noun
a transient light that precedes the rising of the sun by about an hour.
• figurative a promising sign that comes to nothing.
Tuesday, November 02, 2010
LEE PENN IS MY GUEST TONIGHT - UPDATE ON "NEW WORLD RELIGION'" RELATED DEVELOPMENTS
noun
a transient light that precedes the rising of the sun by about an hour.
• figurative a promising sign that comes to nothing.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
175 comments:
boo
So its not okay to question Constance on her questionable theology, her religious syncretism (and yes it can be called New Age Christianity), and her dealings with a network SHE admits broadcasts anti-semitism? LOL You can't have it both ways; you can't be a "watchman" and not expect to be observed for theological orthodoxy yourself you know.
So Constance..you're willing to continue to broadcast from that network that permits anti-semitism merely for listener numbers??? Are you kidding me? I wonder how many Germans were willing to fudge like that and eventually had a holocaust on their hands. Sorry, but that is a dusgusting reason to do that. Let me tell you Constance, I have many Jewish friends, both Messianic and Orthodox, and I can guarantee they would not for one minute support your research if they knew those things-i.e. your network and your position on Allah.
And your favorite Gnostic homosexual Seraphim Rose who taught his "toll house" theology, you still cling to him even knowing that he taught Gnosticism? Just because you didn't read it in his book you like so much doesn't mean anything Constance. He was denounced by members of his own religion for teaching Gnosticism-which he clearly died unrepentantly until he died. I've seen people tossed into the flames here simply because they had the same last name as a New Age proponent. Yet you can support a Gnostic homosexual and the sychophants here say nothing? An earlier poster said it best I think: Fifth Column here.
As for Blogtalk Radio Constance..they are free to use by anyone. Thus everyone has a voice there. There are more Christian programs there than you can shake a stick at. However, you throw up the (gasp!) New Age line when it suits your arguement. It is of course ignored when it doesn't suit you. Even in your own book you mention anti-semitism and its connection to the New Age. Yet you still broadcast from a place you have freely admitted broadcasts anti-semitic programming- and all for listeners. I wonder what Jesus, a Jew, would think of you being a part of something like that? Yet you refuse to consider any other venue (and there are more than Blogtalk out there).
Wolves in sheeps clothing...we were warned and rightly so. I'm disappointed.
thank you anon, with great eloquence you did state what is on my mind about this blogspot...
There must be something big happening, because the pot always seems to get "stirred" to divert attention from the topics that should be talked about. To Annon 8:16, if you don't like it then leave, why stay and complain.
yeah big trouble in little china because someone is trolling constance ...lulz
you know she is center of the universe, and if she can not get her word out then the NWO wins~!
God uses her only and no other is informed of God.
I'm just wondering...will Obama finish out his term. Or will he be in a position to resign? I guess the people are disgusted with his hope and change. One thing's for sure, he is among the worse presidents the U.S. has ever had. Maybe the worst.
Donald Charles Unsworth, tee hee;
http://www.catsprn.com/unsworth-obit.htm
To Anonymous 8:15
BOO TO YOU TOO!
Constance:
Many of us just want you to know that we support you and believe that the Holy Spirit is genuinely working through you in your ministry on this blog.
A few of you need to get a reality check when it comes to having extremely unrealistic expectations of Constance.
If you are that unhappy here, no one is holding a gun to your heads. You are free to leave at any time.
Sephardi leader Yosef: Non-Jews exist to serve Jews
October 18, 2010
http://www.jta.org/news/article/2010/10/18/2741341/rabbi-yosef-non-jews-exist-to-serve-jews
JERUSALEM (JTA) -- Israeli Sephardic leader Rabbi Ovadia Yosef in his weekly Saturday night sermon said that non-Jews exist to serve Jews.
"Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world; only to serve the People of Israel," he said during a public discussion of what kind of work non-Jews are allowed to perform on Shabbat.
"Why are gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and eat," he said to some laughter.
Yosef, the spiritual leader of the Shas Party and the former chief Sephardi rabbi of Israel, also said that the lives of non-Jews are protected in order to prevent financial loss to Jews.
"With gentiles, it will be like any person: They need to die, but God will give them longevity. Why? Imagine that one's donkey would die, they'd lose their money. This is his servant. That's why he gets a long life, to work well for this Jew," said the rabbi, who recently turned 90.
An audio recording of some of the rabbi's remarks was broadcast on Israel's Channel 10.
The American Jewish Committee condemned the rabbi's remarks in a statement issued Monday.
"Rabbi Yosef's remarks -- suggesting outrageously that Jewish scripture asserts non-Jews exist to serve Jews -- are abhorrent and an offense to human dignity and human equality," said AJC Executive Director David Harris. "Judaism first taught the world that all individuals are created in the divine image, which helped form the basis of our moral code. A rabbi should be the first, not the last, to reflect that bedrock teaching of our tradition."
Constance:
Many of us just want you to know that we no longer support you and believe that the Holy Spirit is no longer working through you in your ministry on this blog.
A few of you need to get a reality check when it comes to having extremely unrealistic support of Constance.She has stated her religious syncretism, her refusal to leave an anti-semitic network, and her support of a Gnostic teacher. This is not of God h those and in fact is Anti-Christ by the standards even she stated in her first book.
If you are that unhappy with we Christians who hold all who claim to have a ministry accountable to not just their own standards, but those of scripture, no one is holding a gun to your heads. You are free to leave at any tim. If you had any real consistency you wouldn't be so willing to give her a pass on what is obviously religious syncretism and support of a Gnostic (New Age) teacher.
Now we know the sad truth.
I support Constance and will continue to do so even if I end up being the only one. I believe, anonymous, that God has sent you a delusional spirit and you really know nothing of the Holy Spirit. Especially, since we just had a HUGE election with HUGE results, and all you can do is go on and on about your crazy notions. And, you claim because you think a certain way, everyone else does. There's no talking any sense with you. I think I would get a better conversation with the squirrels outside.
I don't care if you support Constance or not. This is America. Support her or don't support her. My guess is she's not losing any sleep over it. Neither am I.
I am not able to listen to the radio broadcast, but would love to know what was said.
I would appreciate a recap or summary (without commentary) by any who listened.
Just an idea...when I sign on I will be using the option "Name/URL" and use "Radio Recap". If you choose to write a recap, how about signing on with the same "Name/URL". It will be helpful for me and others to identify when post-ers are posting to the topic.
By the way, my word verification is "rapha". Jehovah-Rapha is my healer! We certainly need a healing of this blog.
Blessings,
YesNaSpanishTown
Ms Cumbey
you said
"3. The HOLY SPIRIT would never contradict Himself. He would never say on one day, THOU SHALT HAVE NO OTHER GODS BEFORE ME and on another day say 'WORSHIP BUDDHA.'
Similarly, he would never say as he did through Jesus, "no man knoweth the day or hour" and then as William Miller did in 1844 and Edgar Whisenant in 1988, give a date certain for the coming of Christ."
Does this mean that if the writings of the Fathers contradicts the Bible we should reject those writings?
If you are saying that, then are you saying the Bible is our text book for testing all extra writings. Are you saying that?
Are you also saying the Bible was written by the Holy Spirit through the hand of humans?
Please let me know because am trying to grasp this.
Thanks
Constance said:
"You know, I'm thinking out loud. I do not accept Moslem theology, just as I do not accept Mormon theology. However, God judges hearts. It is hard for me to get so excited about a Moslem or a Mormon with convictions based on how they were raised when I know for certainty that there was far more serious Evangelical compromise with Rev. Moon who claimed he was the LORD OF THE SECOND ADVENT. There was evangelical compromise with PAUL N. TEMPLE (Institute of Noetic Sciences). The Moslems and the Mormons may have been operating in good conscience based on their lifelong conviction, but that Jerry Falwell, Tim LaHaye and so many others compromised with Rev. Moon because of MONEY to me is far more serious."
So in addition to your other troubling non-biblical positions, you also believe Mormons achieve salvation? You mention compromise with disdain, yet you compromise with anti-semitism merely so you can have the listeners you feel you deserve? Sounds evil to me.
BattleCreepDave said:
"I support Constance and will continue to do so even if I end up being the only one."
Then you support a religious syncretist who thinks a homosexual Gnostic is one of the most important theologians in 2000 yrs. That makes you apostate. Enjoy hell.
:I believe, anonymous, that God has sent you a delusional spirit and you really know nothing of the Holy Spirit."
Being apostate yourself and supporting a person who promotes a Gnostic teacher and broadcasts on a network that promotes anti-semitism, I'd say your grasp of just who the Holy Spirit is, and what delusion is are tenuous at best.Anyone who actually believes what scripture says knows YOU to be the delusional one.
"Especially, since we just had a HUGE election with HUGE results, and all you can do is go on and on about your crazy notions."
Do you even pay attention to the stuff you vomit onto the screen? What exactly does this have to do with Cumbey's apostasy? Further, if you think that Republicans gaining some measure of control in America is some salvational moment, you're really proving your delusional state. Neither party is any good, both work for Globalism.You don't grasp this? Talk about delusional!
"And, you claim because you think a certain way, everyone else does."
Hmm..no similar rebuke from you to the person who used the same words, but in support of Cumbey in her false teachings. Inconsistency as usual from you sychophants. Totally given to a cult of personality here rather than the pursuit of truth. The truth about Cumbey's false teachings has been exposed here in her own words, yet you cling to her words still. "Fanwank" I think they call that.
"There's no talking any sense with you. I think I would get a better conversation with the squirrels outside."
No need for that. Just call on Allah. Same God as you, right? Cumbey says so.
"I don't care if you support Constance or not. This is America. Support her or don't support her. My guess is she's not losing any sleep over it. Neither am I."
You dont care yet you had to post an attack on me telling me you don't care? LOL
I'm so impressed with your American patriotism that you use so sadly to cling to support of a false teacher. Smell the sulpher yet?
The more we learn of what she actually believes, the more troubling it gets.
Agh shame this dear anon trying to trash Constance on her own blog. Lol. Please will the people who support Constance in her work just not answer their comments. I just speed read and scroll down until I get substance. They will get bored and go sit in their corners and eat worms.
Melinda
Constance you're the best, a true braveheart.
Constance..you're apostate and teaching and promoting false teachings.
Anonymous 8:17 and 8:22, et al
You seem to like wallowing in this "evil" blog yourselves since you don't seem to be in any big hurry to leave.
The only "evil" here is the lipsmacking Manichaean desire on the part of people like you to find "evil" everywhere you look.
The primary Catholic argument against sola scriptura is that the Bible does not explicitly teach sola scriptura. Catholics argue that the Bible nowhere states that it is the only authoritative guide for faith and practice. While this is true, they fail to recognize a crucially important issue. We know that the Bible is the Word of God. The Bible declares itself to be God-breathed, inerrant, and authoritative. We also know that God does not change His mind or contradict Himself. So, while the Bible itself may not explicitly argue for sola scriptura, it most definitely does not allow for traditions that contradict its message. Sola scriptura is not as much of an argument against tradition as it is an argument against unbiblical, extra-biblical and/or anti-biblical doctrines. The only way to know for sure what God expects of us is to stay true to what we know He has revealed—the Bible. We can know, beyond the shadow of any doubt, that Scripture is true, authoritative, and reliable. The same cannot be said of tradition.
The Word of God is the only authority for the Christian faith. Traditions are valid only when they are based on Scripture and are in full agreement with Scripture. Traditions that contradict the Bible are not of God and are not a valid aspect of the Christian faith. Sola scriptura is the only way to avoid subjectivity and keep personal opinion from taking priority over the teachings of the Bible. The essence of sola scriptura is basing your spiritual life on the Bible alone and rejecting any tradition or teaching that is not in full agreement with the Bible. Second Timothy 2:15 declares, “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.”
Sola scriptura does not nullify the concept of church traditions. Rather, sola scriptura gives us a solid foundation on which to base church traditions. There are many practices, in both Catholic and Protestant churches, that are the result of traditions, not the explicit teaching of Scripture. It is good, and even necessary, for the church to have traditions. Traditions play an important role in clarifying and organizing Christian practice. At the same time, in order for these traditions to be valid, they must not be in disagreement with God’s Word. They must be based on the solid foundation of the teaching of Scripture. The problem with the Roman Catholic Church, and many other churches, is that they base traditions on traditions which are based on traditions which are based on traditions, often with the initial tradition not being in full harmony with the Scriptures. That is why Christians must always go back to sola scriptura, the authoritative Word of God, as the only solid basis for faith and practice.
Melinda 8:27 AM
Bravo! Here is a little poem in your honor for standing up to the trolls.
There once was a Troll on a roll
To hijack this blog was his goal
CC's friends they got wise
And to Troll's great surprise
Melinda cried "speed read and scroll!!!"
........................
And Troll began to sing:
Nobody likes me everybody hates me Think I'll go eat worms worms....
Here are rhe lyrics in case anyone wants to sing along...
Nobody likes me, everybody hates me,
Guess I'll go eat worms,
Long, thin, slimy ones; Short, fat, juicy ones,
Itsy, bitsy, fuzzy wuzzy worms.
Down goes the first one, down goes the second one,
Oh how they wiggle and squirm.
Up comes the first one, up comes the second one,
Oh how they wiggle and squirm.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e
5O4TaXY2gE
BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Anonymous 11:53
Re:So, while the Bible itself may not explicitly argue for sola scriptura, it most definitely does not allow for traditions that contradict its message. Sola scriptura is not as much of an argument against tradition as it is an argument against unbiblical, extra-biblical and/or anti-biblical doctrines.
I might be willing to concede that this is true. Catholic Sacred Tradition cannot contradict the Scriptures.
In fact, just in case there is anyone who doesn't know how Catholics define Sacred Tradition, here it is:
Catholic Tradition often seems odd to those outside the Catholic Church.
People assume it's something that we just... "made up."
Sacred Tradition comes from Christ. It's the full, living gift of Christ to the Apostles, faithfully handed down through each generation. It is through Tradition that the Holy Spirit makes the Risen Lord present among us, offering us the very same saving Word and Sacraments that he gave to the Apostles!
