Tuesday, June 06, 2017
Yes, there will be global warming -- but not for the reasons many think
As long as I've knowingly observed the New Age Movement (since 1981), there were sub-goals in addition to their New World Order; New World Religion; and New Age "Messiah" ones.
Some of the more important subgoals were:
1. Reduce the USA;
2. End separation of Church & State (so as to promote New Age, New World Religion concepts)
3. Earth reverence and worship her as "Mother Earth", "Pachamama" and/or "Goddess Gaia".
Now in the early days that I first observed, I found small paperback volumes on the perils of a coming ice age. A few mild winters later, and it was now "global warming." After a few then colder winters, it was "climate change."
Well, I doubt if many of those watchers have bothered to dust off their Bibles, but had they done so, they might have even found some passages supporting their "global warming" theories. As there are the fewest copyright issues with the King James Version of the Bible, I will quote from it. One can find very similar language in the Catholic Douay Bibles.
But BEFORE all of this, Revelation 14 tells us all were given fair warning:
It appears that the prophecy warns that we were to fear only the God who created the heaven and earth and the sea and the fountains of waters.
There has been a great deal of speculation as to who is the Beast and what is his image. Having observed the New Age Movement as closely as I have for the past 36 years, I have become increasingly of the opinion that the "image of the Beast" is that of the "Whole Earth."
Indeed, that image was discussed as pivotal in Marilyn Ferguson's New Age coming out party volume, THE AQUARIAN CONSPIRACY. Chapter 13 (page 405) of her book is even named "The Whole Earth Conspiracy." I found 20 detailed references in the volume to "Whole Earth" concerns. The New Age contempt for the beliefs and God of our Fathers is richly reflected in her prose:
Those of us born into the "broken-earth" paradigm have two choices: We can go to our graves with the old view, like the generations of die-hard scientists who insisted there were no such things as meteorites, or germs, or brainwaves, or vitamins-or, we can consign our old beliefs unsentimentally to the past and take up the truer, stronger perspective.
We can be our own children.
The "spiritual values" to which the New Age cum "cultural creatives" cum "Mindfulness" crowd subscribe is clearly more Earth oriented than Creator based:
It is not just water conservation, nor air protection that the New Agers seek. They also aggressively put forth an "Earth Charter" accompanied by an even more more blasphemous "Ark of the Covenant". Interestingly enough, they trotted that out for public display in a Vermont ceremony only two days before the "911" events of September 11, 2001 when the World Trade Center was destroyed. Al Gore had a large Whole Earth poster behind him often shown on TV as he was interviewed in his Vice-Presidential office during the William Jefferson Clinton presidency (1993-2001).Spiritual values, indeed, are at the base of much of the ecological concern in our time, a quickening sense of the whole earth, respect for the matrix of our evolution, the nature in which we are embedded. (Ferguson, page 357)
Big money and big names are associated with the Threshold Foundation. I have mentioned this organization in earlier posts, in views of Elaine DeWar's book CLOAK OF GREEN, and histories of the powerful convergences of the New Agers as they were seeking to implement their major tri-fold agenda. You will remember that it was James George's book ASKING FOR THE EARTH was largely about the Threshold Foundation, its pioneering conferences and its work. Marilyn Ferguson said of its goals in THE AQUARIAN CONSPIRACY (p. 410)
The book of Revelation is both feared and despised by the New Age/Globalist/Deep Ecology Movement. Indeed, an important New Ager who has lyingly denied being one, "Sir" Martin Palmer an adviser of note to Britain's Prince Philip as well as his boastful claims of heading a trillion dollar environmental fund (churches' moneys, no less) spent considerable ink faulting me for that in his 1993 bookThe Threshold Foundation, based in Switzerland, stated its intent to help ease the transition into a planetary culture, "foster a paradigm shift, a new model of the universe in which art, religion, philosophy, and science converge," and promote a wider understanding that "we exist in a cosmos whose many levels of reality form a single sacred whole.
Well, even a broken clock is right twice a day. The New Agers and their "environmental movement" compatriots/comrades in arms may well be right about "global warming" coming. They are, however, dead wrong about its causes. If they want to prevent "global warming" or a "New Ice Age" as still earlier books of theirs called for, perhaps they might want to give thanks rather than blasphemies to their Maker.
I've just caught up with your dialogue after a period of intensive physics work. The question of whether the scriptures reveal Jesus as divine has a long history, Trinitarians vs Arians. It's not a Reformation issue, because Catholics and protestants are all Trinitarian. I'm sure you both know these facts already.
You get the odd (very odd!) Arian heretic on either side of the Reformation, like this Father Brown guy. (Give me Chesterton's Father Brown any day!) But they are exceptions. Easily the best known modern Arian movement is the Jehovah's Witnesses, and plenty of websites feature exchanges between them and Trinitarians on the subject of Jesus' divinity. Personally I think it's obvious that Jesus is portrayed as divine in the New Testament, at least for those with eyes to see and ears to hear; but in order to win the argument you have to provide proof-texts. The best two I know are Thomas' cry "My Lord and God" (John 20:28), mentioned above; Jesus would undoubtedly have rebuked Thomas had it not been true, and in the context of a conversation between Jews of their day "God" meant the universal Creator, not the (false) gods of other nations. Then there's Isaiah 9:6 stating that a child will be born who is God. Trinitarians and Arians agree that this refers to Jesus, and again the context is faithful Judaism, so that "God" refers to the Creator. (Jehovah's Witnesses underplay the context, or divert the argument into one about the adjective preceding Isaiah's noun "God"; but it's the noun that counts.)
PS London Mayor Sadiq Khan is not so much a Muslim as a Muslim-background secular man. He voted FOR gay marriage a few years ago. I can't see ISIS approving of that!
Yet, Father Brown is not in any way an Arian! This is what I'm at pains to illustrate. See my comment @ 11:49 PM, in which I quote Brown from his Anchor Bible commentary on John's Gospel as he exegetes John 20:28, in particular. Moreover, the question posed by the online pdf of his earlier article exploring whether the Scriptures declare whether are or not "Jesus is God" is answered affirmatively by Brown citing three Scriptures that unequivocally refer to Jesus as "God": Hebrews 1:8-9, John 1:1, and John 20:28 (see pp 561-565 of pdf). Then, see his "Evaluation of the Evidence" on p 565ff in which he provides even more evidence.
The Arian exegesis on John 1:1 centers on calling Jesus “god” rather than “God”, as I’m sure you’re aware. And that’s how the JW’s New World Translation renders it. While I’ve not looked any further in how the JWs exegete the remainder of John’s prologue, I’m very familiar with how one site in particular does. Their claim is that “the Word” dwells within Christ, thereby denying the Incarnation. Brown specifically affirms the Incarnation while concomitantly denying this interpretation:
“…The Prologue does not say that the Word entered into flesh or abided in flesh but that the Word became flesh. Therefore, instead of supplying the liberation from the material world that the Greek mind yearned for, the Word of God was now inextricably bound to human history. Yet, while 14a would not be acceptable to some of the schools of philosophical or theological thought in the Hellenistic world, we cannot be certain that it was written against such views.
“Let us turn now to the attitude toward revelation implied in ‘The Word became flesh.’ The title, ‘the Word,’ was appropriate in vs. 1 because the divine being described there was destined to speak to men. When the title is used for the second time in vs. 14, this divine being has taken on human form and has thus found the most effective way in which to express himself to men. Thus, in becoming flesh the Word does not cease to be the Word, but exercises his function as Word to the full…
“Verse 14b and the succeeding lines show that, if the Word has become flesh, he has not ceased to be God…” (The Gospel According to John I-XII, pp 31-32).
In my argumentation on that other site, since they would affirm quite forthrightly that YHWH is ONE, I, like you, used those verses in Revelation in which Jesus calls Himself “the First and the Last”, then compared those to the usage in Isaiah for YHWH. For me, these are proof positive that Jesus calls Himself YHWH, and, hence, God. I see this as unassailable.
The "they" in the last sentence above refers to the Muslims and New Age pagans who are quickly taking over.
#FinsburyPark: A Look @ London's Centre of Vibrant Enrichment
In the following, this vlogger notes the skewed and scant coverage given to the large “Football Lads Alliance” march, in which local football (soccer) clubs set aside their rivalries and peacefully marched with the banner “UNITED AGAINST EXTREMISM”, implying all kinds, to include the attack on Finsbury:
Football Lads Alliance March On London: A Bright New Dawn Breaks Over The UK
Why didn’t this peaceful, positive demonstration get more publicity?
American Pravda: CNN Producer Says Russia Narrative “bullsh*t"
Many commenters note that YouTube is both deleting likes and comments, as well as ‘freezing’ the views. As I’ve been checking on this every once in a while, I note that about 30 minutes ago the views were 2.21 Million, while currently they are 2.09 Million; so, they are also rolling back the views. YouTube is notorious for doing this sort of thing on conservative videos. They’ve also been known to delete dislikes and unfavorable comments on more liberal videos.
I’d like to address your comment “[h]ere Brown refers to Bultmann”, the latter conclud[ing] that the New Testament exercises great restraint in describing Jesus as God and who do[es] not favor the designation. Should Brown reference this point of view and not specifically refute it, I’d agree that it’s, at least, a tacit endorsement of the view; however, by the larger context of the entire paper, Brown clearly negates Bultmann’s stance.
It’s not unusual in academic papers to reference another’s viewpoint and not specifically refute it at the very moment of citation, but to, in the course of the paper, rebut it implicitly by the evidence provided which runs counter to it in the ensuing pages of the article, which Brown does adroitly.
At the time (1965) there were very few commentaries on the fourth Gospel, so, by necessity, anyone writing about it was more or less forced into engaging with Bultmann (and Taylor). With a wealth of commentaries on the Gospel of John cropping up in the ensuing years, it became less and less necessary to reference Bultmann, though not a few continue to cite Brown (though not his “Johannine community” idea).
Van Jones: Russia is “Nothing burger”– American Pravda: CNN Part 2
I took note of some witty comments, and I’m appropriating yet revising them a bit, while adding more:
CNN: Welcome to CNN, how may I help you?
Customer: I’d like a Nothing Burger, extra sensationalism, hold the truth.
CNN: Would you like lies with that?
Customer: Of course! And add some anonymous sauce on the lies…and some extra on the burger, as well, if that’s OK.
CNN: Oh, don’t worry, we always have PLENTY of anonymous sauce!
Customer: I appreciate that. Also, I’d like Kool-Aid to make it a combo, to wash it all down.
CNN: We’ve got plenty of that, as well!
I'm grateful for your comment and your scholarship, and am willing in view of what you say to shift from belief to agnosticism over whether Fr Brown is Arian. I'd need to check him out to my satisfaction in his own words, and my attitude to that is summed up by Clark Gable's last line in Gone With The Wind. My passion in this area is entirely to show that Jesus Christ can reliably be inferred to be divine from the Holy Bible.
PS To fill out Ruth from Exeter's comment - the UK is currently preparing a Bill to pass through Parliament intended to write into UK law all of EU law passed during our soon-to-end time in the EU. This is to maintain compatibility for trade purposes etc. After that, the theory goes, our parliament can get rid of those bits it doesn't like at leisure rather than having to rush it and risk chaos. I can see the logic but I'd rather have a bit of interim chaos and too few European laws rather than too many. This Bill is to be known, misleadingly, as the Great Repeal Bill, but I call it the Great Repeat Bill.
I appreciate your comment. Perhaps the following may help. This is from Brown’s Anchor Bible commentary on John 10:30:
The Father and I are one. This was a key verse in the early Trinitarian controversies...On one extreme, the Monarchians (Sabellians) interpreted it to mean “one person,” although the “one” is neuter, not masculine. On the other extreme, the Arians interpreted this text, which was often used against them, in terms of moral unity of will. The Protestant commentator Bengel, following Augustine, sums up the orthodox position: “Through the word ‘are’ Sabellius is refuted; through the word ‘one’ so is Arius” (p 403).
Now, here Brown appears to imply the orthodox position, though he’s not explicit. The way in which the Anchor Bible commentaries are formatted, first is the NT text (the individual author’s rendering), following by some technical notes, which is then followed by more expansive commentary. The above quote is from the technical notes; below is some related commentary (bold added for emphasis):
The reference to the sheep in vss. 26–27 leads in 28 to the thought of the wolves who snatch the sheep when the hireling guards the flock (10:12). However, Jesus is the model shepherd and no one will snatch from his hand the sheep that the Father has given him. This is because Jesus acts for the Father, and no one can snatch the sheep from the Father’s hand (vs. 29). The statement of the Father’s supreme power over men in 29 recalls OT statements that souls are in God’s hands (Wis 3:1) and that no one can deliver from God’s hand (Isa 43:13). We note that vss. 28 and 29 make the same statement about Jesus and about the Father: no one can snatch the sheep from either’s hand. This leads us to an understanding of the unity that is expressed in 30: it is a unity of power and operation. It was an affirmation such as found in 30 that ultimately led the 4th–century Church to the doctrine of the one divine nature in the Trinity, nature being essence [ED: Nicea’s “homoousios” = ‘same essence’] considered as a principle of operation (p 407).
Here Brown seems to be more forthrightly agreeing with the orthodox position (against Arius), though, again, he’s not explicit. He is, however, illustrating that the Trinitarian terminological formulation had been evolving, and that the resultant formula at Nicea is a development, a refinement of what is revealed in Scripture. In other words, like Brown states in his 1965 article, Scripture speaks in functional categories, rather than ontological. This means that, strictly speaking, it’s anachronistic to superimpose Nicea upon the NT, even though it is a logical conclusion to what the NT reveals. It’s important to understand that the ecumenical councils were convened in direct response to what were viewed as ‘heretical’ notions. This forced leadership to find more precise terminology to explain what was implicit in the Scriptures.
Continuing where we left off with Brown:
It seems worth while to pause for a moment to summarize what we have heard thus far in John about the relations between Father and Son. The Son comes from the Father (8:42); yet the Father who sent him is with him (8:29). The Father loves the Son (3:35); the Son knows the Father intimately (8:55, 10:15). In his mission on earth, the Son can do only what he has seen the Father do (5:19), can judge and speak only as he hears from the Father (5:30)…
Once again, Brown states that Trinitarian doctrine was further developed, using material from John’s Gospel. And the way I read him, he doesn’t tip his hand any further toward explicitly stating that he’s adhering to Christian orthodoxy over against Arianism, though it can be inferred. In my own writings and apologetics/polemics, I’ve always appealed to 1:18, in which the writer claims that “No one sees God, but the one and only Son[/God] has revealed Him”, juxtaposing this with 5:19 in which the Son only does what He sees His Father do, inferring that this is an implication of Jesus’ Deity. In the technical note accompanying 5:19, Brown asserts, Jesus is the only one who has ever seen the Father (p 214).
Now, besides my most recent evidence to show that Brown is non-Arian, where I think Brown destroys any notion that he’s Arian is his comments accompanying 5:17-18 (bold added):
Verse 17 must be set against the background of the relation of God to the Sabbath rest. In the commandment concerning the Sabbath (Exod 20:11, but contrast Deut 5:15) we have this explanatory clause: “In six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth…but on the seventh He rested. That is why the Lord has blessed the Sabbath and made it holy.” However, the theologians of Israel realized that God did not really cease to work on the Sabbath. There are a whole series of rabbinic statements (Bernard, I, p. 236; Barrett, p. 213; Dodd, Interpretation, pp. 321–22) to the effect that Divine Providence remained active on the Sabbath, for otherwise, the rabbis reasoned, all nature and life would cease to exist.
In particular, as regards men, divine activity was visible in two ways: men were born and men died on the Sabbath. Since only God could give life (2 Kings 5:7; 2 Macc 7:22–23) and only God could deal with the fate of the dead in judgment, this meant God was active on the Sabbath. As Rabbi Joḥanan (TalBab Taanith 2a) put it, God has kept in His hand three keys that He entrusts to no agent: the key of the rain, the key of birth (Gen 30:22), and the key of the resurrection of the dead (Ezek 37:13). And it was obvious to the rabbis that God used these keys even on the Sabbath.
In 5:17 Jesus justifies his work of healing on the Sabbath by calling the attention of “the Jews” to the fact that they admitted that God worked on the Sabbath. That the implications of this argument were immediately apparent is witnessed by the violence of the reaction. For the Jews the Sabbath privilege was peculiar to God, and no one was equal to God (Exod 15:11; Isa 46:5; Ps 89:8). In claiming the right to work even as his Father worked, Jesus was claiming a divine prerogative (pp 216-217).
In his commentary on 5:19, Brown states: …All of this is summed up in 10:30: “The Father and I are one.” As Giblet, “Trinité,” points out, a Johannine passage like vs. 19 ultimately led Christian theologians to an understanding that the Father and the Son possess one nature, one principle of operation (p 218).
Re: With all due respect, you’re not fairly representing that paper.
With all due respect, I think that defending Brown on the basis on this one paper is an unfair representation of that paper. I believe that I am fairly representing that paper. While it may seem unfair from a Protestant perspective, from a Catholic perspective, it is not only fair but also justified on the grounds that Brown insisted on being and remaining a Roman Catholic priest while embracing beliefs that were not Catholic.
By the way, just for the record, Raymond Brown was a member of the Sulpician Order. He was not a Jesuit.
Re: You are missing what Brown is saying here. The NT does not, strictly speaking, speak in ontological terminology. The term homoousios (as opposed to Arius’ homoiousios) is not in Scripture. Had this been explicitly stated in Scripture, there never would have been an Arian controversy.
First of all, let me state unequivocally that I believe the Bible DOES call Jesus God - both implicitly and explicitly. I also believe that the tenets of the Creeds of Nicaea and Chalcedon were already either explicitly or implicitly present in the Scriptures. The beliefs codified and defined by the Council of Nicaea in the Nicene Creed were held by Christians from the very beginning. There was no disconnect between what is defined in the Creed and what is recorded in the Gospels. There have been several beliefs that Catholic Christians have held for centuries before they were formally defined by the Catholic Church.
I am not missing what Brown is saying. I am challenging what Brown is saying on the grounds that he has placed the divinity of the "historical Jesus" in doubt. In just about all of his writings, Brown has created a very subtle dichotomy between the "Christ of faith" and the "historical Jesus." More than one person has pointed out that one of the tactics Brown used in calling into doubt authentic, traditional catholic teaching was to phrase his criticisms in the form of a question - so he doesn't appear to directly challenge Church teaching. A typical Brown response would be something like: "Given what Modern Biblical criticism has learned, Can we seriously maintain that Jesus intended to found a Church?" Brown had an uncanny way of forging his dissent by the use of interrogatives, all under the guise that Scripture was prone to error in its historical record. This interrogatory tactic permeates the article presently under discussion, DOES THE NEW TESTAMENT CALL JESUS GOD? which is itself a question!!!
This is precisely how Brown is able to appear to pay "carefully nuanced" lip service to the Creed while casting doubt on the actual historicity of what the Creed professes. As I see it, that is the issue here.
The following is but one example of Brown's aforementioned tactic of phrasing his conclusions that call into doubt authentic, traditional catholic teaching in the form of a question:
“…when we ask whether during his ministry Jesus, a Palestinian Jew, knew that he was God, we are asking whether he identified himself and the Father—and, of course, he did not. Undoubtedly, some would wish to attribute to Jesus an anticipated understanding of the later broadness of the term ‘God’ (or, indeed, even expect him to speak in trinitarian terminology), but can serious scholars simply presume that Jesus could speak and think in the vocabulary and philosophy of later times?” (JGM 87)
Much of Brown’s interrogation technique originated from his resolve that Scripture was prone to error. He writes:
In the last hundred years we have moved from an understanding wherein inspiration guaranteed that the Bible was totally inerrant to an understanding wherein inerrancy is limited to the Bible’s teaching of “that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writing for the sake of our salvation.” ( The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus, pp. 8-9.)
Brown further documented his belief in an errant Scripture in his book Biblical Exegesis and Church Doctrine, and later summed them up in the New Jerome Biblical Commentary, stating in the latter: “Scriptural teaching is truth without error to the extent that it conforms to the salvific purpose of God.” ( The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, p. 1169.). In other words, if Scripture isn’t speaking specifically about salvation, it indeed may, and most likely does, contain errors. The Pontifical Biblical Commission, which fortunately was divested of its authority in 1970 by Pope Paul VI, became populated by the same modernistic mind-set as Brown and thus helped spread these new-fangled ideas far and wide.
While Brown may have admitted that at some point Kyrios was predicated of God, he also says:
Jesus is never called God in the Synoptic Gospels, and a passage like Mk 10:18 would seem to preclude the possibility that Jesus used the title of himself. Even the fourth Gospel never portrays Jesus as saying specifically that he is God.52 The sermons which Acts attributes to the beginning of the Christian mission do not speak of Jesus as God. Thus, there is no reason to think that Jesus was called God in the earliest layers of New Testament tradition. This negative conclusion is substantiated by the fact that Paul does not use the title in any epistle written before 58. The first likely occurrence of the usage of "God" for Jesus is in Rom 9:5; if we could be certain of the grammar of this passage, we could thus date the usage to the late 50's.
If true, then how did the Apostles preach the "Good News???"
By the way, anyone reading the New Jerome Biblical Commentary would be impressed by the fact that there is not one but three nihil obstats! Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, and Roland E. Murphy were the three editors of the New Jerome Biblical Commentary. They were also the three censors who certified the orthodoxy of the book they themselves produced, and a large part of which they wrote and then granted THEMSELVES a "nihil obstat" Talk about an ecclesiastical conflict of interest!
