Jesus told his disciples that the end would come as a flood. He also analogized it to birth pangs. They were warned that "in such a moment as ye think not" it could come in an admonition to stay always ready. He also made references to Sodom and Gomorrah and the suddenness in which it hit that culture.
The birth pangs are especially interesting. They increase in intensity, coming closer and closer together as they strengthen.
Developments of the last few years have certainly proved interesting. An anti-New Age Pope Benedict XVI (formerly Cardinal Ratzinger) made an unprecedented retirement. He was replaced with Argentina's Cardinal Bergoglio. Liberal Catholic author Robert Blair Kaiser had Bergoglio on his short list of "pro-change" Popes. Ratzinger had been on his list of "no-change" Popes.
Today, per news reports, Pope Francis has blamed the ISIS-Al Qaeda violence on deviant fundamentalist religion. He also expressed hopes that 2015 would bring about progress toward a "climate change agreement."
As bad as the violence both past and threatened are, I cannot help but wonder if this is setting the stage for renewed and accelerated "New World Religion" calls. Rich of Medford has written guest columns for us on the past on the United Nations "Alliance of Civilization." They have a global conference set for this May 18-19, 2015 to be held in Indonesia. It will have an old, familiar New Age theme: Unity and Diversity" with the same buzzwords I viewed when first discovering the Movement's existence in 1981: UNITY AND DIVERSITY because "we live in a GLOBAL VILLAGE".
There will be many attempts to force compromise in a new global pantheon. Simultaneously, I foresee many attempts to play the old time honored games of "Watch the Fundamentalists Run" in an attempt to use as Exhibit 1 of claimed hysteria provoking excesses from more easily panicked members of the Christian Community into creating a legal and moral justification for the long claimed New Age religious goal where all would say, "Blessed be THY God" rather than "Blessed be MY God." In the best Karen Armstrong advocated position, they would have us bow to each other's gods in the New Age pantheon as a condition of being deserving to live in the New World Order.
Of course, the "Internet of Everything" for which drums are also now furiously beat would help keep tabs -- not to mention the drones.
The Christian community, particularly the Evangelical Christian community has been sold out for a long time. Glenn Clark founder of Camps Farthest Out wrote glowingly of the New Age in a book he wrote during World War II. Glenn Clark was a spiritual director to Mrs. Aymar Johnson (Marian Johnson) who held yearly New Years' Day retreats for "The Twelve." It now appears very clear from my recent intense reseach which I've been discussing at length on my Saturday morning internet program that "The Twelve" were Christian in name only -- their roster was a panel of nearly all mystics and part of the gang was Roland Gammon. Marian Clark checked her "guidance" to take a large home on Embassy Row in Washington, D.C. to be "God's Living Room". This was where Abraham ("Abram") Vereide got his start. Both Harald Bredesen and Doug Coe successively worked for Abram Vereide. Paul Nathaniel Temple, the co-founder and chief financial benefactor of Institute for Noetic Sciences, was part of the core group of that organization since 1944. Although he is now in his 90s, he still writes very large checks annually for both Fellowship Foundation (C Street Group) as well as his Institute of Noetic Sciences. I suspect they will play no small role to help "swing the masses into step" as Alice Bailey happily put it in her book, THE EXTERNALISATION OF THE HIERARCHY. (pages 502-503)
At any rate, much is on my mind and it is difficult to summarize. I've long delayed my finishing of my series on "The HiJacking of Evangelicalism" both here and on NewswithViews. I'm now close to completion. I have recently obtained Glenn Clark's autobiography, A Man's Reach, which confirmed many of my suspicions concerning the origin of the Washington group which was discussed by mystical enough Norman Grubb in his biographical book about Abraham Vereide: "Modern Viking." When thoroughly analyzed, one cannot help but think that this group of 12 at least perceived of themselves as "illuminati," After reading Clark's THE MAN WHO TAPPED THE SECRETS OF THE UNIVERSE, I don't know what else to believe. Clark was summoned by eugenist/physician Alexis Carrel to help him find a man who was fully cosmically attuned. Clark believed he had found them in some of the men that were part of their group of 12 meeting at Marian Johnson's Washington mansion (e.g. Rufus Jones, E. Stanley Jones, and Frank Laubach). His book was about another he claimed to have discovered,
Thanks for sticking around. I do the radio program every Saturday morning, 10 a.m. Eastern Time. I share tremendous amounts of information there during the two hours of programming. Consider tuning in there as well as staying tuned here.
Happy New Year to all!
CONSTANCE
716 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 600 of 716 Newer› Newest»http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartmath_Institute
Aww they lost their contract with a UK National Health Services, last month! Quick somone get this to the US Military and the US Dept of ed !! Save this link, awsome, one for the good guys.
***
***
Christine, do you deny claiming chakras exist and refering to Ecclesiastes using the word 'wheel' to try and make your point? Chakras are from Hinduism. Chakra means wheel in the Indian language used in Hinduism, i.e., in Sanskrit (not Hebrew or Aramaic, the language((s)) in which the Old Testament is written). You know that really, don't you? You've been playing us all for fools that's obvious but it doesn't mean we are, it's more a reflection on you!
The Chakras - Magazine Web Edition > January/February/March 2007 - Publications - Hinduism Today Magazine -
http://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=1666
Therefore you have been promoting Hinduism here along with all sorts of occult, gnostic, and New Age nonsense. You're a professional jammer and you're not fooling me nor any of us with any backbone to point out your folly!
Christine, is the youtube seer "Brother Nathanael " Kapner your EO live in guru? Like you, he too claims apparent Jewish decent yet is out to attack the Jews just as you have Dorothy.
Is there any connection between the two of you?
Christine,
I know you aren't attacking me.
It's just more from the parasite gallery trying
to cause trouble.
Justina,
This is the REAL Paul for the umpteenth time!
I don't know if you're attacking me or not, there's definitely a gallery of PARASITES (a word fondly and often used by the fake Paul above). You are a jammer though and I still think you're in the pay of someone to do it. Who knows, you may be many - a legion of jobless jail garbage, the FAKE Paul just above this post being the worst trouble maker of all!
Christine, I don't care about the ridiculous side show of who the real or fake paul is from the last two posts. You should answer my comment at 5:48 PM directly and honestly. Let's see if you do.
None of the two posts above are mine. This is ridiculous and maybe typical behavior of Jammer gangs! Get a job COWARDS!
Dear Constance 2:56 P.M.
My sincere thanks to you and everyone here for all your prayers and concern.
We are fine here. We had plenty of warning that enabled us to make preparations. Afterwards, we just went into "hibernation"
here at home and stayed warm.
Fortunately, the blizzard wasn't as bad here in Springfield as it was in Boston and on the East Coast. I hear they had "thunder snow," lightning, some power outages and a storm surge that caused flooding in some places near the ocean.
New York City got lucky and dodged the bullet when the storm unexpectedly tracked East, but Long Island, New York took a pretty big hit.
The blizzard has pretty well wound down now and snow removal is in progress. I am hearing reports that more snow may be on the way this coming Sunday - Monday. I am staying tuned.
"Anonymous said...
Christine, do you deny claiming chakras exist and refering to Ecclesiastes using the word 'wheel' to try and make your point? Chakras are from Hinduism. Chakra means wheel in the Indian language used in Hinduism, i.e., in Sanskrit (not Hebrew or Aramaic, the language((s)) in which the Old Testament is written). You know that really, don't you? You've been playing us all for fools that's obvious but it doesn't mean we are, it's more a reflection on you! "
your post is a reflection on your sloppy mentality. and gullibility.
Hinduism is about worship of many "gods," and though some notion of an uncertain supreme being that the "gods" are mere manifestations of developed among the more intelligent, like in greco roman pagan philosophy, hinduism is essentially pagan.
its goal is not union with God in the sense of a relationship and agreement with Him, but union in the sense of disintegrating into an impersonal sort of being called brahman (a brahMIN is a priest).
This form is mostly what got into the west.
Another doctrine is karma played out not in this life and Last Judgement, but in multiple reincarnations.
Its method ranges from idolatry to cultivating mind states as approaching to non existence as possible. Chakras are from tantric systems of messing with your internal energy system, to do a fast track of such self deception. THAT THESE METHODS WORK, TO ACCOMPLISH SOMETHING LIKE SCHIZOPHRENIC DETACHMENT AND/OR TO CREATE PROBLEMS THAT EVEN NEW AGERS RECOGNIZE AS PROBLEMS AT TIMES, SHOWS THE ENERGY SYSTEM EXISTS AND CAN BE MEDDLED WITH.
