Friday, August 26, 2016

Cliff Kincaid will guest host my program this week -- I'm a delegate to the Republican State Convention

Cliff Kincaid, one of my favorite political analysts and commentators will guest host my internet radio program this Saturday morning at TMERadio.com.  You can join him in the chat room and/or call in live at 208-935-0094.  


Comments: 1 – 200 of 272 Newer› Newest»
Just in case anyone is looking for information on the New Age movement, here's a site with a few articles. http://www.letusreason.org/NAMdir.htm Mostly old material, but just might be new for some. Now back to whose Christian organization is the trustworthy one.
 
Maybe we should all do "Bookmarks" dumps here of all of our bookmarked webpages that have to do with the New Age Movement.

But... maybe not, because some of those links might lead someone to go to one of the New Age sites and actually get sucked in?

Has this ever been discussed here in the past? How many links to the "bad guys" do we post so as to help expose them?
 
The Internet Archive's "Wayback Machine" is a fun place of course. Here is a bookmark that I kept from way back, that is still on the WayBack Machine....

https://web.archive.org/web/19970215234543/http://www.spiritweb.org/Spirit/networks.html

Probably nothing new there, but it gives you an overview of what the New Age looked like on the Internet 20 years ago.
 
The Internet Archive's "Wayback Machine" is a fun place of course. Here is a bookmark that I kept from way back, that is still on the WayBack Machine....

tinyurl.com/jjg9q3f

Probably nothing new there, but it gives you an overview of what the New Age looked like on the Internet 20 years ago.
 
Marko, so much New Age cultural change has affected mainstream thinking it has become less necessary for them to have the kind of changeover activity that took place in the past. This blog was valuable because it also focused on that connection to New Age political activity, i.e. One World Government. If you find anything connected to that in the WayBack Machine, please post it.
 
Carl Teichrib has been researching the Globalist agenda for quite some time now (I've only recently been digging around in his articles). He had a blog called Forcing Change, which is shut down until he finishes a new book. He covers world governance, as well as the coming world religion.

Berit Kjos has a bunch of his articles archived over at her site:

tinyurl.com/z3hp5x7


 
http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/29/leaked-soros-document-calls-for-regulating-internet-to-favor-open-society-supporters/
 

George Soros' quiet overhaul of the U.S. justice system

Progressives have zeroed in on electing prosecutors as an avenue for criminal justice reform, and the billionaire financier is providing the cash to make it happen.

By Scott Bland

08/30/16

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/george-soros-criminal-justice-reform-227519



 
Leaked Memo Reveals Soros Plan for Federally Controlled Police

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/08/30/leaked-soros-memo-federally-controlled-police/

 
U.S. Surrender: Internet Giveaway to the U.N.?

L. Gordon Crovitz [WSJ] writes: When the Obama administration announced its plan to give up U.S. protection of the internet, it promised the United Nations would never take control. But because of the administration’s naiveté or arrogance, U.N. control is the likely result if the U.S. gives up internet stewardship as planned at midnight on Sept. 30.

On Friday Americans for Limited Government received a response to its Freedom of Information Act request for “all records relating to legal and policy analysis . . . concerning antitrust issues for the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers” if the U.S. gives up oversight. The administration replied it had “conducted a thorough search for responsive records within its possession and control and found no records responsive to your request.”

It’s shocking the administration admits it has no plan for how Icann retains its antitrust exemption. The reason Icann can operate the entire World Wide Web root zone is that it has the status of a legal monopolist, stemming from its contract with the Commerce Department that makes Icann an “instrumentality” of government

“Without the U.S. contract, Icann would seek to be overseen by another governmental group so as to keep its antitrust exemption. Authoritarian regimes have already proposed Icann become part of the U.N. to make it easier for them to censor the internet globally.”


 
Craig,

That argument so freely tossed at warnings about what is coming - "It'll never happen in America" - is becoming weaker and weaker.
 
Craig and Marko,

The following is posted at Breitbart.


Exclusive–Breitbart/Gravis Poll Reveals Americans Strongly Oppose Obama’s Internet Handover

Rick Manning, the President of Americans for Limited Government told Breitbart News the handover should be bigger news. "It's a big deal because it ends First Amendment protections over the web," he said.

"Right now, the only real protection that exists on the web is not from Google, Facebook, Yahoo or even Breitbart, but it is from the U.S. government contract with ICANN which means that ICANN cannot limit speech by arranging contracts with GoDaddy and others," he said.

"As long as ICANN is working under the cover of the federal government and the protections guaranteed in the Constitution, the Internet remains free," he said.

Once the contract expires, there is nothing to stop ICANN from hiring Lois Lerner to take down all the sites that belong to the Tea Party or advocates for gun rights.

Manning said, instead of vowing to maintain the protections in the Constitution for Internet sites and users, ICANN has promised to abide by human rights established by the United Nations, which means the opposite of gun rights and legal protections for the unborn.......



.....Of particular concern is the fact that the Obama administration continues to work to turn the internet over to ICANN despite a specific rider in the federal budget for 2016 forbidding it:

"Sec.539 (a) None of the funds made available by this act may be used to relinquish the responsibility of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, during fiscal year 2016, with resopect to Internet domain name system functions , including responsibility with respect to the authoritative root zone file and the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority Functions."


http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/08/30/exclusive-breitbartgravis-poll-reveals-americans-strongly-oppose-obamas-internet-handover/
_____________________________________________

The word in the street is that after his term as POTUS is ended, Obama seeks to become Secretary General of the U.N. In terms of Obama's progressive globalist agenda, the U.S. Presidency was likely a mere stepping stone to a bigger global catbird seat.

Benjamin Netanyahu has said that he will do everything in his power to prevent this from happening.


 

From just this past June:

Cruz: Congress Must block Obama's Schene to Handover Internet
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/06/27/cruz-congress/
 
Exclusive–Breitbart/Gravis Poll Reveals Americans Strongly Oppose Obama’s Internet Handover

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/08/30/exclusive-breitbartgravis-poll-reveals-americans-strongly-oppose-obamas-internet-handover/
 
The Internet has become an important alternate news source which has enabled U.S. citizens, among others, to become independent of a biased news media which is little more than the propaganda arm of the radical left.

For several years, the progressives have tried to shut down free speech by cooking up schemes to prevent the Internet and other alternative news sources from providing links to reliable factual news reports.

Remember the "net neutrality" scheme?
 
All despotic entities, whether they are economic, political or religious, desire to control people by what they know and, ultimately, by what they think. This is achieved on a massive scale and is accomplished much more easily than one might imagine.

Edward Bernays is one of the most important figures of the 20th. Century, and yet, few people even know his name. He is not an “unknown” to the opinion makers of the globalist elite. In fact, Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Propaganda Minister, studied Bernays’ work and employed many of his techniques in order to brainwash the masses in Germany to blindly follow Hitler. Bernays was the father of modern mass marketing, and was an expert in getting people to think and act predictably based on psychological techniques that he utilized. His book “Propaganda” is available at this link as a free PDF download. I highly recommend taking the time to read it … his techniques are still being used today to “fool the masses” into decisions that benefit the elite of the world!
http://edward-bernays.soup.io/post/19658768/Edward-Bernays-Propaganda-1928-pdf-PDF-357

Re: the Internet; the Globalists, no doubt, will move to close down many of the “alternative” internet sites (such as this blog, perhaps) that expose their evil plans of creating a dictatorial One World Government & One World Religion. The elite have always feared information in the hands of the people, and they believe the Internet has done a great deal of damage. The recent success of BREXIT was due almost entirely to information provided on the Internet. Virtually ALL of Britain & Europe's (along with USA) main stream media, along with “expert” economists, politicians (puppets), etc. worked to defeat BREXIT. The passing of BREXIT was the wake-up call for the Globalist Elite … that is precisely why the Internet is now on the elite's radar screen. I believe they will move to shut down sites that THEY will falsely identify as “racist” or “hateful,” etc. By closing down access to the net, how will the masses be able to communicate in order to organize resistance?

Just one example of current Internet censorship that I am personally aware of:

Many MSM (propaganda) “news” sites have a comment section. I always found the comments far more informative than the actual news story itself. Countless other people have expressed this same sentiment as well. What is happening now is that many of these sites have closed down their comment section, because the comments (uncontrolled info) often reflect far more of the truth than the article (controlled info) itself. Those sites that are still open to comments, often block access to those people that have shown in the past that they are telling “too much truth” via their comments. And there is nothing that can be done about this practice.

Enjoy it while it lasts folks. I don’t think we are going to have the access to information that we now have for a whole lot longer. I hope I am wrong.

 
All despotic entities, whether they are economic, political or religious, desire to control people by what they know and, ultimately, by what they think. This is achieved much more easily than one might imagine. Edward Bernays is one of the most important figures of the 20th. Century, and yet, few people even know his name. He is not an “unknown” to the opinion makers of the globalist elite. In fact, Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Propaganda Minister, studied Bernays’ work and employed many of his techniques in order to brainwash the masses in Germany to follow the mad Dictator Hitler. Bernays was the father of modern mass marketing, and was an expert in getting people to think and act based on psychological techniques that he utilized. His book “Propaganda” is available at this link as a free PDF download. I highly recommend taking the time to read it … his techniques are still being used today to “fool the masses” into decisions that benefit the elite!
http://edward-bernays.soup.io/post/19658768/Edward-Bernays-Propaganda-1928-pdf-PDF-357

The Globalists, no doubt, will move to close down many of the “alternative” internet sites (such as this blog, perhaps) that expose their evil plans. The elite have always feared information in the hands of the people, and the Internet has done a great deal of damage. The recent success of BREXIT was due almost entirely to information provided on the Internet. Virtually ALL of the main stream media, along with “expert” economists, politicians (puppets), etc. worked to defeat BREXIT. BREXIT was the wake-up call for the Globalist Elite … that is precisely why the Internet is now under severe threat. I believe they will move to shut down sites that THEY identify as “racist” or “hateful,” etc. … and this will all be accepted by the brainwashed masses.

Just one example of censorship that I am personally aware of:

Many “news” sites have a comment section. I always found the comments far more informative than the actual story itself. Numerous other people have expressed this same sentiment as well. What is happening now is that many of these sites have closed down their comment section, because the comments often reflect far more of the truth than the article itself. Those sites that are still open to comments, often block access to those that have shown in the past that they are telling “too much truth” via their comments.

Enjoy it while it lasts folks. I don’t think we are going to have the access to information that we now have for a whole lot longer. I hope I am wrong.

 
Constance,

I had a post "disappear." Is there a reason for this?
 
Ray:

Sometimes if posts have too many http: links in them, or ones that blogspot thinks are "spammy" links, your post goes to a "spam" folder. It can be resurrected by Constance, if you let her know, like you just did.

I've found that if you leave off the http:// part of the link, it generally goes through. Or use tinyurl.
 
Marko,

I'm glad you mentioned Carl Teichrib. I heard him at a conference last month. He has a book coming out soon, Game of Gods: The Temple of Man in the Age of Re-Enchantment. I can't wait to read it. He has done some amazing research.

-Becky
 
Re the SOLA SCRIPTURA arguments -- how I think it all sorts out:

I believe God can speak to us any time and perhaps in many ways -- how do we sort it all out? What is from Him and what is not? The answer, I believe, is that the Holy Spirit never contradicts himself. He will not say on one day, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" and on another day say "worship Krishna, worship Buddha, . . ." The Bible is the measure -- that is how the ancient church fathers sorted things out -- surely they were brought gnostic documents and told to include them as scripture, "14th fragment of Peter," 27th fragment of John, etc., ad nauseum. Our Scriptures plainly teach, "it is appointed unto man once to die and then the Judgment . . ." and then they walk in with the "fragment of Peter . . ." that teaches reincarnation or some other doctrine contrary to scripture -- and the old fathers said OUT and refused to include it in the canon of scripture . . ."

Consistency is God's way . . . confusion is Lucifer's!

Constance
 
To all:

Reading the comments, I thought it prudent to check the SPAM section and sure enough found that several things had been consigned there that should have not been. I marked them "not spam" and they should be returned to where they were posted.

Constance
 
Thanks Marko!
 
Constance,

I'd like to add to your well thought out comments ...

God promised to protect His Word, so as to give us (with the Holy Spirit)a "road map" for our lives. We must have an absolute authority in which to base our faith upon ... provided of course our particular "doctrine" is not one that is based on a fragment of a verse, or, one that is taken out of context.

Relating to this, I know Roman Catholics that are nearing the end of their lives here on earth. I do not know one that has ever expressed a sure confidence in going to heaven ... only some vague "hope" based on THEM being "good enough." Instead of Heaven, what do they have to look forward to? Not, what Paul wrote: "For me to live is Christ, for me to die is gain." "Absent from the body, present with the Lord." They are promised by their "authorities" that the tormenting fires of Purgatory awaits them, for a period of time that no one can determine. Christ came to set the captives free ... free from a slave's life of sin ... free from a fear of death ... freedom that is only found in the finished work of Jesus Christ upon the cross. The false doctrine of Purgatory is the antithesis of the cross, because it denies His suffering and perfect, never to be repeated, blood sacrifice.

These types of doctrines have no basis in Scripture, and even if one obscure, out of context verse can be found that "seems" to teach this, there is an ABUNDANCE of Scripture that totally refutes it.

All false doctrine is based on applying fragments of Scripture out of context (this may be the reason God instructs us to "study to show thyself approved..."). This is the favorite scheme of Satan himself, as illustrated by his misquoting Scripture in his temptation of Christ, along with applying the same to Eve ... "yea, hath God said ...?"

When confronted with opposition to Bible truth, whether I am speaking with a "religionist" or an "atheist," or an "agnostic," I like to ask them the question; "upon what authority do you base your belief?" This question usually leaves them dumbfounded (try it!), and confronts them with being an "authority" (or at least, what they have been told) against God's true authority; His Word.

When those, such as I, hold to "sola scriptura," it is because it is entirely a question centered upon authority. We hold (as I believe you do as well), to the firm conviction "let God be true, and every man a liar." The test is for all of is; if we are confronted with Bible truth vs. what some man or hierarchy states, who is it we will faithfully cling to? God or man?
 
Amen RayB.
Front to back, the Bible covers everything pertaining to all issues of life on earth somewhere within it's pages either directly said or shown in example by repeated and often progressively developed patterns, so we can know the heart and mind of God and it is not with bits and pieces but with the whole counsel of God in the Canon of Scripture, because He is most definitely consistent as Constance has well said. God dots all of His "i's" and crosses all of His "t's", and men (by pride) who want to go outside of the bounds of what He has said try to convince themselves and others of loopholes. Do they think God's words and ways shoddy, sloppy, and shifty? Bad doctrine and bad belief is the result of that. That is what the religious leaders of Israel did when they tried to repair the temple's torn veil (fix their system) that God ripped top to bottom when Jesus finished the atoning work of His cross. The truth shows them fools. This still pertains right up to today.

So people must address what this entails, that Jesus Christ from the eternal ages, fulfilled all of the old when He became, through His perfect sacrifice of body and blood, the new and living Way. How do we know? Because Jesus Christ is the Logos, the Word become flesh, and our only need for the rule of faith as He taught us in Matthew 4:4, living by what God alone has said, just as Jesus himself lived on earth as a man, the sinless Man. Why go back to old scaffolding (obsolete) when He is God fleshed out - perfectly so...as the absolute authority? Religious scaffolding such as that tortures every issue to become contortion and a ugly facsimile, producing the tangled mess we see today within all that calls itself the church. The only place things can get right is to go back to belief of what God originally spoke beforehand and stay put. That is too humbling for most and won't go for that, sad to say.
 
Marko,

Yes, the ‘never in America’ argument could be stifled – literally – with this.

Susanna,

No doubt the internet is an alternate news source, but it’s also a source to combat heresy within one’s own ranks (e.g., historic, orthodox Protestantism against various teachings purportedly Protestant yet more in line with New Age). I’ve a feeling that could be censored as well.

RayB wrote:

Many “news” sites have a comment section. I always found the comments far more informative than the actual story itself. Numerous other people have expressed this same sentiment as well. What is happening now is that many of these sites have closed down their comment section, because the comments often reflect far more of the truth than the article itself. Those sites that are still open to comments, often block access to those that have shown in the past that they are telling “too much truth” via their comments.

I’ve seen this same thing.

And, I’ve sometimes read, while holding my stomach, the comments section of certain articles with sickening subjects having to do with serious moral decay, in order to get a pulse on society. I’ve been absolutely appalled on more than one occasion. I’ll remain discreet on this, but Leviticus 18:23 addresses the issue on one particular occasion, and a comment in the article provided a link to a ‘how-to’ site, extolling the virtues of such.

 
It'd be really interesting to get Susanna's perspective on the matter discussed in Constance's 2:32 AM post, Ray B's 10:07 AM post and anon's 11:42 AM post.

Just to see what the "other side" has to say.

Are you up to the challenge, Susanna?
 
I do not know why any of us would think Susanna needs to provide some sort of answer as she has done so repeatedly. She holds the word of God equal to that of tradition.

The papacy/ministerium of Bishops and Cardinals, are the sole interpreter of scripture albeit even if it is their own 'private interpretation'. The will of the Catholic faithful can also petition a new tradition such as new and equal Co-Redemptive graces of Mary to that of Jesus Christ should a sufficient number make said request.

We can just hope and pray that ours and Susanna's redemptive faith and trust is in the right place.

I have shown that tradition has a place in scripture, AND that God may honor said tradition.

I personally believe for myself that any tradition must be submissive to that of scripture.

 
Dan Bryan,

I'm sure Susanna can answer for herself. Unlike you, at least she doesn't question God's eternity.
 
Hi Constance and RayB,

Totally agree with your comments on the Scriptures.
In over 30years of my Christian walk and seeing the Lord at work in lives I have found the root of problems to be sin of course and namely for those professing to be Christian struggle due to a lack of knowing and acting on Gods Word and harbouring "unforgiveness"

"The Truth shall set you free".

In nearly every instance of long term problems it has always been a case of harbouring unforgiveness that was the cause...

1) unforgiveness to another in general
2) unforgiveness towards Mother and or Father
3) unforgiveness towards Self
4) unforgiveness towards God

I have noticed that false Doctrine/Teaching is manifested in and by those whom have unforgiveness towards God.

Without the conviction of sin, realisation of the Truth (Gods revealed Word), confession, repentance and receiveing Gods forgiveness in the Name of Jesus and His Atoneing sacrifice through the shedding of His blood and His bodily resurrection people cannot be set free.
Anyway just my observation over the years I thought you would have interest in.

God Bless,
Grant NZ
grant@scripturepromises.com

"Preaching to the converted is the luxury of Heaven not Earth"


 
Excellent comment, Grant at 3:10 PM!
 
Some quotes from the latest Lighthouse Trials newsletter...
http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/newsletters/2016/newsletter20160831.htm

Dr. George Wood, General Superintendent of the Assemblies of God denomination,  is scheduled to share the platform with New Age sympathizer Leonard Sweet next year in Berlin, Germany at an event called Luther 2017.
The implications of this are far deeper than what appears on the surface. This is not just a case of a major Christian leader Dr. Wood sharing a platform form with a leader in the emerging church/New Spirituality movement.
There is currently a powerful effort behind the scenes to remove the barrier between the Roman Catholic Church and the evangelical and Protestant church and basically get people to acknowledge that the reformation from 500 years ago is over (i.e., it’s not needed anymore).
Lighthouse Trails will be posting more information on Luther 2017, Leonard Sweet, Christian leaders, and the road to Rome. If you question our deep concerns about what is happening, please read the documentation that Lighthouse Trails has been providing for over 14 years.
Incidentally, also joining Sweet and Wood is Dr. Jo Anne Lyon, General Superintendent of the Wesleyan Church.
As for Dr. George Wood, does he not realize that the first major step back to Rome is the embracing of contemplative prayer? When he made the decision to dig in his heels and accept Ruth Haley Barton no matter what evidence was provided to him, did he not realize he was plunging headlong into deception? As we have warned so many times (to the deaf ears of Christian leaders), once someone starts down the contemplative path, their viewpoint on spiritual matters begins to change leading to the eventual rejection of biblical Christianity and the Gospel. It appears that Dr. Wood has made his decision. How many will follow him?

Regards,
Grant
 
Dan Bryan,

Thanks so much for your comment! It was worded much better than what I started to write and then abandoned, postponing until possibly later.

As I mentioned in an earlier comment, the Gospel of John is my favorite of the 66. In my personal library I have nearly two dozen books on the fourth Gospel. One of the best is the commentary of Raymond E. Brown, a Catholic, whose 1966 work (when initially issued, the first major commentary on John in 50 years IIRC) is still recognized as a hallmark of scholarship across denominational lines. And, gulp, he’s even a Jesuit!!!

Interestingly, while working on another writing project of my own I came across an article which made the claim that Roman Catholic works tend to be slanted in favor of RCC doctrine. Why would that be surprising? In fact I found this in Brown’s work, as he made the claim that Jesus’ turning water into wine at Cana was somehow a reference to the Eucharist. I don’t agree with that at all.

Yet the author of the article referenced in the previous paragraph, in his defense of using what is called “analogy of faith” to interpret some Scripture, i.e. taking a particular doctrinal position and imposing it on Scripture (which is what Brown did regarding Cana), made in what was in my mind a novel exegesis on a particular Scripture to further his own belief in a pre-trib rapture! Truth is, we all have a bit of theological bias.

Anon 3:02PM,

I don’t see where Dan Bryan denied God’s “eternity” (I believe you meant to write “eternality”).

 
Grant,

Thanks for that latest link to Lighthouse Trails.
once someone starts down the contemplative path....... it may be difficult to return.
 
Hi Dan,

I agree.

Deuteronomy 18:10-12 (KJV)
10 There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch.
11 Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer.
12 For all that do these things are an abomination unto the Lord: and because of these abominations the Lord thy God doth drive them out from before thee.