Understanding Catholic Tradition is essential to understanding the Catholic Church and the Catholic Christian faith.
Tradition is "handed down"
The word "tradition" actually means handing down something to another person.
Scripture testifies to this meaning of Catholic Tradition as the normal mode of transmitting the Faith:
"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." (2 Thess 2:15)
"For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you...." (1 Cor 11:23)
"For I handed on to you as of first importance what I also received...." (1 Cor 15:3)
"...I know whom I have believed [i.e., Jesus], and I am sure that he is able to guard until that Day what has been entrusted to me. Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us." (2 Tim 1:11-14)
"You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also." (2 Tim 2:1-2)
"...I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints." (Jude 1:3)
This is the most basic meaning of Catholic Tradition: it is the true Faith itself, given to the Apostles by Christ and faithfully transmitted to each new generation. (Catechism, 77-78)
We often write Tradition, with a capital 'T', to mean Sacred Tradition. This Catholic Tradition is different from those traditions (small 't') that are merely customs, and which are not part of Divine Revelation....read more...
http://www.beginningcatholic.com/
catholic-tradition.html
VOTERS BAN JUDGES FROM USING INTERNATIONAL LAW
http://www.newsok.com/article/feed/208677
Theory: Squeakbox "got religion" and is anonymously posting as Anonymous 8:16 et al
I find it funny that all you self proclaimed researchers who burn at the stake others for far less, have your idol (yes, that is what Cumbey is for you- an idol) supporting a Gnostic homosexual, promoting Allah as the Christian God (suncretism, aka New Age ideology), etc.
It seems there is good reason for CC to be marginalized. She's apparently done it to herself with her wild theories, false teachings and the oddball group of anti-semtites and Catholic kooks that are her Fanwanks.
Rest assured, the word is getting out on this place though.
By the way CC, I noticed you decried in the other thread people who compromised with New Agers (odd considering you hold New Age views, but anyway..), yet you compromise on racial hatred for the sake of listeners. Wow! Talk about a real double standard!
To 1:32 p.m.
VILE anc LYING SPIRIT. I have never compromised on anti-Semitism and/or RACIAL HATRED. I have fought both vigorously all of my life.
Are you, uh, guilty of , uh, "PROJECTION."
Constance
To Anonymous 1:32:
What are the "New Age Views" I am supposed to allegedly hold to? I certainly am delighted that God is my judge and not you!
CONSTANCE
Constance,
You don't view broadcasting from a network that promotes anti-semitism (racial hatred) as compromise????
CC: You stated your belief that Allah (the meccan pagan deity) is the same God as Christians and Jews worship. That is religious syncretism, aka New Age teaching. All are One, just different names for the same God. Come on..you're smart enough to know that.
To all:
I am trying hard to pray for the anonymous poster despitefully using me. I can now identify with Moses who when catching complaints from the Jewish community told God, "you know I have not taken so much as an ass from them . . ."
I don't know the motives of this poster/posters . . . I can only suspect. But it is a vicious maligning spirit and a lying one at that.
I have tried hard to refrain from censorship on the comments section and will continue to do so. I suspect the person is doing this because they want me to resort to censoring this board.
Constance
Iranian press signing in on Catherine Ashton / Javier Solana:
"Meanwhile, the conservative news agency Fars has seriously questioned the ability of EU Foreign Minister Catherine Ashton to direct the negotiations with Iran. A commentary article published by the news agency this week claims that unlike her predecessor, Javier Solana, she does not have enough knowledge and experience to direct the negotiations, and is not well-versed in issues pertaining to the talks with Iran. According to the agency, even her colleagues in the West and journalists in Europe criticize her weakness in decision-making and her inability to solve foreign policy-related problems facing the EU (Fars, October 18)."
http://tinyurl.com/24x74zz
Constance
Thanks Susanna
If that is so, then why would it be wrong to challenge the writings of the Fathers if scripture proves those writings as unscriptural?
If the Scriptures take precedence then why is it so wrong to quote the scriptures as a refute to unscriptural writings? Shouldn't we confront false teachings?
Didn't Jesus warn us to watch out for the false and expose it?
Just wondering.
Ms Cumbey
you said
"3. The HOLY SPIRIT would never contradict Himself. He would never say on one day, THOU SHALT HAVE NO OTHER GODS BEFORE ME and on another day say 'WORSHIP BUDDHA.'
Similarly, he would never say as he did through Jesus, "no man knoweth the day or hour" and then as William Miller did in 1844 and Edgar Whisenant in 1988, give a date certain for the coming of Christ."
Does this mean that if the writings of the Fathers contradicts the Bible we should reject those writings?
If you are saying that, then are you saying the Bible is our text book for testing all extra writings. Are you saying that?
Are you also saying the Bible was written by the Holy Spirit through the hand of humans?
Please let me know because am trying to grasp this.
Thanks
Constance: don't let it upset you. We are able to sort this out ourselves. Never explain. Never complain. Just keep on keepin' on. When the complainers run out of steam they'll go away. When we get tired of them we'll just stop even reading them. Carry on. We're not concerned.
Funny one. The word I must type in to post is: rabbi
anon who is not an attacker
It is hardly lying to quote your own words back at you CC. YOU said that your network broadcasts anti-semitism, yet YOU say you'll remain there because you have listeners. THAT is compromise CC. Or do you not grasp that? Its pretty simple.
It's one thing to disagree with someone. It's quite another to resort to ad hominem attacks by name calling, ridiculing and the like. This is very definitely unchristian and does not give the comment much legitimacy.
If a commentor has what s/he feels is a legitimate complaint/issue, then this individual should state so by sticking to the complaint/issue.
While I understand the need for anonymity, for the benefit of all who may wish to respond, wouldn't be helpful to select a pseudonym of some sort in order to differentiate between all the anons? Otherwise, all the comments just blend together and one anons comment may get lumped in with another.
Cumbey is too busy wrapping herself in Biblical imagery (the laughable Moses comment) to actually answer the questions. Look, whoever the rest of you anons are- its obvious she's fudging and isnt going to admit it. Why does she need to? Shes already said everything you guys have nailed her on, so just take that and tell everyone you know. Other than that its best to leave her all alone here with her little (and I mean tiny) group of worshippers, her little show that yes she airs from a place that does have shows that hate Jews. Outside of her first book that isnt even in production anymore, who even knows or cares what Constance Cumbey thinks?? I mean really. Just this tiny little group of nutjobs here. You wont change their minds-they think shes Gods voice against the new age. LOLOLOL
Really, just take the truth about her theology and that network she son and tell people who might actually care, cuz obviously her fans here have proven to you she can be as contradictory as she wants and it wont matter. K? The end. I hope.
Anonymous 2:07 PM
Re: If that is so, then why would it be wrong to challenge the writings of the Fathers if scripture proves those writings as unscriptural?
It wouldn't be wrong, per se. But then you get into the question of who has the proper authority to interpret the Scriptures as "proving" or "disproving" anything....or to decide which, if any of the writings of the Church Fathers might be "unscriptural" or interpreted incorrectly.
In and of themselves, the Church Fathers were not necessarily infallible. Catholics believe that only the Pope is infallible....and then only insofar as he is specially protected by the Holy Spirit when officially teaching in matters of faith and morals. (Petrine Charism)
We believe that the Pope is the "Vicar of Christ on earth." Insofar as bishops are in full loyal communion with the Pope, they are also regarded by Catholics as infallible.
While the Catholics and Orthodox have differences over Papal primacy, both nevertheless regard the bishops as successors of the Apostles.
With regard to the Scriptures, neither the Pope nor the bishops have the authority to teach anything that contradicts the Scriptures.
While there are those who think that the Pope does contradict the Scriptures, this is again a matter of their own interpretation.
One Church Father, St. Irenaeus ( Bishop of Lyon ) believed in the millenium - a belief that has never been officially taught by the Roman Catholic Church. While Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp, who in turn was a disciple of the Apostle St. John, Irenaeus does not appear to have come out of the Jewish tradition that interpreted numbers symbolically, so it is understandable if he interpreted them literally......as probably did his disciple Hippolytus.
But if the Pope had told Irenaeus that his interpretation was mistaken before he was martyred for the faith, he would not have allowed his private opinion to trump Church teaching because Irenaeus believed in the Petrine charism and defended it.
In fact, Catholics blieve that it was this very Petrine Charism which prevented the great Christ-severing gnostic heresies from prevailing down through the centuries.
In any case, St. Irenaeus is unmatched in his refutation of the heretical gnostics vis a vis his book ADVERSUS HAERESES.
Here it is if you want to check it out.
ADVERSUS HAERESES
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers
/0103.htm
Craig,
I totally agree with you.
It is one thing to have honest religious disagreements - quite another to resort to ad hominem attacks.
Whenever you are in any kind of debate and your opponent resorts to ad hominem attacks, this is a sign that your opponent has lost the debate on account of his having run out of the sound, objective, rational arguments needed to win.
Outside of her first book that isnt even in production anymore, who even knows or cares what Constance Cumbey thinks?? I mean really. Just this tiny little group of nutjobs here. You wont change their minds-they think shes Gods voice against the new age. LOLOLOL
Well we sure as heck don't think that YOU are God's voice against the New Age!!!!
What ad hominem? The fact that she admits her network has anti-semitic programming, but she refuses to leave there since she has a greater audience there? (by definition compromise)And is not anti-semitism racism?
Or is it her promotion of Seraphim Rose, who was in fact a homosexual and Gnostic?
Both her stated positions.So where is the ad hominem? I'm failing to see it.
Thank you Troll Buster! Love your humor! WE need to laugh at the ol` Trolls! Together we will speed read `n scroll!LoL!
Melinda
Susanna,
you wrote:
With regard to the Scriptures, neither the Pope nor the bishops have the authority to teach anything that contradicts the Scriptures.
From a "Protestant" perspective, one of the problems is in identifying which "Bible" is used. Since the Catholic Bible contains the Deuterocanonical books known as the Apocrypha and the "Protestant" Bible does not, then the two camps will not agree on certain doctrines such as purgatory, the Assumption of Mary, etc. as these are found only in the Aprocrypha.
In fact, Catholics blieve that it was this very Petrine Charism which prevented the great Christ-severing gnostic heresies from prevailing down through the centuries.
I will have to respectfully disagree with this although it may come down to how one defines "prevailing." Certainly there was Christ-severing gnosticism in the 1st century which progressed further in the 2nd; and, we cannot deny that it's prevailing at the moment in the New Age religion. If Islam is added, the net is even wider.
I would say that it could hardly be argued that this gnosticism has been prevailing since at least the dawn of Darwinism.
The mindlessness of Fanwanks. LOL
Dear Constance,
How are you?
Following is an agenda for Brussels live t.v., dated 3/27/10:
"Saturday, March 27
8:00-9:00 Early Bird Sessions (Off the Record and Closed to Press)
(skip)
The Middle East Peace Process? Conflict? or Status Quo?
(Off the Record, Closed to Press)
Session Description
The Hon. Ehud Barak, Minister of Defense, Israel
The Hon. Saeb Erekat, Chief Negotiator, Palestinian Authority
The Hon. Javier Solana, Former European High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy
Mr. Robert Wexler, President, Center for Middle East Peace and Economic Cooperation; Member, House of Representatives, United States
Moderator: TBD
Underrepresented? Minority Political Impact in the Obama Era
Session Description
Moderator: TBD"
http://tinyurl.com/2354zg5
http://fora.tv/live/gmf/Brussels_Forum_2010
Interesting attendees, indeed.
Have a nice day.
Sincerely,
A fellow watcher
Re: CC: You stated your belief that Allah (the meccan pagan deity) is the same God as Christians and Jews worship. That is religious syncretism, aka New Age teaching. All are One, just different names for the same God. Come on..you're smart enough to know that.
"Allah" is the standard Arabic equivalent for the standard
English word "God" and is used by Arabs of all Abrahamic faiths - including Arabic Jews and Christians.
For you to declare - without citing any reputable sources - that the word "allah" refers exclusively to some "meccan pagan deity" of the past while using the new standard bigot "S" - word mantra ( i.e. "syncretism" ) is not exactly conducive to successfully deceiving anyone here into thinking that you are some kind of "scholar."
For that matter, the English word "god" has been used to refer to non - Abrahamic deities as well.....although I don't know of an Arabic equivalent for "goddess."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allah
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God
The truth of the matter is that you are just plain wrong - both from a religious perspective and from a historic perspective. As the saying goes, you may be entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.
So why don't you run along now like a good little troll and go peddle your historical revisionism, your theology fiction and your personal attacks somewhere else.......and don't let the door hit you in the butt on your way out.
To the Chief Prosecutor
of the law firm Anonymous,
Anonymous, Anonymous
and Anon:
Mrs Cumby has NEVER said that
Islam's Allah is the same as
the God of the Bible.
It's just the opposite. Read
what she said, you raging idiot.
She only points out the truth
that the planners of all this New
Age hokum plan to pit Christians,
Jews and Moslems against each
other, which they are doing.
In your case I'd say they've
succeeded.
As far as what station she
has a radio show on, maybe
she should be on a station
where searching minds want
to go, and thereby let her light
shine in a dark place.
Either way you aren't her judge
and the spirit in your words is
clearly not the Holy Spirit.
As far as Fr. Seraphim Rose goes,
maybe she didn't research the guy
enough, or maybe you are just
tearing him down the same way
you are trying to tear her down.
As I recall, it was just some
of his Gregorian chant that she
found soothing. She never even
mentioned his theology.
Buzz off.
from last thread
Anonymous 7:08,
What arrogance you display. My requests have only been to keep debates civil. What you fail to realize is that most of the folks you have seen me defend are others that I know as PEOPLE and not some random name on a screen. Every one of them has had some form of disagreement with me, whether it be about doctrine, false doctrine, names or players. Some of those disagreements have become rather heated. Here is the difference between us though, knowing them as people I have enough respect for them to keep my debates with them personal and not out in a public forum. It is arrogant of you to assume I have never spoken to any of them about a difference of faith. It is arrogant of you to assume what the Lord may or may not present me with as a short coming in my life. It is arrogant of you to assume anything about me as a person.