When all is said and done, it is the constant and abiding teaching in Catholic (and Protestant) history that Scripture contains no errors, for it is the voice of God who cannot lie. Obviously, to say that a certain part of Scripture is in error, and at the same time hold that the Holy Spirit inspired that Scripture, is tantamount to saying that God lies. This was the bottom line for the Fathers, Doctors, Saints, Popes and Councils who spoke on the issue of biblical inerrancy – God cannot lie (Titus 1:2).
The same arguments that are used by Fr. Brown and his modernists colleagues today were some of the same used by a few “historical critics” outside the early church. In fact, one of St. Augustine’s opponents, Faustus the Manichean, has an uncanny resemblance to the arguments of Fr. Brown.
If Brown were writing as a Protestant theologian, then I would be perfectly content to allow Protestants to police their own. But he was not. He was - at least nominally - a Roman Catholic Scripture scholar. As such, he had an obligation to examine the Scriptures according to the proper methodologies traditionally prescribed for such studies by the Catholic Church. These methodologies do not exclude the historical-critical method as long as one does not abuse it by inserting one's own ready made private opinions into the mix and calling it "history." Fortunately for Catholics the official teachings of the Catholic Church, although often greatly assisted by theologians, is never governed by them however brilliant the theologian might be.
Again, Brown had an uncanny way of forging his dissent by the use of interrogatives, all under the guise that Scripture was prone to error in its historical record. In one of his most famous and controversial works, The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus, Brown, as did his Protestant counterparts Bultmann, Barth and Tillich before him, questioned whether the resurrection of Christ actually took place with these words: “Are we thereby perpetually committed to the notion held in times past of the biological how of that exaltation, namely a bodily resurrection?” (The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus, p. 12.)
Although Fr. Brown follows this with “it will become apparent that I am not inclined in that direction,” we must point out two things: (1) Fr. Brown has no justification for introducing the topic of Christ’s bodily resurrection by means of an interrogative, since, if Brown believes the resurrection occurred, there is simply no reason to question it; (2) the fact remains that Brown does not explicitly say that he rejects the historical-critical view that there was no bodily resurrection of Christ, but only that he is “not inclined” to their view. Rather than calling it “heresy,” Fr. Brown leaves us with the impression that in the future he has the option of being inclined toward their view.
In commandeering the name “Roman Catholic Church,” Fr. Brown wanted everyone to believe that his interpretations of the Pontifical Biblical Commission were one and the same with the Church’s official teaching on Scripture. Suffice it to say, it never made the conclusions that Fr. Brown made......such as the one in which he thought that the Pontifical Biblical Council supported his view that the Gospels were written by unidentified scribes and thus were not the literal words of Jesus. Fr. Brown was an expert at making it appear as if he had the formal backing of the magisterium when, in fact, the Church said very little, if anything, in official support of his exegesis of Scripture.
If one does not have his antenna on alert, Fr. Brown’s words might appear innocuous to the average Catholic. But apart from his interrogatory tactic, Fr. Brown did something else very tricky. He does not speak of the literal meaning but of the literal sense. What is the literal sense? Obviously, it cannot be the literal meaning, or Fr. Brown would be a conservative who takes the Bible at face value, and he assures us he is not. In Fr. Brown’s world, “literal sense” is equivalent to fiction. In the article presently under discussion we read:
There is much truth to Athanasius' contention that the Nicene definition that Jesus was God and not a creature 'collects the sense of Scripture," and thus we may deduce, is not dependent on any one statement of Scripture.
The new Testament speaks of Christ both ontologically and functionally. The Christology is both "from above" and "from below." One does not exist without the other. To think it does is to "sever Christ."
In just about all of his writings, Brown creates a dichotomy between the Christ of faith and the "historical Jesus." This is precisely how he is able to pay "carefully nuanced" lip service to the Creeds while casting doubt on the actual historicity of what the Creed professes. That is the issue here.
The article presently under discussion does not represent all of Brown's writings.
The term "homoousios" ( "one in being" ) may not be explicitly found in the Scriptures, but in a manner similar to the term "trinity" it is to be found implicitly in the Scriptures where, for example, Jesus says "I and the Father are one," where Jesus refers to Himself in terms applied to Jahveh in the Old Testament ( i.e. Alpha and Omega), and where Kyrios is predicated of Jesus.
It is the term "homoiousios" ( "similar/like in substance" ) which is neither explicitly nor implicitly stated in Scriptures. Arius seems to have invented it.
I could go on and on, but I will cheerfully allow you to have the last word. My problem with Brown was his insistence on calling himself a Catholic priest/Scripture scholar while embracing un-Catholic beliefs about the Sacred Scriptures.
I am with you in preferring Chesterton's Father Brown any day!
Originally my intention was not to get into a lengthy debate, but to reply to a question asked of me by Constance about the late Father Raymond E, Brown and the Sulpician Order to which he belonged.
In my subsequent discussion with Craig, my intention was not so much to demonstrate that Raymond Brown was an Arian - although from some of his other writings, this seems to be a very real possibility - as it was to challenge Brown's errors with regard to his Scripture scholarship - one of which involved the denial of the inerrancy of the Sacred Scriptures - an important belief that both Catholics and Protestants hold in common.
I do not fault anyone who is attracted to Father Brown's exegetical style. His tactics were very subtle. He was also very careful to maintain just enough of a façade of orthodoxy to avoid official censure by his religious superiors.
Craig - thank you for your further comments. As I said, Raymond Brown is of little interest to me but it's always good to read genuine scholarship.
Regards to you both,
Tertullian accuses Marcion of Sinope, the first major heretic of Christianity in the 1st century, that he "[held that] the Old Testament was a scandal to the faithful [...] and [...] accounted for it by postulating [that Jehovah was] a secondary deity, a demiurgus, who was god, in a sense, but not the supreme God; he was just, rigidly just, he had his good qualities, but he was not the good god, who was Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ." The Church condemned his writings as heretical.
John Arendzen (1909) in the Catholic Encyclopedia (1913) mentions that Eusebius accused Apelles, the 2nd-century AD Gnostic, of considering the Inspirer of Old-Testament prophecies to be not a god, but an evil angel.
Hegemonius (4th century) accuses the Persian prophet Mani, founder of the Manichaean sect in the 3rd century AD, identified Jehovah as "the devil god which created the world" and said that "he who spoke with Moses, the Jews, and the priests [...] is the [Prince] of Darkness, [...] not the god of truth."
According to their critics, these heretics referred to the Abrahamic God variously as "a demiurgus", "an evil angel", "the devil god", "the Prince of Darkness", "the source of all evil", "the Devil", "a demon", "a cruel, wrathful, warlike tyrant", "Satan" and "the first beast of the book of Revelation".
MedieNicholas Weber in the Catholic Encyclopedia article Albigenses (1907) notes that the enemies of the Albigenses, a Christian sect in 12th- and 13th-century France, a branch of the Cathari, accused them that their doctrine held that "the creator [...] of the material world [...] is the source of all evil [...] He created the human body and is the author of sin [...] The Old Testament must be either partly or entirely ascribed to him;...
Re: Susanna - did Karl Barth really question the Resurrection? I'd believe it of Bultmann and Tillich, but Barth surprises me.
Barth surprises me too. The dichotomy Barth creates between the "Christ of faith" and the "historical Jesus" is called "dialectical theology." Barth claimed to believe in the Resurrection, but questioned the historicity of the Empty Tomb.
KARL BARTH ON DEMYTHOLOGIZING THE EMPTY TOMB AND ASCENSION
Jesus is Risen and the Tomb is Empty are often asserted together, but they are two distinct statements: Jesus is Risen is an article of faith but the Empty Tomb is a Passion narrative that may be demythologized. Barth explains the difference between these two statements when he says: "Christians do not believe in the empty tomb, but in the living Christ." Karl Barth is famous for affirming the historical Resurrection of Jesus, yet denying the historicity of the Empty Tomb. Unfortunately, this has caused people to wrongly believe that Barth denied the resurrection of Jesus at worst, or at best that he was merely rehearsing Rudolf Bultmann....
.... Was there an empty tomb? Yes, this is the presupposition of the Resurrected Jesus. Were the Empty Tomb accounts in the Passion narratives Historical events? No, they are not meant to be understood as straight forward literal history that could be reconstructed. Not only is it impossible to harmonize the Empty Tomb narratives as verifiable history, and those who have attempted to harmonize these accounts have resulted in even more absurd results than problems they wished to overcome. If the Empty Tomb is a Legend or Saga or Myth, may it then be omitted from the New Testament? No, they are a necessary presuppositional sign of the Resurrected Jesus. What then is the Empty Tomb? It is a presuppositional sign of the Resurrected Jesus......read more....
Barth also denied the ability on the part of man to infer the existence of a "supreme being" - a.k.a. "god" - "from the things that are made." The Bible itself says that man is able to infer the existence of God from the things that are made. In fact, Bible even goes as far as to say "the fool says in his heart 'there is no god.' "
While it is true that man has had a long history of being mistaken in the object of his worship, he has not been mistaken in his notion that worship should be directed somewhere! The proper reach and function of natural reason is that we can know with certainty that God exists but cannot understand his divine essence in itself.
This teaches us both the nobility of reason (knowing that God is) and its radical insufficiency (not knowing what God is).
KARL BARTH'S REJECTION OF NATURAL THEOLOGY OR AN EXEGESIS OF ROMANS 1:19-20
[A paper presented at the 1997 Evangelical Theological Society Meeting in San Francisco]
Gregg Strawbridge, Ph.D.
.....Barth is emphatic that the human mind has no ability to know God. Human reason has neither the active nor passive capacity for divine revelation. God must supernaturally give the ability to understand His revelation as He gives the revelation itself. What the human mind achieves and acquires is never the knowledge of God or truth of any kind about God. It is fiction. Barth, therefore, vehemently denounces the traditional role of philosophy as the handmaiden of theology.....
One is led to wonder if this skepticism of the natural ability of human reason to infer the existence of God colored his biblical opinions concerning the natural human experience and reactions to the "historical Jesus." Is it also to be regarded as "fiction?"
You are more than welcome.
Re: The question that one wishes to ask him about the night of Jesus' Resurrection is, of course: "So what DID happen, wise guy? Please answer in a way that simple people would understand - the sort of people who wrote the gospels, and their intended audience, not over-educated academic philosophers."
Please understand that I would not fault anyone for being taken in by Barth's "waffle." Barth's "waffle" is very subtle and, like Brown, Barth slyly makes use of the "interrogatory" tactic. If Pope Pius XII could be taken in by Barth's sly "waffle" to the extent that he heaped some rather heady praise upon him, then I suppose anyone can.
Here is a thesis you might be interested in reading by a gentleman writing his Phd. thesis at the University of Nottingham. Karl Barth's unnatural exegesis goes deeper into Barth's skepticism of natural human reason and of man's natural ability to know of the existence of God.
Karl Barth’s unnatural exegesis: an inquiry into Barth’s biblical interpretation
with special reference to Christ and Adam.
Matthew S. Howey MTh (2004)
In the thesis, Howey writes:
I think I can say, at least provisionally, that the main reason why Barth’s exegesis comes across as so unnatural is because so often it seems to be a statement of his own dogmatic position rather than an attempt to establish the meaning of the text itself.
This is where Barth may also resemble Raymond Brown insofar as he seems to give priority to "literary sense" (Scripture = fiction) over "literary meaning" in his biblical exegesis.
And this brings me to C.S. Lewis whose exposure to Barth did not exactly result in Lewis singing Barth's praises. Interesting since Pope Pius XII seemed to have been taken in by Barth's sly "waffle" and heaped some rather heady praise upon him.
In a 1940 letter to his brother Warren, Lewis reacted against what he perceived as legalism in some quarters of Protestantism that was alien to his understanding of the liberty of the Christian.
'I am afraid the truth is . . . that the world, as it is now becoming and has partly become, is simply too much for people of the old square-rigged type like you and me. I don’t understand its economics, or its politics, or . . . Even its theology—for that is a most distressing discovery I have been making these last two terms as I have been getting to know more and more of the Christian element in Oxford.
Did you fondly believe—as I did—that where you got among Christians, there, at least, you would escape (as behind a wall from a keen wind) from the horrible ferocity and grimness of modern thought.
Not a bit of it. I blundered into it all, imagining that I was the upholder of the old, stern doctrines against modern quasi-Christian slush: only to find that my ‘sternness’ was their ‘slush.’ They’ve all been reading a dreadful man called Karl Barth, who seems the right opposite number to Karl Marx. ‘Under judgment’ is their great expression.
They all talk like Covenanters or Old Testament prophets. They don’t think human reason or human conscience of any value at all: they maintain, as stoutly as Calvin, that there’s no reason why God’s dealings should appear just (let alone, merciful) to us: and they maintain the doctrine that all our righteousness is filthy rags with a fierceness and sincerity which is like a blow in the face.
Sometimes the results are refreshing: as when Canon Raven (whom you and Dyson and I sat under at Ely) is sharply told in a review in Theology that ‘it is high time persons of this sort learned that the enjoyment of a chair of theology at Cambridge does not carry with it a right to criticise the Word of God’—that’s the kind of rap on the knuckles which has not been delivered for a hundred years!
If "waffle" were to be substituted for "slush," one could almost think YOU wrote that letter. LOL
One of my favorite books by the late great C.S. Lewis is his book MIRACLES which he wrote "as a preliminary to historical inquiry." Here is the first chapter entitled
The Scope of This Book.
Those who wish to succeed must ask the right preliminary questions. Aristotle METAPHYSICS II (III),I
In all my life, I have met only one person who claims to have seen a ghost. And the interesting thing about the story is that that person disbelieved in the immortal soul before she saw the ghost and still disbelieves after seeing it. she says that what she saw must have been an illusion or a trick of the nerves. And obviously she may be right. Seeing is not believing
For this reason, the question whether miracles occur can never be answered simply by experience. Every event which might claim to be a miracle is, in the last resort, something presented to our senses, something seen, heard touched, smelled or tasted. And our senses are not infallible. If anything extraordinary seems to have happened, we can always say that we have been the victims of an illusion. If we hold a philosophy which excludes the supernatural, this is what we always shall say. What we learn from experience depends on the kind of philosophy we bring to experience. It is therefore useless to appeal to experience beforew we have settled as well as we can, the philosophical question.
If immediate experience cannot prove or disprove the miraculous, still less can history do so. Many people ythink one can decide whthger a miracle occurred in the past by examining the evidence "according to the ordinary rules of historical inquiry." But the ordinary rules cannot be worked until we have decided whether miracles are possible, and if so, how probable they are. For if they are impossible, then no amount of historical evidence will convince us. If they are possible but immensely improbable, then only mathematically demonstrable evidence will convince us; and sonce history never provides that degree of evidence for any event, history can never convince us that a miracle occurred. If, on the other and, miracles are not intrinsically imporbable, then the existing evidence will be suffuicuent to convince us that quite a number of miracles have occurred. The result of our historical inquiries then depends on the philosophical views which we have been holding before we even begin to look at the evidence. The philosophical question must therefore come first.
Here is an example of the sort of thing that happens if we omit the preliminary philosophical task, and rush on to the historical.
In a popular commentary on the Bible, you will find a discussion of the date at which the Fourth Gospel was written. The author says it must have been written after the execution of St. Peter, because in the Fourth Gospel , Christ is represented as predicting the execution of St. Peter. "A book" thinks the author, "cannot be written before events which it refers to.
Of course it cannot - unless real predictions ever occur. If they do, then this argument for the date is in ruins. And the author has not discussed at all whether real predictions are possible. He takes it for granted ( perhaps unconsciously ) that they are not. Perhaps he is right; but if he is, he has not discovered this principle by historical inquiry. He has brought his disbelief in predictions to his historical work, so to speak, ready made..
Unless he had done so his historical conclusion about the date of the Fourth Gospel could not have been reached at all. His work is therefore quite useless to a person who wants to know WHETHER predictions occur. The author gets to work only after he has already answered that question in the negative, and on grounds which he never communicates to us.
This book is intended a preliminary to historical inquiry. I am not a trained historian and I shall not examine the historical evidence for the Christian miracles. My effort is to put my readers in a position to do so. It is no use going to the texts until we have some idea about the possibility or probability of the miraculous. Those who assume that miracles cannot happen are merely wasting their time by looking into the texts; we know in advance what results they will find for they have begun by begging the question."
MIRACLES by C.S. Lewis c. 1947 pp. 3-4
I am reminded of something Jesus said in the Gospels in his parable about the rich man and Lazarus:
‘If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.’” Like 16:31
It should be noted that many of those who witnessed the resurrection of Lazarus, did not believe in Christ by means of that stupendous miracle.
Here is a free online version of C.S. Lewis' book MIRACLES for you and for anyone else who may be interested in reading it.
by C.S. Lewis
Thank you for Lewis on Barth. I have CS Lewis's "Miracles" - the 2nd edition following his encounter with Elizabeth Anscombe, which you might like to google!
I stand corrected on my statement that Brown was a Jesuit. I’d seen initials behind his name, incorrectly recalling them as “S.J.” (Society of Jesus = Jesuits) instead of “S.S.” Of course, I was aware that he was a member of the Sulpician Order (which I’d not heard of till the comments here), by evidence of both Constance’s initial comment and your subsequent comment; however, my (incorrect) assumption was that one could be a member of both.
I firmly stand by my statement that it’s only fair to judge a given work on its own merits, rather than imposing views of other works upon it. If Brown made later statements that are outside the bounds of orthodoxy—such as what appears to be his implicit denial of the inerrancy of Scripture—those statements should be addressed within the confines of those works. Is it possible that Brown’s doctrine had undergone a gradual change from orthodoxy to heterodoxy? This seems possible, given that the article in question here is from ’65 and his Anchor Bible commentary is from ’66 (2nd volume, ’70).
Just as a sort of recap, I only began my defense of Brown because of the charge that he adhered to Process Theology. Along the way, I defended him against the charge that he denied the Deity of Christ, then the charge of Arianism. Now for something new (which you may rebut or offer comment on, if you like, as I’m not wishing to take advantage of your charity in giving me the ‘last word’): Your point that an implicit denial of the Virginal Conception/Birth is tantamount to a denial of Christ’s Deity, does not necessarily follow. Now, to be sure, I affirm the VC/B, as it’s in Scripture, and even in the Ecumenical Councils, but a robust Chalcedonian Incarnational Christology can be obtained without it. I admit that when I first read about this a few years ago it offended my sensibilities, but as the author laid out his arguments, it made sense. I should stress, though, that this author unequivocally affirms the VC/B himself, and that his article was strictly hypothetical; it was written in response to those who find it possible or outright claim that the VC/B is ‘legend’ or ‘mythological’. My point in bringing it up here is that if Brown affirms the Deity of Christ—as he does in the ’65 article and in his Anchor Bible commentary—then any doubts he may place on the VC/B in no way affects or counters his affirmations of Christ’s Deity.
With respect, your comment citing the ’65 article’s paragraph containing Mark 10:18 (comment @ 10:14PM) as an implicit denial of Christ’s Deity does not follow. It seems you’re assuming that a claim that theos was not used until 58AD is tantamount to a denial of Christ’s Deity in the Scriptural material up to that point, which is not necessarily true. Brown is simply saying that prior to 58AD the NT does not record Jesus as God (theos), and that Jesus never calls Himself God (theos). What Brown has done throughout the article is use “God” (in scare quotes) or God (without quotes) in place of theos, interchanging the three. Moreover, importantly, Brown states the article’s delimitations at the outset, in the second paragraph, in which he concedes that a fuller discussion would include “Son of “God”, “Messiah”, “Lord”, and “Savior”, etc. (note that while I’ve put these in scare quotes, Brown doesn’t, thus illustrating his own peculiarities in using “God” with and without them throughout the paper). Most importantly, Brown states the specific limits of the piece in the first sentence of the third paragraph: “It is only to one small area of this material that we confine this article, namely, the New Testament use of the term ‘God’ (theos) for Jesus.”
My comment (#200) regarding homoousios (Nicea) and homoiousios (Arius) was poorly worded, which I’ll clarify and expand. Neither are in Scripture. Your claim, essentially, that the former is what is borne out in John 10:30 is a position I accept; however, this is an interpretation of the verse in its context. See my citation of Brown in my comment @ 10:00 PM above.
I’ll take this opportunity to tangentially address your point about Brown’s use of “literal sense” as opposed to “literal meaning”. One could make the argument that in John 10:30 Father and Son being of the ‘same essence’ is the “literal sense” of the passage, which is not the same as the “literal meaning”, since there’s no word for “same essence” in this verse; that is, the term homoousios, or one like it, is not used, as this is an extrapolation—a reasonable one. While I cannot be sure this is the way in which Brown makes this differentiation, I think it possible.
Returning to the absence of homoousios in Scripture, the word is a compound of homo (same) and ousia (noun form of verb eimi, “be”, “exist”), with the latter (ousia) found in Scripture, but with a different meaning than that of Nicea. Ousia is only found twice in the NT (Luke 15:12 & 15:13) and twice in the LXX (Tobit 14:13; 3 Maccabees 3:28). BDAG defines it: that which exists and therefore has substance, property, wealth. As one can readily see, the term connotes physicality in the NT—something which certainly cannot be predicated of God.
But, on the other hand, as you well know, the verb “be” is used by YHWH Himself in Exodus 3:14:
Εγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν
Egō eimi ho ōn
I AM THE ONE WHO IS/EXISTS
Or, clumsily, I AM THE BEING, as the last word is a present participle. The article (ho,‘the’) in front of the participle nominalizes it (makes it a noun).