Contemplative prayer needs to seen in terms of what it actually is...
No messing around with flowery terms we all need to call it what it is ... practiseing the occult (satanic).
Maybe that will bring enough of the fear of God for them to stop and check into it and realise the eternal consequences of the abominations they have been deceived into doing.

God bless,
Grant

 
..... correction ... those who practise such things are a abomination unto the Lord (otherwise it could be seen that the practise is the abomination rather than the practitioner who is a abomination according to scripture)

Regards,
Grant
 
Grant,

I think the hyper-charismatic practice of ‘soaking in his presence’ goes to the same end. Proponents of ‘soaking’ claim that they sometimes hear “new revelation” from God, and these “words” can trump Scripture, many times providing a means to ‘advance’ spiritually. This is, in actuality, neo-Gnosticism, using ‘secret knowledge’ to get closer to “God”. It also mirrors New Age practice, of course.

 
Anonymous 1:22 PM and Dan Bryan 2:39 PM,

First of all, let me make it clear that I am merely explaining the Catholic position here and not trying to "convert" anyone or engage in any religious debates.

You have said: She (Susanna) holds the word of God equal to that of tradition.

I DO NOT hold the Word of God equal to that of man made tradition. With respect, Dan, you do not seem to understand what Catholics mean by "Sacred Tradition."

I have explained it before, but I will explain it once more.

For Catholics Scripture and Sacred Tradition are inseparable. Sacred Tradition is the oral divinely revealed Tradition and Scripture is the Sacred Tradition in written form. This is not only biblically true, but also historically true.


The Sacred Tradition for Catholics (and Orthodox) is the Christian revelation orally transmitted BY CHRIST directly to Peter and the Apostles who preserved it intact and handed it on to their successors in a concrete historical Apostolic succession. It is from Peter and the Apostles and their successors that we have the divine revelation orally transmitted by Christ in the written form that has come down to us as the New Testament canon of the Sacred Scriptures.


Again, Sacred Scriptures are Sacred Tradition in written form.

Jesus did not write the New Testament. He revealed it to Peter and the Apostles by His words and by His deeds.

That the Bible is the written portion of Sacred Tradition, is amply evidenced by John himself at the very end of his Gospel, where he says that "many other things did Jesus do and say, so many, I think, that if they were all written down the world itself would not be large enough to hold the books that would have to be written to hold them." Even taken in their most gentle sense, those words inescapably mean that in no way can the Bible be taken as the complete record of everything Jesus did, said, or taught.

Catholics make a distinction between Sacred Tradition (divine revelation) which can never be changed and man made traditions which can be changed. For example, priestly celibacy and abstaining from meat on Friday are one example of man made Catholic traditions (also called disciplines) which can be changed. The belief that Jesus Christ is truly God and truly man, on the other hand, is a divinely revealed Sacred Tradition which can never be changed.

Most of the beliefs and practices that non-Catholic Christians condemn among Catholics are rooted in Sacred Tradition, the unwritten portion; though it must be made clear that it is understood by Catholics that no Tradition, however longstanding, may contradict Scripture. If ever Scripture is contradicted, Scripture must prevail!!!

Finally, when all is said and done, my salvation is exclusively in Jesus Christ and I profess the Creeds of Chalcedon and Nicaea.

Craig has explained things very well and is to be commended for it.

 
Grant,

alot of this practice comes from the Jesuit infiltration into protestant churches. The father of the New Age movement (apart from Satan himself) was a Jesuit priest (who was also a French idealist philosopher, paleontologist and geologist) known as Fr Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, SJ.

He was never excommunicated, despite what Susanna has claimed to the contrary before, and is widely celebrated by Jesuits around the World.

Teilhard de Chardin was also involved in the Piltdown Man discovery (a skull of the supposed missing link between ape and man), which later turned out to be a forgery! And you wonder why Benedict XVI expresses the belief that (Darwinian) evolution is compatible with the Christian Faith.

The contemplative prayer occult dabbling is very reminiscent of Ignatius Loyola's 'Spiritual Exercises' formula. Incidentally, Loyola's realisation and implementation of such exercises is very similar to Niccolò Machiavelli's occult visualisation and communication with demons which inspired him to write his wicked book, 'The Prince' (Il Principe).
 
Jesuit priest, Teilhard de Chardin, S.J., was also involved in yet another missing link 'discovery', which turned out to be a forgery too: 'Peking Man'!
 
"Religious scaffolding such as that tortures every issue to become contortion and a ugly facsimile, producing the tangled mess we see today within all that calls itself the church. The only place things can get right is to go back to belief of what God originally spoke."


Yes, within all that calls itself the church.
 
Anonymous 7:40 PM

RE:He was never excommunicated, despite what Susanna has claimed to the contrary before, and is widely celebrated by Jesuits around the World.

You need to cite your source. I have never said that Pierre Teilhard de Chardin was excommunicated.

Dubbed the "Father of the New Age Movement," Pierre Teilhard de Chardin was silenced by his Jesuit superiors on account of his view of reality which amounted to evolutionary pantheism, but he was never excommunicated......... possibility because when he was ordered to be silent with regard to his views, he obeyed his superiors. After his death, it was others who defiantly published his writings.

The following is a critique of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin by the famous Catholic theologian, the late Dr. Deitrich von Hildebrand.

Teilhard de Chardin: A False Prophet

From: Trojan Horse in the City of God,
by Dietrich von Hildebrand
(Franciscan Herald Press, Chicago, Illinois, 1967.
Sophia Institute Press, Manchester, New Hampshire, 1993.)

http://absoluteprimacyofchrist.org/critique-of-fr-teilhard-de-chardin-by-dr-dietrich-von-hildebrand/
___________________________________________

Warning Regarding the Writings of Father Teilhard de Chardin

http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=3160
 
I have to amend some of what I wrote earlier. Raymond E. Brown, S.S. was a member of the Society of Saint-Sulpice, rather than a Jesuit (S.J.). I went by my memory, which is never a good thing as one ages…

In any case, I have some works by Gerald O’Collins, S.J. (Society of Jesus, i.e. a Jesuit), mostly on Christology. There are times when he espouses views more in line with those of Roman Catholicism as opposed to Protestantism (mostly with respect to Mary), some of which I do not find hold or find convincing; however, his Christological and Trinitarian doctrines are 100% orthodox.

Just because one Jesuit is known as “the Father of the New Age Movement” doesn’t mean all Jesuits are New Age. In my analysis there are many in the Pentecostal/Charismatic wing of Protestantism that are teaching New Age Christology, mirroring that found in Alice Bailey and other New Age works. To make the claim that it’s the Jesuits’ infiltrating of Protestantism that brought the New Age doctrine into all of Protestantism is naïve at best, dishonest at worst. E.W. Kenyon’s so-called ‘word of faith’ doctrine which Hagin picked up (ripped off) provided one ‘Protestant’ means of New Age infiltration. The 1930s-40s (even earlier probably) Latter Rain movement – which is either ‘active again’ or never really went away – is yet another New Age infiltration. Neither of these last two had any evidence of Roman Catholic, let alone Jesuit influence. I challenge someone to find any.

 
Craig said,

"I think the hyper-charismatic practice of ‘soaking in his presence’ goes to the same end. Proponents of ‘soaking’ claim that they sometimes hear “new revelation” from God, and these “words” can trump Scripture, many times providing a means to ‘advance’ spiritually. This is, in actuality, neo-Gnosticism, using ‘secret knowledge’ to get closer to “God”. It also mirrors New Age practice, of course."

Hi Craig,

its the same... just goes under differing names same objective which gets you into a altered state for demonic deception etc.

Regards,
Grant



 
Craig said:

"To make the claim that it’s the Jesuits’ infiltrating of Protestantism that brought the New Age doctrine into all of Protestantism is naïve at best, dishonest at worst. E.W. Kenyon’s so-called ‘word of faith’ doctrine which Hagin picked up (ripped off) provided one ‘Protestant’ means of New Age infiltration. The 1930s-40s (even earlier probably) Latter Rain movement – which is either ‘active again’ or never really went away – is yet another New Age infiltration. Neither of these last two had any evidence of Roman Catholic, let alone Jesuit influence. I challenge someone to find any."

Thanks Craig (and others in recent comments) for giving specificity to my more general and rambling comments about Protestantism having just as much deception within its ranks as Catholicism. All are tainted, and from all a remnant will be called, in my opinion.


 
Susanna, so much for your claim about Teilhard de Chardin's views being silenced... even if that were initially so in order to give further time to soften up the RC laity, such silence certainly didn't last long.

Benedict XVI paid tribute to the Teilhard de Chardin SJ's proposition of the cosmos as a living host, in his homily at Aosta, on July 24, 2009

https://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/homilies/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20090724_vespri-aosta.html

Benedict XVI said:

"The role of the priesthood is to consecrate the world so that it may become a living host, a liturgy: so that the liturgy may not be something alongside the reality of the world, but that the world itself shall become a living host, a liturgy. This is also the great vision of Teilhard de Chardin: in the end we shall achieve a true cosmic liturgy, where the cosmos becomes a living host. And let us pray the Lord to help us become priests in this sense, to aid in the transformation of the world, in adoration of God, beginning with ourselves. That our lives may speak of God, that our lives may be a true liturgy, an announcement of God, a door through which the distant God may become the present God, and a true giving of ourselves to God."
 
Anonymous Susanna said...

Anonymous 1:22 PM and Dan Bryan 2:39 PM,

First of all, let me make it clear that I am merely explaining the Catholic position here and not trying to "convert" anyone or engage in any religious debates.

Thanks for your explanation.

 
Dear Susanna,
How does this paper square with your belief about Sacred Tradition?

http://www.catholicplanet.com/TSM/insights-tradition.htm
 
Well worth taking the time to read and investigate further.

http://galatiansfour.blogspot.com/2010/11/constance-cumbey-and-catholic-church.html?

"Constance Cumbey and the Catholic Church: Exposing the New Age and Defending Rome?"
 
Right here at the Vatican website we can find photos of witches performing voodoo rituals, etc.

Notwithstanding Susanna's blatant defense of the abominable New Agey COEXIST video of Pope Francis SJ. (which our Ray B kindly provided), I wonder how she squares the following with her 'tradition'?

http://www.vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/documents/travels/assisi6.html

Ephesians 5:11-13 King James Version (KJV)

11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.

12 For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.

13 But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light.
 
Hinduism and Roman Catholicism


"His Holiness' Nuncio to the United States, Archbishop Pietro Sambi, lights a traditional Hindu devotional lamp before the statues of Hindu deities"

"As a Cradle Catholic, and then years in the Unitarian Universalist church, as a young adult [with a very short return to the RCC] before I became a Christian, more and more I realized how that path was paved given the direction, the Roman Catholic church has taken. In the Unitarian Universalist Association all religions are celebrated, including readings from Hindu scriptures, and looks like the Pope has taken up that activity as well."

"HINDUS HAVE applauded Pope Benedict for including verse from ancient Hindu scripture Upanishads in the Good Friday Meditations and Prayers led by him at Roman Colosseum."

http://galatiansfour.blogspot.com/2010/05/hinduism-and-roman-catholicism.html?
 
A picture paints a thousand words:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_I6kaYX3oMmY/S__JMx2SKII/AAAAAAAAABI/wGaA_dKupvk/s1600/Hindu+worship.jpg

And yet another from the Indian Express, October 6, 1997:

"Archbishop of Mumbai-Mons, Ivan Diaz lighting the lamp in front of Ganesha at the inauguration of an international seminar on Hindu-Christian cosmology and anthropology. .."

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_I6kaYX3oMmY/S__Jtm-OoQI/AAAAAAAAABQ/uuAreUX7W4I/s1600/Hindu+Cardinal.jpg
 
Also from galatiansfour.blogspot.com

"Things are getting more blatant, obviously in a lost world, that is being prepped to embrace the antichrist, or the "cosmic christ" of all religions":



"Here, in this picture Hindus were invited to pray at Fatima."

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_I6kaYX3oMmY/S__K29LV49I/AAAAAAAAABY/-_IevAPt8gM/s1600/Fatima-09.jpg

"Every Christian desires that every Hindu leaves their false religion and comes into a relationship with Jesus Christ, but how will this happen via the examples above, and those who wrongly tell people in false religions they already know God? The interfaithers will preach that their deceptions are "love" when they are anything but [remember that Francis video on this theme and Susanna's applauding approval of it]."


Rome says: "Dear Hindu Friends,

1. It is my joy to greet you all, once again, in the name of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue: a happy Deepavali! Religious Festivals enable us to revitalize our relationship with God and one another. May this Festival of Lights, while elevating our minds and hearts towards God, the Supreme Light, strengthen fellowship among us and bless us all with happiness and peace."

God says:

Exd 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
 
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/interelg/documents/rc_pc_interelg_doc_20111020_diwali_en.html

PONTIFICAL COUNCIL
FOR INTERRELIGIOUS DIALOGUE

MESSAGE FOR THE FEAST OF DEEPAVALI 2011

CHRISTIANS AND HINDUS:
TOGETHER IN PROMOTING RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

Vatican City



Dear Hindu Friends,

1. The Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue is pleased to send you its cordial greetings as you celebrate Deepavali on 26 October of this year. May God, the source of all light, illumine your hearts, homes and communities for a life of peace and prosperity,

2. Maintaining our tradition of sharing a reflection on this occasion, we propose this year the theme of Religious Freedom. This subject is currently taking centre stage in many places, calling our attention to those members of our human family exposed to bias, prejudice, hate propaganda, discrimination and persecution on the basis of religious affiliation. Religious freedom is the answer to religiously motivated conflicts in many parts of the world. Amid the violence triggered by these conflicts, many desperately yearn for peaceful coexistence and integral human development.

3. Religious freedom is numbered among the fundamental human rights rooted in the dignity of the human person. When it is jeopardized or denied, all other human rights are endangered. Religious freedom necessarily includes immunity from coercion by any individual, group, community or institution. Though the exercise of this right entails the freedom of every person to profess, practise and propagate his or her religion or belief, in public or in private, alone or in a community, it also involves a serious obligation on the part of civil authorities, individuals and groups to respect the freedom of others. Moreover, it includes the freedom to change one's own religion.

4. When respected and promoted, religious freedom allows believers to be more enthusiastic about cooperating with their fellow citizens in the building of a just and humane social order. But wherever and whenever it is denied, suppressed or violated, "the growth of the authentic and lasting peace of the whole human family" is stifled and frustrated (cf. Pope Benedict XVI, Message for the World Day of Peace, 2011). There are many fields in which a specific contribution can be made to the common good, such as the defence of life and the dignity of the family, the sound education of children, honesty in daily conduct, and the preservation of natural resources, to name a few. Let us strive, then, to join hands in promoting religious freedom as our shared responsibility, by asking the leaders of nations never to disregard the religious dimension of the human person.

5. The very day after you celebrate Deepavali this year, many religious leaders from across the globe will join Pope Benedict XVI in a Pilgrimage to Assisi to renew the pledge made twenty-five years ago, under the leadership of Blessed John Paul II, to make religions channels of peace and harmony. We will be spiritually united with them, confident that believers will always be a blessing for the whole world.

We cordially wish you a joyful celebration of Deepavali.

Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran
President

Archbishop Pier Luigi Celata
Secretary
 
www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/interelg/documents/rc_pc_interelg_doc_20160506_vesakh-2016_en.html

PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR INTERRELIGIOUS DIALOGUE

MESSAGE FOR THE FEAST OF VESAKH 2016

Buddhists and Christians: Together to Foster Ecological Education

Dear Buddhist Friends,

1. In the name of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, we are pleased to extend once again our best wishes on the occasion Vesakh, as you commemorate three significant events in the life of Gautama Buddha – his birth, enlightenment and death. We wish you peace, tranquillity and joy in your hearts, within your families and in your country.

2. This year we write to you inspired by His Holiness Pope Francis’s Encyclical Letter, Laudato Sì, On the Care for Our Common Home. His Holiness notes that “the external deserts in the world are growing, because the internal deserts have become so vast. For this reason, the ecological crisis is also a summons to profound interior conversion” (n. 217). Moreover, he states that “our efforts at education will be inadequate and ineffectual unless we strive to promote a new way of thinking about human beings, life, society and our relationship with nature” (n. 215). “Only by cultivating sound virtues will people be able to make a selfless ecological commitment” (n. 211). In response, Pope Francis proposes that “ecological education can take place in a variety of settings: at school, in families, in the media, in catechesis and elsewhere” (n. 213).

3. Dear Buddhist friends, you have also expressed concern about the degradation of the environment, which is attested to by the documents The Time to Act is Now: A Buddhist Declaration on Climate Change and Buddhist Climate Change Statement to World Leaders. These evidence a shared understanding that at the centre of the eco-crisis is, in fact, an ego-crisis, expressed by human greed, anxiety, arrogance and ignorance. Our lifestyles and expectations, therefore, must change in order overcome the deterioration of our surroundings. “Cultivating the insight of inter-being and compassion, we will be able to act out of love, not fear, to protect our planet” (Buddhist Climate Change Statement to World Leaders). Otherwise, “When the Earth becomes sick, we become sick, because we are part of her” (The Time to Act is Now).

4. As the crisis of climate change is contributed to by human activity, we, Christians and Buddhists, must work together to confront it with an ecological spirituality. The acceleration of global environmental problems has added to the urgency of interreligious cooperation. Education in environmental responsibility and the creation of an “ecological citizenship” require virtue-oriented ecological ethics such as respect and care for nature. There is a pressing need for the followers of all religions to transcend their boundaries and join together in building an ecologically responsible social order based on shared values. In countries where Buddhists and Christians live and work side by side, we can support the health and sustainability of the planet through joint educational programmes aimed at raising ecological awareness and promoting joint initiatives.

5. Dear Buddhist friends, may we cooperate together in liberating humanity from the suffering brought about by climate change, and contribute to the care of our common home. In this spirit, we wish you once again a peaceful and joyful feast of Vesakh.

Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran
President

Bishop Miguel Ángel Ayuso Guixot, MCCJ
Secretary
 
This post keeps disappearing:

www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/interelg/documents/rc_pc_interelg_doc_20111020_diwali_en.html

PONTIFICAL COUNCIL
FOR INTERRELIGIOUS DIALOGUE

MESSAGE FOR THE FEAST OF DEEPAVALI 2011

CHRISTIANS AND HINDUS:
TOGETHER IN PROMOTING RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

Vatican City



Dear Hindu Friends,

1. The Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue is pleased to send you its cordial greetings as you celebrate Deepavali on 26 October of this year. May God, the source of all light, illumine your hearts, homes and communities for a life of peace and prosperity,

2. Maintaining our tradition of sharing a reflection on this occasion, we propose this year the theme of Religious Freedom. This subject is currently taking centre stage in many places, calling our attention to those members of our human family exposed to bias, prejudice, hate propaganda, discrimination and persecution on the basis of religious affiliation. Religious freedom is the answer to religiously motivated conflicts in many parts of the world. Amid the violence triggered by these conflicts, many desperately yearn for peaceful coexistence and integral human development.

3. Religious freedom is numbered among the fundamental human rights rooted in the dignity of the human person. When it is jeopardized or denied, all other human rights are endangered. Religious freedom necessarily includes immunity from coercion by any individual, group, community or institution. Though the exercise of this right entails the freedom of every person to profess, practise and propagate his or her religion or belief, in public or in private, alone or in a community, it also involves a serious obligation on the part of civil authorities, individuals and groups to respect the freedom of others. Moreover, it includes the freedom to change one's own religion.

4. When respected and promoted, religious freedom allows believers to be more enthusiastic about cooperating with their fellow citizens in the building of a just and humane social order. But wherever and whenever it is denied, suppressed or violated, "the growth of the authentic and lasting peace of the whole human family" is stifled and frustrated (cf. Pope Benedict XVI, Message for the World Day of Peace, 2011). There are many fields in which a specific contribution can be made to the common good, such as the defence of life and the dignity of the family, the sound education of children, honesty in daily conduct, and the preservation of natural resources, to name a few. Let us strive, then, to join hands in promoting religious freedom as our shared responsibility, by asking the leaders of nations never to disregard the religious dimension of the human person.

5. The very day after you celebrate Deepavali this year, many religious leaders from across the globe will join Pope Benedict XVI in a Pilgrimage to Assisi to renew the pledge made twenty-five years ago, under the leadership of Blessed John Paul II, to make religions channels of peace and harmony. We will be spiritually united with them, confident that believers will always be a blessing for the whole world.

We cordially wish you a joyful celebration of Deepavali.

Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran
President

Archbishop Pier Luigi Celata
Secretary
 
The posts dissappearing game is happening again:

Here we're told people can change religions, no sweat. This is fine in terms of Earthly freedom to not be persecuted or murdered for doing so. However, no caveat is made to show how this has spiritual implications, but no, Rome rolls on in the vain vein that all religions are equal roads to God!

Yet Jesus Christ said: "I Am the Way, the Truth and the Life; no man comes to the Father but by Me"!

www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/interelg/documents/rc_pc_interelg_doc_20111020_diwali_en.html

Rome continues celebrating its New Agey COEXIST theme in Jesuit Teilhard de Chardin fashion, where invoking the spirit of Gaia she draws on the idea of the cosmos host in her fornication with Buddhism:

www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/interelg/documents/rc_pc_interelg_doc_20160506_vesakh-2016_en.html
 
Who can forget this little gem of Mother Earth / Gaia heresy in Francis' encyclical letter, 'Laudato Sì'?:

"1. “LAUDATO SI’, mi’ Signore” – “Praise be to you, my Lord”. In the words of this beautiful canticle, Saint Francis of Assisi reminds us that our common home is like a sister with whom we share our life and a beautiful mother who opens her arms to embrace us. “Praise be to you, my Lord, through our Sister, Mother Earth, who sustains and governs us, and who produces various fruit with coloured flowers and herbs”.[1]

2. This sister now cries out to us because of the harm we have inflicted on her by our irresponsible use and abuse of the goods with which God has endowed her. We have come to see ourselves as her lords and masters, entitled to plunder her at will. The violence present in our hearts, wounded by sin, is also reflected in the symptoms of sickness evident in the soil, in the water, in the air and in all forms of life. This is why the earth herself, burdened and laid waste, is among the most abandoned and maltreated of our poor; she “groans in travail” (Rom 8:22). We have forgotten that we ourselves are dust of the earth (cf. Gen 2:7); our very bodies are made up of her elements, we breathe her air and we receive life and refreshment from her waters.