Have we ever met? Have we ever spoken on the phone? Have we ever exchanged a single communication? If we have you would have to be the first to admit that I have probably offered you something of myself. Given that I don't know who you are I can't say with certainty, but I suspect given your tone that we have. I respect this forum for it's intent. I respect those that come here that attempt to adhere to it.
I respect the PEOPLE here that I have come to know quite personally. Before you go slinging rocks in my direction, perhaps you should ask yourself if you know my actions 24 hours a day. Perhaps you should ponder what level my interactions with others who post here extends beyond this blog. Maybe you should ask some of the other people, or maybe you should just ask me instead of assuming something you have no knowledge of.
Hmm, tracking back, the recent increase in negativity came about when comments were made pointing at Warren and others. I have seen words claming to be speaking truth in love but sounding more like the accusser of the bretheren. Lot of energy and vileness being spewed for what purpose? Burying the discussion on the topics at hand.
Hmm, tracking back, the recent increase in negativity came about when comments were made pointing at Warren and others. I have seen words claming to be speaking truth in love but sounding more like the accusser of the bretheren. Lot of energy and vileness being spewed for what purpose? Burying the discussion on the topics at hand.
To A Fellow Watcher 4:06 pm
THANKS!
Constance
Considering that the attacks started commensurate with the coverage of Rick Warren, maybe RICHARD ABANES??!!! He's caused much mischief elsewhere!
Craig,
LOL Since I am not trying to "convert" you, I have no problem with your honestly and respectfully disagreeing with me as long as you correctly understand what it is that you are disagreeing with.
Of course you are correct about our using different Bibles, and that beliefs that we Catholics would regard as Biblical a Protestant would not.
I used the term "prevailing" loosely here. I think Protestants agree that it was Peter to whom the Father revealed that Jesus was "the Christ the Son of the living God." The disagreement arises over whether or not Christ intended for the papacy to continue in history.
Whether or not you believe that Christ intended for the papacy to continue in history, you nevertheless have the Biblical account of the revelation entrusted to the Apostle Peter that Jesus is God.
Don't forget, the Bible is included in my Rule of Faith too. If I were born in a place where I had never heard of the "successor of Peter" but had a Bible, I would still be able to learn what God the Father revealed to Peter about who Jesus is. That revelation has never changed and never will.
____________________
When it came to the heretical gnostics, they inevitably either denied the humanity or the divinity of Christ.
Their "emanationist" creation myth is redolent of Darwin.
Each of the gnostics was claiming to be in possession of "secret" falsely so-called "knowledge" received directly from God.
Most were involved with magic and the occult and many incorporated what is now known as "sex magic" into their rituals.
Simon Magus, the first of the great gnostic heretics recorded in the Acts of the Apostles is called the "father of all heretics." He is the gnostic heretic who was overthrown by Peter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Magus
LOL I hope I have been making sense.
Susanna,
I understand I'm not likely to convert you or vice versa; but, I did want to make the point about the Apocrypha to other readers who may not know where some of the Catholic doctrines originate.
...The disagreement arises over whether or not Christ intended for the papacy to continue in history.
Whether or not you believe that Christ intended for the papacy to continue in history, you nevertheless have the Biblical account of the revelation entrusted to the Apostle Peter that Jesus is God.
I would say first we would have to agree that Peter was the first "pope" in order to decide whether the 'papacy' should continue. While there is no denying the Father chose to give Simon Peter the revelation that Jesus was the Christ, this does not mean that Peter was the Pope. Using similar logic, one could argue that since Paul was given the vision of the 3rd Heaven that he should be given some sort of extra title the other Apostles did not have.
The primary difference arises in the interpretation of "petra" and "petros." I contend that Jesus is the "Rock" here just like in other NT Scripture; and, in OT there other references of Jesus Christ as the Rock as well. These include Moses striking the "Rock" which provided "living water" in Exodus 17:6 and the dream of Daniel which he interpreted to Nebuchadnezzar in which the "Rock" was clearly Christ.
Well, until someone can provide us with another strong 'voice' exposing the New Age Movement every single day (who is also backed up by 30 years of extensive research)...Constance remains our voice of choice!!!
(So, good luck in your search...and try not to let the door hit you on your way out.)
Craig,
Let's put it another way. We can at least agree that Peter was an Apostle whether or not we agree that he was the first pope, right?
The fact remains that according to the Scriptures, Peter was the Apostle to whom the revelation of Jesus' identity was given and he was also one of the eyewitnesses who saw the risen Lord.
The word "rock" refers not to Peter per se but to the faith of his confession.
Because the revelation to Peter is a matter of faith, it is not demonstrative knowledge and it can never be disproved. Not even by the powers of hell.
So its okay to compromise on racism, and its okay to pick and choose the teachings you like from even Gnostics. Okay! Thanks for setting me straight!
By the way, to the stoodge who said the word "syncretism" is a bigoted word, Cumbey's book , is filled with the use of it, so perhaps you should tell her your theory. I disagree with you.
And as someone already posted, Arabic Christians do NOT use Allah, but instead "allah alAb, to distinguish the Biblical God from the pagan Meccan deity.
Anyhow, thats my last on it here as I agree with another anon. I will however tell everyone I know to avoid this blog, to avoid CC, and that this is a religiously syncretistic cultus grown up around CC.
Hope none of you burns in hell, and I'll pray you dont.
Susanna,
As I read over my last post, I hope I didn't appear to come off as harsh in any way because that was not my intent. Sometimes in my attempts to keep a neutral tone it just doesn't come out exactly as I intend.
The fact remains that according to the Scriptures, Peter was the Apostle to whom the revelation of Jesus' identity was given and he was also one of the eyewitnesses who saw the risen Lord.
Yes, we agree that Peter was definitely one of the twelve. And, I'm sure we'll agree that Paul was an Apostle as well. And, Paul was unique in that he was the only one who had an encounter of Jesus post-Ascension as recorded in Acts 9. In addition, Paul is certainly the one who contributed the most NT Scripture in terms of books/letters (yes, I'm sure John was very close if not actually superior in terms of the number of words written). While this differentiates him from the others, I do not consider him as any better or of higher authority than the others. He had his own unique role to fill. This is not unlike Peter who had his own role.
Someone let me know when the blog goes back to exposing the New Age movement. The Catholic vs Protestant discussion has been going on for hundreds of years with no end in sight.
If the New Age movement can move Protestants into agreeing with each other, let alone with any other religion, it will be a miracle from God.
Right now the line up for CBS, NBC and ABC this evening looks more interesting than this blog
and that line up is pretty boring.
Dorothy
Dorothy
Craig,
No you didn't come across as harsh.
And yes I do agree that Paul was an Apostle who became known as the
"Apostle to the Gentiles" and that he did have a post-Ascension encounter with the Risen Lord which was different from the encounters had by the other Apostles with the risen Lord.
Paul's encunter with Christ must have been a pretty dramatic and profound experience because up until that point Paul - while still named Saul - was persecuting Christians and is even believed to have been present at the stoning of St. Steven, the first martyr.
WEU issues a statement, dated 11/3/10, entitled "Defence and security: the UK and France take the lead."
http://tinyurl.com/29tozcn
or
http://www.assembly-weu.org/en/presse/cp/2010/40_2010.php?PHPSESSID=f3137d60
Here's betting for sure the nasty ones were Abanes!
"S.M." = SADOMASOCHISTIC?
I agree Abanes is nasty - it wouldn't surprise me if he was posting anonymously here.
Dear Constance,
Hope you are having a pleasant evening.
According to the following EU Observer quote, dated 10/29/10, EU political power is coalescing back to the EU Council, where it was before the Lisbon Treaty went into effect, and where the WEU 10 nations apparently hold sway, as Mr. Herb Peters noted (“power resided in the Council,” according to an article by The Guardian, where the very good doctor was then Secretary-General; see Mr. Peter’s 2005 DVD at http://tinyurl.com/2e8oao3 , point #41 in particular):
“The method EU leaders chose to achieve the change will be via what is called the “special revision procedure,” introduced by the Lisbon Treaty, under which the treaty can be amended by the European Council alone,..”
http://euobserver.com/18/31163
Thanks for being a watcher.
Sincerely,
A fellow watcher
P.S. Thanks to
http://tinyurl.com/2el4a3f
for the link.
Catholic cleric: Christ nullified God's promises to the Jews
http://tinyurl.com/2vgwr8y
A Catholic synod called at the Vatican to address the rising persecution of Christian in the Middle East wrapped up on Saturday with a joint statement that focused a lot of attention on demanding Israel end its “occupation” of Arab lands.
The gathering was meant to address the various acts of persecution, intimidation and discrimination that are resulting in a severe dwindling of Christian communities across the region.
But the bulk of the two-week meeting was spent discussing how Israel is the root cause of all the Middle East’s woes, including those faced by its Christians.
The final statement reflected that position. It listed the “occupation” of Arab lands, the building of Israel’s security barrier, military checkpoints, the jailing of terrorists (defined in the statement as “political prisoners”) and the general disruption of Palestinian life as some of the main reasons behind the exodus of Palestinian Christians and Muslim attacks on the Jewish state.
Cyril Salim Bustros, the Lebanon-born Greek archbishop of Our Lady of the Annunciation in Boston, Massachusetts was responsible for delivering the final statement.
In clarifying remarks, he stated that “the Holy Scriptures cannot be used to justify the return of Jews to Israel and the displacement of the Palestinians, to justify the occupation by Israel of Palestinian lands.”
He then escalated the situation by declaring that the original promises made by God to the children of Israel “were nullified by Christ. There is no longer a chosen people.”
Bustros rejected the idea of Israel as “the Jewish state,” and insisted that eventually all the so-called “Palestinian refugees” must return to the land, a sure recipe for the demographic destruction of the world’s only Jewish nation-state.
Mordechai Levi, Israel’s ambassador to the Vatican, decried Bustros’ comments and the damage they had done to strengthening ties between Israel and the Church.
A Vatican spokesman later stated that the Church's official position is the synod's declaration, and not Mr. Bustros' explanatory remarks. However, he did not outright reject what Mr. Bustros said, even though it would appear to contradict more recent Vatican declarations that God's promises to the Jews remain intact.
It should be noted that the synod declaration, in its section addressed to the Jews, insisted that "recourse to...biblical positions which use the Word of God to wrongly justify injustices is not acceptable."
The only thing Israel and its supporters use the Bible to justify in this case is the Jews' right to the land, including Judea and Samaria. If the Vatican is now saying that the Bible and the divine promises therein no longer give the Jews claim to the land, as Mr. Bustros tried to clarify, then for many the Vatican's commitment to its earlier declaration regarding the Jews and God's promises to them remains at least partially in question.
Israel critical over Mideast synod conclusions
http://tinyurl.com/33rwhmd
...We express our disappointment that this important synod has become a forum for political attacks on Israel in the best history of Arab propaganda," Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon of Israel said in a statement Sunday.
"The synod was hijacked by an anti-Israel majority," he said.
The meeting was convened by Pope Benedict XVI to discuss the future of embattled Christians in the largely Muslim region. It formally ended with a Mass in St. Peter's Basilica on Sunday during which the pontiff called for greater religious freedom and peace in the Middle East.
But the bishops attending the gathering issued their conclusions on Saturday.
They said they had "reflected" on the suffering and insecurity in which Israelis live and on the status of Jerusalem, a city holy to Christians, Jews and Muslims. While the bishops condemned terrorism and anti-Semitism, they laid much of the blame for the conflict squarely on Israel.
They listed the occupation of Palestinian lands, Israel's separation barrier with the West Bank, its military checkpoints, political prisoners, demolition of homes and disturbance of Palestinians' socio-economic lives as factors that have made life increasingly difficult for Palestinians.
Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor said it was absurd that the Jewish state had been condemned since Israel is the only country in the region where Christians are actually thriving....
To Fellow Watcher 10:04
Again, THANK YOU. "Pandora's box" being opened, huh!
Constance
Thanks, Craig.
The following came as commentary on a devotional I received yesterday:
Whenever the message of your words and the message of your actions conflict, the message of your actions will always win out. You may speak gruffly but act kindly, and you will be known as having a hard shell but being a "softie" on the inside. Or you may speak well but act selfishly, and you will be known as a hypocrite. There is no accusation leveled at Christians more consistently than that of hypocrisy. Our lives must support the reality of the Gospel, or the Gospel will not be taken seriously and we will be resented. Paul writes: "We were well pleased to impart to you not only the gospel of God, but also our own lives" (v. 8). Unless we are willing to impart our lives in ministry, our words will mean little.
Finding that balance is not so easy.
Anybody notice how quiet it became after Peacebringer pointed out the Rick Warren timing and shortly thereafter somebody pointed out a belief that the Anonymous poster could well have been Rick Abanes, a loyal member of Warren's Church. Abanes claims to fight anti-Semitism and the New Age Movement, but he is really an agent provocateur operating in cow bird fashion.
Craig,
Well, if the Catholic Church declares that the Jews are not the chosen people, who are we to argue?
I have been concerned about some similarities between what is called Latter Rain, of which Manifest Sons of God doctrine is a large part, and the Papacy. Latter Rain is most definitely New Age teaching.
Here's a snippet from something I wrote over 2 years ago with most of it taken from quotes of Pope Benedict XVI near World Youth Day, 2008. I'll insert weblinks to correspond with my footnotes [xx]:
The papacy has had close ties to the UN since its inception.[26] Pope Benedict XVI “supports robust global governance, in a fashion that has long bewildered neoconservative critics of the United Nations in the United States and elsewhere.”[26] [Emphasis mine] Prior to the Pope’s visit of April 18 of this year, the President of the UN General Assembly, Serjan Kerim anticipated that the visit would be "special" since “more than a billion Catholics in the world share many of the concerns and aspirations of the UN.”[27]
[26] http://tinyurl.com/2c79kbo
[27] http://tinyurl.com/2alkh2d
The pope and the UN secretary-general “are two eminent moral authorities in the world,” Archbishop Migliore [Celestino Migliore, the Vatican’s UN nuncio or ‘ambassador’] said noting that the UN secretary-general [currently Ban Ki-moon of South Korea] “is oftentimes referred to as the ‘secular pope.’”