Thus, I’ve a hunch this is why the term was used. It’s not too much of stretch to construe ousia in non-physical terms (over against its use in the NT), as a metaphysical description.
When I state that the Bible does not speak in ontological categories, I mean no language is used to describe God ontologically. Philosophical discussions about God’s ontology came after the NT. This is why homoousios was coined.
The FIRE Rises: Western Capitulation / Eastern Europe on the Brink
This one is on the Czech Republic. Next will be Poland and Hungary.
I only have one more thing to offer regarding Brown's treatment of the Virgin Conception/Birth using form-criticism.
Classic form-criticism is rationalistic in that it does not admit Christian faith as one of its operative principles, and it is naturalistic in that it does not accept into its world of reality any divine interventions or supernatural happenings. The use of form-criticism by Catholics is wrong in the first place because it is a backwards approach to Sacred Scripture.
Insofar as Brown, who presented himself as a Catholic priest and Scripture scholar, begins his article by begging the question, he demonstrates this backwards approach to Sacred Scriptures which permeates ALL of his writings.
The right approach is to accept what the Scriptures seem to say as historically true unless this is shown to be false, but the aim and purpose of form-criticism is to find errors and inconsistencies in the Sacred Writ, and it does so by assuming the Scriptures to be historically false wherever they cannot be proved to be true.
As C.S. Lewis points out in MIRACLES people like Fr. Brown bring their false assumptions and disbelief to their historical work ready made.
Regarding Father Raymond Brown's form-critical approach to the Virginal Conception of Jesus
3. In his widely circulated book, The Virginal Conception & Bodily Resurrection of Jesus (herein VCBR),4 Father Raymond Brown, as a form-critical biblical scholar, concludes that the Gospels “are not simply factual reporting of what happened in Jesus’ ministry but are documents of faith written to show the significance of those events as seen with hindsight.” For instance, he says, “the fact that according to the Synoptic (first three) Gospels Jesus predicted his crucifixion and resurrection three times and in increasing detail does not necessarily mean that the historical Jesus had such exact knowledge of his future” (VCBR, p. 17). More specifically in reference to the arguments of this book he affirms that “the presence of the virginal conception in the infancy narratives of two Gospels carries no absolute guarantee of historicity” (VCBR, p. 32). The Catholic Church, of course, has always taught that the Sacred Scriptures are inerrant, but, he notes, the Second Vatican Council “reversed a tendency of applying inerrancy to almost every aspect of the Bible and applied it only in a very general way,” and he here questions whether the bodily virginity of Mary qualifies for biblical inerrancy according to the new definition of biblical inerrancy given by Vatican II, namely, as a truth “which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation” (quoting Dei Verbum 11). Brown readily admits that the humanity and the divine sonship of Jesus are “truths gleaned from the infancy narratives,” but he questions whether the bodily virginity of Mary is such a truth (pp. 32 and 19), considering that “modern Protestant and Catholic scholars are in surprising agreement on the generally figurative and non-historical character of the infancy narratives” (VCBR, p. 52).
4. From a neo-patristic perspective, Father Brown’s approach is problematic. The virginal conception of Jesus is a dogma of the Church (CCC 496, 510), based upon the conviction of the Church that its narration in the infancy narratives is historically true. As a believing Catholic, Brown accepts the virginal conception of Jesus as an object of faith, but, as a form-critic, he here (as quoted in the preceding paragraph) doubts its historical truth. The problem is that Catholic faith is an undoubting affirmation of the reality of the objects of faith, that is, of their historical truth, and it does not allow for a pluralism which negates the unity of truth or for a fideism that relegates the objects of faith to a non-real world of religious belief. This problem runs through the whole gamut of Catholic form-critical scholarship, in the sense that Catholic form-critics like Father Brown, while they do not deny the dogmas of faith, never address and resolve the deep undermining of the faith that is implicit in their form-critical reasoning, because they have not succeeded in establishing a truly Catholic form-critical approach. The Second Vatican Council did not water down the constant teaching of the Church that the Sacred Scriptures are wholly inerrant. Catholic historical critics, using their method of interpretation, have simply misrepresented the teaching of the Second Vatican Council on biblical inerrancy precisely where it says that “the books of Scripture are to be affirmed as teaching firmly, faithfully, and without error the truth as God wished it to be set down in Sacred Writings for the sake of our salvation” (Dei Verbum 11).5
5. According to “the modern analysis of how New Testament christology developed,” Brown avers that “New Testament christology developed backwards, from end to beginning” (VCBR, p. 43). This means that the idea that Jesus was the divine Son of God developed only later in the minds of believers and was then pushed back to earlier happenings. Thus, he says, in the infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke, the Christology has been moved back to the infancy of Jesus in the womb of Mary, since the Angel Gabriel is said to proclaim Him to be the Messiah and the Son of God (pp. 43-44). Brown thus characterizes the virginal conception of Jesus as “the idiom of a christological insight” (VCBR, p. 28), but this scholarly idea is merely a copying of Bultmann’s supposition that the divinity of Jesus reported in the Gospels began to be invented in the imagination of believers from the time of the crucifixion of Jesus. What Brown calls an “insight” Bultmann calls a fantasy, and Brown nowhere refutes Bultmann by showing that this “insight” is not a fantasy
6. Of course, the truth is that, contrary to this form-critical reasoning from false presuppositions, the Incarnation of God the Son in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary was an historical event. Brown’s “history of christology” was laid out earlier by Bultmann in his Theology of the New Testament, according to the following stages: the first (Palestinian) generation of Christians imagined Jesus as a merely human Messiah, while the second (Hellenistic) generation raised his image to the level of the divine.6 Actually, real historical facts cannot be moved forward or backward, but imaginary events can be so moved, and it is with this difference in mind that we should evaluate Brown’s statement concerning the infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke that “inspiration does not turn fiction and parable into history” (VCBR, p. 19). Bultmann’s false but clear depiction of the infancy narratives as being pure myth and legend becomes confused and ambiguous in Brown’s version of the same. Brown does oppose Bultmann’s presupposition that modern man cannot accept the idea of nature-miracles and that all of the miracles in the Gospels were, therefore, inserted later into the story of Jesus by Christian dreamers (VCBR, p. 30), but he beclouds his opposition to this false principle with his own observation that “a history studded with the miraculous is not the history we live in” (VCBR, p. 29), thus prejudicing his own approach to the extraordinary happenings recorded in the infancy narratives. Again, Bultmann considers the story of the Incarnation to be simply a myth borrowed from pagan mythology.7 Brown opposes this, but he also points out that, in hymns quoted in the Pauline epistles, Hebrews, and John, the christology is moved toward the pre-existence of Jesus, whereas previously his existence was thought to have begun in the womb of Mary, so that the later Church had to reconcile this conflict by determining that the pre-existent Word of God took flesh in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary (VCBR, p. 44). Now, Brown does not affirm that the idea of the pre-existent Word of God was invented by the Church to solve a problem, but Bultmann and his school had already affirmed this, and Brown, by making no effort to refute this implication, allows it to hang over his whole discourse.
7. Brown admits that “if the christology associated with virginal conception was known [by Jesus, by the Virgin Mary, and by others] from the first moments of Jesus’ earthly career, the whole critical theory falls apart” (VCBR, p. 53). Yes, and the sooner the better. In the meanwhile, Brown finds that “despite ingenious attempts at harmonization, the basic stories (in the two infancy narratives) are virtually irreconcilable,” and, therefore, “they cannot both be historical in toto” (pp. 53-54). The two infancy narratives have been scientifically reconciled in toto by Catholic writers of the past and by contemporary research as well for all who do not reject in advance every serious effort to reconcile them.8
8. Brown again subscribes to the premises of the form-critical school of Bultmann and Dibelius where he declares that the Old Testament writers did not foresee the life of Jesus of Nazareth except in the vaguest way, and that, therefore, “when the New Testament authors see prophecy fulfilled in Jesus, they are going beyond the vision of the Old Testament authors,” with the result that “the classic apologetic argument from prophecy has had to be reinterpreted in the light of modern biblical criticism“ (VCBR, p. 15). No, the apologetic argument from prophecy did not have to be reinterpreted; it remains part of the solemn teaching of the Church. What is lacking in Brown’s observation is that God has a role as the inspiring Author of the Old and New Testaments, a fact that classic form-criticism in no way recognizes, and, therefore, is unable to see that what the human writers of the Gospels saw by hindsight the divine Author of the Old Testament saw by foresight. Here Brown seems to be trapped in the naturalism of the form-critical school.
9. It is Brown’s opinion that Matthew’s infancy narrative “is redolent of the folkloric and imaginative,” while Luke’s narrative does not reflect “the atmosphere of purely historical reporting” (VCBR, p. 54). Again, this judgment is guided by the naturalism of the form-critical school. It is only on the basis of an a priori exclusion of real divine interventions that Matthew’s narrative seems folkloric and imaginative, and it is only on the basis of an a priori exclusion of divinely inspired writing that goes beyond the capabilities of contemporary human historians that Luke’s account does not seem to reflect “the atmosphere of purely historical reporting.” Regarding the virginal conception of Jesus, Brown does not deny the dogma, but it is his studied conclusion that “the totality of the scientifically controllable evidence leaves an unresolved problem” (VCBR, p. 66).9 This brings up a bigger unresolved problem. What is “scientific evidence,” and what is “purely historical reporting”? Catholic form-critics like to call their work “scientific,” but they do not work with an adequate concept of science. All science is organized around a unified concept of the real, but, in the pluralism of Catholic form-criticism, the objects of Catholic faith are left vaguely in a non-world of religious fantasy. Similarly, true historians deal with everything that has happened; they do not, like Bultmann and his school, presuppose that much of what is reported in the infancy narratives could not really have happened. The assumption that the perception of miraculous facts having a supernatural meaning has to be imaginary or folkloristic is contrary to the fundamental principles of historical science, for historical science knows that historical meaning, while is conceptually distinct from bare historical fact, is not separate from it. Brown’s separation of Gospel doctrine from the historical facts in which it is embedded is, therefore, unscientific. Hence, when he wonders how the Church’s connatural insight into divine revelation could apply to “a question of biological fact” (VCBR, p. 37), he is separating this dogma from historical fact and unscientifically reducing it to the level of a theologoumenon.
10. Father Brown doubts the historicity of the virginal conception reported by Matthew and Luke also on the ground that “we cannot be certain where they got their information” (VCBR, p. 31). But we can be certain where Brown got his presuppositions, and that is mainly from the writings of Rudolf Bultmann and others of the form-critical school. We know that Bultmann did not originate all of the assumptions that Brown utilizes in this book, but it was chiefly Bultmann who shaped the basic principles of the form-criticism of the Gospels into the imposing approach that Brown so uncritically uses. Brown’s approach is restrained somewhat by his feelings as a Catholic, but the exegetical tradition of the Church, from the Fathers to the twentieth century, is almost totally lacking, while principles and arguments that would block the tendency toward the extreme position of Bultmann are singularly absent. In other words, Brown inserts conclusions into his exposition without sufficiently addressing the problems and conflicts that they raise from the viewpoint of Catholic exegetical tradition. The greatest scientific evidence that the virginal conception of Jesus is historically true is that it is guaranteed by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and witnessed by the Angel Gabriel and the Blessed Virgin Mary. Actually, the burden of proof lies on those who question the historical truth of what these narratives say, but Brown shifts the burden of proof upon the evangelists and resorts to expressions like “modern scholars are in agreement,” or “many scholars are now convinced,” thus inviting his readers to give blind credence to the outrageous judgments that he and other form-critics make. His radical distinction between Church dogmas and possibly contrasting historical facts is set against the background of Bultmann’s finely elaborated distinction between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith, which Brown does not fully accept, but neither does he arm his readers against it. Brown’s acceptance of the “widely accepted critical theory of a gradual development of explicit New Testament christology” (VCBR, p. 53) is a modified rendition of Bultmann’s poorly reasoned conclusion that the literary form of the Gospel “has grown out of the immanent urge to development which lay in the tradition fashioned for various motives, and out of the Christ-myth and the Christ-cult of Hellenistic Christianity.”10 Brown does not affirm this, but neither does he present any distinct and convincing line of argument against it.
11. The misleading character of Brown’s line of argument against the historicity of the infancy narratives is confirmed in his later book, The Birth of the Messiah (herein BM).11 For Brown “there is an a priori unlikelihood” that the Blessed Virgin Mary was the source of the material in Matthew’s infancy narrative, because it centers on Joseph and she is only a secondary figure. This reason ignores the humility of Mary and even the fact that a wife can tell a story about her husband without making herself the center of the description. Again, Brown reasons, Mary could not also have been the source of the infancy narrative in Luke while never mentioning the coming of the Magi and the flight into Egypt (BM, p. 35). Actually, this could easily have happened. As I have explained elsewhere, Blessed Mary could be the source of both infancy narratives. She could have remembered and told the episodes in Luke 1-2 during the earthly lifetime of Jesus, while carefully concealing the material in Matt 1-2 until after the crucifixion of Jesus in order to protect his life from the hostility of the civil authorities.12
12. Brown maintains that the appearances of an angel to Mary in Luke 1 and to Joseph in Matt 1 are mere literary forms developed to convey the underlying idea of a virginal conception (BM, pp. 521-522). This means that there were no real appearances of an angel and there were no historical annunciations at all, but the idea of a virginal conception did come to be, and this, he says, needs to be accounted for. He reasons that the idea was probably not derived from pagan religious beliefs or from Old Testament stories, but he fails to consider and refute the resultant implication that the early Christians could simply have made up the story on their own without any suggestion from other traditions. The error of this form-critical approach is in presupposing that the earliest Christians were such dependent and unoriginal thinkers that they could not have completely originated stories on their own, but had to have them suggested to them by some other tradition. There is actually no evidence that the angelic appearances to Mary and Joseph are imaginary stories, and there is, therefore, no need to seek a source for the idea of the event, but we can trace Brown’s need to search for a source back to Bultmann’s Sitz-im-Leben, which itself is based upon Durkheim’s idea of the primitive society.
13. Father Brown’s argument is set against an even more sinister background. Hermann Gunkel, Rudolf Bultmann, and many other promoters of form-criticism were thoroughgoing Modernists who believed that all religious dogmas and objects of faith well up from a primitive instinct and are entirely fanciful. This is the established position of mainline form-criticism, and it is a fatal error of Brown and other Catholic form-critics that they do not address this pervasive falsehood as they superficially carry out literary analyses that depend ultimately upon it.
14. Again, Brown holds that the conception of biblical prophecy as prediction of the distant future “has disappeared from most serious scholarship today,” to the extent that the Old Testament prophets did not foresee “a single detail in the life of Jesus of Nazareth” (BM, p. 146). By “serious scholarship” he means form-critics like himself, to the exclusion of all of the serious scholars who do understand biblical prophecy as predictive of the future. His treatment in this book of the prophecy in Isa 7:14, which, he says, in no way predicts the virginal conception of Jesus, ignores the rich commentary on this verse in Catholic dogmatic and exegetical tradition. Brown’s contention that the sign offered by Isaiah was the imminent birth of a naturally conceived child makes no sense in the original text and is clearly contrary to its use by Matthew (BM, p. 148).
15. Brown points out that those who distinguish between the divine author and the human authors of Sacred Scripture sometimes posit a sensus plenior, that is, “a predictive sense of the words of the prophet” (BM, p. 148). Clearly so, and this is Catholic doctrine, but this “fuller sense” actually contains the entire spiritual sense of Sacred Scripture, typological, allegorical, moral, and final, all of which are out of sight to form-critics.
16. While Brown virtually admits that his and other form-critical speculations on earlier phases of the Gospels really don’t prove anything (BM, p. 119), he works hard at undermining the truth of the one text that we have. For instance, he claims that the idea for the fabrication of the pattern of false episodes narrated by Matthew from the virginal conception (Matt 1:18ff.) to the return of the Holy Family from Egypt (Matt 2:23) was basically suggested by adapting the story of Moses in Egypt as narrated in the Book of Exodus, with a couple of additional elements borrowed from the story of Joseph the Patriarch (BM, p. 138). The idea of Catholic exegetical tradition that these parallels between the Old Testament and the New Testament were made by the divine Author for typological and allegorical reasons gets no consideration at all in the form-critical thinking here. Brown has to follow the naturalistic presupposition of the form-critical method that these things could not really have happened, because, once one admits that they could really have happened, the whole form-critical method falls to pieces.....read more...
I believe that Matthew Fox's expression of Creation Spirituality embraces the New Age concepts of illumination and self-realization. Creation Spirituality is pan[en]theistic spirituality. A principle of Creation Spirituality is panentheism: God is as much beyond all words and images [or, beyond the creation, which is an image or form] as in all forms and beings [or, as in all of creation]. God is both transcendent (beyond the creation) and immanent (in all of creation).
Christ’s claim, “No man cometh unto the Father, but by me” (John 14:6), is a promise to all humanity, irrespective of creed. "Jesus meant, never that he was the sole Son of God, but that no man can attain the unqualified Absolute, the transcendent Father beyond creation, until he has first manifested the 'Son' or activating Christ Consciousness within creation." - Swami Sri Yukteswar
Robert Muller (1923 - 2010) was once the Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations and was called the "Philosopher" and "Prophet of Hope" of this organization. Muller was a disciple of Alice Bailey and he wrote:
"Decide to open yourself to God, to the Universe [the universe is an 'essentially undifferentiated mass of light' permeated with 'Christ Consciousness'], to all your brethren and sisters, to your inner self...to the potential of the human race, to the infinity of your inner self, and you will become the universe [or, you will become essentially the divinity within all of creation, manifesting the 'Son']...you will become infinity [or, you will become infinitely bigger than the finite universe and one with the 'transcendent Father beyond creation'], and you will be at long last your real, divine, stupendous self."
We all know what comes out of the U.N.
What's in the heart of the U.N. is what comes out of the mouth of the U.N.
What else would Muller say from that Temple of Paganism there in NYC ?
Is that supposed to verify the sort of gobbledegook that you wrote above it?
Prophetess? Alice Bailey? Activating Christ Consciousness within creation?
This New Age is really getting very old.
Again you disclaim the veracity of the Scriptures, out of one side of your mouth, while you
paraphrase verses from the Scriptures and try to redefine The Son of God's words, out of
the other side of your mouth, (which only shows that you know that the scriptures are very
If the Scriptures aren't true, then the rational thing to do would be to stop "quoting" them,
wouldn't it ?
Why don't you quote Freud, who was really big on such things as "spirituality" and
"self realization" ? I'm pretty sure it's a Freudian term anyway. She must have stolen
the term from him, that clever little false prophetess.
May the universe bring you total abracadabra, hocus pocus, and yadayada today.
And may the Farce be with you.
You wrote: I believe that Matthew Fox's expression of Creation Spirituality embraces the New Age concepts of illumination and self-realization. Creation Spirituality is pan[en]theistic spirituality…
Yes, I’d agree. I like what you did with “pan[en]theistic”—with the bracketed “en”—which, to me, implies both panentheistic and (quasi-)pantheistic beliefs—which is how I read Fox, as well as Theosophy. From Bailey’s A Treatise of Cosmic Fire (New York: Lucis, 1951 ) (italics in original; bold added for emphasis):
“[The first Logos’] goal is the synthesis of the Spirits who are gaining consciousness through manifestation, and who, by means of experience in matter, are gaining in quality.
“His function is, by means of will, to hold them [ED: the Spirits] in manifestation [ED: i.e., in matter] for the desired period, and later to abstract them, and blend them together with their spiritual source…
“…[T]he first Logos is called the Destroyer…His work is the synthesis of Spirit with Spirit, their eventual abstraction from matter, and their unification with their cosmic source. Hence also He is the one who brings pralaya or the disintegration of form—the form from which Spirit has been abstracted…
“His mode of action is a driving forward; the will lies back of evolutionary development is His, and He it is who drives Spirit onward through matter till it eventually emerges from matter, having achieved two things:
First, Added quality to quality, and therefore emerging plus the gained faculty that experience has engendered.
Second, Increased the vibration of matter itself by means of its own energy, so that matter at the moment of pralaya [ED: disintegration of form/matter] and obscuration will have two main characteristics—activity, the result of the Law of Economy, and a dual magnetism which will be the result of the Law of Attraction” (pp 148-149).
Two important points emerge: (1) the “first Logos” holds “Spirits” in matter by HIS will; (2) the express purpose of the first is “evolutionary development” of the Spirits, which can only come about through manifestation in matter. This means that matter is integral to the development of the “Spirits” within matter, making matter much more than a ‘necessary evil’, for without matter these “Spirits” could not ‘break free’. Hence, Theosophy is both panentheistic and, at least quasi-pantheistic.
This is very problematic to my way of thinking, creating logical fallacies. If matter is so ‘evil’, and “Spirits”—the “Deity” within the atoms of matter—are superior to matter, then why can’t these “Spirits” just break out on their own? Why are “Spirits’” evolution intrinsically tied to and dependent upon the evolution of matter, which is specifically stated to be inferior to “Spirits”?
Italy Threatens To Shut Ports To Migrant Ships
Italy's migrant crisis is causing chaos as it is in most of Europe.
Are these really refugees of war, or are they migrants who were, by the powers-that-be, promised handouts at the expense of the taxpayer? Is it possible that the UN is purposely bringing Africans to Europe as a means by which to effect a transfer of wealth, as well as socio-political instability?
cute pun. my concern is twofold: if chakras don't exist then ok to use as placebo in working on self.
