political base also rightfully fears the steadily increasing globalization that has dearly cost American workers.

Does Donald Trump realize the following about Newt Gingrich?


Therefore, my prayers are that Donald Trump look elsewhere than Newt Gingrich for his Vice Presidential choice and not to put too  much faith in those Newt Gingrich recommends.

Stay tuned!

CONSTANCE










Comments: 1 – 200 of 260 Newer› Newest»
One thing you missed in your list, Constance, and that is that Newt Gingrich "converted" to Roman Catholicism. Once a Southern Baptist, he married his 3rd. wife, who is a life-long Catholic.

Here is a link to an article that Newt wrote himself regarding his "conversion." Interesting but not at all surprising), Newt goes into great detail in this short article about his "conversion," but not once ... NOT ONCE ... does he mention the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Kind of similar to Francis mentioning Christ's Name only once in 10 days, and that was the "failure of the cross" statement.

So Newt, the one you fear so much, is a faithful "son of the Church." That should be enough to override all that New Age, Globalist stuff Newt favors. In fact, it puts him in a great position to have long and happy dialogue with "pope" Francis.

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/newt-gingrich-why-i-became-catholic
 
"So Newt, the one you fear so much, is a faithful "son of the Church." That should be enough to override all that New Age, Globalist stuff Newt favors. In fact, it puts him in a great position to have long and happy dialogue with "pope" Francis."

The problems in RC today are a result of New Age type stuff infiltrating over decades. why denigrate the New Age issues on him? with those credentials he's just another infiltrator of RC. how did he get to marry RC with those two divorces? or is he non communicant but technically a member? or since he's converting from Baptist maybe the prior situations of his marriage aren't held against him but she was already Catholic....? It used to be that marriages outside the RC were not recognized as valid, including civil marriages, but that was all pre Vatican II and maybe changed earlier than that. or he got a dispensation.




 
Well, 1:02 PM, all of these things are going on because of the "loopholes" similar to what was mentioned on the last thread. The RCC is full of loopholes and indulgences of many types so folks can come "home" to fill it's pews and sit under one big happy blanket of churchanity (which certainly includes other denoms too) and for a short time, make even the most devout globalists happy too!

Have read the end of The Book and it won't bode well for those of such persuasion.
Jesus calls us out from this world to leave it and follow Him (in it but not of it-as it's costly to our flesh, dear people), to come to Him one by one by one, and from "church world" as well.
 
Christine ..

As far as Newt's 2 divorces ... that is no obstacle at all with the RCC. If you have plenty of money, you can always buy off your marriage via "Absolution." Sen. Ted Kennedy is a fine example of this wonderful option for Catholics that are married but want to dump their wife.

In Teddy's case, he was married to his wife for several decades ... had about 5 kids with her ... but the Church declared (they didn't do this for free) "they were never married." So, good old Teddy was free to marry on of his many mistresses.

Absolution is very similar to what Martin Luther keenly observed during his famous trip to Rome ... indulgences were being SOLD to the gullible that believed they were buying time out of the fictional, Rome contrived Purgatory. He became convicted that this fraud was indicative of an apostate church, then wrote his 95 Thesis condemning indulgences as a wicked, un-bibical evil.

The more things change, the more they stay the same. "There is nothing new under the sun."


 
2:52 PM

"Wherever the Catholic sun doth shine
There's always laughter and good red wine
At least I've always found it so
Benedicamus Domino!"

Hillaire Belloc


Not to worry. No "loopholes" for you!


 
So who needs the supposed "loopholes" when Jesus Christ the LORD is seated upon the throne of a heart He forgave, has entered, and rules from within???
 
Regarding my post of 3:53 PM ...

I mistakenly used the word "absolution" where I should have used the word "annulment." Annulment is the act of the "church" declaring a marriage null and void in the "eyes of the church and before God" which then allowed re-marriage without the sin of adultery being committed. Of course, the entire thing is an absolute fraud.

 
http://www.id2020.org - I saw a CATO Institute article that linked to this page. One of the stated goals is to mandate an id for every person on the globe so that they can access "food."
 
yes I know about annullments, but he married a catholic before he was converted so how did she fare in all that?

yes the annullments are a way of getting around their no divorce rule. The EO calls it what it is, divorce, and has similar grounds. They all add up to one form of adultery or another, one form of abandonment or another, and a forced marriage or one where one is gaining financially from it (marriage for money I guess) are a couple of the grounds on the list. Though like many it is assumed the marriage ceremony creates the one flesh situation, Paul is clear that it is the sex act that does so, though obviously when the intent of permanence is lacking you have fornication since he addresses this issue in context of fornication with a prostitute. However nothing in the marriage ceremony itself states that the ceremony makes the two one flesh.

The biblical grounds for divorce are adultery (which RC denies and mistranslates as illegal marriages) and abandonment or being driven out especially by an unbeliever (Paul in I Corinthians somewhere, it says one is not under bondage then which would of course mean free to remarry).

Tertullian is probably to blame for a lot of this extremism moderated by the annulment game.

LUTHER DID NOT VIEW ROME AS APOSTATE WHEN HE OPPOSED INDULGENCES AND POSTED THE 95 THESES. That was an effort at reform. it was RC excommunication of him that got him going more extreme.
 
Ray,

Rome at least understands that remarriage is forbidden while an ex-spouse still lives, which is why it cheats on its definition of divorce. Many protestant denominations don't even understand that.

 
No one here has mentioned that Newt specifically joined the personal prelature of Opus Dei as a supernumerary. Lee Penn has written at length about the good and bad elements of Opus Dei. A twitter length summary might be >> there are good people in Opus Dei, and there are bad people. The bad people might be winning.<<
 
An interesting article from one of our mainstream British newspapers:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2016/05/28/british-christianity-isnt-dying-its-sleeping-evangelism-can-awak/

Is the Sunday Telegraph getting religion? And if so, what sort of religion? With all due respect to faithful and diligent Catholics like Susanna, I very much doubt that this is the Catholicism of our fathers which is being restored to the British Isles. I have noticed for years in history publishing, a nostalgia for England's Catholic past. Eamon Duffy has written 'The Stripping of the Altars'. Also the wonderful 'Voices of Morebath', a poetic evocation of a tiny Devonshire moorland village and its timeworn but beloved traditions of Catholic living, preserved for us by its garrulous and faithful Catholic priest who stayed at his post through the orthodoxy of Henry VIII's early reign, the 'Commotion Time' of the Reformation, and the conciliation under Elizabeth. If this book didn't succeed in making a Catholic of me, it certainly made me understand the fidelity to the church. But the Telegraph's catholicism, I suspect, has more than a New Age, New World, global civil society flavour...

Oh dear, this didn't start off as a book review, and I am severely off topic - sorry Constance! Trump may be saying many of the right things, but what a character! If he and Newt make it to the White House, I suspect I know who would be calling the shots.
 
Ruth,

Not to encourage your "bad behavior" by straying off topic ;^) but I would add that it is not only among the Catholics that a "revival" is being yearned for.

As I see it, there is a shaping up two "revivals" - a false one that seeks to establish God's physical Kingdom here on Earth through the efforts of Man, and which sees more and more cooperation between ALL faiths to bring about that goal, and the other that will be a true "calling out" of that whole mess into a close relationship with Jesus, to form the "remnant" believers who will refuse to identify with the Antichrist and his system, whatever that looks like. I guess that is why I try to be "peacemaker" among the Catholics and Protestants here, because I see members of both as belonging to that remnant, as it even now begins takes shape. The unifying factor is the Person of Jesus Christ, and the forsaking of all for Him.

For every true move of God, there usually appears a counterfeit move by the enemy. A true revival would be paralleled by a false one. A true Christian ecumenical communion would be paralleled by a false one (syncretism). I think scripture dictates to us which camps will have the most people - the false ones. But our ideas of what those numbers might be are only guesses, like Elijah's guess after he ran from Jezebel of how many were still following God. He thought he was the only one, but he was mistaken.

This supposes that ALL church structures (organized Catholicism AND Protestantism) will become so corrupted that the true believers will have to leave them, or "break communion" with them, and adhere to Jesus Christ alone, finding Christian fellowship among local bodies of believers, probably clandestinely, as they already do in other parts of the world.

However, my supposition may be incorrect.

----

I'm still not sure what to think of Trump. Newt would definitely be a mark against him, for sure! But like you said, he's saying many good things - things that have needed to be said for a generation. At least with him, there is a chance that conservatives can talk some sense into him and have him get the right people in as part of his administration. There is NO chance for that happening if Hillary or Bernie get in.

With all his faults, I just cannot bring myself to enter the "Never Trump" camp. Some (note I say *some*) of those people have gone completely bonkers. They would vote for Hillary / Bernie just to keep Trump from getting in.

It's going to be a crazy summer here. I expect there to be violence at both conventions, possibly at the level of or maybe even worse than what we saw in 1968. Pray for and support the law enforcement at both conventions! You can bet that revolutionary elements of whatever stripe will be deploying "agents provocateurs" at both events.

 
Ruth,

Duffy's voices of Morebath is an excellent book of source material. His earlier, more famous Stripping of the Altars is as agenda-laden as the view he is targeting, however. Particularly unconvincing is his response, in the Preface to the second edition, to critics saying that he had ignored and under-rated the Lollard movement.

Good job Newt was a mere supernumerary in Opus Dei. Numeraries still flog themselves.
 
anon 3:20
"Rome at least understands that remarriage is forbidden while an ex-spouse still lives, which is why it cheats on its definition of divorce. Many protestant denominations don't even understand that."

wrong. Jesus is explicit tha FORNICATION, porneia, is grounds for divorce and the remarriage NOT adultery Rome trying to cover its error of centuries lies and says this means "illegal marriages," but porneia is the word we get the word "pornography," art of or about whores, and any arguments about this was said to Jews means nothing, because the statement is what it is. It is not illegal marriages Paul refers to when he speaks of prostitution and says to flee fornication, nor is it illegal marriages indicated anywhere by context, and if you reduce it to that you leave no word indicating actual prostitution and/or no strings casual sex, etc.

porneia is a term that covers every sexual wrong doing, not just prostitution and adultery.

Paul says one who is driven out or left by an unbeliever is not under bondage which would mean free to remarry. While he advocates reconciliation he also says to avoid fornication everyone should have their own spouse and "everyone" especially addressed to Corinthians given that city's reputation would include divorcees. (Though he says singleness period is preferable to be less distracted from God.)

so it is not as extreme as you make out and is nuanceable but this is abused by protestants a lot, this is true.
 
"wrong. Jesus is explicit tha FORNICATION, porneia, is grounds for divorce and the remarriage NOT adultery"

Wrong. Here is what he said:

Anyone who divorces his wife and [kai] marries another woman commits adultery against [ep] her. And if a woman who divorces her husband marries another man, she commits adultery (Mark 10:11-12).

Anyone who divorces his wife and [kai] marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery (Luke 16:18).

Anyone who divorces his wife, not for porneia, and marries another woman commits adultery [and he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery – in some Greek manuscripts] (Matthew 19:9).

So Jesus is clear – remarriage after divorce (during the lifetime of the ‘ex’) constitutes adultery, with a possible rider relating to porneia in Matthew 19:9.

What about that rider?

Jesus does not contradict himself. In two gospels there is no exception, and each gospel writer has no certainty that his readers are going to have access to another account. So there is no exception. But what then does Matthew 19:9 mean?

It means that Jesus is declining to discuss the situation in which a man divorces for porneia and then remarries. He is discussing only situations in which the divorce is for something other than porneia. He says in Matthew 19 that remarriage after such a divorce is adulterous and he says nothing in that conversation about remarriage after a divorce for porneia.

Why did he do that? Because he is talking to Pharisees who tended to divorce for minor matters such as mispreparing food. (See the Midrash – ancient Jewish commentary on scripture – denoted Sifré Deuteronomy, part 269; also the Mishnah, tractate Gittin 9:10.) Also because porneia is related to erwat davar, which is a Hebrew phrase found in the Jewish divorce regulation in Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Jesus is not engaging in a scripture study with the Pharisees; he is in a heated discussion with them about their use of excuses to divorce unwanted wives. To preclude diversion he narrows the discussion down at the start.

A further point: the Greek rendered as “if a man divorces, and marries another woman...” can equally well mean “if a man divorces in order to marry another woman...” But the latter meaning is excluded because the woman’s adultery in Mark 10:12 takes no account of whether she instituted the divorce in order to marry another man or not.

In Matthew 5:32, Jesus states that anyone who divorces his woman, except for porneia [illicit sexual relations], causes her to be adulterous, and anyone who marries a divorcee commits adultery. In the final clause we see that God takes marriage so seriously that a woman who is thrown out cannot remarry even if she is innocent of porneia!

 
Anonymous Marko said...
Ruth,
Not to encourage your "bad behavior" by straying off topic ;^) but I would add that it is not only among the Catholics that a "revival" is being yearned for.

For every true move of God, there usually appears a counterfeit move by the enemy. A true revival would be paralleled by a false one. A true Christian ecumenical communion would be paralleled by a false one (syncretism).

Marko,
I tend to see all ecumenical efforts to date, not necessarily syncretism, but of 'syncreism-lite'.
Syncreism-Lite; meaning that instead of accepting and combining diverse traditions, it is an intermediate step of finding common-ground and avoiding sound doctrine for the sake of unity. IMO, common ground ecumenism is compromise, or that of being neither hot or cold but lukewarm.
How do you define 'true Christian ecumenical communion', Marko?
 
anon 10:27

you make Jesus out to be unjust that the innocent one dumped is unable to remarry without guilt of adultery, He says that the one divorcing her CAUSES her therefore the guilt is on him and ALL that is said has to be taken into account.

and Jesus did not say that the exemption by Moses was rescinded, but that using it did not leave you pure. polygamy is obviously a tolerated form of adultery and so is divorce and remarriage.

the reasons for the "economia" of allowing divorce have not changed, and Paul says let everyone have his or her own spouse in order to avoid fornication. EVERYONE includes divorcees under any and all circumstanes of the divorce. some things are worse than others. and the idea is to avoid temptability to the worse.

Now the "possible" execption is clear, and a lot of stuff is telescoped together and you unpack it, but you ignore that the exception is clear.

and the reference to one divorcing who makes his wife guilty of adultery would relate more easily to where they tire of each other and divorce and there is no serious reasons. Since there is no indication in Deuteronomy or elsewhere that divorce is limited to adultery (and that was occasion for execution as an option making divorce irrelevant) cleary the issue is, you are allowed this degree of adultery without condemnation in the judgement BUT not that other degree of adultery, and don't kid yourself you are pure altogether of adultery becaue you go through some procedures.

purity was the big deal with the Pharisees, who considered themselves superior to all others in their purity. This superiority attitude however well based was displeasing to God, and Jesus advised them that their routine practices were not in fact pure but an allowance, a concession.
 
Dan,

Not to be too simple, but how about all those who believe the Apostle's Creed?

From creeds.net:

Traditional English Version

I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.

And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into hell; the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. AMEN.


When things get really bad, and the final darkness descends upon this Earth before Christ returns, I believe (or would like to think, anyway) that true Christians are going to figure out that whether you worship on a Saturday or a Sunday is not really all that important.

I would like to think that at that time, the Holy Spirit will convict us all to put aside those differences that don't matter, so we can be salt and light to a lost and dark world, and snatch from the flames as many as possible, which I also think that the Holy Spirit will bring to those who are ready and willing to be a part of that time of harvest.

"The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few..."

 
Additional Note to the above, in which I am just thinking out loud, and not proclaiming anything concrete.

I believe that when Jesus said that gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church He was building (not man building something, but Christ building it), he meant it. I believe that because of this statement, Christ Jesus though His Holy Spirit will do whatever it takes TO His Church to KEEP it, even if it means changing the outward appearance or manifestation of it to something we haven't yet experienced.

Tradition is NOT to be viewed lightly. I believe it has been the greatest tool used by Christ down through the years to keep the gates of hell at bay. BUT... in the End of Days, is it possible that even the best "houses of tradition" will be so corrupted, that some other tool will be brought by Christ onto the scene? Something new, yet old?

I guess this is what a lot of people yearn for, yes? But we must be careful what we yearn for, and be sure it is something that the Holy Spirit within us also yearns for, and that it's not just our fleshly desires or the wisdom of the world sneaking into our thinking.

That is why we have such heresies as the New Apostolic Reformation, for example. Something new, yet old, yes? What I describe sounds a lot like a "new apostolic reformation", doesn't it? But it isn't.

This is one of those things where it's easier to describe what it isn't, rather than what it is.

And yes, I already can hear some of you carping about how wishy-washy I am, because I don't really believe anything one way or the other. Yet I just told you that I believe the Apostle's Creed, and isn't that enough for my salvation?

After Jesus asked Peter "Who do YOU say I am?", Peter responded "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God." It is upon that confession that any true, ecumenical, Christian fellowship will be built. I think that "building" (not of human hands) might possibly take on a shape and form in these end times that we don't quite see yet.

That's all I have to say about it. Just speculation; take it or leave it. I'm not going to argue about it, since it's speculation.