…The Holy See is an international actor of rank and has an important role to play in addressing a number of major international challenges,” he said. One of those challenges, he added, is “religious interfaith dialogue, where the pope has taken important initiatives lately.
…Being at the forefront of the U.N. initiative for an alliance of civilizations,” he said, Spain was “particularly pleased with the pope’s call to interreligious and intercultural dialogue based on the dignity of the human being, which can only be of benefit to the United Nations and international community as a whole.[28] [All emphasis mine]
[28] http://tinyurl.com/2dn849q
[I understand the above is not THE Alliance of Civilizations; but, nonetheless this is troubling in its insinuation.]
cont:
porI have been concerned about some similarities between what is called Latter Rain, of which Manifest Sons of God doctrine is a large part, and the Papacy. Latter Rain is most definitely New Age teaching.
Here's a snippet from something I wrote over 2 years ago with most of it taken from quotes of Pope Benedict XVI near World Youth Day, 2008. I'll insert weblinks to correspond with my footnotes [xx]:
The papacy has had close ties to the UN since its inception.[26] Pope Benedict XVI “supports robust global governance, in a fashion that has long bewildered neoconservative critics of the United Nations in the United States and elsewhere.”[26] [Emphasis mine] Prior to the Pope’s visit of April 18 of this year, the President of the UN General Assembly, Serjan Kerim anticipated that the visit would be "special" since “more than a billion Catholics in the world share many of the concerns and aspirations of the UN.”[27]
[26] http://tinyurl.com/2c79kbo
[27] http://tinyurl.com/2alkh2d
The pope and the UN secretary-general “are two eminent moral authorities in the world,” Archbishop Migliore [Celestino Migliore, the Vatican’s UN nuncio or ‘ambassador’] said noting that the UN secretary-general [currently Ban Ki-moon of South Korea] “is oftentimes referred to as the ‘secular pope.’”
…The Holy See is an international actor of rank and has an important role to play in addressing a number of major international challenges,” he said. One of those challenges, he added, is “religious interfaith dialogue, where the pope has taken important initiatives lately.
…Being at the forefront of the U.N. initiative for an alliance of civilizations,” he said, Spain was “particularly pleased with the pope’s call to interreligious and intercultural dialogue based on the dignity of the human being, which can only be of benefit to the United Nations and international community as a whole.[28] [All emphasis mine]
[28] http://tinyurl.com/2dn849q
[I understand the above is not THE Alliance of Civilizations; but, nonetheless this is troubling in its insinuation.]
cont:
cont:
At the 23rd World Youth Day in Sydney, Australia on July 20, 2008… …Pope Benedict XVI suggested New Age unity:
“In today’s Gospel, [cf. Luke 4:21], Jesus proclaims that a new age has begun, in which the Holy Spirit will be poured out upon all humanity.” [31] [Emphasis mine]
[31] http://tinyurl.com/2ap4zxq
In context the Luke verse is referring to the fulfillment of Isaiah 61:1-2 – a Messianic prophetic passage. While there is no mention of the Holy Spirit being poured out in either the Luke or Isaiah verses, I concede that the beginning of Jesus’ earthly ministry would ultimately culminate in his death on the cross and outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost in Acts 2. However, this quote above sounds suspiciously similar to Latter Rain[32, 33] teaching especially when taken together with the following:
At the Mass, the pope prayed that the World Youth Day experience would be a new Pentecost for all the participants, marking a new outpouring of the gifts of the Holy Spirit.[34] [Emphasis mine]
[32] http://tinyurl.com/2ccmr28
[34] http://tinyurl.com/27orl7t
Additionally, Pope Benedict in his push for ecumenism warned we should not let doctrine divide the Church – another aspect of Latter Rain.
“…We must guard against any temptation to view doctrine as divisive and hence an impediment to the seemingly more pressing and immediate task of improving the world in which we live.” [35] [Emphasis mine]
[35] http://tinyurl.com/253lsag
[additional note: I understand the RCC’s position on doctrine; but, it’s 2nd part of what he says above that makes this troubling. The papacy wants all to unite to the RCC which is similar to what those of the Latter Rain persuasion wants.]
cont:
cont:
Note that the pope uses the term ‘new age’ three times in the following short passage. Certainly, Pope Benedict must be aware of the negative implications of the term.
"…Empowered by the Spirit, and drawing upon faith's rich vision, a new generation of Christians is being called to help build a world in which God's gift of life is welcomed, respected and cherished -- not rejected, feared as a threat and destroyed," the Bishop of Rome affirmed. " new age in which love is not greedy or self-seeking, but pure, faithful and genuinely free, open to others, respectful of their dignity, seeking their good, radiating joy and beauty. new age in which hope liberates us from the shallowness, apathy and self-absorption which deaden our souls and poison our relationships." "Dear young friends," he urged, "the Lord is asking you to be prophets of this new age, messengers of his love, drawing people to the Father and building a future of hope for all humanity." The world and the Church need this renewal, Benedict XVI affirmed. "The Church especially needs the gifts of young people, all young people," he said. “She needs to grow in the power of the Spirit who even now gives joy to your youth and inspires you to serve the Lord with gladness…” [36]
[36] unfortunately this link is no longer valid
[additional note: the focus on youth “being called” is very similar to Latter Rain. This passage above also alludes a “new Pentecost” which Pope Benedict has referred to on other occasions.]
I should point out that the belief that the "Church" has replaced Israel -- termed Replacement Theology -- is a tenet of the Latter Rain movement.
Anon 2:24
Anti-Semitism is evil.The problem CC faces is that because she compromises her stand against it by broadcasting from a network that promotes it, her message is mixed with your racism, whether she agrees with anti-semitism or not. She's irresponsible to continue to do so when other options are there which granted dont cater to her vanity.She's not a racist, but she is being inconsistent and irresponsible. This is one of the reasons she is marginalized and on the extreme fring. The greater Christian community doesn't apparently buy into her, so she's surrounded by racists like you unfortunately.
Here are some links that provide legitimacy to my last quote in which in the weblink is now gone:
http://tinyurl.com/2bbgl9f
http://tinyurl.com/2d6jm8f
http://tinyurl.com/23oshwb
scientist unveil moving 3D holograms (from Drudge)
http://tinyurl.com/2cpoul3
To 8:38 a.m.
GOOD MORNING, RICHARD ABANES (OR AGENT)
I have consistently all my life fought anti-Semitism and those listening to my radio program know that I do so there energetically as well. That may well be the only anti-anti-Semitic message that audience for the most part hears!
Richard Abanes (if he is the one and I too suspect him) has made a phony show of pretending to fight anti-Semitism and the New Age Movement when the real fight has been against me and those offering solid information so he may cover the collective posteriors of New Agers such as Ken Blanchard, Rick Warren and others he has been working so hard to sanitize. Problem was however, it appears he forgot to use an air freshener!
Constance
As soon as I can reach Rich of Medford, he will refresh my memory on how to use the various Google site tracking devices and then I will have a much better idea of who our insulting interloper is. I deeply suspect RICHARD ABANES!
CONSTANCE
And RICHARD ABANES AND WHOEVER OR WHATEVER ELSE IT MIGHT BE, you owe my readers an APOLOGY. There are definitely no racists here. That's the company YOU RUN WITH!
Constance
Could be Tal Brook, too???
Nah, Richard Abanes has been the one with the irresponsible sloppy pen lately making attacks on most reputable anti-New Age ministries.
Constance
Hmmmm, attacks on Fr. Seraphim Rose as "homosexual" . . . interesting coming from a DANCER, ACTOR, PRETTY BOY! If they are from Abanes, the picture is getting pretty interesting! Speaking of "inconsistent"!
"I should point out that the belief that the "Church" has replaced Israel -- termed Replacement Theology -- is a tenet of the Latter Rain movement."
Craig,
rather than 'replacing' Israel, which implies the Jewish people are cut off with no hope of salvation, and may act as a semantic device to bludgen people with, could the Church not indeed be a CONTINUATION (as opposed to 'replacement') of Israel? Surely there is only Salvation for those who put their trust in Jesus
Christ, where we become spiritual offspring of Abraham. Throughout the Old & New Testaments, obedience to God has always rightly been required. For me, the point is that there is a tremendous and sure hope for both Jews and Gentiles who trust in Jesus Christ. God is not a respecter of persons, and there is NO DIFFERENCE between Greek and Jew for those in Jesus Christ. Any other way is a robber and a thief.
It is sin that cuts us off from God, not race or lineage, and it is the simulaneous repentance from our sins and accepting Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior, knowing nothing else saves us, both Jew and Gentile, but the blood of Jesus Christ washing away our sins. This is the truth, and there is nothing Anti-Semitic about it.
It is not right for anyone to, for example, choose only the first five books of the Old Testament and dismiss the rest of them. Or, to choose to choose all but Genesis or Isaiah. Likewise, it is not right to refuse the New Testament and the teachings of Jesus Christ. I do not say this to single out Jewish people in a deriding way, but to highlight the point that there is no Salvation outside Jesus Christ, and there is Salvation for those who knowingly put their trust in Jesus Christ and obey His Commandments.
God bless you mightily,
R.
To the person attacking Constance, you provide no evidence indicting her for what you are attempting to construe. You should attend to the log in your own eye first before trying to get a speck, which we cannot trust you identify rightly, out of someone else's, i.e. Constance's. The language you use is course and vile. Your unjsutifiable and hate-filled anger is tantamout to murder in the eyes of God. You are like your father, the Devil, who was a murderer and a liar from the very beginning! Repent. If you have something separably evidenced, and directly proving your assertions bring it. I use the qualifying words, separable and direct, here, otherwise, hold your peace, and refrain from your vile expletives.
May you repent so that God blesses you richly.
R.
From WIKIPEDIA:
"Richard Abanes (pronounced /əˈbɑːnɨs/)—known as Richie Abanes in connection to his work as a professional singer, dancer, and actor—is a bestselling and award-winning American writer. As an author/journalist, Abanes specializes in the area of socio-religious issues, cults, the occult, world religions, the entertainment industry, and pop culture. Since 1994 he has authored/co-authored twenty books (as of 2009) covering a broad range of topics.
In 1997, for his work on "intolerance" in North America (see American Militias: Rebellion, Racism, and Religion), he received an award from The Gustavus Myers Center for the Study of Bigotry and Human Rights. Also in 1997, Abanes won the Evangelical Press Association's Higher Goals In Journalism Award for his article on various religions in America.
As a lecturer on diverse social, religious, and historical topics, he has been a guest speaker at various institutions, including the Simon Wiesenthal Center, Caltech, Mensa, California Baptist University, and Biola University. Abanes also has been interviewed on hundreds of radio/TV programs and networks including BBC, MSNBC, CNN, Extra, and Hard Copy as an authority on cults/religion, pop culture, and the entertainment industry."
Here's betting he didn't write all 20 of those books himself either!
To CRAIG and others:
Here is the Biblical problem, as I see it, with REPLACEMENT or CONTINUATION theology:
'For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?
25For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
26And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
27For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
28As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father's sakes.
From Romans, Chapter 11 (KJV)
"I should point out that the belief that the "Church" has replaced Israel -- termed Replacement Theology -- is a tenet of the Latter Rain movement."
Craig,
rather than 'replacing' Israel, which implies the Jewish people are cut off with no hope of salvation, and may act as a semantic device to bludgen people with, could the Church not indeed be a CONTINUATION (as opposed to 'replacement') of Israel? Surely there is only Salvation for those who put their trust in Jesus
Christ, where we become spiritual offspring of Abraham. Throughout the Old & New Testaments, obedience to God has always rightly been required. For me, the point is that there is a tremendous and sure hope for both Jews and Gentiles who trust in Jesus Christ. God is not a respecter of persons, and there is NO DIFFERENCE between Greek and Jew for those in Jesus Christ. Any other way is a robber and a thief.
It is sin that cuts us off from God, not race or lineage, and it is the simulaneous repentance from our sins and accepting Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior, knowing nothing else saves us, both Jew and Gentile, but the blood of Jesus Christ washing away our sins. This is the truth, and there is nothing Anti-Semitic about it.
It is not right for anyone to, for example, choose only the first five books of the Old Testament and dismiss the rest of them. Or, to choose to choose all but Genesis or Isaiah. Likewise, it is not right to refuse the New Testament and the teachings of Jesus Christ. I do not say this to single out Jewish people in a deriding way, but to highlight the point that there is no Salvation outside Jesus Christ, and there is Salvation for those who knowingly put their trust in Jesus Christ and obey His Commandments.
God bless you mightily,
R.
To the person attacking Constance, you provide no evidence indicting her for what you are attempting to construe. You should attend to the log in your own eye first before trying to get a speck, which we cannot trust you identify rightly, out of someone else's, i.e. Constance's. The language you use is course and vile. Your unjsutifiable and hate-filled anger is tantamout to murder in the eyes of God. You are like your father, the Devil, who was a murderer and a liar from the very beginning! Repent. If you have something separably evidenced, and directly proving your assertions bring it. I use the qualifying words, separable and direct, here, otherwise, hold your peace, and refrain from your vile expletives.
May you repent so that God blesses you richly.
R.
I would also read Romans Chapter 11 with Zechariah chapter 12 in mind -- events which will not happen until the near end of time:
"Zechariah 12
1The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, saith the LORD, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him.
2Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people round about, when they shall be in the siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem.
3And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it.
4In that day, saith the LORD, I will smite every horse with astonishment, and his rider with madness: and I will open mine eyes upon the house of Judah, and will smite every horse of the people with blindness.
5And the governors of Judah shall say in their heart, The inhabitants of Jerusalem shall be my strength in the LORD of hosts their God.
6In that day will I make the governors of Judah like an hearth of fire among the wood, and like a torch of fire in a sheaf; and they shall devour all the people round about, on the right hand and on the left: and Jerusalem shall be inhabited again in her own place, even in Jerusalem.
