Friday, August 05, 2016

Janice Daniels, former Mayor of Troy, Michigan, USA hosts my radio program tomorrow Aug. 6, 2016

 My friend, Janice Daniels, the former Mayor of Troy, Michigan -- one of Detroit's largest and wealthiest suburbs will be hosting my internet radio program in the morning.   Janice served Troy capably until she made the "mistake" of politically incorrectly addressing her belief in homosexual behaviors as biblically incorrect.  Taking God's plain words at face value cost her political prestige.

I'm honored that this brave lady will be guest hosting my radio program in the morning.  I will be escorting my three handsome grandsons to a parade where they have an opportunity to ride a float in Oxford, Michigan's annual "Lone Ranger Parade."  Oxford, Michigan is the home of Bruce Beemer, the original "Lone Ranger" actor.

You may call in your questions to Janice tomorrow morning between 10 am and noon (Eastern Daylight Savings Time) by calling 208-935-0642 and/or 208-935-0094.  She is a great lady.   We don't always agree on everything, but our love of God and doing His will is shared.

Tune in and stay tuned.  You may tune in tomorrow morning by going to www.TMERadio.com and/or TheMicroEffect.com.

Thanks!

CONSTANCE


Comments: «Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 400
Hi Anon 8:59,

What did Jesus say to a "good person" .
Matthew 19:16-22 (NKJV) Jesus Counsels the Rich Young Ruler

16 Now behold, one came and said to Him, “Good Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?”
17 So He said to him, “Why do you call Me good?No one is good but One, that is,God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.”
18 He said to Him, “Which ones?”
Jesus said, “‘You shall not murder,’ ‘You shall not commit adultery,’ ‘You shall not steal,’ ‘You shall not bear false witness,’
19 ‘Honor your father and your mother,’and, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ ”
20 The young man said to Him, “All these things I have kept from my youth. What do I still lack?”
21 Jesus said to him, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.”
22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.

Jesus says "come follow me" .... its totally exclusive.
Susannas position seems to reflect that of the popes video ... one that is not exclusive at all .
When the Scriptures are not held as the final and only authority in all matters (sola scripture) anything goes... and shows in the centuries of heresies passed off as tradition.

Several Catholic traditions and teachings have there origins in pagan roman beliefs that have been mixed into RC in the first two hundred years AD.
Sounds like "all roads lead to Rome" but theres only one way to God..."Jesus Christ"

RayB, quotes scripture and trumps Susannas non sola scripture positioning.
"contra principia negantem non est disputandum"

Regards,
Grant
 
Contra principia negantem non est disputandum (Latin, alternatively  and; literally, "Against one who denies the principles, there can be no debate")
is a principle of logic and law: in order to debate reasonably about a disagreement, there must be agreement about the principles or facts by which to judge the arguments.

Yep if you deny the Bible is the final and only authority (sola scripture ) which the RC does then pretty anything goes.
 
Satan will always attack or twist Gods words.
Jesus is discribed as the Word made flesh.
In the garden of Eden the serpent twisted and missed quoted to Eve what God had said.
In the temptation of Jesus in the wilderness the devil twisted scripture when speaking to Jesus and Jesus replied to the devil with correct scripture.

"The Truth will set you free" vs "a lie will bring you into bondage"

You can't serve to masters.

Regards,
Grant
 
Susanna clearly implies the Popes are not approving of people following other religions, where she writes: "There is a huge difference between respecting a person's free, sincere religious choice ( as in the video ) and approving of it......especially when in contact with people who have been born into non-Christian traditions. As Pope John Paul II..."

Yet many of us have seen the photos of JPII kissing the Unholy Koran and receiving the demonic mark of Shiva on his forehead, as well as the Assisi videos where he approvingly presides over the sanctioning of all sorts of idol worship to take place, even by self-professed witches!

You are disingenuous and manipulative, Susanna.
 
I'm retiring for the night now. Hope to see you all "on the air" in the morning (10 am Eastern Time, 7 am Pacific time) at www.TMERadio.com. LOTS TO TALK ABOUT! You can call in live by dialing 208-935-0642 and/or 208-935-0094.

Constance
 
For the record, Susanna and I don't agree on everything. I'm disturbed more than a little about some of the things Pope Francis has said and done.

1. Praise of Thomas Merton as an example for Christians;\
2. The above dialogue sounds at least mildly syncretistic to me, if not more.
3. His statements condemning all forms of fundamentalism, including Catholic ones.

I had some earlier similar issues with Pope John Paul II, but he thankfully reversed course and took a strong, unequivocal stand against the New Age Movement. It was my understanding that Cardinal Ratzinger helped get him to that position. I'm still suspicious about what happened to Ratzinger/Benedict XVI -- Popes just don't quit on 2 weeks notice -- I still think something was and is blowing in the wind.

That being said, I DEEPLY RESPECT SUSANNA AND HER RESEARCH. None of us are perfect, especially Yours Truly!

Constance
 
Dear Constance,

Thank you for your kind words.

You are correct in saying that you and I do not agree on everything.....which is to be expected since we have both been born into different Christian communions.

But regarding the particular issues you have with Pope Francis I am not in total disagreement with your point of view.

1. I am no fan of Thomas Merton who was once quoted by Benedictine monk Br. David Steindl-Rast as saying that he wanted "to become as good a Buddhist as I can"... and do not regard Merton is a "good example" for Christians. For Merton, the "call of the Buddha" was in competition with "the call of Jesus Christ." The following article from Catholic Answers nails it.

CAN YOU TRUST THOMAS MERTON?
http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/can-you-trust-thomas-merton

2. I have already conceded to Dan earlier on this thread that the dialogue in the video could appear to be syncretistic - especially to those who don't know anything else about Pope Francis....and I cited Pope Francis' own words on the subject of Yoga as well as a particular incident in which Pope Francis did not comply with the demands of a Hindu community in Ireland to discipline a priest who warned people about the dangers of Yoga and Indian head massage.


3. I also have a problem with Pope Francis' condemnation of "all forms of fundamentalism" including Catholic ones. I am not the only Catholic who has a problem with this either. The following August 9, 2016 article from the Catholic World Report is one that might interest you:

FRANCIS AND FUNDAMENTALISM
http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/4984/Francis_and_Fundamentalism.aspx

The comments following the article are also enlightening.

The person who is head of Ignatius Press is a hero of mine Father Jospeh Fessio, S.J. He has suffered persecution aplenty from his own fellow Catholics for being a "Catholic fundamentalist." Pope Benedict XVI was Father Fessio's teacher and thesis director at Germany’s University of Regensburg in 1975.



 
SOROS LEAKS REFER TO UN CHIEF AS 'ELITE, BEHIND THE SCENES ' SOROS ADVOCATE

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/08/20/soros-leaks-un-chief-behind-scenes-advocate/
 
I would echo what Constance has said above:

"Susanna and I don't agree on everything. I'm disturbed more than a little about some of the things Pope Francis has said and done....

That being said, I DEEPLY RESPECT SUSANNA AND HER RESEARCH. None of us are perfect, especially Yours Truly!"

Susanna has been a tremendous help in my research regarding Communism's past and present links to the global revolution that's about to take place, and the deception that's coming. There is a lot of deception around the accepted narrative about the "end" of the Cold War, and it only illustrates just how easy it is to fool humans, who believe pretty much whatever they want to believe, especially when pride is on the line.


 
The articles Susanna posted about whether those who have never heard the Gospel would be saved I found interesting. It certainly makes one more hesitant to pass judgment on others, because Jesus has the last say. Jesus is the central theme of salvation, and the only door, so He knows who has passed from death into life. Those people's names are recorded in Heaven's books.

"The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved."

2 Thess 2:9-10

A couple of things to note for discussion:

1. Many will say to Jesus (since He knows who knows Him and who doesn't) "Lord, Lord", and "Didn't we do all these miracles in your name", etc. But they will be rejected because their works were sinful. How is this so? They were GOOD works! I think it is because they rejected truth and were then deceived by a deception presented as truth, which makes their works invalid. So along with taking the gospel to all nations because we are commanded to, we should do it so that as many as possible will hear the REAL truth before a deceptive "truth" comes along, taking over their minds and hearts, and making it so that the real truth can never take root in the "garden of weeds" that has grown in their lives.

2. It is the love for truth that saves them, according to this passage. "They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved." This refusal is a willful act to not do what they know is right. Jesus said He is the Truth. Is the word used here in this passage speaking of Jesus, or of something more general, in the special case of those who have never heard of Him? God knows the heart, and I think there will be people in Heaven that we would not expect to be there, because of the grace of God through His Son, just as there will be people rejected that we thought would be "good" because of their outward works and words.

I'm glad I'm not the one making those judgments, and am learning more and more to be silent about this or that person's salvation. It was the religious leaders of Jesus' time, who had everyone pigeonholed, and who thought themselves the most righteous (because of pride), whom Jesus had the harshest words for. We can get that way ourselves, here on this forum and elsewhere, when we have a "I'm right and you're wrong" attitude. Sure, scripture is used to back up your position. Good! But scripture can be misused - as the Pharisees misused it, or in any number of other ways. All of them are pride-based. "I know the truth of the matter, and you don't." There are warnings in the Bible about taking this kind of attitude. We are all guilty of it to one degree or another.

So do we remain silent about all things? Probably we should a lot more than we currently do. We are, however, to inspect the fruits of those who have influence over others, to ensure that they are not misleading people into a false sense of security. If we can do something to keep people from being deceived, but do not, we will be held responsible for their lives. (Ezekiel 33.) So that's what "exposing the works of darkness" is all about. But when doing so, do it with grace, always remembering that you might be deceived about a certain matter yourself! Submit constantly to God, laying aside your own wisdom, or the wisdom you found on the internet, or any wisdom not gotten from God through His Word.
 
First and foremost, NO ONE IS GIVEN THE AUTHORITY to pass final judgment upon anyone's INDIVIDUAL salvation or lack thereof. The key words are "individual" and "final." Let me explain:

I have mentioned before that I have spoken to many Jehovah Witnesses (along with Roman Catholics, Mormons, apostate "protestants," etc.). Without passing FINAL judgment upon any of these INDIVIDUAL people, I have to assume that they are probably CURRENTLY lost due to their continued association with heretical religious belief systems. Without this "judgment," how in the world would you proclaim the true gospel to ANYONE? Or, perhaps, you would be "silent" as it seems Marko is suggesting.

I almost always begin the conversation with something along these lines: "Do you think you will go to heaven when you die?" Virtually ALWAYS I hear "I hope so." Which leads to the next question: "When facing God in judgment, what would you say to Him that would justify you going to heaven?" Virtually ALWAYS I hear "I lived a good life" (i.e. "justification by adherence to a religious system .. "works"). When I ask them about the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ and His blood sacrifice for their sins, obtained only through faith, they usually look dumbfounded! Keep in mind, these are RELIGIOUS PEOPLE!

This is ALL due to living a LIE that has been taught to them by their false religions.

(MORE ON THIS as it relates to the "Pope Video")
 

Here are just a few brief observations:

After declarations of “faith” by a Buddhist, a Jewish man, a Catholic Priest, and a Muslim, the Pope declares that (in effect) these people are all, in his words, “meeting God in different ways.”
Now, the Bible clearly declares that outside of Christ, there is no “way” to come to the Father.
Why is this verse ignored? “I am the way, the truth and the life; no man cometh unto the Father but by me.” John 14:6 The ENTIRE Bible, both O.T. and New Testament point to ONE figure for salvation: the Lord Jesus Christ! Yet, the Pope declares these people are “meeting God in different ways.” How can ANYONE that proclaims Christ as Lord & Savior defend the Pope’s lie??

The Pope declares: “In this crowd, in this range of religions. There is ONLY ONE CERTAINTY we have for all. We are ALL THE CHILDREN OF GOD.”

ONLY those that are sheep of the Shepherd are the “children of God.” Romans 8:14 declares:
“For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the Sons of God.” Does God’s Spirit lead people into Christ-denying, false, blasphemous religions? Romans 8:16: “The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God.” THOSE that have been regenerated by God’s Spirit are the children of God. Galatians 3:26 “For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.” “Faith” in Allah, in the Christ denying “faith” of the Jews, “faith” in Buddha, etc.?? FAITH only in Christ Jesus makes on a “child of God.”

 
RE: the "Pope Video."

There are so many LIES portrayed in this short video, it is difficult to cover them in detail due to the limited space available on this blog.
(continued)

On the video, each declare “I believe in love.” This is the false “love” of humanism, that excludes “love” for the ONLY WAY …. The Lord Jesus Christ!

The “love” these people are referring to is one that is directly opposed to Jesus Christ being Lord over their lives. ALL people deny the truth, because their deeds are evil. John 3:19 declares this to be true: “And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil.” TRUE seekers of truth and light will be led to the Lord Jesus Christ by God’s Holy Spirit. People that are not seekers of truth and light, will remain, by their own will, in spiritual darkness! This is precisely the function of ALL of the Christ-denying religions of the world. It is also why the “world” hates the true Lord Jesus Christ, the King of Kings, of Holy Scriptures.

In this video, the Pope is implying the need to unite the false religions of the world.

Grant and (thankfully) others on this blog see this and have eloquently “defended the faith once delivered unto the saints” in their written comments. Thank God for this “cloud of witnesses” that are not afraid to declare the truth!

 
Ray, I get what you are trying to say. But you have to admit, that the road map that most evangelicals use to present the gospel is to get people to recite "the sinner's prayer", and then next is to plug them in to a Bible-believing church (or better, if you led them to say the prayer, then you disciple them one on one), so the new "convert" is then given spiritual food from scriptures to grow them into mature believers.

This is fine and good, as long as their conversion was REAL, and a turning away from living for the self, and to living by the Spirit, which is contrary to the flesh and self. How many obtain that? It CAN happen at the moment of praying that prayer, but doesn't always, and indeed it appears (through various studies and surveys and such) that many who go through the motions of reciting the sinner's prayer because of an *emotional* response, are still not truly converted. And sadly, I would guess that there are some who are even "plugged in" to an apostate church! Hopefully for the true soul winner that is not the case.

My point is, if one's faith is founded solely on an emotional response to a heart-felt plea, but is not then backed up with something further - works, then their faith is dead - it was stillborn. And for some out there, ANY AND EVERY systemic belief system that contains works as part of its fundamentals is suspect in their eyes, and is cause for derision. That is not scriptural.

"Faith without works is dead."

Emotional response is one of the PRIMARY factors of the coming deception and delusion! That is important to realize. There must be a religious "system" of some kind in place to safeguard from emotionalism and feelings. It can be just the Bible in combination with the Holy Spirit. But it can also be those plus other structural things as well, such as creeds, collections of hymns of the faith, various writings by giants of the faith, recitations, and other liturgical practices. The totality of these things taken together provides the strongest haven for "keeping the faith".

We aren't supposed to just "accept Christ" and then that's it - we coast along as we please until it's time to enter His presence. I know you aren't suggesting that. But your method for bringing in converts tends to put people into that kind of mindset more so than others. (And I won't even get into the whole discussion of who really "brings them in" anyway - is it the result of our efforts, or is it the Holy Spirit? Actually, it's a combination of both - but our part is one based in humility to be sure...)

The true Christian is saved by faith, but that faith expresses itself in visible works, not for man's sake, but as an outer expression of an inner change.

"Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed -- not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence -- continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to His good purpose." (Phil. 2:12-13)

 
Ray, I agree completely with what you say here:

"The “love” these people are referring to is one that is directly opposed to Jesus Christ being Lord over their lives. ALL people deny the truth, because their deeds are evil. John 3:19 declares this to be true: “And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil.” TRUE seekers of truth and light will be led to the Lord Jesus Christ by God’s Holy Spirit. People that are not seekers of truth and light, will remain, by their own will, in spiritual darkness! This is precisely the function of ALL of the Christ-denying religions of the world. It is also why the “world” hates the true Lord Jesus Christ, the King of Kings, of Holy Scriptures."

What people say these days when they say they believe in "love" is that they believe in anything that lets them live their lives on THEIR terms, not God's, because anyone who really loves them would let them have their own way. It's a self-love they believe in, not the kind of sacrificial love Christ called us to.

I guess I would be happy if you would agree that just because the leaders of a particular religion, especially Christian ones (Catholicism specifically), are spreading error, doesn't mean that all adherents to that religion in the local churches are necessarily living in darkness and are therefore deceived. If they have been led by the Holy Spirit to Jesus Christ for their salvation, and are living that out, then it doesn't necessarily follow that they must join the nearest Baptist (or whatever) church, and leave the one they are in. Obviously, that doesn't hold for someone who was attending something like "Buddha's House of Satan", but when it is quite a bit LESS obvious, what do we say? Where are they supposed to go? Maybe God wants them where they are at to be salt and light. Light shines brightest when there is darkness all around, and where they are at is where the greatest need lies. But I say to you with as much certainty as I can muster, there are Catholic churches (I've been in some) where the light of the REAL Jesus is what is all around, not the darkness of the world, and not the false light of a false Jesus.

Maybe those are in the minority. But look at the megachurches in the evangelical world. Can you say these are any less compromised by darkness or false light than Catholic churches? No, you can't. The entire Church of Jesus Christ, in whatever setting it finds itself, is being massively overrun with false teachings and error.

And this is what the Bible tells us it would be like in the days of His coming. So when I hear people talking about Great Revivals about to take place, my radar starts going off!

 
Speaking of the coming deception, here's an excellent article by a sister named Tricia Tillin:

https://bannerministries.wordpress.com/2016/08/07/can-you-withstand-the-subtle-deception/

I've read it twice now - there's lots of good stuff in there to digest.

She also has a HUGE archive of material on deception and false teachings - Word of Faith, MSOG, NAR, etc. I highly recommend digging around in her archives. I've not seen a better-organized collection, really.

 
Marko ...

I agree in large part to what you are saying, and can appreciate the fact that you put thought, time and effort in posting this.

Allow me to expound on several themes that you have drawn attention to.

First, I am not an Evangelical, and have ALWAYS opposed the use of the "sinner's prayer." As a very young Christian, I often went "door to door" with my Pastor on Saturdays (often in the "ghetto" of a major city). He was an Evangelical Pastor, and would ALWAYS use the "sinner's prayer." After these people were coaxed into repeating the "words," he would assure them that they were "born again." Not once did anyone ever express any "change" had occurred, even though he assured them that they were now "born again." Amazingly, we typically would leave their home to go to the next one, and he ALWAYS would shake his head and tell me "no way ... it wasn't real, etc." I TOTALLY reject these methods, because, at best, they produce "converts" to a religion, and not to Christ.

I strongly hold to the conviction that the Bible teaches God's Sovereignty, and that includes His work in the process of saving a person. God must intervene, because mankind is not spiritually "wounded," they are DEAD spiritually. "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither CAN HE KNOW THEM, because they are spiritually discerned." I Corinthians 2:14 The way I always approach this when speaking with people is to encourage them to "read the Bible without comment from anyone, and humbly plead with God to show them the truth." Why? Because "faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God." It is entirely up to God to convert and provide the spiritual "increase" (I Corinthians 3:5,6), it is only our duty to point the Way.
 
LOL Ray... I think I'm going to stop posting for a while, because we are cross-posting.

I hope you can see the value of things other than just reading the Word, and asking the Holy Spirit for help. Those are sufficient, surely, for salvation. But for the keeping of that faith and strengthen it even more, don't you think God established here on Earth other safeguards, administered by fallible men through whom an infallible God works?

 
Marko ...

RE: your post @ 1:18 PM

You and I are in far more agreement than you might think.

God's TRUE "universal" (i.e. "catholic") church is a spiritual one made up by those that have been truly called, chosen and redeemed through Jesus Christ. I know many, many "Evangelicals," "Bible-believing Baptists," etc. that hold to "beliefs" and live lives that are in direct conflict with the Scriptures. I've known "pastors" of this ilk that were driven out of their pulpits due to theft of church funds, adultery, addiction to pornography, etc. Apostasy and disobedience is unfortunately very common in the times were are in.

As to you statement re: "light" found in Catholic churches that you have attended being "all around." I cannot in any way accept that. Why? Because their "Christ" remains one that must continue to be sacrificed in the Mass for sin, and eaten (the Eucharist)on an ongoing basis by those in a "state of grace" in order to be "received." THIS IS NOT THE CHRIST of the Bible ... it is a false Christ.

Are there "Christians" in the Catholic Church? Yes, there most certainly are. And as the Spirit of God continues to teach them, they will eventually leave that abomination.

In my business, I came across many, many Catholic people that treated me with the utmost respect, of which I developed many long-time friendships. Two were twin-brother attorneys, in which the three of us had many long sessions of conversations re: current events ... but mainly "religious" topics. Incidentally, both of these men were 90 years young when they retired, and both were life-long devout Catholics. More often than not, they were quite amazed by what I relayed to them regarding what the Bible actually taught. Not once did we ever get into an argument re: Catholicism vs Bible Christianity. Instead, I simply declared, over and over again. that forgiveness was found only in simple belief in Jesus Christ, and not in any "system."