 
Christine,

I'm not going to respond to your comments about my exegesis of the remarriage scriptures as your words are too incoherent to permit analysis. Readers are free to read your words and mine and reach their own conclusions.

AnonAT10.27am
 
no more incoherent than yours. to be brief, everything on the subject must be taken into account. "from the beginning" rules out polygamy though it was allowed as much as divorce. fornication which includes adultery and beyond into previous activity not known about and perversions that might be thought not adultery because you usually think of that as with same sex same general age same species.

degrees of adultery then are the issue. Paul advocates marriage rather than risk fornication. this means the lesser adultery of divorcees remarrying is allowed.

abandonment leaves you not under bondage (forcing you out might qualify as this) which would make you free to remarry. All of this is Gospels plus Genesis that Jesus points to plus Torah plus Paul.
 
Marko and Ruth,

Marko,

RE:As I see it, there is a shaping up two "revivals" - a false one that seeks to establish God's physical Kingdom here on Earth through the efforts of Man, and which sees more and more cooperation between ALL faiths to bring about that goal, and the other that will be a true "calling out" of that whole mess into a close relationship with Jesus, to form the "remnant" believers who will refuse to identify with the Antichrist and his system, whatever that looks like.

Well said!

St. Augustine said that there are two cities....the heavenly City of God and the earthly City of Man and in his book CITY OF GOD, St. Augustine depicts the history of the world as universal warfare between God and the Devil. Christianity, he argued, should be primarily concerned with the mystical, heavenly city, the New Jerusalem whose King was our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ-rather than with earthly politics.

In my humble opinion, as it stands right now, we are witnessing the "fruits" of cultural Marxism - especially in the West. It was the Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci who once made the observation that socialism could not be successfully imposed on the West by way of violent revolution as it had been imposed on the people of Russia.

Gramsci believed that socialism/communism could only be established in the West by gradually infiltrating Western cultural and religious institutions, emptying them of their traditional meanings and assigning new meanings to them that conformed to the "party line" of world socialism.

It was Vladimir Lenin who said "The goal of socialism is communism."

It was the self professed Satanist Mikhail Bakunin who promoted his "mystical anarchism" ( a.k.a. lawlessness ) as the "holy grail" of communism - that magical day when the state would finally "wither away".

Sounds like "hell on earth" to me.

Socialism is the political arm, of the New Age Movement.....just as it was the political arm of the occult revival of the nineteenth century - beginning with the Utopian Socialism of Saint-Simon which was actually made into a religion called Saint-Simonianism. In 1832, one of the co-founders, Barthélemy Prosper Enfantin wrote Le Livre nouveau, intended as a substitute for the Christian Scriptures, but it was not published. He also wore on his breast a badge with his title of "Père," was referred to by his preachers as "the living law", declared himself to be the chosen of God, and sent out emissaries in a quest of a woman predestined to be the "female Messiah," and the mother of a new Saviour.


 
Huffington Post Removes Article Claiming Hillary Clinton Will Be Indicted
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/05/29/huffington-post-removes




 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQd1R1rsvdI&feature=youtu.be Ira Einhorn hit piece
2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNjrzMuEo3U Ira einhorn hit piece 3

What I extract from Einhorn's gibberish (and I had a lot of fun depicting his superman class as giant rabbits in part 1) is that everyone is to work on realizing and developing themselves and their material needs all met (so they are a working bunch doing this material support) and that they are NOT supposed to go into transcending beyond this degree of Gurdjieffian awakeness, but the "leptoid" is way beyond these and is of some kind of beyond material almost.

Adam Weishaupt wanted a situation where there was no state or family or accountability or anything, just mobs of equal people yet an elitist element was thre also, their order was to rule this bunch of anarchists, by demagoguery and manipulation their upper levels having mastered the skill of observing, reading individuals and groups, and leading them so they followed and made them their leaders by folloing them (by being manipulatively led). Any naturally skilled sort who cropped up would probably be either recruited or killed.

this hierarchyless network of synergistic operating people would obviously be led by those who manipulated the masses.
 
"no more incoherent than yours"

I am writing to prevent readers from being taken in by your incoherent words. Your views on my words don't affect that purpose.

 
I notice that people sometimes say a complicated study of all things bearing on something is "incoherent" when it refutes their position and they don't have any way to refute it. Or perhaps it is too disturbing by virtue of that to be paid attention to and an incoherence in the mind sets in defensively. I notice you don't bother to address the shorter version.

yes protestants abuse the possibility of divorce. There used to be a double standard about this, St. Basil the Great commented that while men with a cheating spouse were allowed to remarry, women with a cheating husband were not, and that this was NOT biblical but was a custom. There was a lot of opposition to remarriage of widows of both sexes also.

A good book which looks at everything on this is "Remarriage: A Healing Gift From God" by Larry Richards.

the core issue is, does remarriage after a divorce constitute a salvation endangering degree of adultery or not?

one protestant group has focused on one flesh sternly to the exclusion of mercy, and I understand does not allow marriage of non virgins, unless they lost their virginity to each other, some small group or other. Paul on the other hand said it is better to marry than to burn.
 
It's impossible to argue with incoherence which is why I don't argue with you, Christine. My position is set out at 10.27am above and I claim it is coherent and consistent with scripture. I am content for others to test that for themselves. For your information I did read multiple books from all Christian viewpoints before arguing that, without exception, there should be no remarriage during the lifetime of a former spouse.
 
"But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is
not under bondage in such cases: but God has called us to peace."
( I Corinthians 7:15 )

There is what the scriptures say.
I notice that Christine likes to comment on scriptures as if she were a source of
enlightenment on the scriptures, so that we get her sage-like commentary
of a verse, without having to read the actual verse.
That way, none of us mere mortals will get it "wrong".
In other words Christine and her giant intellect, not the Holy Spirit,
will be our guide.
So, ostensibly, that's why God gave us Christine Erikson.

 
And to anon @ 8:00AM above, who said:

"I did read multiple books from all Christian viewpoints before arguing that, without exception, there should be no remarriage during the lifetime of a former spouse."

So do we just ignore I Cor. 7:15, which is in fact a summary of this whole subject ?


 
I notice that when I reference that something is in Scripture and near quote it no one seems to be acquainted with it. apparently you bible believers aren't that familiar with the Bible.

No we don't ignore I Cor. 7:15, we take into account I Cor. 7:1,2,7-9, 15
and noticed that "unmarried" includes the divorced since the term is used of the woman who has separated from her husband.

There is a counsel of perfection and there is mercy. So the "unmarried" who are better to remain single range from never legally married but not virgins, to virgins, to divorced, yet it is better to marry than to burn.

"Remarriage: A Healing Gift From God" by Larry Richards does a far better exegesis with Greek word meanings etc. than I can here.

THERE IS NO INCOHERENCE. you take one verse and make it absolute, when exceptions and modifications exist and so to you, taking all into account, what one protestant writer used to call "the whole counsel of Scripture" is incoherent and self contradictory.

the combined counsel of men and early standards that went so far as to almost prohibit remarriage of WIDOWS due to excessive asceticism is nothing to place above Scripture which gives some grounds for merciful exceptions. The reasons for God giving a mate or consort to Adam still exist, and temptations to those alone still exist.

St. Basil the Great once said he'd rather see a man married four times than fornicating.


 
Paul, you seem to think in your 10:23 post that the person you quoted was arguing FOR remarriage during the lifetime of a spouse when divorced, when that whole post was AGAINST remarriage during the lifetime of a spouse, even the part you cite is clearly against it, yet you ask "So do we just ignore I Cor. 7:15, which is in fact a summary of this whole subject ?"

as if the post was favoring remarriage. why is it that you misinterpret "I did read multiple books from all Christian viewpoints before arguing that, without exception, there should be no remarriage during the lifetime of a former spouse."

as you seem to do in your reaction?
 
Paul @ 10:05 AM.

Lol! Yeah, you called it.

She wears many hats yet has zero experience in those things. Knows nothing of being an actual wife, an actual mother, has not held office, on being a good citizen and producing part of society, or lawyered, or pastored, and and on..... but writes as though expert in each.
She has vast experience with the occult, deviant behaviors, gnostic pagan belief, and phariseeisms and writes of it all in excruciating detail so it appears to be still a very current perusal in all these matters.
I personally learned so much about visiting graves from her expert analysis on that topic ;)

The Bible as taught to us by the Holy Spirit, has not been allowed to penetrate her personal life or by now He would have been able to humble and change her to understand she is no expert at all. Her self-aggrandizing approach is all to evident of her spiritual pride. That got Lucifer kicked out of heaven so she really should be paying attention to the matter that brings up.
 
Christine hasn't said anything gnostic or occultic since her return and her posts are nowhere near as voluminous now. As far as I see it, we should give her a break!
 
Paul: thank you for your comment at 10.23am critiquing mine at 10.27am (day before) on the basis of 1 Cor 7:15. I'm happy to discuss it with you as you, at least, are not incoherent.

1 Cor 7:15 means that a believer from whom an unbelieving spouse has walked away need not make an effort to repair the relationship and is free to live as a single person. That is for the believer's peace of mind. But it does not mean that he or she is free to remarry. Look at verse 11, which would be contradicted if that were so.

 
"But it does not mean that he or she is free to remarry. Look at verse 11, which would be contradicted if that were so."

no under bondage would be free to remarry. Romans 7:2,3 bound or not bound.

again, all should be read in terms of I Cor. 7:2 Each means everyone which would include the "unmarried" which term includes the divorced such as being discussed here.

Surely you don't take Paul's advice for those who were single at conversion to stay single later on the chapter as an inflexible absolute do you?
 
http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2015/03/20/the-u-s-has-no-defense-against-a-russian-nuclear-attack-really/
 
http://antichristobama2016.webs.com
 
bear in mind that the people who systematized absolute rejection of remarriage after divorce had two characteristics:

they were confronted by extremely easy divorce and remarriage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_ancient_Rome

and they also inveighed against remarriage of WIDOWS, the opposite of Paul's statements. Tertullian "the father of Latin Christianity" is a case in point, and he is not considered a Church Father east or west because (due to his excessive asceticism attitudes) he fell in with the Montanist heresy.
 
change of subject, a word to the Protestants:

"The “Thurmerlebenis” brought Luther to the definitive standpoint of his theology: that salvation is by faith alone, with the good works of charity playing no role whatsoever. Luther describes the experience thus:

“These words `just’ and `justice of God’ were a thunderbolt in my conscience. They soon struck terror in me who heard them. He is just, therefore He punishes. But once when in this tower I was meditating on those words, `the just lives by faith,’ `justice of God,’ I soon had the thought whether we ought to live justified by faith, and God’s justice ought to be the salvation of every believer, and soon my soul was revived. Therefore it is God’s justice which justifies us and saves us. This knowledge the Holy Spirit gave me on the privy in the tower.” [Grisar, “Luther,” VI, p. 506.]"

notice he got his great insight while taking a dump "on the privy" a privy is an old word for toilet, a location which in days before modern sanitation was esteemed likely a habitation of devils. "privy" means secret or private or "privy to information" having inside information, but "THE privy" means toilet, and "on the privy" is a phrase allowing no other meaning.

"This was Luther’s celebrated explication of Paul’s Letter to the Romans I.17: “For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.” This passage was ripped out of scriptural and traditional context and made the total passkey."

REPEAT: "RIPPED OUT OF SCRIPTURAL AND TRADITIONAL CONTEXT AND MADE THE TOTAL PASSKEY." that is how proof texting works.

" For Luther, the devil is an independent power who rules over the material world, so good works belong to the devil; human reason is the “bride and whore” of the devil. In those days of greater theological knowledge, this could be clearly recognized as a new variation on Manicheanism, the idea that good and evil are equally necessary parts of the creation. According to such a Gnostic view, the material world is inherently bad, and only the spiritual world can be good. Something not so different was professed by the Bogomils. Luther’s contemporary and sometime associate Philip Melanchton saw Luther in exactly these terms: “Manichean delirium.” ...Luther’s marginal jottings to Augustine’s Confessions have come to light; an interesting one recaptures Luther’s reaction to Augustine’s polemics against the Manicheans and their idea of the two coequal cosmic forces locked in struggle. Luther’s annotation: “This is false. This is the origin of all Augustine’s errors.” [see Socci and Ricci, and Theobald Beer.] Luther appears to reflect the influence of the pseudo-Hermes Trismegistus and his “Book of the 24 Philosophers.”"
http://tarpley.net/online-books/against-oligarchy/the-role-of-the-venetian-oligarchy/
 
Chritine, oh dear!

I see my comment as 5:26 PM was premature and unwarranted. Paul's 10:05 AM comment was right on the mark about you...

Still suspending the pornea due to your "Resident Seer's" sick ticker? You should seriously consider the state of your own heart and get right with God!
 
Miss Erikson (pretending to be Mrs Tinge) , you are as usual pouring out the rot and stench from the privy of your sullied heart and dumping it here incessantly!
 
"Surely you don't take Paul's advice for those who were single at conversion to stay single later on the chapter as an inflexible absolute do you?"

Of course not. Paul himself makes it clear that he is merely indicating the better course but that getting married is no sin. At this point he is not talking about remarriage, of course.

 
anon 7:33

likewise though it is more of a thing to determine to do to not remarry NONETHELESS he says to avoid fornication all should have their own spouse. What part of "each' or "everyone" in that verse I Cor. 7:2 do you not undertand? that HAS to include the divorced without biblical grounds. The issue of temptation does not change because of your status.

if polygamy is a tolerated degree of adultery, if Jesus didn't rescind the allowance merely reminded them they were engaging in a permitted tolerated degree of adultery when they divorced and remarried, if Paul can put abvoiding temptation of seducers or prostitutes or married men or women coming on to a lonely divorced person, above the issue of remarriage as he clearly does

then we should not be demanding that remarried persons divorce in order to be in good standing in a church. Some repentance does not mean total undoing, otherwise adulterous origin of a pregnancy would mean abortion as part of the repentance! some things create situations you are stuck with. that would include remarriage.

7:12, which post are you referring to? defense of the remarried as not to be excluded even if subject to temporary discipline and counseling to make sure this time it works?

or the expose of Luther? another article online shows that much of what Lutheranism believes, comparatively orthodox, is the work of Melancthon not Luther. I think you can find it in the Wikipedia article on Melancthon and near that in the yahoo search results list.

My posts on remarriage did not come out of the blue. they were in response originally to anon 3:20
"Rome at least understands that remarriage is forbidden while an ex-spouse still lives, which is why it cheats on its definition of divorce. Many protestant denominations don't even understand that."

Like ALL my posts you complained of they were in response to posts not out of the blue.

What is the fruit of Rome's attitude? societies that take adultery in the form of discrete flings or overt mistress keeping for granted. you can't get married in some countries or couldn't if divorced, couldn't even get a divorce, so people just drifted from lover to love. Be a virgin at marriage but after that anything goes as long as your husband doesn't get embarrassed.
 
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-shifrinson-russia-us-nato-deal--20160530-snap-story.html

some truth at last in the American press.

"In early February 1990, U.S. leaders made the Soviets an offer. According to transcripts of meetings in Moscow on Feb. 9, then-Secretary of State James Baker suggested that in exchange for cooperation on Germany, U.S. could make “iron-clad guarantees” that NATO would not expand “one inch eastward.” Less than a week later, Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev agreed to begin reunification talks. No formal deal was struck, but from all the evidence, the quid pro quo was clear: Gorbachev acceded to Germany’s western alignment and the U.S. would limit NATO’s expansion."
 
14 posts out of 45 belong to you know who! That's just about a third, and none of them are edifying!
 
Sorry, Christine, I don't argue with incoherence.

Anon@7.33am
 
Christine,

Pretty uncanny, isn't it, how the Soviets managed to get the US to do everything they wanted, in the furtherance of their goals to eliminate or neutralize NATO?

In the specific case you mentioned, it was a win-win for them. German unification, which meant they could more easily control all of Germany through spies, etc, and promises from a gullible West to not do anything of an aggressive nature with NATO.

I don't know what the point is to bring up a story about what happened back in the early 90s, but NATO needs to be strengthened and stronger than ever right now. Russian moves need to be countered, because they are the aggressors, and whatever whitewash was applied during Gorbachev's time has washed off now, and the old spots of the leopard have reappeared.

 
Marko,

the obvious point of the article is that this "old stuff" so to speak is what is the ongoing concern of Russia and the motivation for all its "aggressiveness."

put the shoe on the other foot. How did we feel when USSR had nukes in Cuba? now, the situation is reversed and NATO encroaching. If we'd stop putting troops and missiles on their doorstep so to speak, they wouldn't be doing anything.

But this probably won't happen. If this is the time that Daniel 7 speaks of, the bear raising up on one side the grammar indicating an outside force is causing this reaction, and the ribs in its mouth yelling for it to attack (so they are seen by outsiders as victims but they are not) then when two more curved like bits become Russian, perhaps eastern Ukraine and Transnistria with them yelling for protection against aggression, the winged lion will have its wings clipped off and forced to think like a human instead of a crazed animal. (If south Ossetia which I think joined the FSR is rib two and Crimea fat but curved rib one, then there is only one more to go.

just how bad this will be for us I don't know. But people should start thiking about survival either under occupation, how to get along, learn the two likely languages Chinese and Russian, and if it is grid down and not occupation, how to deal with that.
 