NOT A GOOD IDEA. if a delusion then not real and have no bearing on theology so harmless. IF
REAL THEN DANGEROUS regardless of theology. even reiki is proliferating in churches.
no relevance to pantheism new age ideas are b.s. If you can convince people chakra work is
dangerous you can undercut demons' semi physical ground to work on.
re auras "I expect you think you really can do it. So did they." I've repeatedly said I don't except
rarely if they are extreme.
Patent Approved for Eyebeam Detection Device
a lot of "spiritual" stuff is just more attenuated material stuff.
Energy Emitted from the Eye Can Travel Long Distances
paul, you're hallucinating. I didn't bring any of what you call folklore into that thread. most of
of harangues against spritual warfare isues and energy dangeorus because real I haven't even
mentioned it. Someone sees my name, goes into a tirade didn't read post.
great catch on Brown's games, saved me the trouble and you presented it better. Don't expect Craig
to admit he's wrong unless he pretends he meant this all along.
Brown may not be an Arian just "evolving" in that direction. all heretics are not overt and some claim a
doctrine while undermining all reason to hold that doctrine. On Craig's page he says that the idea Jesus
gave up His spirit into the community of believers around Him when He died is a valuable insight instead
of denouncing this blasphemy and idiocy.
"Scripture does not explicitly claim that Father and Son are of the same ‘substance’/‘essence’"
Actually it does. When Jesus called God his Father the Jews accused Him of blasphemy making
Himself equal to God. And Jesus say He meant metaphorical. If He is the only BEGOTTEN
(not adopted like us) Son of God then He is same substance as The Father since like begets like.
Absent hybridization you can't have a child not same substance as parent, w. hybrid some substance
is same. "The Word was with God and was God" says the same. And Jesus said "before Abraham was
I AM" which as you point out YHWH says of Himself I AM or The Existing One. meaning vs. wording -
some words imply things by their nature.
...my proficiency with Greek is mediocre at best, really. My vocabulary is poor....If I had to take any first level
test without my tools, I’d likely flunk or barely pass."
aha. therefore don't talk to me about grammatical ambiguity. From the foundation of the world has to refer
to The Lamb's death, not the book. you can argue whatever is dependent on the Lamb's death is from the
foundation also with the Lamb's death, but it is the Lamb's death referred to since all depends on it.
When there is real or apparent ambiguity, check rest of Scripture on the subject. the Acts cite I gave says
the same, that the Crucifixion is from the pre determination of God.
The Hindu concept of chakras is a doctrine of devils. All doctrines of devils are dangerous delusions to be avoided like the plague, just as you yourself are becoming!
You do know our resident physicist (unlike your "Resident Seer" or you) is at Phd level in his field, physics, don't you? You really sound as arrogant and pathetic as usual, MCE!
Craig is modest unlike you with your hubris. I'm sure he knows a darn site more Greek than you do! Plus, you said you were going to ignore him, so once again Chritine, you have proved yourself a barefaced liar and boring as ever!
I thought you were going to ignore me?
I’ve stated this before, and I’ll state it again: you have a comprehension problem—or worse—which I’ll illustrate as I go.
Addressing Susanna, you wrote of me: On Craig's page he says that the idea Jesus gave up His spirit into the community of believers around Him when He died is a valuable insight instead of denouncing this blasphemy and idiocy.
Here’s what I actually wrote (see here):
Brown finds it plausible that “Jesus handed over the (Holy) Spirit to those at the foot of the cross” as “a symbolic reference to the giving of the Spirit” understood proleptically, that is, prefiguring 20:22 and Pentecost (Acts 2). However, against Brown and Malina-Rohrbaugh, it may be best to simply understand the recipient of the pneuma as the Father (as in the Synoptic parallel in Luke 23:46), to whom the Son willingly obeyed, ‘laying down His life’ (10:17), and to whom the Son hands over His human spirit. But how does one decide which is correct?
In no way can this be construed as blasphemy. You may wish to call it “idiocy” if you like (on what basis exactly?), but there are a number of scholars who find this plausible. In my own conclusions—based on the Scriptural/lexical evidence—I don’t think this is the case, but it cannot be refuted definitively.
I note your use of “spirit” as opposed to (the Holy) “Spirit”. If your understanding is that I wrote that Jesus handed over His human spirit into the believers at the foot of the Cross, then either: (a) you have a comprehension problem; or (b) you’re being dishonest; or (c) you read this too quickly, resulting in your error. Moreover, not once did I call this a “valuable insight”. Instead, I noted that Malina-Rohrbaugh had “relevant insights”, this being only one of them. Yes, I quoted Malina-Rohrbaugh’s use of “spirit” instead of “Spirit”, as that’s how to correctly cite another’s work—just as it’s written—however, it’s obvious to any reader that the authors meant the Holy Spirit, and the rest of their context makes that clear. (And note that the authors do not capitalize pronouns which reference Jesus—this is consistent practice in this particular work, and not unusual in scholarship.)
You wrote, first quoting me, then responding (bold added for emphasis): "Scripture does not explicitly claim that Father and Son are of the same ‘substance’/‘essence’"
Actually it does. When Jesus called God his Father the Jews accused Him of blasphemy making Himself equal to God. And Jesus say He meant metaphorical. If He is the only BEGOTTEN (not adopted like us) Son of God then He is same substance as The Father since like begets like…"The Word was with God and was God" says the same. And Jesus said "before Abraham was I AM" which as you point out YHWH says of Himself I AM or The Existing One. meaning vs. wording - some words imply things by their nature.
There is a big difference between being implicit and being explicit; and, as I noted, Scripture does not use the word homoousios (‘same essence’). It is a valid inference to make, but it’s not explicit. If it were, there would have been no Arianism.
Your desire to turn my honest assessment of my Greek capabilities into a negative—though you failed to quote me in full, which can be seen as a lie/sin by omission—illustrates the condition of your heart. The important thing to see in my statement is that I have the tools and I understand how to use them. You, on the other hand, have shown that you have no Greek capabilities, yet you have the audacity and hubris to challenge someone else’s statement regarding Greek.
To address the contents of your very last paragraph (again!!), let me first quote from Robert H. Mounce (The Book of Revelation, NICNT, [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1977]), father of William D. Mounce, author of probably the most popular beginning Greek textbook:
The “foundation of the world” refers to the creation of the visible order. It is mentioned ten times in the NT…The problem in the immediate verse is not the meaning of the phrase but its place in the sentence. Was it the writing of believers’ names or the death of the Lamb which dates from the foundation of the world? The RSV and many of the newer translations follow the first alternative…
Do you get it now?
Yet, at least you did concede there is ambiguity! You wrote: … When there is real or apparent ambiguity, check rest of Scripture on the subject. the Acts cite I gave says the same, that the Crucifixion is from the pre determination of God.
The verse presently under discussion is Revelation 13:8. Staying in the same book, verse 17:8 has some very similar language, but note the bold—I’ll quote from the KJV, even though all versions state pretty much the same thing:
The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.
Now, will you either fully concede, or comment no further on this issue?
Some more I've learned about the Castelot conferences:
1. They are part of the "We are the Church conferences".
2. Ron Witherup, Ph.D.; Carey Walsh, Ph.D.; and Warren Carter, Ph.D. are major names, at leaslt in the Castelot Scripture Summer Conferences -- perhaps far more.
3. A nun whose name has popped up many times in my research over the years, Sandra Schneiders, is also involved with these summer conferences, at least.
4. New Oxford Review once published an article I recall reading in the past about Sandra Schneiders and her alleged "Vows of Disobedience."
We are Gaia, so let us think as Gaia.
This is what Gaianeering is all about. It is learning to think and act as if we are not only our human selves but an embodiment of the spirit of the Earth as well. As our power to affect the planet as a whole has grown exponentially over the past century, so has our need to be the spirit of Gaia — to become skilled and wise practitioners of Gaianeering — grown as well.
That's all well and good (though I'd call it a deflection), but why not address my counter to your earlier comment--using the words of Alice Bailey (since you referenced her) in context--in my comment @ 10:59AM yesterday?
Come, come, now Craig, isn't that asking a bit much of Thomas Dahlheimer?
Physicists love neat acronyms for their experiments and I'd expect that the Low-Background Underground Cryogenic Installation for Elusive Rates (LUCIFER) was named by secular physicists over a beer by way of a pun. I don't think it's very funny either, but it's an entirely routine physics experiment and that's how secular scientists think - I was one once. The full title looks a bit strained to get the acronym accurate - notice how they've airbrushed the B of 'Background' by hyphenating it to 'Low'; also, 'Installation' is a non-routine word where Experiment would have been normal. "Elusive" is also a rather affected choice of word. But I think little more about this than I do of the enzyme named by biologists as 'Luciferase', because it is involved in bioluminescence in glow-worms, fireflies etc.
You are handy as a pocket on a shirt, Physicist!
Happy 4th of July everybody...with the exception of our British friends ;) !
Perhaps they might wish us a Happy Treason Day LOL!
At least you've stopped throwing our tea in the river, hehe!
God bless you!
You might want to listen to this lecture by Peter Jones as he talks about the spiritual progressives and their plans for the future of the New Age movement.
From Personal Spirituality to Worldview - broadcast date/ July 4, 2017
As for global warming, we had our own personal month of it, thanks to air conditioning and furnace servicing disabilities. We carry a maintenance contract on our major appliances, including our furnace, through Sears. The air conditioner was not covered. We had the air conditioner inspected and serviced on June 8th. Then, it was fine, but the technician inspecting it said it wasn't being pushed through the system due to a bad belt on the furnace fan. We called Sears on same, and they said they could not come until June 22d. That was during our extremely hot and humid week. I managed to get them to push it up to the 19th, but when Sears came on the 19th, they didn't have the belt with them and said it would take another two days to bring it. All that pressure on the air conditioner for all those days caused the compressor on the air conditioner to fall and we are replacing it later this morning. I'm planning on sending a demand letter to Sears as SERVICE DELAYED IS SERVICE DENIED. They're so very efficient at making the late September calls every year to renew the approximately $600 year contract we've had in place since late 1984. Providing the service we've paid for is quite another matter.
I'm enjoying the conversations between Craig, Susanna, with inputs from Paul.
Sandra Schneiders has been honored by LCWR ( Leadership Conference for Women Religious ) which, as mentioned in past threads on this blog, has come under Vatican scrutiny for alleged doctrinal irregularities. Schneiders gave the keynote address at the LCWR 1997 annual assembly. The 2012 LCWR Assembly was addressed by none other than Barbara Marx Hubbard. LCWR has been dubbed by one friar as "Rebels Without a Clue."
...In 1992, the orthodox nuns abandoned the LCWR. Its leadership and the majority of orders had increasingly distanced themselves from the doctrines of the Church, and from the pope and magisterium. The LCWR drifted more and more into left-wing political and feminist radicalism. Donna Steichen described it well in her 1991 book, Ungodly Rage. After Vatican II, “LCWR encouraged the exodus from traditional apostolates, and initiated or supported many of the organizations and coalitions formed to hasten the radical ‘renewal’ of its members.” Not only did the LCWR endorse the Equal Rights Amendment, it worked actively within the Church for its passage. It became an advocate of women’s ordination, feminist translations of Scripture and feminist spirituality, including earth and goddess worship.
The group also became practically an arm of the most radical element of the Democratic Party, inviting pro-abortion speakers to address them, engaging in leftist lobbying and networking with pro-abortion secular organizations. Sr. Donna Quinn, who recently made the news for serving as a deathscort at a Chicago-area abortion mill, is described by Steichen as forming a nuns’ lobby group “to harry the bishops” at their spring 1977 meeting. These feminist nuns successfully convinced the bishops to promote “women’s issues.” Their agenda, however, reflected only feminist concerns. Mothers agonizing over the loss of faith among their children, traditional laity and religious devoted to fostering the faith were ignored. Astonishingly, it was the “suffering” of the “poor” nuns, their grievances over supposedly being disenfranchised by a patriarchal Church, that attracted the bishops’ attention.
There is little evidence that the LCWR has changed over the years. The group still supports radical environmentalism and earth worship, and demands empowerment. In 1997, Sr. Sandra Schneiders addressed the LCWR, saying that, for many nuns, “the God of Christianity seems too small, too violent, and too male; the focus on Jesus Christ seems narrow and exclusive; the resurrection seems mythological if not incredible and, in any case, irrelevant to a world in anguish.” Schneiders continues to be an influential voice for dissenting orders in the U.S., and the LCWR remains wedded to its rebellious ways, serving the politics of the world rather than Holy Mother Church. Today, it promotes comprehensive health care reform, opposes torture (except for the unborn), endorses blanket amnesty for illegal aliens and works to reduce carbon footprints. Meanwhile, it completely ignores fundamental sanctity of life questions.
Is it any wonder that orthodox orders fled this witches’ den? Traditional congregations, mostly young and vigorous, established a new conference, the Council of Major Superiors of Women Religious (CMSWR), which was approved by the Vatican in 1995. CMSWR promotes the countercultural vision of religious life that fosters wearing the habit as a sign of vocation, communal life and prayer, Eucharistic worship and traditional apostolates. Its member orders showed wisdom and discernment when they separated themselves from the bad companions in the LCWR who had become strange bedfellows. These are the orders thriving and drawing in young women who share their vision.....read more.....
Apr. 11, 2014
Reforming the LCWR: Where Does It Stand?
Two years ago this month, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) issued a sweeping mandate for reform and renewal of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR), on April 18, 2012. The LCWR is a superiors’ conference made up of about 1,100 sisters who are on leadership teams in about 80% of the U.S. women’s apostolic orders in the United States.
Yet, to date, there are no signs of any reforms taking place; rather, a just-released book by the LCWR repeats its criticism of the mandate and presents a defense of the organization. Spiritual Leadership for Challenging Times (Orbis Books, 2014) is the brainchild of Sister Sandra Schneiders, a Sister of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, who has frequently criticized Vatican actions. The book is promoted by the LCWR as a history of the organization told through the annual presidential addresses of 10 LCWR presidents from 1977 to 2012.......
.....Yet there is no mention in the book of the doctrinal problems in LCWR identified in the mandate, which followed a four-year in-depth assessment and was approved by Pope Benedict XVI and later confirmed by Pope Francis. The CDF originally informed the LCWR in 2001 that the organization needed to correct positions it had taken that were incompatible with Catholic doctrine on women’s ordination, ministry to homosexual persons and, most importantly, the role of Jesus as Savior of humankind.
When those problems were not corrected, the CDF started the assessment in 2008 and detailed the results in the 2012 mandate, which cited “serious doctrinal problems” found in addresses at LCWR annual assemblies; “policies of corporate dissent;” “commentaries” that “even undermine the revealed doctrines of the Holy Trinity, the divinity of Christ and the inspiration of sacred Scripture" and “theological interpretations that risk distorting faith in Jesus and his loving Father, who sent his Son for the salvation of the world.”....read more....
"Father Z" (Father John Zuhlsdorf) had a few things to say about the beliefs and practices of Sandra Schneider. Links to some of Schneider's essays are to be found below his article.
Sr. Sandra Schneider’s NunThink, or, Why The CDF Is Picking On The Magisterium of Nuns
Posted on 16 June 2012
Here is the New Oxford Reviw article you mentioned in your post.
Sister Schneiders’s Vow of Disobedience
Tomasz Stanko, Polish trumpet player, bandleader, most especially his Litania, a tribute work featuring adaptations of Krzysztof Komeda’s cinematic music and other jazz-related works. Komeda was a fellow Pole, and Stanko was featured prominently in his ‘60s band. (I was surprised and delighted to find some of this music on YouTube; <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kk-jeHYPWIY”>here’s the title track</a>, which features images of Poland throughout.)
Giya Kancheli, a Georgian neo-classical composer: <i>In l’istesso tempo</i>.
Arvo Part, Estonian composer: <i>Alina</i>
Francois Couturier’s <i>Nostalghia – Song for Tarkovsky</i>. OK, this one falls outside this area, as it’s a tribute to Soviet film maker Andrei Tarkovsky, but it stays within the same mood.
A disc by the Rosamunde Quartet (string quartet) (ECM Records 1629) featuring works of Anton Webern (Austrian composer), Shostakovich (Soviet composer who chafed against the oppressive regime), specifically his String Quartet no. 8 (dedicated to “the victims of fascism and war”), and Emil Frantisek Burian (a Czech poet, journalist, singer, actor, musician, composer, dramatic adviser, playwright and director, though he was active in Communist Party politics). Regarding the latter composer, according to the notes accompanying the cd: <i>In March 1941 the Gestapo arrested him and destroyed all of his scores that could be found. An odyssey through German concentration camps ended in Neuengamme, outside of Hamburg. In April 1945, Burian barely survived a bombardment of unseaworthy ships in the bay of Lubeck, into which the SS had cynically sent thousands of prisoners.</i>
The following video shows the Poles in opposition to Muslim invasion from October, 2016, with the female spokesperson declaring “Here Jesus Christ is our King”:
<a href=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHZRBzf-9pc”>Polish girl speaks out against Muslim migrants - Poles support Mr. Trump's Immigration Policy</a>
I'll try to italicize, to see if this comment will work correctly.
I am at a loss to understand how anyone can listen to the entirety of that speech and conclude that there is any reasonable chance that he is the antichrist.
There hasn't been a Western world leader give a speech like that since Ronald Reagan.
Scenario: A (standard, not unusual) coin with heads on one side, tails on the other is tossed seven times and each time it comes up tails. Is it more likely to come up heads on the next toss, given that it’s been tails on the seven previous throws? No, the odds are the same with each toss: 50% chance of being heads, 50% chance of being tails. If you thought it was more likely to be heads, you’ve fallen prey to the gambler’s fallacy, a logical fallacy.
On this next one, I’m pretty certain most readers will get this wrong (I predict Physicist will have no trouble with it, though). I got it wrong.
Scenario: Each card has a letter on one side and a number on the other. If a card has a vowel on one side, it must have an even number on the other side. Of the four cards below, which card(s) must be turned over to determine if the rule has been followed? In other words, which cards must be turned over to prove the rule true or false?
Typically, only 4% get the correct answer.
-If you deduced A, you are half right.
-If you deduced A and 2 you are half right and half wrong. You selected 2 because you assume the converse of the rule (if an even number…then a vowel) is also true—a fallacy.
Answer found here: How Logical Are You? (Psychology of Reasoning)
Two important points emerge: (1) the “first Logos” holds “Spirits” in matter by HIS will; (2) the express purpose of the first is “evolutionary development” of the Spirits, which can only come about through manifestation in matter. This means that matter is integral to the development of the “Spirits” within matter, making matter much more than a ‘necessary evil’, for without matter these “Spirits” could not ‘break free’. Hence, Theosophy is both panentheistic and, at least quasi-pantheistic.
This is very problematic to my way of thinking, creating logical fallacies. If matter is so ‘evil’, and “Spirits”—the “Deity” within the atoms of matter—are superior to matter, then why can’t these “Spirits” just break out on their own? Why are “Spirits’” evolution intrinsically tied to and dependent upon the evolution of matter, which is specifically stated to be inferior to “Spirits”?
I do not believe in everything that Alice Bailey taught and neither do I believe in everything that is taught in theosophy.
That's fine-even though you've lauded Blavatsky in the past on this blog-but then, in your own words, how do you reconcile the fact that each atom has 'Deity' within it, yet it cannot just break free out of the 'substandard, evil matter'?
It is probably now moot, but do you know who first decided to "flip the switch" and change the reason for climate "panic" from a coming ice age to global warming? I remember well all the pronouncements of the coming ice age, but can't remember the first time I heard of warming. I think it would be interesting to see where the change in narrative occurred, and who orchestrated it.
I am convinced now more than ever that whatever the reason for advancing the climate crisis narrative, the strategists in the Kremlin saw that as the best vehicle to continue their world socialist revolution. They decided that fighting against the West in the usual manner was beginning to fail (especially with Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and Pope John Paul II leading the charge against them here in the West), and that they needed a change of strategy. So they decided to "pull a fast one" on the West by orchestrating the collapse of the Soviet Union and the "death" of communism, and the West swallowed it hook, line and sinker, because that's what we wanted to see happen. (See Soviet defector Anatoliy Golitsyn's "New Lies for Old", in which he predicted this hoodwink, and quite accurately, which was written in 1984, several years before many of his predictions came to pass.)
Gorbachev, who ushered in Perestroika and Glasnost and the "death" of communism, never stopped being a communist. He also had a large role to play in the 90s in establishing new organizations and co-opting existing ones to push the radical environmentalist agenda onto the world stage, and into the hearts and minds of the people of the world. He established his Gorbachev Foundation (with the help of Jim Garrison and Nancy Pelosi, for starters), and later the Green Cross International. He co-wrote the Earth Charter with Maurice Strong. He started the State of the World Forum, which gathered elites from all over the world to discuss building a New World.
One of the main goals of the Greens is to destroy capitalism. This is the exact same goal that communism has. Natalie Grant wrote that she saw Gorbachev's pushing of the green agenda as a tactic against the West to destroy our engine of wealth creation (and hence, the engine that builds and maintains our military), and therefore he was a threat to be watched. It is for this reason as well that the Soviets supported (and in fact fronted) many of the various nuclear freeze groups that sprung up during the Cold War and especially during the 1980s. Anything they could do to get us to reduce our military strength would help them strategically.
Of course, most people who are part of the environmental / green movements are not communists, they are just dupes. The communist / socialist strategists have been using well-meaning dupes against the West since at least the 1930s (see Diana West's book "American Betrayal"), and even before.