Nothing in this world is indifferent to us..."

And on he (Francis) drones in Jesuitical Teilhard de Chardin tones,
maddening mankind with the wine of her (Rome's) fornication!

www.vatican.va/content/francescomobile/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html
 
The Pope is declared to be the: "PROPER RECEPTOR TO THE NEW AGE CHRIST [ANTICHRIST]!"

Bill Lambert, the 'Director of the House of Theosophy' reveals the Roman Catholic Pope will be the "proper receptor" to the Antichrist and will be the Supreme Leader of the new global religion of the Antichrist.

This aspect of the New World Order (NWO) Plan signals the Pope as the False Prophet spoken of in Biblical Propecy!

"In early August, 1991, John [a former member of the World Wide Church of God and the House of Theosophy], called to tell me that the New England Director of the House of Theosophy, Bill Lambert, was holding a seminar at the Boston headquarters. The name of this seminar, " POSSIBLE AND PROBABLE EVENTS IN THE FUTURE" really piqued my interest!! John said that Bill Lambert was one of the major players in the New World Order Planning, because the House of Theosophy has always been such a major player since Madame Blavatsky had founded it in 1875."

"John said that Lambert still considered him a member, so he could get in, with me as his guest. John asked me to keep my identity as a Christian a secret, and just listen and take notes. The revelations were astounding, not only for their actual content, but because their plans fulfilled Bible prophecy. Much of what he revealed showed that the Time of the End was truly upon us."

"Lambert revealed many points, only one of which we will mention here. For a complete discussion of my notes of this seminar, read NEWS1052, "Seminar Notes: House of Theosophy, 8/18/91"] Lambert revealed the circumstances under which the New World Order Religion was to be established, finally drawing all the world's existing religions into one. He further revealed who was the top leader chosen to lead this global religious behemoth. Of course, this leader would automatically be the False Prophet, of which Revelation 13 tells us much. To my knowledge, this represented the first time anyone had revealed who the False Prophet was planned to be.
Lambert also revealed the importance of the appearance of Antichrist, and some of the signs and wonders which will precede his appearing. Lambert speaks with unusual authority in these Plans because he served on the New World Order planning committee entitled, "The New Jerusalem Covenant Project", a planning document which details the exact way in which the Antichrist will arise, establishing his global economy, government, and religion. Antichrist will be uniquely aided in his effort to establish a One-World Religion by a religious leader of great renown. This leader will already be recognized as a global religious authority, and will act in concert with Antichrist."

The reality of this is tremendously important, as such a religious leader would fulfill all the Biblical requirements for the False Prophet of Revelation 13. Bill Lambert points to this World religious leader, who will wholly back the Antichrist, to be the Roman Catholic Pope!

"Remember, Lambert is revealing details of a human plan, created in cooperation with supernatural 'Guiding Spirits' to establish the New World Order. They have no idea that their Plan simply and accurately fulfills Bible prophecy."

Read more here:

www.cuttingedge.org/articles/rc104.htm
 
Dan,

While some of what Ronald L. Conte writes in the article you cited squares with Roman Catholic teaching on Sacred Tradition, it is still lacking in clarity. Moreover, Conte is not the best source to consult for information on all things Catholic. He should not be considered an authority by any means, not only because he doesn't have any proper credentials, but also because he does not have the Church's approval. He himself admits that "most of my theology writings are speculative, rather than dogmatic." Add to this the fact that he has also made some false "prophecies."

http://www.ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage.asp?number=566168
_______________________________________

Ronald L. Conte Jr. claims to be a Roman Catholic lay theologian. He received his degree in philosophy/theology from Boston College where he was taught by Peter Kreeft. Since then, he has written and self-published several books and articles in the several areas of Catholic Theology such as Eschatology, Mariology, Biblical Chronology, and Dogmatic and Moral Theology. Currently he is translating the Catholic Public Domain Version of the Sacred Bible . In addition he is publisher and editor of a Catholic theology website and moderator of an online Catholic discussion group.

Conte gained some notoriety when he correctly predicted the name of the current pope, Benedict XVI, several years prior to the death of Pope John Paul II. However, he stated incorrectly that he would also be black. His forum grew as people intrigued with eschatology wanted to know what else he might predict. His rules for participating in his forum at catholicplanet.net/forum states strongly that he will only correspond with those who expressly believe in the teachings of Roman Catholicism, and labels all others as heretics. Critics on other forums have noted that Conte considers himself as the ultimate arbiter on all interpretations of those teachings......

......Conte was discounted on some popular Catholic web forums after another one of his predictions turned out to be false. He claimed that Hillary Clinton would win the U.S. presidential election. After the first secret (see above), she would change her position on abortion and urge others to do the same....


http://wikibin.org/articles/ronald-l.-conte-jr.html
_________________________________________

Ironically, despite the fact that Conte's own teachings are flawed, he nevertheless advertises them as authoritative catechetical truths. With regard to his false predictions, all that needs to be said on this front is that he teaches that Christ will come again in the year 2347 AD and that Christ will have a third coming as well. This is but one of many of his false teachings.

Divine revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle. It was directly to Peter and the Apostles that Christ transmitted the Christian revelation by word and deed. Therefore, any unwritten "tradition" which does not have its origin with Peter and the Apostles - whether explicit or implicit - cannot be said to be part of Sacred Tradition. The way we know whether or not unwritten Sacred Tradition has its origin with the Apostles is through the writings of their disciples who are known as the Apostolic Fathers. For example, we have the tradition that even though the Gospel according to Matthew has come down to us in Greek, it was originally written in Aramaic or Hebrew. This is recorded in the writings of Irenaeus who was a disciple of Polycarp of Smyrna. Polycarp was a disciple of the Apostle St. John the Evangelist.

You might want to check out the Catechism of the Catholic Church for authoritative information on what the Roman Catholic Church actually teaches with regard to Sacred Tradition.

ARTICLE 2
THE TRANSMISSION OF DIVINE REVELATION

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a2.htm

 
Dan,

While some of what Ronald L. Conte writes squares with Roman Catholic teaching on Sacred Tradition, it is still lacking in clarity. Ronald L. Conte is not the best source to consult for information on all things Catholic. He should not be considered an authority by any means not only because he doesn't have any credentials for doing so, but also because he does not have the Church's approval He himself admits that "most of my theology writings are speculative, rather than dogmatic." Add to this the fact that he has also made some false "prophecies."

http://www.ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage.asp?number=566168
_______________________________________

Ronald L. Conte Jr. claims to be a Roman Catholic lay theologian. He received his degree in philosophy/theology from Boston College where he was taught by Peter Kreeft. Since then, he has written and self-published several books and articles in the several areas of Catholic Theology such as Eschatology, Mariology, Biblical Chronology, and Dogmatic and Moral Theology. Currently he is translating the Catholic Public Domain Version of the Sacred Bible . In addition he is publisher and editor of a Catholic theology website and moderator of an online Catholic discussion group
Conte gained some notoriety when he correctly predicted the name of the current pope, Benedict XVI, several years prior to the death of Pope John Paul II. However, he stated incorrectly that he would also be black. His forum grew as people intrigued with eschatology wanted to know what else he might predict. His rules for participating in his forum at catholicplanet.net/forum states strongly that he will only correspond with those who expressly believe in the teachings of Roman Catholicism, and labels all others as heretics . Critics on other forums have noted that Conte considers himself as the ultimate arbiter on all interpretations of those teachings......

......Conte was discounted on some popular Catholic web forums after another one of his predictions turned out to be false. He claimed that Hillary Clinton would win the U.S. presidential election. After the first secret (see above), she would change her position on abortion and urge others to do the same....


http://wikibin.org/articles/ronald-l.-conte-jr.html
_________________________________________

cont.

 
cont.

Ironically, Conte's own teachings are flawed, and yet he advertises them as authoritative catechological truths. With regard to his false predictions, all that needs to be said on this front is that he teaches that Christ will come again in the year 2347 AD and that Christ will have a third coming as well. This is but one of many of his false teachings.


Divine revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle. It was directly to Peter and the Apostles that Christ transmitted the Christian revelation by word and deed. Therefore, any unwritten "tradition" which does not have its origin with Peter and the Apostles - whether explicit or implicit - cannot be said to be part of Sacred Tradition. The way we know whether or not unwritten Sacred Tradition has its origin with the Apostles is through the writings of their disciples who are known as the Apostolic Fathers. For example, we have the tradition that even though the Gospel according to Matthew has come down to us in Greek, it was originally written in Aramaic or Hebrew. This is recorded in the writings of Irenaeus who was a disciple of Polycarp of Smyrna. Polycarp was a disciple of the Apostle St. John the Evangelist.


You might want to check out the Catechism of the Catholic Church for authoritative information on what the Roman Catholic Church actually teaches.

ARTICLE 2
THE TRANSMISSION OF DIVINE REVELATION

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a2.htm
 
Anonymous 10:33 AM

Surprise surprise!

CUTTING EDGE MINISTRIES peddles TWO BABYLONS by Alexander Hislop.

http://www.cuttingedge.org/detail.cfm?ID=215
____________________________________________

They also peddle the teachings of professional anti-Catholic Loraine Boettner.

Boettner undercut his own credibility when writing about the definition of papal infallibility:

When he writes about the definition of papal infallibility, Boettner says that a pope speaks infallibly only "when he is speaking ex cathedra, that is, seated in the papal chair." He then points out that what is venerated as Peter’s chair in St. Peter’s Basilica may be only a thousand years old, implying that since Peter’s actual chair is not present, there is no place for the pope to sit, and thus, by the Church’s own principles, the pope cannot make any infallible pronouncements.

Boettner entirely misunderstands the meaning of the Latin term ex cathedra. It does translate as "from the chair," but it does not mean that the pope has to be sitting in the literal chair Peter owned for his decree to be infallible and to qualify as an ex cathedra pronouncement. To speak "from the chair of Peter" is what the pope does when he speaks with the fullness of his authority as the successor of Peter. It is a metaphor that refers to the pope’s authority to teach, not to where he sits when he teaches
....read more...

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-anti-catholic-bible
_______________________________________________________

When we say a judge is "legislating from the bench" the "bench" is likewise a metaphor for judicial authority - albeit an authority which is being abused by a judge overreaching his/her authority.

cont.
 
cont.

Cutting Edge Ministry's hit parade includes, among other professional anti-Catholics, Catholic apostate Charles Chiniquy.....and here is a winner.

Did the Catholic Church Give Us The Bible? Rome gave us really clever counterfeit Bibles

David W. Daniels

Illustrations by Jack Chick.

Written in a down-to-earth style, and packed with cartoon illustrations by Jack Chick, Daniels shows that the Bibles Rome gave us are really clever counterfeits, designed to eliminate God's preserved words in English, the KJV. You will see why the KJV is the only Bible you can trust.

http://www.cuttingedge.org/detail.cfm?ID=1085
______________________________________________________

They also have a "Defending the KJV section."

DEFENDING THE KJV
http://www.cuttingedge.org/defendingKJV.html
_________________________________________________

 
For any Catholics here.....

For any Catholics here:

ANTI-CATHOLICISMN ON THE INTERNET

http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3604
 
Constance,

A couple of my posts seem to have "disappeared"......most notably my reply to Dan at
1:38 AM and Anonymous at 10:33 AM.


 
Meditations on the Tarot & RCism compatible? Don't worry, the nice Jesuits (sarcasm) tell us it's not New Agey at all!:

www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2007/scaldecott_hubtarot_apr07.asp

"Was Swiss theologian Fr. Hans Urs von Balthasar--acclaimed by both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI--a closet New Ager who dabbled in the occult? Or... did he unwittingly spread teachings contrary to Catholic doctrine when he wrote a foreword to the book Meditations on the Tarot, In recent years variations on both views have been spread, sometimes in complete ignorance, sometimes with an understandable concern about the nature of von Balthasar's involvement with a book that apparently contains strange or questionable theological material."

"We are all aware of the popularity of witchcraft, magic, astrology and the "New Age" movement. The cults and new religions are growing in number and strength every year: in contrast, the Catholic Church is often represented as a fossil, its life extinguished by centuries of dogmatism. True Christianity, says the New Age, has been lost, or retreated underground where only an elite few can find it. Meditations on the Tarot answers these accusations. It claims that Christianity has not been lost at all, but has been preserved precisely by those institutions and dogmas that, to the New Agers, appear opposed to the life of the Spirit. The book was written by a remarkable convert, an experienced occultist who finally discovered "that there are guardian angels; that there are saints who participate actively in our lives; that the Blessed Virgin is real... that the sacraments are effective... that prayer is a powerful means of charity; that the ecclesiastical hierarchy reflects the celestial hierarchical order... that, lastly, the Master himself--although he loves everyone, Christians of all confession as well as all non-Christians--abides with his Church, since he is always present there, since he visits the faithful there and instructs his disciples there."

"By means of 22 meditations, in the form of "letters to an unknown friend", the anonymous author attempts to assimilate his vast store of "esoteric" knowledge, gleaned from years of spiritual training in the more serious New Age groups, within the orthodox Catholic vision of faith. The Tarot cards are used, not for divination, but as symbolic encapsulations of the wisdom he has leant. "The High priestess warns us of the danger of Gnosticism in teaching the discipline of true gnosis. The Empress evokes the dangers of mediumship and magic in revealing to us the mysteries of scared magic. The Emperor warns us of the will-to-power and teaches us the power of the Cross.""

"Hans Urs von Balthasar has compared the author to Charles Williams, Hildegard of Bingen and even St Bonaventure, praising (with certain qualifications) the book's "superabundance of genuine, fruitful insights". An example of such an insight might be the distinction it draws between three forms of mystical experience: union with Nature, with the transcendental human Self and with God. The first is pantheism; the second lies at the heart of the Eastern religions, and leads to metaphysical distortions WHEN WESTERNERS"[otherwise alright then?]... "take the Self to be identical with God. The third is the goal of Christianity, and is inevitably dualistic because it involves the union in love between two distinct beings. Characteristic of this third kind of mystical experience is the "gift of tears", whereas the "advanced pupil of yoga or Vedanta will forever have dry eyes"."

"At its orthodox core, the Hermetic wisdom boils down to the doctrine of analogy: "AS ABOVE, SO BELOW." [Aleister Crowley would be pleased] exploring the implications of this symbolic correspondence between different levels of reality, the author opens a dimension of depth on the Scriptures and dogmas of the Church"...
 
10:33 AM....

Please post here or otherwise make available the "NEWS1052" publication that the author of the article you linked to says has all the information needed to identify the false prophet, the antichrist, and exactly how they will rise to power.

Most prophecy buffs would give up their mother and their right arm to have such information.

 
Marko,

I was able to find "NEWS1052":

http://www.cuttingedge.org/n1052.html

I remain VERY skeptical that a Middle East peace accord will bring religious peace to the region, much less that a new Temple in Jerusalem will be built in which Jews, Christians and Muslims will worship together. According to the notes, the writer asked if it would be built on the Temple Mount - that space is currently occupied by the Islamic Dome of the Rock - a question that went unanswered. Do we really think Muslims are going to give that up in favor of a new joint Temple?

This Alice Bailey quote is interesting in light of all this [from The Rays and the Initiations, pp 754-755]:

There are certain areas of evil in the world today through which these forces of darkness can reach humanity. What they are and where they are I do not intend to say. I would point out, however, that Palestine should no longer be called the Holy Land; its sacred places are only the passing relics of three dead and gone religions. The spirit has gone out of the old faiths and the true spiritual light is transferring itself into a new form which will manifest on earth eventually as the new world religion. To this form all that is true and right and good in the old forms will contribute, for the forces of right will withdraw that good, and incorporate it in the new form. Judaism is old, obsolete and separative and has no true message for the spiritually-minded which cannot be better given by the newer faiths; the Moslem faith has served its purpose and all true Moslems await the coming of the Imam Mahdi who will lead them to light and to spiritual victory; the Christian faith also has served its purpose; its Founder seeks to bring a new Gospel and a new message that will enlighten all men everywhere. Therefore, Jerusalem stands for nothing of importance today, except for that which has passed away and should pass away. The “Holy Land” is no longer holy, but is desecrated by selfish interests, and by a basically separative and conquering nation.

The task ahead of humanity is to close the door upon this worst and yet secondary evil and shut it in its own place. There is enough for humanity to do in transmuting planetary evil without undertaking to battle with that which the Masters Themselves can only keep at bay, but cannot conquer.The handling of this type of evil and its dissipation, and therefore the release of our planet from its danger, is the destined task of Those Who work and live in “the center where the Will of God is known,” at Shamballa; it is not the task of the Hierarchy or of humanity. Remember this, but remember also that what man has loosed he can aid to imprison; this he can do by fostering right human relations, by spreading the news of the approach of the spiritual Hierarchy, and by preparing for the reappearance of the Christ. Forget not also, the Christ is a Member of the Great Council at Shamballa and brings the highest spiritual energy with Him. Humanity can also cease treading the path to the “door where evil dwells” and can remove itself and seek the Path which leads to light and to the Door of Initiation.


 
Sadly, the following website appears to be a pro-theosophical one. However, it does show photos of John Paul II with Volumes 1 and 2 of Meditations on the Tarot (1983 German Edition) in pride of place beside him on his desk.

http://www.alpheus.org/html/articles/esoteric_history/Wojtyla&Tarot.htm
 
Susanna,

I note that Cutting Edge's defense of the KJV specifies that it's the 1611 that is to be preferred* - the one which contains the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical Books! Say it isn't so!



* Though he states: "On this site, we quote from a Parallel Bible, with the KJV on the left and the Amplified Bible Commentary on the right. We do this only to bring understanding to those many passages where the usage of words has changed significantly since 1611, so we can turn to the Amplified to gain a better understanding." If it's so perfect - that is, the English text - why is it so hard to understand? That's rhetorical, as language changes over time, so one can only start from the ORIGINAL language, i.e. the Greek, in order to translate it into common parlance of the time. Perhaps he's also unaware that there were many mistakes corrected - not just spelling mistakes, but mistranslations:

www.bible-researcher.com/canon10.html


 
Oh wait a moment, here's a Roman Catholic site exposing JPII and the Meditations on the Tarot volumes as well as implicating Benedict XVI too!

Now, don't get too excited - although an RC follower's website is exposing it, the writer is woefully out of tune with the Vatican and the Jesuits (as we've seen). It wouldn't surprise me if the writer will fully realise and eventually leave the cult of Roman Catholicism (as Bible Believer the blog owner of and at galatiansfour.blogspot.com, the guy at spirituallysmart.com, myself and many other ex-Roman Catholics have done).

That is why I am so vehement! Like many who are now free of the bewitching conditioning and clutches of that cult system, I love Roman Catholics and aim to warn as many as possible by exposing the dreadful reality of the RC cult.

The Lord God Himself in the Book of Revelations warns to: come out of her my people so you do not suffer in her plagues!

www.corbiniansbear.blogspot.com/2016/04/curious-pope-st-john-paul-ii-photo.html?
 
Here's another Roman Catholic site, this one exposing JPII for kissing the Unholy Koran (pic incl.):

http://www.crisismagazine.com/2013/islam-and-the-outer-limits-of-ecumenism

Again, the writer is woefully out of tune with the Vatican and real RC doctrine (so much for its traditions!)not realising that the occult elements of Mystery Babylon the Mother of Harlots aka the cult of Roman Catholicism existed already way before Vatican II!

Sadly Susanna, the betrayer here is not me but the RC establishment which we blindly loved as a mother and yet she fed us to the biggest wolf of all: herself!
 
Susanna,

You wrote:

… For example, we have the tradition that even though the Gospel according to Matthew has come down to us in Greek, it was originally written in Aramaic or Hebrew. This is recorded in the writings of Irenaeus who was a disciple of Polycarp of Smyrna. Polycarp was a disciple of the Apostle St. John the Evangelist.

There’s some ambiguity in the text that seems to support that Matthew was written “in a Hebrew style” rather than being written in Aramaic as opposed to Greek. The following is taken from David Alan Black’s book Why Four Gospel’s?: The Historical Originals of the Gospels (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2001), p 50, in a footnote, which illustrates this:

J. Kürzinger, “Das Papiaszeugnis und die Erstgestalt des Matthäusevangeliums,” Biblische Zeitshrift 4 (1960): 19-38; idem, “Irenäus und sein zeugnis zur Sprache des Matthäusevangeliums,” New Testament Studies 10 (1963): 108-15. Kürzinger explains that in the first century dialektos commonly meant both “language” and “style,” so that the phrase in Ecclesiastical History 3.39.16 could mean either “in a Hebrew language” or “in a Hebrew style,” depending on context. In the present context, the Elder had been explaining some problems in style and/or content of Mark, since it possessed neither the Jewish style of Matthew nor the normal literary style of a Greek biography such as Luke’s. The absence of the definite article in the phrase hebraidi dialektō is further support of the view taken here [that words meant “in a Hebrew style”]. Cf. Orchard and Riley, Order of the Synoptics, 198-99 (= excursus 2: “The Origin of the Notion of an ‘Aramaic’ Gospel of Matthew”). Origen, mistakenly thinking that Papias was referring to the language in which Matthew was written, stated that Matthew was “composed in Hebrew characters.” This error was perpetuated by later writers.