Utter nonsense Christine, the USA might be downgraded from a leading superpower but there is no plausible scenario that ends with occupation. You waste your time like that if you want.

 
"If we'd stop putting troops and missiles on their doorstep so to speak, they wouldn't be doing anything."

I couldn't disagree more strongly with that statement. But like I said before, I don't think I'm going to change your mind. You've drunk the KGB Kool-aid. Stop watching RT....

It has nothing to do with which foot the shoe is on. That common saying doesn't apply because it assumes moral equivalence between Russia and the US, and that we would treat each other the same way in war and peace, and that we have equivalent strategies toward one another - peaceful coexistence, or something like that.

None of those assumptions are valid, and I believe Anatoliy Golitsyn demonstrated that quite well with his books "New Lies For Old" and "The Perestroika Deception: The World's Slide Towards the 'Second October Revolution' ['Weltoktober']", the latter edited by none other than Christopher Story.

Both books were a grave (even paranoid, some would say) warning to the West of what to look for, and we ignored pretty much everything he said, even though his "prediction rate" (for the things he predicted in "New Lies...") was around 95%, which is pretty darn good for a "paranoid" defector whom nobody believed, and for a book written in 1984, describing a strategy that was formed somewhere around the late 50s - early 60s, and describing events that unfolded pretty much like he said they would over the next ten years or so.

A final word on moral equivalence: Remember where all the gulags were built, and mass-starvations were implemented, and from whose hands. It sure wasn't the WEST that did those things. So wouldn't you rather see the West win a global war instead of the East? When we won in World War 2, we started helping to rebuild the nations we defeated. When Russia won in World War 2, they enslaved half of Europe!

There is NO moral equivalence between Russia and the West. They have not changed their plans, only their tactics.

War is coming. One might say that once the missiles start flying, who is and who isn't the aggressor is pretty much academic. Not really. If it's part of Russia's plan (in cahoots with others) for world domination, what comes out of the ashes in case THEY win will be much worse than if somehow the West won that confrontation. And sadly, I don't see the West being victorious.

Sorry to disagree with you, anon. 2:49. But one must be realistic. We have been disarming and letting our nuclear triad fall into disrepair, while Russia and China have been preparing for world war 3, and preparing to win. Whether it's domination right away, or taking the grid down and just sitting back and watching and waiting while we self-destruct, neither scenario is pretty. Both are plausible, but I think the second is more plausible than the first. Christine is correct in saying we all should prepare for either one, however you might define "preparation" - spiritually, physically, mentally - wherever God leads you.

 
Susanna

Interesting information about Barthélemy Prosper Enfantin. A female Messiah, eh? It reminded me of the slightly different, but similarly absurd case of a woman from my neck of the woods, Joanna Southcott. She didn't proclaim herself as Messiah, but came up with something nearly as exalted. To quote from Wikipedia:

'She was originally of the Church of England, but about 1792, becoming persuaded that she possessed supernatural gifts, she wrote and dictated prophecies in rhyme, and then announced herself as the Woman of the Apocalypse spoken of in Revelation.'

That is, she believed herself to be the 'woman clothed with the sun'. She enjoyed quite a career, and is mentioned by Dickens in 'Tale of Two Cities'.

"At the age of 64 Southcott affirmed that she was pregnant and would be delivered of the new Messiah, the Shiloh of Genesis 49:10. The date of 19 October 1814 was that fixed for the birth, but Shiloh failed to appear, and it was given out that she was in a trance.' (Wikipedia) She died soon afterwards, possibly of disappointment.
 
Marko

I believe and hope that you are right about there being a revival and ecumenism of true believers - but it is and will generally be less public and visible than that great falling away, at least for now.

Daniel 11:32 And such as do wickedly against the covenant shall he corrupt by flatteries: but the people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits.
 
Ruth,

I've always had a liking for that passage, especially where it says "...but the people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits."

Now there is some real hope!

In the dark, even small lights shine bright.

 
Ruth of Exeter,

Interesting information on Joanna Southcott.

Regarding these so-called female "messiahs," they seem to have their origin in the 2nd century gnostic cults that worshipped the female Aeon Achamoth.....a.k.a. "Sophia." In the branch of Gnosticism known as Valentinianism, Sophia always stands absolutely at the center of the system, and in some sense she seems to represent the supreme female principle.

Valentinian Gnosticism was revived in France in the nineteenth century by Jules Doinel after he attended séances conducted at the home of Lady Caithness who headed the Parisian branch of Madame Blavatsky's Theosophical Society.

The doctrinal orientation of the church was based on extant Cathar documents, with the Gospel of John, and strong influence of Simonian and Valentinian cosmology.

_______________

Regaqrding Bartelemy Enfantin, his little group gave way to other similar groups including one that was led by the socialist "prophet" Simon Ganneau. His disciples included Eliphas Levi and Flora Tristan who was the grandmother of the famous painter Paul Gaugin.

By this time Utopian Androgyny - a key element of Utopoian Socialism - was all the rage. This can be seen in some of the art work displayed at the Rosicrucian salons hosted by occultist Josephin Peladan - a disciple of Eliphas Levi and contemporary of Gerard Encausse (a.k.a. Papus) who was a disciple of Eliphas Levi (and one time member of H.P Blavatsky's Theosophical Society). It was Papus who wrote the book entitled TAROT OF THE BOHEMIANS.

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

The thing that many fail to realize is that the infamous "Baphomet" depicted by Eliphas Levi in the 19th century and by the infamous statue made according to the image depicted by Eliphas Levi is androgynous. In certain occult circles, Lucifer is referred to as "the divine androgyne."
 
There is a flip side to the "shiny Western coin".

In my defense of the West, I cannot ignore or excuse how dark our hearts have become.

In Solzhenitsyn's "Templeton Address", he reveals the reason for the darkness of the Soviet Union - that men forgot God. He also warned that we are on the same path to darkness, and for the same reason. Speaking in 1983, he said:

"The failings of human consciousness, deprived of its divine dimension, have been a determining factor in all the major crimes of this century. The first of these was World War I, and much of our present predicament can be traced back to it. It was a war (the memory of which seems to be fading) when Europe, bursting with health and abundance, fell into a rage of self-mutilation which could not but sap its strength for a century or more, and perhaps forever. The only possible explanation for this war is a mental eclipse among the leaders of Europe due to their lost awareness of a Supreme Power above them. Only a godless embitterment could have moved ostensibly Christian states to employ poison gas, a weapon so obviously beyond the limits of humanity.

The same kind of defect, the flaw of a consciousness lacking all divine dimension, was manifested after World War II when the West yielded to the satanic temptation of the "nuclear umbrella." It was equivalent to saying: Let's cast off worries, let's free the younger generation from their duties and obligations, let's make no effort to defend ourselves, to say nothing of defending others-let's stop our ears to the groans emanating from the East, and let us live instead in the pursuit of happiness. If danger should threaten us, we shall be protected by the nuclear bomb; if not, then let the world burn in Hell for all we care. The pitifully helpless state to which the contemporary West has sunk is in large measure due to this fatal error: the belief that the defense of peace depends not on stout hearts and steadfast men, but solely on the nuclear bomb..."


Or, as has been the case since the "end" of the Cold War, and the "End of History" acc. to Fukayama's famous essay, our defense has rested solely upon an almost religious belief in free markets and unfettered capitalism. If the rest of the world can taste, and see that our new lord is good, then we will be safe! Let the party begin, and let nothing interfere with it!

And out back, behind the party house, the silent screams of millions of babies are lifted heavenward, signalling once again that an ostensibly Christian people has turned away from a Higher Authority to do its own will.

No, we definitely aren't perfect, just the lesser of two evils. But the differences between evils these days, between East and West, are more and more differences of kind, and not degree.

 
Anonymous Marko said...
There is a flip side to the "shiny Western coin".

If 9-11 can be perpetrated or in collusion with our own government, they could very well blast our country with an EMP bomb and blame it on Korea tomorrow. We will fall and be our own destruction, 'Lord willing'.
 
Dan,

Just to be clear.... while I believe in the certainty of the flaws of the West, I don't believe that 9/11 was an "inside job". We might commit suicide, but not that way.

If there's an EMP blast tomorrow, it will be REAL enemies who want us destroyed, and they will be outsiders - the enemy without, not the enemy within, and not some small group of elites who sit around and play puppet games all day every day with the world.

You can go down those rabbit holes and, to use anon. 2:49 PM's words, "waste your time like that if you want". I refuse.

 
Marko,

I have the utmost respect for Solzhenitsyn's courage in standing up as a dissident and a Christian during Moscow's communist era. I have less for his judgement. A man is dead by the hand of his enemy whether by bullets or poison gas, and by far the most lethal new weapon in World War 1 was the machine gun, not gas. Above all it ill becomes Solzhenitsyn to grumble about the West adopting nuclear weapons. Western Europe was not defensible from the Soviet Union without the nuclear threat, for NATO would always have lost if restricted to conventional weapons against a Soviet invasion, as both sides knew. And Moscow would have invaded through Germany if it could; that is now clear from Soviet archives. But for the West's nuclear umbrella, Moscow would probably be ruling a communist Europe to the shores of the Atlantic to this day. I cannot agree with Solzhenitsyn here.

 
In the 7:30 comment Susanna said: "In certain occult circles, Lucifer is referred to as "the divine androgyne." Androgyne means one having both male and female sexual characteristics - male and female are united as essentially one. New Age occultists believe that everything is essentially united. When a person views things from their ego they see contrasting opposites. If the ego looks at a magnet it sees that there are contrasting opposite poles located at the ends of the magnet. The poles can represent good and evil. If an ego chooses to be good he/she goes to the good side at one end of the "magnet." A person whose identity is centered in the essence of their Beingness is not looking at things from the ego's perspective, they are located at the center of the "magnet" where north and south, or good and evil, are essentially united. It's from this center that they choose the good side, which is near the center of the "magnet." The people viewing things from their egos, and have chosen to be good, are located way out on one end of the "magnet." The people viewing things from the essence of their Beingness are located near the center of the "magnet." They are in a blissful transcendent state of consciousness where the conflict between good and evil is not intense.

To the New Age Gnostics, Lucifer, the Light bringer, is a totally different entity than Satan or the devil. They believe that Lucifer is Jesus Christ, therefore, they believe that Lucifer is divine. "Who can deny that even Jesus is portrayed as boldly proclaiming his identity with Venus the Light bringer in Revelation 22:16, where he says “I, Jesus, am the bright and morning star.” If the translators had chosen to translate this verse using Latin just as they did with Isaiah 14:12 [the only scripture where the name Lucifer is mentioned], it would read “I, Jesus, am Lucifer.”

source: https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=11772087&postID=7608120958115610939

"According to Gnostic legends and myths, the great Unknowable God [not the god of the Old Testament, but Jesus' Father] sent Lucifer, angel [or, in other words, divine messenger] of indescribable fire and light, to show man the light and to help him wake up and see his true origin, the origin of his Spirit, which has been perversely imprisoned in this impure matter called body-soul."

source: https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=11772087&postID=7608120958115610939
 
well, here he is again. the one who posted stuff NONE OF MY DETRACTORS ANSWERED and I answered. I doubt anyone but me will deal with this.

First off, since a new ager like Dahlheimer is not going to be very interested in the Bible, let's look at Buddha. Seems Buddha (I forget which source but hinayana, or rather Theravada, the original Buddhism before all the forgeries that the self styled Mahayana or greater vehicle got going) looked at all the hindu "gods" and found them all lacking something.

IF there is a God, he reasoned, He must NOT take His arising from anything or anyone. All creatures take their arising from something else. Since none of the hindu "gods" could be said to not take their arising from something else, he dismissed them all, and said to focus on right living to break the cycle of rebirths.

Got that? Whoever the REAL most high God is, He has to take His arising from no one and nothing but Himself.

YHWH means "the Self Existent Eternal Creator of all" and several times He makes it clear that He needs no feeding needs nothing but gives life and breath to all. The Creation account is clear that He already existed before ANYTHING else did and brought them all into existence not from Himself, not as of the same substance or essence as Himself, but out of nothing by the power of His word.

Buddha hadn't heard about YHWH or Buddhism would have developed as a variety of Yahwehism.

Now, if YHWH isn't the invention of some human mind, He must be evident referenced in archaeology before, IF PAGANISM DEVELOPED OVER TIME, MOVING AWAY FROM THE TRUTH, YOU WOULD EXPECT TO FIND A DECAYED AND CONFUSING VIEW OF THE CREATOR.

now which is the deity who got sidelined over time? Let's ask another question: Who is the God of Noah and who is Noah? the deity who tells a Flood survivor to make an ark in a legend has to be either the God of Noah, or a usurper placed by myth makers. (i.e., liars.)

So who is the god of Utnapishtim? EA. and Ea is equivalent to nprth semitic Ya which is short form of YHWH (also Jah instead of Jehovah).


 
Mesopotamian lore places Ea a few generations down from their top deity, and indeed in gnoticism you find the Creator of the physical universe downgraded to a lower emanation status and called Iadalbaoth (notice the Ia or Ya part of the name) and called "saklas" or stupid for claiming to be the only God.

But "seven are they" a poem about demon categories (note Jesus cast seven demons out of Mary Magdalene) says that of the seven types, all are on good terms with the "gods" except for one god - THEY ARE AFRAID OF EA.

So despite all the lies about Him, the power of YHWH's Name worked against them.

Ea would be "the Self Existent One" comparable to Eastern Orthodox "The One Who IS."

Exodus says Moses was the first to know YHWH by that Name, while Genesis says in Seth's time men began to call on YHWH or use His Name as part of theirs. Contradiction? no. an anachronism put there by a scribe. By the time of Moses, people were too focused on fertility and claiming various creator role beings. So YH added WH to His Name and before was just The One Who IS.

Now, all these new age gnostic gospel whatnot are all later than EYE WITNESS FIRST HALF OF FIEST CENTURY WRITINGS. even the liberal Bible "scholars" have been forced to admit this early date. So these gnostic gospels are WORTHLESS being the product of human imagination which is a waste of time at best, dangerous lies at worst. Every evil starts NOT with matter but in the real of spirit - the human mind. the ideas that breed actions.

Lucifer is described in the OT in very bad, prideful arrogant and destructive terms. clearly he is identical with satan. As for Jesus the bright and morning star is not quite the same phrasing as "son of the morning."

While the anti Lucifer statements in the OT are made against physical kings, they include statements that make no sense as about a human so in both cases the kings were overshadowed by the demon.
 
8:35....

Thanks for that comment. I agree - with all the hue and cry over nuclear deterrence, it works. The nuclear genie is out of the bottle, and no amount of well-wishing or pronouncements by Great Leader Obama to have a world without nuclear weapons will change that. Russia respects one thing - power. My fear is that the real balance of power in the nuclear arena is changing, and not in our favor. But.... we may have some things up our sleeves that give us advantages that I don't know about.

 
Marko

I've noticed over time that many of your posts are regarding Russia and the threat that they pose.

I'm in total agreement with you on that and I believe Russia is much more powerful than we think.

But....our government is not much better. We have/do pull some of the same crap. I believe our government can be just as forceful and deceitful.

It's not about patriotism- it's about the truth. I am not implying anything on your behalf- as your posts on the subject are informative.

Going way back from the English settling here and our government doing the very same to the native Indians that they were trying to escape from themselves to creating Panama for our own interests to invading Iraq.

We hold the events of the holocaust as evil (which it totally was) but not many people know that there are less than 4 million Native American Indians left in the world. There are more Jewish people than that in New York alone. Another fine example of our government picking and choosing.

There are plenty more examples of our government acting "criminal". We put people away for organized crime but our government is masterful at the very same.

I actually have more respect for Putin as a leader than Obama. Now that doesn't mean that I like Putin because he is a BAD man.

I don't intend to debate whose better than who- or- how my patriotism is perceived- just making a point that are government can be just as evil.



 
Are you @ 10:18 AM answering from your own belief in first person or only describing aspects of New Age?
 
Professor Eriksin has again shown her true stripes with this high minded
uber academic sounding / new age pronouncement:

"Exodus says Moses was the first to know YHWH by that Name, while Genesis says in Seth's time men began to call on YHWH or use His Name as part of theirs. Contradiction? no. an anachronism put there by a scribe. "

Christine I can't tell you how irksome it is to read your out-the-butthole comments when you attempt to discredit the Bible's
veracity, which you do often even while you feign to defend it out the other side of your lying mouth.
Once again: You are not a professor and no one here is in your history 101 class wherein you shape young minds to your own twisted world view.
You are wrong once again. You are assuming that EA is the same as Jehovah, and you sound like the History Channel when they interview some scholar from India regarding something in the Bible and the so called scholar doesn't really believe a word of the Bible but has to play along in order to teach the class and continue the madness.
You're a liar.
PLEASE crawl back in your hole.