Since their attitude is the same as gnostic rejection of the goodness of material creation and existence, you can expect that what they do with these (which should be left alone) is not going to be healthy for the energy system. OF COURSE YOUR MENTALITY DOESN'T LET YOU SEE THAT THIS IS ONE OF THE GREATEST WEAPONS YOU COULD USE IN ARGUING WITH A NEW AGER.
These states of mind can also set you up for demon influence and even possession.
as I said before, you can complain that anyone interested in anything that India ever got into is promoting hindu doctrines. That includes mathematics (used in calculating the yugas or ages that ARE a part of Hindu doctrine) and several other things incl. vaccination and herbal medicines and anything else on that list from wikipedia I posted.
you are an idiot.
The existence of the aura and chakras is definitely indicated in that Ecclesiates section, and it is ONLY because most commentators do not have information to help them, that they puzzle over these words and come up with various solutions.
Same as if some people who never heard of sheep or shepherding or knew how they act were to be confronted with Bible verses that rely on such knowledge for you to understand them.
anons-r-us
Brother Nathaniel "I still hate my Jewish parents and need therapy" Krapheadner is no acquaintance of mine. And my Resident Seer is not EO, he is a recovering devil worshipper, on the run from that stuff. I think he is almost fully recovered.
I never attacked Dorothy, I even supported her at one point when she was attacked for whatever minimal and harmless level of kabbalah she has anything to do with.
And even if head over heels into it, she is still a perfectly good researcher about the New Age, because she is Jewish and/or Jewish identified by conversion, and doesn't like Nazism which is the core of the New Age.
Peter Levenda is no Christian and actually an occultist of the Crowleyite sort or used to be, perhaps he let that slide. But he is very good researcher on the Nazi and other stuff including wholesale adoption of Nazis by USA and others, and the weird technology and likely secret space program that came from that.
Christine you wrote 7:19 PM:
"And my Resident Seer is not EO, he is a recovering devil worshipper, on the run from that stuff. I think he is almost fully recovered."
Are you serious? You've a "Resident Seer" who is recovering from EO "stuff" who is a "Devil worshipper"?
That's sickening!
he inherited the ability from his great grandmother. Since he warned me his father would never admit to having this, I tested him when we met in Tucson where he was visiting his daughter my Resident Seer's sister.
Since he can see rat urine trails in houses, which to a normal person requires a strong UV light to make fluoresce, his sight is simply a lot more UV and probably IR than normal people. May or may not run with the white retinas (not the sort from an eye disease).
I put some Blessed Oil on my sleeve made sure it was invisible to normal sight like mine. (I had the smallpox shot around 10 years old, and it tends to quash expression of this gene, if I've got it. something has to be really extreme before I can see it, and then only a little bit.)
All that evening at dinner, the old man was sneaking peeks at my sleeve.
Objective Clairvoyance as some call it, is not learned but inherited, and depends on the health of the eye to work. Eye goes bad, Objective Clairvoyance fades.
"You've a "Resident Seer" who is recovering from EO "stuff" who is a "Devil worshipper"?
That's sickening!"
No, idiot, I have a Resident Seer who was NEVER EO and is recovering from devil worship. Can't you get anything right? Or do you just hope no one will check my post and buy your slander?
"You've a "Resident Seer" who is recovering from EO "stuff" who is a "Devil worshipper"?
That's sickening!"
No, idiot, I have a Resident Seer who was NEVER EO and is recovering from devil worship. Can't you get anything right? Or do you just hope no one will check my post and buy your slander?
THIS IS THE ONE TIME I HAVE POSTED HERE AS ANONYMOUS, TO MAKE SURE PEOPLE WHO COLLAPSE MY POSTS UNREAD GET THE TRUTH INSTEAD OF YOUR POST.
So he is not recovered yet? Jesus frees people when He saves them. You both need Christ. Yours must be a godless household. Why don't you lose all of your religion and repent and turn in faith to Jesus alone......I mean really.........and actually be saved? Romans 10:9-13. Go actually read that and believe that instead of preach "sermons" here to us.
Anybody can s a y they believe in the Lord. You have a little bit of head knowledge but your heart is far from HIM. But it is with our heart and will surrendered that prove we mean business with God. The devil knows about Jesus...he just would not-did not repent. There is still time for you and this poor man to get right before God. Don't put this off.
Then, idiot aka infowitch, you should learn that placing commas before and after several words as you did in the middle of a sentence makes the matter encompassed by the commas a sub-clause and that which comes after the second comma of the sub-clause is directly sequential in logical relation to that which precedes the first comma of the sub-clause!
Therefore your resident witch with his legion of demons (with whom you're fornicating according to earlier chatter?), according to the way you wrote it can be separated as follows:
"And my Resident Seer is not EO [...] on the run from that stuff" ["he is a recovering devil worshipper"]. What is he recovering from? Look at the matter preceding it!
Also, you give us the information that he is a 'seer' (and you mean occult). He did not get it from his grandmother, he gets it straight from the Devil himself! Idiot!!!!!
As for your comments about Kapner hating his mother and there's nothing in common between you, you're a liar, a transfering fantacist and an out and out nutter! Vile creature that you are!
Well said Anon 8:47 PM!
godless household. hmm. call it a mission field. My fiance and tenant are both moving in the right direction, though the tenant seems more so.
Both have mental problems. The Resident Seer has a plate in his head and likely brain damage from his hydrocephaly as a child. The tenant is batshit crazy, or was for some time, a steady diet of vodka not helping much, a lot better now. An interesting case, desperately clinging to the only seriously Christian person he knew, while fighting Christianity zigging and zagging. That was some years ago, though he is still a bit two faced, he is more inclined to pray and take seriously things about Bible standards of behavior.
So I cut them more slack on most things than I would anyone else.
okay I screwed the punctuation. sorry.
"Therefore your resident witch with his legion of demons (with whom you're fornicating according to earlier chatter?), "
how often have I said we don't have sex?
as for his legion of demons, most of them are gone.
okay I screwed the punctuation. sorry.
"Therefore your resident witch with his legion of demons (with whom you're fornicating according to earlier chatter?), "
how often have I said we don't have sex?
as for his legion of demons, most of them are gone.
AGAIN I POST ANONYMOUSLY SO THE PEOPLE WHO COLLAPSE MY COMMENTS UNREAD WILL READ THIS AND NOT BE LIMITED TO THE WRONG INFORMATION IN YOUR POST.
Yes, what a Godless household she unbiblically leads! What a sick sick situation, what a bunch of sick puppies, really!
You should be blocked: you bring a sick heavy and evil atmosphere to this blog whoever you are Aka witch!
What she wrote at 9 and deleted was disgusting and repulsive!
***
Your unholy life and household on display for what? multitudes of people? And people are supposed to learn Christ from you? You do us a 'favor' here to 'educate' us about what the bible teaches and your own life and home are not living in and by the power of the Holy Spirit but under the influence of darkness?
Your life gives no glory to God. None whatsoever.
Having a form of (*your brand) of godliness and denying the power thereof..from such turn away. 2 Tim 3:5
They profess that they know God, but in works they deny Him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate. Titus 1:16
These verses fit your situation.
You and your household are in a bad way Christine.
Either you post this stuff to be sensational or something sick and needy for the much attention you get or you are crying out for help in a very public way. Don't know which.......
So....your EO has not helped you. That's understandable, because religion saves no one. Only Jesus saves. (from the guttermost to the uttermost)
Absolutely right, 9:21 PM! They need to be willing to repent though, unlike what some of her misguided friends may wrongly think here!
anon 9:11, why don't you say that what I wrote at 8:59 and 9:01 after 9:00 was disgusting and repulsive?
It was the exact same thing but I forgot to post it anonymously so I copied and deleted and reposted.
you are very dishonest aren't you? you like to give bad impressions like whatever I said was worse than immediately before and after.
YOU PEOPLE ASK QUESTIONS AND I ANSWER HONESTLY AND YOU SAY I AM PARADING ANYTHING?
Why don't you tell them to stop asking questions if you don't want to hear the answers.
anon 9:21 given the phenomenon of freudian projection, I am beginning to wonder about your personal life.
EO doesn't say it saves only that it is the original church founded by Jesus Christ.
And Jesus is a heavy focus in it. Everything its symbolism and liturgy relates to Jesus Christ with an occasional aside to His mother asking her for her to pray for us.
Dear 9:29 PM,
That is why I referred to Romans 10:9-13 in an above post. And the reference to the devil because he believes he just does not repent.
I have repented of a lot of stuff, incl. letting my biological so called mother screw over my paternal grandmother.
The stuff you are complaining about is not sin as far as i can figure out from Scripture.
It was founded by Constantine the Pagan, in about 320 A.D. as the RC establishment! It then broke away centuries later and became the EO! That's the truth you dishonest roguess!
Your vile post at 9 and then your quick deletion and denial of its content really shows what sort of person you are! May God have mercy on your soul!