One important point: of the literally hundreds of Roman Catholics I have known in my life time, I do not know of a single one that ever expressed to me a firm confidence in "going to heaven." The reason for this? THEIR church puts an "anathema" upon anyone that "presumes" to be going to heaven. Their church also proclaims that when they die, they will go to "Purgatory" in order to pay for their "Venial" sins! In other words, Christ's blood sacrifice was NOT sufficient to pay for those "little" sins!

THAT is NOT the Christ of the Bible. That is a "christ" of their own invention ... a false christ is there ever was one!

 
Marko said @ 1:36 PM ...

"I hope you can see the value of things other than just reading the Word, and asking the Holy Spirit for help."

Marko,

You don't know me very well. LOL!
 
“What comes into our minds when we think about God is the most important thing about us. The history of mankind will probably show that no people has ever risen above its religion, and man’s spiritual history will positively demonstrate that no religion has ever been greater than its idea of God. Worship is pure or base as the worshiper entertains high or low thoughts of God.

For this reason the gravest question before the Church is always God Himself, and the most portentous fact about any man is not what he at a given time may say or do, but what he in his deep heart conceives God to be like. We tend by a secret law of the soul to move toward our mental image of God. This is true not only of the individual Christian, but of the company of Christians that composes the Church. Always the most revealing thing about the Church is her idea of God.”

–A.W. Tozer, The Knowledge of the Holy
Honestly, then...
The holier the understanding that one holds of God is, the more sin is a big deal.
The holier the understanding that one holds of God is, the more all other anything is a great big nothing.
The Bible says everyone, everything cries holy, holy, holy before God on His throne.

We know what the first and greatest commandment is, right? So do we really understand that the Lord has absolutely no competition???

The devil wants all lines blurred about this so God is diminished, because he exalted himself to make himself equal to God. Proud people foolishly do the same, and exalt their own ideas and ways. It got Lucifer kicked out of heaven, and since he hates what God loves, he aims for the same scenario for us...banishment from God. The devil smiles when Christ Jesus is not magnified.


So we either magnify God, or we magnify other.

The pope's dumbed-down, diminished, tarnished understanding of God works well for the "other" (and globalists love him for it).
 
Constance:

We have yet to read your critique of the Official Vatican Video ...

Constance, perhaps you would kindly take the time to actually view this video(1 minutes, 31 seconds) in order to give us your own detailed, personal thoughts. Seeing the video is far more powerful, regarding the message that it is attempting to convey, than simply reading the dialogue provided by Susanna.

Most in here are of the belief that this video is very New Age/COEXIST, etc. The Vatican leads 1.2 billion members and influences far more via the media of the "world." This video's message is far too important to ignore.


 
Hi RayB

I quoted Latin earlier because it is the language revered by high Roman Catholics fornally as the language of the priests.
(Bizzare really given the New Testament is written in Greek)

My quote was..

"Contra principia negantem non est disputandum"
 in English "Against one who denies the principles, there can be no debate"
It holds in order to debate reasonably about a disagreement, there must be agreement about the principles or facts by which to judge the arguments.

Because it appears that Catholics don't hold to Sola Scripture they have a circular arguement, we base our principles for all matters of doctrine in Gods Word, they don't and add other channels of revelation which are considered co equal or superior to.
So when we say "thus or that" is not right according to Gods Word they merely come back to the position that they do not and will not accept Gods Word as the final a superior authority.

Read Acts 17 ... this blog thread just seems to be almost an Acts 17 moment.

Regards,
Grant


 
Constance wont comment because it will lessen her chances of invites to be able to address Catholics about the new age.
 
6:40 PM: or perhaps the priest will refuse her communion next time she turns up for mass!
 
paul said "This is definitely the most compact posting by you yet, Constance."
you imply criticism of Constance's highly informative because detailed posts by praising her for keeping it short? are you going to start telling her to trim her valuable lectures?

RayB works is Mosaic Torah (=law) circumcision food sabbath etc. read Matt 24 last verses all Matt. 25. faith is STARTING POINT. good Bible critique of video. btw faith and prayer are works.

video - statue buddha not hindu, implied syncretism type apostasy. Pope's other words don't matter video stands on its own by viewers. http://realnews247.com/pope_leo_vision_1884.htm success infiltrating the top shows that the charism RC thinks it has is more nuanced than it thinks. redefining ex cathedra to near nonexistence shows they don't trust it. ""Pope Francis... did not say ...that "one religion is as good as another."" BUT THAT IS EXACTLY THE MESSAGE ONE GETS VISUALLY/ VERBAL IMPLICATIONS.

"...salvation is exclusively in Christ... whether the non-Christian happens to think so or not on this side of eternity" does NOT teach salvation without Christ. "... echoes that teaching in the video" NO, he leaves Christ out as key operator. Christ approaching one after death per I Peter 3:18-29; 4:6 is better than Susanna's explanation. define salvation: into God's kingdom? or just from the worst? Matt. 11:23 INTERESTING SELF CONTRADICTION BY RC (I have no opinion re this Marian visionary, only that the criticism is questionable.)

"...alleged ... miracle of the Eucharist fallen from heaven [contradicts] Catholic Church [ doctrine] that ... only through the legitimately ordained priest's consecration does the sacrament of the Eucharist begin to exist ... even though the priest is in grave sin, because when all the sacraments are justly celebrated in accordance with the intention of the Church..., Christ and His Holy Spirit operate in them...[two catechism cites] "

Maybe a priest in heaven, or Jesus Himself the High Priest consecrated it? Fatima is approved but includes the partaking of a eucharist presented by an angel.

"...phenomenon, that as soon as Mrs. Julia Youn received the Eucharist it was changed into a lump of bloody flesh in her mouth ... contrary to the doctrine of the Catholic Church...that even after the bread and wine are transubstantiated into the body and blood of Christ...the species of bread and wine remain (cf. Pope Paul VI's Mysterium Fidei; DS. 782,802,1321,1640-1643,1652)."

is species a correct translation? seems like denying full transubstantiation change of substance or SPECIES. more like consubstantiation one early church writer believed.

"Such phenomena do not enhance the faith of people in the Eucharist existing under the species of bread and wine. On the contrary, they seem to act as an element which causes a great confusion and embarrasses the peoples' faith in the Eucharist."

This would invalidate all Eucharistic Miracles approved throughout the ages incl. Lanciano (pre schism) flesh and blood bishop supposedly has charism to determine if visions etc. are divine or not, yet rejects Eucharistic Miracles. And yes it does enhance the faith by testimony to the real presence of Jesus' flesh and blood.

(Eastern Orthodox speaks of transformation, earliest writers said some bread and wine remained, though the tiniest particle was intermixed with Jesus' Flesh and Blood, this is treated as a Mystery like the Incarnation itself which cannot be fully understood, though it can be understood that Jesus is BOTH 100% human and AND 100% divine neither nature changed by the other.)

 
It's not a week yet, Crétin! That's your one post for the week done for the next 10 days then (nonsense and without substance as usual)!

Unlike you, MCE, even Susanna isn't promoting shacking up in sinful union with an "ex" Satanist co-fornicator nor is she promoting worshiping such an obvuously demon-possesed, degenerate and occult dabbling individual as her "Resident Seer"... yet! We'll have to wait and see if the pope sanctions such evil behavior as 'acceptable' and 'approvable', some of which ... being immersed in witchcraft ... his two predecessors did at Assisi 1986 and 2011!

However, I am confident Constance would then claim such to be 'at least mildly off-course!

Still, I see you're banking in breaching your one post a week limit by posting the highly offensive and falsely accusing comments against Paul and Ray B... after which, no doubt your intention is to breach , breach and breach again till you're back jamming by posting New Age gnostic crap 80 times a day and derailing the blog for yet another five years or more!

Now, so it doesn't get lost in the shuffle , here's Ray B's highly important request for Constance to give us her detailed critique on the COEXIST New Age video of Francis Aka Jorge Mario Bergoglio:

"Constance:

The Vatican Video in question is 1 minute, 31 seconds in length. Please take the time to watch it and let us know what you think on this extremely important issue."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nq7us5Lf5IU


 
Christine,
What the heck are you saying now?
My comment was obviously a small joke
since there is nothing posted at all under that last heading.

But hey, whatever gives you a chance to bloviate and attack
others on this blog and particularly the ones who have
called you out on you endless stream of B.S.

You are a liar and a jammer on this blog.
You sow confusion and you will reap a
whirlwind.
 
Well said, Paul! Thankfully that's her last post this week... even then she's about 3 days premature in posting.

In view of your comments to MCE:

"You are a liar and a jammer on this blog.
You sow confusion and you will reap a
whirlwind."

Let's hope it's one of those firenadoes we've been hearing about!
 
Now, so it doesn't get lost in the shuffle , here's Ray B's highly important request for Constance to give us her detailed critique on the COEXIST New Age video of Francis Aka Jorge Mario Bergoglio:

"Constance:

The Vatican Video in question is 1 minute, 31 seconds in length. Please take the time to watch it and let us know what you think on this extremely important issue."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nq7us5Lf5IU
 
Nor are the pope's COEXIST New Agey ads (of which Susanna has given her applauding approval, and Constance sees as, "at least mildly synchronistic...") quite at the level of Olde Mick Tinge's "ad", which was allegedly posted here by MCE then swiftly deleted once she'd allegedly realised such error in posting it here! Yet if the pope were to post such an "ad" Susanna might only be too pleased in lauding such too, especially if such were then included in the RC Catechism. .. after all, Sola Scriptura is not her "rule of thumb"!
 
Anon. 10:12

Your posts add as much value to this forum as MCE's. Maybe you should be limited to one per week as well.

Just sayin'.
 
Hi Grant,

Re: your post at 6:28 PM ...

I read your post as well as the earlier one in which you stated:

"Contra principia negantem non est disputandum" in English "Against one who denies the principles, there can be no debate"

Your understanding of the problem we face when attempting to dialogue with Roman Catholics (others as well ... Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, etc.) is quite profound.
I have personally experienced this virtually every time when discussing what the Bible has to say on a variety of subjects. I'm almost always met with "well ... the Bible was written by men" or "you wouldn't have the Bible without the Catholic Church" etc.

What is important to realize is that the Catholic church MUST hold to the position that the Scriptures are insufficient for all matters regarding faith and practice. The reason? Because the Scriptures and Catholic Catechism/Tradition is more often than not, in direct conflict with each other. The two systems simply cannot be reconciled; either the Bible is true and Roman Catholicism is false, or vice versa.

I run into this exact same problem when talking with Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses. They simply will NOT bow to the authority of what the Bible clearly declares.

As to whether or not Roman Catholicism holds to Sola Scriptura, I can assure you that they absolutely do not. They use Scripture, typically out of context, and "explain" its meaning via the Magisterium (their teaching authority), along with ever changing "traditions" that are declared and justified by their "apostolic" chain of authority. This is how they are able to "evolve" by adding, changing doctrines and dogmas as time goes on. For example, the "Immaculate Conception" (many falsely think this refers to Christ's conception) refers to that of Mary, and is a relatively new doctrine, along with her "Bodily Assumption into Heaven" (1954 I believe). Of course, NOTHING in Scripture supports these claims ... but who needs Scripture?

There are so many false teachings held by Rome that it literally is a depressing study on how far off they are from the clear teachings of Christ and the Bible. The "Pope Video" really should not come as much of a surprise. In it, they virtually unite with false, Christ-denying "religions." How are they able to do this? By DENYING the Christ of the Bible themselves via their doctrines & dogmas.


 
(continued)

Notice the importance the "truth" ("thy word is truth") and God's Word is in the following passages. In fact, as stated in verse 47 of John 8, Jesus is clearly stating that those that are "of God" will HEAR God's words. Obviously, those that DO NOT hear God's Word, are NOT OF GOD.

I have known literally HUNDREDS of practicing Roman Catholics in my lifetime. I have never ... NEVER .... met a single one that would bow to the authority of God's Word when it conflicts with their Roman Catholic teachings.

“And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.” John 8:45

“He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.” John 8:47

“Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” John 8:31, 32

 
To Anonymous @ 9:46 AM ...

We have to be patient with Constance. She hasn't had time to review the Pope Video and write her critique.

I'm sure her detailed, written critique of the COEXIST/New Age Pope Video will be forthcoming.

Here's the link to the video in question:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nq7us5Lf5IU
 
Grant ...

RE: "Read Acts 17 ... this blog thread just seems to be almost an Acts 17 moment."

I did in fact read Acts Chap. 17 last night and agree with you. Why can't professed followers of Christ simply follow the example of the believers in Berea: "These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that THEY RECEIVED THE WORD WITH ALL READINESS OF MIND, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so." Acts 17:11

Man-made religion benefits men. Man-made religion ALWAYS hates God's Word, because it is God's Word that will shine the light upon them to expose their evil deeds. Man-made religion is typified by the "love of money," by their love of praise from men, by the outward "respect" they receive from the world ... they are typically "men-pleasers" instead of God-pleasers, etc. Often popular with the world that hates Christ, these wolves in sheep's clothing are receiving their full reward NOW ... but will be shocked to their core when Christ commands them to "be gone from me, ye workers of iniquity, I never knew you."

 
I'm a little late on this thread but- I wish I could say I'm surprised with Constance's respond to Christine, but I'm not- not even a little bit.

By saying that she would not want to lose out on something important that Christine might have to offer......out of the MANY posts that are ALL TOO FREQUENT.

If you put a teaspoon of poison in your coffee- and stir it around....it then becomes impossible to drink just the coffee!

If someone new dropped in on this blog- they would see Christine's link to her blog along with the other sites that Constance endorses. And that is exactly what it is- an endorsement.

Wake up people!! Stop ripping Christine for posting too frequently about some questionable material. You should not be concerned about schmoozing it up with Constance- she is responsible for allowing it.

I've seen too many times when people rip Christine.....but.....at the same time- adore Constance hoping to remain on her good side.

I've said before- with most threads having 200+ posts- and many that are 300- 400- 500+ and 50-75% of the posts coming from Christine. It looks to me that It makes Constance feel like her blog is relevant again.

Again.........wake up people! Constance is the one endorsing Christine.
 
Christine 3:02

Re:"...phenomenon, that as soon as Mrs. Julia Youn received the Eucharist it was changed into a lump of bloody flesh in her mouth ... contrary to the doctrine of the Catholic Church...that even after the bread and wine are transubstantiated into the body and blood of Christ...the species of bread and wine remain (cf. Pope Paul VI's Mysterium Fidei; DS. 782,802,1321,1640-1643,1652)."

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

FYI, Julia (Kim) Youn of Naju, Korea is a fraud and has been excommunicated.
 
"FYI, Julia (Kim) Youn of Naju, Korea is a fraud and has been excommunicated."

Reply

FHI, so is MCE (Jestina) Erikson of Rocklin, CA... she too should be excommunicated!
 
Revealed: George Soros’ War on Israel

August 18, 2016 4:47 am

http://www.algemeiner.com/2016/08/18/revealed-george-soros-war-on-israel/#
 
Thanks Susanna for the 6:49 PM post. Very timely.
And Chritine's post astounds at how low and gross she'll go to make her "beliefs" work. She has not actually connected a biblical dot yet.
This is only real in her dreams, in her sick mind.
 
Anonymous 9:12 PM,

I repeat what the 11:58 AM response to your 10:12 AM post:

Your posts add as much value to this forum as MCE's. Maybe you should be limited to one per week as well.

Just sayin'.
 
Susanne,

Are you saying that the pope speaks against the Hindu but not the Buddhist? Why?
Have you ever gone to a Buddhist temple when they are having their full-blown worship service? I have.
It is powerful, with them all speaking in tongues in their high worship and ecstasy..... and also very very very evil.
So the pontiff is picking and choosing winners and losers for ecumenism?

The imagery in this video is what is telling the story here.
I do not think one can separate the words of the pontiff from the imagery displayed in the video.
The pope is seen venerating and touching the icons, idols and relics of pagan and other religions.

2 Corinthians 6:16, 17
And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; ..........
Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,

In the video we see the Pope Francis venerating the 'unclean thing'...... the Lord will apparently NOT receive such a one!

Deuteronomy 12:30
Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou inquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods?


The bible forbids having dialog with the heathen about their gods. Yet in the video we see the imagery of the pope with the Buddhist monks with their idol.....touching the very 'unclean thing' is contrary to God's law and he will be 'cut off' according to scripture.

The imagery of the religious bringing their symbols of their faith is also interesting. The imagery is telling us there are 4 ways to one God. Watch the video without words and you will see a totally different message; than from what the pope isn't saying, yet implying.

Here's the link to the video in question:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nq7us5Lf5IU

 
This blog is having the general information. Got a creative work and this is very different one. We have to develop our creativity mind. This blog helps for this. Thank you for this blog. this is very interesting and useful.
Web Designing Training in Chennai

 
"Just sayin'."

All of us are just sayin'.

Let it work itself out. If she is creating issue, even once a week, anybody can say so.
Extra nasty isn't needed to say it but let others see it and call it what they want.
 
Hi, 10:18 AM,

yes that 11:58 AM with their unjust 'just sayin(')s' really is nasty.

Should be that anonymous banned for a lot more than a week ... obviously another one of those New Agey COEXIST types!
 
Dan,

Re: Are you saying that the pope speaks against the Hindu but not the Buddhist? Why?

You know very well that I said no such thing. Not only that, but I have already explained on more than one occasion my Catholic obligations as they relate to the Pope. I am not about to take up space here on Constance's blog repeating it again.

If you do not acknowledge the authority of the Pope, fine and dandy. I respect your choice even though I do not happen to agree with it. I, on the other hand, do not acknowledge the authority of "sola scriptura" which I regard as unbiblical because the Bible does not teach "sola scriptura." But unlike the pope-bashers, I am not obsessed with trying every other minute to convince them that they are wrong and I am right. The reason why is because I do not need their approval as a condition for my own certainty of faith and they have not been able to successfully make their case for Sola Scriptura. Or for private interpretation. I regard both as "man made traditions" invented by Martin Luther who later regretted his inventions because of the spiritual anarchy which resulted. By the time he regretted what he had done, however, it was too late.

That said, I will point out that while Hinduism is polytheistic, Buddhism, in the words of Pope John Paul II, is “in large measure an atheistic system.” I have researched both myself and have concluded that when all is said and done, neither is compatible with Christianity.

I don't know what type of Buddhism you have seen, but the type of Buddhism that I find most disturbing is certain aspects of Tibetan Buddhism which involve the occult and have been incorporated into the sinister occult groups which were founded in the nineteenth century - especially in France - and which represent what the late Msgr. Leon Christiani called "modern forms of Satanism." ( See EVIDENCE OF SATAN IN THE MODRN WORLD ) Especially the Ordo Templi Orientis which was once headed by Aleister Crowley, is still around in our own time, and whose "magick" incorporates tantric rituals (a.k.a. "sex magick" in its most perverted forms).

Pope Francis' focus in his interreligious dialogue is not about religious syncretism or "converting" people. Only the Holy Spirit can "convert anyone.

His is a new, practical approach to interreligious dialogue and marks a shift from the more traditional religious discussions aimed at mutual knowledge and understanding to a greater emphasis on planned collaboration for social projects.

It is not to be forgotten that the Second Commandment given to us by Christ after the First Commandment ( i.e. Love of God above all things ) is to "love our neighbor as ourselves" out of love for God. True social justice is little more than love of neighbor writ large. Just because the Marxists have tried to hijack the idea of "social justice" as a disguise for their "social injustices," vis a vis ideologies disguised as Christianity such as "liberation theology ( which has about as little to do with liberation as it has to do with theology), that doesn't mean that we, as Christians, are therefore "off the hook" in terms of our obligation to love our neighbor as ourselves in a practical way......as opposed to merely paying it lip service.

There are light years of difference between the voluntary social justice of the Gospels which is defined in terms of "love your neighbor"..... and the so-called involuntary "social justice" mandated by Karl Marx in terms of "the class struggle" which translates into "hate your neighbor" and violence.

cont.
 
cont.

Re:The bible forbids having dialog with the heathen about their gods. Yet in the video we see the imagery of the pope with the Buddhist monks with their idol.....touching the very 'unclean thing' is contrary to God's law and he will be 'cut off' according to scripture.

That is incorrect. The story of Cornelius, the first gentile convert to Christianity in ACTS 10:1-16,24-48 represents the beginning of a new dispensation....the expiration of Israel's seventy weeks of exclusive favor. Here we see the image of the first pope Peter in the face of the gentiles and their idols. And Peter, with all the prejudice belonging to the Jews for centuries, needed to be prepared to receive this first out-and-out Gentile brought into the Church. This was done by means of a vision. In his vision, Peter saw animals that, according to Jewish laws, could not be eaten. A voice told him to eat what he saw, but he answered, “Certainly not, sir. For never have I eaten anything profane or unclean.”