There is too much in common between communist plans for a new world and the New Ager's plans for a new world to look at them as separate streams in history, or to see communism as a "distraction". They are all working toward the same goal, and are at the very least, fellow travelers.
July 4, 2017
Written by John O'Sullivan
Penn State climate scientist, Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann commits contempt of court in the ‘climate science trial of the century.’ Prominent alarmist shockingly defies judge and refuses to surrender data for open court examination. Only possible outcome: Mann’s humiliation, defeat and likely criminal investigation in the U.S.
The defendant in the libel trial, the 79-year-old Canadian climatologist, Dr Tim Ball (above, right) is expected to instruct his British Columbia attorneys to trigger mandatory punitive court sanctions, including a ruling that Mann did act with criminal intent when using public funds to commit climate data fraud. Mann’s imminent defeat is set to send shock waves worldwide within the climate science community as the outcome will be both a legal and scientific vindication of U.S. President Donald Trump’s claims that climate scare stories are a “hoax.”
As can be seen from the graphs below; Mann’s cherry-picked version of science makes the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) disappear and shows a pronounced upward ‘tick’ in the late 20th century (the blade of his ‘hockey stick’). But below that, Ball’s graph, using more reliable and widely available public data, shows a much warmer MWP, with temperatures hotter than today, and showing current temperatures well within natural variation.… (“did” bolded in original; other bold added for emphasis).
See graph at the link above.
…Mann’s iconic hockey stick [extreme uptick in supposed recent global warming] has been relied upon by the UN’s IPCC and western governments as crucial evidence for the science of ‘man-made global warming.’
This is HUGE! Related:
Leading Climate Scientist Says Debating Scientific Theories Would Be ‘Un-American’
…Many scientists are now rejecting an open debate on anthropogenic global warming. EPA administrator Scott Pruitt appears ready to move forward with a “red-team, blue-team” exercise, where two groups of scientists publicly challenge each other’s evidence on manmade climate change. The idea was floated during a Congressional hearing last spring and outlined in a Wall Street Journal op-ed by Steve Koonin, former undersecretary of energy in the Obama administration. Koonin said the public is unaware of the intense debate in climate science and how “consensus statements necessarily conceal judgment calls and debates and so feed the “settled,” “hoax” and “don’t know” memes that plague the political dialogue around climate change.”
It would work this way: A red team of scientists critiques a key climate assessment. The blue team responds. The back-and-forth continues until all the evidence is aired and refuted, followed by public hearings and an action plan based on the findings. It happens entirely out in the open. Koonin said this approach is used in high-consequence situations and “very different and more rigorous than traditional peer review, which is usually confidential and always adjudicated, rather than public and moderated.” (Climate scientist Judith Curry [ED: who is called a “denier”] has a good primer on this concept here.)
Pruitt is prepared to pull the trigger on this idea, according to an article in E&E News last week. In an interview with Breitbart News on June 5, Pruitt touted the red-team, blue-team initiative, saying that “the American people need to have that type of honest open discussion, and it’s something we hope to provide as part of our leadership.”
Instead Of Dialoguing, Climate Scientists Preach
Now you would think the scientific establishment would embrace an opportunity to present their case to a wary, if disinterested, public. You would think the 97 percent of scientists who supposedly all agree human activity is causing climate change would eagerly line up to vanquish climate deniers, especially those in the Trump administration. You would think the same folks who fear a science-averse President Trump would be relieved his administration is encouraging a rigorous, forensic inquiry into the most consequential scientific issue of our time that has wide-ranging economic, social, and political ramifications around the world.
You would think.
But instead, many scientists and activists are expressing outrage at this logical suggestion, even advising colleagues not to participate. In a June 21 Washington Post op-ed, three top climate scientists repudiated the red-team concept, offended by the slightest suggestion that climate science needs fixing. Naomi Oreskes, Benjamin Salter, and Kerry Emanuel wrote that “calls for special teams of investigators are not about honest scientific debate. They are dangerous attempts to elevate the status of minority opinions, and to undercut the legitimacy, objectivity and transparency of existing climate science.”
In a July 1 post full of irony, leading climate scientist Ken Caldeira blasts the climate contest: “We don’t want red team/blue team because science doesn’t line up monolithically for or against scientific positions.” What? Never mind the 97 percent consensus claim that’s been shoved down our throats for the past decade. (Caldeira also wrote just a few months ago that “the evidence for human-induced global warming is now so strong that no sensible person can deny a human role in these temperature increases. We can argue about what we should or should not do … but the argument is over.”)
Caldeira then smugly questions why “politicians who have never engaged in any scientific inquiry in their lives believe themselves to be the experts who should tell scientists how to conduct their business?” (Shall we then ask why scientists who have never engaged in any legislative or political endeavor in their lives believe themselves to be the experts who should tell lawmakers how to conduct their business?)
Climate Scientists Fear Losing Power, Nothing Else
Then there is the interminably-petulant and prosaic Michael Mann, who routinely dishes out the “denier” name to anyone who crosses him, and recently compared himself to a Holocaust survivor. Mann told ThinkProgress that the red-team concept is “un-American” and a ruse to “run a pro-fossil fuel industry disinformation campaign aimed at confusing the public and policymakers over what is potentially the greatest threat we face as a civilization.”
Aha! Right there is the key objection to the entire exercise: the risk to their political power. These activists know that climate change long ago stopped being about science. It is a liberal, big-government agenda wrapped up in a green cloak of superiority and virtue. For the past decade, the pro-climate crusaders have ruled policymaking, from international organizations to federal agencies down to your local park district. The Trump administration poses the first threat to their dominance, and instead of being up to the task of defending it — in public, with evidence and not platitudes, facing scientists they have smeared for not being part of the ‘consensus’ – they want to walk away.
That’s why I hope Pruitt proceeds with it. Let the blue team have an empty bench that will show American exactly what they think of ‘science’ – and them (except for section sub-titles, all bold added).
WAYNE PETERSON Wayne Stanford Peterson, 76, of Henderson, passed away April 20, 2017. He was born to Edna and Stanford Peterson, March 22, 1941, in Shawano, Wis., and was a 20-year resident of Henderson. Mr. Peterson graduated from Gresham, Wis. High School, and received a B.A. in Political Science from the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1964. After graduating from university, he became one of the first Peace Corps volunteers, serving for two years in Brazil. During his time in the Peace Corps, he started the first privately funded welfare organization for the poor in Brazil, S.O.S., which still operates today. In 1967, he was appointed by the president to the U.S. Information Agency Foreign Service, and served for 13 years in diplomatic positions at American embassies in Brazil, Vietnam, and Kenya. In 1980, he was appointed policy officer at USIA in Washington, D.C. He was later director of the Fulbright Scholarship Program, a position he held for 17 years until his retirement in 1997. Wayne was a talented painter, author and international speaker. His book, "Extraordinary Times, Extraordinary Beings" has been published in several languages. Wayne was preceded in death by his father, Stanford Peterson; and sisters, Patricia M. Peterson and Bonnie K. Tillman. He is survived by his mother, Edna Peterson Comer of Henderson; brother, Mark A. (Bonnie) Peterson of Lake St. Louis, Mo.; sister, Michelle (David) Peterson Dresia; nephew; nieces; grandnieces; and grandnephews. Memorial service will be at 11 a.m. Saturday, June 3, at Palm Mortuary, 800 S. Boulder Highway, Henderson
Says the Globalist Pope with his distorted view of Jesus Christ and His Church.
Thanks for posting. My concern is this:
…As printed in Italian in La Repubblica, the pope said: "Temo che ci siano alleanze assai pericolose tra Potenze che hanno una visione distorta del mondo: America e Russia, Cina e Corea del Nord, Russia e Assad nella guerra di Siria."
As transclated into English by Agence France Presse, which picked up the story, Pope Francis told La Repubblica: “I worry about very dangerous alliances between powers which have a distorted vision of the world: America and Russia, China and North Korea, (Russian President Vladimir) Putin and (Syria’s Bashar al-) Assad over the war in Syria.”
“The danger concerns immigration,” the pope continued to La Repubblica, as translated by AFP. “Our main and unfortunately growing problem in the world today is that of the poor, the weak, the excluded, which includes migrants.”
“This is why the G20 worries me: It mainly hits immigrants,” Pope Francis said, according to AFP.
In the same interview, according to La Repubblica, Pope Francis said that Europe must take on a "federal structure."
"I also thought many times to this problem and came to the conclusion that, not only but also for this reason, Europe must take as soon as possible a federal structure," the pope said, according to the Google translation of the La Repubblica article.
I’m not exactly sure how immigration is correlated to these “dangerous alliances”. How does the G20 “mainly hit immigrants”? Does he mean those countries mentioned are not taking in immigrants? Yeah, I’ve heard that the Syrian war is creating migration from the region, and some of that may be true. But, what about the larger migration of Africans to Europe, ferried by NGOs, including the Red Cross? And why are they predominately men between the ages of 18 and 34? And how is Pope Francis doing his part; that is, how many migrants reside in Vatican City?
More concerning is his proposed solution in making Europe a “federal structure”. How exactly is that going to help? Perhaps he’s implying that the Eastern European nations would then be, as part of this hoped-for structure, coerced into taking in these foreign invaders—invaders mostly unwilling to assimilate, wreaking much havoc currently in the Western European nations, most especially Sweden, Germany and France.
I suspect this is all a ruse for something else. In any case, I wonder if he’d be willing to submit Vatican City to this “federal structure.”
But why aren’t other Middle Eastern nations taking in these Middle Eastern immigrants? Inquiring minds want to know.
And why does no one complain about Japan’s, South Korea’s and China’s unwillingness to take in immigrants in general, but especially Muslims? Why force these immigrants onto Western nations? And where’s the outrage over the growing issues of Islamic terrorism and attempted takeover in the Philippines?
You raise some interesting questions re: the Pope's motives, etc. Here's my opinion:
Rome has always had as a doctrine their belief that they are destined to rule the world ... symbolized by the 2 keys on the Papal Crest. The one key symbolizes the "key to heaven," the other the key over all earthly authority. By proxy, Rome once ruled the known world via the Catholic monarchies of Europe. Obviously, the Reformation broke that secular/religious alliance to pieces. Now that Europe has been virtually secularized, Rome has changed only its tactics, but not its goals. That is why they have shifted so much of their attention to the political/socio/economic realm. Those that may question the validity of that statement need to only look to the fact that "pope" Francis never mentions Jesus Christ as the ONLY true hope for the salvation for mankind, but rather, forcefully promotes some vague, all inclusive, many-paths to "god" false concept, all while denying Jesus Christ as the only "way, the truth, and the light." John 14:6
Regarding Francis's ongoing statements re: Middle East migrants: Rome's desire is NOT to help the migrants ... proven by the fact that they, with all their mind boggling wealth, along with being the world's #1 owner of real estate, have done virtually NOTHING for them. What Rome really wants is to create utter chaos in Europe via the non-assimilating migrants, which will result in the eventual need for a strong-armed, totalitarian regime (i.e. the Pope's "federal Europe"). A ONE Europe has always been the stepping stone for a despotic one world government, of which Rome plans to be a major player. Note too that a untied Europe cannot be created without a one world religion .... which just so happens to be what the last 3 Popes have been advocating via their undeniable ecumenical actions. In large part, ecumenism was what Vatican II was all about, even going so far as declaring Islam to he a viable path to "god."
The funny thing about the history of individuals and institutions is that it has a way of predicting, rather accurately, future actions. Francis's New World Order positions has been very consistent with the Vatican's policies of the past.
The late defector Sergei Tretyakov ( a.k.a. "Comrade J" ) was in agreement with what Anatoliy Golitsyn had to say in his book "New Lies for Old."
The Russian targets are the same as the targets of the Soviet Union. The United States, NATO and China.
Not long after his book was published, Tretyakov died under what many think to be suspicious circumstances.
Although Tretyakov died on June 13, 2010, his death was not announced until July 9, 2010. Tretyakov's wife insisted that his death was a case of cardiac arrest, but there is a possibility that this "cardiac arrest" may have been drug-induced.
Several days after Tretyakov's death was announced Vladimir Putin made some comments about the ultimate fate that is bound to befall "traitors." Some Russian commentators construed this as a thinly veiled allusion to Tretyakov's death.
When promoting his book, Tretyakov said that Russian intelligence "was just as active now as in Cold War times, adding that he hoped his book would act as a "wake-up call" to Americans."
Of course the polonium 210 poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko in the UK about four years earlier in 2006 - after he accused Putin of ordering the assassination of Russian journalist, writer, and human rights activist Anna Politkovskaya - ought to serve as a little hint that "glasnost" and "perestroika" just might not be what they have been cracked up to be.....that if you cross Putin, there is no place to hide.
Upon reading the article Pope Francis Says America Has a "Distorted Vision Of the World," I happened to observe that he was being "quoted" by La Repubblica reporter
Eugenio Scalfari and the story was then "transclated (sic ) into English by Agence France Presse, which picked up the story."
Perhaps Agence France Presse ought to learn how to SPELL the word "translate" before actually trying to do one.
As for Eugenuio Scalfari, who is an atheist with past associations with the Italian Socialist Party, he is KNOWN to have misrepresented Pope Francis on past occasions.
Nov. 22, 2013
Scalfari Confesses: Pope’s Words in Interview May Not Have Been His Own
The author of the controversial Pope Francis interview in La Repubblica said he wrote the Pope’s answers ‘with my own words.’
Vatican denies Pope told Italian journalist that ‘all divorced’ will be admitted to Communion
Article quoting Pope Francis by Eugenio Scalfari is 'in no way reliable', says Vatican spokesman
...However, Vatican spokesman Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi told the National Catholic Register : “As has already occurred in the past, Scalfari refers in quotes what the Pope supposedly told him, but many times it does not correspond to reality, since he does not record nor transcribe the exact words of the Pope, as he himself has said many times.
“So it is clear that what is being reported by him in the latest article about the divorced and remarried is in no way a reliable and cannot be considered as the Pope’s thinking.”
He added that those who have “followed the preceding events and work in Italy know the way Scalfari writes and knows these things well.”......read more...
This Time, It’s Atheist Scalfari Who Surprises–He Asks Pope Francis for a Blessing
October 3, 2014 by Kathy Schiffer
By Catholic News Agency's Vatican Observer, Andrea Gagliarducci
Are an atheist journalist's papal interviews reliable?
Eugenio Scalfari seems to be using his "interviews" with Pope Francis to peddle his own anti-Trump agenda described in a Breitbart article just a few days after the November Presidential election:
...Writing in the Italian daily La Repubblica, Scalfari took advantage of his interview with the Pope to launch his own diatribe against Donald Trump, calling his election a “disaster” for Europe.
“Trump’s victory is catastrophic for us Europeans and Italians,” he wrote. “Trump is the white angel, fighting the establishment of the United States, against all the immigrants and their families.”
Scalfari said that Trump’s triumph “reinforces all the movements in Europe that are opposed to the elites and governing classes in their countries,” naming the Five Star Movement, Le Pen in France, Italy’s Northern League and the “parties behind Brexit.”
“Trump has no charisma and no political competence,” Scalfari said. “The leadership gave him the voters, whereas Obama was the one to win over the Americans and the whole Western world. The difference is total.”.......
This Pope knows how to use media very effectively, very savvy as he works it.
That was no defense, and the Pope is no victim. The Pope is a globalist.
That message of America's supposedly distorted worldview fits what he wants all to believe, and very timely too, I might add..
"we are the church" sounds like laying groundwork to disregard pope and bishops on doctrine.
theory new approach to gain world rule sounds credible
Macron antichrist pretender? http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/french-president-emmanuel-macron-declares-will-
Craig admitted he would probably flunk Greek. re PHD status in my book no one with a college degree
is worth a damn until proven otherwise. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGNjj9bjdqo RAY YUNGEN TIMESTAMP
49:23 argues energy does come out of hands THE PROBLEM IS NOT DELUSIONS FROM
DEMONS BUT REALITIES THEY CAN USE.
Firstly, you have been doing a GREAT job of challenging Dahlheimer.
I could not ignore your admision of lack of Greek expertise someone might have missed that.
test oops I'm the 46% but ony 4 % are right.
re tools non mention NOT dishonest my post near yours Often I plan to ignore and some non ignorable
outrageousness happens or this admission of incompetence to judge whether you admit it is that or not.
I did not "conclude" ambiguity existed to the effect you claim. I said if something APPEARS ambiguous
check the rest of Scripture on the matter. this resolves ambiguities.
the book of saved cannot predate Lamb's death decision on which the book is based (Scripture shows
names can be added to it and taken from it, so forget predestination you are laying groundwork for and
for semi arianism with your liking of "scholars" like Brown.)
Now this is what you said, not what you pretend I referred to.
"Bruce Malina and Richard Rohrbaugh’s Social Science Commentary on the Gospel of John has some
relevant insights into Jesus’ final human act:
" 'Simultaneous with these words [“It is finished”], Jesus bows his head and gives up his spirit . . . When
human beings die, ...they stop breathing and then their head drops. But here Jesus first bows his head,
and only then does he give up his spirit. As a king who was lifted up, he “gives the nod.” The act of
sanctioning by a king was indicated by movement of the head;...
'After thus ratifying ... Jesus hands over his spirit to those around the cross—the community of those who believe in
him their leader,...33 ' "
then you can't figure WHICH spirit His own or The Holy Spirit was given up!
COMPARE SCRIPTURE WITH SCRIPTURE. in Luke He says, "Father, into Your hands I commend My
spirit" His own personal spirit was given up to The Father. nothing to companions "giving up the ghost"
or spirit is used now to mean dying. John wrote when Luke already known, no need to use writing space for this.
the WORD "substance" not needed If Jesus is God then He is God substance same as The Father. If the
hose is on then the ground is wet. duh. Arianism from mishandling Scripture and from pride.
In his article "The United Nations and the New Age", located at
https://www.wayoflife.org/database/unandnewage.html, David Cloud wrote:
"[Robert] Muller addressed the Lucis Trust’s Arcane School Conference in New York City on August 12, 1979. The Lucis Trust was originally founded by Alice Bailey as the Lucifer Trust [not true] to establish a new world order. Because of controversy over the name, it was changed to Lucis Trust [not true]."
[The Lucis Trust's name was not changed, but the Lucifer Publishing Company name was changed. A excerpt from the Lucis Trust website reads: It soon became clear to the Bailey’s that some Christian groups have traditionally mistakenly identified Lucifer with Satan, and for this reason the company’s name was changed in 1924 to Lucis Publishing Company.]
"Bailey’s guru, Madame Blavatsky, named her magazine Lucifer and believed that Lucifer is a mystical agent of light and spiritual knowledge who is bringing enlightenment to mankind. Blavatsky and Bailey believed that Lucifer [not Satan, they were opposed to Satan] is the true God [they believed that Jesus and Lucifer are the same entity] as the God of the Bible is the imposter! [They believed that Jesus' Father in Heaven is the true God, but that the Old Testament "God" Jehovah is an imposter.] Bailey’s god was not only called Lucifer but also Sanat, which is a thinly disguised form of Satan [not true]. She called him Sanat Kumara or the Lord of the World. In The Rays of the Initiations, Bailey described the “seven aspects of divine purpose” as delivered by her spirit guide, and the first of these was “the unknown, unseen, and unheard purpose of Sanat Kumara.” It is supposedly “the secret of life itself ... known only to Him.”
You're no scholar that's for sure! Craig's Greek is impressive. However, he, unlike you, happens to be a lot more humble and modest in nature. Your ramblings on your own site slandering Craig are thoroughly dishonest as to the integrity of Craig's posts. Craig's posts refuting you are just as succinct and as easily victorious in truth and reason as are his posts refuting your possibly New Age long lost sibling Mr Dullheimer.
Meanwhile, MCE, your posts are growing more incoherent and nonsensical by the week. Thankfully you're restricted to one post weekly (despite your sneaking in an extra one or two every now and again).
You should stop your "ex" Satanist "Resident Seer" from laying hands on you in future ... you've probably picked up all sorts of unsavoury things.
Well, you are nothing if not tenacious.
Regarding your claim of my “admission of incompetence to judge”, that’s hardly what I said, even by implication. Anyone can go back and read what I wrote. In any case, by your persistent engagement with this, you think you have the requisite competency in this regard. That’s pretty rich! In your mind, it wouldn’t matter if I had a PhD in Koine Greek, as, according to you, “no one with a college degree is worth a damn until proven otherwise”—this coming from someone with absolutely NO credentials in this particular subject in order to prove/disprove.
You wrote: I did not "conclude" ambiguity existed to the effect you claim. I said if something APPEARS ambiguous check the rest of Scripture on the matter. this resolves ambiguities.
I see. Since it “APPEARS ambiguous” we should “check the rest of Scripture” to resolve ambiguity, though this is not an admission that “ambiguity existed”…OoooKaaay…LOL
In any case, why didn’t you engage with the Mounce quote above, which shows grammatical ambiguity?
You wrote: the book of saved cannot predate Lamb's death decision on which the book is based.
With that statement you’ve essentially paraphrased the last paragraph of my very first comment on this subject; i.e., you agree with me. Your statement here is illustrative of the point I’ve brought up more than once now: you have a comprehension problem. And/or you just like to argue.