 
No joke, Paul.
The Lord, and His Word, have confusion cast about them whenever she posts. Her supposed high-minded answers are really low-blows, taking aim at the Lord and His Word, obscuring the truth.
So she brings strife with her whenever she enters this blog because she works for the "other guy".
If she didn't, she would highly exalt Christ Jesus instead of her own "high mind".

Pride goes before destruction and a haughty spirit before a fall. Proverbs 16:18
Here's a bit of "20/20 vision" (insight) for us---something we can clearly see while she is busy obscuring.... Whoso curses his father or his mother, his lamp shall be put out in obscure darkness. Proverbs 20:20


Just keep on typing from out there in the dark where you are, Christine, and we'll keep using The Light to expose you.
 
"Christine I can't tell you how irksome it is to read your out-the-butthole comments when you attempt to discredit the Bible's
veracity, "

I am not attempting any such thing. typical false accusation.

" which you do often even while you feign to defend it out the other side of your lying mouth. "

insults and slander, typical abuse I received for years and more than this and my reactions are called "abusive" or whatever. If you knew as much Bible as you pretend to or think you do merely because you can recite some verses by heart perhaps you would not be saying this.

I am not going by "scholars" who are mostly a waste of time. one scholar Delitzsche made the connection and he and all the idiots who saw Judaism as a product of the genius of the Hebrew people were appalled, because they did not credit it to the true God, known as the Bible says before paganism and pushed aside as paganism developed. His religion was still alive aside from Abraham since Melchizedec was a priest of The Most High God.

The finding of -ya ending eponymous (deity honoring) names in Ebla and this Ea connection is a powerful testimony FOR The Bible not against it.

That God is a real PERSON not a mere "god concept." When you read the Bible a whole book at a time, you get the picture of God letting His religion slowly dither down to minimally present, then restarted it with Abraham.

Granted YHWH doesn't mention His Name YHWH to Abraham in Genesis, so this apparent contradiction (one of those detractors of the Bible argue disproves it) may merely mean that His Name was forgotten in UR and Haran and unknown to Abraham, though still known in Ebla which was approximately Abraham's time, but known before that. Either the history of Genesis was specially revealed to Moses, or he used records kept with the Hebrews or a bit of both.

But to me one of the most powerful testimonies to God's reality, power and strategy capability is this YHWH Ea connection. And in Greek, Hallelujah is Allelu IA and one of the early church writers drawing on information that had leaked among the pagans, and from priests of YHWH who converted to Jesus Christ, said The NAme was pronounced something like ieouue. the forbidding of use of the Name was a superstition that developed among the Jews probably very late, maybe even after AD 70.

"Once again: You are not a professor and no one here is in your history 101 class wherein you shape young minds to your own twisted world view."

I was addressing Dahlheimer, whose web page you can find by clicking on his name and who previously posted twice very new age overt pagan stuff which I ALONE answered none of you bothered to refute him, is a definite new ager here to "instruct" us. why don't you fling your venom in his direction?
 
Because you are the one who poses as a believer.
If the Torah has, as you say, an error or a lie which is the result of a dishonest scribe, somewhere
in some unnamed time and place, then why should we believe any of it. Obviously God lost control of
his Holy Wordeven in the very Torah, if what you say is true. Or did God just let this one little white lie
go, or was he sleeping that day?

You're a liar you're a liar you're a liar.

You're a old hippie who wants to drag her hippie blanket with her all the
way to heaven and bring all her hippie dippie bull***t with her into a new life with Christ.
But the hippie dippie superstitions don't fit through that door, babe.

There are no mistakes in the Torah.
You arrived at the conclusion that there is a mistake in the Bible as you followed the path
that starts with a falsehood; which was your need to blend, as you said, "Mesopotamian lore",
with the Holy Torah.
They don't mix, and God doesn't need your help explaining anything, to anyone.

Why don't you go in your room and put Jefferson Airplane on the turntable and reminisce
one more time about Woodstock and chant "Hell no I won't go".
You're an actor.
 
We've seen your blog, MCE, and find lots of overt pagan 'stuff' at your place which you don't mind dumping here (like your toilet reference in an earlier post).

The more you post the worse you sound. Since somebody used some proverbs regarding you here is another one for you from Proverbs 17:27-28.
He that hath knowledge spareth his words: and a man of understanding is of an excellent spirit.
Uh Oh Mz Erikson...and...
Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise; and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.
The Bible identifies you as one who is wise in her own Googled eyes.
 
"If the Torah has, as you say, an error or a lie which is the result of a dishonest scribe, somewhere
in some unnamed time and place, then why should we believe any of it. "

ridiculous.

"There are no mistakes in the Torah."

In the original yes. but variations between early texts though of no real importance are known to exist.

the typical "bible scholar" claims Mesopotamian lore was used to make the Bible. ON THE CONTRARY, Mesopotamian lore preserved a warped and partial version of events, the Bible preserves the real versons.

Scribes don't have to be dishonest to make minor errors. However, some REAL dishonesty must have been in play at Jamnia, when rabbi Akiva set the standard for Judaism from then on including textual standard, when the AGES AT WHICH PATRIARCHS REPRODUCED WAS SHORTENED, an obvious play to encourage earlier marriage and reproduction.

The Septuagint is from a Torah scroll at least 200 years earlier than what Akiva used, and mentions an additional name dropped in the Masoretic from the list of begats.

Cain's flaw was not that he brought veggies. the protestant narrow mindset sees only sin offerings despite other type offerings including first fruits of harvest being specified in Leviticus and Deuteronomy also I think. LXX however shows more, that Cain sacrificed right BUT DID NOT DIVIDE IT RIGHT whatever that refers to , sharing with others or how it was presented in segments. It still added up to doing it his own way.

The Dead Sea Scrolls OT sometimes agrees with the present Masoretic, but often with the Septuagint. Jesus and the Apostles quote the Septuagint.

And Daniel....Josephus tells us he was in the PROPHETS, but under Akiva Daniel was reclassified as mere writings (which had less authority) because he heard from an angel not God directly. AND THE ORDER OF CHAPTERS IN THE BOOK WERE REARRANGED OUT OF ORIGINAL SEQUENCE, part of an effort to undermine Daniel as supporting Jesus Christ.

don't take the all or nothing approach. it doesn't work. and only the Bible (by its detractors) is held to the kind of standard of word for word non variation ever that no other ancient literature MSS are held to. If two different MSS of some Roman history show variations, they are not thrown out as the whole thing is false, specific incidents are not thrown out of history books because of such.
 
If it weren't for you, Erikson, this blog would still be left behind in the dark ages.


;)



 
There is no overt or even minor pagan stuff at my blog except to refute it, or in one case at least expose it as the source of a couple of EXTREMELY common words blithered in speaking tongues!
 
"Cain's flaw was not that he brought veggies. the protestant narrow mindset sees only sin offerings despite other type offerings including first fruits of harvest being specified in Leviticus and Deuteronomy also I think. LXX however shows more, that Cain sacrificed right BUT DID NOT DIVIDE IT RIGHT whatever that refers to , sharing with others or how it was presented in segments. It still added up to doing it his own way."

Wrong. Once again you 'teach' leaving out what is uppermost for everyone's understanding. He did not honor the shed blood of innocent sacrifice, that his parents surely taught him about, that was carrying with it the picture of the future in prophecy of Jesus who was the be the ultimate of what was to be handed down through the generations. That is why God pointed out to Cain that sin was lying at the door and instead of doing as God asked of him, he went out and slew his brother.
You manage to shortchange the Gospel often in your 'teaching'. It is a fatal flaw in your 'biblical' understanding. And perhaps I know why......you shortchange the cross of Jesus because you shortchange true repentance. Isn't that what Cain did? He had a bitter root and you seem to be cut of the same cloth...so........what becomes of the rotten 'fruit' you bring to God?
Look at your life you've broadcast so widely here. What you proudly and loudly argue for and excuse about your own choices that go against scripture while you profess to be a believer.
Paul is right. A liar, an imposter.

 
"Wrong. Once again you 'teach' leaving out what is uppermost for everyone's understanding. He did not honor the shed blood of innocent sacrifice, that his parents surely taught him about, ..."

wrong. you have been taught that as I was, but this is an assumption.
Did I not speak in context of what the Septuagint shows? and did I not remind you that in Leviticus OTHER THAN BLOOD sacrifices that are NOT ABOUT SIN are described? This was not a sin offering.

OF course you don't likely have an LXX in front of you. here it is.

Genesis 4:2-7
"In the process of time Cain brought a sacrifice to the Lord from the fruits of the ground. Abel also brought a sacrifice from the firstborn of his flock and of their fat. The Lord respected Abel and his offering, but He did not respect Cain and his
sacrifices. So Cain was extremely sorrowful, and his countenance fell. So the Lord said to Cain, "Why are you extremely sorrowful? And why is your countenance fallen? Did you not sin,

"EVEN THOUGH YOU BROUGHT IT RIGHTLY BUT DID NOT DIVIDE IT RIGHTLY?""
LXX English translation
 
Sin offering and peace offering. Certain animals and certain portions of their fat which were prime.
Sin and peace are both depicted at the cross of Jesus. Sin that Jesus paid for (made sin for us) and made peace with God for us, are shown in these and what Cain neglected. As you often do.

No sin offering, no peace with God.
No Jesus, no peace.
You write as someone who knows nothing of peace of mind and soul but I guess you can't write about what you don't know about.
Abel got it right, his brother got it wrong and was offended.

You defend the wrong thing, as usual, because you lean on (and defend) your own high minded opinions and miss the lesson entirely.

 
talk about writing as one who nothing of peace of mind and soul not to mention can't even comprehend the OT issues that Jesus' sacrifice was prefigured by.

Sure He made both sin and peace offering. BUT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE FIRST GENERATION AFTER ADAM, not about time AD. don't shift ground and play games.

the issue about "Abel got it right, his brother got it wrong and was offended."
is that LXX gives details Masoretic doesn't, and solves the mystery of what Cain's flaw in sacrifice was. Without this, all is speculation.

In addition, it shows that there were established rules of how to worship before Moses, to who was given a reiteration or maybe update in some things.

All I am defending is accuracy and facts. And presenting the opening wedge of the gospel to Dahlheimer by refuting his gnostic sources.

(I am not gnostic. Gnosticism is about denial of the value and/or reality of the physical universe, and denial that God The Most High made the physical universe and/or ascribing all evil to God or to a rival "god" who supposedly made the physical world, instead of the Fall being to blame and us being to blame.)

 
BC is all about AD!
Put on your thinking cap instead of putting on your google face.
Forgiveness!!!!!
It is The Primary Theme Of The Entire Bible, front to back. And you are missing it....because..........it is...

......your personal bone to pick with the Bible. If it wasn't, you would not fight and argue about this subject too. You are a mess, yet you pontificate. A train wreck in your lack of understanding about this topic. Nobody here gets forgiveness on God's terms more wrong than you.
You have my pity.
 

"...more, that Cain sacrificed right BUT DID NOT DIVIDE IT RIGHT whatever that refers to , sharing with others or how it was presented in segments. It still added up to doing it his own way. " ( Christine Erickson )

Notice the misquote wherein Ms E says he "sacrificed right BUT DID NOT DIVIDE IT RIGHT whatever that refers to ,..."
This is really too rich.
The misquote of "sacrificed right" from the proper "brought it right" (which is capitalized by M.Erickson, not God, btw) , shows
a blindness to the meaning of sacrifice, which she immediately verifies with "whatever that refers to".
Christine why couldn't you simply quote the very simple text?
Why the substitution of something as simple as "brought it right" to "sacrificed it right"
Obviously he DIDN'T sacrifice it right, or God wouldn't have said that he did.
Why must you confuse a simple situation, and why don't you understand that the Bible is right. It's tight and it's right.
Didn't God create all the languages one day at Nimrod and the Tower of Babel ? Yes He did.
And didn't that same God send tongues of, as it were, fire to the believers in that upper room in the Book of Acts?
So is it reasonable to assume that along with everything else God the Lord of Hosts created all the tongues and languages on earth? Yes it is.
Isn't it reasonable to conclude that God YHWH has protected His Holy Word from sleepy scribes and sinister pagan actors through these last six millennia, at least inasmuch as He decides to ?
Yes it is.
Christine you bring it right but you don't divide it right.

 
what nit picking. brought and sacrificed is the same thing.

Cain BROUGHT it/gave it to God/presented it to God/set it apart to God i.e, made sacred set apart to God which is what sacrificed means, such as in Romans where we are called to be living sacrifices to God.

But he did not DIVIDE it right.

capitalization to get attention on the words not lost in the text.

dividing it is something to do with how it is placed before God, something about presentation since "dividing" at least in NT, same Greek as Septuagint, means to cut clean, to do correctly exactly.

So in the process of the offering itself (or perhaps in sharing with others there after if it was to be done) an error was made regarding something pretty simple and he knew the right way to do it.

your argument about languages makes no sense. Of course what is IMPORTANT to salvation and right living would be taken care of, but look at all the legitimate complaints about some modern transalations and (even worse) paraphrase bibles? such as the really bad "The Message" Bible?

are these not indeed sleepy scribes and sinister pagan agendas right in front of you? But God preserves the truth, keeping correct material available to correct wrong translations.

A critic of Jerome's mistranslation of Genesis 3:15 (saying the woman instead of her seed would crush the serpent's head) blamed this on his possibly being misled by corrupt Greek texts.

the problem has always existed.

That was not a "misquote' because I didn't put it in quotation marks, that was a quick statement of the information in the text.

you are searching to find fault and not doing well.

God said Cain brought it right, when you bring it you are offering it. This is very brief telescoped writing on very limited space to write on, before later paper and codex binding. But something about the process of the sacrifice itself was done wrong.

THAT WHAT HE BROUGHT WAS NOT ANIMAL BUT PLANTS WAS NOT THE ISSUE.

 
""brought it right" (which is capitalized by M.Erickson, not God, btw)"

God doesn't do any capitalization that is the practice of those who write. or print. or translate. The Greek texts of NT for instance range from some in all caps to some in all lower case. it depends on scribal custom of time and place.
 
If she brought it right she wouldn't give a slick "lick and a promise" adaptation of her own but would stick to what God keeps tight watch on.

It was the wrong sacrifice in the first place. No wonder Cain couldn't "bring it"..and it stands as a memorial to him that he made light of (made it about himself) what God held dearest. The testimony of His Son's body and blood typified throughout the Old....all the way..done and Done, as the Yes and the Amen, the Pivot Point for all time and eternity throughout the New.
God wrote the Book and preserved it too, so we could all know this.

MCE you aren't "bringing it" either.



 
"It was the wrong sacrifice in the first place"

according to those teaching you from the Masoretic which was the work of a radically anti Christian rabbi Akiva AD 90.

it was not the wrong sacrifice if it was a first fruits offering of their agricultural production. Lev. 23 :10-14 describes this and though in the Mosaic Covenant the bringer was to also sacrifice a lamb (which he or she might have to buy if the person didn't have flocks and herds only plants) apparently that wasn't the case before that.

there is no reference to something wrong or lacking in what Cain brought, only in how he did it.

GOD said it was brought rightly so it was not the wrong sacrifice. you have been taught wrong because your teachers learned from people who did not have all the Bible as per what hadn't been lost here and there per 200 BC. such as that extra generation in Genesis that is lacking in the Masoretic. There probably were other lines missed over the previous thousand plus years but nothing important. This dispute over what was wrong with Cain's offering has no bearing on theology or soteriology or Christology or any critical issue of right living now.
 
Ms. ERIKSIN,

I wouldn't be surprised to learn the 10:18 NAM poster is living in sin in Rocklin (Rocksin) ... who can forget about that "ad"?

A poor attempt at manipulation via the Hegelian Dialectic by someone with way too much time on her (or her "Resident Seer's ") hands, perhaps!
 
Christine you tap dance like that guy on Lawrence Welk

"what nit picking. brought and sacrificed is the same thing. "
Nope. Wrong.
You could bring a wheelbarrow in but you couldn't sacrifice it.
It wouldn't be sacred at all.
To sacrifice something is to make it Holy by offering it to God
according to His dictates.

"That was not a "misquote' because I didn't put it in quotation marks, that was a quick statement of the information in the text. "
A quick statement? It was a misquote, Chrissy, dear
In fact if you were trying to save space and letters, you lengthened it.


 
Ms. Irksome,

YOU really are an old bore!
 
"Chrissy, dear
... if you were trying to save space and letters..."

Oh, if only!
 
anon 8:47

indeed, who can forget at least two blatant LIARS bearing FALSE WITNESS and being ACCUSERS OF THE BRETHREN (a title of the devil) and pretending that ad ever happened.

Marriage is biblically definable as shifting priority and identity and so forth from parents and moving away somewhat, adhering to a partner of the opposite sex in public exclusive relationship not hidden and loyalty and permanence that is consummated eventually.

per Genesis.

I'm married biblically, even if not legally. deal with it. And no I wouldn't be stoned in ancient Israel I'd be a wife or concubine depending on rank status.