The voice replied, “What God has made clean, you are not to call profane.” Three times this happened. As Peter was wondering what the strange vision meant , the voice said to him, “There are three men here looking for you. So get up, go downstairs, and accompany them without hesitation, because I have sent them.”

Peter went with the men to the home of Cornelius. Cornelius told Peter about the visitation by the angel. Then Peter understood the meaning of his own vision, so he said to Cornelius and the members of his household, “In truth, I see that God shows no partiality. Rather, in every nation whoever fears him and acts uprightly is acceptable to him.” Peter summarized how Jesus came to earth and was crucified and rose again, and that Peter had been a witness to all of those things.

While Peter was speaking, the Holy Sprit came down upon those who were hearing him, and they began to glorify God. The men who had accompanied Peter were amazed that the glory of God had now been given to the Gentiles as well. Cornelius and many others were baptized that day.
 

Susanna says to Dan @ 12:56 PM ...

"That said, I will point out that while Hinduism is polytheistic, Buddhism, in the words of Pope John Paul II, is “in large measure an atheistic system.” I have researched both myself and have concluded that when all is said and done, neither is compatible with Christianity."

This is (AGAIN) a very revealing statement by Susanna. She actually had to "research" Hinduism and Buddhism in order to arrive at the well-researched "conclusion" that these two PAGAN religions are not "compatible with Christianity."

Susanna ... Please state ANY non-Christian "religions" that ARE "compatible" with Christianity.

This is the same "Susanna" that Constance heaps boat loads of praise for her amazing research! Incredible!
 
RayB,

Actually your statement is very revealing. It reveals more evil things about you than it does about me. I was here minding my own business when you began your ignorant rants about the Pope.

Is this to take the focus off your own bogus and deceptive "messianic Judaism" and your pagan "millennium" headed by your own fake Christ???? Another thing I am researching is the Soros connection to creatures like YOU in his attempt to undermine Israel!!! I have already unearthed a couple of revealing documents which I am not going to post here just yet.

Re: Susanna ... Please state ANY non-Christian "religions" that ARE "compatible" with Christianity.

That one is easy. YOURS!!!!
 
Susanna,

Re Thomas Merton, thought you might find the following of interest -- his correspondence with Matthew Fox:

American Dominican whose books on creation-centered
spirituality have become popular in recent years, wrote to Merton about graduate
studies. According to Fox, this letter convinced his Superiors to send him to Paris.

January 23, 1967
I'll do my best to answer your questions. Unfortunately I am not too
well informed as to what is available academically in this country. The
first place that comes to my mind is the Institut Catholique in Paris.
However I know that you ought to be able to get good comparative religion
cour es at places like Columbia and Harvard. My line is Buddhism more
than Hinduism and I know there have been good Buddhist teachers at
both these places.
For information I suggest you also write Dom Aelred Graham at
Portsmouth Priory, Rhode Island, who is pretty well up on all this. If
you get a chance, by all means go to India. You could spend some time
at the Ashram of Dom Bede Griffiths in Kerala (Kurisumala Ashram,
Vaghamon P.O., Peermade, S. India). He too will provide information I
am sure. There are plenty of Yoga schools in India, like the Yoga Vedanta
Academy at Rishikesh, somewhere in the north. I don't know the exact
address.
Nearer home, in Montreal, there is the R. M. Bucke Memorial
Society, at McGill University, specializing in comparative spirituality.
They might be the most helpful at this point.
Your general direction seems good: but where is Mystical and Ascetical
Theology on your program? I don't think History of Spirituality
covers it well enough. Maybe you include it in moral. If I can dig up a
set of notes for the course I gave in "Mystical and Ascetical Theology,"
I'll send it along. Admittedly, one has to start all that from scratch. The
Tanquerey approach just won't do. My own stuff is out of date after five
or six years.
You can do a great deal by reading the right books. The Bucke Society
can keep you in touch with the new literature.
I am glad you are going to work on spiritual theology. The prejudice
in some Catholic quarters against mysticism is a bit strange, when outside
the Church there is such an intense and ill regulated hunger for and
curiosity about spiritual experience (what with LSD and all that). I do
think we are lying down on the job when we leave others to investigate
mysticism while we concentrate on more "practical" things. What people
want of us, after all, is the way to God.
I wish you luck in your search. Pray for me here in the woods. I feel
very fortunate to have found what I was looking for. I keep you in my
prayers. God be with you in everything.

P. 327, Merton, The School of Charity Letters, p. 327

More, shortly

Constance
 
Re: Are you saying that the pope speaks against the Hindu but not the Buddhist? Why?

You know very well that I said no such thing. Not only that, but I have already explained on more than one occasion my Catholic obligations as they relate to the Pope. I am not about to take up space here on Constance's blog repeating it again.

Susanna, I was not saying that you said this, I was asking a question. I was saying that the video was depicting this, although you did bring up the incompatibility of the Hindu. I understand your religious obligations. It is such a burden for anyone to have to carry.


 
Susanna, after finding this, I got my hands on some of Aelred's books as well -- pretty "interesting" to say the least.

Constance
 
For the record, the letters were copyrighted in 1990 by the Merton Legacy Trust and were first published in 1990 by Farrar, Straus & Giroux, Inc. The edition I quote from was published by Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers (Orlando FL - 1993)
 

A fine example of the Official Cumbey Research Expert going completely unhinged by attacking Biblical Christianity:

Susanna said to RayB @ 1:57 PM ...

"RayB,

"Actually your statement is very revealing. It reveals more evil things about you than it does about me. I was here minding my own business when you began your ignorant rants about the Pope."

"Is this to take the focus off your own bogus and deceptive "messianic Judaism" and your pagan "millennium" headed by your own fake Christ???? Another thing I am researching is the Soros connection to creatures like YOU in his attempt to undermine Israel!!! I have already unearthed a couple of revealing documents which I am not going to post here just yet."

Susanna then goes on to say to RayB re: my request: ... "Please state ANY non-Christian "religions" that ARE "compatible" with Christianity."

Susanna says in answer to state which non-Christian religions that are compatible with Christianity"

"That one is easy. YOURS!!!!"

Grab a hold of that one folks. Susanna is stating that BIBLICAL, CHRIST-CENTERED CHRISTIANITY is a "non-Christian religion."

1:57 PM
 
Susanna ....

For the record and for all to see ... please copy and paste my "ignorant rants about the Pope."

This should be interesting. LOL!

PS: don't hold your breath folks ... we'll see Susanna's proof of my "ignorant rants about the Pope" around the same time we will read Constance's detailed critique of the infamous, COEXIST/New Age Pope Video (see below link).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nq7us5Lf5IU
 
Susanna ...

While conducting your "research" in order to copy and paste my "ignorant rants about the Pope," PLEASE ... also copy and paste any statement I HAVE EVER MADE on this blog, or any other blog, etc., that illustrates, as you say, my adherence to "messianic Judaism" (whatever that means ... I have no idea).

While you are at it, also copy and paste ANYTHING where I have (as you state "creatures like you") have "undermined Israel."

While you are at it again ... please copy and paste anything, that is even remotely close to me supporting as you so eloquently put it, a; "pagan "millennium" headed by your own fake Christ."

Seriously, Susanna ... you really need to have some proof before making these types of wild assertions. Otherwise, your credibility (what's left of it) will be even more diminished.

You being Constance Cumbey's favorite poster here is beginning to paint a very interesting, and revealing picture!
 
I don't understand why Susanna, and Constance, for that matter, don't voice real concern over that official video of Pope Francis. Susanna just gave a long detoured answer, not a straight and simple one. There is much more to condemn in it than praise, that's for certain.
It reeks of the anti-christ spirit.
I posted that video right here on this blog several months ago, and have yet to hear a real simple take on it from either one, and certainly Constance has had time by now to see it. It did not get looked at much at the time (a certain main dis-traction was ram-rodding the blog then) so maybe it got lost during the teabury shuffle over here. Thanks for reposting it RayB.

It should have rung alarms bells. So why hasn't it?
 
Constance,2:13 PM

Bede Griffiths, a Benedictine monk and priest who became a noted yogi and was part of the "Christian Ashram Movment" is another interesting New Age -leaning character. While the following is from a Catholic perspective, I think that you will find several points of agreement. The author of the following article has a problem with Griffith's notion that traditional Chrisitanity has to be made into something other than what it is in order to be palatable to the Hindus and Orientals. While traditional Catholic theologians have made a clear distinction between natural philosophy and sacred theology, Hindus do not.

Philosophically, I am an Aristotelian. Theologically, I am a Thomist. In Roman Catholicism a clear distinction is made between natural philosophy which begins its deductive reasoning process with the axiomatic first principles of philosophy and sacred theology which begins its reasoning process with the revealed data of faith.

In philosophy, an axiom is a truth which requires no proof because it is self-evident. For example "The whole is always greater than any of its parts." These axioms are the truths which anchor the mind into reality and without this handful of truths that require no proof, we would not be able to prove anything else.

Hinduism makes no such distinction between natural philosophy and sacred theology. The reason why is because philosophically, Hinduism is MONIST and it consequently involves PANTHEISM.

CHRISTOPHER DAWSON AND DOM BEDE GRIFFITHS ON CATHOLIC EVANGELIZATION OF INDIA
John J. Mulloy

The death of Dom Bede Griffiths in May of this year, after many years of his living in India and adapting the Catholic ritual to Hindu symbols and readings from the religious texts of Hinduism, makes especially significant the letters which the Benedictine monk and Christopher Dawson wrote to The Catholic Herald of London back in 1956. These letters dealt with the idea of Dom Bede that Catholic missionary activity in India must be prepared to accept a great deal of Hindu spirituality if it was to have any impact on the Hindus.

The exchange was occasioned by Griffiths' review of Gilson's Unity of Philosophical Experience, Although I do not have the review, the nature of Dom Bede's position on philosophy in the West becomes clear in the course of the exchange.......

...."The fact that Indian philosophy is more religious than Greek philosophy does not necessarily male it more adaptable to Christianity. Sankara may seem closer to Christian theology than Aristotle is, but that is because he writes as a theologian as well as a philosopher, and his most important works are written in the form of a running commentary on sacred texts which he believes to have been divinely inspired.

"In other words the religion of the Vedas and the philosophy of the Vedantists form an organic whole, and you cannot switch the latter over to Christian theology without doing violence to both form and content. But in the case of Greek philosophy this difficulty does not arise. Aristotle wrote as a man of science not as a theologian expounding revealed dogmas, and consequently Christian theology has been able to make use of Greek philosophy, just as the modern Christian can make use of Western physical science.
......

cont...
 
cont...


In conclusion: It would seem that the contemporary Catholic approach to India is far better exemplified by the work of Mother Teresa of Calcutta than by the accommodation to Hindu theology and polytheistic religious practices exemplified by Dom Bede Griffiths. And it is clear that the work of Mother Teresa is inspired by the ideal of the corporal works of mercy which Christopher Dawson was giving voice to in the letter we have just quoted....

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/EVNINDIA.htm
_______________________________________________________________

Care also needs to be taken not to revert to extremes of Neo-Platonism in order to appeal to the Hindus. There are certain similarities between Platonic Idealism and Hinduism insofar as both tend to deny the reality of the material world.

Dom Bede's thinking, moreover, appears to be straight out of the Traditionalist School when he alludes to the Perennial Philosophy.

The issue which was central to the discussions was concerned with the Catholic evangelization of India, but as the discussion developed, it was by no means clear that Dom Bede favored evangelization. While Griffiths had spoken of the importance of contemplative wisdom and making use of Platonic elements in Christian thought, such as were found in the Greek Fathers and St. Augustine, it did not seem that he was at all anxious to make use of those to convert the Brahmins. Instead he was concerned with how he might incorporate a great deal of Hindu theology into Catholic thought. How much might be left of authentic Catholicism when this process was completed, was an issue he never really faced.

And HERE is the allusion to the Sophia Perennis. Eliade is mentioned:

Moreover, his claim that Hinduism and Buddhism were true religions, derived from a revelation made by God to mankind in the beginning, certainly seemed to make Catholic conversion of the Hindus quite unnecessary. Here is the way Dom Bede spoke of this fact concerning Indian religion:

"It concerns this question of the `truth' of Buddhism and Hinduism. The view which I expressed that they are essentially true religious is one to which I attach an extreme importance, and I would like to give you my reason for it. The doctrine on which I base this view is that there was an original `primitive revelations' given by God to man and that the tradition of this primitive revelation has never been lost. I derived from Eliade's comprehensive survey of all the existing evidence, that the existence of this tradition can be shown to underlie all the known religious of mankind.
.....read more....

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/EVNINDIA.htm
_____________________________________

This view is pagan, gnostic and heretical BY ALL AUTHENTIC CHRISTIAN STANDARDS!!!
 
P.S. Constance,

I have my friend the late Carrie Tomko to thank for my ability to recognize the perennial philosophy when I see it. It is a very subtle, pernicious error. I learned a lot from her on this particular topic.
 
Constance,

More on Bede Griffiths:

THE SWAMI FROM OXFORD

......Our underlying intuition is that Griffiths reflects a theosophical rather than a Christian point of view. Theosophy here can be discerned by three common characteristics. First, it posits that there is a transcendental unity behind all religions, and that their doctrinal and institutional features are only accidental. Second, it generally expresses itself in Western European languages, rather than Asian ones, and employs a vague and mystical sounding vocabulary to describe vaguely understood concepts of religions identified as "oriental." Third, it displays an ambivalence to what it calls "dualism," which it professes to despise while constantly employing dualistic polarities like East/West, rational/mystical.....read entire article....

http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3427
___________________________________________________




 
Constance,

Re: Dom Aelred Graham

Thomas Merton to Matthew Fox:

My line is Buddhism more than Hinduism and I know there have been good Buddhist teachers at both these places.
For information I suggest you also write Dom Aelred Graham at Portsmouth Priory, Rhode Island, who is pretty well up on all this.


*****************************
Dom Aelred Graham was the author of ZEN CATHOLICISM.



Merton's Correspondence with:

Fr. Aelred Graham, O.S.B.; Dom Francis Aelred Graham, O.S.B; Graham, Francis Aelred, Fr., O.S.B.


Graham, Aelred, Dom, O.S.B., 1907-1984

http://merton.org/Research/Correspondence/y1.aspx?id=797
________________________________________________________________


A Friendship With An Unpromising Start

This friendship (between Graham and Merton)was to bear fruit in one most significant way. It was Graham who made the introductions and provided the contacts for Merton’s Asian journey in 1968. Graham was an early pioneer of Christian inter-faith exploration and had travelled in India and Thailand. He was able to supply Merton with a range of contacts who would introduce him to the living Buddhism he longed to encounter. In his Asian Journal, Merton also notes that he was, at that time, reading Graham’s new book, Conversations: Christian and Buddhist, a collection of transcripts of conversations Graham had had with Buddhists in Japan. This book is significant in the development of Merton’s awareness of Japanese Buddhism as it represented a widening of his sources which had, for a long time, been dominated by the rather partial views of D.T. Suzuki. It is a great pity that Merton never made it as far as Japan on his journey....

https://pointvierge.wordpress.com/tag/thomas-merton/
 
Susanna,

I posted many examples of Holy Scripture showing that any and every passage in Holy Scripture must be contextually integral and harmonious with one another.

Nothing should be accepted as truth or acceptable to the Christian Faith if it goes against the integrity of the Holy Bible.

Your poor attempt at erecting strawmen by implying that such tenets as I have outlined above originate with Luther is nonsensical to say the least.

Are you suggesting that Martin Luther interpolated those passages from the 66 books of the Holy Bible, which I referred to in my earlier posts? If not, then even you should recognise such tenets that nothing should be added nor taken away (i.e., we should not change the integral meaning and thus contextual harmony of Holy Scripture in any way whatsoever) go back right to the very beginning of Biblical Judaism and Christianity, not to Luther!

I don't really care how Luther interpreted this, nor by what he meant by 'Sola Scriptura'. I do, however, care about what the Holy Scriptures themselves have to say on the matter of adding to God's Holy Scriptures, and it is evidently clear that where Roman Catholic teaching stands contrary to what the Holy Scriptures say (which is often) that such Roman Catholic teachings are clearly not of God the Heavenly Father but of Satan himself!

But then, Susanna, speaking of false christs / antichrists we only have to look at the blind worship by the blind lost multitudes of such anathema as the supposed 'God-kings' from Pharoah to Caesar to Pope!
 

Anonymous said @ 5:10 PM ...

"I don't understand why Susanna, and Constance, for that matter, don't voice real concern over that official video of Pope Francis. Susanna just gave a long detoured answer, not a straight and simple one. There is much more to condemn in it than praise, that's for certain."

"It reeks of the anti-christ spirit."

"I posted that video right here on this blog several months ago, and have yet to hear a real simple take on it from either one, and certainly Constance has had time by now to see it. It did not get looked at much at the time (a certain main dis-traction was ram-rodding the blog then) so maybe it got lost during the teabury shuffle over here. Thanks for reposting it RayB."

"It should have rung alarms bells. So why hasn't it?"

Anonymous ...

If it weren't for you posting the infamous Official Vatican COEXIST/New AGE/One World Religion Video, I probably wouldn't have found out about it.

A belated "thank you" for letting us all know about it. It really speaks volumes about the Roman Catholic "church."

I'm sure it's only a matter of time that Constance Cumbey does a detailed critique on it. After all, you don't see the leader of a 1.2 BILLION member "church" come right out and promote pagan religions too often.

Constance, in case you missed the link to the "Pope Video" in question ... here it is again:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nq7us5Lf5IU
 
I can't believe this is the kind of information about the New Age network archived at the University of Michigan.
 
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Our-World-Soross-campaign-of-global-chaos-464770
 
Sorry, Constance has not had time to see the alleged video yet -- I started from the bottom up checking in yesterday and commented briefly on my concerns on Pope Francis. If somebody cares to post the video link here, I would appreciate it.

I have had chaos here in the house with work being done to repair the dishwasher leak to my basement storage areas. Work crews have been here and I have my family and menagerie as well as still practicing some law.

Like everybody else, there are only 24 hours in my own day.

Constance
 
I just did a search on my comment section using the term "video" and found this link:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nq7us5Lf5IU

Is this the video everybody is talking about. If so, I agree it is bad news and contrary to my understanding of the following scriptures:

1 Corinthians 10:19-21;
Isaiah 42:8;
Psalm 96:5

Somebody asked me recently, "How do you spell A-N-T-I-P-O-P-E?"? Watching that video and thinking about the exhortation to use Merton as an example, that might unfortunately be a good question. I still am wondering if Benedict XVI is a prisoner in the Vatican. Two weeks resignation like a secretary?????

Constance
 
There are 3 MAJOR New Age goals:

1. New World Order
2. New World Religion
3. New Age 'Messiah'

The video, unfortunately, reminds me of the second major goal. I hope I'm wrong.

Constance
 
Hi Constance,
In all fairness the Roman Catholic Church has been the prime candidate for the one world religion for centuries.
People have always held a glimmer of hope for RC because of its strong stance on moral issues, but how do you excuse the blatant idolatry (spiritual adultary).
I am grateful that pope Francis has shown us where the Roman Catholic Church is heading.

 
Wow it is really wonderful and awesome thus it is very much useful for me to understand many concepts and helped me a lot. it is really explainable very well and i got more information from your blog.

Best Android Training Institute in Chennai
 
"How do you spell A-N-T-I-P-O-P-E?"

'Pope' coming from the word 'Father' (Papa) , and used in Roman Catholicism to blasphemously refer to a mere man as 'Holy Father', which is a title belonging to God the Father in Heaven, and 'anti' meaning 'contrary to, or 'in wrongful place of', means that all these supposed bishops of Rome who go by such a title are by true definition , Anti-Popes!

Now, more recently, regurgitated Babylonian mystery religion has been overtly stirred into the occult mix of her (the Romish cult's) golden cup of abominations, as lauded by Koran kissing and Shiva mark receiving John Paul II and Benedict XVI in their 'interfaith' One World Religion ceremonies held at Assisi in 1986 and 2011, respectively, and Francis's 'interfaith' One World Religion ceremony at Ground Zero, NYC, September 2016... , to his comments with their accompanying images in the spiritually stomach churning COEXIST New Agey Vatican Video Ray B kindly provided!!

Yes, she, the Romish Cult (which calls herself the Roman Catholic Church), is none other than that Harlot of old spoken of in Revelation: that Great Mystery Babylon, which deceives the whole unsaved World and is drunk on the blood of the saints!

Now, I am not saying there are not some stuck in her system who would otherwise be Bible believing and abiding Christians , who are sickened by the stench of her foul incense offered to Semiramis and Tammuz, but what does the True Holy Father of the Holy Bible command them to do?: Come out of her, my people, so you don't take part in her sins nor take a share in her plagues! (Revelation 18:4)

This command for God's people to come out of Mystery Babylon is foreshadowed in Jeremiah 51:45, so everyone of his people saves their own lives (souls) and escapes (runs from) the fierce anger of the Lord!
 