It’s this same issue which seems to be at work in your inability to understand what I write on my blog. The ‘corrections’ post set out to do just that: make some corrections to the first two parts. Implied in my last two sentences of the ‘corrections’ post was an invitation to view again (or for the first time) the content in those posts, and then for the reader to reach their own conclusions. As I wrote, the evidence is not (100%) conclusive; however, I think the way I presented the information the reader will likely reach the conclusion that I think you did. I say “I think” because of your poor syntax/writing style—I cannot decipher what you mean by your words “nothing to companions ‘giving up the ghost’ or spirit is used now to mean dying”. I think I know, but I could be wrong. In any event, I do engage with all the parallel passages in my argumentation.
Your quotation of my quote of Malina and Rohrbaugh only shows that I quoted these authors’ work. By leaving out the way in which I engage their material you reveal your intent to discredit my work by dishonest means—or your comprehension problem/and/or desire to argue.
You wrote: the WORD "substance" not needed If Jesus is God then He is God substance same as The Father. If the hose is on then the ground is wet. duh. Arianism from mishandling Scripture and from pride.
As I said, it’s implicit, not explicit. Perhaps you’re unaware that some of those attending Nicea who affirmed the Deity of Christ, those against Arius, still had some reservations in accepting homoousios precisely because the term is not found in Scripture, and, perhaps more importantly, ousia was used extensively in Hellenistic philosophical thought, thus making the term ambiguous.
It's called Trolling.
As in; Christine is a troll, or, Christine is well known to be an agressive troll.
Or better yet; Trolling is a method of injecting confusion into a discussion and thereby
intentionally derailing it. Trolling is a modern internet term for an older concept knwn as
""jamming" or "information overload" which serves the same purpose, to disrupt and derail the
discussion at hand. It's an old, tried and true Communist technique.
While trolling and information overload COULD be the result of a scattered mind, it is usually done
quite deliberately and with intention. Trolls just love to make people angry, because then the angry person
usually loses the thread of the discussion and gets lost in refuting the troll.
Christine is always quick to quote Scriptures and to claim she believes the fundementals of the Christian faith,
usually just before or after she spouts something completely heretical and fantastic.
Now why would she do that?
Lots of info there, huh Christine?
Did you find anything you can use to attack me?
I don't think any of us knows what kind of "pull" Pope Francis really has when it comes to the Italian news media - especially the Italian secular news media? The Vatican supposedly does have its own public relations people, but even their reliability has, on occasion, been found wanting.
As for La Repubblica, it is looking more and more like the Italian equivalent of the Washington Post.
Re: Aren't Catholics the world over needing to know exactly what he means when guiding his Catholic followers in very important life questions and issues not leaving the messages of teachings of the Catholic church at the mercy of media to begin with?
Yes they do need to know. But the official teachers of the Catholic faith are not only the Pope, but also the bishops in full loyal communion with the Pope, not the news media.
Traditional Catholics already KNOW what they are supposed to believe. Or at least they should. If they don't, all they have to do is to consult the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I will add here that when I was a child, it wasn't the Pope who originally taught me the Catholic faith. It was my mother.
Here are some additional examples of the misrepresentations of the Pope by the news media:
The following is from the Christian Post:
Media Criticized for Misrepresenting What Pope Francis Said About Gays
Media misrepresents Pope Francis
politics | Jun 25, 2015 | By William Donohue
What the media doesn't get about Pope Francis' climate encyclical
by Becket Adams | Jun 18, 2015, 7:00 AM
Bill Donohue: The Media Is Spinning President Trump's Meeting With Pope Francis
3:00PM EDT 5/24/2017 Bob Eschliman
When all is said and done, it is to be noted that La Repubblica and its secular confreres didn't have much to say about Pope Francis comparing fake news to excrement.
" Now that Europe has been virtually secularized, Rome has changed only its tactics, but not its goals. That is why they have shifted so much of their attention to the political/socio/economic realm. Those that may question the validity of that statement need to only look to the fact that "pope" Francis never mentions Jesus Christ as the ONLY true hope for the salvation for mankind, but rather, forcefully promotes some vague, all inclusive, many-paths to "god" false concept, all while denying Jesus Christ as the only "way, the truth, and the light." John 14:6
Somehow, I used the word "light" instead of the correct word "life," a very important distinction, because it is only in Christ, and no one else is eternal life to be found ... something obviously Pope Francis does not adhere to.
I used to say "way, truth and light" when quoting that verse too, but I thought it was the correct quote!
...until I realized it wasn't one day. I couldn't blame spell-correct at the time either.
It turns out to be a small mistake when you realize that He is The Light too, anyway.
_ only a devoted Christian would shun making a misquote of the sacred word,
even of than degree.
While I do think Christine trolls at times, I think she mostly wants to ‘prove’ others ‘wrong’ and herself ‘right’, all the while using her awful syntax to do so. She’s so fixated with spewing out her thoughts that she neglects to write coherently, even though she could if she really tried, since there are occasions in which she does. Yet I do think there are times her rants come from an unclear mindedness. Or worse.
Yes, she generally knows what correct doctrine is from a Christian perspective, though she tacks on some other beliefs here and there which are more New Age than Christian, like the chakra thing. Relatedly, there’s her laughable “exegesis” in that regard.
She very rarely concedes when she’s wrong, usually doubling down on her errors rather than admitting them (like the chakra thing). This is the main problem. Further, rather than owning up to these mistakes, she instead attempts to deflect onto the person with which she’s been engaging the very thing she’s been doing as a means by which to cover herself, to obfuscate. It’s like a game of tag. Or, better, it’s like battle ball: after she’s been struck with the ball, instead of walking off the court, accepting that she’s now out of the game, she picks up the same ball, lobbing it back over, in hopes of hitting the person who hit her. Then, when that person (or another) catches her ball, she still will not accept that she’s out of the game.
But if she wants to continue asserting there’s no grammatical ambiguity in Rev. 13:8, while simultaneously claiming there is “apparent ambiguity” which needs to be resolved by “check[ing] the rest of Scripture”, as “this resolves ambiguity”, I’m more than happy to continue pointing out the circularity, the illogicality of her position. Of course, this ambiguity springs from what I’ve been stating from the beginning—the grammatical ambiguity in the Greek of that verse.
Dahlheimer, on the other hand, is definitely a troll, just coming over on this blog to mess with Christians here. This is why I keep poking at his belief system. I see he’s still not addressed my most recent comment illustrating the logical incongruity in his believing that all atoms have Deity—Deity which is, according to his religion, far superior to matter—yet this Deity cannot just break out of ‘inferior matter’. Sounds like a weak Deity to me.
You're a double minded woman, unstable in all your ways, and thoroughly dishonest and unpleasant to boot!
with regards to your 3:31 PM post:
"P.S. I noticed the Christine has visited my Linkedin page.
Now why would she do that?
Lots of info there, huh Christine?
Did you find anything you can use to attack me?"
I don't think your concerns are to be ignored as MCE has already written a libellous looking article on Craig at her website (http://politicallyunclassifiable.blogspot.com/2017/06/craigs-and-my-argument-on-cumbeys-blog.html?m=1 ), where she has included personal information related to him such as her including links to his website, etc: "since Craig of https://notunlikelee.wordpress.com/ has engaged in slippery and twisting
behavior in arguing with me..."
The way she's going, it looks as though she's on a slippery slope towards legal action being taken against her by potentially several plaintiffs.
Craig, your "logic" does not make any sense, it's hypercritical. Why has your God, who is superior to Satan, not yet sent him to Hell. Sounds like a weak Deity to me. Christians say that their God has not yet sent Satan to Hell because of sin. Meaning, there is a limit to what God can do at this time because humanity has to be punished for "original sin." Likewise, this is the reason why my Deity can not yet break out of inferior matter, except my belief in original sin is different than the Christian belief in original sin. I believe that original sin occurred before the creation of the universe, and that it caused matter, or the physical universe, to come into existence. Scientifically discovered truth has proven that death and corruption entered the world three and one-half billion years ago, when the first single cell organisms were created, and not 300,000 years ago when the first (modern-day) humans came into existence, and also not 6,000 years ago when "Adam and Eve, the first two human beings," were, according to the Bible, created.
Perhaps I've given Christine a bit too much credit regarding her ability to correctly formulate sentences in English. While I won't bother to read her blather on her blog, I note that the title in that post is not even proper English. I'll give the benefit of the doubt that the title on her blog has the appropriate possessives "Craig's" as well as "Cumbey's", as I know that urls will not record the apostrophes; however, "Craig's and my argument..." is horrible English! Let's try "My argument with Craig..." Was that so hard?
While cooling off from a run this morning, I thought of a near-approximate English example to the grammatical ambiguity in Rev 13:8: "Abby bought the book the author signed last year". Did Abby buy the book last year; or, did the author sign the book last year? Or can we construe that both are true? Or did Abby buy a used book today that the author signed last year (by evidence of a date on signature, e.g.)?
You haven't answered Craig's points yet. You're obviously unable to do so and, hey hum, are on a losing streak yet again.
Answer Craig's points clearly and in detail and if your points are logical and academically honest THEN thereafter I am sure Craig will answer your latest ramblings at 9:07 AM, etc!
So, since you cannot refute what I saed you try to shift the argument? I'm not biting.
Why not answer my question? Why can't this 'Deity' break out from matter, given that, in your belief system, all matter is inferior to this 'Deity'?
An excellent comparison, Craig, though I doubt you'll get any sense out of a certain old lady from California here...
God bless you richly and have a prosperous and peaceful day!
I think your are wasteing your time and labour by engageing in posts with the person involved.
I see that Dahlheimer answers for his "deity", because his "deity" has no truth to tell so he and any others from which this tripe is basically copied and pasted, still have no answers, only conjecture. That he believes science backs him is laughable, and sad, too. Perhaps he needs a new thinking cap or something..???..
The God of the Bible has addressed original sin -Jesus- and the devil gets his in the end. God said so. Justice and Mercy both win in the Lord God Who has declared Himself in the Holy Scriptures, and then keeps His Word all the way through time (even before time and into eternity) but Dahlheimer's "god", that non-entity, is the figment of failed and failing men's unimaginative imaginations. There's no plan, no execution, and no hope or peace, to make his ideas even remotely worthwhile.
He has a dud on his hands....
But whatever, sir. Go on and waste those brain cells God made and gave you, and fight the truth already inside you, that you are fighting hard to expel to make a throneroom for your own lesser "deity".
That is why the truth haunts you, and you force yourself to refute rather than admit and bow to. Be a "dud"heimer all you want. You have been given grace by the very God you refuse, to freely squander your short life on earth, and be as unwise as you choose.
How generous of you, 10:01AM! A new thinking cap gives old Trollheimer the unwarranted benefit of the doubt that he had one, albeit old, to begin with. However, seeing as we've seen no evidence of that, we can only go by what we've seen so far, which is the babblings of a charlatan in a floppy dunce hat which he wears with foolish pride!
Christine Erikson (aka Justina)July 10, 2017 at 8:20 AM
"boy you people must feel guilty to be overreacting like this. Craig never put me in my place I put him in his place and he is too stupid to know it. as for "pledging" to ignore him that was not a "pledge" like I am giving you peace, but a determination that that piece of shit is beneath contempt and not worth any more of my time. seems you people are too stupid to figure that one out despite surrounding remarks.
as for paul, he has attacked me viciously over the years, and I don't recall if he was one of those who posted my home address, defunct and current back a few years ago or not and someone went to the old address when no one was home because they described the dog but the people there hadn't had a visitor.
legal issues you suggest at Cumbey's blog? idiot, you got big potential lawsuit on your asses for libel and criminal legal action for cyber bullying. the only thing stopping me is that the worst of you are untraceable being anonymous, and it would mean dragging myself to court and in some cases out of state filing to do this.
as for paul I located a photo of him, and he is every bit as nasty looking as he acts.
Craig lies, pretends I misrepresented something he said on his blog when I had described it adequately enough he knew it wasn't what he was presenting so I quoted in detail what he'd said.
by the way you ignorant freak, a web address to show where to check on what he said is NOT "personal information."
paul can be as livid as he pleases. he wants to post information about himself on a public forum, he has no expectation of privacy or anything else. "you must be a special kind of stupid" a similar statement on facebook goes.
I saw nothing but boring there. if he thinks there is anything attackable then perhaps he should be sure he is sober before he posts and can remember instead of worrying.
which makes me wonder....what is he guilty of what dirt is he into that he fears he might have referenced and forgot?
Christine Erikson (aka Justina)July 10, 2017 at 8:23 AM
about the remark of sober, I don't know if paul's a drunk or doper or not, no info no rumors no idea. but if he is doing any of that he'd be well advised to make sure he is sober before posting or he might not remember what he said and have occasion to worry.
or maybe he just needs to be sure he is awake, full of coffee (I guess being full of shit doesn't matter) and rested before he posts or he might get worried later like he is worried now."
Of course, she's just as vile and disparaging in her attempts at assassinating Craig's character on a link mentioned earlier but I don't want to give her too much 'airtime' here nor bore readers any more than necessary to show just what sort of spirit she is! It would be best for all if she were banned indefinitely from posting here at Constance's blog!
1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, note
4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power there of: from such turn away.
6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
From the scripture quote above it appears that some will never actually know the Truth regardless of effort.
Sin has to be acknowledged and repented of first by the individual and that is in response to the conviction of sin by the Holy Spirit.
"Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God".. I think we need to keep quoteing scripture more than our opinions where certain people concerned.
Since I’d only read the first two sentences of your reply, assuming the rest was the same, and that you didn’t answer my question, I didn’t realize till just now that you did answer it. So, I’ll address that portion.
Since you’ve already stated that you depart from Theosophy (Blavatsky) and Bailey at certain points, I don’t want to assume your beliefs. Hence, I’ll ask you to expound a bit. The way I understand your “original sin”—whatever it was, exactly—the ‘Deity’ involved was/were somehow reduced in power. How does this ‘Deity’ regain its power. And when it does regain this power, will it be equal to the Supreme Deity, the one outside the created realm? Do some reach “Nirvana” before others? How many ‘Deities’ are there exactly?
In any event, I note that this ice age was to be attended by flooding (Bennett’s spoken word below precedes a version of Peter Gabriel’s “Here Comes the Flood”, with Gabriel singing, but with a different, more sparse arrangement than the version found on his first record). Why is it that an ice age would be attended by flooding just as “global warming” would (the latter by the melting of ice, of course)?
Here’s my transcription:
From a scientific point of view, it is now very likely that there will be again another ice age quite soon in the world—that we shall have the north part of the world all frozen like it used to be, that we’re beginning to have natural disasters.
From a scientist’s study, it seems likely that we shall soon begin to have this great change in the earth’s climates, and the oceans will rise, and many cities will be flooded, like London and Calcutta, and so on. These things, they say, will happen, according to scientific theories, in about 40 years at the most, but maybe even quicker.
Was there a religio-political motivation for this ice age theory back then?
As I skimmed bits of Bennett’s Wikipedia page, I found something piquing my interest. The following is not meant to start an anti-RCC tirade, but I’m curious if Susanna or anyone else was aware of this:
…In 1958, monks from the Benedictine Abbey of St. Wandrille, interested in Subud, contacted Bennett who, the following year, made the first of many visits to the abbey. These visits brought him into close contact with the Catholic Church. Dom Albert-Jacques Bescond, OSB (1920-1986) was the first monk from the abbey to be 'opened' [ED: by “latihan”, a spiritual exercise which would bring about experiences not unlike a kundalini awakening, from the sounds of it], followed by many others. It was at St. Wandrille that Bennett had a deep experience of the destined unification of Islam and Christianity. This possibility had haunted him for a long time, and he had given it philosophical expression through his concept of essential will, as detailed in his The Dramatic Universe (4 vols). Soon after, he entered the Catholic Church.
As I said, I only skimmed the page, but I was also struck by the claim of a “destined unification of Islam and Christianity”. Anyone know the source of this? Is “Chrislam” evidence of this?
The Subud reference above in Craig's post also caught my eye. Barack Obama's mother was deeply into Subud.
Israel criticized anti-George Soros billboards in Hungary, but then walked that back
BUDAPEST, Hungary (AP) — Israel's foreign ministry says a call by its ambassador to Hungary for an end to the billboard campaign against George Soros was not meant to "delegitimize" criticism of the Hungarian-American billionaire.
The ministry's statement on Sunday was in response to a statement by Ambassador Yossi Amrani, who said the Hungarian government's billboards not only evoke "sad memories, but also sow hatred and fear."
The ads, part of a campaign underscoring the government's anti-migration policies, show a smiling Soros, a Holocaust survivor who is a supporter of migrants, along with the caption "Let's not let Soros have the last laugh."
They have been criticized for playing into anti-Semitic stereotypes, which has been denied by the Hungarian government.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a Soros critic, will visit Hungary next week.
To see the extent of this campaign view this video:
There Is An Anti-George Soros Ad Campaign In Hungary
KROFT: My understanding is that you went out with this protector of yours who swore that you were his adopted godson.
SOROS: Yes. Yes.
KROFT: Went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of property from your fellow Jews, friends and neighbors.
SOROS: Yes. That’s right. Yes.
KROFT: I mean, that sounds like an experience that would send lots of people to the psychiatric couch for many, many, years. Was it difficult?
SOROS: No, not at all. Not at all, I rather enjoyed it.
KROFT: No feelings of guilt?
SOROS: No, only feelings of absolute power.
Link to the Soris interview above wbere he says he was a spectator.
I am curious if there is any connection between the St. Wandrille monks and the later Catholic Charismatic Renewal movement. I hope not.
I don't know much about the Abbey of St. Wandrille, but I did a little digging and learned that it is also known as Fontenelle Abbey. It has been suppressed a couple of times - once after the French Revolution - but not for heresy as far as I know......at least not yet.
If they are peddling Subud, they wouldn't be the first monastery to be hovering on the edge of the dark side. I am thinking of certain Trappist monks at St. Joseph's Abbey in Spencer, MA and their "centering prayer" whose name was taken from Thomas Merton's description of contemplative prayer and which has been regarded as controversial by none other than Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI!
Regarding your question, Craig, as to whether there is any connection between the modern-day St. Wandrille monks who allowed themselves to be initiated into Subud and the later Catholic Charismatic Renewal movement, I tend to seriously doubt it because I have never known of anyone involved who ever claimed that ultimately "all religions are the same." In fact, by definition, the Catholic charismatic Renewal Movement
....is a spiritual movement within the Catholic Church that incorporates aspects of both Catholic and charismatic practice. It places an emphasis on having a personal relationship with Jesus and expressing the gifts of the Holy Spirit.
More Traditional Catholics - myself included - are more Sacramentally oriented and while not condemning Catholic charismatics in any way, do not feel drawn to charismatic practice. It would not be correct to say Catholic Charismatics are not regarded as Christians by other Catholics. Because one of the main things Charismatic Catholics and their practices have been criticized for is for making the Catholic worship experience more akin to Pentecostal Protestantism!!! But in either case, a personal relationship with Jesus is sought and not a pseudo-mystical encounter with some amorphous pagan impersonal "force."
Subud, on the other hand is very similar if not identical to the pagan perennial philosophy that goes tandem with the neo-gnostic pagan Traditionalist School.
Russian Traditionalism, which is a branch of this School started with Gurdjieff. The Traditionalist School itself is the pagan neo-gnostic movement that was founded in the late 19th century by Rene Guenon, Ananda Coomaraswamy and Fritjoff Schoun. It teaches the so-called perennial philosophy.
The Perennial philosophy (Latin: philosophia perennis), also referred to as Perennialism and perennial wisdom, is a perspective in modern spirituality which views each of the world's religious traditions as sharing a single, metaphysical truth or origin from which all esoteric and exoteric knowledge and doctrine has grown. Ultimately all religions are basically the same according to the perennial philosophy.....
The key thing about Subud is this. Like the perennialist philosophy, of which Subud appears to be a quasi Sufi-style mystical branch, the basis of Subud is a spiritual exercise commonly called the "latihan kejiwaan," which was said by its founder Muhammad Subuh to represent guidance from "the Power of God" or "the Great Life Force". He claimed that Subud was not a new teaching or religion. He recommended that Subud members practice a religion but left them to make their own choice of religion. Some members have converted to Islam, but others have found their faith in and practice of Christianity or Judaism, for example, has deepened after practising the latihan...........
From this, it does indeed appear that Subud, like perennialism also teaches that ultimately all religions are basically the same.
In fact, Boulder member Dr. Reynold Ruslan Feldman writes:
But here’s the important difference. Subud members can be from any religion or none. The founder, Muhammad Subuh, happened to be a Muslim. I am an American Jew. My wife comes from a long line of Congregational and Presbyterian ministers, and my late wife was a Lutheran from Germany. We represent the world. Imagine the excitement of being able to receive your own experience in a room filled with 500 others from 60 or 70 countries: Africans in dashikis, Indonesians in black fezzes, Germans and Jews, Muslims and Christians, Buddhists and Hindus, Indians and Pakistanis, Japanese and Chinese. I did just that at our last World Congress, in Christchurch, New Zealand. We all worshipped together—for that’s what our receiving is—in a way that is harmonious, ever changing, and unique.
But let’s face it, if that’s all Subud is, getting together twice a week for a bizarre spontaneous mystical practice, what’s the point? It’s that the Subud practice initiates in most people a process of inner transformation beginning with an experience-based belief in the existence of a great life force. This force, which we conventionally call God or the Holy Spirit, shows itself willing to help us become fully ourselves if we are open to it. All you have to do is show up twice a week, hang around for 45 minutes including a quiet period before and after the “exercise,” and it’s as if an electronic transfer is made to your spiritual savings account. In daily life, meanwhile, you become calmer, more confident, more sure of your direction in life, clearer in your decision-making, better able to sleep, and so much more. In short, this is a spiritual practice with real-world benefits.