7The LORD also shall save the tents of Judah first, that the glory of the house of David and the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem do not magnify themselves against Judah.
8In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the LORD before them.
9And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.
10And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.
11In that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem, as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon.
12And the land shall mourn, every family apart; the family of the house of David apart, and their wives apart; the family of the house of Nathan apart, and their wives apart;"
Dear Constance,
I agree that we are grafted in to the olive tree. This means, however, there can only be one tree. There is not Israel, as in the Jewish physical race on the one hand, and the Church on the other. Indeed, I believe that the Church is spiritually Israel, and that this includes all those of the tribe of Judah and other Israelite tribes that put their trust in Jesus Christ as well as all those gentiles that put their trust in Jesus Christ. I see a vast difference of interpretation, in the way the terms may be understood, between 'replacement' and 'continuation', the latter term, which I agree with, refering to the fulfilment and fruition of the Heavenly Father's promise of Salvation to both Jew and Gentile, through Jesus Christ our Lord, and His propitiation for us, so we may be cleansed of sin, and His Resurrection.
What can wash my, or any of our, sins away? Nothing but the blood of Jesus Christ!
Thank you for your patience,
May God bless you greatly,
R.
Anonymous R. (and thanks for providing the designation "R." to differentiate from the other anons):
I agree with you. I also was going to cite the Romans verses that Constance has already cited.
Latter Rain adherents go so far as to change OT prophecies related to Israel and apply it to the "church." THAT is anti-semitic. Of course, I cannot speak for the RCC as I'm not sure exactly what the view of the RCC is. However, the news article I referenced above from Oct 22 is troubling.
To extract from the passage:
YOU ARE BELOVED FOR THE GOSPEL'S SAKE
THEY ARE BELOVED FOR THEIR FATHERS' SAKE
One tree, but two camps partaking of it as I read it.
Constance
Dorothy thinks we should quit all this Protestant/Catholic squabbling and get back to discussing the “new age”. Constance apparently believes Allah is the same as the God of the Bible and cites Alice Bailey and the Theosophists to defend her position. And now the focus has been shifted to uncovering just who these "anonymous trolls" really are.
What’s wrong with this picture?
First, let me just say that by disabling the anonymous option from this blog, trolling would be eliminated instantly. But that’s just too easy.
The so-called “Plan” described by the Theosophists outlines a strategy that pits the three monotheistic faiths against each other in the hope that all three will engage in a fight to the death. Out of the ashes of this global conflict will arise the Phoenix, the so-called “new religion”. Do I have that right?
Some define the “new age” as nothing more than a return to ancient paganism, the worship of a plurality of demonic spirits. Others believe the “new age” dawns when mankind falls under a mass delusion and realizes that “we are all god”, when humanity crosses a specific threshold and awakens to some new “global consciousness”, some sort of “spiritual unity”. Resisting the trend towards division by defending all forms of “monotheism” apparently defines one as a “watchman”.
But even the devil is monotheistic, wanting God’s throne for himself.
If one is going to rely on Alice Bailey as a star witness, then one should vet her reliability and integrity. Somehow I don’t think Bailey passes the sniff test. There is a strong odor of sulfur emanating from her life’s work. Surely the Satanic deception operates on multiple levels, but one fact is reliable, there is nothing new under the sun.
In Matthew 24:2, Jesus tells us plainly what to expect. While his disciples admired the buildings of the temple, Jesus said unto them
“See ye not all these things? Verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.”
And in verses 9 through 14, Jesus goes on to say:
“Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake. And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another. And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold. But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.”
Jesus did not go to the cross to defend the three great monotheistic faiths. He went there to declare the love of God.
To (hopefully) make my position more clear and not subject to misinterpretation:
The Abrahamic Covenant will be fulfilled by Jew and Gentile. Currently both are being grafted in; however, according to Romans 11:25, there's a temporary 'blindness' of the Jewish nation to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. When the 'time of the Gentiles' is completed the remnant -- true Israel -- will be "unblinded" and thereby saved. This will be the culmination -- the ultimate fulfillment -- of the Abrahamic Covenant.
That is my understanding as per Romans chapters 9-11 and other Scripture.
Constance
All I can say is you must be doing something RIGHT because the Lord told us the world would hate those that followed Him ;)
This thread has shown such strong hate that can only come from the devil.
May God's peace be with you!
Bella
Thank you Craig.
I certainly do not think the Church has replaced Israel, implying that the Israelite tribes including the tribe of Judah, have been cut off. I do believe, however, that Salvation is available to all mankind only through knowingly accepting Jesus Christ and obeying His and the Heavenly Father's Commandments. There is no other way, it is not a two-tier road to Salvation.
If the latter rain movement claim there is no Salvation available NOW to the Jewish people, that is Anti-Semitic, untrue, and wicked. I do believe, I repeat, that Salvation is available to all mankind only because of our Lord's propitiation for our sins by His death on the cross and His Resurrection, it is our believing on Him, not denying the Son, and what He has done for us, and obedience to God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit that saves any of us.
The notion the Jews were cut off because of Jesus Christ's crucifixion is antithetical to the Biblical message. Jesus Christ died on the Cross for all mankind. So that all, both Jew and Gentile, that turn to God Humbly, believing on Jesus Christ, may be reconciled to the Father by the precious and cleansing blood of His Son.
God is not a respecter of persons.
Moreover, we all put Jesus Christ on the cross, not just the Jews or the Romans as some might have it, because we've all sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God. Jesus CHOSE out of His, the Father's and the Holy Spirit's Love for us to die on the cross.
No man could have had the power to nail Jesus Christ to the Cross if the Heavenly Father had not willed it for our sakes.
I am sure you know this, but please extend your patience to me for my exhibiting the point and also for my repetition, which help to clarify my position.
Sorry I haven't yet looked at the link you mention, I will do so after posting this.
God bless you, and thank you once more.
R.
Interesting comments in the Wikipedia arrticle comment section:
"This page needs some formatting, and wikifying. The structure of the article needs work. There are probably some POV issues as well. --Andrew c 01:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
There is no "probably" with the POV issues. If this wasn't written by Abanes himself, it was his PR guy. Definitely needs work -- I added more appropriate tags to describe the problems. Midnightcoffee 18:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree it sounds an awful lot as if it was written by Abanes himself. I have had some personal go-arounds with him in email and this articles sounds like him. It needs more neutrality as well as more citation. FannyMay 02:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I would certainly suggest that the wording be altered that references his "bestselling author" status, since as a non-US citizen I hadn't even heard of him before I started researching Mormonism to a deep degree. I feel it's quite "weasel-wordy" to say that he's an American author and then say separately that he's a "bestselling author" because the way that is done implies he's a bestselling international author, which clearly isn't the case judging by the fact that Amazon.com rank his book #25 out of 100 in the category "Mormonism: Controversial" and only in the late 617000's as an overall sales rank. Whisperwolf (talk) 02:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)"
Moreover, we all put Jesus Christ on the cross, not just the Jews or the Romans as some might have it, because we've all sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God. Jesus CHOSE out of His, the Father's and the Holy Spirit's Love for us to die on the cross.
AMEN to that!
Dear Craig,
I agree entirely with your point at 10:31 AM. I do, however, believe that it is still possible, despite a general blindness, for individual Jewish people to come to accept Jesus Christ now, and see.
I believe also that God will miraculously remove the blindness in these last days from the Jewish nation, which has only been allowed, as I understand it, so that the fulness of the gentiles may come in. I reiterate the proviso here, however, being that it is still equally possible for individual Jewish people to be drawn to Jesus Christ now, as it is for individual gentiles. This may sound contradictory, I do not see it as that.
Moreover, there is a blindness which rests upon all people, both Jew and gentile, that have not yet accepted the Salvation of Jesus Christ and His Lordship over their lives.
R.
On this "New Pentecost:"
"Pentecost" refers to Acts chapter 2 which Peter says was a fulfillment of a part of Joel 2:28-32. Latter Rain belief is that there's a future fulfillment of a "new Pentecost" (the "Latter Rain" as they reference the NKJV or Joel 2:18-23 as opposed to the "former rain" of the Acts 2 Pentecost) which will far eclipse the first Pentecost.
Depending on which LR adherent is writing about this and the interpretation thereof, it infers a universalism. My concern is that depending on how one reads some of Pope Benedict's comments they could be construed in the same way.
To make it clear: there was only ONE PENTECOST. The significance was that it was the first time the Holy Spirit indwelled believers in Christ. From that point forward ALL true believers would be indwelt with the Holy Spirit. Therefore, there is no "new Pentecost" to come.
"as they reference the NKJV or Joel 2:18-23" should be:
"as they reference the NKJV OF Joel 2:18-23"
"R."
Yes, I agree with you and that's why I used the words:
...Currently both are being grafted in; however,...
in my post.
Regarding Abanes: I've had my own go 'rounds with him.
Thanks again Craig,
God bless you.
R.
R.:
And the same to you!
P.S. Craig,
I completely agree with your points at 10:57 A.M.
We know that the Holy Spirit is poured out upon all true believers, as has been the case since Pentecost.
The Holy Spirit cannot 'eclipse' Himself, and His Works. We know that many of the things of the Old Testament were a shadow of the things to come in Christ Jesus, which our Lord fulfilled.
For adherents of LR or anyone to imply that the miraculous blessings of the Holy Spirit at Pentacost have somehow wained or that they are to be overshadowed by a supposed latter Pentecost is a denial of the Glory of God the Holy Spirit and the finished Work of Jesus Christ on the cross.
R.
Dorothy thinks we should quit all this Protestant/Catholic squabbling and get back to discussing the “new age”. Constance apparently believes Allah is the same as the God of the Bible and cites Alice Bailey and the Theosophists to defend her position.
And now the focus has been shifted to uncovering just who all these anonymous trolls really are.
What’s wrong with this picture?
First, let me just say that by disabling the anonymous option from this blog, trolling would be eliminated instantly. But that’s just too easy. Better to play the sleuth and continue the intrigue.
Some define the “new age” as nothing more than a return to ancient paganism, the worship of a plurality of demonic spirits. Others believe the “new age” dawns when mankind suddenly realizes that “we are all god”, the point when humanity awakens to some new “global consciousness”, some sort of “spiritual unity”.
The so-called “Plan” described by the Theosophists outlines a strategy that pits the three great monotheistic faiths against each other in the hope that they will engage in a fight to the death. Out of the ashes of this global conflict will arise the Phoenix, a so-called “new religion”. Apparently, resisting this trend by defending all forms of “monotheism” defines one as an acceptable “watchman”. But even the devil is monotheistic.
The point is that if one is going to rely on Alice Bailey as a star witness, then one should vet her reliability and integrity. Somehow I don’t think Bailey passes the sniff test. There is a strong odor of sulfur emanating from her life’s work. We know that the Satanic deception operates on multiple levels, but one fact is reliable, there is nothing new under the sun.
In Matthew 24:2, Jesus tells us plainly what to expect. While his disciples admired the buildings of the temple, Jesus said unto them, “See ye not all these things? Verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.”
Jesus goes on to tell us that He did not go to the cross to defend the three great monotheistic faiths so everybody could just get along. He went there to declare the love of God. He went there to separate the wheat from the chaff, the sheep from the goats , and claim all those who belong to Him.
To attack someone as being evil, or a hate monger, simply because they cause division or point out errors of doctrine, is a page right out of the enemies playbook.
The reason to destroy the three monotheistic faiths is because they believe in a God that judges man and do not believe in the idea man is God. This doctrine is the primary doctrine of the new age. It is clear today that what Alice Bailey said they intended to do they are doing. They turn all of the monotheistic faiths against each other all the time and then point and say see we do not need religions they cause all the evil in the world!
I see the world boiling down to two points of view. Those that believe in a God that judges them and that they should submit there will to or those that worship themselves as Gods.
I agree with Constance and her research on this topic for I have researched it for over 25 years and have came to the same independent conclusion of the Big plan of the adversary.
Divide and concur all that believe in a one God that judges man is the best way to destroy whatever faith is the right one. If Christianity is the only way through Jesus Christ then we should be very afraid of the destruction and the battle wage between all the monotheistic faiths for that game will destroy us too. All you have to do is look at the Alliance for Civilizations to see that is the plan. Book after book state the same thing. It is not just Alice Bailey said it is what is happening today.
Bella
Bella
I agree with Bella here.
I do not see that referencing someone who holds wrong intentions is erroneous, if it is to expose such wrong intentions, and evidence our point. We may, therefore, reference here to:
A. Refute what those with wrong intentions are claiming or have claimed.
B. To expose what those with wrong intentions are planning or have planned.
It is my firm understanding that it is in this manner that Constance has referred to Alice Bailey and prominent others of the NAM, i.e., to expose them!
R.
Bella,
Thank you so much for sharing your difference of opinion. I hope others will follow your example to disagree and defend their faith with the same integrity and class you have demonstrated. Put me in a room with a Rabbi, a Moslem cleric, and a Catholic priest, and I'd find reason to bloody all their noses, and they mine. But that doesn't get us anywhere.
Obviously, I do not agree with your logic. Monotheism is not sacrosanct, it is NOT the main target. Lucifer desires God's throne, and therefore fully intends (or intended) himself to be worshiped as the one god. Therefore, any attempt to place a false god (or gods) on the throne is just as evil as leaving declaring that throne empty.
As I wrote earlier, even the devil is a monotheist. Jesus also told us not to shrink from persecution and death in this world because of our faith. In fact, such ill treatment should be expected by those who trust fully in Him.
“Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake. And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another. And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold. But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.”
omots
omots
Thank you for your kind post.
I also think that Lucifer's final goal is to be worshiped as God. I just think his plan includes the destruction first of all religions that believe in the God of the old testament, in so doing he will destroy Christianity and then will have the world played into his hands for the rest that he has tricked to believe they are Gods to then come to the understanding he is there God now.
I am not sure we are that far different in our opinions other than I think the destruction of the monotheistic faiths is dangerous for Christianity and will enable Lucifer to take the thrown of the world far easier. Of course we know how it ends, Christ comes back and the wicked will be destroyed and Christ will reign ;)
Bella
Constance's MINISTRY?