"BORDERS ARE THE WORST INVENTION EVER" -- so says the European Union Chief.

Trivia Question: what religious leader, that heads up 1.2 Billion members, is also against borders? If you don't know ... you haven't been paying attention!

The EU is nothing other than a precursor to the coming One World Government. Borders must be eliminated, economies destroyed, nation states eliminated, and massive chaos ensues. Peace and safety will be offered to the people (sheeple) for the price of their freedom. (Actually, with the economies destroyed, they will have no choice). Enter Satan's final counterfeit kingdom; the New World Order. Under this system, all people and "religions" will be united by force.

If you don't think the Vatican is playing a major part in attempting to implement this, you under immense deception. They see themselves as the LEADERS of a New World Religious order, precisely why they are so involved in this false ecumenical movement as illustrated in the "Pope Video," along with Muslim prayers and Koran readings at the Vatican ... and much, much more!

Scripture tells us: "Peace, peace. But there will be no peace."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3752939/Borders-worst-invention-EU-chief-Jean-Claude-Juncker-widens-rift-European-leaders-calls-borders-opened.html
 

Pope "prays' towards Mecca ... and asks Europe to open its borders to Muslims !

http://www.westernjournalism.com/pope-francis-prays-toward-mecca-calls-on-europe-to-open-borders-to-muslims/
 
Constance,
I see goals 1 & 2 in the completing stages, as we speak.
Goal 3 will follow shortly.
That video is very timely. The pope is heading things up because he is the one so out spoken and it plays nicely into globalist aims.

This whole thing is not on the back burner on the stove, it is on the front burner, with the heat turned up, for the world.
 
Ray B wrote: "Trivia Question: what religious leader, that heads up 1.2 Billion members, is also against borders?"

Ray, could it be the one that blasphemously uses titles for himself which rightfully belong to God? You know, the one who is head of an unchastened woman, a daughter of Nimrod, that Mother Harlot who
is drunk on the blood of the saints, sits on 7 hills, claims herself Queen and to be no widow and holds a golden cup full of abominations? Is that the one, Ray B?
 
Well, if only it were "just the Catholics." Unfortunately, I know way too much about the entire Protestant establishment (in USA at least) networking with blatant New Age entities such as the Institute of Noetic Sciences.

And now considering that Apostasy Today (whoops, Christianity Today) just came out with their lovely last issue with an article sympathetic to homosexuality entitled "Coming Out at Wheaton College", what can I say.

For God has shut all up in disobedience in order that he might show mercy to all. The Catholics, like the rest, clearly have their faults. No perfect churches because there are no perfect people, BUT, for the most part, they did hold the line on critical moral issues and the divinity of Jesus Christ.

I'm afraid that apostasy is a disease that has struck across the board and is far from confined to Catholics. I believe the whole thing in essence comes down to who truly loves God and wants to serve him. Those who do get their eyes open, the others are wide open for the prophesied deception of II Thessalonians, chapter 2. And if you think that "I'm the elect, I can't be deceived . . .", that's when you are most open for it.

Constance3
 
Constance, I don't know if it is an honesty issue or a state of naïvity on your part.

Many of those supposed 'Protestants' are most assuredly jesuits, knights of St Gregory, knights of Columbus, and RC knights of Malta. They are in fact sons of Rome.

Yes, the Romish Cult is the human institution behind this, and Satan Behind that! It is hard not to believe you're not out on a damage limitation exercise or divert and distract mission to take the focus off Rome, where it belongs. I sadly doubt your sincerity.

If this is the case, then may God cause you to repent and forgive you!
 
Just to be clear in my 12:01 PM post, I see the pope (yes he happens to be catholic) as leading the charge for all of the apostate church, and that means everybody who is walking away from faith in Christ Jesus, from every denomination. It is most certainly not exclusive to catholics--it is across the board among those who call themselves christians. All of us believers are going to find out where we fell short when we see the Lord's perfection.

Thank You God there is no such thing as denomination in heaven!!!
Only oneness, in that pure sense of the word, not the fake "oneness" some are trying to make happen down here.
 
Hi,
Roman Catholicism is the longst established apostate church
 
Constance Cumbey said (in part) @ 2:09 PM ...

"The Catholics, like the rest, clearly have their faults. No perfect churches because there are no perfect people, BUT, for the most part, they did hold the line on critical moral issues..."

Constance,

I think it is a grave mistake to make comparisons between "churches," rather than the doctrines proclaimed by religious systems as they compare to God's Word. For example, you would never compare the Jehovah Witnesses, or the Mormons to "other Churches." The standard used to compare truth with error is always God's Word. Why shouldn't this same standard be compared to Rome?

Furthermore, Rome makes claims that are absolutely unique. They claim their "pope" holds the keys to both the heavenly kingdom and the kingdoms of earth. His very title is extremely blasphemous, i.e. "Holy Father." Their doctrine on salvation is completely different from that of what is the gospel of grace through Christ. Their very authority is derived not from the Scriptures, but from their supposed Apostolic teaching authority (the Magisterium) and church "traditions." Their "gospel" mandates a system of works, where even the "best" of Catholics are promised the fires of torment via their purely fictional Purgatory, where they will have their "Venial" sins cleansed. If they purposely miss Mass (a Mortal sin) and happen to die that day, they are promised eternal damnation .... FOR MISSING MASS ! I could go on and on and on.

These are not just "problems," these, along with many other doctrines and dogmas, are MAJOR HERESIES. By pointing out that other churches have "problems too" is not a valid argument. Their errors are irrelevant when it comes to examining Rome. Imperfect or apostate "churches" are not the yard stick by which all things should be measured ... God's all-authoritative Word is.

I take exception with your claim "... for the most part, they (the RCC) did hold the line on critical moral issues..." Although they have been pro-life in principle, in practice they have not. Numerous Catholic politicians, judges, etc. have been very "pro-choice" without suffering any ramifications from Rome. Rome's long running pedophile priest scandal (world wide) was anything but "moral." The victims were ignored, their "silence" bought off, while known pedophile priests were transferred where they committed more crimes against children, etc., etc. The Pope's recent statements re: "Gays that do good, and seek the Lord, will go to heaven" is far from a "moral" statement. Unrepentant "gays" will not go to heaven, nor will adulterers, drunkards, effeminate, idolators, heretics, etc., etc. Telling these people LIES is far from "holding a moral line."

Sorry for the length of this post ... trust me ... it could have been much, much longer.


 
10:01 pm...

You said "Their errors are irrelevant when it comes to examining Rome."

Irrelevant???

From what I've been able to ascertain, over decades of reading and studying the matter, the final deception will know no boundaries, and will not be constrained within any one religious group of people.

Here's what I think.

The enemy has always had his agents working from within ALL bodies of believers, ALL Christian structures and organizations, and ALL churches that claim to be following Christ. Because the Catholic Church was the only church for almost 1600 years means that that's the only place we seem to find historical evidence for error, deception, and other works of the enemy. That's why it might seem like the root of all the errors, when it really was just the only target of any significance. Whether you like it or not, God used the Catholic Church, with all its faults, to keep the light of the gospel intact longer than any other church or institution since the time of Christ. Kind of like He uses us imperfect individuals to do the same, yes? That treasure in jars of clay...

Today, there are lots of churches, denominations, etc, and the enemy is within (or trying to get within) ALL of them. And out of ALL of them will come the ones God calls to be His remnant, His witness, His true Church - the Bride of Christ who has made herself pure. And ALL of the ones who don't hear and answer that call, will be deceived, and ALL of them - no matter what they label themselves - will take part in the great turning away from the real Jesus, and toward a false Christ, and will share equally in the blame and in the offense.

The wheat and the tares have been allowed to grow together, side by side, all this time, but a time of separation is coming. That separation will come within the Catholic churches, and the Baptist churches, and the Assemblies of God churches, and the Methodist churches, and wherever there exists one true believer. Separation has been happening since the time of Christ, but I'm talking about a great separation, great to the degree that the deception which causes it is great.

Like the title of a DC Talk song says, there are Extreme Days.

 
Breaking news - 6.2 MW Earthquake strikes central Italy -- 100 miles from Rome. I'm in court in morning -- a long trip from here so am retiring from night.

Constance
 
Marko, before I retire for the night, a thoughtful and excellent post.

Constance
 
The 1986 Meeting at Assisi referenced above was organized by SIR MARTIN PALMER of England on behalf of PRINCE PHILIP. He bragged about it in a book he wrote mostly to attack YOURS TRULY, CEC.

In 1986, the Duke of Edinburgh asked my group
ICOREC (International Consultancy on Religion,
Education and Culture) to organize on behalf of WWF
International a gathering of major religious leaders at
Assisi in Italy. Here we discussed the common concern
for the environment found in radically different ways
within the major faiths. We also launched a network to
support the work undertaken by these religions, each in
their own ways, for the care of the earth. This programme
now has over 90,000 religious communities involved in
environmental programmes ranging from reforesting the
sacred forests of Krishna in India to developing environmental
Sunday School schemes for all the mainline
churches of Kenya. But to Livesey [Roy Livesey], the Assisi gathering
has far more sinister implications. 'Looking over our
shoulder do we see Rome again - in her familiar way,
supporting movements that will serve her ends with a
World religion based on Rome, and now encouraging the
Earth Worshippers and animists, the ancient heroes of the
New Agers ?' Needless to say the question is rhetorical
and he answers it with a resounding 'Yes.


Constance
 
I apologize for the incomplete references on the Martin Palmer quote. It is from page 77 of his 1993 Aquarian Press published book COMING OF AGE. That is also an imprint of Harper Collins. He gave me lots and lots of ugly ink in that book. Read my review of his book on Amazon --

One needs a sense of humour as well as honest information to stay abreast of the New Age Movement by whatever current appellation is currently in vogue among its adherents. Martin Palmer claims to be knowledgeable. There is not a doubt in my mind that he knows far more about it than this reviewer -- FROM INSIDE -- a vantage point he vociferously denies under the covers of at least this particular book. That the information is accurate or honest is debatable! I found his book, 10 years newer than my own pioneering book on the subject, THE HIDDEN DANGERS OF THE RAINBOW, on the "50% off lowest advertised price" on the remainder table of a USA Barnes & Nobles bookstore. It did not escape my radar that the book was published by the unquestionably "New Age" Aquarian Press! Of course, he had little use for me. In fact, as I recall the reading, he said he had spent so much time on my book because it was the first book to come from "THAT STABLE OF CHRISTIANITY." Of course, since my Lord Jesus according to gospel accounts came from a stable, I'll take that as a sort of backhanded compliment. Now Martin Palmer, a reported advisor to Prince Philip, claims to head a trillion dollar environmental consortium -- churches' moneys, no less. Hug the trees, decimate the human population (anything else is "speciesism" no doubt), adore the rocks and crystals, recognize the god in all (except the actual creator), no doubt. Well, look upon the bright side, as the USA evangelical purveyors of disinformation acted by largely copying my work, while shaving the reported true dimensions of the New Age Movement (unlike the Catholics who at least to some extent admitted it had taken root in their institution and cleaned house by sweeping out Matthew Fox [too bad they missed Basil Pennington and Thomas Berry]) at least Palmer gave me lots of ink. Well, I suppose his less than flattering portrayal of my work means I have no realistic expectation of winning the Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion. If I did, I suppose the reception would have to held somewhere other than Buckingham Palace and the prize given by someone other than Prince Philip. Well, c'est la vie. So glad it's God ultimately judging me and NOT Martin Palmer. He accused me of quoting from that most dangerous of biblical books, "THE BOOK OF REVELATION." Well, certainly he probably has not crossed that "dangerous" line of even reading it himself. Had he done so, he would have paused at the clear warnings of Revelation 14:6-9 before making such foolhardy statements: "FEAR GOD AND GIVE GLORY TO HIM FOR THE HOUR OF HIS JUDGMENT IS COME -- WORSHIP GOD WHO CREATED THE HEAVEN AND THE EARTH, THE SEAS AND THE FOUNTAINS OF WATERS. . ."

It seems Martin Palmer is worshipping just about everything and everybody but the good LORD who created all.

Oh, and one more thing. It was so very good of Martin Palmer to reveal that he and not John Paul II was the real culprit behind the ever so syncretistic Assisi Council of 1986. He says in this book that he organized same on behalf of Prince Philip. Thanks for the insights!

May God have mercy on the poor deluded soul of "Sir" Martin Palmer!


Constance
 
Interesting
 
Anonymous Marko said...
10:01 pm...
You said "Their errors are irrelevant when it comes to examining Rome."
Irrelevant??? RayB said...

IMO both Marko and RayB have a point, but I believe in this discussion the separation of Wheat and Tares the biblical reference is that of individual, not institutional. All to often (including myself) we point at the institution but fail to remember we stand before that judgement seat as an individual. Remembering this changes perspective allot, at least with me.
 
Marko ...

If you read my entire post, you would understand why I used the term "irrelevant." It is irrelevant because "other churches" are not the standard by which error is to be judged, the WORD OF GOD is. Again, as an example: I would never examine Mormonism based upon what other "churches" might teach. The standard would be what God's Word declares.

You stated:

"Because the Catholic Church was the only church for almost 1600 years means that that's the only place we seem to find historical evidence for error, deception, and other works of the enemy."

This is a false statement. There were many Churches aside from the Catholic Church. Many met in homes, etc. BECAUSE of the persecution faced by the all powerful RCC. You state that the "light of the gospel" was kept by the Catholic Church. FALSE! Rome hunted down, tortured and often put to death anyone that was found to have hand copied pages of Scripture. Furthermore, they kept the people in the dark with their utterly false and deceptive "gospel" that benefited THEM ... not the people that fell under their superstitious spell. People feared the pope, because they really believed he could limit their time in Purgatory, could allow them into heaven, or send them to hell.

You need to study the Dark Ages. This is the time when Rome ruled and kept the "light of the gospel" from the people. Gross darkness fell across all of Europe. It was only through the eventual spread of the true light of God's Word via the Reformation and the printing press the Rome's grip upon men's souls was loosened.
 


Constance Cumbey said (in part) @ 2:09 PM ...

"The Catholics, like the rest, clearly have their faults. No perfect churches because there are no perfect people, BUT, for the most part, they did hold the line on critical moral issues..."

One more thought I'd like to add to what I wrote last night:

Constance, do you consider gambling a "moral issue?" The Catholic Church has used this vice as a means of obtaining wealth for centuries.

When I was a 12 year old paper boy, I went to a RCC "carnival" where they had gambling tables. I stupidly lost my week's paper route money (first experience with gambling) while a "priest" and a policeman stood right there and watched.

I've known many gamblers in my life. One was a graduate of a well known Jesuit University. I was his best man at his wedding. He started gambling at his "church's" carnival and became an habitual life-long gambler, ended up stealing to support his habit, went to prison, lost his family, etc. He died at a fairly young age RUINED! To this day, many Catholic men that I know still gamble on sports, etc. This horrible vice is literally taught and sanctioned by their own "church" via bingo games, carnivals, etc.

Do YOU see this as an important "moral issue?" I see it as further proof that this church does not represent the truth found in Jesus Christ, by their doctrines or by their actual practices.

 
Well, I don't know if I have strong biblically based convictions about gambling. I do recall a sort of "lottery" in the Bible where lots were drawn to pick Judas' successor. I personally discourage clients from gambling -- but then again, I don't think anybody will be consigned to Hell for purchasing a lottery ticket.

Constance
 
1 Timothy 6:10 - For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.
Here are just a few that may be applied in regards to gambling. At the root of gambling is "getting something for nothing" along with an obvious love for money. We can also judge gambling by its fruit. Literally millions of lives, along with families, etc. have been destroyed by gambling. For many, many years, the Mafia fueled much of their underworld financing via the profits that they took from this vice.

Once again, strange arguments are made FOR Rome by using hyperbole. No one SAID anyone would be "consigned to hell for purchasing a lottery ticket." What was said was that Rome benefits by appealing to the sinful nature (covetousness) of mankind by promoting this vice (carnival gaming tables, bingo, etc.).

Just out of curiosity ... do you think God actually needs the profits from a vice in order to support His "work?"


Philippians 4:19 - But my God shall supply all your needs according to his riches in glory by Christ Jesus.

1 Thessalonians 5:22 - Abstain from all appearance of evil.

Hebrews 13:5 - [Let your] conversation [be] without covetousness; [and be] content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.

Luke 16:13 - No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
 
RayB's beliefs do not represent the truth found in Jesus Christ either by HIS doctrines ( based on Alexander Hislop and other professional anti-Catholics ) or by HIS uncharitable and un-Christ-like practices - especially here on this blog.

As for his quoting Scripture, I tend to doubt that many are really impressed except for a few of his likeminded confreres who have also embraced fideism - the idea that religious faith and reason are incompatible with each other. Such a mentality smacks of Gnosticism which also rejects rationality. Evidence of this is the blatant rejection/glossing over of actual historical data which goes contrary to their claims.

Anyone can put his own spin on the Scriptures. In fact, the devil himself is very good at cherry-picking and quoting Scripture out of context as is shown in the Gospels when the devil quoted a cherry-picked Scripture passage as part of his strategy to tempt Christ into disobeying His Father's will.

The bottom line is that RayB's interpretations of Holy Writ are HIS interpretations. When he tries to match up New Testament passages to Old Testament passages to show that the Bible can interpret itself, this is still his own private interpretation. There is nothing in the Bible which clearly states that the Bible can interpret itself.

True the Catholic Church's interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures may be one of many Christian interpretations, but the Catholic interpretation is the oldest interpretation which goes all the way back to Christ Himself, the Apostles and their disciples who were the Apostolic Fathers who were closest historically to Christ and the Apostles and many of whom died as martyrs for the Christian faith they preached.

While it is true that there were many heretical sects aside from the Catholic Church there were not "many Churches aside from the Catholic Church." Up until the time of Martin Luther, many of these sects were gnostic and heretical EVEN BY PROTESTANT STANDARDS insofar as they denied the humanity or divinity of Jesus Christ and/or the Trinity.

I would not presume to claim to know what RayB's rock bottom profession of faith is, but the bottom line is that if one does not profess the creed of Chalcedon and/or Nicea, one cannot be said to be authentically Christian....because failure to do so inevitably involves that "spirit of the anti-Christ" about which we are warned in the New Testament.

There may indeed be some persons who harbor this "spirit of the antichrist" while
calling themselves "Catholic," but it is true to say that the Catholic Church does not exactly have a monopoly on this form of apostasy.


 
Here is what the Catholic Church teaches about gambling.

GAMBLING

Gambling, or gaming, is the staking of money or other thing of value on the issue of a game of chance. It thus belongs to the class of aleatory contracts which the gain or loss of the parties depends on an uncertain event. It is not gambling, in the strict sense, if a bet is laid on the issue of a game of skill like billiards or football. The issue must depend on chance, as in dice, or partly on chance, partly on skill, as in whist. Moreover, in ordinary parlance, a person who plays for small stakes to give zest to the game is not said to gamble; gambling connotes playing for high stakes.

In its moral aspect, although gambling usually has a bad meaning, yet we may apply to it what was said about betting. On certain conditions, and apart from excess or scandal, it is not sinful to stake money on the issue of a game of chance any more than it is sinful to insure one's property against risk, or deal in futures on the produce market. As I may make a free gift of my own property to another if I choose, so I may agree with another to hand over to him a sum of money if the issue of a game of cards is other than I expect, while he agrees to do the same in my favour in the contrary event.

Theologians commonly require four conditions so that gaming may not be illicit.

•What is staked must belong to the gambler and must be at his free disposal. It is wrong, therefore, for the lawyer to stake the money of his client, or for anyone to gamble with what is necessary for the maintenance of his wife and children.

•The gambler must act freely, without unjust compulsion.

•There must be no fraud in the transaction, although the usual ruses of the game may be allowed. It is unlawful, accordingly, to mark the cards, but it is permissible to conceal carefully from an opponent the number of trump cards one holds.

•Finally, there must be some sort of equality between the parties to make the contract equitable; it would be unfair for a combination of two expert whist players to take the money of a couple of mere novices at the game.


See the following:

http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/isn39t-gambling-a-sin-how-can-you-catholics-justify-playing-bingo-in-church


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

It occurs to me that if all gambling were evil, then a lot of churches are going to hell in a handbasket on account of their BINGO games!!!!
 
Constance,

The following article which describes the position of Cardinal Raymond Burke reflects my position as a Catholic.

Cardinal Burke insists he’s not an ‘enemy’ of Pope Francis
David Gibson
August 22, 2016

....Indeed, “confusion” is the word that Burke said he would use to describe the mood in Rome these days over “what direction the church is going.”

“And then with confusion comes division, and so you get people accusing one another back and forth,” he said ruefully. “I do believe very strongly that we need to have a clearer direction, a clearer enunciation of the faith and its practice. That way would also help to settle down this confusion and the division which follows from it.”