The late Carrie Tomko and I used to refer to the "Traditionalist School" as "the RIGHT WING of the New Age Movement." It is not to be confused with the Catholic Traditionalist Movement - although there have been some Catholic Traditionalists like Rama Coomaraswamy ( son of Traditionalist School co-founder Ananda Coomaraswamy ) who have tried to conflate the pagan Traditionalist School with the Catholic Christian Traditionalist Movement that was spearheaded by the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre almost immediately following the Second Vatican Council.
An excellent overview of Traditionalism and the Traditionalist School is to be found in Mark Sedgewick's book entitled AGAINST THE MODERN WORLD.
Up until fairly recently, the gnosticised form of Islam known as Sufism has been the exoteric religious face of the Traditionalist School ( Renee Guenon converted to Sufism ). But according to Sedgewick, another Russian disciple of the Traditionalist School, Alexander Dugin, has been trying to change the exoteric religious face of the Traditionalist School from Sufism to the Russian Orthodoxy and his philosophy is known as "Eurasianism." Another political ideology trying to masquerade as a religion.
Of Dugin, Mark Sedgwick writes:
René Guénon and Julius Evola played important roles in the early intellectual development of Russia's Alexander Dugin, and Dugin still refers approvingly to the Traditionalist critique of modernity....
Evola was a sinister satanic creature who was a practitioner of the dark arts.
As for Rene Guenon, before his conversion to Sufism, Rene Guenon functioned as a gnostic "bishop" under the name of "Palingenius" in the Alexandrian branch of the gnostic/Cathar/Albigensian "church" which was established by Freemason Jules Doinel after he attended a séance at the home of Lady Caithness, who headed a Parisian branch of Madame Blavatsky's Theosophical Society. Originally, Guenon started out his occult career as a disciple of occultist Gerard Encausse ( a.k.a. Papus ).
Papus, in turn had been a member of Madame Blavatsky's Theosophical Society, but left to found his own occult groups including the Martinist Order because he felt that Blavatsky laid too much emphasis on Eastern occultism at the expense of Western occultism.
Such are some of the occult underpinnings of the Traditionalist School.
John G. Bennett
John Godolphin Bennett (8 June 1897 – 13 December 1974) was a British mathematician, scientist, technologist, industrial research director and author. He is perhaps best known for his many books on psychology and spirituality, particularly on the teachings of G. I. Gurdjieff. Bennett met Gurdjieff in Istanbul in October 1920 and later helped to co-ordinate the work of Gurdjieff in England after Gurdjieff's arrival in Paris. He also was active in starting the British section of the Subud movement, and co-founded its British headquarters.
Bennett was born in London, England, educated at King's College School, London; Royal Military Academy, Woolwich; School of Military Engineering, Chatham; and the School of Oriental Studies, London.
He was a Fellow of the Institute of Fuel, London, from 1938 onwards; Chairman, Conference of Research Associations, 1943–1945; Chairman, Solid Fuel Industry, British Standards Institution, 1937–1942; Chairman and Director, Institute for the comparative study of History, Philosophy, and the Sciences, Kingston upon Thames, 1946–1959.
Early life, World War I, marriage
Bennett's parents met in Florence, Italy although his mother was American. In his infancy, his family were moderately wealthy and travelled frequently in Europe. In 1912, his father, who was a noted traveller, adventurer and linguist, lost all of his money and his wife's in an investment that failed. Bennett himself would later display an extraordinary talent for languages, which enabled him to talk with many spiritual teachers in their native tongues, and to study Hindu, Buddhist, Islamic and Christian sacred texts in their original forms.
Bennett makes little reference to his childhood in his autobiography, Witness, but elsewhere he credits his mother with instilling in him the virtues of hard work and tolerance.
At school, he excelled in sports and captained the school rugby football team. He won a scholarship in mathematics from Oxford University, but never had the chance to take advantage of this. He continued to play rugby football for the army (against such opponents as the New Zealand national team), breaking his arm once and his collar bone twic
In the First World War, at the age of nineteen, Bennett served as a subaltern in the Royal Engineers, with responsibility for signals and telegraphy.
In France in March 1918, he was blown off his motorcycle by an exploding shell.
Taken to a military hospital, operated upon, and apparently in a coma for six days, Bennett had an out-of-body experience which convinced him that there is something in man which can exist independently of the body.
This set his life on a new course - he described the return to normal existence as the return to a body that was now in some sense a stranger.
In the closing months of the First World War, Bennett undertook an intensive course in Turkish language at the School of Oriental and African Studies, London, and was posted to Constantinople, where he held a sensitive position in Anglo-Turkish relations. His fluency made him the confidant of many high-ranking Turkish political figures, and helped him to develop his knowledge of Turkey and to gain insights into non-European ways of thinking. A notable piece of initiative drew the attention of General Allenby, and a mention in C-in-C's dispatches, following which he was recruited to be the head of Military Intelligence "B" Division, with responsibility for the entire Middle Eastern region.
Bennett's eighteen months tenure of this position were so eventful, that to this day he is still regarded as a major figure in the political life of Turkey in that period. He was possibly too successful, and began to make enemies among his own superiors, was recalled to London in January 1921 and resigned his commission with the rank of Captain and a pension for life.
His love of Turkey would remain with him for the rest of his life.
After the war, Bennett had married his first wife, Evelyn, with whom he had a daughter, Ann, born August 1920. Evelyn stayed in England, however, and Bennett's immersion in Turkish affairs and his relationship with Winifred Beaumont, an English woman living in Turkey, placed increasing strain on the marriage, and in 1924, Evelyn sued for divorce. Bennett later married Winifred, a woman twenty years his senior, and they remained together until her death, in 1958. (He would be married for a third time in 1958, to Elizabeth Mayall.)
Gurdjieff and Ouspensky
After the First World War and the Russian Revolution, many displaced people passed through Constantinople en route to the West. Part of Bennett's job was to monitor their movements. Among them were G.I. Gurdjieff and P.D. Ouspensky, whom Bennett met through Prince Sabahaddin, a reformist thinker who had introduced him to a wide range of religious and occultist ideas, including Theosophy and Anthroposophy.
Bennett became determined to pursue the search for a deeper reality. It was a search he would continue for his entire life.
When Gurdjieff and Ouspensky moved on to Europe, Bennett remained in Turkey, committed to his work and fascinated by the political and social developments that finally led to the fall of the sultanate and the proclamation, on October 29, 1923 of the Turkish republic. However, Bennett had been profoundly impressed with Gurdjieff's ideas about the arrangement of the human organism and the possibility of a man's transformation to a higher state of being, and would later dedicate much of his life to the elaboration and dissemination of those ideas.
Bennett approved the permission certificate to M. Kemal Atatürk to Samsun, where he started the Turkish Independence struggle.
Gurdjieff founded his Institute for the Harmonious Development of Man at the Château Le Prieuré in Fontainebleau-Avon, south of Paris, in October 1922. Bennett visited in the summer of 1923, spending three months at the institute. This experience further convinced him that Gurdjieff had profound knowledge and understanding of techniques by which man can achieve transformation. Gurdjieff encouraged Bennett to stay longer, but Bennett was short of money and so felt obliged to return to work in England. Though Bennett expected to return to the group soon, he would not meet Gurdjieff again until 1948.
Bennett served the British government as a consultant on the Middle East, and interpreter at the 1924 conference in London intended to settle disputes between Greece and Turkey. He was invited to stand for parliament, but he chose instead to give his personal studies precedence over his public life.
He joined Ouspensky's groups, and continued to study Gurdjieff's system with them for fifteen years, though Ouspensky broke off all contact with Gurdjieff himself in the early 1920s.
It is also to be noted that J.G. Bennett was associated with the Sufi master known as Idris Shah whose early writings centered on magic and witchcraft.
seo company in india
Let me begin this comment by stating that I’m not a cessationist, one who denies that the gifts are still operative. For example, one of the spiritual gifts listed in 1 Cor. 12 is the discerning of spirits—something certainly still needed! I describe myself as a ‘cautious continuationist’, as I see much of Protestant Pentecostalism (PP) as an over-focus on spiritual experiences, and I think many of these are not of God. Most Pentecostals claim that a “personal relationship with Jesus” is paramount, yet, in practice, it’s these mystical experiences taking the forefront. In fact, I’m suspicious that many are instead worshiping ‘another Jesus’ (2 Cor. 11:4).
Note that I didn’t suggest the possibility that the Catholic Charismatic Renewal Movement (CCRM) was based on the monks of St. Wandrille, or that they were a precursor to the CCRM (not saying you construed that necessarily), but that I was hoping these monks were not connected with the CCRM. But, is it possible that they had some kind of influence either before or during the course of the CCRM?
The very fact that Subud can be tacked on to any religion opens the possibility that the St. Wandrille monks could have had some sort of influence on the CCRM, even if only indirectly. This needn’t entail that those in the CCRM were aware of these monks’ adherence to Subud, however any influence may have gone unrecognized by those in the CCRM. They may have thought any experience brought about by the “latihan” was just a normal part of Pentecostal experience. I say this due to some PP experiences that are not unlike kundalini awakenings—like what is described by some “latihan” practitioners.
You wrote: More Traditional Catholics - myself included - are more Sacramentally oriented and while not condemning Catholic charismatics in any way, do not feel drawn to charismatic practice. It would not be correct to say Catholic Charismatics are not regarded as Christians by other Catholics. Because one of the main things Charismatic Catholics and their practices have been criticized for is for making the Catholic worship experience more akin to Pentecostal Protestantism [PP]!!! But in either case, a personal relationship with Jesus is sought and not a pseudo-mystical encounter with some amorphous pagan impersonal "force."
The two poles in your last sentence are not necessarily mutually exclusive; i.e., one could seek both (see my first paragraph above and below). And the fact the CCRM has been compared to PP is not necessarily a good thing. Most in PP would not define the latter as a force (though Kenneth Copeland, e.g., explicitly has); they’d call it the Holy Spirit, or “the anointing”. Cutting through to the actual beliefs of the prominent PP leaders, one could define it as:
Christ = “the anointing”
antichrist = ‘against “the anointing”’
A quote in one of Bill Johnson’s books lays these two poles out. Note the linguistic sleight of hand in the concluding sentence here (see my blog post for source):
It would seem that with all the significance attached to the name “Jesus,” anyone desiring to undermine His work of redemption might be referred to as “Anti-Jesus,” not “Anti-Christ.” Even religious cults recognize and value Jesus, the man. At the very least, cults consider Him to be a teacher or a prophet and possibly “a” son of God. This horrendous error provides us with an understanding of why antichrist was the name given to this spirit of opposition. The spirits of hell are at war against the anointing, for without the anointing mankind is no threat to their dominion.
Johnson’s (re)definition fits John’s first epistle’s very definition of antichrist, as it implicitly severs “Jesus” from “Christ”. On the preceding page of the book from which the Johnson selection above was taken, the author makes this distinction explicit:
Christ is not Jesus’ last name. The word Christ means “Anointed One” or “Messiah.” It is a title that points to an experience. It was not sufficient that Jesus be sent from heaven to earth with a title. He had to receive the anointing in an experience to accomplish what the Father desired.
The word anointing means “to smear.” The Holy Spirit is the oil of God that was smeared all over Jesus at His water baptism. The name Jesus Christ implies that Jesus is the One smeared with the Holy Spirit.
More linguistic sleight of hand is evidenced here. A careful reading yields that, according to Johnson, Jesus received “the anointing”, i.e., the title “Christ”, at His baptism. This teaching is found in 2nd century Gnosticism and the New Age today. In another work, Johnson claims that all are to receive this same “Christ anointing”, and it is this “anointing” that provided Jesus, and all others so anointed, access to signs and wonders. In both these works, and his other teachings, “the anointing” is, for all intents and purposes, depicted as a force.
Sorry if you construed that I was looking for more info on J. G. Bennett. I was already somewhat aware of his beliefs from a previous brief investigation. Besides what I’ve noted here in this comment, the main questions for which I was seeking an answer in my initial comment was:
(1) How would an ice age bring about global flooding. (a question for Physicist, perhaps)
(2) Was there a religio-political motivation for this ice age theory, or was it based on real science? (another one for Physicist, I suppose)
(3) Where did this “destined unification of Islam and Christianity” idea emanate, and is “Chrislam” its result?
Why do you insist on twisting things and making things up as you go along?
John 1 King James Version (KJV)
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.
So you see, God the Son Who is the Living Word of God the Father have always Co-Existed (along with the Living Breath of God, God The Holy Spirit) as One. God has never been dumb; The Father has never been without the Living Word, The Son.
God is Eternal, and although the Son is begotten of the Father, He is, always has been, and always will be Eternal. The Son is begotten, not made! Of One Being with the Father, through Him all things were made!
You evidently do not comprehend the Light, Thomas Dahlheimer, because you choose to remain in darkness!
Jesus Christ is God the Living Eternal Word Who was made flesh and dwelt among us. Being Fully God and now fully human, yet He was not the first Adam as you imply but, being made flesh and conceived by the Holy Spirit in Mary's Womb (as He, the Word, Himself had spoken into being) was born of a Virgin Birth and became the second Adam.
The first Adam, we ourselves, are not Divine (nor even 'divine'). We are fallen beings who need to repent and be born again. Even when we are changed, we are not made divine, all Glory and Divinity is God's and His alone and there are no other gods besides Him, we are mere created beings made a little lower than the angels, and without God we can do nothing!
Romans 5 (KJV)
5 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.
3 And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience;
4 And patience, experience; and experience, hope:
5 And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.
6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.
7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.
8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
11 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.
12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:
21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.
To be fair, Thomas Dahlheimer is apparently responding to my 10:24 PM post from the other day. I've been curious of his cosmological beliefs (origin of the universe) for some time, especially since he's stated that he differs from Blavatsky/Theosophy and Bailey. I don't have time at the moment to read/digest his post fully, so I'll defer a response to it until later.
I was raised in various Pentecostal denominations of which I started seeing this shift in the late 60's of looking for an experiential feeling, a manifestation, what I would call an extra-biblical/extra-spiritual event. This grieved the Holy Spirit within me and I left those churches.
One time it was taught that Christ in you the hope of glory,(Col 1:27) and our bodies are temple or dwelling place of the Holy Ghost,(1 Cor 6:19)was sufficient. But lately there is this teaching that now looks for 'another'. Another presence, another manifestation, another validation external and different from the Holy Spirit.
If Christ is in you, why does one need to look for another? Some call it 'the presence' 'the river of God' an experiential anointing and/or an external manifestation.
I asked a latter rain MSOG preacher why they look for another? Is not the Holy Spirit within the believing saint sufficient? Isn't 'looking for another'(anything)contrary to that of Christ's infilling of his saints nothing but 'Anti-Christ'? Another thing these god-men believe is we need not pray for the 'Lord's Will' but rather have the faith within ourselves to 'speak the word', attributing a co-creative role straight out of NewAge Theosophy.
Religion that is corrupted from the simple trust in Who the Lord is, and what the Lord has said in His Word, Holy Scripture, always seem to be going for and running after the "extras" God does not endorse. That is the same sort of thing Christine Erikson attempts to do here, too, on another front. It's quite phony, and deeply wrong.
God, open eyes to see You are enough, that what You have said is all any of us need to live and move and have our being, no matter what era, or condition.
If you read a lot of PP through a Gnostic/New Age lens, things become clear. MSoG IS New Age, and a lot of PP is MSoG.
For example, in Alice Bailey’s works Col. 1:27 refers to the ‘inner Christ’ (or divine seed/spark) that all have within. It is latent, needing to be awakened; therefore, recognizing the “Christ in you” (the “real” ‘self’ in you) can bring you on the path to “the hope of glory”, with “glory” meaning the attainment of full divinity by the shedding of the outer, material shell (the ‘not self’). The external “anointing” (gnosis) is the means by which to awaken the “Christ in you”, and continued “anointings” bring about increasing ‘divinity’. Thus, “anointings” are an integral part of ‘spiritual growth’. The more “anointings” one receives, the more ‘divine’ one becomes.
When this ‘co-creation’ aspect (‘speaking’ things into existence) you described is added, you have the whole ‘Word of Faith’ teaching in a nutshell.
German metal band Masterplan releases`on youtube their single:
"New polling data show that for the first time in a long time there’s a notable decline in the percentage of Americans — including Christians — who hold to the 'Young Earth' creationist view that humankind was created in its present form in the past 10,000 years, evolution playing no part."
"Creationists will believe what they want to believe. But they should know the consequences. Continued fighting to promote creationism is hurting religion’s credibility in an age when science and technology are perceived as reliable sources of truth and positive contributors to society. Anecdotal and polling evidence implicate religion’s anti-science reputation in the drift away from church involvement — especially among younger adults, nearly 40% of whom have left organized religion behind."
First of all, my post was not addressed only to you, but to you AND Constance.
Re: Note that I didn’t suggest the possibility that the Catholic Charismatic Renewal Movement (CCRM) was based on the monks of St. Wandrille, or that they were a precursor to the CCRM (not saying you construed that necessarily), but that I was hoping these monks were not connected with the CCRM. But, is it possible that they had some kind of influence either before or during the course of the CCRM?
I did not take your meaning to be that the CCRM was based on the monks of St. Wandrille.
I am not a cessationist either, but I nevertheless do believe that charisms need to be discerned. I agree that in many cases there has been an over-focus on spiritual experiences. Such "spiritual experiences" come under the heading of "private revelations" and as such, they may not necessarily be authentically Christian. For Catholics, the criterion for discerning authenticity in anything that purports to be a "private revelation" (Charismatics included) is the Catholic Rule of Faith which is Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. For Protestants, it would presumably be the Sacred Scriptures.
So if subud did have any influence on the CCRM ( i.e. suggesting that god is an amorphous impersonal "force" that can be tapped into at will)whether directly or indirectly....the CCRM and its "charisms" are still subject to the Catholic Rule of Faith and to the discernment of the bishops in whose dioceses branches of CCRM worship.
I have never seen evidence of any influence by the monks of St. Wandrille. As I said at the outset, I knew hardly nothing about the monks of St. Wandrille before hearing about them here. However, I wouldn't hesitate to say so if I had discovered that they were trying to smuggle a pagan gnostic form of contemplation into the Catholic Church.
In mentioning the fact that Catholic Charismatics resemble Pentecostals, I was simply distinguishing Pentecostal Christians from a movement ( subud ) which appears to be a facet of the neo-gnostic PAGAN Traditionalist School. It is not only not Christian, but it is also not even authentically Muslim. It also seems to be initiatory.....similar to the occult secret societies where experiential religion is the "coin of the realm."
Roman Catholicism has traditionally been pretty straight forward in warning Catholics not to give private revelations priority over the objective body of public divine revelation upon which is based the Catholic Rule of Faith.
That Subud can be "tacked on to any religion" indicates that Subud is capable of infiltrating and corrupting any religion from within.
Re: You wrote: More Traditional Catholics - myself included - are more Sacramentally oriented and while not condemning Catholic charismatics in any way, do not feel drawn to charismatic practice. It would not be correct to say Catholic Charismatics are not regarded as Christians by other Catholics. Because one of the main things Charismatic Catholics and their practices have been criticized for is for making the Catholic worship experience more akin to Pentecostal Protestantism [PP]!!! But in either case, a personal relationship with Jesus is sought and not a pseudo-mystical encounter with some amorphous pagan impersonal "force."
The two poles in your last sentence are not necessarily mutually exclusive; i.e., one could seek both (see my first paragraph above and below). And the fact the CCRM has been compared to PP is not necessarily a good thing. Most in PP would not define the latter as a force (though Kenneth Copeland, e.g., explicitly has); they’d call it the Holy Spirit, or “the anointing”. Cutting through to the actual beliefs of the prominent PP leaders, one could define it as:
Christ = “the anointing”
antichrist = ‘against “the anointing”’
While the Catholic Charismatics conduct many of their prayer meetings outside of Mass, they are still required to regularly attend Mass and receive the Sacraments. Ergo we are not talking about two poles at all here. I am not faulting you for this. I was merely assuming that you understood that CCRM prayer meetings were not a substitute for their more traditional religious obligations as Catholics.
when I said I was more "Sacramentally oriented," I meant that I sought my personal relationship with Jesus through more traditional practices such as frequent Mass attendance, Eucharistic adoration, First Friday devotions, etc.
You are right in saying that "the fact the CCRM has been compared to PP is not necessarily a good thing." Critics accuse Charismatic Catholics of misinterpreting, or in some cases violating, Church teachings on worship and liturgy. The Charismatic Catholics with whom I am personally acquainted do not.
Re: (3) Where did this “destined unification of Islam and Christianity” idea emanate, and is “Chrislam” its result?
Chrislam (Yoruba), a blend of Christianity and Islam among the Yoruba of Nigeria
Chrislam" is a neologism used to refer to syncretism between Christianity and Islam among the Yoruba of Nigeria, mentioned by Greenfield (2001) as an example of the "Yoruba genius for syncretism". 
Yoruba "Chrislam" includes two distinct religious movements, one called Ifeoluwa founded by Tela Tella in the 1970s and 80s and another called Oke-Tude founded by Samson Saka in 1999. They are also known as The Will of God Mission or The True Message of God Mission respectively. Adherence to "Chrislam" in Nigeria is very limited; Soares (2009) notes that "such efforts towards religious fusion or synthesis seem to be rather exceptional and increasingly so. In many places there has been intense competition and higher levels of tension within and between different confessional groups."