----------

The absence of the “definite” article (Greek only has one article – somewhat similar to English “the”) usually indicates a characteristic or nature of a thing, rather than something concrete.

Cont.

 
Cont.

Here’s a portion of the context of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History from the translation of C.F. Cruse (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2009), pp 105-106:

(15) “And John the Presbyter also said this, Mark being the interpreter of Peter whatsoever he recorded he wrote with great accuracy but not however, in the order in which it was spoken or done by our Lord, for he neither heard nor followed our Lord, but as before said, he was in company with Peter, who gave him such instruction as was necessary, but not to give a history of our Lord’s discourses: wherefore Mark has not erred in any thing, by writing some things as he has recorded them; for he was carefully attentive to one thing, not to pass by any thing that he heard, or to state any thing falsely in these accounts.” (16) Such was the account of Papias, respecting Mark.

Of Matthew he had stated as follows: “Matthew composed his history in the Hebrew dialect [hebraidi dialektōs]*, and everyone translated it as he was able.” (17) The same author (Papias) made use of testimonies from the first epistle of John and likewise from Peter…


The asterisk * replaces a footnote, which states: “The author here, doubtless means the Syro-Chaldaic, which sometimes Scripture and primitive writers called Hebrew.”

 
Craig,
In the interest of "peace and security" (safety) many things may happen, especially if something radical is done with radical fundamentalists of every stripe. The globalists are working on all of that with fervor as we speak and why crisis (actually many types in many sectors) has been created so they may impose their "solution"? Hmmm,

And meanwhile this is a concept that might fly. Check out the site on the link below.
Who knows? Perhaps on Temple Mount itself? (now maybe that would bring some "peace and security" ?)
https://house-of-one.org/en/news (translate from german)
 
Anon 8:44PM,

I was already familiar with this one to be built in Berlin not Jerusalem:

https://house-of-one.org/en

What about ISIS? From today's politico-religious context such an idea looks impossible. The Dome of the Rock is absolutely sacred to Muslims.
 
Ignatius Loyola, the first Jesuit General and creator of the Jesuit Order, was a prominent member of the Spanish Illuminati (called, los Alumbrados in Spanish). It is no surprise then that when Clement XIV banned the Jesuits by Papal Bull EX Cathedra (despite Susanna's protestations and propaganda to the contrary) in 1773, the jesuits set about creating the Bavarian Illuminati (to be headed by Jesuit professor of Canon Law at Ingoldstadt Jesuit University, Adam Weisshaupt) achieving such in 1776.

The Jesuits radicalized Freemasons into orchestrating the French Revolution, to revenge on the Papacy for suppressing the Jesuit Order. There is strong evidence to show the same forces were behind the American Revolution, dated 1776 also!

Begin finding out how and why here:

www.sites.google.com/site/jesuits the reptiles/home/jesuits-french-revolution
 
Craig,
I did not say there was one in Jerusalem. I posed a question-a basic what if. If they have one in being built in Berlin, is it possible for the other?
Don't underestimate this. If they have helped the rise of ISIS, (and they have), they can also help bring it's fall. These days anything is possible for bad, and time will certainly tell.
 
The [Roman] Catholic Connection: the Jesuits and Pantheism

"He shall honour the God of forces: a god whom his fathers knew not"... he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws Dan:7:25;11:38

"In order to show that Ignatius Loyola, Founder of the Roman Catholic Jesuit's Order was indeed involved in Witchcraft as we discussed in the previous article, I will tell you some of his beliefs, one of which was PANTHEISM, which is a form of Witchcraft and Spiritualism."

THE JESUITS AND PANTHEISM

"Ignatius has a certain obsession about trying to find "God" in everything around him. In fact, Malachi Martin, former Jesuit said, when speaking about the Order of the Jesuits":

"Each companion in the Society (of Jesus) was burning and busy to find every trace of God and God's handiwork throughout the cosmos where he, God the Workman, the deus faber of the midevil mystics, was ever at work creating... Of course, I saw God at work in all things---vivifying, beautifying, freshening, and quickening human beings and all of nature into life-nourishing cycles. Throughout, I thus saw God in all things. But more than that, I strove with my spirit and with my whole being to arrive at the summit of love where I could see all things in God; see them rather as manifestations of His power and beauty, as rays of light descending from the sun, as streams of water leaping from the spring well. Nothing in creation could escape this viewpoint--- the fearful symmetry of the tiger, the ridiculous curl to a piglet's tail, perfumes, colors, tastes, the audible silence settled on mountaintops, the patterns traced by a dancer, the cries of children at play, the songs of birds, the toils of the least of insects. Seeing all things in God, with their being and their beauty, the scales would fall away from my fleshbound eyes. Quietly, unresistingly, coherantly all would be absorbed in Him, for me; and the dust and ashes of their mortality and of my own mortality would be consumed in the stainless luster of His eternal existence and beauty... Ignatius (loyola) presumed that every Jesuit would have this same perpetual preoccupation with finding God in all things." -Malachi Martin, The Jesuits, pg. 206.207"

www.religiouscounterfeits.org/CatholicConnection_Pantheism.htm
 
Anon 9:39,

You wrote, I did not say there was one in Jerusalem. I posed a question-a basic what if. If they have one in being built in Berlin, is it possible for the other?

I understood that. But, there's a huge difference between Berlin and Jerusalem in a religious context. No doubt these a secular individuals building this thing in Berlin, but more devout Jews, Christians, and Muslims would have no part in this hybrid in Berlin, let alone Jerusalem.
 
Anon 9:42PM,

Objectively, I see nothing at all incongruent with Scripture in that quote. Nothing. In fact I find it quite congruent with a number of Scriptures (Rom 1:20, Col 1:16, etc.). Nowhere does it state that God = cosmos and cosmos = God, nor can that be rightly inferred.
 
Anon 8:02AM,

While I have seen many 'discernment' sites reference Ephesians 5:11-13 to use against false teaching, the context is expressly about sin, not false teaching. Words have meaning in proper context, and this is most especially in Scripture.
 
Craig,

Re: the use of Ephesians 5:11-13 in the you don't see voodoo practices as sinful? Deliberate false teaching is also sinful Craig, examine yourself, are you guilty of that?

Craig, you are as one who is forever learning yet never coming to an understanding of the truth!

I want no further communication with you at this juncture. You are thoroughly Jesuitical in your dealings here and I don't play with rattle snakes.

Ephesians 5:11-13 King James Version (KJV)

11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.

12 For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.

13 But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light.
 
Craig,

Re, the use of Ephesians 5:11-13 in the 8:02 AM post: you don't see voodoo practices as sinful? Deliberate false teaching is also sinful Craig, examine yourself, are you guilty of that?

Craig, you are as one who is forever learning yet never coming to an understanding of the truth!

I want no further communication with you at this juncture. You are thoroughly Jesuitical in your dealings here and I don't play with rattle snakes.

Ephesians 5:11-13 King James Version (KJV)

11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.

12 For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.

13 But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light.

Here is the 8:02 AM post in full:

Right here at the Vatican website we can find photos of witches performing voodoo rituals, etc.

Notwithstanding Susanna's blatant defense of the abominable New Agey COEXIST video of Pope Francis SJ. (which our Ray B kindly provided), I wonder how she squares the following with her 'tradition'?

http://www.vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/documents/travels/assisi6.html

Ephesians 5:11-13 King James Version (KJV)

11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.

12 For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.

13 But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light.
 
Anon 5:18/5:25AM wrote:

Craig, you are as one who is forever learning yet never coming to an understanding of the truth!

I want no further communication with you at this juncture. You are thoroughly Jesuitical in your dealings here and I don't play with rattle snakes.


And:

Re, the use of Ephesians 5:11-13 in the 8:02 AM post: you don't see voodoo practices as sinful?

What in the world does it mean for one to be ‘thoroughly Jesuitical in dealings’? Perhaps you or someone can explain that. I’m certainly no Jesuit, and I’m definitely not even remotely Roman Catholic. I find the whole idea of a papacy eisegetical, i.e. unbiblical, and there are host of other teachings in Catholicism I find incompatible with Scripture. No doubt that Catholics will vehemently disagree with me here.

However, I AM firmly desiring TRUTH. If you wish to use something like, for example, Romans 16:17-18 for false teaching, then fine. However, using Ephesians 5 only illustrates Biblical illiteracy, for, as I stated, the context in Ephesians 5 is plainly about sin – sins of Christians, not false teachers who are by definition not Christian. In Ephesians 4:17-5:21 the Apostle Paul is giving admonition to Christians to live Godly lives by seeking God’s will through submission to the Holy Spirit (5:15-18, and see 4:22-24)

Voodoo practices are certainly sinful, but this and other strictly pagan practices are not mentioned in Ephesians 5 at all.

You also wrote: Deliberate false teaching is also sinful Craig, examine yourself, are you guilty of that?

Given your inability to properly exegete Scripture, even when provided correction, perhaps you should be asking yourself that.

For the record, my comment at 11:28PM was not trying to be ‘ugly’ (however, my tone in this comment is a bit stronger than my previous comment, given your obvious ad hominem attack on me); it was merely a corrective. Tone is sometimes hard to discern in the written word. I’m just passionate about using Scripture properly, as I think we all should. And I’m just as passionate about truth in general.

Therefore each of you must put off falsehood and speak truthfully to his neighbor, for we [Christians] are all members of one body - Ephesians 4:25. Context is key!!
 
I just consulted Peter T. O’Brien’s commentary, The Letter to the Ephesians (Pillar New Testament Commentary, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999), regarding 5:11:

“The negative admonition not to participate in the fruitless deeds of darkness is now balanced by its positive counterpart: instead, believers are to expose them. Since the object of this reproving activity, both here and in v. 13, is ‘the unfruitful works rather than the persons themselves, it is preferable to understand the verb in the sense of ‘bringing to light or exposing’ these deeds, rather than [verbally] convincing or convicting those engaged in such activities…”

How is this done? By our example, by Godly living.

I like what Markus Barth [a Lutheran] states about this passage:

...it is most likely that as early as vs. 11 a behavior is meant that may correct a brother’s erring ways and help him follow a straight path…Eph 5:11 includes a warning against reliance upon oral exposition, discussion, or vituperation in dealing with sin. The light in which the Christians stand, and which they reflect, consists of much more than intellectual enlightenment which they are given and pass on by words. While Ephesians attributes the greatest importance to the spoken word, in many places where fighting immorality is concerned the shining light of Christ himself (5:13–14) and the example given by faithful Christians is trusted more than moralistic effusions, legalistic prescriptions, verbal punishments, acts of excommunication. For this reason the paraphrasing translation [Barth’s] was chosen, “disprove [by your conduct].”

…Eph 5:12 takes a surprising and radical turn: even the talk of those who condemn their erring brothers is called shameful. Paul addresses those saints who by loudly condemning other men’s sin and shame seek to prove their own purity. Those who glibly discuss and censure evil deeds are declared as guilty as the objects of their scorn. Things done under the cover of darkness must not be dragged into the limelight. It is bad enough that they happen, but their effect can only become worse when they are taken hold of by garrulous tongues and fed on by self–righteous ears.
[Markus Barth, Ephesians 4–6, The Anchor Yale Bible; (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974), 570-572.]

Likely, the sin spoken of here is of a sexual nature or something similar (see verses 3-4), which is why Paul states “it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.” Probably, there was ‘sin in the camp’ at the Ephesian church.
 
Seems that the principalities and powers are getting pretty cocky - victory is assured, says this video - Lightworkers get ready - perhaps we should do so too?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qJlvrkQ1jw
 
This is 9:39 PM.
Craig, well we'll see won't we? That that concept has flown at all amazes me. The world is morphing in these things everyday to homogenize everything, even what has been impossible.

I notice that some ideas get floated in some smaller setting/scenario and then go big in time. Things of this nature are goals of one world religion that will work in conjunction with one world global governance. Will it go this way? I don't know that as a certainty, but speculate for now within some reasoning. I do know this...to have and to hold Jerusalem is a goal set from the devil's pit. (it is the burdensome stone, remember) Exactly how that happens, and exactly when, remains to be seen. Bears watching, at the least.

Myself, I believe things such as this could be an idea whose time will and has come (soon, not later)...because it is working within a prophetic timeline (Israel back in the homeland). People can believe what they choose, as I am, so I spell this out because it is not outside of the realm of possibility after all in these extreme days (heading straight to more so) that we are now living. My take, for what it's worth...
Yes, principalities and powers are getting pretty cocky, as Ruth stated.

Time will certainly tell. Time is definitely getting short.

 
Craig wrote: "What in the world does it mean for one to be ‘thoroughly Jesuitical in dealings’? Perhaps you or someone can explain that."

Well, the online dictionary at dictionary.com tells us:

Jesuitical or Jesuitic
[jezh-oo-it-i-kuh l or jezh-oo-it-ik; jez-oo-, jez-yoo-]
adjective

1. of or relating to Jesuits or Jesuitism.

2. (often lowercase) practicing casuistry or equivocation; using subtle or oversubtle reasoning; crafty; sly; intriguing.

www.dictionary.com/browse/jesuitical

Here's some more from those books of old (even though such may not be to your liking, Craig):

Noah Webster's Dictionary of 1828 tells us:

JESUIT, n.
One of the society of Jesus, so called, founded by Ignatius Loyola; a society remarkable for their cunning in propagating their principles.

www.webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/Jesuit

JESUITISM, n. The arts, principles and practices of the Jesuits.

1. Cunning, deceit; hypocrisy; prevarication; deceptive practices to effect a purpose.

www.webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/Jesuitism

Also, the 1811 Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue, by Francis Grose, states:

Jesuitical

Sly, evasive, equivocal. A jesuitical answer; an equivocal answer.

www.archive.org/details/1811dictionaryof05402gut

You see Craig, the Jesuits (along with the SMOM Knights of Malta and other RC organizations) have been extremely successful in being jesuitically adept at taking over Banking (SMOM Rothschild: known as the treasurers or bankers of the Vatican) Governments (CFR, etc), Media (SMOM Murdoch) Educational establishments including universities and their syllabuses (think SMOM Rockerfellas, Education board early 1900's), the very control of libraries, publishers and printing presses by which to change history, to induct and indoctrinate rather than to educate, to change the meaning of words, by OWNING the dictionary . . . but they can NEVER truly change HISTORY . . . or undo their bloody past!!

Craig, seeing as you like to jest about bibliography and 1st editions having Jesuit inclusions, you should check out the front cover design of the 1st paperback edition of George Orwell's 1984, and notice the Jesuit symbols of the so-called eye of providence and pyramid (yes, like the one on the US Dollar and the confessional boxes at Milan Cathedral).

It wasn't Russia or Stalin but this perfidious pack of devils, the Jesuits, and their Antichrist World takeover which precisely was who George Orwell aka Eric Blair was warning us about in his book, '1984'!

Now, Craig, you should be careful your induction of theology does not become the millstone round your neck and then the stumbling block which will trip you into a ditch!

I sincerely urge you to do your own research now on this. Despite what you may think to the contrary, I don't need spoonfeeding and neither do you now I hope.
 
Anon 12:52PM,

So, then, explain to me where I have exhibited the traits in the definitions you cite – since you made the accusation, that burden is on you.

Also, show me what you mean re: the “front cover design of the 1st paperback edition of George Orwell's 1984, and notice the Jesuit symbols of the so-called eye of providence and pyramid”. Here is a link to a closed ebay auction in which one can zoom in on the photo. “Enlighten” me.

From my understanding, the Society of Jesus, i.e. Jesuits, use an abbreviation of the Greek (all caps / uncials) “IHS” (short for ΙΗΣΕΥΣ or transliterated into English IHSOUS, Iēsous) with a cross and 3 nails enclosed in a circle somewhat resembling, a sun such as the one shown at Wikipedia.

 
Ruth of Exeter,

By the end of the year, eh?

I like this quote (just over 2minutes) that the “powerful new energies interacting with the earth’s magnetic field” are the cause of ‘global warming”! So, it’s not manmade after all! Take that Al Gore, etc.!

 
Anon 11:22,

No doubt there are those who are pushing to homogenize the three monotheistic faiths (including Trinitarian monotheism) by calling them the “Abrahamic Faiths”. And Berlin certainly is an example of this sort of thing. I suppose, like you said, we’ll have to wait regarding Jerusalem. I remain very skeptical.

As for Jerusalem being the “burdensome stone” (Zech 12:3), I agree with that; however, I just don’t see how some sort of tri-Temple would support Zechariah’s prophecy. And, since Jesus is the fulfillment of the OT Tabernacle, and temple sacrifices are no longer needed with His once-for-all sacrifice, I don’t understand why some sort of Temple, rebuilt or not, will factor into the fulfillment of end time prophecies.

 
Craig rattled: "However, I AM firmly desiring TRUTH. If you wish to use something like, for example, Romans 16:17-18 for false teaching, then fine. However, using Ephesians 5 only illustrates Biblical illiteracy, for, as I stated, the context in Ephesians 5 is plainly about sin – sins of Christians, not false teachers who are by definition not Christian. In Ephesians 4:17-5:21 the Apostle Paul is giving admonition to Christians to live Godly lives by seeking God’s will through submission to the Holy Spirit (5:15-18, and see 4:22-24)"

Craig, you are as one who strains at a gnat and swallows a camel.

The Roman Catholic Church and its adherents (including Susanna) claim to be Christian. Therefore, the fact such are allowing, encouraging, and promoting works of darkness, voodooism among others, to be practised in their mist certainly does validate the inclusion in my post at 8:02 AM of the admonition expressed in Ephesians 5:11-13.

Your claim, "Voodoo practices are certainly sinful, but this and other strictly pagan practices are not mentioned in Ephesians 5 at all", is about as valid as a child's arguing that he or she was not forbidden from eating strawberries or other berries because he or she was only told not to touch the fruit (generally speaking): voodoo practices and other strictly pagan practices (of which Roman Catholicism is replete) ARE works of darkness, Craig! Given that, do you hold at least some Roman Catholics to be Christians, Craig? I do, which is why I understand why God calls such His people when he tells them to, "come out of her", Mystery Babylon aka Roman Catholicism et al, so they don't become, "partakers of her plagues"!

In conclusion, I repeat to you: deliberate false teaching and is a work of darkness going right back to the Garden of Eden!

Craig, as I said, examine yourself: either you are yourself are Biblically illiterate and are unable to exegete correctly,and not only from the Holy Bible but also from my posts, or, which is more likely, you are jesuitically being dishonest and are no desirer of truth at all!

P.S., who do you think you are by using the big I AM. .. and even having it read, I AM. ... TRUTH. You are not God. I hope that was an unfortunate oversight on your part and not a jesuitical employ at subliminal manipulation of the reader, nor a Jesuitical claim you are somehow divine.

Let God be true and every man a liar!

Time to wipe the dust off my feet with you.
 
Craig rattled: "However, I AM firmly desiring TRUTH. If you wish to use something like, for example, Romans 16:17-18 for false teaching, then fine. However, using Ephesians 5 only illustrates Biblical illiteracy, for, as I stated, the context in Ephesians 5 is plainly about sin – sins of Christians, not false teachers who are by definition not Christian. In Ephesians 4:17-5:21 the Apostle Paul is giving admonition to Christians to live Godly lives by seeking God’s will through submission to the Holy Spirit (5:15-18, and see 4:22-24)"

Craig, you are as one who strains at a gnat and swallows a camel.

The Roman Catholic Church and its adherents (including Susanna) claim to be Christian. Therefore, the fact such are allowing, encouraging, and promoting works of darkness, voodooism among others, to be practised in their midst certainly does validate the inclusion in my post at 8:02 AM of the admonition expressed in Ephesians 5:11-13.

Your claim, "Voodoo practices are certainly sinful, but this and other strictly pagan practices are not mentioned in Ephesians 5 at all", is about as valid as a child's arguing that he or she was not forbidden from eating strawberries or other berries because he or she was only told not to touch the fruit (generally speaking); voodoo practices and other strictly pagan practices (of which Roman Catholicism is replete) ARE works of darkness, Craig! Given that, do you hold at least some Roman Catholics to be Christians, Craig? I do, which is why I understand why God calls such His people when he tells them to, "come out of her", Mystery Babylon aka Roman Catholicism et al, so they don't become, "partakers of her plagues"!

In conclusion, I repeat to you: deliberate false teaching is a work of darkness going right back to the Garden of Eden!

Craig, as I said, examine yourself: either you yourself are Biblically illiterate and unable to exegete correctly, not only from the Holy Bible but also from my posts, or, which is more likely, you are jesuitically being dishonest and are no desirer of truth at all!

P.S., who do you think you are by using the big, "I AM",. .. and even having it read, "I AM. ... TRUTH". You are not God. I hope that was an unfortunate oversight on your part and not a jesuitical employ at subliminal manipulation of the reader, nor a Jesuitical claim you are somehow divine.

Let God be true and every man a liar!

Time to wipe the dust off my feet with you.
 
Anon 1:47PM,

You still misunderstand my point. I’m not saying you cannot speak out on false teaching, practices, etc. I’m saying that proof-texting Eph 5:11-13 does not help your cause. We can agree to disagree on that; however, I’ll quote O’Brien once again regarding verse 12:

…These ‘works’ are the sexual vices (perhaps even perversions) mentioned in v. 3, not immoral pagan religious rites, as some have suggested. They are now described as ‘the things done in secret’: those who commit them (i.e., the ‘disobedient’ of vv. 6, 7) do not want their sins to be brought out into the open (cf. John 3:20). But their dark deeds are so abhorrent, Paul asserts, that it is ‘shameful even to mention’ them, much less to do them. He utterly repudiates these sexual sins, but desires to convey their seriousness without mentioning the details of the depravity. Paul and his readers knew what they were, and he will not dignify them by naming them. Instead, he wants the light of the gospel to shine through the readers’ lives and expose these deeds for what they are. [Peter T. O’Brien, The Letter to the Ephesians, PNTC; Accordance electronic ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 371-372.]