But when asked directly, Burke is equally firm that whatever happens, he has no intention of leading a breakaway, schismatic movement, an option some on the Catholic right have contemplated.

“Absolutely not,” he said. “I will never leave the Catholic Church. No matter what happens I intend to die a Roman Catholic. I will never be part of a schism.

“I’ll just keep the faith as I know it and respond in the best way possible. That’s what the Lord expects of me. But I can assure you this: You won’t find me as part of any schismatic movement or, God forbid, leading people to break away from the Catholic Church. As far as I’m concerned, it’s the church of our Lord Jesus Christ and the pope is his vicar on earth and I’m not going to be separated from that.”


https://cruxnow.com/interviews/2016/08/22/cardinal-burke-insists-hes-not-enemy-pope-francis/
________________________________

Regarding Martin Palmer, he has been dubbed "Prince Philip's guru."

Full disclosure on the following article......it is from a LaRouche publication.
Nevertheless, as you so often say, like a broken clock, it is right at least twice a day. Ergo, for what it is worth.......


Martin Palmer: Prince Philip's guru
by Mark Burdman

"The WWF is a missionary organization." -Martin Palmer, Dancing to Armageddon

Prince Philip, the British Royal Consort and international president of the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF, formerly World Wildlife Fund), may be evil, but he is certainly not intelligent. For what passes for his ideas, he must tum to others. Of special importance in this respect, is the man often referred to as his "guru" on religious and ecological matters, Martin Palmer, head of the Manchester, England-based International Consultancy on Religion, Education, and Culture (Icorec). It was Palmer who organized the 25th anniversary of the World Wildlife Fund, in Assisi, Italy, on Sept. 22-29, 1986, specifically around the orientation that the Renaissance "image of man," associated with Leonardo da Vinci and collaborators, had to be eliminated. Palmer's view, then, was that "non-western, alternative ways of looking at nature" had to be fostered to create "a new way of looking at the world" (see EIR, Sept. 5, 1986, "Prince Philip to Set New 'Satanist Covenant' in Assisi," and "Why the WWF Hates Leonardo da Vinci"). In Assisi, was launched the WWF' s Network on Religion and Conservation, managed out of Palmer's Manchester offices.


cont...
 
cont...

It was under the guidance of the notions propagated by this network, that Prince Philip made his declaration in Washington, D.C., in May 1990, praising the "ecological pragmatism of the so-called pagan religions" as being "a great deal more realistic, in terms of conservation ethics, than the more intellectual monotheistic philosophies of the revealed religions." Later, the Network on Religion and Conservation was superseded by the Alliance of Religion and Conservation (ARC), the which will, in coming years, take over much of the project work formerly carried out under WWF auspices. The ARC was launched at a World Summit on Religion and Conservation, which took place at the Royal Family's Windsor Castle on April 29-May 3 of last year. It brought together representatives of "the nine major religions of the world," into which designation were lumped together the monotheistic religions of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, with Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Taoism, J ainism, and the Bahais. All representatives (with only that of Judaism dissenting) issued statements, presuming to draw a coherence between that faith's beliefs and the "conservationist/ecologist" views of the WWF. Among highlighted projects of ARC, are close collaboration with the unwashed monks of Mount Athos, to foster an "ecological" pilot project on that island, and work with the Taoists of China to preserve the "Taoist sacred mountains."

cont...
 
cont...

Transforming our 'mental archaeology' Palmer's viewpoint, expressed in numerous published locations and private communications, is that the crude propagandist "doomsday-ism" of the Green/ecology movement, is not the right approach, if one wants to accomplish the agreed upon goals of the WWF and its co-thinker organizations. In fact, that crude approach is self-defeating. Rather, what must be done, is to attack the underlying axioms, beliefs, and defining paradigms that underpin the belief in progress, especially in those parts of the world most affected by Western, JudeoChristian civilization. That is why his strategy fundamentally revolves around systematic cultivation of allies within religions and faiths, since religion is the intellectual and emotional medium, through which vast numbers of humans express their understanding of the relations among man, God, and nature. Palmer is clever enough to understand, that it was the understanding of that relationship by the great thinkers and artists of the fifteenth-century Golden Renaissance, encapsulated in the notion of imago viva Dei ("in the living image of God") that allowed mankind to make giant strides, toward higher levels of scientific and technological capabilities, and to bring about a vastly increased potential population density globally. It is this notion of imago viva Dei that Palmer seeks to reverse, through the "missionary" work of the WWF.


In his 1992 book Dancing to Armageddon, Palmer elaborates his method. He claims that what defines the sense of reality for people are "stories." By "stories," he means unspoken and unchallenged cultural axioms mediated through myths. According to Palmer: "We all inhabit worlds shaped by stories, but most of us have never stepped back to look at those stories .... We are profoundly shaped and influenced by the stories we tell, by the stories that are told around us, by the stories we think are actually fact, and by the stories that have shaped the very language, imagery, and terms we use today." His task is to "undertake a mental archaeology of the substructures, the hidden stories, upon which we continually build as we erect our models of what and who we are and where we are going." He attacks "one of the fondest illusions of our age," namely that "we are 'realistic' or 'factual' in our approach to life. We are not." Palmer presumes to show that, in our modern American and European societies, we have come to take for granted, the view that "human beings are the pinnacle of evolution, the raison d'etre of life, and that the American (and with it, the European) way of life-conquest, colonization, and exploitation-is nothing less than the way life and always has been." This is not true, in Palmer's view. What be fostered are "stories," or myths and metaphors that demonstrate that "the impact of human beings on this planet is now so disastrous that we have already destroyed countless species and habitats and others are in grave danger."


cont...

 
cont...

A war against 'anthropocentrism'

A professed Christian, Palmer removes from Christianity all of that which has made its contribution to humanity's history essential, namely, its commitment to "anthropocentrism." In his 1993 book Coming of Age: An Exploration of Christianity and the New Age, Palmer excoriates the "anthropocentric gospel." He rails against Christianity's "deification of humanity and its products, science and industry, culminating in the revival of that most arrogant of statements, 'Man is the measure of all things.' " The entire edifice of Christianity, Christ as the Son of God and as the Savior of Mankind, is built upon anthropocentrism; without it, Christianity is turned into a gnostic heresy.

That is precisely Palmer's aim. It is only because of "anthropocentrism," and its consequence of bringing about higher levels of development of the human species, that we have reached a point beyond ape-like existence, such that Martin Palmer himself could be born and propagate his ideas. (Some might be tempted to cite that as an argument agai'nst anthropocentrism.) One of Palmer's leading bogeymen is the biblical Book of Genesis, and its injunction that mankind should "replenish the earth, and subdue it," and have "dominion over nature." His theology replaces this with what he calls "the stewardship model" of man's relationship to nature. This will bring about an "integration" with "elements of nature" of the type that "shamanism and certain forms of the 'pagan' religions inculcated through their practices and beliefs." "Shamanism" is a form of "healing," largely dependent on witchcraft and magic, that is practiced, today, only in the most backward areas of the globe.


cont...
 
cont...

Palmer lauds those variants of Christianity that, he asserts, reject the traditional Judeo-Christian commitment to science, technological development, and the dominion over nature. For example, in his view, the superiority of Eastern Orthodox Christianity, relative to the predominant strands of Roman Catholicism and Protestantism, is precisely that it did not go through the processes associated with the Renaissance. In the Orthodox world, "humanity was always seen as having a special role not just before God, but before all creation. For the Orthodox, from whom no industrial revolution or scientific upsurge ever came, humanity is called to be a poet, one who tells the story of all life and in telling, creates the fullness of all life." For Martin Palmer, poverty is glorified as poetry. Similarly, he glorifies the Nestorian heresy. This was launched in the midst of bitter feuds within the Catholic Church in the fifth century, and is founded on the insistence that Christ did not have a divine nature, but was only a good man. Nestorianism grew, as a key channel between oligarchical centers such as Venice in the West, and the vast area comprising Central Asia and China; it was used, by Venice, as one key instrument for communicating with, and manipulating, the rampaging Mongols. Why does Palmer like the Nestorians so much? Because, in his words, they "were unbound by the later theological developments of the West; Augustine and Aquinas, for example, were simply unknown to them." Going one step further, he supports the "new vision of creation" associated with such current-day New Age gnostics as Matthew Fox, the founder of "Creation Spirituality." Fox and co-thinkers are praised by Palmer for opposing "the Christian tradition that has always taught that humanity has a special role in creation." Two years after the publication of Palmer's 1993 work praising him, Fox became the center of heated controversy in the United Kingdom, when it was revealed that he was the chief spiritual adviser to one Rev. Chris Brain. The latter caused what one British commentator, Madeleine Bunting, described as the Church of England's "most damaging crisis for decades," when he used his socalled "rave" religious services to sexually abuse women. His activities were sanctioned by the Anglican Church, "up to the highest levels," she wrote. Queen Elizabeth II is the Supreme Governor of the Church.
 
cont...


'If this means shrugging off humanity, so be it' But Palmer doesn't restrict himself to subverting Christianity from within. He also promotes those religions and belief-structures outside of a nominally Christian context, the which, he asserts, are most hostile to the future progress of humanity. He lauds Taoism (yin/yang, cyclical theories of nature), and those variants of Buddhism and Hinduism that, he claims, are coherent with the so-called "Gaia hypothesis" of British science-faker James Lovelock. The "Gaia hypothesis" is a modem-day variant of traditional gnostic worship of the Mother Earth goddess. And how does Palmer see the implications of the Gaia hypothesis?: "What the earth cares about is its own continued survival, and if this means shrugging off humanity, then so be it. One of the most challenging ideas emerging from the environmental crisis and from concepts such as Gaia, is the notion that humanity really isn't that important. This poses major problems to Christianity, Judaism, and Islam .... " The Unabomber could not have said it better.


file:///C:/Users/gil/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/INetCache/IE/QVHQZ6Z4/eirv23n22-19960524_031-martin_palmer_prince_philips_gur.pdf
______________________________________________


I apologise for the length of this post. It was a little tricky getting into it and I didn't want you to miss it. It was not in any way my intention to "crowd anybody out."
 
DARK LORD: HACKED DOCUMENTS REVEAL MAGNITUDE OF GEORGE SOROS' DOMESTIC INFLUENCE

http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2016/08/24/dark-lord-hacked-documents-reveal-scale-george-soross-influence-u-s/


 
Remember Muhammad Yunus? JD was the one who brought him to our attention. Looks like Yunus was a Clinton Foundation donor and received, among other things, $13 million from the State Dept.

Clinton Foundation donor received $13 million from State Department

...Yunus oversaw the distribution of microcredit loans to impoverished borrowers for the bank for over 30 years. Thanks in part to years of lobbying by former president Bill Clinton, Yunus received a Nobel Peace Prize in 2006 for what the committee called "efforts through microcredit to create economic and social development from below."


When the Bangladeshi government in 2011 began investigating the bank over charges that funds had been mismanaged, Hillary Clinton intervened as secretary of state, contacting the country's officials directly in addition to holding a news conference in the U.S. to express "concern and hope" that the bank would "continue to function productively." Yunus was nonetheless forced out of his position later that year by his government.

While the information about State Department grants is relatively new, Yunus' previous ties to the Clintons are well-documented. Department emails released last year revealed that Amitabh Desai, the Clinton Foundation's director of policy, corresponded with Clinton's top aides at the State Department, Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin, about Yunus' situation in 2012.

The fact that Yunus has contributed more than $100,000 to the foundation casts doubt on whether that correspondence should have taken place. The FBI reportedly opened an investigation in January to probe whether work at the department was inappropriately commingled with work at the foundation.

At the end of the day, you have Secretary Clinton traveling to a foreign country on an official trip urging a foreign government to stop investigating a donor to the Clinton Foundation," Citizens United President David Bossie previously told the Washington Examiner.
..read more...

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clinton-foundation-donor-received-13-million-from-state-department/article/2588829
___________________________________________________
 
Muhammad Yunus Is A Decades-Long Clinton Friend And A Nobel Prize Winner. Donations Aren't Why She Met With Him.

The "Scandal" Requires Reducing International Business And Non-Profit Leaders To "Clinton Foundation Donors"

http://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2016/08/23/muhammad-yunus-decades-long-clinton-friend-and-nobel-prize-winner-donations-arent-why-she-met-him/212611

 
The previous article was in Yunus' defense. But Hillary Clinton was called upon to prevent the Bangladeshi government from probing alleged corruption allegations at Grameen Bank. It is not to be forgotten either that the Clinton "largesse" of $13 million was taxpayer dollars! OUR taxpayer dollars!


Hillary Clinton’s Department of State awarded at least $13 million in grants, contracts and loans to her longtime friend and Clinton Foundation donor Muhammad Yunus, despite his being ousted in 2011 as managing director of the Bangladesh-based Grameen Bank amid charges of corruption, according to an investigation by The Daily Caller News Foundation.

The tax funds were given to Yunus through 18 separate U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) award transactions listed by the federal contracting site USAspending.gov....

....Clinton was not shy abut using her post as America's chief diplomat on behalf of Yunus and Grameen Bank when the Bangladesh government announced an investigation of multiple allegations of financial mismanagement by the political activist.

Clinton rocked the Bangladeshi political extablishment when she publicly intervened on behalf of Yunus as the South Asian government prepared to launch its probe.
...read more...


http://dailycaller.com/2016/04/17/exclusive-disgraced-clinton-donor-got-13m-in-state-dept-grants-under-hillary/
_______________________________________________________

Yunus had a little help establishing Grameen Bank from the now-failed Shorebank in Chicago......called "Obama's bank"....it was going to be involved in carbon credits and had ties to Al Gore.

By a Bangladeshi government ordinance on October 2, 1983, the project ( Grameen Bank ) was authorized and established as an independent bank. Bankers Ron Grzywinski and Mary Houghton of ShoreBank, a community development bank in Chicago, helped Yunus with the official incorporation of the bank under a grant from the Ford Foundation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grameen_Bank
_______________________________________________


THE CHICAGO CLIMATE CLUB GETS CAPPED
http://www.forbes.com/2010/12/22/chicago-climate-club-carbon-barack-obama-opinions-contributors-larry-bell.html
__________________________________________


A blast from the past......

Clinton on M. Yunus and ShoreBank in Chicago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jB1tSDXbOzg
 
Who needs MCE to blog-clog when Susanna's about?!
 
And what contributions have you made other than to act like a jerk and insult people? At least Susanna has contributed objective news and information.

You have a lot of rotten nerve acting like this is YOUR blog and not Constance's blog. You are just a guest here like everyone else. So cut the crap.
 
Anon ...

You got that right.

I'm really starting to question what the point is for this blog. Seems to me, this isn't about the NAM at all ... it's more of a propaganda/promotional blog for the RCC, and it is all being orchestrated by Constance.


 
'Call me Jorge. ..

A blog about the life and times of Jorge Bergoglio (aka Francis)

http://callmejorgebergoglio.blogspot.com.es/?m=1
 
Ray B., God bless you for standing up when it is not popular to do so.
The truth is worth it. Always has been, always will be.
 


Most of what Susanna posts is old news ... copy and paste, extremely lengthy, boring, useless Catholic propaganda.

She recently made baseless attacks and accusations against Biblical Christianity, and when challenged to prove her claims, she fell completely silent. She also accused me of holding to certain religious positions that I never even came close to stating. When challenged to prove her claims by simply copying and pasting from past threads what she accused me of, she simply went silent. The reason for her silence? She had absolutely nothing to back up her baseless claims.
 
Anon 9:05 PM, what a foul mouthed antichrist heathen you come across as!

It is the true Christians here who get attacked by Catholic bigots full of the spirit of Thomas Murderer Moore ... you know, that Bible burning Devil who is a so-called saint for RC lawyers... We've all heard of the Red Mass haven't we? I wonder if the self-titled "yours truly" has attended it? It would not surprise me in the least!

Such true and Bible adhering and believing Christians here tend to be personally attacked and yet falsely accused of being the uncharitable ones by Christian haters belonging to the Romish Cult just because such true Christians expose the evils of the Romish Cult ( which goes back to that false conversion of the Roman Emperor Constantine in about 320 AD, not to the time of Christ. ..), showing the Romish Cult to be none other than the Mother of All Prostitutes, Mystery Babylon!

Btw, it is still correct to hold individuals to account: on that note, I doubt Susanna's avid defense for Francis' COEXIST New Agey stance, shown in the Vatican video Ray B. kindly provided, was something she did because of (laughably) Prince Philip of England's persuasion!
 
"She recently made baseless attacks and accusations against Biblical Christianity, and when challenged to prove her claims, she fell completely silent. She also accused me of holding to certain religious positions that I never even came close to stating. When challenged to prove her claims by simply copying and pasting from past threads what she accused me of, she simply went silent. The reason for her silence? She had absolutely nothing to back up her baseless claims."

Exactly so Ray B.! You have said it as it is, brother!
 
You are not alone, 9:05 PM. I agree with every part of your statement.

Why anon 9:36 called you a "foul mouthed anti-christ heathen" for your comments is beyond comprehension. None of what you said was any of that.
 
Ray said @ 9:06 PM:

"I'm really starting to question what the point is for this blog. Seems to me, this isn't about the NAM at all ... it's more of a propaganda/promotional blog for the RCC, and it is all being orchestrated by Constance."

And for you it's all about attacking the Catholic Church. So what's the difference? You say TOE-MAY-TOE others say TOE-MAH-TOE. You are no better than those you cast stones at. Like Christine, maybe your anti-RCC screeds should be limited to one per week. It's only fair, yes?

And Constance can "orchestrate" all she wants to - it's her blog. But I really doubt she has time for it, nor would she even if she did.
 
Sussana is a classic example of (many RCs) deceptive acceptance of false doctrine because of fear of man.
Time to fear God and His Word rather than the words of generations of carnal men.

 
We should fear confidence in our own righteousness, which is how a lot of us come across when we are defending our thinking, or our interpretation of God's Word, and especially when we deride others when they are wrong.

"He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and treated others with contempt: “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.’ But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’ I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.” (Luke 18:9-14 ESV)

 
Great information shared in this blog. Helps in gaining concepts about new information and concepts.Awsome information provided.Very useful for the beginners.
SEO Training in Chennai
 
Anonymous Marko said @ 11:58 PM ...

"We should fear confidence in our own righteousness, which is how a lot of us come across when we are defending our thinking, or our interpretation of God's Word, and especially when we deride others when they are wrong."

Marko,

Here's a very good example of the very thing you are referring to ... from our "Susanna." By the way, I challenged her to "copy & paste" proof that would substantiate her utterly false claims ... so far ... nothing. Don't hold your breath waiting for it because she has NOTHING but false accusations. This comes from Constance's favorite blogger ... her personal expert researcher.

Susanna said to RayB @ 1:57 PM ...

"RayB,

"Actually your statement is very revealing. It reveals more evil things about you than it does about me. I was here minding my own business when you began your ignorant rants about the Pope."

"Is this to take the focus off your own bogus and deceptive "messianic Judaism" and your pagan "millennium" headed by your own fake Christ???? Another thing I am researching is the Soros connection to creatures like YOU in his attempt to undermine Israel!!! I have already unearthed a couple of revealing documents which I am not going to post here just yet."

Susanna then goes on to say to RayB re: my request: ... "Please state ANY non-Christian "religions" that ARE "compatible" with Christianity."

Susanna says in answer to state which non-Christian religions that are compatible with Christianity"

"That one is easy. YOURS!!!!"
 

In case you may have missed this interesting news story ...

I really have to wonder why the Pope would pray towards Mecca and then ask Europe to OPEN ITS BORDERS TO MUSLIMS???

It might be that the Pope is on the side of the Globalists that want to cause chaos, so that the establishment of a despotic, One World Government dictatorship could be offered to the non-thinking sheeple in order to "restore peace and safety."

Or, it could be that Pope is like a really, really nice man that has a nice smile and just wants to have really, really nice Muslims settle in Europe (while he remains protected by the 40 foot wall that surrounds the Vatican).

My guess is that Constance and Susanna opt for the "really, really nice" smiley face scenario. I kind of lean towards the New World Order Pope myself.

Check out this story ... what do you think?

http://www.westernjournalism.com/pope-francis-prays-toward-mecca-calls-on-europe-to-open-borders-to-muslims/
 
RayB said:

I'm really starting to question what the point is for this blog. Seems to me, this isn't about the NAM at all ... it's more of a propaganda/promotional blog for the RCC, and it is all being orchestrated by Constance.

The ones primarily bringing up the Roman Catholic Church on this blog are RayB and his radical right wing friends who are merely projecting their own "right wing" New Age agenda which involves disguising a fascist political ideology as "Christianity."

They are no better than the so-called "Catholic" liberation theologians of the radical left who have likewise been trying to disguise their Marxist ideology as "Christianity."