Ifeoluwa ("Love of God") recognises both the Bible and the Quran as holy texts, and practices "running deliverance," a distinctive practice of spiritual running likened to Joshua's army circling Jericho, or the practice of Pilgrims circumambulating a Church for Palm Sunday or the Kaaba, and Jews around the Synagogue during Sukkot. In contrast to other Chrislamic sects, Tela Tella, while claiming to believe in both the Qur'an and the Bible, says they are incomplete, and is writing his own book called the "Ifeoluwa Book". Tela Tella claims that an angel of God came to him and told him that he gave him the mission and the name "Ifeoluwa: The Will of God Mission".
Oke Tude (Oketude) in Ogudu (a northern suburb of Lagos), founded by Samson Saka in 1999, is slightly less recognisable to mainstream Christianity, resembling more interfaith worship with three different sessions or services that take place on Sunday. The first is a Muslim session, then a Christian session, and finally there is a joint session that Saka leads. During this he stresses the similarities between Christianity and Islamic beliefs.
Question: "What is Chrislam?"
Answer: Chrislam is an attempt to syncretize Christianity with Islam. While it began in Nigeria in the 1980s, Chrislamic ideas have spread throughout much of the world. The essential concept of Chrislam is that Christianity and Islam are compatible, that one can be a Christian and a Muslim at the same time. Chrislam is not an actual religion of its own, but a blurring of the differences and distinctions between Christianity and Islam.
WHAT IS CHRISLAM?
I like the video, but I disagree with one of Fox's statements in it. Fox said that the scriptures say that when God was finished with his creation, He said it was "very good." This is true, the scriptures say this, but then Fox radically separates the words "very good" from the context of the scripture it's found in..and then he uses it as confirming evidence that his belief that the creation of the physical universe was not caused by sin but was the "original blessing". From the beginning of life on earth, which began three and one half billion years ago, death and corruption has ruled the word. Contrary to the scriptures and Fox's belief, the creation of the universe was not "very good" and an "original blessing", as Fox says.
Here's the context wherein the scripture words "very good" are presented.
St. Symeon wrote: "Neither Eve nor Paradise were yet created, but the whole world had been brought into being by God as one thing, as a kind of paradise, at once incorruptible yet material and perceptible."
St. John of Damascus wrote: "The creation of all things is due to God, but corruption came in afterwards due to our wickedness...For God did not make death, neither does He take delight in the destruction of living things" (Wisdom 1:13). But death is the work rather of man, that is, its origin is in Adam's transgression."
St. Ignatius Brianchaninov wrote: "Plants were not subjected either to decay or to diseases; both decay and diseases and the weeds themselves, appeared after the alteration of the earth following the fall of man."
St. Basil the Great wrote: "...it is customary for vultures to feed on corpses, but since there were not yet corpses, nor yet their stench, so there was not yet such food for vultures. But all followed the diet of swans and all grazed the meadows....such was the first creation, and such will be the restoration after this."
Today everyone in their right mind knows that the above statements by "saints"are not true and that the creation was not originally pure and then fell into "the bondage to corruption" when the first humans ("Adam and Eve") sinned. In other words, God's statement that the creation was originally "very good" are not true.
According to the scriptures, "Adam and Eve" ("the first humans") sinned and the creation consequently "fell into a state of corruption," causing many animals to become carnivorous. However, the truth is, the first human beings from which we are all descendants of came into existence around 300,000 years ago and violent complex carnivorous animals came into existence around 550 million years before the first humans came forth on earth.
Also, before "Adam and Eve," or the first humans, were on this earth, six near total mass extinctions of all animals had occurred. These mass extinctions caused a lot of suffering. Hence, at that time (a time span before "Adam and Eve") the creation was in a state of corruption.
In addition, there were somewhat human-like creatures living on earth for around three million years before modern-day humans came into existence on the earth. They experienced natural catastrophes, diseases, injuries, debilitating effects of aging and death. This proves that, at that time (a time span before "Adam and Eve) the creation was in a state of corruption. The creation was not pure and then fell into a state of corruption when "Adam and Eve" sinned.
Having now had time to reflect on your cosmology (and theology), I have some thoughts, and I will extrapolate from what you’ve written in order to better understand it, while simultaneously critiquing it. If in any of this I misrepresent your views, please correct me.
Given that, in your theology, God the Father “created light for His Son to live in”, I assume that the Son could not live/dwell in the same place as God the Father. Is that correct? You’ve made it clear that the Son is separate from the Father with His own “individual identity and free will”, yet you’ve made the seemingly contradictory statement that the two are “One in Being”. How do you reconcile this? If you mean that they both share a common Divinity, that they are both Deity while possessing separate identities and wills, do you mean that in terms of Deity they are absolutely equal in power, mind, consciousness, etc.? In other words, is the Son subordinate to the Father solely by rank, or is He subordinate due to other additional inherent factors?
The Spiritual Universe—which is wholly separate from the Father and His existence—can be illustrated mathematically as:
Son + ‘multi-billion individual identities of/from Son’ + light in which he/we dwelt = Spiritual Universe
Upon “original sin” the entire Spiritual Universe became manifested as matter—as opposed to in matter. I’m having difficulty understanding this concept, given your subsequent description of how life came about. If the Son, and all individual identities (life), plus the light constitute the Spiritual Universe, how can all these individual identities and light become physical matter—that is, all is no longer spiritual—yet somehow retain individual identities as (non-mattered/spiritual) life/lives in order to become trapped in this “life in physical form” that the physical universe subsequently produced? This sounds like matter within matter rather than spirit within matter, as you’ve already said that the entire Spiritual Universe became manifested as matter. Or do I misunderstand you?
re aspergers I mentioned that not to excuse myself, but (as posts show) to give credentials as able
to see through some here. We aspies SPOT PATTERNS REAL GOOD.
anonymous "running after the "extras" God does not endorse. That is the same sort of thing
Christine Erikson attempts to do here, too, on another front."
same thing you do by being here and concerning yourself with politics. I DO NOT seek extras
like the charismatic crew.
I did not "pledge" to ignore I dismissed Craig as beneath noticing.
supposed libel - nothing but his own words web page addy is not "personal information." you people
on the other hand DEFINITELY are eligible for libel suits.
" “apparent ambiguity”... resolved by “check[ing] the rest of Scripture”, as “this resolves ambiguity”, I’m
...pointing out the circularity, the illogicality of her position. "
its called hermeneutics. compare Scripture with Scripture. most heresies came from NOT following this Acts cite
about crucifixion being by the predetermination of God fits the Lamb's death being from the foundation of the
world. if Lamb's death NOT from foundation then God had no backup plan and you make Him out to be an idiot
who had oops and scrambled for a solution.
and APPARENT ambiguity is not real ambiguity of any importance.
I fight for truth. you argue for the fun of it, you said you engage Dahlheimer only because he's a troll.
you are not fighting for truth.
"You wrote: the book of saved cannot predate Lamb's death decision on which the book is based.
... you’ve essentially paraphrased the last paragraph of my very first comment on
this subject; i.e., you agree with me."
STOP LYING. you initially argued AGAINST "from the foundation" ref to the Lamb's death, THEN
reluctantly admitted it could be that but prefer book being from the foundation which you argued
for by claiming "ambiguity" to allow it. Then claimed it added up to the same thing (it doesn't).
"Regarding your claim of my “admission of incompetence to judge”, that’s hardly what I said, even by
implication. " I said, that THAT IS WHAT YOU HAVE DONE WHETHER YOU ADMIT IT IS DOING THAT OR
NOT. to admit you would flunk Greek IS ADMITTING INCOMPETENCE TO JUDGE AMBGUITY. Some
translations don't agree with you don't know why some do.
I know about Nicea and summarizing many segments of Scripture is difficult. (like the word
"trinity" summing up all Scripture on God.)
that you approve Brown's garbage shows something is wrong with you.
YOU DO NOT ENGAGE MALINA AND ROHRBACH'S HERETICAL PREMISE that Jesus gave up His spirit to
followers, only puzzled over WHICH spirit. AGAIN, YOU ARE DECEPTIVE IN YOUR ANSWER.
implicit is explicit when only one thing can be inferred if its a duck it quacks unless specified otherwise.
if Jesus is God then He is of the same substance/essence non created nature as the Father.
chakras are not hindu doctrine, most hindus probably don't even know about them.
Who the heck can't spot patterns?
So why can't you see the repetitive, predictable nature of your malice and rage against anyone who
calls you out on your foolish fables and disagrees with you?
And you've "dismissed" Craig as "beneath noticing" ? How very high and mighty of you.
That's so rich, but even the angels don't rail on like you do, judging; (conjuring?) peoples' character
remotely. Isn't that an aspect of magic?
What a cute, harmless sounding nickname you give your mental illness; "Espies". That's adorable.
Remember though, it's in the medical books as a defect, not a gift of special powers.
I guess you sit pretty high there on your mentally disturbed throne, huh Christina?
Or is it a broom?
I edited that sentence. It now reads: Then the Son, or we together as essentially One Being, committed original sin, which caused the light of the Spiritual Universe to become manifested as matter.
In the beginning, God emanated a part of Himself from out of the center of His heart. This emanated part of God was given an individual identity and a free will. This entity with a free will was essentially a single divine Being, or the Son of God the Father. And the
Son was One in Being with the Father. When the Son's emanated existence took place, God the Father created light for His Son to live in. The Son and the light that He lived in were, together, a Spiritual Universe. The Son was essentially One Single Divine Consciousness/Being who had billions of traces of individual identities that were a part of Himself. We were the unified divine Son and we each had a trace of a separate individual identity. Then the Son, or we together as essentially One Being, committed original sin, which caused the light of the Spiritual Universe to become manifested as matter. After a
long time, the physical universe produced life in physical form, and the evolution of life on earth eventually produced bodies for some of the emanated Son's traces of individual entities to begin their life on earth as individuals - individuals who were, because of original sin, totally unaware of their original awareness of being the Divine Son of God. The New Agers goal is to, first, become once again aware of being the unified divine Son, or one with the Christ Consciousness that permeates the universe,...and then, ultimately, go beyond the Christ Consciousness in the universe and become once again united with God the Father in Heaven. When we are united with our Father in Heaven we will be where we were before we became the emanated Son and then separated individuals.
"chakras are not hindu doctrine..."
Let's look and see if she's lying:
"Chakra (IAST: C̣akra, meaning "wheel, circle"), sometimes spelled Cakra or Cakka, is any center of subtle body believed to be psychic-energy centers in the esoteric traditions of Indian religions."
"The concept is found particularly in the tantric traditions of Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism. They are conceived as an energy focal point, bodily functions or psychic node in the subtle body. The Chakra theories are elaborate part of the Kundalini system. These theories differ between the Indian religions, with esoteric Buddhist literature mentioning four Chakras, while esoteric Hindu texts stating seven. They are believed to be part of the subtle body, not the physical body, and connected by energy channels called Nadi. In the Kundalini version of yoga, breath exercises focus, in part, on mastering and channeling energy through Chakras."
"chakras are not hindu doctrine..."
Let's look and see if she's lying:
"Chakra (IAST: C̣akra, meaning "wheel, circle"), sometimes spelled Cakra or Cakka, is any center of subtle body believed to be psychic-energy centers in the esoteric traditions of Indian religions."
"THE CONCEPT IS FOUND PARTICULARLY IN THE TANTRIC TRADITIONS OF HINDUISM, Buddhism and Jainism. They are conceived as an energy focal point, bodily functions or psychic node in the subtle body. The Chakra theories are elaborate part of the Kundalini system. These theories differ between the Indian religions, with esoteric Buddhist literature mentioning four Chakras, while ESOTERIC HINDU TEXTS STATING SEVEN [CHAKRAS]. They are believed to be part of the subtle body, not the physical body, and connected by energy channels called Nadi. In the Kundalini version of yoga, breath exercises focus, in part, on mastering and channeling energy through Chakras."
Well, well, well, it appears, according to her, honesty isn't her best policy after all!
A 50 year old Haitian official that was highly critical and outspoken regarding the corruption of the Clinton Foundation was found dead of a "gun shot wound to the head." Not surprisingly, the "official" cause of death was ruled a "suicide."
In case you didn't know, the Clinton Foundation was set up as a charitable institution that received massive amounts of charitable donations from foreign countries, corporations and rich individuals ... virtually all involved with buying influence during the time Hillary Clinton was Sec. of State. Donations made to a USA politician by foreign entities is against the law, BUT, it isn't unlawful for contributions made to "charitable" institutions. Literally, hundreds of millions of dollars flowed into the Clinton Foundation (and others, such as the Clinton Global Initiative, etc.) with very little money actually going towards the official stated purpose.
By the way ... whatever happened to the Seth Rich case? You know, the "robbery" (where nothing was stolen) that ended up being a murder. Seth Rich was a Bernie Sanders supporter working for the DNC that Julian Assange hinted to be the Wikileaks provider of damaging Hillary Clinton emails. Just asking ....
Your response is, once again, much more like assy.
You are just some poor sleepless, bored out of her skull, lazy and indulged, keyboard warrior!
Would be stinkin' hilarious, if it wasn't so pitifully sad.
You sure have missed the patterns...of your terrible behavior.
Outright, downright uncivil behavior.
And Paul has once again pegged you. Craig has too, numerous times, as has Physicist. And a whole crew of folks. You are consistent that's for sure. And this bad behavior is why you are nigh on banned here at Constance's blog. Other blogs are aware of your antics also, so don't get all high and mighty with us and your seeing "patterns".
You see "stuff" that's for sure. Weird unbiblical, extrabiblical KKrrrap (and it's spiritual idolatry on your part, honey pie). And you post it here as though it is truth and it sure isn't, but is merely your vain imagination running amuck again! Thank Goodness you have had restraints put on you here by the blog owner. Your chakras and the stupid graveyard myisms (sp) whatever that demonic garbage is called, and how you can see of auras, etc, and your neon green globs! That's just the tiny tip of the stupidity iceberg your fast and furious fingers post! You are a real piece of work thinking that sounds smart!! That sounds like you doing drugs, really bad ones. I have seen that behavior upclose and personal. Oh boy. Do you top them with off with booze like you are accusing Paul of?
Because the things you actually spout (spew) errrr...post here, would make any reasonable, reasoning person wonder and think that it is really you under some kind of really bad influence...
...and certainly last, but not least, is the the hatred that pours from your keyboard that says you are full of something...YOURSELF, mainly.
You need to get right with God and your fellowman.
Start here, and prove yourself a real standup person and apologize and quit it with the slovenly unreasoned thinking/posting as you try to pass off yourself off as smarter than everyone else in the room, but is nothing but pure )%$$#%^> !! An attempt to cover your deep lack of common decency, with no genuine love for the truth. And lack of love for others, just people, as you are just a people too, ya know...made in the image of the Lord.
You are too, Christina, and your posts say a lot to try to deny that.
Ever ask yourself.....WHY?
You have my pity. You really do.
You only prove us all correct about your very hateful persona.
She is full of poison...paul-hating, mother-hating poison, you name it kind of hating.
Glad the blog can air out now after that foulness she deposited here.
She deserves to be banned permanently.
perhaps she subconsciously associates Paul with her mother, as well as Craig and Physicist? Strange though, as they're all men (father figure types to her which she can't abide admitting and so sees them through her mother hating lens?).It could be because they aren't afraid to skirt round the houses with her, are intelligent and so deemed a threat, knowing things she clearly doesn't. Also, they correct her when she's out of line (which is just about always) and stand up for the truth, saying it as it is. Her ego really doesn't like that!
Yes, for the sake of the blog she should be banned permanently ... many good and decent posters don't come here anymore since her attacks: Rich in Medford, Grant in New Zealand, and many more no doubt!
I still look at the blog but like many wish it wasn't continually steered off its purpose.
Important posts are basically lost in the rhetoric.
Agreed Grant. The best antiseptic is ignore-ance.
It my be antisocial but it works!
Its a shame considering how much is unfolding around the world thats worth this blogs attention.
In John 15:12, Jesus commands us to love one another, as He has loved us. True love doesn't hold bitterness or unforgiveness against that person. If we are bitter or hold unforgiveness against somebody, then we don't love them as Christ loved us. If we don't keep Jesus' commandments, then it proves we don't love Him.
John 14:24, "He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings..."
Unforgiveness prevents God from forgiving our sins
Matthew 6:15, "But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses."
Unforgiveness opens us up to the tormentors (the devil)
Matthew 18:23-35, "Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened unto a certain king, which would take account of his servants. And when he had begun to reckon, one was brought unto him, which owed him ten thousand talents. But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made. The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all. Then the lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him, and forgave him the debt. But the same servant went out, and found one of his fellowservants, which owed him an hundred pence: and he laid hands on him, and took [him] by the throat, saying, Pay me that thou owest. And his fellowservant fell down at his feet, and besought him, saying, Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all. And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till he should pay the debt. So when his fellowservants saw what was done, they were very sorry, and came and told unto their lord all that was done. Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me: Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee? And his lord was wroth, and , till he should pay all that was due unto him. So ."
Mark 11:24, 25, "Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them. And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have ought (something) against any: that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses."
Matthew 7:7, 12, "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you... Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them..."
John 15:5, 10 tells us that if we abide in Christ, we will produce much spiritual fruit, and the way that we abide in Christ is by keeping His commandments. Verse 12 tells us that His commandment is to love one another as He has loved us. Verse 7 tells us that if we abide in Him (by keeping His commandments), and His Word in us, we can ask for anything and it will be given onto us! The reason a lot of people's prayers go unanswered, is because they aren't keeping the commandments that Jesus gave us; therefore they aren't abiding in Christ's love, and if we aren't abiding in Christ's love, how can we expect Him to hear our prayers?
Unforgiveness can defile a person
Hebrews 12:15, "...lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled."
Notice at the end it says, "many be defiled." This is a VERY common, if not one of the most common everyday things that defile people! Many bondages can be shed when a person forgives those who have wronged him or her.
Unforgiveness can give Satan an advantage
2 Corinthians 2:10-11, "To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ; Lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices."
Unforgiveness can keep a person out of heaven
Matthew 7:12, 21, "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets... Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven."
1 John 3:14, "We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren.."
Unforgiveness can prevent us from being fruitful spiritually
John 15:5 tells us that if we abide in Christ, we will produce much spiritual fruit, and the way that we abide in Christ is by keeping His commandments (verse 10). Verse 12 tells us that His commandment is that we love one another as He has loved us. Therefore, if we don't love one another, as He has loved us, then we do not abide in Him, and how are we suppose to produce much spiritual fruit if we don't abide in Him? According to verse 6, the branch that doesn't abide in the vine will be cast into the fire.
Unforgiveness can open us up to curses
When people in the Old Testament disobeyed God's commandments, it opened them up to curses (Deut 27:26). When people nowadays disobey God, it can do the same thing; it can open them up to curses. Curses can cause mental and emotional problems (Deut 28:28), physical problems (Deut 28:35, 60, 61), financial problems (Deut 28:17, 38, 43), divorce and unfaithful spouse (Deut 28:30, 56), emotional stress (Deut 28:34), childlessness (Lev 20:21), and that's not all, plus those curses can be handed down to your future generations (Exodus 20:5).
When we forgive, it opens us up to God's forgiveness (Matthew 6:15), it puts us in a receiving position when we pray (Mark 11:24, 25), it helps us become spiritually fruitful (John 15:10, 12, 5), and we will know that we have passed from spiritual death to being reconciled with our heavenly Father when we love each other (1 John 3:14)! When we keep God's commandments and love one another, we prove that we love Jesus (John 14:21), and we abide in Christ's love (John 15:10)! What a magnificent blessing forgiveness really is!!!
Maybe some of the Catholics on the blog have some comments on this. It looks like their is systematic sexual abuse and immorality at the highest levels of the Vatican.
I also think that is Christine Erikson's biggest problem, and why she is so caustic in every post, even if only once a week. She really does need to deal with it.
I posted the the article on forgiveness and totally agree with your comment.
From experience in getting people free from Demonic Bondage it is always unforgiveness that is the root to the problem
1) Unforgiveness towards others in general.
2) Unforgiveness towards parents.
3) Unforgiveness of one self.
4) Unforgiveness towards God.
When looking at 2 its very much a issue of dishonouring of parents that developes a anti authority nature.
Honouring doesnt mean agreeing always with someone but it does afford respect to a person by virtue of the fact that God has designed it to be that way.
Scripture promises that if we honour our Father and Mother our days we be long and prosperous.
3 and 4 are often missed.
Unforgiveness of one self is often when someone blames themselves for loss of etc... by some action or lack of action on their part. This can based on reality or the imagination and requires them to ask forgiveness from God and to then forgive themselves in Jesus name.
Unforgiveness of God is when they often quite secretly blame God for something.
Often they preach and manifest false doctrines.
Attacking the Word is seen as a way to get back at God gecause He is the Word persay
Sea level of course falls during an ice age, to provide the water for the ice. There may be *local* flooding during tremendous storms, of course; and the regions distant from the equator are covered over with solid water. Likewise sea level rises when an ice age ends and the ice melts. If all the ice in the world melted today sea level would rise by some 60m, or 200 feet. Most of that rise would be due to the ice on Antarctica, because the north polar ice is by contrast free-floating, and causes no rise when it melts. Since most human settlements are coastal this would have a disproportionate effect.
Thanks for your response. You've answered my question, and then some. I find it curious that Bennett was under the impression that there'd be flooding on cities at sea level during the then-presumed impending ice age.
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
Links to this post:
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]