Paul you bring a wheelbarrow to God, you have made it sacred to Him because made sacred or made holy is set apart to God. if you give a wheel barrow to God (or the temple) you have sacrificed it in effect.

when you don't have the text in front of you, you describe the information content. when you have it you quote exactly. the only problem I see is if I had rendered brought as taken away or came without anything.
 
"who did not have all the Bible as per what hadn't been lost here and there per 200 BC. such as that extra generation in Genesis that is lacking in the Masoretic."


The pope accuses Jesus of being a failure and you accuse God of failing to preserve the truth as though he has left something unsaid/undone that should have been. What gall coming from these who pontificate "not knowing what spirit ye are of", casting doubt upon God himself.
(and claim to believe Him?)


 
"it depends on scribal custom"
A scribe, you are not. A pharisee, you are. Jesus rebuked them because they mistreated, mishandled and misquoted God's word like you do too. You are shameless.
 
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news-room/20160601IPR29931/EU-and-NATO-complementary-and-cooperation-are-a-must-says-MEP-Eva-Kaili


I wonder who could help bridge these two.....
 
Mary Erikson as Constance Cumbey's blog deputy?

I sincerely hope not!
 
"you accuse God of failing to preserve the truth "

I repeat, the plethora of corrupt translations NOW right in front of you shows that He allows a lot of error, though none of them eliminate the core important facts of creation, fall and divine Incarnation Crucifixion and REsurrection and our salvation. THAT is the truth that is essential and that IS preserved. In the middle of all that, the best translation or two still exists.
 
Ms Eriksin, you claim your living out of wedlock, with a history of fornication ( which stopped only because of your co-fornicator's "heart condition ") with your "Resident Seer " and " ex " Satanist with whom you are shacked up, means you are Biblically wed: how do you come to such a conclusion outside of sheer blind denial?

Concubine or no, you ARE living in sin and pervertingly twisting Holy Scriptures to try and condone your sinful 'lifestyle'!
 
anon 9:36

a. I am married biblically. legally is not so important with no children and none possible.

b. you wouldn't have heard any of what someone said I announce (or whatever term was used) all over the blog, flaunt publicly whatever, if I had not HONESTLY answered a question (I didn't volunteer the information) and then been harassed for years about it.

c. his prior "religious" affiliation is none of your business, and neither is my relationship with him which is within BIBLICAL limits, and by accident also in YOUR limits since it is celibate. you should be glad he is EX satanist. the only reason I put quotes around ex was to sneer at someone who had the audacity to put the quotes there first. your concerns about THIS WORLD issues like legality as absolute instead of conditional and of no value in themselves only as of use to God shows your priorities are questionable and since we present as husband and wife, using those terms, we are not a bad influence on those who think in terms of experimental temporary living together as maybe okay. I have dealt with all those before on this blog. you only sow discord and confusion here. I don't have a "history of fornication" since it was in context of a committed relationship. Neither have I as accused earlier by whoever engaged in "promiscuity" which is physically impossible to do when you only are with one partner at a time anyway, promiscuity is no strings casual sex multiple partners over a year and even non selective with strangers etc.
 
If you had not volunteered all this you have dumped on this poor blog we would have had no way to even suppose it. You are caught in that snare of your own making......as you should be.
How hypocritical to make yourself somehow a victim here when you have willfully knowingly given yourself over to using sacred text to condone and excuse who and what you have become by admission.

This blog is not a psychiatrist's couch, but sadly, we know way too much of your history. Sad too, is that it is not hard for us regular people, just here to know more of the work of years by Constance Cumbey, to have your sad existence spread out here in unwarranted detail, easily seeing the patterns you keep refusing to see in your own life of the many hatreds that drive your lifelong thinking and doing right up to this moment. How you have the audacity to promote yourself here as very well learned (about everything no less) is the beyond anything reasonable and why you suffer by your own choices, not by anyone else. You suffer from your very own self-righteous discord, and spread it here with no reservation. Sick and wrong, and anti-social on top of that.

How much more boring and anti-social can you get? Get some help. Your help won't be found in your incessant googling and posting, nonstop explaining to defending what is actually indefensible. You should know better......why you don't is not for this blog to be taken up with, yet you force your many issues upon this place.


I knew you would make your comeback into these patterns of behavior. Your "vacations" are only your refueling stops.
 
anon 11:22

I was AKSED about my relationship with Mike. I did NOT VOLUNTEER ANYTHING and you are caught in the snare of your own making, your words are lies now and all anyone need do is plow through old posts a few years and see.

I WAS ASKED and I answered honestly. THEN I WAS HARASSED AND ACCUSATIONS FAR MORE SEVERE MADE THAN JUST WHAT COULD BE COMPLAINED OF,

which I answered. that is not "volunteering."

I had shared information of importance in FIGHTING THE OCCULT and accused of being an occultist.

My vacations AS I HAVE REPEATEDLY STATED,

are to RESCUE CONSTANCE'S BLOG FROM THE DAMAGE YOU PEOPLE DO

when you flood the blog with your harassment of me.

I repeat.

THE DAMAGE YOU PEOPLE DO TO CONSTANCE'S BLOG by flooding it with your harassments.

if you really want people "to know more of the work of years by Constance Cumbey" then you wouldn't be posting anything about me.

AND MOST OF MY POSTS FOR MONTHS unless answering your kind WERE NOTHIN OF THE SORT YOU PEOPLE COMPLAIN OF.

I would make a post of a link to something maybe with some comments and a FLOOD OF PROTEST ABOUT OCCULTISM AND IMMORALITY that had not the slightest relationship to my post would start.

I would try ignoring you and you continued.

Given your HABITUAL DISHONESTY about me, I can only assume you are not honest about your concerns for the blog.

The Bible mentions two people who could see the usually unseen. one was led by his own greed and ambition to destruction, how he had the ability is not known. Another was given this in response to prayer by a prophet. Perhaps all who have this hereditarily descend from him somewhere in the pedigree, perhaps not.

An ability that fades with normal sight fading is clearly PHYSICAL.

This subject was brought up again in a CONTEXT OF DISCUSSION I didn't just announce out of the blue for no reason.

THE VAST MAJORITY OF MY POSTS WOULD NEVER HAVE HAPPENED IF YOU PEOPLE HAD LEFT ME ALONE. and you can't be ignorant of that.
 
For all the supposed high-mindedness you dump here it really does look as though your posts are just multiple dumps from a spoiled crybaby poo-poo pants.

You actually had a choice since you did not have to "volunteer" at all and certainly not so much!
And now thousands of posts later you are still talking about yourself.

Stop it with the boring it's all about you crap.
Wise up.



No charge for my advice because I give it to you free. Take advantage of it.
 
Chritine, you have written the following in your 11:41 AM post:

"I was AKSED about my relationship with Mike. I did NOT VOLUNTEER ANYTHING and you are caught in the snare of your own making, your words are lies now and all anyone need do is plow through old posts a few years and see."

"I WAS ASKED and I answered honestly. THEN I WAS HARASSED AND ACCUSATIONS FAR MORE SEVERE MADE THAN JUST WHAT COULD BE COMPLAINED OF,"

"which I answered. that is not "volunteering.""

Yet, at 9:12 PM, you wrote:

"Marriage is biblically definable as shifting priority and identity and so forth from parents and moving away somewhat, adhering to a partner of the opposite sex in public exclusive relationship not hidden and loyalty and permanence that is consummated eventually."

"per Genesis."

"I'm married biblically, even if not legally. deal with it. And no I wouldn't be stoned in ancient Israel I'd be a wife or concubine depending on rank status."

So, here on this topic's page (as you have done previously on pages of other topics at this blog) have volunteered information concerning your convoluted, albeit invalid and void Biblically speaking, plethora of excuses for your living in sin and out of wedlock, shacked up with someone you have a shameless history of fornication.


You seriously need to repent!
 
Chritine, you have written the following in your 11:41 AM post:

"I was AKSED about my relationship with Mike. I did NOT VOLUNTEER ANYTHING and you are caught in the snare of your own making, your words are lies now and all anyone need do is plow through old posts a few years and see."

"I WAS ASKED and I answered honestly. THEN I WAS HARASSED AND ACCUSATIONS FAR MORE SEVERE MADE THAN JUST WHAT COULD BE COMPLAINED OF,"

"which I answered. that is not "volunteering.""

Yet, at 9:12 PM, you wrote:

"Marriage is biblically definable as shifting priority and identity and so forth from parents and moving away somewhat, adhering to a partner of the opposite sex in public exclusive relationship not hidden and loyalty and permanence that is consummated eventually."

"per Genesis."

"I'm married biblically, even if not legally. deal with it. And no I wouldn't be stoned in ancient Israel I'd be a wife or concubine depending on rank status."

So, here on this topic's page (as you have done previously on pages of other topics at this blog) you have volunteered information concerning your convoluted, albeit invalid and void Biblically speaking, plethora of excuses for your living in sin and out of wedlock, shacked up with someone with whom you have a shameless history of fornication.


You seriously need to repent!
 
Anonymous Anonymous said... 11:31 PM
I wonder who could help bridge these two.....

Thanks for the article. They have no problem letting the US do the heavy lifting!
I do think maybe it is time we quit sending our boys to be slaughtered for these Fascist goals of global dominance.
 
You're welcome Dan Bryan.
Glad somebody was able to spot it in the midst of another Erikson episode. Her tantrums seem to be endless.
 
Excellent advice, 11:54 AM: yet I fear your forthright generosity will go unheeded, as to accept it requires humility and honesty, and, so far, neither of these are found in her dictionary of blind delusion and sheer hubris!
 
Christine,

You really don't HAVE to defend yourself against attacks, insults, etc. Jesus said to turn the other cheek, which is to say, when someone insults you by slapping you on one cheek, turn the other one toward him so he/she may slap that one as well.

The point is, if we really and truly follow Christ, then the defense of our own honor and pride is something we lay down at the altar and leave there. Let your yes be yes, and your no be no, and the rest is from the evil one.
 
anon. 1:06

its a matter also of defending facts vs. lies St. Paul defended himself against various accusations.

anon 12:17

"So, here on this topic's page (as you have done previously on pages of other topics at this blog) you have volunteered information "

WHY DO YOU KEEP LYING? my first post in this series was in response to anon 9:36.
That is not "volunteering" that is answering an attack.

anon 12:17

you repeat your claim of "volunteering" and give as an example a post I made IN RESPONSE to anon 8:57 (my typo saids 8:47 sorry)

which was

"Anonymous Anonymous said...
Ms. ERIKSIN,

I wouldn't be surprised to learn the 10:18 NAM poster is living in sin in Rocklin (Rocksin) ... who can forget about that "ad"?

A poor attempt at manipulation via the Hegelian Dialectic by someone with way too much time on her (or her "Resident Seer's ") hands, perhaps!

8:57 PM"

this whole matter has being being hashed over for at least a year maybe two and this morality issue was the result of someone over a year ago ASKING me about my relationship to Mike, to which I gave an honest answer. Everything else came from that.

neither is there any new information in the post you refer to that is not already on the blog for one or two years.

so as usual you are lying.

you complain about being off topic, but you never do that when RayB starts RC bashing, or anyone else gets onto another subject.

How did this develop this time? Someone opined that at least RC recognizes you can't remarry while the previous spouse is alive, I reminded him or her of the fact that the Bible gives adultery as grounds for divorce that allows remarriage with additional nuancing by Paul.

Then somehow the Septuagint got into it.

then out of the blue that creep tuned up at 8:57 and we're off to the races again.


 
Sorry to say Christine, but I'd trust Ray B, Dan, Paul, Susannna, etc, etc, over you any day of the week. 8:57 hadn't specified exactly when you volunteered details of your sordid life yet again. So if you're looking for a liar and a gnostic creep then I suggest you take a long hard look in the mirror!

You have previously indicated you use New Age tactics to fight the New Age Movement yet don't you understand that a Kingdom divided against itself will fall? Your ideas have often come straight out of the occult cess to which they belong.

Moreover, I am convinced Ray B and Dan really did see an unsavoury "ad" purportedly posted by you.
 
I never said I use new age tactics. I spot what they use that in fact DOES NOT FIT what they say it does and can be used against them.

 
you don't have to trust my word for anything of the history I recited. GO AND VERIFY IT FOR YOURSELF.ITS IN THE BLOG IN MANY POSTS.

if you read everything and not just my posts alone but the ones I address and those that are immediately or a few posts before mine or my posts that contain a quoted remark, you will see for yourself.

it should be real easy on this comments section alone. you will find the same pattern for years. BUT DON'T TRUST ME, CHECK THE FACTS.
 
Anon 7:50 wrote,

"Forgiveness!!!!! It is The Primary Theme Of The Entire Bible, front to back...."

Certainly there are entire ministries that would agree with that statement. Most of those types of ministries confuse "forgiveness" with "tolerance", and think being "christian" means we are to forgive and even tolerate all sorts of evil. After all, we are all sinners- so who are we to judge, right? But,in my book, such ministries lack discernment and wisdom.

The twin themes of my Bible are Redemption and Judgment.

Jesus is the Redeemer who came to bring 1) salvation and 2) cause division. While both mercy and forgiveness are implicit in Christ's act of Redemption, we must remember that many who call him "Lord, lord", will NOT enter the kingdom of heaven; but ONLY those who do "the will of My Father who is in heaven."

Obviously we need to understand exactly what is the Father's will. Is it to go around and constantly forgive everybody for everything they do all the time no matter what? That is NOT what happened at the cross! The Father's will is to "believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, just as He commanded us."

Some would argue that the command to "love one another" refers to everybody, while others contend that the command "to love one another" is exclusively meant for the fellowship of believers. I tend towards the latter interpretation simply because the unbelieving world is passing away and we are very clearly commanded NOT to love it, for "where your treasure lies, there your heart will be also."

Granted, we are commanded not to seek revenge on those who hurt us and do us wrong, but to do the opposite, to forgive those who have sinned against us. We are warned that by not forgiving, or harboring a grudge, we will not be forgiven ourselves. The willful act of forgiveness not only strengthens our faith, but is perhaps the single greatest witness to both the saved and unsaved world. Practicing true forgiveness is perhaps the greatest demonstrable sign of our growing faith in the one true Redeemer.

That said, we are also warned not to remain in fellowship with un-repentant sinners... to not cast our pearls before swine, etc. A discerning believer should have nothing to do with the darkness. Jesus knew when to respond and not to respond to the lovers of darkness, to continue or not continue in dialog with those steeped in error. He did not argue with demons nor hold lengthy conversations with deranged fools. We shouldn't either, lest we be looked upon as fools ourselves.

 
http://abcnews.go.com/International/german-lawmakers-recognize-armenian-genocide-outraging-turks/story?id=39552540
 
The Mandela Effect

I've recently become aware of this bizarre alternate reality theory called 'The Mandela Effect'. I am concerned that some people are trying to connect this nonsense with CERN and are making false claims that words in the KJV Bible have mysteriously been changed in places, e.g. KJV use of the words 'bottle' for wineskins and 'stuff' for belongings. The false claims are that these are modern words and have been changed.

These disturbing, cult like, false claims and mind games, try, amongst other things, to undermine the authority of the Bible and throw as many as possible into confusion.

Today, I also read in the Daily Express UK newspaper, ‘We are living in a SIMULATION and if we're not the world will END’ warns top entrepreneur Elon Musk.

Link to news report - http://tinyurl.com/z6v84lb

I truly believe these are very dangerous lies that tickle the ears of vulnerable people, especially children.

~ K ~
 
Link to Mandela Effect website - http://mandelaeffect.com/about/

~ K ~
 
-K- :

Interestingly, the TV show "Person of Interest" suggested something like that in Monday night's show in the dialog between two of the main characters. "Root" suggested that we are all living in one giant simulation - that our lives are all controlled by an artificial intelligence and that memories of us will live on in the machine after we have "died", so we really are eternal after all.

Or something like that.

 
Sad day today. The Twitter account for @DarthPutinKGB has been suspended.

There are some really funny archived tweets from that account to be seen in this news story:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/01/twitter-suspends-popular-anti-putin-parody-accounts/

I love parody. It's one of the best weapons against evil that there is.

Here's the Tweet I mentioned above:

========================
Vladimir Putin @DarthPutinKGB - May 27

Arriving at Athens today:

Customs: Name?
Me: Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin
Customs: Occupation?
Me: No, this time i'm just here for 2 days
========================

Now that's funny!

:^)


 

Christine 10:54 AM ( 2nd post at that time )

Re: "Lucifer is described in the OT in very bad, prideful arrogant and destructive terms. clearly he is identical with satan. As for Jesus the bright and morning star is not quite the same phrasing as "son of the morning."

While the anti Lucifer statements in the OT are made against physical kings, they include statements that make no sense as about a human so in both cases the kings were overshadowed by the demon."

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

Not only that, but since the devil is traditionally referred to as the "ape of Christ" ( "simia Christi" ), we should not be surprised if the devil tries to imitate Christ by assuming a name or title similar to that of Christ.
 
Marko - I enjoyed that TV show and will have to look out for new episodes. I enjoy most science fiction and that's where it stays for me ... in the category of fiction. I'm no scientist so it's just fun entertainment. It does seem that there's a lot of parallel universe and matrix type shows being made.