Many of us just want you to know that we support you and believe that the Holy Spirit is genuinely working through you in your ministry on this blog.
you got to be kidding...
this is a BLOG full of teachings on how to be a NEW AGER, no bible is ever quoted except by non catholics, how is that a ministry?
Remember Constance, judgment begins at the pulpit, real pulpit or imagined, it matters not, God judges your intent, you are a phony like scott johnson or alex jones, or glen beck, if you do not repent you will spend eternity in hell fire...
anon @ 10:44 PM
you have an unrealistic belief that constance is good and of God and has a ministry ordained of the Holy Spirit.
She is of God, sent of God to deceive ....
Anon 1:19pm
Your post is a prime example of what I referred to earlier. Your emphatic statement that "no Bible is quoted except by non-Catholics" (and it seems you are putting Constance in that camp -- correct me if I'm wrong) is easily refutable as Constance herself just quoted out of Romans.
"this is a BLOG full of teachings on how to be a NEW AGER"
It's definitive statements like these that give you no credibility.
If you feel you have a legitimate issue, then just stick to the issue.
And, no, I'm not just defending Constance as I may not agree with everything she has written (this is true of pretty much everyone, I should say). I'm defending sweeping mischaracterizations.
you are so correct in saying this ...
Do you even pay attention to the stuff you vomit onto the screen? What exactly does this have to do with Cumbey's apostasy? Further, if you think that Republicans gaining some measure of control in America is some salvational moment, you're really proving your delusional state. Neither party is any good, both work for Globalism.You don't grasp this? Talk about delusional!
ahhhhahahahahahahahahahaha~!
for in the last days evil men will wax worse and worse...
cursed is the man that trusts in the arm of men.....
Fanwank, star f***ers, yes men....
konstances kookie kronies
the real kkk ...
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Anonymous 8:17 and 8:22, et al
You seem to like wallowing in this "evil" blog yourselves since you don't seem to be in any big hurry to leave.
Jesus did not call john the baptists calling out Herod's sins "wallowing"
He did in fact call john the baptist the greatest of His called.
From my research, the one world religion can best be described as "spirituality" without morality. Judaism, Christianity and Islam have a moral code. Islam's is implemented in disastrous ways.
Why no morality? Because the state wishes to determine what the moral standards will be for the people it governs. The Nazi movement operated in this way. By their standards the Holocaust was a moral act.
Look at what is happening today and what the state has decided is moral and compare it with the moral code of Christianity and Judaism. Changes are already taking place.
Mortimer Adler, now deceased, a University of Chicago philosopher, wrote in an article for the Center magazine, for the leftist think tank, Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, that to have one world government there must be a common culture. Adler writes that Judaism and Christianity are not acceptable for this culture as they have a moral code which can't be proven scientifically. (It has been determined that the religion of the future will be one that can be proven scientifically. Think what we've been told about the benefits of yoga and meditation for example.) By the one worlder standards the eastern religions are philosophies which make no moral demands. Yes, I've been told that Buddhism,etc. have moral standards, but they tend to be vague generalities as opposed to commandments. They are also not monotheistic with a moral code coming from outside the human community.
On earlier threads I posted links to movements going on that are attempting to unite religions into one unit. There is a big difference between uniting into one religion and individual religions working together for some common good. In the former beliefs must be such that all will conform to what the group agrees to. In the latter each religious establishment can keep its own identity and work with others toward limited goals.
A strong government is capable of putting many restrictions on the practice of a religion. Can't do this, can't say this, can't take a stand, can't raise children a certain way, etc. This is why it is important to expose and fight what one world religion proposes and not get caught up in squabbles best left to religious academics.
Dorothy
anon @2:54 PM
you obviously are the Antitroll...
i dont believe in your theories either... go back to the Antichrist that sent you ...
lolol
when did john the baptist stop trolling king herod?
haw haw haw~!
Craig @2:18 PM
Please Please Identify Yourselves~!
apparently you don't get the whole anon thing online ...
most ppl can tell two anons apart, and if you can not, you are an internet noob, plz logout.
To 8:38 a.m.
GOOD MORNING, RICHARD ABANES (OR AGENT)
9:25 AM
so every time we pin Constance down, you are going to pretend its a sect of apostate christianity we are "sent" in defense of ...
this tactic will work with some innocent babes in Christ who unwittingly wander onto this blog, i pray they see through you...
rick warren lovers? hahahahahaha
what a joke
"plz logout"
At least you said "plz." lol
and then, oldmanoftheski said... many truths, and i agreed with him :)
Craig 10:32
This Melkite rite bishop does not speak for the entire Cathiolic Church and the Vatican is being called upon to distance itself from his outrageous comments.
I, for one, am in agreement with Rabbi David Rosen's statement:
Rabbi David Rosen of the American Jewish Committee, who had addressed the Synod of Bishops for the Middle East, also offered strong criticism of comments made near the synod’s conclusion by Archbishop Cyrille Salim Bustros.
“The comments of Archbishop Bustros reflect either shocking ignorance or insubordination in relation to the Catholic Church’s teaching on Jews and Judaism flowing from the Vatican II declaration Nostra Aetate. That declaration affirms the eternal covenant between God and the Jewish People, which is inextricably bound up with the Land of Israel. We urge the Vatican to issue a clear repudiation of Archbishop Bustros’s outrageous and regressive comments,” Rosen responded.
Contrary to some media reports, the synod’s final message did not include Archbishop Bustros’s remarks. The final message stated:
“We have evaluated the social situation and the public security in all our countries in the Middle East. We have taken account of the impact of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on the whole region, especially on the Palestinians who are suffering the consequences of the Israeli occupation: the lack of freedom of movement, the wall of separation and the military checkpoints, the political prisoners, the demolition of homes, the disturbance of socio-economic life and the thousands of refugees. We have reflected on the suffering and insecurity in which Israelis live. We have meditated on the situation of the holy city of Jerusalem. We are anxious about the unilateral initiatives that threaten its composition and risk to change its demographic balance. With all this in mind, we see that a just and lasting peace is the only salvation for everyone and for the good of the region and its peoples.” [catholicculture.org, Oct 25, 2010]
http://www.crethiplethi.com/dfm
-ayalon-criticizes-vatican-synod
-communique/israel/2010/
Dorothy (@ 2:09 PM) said:
"This is why it is important to expose and fight what one world religion proposes and not get caught up in squabbles best left to religious academics.
___________________________________
Dorothy is absolutely right.
What some of you Protestant Evangelicals do not seem to realize is that you are inadvertently being used as 'tools' of the New World Order (without your permission). You are helping them achieve their goal/agenda to 'divide and conquer'....until your group will be the last remainig traditional religious group to be attacked and persecuted. Then, 'out of the ashes' will arise the ONE WORLD RELIGION.
Someone please tell me when things become orderly again. I have not seen a single mention of the many important events that transpired during the last week and if they were brought up they obviously got buried. I have too much on my plate to waste time sifting through the squabbles to find something of value. Anyone who has anything of value knows how to find me.
Anonymous 1:44
Jesus did not call john the baptists calling out Herod's sins "wallowing"
He did in fact call john the baptist the greatest of His called.
Has Jesus revealed to you that you are a John the Baptist?
Puh-lease!
More like an "accuser of the brethren!!!"
"He who exalts himself shall be humbled and he who humbles himself shall be exalted." Matt 28:12
Anon 4:10,
I'm not sure who you're referring to exactly; but, it's clear to me that Latter Rain -- as I've attempted to describe it above -- is New Age; and, it's not only in the "Protestant" camp, it's in the Catholic camp as well. I'm just not sure how far up the chain it goes. Remember that one of the goals of New Age is to infiltrate Christianity and Judaism.
Thanks Susanna,
As noted, the final statement has been toned down quite a bit, with the most offensive language removed. However the final version still reveals the same pro-Palestinian-anti-Israel bias.
i.e.
"We have taken account of the impact...especially on the Palestinians who are suffering the consequences of the Israeli occupation."
"We are anxious about the unilateral [Israeli] initiatives that threaten its [Jerusalem's] composition and risk to change its demographic balance."
And finally this:
'...we see that a just and lasting peace is the only salvation for everyone....”
Sounds to me like the groundwork for support of an internationally declared Palestinian State.
Susanna,
Thanks for your response. I have to agree with anon above on this. The statement still sounds pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel.
Craig,
I don't know all the details. But I think the comments by the Melkite bishop about Israel were out of line. But it wouldn't be the first time a bishop allowed his patriotic/political zeal to outrun his scruples. Nevertheless, as a bishop, he should know better.
To go around advocating a Palestinian state without recognizing Israel's equal right to exist is not only unjust, it is also not very bright.
As I said, I don't know all the details, but during his eight-day visit to Jordan in May, 2009 Pope Benedict was quoted as saying:
"I come, like so many others before me, to pray at the holy places, to pray especially for peace -- peace here in the Holy Land and peace throughout the world," the pontiff said after entering the Jewish state.
Pope Benedict also called for a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that would lead to a homeland for both sides.
"I plead with all those responsible to explore every possible avenue in the search for a just resolution of the outstanding difficulties so that both peoples may live in peace in a homeland of their own, within secure and internationally recognized borders," he said.
http://www.upi.com/news/issueof
theday/2009/05/11/Pope-blasts-anti
-Semitism-backs-Palestinian
-state/UPI-47951242064699/
________________________________
The article goes on to say:
The current pope is an eminent theologian and lifelong academic, used to fearlessly speaking his mind but often prone to shooting from the hip. He angered Muslims with some comments drawn from a medieval Byzantine emperor who was critical of their faith and last year outraged Jews by accepting back into the fold of the church the notorious Bishop Richard Williamson, an English Holocaust denier.
In both cases, the pope apologized and worked hard to rebuild bridges of understanding with Muslim and Jewish religious leaders. But suspicions and hard feelings remain.
In Israel, the pope is packing in an exceptionally busy schedule with visits arranged to Yad Vashem, Israel's memorial center for the 6 million Jews murdered in the Nazi Holocaust through World War II. As the pope grew up in Nazi Germany -- a regime he always hated and despised -- this part of his trip is likely to be particularly emotionally charged. He has already said he will honor the memory those killed in the Holocaust and pledged that every effort must be made to stop anti-Semitism.
http://www.upi.com/news/issueof
theday/2009/05/11/Pope-blasts-anti
-Semitism-backs-Palestinian
-state/UPI-47951242064699/
__________________________________
Just because Pope Benedict XVI is the Pope, this doesn't mean that he doesn't have any faults.
The fact that Pope Benedict was humble enough to promptly apoligize for his gaffs is - at least for me - a sign that he is willing to admit it.
Craig,
I don't know all the details. But I think the comments by the Melkite bishop about Israel were out of line. But it wouldn't be the first time a bishop allowed his patriotic/political zeal to outrun his scruples. Nevertheless, as a bishop, he should know better.
To go around advocating a Palestinian state without recognizing Israel's equal right to exist is not only unjust, it is also not very bright.
As I said, I don't know all the details, but during his eight-day visit to Jordan in May, 2009 Pope Benedict was quoted as saying:
"I come, like so many others before me, to pray at the holy places, to pray especially for peace -- peace here in the Holy Land and peace throughout the world," the pontiff said after entering the Jewish state.
Pope Benedict also called for a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that would lead to a homeland for both sides.
"I plead with all those responsible to explore every possible avenue in the search for a just resolution of the outstanding difficulties so that both peoples may live in peace in a homeland of their own, within secure and internationally recognized borders," he said.
http://www.upi.com/news/issueof
theday/2009/05/11/Pope-blasts-anti
-Semitism-backs-Palestinian
-state/UPI-47951242064699/
________________________________
The article goes on to say:
The current pope is an eminent theologian and lifelong academic, used to fearlessly speaking his mind but often prone to shooting from the hip. He angered Muslims with some comments drawn from a medieval Byzantine emperor who was critical of their faith and last year outraged Jews by accepting back into the fold of the church the notorious Bishop Richard Williamson, an English Holocaust denier.
In both cases, the pope apologized and worked hard to rebuild bridges of understanding with Muslim and Jewish religious leaders. But suspicions and hard feelings remain.
In Israel, the pope is packing in an exceptionally busy schedule with visits arranged to Yad Vashem, Israel's memorial center for the 6 million Jews murdered in the Nazi Holocaust through World War II. As the pope grew up in Nazi Germany -- a regime he always hated and despised -- this part of his trip is likely to be particularly emotionally charged. He has already said he will honor the memory those killed in the Holocaust and pledged that every effort must be made to stop anti-Semitism.
http://www.upi.com/news/issueof
theday/2009/05/11/Pope-blasts-anti
-Semitism-backs-Palestinian
-state/UPI-47951242064699/
__________________________________
Just because Pope Benedict XVI is the Pope, this doesn't mean that he doesn't have any faults.
The fact that Pope Benedict was humble enough to promptly apoligize for his gaffs is - at least for me - a sign that he is willing to admit it.
P.S.
Sorry about the double post. I am still having occasional posting problems.
We should not support Constance because she is Constance.
Our main pursuit should always be the truth. But it is not right to judge her on the basis that she works for an anti-semitic company. If you are truly aware of the vast network of satanic influences, then you know that you have no choice but to transcend the given satanic environment for the higher good. It doesn't necessarily follow that you are working for them. God can bring out the good from every circumstance. I am a practicing Catholic but I see no point in bashing Constance under those arguments. Let's put aside (not forget) are theological differences , our enemy is cozily and happily watching us destroy ourselves.
To anon, I honestly appreciate what you are saying. Truth for me is something that can't be compromised. I firmly believe that it doesn't depend on Constance or anybody here but only on Christ. But we are all seekers, we may commit mistakes from time to time but that doesn't mean we have embraced the satanic. We err, we're humans.
Pat from Manila
Dear Constance,
Please be assured that I do value your work very highly.
Do not let the vicious and groundless verbal attacks
against you and Fr. Seraphim Rose distract you from
your important calling. Such attacks seem to be to be inspired by
entities with which no Christian wants to associate.