When all is said and done, socialism is socialism no matter how you cut it. It simply comes down to a matter of style

RayB said many threads ago that the source for a lot of his "Christian" views was Alexander Hislop whom he has unequivocally defended. The following is but one example.

Anonymous,

Furthermore, it does not matter what Woodrow or anyone else for that matter thinks of Hislop's book. The book itself stands on its own merits.

"The truth remains the truth even when no one believes it. A lie remains a lie even when everyone believes it."
# posted by Anonymous RayB : 2:31 PM


http://cumbey.blogspot.com/2015/12/a-blessed-and-merry-christmas-to-all.html
__________________________________________________________

Hislop has been disowned in modern times by orthodox Protestants who are outright embarrassed by Hislop's crank scholarship and outrageous claims that have been biblically and historically debunked.

Currently, Hislop's book is part of the extra-Biblical inspiration for white supremacist right wing hate cults and the book's thesis has also featured prominently in the conspiracy theories of racist groups such as The Covenant, The Sword, and the Arm of the Lord and other conspiracy theorists.

Like Messianic Judaism, Covenant Sword and the Arm of the Lord is not a "Jesuit" invention. It was a Baptist invention and it developed from a Baptist congregation called the Zarephath-Horeb Community Church and a far right political organization dedicated to Christian Identity and survivalism. Hislop is also one of the top ten on their "cranks r' us" hit parade. This is not to denigrate the entire Baptist communion. This is to show that no Christian communion is exempt from the emergence of rogue elements from within its ranks.

The "gospel according to Hislop" is also popular among the followers of Messianic Judaism. Begin at minute 9:53

Must Have Books for Messainic and Natsari Believers

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQr8ULUH-EU
_________________________________________________________

By the way,

Hislop devotes the first 128 pages of his book The Two Babylons to proving that the Christian Trinity is directly descended from the ancient Babylonian trinity. In particular, he convincingly proves that the origin of the Babylonian trinity was the triad of Cush (the grandson of Noah), Semiramis (his wife), and Nimrod (their son).....read more...

http://bib.irr.org/trinity-according-alexander-hislop-in-his-own-words
___________________________________________________

RayB himself said "(Hislop's)The book stands on its own merits."

But if RayB does not believe in the Trinity, then however much he might claim the situation is otherwise, he is not authentically Christian - even by orthodox Protestant standards.

 
Constance,

Just to keep things fair.....

I do not yet know what the Pope's response is to this, but here we have an inkling of the consequences of the infiltration of the Catholic Church by communists.....especially in terms of "liberation theology." Many of the agents who, according to Bella Dodd, entered the seminaries are now bishops.

As I have said on other occasions, I do not have to embrace the Pope's politics - or vote in favor of any politician who is pro abortion or in favor of gay marriage.
A "social justice" that is willing to tolerate either is not "social justice," but rather "social injustice"......and all the more sacreligious for disguising itself as "Catholic."

As for Pope Francis, I can only hope and pray that his words and actions are a consequence of his being "CLUELESS" when it comes to economics as he himself once said he was!!!

Wikileaks: George Soros Paid $650,000 to Influence Pope Francis’ Closest Friend
By: JNi.Media
Published: August 25th, 2016

http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/wikileaks-george-soros-paid-650000-to-influence-pope-francis-closest-friend/2016/08/25/
__________________________________

Leaked Document Shows Soros Spent $650K To Influence Pope Francis On ‘Economic And Racial Justice Issues’

http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/24/leaked-document-shows-soros-spent-650k-to-influence-pope-francis/
__________________________________

CATHOLIC FACEPALM: Soros’ $650,000 To “Influence” Pope Francis

....Back to the DCLeaks report, not too be too judgemental since the actual Soros grants were not made to the Church or any of her dioceses, but to think tank groups seeking to influence public opinion (as if many of us Catholics haven’t read encyclicals, the Summa Theologica, the Catechism and the Bible side by side even if a lot of priests preach as if they haven’t), the influence these groups may have had on His Holiness during his visit to the United States would have been more in the form of reinforcement of his convictions that were honed by years of watching what happened in Argentina, and the bankrupting of that country by “capitalists” who were really thieves by another name

This is what the man knows, and this is what Soros behind the curtain sought to exploit.
...read entire article...

http://dcgazette.com/2016/catholic-facepalm-soros-650000-influence-pope-francis/
 
Susanna said @ 1:53 PM ...

"But if RayB does not believe in the Trinity, then however much he might claim the situation is otherwise, he is not authentically Christian - even by orthodox Protestant standards."

Susanna, you are an incredible liar. I have never, NEVER doubted, written, said ANYTHING that could even remotely support your utter nonsensical lie regarding your implying that I do not "believe in the Trinity." Furthermore, (Gasp!!!) I read Hislop's Two Babylons about 35 years ago, it is HARDLY the basis of my belief system. You are a complete liar when you state that he "links" the Trinity to Babylon. WHAT he does prove, is that YOUR Catholic church's FALSE elevation of Mary to near god-like status (bogus "mother of God" ... she wasn't ... she was the Mother of his Human flesh). Jesus IS God, and pre-existed His advent to earth. YOUR RCC invention of Mary (i.e. Immaculate Conception, Bodily Assumption into heaven ... just like Jesus) is very much the same as the Pagan inventions of Isis, etc.

Also, I have NEVER ... as in NOT ONCE ... ever quoted ANYTHING from Hislop on this blog. If I have, you could surely find it and copy and paste it here.

Susanna makes the completely bogus claim that I ... along with other like-minded, Bible Believing Christians have a "New Age agenda." Copy and paste your proof Susanna, otherwise quit lying.

"The ones primarily bringing up the Roman Catholic Church on this blog are RayB and his radical right wing friends who are merely projecting their own "right wing" New Age agenda which involves disguising a fascist political ideology as "Christianity."

You also make the completely bogus claim (nice way of saying you are lying) that I have posted under an "anonymous." Your friend Constance can verify that I have NEVER .. as in ... NOT ONCE ... ever posted as "anonymous."

Lying really is a serious offense, Susanna. If you don't believe it, read the last chapter of the book of Revelation.
 
Susanna said @ 1:53 PM ..

"Currently, Hislop's book is part of the extra-Biblical inspiration for white supremacist right wing hate cults and the book's thesis has also featured prominently in the conspiracy theories of racist groups such as The Covenant, The Sword, and the Arm of the Lord and other conspiracy theorists."

Now, now Susanna. Take a few deep breaths and count to ten. Please calm down and consider this:

Susanna, you attack Hislop's work based on "guilt by association?" You claim that there are radical groups out there that offer Hislop's book. Well that just proves that it must be completely false, right?

I wonder if you apply the same standard to Pope Francis? You remember, don't you, that "gays" all over the world were just "loving this Pope?" Do you recall that Elton John (the married Sodomite) PRAISED the Pope ... saying he should be "canonized now as Saint Francis?"

Do you recall the Homosexual Magazine naming Pope Francis their "Man of the Year?"

Applying your "guilt by association" in which to make a valid judgment, that must mean the Francis is a Sodomite too ... because after all, he has been praised to the hilt by Sodomites!

I sincerely hope you see how absurd you are with your "guilt by association" game.
 
RayB,

Re:Susanna, you are an incredible liar. I have never, NEVER doubted, written, said ANYTHING that could even remotely support your utter nonsensical lie regarding your implying that I do not "believe in the Trinity."

Actually, you DID write things that could be taken to mean that you do not believe in the Trinity and I copy-pasted your own words about Hislop.

As for my saying you posted under "anonymous," I did no such thing. If you go back and CAREFULLY reread my post at 1:53 PM, you will see that in your post, you were addressing someone else calling himself "anonymous." You signed the post "RayB." That is how I know that it is you.

Also...I never said that you did not believe in the Trinity. I was referring to Hislop's disbelief in the Trinity and said that if you did not believe in the Trinity, then you were not authentically Christian. The key word here is "IF."

I did copy past my proof. You just got caught with your hand in the cookie jar. So kindly spare us your shrill histrionics.

Also....YOU are the one who has expressed support of Alexander Hislop and dismissed Woodrow who debunked his book.

According to the non-Catholic Christian site called "BIBLICAL CHRISTIANITY"...

(Hislop)devotes the first 128 pages of his book The Two Babylons to proving that the Christian Trinity is directly descended from the ancient Babylonian trinity. In particular, he convincingly proves that the origin of the Babylonian trinity was the triad of Cush (the grandson of Noah), Semiramis (his wife), and Nimrod (their son).....read more...

http://bib.irr.org/trinity-according-alexander-hislop-in-his-own-words.
_________________________________________________________

The following are your own words in which you are addressing the person going by "anonymous." I have also included the link to the specific thread.

Anonymous,

Furthermore, it does not matter what Woodrow or anyone else for that matter thinks of Hislop's book. The book itself stands on its own merits.

"The truth remains the truth even when no one believes it. A lie remains a lie even when everyone believes it."
# posted by Anonymous RayB : 2:31 PM


http://cumbey.blogspot.com/2015/12/a-blessed-and-merry-christmas-to-all.html
________________________________________________________

Anyone can go directly to the thread from last December to see the post for himself.

You are right. Lying is a serious offense. So why don't YOU go read the last chapter of the Book of Revelation!!!

 
RayB

Re: Susanna, you attack Hislop's work based on "guilt by association?" You claim that there are radical groups out there that offer Hislop's book. Well that just proves that it must be completely false, right?

It is not what I say. It is what other Protestants say....among whom are included Ralph Woodrow. Ergo, your beef is with them, not with me.
 
The question comes down to whether the Pope's "words and actions are a consequence of his being "CLUELESS"", as Susanna hopes, or if he is the Dark Sith Lord of the coming one world religion, as Ray believes.

I guess we shall wait and see, yes?

I lean toward the "clueless" view, for now. This is the same "cluelessness" that will infect (and is already infecting - why else would his views be so popular? They certainly aren't NEW) a large majority of mankind, when God allows them to believe the lie that is coming, and that indeed is already here.

 
Actually, I think you both should stop this, Susanna and RayB.
The video is the problem.
The issue doesn't need to be between individuals of different denominations (and treat each other as enemies) when addressing what is severely wrong with it.
Taking it at face value, and denominational issues aside, that video is calling for a new world order for religion. It is a globalist agenda and it is sanctioned by someone with a very big megaphone, the pope himself. That is totally the wrong message for christians within any denomination.
Jesus came here to save the souls of men, not do the social justice thing. And when He returns nobody will do it better than Him to make the whole world just. If He was about that as a priority, He would have mopped up the floor with global Rome at the time. Instead He died for sinners, or have some forgotten that? Social justice in the world happens when people are charitable and fair minded to others because they have been changed by the Heart-Changer Himself. It is a by product of knowing Jesus Christ by faith from the heart with a repenting changed mind, and choosing to follow Him as LORD, that's your life and lifestyle. Then, and only then, will we see world change God's style. Not the ecumenical devilish doctrines that video promotes, that aren't about true social justice and certainly doesn't draw people to the real God. Those that want world change without the Lord Jesus work for the devil.
We've been warned and warned...and folks still don't see the big picture??
Let's call a spade a spade!
 
RayB, 5:41 PM

Re: Susanna, you are an incredible liar. I have never, NEVER doubted, written, said ANYTHING that could even remotely support your utter nonsensical lie regarding your implying that I do not "believe in the Trinity." Furthermore, (Gasp!!!) I read Hislop's Two Babylons about 35 years ago, it is HARDLY the basis of my belief system. You are a complete liar when you state that he "links" the Trinity to Babylon.


I didn't say YOU did not believe in the Trinity. And I am not the one who has said that Hislop linked the Trinity to Babylon. At my 1:53 PM post, I cited one of my Protestant sources!!! So your beef is with them. I also said that IF you did not believe in the Trinity that you were not authentically Christian ......KEY WORD BEING "IF."

Also, even if you have never defended Hislop before, it sure sounds like you are implicitly defending him here.

Re:You also make the completely bogus claim (nice way of saying you are lying) that I have posted under an "anonymous." Your friend Constance can verify that I have NEVER .. as in ... NOT ONCE ... ever posted as "anonymous."


Again, if you had read my post a bit more carefully, you would hjave seen that I never said you posted as "anonymous." In your post which I cited, and copy-pasted in its entirety, you were addressing someone else going by anonymous but you signed the post "Anonymous RayB". Here it is again. This time pay attention.

Anonymous,

Furthermore, it does not matter what Woodrow or anyone else for that matter thinks of Hislop's book. The book itself stands on its own merits.

"The truth remains the truth even when no one believes it. A lie remains a lie even when everyone believes it."
# posted by Anonymous RayB : 2:31 PM


http://cumbey.blogspot.com/2015/12/a-blessed-and-merry-christmas-to-all.html
__________________________________________________________

Anyone here can also go to the thread on this blog from last December to read your post there.

It appears to me that I am not the one being untruthful here. YOU are the one who has gotten caught with his hand in the cookie jar. So kindly spare us the shrill histrionics.

The Trinity as professed in the Creeds of Chalcedon and Nicaea is what we must profess in order to be authentically Christian. If one professes a "Trinity" other than the Trinity professed in these Creeds, then it is a "Trinity" of one's own divising.

Oh, and I agree that lying is a serious offense....in which case YOU might want to go and read the last chapter of the Book of Revelation yourself.

 
RayB, 5:41 PM


Re: Susanna, you are an incredible liar. I have never, NEVER doubted, written, said ANYTHING that could even remotely support your utter nonsensical lie regarding your implying that I do not "believe in the Trinity." Furthermore, (Gasp!!!) I read Hislop's Two Babylons about 35 years ago, it is HARDLY the basis of my belief system. You are a complete liar when you state that he "links" the Trinity to Babylon.

I didn't say YOU did not believe in the Trinity. And I am not the one who has said that Hislop linked the Trinity to Babylon. At my 1:53 PM post, I cited one of my Protestant sources!!! So your beef is with them. I also said that IF you did not believe in the Trinity that you were not authentically Christian ......KEY WORD BEING "IF."

Also, even if you have never defended Hislop before, it sure sounds like you are defending him here.

Re:You also make the completely bogus claim (nice way of saying you are lying) that I have posted under an "anonymous." Your friend Constance can verify that I have NEVER .. as in ... NOT ONCE ... ever posted as "anonymous."

Again, if you go back and reread my post, you will see that I never said you posted as "anonymous." In your post which I cited, and copy-pasted in its entirety, you were addressing someone else going by anonymous but you signed the post "Anonymous RayB". Here it is again:

Anonymous,

Furthermore, it does not matter what Woodrow or anyone else for that matter thinks of Hislop's book. The book itself stands on its own merits.

"The truth remains the truth even when no one believes it. A lie remains a lie even when everyone believes it."
# posted by Anonymous RayB : 2:31 PM


http://cumbey.blogspot.com/2015/12/a-blessed-and-merry-christmas-to-all.html
__________________________________________________________

Anyone can go to the thread from last December to read your post.

It appears to me that I am not the one being untruthful here. YOU are the one who has gotten caught with his hand in the cookie jar. So kindly spare us the shrill histrionics.

The Trinity as professed in the Creeds of Chalcedon and Nicaea is what we must profess in order to be authentically Christian. If that is the Trinity you believe in, great. If one professes a "Trinity" other than the Trinity professed in these Creeds, then it is a "Trinity" of one's own divising.

I agree that lying is a serious offense....in which case YOU might want to go and read the last chapter of the Book of Revelation.
 
Constance,

My 8:39 post - which I have posted for the third time - has been "disappearing."

Will you please check your spam folder?
 
Susanna,

One last time; as I stated, I read Hislop's Two Babylons approximately 35 years ago. As I recall, it was a documented source tracing a variety of RCC beliefs and practices back to Babylon and Egypt, etc. For example, the dates celebrated (originally Catholic holy days) such as Easter & Christmas (Christ Mass) coincided with pagan "holy" days. Much of the symbols connected with these two days also are traced back to pagan origin.

As I recall, as well, the Rosary beads has pagan origin. I already stated that your "Mary" is not the true Mary of the Bible. The RCC "Mary" has been elevated to god-like status ... much like the goddesses of Paganism, such as Isis, Diana of the Ephesians, etc.
People "prayed" to these goddesses as well. By the way, the title "Queen of Heaven" is mentioned in the OT and is associated with a false, pagan goddess.

I'm surprised you haven't brought up another favorite of Catholics to bash ... "Roman Catholicism" by Lorraine Boettner. This is another one that I read in that time frame. I will tell you this, after I read Boettner's book, I did independent research by reading official Catholic books, the Catechism, etc. I found that Boettner's book told the truth regarding what Catholicism actually declares. Few Catholics will admit this, but Boettner's book laboriously quotes, verbatim, from official Catholic sources, and then compares such declarations with numerous Bible verses and passages in order to refute the RCC teachings from a Biblical perspective.

You will probably claim that his book, and Hislop's have been "discredited" by "protestants," etc. There are many apostate protestants that don't stand for historical, Biblical Christianity, but have rather, joined the anti-scriptural, ecumenical movement.
These are the ilk that "grace" the pages of Christianity Today ... or as Constance rightly calls it Apostasy Today. I personally couldn't care less what these people have to say, so bringing them up as a source to attack Hislop, Boettner, all of the Reformers, etc. means nothing to me. Rome only "loves" those that are willing to compromise Bible truth. Rome has always hated those that stand for Bible truth.
 
RayB,

I read that book, Two Babylons, years ago. The Seventh Day Adventists put a great deal of stock in it as did Ralph Woodrow who wrote a similar book. Ralph Woodrow later recanted much of what he said in his book, Babylon Mystery Religion. His now critical analysis of TWO BABYLONS can be read from this link:

http://www.equip.org/article/the-two-babylons/

Constance
 
And yet just about all of what (SJ?) Woodrow has written in his so-called refutation of Hislop's Two Babylons refutes nothing at all!

We are heading towards a Rome led One World beast system. Let's not deny the overwhelming evidence as to who is behind this: the Romish Cult!

Susanna is trying to back-track and hide her earlier pro-New Age (old Babylonian Mystery Religion ((there's nothing new under the Sun)) ) COEXIST agreement with Francis’ abominable views expressed in the video Ray B kindly provided.

Careful Susanna! You'll be making MCE look ... erhem... orthodox. .. no wonder she's such a sycophantic fan of yours!

Ray B. , don't accept the diversion tactics Susanna is jesuitically employing. You're a breath of fresh air here at the blog of blame anyone but the culprit: Rome!

God bless you brother!
 
Anon. 7:26...

In spite of years of evidence to the contrary, both here and on innumerable other blogs, websites, books, and other reliable sources, that the push for a new world religion comes from ALL quarters (the Vatican, the World Council of Churches, the WEA/NEA, the global network of groups documented by New Agers themselves, like Marilyn Ferguson, etc, etc, etc), you continue to focus on only Rome and insist that the root of the New Age is found there. Focusing on one aspect of a phenomenon is OK, as long as you don't ignore or dismiss the other aspects. You are misrepresenting the truth, because you won't accept all of it. And a partial truth is often worse than an outright lie, because it deceives quicker and easier.


 
Marko,

I've found the new age literature I've read to be quite the opposite and actually very hostile towards the catholic church. Although much of the Sofia goddess writings point out that there is a parallel church running within the church hierarchy (the church of Peter and the church of John). Apparently the church of John embraces the Sofia doctrine and is expected to subdue the church of Peter.
 
Marko,

No one on this blog denies that the push towards a One World Religion is exclusive to Rome. However, many on this blog are in complete denial as to Rome's infamous history, along with its denial and intense opposition, in doctrines and practice, regarding true Biblical Christianity.

The Vatican is by far the most powerful entity on earth that is pushing the One World Religion agenda. No one or group (WCC, NCC, etc.) has a bigger platform on the world's stage than does the Pope. And how has the Pope used this platform? To declare the uncompromising Gospel of Christ as He being the only sure way to eternal life? NO! Instead, the Pope has diminished Christ. Example: during his entire North American tour, the ONLY TIME Francis uttered the Name of Christ was at St. Patrick's Cathedral in NY ... it was there that he made the infamous statement; "Christ's failure of the cross." This blasphemous statement was re-iterated at the Vatican by him several weeks later in open forum. In order for the One World Religion to succeed, Christ MUST BE DIMINISHED!

Rome sees itself as not only the leader of the coming One World Religion, but also as rulers of the earth via their "king" the Pope. If you think this is far fetched, it is not; this is Official Catholic doctrine! At one time, Rome DID "rule" the "world" (Europe) through proxy, via their Catholic "princes" (Monarchies) that ruled Europe with an iron fist. They are seeking to return to their place of real power, only this time, they plan to be the major player in the coming One World Government dictatorship.