The rest of your post is so over-the-top (the “I AM” bit especially) I’ll reserve comment except to say that it exposes your heart, and apparently those who disagree with your views are, in your opinion, “jesuitically being dishonest”. That is a hallmark of King James Only-ism, as I’ve witnessed it elsewhere.

To some the Jews are to blame for everything, others it's the Jesuits.

 
I am not a KJV onlyist, Craig.

Your falsely accusing innuendo reveals your heart.

You want to agree to disagree on something I have clearly shown I was not wring on despite your being over the top patronising , demeaning, and yes, either not as clever as you think, thoroughly Jesuitical dishonest, or both!

Your post and points contained therein were wrong. Your pride sloped in academic mud blinds you from distinguishing between the fish and the water!

Good day to you!
 
"To some the Jews are to blame for everything, others it's the Jesuits."

And to some it's the New Agers... now who was the father of their movement? Oh yes, that Jesuit of old, Fr. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, SJ!

Yet others mention the Illuminati. Which, as I have already shown, is just another name for the Jesuits themselves!
 
"I don’t understand why some sort of Temple, rebuilt or not, will factor into the fulfillment of end time prophecies."

Even if these concepts only get as far as paper, these things are expressing global goals. Certainly there are Jews, acting in the ignorance of unbelief, that are pushing for their temple right now. And what compromises are they willing to make? As well as Muslims, and apostate Christendom of these last days for their piece of pie? So what those Jews of that persuasion end up with may be another matter entirely. When the man of sin begins his 3 1/2 year "reign" what promises to all opposing groups will he make, to win their trust for the sake of "peace and security? It is along these lines that makes me wonder, but again, we'll see. The big 3 religions stake some sort of claim to Temple Mount. And the big 3 are responsible for all wars according to many people. What a peace prize that would make! The Jews, the Muslims and Christians (because of the Cross that was once at the foot of it), all revere that piece of property.

I am speculating, admittedly, but one can't help but notice how much Israel & Jerusalem is in the crosshairs today. Increasingly so. Jerusalem, the burdensome stone is to bring everything to crescendo in the political/religious world of nations of the last days, and they will be dealt with by God as to how they have mistreated Israel according to prophecy, and why I am paying attention to it all.
I think all cards will be on the table about all this encompasses, and the wait won't be too long. I think whatever this is to become is all much closer to happening than people think.
 
I am not a KJV onlyist, Craig.

Your falsely accusing innuendo reveals your heart.

You want to agree to disagree on something I have clearly shown I was not wrong on despite your being over the top patronising , demeaning, and yes, either not as clever as you think, thoroughly Jesuitical dishonest, or both!

You suffer from the all too often seen delusion among some academics that they are holders of an oracle to which others must bow. You are not so intelligent, despite your arrogance in trying to persuade me to give up my reason in deference to your supposedly greater knowledge. No Craig, you are truculent, arrogant and well above your station, and what's more, I have proven your attack on my abilities to critically and correctly apply Holy Scripture to be unwarranted, untrue and entirely without merit.

Your post and points contained therein were wrong. Your pride sloped in academic mud blinds you from distinguishing between the fish and the water!

As I said Craig, despite your doubtless deliberate attempts to falsely teach others here about my posts and character due to your selfish and narcissistice hubris, you are NOT the great "I AM " nor a bastion of truth!

Those who surrender not their reason to those full of 'Wizard of Oz' bluster and hubris such as yours, Craig, will see your post about me was untruthful!

¡A Dios!
 
Jesuits Global Network
Many times we hear the term Globalists.
Who are the controlling Globalists?
Let the pictures do the talking!!

www.granddesignexposed.com/george/network.html


 
For those who have heard about and seen the Red Mass pictures of US Presidents cuddling up to RC Cardinals, as well as Jesuit trained Bill Clinton, George W. Bush et al receiving the Roman Catholic 'Eucharist' communion wafer, this should not be too surprising:

"Mystery Babylon the Root of the New World Order
Quote from "Foreign Conspiracy against the Liberties of the United States" by Samuel Morse 1835. The food of Popery is ignorance. Ignorance is the mother of papal devotion. Ignorance is the legitimate prey of Popery. Ignorance: The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uniformed."

"Rulers of Evil" Chapter one
Read by Jorg Glisman
To listen to the whole book Click here

Author F Tupper Saussy Click here
SUBLIMINAL ROME
Chapter 1
" The Roman Catholic Church is a State."
Bishop Mandell Creighton, Letters
Remember pictures are worth a thousand words!!
When a Pulitzer Prize winning reporter announced in his 1992 Time Magazine cover story that a "conspiracy" binding President Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul II into a "secret, holy alliance" had brought about the demise of communism, at least one reader saw through the hype.

Professor Carol A. Brown of the University of Massachusetts fired off a letter to Time's editors saying, last week I taught my students about the separation of church and state. This week I learned that the Pope is running U.S. foreign policy. No wonder our young people are cynical about American ideals.

What Brown had learned from Carl Bernstein I had discovered for myself over several years of private investigation: the papacy really does run United States foreign policy, and always has. Yes, Bernstein noted that the leading American players behind the Reagan/Vatican conspiracy, to a man, were "devout Roman Catholics"-namely,
William Casey
Director, CIA Alexander Haig
Secretary of State


Richard Allen
National Security Advisor Vernon Walters
Ambassador-at-Large


Judge William Clark
National Security Advisor William Wilson
Ambassador to the Vatican State
But the reporter neglected to mention that the entire Senate Foreign Relations committee was governed by Roman Catholics, as well. Specifically, Senators

Joseph Biden
Subcommittee on European Affairs John Kerry
Terrorism, Narcotics, and International Communications


Paul Sarbanes
International Ecomic Policy, Trade, Oceans, and Environment and....


Daniel P. Moynihan
Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs Christopher Dodd
Western Hemi-sphere and Peace Corps Affairs
Bernstein Would have been wandering off-point to list the Roman Catholic leaders of American domestic policy, such as Senate majority leader George Mitchell and Speaker of the House Tom Foley.

In fact, when the holy alliance story hit the stands, there was virtually no arena of federal legislative activity, according to The 1992 World Almanac of US Politics, that was not directly controlled by a Roman Catholic senator or representative...'

Read and see more here, including the massive list of involvement:

http://granddesignexposed.com/rulersof/evil2.html

 
Orwell's Jesuit Blueprint for 1984

"Who controls the past,(Sun Worship) controls the future:(Sun Worship)
who controls the present,(Sun Worship) controls the past.(Sun Worship)
George Orwell
It is some sixty years since George Orwell published his prophetic novel, 1984, and in the light of current events it is a perfect time to remind ourselves that we are indeed rapidly heading for the Orwellian nightmare described so brilliantly in his book. If anyone wants to see the world the Jesuits want to impose, then just read 1984.

As Orwell wrote: "if you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face-forever". This does not have to come to pass, but it will unless asses and seats part company. It is already doing so-by the day. 1984, written in 1948, is described as a political satire, but it's not. It is a political prophecy and there is no way that Orwell could have been so accurate without a deep understanding of the way the world was going, even possibly inside knowledge of what was planned. Orwell had many contacts in political circles and mixed with the elite from his days at the exclusive Eton College, where royalty is educated. It is far from impossible that he picked up the threads of what was intended to be. Orwell also worked for the BBC when it was under the control of ministry of Information, a wonderful Orwellian title in itself for an organization created to communicate dis-information."

Read more here:

www.granddesignexposed.com/george/orwell.html
 
Craig, the tone in my last comment to you is a little harsh. However, I do not agree with you and I believe your tone to have been at the least disrespectfully patronising and arrogant.

Just to say, I don't agree with such a narrow interpretation of the passage as O'Brien holds.

Just as we are told bad company corrupts good character, the concept behind shunning moral corruption is not limited to sexual sins. There are many sins which sicken the spirit to speak of, and not just sexual ones. In addition, it is well known that spiritual dabbling with the occult and false religions is often Biblically refered to as fornication and adultery, hence the reason Mystery Babylon, the unfaithful woman / bride, i.e. , church, is refered to as a harlot, the Mother of Harlots to be precise, that is, Rome and other churches she has under her ecumenicist wing, as she and they fornicate with the false religions and Kings of the World.
 
Rome calls herself the Mother Church. Yet the Roman Catholic Church only goes back to the fourth century after Jesus Christ's death and Resurrection. Yet what she is, is the Mother of those churches today which have mixed paganism into the brew.

There is no mention in Holy Scripture or in any first or second century text of Peter ever having been in Rome let alone having been bishop of Rome or crucified in Rome. The Roman Catholic Church tries to point to Acts 12:17 as well as extra-Biblical textual matter to claim otherwise yet such is pure speculation with about as much evidence as King Arthur having set foot there, i.e. , none!

There is no evidence Peter (Cephas) was ever Bishop of Rome, let alone a pope! The first pope was Emperor Constantine in the Fourth Century; Peter was the First Century and first Bishop of Antioch. His grave has recently been discovered in Jerusalem!

Rome has waxed worse and worse and is truly drunk on the blood of the saints. She calls those who murder in cold blood on her behalf, saints. Such as Thomas Murderer and Bible-burner Moore who murdered by strangling then burning at the stake the blessed saint, William Tyndale, as well as smashing the skulls of children and ripping out the wombs of the Italian born-again Christians of the 11th Century known as the Waldenses, murdering tens of thousands of Middle East Christians during the Crusades, and others during the Dark Ages, right up to the murder of Orthodox and Born-Again Christians during the 20th Century.

By the way, just as William Tyndale was before he converted to true Christianity, I was a Roman Catholic and so won't be silenced by guilt-trip accusations of Catholic bashing. I am attacking that wicked system that ensnares the souls of otherwise Christian men and women in her web of deceit!
 
Craig, 7:47 PM

Re: I note that Cutting Edge's defense of the KJV specifies that it's the 1611 that is to be preferred* - the one which contains the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical Books! Say it isn't so!

HERESY!!! HERESY FER SURE!!!! LOL

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

Craig 8:29, 8:30

My point, in general, is that whether or not any of the Gospels were written in a language other than Greek, the only extant Gospels we actually possess have been handed down to us in Greek. The only way we would have of knowing historically that they may have been written in any other language BUT Greek is through the writings of the Apostolic Fathers who were closest in time to the actual writing down of the original texts of the New Testament.

As a point of interest, according to my sources, the argument AGAINST the long-standing belief that Aramaic (or Hebrew) was the language in which Matthew originally composed his Gospel was first raised in the 16th century by the Dutch theologian and patristics scholar Desiderius Erasmus. He reasoned that, since there is no evidence of an Aramaic or Hebrew original of Matthew's Gospel, it is futile to argue that the work originally appeared in Aramaic and was subsequently translated into Greek (as most patristics scholars hold).

This same argument can be used just as effectively against the idea that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Greek, since there are likewise no extant originals of the Gospel in Greek. After all, as I have stated earlier, the earliest manuscripts we have of any of the books of the New Testament are in Greek, yet not a single manuscript is an original. They're all copies. From the mere fact of Greek manuscripts we can't conclude that the originals must have been written in Greek. True, there may be a presumption of that, but not actually a proof.

Erasmus did his own "revised" Greek translation of the Bible. The Catholic Church was displeased with the new translation which they rightly viewed as an onslaught on Jerome and upon the traditional Western Church's version of the Bible known as the Vulgate which Erasmus rejected.

The Greek text produced by Erasmus is known as "textus receptus" and was the basis for the King James Version of the New Testament.

http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=7735
______________________________________________


 
I looked at a few of the granddesignexposed pages, and I don’t find anything at all of substance. There are lots of assertions without any documentation to back them up. Not to be unkind, but I nearly laughed out loud when I read that Orwell’s book is a “prophetic novel”, which is an oxymoron. A novel is by definition a work of fiction; whereas, a prophecy is supposed to be true predictions of the yet to be revealed future.

Now, I get what the author was trying to convey with his description, and I do think that 1984 is uncanny in that many of the things in it actually came to pass, but the page (www.granddesignexposed.com/george/orwell.html) rambles from one thing to another, mentioning the Jesuits at one point, but not drawing any clear connection between the Society of Jesus and any of the events and other people listed. I went to the page hyperlinked “more on Jesuits” and couldn’t find anything of any real substance there except for the repeated notion that Jesuits worship the sun. Besides their logo which, in part, resembles the sun, where is the actual evidence that they are sun worshipers? I’ve read the claim that the RCC resembles the sun, and it seems that is what the author wishes the reader to understand; but, if that’s the case than the author should state that the RCC worships the sun, not just the Jesuits (not that I agree with that, but for him to remain consistent).

I’m also waiting for an explanation as to what the cover of 1984 has in common with the Jesuits. I can clearly see a pyramid, but I’m not aware of any connection between the pyramid and the Society of Jesus. If there is, what is it?

Also, I clicked on the link on globalist, which purports that “Obama [is] surrounded by Roman Catholic
Jesuit Trained Intelligence Leaders”. Yet the very first one mentioned in the words below the photo, James Clapper, was schooled at St. Mary’s University right here in my current home town of San Antonio; and, knowing that that school is a Marianist, not a Jesuit school, we see that the author again is making assertions without basis in fact.

I don’t think I need to go further…

 
Correction: "...that the RCC resembles the sun..." should be "...worships the sun..."
 
But who, then, controls the Jesuits? They certainly can't be at the top - it must be someone else. Since it appears obvious to the sheeple that they are at the top, it's because whoever is REALLY at the top made them look like it. I think I'll start a website to expose the REAL enemy!

I'll call it thereallyrealtruthexposed.com, or maybe youthinkyouknowwhoisincontrolbutyourewrong.com, or something along those lines.

Jesuits? Pshaw....small fish!

 
It should be noted that Alice A. Bailey was raised Anglican, married an Episcopal priest, later receiving a divorce from him in 1915, and she began her joint writing with "Master D.K." in 1919. Thus, she was a contemporary of Teilhard de Chardin
 
Marko, 9:08 PM

If you want to know the real deal, you might want to consider FOUCAULT'S PENDULUM by Umberto Eco. It shows how EVERYTHING in the universe - and I do mean EVERYTHING - is connected to the KNIGHTS TEMPLAR! It is THEY who are shown to be at the top in the catbird seat!!!! :-)

 
Dear Susanna,

Is the Immaculate Conception of Mary a 'Sacred Tradition'?
If it is, I have some additional questions I would like to ask of you.

Thanks,
dan

 
Actually, the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary is based on the BIBLICAL narrative of Archangel Gabriel addressing Mary as "FULL OF GRACE." Nowhere in the Bible is any other human being addressed as "full of grace." This is because as a consequence of Original Sin, Adam and Eve lost the Sanctifying Grace with which they had originally been endowed along with the preternatural gifts which included their not having to experience death.

Belief in the Immaculate Conception is also backed up by the writings of the Apostolic Fathers.

Although the belief that Mary was sinless and conceived immaculate has been widely held since Late Antiquity, the doctrine was not dogmatically defined until 1854, by Pope Pius IX in his papal bull Ineffabilis Deus.

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

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

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

Even before the terms "original sin" and "immaculate conception" had been defined, early passages imply the doctrines. By God’s grace, she was immaculate in anticipation of her Son’s redemptive death on the cross. The Church therefore describes Mary as "the most excellent fruit of redemption" (CCC 508).

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

The Immaculate Conception does not in any way mean that Mary did not need to be redeemed by Christ. It means that she was "pre-redeemed" in the anticipation of the future merits of her Son Our Lord Jesus Christ. We must not forget that Jesus was not only truly man, but also truly God. As God, Jesus was not only omnipotent, but also not subject to time and perfectly capable of pre-redeeming the woman who would become Mother of the Word made Flesh.
 
P.S. Dan Bryan, 12:23 P.M.

My post at 1:43 PM was intended for you. Sorry.
 
Dear Susanna,

With all respect to your answer, you did not answer the question?
Assuming the answer is yes, why did it take almost 2000 years for this to be bore out?

How does this square with the piece you wrote earlier Susanna said...Anonymous 1:22 PM and Dan Bryan 2:39 PM,

The Sacred Tradition for Catholics (and Orthodox) is the Christian revelation orally transmitted BY CHRIST directly to Peter and the Apostles who preserved it intact and handed it on to their successors in a concrete historical Apostolic succession. It is from Peter and the Apostles and their successors that we have the divine revelation orally transmitted by Christ in the written form that has come down to us as the New Testament canon of the Sacred Scriptures.

When you say transmitted by Christ, are you implying the Holy Spirit or Jesus?
Wouldn't this be better called the 'divine secret'?

Additionally you wrote: Anonymous Susanna said...cont. 12:57 PM
Divine revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle. It was directly to Peter and the Apostles that Christ transmitted the Christian revelation by word and deed. Therefore, any unwritten "tradition" which does not have its origin with Peter and the Apostles - whether explicit or implicit - cannot be said to be part of Sacred Tradition.

So since this Immaculate Conception was not written explicit or implicitly, then it is not a Sacred Tradition? If you are referring to Luke, I do not agree that the Immaculate Conception was implied in the scripture you referenced. What I believe we have here is a private interpretation of scripture.



 
Susanna,

With respect, I make the following observations.

In fairness, I should point out that the first two works referenced in the link – the Odes of Solomon and The Ascension of Isaiah – are pseudepigraphical works (authors not known) and not accepted as canonical by Protestantism and (unless I’m wrong) the RCC. On quick read, only two expressly reference Mary’s purported sinlessness (Ambrose, Augustine) and only one may potentially be inferred as referencing “immaculate conception” (Ambrose):

Ambrose [AD 377]: She was a virgin not only in body but also in mind, who stained the sincerity of its disposition by no guile, who was humble in heart, grave in speech, prudent in mind, sparing of words, studious in reading, resting her hope not on uncertain riches, but on the prayer of the poor, intent on work, modest in discourse; wont to seek not man but God as the judge of her thoughts…

Ambrose [AD 387]: … Lift me up not from Sarah but from Mary, a virgin not only undefiled, but a virgin whom grace had made inviolate, free of every stain of sin

Augustine [AD 415]: …for how do we know what abundance of grace for the total overcoming of sin was conferred upon her, who merited to conceive and bear him in whom there was no sin?...

As for the Biblical reference in Luke 1:28, I’ll only agree in part. For this I’ll have to necessarily get technical. It is true that the word used to describe her here is not used of any other human. But, let me explain it (to the best of my ability, anyway). Gabriel’s words to her were: “χαιρε, κεχαριτωμενη (chaire, kecharitōmenē)”, which, translated are something like: “Rejoice/Hail, favored one!” or “Greetings, you who are favored”. The Catholic New American Bible (online) renders it: “Hail, favored one!”, while Catholic Online translates it: “Rejoice, you who enjoy God's favour!” The latter conjoins the second part of Gabriel’s statement (“The Lord is with you!”) with the first. However, it’s the Douay-Rheims that renders it “Hail, full of grace”. I’ll agree that Mary is favored/graced.

The word kecharitōmenē is a participle in the middle (as opposed to active or passive) voice, in the perfect tense-form and in the vocative mood (and feminine in gender, singular). That’s a LOT to unpack! The vocative is used as a substitute for a person’s name. As for the middle voice, I’ll explain by showing the other two voices. A verb in the active voice reflects the subject performing the action (the boy “hit” the ball); whereas, the passive is the subject receiving action (the ball “was hit” by the boy). The middle voice tends to focus on the of the subject (Mary, in this case).

Cont.

 
Cont.

The function of the perfect tense-form has been variously understood. Some claim it reflects a past action with present results (and possibly continuing into the future). Others claim there does not have to be a preceding action at all, it is a simply a state of affairs, a condition. Having studied this specific thing a few years ago (and written about it), I’m convinced it merely reflects a state. However, either way, one must then figure out the temporal reference (past, present, future?) by the context. A good example is found in Mark 9:13: “Elijah has come, and they have done to him everything they wanted.” Here, by the context the temporal reference of obviously past (“Elijah” here is John the Baptist who had been beheaded), and the state lasted during the time he was living, ceasing upon his death. [The Baptizer had to be conceived before he had come, but the verb says nothing about his pre-birth, only that he has come.]

Mark 6:14 is an example of present temporal reference for a perfect tense-form. There were those who thought that Jesus was the resurrected John the Baptist(!) and this provided Jesus the ability to do miracles: “John the Baptist is risen from the dead, and by this he performs miracles in Him.” Here it is John the Baptist’s presumed state of risen-ness that gave Jesus the power for the miraculous. That state did not have a precedent and was only presently occurring. [While the Baptizer had to be dead before he could be raised from the dead, the verb says nothing about his death, only his risen-ness.]

However, this particular verb here is a special verb, a participle. These are essentially verbal adjectives (of course, adjectives modify/describe nouns). English examples: Tiring, he went to sleep. Stunned, she hurried away.

So, Gabriel, instead of using Mary’s name, substitutes the term above, which is almost like a title. The term being in the middle voice reflects that Mary is a somehow affected by the action/situation of the verb. Because the verb is in the perfect tense-form, this affect is an ongoing state, though the duration is not necessarily indefinite! In context, it seems best to construe as a present state (most perfect tense-forms are present temporal reference). As of the time that the angel visited Mary, she was the “favored one.” She was in a state of being favored/blessed/graced.

Did that state precede Gabriel’s arrival? We can’t glean that from the context, to do so would impose a view upon the text (eisegesis, rather than exegesis). Certainly, it was because Mary had lived a godly life that she was chosen, but by the verb (participle) here we cannot construe that the state of Mary’s favored-ness preceded Gabriel’s arrival.

Did the state continue on? It would seem that it must at the least continue until Mary conceives and most likely until she gives birth. After that? – the context does not warrant a continuation, and, there is no further Biblical evidence that she was.