Christine Jesus is GOD. He saves without all the add-ons. I guess you don't think Him God enough all by Himself then. To you Jesus needs 'help' because He does not have the power to save alone. Yours is a different 'jesus' and a lesser god then.
Your 'god' could not punch his way out of a wet paper bag.
No wonder you and your household do not live in the LORD'S Overcoming Spirit.
Constantine didn't found anything, he was awed by the martyrs missing an eye or an arm, and only demanded the church get together to settled the dispute the priest arius started with the arian heresy that denied Jesus' full divinity.
The idea that Constantine paganized Christianity was started by a moslem polemicist writing against Christianity. It is a total lie.
The term "Orthodox" came about to distinguish those claiming to be Christian who are Trinitarian from those claiming to be Christian and were Arian.
Hislop excused the Trinity from his list of objects of attack when he dealt with triads of false gods, on the basis that these latter were a vague memory however twisted of a primordial truth. Exactly the same can be said of everything else he wrote of pagans believing and complained were paganizations if something similar appeared in Christianity.
And the shape of cakes used in pagan ritual were NOT always round, but many options.
oh yeah, the fish head miters developed in the middle ages, they didn't exist in Constantine's time or for many centuries after.
"Your vile post at 9 and then your quick deletion and denial of its content really shows what sort of person you are! May God have mercy on your soul!"
God have mercy on your vile and lying soul, if you in fact read it during the short time it was there, before I realized I had not posted as anonymous (and saw no reason to duplicate it under my name, since the anon posting is to make sure it gets read), and not just relying on the words of a LIAR. Because if you read it you know it is the same as the other two posts. Identical. highlight copy paste.
Christine it is notable that while I speak of the Power and Glory of Christ Jesus..you on the other hand...talk about the shape of religious cakes. You talk everything but what i am referring to!
How telling. The power of God is not evident is your life now is it?
If true of you then you would heartily endorse that power spoken of and your posts would reflect that.
The Spirit bears witness among believers and you cannot and do not bear witness.
anon 10:04 I wasn't answering your remarks about the power and glory of Jesus Christ, I was answering the claims of EO being founded by Constantine and the related ideas.
And I think you know that.
And I think you either are so egotistical you think that I would only pay attention to your posts that outshine all else, you think,
or you are a damn liar.
I described some power of Jesus in my life some time ago, when I almost died, and regarding His disrupting of the twisted auric effect on digital watches, that stopped some time after I accepted Jesus and in other matters. If you can't hear that, you won't hear anything else.
I think you need to get right with Jesus starting with your vicious little spiritual one upmanship game playing.
oops, got the comma wrong again, well I'm not going to delete and repost or God knows what lies will be told about the original post.
I was not talking about claims of EO because that is immaterial to what I am addressing.
You are trying to distract again...and stall...and divert what I am pointing to very clearly!!! Typical Christine responses because the truth is getting too close.
You cannot attest to the power I have spoken of because that is not the situation you describe of you or your homelife. what an ungodly abode. that makes my heart hurt. It is characteristed by the constant unforgiveness you spout and the pathetic religious jargan that goes on and on and never ends with you. I am addressing a point blank issue with you and you do not give God glory. Then give God glory and that issue goes away. You have some 'talk' about 'jesus' but where in your testimony in the power of forgiveness understood in regard to your mother whom you still disparage here? If truly forgiven by the Lord yourself you would have to give that forgiveness to your poor deceased mother.
You don't even really talk it and by your own mouth you don't walk it either or you would forgive her already! Eph 4:22-32
I give Jesus glory you just don't get it. And I have experienced His power getting me free of her spell. Among other things.
I was answering anons 9:38 and 9:40.
I have already explained that we don't have sex, AND IF WE DID LIVE APART WE COULD SNEAK TO MEET AND HAVE SEX, BUT WOULD LOOK OH SO RESPECTABLE.
"Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment." John 7:24
And if we were having sex, then we should stay together and get married when its advisable on other grounds, because sex makes the two one flesh, I Cor. 6:16 therefore breaking up with him and marrying someone else would be adultery and setting him up for adultery if he married someone else.
And we are not in good health so I doubt we'd have much sex if we married.
And at this point marriage might alter the power structure and make it harder to keep his occasional bad tendencies under control, since he has been brainwashed a bit with the usual fundamentalist mishandling of The Bible re authority in family, preached to him by satanists and occultists with an agenda.
Interesting the hypocrisy of you anti Catholic and anti Orthodox people, you can't stand authority of ANY kind in church, or hierarchy in church, but you love it in the family with yourself in charge, or if you are female being without accountability because its all on the man's head.
Cute little game, reminds me of some stories out of harem intrigues.
And who put you in charge over me by the way?
hmmmm. I am beginning to engage in some interesting speculation about you anon 10:33, the last time I ran into anyone so sanctimonious and accusatory (my personal life not being the issue) and pompous, it was a person on an Orthodox egroup, in a rather slack jurisdiction under an even slacker priest, who you would think from "her" posts was a member of a much more strict (or common sensical) jurisdiction since she took their side and political positions of their earlier generations all the time.
Turns out, "she" was a tranny.
forgiveness - we are called to forgive the truly repentant. My biological so called mother never asked forgiveness or admitted wrong, or showed repentance, merely getting tired. During the last few years of her life, she was lying to someone else about me and all kinds of things, but took effort to not be around when both of us there - obviously to avoid the other person who later told me of what she said, saying something to her in my presence about things she'd talked about that were all lies, and she knew I would shoot the bullshit down in a second.
divide and conquer was always her game. While she accused my grandmother of doing that. Pathological liar. Some of it was unbelievable. And her efforts to cover her tracks tells me she was NOT delusional, she KNEW she was lying.
Once she found out from media that some things she had done were not legal or socially acceptable, she started pretending they never happened.
Christine@8.59pm (with the live-in boyfriend in the 2 million dollar house that has been supported by taxpayers),
You say it's OK to live together because you are not having sex and you are not setting a bad example because the neighbours know. (Interesting conversations you have over the fence!) But you say you ceased sexual activity because he is too unwell. What is past is past and can be repented of, but would you resume if he became well? And didn't Jesus say don't commit sins not only in the flesh but in the heart?
And does your Orthodox priest know?
"Christine@8.59pm (with the live-in boyfriend in the 2 million dollar house that has been supported by taxpayers),
You say it's OK to live together because you are not having sex and you are not setting a bad example because the neighbours know. (Interesting conversations you have over the fence!)"
AMAZING HOW YOU NEVER GET ANYTHING RIGHT. I didn't say the neighbors know we don't have sex, I said the neighbors DON'T KNOW WE'RE NOT MARRIED LEGALLY. I have never had occasion to discuss my sex life or lack thereof with them. Don't ask don't tell.
I don't live in that house since 2010 when I moved and it was sold. When the county authorities stepped in because my biological so called mother was misappropriating her mother in law's money and not paying the nursing home bills on time and I was barely functional, they recommended SSI for me and put my grandmother's property in a trust which, when she died went 1/3 to my biological so called mother's trust and 2/3 to mine, and I never owned the house itself. I had to pay rent to the trust that owned it to keep SSI from docking me for living rent free in property I didn't own.
I didn't plan or participate in setting this situation up I was too much of a wreck to do so.
The Orthodox priest who brought me into Orthodoxy knows the setup. I don't know if he brought the current one where I live up to speed on me or what, I don't mention anything.
The SSI has evaporated lately due to an inheritance from an aunt disqualifying me, as over resourced, but I am almost entirely non disabled now anyway.
TRY TO READ THIS CAREFULLY THREE TIMES BEFORE YOU EVEN THINK OF RESPONDING SO I DON'T HAVE TO CORRECT ANY MORE EGREGRIOUS ERRORS AS USUAL. I AM TIRED OF THIS.
Thank you for clarifying the house stuff Christine. Many of us were wondering. You say you ceased sexual activity with your live-in boyfriend because he is too unwell. What is past is past and can be repented of, but would you resume if he got better? Didn't Jesus say don't commit sins not only in the flesh but in the heart?
I don't appreciate the term live in boyfriend. Boyfriend is too shallow a term. Fiance is a lot more solid. I am not in good shape either.
Read I Corinthians 6:16. If sex with a prostitute by the nature of the act makes the man one flesh with her, then sex in a relationship attitude of claiming each other and expecting fidelity is not fornication it is the same as usus marriage in Roman law, the most common form in the social strata Paul drew from yet he never mentions it as an issue.
Clearly some situations are NOT rendered better by intention of permanence. force, homosexuality, incest, (incl. what you might call constructive incest, sex with an inlaw even if widowed), bestiality, come to mind. Sex that is otherwise not prohibited but does not involve an emotional attachment and permanent intent, is whoredom.
by the way, isn't anyone here interested in researching the New Age, or brainstorming approaches to converting people from it attacking their core ideas at weak point for instance (something some people here loathe) or do you just want to research me?