Rome too gets special attention on this blog by Bible believers because of its many blasphemies. Just two to mention here; first, is the title of the pope ... "Holy Father." This is the title reserved ONLY for God the Father, and was used by Jesus Himself. For the Pope to assume this title is utter, complete blasphemy. Next is that their "Mary" is falsely put forth as the "Mother of God." God CANNOT have a "Mother," for there was never a "beginning" to Jesus Christ. In fact, by calling their "Mary" this title, they are elevating HER to god-like status. When the Jews heard Jesus refer to God as His Father, they immediately accused Him of blasphemy by saying he was equal with God! They claim the "Immaculate Conception" to be, NOT the birth of Jesus, but "MARY" ... "born without SIN!" Again, this utterly false doctrine elevates their "Mary" to god-like status.

The deception is already here, and many are falling for the false, counterfeit "christianity" that is promulgated by Rome. Keep in mind as well, the message of the "Pope Video" was designed to diminish Jesus Christ as the only "way, truth and life; no man cometh unto the Father but" by HIM! Instead, the Pope declares the lie in the video that there are "many paths" and that "we are all children of God." Only those that are in Christ are "children of God."

This is very, very serious, because it is in fact denying that salvation is only promised through Jesus Christ, and Him alone! But it serves Rome's purpose in its attempt to help construct the the false, dictatorial One World Religion, where Biblical Christians will be the target of their wrath.
 

Constance,

First Woodrow does "research" to the point that he writes a book that is pro Two Babylons. Then he writes one that debunks his own research. And you think this man has credibility?


"A double minded man is unstable in all his ways." James 1:8

 
First Woodrow does "research" to the point that he writes a book that is pro Two Babylons. Then he writes one that debunks his own research. And you think this man has credibility? "A double minded man is unstable in all his ways." James 1:8

By that criterion, Ray, you should reject all adult converts to Christianity! Perhaps you would like to engage with Woodrow's specific arguments against Hislop?

For the record I am a protestant and, having looked closely at Roman Catholicism and read both Hislop's book and Woodrow's later book, I (i) remain firmly a protestant yet (ii) do not accept that Roman Catholicism is a disguised version of the pagan worship practised in ancient Babylon (often of the sun).

 
The influential figures in the one-world movement whom George Soros has eased through the open door presented by Pope Francis, and Soros' consequent huge influence on the Vatican:

http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/2718-the-pope-s-boss

(This is a nonliberal Catholic website.)

 
The goal of this blog is not to expose the New Age movement, but to keep the monkey chasing its tail. Things do tend to disappear if they aren't in line with non-exposure.
 
Anonymous RayB wrote:

…Next is that their "Mary" is falsely put forth as the "Mother of God." God CANNOT have a "Mother," for there was never a "beginning" to Jesus Christ. In fact, by calling their "Mary" this title, they are elevating HER to god-like status…

Theologically, you are incorrect regarding Jesus Christ not having a ‘beginning.’ Jesus Christ is the one, unique divine/human Person, yet His divinity, having unbounded eternality, has no beginning, while His humanity had a definite beginning - His birth in Bethlehem:

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord (Luke 2:11, KJV).

The eternal, divine Word, the second ‘Person’ of the Trinity, became flesh (John 1:14), resulting in the divine/human Person of Jesus Christ. Before the Word took on human flesh, the Word lacked humanity.

While I don’t particularly care for the term “Mother of God” (from theotokos), when one understands the history of the term, one sees the logic for it. Claiming that Mary is only the mother of Jesus’ human nature leads to the heresy of Nestorianism – that Christ was two separate persons.

Ask yourself this question: Was/Is Jesus God? Of course you’d answer “Yes.” Was Mary Jesus’ mother? No doubt she was. If you attempt to qualify it by ‘Mary was only mother to Jesus Christ’s humanity’, then you’ve just split Jesus Christ into two – one human Christ and one divine Christ. This is heresy.

There’s no question some have used the term “Mother of God” in a way that deifies her. That’s also heresy. Put in proper context, the RCC’s official doctrinal stance does not do that.

For the record, I’m not a Roman Catholic. I suppose I’d best fall in line with Protestantism, but I’m not entirely comfortable with that either, as I have doctrinal issues with all the denominations I’ve studied. I’d call myself a Bible-believing Christian and leave it at that. As a Holy Spirit indwelt believer, I belong to the universal Church, the ekklesia.

 
Craig said:

"Theologically, you are incorrect regarding Jesus Christ not having a ‘beginning."

Jesus Christ, as a member of the Trinity, NEVER had a "beginning." He ALWAYS existed as God, and was "manifested in the flesh" at His advent. He "took on human form, and made Himself lower than the angels." When He took on his humanity, he voluntarily limited Himself as illustrated by stating that "only the Father knows the day and the hour" of His 2nd. coming.

It sounds to me that you are very close to denying His eternal existence as God the Son. I have spoken at length with numerous members of the Jehovah Witness cult, who deny Christ's eternal, non-beginning existence. I like to use the following verse with them, have them read it, and then ask them Who it is this verse is referring to (they ALWAYS say "Jehovah") ... tell me who you think this verse is clearly referring to:

"Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre. Thous lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows." Psalm 45:6,7


 
RayB,

ReI'm surprised you haven't brought up another favorite of Catholics to bash ... "Roman Catholicism" by Lorraine Boettner.

I already have mentioned Loraine Boettner in past threads in more than one occasion....along with Jack Chick and Charles Chiniquy. You even quoted me. But I will let YOU go and look THAT one up.
 
RayB,

I'm going to break this down simply for you, asking a simple yes or no question:

Did Jesus' human nature predate His Incarnation, i.e., before Jesus Christ's birth in Bethlehem did He have a human nature?
 
Craig,

Well stated!


1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.

7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.

8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.

9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.


John 1:1-14

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

Chalcedonian Creed (451 A.D.)

An English translation of the Creed

We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable soul and body; consubstantial with us according to the manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the virgin Mary, the mother of God, according to the manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets from the beginning have declared concerning him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.

http://www.theopedia.com/chalcedonian-creed
______________________________________________

Nicene Creed (381 A.D.)

I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
he suffered death and was buried,
and rose again on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead
and his kingdom will have no end.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.

I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins
and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/
_________________________________________________________

 
Anonymous Craig said...

RayB,

I'm going to break this down simply for you, asking a simple yes or no question:

Did Jesus' human nature predate His Incarnation, i.e., before Jesus Christ's birth in Bethlehem did He have a human nature?

3:47 PM

Of course His "humanity" did not precede His advent. You are making my point and you don't even realize it. It was at His advent that He took on human form, without of course the sin nature. Mary could NOT have been the "Mother of God" because "God" was not "born" at Bethlehem, because as GOD, He preexisted His advent! Because Jesus was God before His advent, as scripture states in John chapter 1, He was manifest in the flesh ... "and the Word (God) was made flesh, and dwelt among us..." Of course, you are familiar with John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

By the way ... did you read those verses from Psalm 45? What is your response ... WHO is it?
 
Craig,

While we are having this interesting back and forth conversation, please share with me your thoughts on the doctrine of Purgatory, where all good Catholics go to have their Venial sins cleansed and paid for. Also, I'd to read your thoughts on the Catholic Doctrine re: Moral Sin. I can provide you a link to a very long Catholic list of Venial and Mortal sins. But in particular, I'd like to hear your thoughts on this:

A Catholic that misses Mass on purpose, suddenly dies that same day. According to Catholic Doctrine, that person will go to Hell for all eternity.

Again ... I'd love to hear your thoughts.
 
To say that Mary is not the "Mother of God" ( according to his manhood ) is to sever Christ. This is the spirit of the antichrist.
 
RayB,

Actually, if you read my initial post carefully, you’ll see that I’m not making your point, as I’ve carefully delineated the divine nature from the human from an eternal perspective. Quite simply, since you’ve conceded that the human nature does not predate the Incarnation, you must then concede that the divine/human Jesus Christ does not predate the incarnation. It is more precise to state that the divine, eternal Word, Son of God, second ‘Person’ of the Trinity became (or “was made”) flesh, at which point the Word acquires a new mode of existence as a divine/ human entity – Jesus Christ.

Of course, the Word, Son of God, second ‘Person’ of the Trinity always was and ever remains eternal. And, once the Word united flesh to Himself, He was/is still ever eternal; however, His existence as Word-made-flesh has a very definite beginning point – the Incarnation.

According to the “Creed” at Chalcedon, as Susanna posted, Jesus Christ is:

…begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead

This, of course, refers to His eternal divine nature.

Continuing:

…and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the virgin Mary, the mother of God, according to the manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten…

The bolded portion is key, referring to His human nature. Mary gave birth to the Person of Jesus Christ, His entire Person. Yet, Mary is His mother “according to the manhood” only, i.e. His human nature; however, we cannot leave it that, for then it reads like Nestorianism – a human Christ and a separate divine Christ. This is why the “Creed” goes on:

… to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ…

---------------

Anonymous 5:09,

Read this post very carefully, and you’ll see that the “Creed” of Chalcedon does not do what you suppose it does by proof-texting as you've done.
 
Anon 5:09,

Sorry, i read your post too quickly. We're on the same page!
 
Craig,

I noticed you didn't comment on Psalm 45, nor on the Purgatory, missing Mass question.

One more question for you: Did God have a Mother? yes or no


 
By the way ... nowhere does the Scriptures ever refer to Mary as the "Mother of God." This title is purely a Roman Catholic invention, and is arrived at through their process of rationalization. It does not have any basis in Scripture whatsoever.

Nor does her Roman Catholic title "Queen of Heaven," which incidentally, IS mentioned in Scripture ... but that title is associated with a Pagan goddess.

Again, the false "Mary" of Roman Catholicism is an invention derived from Paganism, and not from the Bible itself. RCC's "Immaculate Conception" is NOT the doctrine of Christ's sinless birth, but of their Mary! Further proof that they have falsely elevated her to god-like status.
 
RayB,

At this point I have no interest in discussing those other things with you. My intent was merely to correct your mistake regarding your assertion that Jesus Christ has no beginning, which you at least partially conceded.

The Chalcedon Definition (“Creed”) is affirmed by all major Protestant denominations. It has been and is the basis for orthodox Christianity with respect to Christology, the Person of Jesus Christ. To deny the Definition at Chalcedon is to affirm heresy. You may not care for “Mother of God” (theotokos, or “bearer of God”), which I can understand, but when you realize the historical background, you’ll see why it was stated this way (as I pointed out earlier with the link to Nestorianism).

Myself, I’d have preferred the term theanthropotokos which would mean “mother of God-man”, or “bearer of God-man”.


You wrote, … nowhere does the Scriptures ever refer to Mary as the "Mother of God." This title is purely a Roman Catholic invention…

On the first part you are correct, of course; however, on the second you are mistaken. You may want to view the historical background before you make such assertions.

 
RayB,

OK, how's this: In John 8:58, Jesus Himself states, "...Before Abraham was, I am." Here He clearly claims His preexistence. But, did He mean that in his humanity (I state this as concession, not promoting Nestorianism!) He was 'the I Am'? Well, no; it was/is in His divinity that He can claim to be the "I Am." You can apply this to your Psalm 45 question.
 
Craig ...

I noticed that you didn't identify Who exactly it is that Psalm 45 refers to. Why can't you answer that question?

It seems very obvious Who it is ... so what is your answer?


 
Craig,

Re: You (RayB) wrote, … nowhere does the Scriptures ever refer to Mary as the "Mother of God." This title is purely a Roman Catholic invention…

On the first part you are correct, of course; however, on the second you are mistaken. You may want to view the historical background before you make such assertions.


The Roman Catholic Old Testament canon is the Greek translation known as the Septuagint. In the Gospels of the New Testament, which were also in Greek, Mary's cousin Elizabeth addresses Mary as "Mother of my Lord." Luke 1:42-43 In Greek, as you know, "Lord" would be the translation of "Kyrios."

In the Septuagint, the Greek equivalent for Jahveh, Adonai and Shaddai was Kyrios.
Ergo, the use of Kyrios in reference to Jesus in the New Testament - especially frequent in the Epistles of St. Luke and St. Paul - is a clear indication of Christ's divinity since the Hebrew equivalents - especially Jahveh - were never used to refer to anyone BUT God.


 
RayB,

Why don't you just quote Psalm 45:6-7 from Hebrews 1:8-9, in which the context is even more clear? Obviously, Psalm 45:6-7 is a messianic prophetic passage.

But, really, what is the point you are driving at? How does this refute what I'd written?
 
Susanna,

Yes, you are correct that Luke 1:43 uses, literally, "the mother of my Lord"; however, to even better make your case, Mary replies to Gabriel's words in verse 37 "For nothing is impossible with God" with (in verse 38): "I am the Lord's servant..." Quite obviously, by the context, Mary has equated God with Lord, and Elizabeth's words to Mary convey the point that Lord = God.
 
Hi Craig re RayB etc,

Luke 8:20-21King James Version (KJV)
20 And it was told him by certain which said, Thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to see thee.
21 And he answered and said unto them, My mother and my brethren are these which hear the word of God, and do it.

Jesus reply is quite telling in that he refers to older women as mother and brothers and sisters as brethern based on hearing and doing Gods Word (revealed will etc).
Mary was not afforded a higher status in scripture (worship/veneration) but it was said in the scriptures that she would be remembered.

On the Cross in John 19:26 Jesus says to Mary "Woman, behold your son "... one would think He would refer to her as mother.
It raises the question of why was the emphasis on woman rather the mother?

Regards,
Grant



 
http://www.gotquestions.org/Mary-mother-God-theotokos.html
 
Question: "Is Mary the mother of God (Theotokos)?"

Answer: The phrase “mother of God” originated with and continues to be used in the Roman Catholic Church. One of the topics at the Council of Ephesus in AD 431 was the use of the Greek term Theotókos, or “God-bearer,” in reference to Mary. That council officially proclaimed Mary as the “mother of God,” and the doctrine was later included in the Catholic catechism. The idea behind calling Mary the “mother of God” is that, since Jesus is God and Mary is the mother of Jesus, she is the mother of God.

The major problem with this logic is that the term “God” implies the totality of Yahweh, and we know that Yahweh has no beginning and no end (Psalm 90:2). First Timothy 6:15-16 says that God is immortal. Being immortal, God never was “born” and never had a “mother.” The second Person of the Trinity, Jesus, did have a beginning to His earthly ministry when he was conceived in Mary’s womb and was born, but from eternity past He had always been the Son of God.

Philippians 2:6–7 gives us a bit more insight on what transpired when Jesus left heaven to become man. The New Living Translation says, “Though he was God, he did not think of equality with God as something to cling to. Instead, he gave up his divine privileges; he took the humble position of a slave and was born as a human being.” Jesus was already one with the Father, but He set aside His rights as Divinity and took the form of a baby (John 1:1). He went on to live the normal life of a Jewish boy, obeying His earthly parents (Luke 2:51).

A mother by definition precedes her child and at some point is more powerful than her child. So to call Mary the “mother of God” gives the misleading implication that Mary preceded and at one time was more powerful than the Lord God Almighty. Although Catholic doctrine tries to deny this implication, it is inescapable.

It is biblical to say that Mary was the mother of the Lord Jesus Christ during His incarnation on the earth. However, Catholics believe it is not enough to say that Mary was the mother of Jesus. Pope John Paul II, in a speech in 1996, encouraged people “not only to invoke the Blessed Virgin as the Mother of Jesus, but also to recognize her as Mother of God” (L'Osservatore Romano, 4 December 1996, p. 11). This is not biblical. The Lord God Almighty has no mother, since He has no beginning and no end (Genesis 1:1; Revelation 4:8).

Recommended Resource: The Gospel According to Rome: Comparing Catholic Tradition and The Word of God by James McCarthy
 
Grant,

With all due respect, you are adding extraneous arguments that do not refute the Biblical doctrine that Jesus’ mother is Mary (see my comment to Susanna just above yours).

I’m sure you are not using Luke 8:20-21 to portray Jesus as denying Mary is His mother. On the contrary, Jesus’ point is that His family is not limited to His earthly family, that is, Jesus’ family is the entire body of believers. Certainly Mary is not excluded from that!

Similarly, in John 19:26, I don’t think you’re trying to say that Jesus is denying that Mary was His mother. Since He knew His earthly life was going to end (from a human perspective), Jesus wanted to comfort Mary by telling her John would take care of her.

You wrote: Mary was not afforded a higher status in scripture (worship/veneration) but it was said in the scriptures that she would be remembered. You are correct that Mary was/is not worshiped in Scripture, and I’m certainly not advocating that she be worshiped. While some may do so, I’m not one of them; and, in fact, I well stated my opposition to this earlier. My stance remains in accordance with the positions I stated previously – nothing more, nothing less.
 
Please, everyone, I do not want to get into some longwinded discussion on this. My original comment was to RayB in an effort to correct his erroneous statement about Jesus Christ having ‘no beginning’. In fact, Anon 6:17AM’s quote affirms this:

… The second Person of the Trinity, Jesus, did have a beginning to His earthly ministry when he was conceived in Mary’s womb and was born, but from eternity past He had always been the Son of God.

On this issue, I’ll paraphrase something I wrote earlier: As John 1:1 states, “In the beginning was the Word”. In proper context this is referring to the Word’s eternality. In John 1:14 “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us”. Thus, when viewed from a temporal perspective we have “the Word”, who later becomes ‘Word-made-flesh’, taking on a new mode of existence as the divine/human Person of Jesus Christ. So, from a temporal perspective, Jesus has a beginning, while the Word has always existed. In other words, since Jesus Christ is ‘Word-made-flesh’, then Jesus Christ is not, strictly speaking, “the Word”; and, conversely, “the Word” did not have human flesh prior to the Incarnation. In fact, John’s Gospel nowhere equates Jesus Christ with “the Word”, and the fourth Gospel does not use “the Word” (logos) to refer to Jesus except as ‘Word-made-flesh’ in 1:14. However, John’s Gospel exalts Jesus Christ as God, and we know that “the Word was[/is] God” (John 1:1).

So, claiming that Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ while simultaneously denying that she is “mother of God” is tantamount to denying the integrity of the hypostatic union, and, hence, Jesus’ divinity. THAT is what was at issue at the Council of Ephesus in 431AD. That is, historically, the point of using theotokos, “mother of God”, or “bearer of God”, was to affirm Jesus Christ’s divinity (and humanity), not to ascribe divinity to Mary.

Again, I would have preferred theanthroptokos (from “theos”, God; “anthropos”, man), or “bearer of God-man”, which, in my view, would have been much more accurate.
 
Grant adds just the right perspective to the context. One should not make more either way of Jesus' own words for these relationships to Himself.
We do not have to get too high and heady about it because Jesus is so straight forward.
He is Lord, and all others in relation to Him pale to the background===just as they should.


Thank you for your 3:07 AM input, Grant.
 
Anon 10:04AM,

On the surface, what you state is not untrue; however, it can be inferred from your statement that Jesus' words somehow trump the rest of Scripture, which is an implicit denial of the full authority of Scripture. I'm not saying that this is what you are consciously doing.

What do you make of Elizabeth calling Mary "mother of my Lord" (Luke 1:43), especially when understood in its full context? Is that statement somehow inferior to Jesus' words in Luke 8:20-21 and John 19:26?
 
Craig:

Also in Luke 1:40-45 we are told

During those days Mary set out and traveled to the hill country in haste to a town of Judah, 40 where she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth. 41 When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the infant leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth, filled with the holy Spirit, 42 cried out in a loud voice and said, "Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. 43 And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord 14 should come to me? 44 For at the moment the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy. 45 Blessed are you who believed 15 that what was spoken to you by the Lord would be fulfilled."

Here we are explicitly told that Elizabeth was "filled with the Holy Spirit" when she identified Jesus as the Lord before His birth and that even her own unborn infant "leaped for joy" in His presence.





 
Jesus Christ the Eternal, was "housed and homed" by an earthly Mom, because her womb was chosen by God His Father. What an honored "vessel" she was and still is, because she had a role to play (as did Joseph) in God's kingdom business. I also think God let it be controversial (a virgin not quite married yet) to outsiders, and was later something the Pharisees tried to make issue of, so they knew about that, but if they had been all about the Word as they proclaimed (holding it over others heads-not their own), they could have, would have, traced back to find out what actually occurred in Bethlehem and when, and among whom. It wasn't so secret, their eyes were blind and their hearts were hard. I think God likes to turn the proud inside out that way.
Her low estate (but of the right lineage as God had spoken) was useful in God's plan for The Son of God to be born to be the Son of Man--dying as the Man who became sin for us, who knew no sin because God is sinless. He fulfilled both titles, born into the fleshly realm, to a flesh and bone sinner become saint, as Mary herself acknowledges in her magnificant. She gave all glory to God and quietly pondered in her heart, how humbling was her place in history, as she stepped aside to let her son take His place to save sinners, such as she knew she was too. That is why her praise is so beautiful. Her focus was where it belonged..."in God my Savior" (Luke 1:47).
She was an ordinary Mom given an extraordinary privilege to carry in her body, the One Who fulfilled her destiny, too, the opportunity to belong to God forever by the sacrifice of God's Lamb. God's Amazing Grace brought Him to us, giving Him an ordinary human life, that our High Priest and Lord would be identified with those He came to save.