About 18 years ago, here in the UK there used to be a TV commercial by the AA (Automobile Association) motor breakdown service. In this ad, the punchline was 'Your 4th Emergency Service'. Around this same time I was watching a kiddies TV quiz with the children and one of the questions was, "Apart from the Police, Fire and Ambulance, can you name a fourth 999 emergency service?"

The child answered, "The AA."

The quiz master was looking for an answer of the coastguard, mountain rescue, etc. and certainly not the AA. I don't think I've ever seen a quiz master answer such an apologetic, no. It was a sad but clear demo of the power of the media to get into minds and that was before internet use and mobile phones were as commonplace as they are today.

~ K ~


 
K 5:02 PM and Marko 5:29PM

One is also reminded of that film THE MATRIX starring Keanu Reeves.
 
OMOTS @ 4:26 PM

Thank you.
That is why there was something terribly missing with Cain's offering as I was trying to express. It was bloodless and glib in comparison to his brother's that was picturing the need for Mercy because sin had to be Judged. God was calling to account. At that point an innocent animal had to shed it's blood and that theme is carried on in the Bible until Jesus became sin for us, as you are pointing out and what I was driving at. Judgment ultimately fell on HIM. From Eden on, God repeats that theme again and again so Cain's bloodless sacrifice was not what God was requiring because God said to Cain "sin lieth at the door" (without the shedding of blood there is no remission). He was expecting Cain to follow through with what was shown to Adam and Eve when God gave the coat of skins (innocent bloodshed) to cover their naked shame (sin) and then they were expelled form the garden.
Yes indeed, it is all about redemption and judgment and why I wrote what I wrote that MC Erikson did not address, making it about her version of why Cain's offering was rejected. She lightly gloss coats the entire issue of forgiveness and why I emphasized it. So Cain, in anger slew his brother, after God had told him sin lieth at the door, it was obviously spiritual pride that drove his anger after God's refusal to accept his "good" but inappropriate offering that was not in keeping with the theme-it did not show repentance before Holy God. It did not feature the proper message with it's prophetic tone that was to emphasize Jesus God's son would one day be the ultimate Lamb. A sweet savor before God who gives his Mercy (forgiveness) and peace (fellowship) when the offering is worthy (because about Christ).
Truth without grace is brutal but grace without truth is utter hypocrisy. God wants it understood how costly forgiveness is. One has to gather that message from the Bible if they are going to know God, not merely about Him. Jesus paid it all.....all to him I owe. Sin had left a crimson stain, He washed it white as snow. Folks who refuse such an offering to attempt to hand God their own, will face the wrath of His judgment. Not the popular message at all, in these days in which we live.....
 
OMOTS said "Yes indeed, it is all about redemption and judgment and why I wrote what I wrote that MC Erikson did not address, making it about her version of why Cain's offering was rejected. "

it is not my version it is the Septuagint version, 290 years older than the Masoretic.

The trouble is you see nothing but sin offerings and redemption. There are many things besides such as how everything started. Leviticus describes sin offering, trespass offerings (two categories of sin) first fruits offerings and free will offerings. Only the first two are about redemption aside from Passover and The Day of Atonement.

while you can make a good point about the Masoretic version incl. that bit about stopping sinning, the original says nothing about sin but that it is Abel whose recourse will be to Cain and Cain will, if he does right, have the first born supremacy or rule over him.

The Septuagint says Cain brought rightly but divided wrongly. So he was not expected to present an animal since he did not herd animals.

Yes those coats or tunics of skins were obviously from the first sin offering and by clothing Adam and Eve also gave an image of sin being covered and forsaken.
The promise in Genesis 3:15 is all about Christ.

The message you present is valid, but the verses for it aren't. Even in the Maoretic version the whole thing makes no sense. Sin crouching at the door like a cnsciouis being and its yearning is to you? huh?

There are far more and better verses for redemption symbolism than that. And specific events like David and Bathsheba and Psalm 51 (50 in LXX which also has the psalm 151 which the Masoretic leaves out for whatever reason).

There are several places in the Prophets and of course the New Testament.


 
Yawn Chritine, just because you are convinced by your own nonsense doesn't mean we should be! Yet you persist like an all pervasive plague boring us incessantly with your convoluted donkey eeaws as though by constant wearing out others your posts become persuasive and become valid:

*News Flash*

They don't!
 
She can't connect the dots. She writes flat statements that say she believes the Bible then just as flatly turns around to write opinions and long explanations that end up detracting from the actual text in favor of her view of what it all means. The Holy Spirit, she is not. Many of her opinions are just the web-surfed regurgitated rehash of other people's opinions on top of that.





She should stick to writing about Mars. She's closer to getting that right compared to anything she explains (explains away) from the bible.


Go serve all the hash you want at your disinformation station Mr Erikson. Your mere 3 or 4 readers over there might swallow it.
 
K (I hope this doesn't get overlooked due to MCE's reams of baloney), here's a solid Christian exposé of the Mandela Effect:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hOZSyYvgU3Q
 
"She should stick to writing about Mars."

She should refrain from writing anything (apart from sincere and full apologies to many here, especially to Constance), rather she should repent and leave her unsavory life behind her. She should choose this day whom she will serve!
 
Anon 8:29 PM

That's a good, strong and clear warning in that video https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hOZSyYvgU3Q

Thanks for the link.

~ K ~
 
K, thank you for bringing the issue to our attention in the first place. :)
 
Did anyone notice that Christine (at 7:27) wrote- "OMOTS said...." and then quoted a sentence NOT written by me, but by anon at 6:33? Who is she addressing or arguing with in her disjointed ramble, the anon who wrote in response to me, or with me? What does the scripture say about such confusion, regardless of whether it is intentional or unintentional?

I have visited and commented on this blog off and on for many years, but have learned NOT to read anything posted by MCE or in response to MCE, (unfortunately that doesn't leave much.) But as I scrolled down the comments section looking for something else of interest or value to read, I caught my username in caps at the top of Christine's 7:27 rant, so I read it, with regret.

Again, I merely mention these facts to emphasize the warning I posted to concluded my 4:26 comment, which was written, NOT to Christine, but to anon 7:50- "Jesus knew when to respond and not to respond to the lovers of darkness, to continue or not continue in dialog with those steeped in error. He did not argue with demons nor hold lengthy conversations with deranged fools. We shouldn't either, lest we be looked upon as fools ourselves."

Enough said.

 
omots this time said "Did anyone notice that Christine (at 7:27) wrote- "OMOTS said...." and then quoted a sentence NOT written by me, but by anon at 6:33? Who is she addressing or arguing with in her disjointed ramble, the anon who wrote in response to me, or with me? What does the scripture say about such confusion, regardless of whether it is intentional or unintentional? "

my apologies, I didn't see anonymous above omots said that was not said by him.

apparently he agrees with it, but anyway I goofed.

disjointed ramble - what, you need numbered paragraphs? everything in that post was relevant to the issue addressed.

 
Yes, OMOTS. The confusion is nonstop and the links I put on the blog that pertain to this blog's true interests can easily get lost in her furor. Dan Bryan caught one of them on this one and thankfully Constance saw one on her last thread. It's hard to find what is helpful in such a mess being made of this place.

The problem would pretty much go away if MCE would just pack up and go back to her own blog.
Here's hoping but not holding my breath...
 
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/05/24/eu-vows-use-new-powers-block-elected-far-right-populists-power/


Things are changing over there and not for good. Making way for a certain someone.....
 
Don't answer a fool it says in Proverbs 26:4 (& verses 5-11 expound). When you read about a fool with a message, it is to witness ruin. Someone keeps returning to their vomit, continual redundant postings, that fill this place. Graphic but true.






Easy to see what has happened to this blog.
 
Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...4:27 PM

http://abcnews.go.com/International/german-lawmakers-recognize-armenian-genocide-outraging-turks/story?id=39552540

Thanks for the link.
This will go a long way in pushing Turkey into Russia's camp!
Turkey has been on the fence between three world views Socialism, Capitalism and Islamism. Maybe now thy will choose the new Russian Fascism?
 
One of the most important links I have that I hope many of your reference and read from time to time is

CHRISTOCENTRIC.COM/BLOG

http://christocentric.com/blog

She has wonderful material up on so many of the critical issues now facing us.

Constance
 
Dan Bryan

http://www.armenian-genocide.org/recognition_countries.html

Russia is one of those countries that already recognize the Armenian genocide as such. Russia has been pointing the finger at Turkey as one of the main suppliers for ISIS. Turkish troop may or may not be on the ground in Syria at this point.
 
TO ALL:

A phone message was left for me today asking for the links to parts 3 and 4 of my articles with NEWSWITHVIEWS about General Paul Vallely, Michael Aquino, and Satanism in the US Military. I had frankly put off doing that and other articles I should have done because I promised Parts 3 and 4. Because Paul Walter put an unusual disclaimer that the opinions of General Vallely were solely my own, I was hesitant to contribute further, but today's call inspired me and I am finishing that series. I will have information and some startling quotes from Szandor LaVey (founder of the Church of Satan) as quoted in Michael A. Aquino's book about the CHURCH OF SATAN as to how they were all encouraged by the compromised stands the churches took in the 1970s,

I expect a lively show in the morning. Please join me at www.TMERADIO.com.

Constance
 
https://www.technocracy.news/index.php/2016/06/03/mother-jones-emerges/

https://www.technocracy.news/index.php/2016/06/03/china-vigorously-supports-2030-agenda/

https://www.technocracy.news/index.php/2016/06/03/islamic-finance-help-fund-sustainable-development/
 
Here's what the Book of Jasher says about Cain's offering:

__"And unto Cain and his offering the Lord did not turn, and he did not incline to it, for he had
brought from the inferior fruit of the ground before the Lord, and Cain was jealous against his
brother Abel on account of this and he sought a pretext to slay him."

And it goes on to tell how sometime later Abel grazed his sheep right where Cain had just
finished plowing his ground, and that it "sorely grieved" Cain.
It also goes into detail about their feud and that Cain ate from Abel's flock and even wore
wool from Abel's flock and Cain said, basically, "who is going to care if I kill you?" and Abel
said God will care, so apparently Cain didn't think God was omniscient but Able knew He is.

But hey read it for yourself.
Kenneth Johnson has compiled The Book of Jasher from various sources and he has
weeded out all the forgeries and sifted through many many scrolls from the likes of
Rabbi Eliezer, The Babylonian Talmud, The Mishna, and Ginzberg's "Legends of the Jews."
The Introduction to the book explains all these this in great detail.
The Bible itself mentions the Book of Jasher in Genesis, Joshua, 2nd Samuel and 2nd Timothy.
The Book of Jasher dates from the same time as Genesis and Exodus, and was never
intended to be a part of Scripture, but rather a reliable history book and companion text
to the bible, much like Josephus' writings.
 
paul,

"W.A. van Leen has written,

'When the book, in its various versions, is carefully examined it simply cannot stand the test of scrutiny and examination in the light of known history and evidence. The true Book of Jasher remains lost. Both the 1751/1829 and 1840/1887 versions remain fraudulent fiction and apocryphal speculation outside the Canon of Scripture.' (source: http://www.christianfaith.com/lookout/the-book-of-jasher).
http://www.ukapologetics.net/14/johnsonbook.htm

gets a positive review from a Mormon source http://religion.wikia.com/wiki/Book_of_Jasher

I read Jasher and Jubillees some years back and I recall noticing some conflicts with canonical OT here and there.

references in the Talmud don't help because that is a compilation from years AD of previously written and unwritten ideas some open to question.

"In Alcuinus' supposed translation, the Law is not given to Moses on Mount Sinai by God, but near to the mountain by Moses' father-in-law Jethro as the basis for civil government. The Creation occurs in the first chapter by natural process out of the ether and God only appears in Eden after the plants and animals, at the human stage of creation. Adam and Eve do not transgress, and, later on, Noah is credited only with the invention of shipping. The adjustments to the biblical narrative clearly promote Deist and Rationalist viewpoints from the 18th century, when the book was published, and the noble innocence of primitive humanity untarnished by original sin.

Provenance[edit]

Alcuin was indeed a famous 8th-century English abbot, but he would not have produced a translation in the English of the King James Bible, living as he did in the era of Anglo-Saxon (Old English) and ecclesiastical Latin, so the provenance of the text was immediately suspect." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Jasher_(Pseudo-Jasher)#Reception

"The Sefer haYashar (first edition 1552) is a Hebrew midrash ... title may be translated Sefer haYashar - "Book of the Correct Record" - but it is known in English translation mostly as The Book of Jasher following English tradition. The book is named after the Book of Jasher mentioned in Joshua and 2 Samuel.[1]

Although it is presented as the original "Book of Jasher" in the translations such as that of Moses Samuel (1840), it is not accepted as such in rabbinical Judaism, nor does the original Hebrew text make such a claim. It should not be confused with the very different Book of Jasher (Pseudo-Jasher) printed by Jacob Ilive in 1751, which claimed to have been translated by the English monk Alcuin."
"The earliest extant version of this Hebrew midrash was printed in Venice in 1625, and the introduction refers to an earlier 1552 "edition" in Naples, of which neither trace nor other mention has been found. The printer Yosèf ben Samuel claimed the work was copied by a scribe named Jacob the son of Atyah, from an ancient manuscript whose letters could hardly be made out....

The Venice 1625 text was heavily criticised as a forgery by Leon Modena, as part of his criticisms of the Zohar as a forgery, and of Kabbalah in general. Modena was a member of the Venetian rabbinate that supervised the Hebrew press in Venice, and Modena prevented the printers from identifying Sefer ha-Yashar with the Biblical lost book.[2]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sefer_haYashar_(midrash)
 
the 2 Tim. 3:8 reference is not to Jasher but to a book "The Book of Jannes and Jambres, containing details of their exploits, and that Paul the Apostle was quoting from it. This book exists in some Greek fragments present in the Papyrus Chester Beatty XVI, as well as a complete Ethiopic version which was discovered in 2015. It was also known to the Qumran community.[1]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jannes_and_Jambres more about them at this site.

where a number appears after a statement in Wikipedia, that is the source the information came from. you can easily verify anything in Wikipedia that is sourced.
 
Since God wrote ("breathed") the Bible for us to know the truth about Himself and about ourselves, doesn't it stand to reason that we should pay close attention to how and when the text brings up a topic? When God told Cain "sin lieth at the door" it was because it was The Lord bringing up the subject (of sin). He brought up the matter of sin and the right response to it was Abel's response, not Cain's. Sin offerings were animals (blood because it was to picture Blood in that Ultimate and Final sense-Jesus), not fruits and grains which were thanks and fellowship offerings. Thanks and fellowship is expressed after the Sin matter is dealt with, that is the Biblical order throughout Scripture. Cain could have gotten his hands on the right sacrifice/offering after God told him about sin lying at the door (of his heart), refusing then killed his brother who was more righteous than he. So clearly...he chose his own way, not what God had already prescribed for dealing with the matter of sin. When God calls specifics to account, it means deal on His terms with what HE is making known to you. Cain failed to do that with terrible consequences thereafter. Anger and guilt led to murder and more anger and guilt perpetuated.



The Bible shows us there are only 2 kinds of people living life on this earth, past and present, we are either saved or lost. God sums it up this way for us to recognize we must individually choose which it will be, Eternity being at stake. (a non-answer is still an answer). For the one who trusts God's provision coming by faith on God's terms, that is showing us that it was (pre-Cross) and still is, ultimately Jesus (post-Cross), and none other, as the Way the Truth and the Life, so from this basic understanding we can see a clear path to God. The world has had the Truth about Righteousness and Judgment (both are God's and not ours) presented from the Garden of Eden till today, so the Bible says all peoples are without excuse. No one will be able to plead innocent on that one, as we all know we fall short. Each era and generation has had a choice. There is none righteous, no not one as God has told us in Romans 3, that the whole world stands guilty before Holy God until declared Righteous in Christ, expressed as repentance toward God and faith in the Atoning Death and Life Giving Resurrection of Jesus. We all know our human frailty to sin. The Bible says even a child is known by his doings in Proverbs. God gave us all, at least that much, discernment to know when we are wrong. Prolonged denial, refusal and anger about this hardens the heart, and unchecked, eventually kills the conscience (becomes reprobate).
Cain and Abel's choices are parallels for us to learn from.



I recently watched a movie about how the Gospel came to the Waodani people of Ecuador. These were very violent cannibalistic people with much perpetuated anger and guilt over a long period of time. When they learned of God's "carvings" (the words of God we call the Bible) they knew already that they were condemned and had devised their own "way" to attempt to beat the odds and "jump the Great Boa", which gave them no peace whatsoever, only pushed them toward more violence, but that was what they did, just as those before them had done. They accepted the Gospel (after they killed missionaries who loved them and reached out to them), and these people of such a horrible history came to that understanding so quickly that their people were saved from extinction. For generations there had very seldom been any grandfathers, now they have men living long enough to be grandfathers.


God is still in the saving business and knows how to make the truth known to those willing to hear it and trust the God Who Alone has it. We should not downplay nor soft pedal the teachings that point the way to Jesus, just like Abel being dead, is still speaking.
 