I twice tried to get this comments section back on track and get called a hypocrite.
If I were Constance I'd shut down the anonymous option, or if that can't be done, delete all anonymous posts that don't give a URL or make a relevant to New Age type comment.
you people seem obsessed with me, and the worst fire I usually drew in the past was when I'd come up with something that would bullseye hit a New Age talking point. I'd get called Hindu or some other slander.
I think there was something else drew fire too. Can't recall what it was right now. Have to dig through my own notes to myself.
Sounds like this blog has some INFILTRATORS doesn't it?
Christine, "fiance" means that you plan to marry. You plan not to, in order to save money. He's your live-in boyfriend. If you don't like this objective accurate description, look to your conscience in the light of the questions you have left unanswered at 6.10am.
O Christine, we have been asking Constance to stop you filling this blog with rubbish so that we could get on with talking about the New Age for more than a year now. If I were Constance, that's what I'd do!
I answered them. And you are ignoring the points I made.
And the lot of you are wasting space with tons of blather and accusations of no relevance to anything this blog is about. The display you put on a while back was absurd to watch.
I don't have to be legal to be faithful, and neither does he. That is the core issue of marriage as per morality. The rest are changeable laws of mankind.
Meanwhile, of what merit is a legal marriage in a no fault divorce state? there is no enforceable marriage. No legal penalties on adultery left in any state. No problems presented to a divorce happy type except how to split up the property.
I called him fiance to keep SSI off my back, I might as well call him husband now.
enough of this. get back to the purpose of this blog, or admit you are a pack of hypocrites with a New Age infiltrator or two in the crew.
But he's not your husband, is he? So it is not right to call him your husband. Marriage is a PUBLIC institution. The authorities have a right to know who is married because the law still (just about) privileges marriage in various ways. It is true that in ancient Israel a couple declared themselves married and then informed the authorities, whereas today you have to go through a ceremony recognised by the authorities, but if you and your man want to declare yourselves married then you still have a duty to inform the authorities and leave them to make of it what they will. It might make you liable for his debts, as you said. Are you willing to do what you ought?
Christine: "get back to the purpose of this blog, or admit you are a pack of hypocrites with a New Age infiltrator or two in the crew."
I suggest you look in the mirror! Chakras or what?
https://kimolsen.wordpress.com/2015/01/08/contemplative-mysticism-a-powerful-ecumenical-bond/
there are two problems here, ecumenism and the contemplation stuff itself. The kind of spirituality the Quakers and Shakers were into is now hyper developed with RC stuff added.
(whoever was talking about only The Holy Spirit can teach you or give you context of Scripture or anything is probably sold out to this same contemplative deception.)
http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/blog/?p=1482
origin of the term and concept "servant leadership." not Christian.
http://www.spiritual-research-network.com/warren-smith-articles-books.html
You'd know all about "RC stuff" in the EO establishment, wouldn't you Christine? They're almost identical in their inclusion of the Pagan and vain philosophy of man!
'But the filiochal creed', you may cry! Well, if you truly bothered to study early Christian writings you would learn that there was a concept for certain things of, 'both and, rather than the concept of, 'either or', which was imported into Christian thinking in lieu of these certain concepts later on. (I am not at this moment going to provide links and matter for you, you are a time waster so do your own research!) Before the Eastern Institution of RC broke away, there was the idea that the Holy Spirit proceded from the Father and from the Father and the Son. I guess you're too much of a self-righteous arrogant rebel to accept or understand this, deal with it!
Secondly, for some centuries now the Jesuits have thoroughly infiltrated EO just as they have sadly done with much of Protestantism. However, I believe there are saved Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox adherents and other Christians who are truly saved and bare fruits to show it. You, however, with your strange fruits of chakras, arrogance, foul language, ether, soul anatomy, gnosticism, witchcraft, fornicating with devil worshippers, consulter of clairvoyants (the supposed res. seer), and all manner of occult and demonic delusions (vampires of various dimensions, Nibiru, men on Mars, aliens, telepathy, and dishonoring and defaming your mother (( to name but a few)))!
There is NOTHING in Ecclesiastes supporting Chakras, nor anywhere in the Holy Scriptures, NOTHING! It talks about being BROKEN at the wheel and is a poetic description of the PHYSICAL human body, moreover the organs, failing in old age and the lament of a life wasted away from God. It is probably a description of a remorseful repentant Solomon for having gone after other 'gods'. Take it as a solemn warning! The OT was written in Hebrew and Aramaic not in Sanskrit! There is NO connexion betwixt the two!
You are a witch, a deceiver and a fraud but you are not fooling me or others. Repent, foul spirit!
"Anonymous said...
You'd know all about "RC stuff" in the EO establishment, wouldn't you Christine? They're almost identical in their inclusion of the Pagan and vain philosophy of man!"
The only reason you think this is because you have been taught it and accept without research. Justin Martyr in AD 150 said that the church believed in his time that the bread and wine after the Eucharistic prayers becomes the Body and Blood of Christ, and not common food.
As for pomp and ceremony, isn't Jesus Christ worthy of being worshipped with gold and incense and colors and singing?
"'But the filiochal creed', you may cry! Well, if you truly bothered to study early Christian writings you would learn that there was a concept for certain things of, 'both and, rather than the concept of, 'either or', which was imported into Christian thinking in lieu of these certain concepts later on...."
I have pointed out in several places, and probably here, that a lot of things are more nuanced than mechanistic thinking people like, and it is often (though not always) not a case of either/or but both/and.
"Before the Eastern Institution of RC broke away,"
ah, and I need to do research? it was the western branch of Orthodoxy that broke away and tried to hog the name Catholic (universal as in same faith in all churches) for itself.
" there was the idea that the Holy Spirit proceded from the Father and from the Father and the Son. I guess you're too much of a self-righteous arrogant rebel to accept or understand this, deal with it! "
There were a few church fathers who spoke carelessly or sloppily, some may have had a wrong idea. Also what you are looking at are the sort of statements that relate to from The Father (as in origin, in eternity outside of time) through The Son (not regarding origin but into the Church in the realm of time), which is not the same thing as double origin.
Several famous church fathers were infuenced by Origen, and supported some of his ideas he got anathematized for after he and they were dead. saints are not infallible.
St. Photios the Great however in Mystagogy of The Holy Spirit shows how the double origin thing demotes The Holy Spirit by denying Him qualities of generation and spiration, which are ascribed to both The Father and The Son on account of this double origin. there are other problems.
http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/photios_mystagogy.html
Augustine said The Holy Spirit is the love between The Father and The Son, which effectively reduces Him from being a Person to a mere force, emotion, energy.
Meanwhile, RC nowdays is to be heard online saying the filioque is not about double origin, but earlier it was. Pope Leo III before Rome was claiming supremacy denied he had the authority to add to the Creed, and that only an Ecumenical Council could do this and forbade the filioque's use in the Mass. This was overturned a couple of popes later. The filioque bumbled into the Creed in the west by a sort of accident and some thought it highlighted Jesus' divinity so would be good against Arians. But the Eunomians, an extreme kind of Arian, were claiming The Holy Spirit came from The Son before that.
Meanwhile what does our Lord Jesus Christ say? that He will send the Church The Holy Spirit "from The Father" and that The Holy Spirit "proceeds from The Father," so clearly the filioque is unbiblical.
Rome also deviated otherwise shifted focus in the Eucharist from the epiclesis or invocation of The Holy Spirit to make the transformation to a focus on the power of the priest, and dropped the prohibition of eating meat from an animal that had not had its blood poured out during death. See Acts 15 and don't tell me this was temporary, or the rest was, nor did it mollify Jews since the food laws, circumcision and sabbath keeping were ditched.
Had the resident Paul not been so luke-warm and duplicitous in his harsh pharisaism here, no doubt there would have been less multiple postings under his undeserved name.
Saul, you are an identifiable weed wavering in the winds of wanton opportunity, shifting with the sands of what you deem popular. You are a loveless, unapologetic bully. You are de-facto responsible for the recent clogging here. You have caused just as many decent and productive Christians to stop posting here. You are puffed up with vain pride, arrogance and hubris. You should PUBLICLY repent of your behavior but your hard heartedness and pride will no doubt prevent you from doing the right thing just as it does Christine! You should be ashamed of yourself: you are a jammer and a pot stirrer just as much as she is, and rarely post anything relevant to the topic or exposing the New Age Movement in general. That is the truth about you and most of us can see it! Repent you hard-hearted man!
"And who put you in charge over me by the way?"
Christine, you are cornered. By the truth and the Spirit who wants you to go stand in the light of Jesus.