 
Drat! In the first part of the above, I missed a portion of tag for italics, resulting in the omission of an important part. It's the last sentence, which should read:

The middle voice tends to focus on the affect of the subject (Mary, in this case).
 
In absolute fairness, I’ll quote from Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J. (a Jesuit). I’ve spelled out some of the contractions [placed in brackets]:

This phrase functions here almost as a proper name; cf. Judg 6:12 for a similar use of an epithet. Though the pf. pass. ptc. [perfect passive participle] kecharitōmenos is found in the LXX of Sir 18:17 in the sense of a “gracious man,” here it rather designates Mary as the recipient of divine favor; it means “favored by God,” another instance of the so-called theological passive (see ZBG § 236). She is favored by God to be the mother of the descendant of David and the Son of the Most High. Even though the pf. ptc. [perfect participle] might express a state or condition of divine favor, that favor is to be understood of the unique role that she is to perform in conceiving God’s Messiah. In later scholastic theological tradition that favor would be classed as a charism, a gratia gratis data, “a grace freely given.” Beginning in patristic times, theological tradition understood kecharitōmenē in a fuller sense, which does not contradict the Lucan pf. ptc. [perfect participle], but which certainly goes beyond it. The translation of the ptc. [participle] in the Latin Vg. [Vulgate] as gratia plena [“full of grace”] heavily influenced the Western theological tradition about the fullness of Mary’s grace and was mainly responsible for the understanding of the word in terms of gratia gratum faciens, or sanctifying grace. See further M. Cambe, “La charis chez Saint Luc,” 193–207; C. Mohrmann, “Ave gratificata,” 1–6. [Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke I-IX, The Anchor Yale Bible; (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974), 345-346.]

Also, Fitzmyer writes in his more general intro:

The announcement story in vv. 28–37 is a dramatic, two–stage declaration made to Mary about the extraordinary character of the child that is to be born to her and about divine involvement in his origin. The passage is primarily christological, and only secondarily mariological: it shows that he comes from humanity, just as he comes from God. Just as Elizabeth’s disgrace was removed by divine intervention resulting in a son who would be an agent of Yahweh, a prophet before His coming, so Mary’s virginal status will be exploited by divine influence so that she too will bear a son, who will be David’s heir and the Son of God. He will be “Great” (bearing a title given to Yahweh in the LXX—see NOTE on 1:15), will be hailed as Son of the Most High, and will sit on the Davidic throne in an eternal kingship. So runs the first stage of the identification of the child. In the second stage he is further identified as the holy one, the Son of God. If the conception of John required a miracle, the step-parallelism requires an even greater one in Jesus’ conception. Hence the conception by a virgin (p 337).

---------

I did not consult this prior to my above comment. (I forgot I had this, as it is part of a very large software bundle {Accordance / OakTree} I purchased a while back.)

 
Craig,

Just a reminder here that at Dan Bryan's request I am explaining the Catholic belief and how the Catholic Church interprets Scriptural passages on Mary.

The Bible translation I regard as most authoritative is the Douay Rheims ( also Douay Rheims Challoner ) version which is translated from the Vulgate and translates to "Hail full of grace." The reason why is because it was Jerome, the biblical scholar who lived in the time when biblical Greek was still in use who translated the word as "full of grace" in Latin.("gratia plena"). He knew the language from first hand experience, not from trying to figure it out from old scrolls like modern scholars. He was fluent in both Ancient Greek and Ancient Latin. There is no-one alive today, who speaks "Ancient Greek" or "Ancient Latin" as fluently as the "Ancient" ones did.

Some of the other unfortunate modern "Catholic" renditions of Holy writ are more interpretations than translations - put together by modern scholars who are often more heterodox than orthodox.

The readings heard at Mass which read "full of grace" are not the same as the ones in the New American Bible. The New American Bible was translated to be used in the Mass, but when it went to Rome for approval, it was rejected for use in the Mass because of things like saying "highly favored" instead of "Full of Grace," and things like, "God loves you" instead of "[i]HE[/'i] loves you." The folks who put together the Missals took the NAB translation, and fixed all the problems, and those are the readings we hear in Mass. It is possible to get a Bible with these corrected readings, it is called the New American Bible St. Jospeh Edition.

The ancient prayer known as the "Ave Maria" which first appeared in print in 1495 is taken directly from that biblical passage in which the angelic salutation is recorded. It reads "Ave Maria gratia plena Dominus tecum Benedícta tu in muliéribus,et benedíctus frúctus véntris túi, Iésus. Sáncta María, Máter Déi,óra pro nóbis peccatóribus,nunc et in hóra mórtis nóstrae. Ámen.


cont.
 
cont.

It is very astute of you to observe that "Gabriel, instead of using Mary’s name, substitutes the term above, which is almost like a title. The term being in the middle voice reflects that Mary is a somehow affected by the action/situation of the verb."

Spot on!

“FULL OF GRACE!” According to Catholic teaching, that is the term that the archangel Gabriel used when addressing Mary, in Luke 1:28. It is indeed to be observed that Gabriel does not call her by her name of Mary, but instead calls her “Full of Grace.”

This new name for Mary indicates a change in her status in life, just like when Abram’s name was changed to Abraham, Sarai’s name was changed to Sarah, Jacob’s name was changed to Israel, etc. The actual term in Greek (the original language that Luke was written in) according to the way I learned it is “kecharitomene,” which is the perfect passive participle of the Greek word “charitoo” (grace). In other words, kecharitomene means “You who have been graced.” And when you add the word “full” to kecharitomene, Gabriel is calling Mary by her new title of “You who have been filled with grace.”

And as anyone knows, when you are full of anything, there is no room left over for anything else. Therefore, Mary, who was full of God’s grace, could not sin, or have the stain of original sin on her soul, because there was no room for any of that.

Romans 6:14 says: “For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.” And while this is true for all of us sinners to a degree, it is fully true of Mary, who is not only under grace, but is FULL OF GRACE.

To say "Highly favored one" or “highly favored daughter,” seems to take God’s grace out of the picture. “Charitoo” means “Grace,” not “favor.”

I acknowledge and respect that you may not fully agree with what I have said, but this is what Catholics believe. I am cheerfully willing to agree to disagree.
 
Susanna,

Not to be argumentative, but in the interest of the pursuit of truth (not that I’m suggesting you’re intending to be untruthful!), I wish to comment on your words here:

This new name for Mary indicates a change in her status in life, just like when Abram’s name was changed to Abraham, Sarai’s name was changed to Sarah, Jacob’s name was changed to Israel, etc. The actual term in Greek (the original language that Luke was written in) according to the way I learned it is “kecharitomene,” which is the perfect passive participle of the Greek word “charitoo” (grace). In other words, kecharitomene means “You who have been graced.” And when you add the word “full” to kecharitomene, Gabriel is calling Mary by her new title of “You who have been filled with grace.”

Respectfully, I can’t agree with the statement that this new term “indicates a change in her status in life”, as the Scriptures continue to refer to her as Mary and never reuse kecharitōmenē. In contrast, (1) those you mentioned above – Sarah, Abraham, Jacob/Israel – were explicitly referenced thereafter with their new names; (2) explicit statements in Scripture were made that they would be referred to by these new names. Neither of these two can be said of Mary.

Also, the English translation of “full of grace” for the Latin gratia plena is correct, but it goes beyond the lexis and form of the Greek. In Greek all words have a root, or lexeme, and suffixes and prefixes are added. You are correct that charitoō means “grace” (or “favor”, the two being synonymous, though not exactly equivalent); however, let’s look at the rest.

The prefix “ke” (called reduplication) is for the perfect (tense-form). The “men” (the “ō” drops off the end of charitoō) is to make it a middle/passive participle, and the “η”, or “ē”, is to denote the feminine singular. Essentially, these ‘add-ons’ determine how the verb functions, as I explained above. None of these additional prefixes/suffixes have the capacity to add “full” to “grace/favor”. This is an imposition onto the word. A more literal translation would be “well-favored” or “well-graced”, or perhaps “highly-favored” or “highly-graced”. The only real question, as it pertains to the Greek, is the exact function of the perfect tense-form, though none of the options would render “full” as part of the word here.

I understand we are not likely to agree on this, or at least parts of this, as you are explaining the meaning from a Catholic perspective. For what it’s worth, I think the two Catholic online Bibles I referenced earlier are adequate translations here. Even Fitzmyer above renders it "Hail, favored woman!"

 
Luke 1:28 "And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women".
Catholics false teaching of Marys assumption says it was due to Mary being highly favoured : full of grace (charitoo)
However (Greek, charitoo) is said of all believers in Ephesians 1:6.

Regards,
Grant
 
You are the one who is spot on Grant @ 9:52PM.
Thanks.
 
Grant,

Yes, you’re correct that the term is used in Ephesians 1:6, but there are a couple differences. The term is in a different form (aorist, active, indicative) and it’s as a result of Christ’s sacrifice (and our acceptance of His sacrifice). I’d render it more literally:

“to the praise of the glory of his [God the Father’s] grace, which he bestowed/graced/favored on us in the beloved [Son].

The Douay-Rheims is very good here:

“Unto the praise of the glory of his grace, in which he hath graced us in his beloved son.”

The verb form has what is termed perfective aspect, that is, it views the action as a simple, complete whole. On the other hand, a participle (like that used of Mary) denotes an ongoing action (or state). It’s rather hard to explain the difference.

The context, then, is about our salvation – the salvation we receive freely – and in that, yes, we are all equally “favored”, including Mary! But, to be fair, Mary was also given charitoō with reference to Jesus’ conception (at the least, and perhaps through to His birth). Now, I’ll agree with you that this does not mean that she was so favored that she had to be ‘assumed’ into heaven. However, this doctrine of Mary’s Assumption is not anti-Biblical – that is, it’s not contrary to Scripture – though it is extra-Biblical. For this reason, me personally, I have more of an issue with the doctrine of “immaculate conception” than Mary’s Assumption.

 
Well, if Enoch, Elijah, and Moses were assumed into Heaven, why not Mary?

Constance
 
Constance,

As this is Catholic teaching I think we will need to apply Susanna's statements of faith (but for sure she may have a different answer?)

The other two, explicitly were taken as it is written, Moses, not so much.

Deut 34:5,6
So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD. And he buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Bethpeor: but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day.

Just because no one can find his bones does not mean they are no longer there.

Susanna said: 12:57 PM
The Sacred Tradition for Catholics (and Orthodox) is the Christian revelation orally transmitted BY CHRIST directly to Peter and the Apostles who preserved it intact and handed it on to their successors in a concrete historical Apostolic succession. It is from Peter and the Apostles and their successors that we have the divine revelation orally transmitted by Christ in the 'written form' that has come down to us as the New Testament canon of the Sacred Scriptures. Therefore, any unwritten "tradition" which does not have its origin with Peter and the Apostles - whether explicit or implicit - cannot be said to be part of Sacred Tradition.

As there is neither an explicit or implicit transmitted via the Apostles to us in written form, the assumption is at best theoretical and not a Sacred Tradition.

Could God have accomplished this if he so chose?
Sure, but can we make it up and expect God to comply with our fanciful idea or some extrapolated private interpretation of scripture?


 
Craig EXCELLENT post re Teilhard likely influenced by his contemporary Bailey, but....

"Anon 3:02PM, I don’t see where Dan Bryan denied God’s “eternity”." read his post again. Dan takes for granted that The Word didn't always exist and Anon. 3:02 is onto his game. FIRST Dan quotes you "... “In the beginning was the Word”. In proper context this is referring to the Word’s eternality. " THEN HE SAYS "This is a good discussion, however I have a different opinion on this." HE HAS A DIFFERENT OPINION ON THIS.

"in John 1:1...Beginning is a point in time. Is this referring to when God became 'Father God'? Is this 'beginning' the fixed point in time that God decided to utter his first word 'The Word'? I do not know. "

Dan's statement TAKES FOR GRANTED that The Word is not eternal but was produced by The Father AFTER The Father already existed Dan is semi arian (doesn't like labels but it is what it is semi because he doesn't deny the Word's divinity). note Dan's prior statements I documented. I suppose he still believes in reincarnation. What he means by deferring to me is anyone's guess, no repudiation of denying The Word always existed. THE Beginning is NOT "a point in time" but the point when time began. and I don't argue just to argue, I argue with error or nonsense.

you answer "The Greek words ...(en arche¯), “in [the] beginning“ do not have to represent a precise point in time." context is start of creation.

" ...John first describes, respectively, the Word’s [pre]existence (eternality), "

exactly what Dan insists on denying

"association (with the Father), and essence/nature. Verse 2 reiterates His association with the Father and His eternality. "

exactly what Dan insists on denying.

"THEN verse 3 asserts that the Word is the agent of creation, thus expounding on Gen 1. Hence, en arche¯ probably best represents a point before creation – what point that is, cannot be ascertained by the context. "

THE CONTEXT SHOWS "the beginning" is the start of creation, and The Trinity already existed. This proves The Word's eternality, which Dan denies on the same define beginning ground you are playing on. beware of what seems sweet and leading it can be manipulation and poison. analogous: death angel mushroom survivors said it most delicious ever.

The Father is without beginning and without origin. The Son/The Word is without beginning but originates in The Father Who is eternally begetting Him. The Son/The Word is coeternal with The Father. The Holy Spirit is without beginning but originates in The Father who is eternally spirating Him. The Holy Spirit is coeternal with The Father and The Son. this is incomprehensible to finite minds.

Re “etheric body” is NOT shown false by Scripture which doesn't say "etheric body" which is basically the soul. nothing omnipresent or divine about it.

and you and O'Brien are dead wrong on Ephes. The false separation of sin (heart product) from sinner (needs heart clean) drives eisegesis of Ephes you do NOT expose (Grk also translated. "rebuke") by living right you REBUKE them publicly Titus 5:20 despite discomfort describing.
 
Christine,

Though I think I know what Dan Bryan meant (not in line with your accusations) in his reference to John 1, I’ll forgo any further discussion on that part, allowing him to speak for himself on this issue if he so chooses. On your insistence that the context of “in the beginning” must refer to the beginning of creation we’ll have to agree to disagree.

I’ll add no further comment on the “etheric body”.

Regarding your use of 1 Timothy 5:20 (Your reference to Titus, which only has 3 chapters, has me presuming this is what you meant here) is in a very different context:

19 Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses. 20 But those elders who are sinning you are to reprove before everyone, so that the others may take warning (NIV).

The NIV chooses to add “elders” to the pronoun those for clarity, as the context clearly indicates this is what is intended. Only with 2 or 3 three witnesses should one even entertain the idea of bringing forth an accusation against an elder, but if there are sufficient charges, then he is to be reproved before everyone. Verse 17 begins the discussion on elders and verse 20 closes it.

On Ephesians, don’t forget the Markus Barth (a Lutheran) quote above (8:28AM), whose exegesis is in line with O’Brien’s.

 
Hi Craig,

When extra biblical notions become doctrine that is adding to the Word of God which much of the Catholic fables do.
Many of them lack early historical evidence of existance.
Being brought much later on under the guise of so called oral traditon to disguise their later invention.


1Tim 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

1Tim 4:7 But refuse profane and old wives' fables, and exercise thyself rather unto godliness.

2Tim 4:4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

Tit 1:14 Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.
.
2Pet 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

Regards,
Grant
 
The list of some doctrines and beliefs that were added at a later date.
The daily mass, 394 A.D.
The doctrine of purgatory (Pope Gregory), 593 A.D
Prayers to the Virgin, Queen of Heaven, 600 A.D.
The first Pope (Boniface III), 610 A.D
Temporal power of the Pope declared in 750 A.D.
Worship of images, relics and cross, 788 A.D.
Holy water, blessed by a priest, 850 A.D.
Veneration of St. Joseph, 890 A.D.
Canonisation of dead saints (Pope John XV), 995 A.D.
Lent and Good Friday began in 998 A.D.
The mass declared to be a sacrifice of Christ, 1050 A.D
.Celibacy of the priesthood and nuns, 1079 A.D.
The rosary introduced by Peter the Hermit, 1090 A.D.
Selling indulgences began in 1190 A.D.
Doctrine of transubstantiation adopted in 1215 A.D.
Confession of sins to human priest, 1215 A.D.
Adoration of the water (Pope Honorius), 1220 A.D
.Interpretation of Bible forbidden to laity, 1229 A.D.
Scapular declared a charm against dangers, 1287 A.D.
Communion under one kind, 1414 A.D.
Seven sacraments declared, 1439 A.D.
Superstitions of the Ave Maria (Pope Sextus V), 1508 A.D.
Tradition established as infallible authority, 1545 A.D.
Apocryphal books added to the Bible, 1546 A.D.
Immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary, 1854 A.D.
Infallibility of the Popes, 1870 A.D.
Mary declared to be the Mother of God, 1931 A.D.
Assumption (translation) of the Virgin Mary, 1950 A.D.

Regards,
Grant
 
Grant,

I’m not a Catholic apologist (my posts above indicate that), but declaring as doctrine the “Assumption of Mary” is not tantamount to adding to Scripture. To add to Scripture is to append a particular writing to Scripture, to add it as part of Scripture reading. For example, there’s a pseudepigraphical work (by an unknown author) titled The Apocalypse of Adam. To claim this should be placed somewhere in the Bible and read/studied as Sacred Scripture is to ‘add to the Scriptures’. The Catholic doctrine of Mary’s Assumption is not added to the Catholic Bible. It is claimed as the oral “Sacred Tradition” that was handed down from Christ to the Apostles to the Church Fathers.

In the RCC, oral “Sacred Tradition” cannot contradict written “Sacred Tradition” (Scripture). So, from my perspective, since I see the “Immaculate Conception” as contradicting Scripture, I illustrate this as an example of ‘oral Sacred Tradition’ being at odds with ‘written Sacred Tradition’ (Scripture). [The RCC has its defense on this issue, but I don’t buy it.] I can’t say the same for the “Assumption of Mary” which doesn’t contradict Scripture.

In fact, I’d say that NT “tithing”, rampant in Protestantism and imposed (guilt-tripped) on church members, is far more damaging as a false doctrine than the extra-Biblical (but not anti-Biblical) “Assumption of Mary”.

Now, I’m not stating that I agree with the RCC position regarding what constitutes oral Sacred Tradition, as I think that the links back to Christ as ultimate source of a lot of these doctrines is tenuous at best. When the first two quotes used to defend Mary’s unique status according to the RCC are pseudepigraphical works, I’m immediately suspicious.

 

Documented, Catholic statement by the "Saint" Mother Teresa regarding the denial of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as the only "way, truth and the life..."

"There is only one God and He is God to all; therefore it is important that everyone is seen as equal before God. I've always said we should help a Hindu become a better Hindu, a Muslim become a better Muslim, and a Catholic become a better Catholic."

-Agnes Bojaxhiu, quoted by Jean M. Hiesberger, 52 Saints to Pray With, Paulist Press, 2010, p. 81-82, ISBN:

There seems to be a very distinct pattern with the Roman Catholic Church ... and that is ... the denial of the Lord Jesus Christ as the only true and sure means of obtaining salvation. Mother Teresa's statement if by no means unique, as its substance has been repeated over and over again by Pope John Paul II, Benedict, Francis, etc.
 
Grant,

Thank you for your posts. I agree with you entirely!

RayB
 
Craig, 9:40 PM

Re: I understand we are not likely to agree on this, or at least parts of this, as you are explaining the meaning from a Catholic perspective.

Exactly.....and I am sure that you are just as sincere in your beliefs as I am in mine.

 
Susanna,

Amen to that! One can disagree - and do so with conviction - without being disagreeable.
 
RayB,

Perhaps you were unaware that the quote you reference is in Constance Cumbey's 2nd book A Planned Deception: The Staging of a New Age "Messiah" as quoted from its original source, a biographer of Mother Theresa, whose book was published in 1976 (on pp 101-102, with source on p 108).
 
Craig,

Amen indeed!

Because whether or not we agree or disagree about this or that Marian belief, I think it is safe to say that whatever we do believe or disbelieve about Mary is not important primarily on account of what it reveals about Mary who is a human creature - albeit a greatly privileged one. It is important primarily on account of what it reveals about Jesus Christ who is truly God and truly Man.....the Incarnate Word.
 
I see the whole Marian story created in this fashion.
I see it as people with way too much time thinking how to 'fix' the narrative for God!.

For Jesus to be born pure, Mary must be pure.
For Mary to be pure, Mary must have been Immaculately conceived.
Oh wait! We pray to the virgin, but she is not in heaven.
Since Mary is pure and needs reside in heaven she need not see death but be assumed.
Oh wait! She already died, so she must be resurrected.
Now that Mary is resurrected she can be assumed.

Yet in Luke 1:47 Mary declared: And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
Mary needed a Saviour after being Immaculately conceived?
Did she commit a sin prior to Jesus' incarnation or immediately after?
Is there yet another Marian problem that needs to be 'fixed'?


 
Dan Bryan, 3:44 PM

Speaking of problems that need to be "fixed," that is a very interesting comment coming from someone who embraces the manmade, self-contradictory "Bible only" rule which is neither biblical (the Bible doesn't teach it) nor traditional in terms of originating farther back than the 16th century.

And for your information, the early Reformers including Martin Luther - did not reject belief in the Immaculate Conception. Although his formulation of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was not clear-cut, Martin Luther held that her soul was devoid of sin from the beginning.

Here is Martin Luther in his own words:

"It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary’s soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God’s gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin"

- Martin Luther's Sermon "On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God," 1527.

"She is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin—something exceedingly great. For God’s grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil.

- Martin Luther's Little Prayer Book, 1522.

Both quotations derive from Luther's writings after his break from Rome.

I am only only listing these quotes to show how far Protestantism has come from it's origins.

Unfortunately the Marian teachings and preachings of the original Reformers have been "covered up" by their most zealous followers - with damaging theological and practical consequences. Moreover, this break with the past did not come through any new discovery or revelation.