"I notice that people sometimes say a complicated study of all things bearing on something is "incoherent" when it refutes their position and they don't have any way to refute it. Or perhaps it is too disturbing by virtue of that to be paid attention to and an incoherence in the mind sets in defensively"





Dear MCE, it is very noticeable that you are told your posts are incoherent a whole lot. For very good reason. You refute very little and have to be corrected very much. It is your pride that makes you think otherwise.

OMOTS has said the same thing about your many confusions and disjointed ramble.
So many here have refuted...You!


Let's see how this adds up then:

Physicist has told you you are often wrong and/or using wrong applications.

Rich in Medford has weighed in disgust about your posts and how argumentative and combative they are.

Now OMOTS has said how regrettable it is to read your material.

And certainly, Constance herself has called you on the carpet, we've lost track of how many times.
By now, how many others have said the same thing?

Many others here agree with them so this is not recent observation, it is a continued observation.

Still you do not learn, but put the blame on some lack you perceive in others? The lack is always and forever in the other guy in your mind's eye????

Is there no end to your arrogance??????

You bring nothing helpful here. Nothing. Any self-respecting person would go and find out what their peers are expressing and respectfully correct these...or leave. You respect no one.
How do you even look at yourself in a mirror?

OMOTS is right. Enough. Nobody can talk to you because it goes nowhere good, nowhere fast.

A fool and their folly should be left alone, so be our guest....and take the floor again........alone.

 
Anon above
"God is still in the saving business and knows how to make the truth known to those willing to hear it and trust the God Who Alone has it. We should not downplay nor soft pedal the teachings that point the way to Jesus, just like Abel being dead, is still speaking."

Amen
The Good News is that we don't have to die in our sins if we choose Jesus.
 
"Turkey also wants to rule Central Asia, what was previously Russian republics, and it also wants to rule Europe. It is this threat, hidden from the news that should worry us more than what the news bombard us with. It is the ‘concerns’ that are ‘not concerns’ that should alarm us more than the alarms trumpeted by headlines." http://shoebat.com/2016/06/05/make-no-mistake-about-it-the-cold-war-between-usnato-and-russia-will-fail-and-end-up-in-a-hot-war-with-turkey-instead/

While I don't buy the Islamic antichrist theory, the Shoebats are keeping better track of what goes on and developing trends than most of the lamestream media and
conservative press does. Sources close to the action on twitter were spotting Turkish support of ISIS before even Russia said this.
 
A fascinating and ongoing story continues to revolve around Vladimir Bukovsky, who currently lives in the UK. I haven't seen any press over here in the US about it, but here is a good website established on his behalf, with links to many articles writing about what has happened to him lately:

http://supportersofvladimirbukovsky.org/

He co-wrote a book with Pavel Stroilov called "EUSSR: The Soviet Roots of European Integration". I'm trying to locate a (cheap) copy to read. It looks like it should be required reading for anyone seriously studying the origins of the EU.

The basis of the current story: Bukovsky had been charged (falsely, he claims) with possession of child pornography, and he sued the Court for libel.
 
Marko,

while you're trying to locate a copy, here's an interview with Bukovsky
http://enzaferreri.blogspot.com/2013/02/bukovsky-europe-marxist-leninist-roots.html#axzz4Aidi6F00
 
More about about Bukovsky's current problems:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/29/vladimir-bukovsky-russian-dissident-hunger-strike-litvinenko-uk-judicial-system

I'm an Anon so can't prove what I say, but I know somebody who knows Bukovsky personally (I live in the UK), and this newspaper article is a reasonable summary of the situation.

 
http://www.shtfplan.com/conspiracy-fact-and-theory/turkish-forces-have-entered-syria-dreams-of-recreating-ottoman-empire-may-start-major-war_06012016
 
Christine 11:26, Anon 4:24 and Marko for introducing the topic, Thanks.
 
Trump has surrounded himself with globalist. At one of the first debates he said his first pick for National Security Advisor was Richard Haas of The Council on Foreign Relations. Trump said he liked him a lot. They met before Trump announced he was running for office. Trump has praised Hillary Clinton and her work and also gave financially to her and also got his rich friends to give to her. Unfortunately I think both of the presumptive candidates are globalists.
 
http://visupview.blogspot.com/2016/05/le-cercle-puppetmasters.html

anti RC here will be delighted, but the RC linkage of some of the groups discussed hardly reflects official RC doctrine or morality. This is the last article in a seven part series, with summary of the previous installments and links to them. All articles have extensive clickable links to document statements made. I don't recommend a lot on this site. in one series while he poo poos some conspiracy beliefs of the other groups in those articles, he inadvertently provides some support for those ideas.
 
Trump is the only candidate I have heard for many years who has acknowledged the real unemployment rate and says repeatedly that he will bring jobs back to America. For this alone he has earned my respect. Perhaps he is not what and who he says he is, only time will tell. The opposition is so bad, however, that it's worth taking a gamble on him. As for what he has done and said in the past - people can change - look at St. Paul.

Unless the destruction of the middle class is stopped America is toast. It may be too late already. Trump is showing true leadership and inspiring people to have pride in their country - I don't think Milo Yiannapolous could be doing what he is doing so brilliantly on U.S. college campuses at the moment without the rise of Trump. Black social conservatives like Diamond and Silk are starting to get a voice. Trump is a unifier and not a divider. He inspires people from all walks of life. He is the antidote to the poisonous identity politics that have brought the U.S. to its knees over the last 8 years.

I am impressed with much of what Trump says and the way he interacts with people, his warmth and personal touch, and I am praying for him. I don't care that he is imperfect and that if you study the New Age movement long and deeply enough you realize that probably everyone is bought and paid for, the game rigged, every leader corrupt. What is the alternative? God works in mysterious ways.
 
"if you study the New Age movement long and deeply enough you realize that probably everyone is bought and paid for"

or compromised without realizing it, by what they are used to, categories they are used to thinking in, etc.
 
You're flying low under the radar, Miss Erikson. That's good. There's grace for that. Short, sweet, and to the point (not about you).








Fly too high again, you will make yourself a target (deservedly so), so be careful.

This blog isn't yours. Let it be, and see to it, that you keep it that way.
 
https://web.archive.org/web/20070716182013/http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/amerfasc.html


 
anon 11:34 it was always you people who made it about me. I would make short sweet and to the point posts having nothing to do with some issues and you would set up a hue and cry and flood the blog with your reactions. if you had behaved yourselves none of the problems would have developed. and you never followed Constance's rule of no more than one Christine bashing post a day, you'd see a post like that already there and add your own. you didn't follow Constance's repeated request to just use collapse comments.
 
Nope. Why on God's green earth would we ever want it to be about you? You flatter yourself (a no-no). You want something collapsed? Collapse your ego.
This "you people" person sees another rant from you coming on because you're gaining altitude with your 12:03 PM defensive (because it's about me) remark.

Careful!!!
 
anon 12:14

you made it about me because of your constant abusive and often false attacks. you ignored Constance's requests to back off. you flooded the blog page after page of remarks about me, not about subject matter. THIS IS NOT YOUR BLOG and it isn't mine. you slandered me and I defended myself and rebuked your unbiblical and dishonest standards and behavior. my presence at all resulted in a flood of attacks and pretense at "exposing" me pretense because it had already been done (and full of inaccuracies) someone even did some genealogical research, got some wrong individuals all to prove me a liar that someone was in the Presby church not a witch, showing the poster's total ignorance of how occultists and witches generally operated before the second half of the last century: under cover or "dual faith" as its called in Russia.

I provided a blog for you to spew your lies and filth AND SPARE THIS BLOG but you refused to stop wrecking Constance's blog WHICH IS NOT YOUR BLOG but you treat it as if it were your blog.

on one prior occasion I was falsely accused of having posted something "vile" and/or obscene and deleted it, which I had not by any definition. Then more recently one of the same false accusers spread a worse lie. RayB, Dan Bryan (a believer in reincarnation) and an anonymous all FALSELY CLAIMED TO HAVE SEEN AN AD FOR PSYCHIC SERVICES and those people are LIARS.

you flatter yourself.
 
LOL!
So defend yourself over there at the blog you created then. Why keep messing this one up?
You are so predictable and boring.
 
"you refused to stop wrecking Constance's blog WHICH IS NOT YOUR BLOG but you treat it as if it were your blog."

YOU write THIS, Christine? Take the plank out of your own eye.

For the record I have not done any Christine-bashing above on this thread.

 
I am talk about years of patterns and you want to be an anonymous Christine basher, well, you anons of this sort as a whole are addressed and you can wear the shoe if it fits. never mind this thread.

I have responded to attacks with posts that would never have happened without them. the attacks on me added up to as much posts as mine sometimes more than my total posts on a given thread, OVER THE PAST YEARS that's YEARS, thread after thread. and of my posts that they equaled or exceeded, most would not have been made without the barrage you littered the blog with. And when not after me, your crew whether named like RayB or totally unnamed, go off on Susanna and other RC.
 
Blogger Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said... 12:54 PM

......... on one prior occasion I was falsely accused of having posted something "vile" and/or obscene and deleted it, which I had not by any definition. Then more recently one of the same false accusers spread a worse lie. RayB, Dan Bryan (a believer in reincarnation) and an anonymous all FALSELY CLAIMED TO HAVE SEEN AN AD FOR PSYCHIC SERVICES and those people are LIARS.

Dear Constance,

I engaged with Christine where we debated allot.

Then there appeared this add for psychic services which I thought was a joke, although it did have Christine's name attached. Others saw it as well. How it got there and who deleted is of no concern to me. From that point I became a public enemy of hers, I think number 13,666.

I never said I believed in reincarnation, just that a particular scripture seemed to support reincarnation. (I will gladly review this with you off line if you care in the least) She blocked me from her blog, ergo we never finished the discussion.

I never once accused her of anything, just that I saw the add and expressed that it may have been a factious joke on Christine's part to maybe get a reaction? I have said nothing of it since that first occasion, yet she has referenced my name to talk about it, or inferred me, over 25+ times since, regarding this.

Thanks for your attention.
Dan



 
Constance,

Dan is being disingenuous. I did not block him from any of my blogs I set them except cumbeyblogwreckers to no anonymous posting.

As for finishing the conversation, as a trip to politicallyunclassifiable and fightthenewage will show, he deleted all his own posts (which show as deleted by author, but his name remained) and on the cumbeyblogwreckers posted something then deleted it before I could read and archive it.

maybe you could check the spam file and see if such an ad is there, post it if you can't do the following test without doing so, and then hover the cursor on the blue name and look at the lower left corner of the screen. A series of numbers will show.

The ones for my posts end in 8117, the ones for a spoof account that was done last year or so end in a different series, and Marko pointed out how to tell the difference. Please immediately post the results of this test and then after all can see I didn't do this we can end this mess and please delete it except for the results of the test.

but if you can't find any such thing, then these people all lied about seeing it.

Dan came out of the hypercharismatic movement so its anyone's guess what spirit influence contamination he has lurking affecting his judgement and feelings that he is likely used to having guide his decision as to what is to the glory of God or feels like truth or whatever.
 
regarding reincarnation and John the Baptist being Elijah, Elijah was taken up ALIVE to heaven, HE NEVER DIED.

so he can't reincarnate. Ditto Enoch. Both will die eventually, if they are the Two of Revelation.
 
1:07 PM,

Everyone else is always at fault as far as Ms Erroneous us concerned. She is forever learning ( via Google and Wiki ) and never coming to an understanding of the truth!
 
I have responded to attacks with posts that would never have happened without them. the attacks on me added up to as much posts as mine sometimes more than my total posts on a given threadI am impressed with much of what Trump says and the way he interacts with people, his warmth and personal touch, and I am praying for him. I don't care that he is imperfect and that if you study the New Age movement long and deeply enough you realize that probably everyone is bought and paid for, the game rigged, every leader corrupt
 
"so its anyone's guess what spirit influence contamination he has lurking affecting his judgement and feelings"

Dan Bryan, you don't worry me in the least no matter what Erikson says.
It's Erikson's luking contaminated spiritual influence tangled in her pagan roots that are showing, rotten, and from her past that she has never gotten healed up because bleeding through in her prolific continual posting. She needs to either shut up and quit giving herself away, or let her words be few so they aren't so noticeable, or simply go write to her hearts content at her own blog, and let it all hang out. (or this novel idea...repent!)
She can go defend herself and her positions there because that is not what this blog what created for. The utter narcissist..hell hath no fury like that one ;)..she refuses read and follow the many memos from Constance and everyone else who has pointed that out.
She has so much to say and so much to defend..(LOL)..then her place is the place for it.


Read this just this morning in fact......a fool's voice is known by his many words. Ecc 5:3
Who has garnered more attention for herself and made her voice known by her many words like Erikson?

Makes me almost feel sorry for the "seer"...almost...
 
Blogger Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...12:31 AM

Constance,
Dan is being disingenuous. I did not block him from any of my blogs I set them except cumbeyblogwreckers to no anonymous posting.


Dear Constance,
Christina is the forgetful one? Since she did not want me on her blog I deleted my posts in respect of her wishes.

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=11772087&postID=4740951346108286545
Blogger Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...5:51 PM
you are banned from my blog.
5:51 PM

Christine, Speaking to all your other kind words I say ~ Blessings ~
 
Dan

okay, I did say that. I did forget. I apologize. but if "respect" was your reason, and not CYA, then when I called you on it why didn't you say so? I expected you to do some deleting in order to CYA once I publicized here your opinions, so I archived your comments.

of course all you people refuse to attck me on the blog I set up for that, you attack me HERE so I have to defend myself HERE.


 
"Makes me almost feel sorry for the "seer"...almost..."

11:05... her "Resident Seer" , "ex" Satanist with whom she is shacked up must be only too glad she spends nigh on 24/7 glued to Google and this blog!

She has been adept at mischeviously employing the Hegelian dialectic here to advance her narcissistic drive.

If you google 'Christine Erikson' a few profiles appear which are evidently hers: Mary Christine Erikson; Christine Erikson; MCE, and so on.

If it were another 'Christine Erikson' blog, who's to say she didn't use that one when the "ad" in question was posted? Why was said "ad", according to Ray B, so speedily removed? Her narcissist disposition most likely couldn't bare not to have her name 'in neon' wherever she posts. She's her to sow confusion and damage the blog, that's for sure!

She consistently accuses others of lying yet yet again, as Dan Bryan (at 11:14) has clearly shown over her calling him a liar about banning him from her blog, she is caught in her own deceitful web!

She should be banned from here!
 
And I wouldn't forget posting or planning to post a psychic services ad ANYWHERE. which I never did.
 

Worth repeating:
"""""""Anonymous Anonymous said...
Christine,

You really don't HAVE to defend yourself against attacks, insults, etc. Jesus said to turn the other cheek, which is to say, when someone insults you by slapping you on one cheek, turn the other one toward him so he/she may slap that one as well.

The point is, if we really and truly follow Christ, then the defense of our own honor and pride is something we lay down at the altar and leave there. Let your yes be yes, and your no be no, and the rest is from the evil one.

1:06 PM""""""

"and the rest is from the evil one." Ah yes, a very true statement. Thank you for the wisdom of your post, 1:06 PM.

Easy to see then what is problematic for Miss Erikson is, she does not believe that to practice it.

Plus: If she is always (yes she is always as we are beaten over the head being told so) so "since" she is always correct then the truth itself will bear up without all the "defense".

Since neither of these ideas are to her liking to practice them she is nothing but a glory hound for constant attention.
 
Who can forget her being exposed here for her boastings in witchcraft forums about her knowledge of "tantric sex magic"?

She's got some nerve!
 
anon 12:28

correcting falsehoods is not what Jesus was talking about and Paul defended himself against some detractors.

anon 12:35

you are as your crew does tpically lying. I didn't "boast" about tantric sex knowledge and may or may not have even discussed it maybe a brief mention. the whole point of those postings was to UNDERMINE THEIR FAITH IN THEIR SYSTEMS but you whoever who drew attention to my activities on various blogs were SO FILLED WITH BLIND RAGE AND HATE

that you did two things.

on the one hand, you sided with someone who denounced me for disrespecting Crowley, by giving her reaction as an example of how I made trouble.

and you sided with those who DENY THE SUBSTITUTIONARY ATONEMENT OF OUR LORD AND SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST

by dragging up my supposedly getting thrown off EO boards for preaching this, as an example of my bad behavior.

(which was also a lie, since I only got thrown off boards controlled by a Fr. Seraphim I forget his last name when I would blow up and yell obscenities about coddling active homosexuals, including outing "Barbara-marie drezhlo" as a transsexual, after a deacon online gave me a hint and I did some quick research.)

I think you need to get saved by JEsus all over again, recommit and re examine yourselves. your god you serve is either your hate or it is a dual faith, serving God and mammon - er, hate.

the lot of you.