We are equally sinners before the Lord. You cannot compare yourself to me, nor I to you. No. Compare yourself to Jesus and see how you fare.
Knowing about Jesus does not equal knowing and being known by Jesus. Stop the victim game you play because you are both your own warden and prisoner. Jesus will get you free. Surrender before His merciful cross for cleansing that is spiritual, mental, and emotional. That is what you are in desperation for.
Don't put this off.
"I twice tried to get this comments section back on track and get called a hypocrite."
Does not work since you are the worst offender in that. (and the paul, Paul, all the paul pretenders are just as stupid.)
I am Not referring to you the actual and original paul who knows who he is.
9:11 was not posted by me.
***
They just added the stars. I posted last night about heartmath and the davos link.
I don't use either the world vile or disgusting. Because the internet will soon be internationally regulated, words that express a 'strong dislike' can be called hatred by some comunist official. Despite the US Constitution (which has been reduced to toilet paper) , we not only do not have free speech but not free thought.
These trolls do not want any real discussion about the New Age issues as we can all contrubute. I am begining to resent Constance for not taking this seriously.
It reminds me of that show bar rescue, the blog needs rescue.
Mary Christine Erikson you may not address me nor may you use the three stars I chose to identify myself.
This is harrassment, STOP NOW. You have no idea who you are dealing with. We can get the internet records in discovery. This is the first time you have included my three stars, now it needs to be the last.
***
"words"
***
Mary C. Erikson 10:16 A.M., go back and research again! What you've produced is sloppy and disingenuous at best!
I recognise that Constance's blog is opressed. I claim this blog for Jesus Christ and for the glory of God.
***
To the lying lycanthrope Aka foul spirit :
O foul spirit! How you do wither under the veritable lamp of exposure! You play the harlot at home and abroad, languishing in the cess of Ganesh, gangrened by gnosticism that flows through the Ganges: O parasite, palid and gaunt like a toothless leech, how do you cling without fortune or fair onto anything fantastical, lost in the mist of a mirage of chimeras, squirming in a slime of delusion you cough up like a jackal as you howl at the moon!
You show the thigh to corruption and your neck is adorned with the chains of temptation. In rags torn by lies and stained by carnal desire do you skip and frolic your wares of spiritual wickedness here. O Wiccan nymph, O banshee of Baal, how long will you lure the gullible with your scream of deceptions, howling over your stagnant, your rancid, abode wherein you've set your rage and raunch?!
Christine,
I guessed rightly that you wouldn't understand nor accept the concept of, 'both and', in relation to the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and from the Father and the Son.
To highlight your lack of understanding, you have rightly drawn on Holy Scripture that shows the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father but sadly you have ignored Holy Scripture that clearly points to the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son also! I told you this is not a simple 'either or ' situation but you have failed to truly understand this.
Furthermore, you try to muddy the issue by using the word, "origin". We are talking about procession which is not always synonymous with origin.
Granted, the concept of procession is complex because we may see it as eternal and temporal (remember the 'both and '). Eternal procession indicates the nature of the Holy Trinity, whilst temporal procession points to the order of events.
sure, there is John 15:26 which shows the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father but there are other passages which give clear reason to believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son also (both and).
(John 15:26, “When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me.")
The Greek word for "proceeds" is ἐκπορεύομαι, ekporeuomai. It means to come out of, to proceed from, depart out of, to leave from.
Here are some other passages you should consider.
Matt. 10:20 For it is not you who speak, but it is the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you."
John 16:7, "But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you."
Rom. 8:9, "However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him."
Galatians 4:6, "Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!”
Philippians 1:19, "for I know that this will turn out for my deliverance through your prayers and the provision of the Spirit of Jesus Christ."
1 Peter 1:11, "seeking to know what person or time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating as He predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow."
The Holy Spirit is of the Father (Matthew 10:20), of God (Romans 8:9), of the Son (Galatians 4:6), and of Jesus Christ (Philippians 1:19).
Mary, by all accounts and purposes your long-suffering ma deserves the purple star for what she no doubt went through with you.
Mary, by all accounts and purposes your long-suffering ma deserves the purple ♥ heart for what she must have gone through with you!
Or at the very least the bronze star �� medal!
Or at the very least your ever-patient ma deserves the bronze star �� medal, Mary!
"(whoever was talking about only The Holy Spirit can teach you or give you context of Scripture or anything is probably sold out to this same contemplative deception.)"
You are clueless once again Christine.
Look up these and do not be lazy in these important matters because you speak against God not man. Hear what God says and stop being clueless and undiscerning -- or worse deceived yourself)
John 14:15-17 & 21-24 (how are you doing with this so far eh? to love the Lord and have His indwelling Spirit?)
John 14: 26-27 (notice who is the teacher and what does he teach?)
John 15:7&8(you fail to truly give Him glory as your many many previous posts highlight because full of your self-stated darkness)
John 16:7&8 and 13&14. looks like God can speak for Himself, Christine Erikson. You handle scripture very poorly and are answerable to God for that.
You really are wrong here and need to stop with your own take on the bible and take God as the authority and last word on the subject of Himself.
If you already had the indwelling Holy Spirit we would not even be having this discussion about Who teaches who.
This place could do with a good clean! There's a certain NAM squatter that needs evicting. Look at the mess she's made: false beliefs, delusions, and all sorts of gut wrenching filth. Look at her graffiti she left behind; coarse language, swearing, a barrage of insults and heresy. She's even left the stench of her (trying to be ex-) Satanist -live-in-luster-fornicator-and clairvoyant behind! Am I lying? No, just take a look around!
I do so wish the general manager of this once fine establishment will finally evict her, she's already been given notice to post no more than once daily and for that to be on topic, yet she flagrantly and flat out continues to clog and trash the blog! No wonder her poor mother could not cope with her!
anon 2:46
The Holy Spirit comes out of the Father, not out of the Son.
All the other points about being Spirit of the Son etc., are relevant to all that is of the Father is also of The Son, but that is not the same as proceeding from/coming out of The Son, which is about origin. For instance, The Father is The Father OF The Son, but that doesn't mean that since He is Father OF The Son that He was generated by or came out of The Son.
Likewise The Holy Spirit being The Spirit OF The Son does not mean He came out of The Son.
sharing all things including persons one is in relationship with, whether a fellow divine person (The Holy Spirit) or the Church or all creation, doesn't say anything about what came out of Who. "And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them." John 17:10
"All things that the Father hath are mine" John 15:16
When you have ambiguities like this, you need to find resolution by context, or find a non ambiguous statement that clarifies it.
"But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, [even] the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father,"
John 15:26
Jesus sends Him FROM THE FATHER, The Holy Spirit proceeds FROM THE FATHER.
Not "from The Father and The Son."
anon 10:16
that isn't sloppy. The effort to cobble together verses out of context to make your point (which protestants blindly adopted from RC),
ignoring the plain teaching of John 15:26, is what is sloppy.
anon 4:37 I do take the Bible as the authority, I have cited it to back up what I say, and you take some things out of context to make yourself the only person who interpret it for you, and to reject issues of context to get meaning, and supposedly only The Holy Spirit can teach or even point out context.
But Paul says to Timothy, who he set as bishop (overseer) over Ephesus, to "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering AND DOCTRINE [teaching]" II Tim. 4:1
and elsewhere speaks of those who are teachers, and these are humans who having studied Scripture can expound it and explain it to others.
Clearly The Bible (which is the authority to which you as well as I must bow) does not support your idea that only you presumably guided by The Holy Spirit can say anything from The Bible to you or use it to explain anything, and that The Holy Spirit will give you the context you need (whatever you mean by that), and that everyone else can just shut up.I Cor. 12:27-29 mentions teachers among those that are provided to the church by The Holy Spirit. THAT SHOWS IN THE BIBLE THAT GOD USES PEOPLE TO TEACH OTHER PEOPLE.
Clearly you are not the only person who can expound Scripture whether to you directly or to you by way of having posted something publicly for anyone and you came across it.
And you are violating your own premise that no one but yourself (or The Holy Spirit or yourself you mistake for the Holy Spirit) can tell you anything, in that you try to tell me anything, because what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
"Mary Christine Erikson you may not address me nor may you use the three stars I chose to identify myself.
This is harrassment, STOP NOW. You have no idea who you are dealing with. We can get the internet records in discovery. This is the first time you have included my three stars, now it needs to be the last."
YOU are the one (with others) who are dong the harassment.
And who do you think you are? I never quoted the three stars anyway, but ANYTHING YOU PUT IN A PUBLIC FORUM IS PUBLIC MATERIAL.
I for one am losing patience with you harassers, and I am not going to answer you people for the most part, except to correct some serious biblical error of yours that is bad influence on others, I am going to IGNORE you.