Susanna,
Well, I'm a bit old-school on this; but, I do believe Judea and Samaria belong to the Jews. However, the way I see it in Scripture, this will not ultimately happen till the end (and this depends on one's view of the Millennium).
How does the Vatican view Israel with respect to Jerusalem?
Scientists unveil moving 3D holograms
More than 30 years after the famous Star Wars movie scene in which a hologram of Princess Leia appealed for help from Obi-Wan Kenobi, US researchers have unveiled holographic technology to transmit and view moving three-dimensional images.
The scientists at the University of Arizona say their prototype “holographic three-dimensional telepresence” is the world’s first practical 3D transmission system that works without requiring viewers to wear special glasses or other devices. The research is published in the journal Nature.
Potential applications range from telemedicine and teleconferencing to mass entertainment.
“Holographic telepresence means we can record a three-dimensional image in one location and show it in another location, in real-time, anywhere in the world,” said Nasser Peyghambarian, project leader.
For more...
http://tinyurl.com/2fz9ra4
Dear Constance,
please find comfort and strength in the following Scripture
Matthew 5:10-12 (King James Version)
10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.
God bless you,
R.
I am posting this in love, not to cause contention and hurt, I hope the video (about half hour long) is watched and heard before people respond.
Calling All Calvinists: A Call To Repentance
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsxLwi02N_A
God bless,
R.
R.
Craig,
As a Catholic I have always been taught that the return of the Jewish people to their homeland is the fulfillment of an ancient prophecy. What other "homeland" have the Jewish people ever been associated with in the Bible but Judea and Samaria ( a.k.a. Israel )?
THE VATICAN AND JERUSALEM
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.
org/jsource/Peace/vatjer.html
_______________________________
More on the recent controversial synod. The following is one of several articles in which the Vatican's chief spokesman, Father Federico Lombardi indicates that Archbishop Bustros was speaking for himself.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Bishop’s statement at Vatican sparks Jewish outrage
http://www.jweekly.com/article/full/59728/bishops-statement-at-vatican-sparks-jewish-outrage/
_________________________________
AJC Criticizes Bishop's Assembly Statement on Middle East
NEW YORK, Oct. 24 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The American Jewish Committee is dismayed by the final communique of Catholic bishops gathered in Rome for the Vatican's Special Assembly on the Middle East for its one-sided focus on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
(Logo: http://photos.prnewswire.com/prnh
/20100816/AJCLOGO )
(Logo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi
-bin/prnh/20100816/AJCLOGO )
"It is appalling that in their final statement of the Special Vatican Synod on the Middle East, the bishops did not have the courage to address challenges of intolerance and extremism in the Muslim countries in which they reside, and rather chose to make the Israeli-Palestinian conflict their first focus," said Rabbi David Rosen, AJC's International Director of Interreligious Affairs. Rosen, one of only a select few Jews to have received the Papal Knighthood, was the lone Jewish representative to address the Special Assembly.
In the Synod's final statement, Greek Melkite Archbishop Cyril Salim Bustros, declared "The Holy Scriptures cannot be used to justify the return of Jews to Israel and the displacement of the Palestinians, to justify the occupation by Israel of Palestinian lands." The archbishop added: "We Christians cannot speak of the 'promised land' as an exclusive right for a privileged Jewish people. This promise was nullified by Christ. There is no longer a chosen people -- all men and women of all countries have become the chosen people."
Rosen responded, "The comments of Archbishop Bustros reflect either shocking ignorance or insubordination in relation to the Catholic Church's teaching on Jews and Judaism flowing from the Vatican II declaration Nostra Aetate. That declaration affirms the eternal covenant between God and the Jewish People, which is inextricably bound up with the Land of Israel. We urge the Vatican to issue a clear repudiation of Archbishop Bustros's outrageous and regressive comments."
SOURCE American Jewish Committee
http://www.prnewswire.com/news
-releases/ajc-criticizes-bishops
-assembly-statement-on-middle-east
-105633443.html
_______________________________
The Pope has already met with some top leaders of the Anti Defamation League.
Pope Benedict XVI Assures ADL He Will Continue to Raise His Voice Against Anti-Semitism
....The League leaders also raised the issue of recent anti-Jewish statements by Greek-Melkite Archbishop Cyril Salim Bustros of Newton, Mass., and will continue to raise the issue with other Vatican officials...read entire article...
http://www.adl.org/NR/exeres
/05003621-6361-408C-879B-9031631B
C522,0B1623CA-D5A4-465D-A369-
DF6E8679CD9E,frameless.htm
P.S.
Craig,
See also....
CATHOLIC HOSTAGES SLAIN IN IRAQ; ARE SOME CATHOLIC BISHOPS ALSO HOSTAGES?
November 4, 2010
By Lisa Grass
Amid the cries of the Jewish community calling for Pope Benedict XVI to denounce comments insulting to Jews made at the Vatican’s recent Middle East Synod, Islamists stormed into a Catholic church in Baghdad and murdered at least 52 hostages.
While many were notably silent about this slaughter of Catholics, our Jewish friends at the Simon Wiesenthal Center and elsewhere were quick to condemn the attack along with the Pope. All eyes appear to be on the Vatican as the Pope prepares his apostolic letter to the Middle East. Is it possible that some bishops have themselves become hostages of Islam? What might we expect the Pope to say in his apostolic letter?
In order for Catholics and non-Catholics alike to understand more clearly the depth of the dangers and temptations for Catholic bishops in Muslim countries, I believe it is critically important to consider a recent article by my Catholic compatriot Robert Spencer at FrontPageMag. Considering the conflicting messages coming from two bishops in particular, Archbishop Cyril Salim Bustros and Emmanuel III Cardinal Delly, we should consider that this could be something of a hostage situation itself.
Their odd statements of late were almost certainly made in an attempt to protect their communities. The situation of Christians in the Middle East is bad enough, and they may fear they will make it even worse by speaking more honestly about Islamic supremacism and jihad. But Western audiences should note the full reality of the situation, and call all the more loudly for the human rights community to speak out, and for the world to take action, to end the persecution of Christians in Muslim countries — so that these embattled leaders need exhibit Stockholm Syndrome-like symptoms, or dissemble to protect their people, no longer.
The problem Pope Benedict now faces might be likened on some level to the same conundrum experienced by his predecessor Pope Pius XII during the Holocaust. Say too much and more people will be murdered. Say too little and more people will be murdered. There is no perfect answer here for the Pope and some believe no matter what he says, it may be “too little, too late” for Christians in some Muslim countries.
We can take comfort that even the leftist National Catholic Reporter [NCR] seems to agree on an important point with both Robert Spencer and myself that Archbishop Bustros’s comments about Judaism in particular are not in keeping with Nostra Aetate, the document of Vatican II dealing with Catholic teaching on non-Christian religions, and should in no way be seen as official Church teaching about Judaism.
In any event, if one wants to know the official teaching of the Catholic church vis-à-vis Judaism, there’s a wealth of material to draw upon — beginning with the Vatican II document Nostra Aetate and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. A one-off comment from a single prelate does not, and by definition cannot, carry anything like the same weight.
Catholics believe that the Church, through the Pope, cannot and will not teach an absolute contradiction on matters of faith and morals. It is for this reason that we should in no way expect the Pope to agree with Archbishop Bustros’s comments, which are troubling even to NCR. Having said that, all who are friends to Jews and Catholics in the Middle East and who understand the political and violent nature of Islam would do well to continue to be watchful of the Religious Left’s alliances with Islamists — troubling alliances sometimes even to be found within our own chanceries — and to speak out for truth and for peace.
http://www.newsrealblog.com
/2010/11/04/catholic-hostages
-slain-in-iraq-are-some-catholic
-bishops-also-hostages/
Susanna,
I can see the conundrum re: the Pope / Middle East. It's too bad the international community at large isn't speaking out enough on this recent atrocity.
I'm sure it will be used as propaganda by the AoC against monotheism.
Pat from Manila
Good to see you back. I have missed your astute commentary.
You might want to check out a little more about Monica Dennington.
http://www.watchmanscry.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7471
Pentacost
The feast of Pentacost was instituted
by God to Moses in Leviticus 23:15-21
It began with the Feast of Firstfruits
and counted seven Sabbaths (50 days)
hence "Penta" -cost.
There are seven Feasts that Jehovah
God instituted for Israel to observe
and celebrate "every year by and
ordinance forever."
See: Exodus 12 and Leviticus 23
and 25, as well as Numbers 29.
All seven of the Feasts of the Lord
are perfectly FULFILLED by Jesus
and his work on earth.
As far as Pentacost goes, Jesus
became the Firstfruits of a NEW
CREATION; (The new Adam),
when he arose from the dead.
He then remained on earth for
fifty days teaching his disciples
and opening up the scriptures
to them before he ascended into
heaven, and it was at that point
that the Father sent the Holy
Spirit, which is also known as
the Spirit of Truth; (Acts 1&2).
Without the Spirit of Truth we
would all, laymen and clergy,
be clueless regarding Gods'
Holy Word.
With the Holy Spirit, the Bible
becomes understandable to the
average person in varying degrees
depending on how much The
Spirit of Truth decides to reveal.
Some people say that we could
never understand the depth of the
Bible and that we need the Church
to understand it for us.
I disagree and maybe that's the
primary thing that makes me a
Protestant. That same Spirit of
Truth informs me that there are
Roman Catholics who also believe
deeply and that they are my
brothers and sisters in Christ.
God can teach people his Truth
any way He wants to, and not
everyone learns things the same
way.
Peter was hardly a scholar. He was
a fisherman. But in the power
of the Holy Ghost he understood
and was filled, not only with
wisdom, but power.
Thanks for letting me use your
megaphone Constance.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/140475
Anonymous at 6:45 AM,
THANK YOU for the link you provided. I checked out its claims about Monica, directly from her own site, and the claims it makes are valid.
I believe that her refutation of Calvinism and the modus operandi employed by her in so doing, i.e., basing all on Holy Scripture, neither adding nor taking away from it, and using Holy Scripture as her only vehicle here, is right. I believe the points in this video, 'Calling All Calvinists, A Call to Repentance, are not to be dismissed because of her heresy in other videos, but, on the contrary must be much more scrutinised, for myself, believing in Sola Scriptura, the Holy Bible alone should be our guide.
HOWEVER, I have seen the 'Seven Spirits of God' video Monica has made, and it is heretical and, I believe she has also [probably unintentionally] blasphemed.
I use the adjective 'unintentionally' here, because some understanding is needed of how other languages may, for no apparently logical reason, denote nouns to be feminine, masculine or neuter ( e.g., la table ((the table)) in French is Feminine, der Garten ((the garden))in German is Masculine), and more importantly here, Hebrew, which also uses masculine and feminine articles and suffixes to denote non-personal nouns as well as personal ones.
[Obviously, in English we generally only use the masculine & feminine gender to denote persons, and to a lesser extent animals, although, in poetics, gender be used as an act of grammatical generosity (e.g., a ship is often refered to as 'she')].
It seems to me, Monica has drawn her false and heretical conclusions by her misunderstanding and misapplication of the Hebrew word, ruach, [which may be translated in English as spirit or as breath or as wind].
“The gender of a word and the sex of the referrent are not the same thing. For example, the word "stone" in Hebrew ('even) is feminine, but that doesn't mean that rocks in Israel are female!”
“The word ruach in Genesis 1:2 is not necessarily best translated "Spirit." It also might be translated as "breath" or "wind." Moreover ruach is not always feminine in gender in the Hebrew Bible; for instance, in Numbers 11:31, it is masculine (as elsewhere, e.g., Isaiah 57:16). In other words, the gender for the word ruach seems to shift, and some grammars therefore call ruach a "common gender," by which it means it can take either a masculine or feminine verb, even though Hebrew does not have a "neuter" gender like Greek does.”
http://www.hebrew4christians.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=151&t=1013
It is true that a child, who understands the relevant Hebrew, can understand Holy Scripture in Hebrew, similarly, a child who understands the relevant Aramaic can understand Holy Scripture in Aramaic, and a child who understands the relevant Greek can understand Holy Scripture in that language also. It is therefore necessary if one wants to properly understand what is written or said in a given language to have SUFFICIENT understanding and knowledge of the relevant language. I believe that Monica has at the very least not considered this, and has not fully sought out the matter, when deciding to consult Biblical passages in Hebrew and Greek. I hope it is not more sinister than this, yet it must be stated that it is worrying that she chose not to suspend judgement and therefore came to the false and heretical conclusions she has expressed in her video ‘Seven Spirits of God’
Thank you once again for making me aware of this. I shall be writing to Monica about her heresies and how she most likely came to such wrong conclusions in the hope that she will repent of such and refute them, so that she has a choice not to continue to go astray through a lack of knowledge.
May God bless you mightily for your informing me and others about this issue regarding Monica.
R.
A misinterpretation of God based on scripture they have received does not necessarily mean they are worshiping a DIFFERENT God. It might well be that they have received a DIFFERENT GOSPEL, which in the case of Islam, they clearly have. The anathema would be on those sending the different gospel, not necessarily on those who received it in good faith. In the case of religions such as Buddhism, New Age, Hinduism, there is no representation that this is the SAME GOD -- they clearly are worshiping a different God
"those who worship Idols worship demons . . ."
There is open rejection of God the Father in the non-monotheistic religions. The Moslems (apart from the Sufis who are clearly a New Age sect - and the same goes for Gnostics among the Christians) are exceptions to this.
This is not to say that Moslem theology is acceptable as an alternative way to Heaven -- it is not, but again, Romans Chapter 2 kicks in here as I see it.
I'll bet you win far more Moslems showing them that they have an unacceptable worship of God abd that their presentation of Christ is inaccurate rather than telling them they aren't worshiping God at all!
I frankly distrust just about everybody so far who is advancing the Moon God story. So far, I have found traceable links in that camp both to Rev. Moon's largesse (LaHaye crowd) and/or Paul Temple and his money (Billy Graham/Doug Coe crowd).
Constance
Sorry Constance, that doesn't sound right to me!
R.
To Anonymous 6:45 a.m.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU for the warning on Monica Dennington!