Meanwhile very good anti new ager Ray Yungen admits energy is reall coming off some energy workers' fingers, which gets him trouble from some Christians, but this does not validate new age theology or worship of energy it just shows that this matter is far more dangerous than merely a "false belief" in the existence of such.

new agers online are running into trouble from chakra and kundalini work and trying to correct it. such information should be broadcast because the very fact that it is not Christians but new agers saying this proves the practices are dangerous. and stopping some from doing these things lessens the amount of this activity going on, which in turn undercuts demons' plans that need this stuff going on.

And less internal opposition to the Gospel. less gut churning reaction.
 
MCE, are you denying your posts in witchcraft forums about "tantric sex magic"?

MCE @ 12:58 wrote: "new agers online are running into trouble from chakra and kundalini work and trying to correct it."

MCE, far as I'm aware, you haven't retracted nor repented over disseminating your beliefs in chakras and kundalini, nor your insistence that Ecclesiastes 12 evidences the existence of such, which it clearly does not!
 
"Anonymous Anonymous said...
MCE, are you denying your posts in witchcraft forums about "tantric sex magic"?"

I am denying your interpretation of them. and the implications of your choice of phrasing innuendo type stuff.

"MCE @ 12:58 wrote: "new agers online are running into trouble from chakra and kundalini work and trying to correct it."

MCE, far as I'm aware, you haven't retracted nor repented over disseminating your beliefs in chakras and kundalini, nor your insistence that Ecclesiastes 12 evidences the existence of such, which it clearly does not!"

new age/hindu doctrine i.s., theology or whatever, is not chakras but what to do with them to put yourself in a condition they call "illumination" which is at best a neurological warping and blowing out circuits.

kundalini is either a demon or a demon riding on abnormalized energy flow in the body, or the result of putting usual cycles in reverse. IT IS EVIL.

ANY DISCERNMENT VIDEO ON THE CHARISMATIC DECEPTION ESPECIALLY WHEN THE TORONTO EXTREME MANIFESTATIONS AND THAT CHURCH IN REDDING AND "HOLY LAUGHTER" ARE CONCERNED, WILL TELL YOU THAT THIS IS A KUNDALINI MANIFESTATION NOT A HOLY SPIRIT MANIFESTATION.

you need to repent of your efforts to prevent the NEw Age and its practices from being fought.

that is what you are doing.

A Christian convert from the New Age called it right when he said that your chakras are TARGETS of new age deception, and that opening them lets demons in.

 
Ecclesiastes 12 galgal in Hebrew: round rotating wheel like thing in the body not visible or discoverable in an autopsy.

chakra in Sanksrit: round rotating wheel like thing in the body not visible or discoverable in an autopsy.

judge for yourself.
 
MCE, you are evading the point! Have you or haven't you retracted and repented over disseminating your beliefs in chakras and kundalini? Do you still insist on their existence? Do you still hold to your earlier repeated insistence that Ecclesiastes 12 evidences the existence of such?

If so, your twisting Holy Scripture is not only disgraceful but is an abhorrent lie from the pit of Hell!

Ecclesiastes 12 most certainly does not allude to chakras!
 
MCE, given your post at 1:34 PM therefore, I take it we are to conclude that you are still disseminating your beliefs in chakras and kundalini and more specifically that YOU continue to insist on such being referenced in Ecclesiastes 12.

Your insistence in such is evidence of a spirit of delusion.

Ecclesiastes 12 most certainly does not allude to nor reference chakras, neither philologically, etymologically, semiotically, nor syntactically, conceptually speaking whether
literally,figuratively or metaphorically speaking, to claim otherwise shows not only an utterly naiive understanding of comparative linguistics and comparative cultural and religio anthropology but is moreover a blatant lie from the pit of Hell: a doctrine of devils no less!
 
"etymologically, "

oh yes it does as I just showed you. galgal and chakra have IDENTICAL meaning, round whirling thing which in ecclesiastes context is in the body.

basically you are denying the existence of the soul and its role in preservation of the life of the body and that in turn requires it being during life merged with the body.

you are also denying the Hebrew use of the ambiguous term nephesh to refer not only to the immortal part but to the entire body soul spirit continuum, such as when a prophet says the soul that sins it shall die, referring in context to the death of the body of the sinner, but putting the blame for the sin on the non material part instead of keeping them delusionarily separate.

you are also denying the implications of Adam being said to have NOT ACQUIRED but BECOME a living soul on receiving the breath of life.
 
"a study published in the journal Anatomical Record that mapped acupuncture points in serial gross anatomical sections through the human arm. It found “an 80% correspondence between the sites of acupuncture points and the location of intermuscular or intramuscular connective tissue planes in the postmortem tissue sections.” The study proposed that “the anatomical relationship of acupuncture points and meridians to connective tissue planes is relevant to acupuncture’s mechanism of action and suggests a potentially important integrative role for interstitial connective tissue.”"

if you can get past the new age garbage blather in the first few paragraphs and read the quotes from the scientific journals and read the articles at the links....
you might see how there is a correspondence to the physical.

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2016/05/10/science-is-finally-proving-the-existence-of-meridian-points-throughout-the-human-body/
 
Constance, I just collapsed the comments section of your blog and I see your serial misbehaving "special" poster is off and running again. "Defending" herself takes that much space huh? And bringing up topics again she has pounded this blog too death with so many times because she is trying to force people to accept her very questionable views about them.


Haven't you had enough of her hostile takeovers of what could be, should be, and would be your otherwise good and helpful anti-new age blog? I am fully on board for being anti-christine erikson now, I can tell you that much. She is impossible to consider a truly positive help to all your work of years because she ends up much more detrimental to it. I see her in the minus category with nearly every single topic of nearly every single thread.

It is so much better here when she isn't.

 
Christine, What is the significance of this galgal and chakra teaching of yours? What should I be learning and practising? What you are saying seems to imply that without knowing about chakras that I'm missing something very important in my personal walk with the Lord.

~ K ~
 
anon 3:32

"Christine, What is the significance of this galgal and chakra teaching of yours?"

why do you people keep calling it a "teaching" or a "doctrine?"

you might as well call instructions on flat tire issues a "teaching" or a "doctrine."

" What should I be learning and practising?"

to not mess with your or anyone's energy system, and to warn others with the information in that article "your chakras target of new age deception" written by a Christian who came out of the new age, and undermine the interest in this stuff.

" What you are saying seems to imply that without knowing about chakras that I'm missing something very important in my personal walk with the Lord."

That's only because you relate everything to your personal walk with the Lord.

Whle the hypothetical example of car flat tires could relate to that, as in pray to Jesus for wisdom and perseverance in ding repairs, and don't steal a spare tire,
it has NOT MUCH AT ALL IF ANYTHING TO DO WITH YOUR WALK WITH JESUS CHRIST.

because cars and tires operate pretty much the same regardless of anyone's relationship to Jesus Christ or lack thereof, though having a relationship with Jesus might result in some things not going wrong so fast, or whatever. But the essentials of the technology have nothing to do with your walk with Jesus Christ or with anyone else's or with their lack of a walk with Him.

However, anyone who starts messing around with opening their chakras or balancing them WILL sooner or later have an effect just like you can retrain your mind or even to some extent your vision with exercizes. And the results may feel good at first, but make you more at risk for demonic influence at worst.

Several new agers who work energy have run into trouble. THIS SHOULD BE TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF TO UNDERMINE THE PRACTICE whether among Christians or non Christians.
 
and don't kid yourself, this stuff is going on in the emergent scene and among individuals. Sure as one Christian youtubber seems to say chakras are just part of God's creation, but what she and others don't seem to understand is that messing with them is not part of God's instructions.
 
Thank You for your reply, Christine.

Not coming from a New Age background, I personally know very little of chakras.

How would I recognise if the practise or teaching thereof was creeping into my local church? Is it a meditation kinda thing?

~ K ~
 
meditation and visualization, guided visualization. I think it was Greg Reid who either told of or experienced this situation: After quitting devil worship and becoming Christian, a guy got into a Christian group and the leader was saying to picture a ROSE OPENING I forget if it was picture it as in one's chest or what. And the young man stood up and said to stop this, this was EXACTLY the same meditation imagery procedure he had learned in his devil worship group.

this is more likely to be in charismatic and contemplative churches and groups. Transference or awakening by anointing laying on of hands is identical to shaktipat where a kundalini situation can be had without much work.

here are some articles http://www.christianstogether.net/Articles/209364/Christians_Together_in/Christian_Life/Christian_Survival_Resource/Kundalini_spirits_in.aspx

http://www.worldviewweekend.com/news/article/kundalini-effect-and-contemplative-prayer

https://settingcaptivesfree.me/2012/01/08/christians-who-open-the-7-chakras-are-demonized/

this latter group I have mixed feelings about they are a bit too cheerful and reference a member of a seventh day Adventist group without concern that SDA is heretical in varying degrees. It is not unusual for someone or group to be in spiritual warfare yet to have some blind spots. After all it is the Name of Jesus and His power and not that of the exorcist so much.

But the information they give is pretty good as far as I've read.

you have to pick here and pick there on any subject.

if contemplative prayer or guided visualization is going on, even if chakras are not mentioned or thought of, some of this can result in activating some center that results at best in delusions.

A big problem of visualization even of Jesus during prayer or at all, is that these things may take on a life of their own. this may be your own overactive imagination, or a spirit gaining control of it. so if it starts showing you things and talking to you (or to your mind) you are inclined to give it credence when in fact you are sunk in spiritual deception (prelest in Russian, plani in Greek). One priest described a monk coming to him telling him of visitations he was having and told him when asked about how he did his prayers, apparently full of visualization because the priest was horrified at hearing this and that other monks with him were doing this and told him to pray without visualization. This ended the visions and visitations. Were they demons exploiting visual thinking? or purely self deception fueled by he prideful desire to be considered special enough to have a word from God? who knows? both could be possible depending on the specific indicident. The important thing is that it ended.
 
~ K ~
Oh yes, she's "teaching" alright.
Stick to your first thoughts and inclinations about this. It will lead you to understand what to stay away from because the Holy Spirit bears witness to expose lies using God's truth the Bible. Christine still loves to "explore" there and wants very much to "teach" it to you under the guise of how to avoid it. For instance, why is she living all this time with a "seer" and trusting "holy water" for spiritual insights? Because her insights are coming from what we are warned about in James 3:13-18. Sensual and soulish earthly wisdom as compared to the wisdom of God that directs us in our walk with the Lord in the every day everything which she just downplayed to up-play the other instead. Something she doesn't practice herself, leaning on her own understanding, not the Lord's. Who is more striving and full of bitterness like she is? This blog is flooded with it!!!!!! Proof she cannot--should not--teach anybody anything. Read those verse and then compare them to what she promotes here, and just pick a topic, won't matter, she has her own counter to what is biblical and then promotes it as "superior" "biblical" knowledge.
Christine has an angle, (always)..generally, that we are all missing something and she must, must, must, "teach" it to us or we will be adrift without her expertise. She kicks the Lord to the curb once again in that pathetic answer. I know about such because of my line of work and have brushed up against the "chakra" talk a number of times. I see what happens to those who explore with it. Earthly wisdom has it's place, but never at the expense of heavenly wisdom which is what she does. That "spirit" is clinging to her and why she leaves so much confusion in her wake.
 
I never kick the Lord to the curb. neither do I present something as "superior" biblical knowledge. you can use the Bible as a shovel to dig with and find all kinds of things out archaeological or scientific or paraphysical.....and not have faith. and you can have faith and lack charity.

I hadn't been discussing these things for some time but you people keep dragging them up.

you are not the only people here. I get 10 or 20 visits from different parts of the world a day on politicallyunclassifiable, and no posts except one question and one arguer/insulter from here and one other, dan. You can assume the same or more
drop by here who don't post but do read.
 
You visualize a lot. You see yellow-green glowing globs, things hovering up to 20 ft above graves, hey you even see a face on Mars...and much more...nobody wants to hear your rehash about.
You are "spiritual" of another sort.
The unbiblical sort.


"and you can have faith and lack charity"
Yeah, you have made us very aware of that favorite little feature of yours. Your faith in your own calculations and snarls and insults for those who disagree.
Birds of your feather go to your blog and why we stay the heck away.
 
MCE, in taking out of context what I had written only highlights my point, which in your vain, proud and blind gnostic ignorance you are dipicted,"... to claim otherwise shows not only an utterly naiive understanding of comparative linguistics and comparative cultural and religio anthropology...", therefore I will waste no further time arguing with a fool.

If others are interested, I suggest they read up on comparative linguistics, especially around the specific cultural impact of a given word in terms of the signified and signifier, and what it denotes in a specific cultural context according to its connotations therein. In addition, Bible hub and Bible gateway have clear explanations as to what Ecclesiastes 12 is referring to, none of which includes anything to do with chakras whatsoever!

You don't get a PhD in physics nor an Masters in linguistics by half an hour or less spent googling!

You, Christine, are disseminating doctrines of devils and it wouldn't surprise me in the least to learn you are doing so with mischief in mind!

Also, I see how you've slyly sidestepped talking about that "ad" any further.
 
MC Erikson has such faith to believe that alien life can come to know Jesus.

New Age in her core, with a very thin "christian" veneer slopped over the top of that.
 
I couldn't have put it better myself, 8:18! Short,concise and spot on!
 
comparative linguistics is relevant when talking about similar sounding words and some jump to conclusions when the meanings of the words is different similarity sound is irrelevant.

But when galgal and chakra both mean whirling round rotating thing, that is a matter of TRANSLATION not "linguistics"

Hebrew galgal Sanskrit chakra English wheel.

context: can refer to chariot wheels, etc. but when in the body like Ecclesiastes you are talking about paraphysical structures.

I did not take anything out of context, I addressed the ONLY thing you said that APPEARED to have any relevance.

your inability to tell the difference between comparative linguistics and translation of words that in their respective languages are used to refer to the same thing, any round rotating object (and context determines what kind), only shows your ignorance combined with pomposity.

do you want to hit new age where it hurts? or just complain about them?

YOU HAVE TO DECONSTRUCT EVERYTHING THEY HOLD UP AS EITHER SCIENCE OR EXPERIENCE SUPPORTED AS SUPPORTING THEIR NEXT STEP DOCTRINES AND GOALS.

astral projection does not prove reincarnation.

chakras do not prove that some subtle kind of material is divine.

no I don't do visualization. DO YOU HAVE ANY CAPACITY TO THINK IN PICTURES? deliberate visualization of orbs which I did not see over a grave, is not the same as seeing something without trying to do so.

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

"Research by child development theorist Linda Kreger Silverman suggests that less than 30% of the population strongly uses visual/spatial thinking, another 45% uses both visual/spatial thinking and thinking in the form of words, and 25% thinks exclusively in words. According to Kreger Silverman, of the 30% of the general population who use visual/spatial thinking, only a small percentage would use this style over and above all other forms of thinking, and can be said to be 'true' "picture thinkers".[2]"

people can learn to make mental pictures, photographic memory is a form of visual thinking, but this can become a problem.
 
another thing you can use to fight the new age with is this kind of stuff

http://mysticbourgie.blogspot.com/2015/11/hindutva_69.html

and its hilarious predecessor blog it links to.

the advantage is precisely that this guy is NOT a Christian, so cannot be ignored in his expose of the narcissistic absurdities of the New Age as being merely a brainwashed bible thumper.

hit them where they will feel it.

deconstruction and dismissal as integral to decadence and folly.
 
i couldn't put it any more better, that was a good piece of writing.
 
martin,

thank you.
 
That was a good piece of writing.
http://financeaccounting.uonbi.ac.ke/
 
nice one
http://business.uonbi.ac.ke/
 
The "God" who inspired an Old Testament "prophet" to write, "the earth is standing still and shall never be moved," also inspired an Old Testament "prophet" to write, "Then God said [Gen. 1:3], “Let there be light,” and there was light. And in [Gen. 1:4] the prophet wrote, "And God saw that the light was good. Then he separated the light from the darkness." In the beginning the light and darkness were essentially united as one thing, then "God" is said to have separated them. The scriptures also say that the shy and the water were originally united as one thing and then separated by "God".

A New Age belief: When "God" separated everything "He" did so by creating individual ego identities. When we transcend our delusional ego identities we will see how everything is still essentially united as one.

Psalm 104:5 clearly says the earth has "foundations" that won't be moved. How does that look on a floating, rotating globe? - See more at: http://www.testingtheglobe.com/bible.html#sthash.D7Lauuqt.dpuf

If the scriptures mean what they say concerning the earth not moving, then why not accept what it says concerning its circular shape and nature "under the dome" too? Scripture is clearly telling us the world/earth is circular and enclosed and not spherical and floating in an open system of planets and stars outside of the firmament. - See more at: http://www.testingtheglobe.com/bible.html#sthash.D7Lauuqt.dpuf
 
NATO vs. Russia -- This is interesting. Pay attention to what they do, not what they say.

http://www.rferl.mobi/a/data-visualization-nato-russia-exercises/27212161.html

 
Anyone following Carl Teichrib? He's most active at his Twitter account:

https://twitter.com/ForcingChange

He follows and exposes a lot of New Agey things, like Transhumanism, Global Transformation, and other such topics.

 
1 – 200 of 260 Newer› Newest» Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]



Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

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

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]