The real reason for the break with Mary is attributed in part to the influence of the Enlightenment Era which essentially questioned or denied the mysteries of faith.

Ergo, someone who not only does not know the historical traditions of Roman Catholicism, nor the historical tradition of his own non-Catholic Christian roots should refrain from asking phony pharisaical "gotcha" questions of ANYONE, let alone Roman Catholics.
 
Well, it will always be back to the Bible (and stay there) for me since people (Luther or whoever) evolve but God's Word is eternal in the heavens. He spoke it, so it is.
Come on now? Can anybody seriously think anyone should go beyond what He has said?
But many people do, every day of the week. Jesus is the Word and the first and the last. What He says goes.
None of that teaching about Mary is in the Bible.
Thanks, Dan Bryan for the comment. It is appreciated.
 
Susanna,

Just one question for you ... if you were to die tonight, where would your soul go, and why?


 
Hi RayB and Dan,

How many times do we hear the defending of unbiblical teachings etc based on origins etc it usually goes along the lines of...
Oral tradition,Gods doing a new thing, a prophetic word, a dream, a vision, trips to heaven, talking to dead saints, talking to Angels, centreing prayer, contemptive prayer, yoga, etc etc.
One must test the spirit that is at work whether it be the Holy Spirit, human spirit or a demonic spirit.
Every message at its source must not be contrary to Gods Word and nature.
Heres a biblical example...

Acts 16:16-18
16 And it came to pass, as we went to prayer, a certain damsel possessed with a spirit of divination met us, which brought her masters much gain by soothsaying
 17  The same followed Paul and us, and cried, saying, These men are the servants of the most high God, which shew unto us the way of salvation.
 18  And this did she many days. But Paul, being grieved, turned and said to the spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And he came out the same hour.

What this soothsaying, fortune telling false prophetess was saying would pass off to many today as being correct because it appears truthfull and factual yet it is totally false because it's source is totally "demonic" (a spirit of python).
Carefull consideration must be made when decerning the truth in these apostate times afterall satan is the father of lies.

Only the Truth "Jesus Christ" will set people free.

Regards,
Grant
 
RayB

Are you implying by your question that it is OK to arrogate to oneself the right to pass judgement on oneself?

I will not even pass judgment on myself. True, my conscience does not reproach me at all, but that does not prove that I am acquitted: the Lord alone is my judge. There must be no passing of premature judgment. Leave that until the Lord comes; he will light up all that is hidden in the dark and reveal the secret intentions of men’s hearts. Then will be the time for each one to have whatever praise he deserves, from God.
1 Corinthians 4:1-16


 
The "carnal" will always dispise the "Truth"
 


The “Once Saved Always Saved” Error

1. Anyone who thinks they are automatically “saved” simply by declaring that Jesus Christ is their personal Lord and Savior is grossly mistranslating Holy Scripture, and may be committing a sin of presumption.
2. It is GOD alone who knows who is “saved” and who is not. No human creature can declare themselves as being “saved”.
3. That false doctrine is a fabrication of the Reformation and cannot be found written anywhere before the Reformation.
4. Salvation is an on-going process throughout our entire lives as Holy Scripture clearly has told us. Read 1Corinthians chapter 13, as it tells us that we must have faith, hope, and charity.
5. If we are automatically “saved”, then what is the purpose of hope?
Sola Fides, or “saved by faith only” is taught by many Protestants. However, that false man-made doctrine cannot be found anywhere in the Bible.
6. In fact, the only place in the entire Bible where the words “faith” and “only” are found together is in James 2:24, where it says,”You see that by works a man is justified, and NOT by faith only.”
7. That verse was a thorn in Martin Luther’s side. He called the book of James a “straw epistle”, which meant it was worthy of burning, and he wanted to remove it from Scripture. It must have been an embarrassment to him since he had added the word “alone” to Romans 3:28, in his German translation of the Bible, in order to have it support his false “justified by faith alone” doctrine. James 2:24 is still ignored or rejected altogether by many Protestants.
8. That man's desire was not just arrogant but evil in terms of his attempt to conform the Bible to his personal, and erroneous, opinions.
9. In addition Martin Luther adds to the Bible words that do not exist in the Greek extant manuscripts. When Martin Luther was confronted about why he was messing with the Bible, he replied, “Because my will is good enough.” This was one arrogant person.

I wonder where he thought he was going when he died?

 
The pot calling the kettle black
 
We dont follow Luther or the Pope.

Jesus Christ of the Bible is the only way
 
8:25PM

Re: "The pot calling the kettle black."

That cuts both ways. Those who insist on gratuitously slinging mud at the Roman Catholic Church should take a little peek into their own back yard.

Their hatred for the Catholic Church appears to be greater than their love for God.....which is why I for one would never have anything to do with any "Christianity" they are peddling.
 
But you do follow a pope. Yourself. You are your own pope....along with all the other 20,000+ other little "popes" each claiming that their often conflicting religious opinions are rubberstamped by the Holy Spirit.

I always thought there was only one Holy Spirit. But by your standard, there seem to be an awful lot of "holy spirits" running around each claiming to be the arbiter of truth.
 
"Anonymous Anonymous said...
We dont follow Luther or the Pope.

Jesus Christ of the Bible is the only way

8:27 PM"


YES!!!!!!!!!
 
Dear Susanna,

Thanks for your comments.
Luther was Catholic, so I do not see your point.
First I am not a sola scriptura believer, I never said I was, although I do hold scripture over fanciful thoughts and ideas.

Also I am not Protestant as I have nothing to protest and do not look to Luther or any man to define my belief and faith.

Catholics can believe as they see fit, they have no part in me or I with them.
I do not protest what you believe. I will however probe to understand your faith if you let me?

If I got you on one of my gotcha questions, could I assume it was the ones you refuse to answer? How did I 'get you'?


 
Dear Susanna,

Who are the authors of the 4 Gospels, according to 'Catholic Tradition'?
There are duplicate/exact word texts between the various 4 Gospels.
Which one was the plagiarist?

 
Jews, Christians, and Muslims Pray Together in Jerusalem in Defiance of Terror
Read more http://tinyurl.com/jyqwsmb

Muslim, Christian, Jewish Leaders Plan Interfaith Worship Center in Jerusalem
Read more http://tinyurl.com/jjy2rta

Keep an eye out for those religious terrorists that come against 'unity'.
 
To Susanna (and anybody else knowledgeable):

What can you tell me about a deceased Louisiana priest by the name of Fr. Joseph Gremillion? I have some of his books in my library and to my eye, they seemed to have been promoting a union between what he called "Transcendental religions". He clearly went on to define those as Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, etc.

Constance
 
Susanna,

With all due respect, you didn't answer my question regarding YOU. Again, if you were to die today, and your soul leaves your earthly body, where would your soul go, and why?
 
Dan @ 12:00 AM

Absolutely. The big 3 are trying to coming together in an unholy union. I keep saying all of this is prophetic. I don't think I'm too out there for watching these very attempts and their timing.
A trial run for what is coming???..(is it possible in Jerusalem, no less, Craig?)
 
Dan Bryan, 9:54 PM

RE: Luther was Catholic, so I do not see your point.
First I am not a sola scriptura believer, I never said I was, although I do hold scripture over fanciful thoughts and ideas.

Also I am not Protestant as I have nothing to protest and do not look to Luther or any man to define my belief and faith.


You have just made my case for me. Because Luther WAS a Catholic who decided to allow his own opinions to trump Catholic Christian teaching and parted company with the Roman Catholic Church.

Whatever they happen to call themselves, all non-Catholic Christians are directly or indirectly followers of Martin Luther and his fellow "Reformers" whether they think so or not.

Oh, and by the way, I HAVE answered your questions. Could be my answers are simply what you want to hear.
 
RayB, 10:08 AM

But I DID answer your question. 1 Corinthians 4:1-16

Could be my answer is not what you want to hear either......especially coming as it does from Sacred Scripture!




 
"Whatever they happen to call themselves, all non-Catholic Christians are directly or indirectly followers of Martin Luther and his fellow "Reformers" whether they think so or not."


Sorry, Susanna, but that is a huge presumption and assumption on your part...
That is a very proud stance you take, and sounds just like MCE and her preemptive EO orthdoxy touting itself superior over others.
That is what religion does, it seeks preeminence,..and is the opposite of what Jesus taught.


 
Susanna,

I think what I was attempting to get to (perhaps not well stated in my question) is; what exactly does your RCC teach regarding what happens at death. Is there anything in your RCC teachings that gives you the confidence that you will immediately be "with the Lord" as Paul wrote about ("absent from the body is to be present with the Lord")?

Also, the thief on the cross was told by Jesus that "today you shall be with me in paradise." Would there be any reason for the thief on the cross to doubt that? Or, if he didn't doubt Christ's words, would he be committing the "sin of presumption" as you stated in your original answer?

One more question ... when facing God on Judgment Day ... what will be your own personal justification that will be declared in order to enter Heaven?


 
RayB,

As a Catholic, I am taught that only God knows where a soul goes at the moment of death. Speaking personally, I can know with reasonable certainty that I am saved through my faith in Jesus Christ, but since "even the just man falls several times a day," I am likely to require further sanctification and purification and spiritual healing. For Catholics, salvation is an ongoing process which requires us to humbly work out our faith "in fear and trembling." Not the servile fear of a slave, but the "filial fear" of sons and daughters whose only "fear" is offending God whom they love above all things.

With respect, I think some of the differences in our view of salvation is that as a non-Catholic Christian you don't seem to understand the mechanism of free will as understood by Catholics. In Catholic theology, God doesn't SEND a soul to heaven or hell. The soul CHOOSES it. There is no way we get to blame God if we wind up in hell. At the moment of death the soul is fixed in the free choice it has made in this life for or against God. As long as the soul and body are united, the will is flexible and a person can change his/her mind. But after death, this is no longer possible. Ergo, "Seek the Lord while He may be found."

For the damned, further sanctification is no longer possible because the soul has refused grace and separated from the body no longer has any new opportunities to repent. By way of analogy, it is similar to being a drug addict. In the beginning, it is relatively easy to kick the habit, but if one chooses not to do this, there is a progressive weakening of the will to the point that the person no longer wants help or interference from anyone. The will of a damned soul has been weakened to the point that he no longer wants help from anyone either - including God, the source of all grace. This is why it is important to "seek the Lord while He may be found."

For a Catholic, Purgatory is a vestibule of Heaven. The soul in Purgatory is saved but has voluntarily entered a place of purification and sanctification. Biblical justification for belief in Purgatory includes the Books of the Maccabees,(II Maccabees 12:39-46) Revelation 21:27 to name a couple. Recall the Catholic Old Testament canon is the Septuagint.

I, for one am not cocky enough to think that I will definitely be perfectly sanctified at the moment of my death. It is possible that I will be in need of further purification in order to enter the gates of heaven. A purification I will undergo voluntarily happy in the certainty I will soon be in heaven.

The best analogy I have ever heard is one in which a person is invited to go to a spectacular wedding feast. All the most beautiful people will be there dressed in their finest garments and looking their best. However, the person who is invited has been working the fields and is more than a tad grubby. The charitable Host is perfectly willing to let him in as are the other guests, but he doesn't want to go in until he has had time to bathe and don clean garments. The sanctification of a soul in Purgatory involves the cleansing of the desire to do anything even minutely sinful. A soul in Purgatory would prefer to endure a thousand hells rather than enter before the Divine Majesty while the most minute stain of sin remains.

cont.
 
cont.


True, God could make this purification all happen in a flash at the moment of death, but one thing about God we can be certain of is that when He gives a person the gift of free will, He respects it..... for all eternity. God is a gentleman, not a rapist.

As for the damned, they have no desire to be purified. Their irrevocable mentality is "evil, be thou my good."

As the late Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen once put it, if God were to declare some kind of divine "amnesty," round up all the damned and make them all go to Heaven, this would be a great cruelty on the part of God. Because "heaven for the damned would be a greater hell than hell." They HATE God and all who are on friendly terms with God.

This is what C.S. Lewis meant when he referred to Hell as "a mercy." The last mercy God does for a soul who would not allow God to do anything better for it. God allows them to hide out from Him in hell.

I believe it is in the book Healing the Original Wound, Fr. Groeschel said that souls are permitted by God to go to Hell not only as an act of justice (because they deserve eternal loss; their stubborn, cold and impenitent hearts are an outrage to the infinite, divine love that they betrayed by their sins) but also as an expression of His mercy, because He knows that damned souls would be less miserable in hell than if He dragged them to heaven in their impenitent, God-hating state.

Think about it for a moment, and I am sure you will see that Father Groeschel is right. What do faithful and loving souls receive as their eternal reward in heaven? The chance to see God face to face, and know Him and be close to Him and love Him forever. But if you hate someone, what could be more awful than to be told: "Congratulations: you get to spend eternity enjoying the company of someone, and gazing in the eyes of someone, that you can't stand!" God mercifully permits the damned to turn their backs on Him forever; that is why Jesus calls it the outer "darkness" — because souls there have irrevocably turned their backs on the light.

Now, please notice. This does not mean that the souls in Hell are not miserable; they certainly are, as miserable as those frozen in self-chosen darkness can be. But the point is that God is even merciful to them in their misery, because they are not as miserable as they might have been if forced to be in heaven.
 
Thank you Susanna,

What a wonderful explanation of God's mercy. I've always been mindful of the idea that when someone chooses to turn away from God and live without Him, it pains God's heart. Even when the dead are judged, and the good separated from the bad, I think that time of separation will be bittersweet for Him. To see how many of His created beings - the ones He Himself "knitted together" in their mother's wombs - have rejected Him will be heartbreaking, don't you think?

I also remember one of my pastors from years ago saying that because of God's great love for us, He lets go of us long after we let go of Him.

He certainly isn't looking over this earth, at those who hate Him or who reject Him, living in sin, and rubbing His hands in anger thinking "Just you wait! When judgment time comes, you'll get what you deserve!" Sadly, that is how we look at this sinful world too often. And when we do, it is not with the heart of God.

"As I live, declares the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn back, turn back from your evil ways, for why will you die, O house of Israel?" (Ezekiel 33:11 - ESV)

When He looks upon the Earth, it is with longing to see who is following Him, so He can help them run the race to the finish line.

"For the eyes of the Lord run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to give strong support to those whose heart is blameless toward him." (2 Chronicles 16:9)

I think when that really sinks into our souls, we gain a confidence of heart and faith - the kind that is spoken of here:

"Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need." (Hebrews 4:16)

----------

Just some thoughts that came to mind after reading your 1:21 comments.
 
Luther is Catholic as are his followers, any years hence as they have reconfirmed communion with Rome.

Is the Immaculate Conception of Mary a 'Sacred Tradition'?
Mary proclaimed the need of a Saviour after being Immaculately conceived.
Did she commit a sin prior to Jesus' incarnation or immediately after?
Why did she call him Saviour, if she was sinless?
Who are the authors of the 4 Gospels, according to 'Catholic Tradition'?
If you say Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, your belief may be surprisingly unfounded.

 
Purgatory doctrine of hell, 'that there is the hope of salvation beyond the veil', yet all will remain there for eternity? This is the fear and trembling one should consider.

I worked under a Catholic CEO of a small company for a period of time.
He placed large amounts of money in the hands of the Church to buy his way out of Purgatory. His poor family should have been able to live on the fruits of his labor but were left almost destitute.

You Wrote: For a Catholic, Purgatory is a vestibule of Heaven. The soul in Purgatory is saved but has voluntarily entered a place of purification and sanctification.

I Say: For the Catholic Heiarchy, Purgatory is a cash cow, the raping of God's children of the blessings he provided them to enjoy their life. Ecclesiastes 2:14


Psalms 37:23,24
The steps of a good man are ordered by the LORD: and he delighteth in his way.
Though he fall, he shall not be utterly cast down: for the LORD upholdeth him with his hand.

Does God's hand have to dip once again into Hades once again to retrieve you, I think not.

Philippians 1:6
Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:

Susanna, read and commit this verses to memory, THIS IS the HOPE.

You Wrote: The best analogy I have ever heard is one in which a person is invited to go to a spectacular wedding feast.

Do you base this analogy on the following parable in Matthew 24 1-14? It holds a quite different outcome then your example.

Luke 16:19-31 is an example of God's justice. It is imminent, it is final, it is just.
Purgatory is what one might call a 'second chance'. Yet we see throughout scripture there is no second chance, including this parable.

There is nothing we can do to better our state in life and eternity, else we would not need a Saviour, we would just be good.
Likewise, if Jesus' sacrifice on the cross is not sufficient, bearing our sins upon the tree, then all is lost.

 
Susanna,

Thank you for taking the time to explain your position. I'll have more to say later when I have time.

Just a couple of quick questions:

When Jesus promised the thief on the cross that he would be with Him in paradise that day, was the thief in an un-perfected state (requiring Purgatory), and if not, why not? Why, if Purgatory was required, didn't Jesus mention it?

Also, why didn't Paul (inspired by the Holy Spirit) write "absent from the body is to be present with the lord ... after Purgatory?" Paul clearly is stating that when the soul of blood-bought Christians departs the earthly body, it goes to be with the Lord.

Not one mention of Purgatory exists in the two epistles of Peter ... nothing at all in the entire New Testament ... why is that?
 
RayB,

I didn't realize that you thought Purgatory was always required. Purgatory is NOT always necessarily required. If a person who believes in Christ and loves Him has true and perfect contrition for his sins as the thief on the cross apparently did, then he can enter immediately into Paradise. But again, this is something only God can know. The only reason we know about the disposition of the thief's soul is because Jesus Himself said "This day you will be with Me in Paradise."

Re: Also, why didn't Paul (inspired by the Holy Spirit) write "absent from the body is to be present with the lord ... after Purgatory?" Paul clearly is stating that when the soul of blood-bought Christians departs the earthly body, it goes to be with the Lord.

When a soul is in Purgatory, it IS with the Lord but not yet fully face to face in the fullness of the Beatific Vision. Again, if you read my comment, the soul in Purgatory is there voluntarily because he would not be able to bear to fully enter into Paradise while even the least vestige of sin or disordered desire remains....not because God won't let him into Paradise.

The Bible does not mention the exact word “purgatory,” but instead it makes reference to a place which can be understood as what is referred to as purgatory. From a Catholic perspective, to claim that purgatory does not exist because the exact word does not appear in Scripture is a failure to understand Scripture. The exact word "Trinity" is not mentioned in the Bible either, but the Persons ( Father Son, and Holy Spirit ) to whom the word "Trinity" refer do. Same for the word "Incarnation."

The Bible contains references to many Christian doctrines, but fails to call them out by name. One might as well even deny that there is something called the Bible because no such name is found in the Bible.

The first mention of Purgatory in the Bible is in 2 Maccabees 12:46: “Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from sin.”

In Chapter 12 of Second Maccabees Catholics find Scriptural proof for Purgatory and evidence that the Jews had sacrifices offered for those of their brothers who had lost their lives in battle. That the Jews prayed for the dead shows that they believed in a place where they could be helped (which Catholics now call purgatory) and that the prayers of their living brothers and sisters could help them in that place. This is closely related to the Catholic doctrine of the communion of saints.

cont.
 
cont.

Even if non-Catholic Christians feel that the book was not inspired, historically, it still tells us of the practice of God’s chosen people.

In Matthew 5:26 and Luke 12:59 Christ is condemning sin and speaks of liberation only after expiation. “Amen, I say to you, you will not be released until you have paid the last penny.” Now we know that no last penny needs to be paid in Heaven and from Hell there is no liberation at all; hence the reference must apply to a third place.

Matthew 12:32 says, “And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.” Here Jesus speaks of sin against the Holy Spirit. The implication is that some sins can be forgiven in the world to come. We know that in Hell there is no liberation and in Heaven nothing imperfect can enter it as we see in the next part. Sin is not forgiven when a soul reaches its final destination because in heaven there is no need for forgiveness of sin and in hell the choice to go there is already made.

There is also Revelation 21:27: "....but nothing unclean will enter it, nor anyone who does abominable things or tells lies.” The place that is to be entered (the place to which this passage refers) is heaven (read the text around it for context).

The Bible clearly implies a place for an intermediate state of purification after we die in the many passages which tell that God will reward or punish according to a person’s life.

It is a mystery to me as to why non-Catholics reject a teaching so full of consolation! It has been suggested that they want to believe that the merits of Christ applied to the sinner who trusts in Him, will remove all sin past, present, and future abdicating all responsibility for sin after justification. Yet this is also unreasonable. Only Jesus’ death on the cross makes us worthy before God the Father. We cannot stand before him on our own merits. We need Jesus Christ. Yet we also have personal responsibility in our justification before the Lord.

Luke 12:48:

"Much will be required of the person entrusted with much, and still more will be demanded of the person entrusted with more."


Purgatory, by the way, is not a "second chance" for conversion; the soul in Purgatory is already justified.
 
Susanna said:
"The Bible contains references to many Christian doctrines, but fails to call them out by name. One might as well even deny that there is something called the Bible because no such name is found in the Bible."
I agree.
So why do Roman Catholics always say: "Sola Scriptura is not found anywhere in the Bible" ?

Viva Sola Scriptura.

 
P.S. RayB

It is entirely correct to say that Christ accomplished all of our salvation for us on the cross. However, that does not settle the question of how this redemption is applied to us. According to Catholic teaching, Scripture reveals that it is applied to us over the course of time through, among other things, the process of sanctification through which the Christian is made holy. Sanctification involves suffering (Rom. 5:3–5), and purgatory is the final stage of sanctification that some of us need to undergo before we enter heaven. Purgatory is the final phase of Christ’s applying to us the purifying redemption that he accomplished for us by his death on the cross.