Constance
Definitely a MOST DIFFERENT SPIRIT!
Constance
J.D.
Give me a guest column and I'll publish it -- maybe that might change the topic!
Constance
The phrase "international law" is a contradiction in terms. A legal system must have a means of enforcement, and you can avoid the police in nation A by crossing the border to nation B (for a while, at least). I am sure that this phrase is being drip-fed into our culture by the usual Internationalists that Constance does a good job of exposing. May I exhort people to challenge the phrase and to point out that there are only international TREATIES?
http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/muqtedar_khan/2010/11/us_constitution_and_shariah_banned_in_oklahomo.html?wprss=onfaithpanelists
http://tinyurl.com/22jvgon
Found in the comments section of the above link:
"Muslim majority nations adopted the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, which diverges from the UDHR (Universal Declaration of Human Rights)substantially, affirming Sharia as the sole source of human rights. This declaration was severely criticized by the International Commission of Jurists for allegedly gravely threatening the inter-cultural consensus, introducing intolerable discrimination against non-Muslims and women, restricting fundamental rights and freedoms, and attacking the integrity and dignity of the human being."
I did do some looking through a search, but perhaps someone here is more familiar with the topic.
Dorothy
Constance wrote:
"There is open rejection of God the Father in the non-monotheistic religions. The Moslems... are exceptions to this."
That is not true. There are some 99 Arabic names for Allah and NOT one of them is "father". Muslims are emphatically opposed to the idea.
“It is not befitting to the majesty of Allah that He should beget a son …Allah “begetteth not, nor is he begotten”(sura 19:35; 112:3).
Constance also wrote:
"I'll bet you win far more Moslems showing them that they have an unacceptable worship of God and that their presentation of Christ is inaccurate rather than telling them they aren't worshiping God at all!"
Form does not trump substance. A comparison of the nature and attributes of "Allah" in the Koran with the nature and attributes of God in the OT/NT provides ample evidence that the two are NOT the same entity.
omots
Dorothy,
As you are probably aware, C.A.I.R. is behind the lawsuit being filed against Oklahoma.
____________
CAIR lawsuit : OK votes 70% to ban Sharia law - Muslims say no
http://www.examiner.com/political
-transcripts-in-national/cair
-lawsuit-ok-votes-70-to-ban-sharia
-law-muslims-say-no-video
_________________________________
Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)
The organization was named by U.S. Federal prosecutors in 2007 as an un-indicted co-conspirator in a Hamas funding case involving the Holy Land Foundation, which caused the FBI to cease working with CAIR outside of criminal investigations due to its designation.[3][4][5] An appeals court removed the label on October 20, 2010....read entire article...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Council_on_American-Islamic_Relations
How convenient that the label "unindicted co-conspirator...." was removed by an appeals court just a few days ago.
Cumbey's position on Islam is pretty clearly syncretist and outside the normative approach of orthodox Christian theology, even more so evangelical. While not a heretic, she is heterodox on the subject. How she can square this with her position on the New Age is beyond me though.
Lee
i do not have to go to another site to see monica dennington for the apostate behind a podium she is...
is she high on street drugs of prescription drugs? just wondering which one, as she looks really really high in her videos...
how anyone could look at her hair and makeup and clothing choices and believe she is holy or pure in any aspect is beyond me, yet many are the debauched who can not see this because they harbor a likewise debauchery in their hearts...
http://en.kendincos.net/video-tpfjpfhf-gnostic-monica-dennington-exposed-and-refuted-.html
Not to belabor it but here is a video where this young woman teaches that the Holy Spirit is female and is God's wife. This girl's videos are all over the web.
Voluntary Human Extinction Movement.
"Phasing out the human race by voluntarily ceasing to breed will allow Earth’s biosphere to return to good health. Crowded conditions and resource shortages will improve as we become less dense."
"The primary motivation of VHEMT as a movement is the belief that the Biosphere of the planet Earth would be better off without humans. In VHEMT's view, the human race is akin to an "exotic invader", whose population is out of control and threatens other species with extinction, and only removal of the human race can restore the natural ecological order.[1]
VHEMT's primary goals are to influence people to choose to not reproduce[6] and to advocate ready access for all human beings to methods of birth control.[5]
VHEMT also questions why humans choose to breed, citing influences such as culture and religion.[5]
http://vhemt.org/
These people are going mainstream in the U.K.
Having large families is an eco-crime according to the Optimum Population Trust (OPT).
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/3337/
Savvy
OMOTS,
Thanks for your words of sanity on a site that was once a good source of information and sound doctrine.
The absolute only book of relevance for Christians is the Bible. God speaks to us through his divine word. Reading too many subversive works can and will pollute the mind eventually.
Once in a while I check in here to see if there is any noteworthy news. Anymore it's just the same old same old.
Sad, but true.
PLEASE READ AND COMMENT BACK TO ME:
http://tinyurl.com/29ek87p
This is Rick Abanes' interview in his book on Rick Warren that at least purports to discuss and distinguish Rick Warren from New Age Movement.
I am reading it and would like your reactions too.
Constance
Anonymous 10:20
You sound as foolish as it can get. I don't think there is a reality show called "Perfect People" where no one analyzes information and just gets pumped full of thinking one way. While I have my differences with Constance, she has done more good to warn others what is going on an international level than some little sweetie who sits in a church pew singing hymns.
Do you really think that New Age information is so seductive that no one can escape it's draw? Do you really think that because Constance differs with you in one area her soul is corrupted? I've heard that stupid argument more than once from New Age sources who attempt to stop others from researching what is going on.
People who look into what is going on aren't easily suckered by cult leaders who tell them they have the WAY.
Based on following the blog for years, I'm saying that readers here aren't seduced by Christian cults or any other kind of cult. They want to know what is going on. Some of it is false information that is posted in the comments and there are other things they can check out from multiple sources, proving them true.
If you feel yourself so weak that you are afraid to use the brain God gave you, then run quickly away, into some safe house. Just don't assume everyone is like you.
Thirty years of heavy research only makes me more secure in my religious beliefs.
Dorothy
Constance Cumbey said...
From Alice Bailey's THE RAYS AND THE INITIATIONS which may be read on line at this link:
http://tinyurl.com/37wmgcp
"There are certain areas of evil in the world today through which these forces of darkness can reach humanity. What they are and where they are I do not intend to say. I would point out, however, that Palestine should no longer be called the Holy Land; its sacred places are only the passing relics of three dead and gone religions. The spirit has gone out of the old faiths and the true spiritual light is transferring itself into a new form which will manifest on earth eventually as the new world religion. To this form all that is true and right and good in the old forms will contribute, for the forces of right will withdraw that good, and incorporate it in the new form. Judaism is old, obsolete and separative and has no true message for the spiritually-minded which cannot be better given by the newer faiths; the Moslem faith has served its purpose and all true Moslems await the coming of the Imam Mahdi who will lead them to light and to spiritual victory; the Christian faith also has served its purpose; its Founder seeks to bring a new Gospel and a new message that will enlighten all men everywhere. Therefore, Jerusalem stands for nothing of importance today, except for that which has passed away and should pass away. The "Holy Land" is no longer holy, but is desecrated by selfish interests, and by a basically separative and conquering nation.
The task ahead of humanity is to close the door upon this worst and yet secondary evil and shut it in its own place. There is enough for humanity to do in transmuting planetary evil without undertaking to battle with that which the Masters Themselves can only keep at bay, but [755] cannot conquer. The handling of this type of evil and its dissipation, and therefore the release of our planet from its danger, is the destined task of Those Who work and live in "the center where the Will of God is known," at Shamballa; it is not the task of the Hierarchy or of humanity. Remember this, but remember also that what man has loosed he can aid to imprison; this he can do by fostering right human relations, by spreading the news of the approach of the spiritual Hierarchy, and by preparing for the reappearance of the Christ. Forget not also, the Christ is a Member of the Great Council at Shamballa and brings the highest spiritual energy with Him. Humanity can also cease treading the path to the "door where evil dwells" and can remove itself and seek the Path which leads to light and to the Door of Initiation."
I for one hope to avoid playing into this New Age game plan of pitting all monotheists violently against each other so that they Aryan, blue-eyed pagans can be the Phoenix to arise from our ashes. Eventually it will happen. It is prophesied. But I have no desire to help it along. Jesus said, IT IS INEVITABLE BUT THAT EVIL COME, BUT WOE TO HIM THROUGH WHOM IT COMES."
I deeply respect OMOTS and his opinions, but I believe this time he has not seen this aspect of the New Age picture and how close he and others who are like minded are coming to acting out that portion of THE ARMAGEDDON SCRIPT -- pitting "Old Ager" against "Old Ager." I further suspect the agent saboteur (whom I strongly suspect to be Rick Abanes acting on behalf of Rick Warren) has to have deep connections with what he purports to battle here inasmuch as John Esposito is closely connected to the very people Rick Warren works so closely with at the World Economic Forum as well as the ALLIANCE OF CIVILIZATIONS.
Constance
Thanks for the appreciation.
Pat from Manila
http://www.newswithviews.com/Spingola/deanna125.htm
Anonymous 10:20 P.M.
From THE SCREWTAPE LETTERS by C.S. Lewis
MY DEAR WORMWOOD,
The real trouble about the set your patient is living in is that it is merely
Christian. They all have individual interests, of course, but the bond remains
mere Christianity. What we want, if men become Christians at all, is to keep
them in the state of mind I call "Christianity And". You know—Christianity and
the Crisis, Christianity and the New Psychology, Christianity and the New Order,
Christianity and Faith Healing, Christianity and Psychical Research,
Christianity and Vegetarianism, Christianity and Spelling Reform. If they must
be Christians let them at least be Christians with a difference. Substitute for
the faith itself some Fashion with a Christian colouring. Work on their horror
of the Same Old Thing.
The horror of the Same Old Thing is one of the most valuable passions we have
produced in the human heart—an endless source of heresies in religion, folly in
counsel, infidelity in marriage, and inconstancy in friendship. The humans live
in time, and experience reality successively. To experience much of it,
therefore, they must experience many different things; in other words, they must
experience change. And since they need change, the Enemy (being a hedonist at
heart) has made change pleasurable to them, just as He has made eating
Pleasurable. But since He does not wish them to make change, any more than
eating, an end in itself, He has balanced the love of change in them by a love
of permanence. He has contrived to gratify both tastes together on the very
world He has made, by that union of change and permanence which we call Rhythm.
He gives them the seasons, each season different yet every year the same, so
that spring is always felt as a novelty yet always as the recurrence of an
immemorial theme. He gives them in His Church a spiritual ear; they change from
a fast to a feast, but it is the same feast as before.
Now just as we pick out and exaggerate the pleasure of eating to produce
gluttony, so we pick out this natural pleasantness of change and twist it into a
demand for absolute novelty. This demand is entirely our workmanship. If we
neglect our duty, men will be not only contented but transported by the mixed
novelty and familiarity of snowdrops this January, sunrise this morning, plum
pudding this Christmas. Children, until we have taught them better, will be
perfectly happy with a seasonal round of games in which conkers succeed
hopscotch as regularly as autumn follows summer. Only by our incessant efforts
is the demand for infinite, or unrhythmical, change kept up.
This demand is valuable in various ways. In the first place it diminishes
pleasure while increasing desire. The pleasure of novelty is by its very nature
more subject than any other to the law of diminishing returns. And continued
novelty costs money, so that the desire for it spells avarice or unhappiness or
both. And again, the more rapacious this desire, the sooner it must eat up all
the innocent sources of pleasure and pass on to those the Enemy forbids. Thus by
inflaming the horror of the Same Old Thing we have recently made the Arts, for
example, less dangerous to us than perhaps, they have ever been, "low-brow" and
"high-brow" artists alike being now daily drawn into fresh, and still fresh,
excesses of lasciviousness, unreason, cruelty, and pride.
cont...
cont...
Finally, the desire
for novelty is indispensable if we are to produce Fashions or Vogues.
The use of Fashions in thought is to distract the attention of men from their
real dangers. We direct the fashionable outcry of each generation against those
vices of which it is least in danger and fix its approval on the virtue nearest
to that vice which we are trying to make endemic. The game is to have them
running about with fire extinguishers whenever there is a flood, and all
crowding to that side of the boat which is already nearly gunwale under. Thus we
make it fashionable to expose the dangers of enthusiasm at the very moment when
they are all really becoming worldly and lukewarm; a century later, when we are
really making them all Byronic and drunk with emotion, the fashionable outcry is
directed against the dangers of the mere "understanding". Cruel ages are put on
their guard against Sentimentality, feckless and idle ones against
Respectability, lecherous ones against Puritansm; and whenever all men are
really hastening to be slaves or tyrants we make Liberalism the prime bogey.
But the greatest triumph of all is to elevate his horror of the Same Old Thing
into a philosophy so that nonsense in the intellect may reinforce corruption in
the will.
It is here that the general Evolutionary or Historical character of
modern European thought (partly our work) comes in so useful. The Enemy loves
platitudes. Of a proposed course of action He wants men, so far as I can see, to
ask very simple questions; is it righteous? is it prudent? is it possible? Now
if we can keep men asking "Is it in accordance with the general movement of our
time? Is it progressive or reactionary? Is this the way that History is going?"
they will neglect the relevant questions. And the questions they do ask are, of
course, unanswerable; for they do not know the future, and what the future will
be depends very largely on just those choices which they now invoke the future
to help them to make. As a result, while their minds are buzzing in this vacuum,
we have the better chance to slip in and bend them to the action we have decided
on. And great work has already been done. Once they knew that some changes were
for the better, and others for the worse, and others again indifferent. We have
largely removed this knowledge. For the descriptive adjective "unchanged" we
have substituted the emotional adjective "stagnant". We have trained them to
think of the Future as a promised land which favoured heroes attain—not as
something which everyone reaches at the rate of sixty minutes an hour, whatever
he does, whoever he is,
Your affectionate uncle
SCREWTAPE
http://www.mylibrarybook.com/
books/676/C.S-Lewis/The-Screwtape
-Letters-10.html
Post a Comment