Elizabeth spoke woman to woman, about Mary's blessed circumstance, as she knew she was living one, too. These cousins would both be finding out how extraordinary their circumstances were, that the God of heaven picked them both for such a high calling in His plan and purpose.

I love how God writes a story, to fulfill it in such natural and supernatural ways, to let us flawed and broken human beings become righteous, children of God, for placing our faith in Him. Mary certainly has a special place above all others as God's vessel unto honor.
By faith the Lord Jesus invites us all to allow room for Him, in the "Bethlehem" of our hearts, to reign as King from within us, and over us, as Mary did.

There is only room for ONE at the top. Mary certainly understood that, and by faith, bowed to His will.
 
Craig said...

On this issue, I’ll paraphrase something I wrote earlier: As John 1:1 states, “In the beginning was the Word”. In proper context this is referring to the Word’s eternality.

This is a good discussion, however I have a different opinion on this.
It does not mean I have all knowledge regarding this, but words do have meaning otherwise all is lost.

I do not suppose to know the mysteries of God, nor of his eternity past, but in John 1:1 the word beginning has meaning. It does not infer eternity past. Any thing with a beginning refers to it's starting point. 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.


It also states that in John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only 'begotten' Son.......

Words again have meaning. This verse implies that the begotten of the father was preexisting the actual incarnation of which we all do agree? Yet the word 'begotten' again has meaning similar to that of beginning, that of being a fixed point or reference in time, 'to off spring' is not referring to eternity past.

 
Dan Bryan,

In the first few verses of the Gospel of John (1:1-3) we observe that “the Word” was “with God”. This, in full context, taking in consideration 1:14 (and etc.), indicates “God” is the Father, and that “the Word” is a separate, distinct entity from the Father. In addition, “the Word was [and is] God”, who was “with God [the Father] in the beginning”. Beginning of what? Verse 3 makes it clear that the reference is to creation. For “through him all things were made”. If “the Word” was the agent of creation, then “the Word” must predate creation, and, hence, “the Word” must be eternal.

What I’ve done is just taken the ‘plain sense’ of the text without reading anything (hopefully) into it. The Gospel writer has magnificently borrowed the words from Genesis 1!

The key to understanding John’s Gospel (my favorite book of the 66) is to fully digest the first 18 verses, which some have called the prologue. Nowhere in these verses do we find an explicit or implicit reference to the second ‘Person’ of the Trinity’s ‘begotten-ness’, as the second ‘Person’ of the Trinity, predating the Incarnation (i.e., “eternal generation”). However, 1:14 speaks of the Word’s becoming flesh. This is what is in view in 3:16.

In 3:16, the context is about God’s gift of salvation to the world in his Son. This is to be effected by ‘lifting Him up’ (3:14), i.e. crucifixion. 3:17 makes it clear that God [the Father] sent his Son into the world to save it. However, “the Son” is God the Father’s Son both eternally and incarnationally. So, of course, “the Son” is eternal, with unbounded eternality. But, from a temporal perspective, the Son who paid the price for our sins on the cross is the incarnational divine/human Son. And this incarnational Son (1:14, 18), was formerly “the Word”, who subsequently became Word-made-flesh (1:14).

Yes, 3:16 implies the Son’s preexistence, but the context points to 1:14, not eternal generation of the Trinity. And, quite simply, it’s logically incoherent to think that Jesus Christ’s humanity precedes the Incarnation. Yes, Jesus’ divine nature precedes the Incarnation, but His humanity is concurrent with it. And Jesus Christ ever remains the divine/human second ‘Person’ of the Trinity.

So, while we can certainly say “Jesus Christ is eternally God”, we must understand that as Word-made-flesh He had a definite starting point – the Incarnation – however, as a member of the Trinitarian Godhead, He has no beginning.

 
I think those of us here of Christian persuasion would agree that during Jesus Christ's time on earth He was 'God incarnate'. With this in mind, when Mary birthed Jesus in Bethlehem she gave birth to God incarnate.
 
Susanna,

Yes, the context of Luke 1:35-45 (and larger context) makes the point clear that both Mary and Elizabeth understood that Mary was to birth "my Lord" (1:43). And the reader is to understand the same thing.
 
Dan Bryan,

Actually, in reading John 1:1-3 again, I should say that "the beginning" may well refer to a time predating creation; however, it may also be concurrent with it. In any case, we can't infer anything else from the context.
 
I've revised my plans on my next book. The title is

THE NEW AGE ROOTS OF COMMON CORE

Constance
 
Craig,

I quoted Psalm 45:6,7 for a particular reason, that being that it clearly declares Jesus as God. We also know that Jesus is the Creator, and that all things were made through Him.

As Creator, and as God, He had no beginning. When He was manifested in the flesh via the Virgin Birth, Mary was only a vessel for the birth of his humanity. Being that He was God, and she was human, Jesus received nothing from Mary regarding His God "nature" if you will.

Therefore, she cannot be the Mother of God, because she did not contribute ANYTHING towards His birth that contributed one iota of Him being "God Incarnate."

Catholics arrive at their "Mother of God" status for her through rationalization, and without any Scriptural support whatsoever. Just as they invented the "Immaculate Conception" doctrine (Mary born without original sin), and the "Assumption of Mary"(bodily assumed into heaven), prayers to Mary, statues of Mary, etc. Amazingly, they also claim that as the "Queen of Heaven," she now sits next to her Son on the Throne of God!

Roman Catholicism's "Mary" has been elevated to god-like status. Its baffling to me that anyone that professes to believe God's Word would not be able to see that.
 
RayB,

Thanks for the clarification. However, as shown in Luke 1:35-45 there IS Scriptural support that Mary was, according to Elizabeth, “mother of my Lord”, i.e. mother of God. While Scripture never uses theotokos, the Luke verses clearly indicate Mary was, ‘mother of the Lord’.

Also, as I stated earlier, theotokos was not an exclusively RCC invention; the term was used to maintain the integrity of the hypostatic union at the Council of Ephesus (and earlier), with Cyril of Alexandria, Egypt chief spokesperson.

You wrote:

…When He was manifested in the flesh via the Virgin Birth, Mary was only a vessel for the birth of his humanity…

The Definition at Chalcedon (451AD) makes this statement:

…and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the virgin Mary, the mother of God (theotokos), according to the manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten…

Notice it also calls her theotokos, mother of God (or “God-bearer”) according to the manhood in order to maintain the integrity of His divine/human Person. Continuing:

… to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ…

Mary bore the God-man; she is “mother of God, according to the manhood”. So, when you write:

Therefore, she cannot be the Mother of God, because she did not contribute ANYTHING towards His birth that contributed one iota of Him being "God Incarnate."

…you destroy the integrity of the hypostatic union, a la Nestorianism. And, unless you change your stance, you are identified as a heretic according to historic, orthodox Christianity, for all major Protestant denominations affirm the “Creed” at Chalcedon.

Which brings me to this question out of curiosity: To which denomination do you belong?
 
Dan Bryan can't figure out the obvious. "in John 1:1 the word beginning has meaning. It does not infer eternity past. Any thing with a beginning refers to it's starting point. Beginning is a point in time." so far so good. but then
"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. " Bryan elsewhere said he thinks the Word didn't always exist.

Craig rightly points to Genesis as showing "the beginning" is beginning of all creation

"Beginning of what? Verse 3 makes it clear that the reference is to creation. For “through him all things were made”. If “the Word” was the agent of creation, then “the Word” must predate creation, and, hence, “the Word” must be eternal."

but then caves to Dan Bryan's influence (whatever it is) somehow "Actually, in reading John 1:1-3 again, I should say that "the beginning" may well refer to a time predating creation; however, it may also be concurrent with it. In any case, we can't infer anything else from the context"

the beginning is the beginning of creation. And IN THE BEGINNING we see God did something, so God (incl. the whole Trinity) must have ALREADY existed BEFORE the beginning in order to already be there "in the beginning," and do something "in the beginning." By "God" I mean the whole Trinity. there is nothing before the beginning but God. because God (not angels) created everything by just saying so not out of His own essence. "Creation" includes all visible and invisible incl. angels. before the beginning there was only incomprehensible God.

none of the Trinity have a BEGINNING but two have an origin The Father, from all eternity and without a beginning, that is, you cannot say (as do Arians of various kinds) of The Son or of The Holy Spirit that "there was a time when He was not." Genesis speaks of The Holy Spirit operating, so all Three existed BEFORE the beginning. If any of the Trinity preexisted another, then it would read "in the beginning was God who produced The Son and The Holy Spirit and then they went on to create everything else." But it doesn't.

QUEEN OF HEAVEN - Jewish queens were the MOTHERS of the kings not wives.
RayB "As Creator, and as God, He had no beginning. When He was manifested in the flesh via the Virgin Birth, Mary was only a vessel for the birth of his humanity. Being that He was God, and she was human, Jesus received nothing from Mary regarding His God "nature" if you will. Therefore, she cannot be the Mother of God, because she did not contribute ANYTHING towards His birth that contributed one iota of Him being "God Incarnate.""

Exactly correct. But YOU ARE THINKING OF MOTHER AS ORIGIN. That is not claimed here. Mary is birthgiver
of God in the flesh, because WHAT CAME OUT OF HER WOMB WAS GOD though He did not originate in any
way from her, He entered her womb and took an unfertilized egg or a cell of her flesh and united Himself to that by The Holy Spirit.

"Mother of God" declares Jesus' divinity contra those denying it Nestorius posited distinct persons not one person two natures so disliked "theotokos" because it affirmed the divinity of Christ without denying His humanity instead of God having moved in on a man which is more like Nestorius thought or used that simile+ at least.
 
Craig said to Anon at 10:35am

"On the surface, what you state is not untrue; however, it can be inferred from your statement that Jesus' words somehow trump the rest of Scripture, which is an implicit denial of the full authority of Scripture. I'm  saying that this is what you are consciously doing."

Actually Jesus Christ is "the full authority" so His Words are Scripture in the true sense of the word... He is Gods Word.
There is no denial of the scripture in any sense because He can not deny Himself.
We however are to endeavour to seek and find the whole council of God in a matter.
To that end and dealing with the matter that was at hand being " the worship of Mary by the Roman Catholic Church".
Scripture and the Words of Jesus (which is one in the same) does not in anyway condone or support the practise.

Regards,
Grant







 
Correction to my comment at 3:07 Craigs comment reads...
"I am not saying that this is what you are consciously doing."

The "not" dropped out in cut and paste due bold font was excluded from formating.
My apologies.

Regards ,
Grant
 
Christine, ardent arguer and self-appointed authority above all, asserts re: John 1:1:

the beginning is the beginning of creation. And IN THE BEGINNING we see God did something, so God (incl. the whole Trinity) must have ALREADY existed BEFORE the beginning in order to already be there "in the beginning," and do something "in the beginning."…

The Greek words Εν αρχη (en archē), “in [the] beginning“ do not have to represent a precise point in time. No doubt John the Gospel writer evokes Genesis 1:1 here; however, there’s a major difference in that the subject in John 1:1 is “the Word”: “In the beginning the Word… This is as opposed to Gen 1:1’s “In the beginning God… (which we understand as the Trinity, since the Hebrew uses the plural Elohim), which then goes right into describing the act of creation.

In contrast, John first describes, respectively, the Word’s [pre]existence (eternality), association (with the Father), and essence/nature. Verse 2 reiterates His association with the Father and His eternality. THEN verse 3 asserts that the Word is the agent of creation, thus expounding on Gen 1. Hence, en archē probably best represents a point before creation – what point that is, cannot be ascertained by the context. To attempt to do so is eisegesis, as opposed to exegesis. Moreover, nowhere is the Holy Spirit even mentioned in John 1:1. Of course, given that Gen 1:1 uses Elohim we know that the entire Trinity was involved with creation, but that is not part of the context of John 1:1.

 
Grant,

I don’t wish to get into an anti-RCC rant, though I do not agree with a lot of RCC doctrines regarding Mary. In my opinion, the RCC exalts Mary too high, while, in general, Protestantism errs too far to the other side – especially in polemics against the RCC.

 
Craig,

Just out of curiosity, what is your take on the RCC doctrine of Purgatory?
 
RayB,

I'll answer you, if you'll answer my query re: What denomination are you part of? I've already identified myself as non-denominational.
 
While doing a bit of research on theotokos, I found something very interesting. According to McGuckin, the title began as μητερ θεου, mēter theou*, “mother of God”, in Egypt apparently to counter the pagan term designated to Isis, which was ‘mother of the god Horus’.[1] It was later displaced by θεοτοκος, theotokos,[2] which is better translated into English as “God-bearer” or “God-birther”, as opposed to “Mother of God”.


[1] John A. McGuckin, The SCM Press A-Z of Patristic Theology (London: SCM Press, 2005), p 330.
[2] ibid.

*theos has the genitive/possessive ending “u” here which replaces the “s” of the nominative form (so the term could be translated as “mother of God” or “God’s mother).

 
RayB,

Previously you stated your adherence to the King James Bible only. In my travels I’ve come across a few different KJV/B only persuasions. Of which do you adhere? Do you believe the Greek underlying the KJV/B, i.e. the Textus Receptus is the only authoritative Greek text and/or do you believe the King James is the only inspired Bible?

 
Christine,

I defer to you!
Blessings!

Philippians 2:3
Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.


 
Craig ...

I am non-denominational as well, and do not belong to any "church" other than the true "catholic" ( small "c" i.e. "universal") church of all born again believers.

As far as KJV only, I hold to the belief that the Textus Receptus is the most ACCURATE Greek text available. I do not make a big deal out of this, because I believe the Holy Spirit brings those to conviction, and repentance (via sovereign grace), and of course did so prior to the existence of the KJV. With that being said, I would encourage believers to use the KJV, because I believe it is the most accurate translation available to us. As far as my personal adherence to the KJV "only" ... that is my own PERSONAL preference based on my own PERSONAL convictions.
 
Craig said...

"I don’t wish to get into an anti-RCC rant, though I do not agree with a lot of RCC doctrines regarding Mary. In my opinion, the RCC exalts Mary too high, while, in general, Protestantism errs too far to the other side – especially in polemics against the RCC."

Hi Craig,

In this " Politically Correct" world if you challenge anything your branded "anti".
I think its a means of shuting down the Truth by shuting up the "truth tellers".
I am anti false doctrine found in any denomination, I hold to a "non cessationist" doctrinal stance yet with regard to exposeing false doctrine I have educated most of the false doctrines now rife in Charismatic and Pentecostal movements.
Truth is that false teaching and practises are on the rise in every denomination... it seems its only to what degree its happening and its overall effect in the denominations that is debateble.

Regards,
Grant
 
RayB,

Thanks for your response. I do not believe in purgatory, as I don’t find it in the Scriptures, as I read and understand them.

And thanks for making your position re: KJV clear. I don’t care for its antiquated language, though I do like the translations of a few passages as compared to some modern counterparts. However, there are other verses that are much better rendered in the newer versions.

Having studied a bit of NT textual criticism, I do not believe the textus receptus (TR) to be as faithful to what is more likely the original transmission of the Greek. While I don’t agree with every particular decision regarding individual textual variants, the NA28/UBS5 text, the Greek text underlying most modern versions, I think it superior the TR. The Johannine Comma is the most problematic aspect of the TR, in my opinion (as well as many others).

Are you aware that the KJV 1611 – the ‘original’ KJV – contained 14 books of the Apocrypha, what the RCC terms the deuterocanonical books? I actually have in my library a paperback of an Oxford KJV based on the 1611, including the Apocrypha. I’m sure you’re aware that 2 Maccabees 12 is used as a reference for the RCC doctrine of purgatory.

 

Grant said:

"Truth is that false teaching and practises are on the rise in every denomination... it seems its only to what degree its happening and its overall effect in the denominations that is debateble."

Very true Brother! I think there has been a very distinct slide among so-called "Protestant" churches since about the mid 1850's. Charles Spurgeon spoke and wrote about it in his day, for which he was attacked from all sides. I believe it was known as the "Downward Spiral Controversy." In a nutshell, Spurgeon said that as compromise of Bible truth continues, what is not acceptable in the current generation, will be in the next. On and on it goes until you end up with outright apostasy.

I never had respect for the magazine in the USA called "Christianity Today." Even as a very young Christian, I recognized it as a vehicle of compromise. But now, it is literally promoting "gays" as viable members of the body of Christ. The next step is almost guaranteed; gay marriage performed in so-called Bible believing churches!

The end of the age ends in apostasy ... "When the Son of Man cometh; shall he find faith upon the earth?" "Ever learning but never able to come to the knowledge of the truth." "Form of godliness, but denying the power thereof." etc., etc.

RayB


 
Grant,

I consider myself a 'cautious continuationist', and, as you know, I've written about some of the issues in what I term "hyper-charismaticism." And, yes, I agree that apostasy is waxing worse and worse - in accordance with prophetic Scripture.

I prefer not to get into any (or at least not many) anti-RCC polemics because it rarely actually accomplishes anything. The RCC's rule of faith is Tradition plus Scripture; whereas, the Protestant's is Scripture alone. And the twain shall never meet.

 
Hi Craig and RayB re last comments,

Agree with your comments.
Like the phrase "cautious continuationist" might use that one myself, it sums up our position really well.
And you are so correct, RC's very seldom like any questioning at all of their beliefs.
When the Bible isnt your main authority anything goes.

God bless,
Grant
 
Grant,

Allow me to clarify my position with respect to RCC. It’s as Susanna has stated more than once here (paraphrased), the RCC has a different rule of faith than Protestantism, and we cannot measure each other’s positions by the standards of the opposing rule of faith. For example, to tell a RCC adherent that the Assumption of Mary is not Biblical might receive a response of bewilderment, such as “Your point is…?”, because the RCC adherent finds the doctrine for the Assumption of Mary in their Tradition, not in the Bible. Moreover, strictly speaking, that doctrine is not anti-Biblical, though it is extra-Biblical. Hence, a Protestant cannot really criticize that particular RCC doctrine.

Bottom line: To criticize another’s particular position fairly one must criticize it based upon the rule of faith of the one being criticized, not the criticizer’s.

So, this is what I meant when I stated that it rarely accomplishes anything.

 
Craig said...

"Bottom line: To criticize another’s particular position fairly one must criticize it based upon , the rule of faith of the one being criticized, not the criticizer’s."

Hi,

I think your statement seriously lacks wisdom.
The rule of faith all faiths and religions is measured and critiqued is the Bible...( extras bits not included)

Regards,
Grant



 
Grant,

From the perspective of a Bible Believer you are correct that the Bible is the measurement by which all other views are measured.

Let’s turn this the other way. If a Catholic tells you that you should believe in the Assumption of Mary by explaining that Pope Pius XII, speaking ex cathedra, declared it so, would you then adopt it as part of your belief system? Of course not, as your belief system is Sola Scriptura, not Bible plus Tradition.

Observe very carefully the means by which Paul proclaims Christ to the Athenians on Areopagus/Mars Hill in Acts 17:16-34. He began by preaching the Good News. Then, when questioned by them, he used their own belief system as a springboard to preach Christ!

You’re not going to win an atheist by claiming s/he is wrong because “The Bible says…” The atheist does not live by that worldview. That doesn’t mean we don’t tell him/her the Good News, which, of course, IS in the Bible! That doesn’t mean you cannot civilly defend your worldview, showing that it’s logically coherent, and that both Christianity and atheism require a certain amount of faith.

As Bible believers, we are to preach the Good News, the Great Commission. It’s the Holy Spirit who convicts.

Love God and love your neighbor as yourself. Pray for others. Preach Christ and Him crucified.
 
It so refreshing to not have to wade through swamps of MCE's sewage, now that aka nasty New Ager of olde has been finally limited!
 
Life is good when you have your love ones around you, I am saying this because when i had issues with my lover i never seen life as a good thing but thanks to Dr. AGBAZARA of AGBAZARA TEMPLE, for helping me to cast a spell that brought my lover back to me within the space of 48hours. My husband left me for another woman after 7YEARS of marriage,but Dr.AGBAZARA help me cast a spell that brought him back to me within 48hours. I am not going to tell you more details about myself rather i will only advise those who are having issues in there relationship or marriages to contact Dr.AGBAZARA TEMPLE through these details via; ( agbazara@gmail.com) or call him on Whatsapp: +2348104102662
 
Benjamin Creme – Maitreya’s Voice – Dead at 93


http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/blog/?p=21704

Dave in CA
 
Hello everyone, I'm here to let the whole world know of a man called Dr. Ekpen he is a spell caster and he is the man that helps me in my restore my marriage when my husband broke up with me, he use his power and gift to restore joy in my relationship. I want to also let the whole world know that he can still help if you are been blackmail by someone or you want to win a court case he can help. Contact him today via email: ekpentemple@gmail.com or you can whatsapp him on +2347050270218.

 
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 400 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]