Constance also told everyone to make no more than one Christine bashing post a day, and while that might add up to a few you could also treat it as one PERIOD, but even if treating it as one per person there are too many for you people to be obeying her either, POT CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK and most of my posts were responses to your HARASSMENT.
Frankly if someone wanted to make a case for internet bullying, YOU are the ones who are guilty!
You still do not understand Christine. You have rolled over the Scriptures I provided and have in truth answered nothing! 4:37 PM is also right about you, you are clueless and have not the discernment given by the Holy Spirit. Do you not remember what is written in John 14:9?
John 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known Me, Phillip? He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, shew us the Father?
Don't you understand that Jesus Christ the Son is Co-Equal with the Father? Don't you know in the beginning that all things through Him were made and nothing was made without Him? He is the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, Jesus Christ is God, Begotten not made of One Being with the Father. He, Jesus Christ the Son, and His Father are One. He is the Great 'I Am'! Do you not understand that when all things were made through Him that the Holy Spirit was at work proceeding from Him and the Father? Sadly you do not.
Christine, you are as is written in 2 Timothy 3:7: Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth!
You should consider Proverbs 3:5, and trust the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding!
I guess that's to much to ask of you for you are a seered reprobate disseminating gnostic occultism and fornicating (when well enough) with a (ex?) Satanic worshipping clairvoyant, as her own live in lover and 'resident seer': The Lord rebuke you!
All you said I know, but none of it validates the filioque, which is ruled out by Jesus Christ's own words.
John 15:26 "But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, [even] the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father,"
I skimmed over those things because I already know them and this one verse puts them all in perspective.
"Don't you understand that Jesus Christ the Son is Co-Equal with the Father? Don't you know in the beginning that all things through Him were made and nothing was made without Him? He is the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, Jesus Christ is God, Begotten not made of One Being with the Father. He, Jesus Christ the Son, and His Father are One. He is the Great 'I Am'! Do you not understand that when all things were made through Him that the Holy Spirit was at work proceeding from Him and the Father? Sadly you do not."
On the contrary, I take all this - except the filioque part - for granted as the basis from which everything else is to be understood.
The Holy Spirit was at work, yes, and both The Father and The Son had something to do with His actions, but that is NOT about origin of The Holy Spirit.
When I say origin I do not mean a sequence as if "there was a time when He was not" rather, that though they are all Three co eternal, only The Father is unoriginate, unbegotten, and not proceeding from anything or anyone.
The Son is eternally begotten of The Father, outside of time. The Holy Spirit is eternally spirated from The Father, outside of time, two different modes of origin.
I repeat! You still do not understand Christine!
You have rolled over the Scriptures I provided and have in truth answered nothing!
4:37 PM is also right about you, you are clueless and have not the discernment given by the Holy Spirit. Do you not remember what is written in John 14:9?
John 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known Me, Phillip? He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, shew us the Father?
Don't you understand that Jesus Christ the Son is Co-Equal with the Father? Don't you know in the beginning that all things through Him were made and nothing was made without Him? He is the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, Jesus Christ is God, Begotten not made of One Being with the Father. He, Jesus Christ the Son, and His Father are One. He is the Great 'I Am'! Do you not understand that when all things were made through Him that the Holy Spirit was at work proceeding from Him and the Father? Sadly you do not.
Christine, you are as is written in 2 Timothy 3:7: Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth!
You should consider Proverbs 3:5, and trust the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding!
I guess that's to much to ask of you for you are a seered reprobate disseminating gnostic occultism and fornicating (when well enough) with a (ex?) Satanic worshipping clairvoyant, as her own live in lover and 'resident seer': The Lord rebuke you!
All this and my post beforehand shows that the HOLY SPIRIT PROCEEDS FROM THE FATHER AND FROM THE FATHER AND THE SON ALSO! It is not just about the filioque; it is not 'either or ' but 'both and '! You still don't get it, do you? It is obviously too highbrow for you yet simple enough for even a child to understand!
You do not know Jesus or you would not continue such folly! You aim to demote and/or separate Him from the Father, you pay pretended lip-service but you deny Him and your heart is far from Him! If you don't love and honor your earthly parents who you've seen then how can you claim to love Him you have not?
You make the EO sound like the JWs and the New Agers from whence you really come! Oh ye of little faith!
Hey Christine,
get your own stars! Perhaps you should consider the bronze star �� which was the least your poor ever-patient and long-suffering mother deserves for having put up with your dishonorable rebellion! You should weep with remorse at what you've done to and written about her here!
Mary Christine Erikson,
Simply put, just because you are alledgedly a self-diagnosed aspergers by your account does not make you otherwise of high intelligence. I doubt your self-diagnosis here (and your prescriptions of H2O muttered and drooled over by your res. seer, sprinkled with paprika), and think it far more likely that your illness is more of a spiritual nature from all the occult dabbling you've been engaged in.
Anonymous judgement
Incredible keyboard courage
Juvenile hissing and spitting malice
Poor Dotty !
Leave me alone and do not address me Mary Christine Erikson from Palo Alto California.
You do not have permission to address me. As in all public situations when advancements are rejected and you continue that has crossed the line to cyber bullying. I do not want any conversation with you. Again leave me alone, now.
Second public warning.
***
***
anon 7:34
why do you just skim over Jesus' words in John 15:26?
Why is not THE LORD JESUS CHRIST'S words good enough for you? These put a limit on the possible interpretations of what you present in Scripture, that limit is, that The Holy Spirit originates from The Father, not from The Father and The Son.
All you point out is only co action in time, not origin in eternity. the Eunomian heretics, extreme Arianists, denied the divinity of The Son and The Holy Spirit, and held that The Holy Spirit proceeded from The Son. One account of them had Him proceeding from both The Father and The Son.
the Holy Spirit comes forth from The Father, and Jesus takes Him and brings Him or sends Him into the Church, but the initial coming forth is ONLY from THE FATHER.
Christine,
I'm about to go through and do some slashing of your posts -- i've begged you to post moderately, but since I was away, it has become obsessively heavy.
Constance
To Susanna:
We thank God that you are safe! Thanks for letting us know!
Constance
Constance,
I'm not going to let myself be drawn into any more conflicts they can just say anything they want and I won't answer. I will stick to politics (New Age and Middle East perhaps) and theology.
I have skimmed over nothing Christine, which is why I included them first. Unlike you and the EO, I do my utmost not to add nor take away from the Holy Scriptures! You should stop following vain philosophies of men!
You are the cause of conflicts here!
Christina,
A sincere warning to you: when others have questioned your choice to live out of wedlock with a "recovering" Satanist (who by your own admission IS your "Resident Seer" with clairvoyant 'powers' which, according to you, he supposedly inherits from his grandmother), and have corrected you in other areas you have responded by calling them idiots (i.e., fools). By doing so you are in danger of Hell Fire! Be warned!
You continue to obfuscate, deviate or downright ignore when you've again been corrected about your false claim that Ecclesiastes 12 (esp. Vs 6) refers to chakras. Where the wheel is BROKEN at the cistern!
You are an unrepentant reprobate and rightly should you be called out, corrected, reproved, rebuked and exposed.
It is time for us all to wipe the dust off our feet concerning you so that this blog may get back to its proper place: exposing ideas, false beliefs and the dangers of the New Age Movement held and promoted in error by the likes of you! This is hard to do whilst you remain here as you remain a danger to those not firm in the Faith, once delivered unto the Saints.
Thank you Constance for your patient understanding. I and I believe others are grateful that you will slash her posts. I understand your reluctance to bar her from posting here period but I emplore you to give it serious consideration for the sake of this vital forum she is hell-bent on ruining and for all those genuine posters here. Thank you!!!!
Dear Constance,
I thank you in advance for your patient understanding. I and, I believe, others are very grateful that you will slash Christina's posts. I understand your reluctance to bar her from posting here period but I emplore you to give it serious consideration for the sake of this vital forum she is hell-bent on ruining and for all those genuine posters here. Thank you greatly!!!!
Plus, it would be healthy for Christine to get outside for some fresh air and maybe even some exercise!
Christina, A sincere warning to you: whenever you are corrected by anyone here you have responded by calling them idiots (i.e., fools). I warn you that you are in danger of Hell Fire for doing so!
You are an unrepentant reprobate who, according to you) is living out of wedlock with a "recovering" Satanist who you refer to as your "Resident Seer " and who IS and REMAINS engaged in clairvoyancy (which you claim he inherited from his grandmother)!
This blog has long been derailed by you probably because you recognize its value in exposing the New Age Movement and its adherents (to which your posts indicate you belong).