The non-Catholic Christian resistance to the biblical doctrine of purgatory presumes there is a contradiction between Christ’s redeeming us on the cross and the process by which we are sanctified. There isn’t. And a non-Catholic Christian cannot say that suffering in the final stage of sanctification conflicts with the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement without saying that suffering in the early stages of sanctification also presents a similar conflict. The non-Catholic Christian has it backward: Our suffering in sanctification does not take away from the cross. Rather, the cross produces our sanctification, which results in our suffering, because "for the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant; later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness" (Heb. 12:11).

Those who deny the existence of purgatory tend to touch upon only briefly the history of the belief. They prefer to claim that the Bible speaks only of heaven and hell. Wrong. It speaks plainly of a third condition, commonly called the limbo of the Fathers, where the just who had died before the redemption were waiting for heaven to be opened to them. After his death and before his resurrection, Christ visited those experiencing the limbo of the Fathers and preached to them the good news that heaven would now be opened to them (1 Pet. 3:19). These people thus were not in heaven, but neither were they experiencing the torments of hell.

Some have speculated that the limbo of the Fathers is the same as purgatory. This may or may not be the case. However, even if the limbo of the Fathers is not purgatory, its existence shows that a temporary, intermediate state is not contrary to Scripture. Consider it this way. If the limbo of the Fathers was purgatory, then this one verse directly teaches the existence of purgatory. If the limbo of the Fathers was a different temporary state, then the Bible at least says such a state can exist. It proves there can be more than just heaven and hell.
 
Paul,

RE:So why do Roman Catholics always say: "Sola Scriptura is not found anywhere in the Bible" ?

The words "profitable" and/or "sufficient" in Timothy 3:16-17 do not imply or equate to "sola."

With respect, it is Protestants, not Catholics, who demand that we must be able to prove all doctrines from Scripture alone. Roman Catholics are merely holding Protestants to their own rule, not ours.

In any case, the very fact that you regard the Bible as the Word of God implies an acknowledgement on your part of Sacred Tradition in spite of yourself because how else would you even be able to know that the Bible is the Word of God in the first place? Especially given the fact that you were not an eyewitness to the things reported in the Gospels. Somebody would have had to tell you.

Hey, if you sincerely believe in Sola Scriptura, fine.....although as I believe Craig has pointed out "Prima Scriptura" may be a better way to go. As long as you are not dumping on Catholics for their beliefs, I have no quarrel with you over what you believe.


 
Re Susanna quoteing the Apocrypha to support her doctrine.

I have summarised the following following from http://www.bible.ca/catholic-apocrypha.htm.

The Apocrypha does not belong in the Bible is not inspired and must not be drawn upon for doctrine etc.
The New Testament never quotes from the any of the apocryphal books written between 400 - 200 BC.
Some Catholics argue that "the apocryphal books cannot be rejected as uninspired on the basis that they are never quoted from in the New Testament because Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon are also never quoted in the New Testament, and we all accept them as inspired."
The rebuttal to this Catholic argument is that "Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther" were always included in the "history collection" of Jewish books and "Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon" were always included in the "poetry collection".
By quoting one book from the collection, it verifies the entire collection.
In contrast none of the apocryphal books are ever quoted in the New Testament.
Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.
These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.
They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church.
In fact the Roman Catholic Church only officially canonized the Apocrypha at the Council of Trent in 1546 AD.
The Apocrypha seems to be used to support false doctrines and practise such as purgatory, praying for the dead, sinless perfection etc.

Regards,
Grant
 
I’m involved in a research/writing project, so I’ve not made any comments here. I’ve made some observations from both sides of the ‘fray’ here, and this article may help clear it up. That is, there are misunderstandings on what the Reformation doctrine of sola Scriptura actually is.

Most of those on the anti-Catholic side have identified themselves as non-Protestants, seemingly rejecting any sort of authority except ‘me and my Bible’. This has been termed “solo” Scriptura in the following article. “Solo” Scriptura is not Biblical!

This is rather lengthy but well worth a reading in order to get a proper perspective on both sides. Please keep in mind that it is penned by a Reformed writer:

http://www.modernreformation.org/default.php?page=articledisplay&var2=19

….Part of the difficulty in understanding the Reformation doctrine of sola Scriptura is due to the fact that the historical debate is often framed simplistically in terms of "Scripture versus tradition." Protestants are said to teach "Scripture alone," while Roman Catholics are said to teach "Scripture plus tradition." This, however, is not an accurate picture of the historical reality. The debate should actually be understood in terms of competing concepts of the relationship between Scripture and tradition, and there are more than two such concepts in the history of the church. In order to understand the Reformation doctrine of sola Scriptura we must understand the historical context more accurately.

…. The Bible itself simply does not teach "solo" Scriptura Christ established his church with a structure of authority and gives to his church those who are specially appointed to the ministry of the word (Acts 6:2-4). When disputes arose, the apostles did not instruct each individual believer to go home and decide by himself and for himself who was right. They met in a council (Acts 15:6-29). Even the well-known example of the Bereans does not support "solo" Scriptura (cf. Acts 17:10-11; cf. vv. 1-9). Paul did not instruct each individual Berean to go home and decide by himself and for himself whether what he was teaching was true. Instead, the Bereans read and studied the Scriptures of the Old Testament day by day with Paul present in order to see whether his teaching about the Messiah was true.

--------

Yes, prima Scriptura is more accurate, that is, it is a more accurate term for even the Reformed. (No, I don’t consider myself “Reformed”.)

 
See the trend....

Tradition established as infallible authority, 1545 A.D.
Apocryphal books added to the Bible, 1546 A.D.
Immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary, 1854 A.D.
Infallibility of the Popes, 1870 A.D.
Mary declared to be the Mother of God, 1931 A.D.
Assumption (translation) of the Virgin Mary, 1950 A.D.


 
All religions unite under the Pope 2016+
 
I should add the following. I think we'd all agree that true Christians belong to the church (ekklesia) "catholic". That is, all Holy Spirit indwelt believers are part of the Church. This, of course, includes the first century Apostles, those living before Christ's atoning sacrifice such as all those in the 'hall of faith' chapter of Hebrews 11 and all those between the first century and today. Given that the Church body is laid on the foundation of Jesus and includes those past, present and yet future (Eph 2:20-21) and that each member contributes something to the whole (Romans 12:8, etc.), then we must recognize our collective past as part of our Christian heritage. In other words, to wholesale reject the past is not Biblical!

We must study to show ourselves approved (2 Tim 2:15).
 
And regarding Luther's "Epistle of Straw" quote regarding the book of James:

http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php/2007/04/03/six-points-on-luthers-epistle-of-straw/
 
Grant,

You wrote: In contrast none of the apocryphal books are ever quoted in the New Testament.
Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.
These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.


Food for thought. In roughly 200 BC the Masoretic Text, the Hebrew OT, was translated into Koine Greek. This is called the Septuagint, aka, the LXX. Included in the LXX were translations from the Hebrew of all the Apocryphal books. So, why were the Apocryphal books translated into Koine Greek, or "common" Greek?, one must ask.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint
 
...also, as Susanna has pointed out here more than once, the NT quotes from the OT are many times more in line with the LXX (Greek) than the Hebrew. One must wonder why that was.
 
...and also, the well-known Book of Enoch (1 Enoch, in order to differentiate between 2 other later works called 2 Enoch and 3 Enoch), was not translated into Greek, though it was apparently revered by many of the Jews (the Qumran sect used a good bit of it in their canon), AND it was quoted from in the NT book of Jude.
 
Grant 8:13 PM said

These books ( the "Apocrypha" ) were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.

For your information, the Septuagint which includes the deuterocanonical books non-Catholic Christians refer to as as "Apocrypha" is the translation most often quoted in the New Testament. Not only that, but the Deuterocanonical books ARE quoted in the New Testament. The so-called "Jewish church" was the anti-Christian clique of Jewish rabbis who were allowed to gather at Jamnia by Emperor Vespasian. They not only ditched the Septuagint on account of its messianic allusions ( including the Greek word "Kyrios",) but also tinkered with the translation according to the Church Fathers (Irenaeus). Their Hebrew translation was then re-translated into Greek and often passed off as the Septuagint to unwary Jews.

The Protestants attempt to defend their rejection of the deuterocanonicals on the ground that the early Jews rejected them. However, the Jewish councils that rejected them (e.g., School of Javneh (also called “Jamnia” in 90 - 100 A.D.) were the same councils that rejected the entire New Testatment canon. Thus, Protestants who reject the Catholic Bible are following a Jewish council that rejected Christ and the Revelation of the New Testament.

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html
__________________________________________________

The anti-Christian school of Hebrew rabbis at Javnes ( Jamnia ) were gatherd there at the pleasure of Emperor Vespasian and their elimination of the Books of the Maccabees was to appease him since it would most likely have enraged him if the Hebrew Bible included the story of a Jewish revolt against the pagan client of Rome known as Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who for Catholics represents a type of Anrichrist since he not only presented himself as a personification of the pagan god Zeus, but also set up the "abomination of desolation" ( statue of Zeus) to be worshipped in the Temple of Jerusalem and forced everyone to worship it under penalty of death.

cont.
 
cont.

Now we have to back up a bit: around A.D. 90-100, after the Temple fell, a rabbinical school was formed by Johanan ben Zakkai. The "Council of Jamnia" (also called "Jabneh" or "Javneh") is the name given to the decisions made by this pharisaic school. I repeat: the gathering at Jamnia was a Jewish, not a Christian, "council" consisting of Pharisees some 40 years after the Resurrection of our Lord. At that time, Jews were being scattered, and the very existence of Jewry per the Pharisees' vision of "Jewry" was being threatened. At this time, too, Christianity was growing and threatening that same Jewish identity, resulting in severe persecution of Christians by Jews. In reaction to these things and to the fact that "Nazarenes" (i.e., "Christians", who at that time were overwhelmingly Hebrew) used the Septuagint to proselytize other Jews, Zakkai convened the Jamnian school with the goals of safeguarding Hillel's Oral Law, deciding the Jewish canon (which had theretofore been, and possibly even afterward remained, an open canon!), and preventing the disappearance of Jewry into the Diaspora of the Christian and Roman worlds. So, circling their wagons, they threw out the Septuagint that they had endorsed for almost 400 years. Note that at the time of Christ, most Jews spoke Aramaic, Latin (the official language of the area), and/or Greek (the lingua franca at that time), not Hebrew, which was a sacred language used by priests for the Hebrew liturgy. In any case, a new Greek translation was created by Aquila -- but one without the ancient Septuagint's language that proved more difficult for the Jews to defend against when being evangelized by the Christians, the point being that any idea that a book "had" to have been written in Hebrew to be "Biblical" wasn't the issue.

Moving the story along: in other words, the Protestant "Reformers" decided against the canon held dear by the Apostles in favor of a canon determined by Pharisees some 40 years after Jesus rose from the dead -- the same Pharisees who denied the Truths of the entire New Testament, even accusing the "Nazarenes" of stealing Jesus' body from the tomb and lying to the world! (Interestingly, it was Zakkai's successor, Gamaliel, who forced the "Nazarenes" out of the synagogues. Gamaliel also made it obligatory for Jews to pray the "Prayer of Eighteen Petitions," the 12th petition, which is still prayed today, known as the birkat, being "For apostates may there be no hope, and may the Nazarenes and heretics suddenly perish.")

And do you know why the Book of Maccabees was thrown out by the Jewish Council? Because the Council was conducted under the auspices of the Flavian Roman Emperors and they decided that that particuar book, which tells of the Maccabean Revolt, might be inflammatory and incite rebellion by the Jews. So, all those Protestant Bibles are lacking the Book of Maccabees, which speaks clearly of praying for the dead, because a pagan emperor pressured the Pharisees, around 40 years after the Resurrection of Christ, to exclude it. And lest anyone is still tempted to think that it was the "Roman Church" that came up with these books and that they were not written by pre-Christ Jews (an assertion I've actually read at "Messianic" websites), Jews in other parts of the world who didn't get news of the Council of Jamnia's decisions still use those "extra" 7 books to this very day (research the canon used by Ethiopian Jewry).


http://www.fisheaters.com/septuagint.html
 
From the Vatican:

FROM CONFLICT TO COMMUNION: Lutheran-Catholic Common Commemoration of the Reformation in 2017

Chapter 1 is titled:

Commemorating the Reformation in an Ecumenical and Global Age

Make of it what you will...
 
Your long posts don't impact me to think otherwise of Holy Scripture, Susanna. The 66 books of the Bible belong right where they are with no additions or subtractions, and it is a supernatural piece of work...it is God's. I don't care who did what, why, or when to include or exclude. God has overseen His Word and He let it rest with the 66 there are. They make up the entire counsel of God no matter what men may say.

He is Sovereign, ya know.
So all the rest means little to nothing in comparison.

I'm with Paul, Viva Sola Scriptura.
 
The Jews did use the Septuagint, but they did not accept as canonical those writings which we call the Old Testament Apocrypha. They may well have read 1 Enoch or Baruch in Greek, but when they did so, they did not read them as inspired in the sense that the canonical books were considered inspired. Bottom line, the Jews DID accept as inspired the Septuagint Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, but DID NOT accept the Greek translation (or the original Greek, if it was not translated because it was never in Hebrew) of what we call the Apocrypha.



 
Craig said:

"I should add the following. I think we'd all agree that true Christians belong to the church (ekklesia) "catholic". That is, all Holy Spirit indwelt believers are part of the Church. This, of course, includes the first century Apostles, those living before Christ's atoning sacrifice such as all those in the 'hall of faith' chapter of Hebrews 11 and all those between the first century and today. Given that the Church body is laid on the foundation of Jesus and includes those past, present and yet future (Eph 2:20-21) and that each member contributes something to the whole (Romans 12:8, etc.), then we must recognize our collective past as part of our Christian heritage. In other words, to wholesale reject the past is not Biblical!"

Amen!

 
Viva Sola Scriptura.

Mat 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.


Jesus the Lord knows what He was talking about.
The Word-just the Word (for all matters of life and authority)-is good enough for Him, so it's good enough for me. All the rest after that, falls short somewhere.
 
Anon 10:32AM:

I suppose you weren't aware that Jesus' words here conform closer to the LXX (Greek translation of OT) than the Hebrew Masoretic text? Scroll down a bit until you get to Matthew 4:4 and note the difference. It's slight (substituting God" (Theos) for "LORD" (YWHW)), but there IS a difference!

http://www.kalvesmaki.com/LXX/NTChart.htm

There are more marked differences in other passages.
 
Correction:

...and also, the well-known Book of Enoch (1 Enoch, in order to differentiate between 2 other later works called 2 Enoch and 3 Enoch), was not translated into Greek, though it was apparently revered by many of the Jews (the Qumran sect used a good bit of it in their canon), AND it was quoted from in the NT book of Jude.

should be:

...and also, the well-known Book of Enoch (1 Enoch, in order to differentiate between 2 other later works called 2 Enoch and 3 Enoch), was not translated into Greek as part of the LXX, but it was translated into Greek later, though it was apparently revered by many of the Jews (the Qumran sect used a good bit of it in its Hebrew/Aramaic form in their canon), AND it was quoted from in the NT book of Jude.
 
Anonymous 11:28 PM

I am not trying to "convert" or "convince" you of anything. All I am doing is answering questions being asked by your pals. If you don't like my "long answers" then don't read them.

 
Anonymous 9:01 AM

Re:The Jews did use the Septuagint, but they did not accept as canonical those writings which we call the Old Testament Apocrypha.

That is false. Where is your historical evidence to prove it? The deuterocanonical books that non-Catholic Christians refer to as "Apocryphal" ARE quoted or alluded to in the New Testament by Jesus and the Apostles who were Jews and I have posted a link to a list. But here are a few examples:

Matt. 2:16 – Herod’s decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wis. 11:7 – slaying the holy innocents.

Matt. 7:16,20 – Jesus’ statement “you will know them by their fruits” follows Sirach 27:6 – the fruit discloses the cultivation.

Matt. 9:36 – the people were “like sheep without a shepherd” is same as Judith 11:19 – sheep without a shepherd.

Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29 – Gospel writers refer to the canonicity of Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 regarding the seven brothers.

John 5:18 – Jesus claiming that God is His Father follows Wisdom 2:16.

Luke 21:24 – Jesus’ usage of “fall by the edge of the sword” follows Sirach 28:18.



 
P.S.

It should also be noted that the Apocalypse of Enoch is quoted in Jude as well as I & II Peter (and it is fairly obviously quoted in Jude and II Peter) and no one seems to have a problem with it. Why is that?

But for the record, the Ethiopian and Eritrean Orthodox DO consider the book of Enoch to be canonical.
 
Susanna @ 11:25 AM.

Not to worry. I won't be any more. Too much that detracts and obscures rather than answers.
The Bible isn't an easy book, but it isn't hard either. Not when we believe it, are assured it is God's word and enough, because God Himself is enough. He doesn't "need" us like overboard religiousness and heavy-handed tradition likes to tout. All that only collapses under it's own weight.
Jesus came and made all that extra extra Extra! obsolete, or has completely explained it already just for being who He is and what He has done. That is plenty to think on as well as believe right there, it is so profound.
Ours is simply to come to that understanding and trust He got it right, with no other input from us.


 
Mary Kaldor has worked with Solana for years to develop his cabinets and security studies. Here is a recent article by the two of them:

http://tinyurl.com/j2a5avu

"From Hybrid Peace to Human Security"

Constance
 
Susanna said @ 1:21 PM:


“True, God could make this purification all happen in a flash at the moment of death, but one thing about God we can be certain of is that when He gives a person the gift of free will, He respects it..... for all eternity. God is a gentleman, not a rapist.”

The only human beings that ever existed with true “free will” were Adam and Eve. When they exercised their “free will,” they sinned against God and as a consequence they, as our first parents, died spiritually. We all have inherited their sinful, self-willed, dead spiritual nature. Consequently, our “free will” always acts in a manner that benefits, according to our fallen perception, ourselves. Fallen mankind may “accept” Jesus Christ, but only in a manner that is acceptable to him. They want the benefits of salvation, without allowing Jesus Christ to be Lord over their lives.

True faith originates from God, for He is the “author and finisher of our faith.” In an often quoted passage from Ephesians 2:8&9, many people skip over the fact that our faith itself comes to us as a “gift” from God: “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God.” Notice, both grace and faith is given as a gift from God, and its origin is NOT of ourselves.

Furthermore, Jesus himself stated very clearly that “No man CAN COME TO ME, EXCEPT the Father which sent me DRAW HIM …” John 6:44 Mankind, left to his own free will, CANNOT come to Christ, for he does not have the will to give up his self-will and be ruled by Christ.

Jesus said: “Verily, verily I say unto you; except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.” Yet, Paul wrote that “repentance” is also something that originates with God: “… if God peradventure will GIVE THEM REPENTANCE to the acknowledging of the truth:” 2 Timothy 2:25 It is the “truth” that sets the captives free from the snare of Satan. In the next verse (26), Paul tells us “And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.” The devil is the “god of this world” (the fallen world, that is), and has been given power over fallen mankind. Only God can step in and overrule this spiritual power by an exercise of His sovereign will.

(more to follow)

 
(continued ... block letters used for emphasis)

Paul again writes in I Corinthians 2:14: “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: FOR THEY ARE FOOLISHNESS UNTO THEM, because they are spiritually discerned.” Clearly, this verse is stating that the “natural man,” without the sovereign grace of God, CANNOT receive spiritual truths. Why? Because of his sinful, self-willed, rebellious nature.

More on God’s sovereignty in Romans Chapter 9, beginning in verse 11: “(For the children being not yet born, neither having DONE AND GOOD OR EVIL, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, NOT OF WORKS, BUT OF HIM THAT CALLETH;” “It was said unto her (Rebecca), the elder shall serve the younger.” “As it is written, Jacob HAVE I LOVED, BUT ESAU HAVE I HATED.” “What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.” “For he saith to Moses, I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I WILL HAVE MERCY, and I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I WILL HAVE COMPASSION.” “SO THEN IT IS NOT OF HIM THAT WILLETH, NOR OF HIM THAT RUNNETH, BUT OF GOD THAT SHEWETH MERCY.” For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.” “THEREFORE HATH HE MERCY ON WHOM HE WILL HAVE MERCY, AND WHOM HE WILL HE HARDENTH.”

For those that argue against God’s sovereign will, He answers them directly:

“THOU WILT SAY THEN UNTO ME, WHY DOTH HE YET FIND FAULT? FOR WHO HATH RESISTED HIS WILL?” “NAY BUT, O man, WHO ART THOU THAT REPLIEST AGAINST GOD? SHALL THE THING FORMED SAY TO HIM THAT FORMED IT, WHY HAS THOU MADE ME THUS?”

God goes on to explain WHY He does this:

“What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also the Gentiles?” Romans 9:11-24

 
1:35 PM

Re:Not to worry. I won't be any more. Too much that detracts and obscures rather than answers.

Good! Given your clueless comment, it is doubtful that you ever read Susanna's comments to begin with. So spare us all the self-righteous twaddle!



 
Just a quick add on ...

Without the "New Birth," the "natural man" is lost spiritually and is completely vulnerable to the lies of Satan. It is only through the "New Birth" that mankind can and does have a relationship with God. The "test" as to whether or not one is born again, is whether or not "they continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;" John 8:31 And again, Jesus declares: "He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God." John 8:47 This exact theme is repeated in the NT.

Over and over again throughout my Christian life, I have encountered "religious" people that CANNOT receive the clear teachings of God's Word. By no means, is this limited to the "cults" etc. There are many in the so-called "fundamentalist" & "evangelical" circles that deny much of God's authoritative Word.

We either bow to God's authority, or we bow to someone else.
 
RayB,

Do I presume you adhere to TULIP?

I submit Hebrews 6:4-6 for you consideration:

4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,

5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

If one is a 'partaker of the Holy Spirit' yet the individual can reject God, doesn't that imply free will at least after conversion? If one can reject God post-conversion, why couldn't one refuse God preemptively? I understand that the Father must draw, but does this mean the individual must respond?

 
1 – 200 of 272 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]