You have tirelessly and yet most tiringly been corrected, reproved, rebuked and exposed here concerning your false beliefs and occult leanings, and your attempts to twist Holy Scriptures to suit your gnostic lies. Whenever anyone questions your position (such as your repeated claim that Ecclesiastes 12 ((esp. Vs 6)) refers to chakras, despite others clearly and Biblically refuting you by showing the "wheel BROKEN at the cistern " in NO WAY refers to chakras) you obfuscate, deviate, and downright ignore them, and continue to twist, and spew out the same old mantras over and over again like the constantly hissing viperess you are! You have not addressed the points made to you about the procession of the Holy Spirit, instead you have falsely polarized my position as being only an affirmation of the filioque whereas I clearly told you it was a 'both and' scenario where the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Father and the Son also! You clearly ignored a great amount of Holy Writ I included, telling me I was skimming, lol! How disingenuous and stubborn you are! You are far from God with your trinkets, mantras, consulting demons, etc. You do not know Jesus Christ and He doesn't know you, that is clear! You preach a different Jesus, one who is not Co-Equal with the Father (the Real Jesus Christ is Co-Equal with the Father, all things were made through Him with the Work of the Holy Spirit, and without Him there was nothing that was made! Remember His words to Phillip! You lean on your own understanding and are forever learning and never coming to the knowledge of the truth! The Lord rebuke you! I believe God has a Triune Nature, and these Three are One!
You have been warned! You are shameless in that you laugh in the face of Constance who has gone out of her way to generously and with exceeding patience to accommodate you, undoubtedly hoping your blasphemies, heresy, New Age propagation and arrogance were just teething problems. By your own admission you are an information wolf, I.e., out to deceive and devour who you can by your lies, debauchery, deception and delusions! IT IS TIME YOU WERE STOPPED FROM POSTING HERE! If you are a member of the Greek Orthodox institute as you claim and they know of your living arrangements and occultic consultations, propagation and dissemination then (unless they have done so already) shame on them for not having excommunicated you!
"and I am not going to answer you people for the most part, except to correct some serious biblical error"
The ever arrogant Christine supposing that she is the teacher and corrector here.
Yes people can teach people...duh!..but what you fail to understand is the Holy Spirit is THE TEACHER of the word of God. Any and all else have to learn from Him what is supernaturally taught. It is spiritually discerned and learned not in the natural understanding and that is clearly taught in scripture itself and so there is the problem you pose. You are not indwelt by the Spirit of God but His counterfeit instead. You are not even teachable by God at this point until you repent and believe in God with no add-on religious man-made teaching and let him forgive, cleanse and supernaturally remake (and reteach you the Bible) his way! You cannot handle the word of God correctly to even correct yourself...much less attempt to teach anyone else.
Here's a clue for you: very carefully read and then listen for God to show you something you lack regarding Him and the scripture because this is key to our prayers being heard and but also hearing from the Lord...
...if I regard iniquity in my heart the Lord will not hear me. Ps 66:18
Your prayers and your knowledge are nothing until you deal with your sin, Christine. That is straight from God to you to begin to get a clue. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. You have no godly fear in you or you would not have advanced this far in error. In fact read Ps 19:7-14 and let it work through your mind and heart and hopefully you will lose the pride and be humbled enough to learn from the Master.
"Christine... what you fail to understand is the Holy Spirit is THE TEACHER of the word of God. Any and all else have to learn from Him what is supernaturally taught. It is spiritually discerned and learned not in the natural understanding and that is clearly taught in scripture itself and so there is the problem you pose."
Exactly right 10:29 AM! The Truth of the Holy Spirit is exactly what she dismisses ( and has done so verbally here, the gall of Her)! She is in grave danger of committing the unpardonable sin in her blasphemy! She is counterfeit indeed!
God bless you richly for your unswerving courage on speaking up, correcting, reproving, rebuking and exposing her antichrist spirit with indefatigable patience and the sword of truth!
Thank you Constance.
I am praying for you and the blog.
***
Let he or she who is without sin cast the first stone. Let he or she who has never uttered an unpublishable word do likewise. Christine has her self-acknowledged problems, but there is no doubt in my mind that she loves God. I certainly pray for healing for anybody with "diarrhea of the Pen" or "diarrhea of the mouth." I would call many of her postings not up to my standards, but I would not call her "counterfeit". Let's all be kinder, one to another!
Constance
To Anonymous 8:48, you should no more invade Christine's identity than she should do yours.
If somebody wants to identify themselves and contact information on here, they are free to do so -- providing it is not for commercial purposes -- but let's stop putting up identifiers of others such as name, city . . .!!!
Constance
Christine,
Your statement about the Holy Spirit proceeding ONLY from the Father and NOT from the Son, I'm having problems with. Jesus said clearly "My Father and I are one." He also said that when the Spirit of Truth came he would not speak of Himself, but would speak of Jesus. I don't pretend to be an expert on the differences between Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Theology, but I see nothing wrong with the Nicean Creed, a clear and succinct statement of faith which says "Proceeds from the FATHER AND THE SON".
Constance
The allegations of Christine living with a Seer and psychic are new to me! Has she made such an admission on this blog or another traceable directly to her? If so, I have so far missed it.
Constance
Oh yes, that 'personalities' were left out of all this discussion and many insults have been hurled back and forth, that is true. But better even than more kindness shown to each other, would be that people would be kinder to the truth itself. If Christine would stop the continual arguing and simply agree to disagree would at least help and would sort out much needless posting with that being especially Christine's biggest problem here. It is the way she treats the topics but others also, that has become deplorable, all the while she {in reality} acknowledges nothing of her own fault(s), mainly endless argument, excuses and needless over-explaining of what should be her own personal life lessons, making of this place a grandstand of her issues for the attention she craves, negative or otherwise.
What a bog...and with all due respect, it is fact, that she has led the way in that.
Holding her accountable to words she preaches at folks here, things she says of herself and her personal life have made her out to be a real hypocrite while she, as she puts it: 'educates you people', is at least people offering some counter to her diatribes.
Agree or not...whatever.
Constance,
a. the last wild scene when someone (probably trying to draw me out into a fight) asked if I was willing to repent of preaching hinduism, which I never did.
b . in the context of that someone starts dragging up may alleged depravity and notices an old address of mine from some years ago.
I live celibate with a man I'm engaged to, which makes it more of a serious claim sound than just "boyfriend" and permanence implied, but which kept me out of striking range of SSI declaring me married if I call someone husband and he gets to support me. Washington DC is one of the few remainging jurisdictions that allow common law marriage to be created and apparently don't have much time required for it. all states recognize c. l. if started in a c. l. marriage state. This wasn't one of them, so I couldn't be kicked off SSI and burden someone who can barely support himself and has debts.
The man is a RECOVERING devil worshippher, started hanging out with me to get away from it and from financial predatory friends. a workaholic, not quite disabled enough to qualify for SSI so has to wait for regular retirement age.
I discovered he could see stuff others couldn't and could tell when my vague impressions were real or imaginary. A little quizzing told me he was seeing farther into UV and IR than most, which is not atypical of paranormal research findings, they often use IR photography to photograph entities, whatever they are is another matter.
Subjective Clairvoyance is done with the mind, can be learned, can be given by God or a demon. It doesn't depend on the condition of the physical eyes.
Objective Clairvoyance is inherited, and depends on the condition of the eyes, you go blind physically you go blind paraphysically. In the family it tracked to his father's mother or grandmother who was a Lutheran.
I tested his dad just before we met I put blessed oil on my sleeve that could not normally be seen, but would glow to someone who can "see." sure enough all that evening he was sneaking peeks at my sleeve, which to him would be glowing but no one else could see it.
One of his daughters seemed to have some ability or atmosphere of some sort, but probably never developed it much because the kids would have had the smallpox shot young, while he didn't get his until adult in the army. information out of Africa indicates this suppresses expression of the gene.
I am off SSI now, but a legal marriage would also lower my status in his eyes to being subordinate to him (which is exactly why marriage is the death of love) which if some people were ever accepted back into his life could weaken my counter influence.
his satanist inclined parents used "honor your parents" to keep him in line and husband boss of wife would of course play to him not listening to me.
Legal marriage in a no fault divorce state, in a country where no state prosecutes adultery as a crime, is meaningless anyway. What's the point? aside from inheritance issues and family or spouse only access in a hospital which a presigned authorization would solve anyway.
the gay agenda, just realized this (duh, I can be slow sometimes!)
"family or spouse only access in a hospital which a presigned authorization would solve anyway."
they whine about not being able to visit lovers in the hospital or have any say when they could do presigned authorizations!
And all their pervert lawyers know this. This emotional stuff seeking pity for pain, is a ploy deliberately put forth, not because some pervert is sorrowing over a loved one, but because it stirs sympathy regarding people with feelings, who however ill directed the feelings are, are regarding a situation where they can hardly act out perversion anyway. yep, this can appeal to compassion and push for gay marriage for these legal rights. Rights they could arrange without marriage and that are routinely arranged without sex or anything being part of a relationship, like power of attorney and stuff like that, and who has permission to discuss things with.
Constance,
Mary has stated her firm belief that what is on the internet is fully public. She posted her own email, address, full name and much more on the internet in multiple locations. I simply linked to her own postings and public information. I completely disagree with you, she has been opressive and posts on the internet daily. I have the resopnsability to expose her and I am glad I did, I exposed information she herself exposed first. She is responsible for her own postings and cyberbullying.
***
My favorite read to date on Davos / Klaus Schwab / World Economic forum:
http://tinyurl.com/la3lyyt
Enjoy!
Constance
Christine:
Regarding your engagement and male friend, I'm not going to sit in judgment, BUT, I do believe you have some real discernment issues. I would highly recommend you read (or re-read if you have already read it) JOHANNA MICHAELSEN'S THE BEAUTIFUL SIDE OF EVIL
I'm glad your friend repented of the open Satanic involvement, but just as the Bible records of Mary Magdalene, he may still need a few hanging around familiar spirits to be gone from him.
Constance
Constance,
If I may comment on your 2:09 comment re: Holy Spirit ‘proceeding’: The original Nicene Creed did not contain “and the Son” (this is known as the filioque, from Latin “and [from] the son”); this clause was added later (the reasons are a bit confusing). While the EO affirms that the Persons of the Triune Godhead are Co-eternal, the EO wishes to retain the original wording of the Creed which excludes the clause, with the understanding that the Holy Spirit eternally ‘proceeds’, i.e., originates eternally, from the Father only. The proof-text appears to be John 15:26.
A while back this issue came up in your comments here, with Christine dogmatically declaring that Scripture affirms her position of ‘eternal procession’ of the Spirit from the Father, using John 15:26 as the proof-text (you can find the discussion quickly by performing a search function using “filioque”). It was only because of her dogmatic claim that I decided to refute her view. I was clear that my opinion was/is that it could well be that the Spirit eternally ‘proceeds’ from the Father; however, Scripture is silent on this matter, as John 15:26 is speaking missionally in time; the context speaks nothing about ontology or eternality, i.e, the inner life of the Trinity.
The verb used for “proceeds” in John 15:26 is a form of ekporeuomai, which is a compound, with ek a preposition meaning “out of” or “from.” The verb poreuomai (or poreuw) is also found individually in the NT, and is always used as a verb of movement, meaning either ‘from a point of departure’ or ‘to a destination’, with the meaning ultimately determined by context. The verb is also prefixed with eis, meaning “into,” as in Luke 18:24: enter the Kingdom of God. So, it stands to reason that ekporeuomai would be used only as a verb of movement, probably the best example being Jesus leaving the temple in Mark 13:1 – obviously, the context says nothing about Jesus’ ontological origins, just as John 15:26 speaks nothing of the Spirit’s ontology.
As I pointed out in that discussion, if the Gospel writer intended to speak of the Spirit’s ontological origin, a different verb would have been used, such as ginomai, from which we get Genesis. In John 1:18, e.g., we have the Son described as monogenes Son (or, “God,” as all the newer translations prefer, based on Greek manuscript evidence).
My opinion expressed there – which I’ll restate here – is that this is not an issue to divide over. Christine’s dogmatic view on this particular matter only brought unnecessary division, and a diversionary discussion. And, unfortunately, Christine has a habit of speaking dogmatically, with words to the effect of “Scripture explicitly states…” on matters that have legitimate alternate interpretations, or even other, better interpretations.
Here's the question Christine ducked, and all based on information she freely placed in this public forum:
As the man you live with is not your husband, Christine, it is not right for you to call him your husband. Marriage is a PUBLIC institution. The authorities have a right to know who is married because the law still (just about) privileges marriage in various ways. It is true that in ancient Israel a couple declared themselves married and then informed the authorities, whereas today you have to go through a ceremony recognised by the authorities, but if you and your man want to declare yourselves married then you still have a duty to inform the authorities and leave them to make of it what they will. It might make you liable for his debts, as you said. Are you willing to do what you ought?
CA is not a common law marriage state, SSI out of Washington DC which is common marriage recognizing would have counted us married if it got wind of us calling each other husband and wife.
at this point it doesn't matter, so I don't mind it when he calls me wife or has me call someone and identify myself as his wife. That is public enough. The state would not make anything of it without a license and ceremony.
marriage isn't just a public institution, though it is also that. Ancient Israel was not the issue it was Roman law which had three ways to get married one was usus, living together for a year and a day, which is what I referred to as Paul not saying anything about, though most common in the lower economic classes, because they didn't have much to invoke any deities to protect in the first place.
Marriage is a moral issue of claiming exclusivity to the partner. If a couple draws a real distinction in their minds between marriage and living together or dating and being faithful until they decide to do otherwise, then they are essentially fornicating.
And you can argue so are those who get married, with the understanding that they will stay together until they tire of each other and will get a divorce and find new sexier spouses.
Elizabeth Taylor once said she didn't believe in sex outside of marriage or had never done that, but ten marriages, well.....
Another moral issue would be if one of the two considers the relationship permanent and breaking up not an option, while the other makes this distinction. Yes I have been in that situation, I repented of that.
Mike and I don't have sex so any moral qualms you have are ridiculous. It would be like saying I have to marry someone I have no interest in and vice versa, who happened to be renting a room in my house and happened to be of the opposite sex, or renting a cottage (if I had one) on my property, so "living together" geographically. Which would be ridiculous.
I think you are more focussed on social institutions than on morality.
Do you think of the church as a social institution? It is supposed to be beyond that, but is viewed in those terms by the worst sorts and the whole covenant making emerging mega churches etc. http://www.herescope.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-troubles-with-church-covenants.html
My answer to your question, is that I don't agree that I "ought" to marry him, and as I explained to you and Constance this could backfire in power balance issues, in countering bad stuff he might be tempted by. That would be potentially aiding sin, rather than stopping an appearance of sin.
So, frankly, no, I am not planning on marrying him any time soon.
The privileges the state gives marriage are all creatable by formal legal agreements of other sorts. The only ones I can think of (since we are too old to have children) would be already listed in previous recent posts.
Given his parents have asked him when are we getting married, and his father has told him I have married into his family, and their bad sidelines, I have good reason to worry that legal marriage would make other sins harder to oppose, strengthen any wrong influence of his parents, and would therefore be a sin.
Constance,
[reposting this, as it 'disappeared']
If I may comment on your 2:09 comment re: Holy Spirit ‘proceeding’: The original Nicene Creed did not contain “and the Son” (this is known as the filioque, from Latin “and [from] the son”); this clause was added later (the reasons are a bit confusing). While the EO affirms that the Persons of the Triune Godhead are Co-eternal, the EO wishes to retain the original wording of the Creed which excludes the clause, with the understanding that the Holy Spirit eternally ‘proceeds’, i.e., originates eternally, from the Father only. The proof-text appears to be John 15:26.
A while back this issue came up in your comments here, with Christine dogmatically declaring that Scripture affirms her position of ‘eternal procession’ of the Spirit from the Father, using John 15:26 as the proof-text (you can find the discussion quickly by performing a search function using “filioque”). It was only because of her dogmatic claim that I decided to refute her view. I was clear that my opinion was/is that it could well be that the Spirit eternally ‘proceeds’ from the Father; however, Scripture is silent on this matter, as John 15:26 is speaking missionally in time; the context speaks nothing about ontology or eternality, i.e, the inner life of the Trinity.
The verb used for “proceeds” in John 15:26 is a form of ekporeuomai, which is a compound, with ek a preposition meaning “out of” or “from.” The verb poreuomai (or poreuw) is also found individually in the NT, and is always used as a verb of movement, meaning either ‘from a point of departure’ or ‘to a destination’, with the meaning ultimately determined by context. The verb is also prefixed with eis, meaning “into,” as in Luke 18:24: enter the Kingdom of God. So, it stands to reason that ekporeuomai would be used only as a verb of movement, probably the best example being Jesus leaving the temple in Mark 13:1 – obviously, the context says nothing about Jesus’ ontological origins, just as John 15:26 speaks nothing of the Spirit’s ontology.
As I pointed out in that discussion, if the Gospel writer intended to speak of the Spirit’s ontological origin, a different verb would have been used, such as ginomai, from which we get Genesis. In John 1:18, e.g., we have the Son described as monogenes Son (or, “God,” as all the newer translations prefer, based on Greek manuscript evidence).
My opinion expressed there – which I’ll restate here – is that this is not an issue to divide over. Christine’s dogmatic view on this particular matter only brought unnecessary division, and a diversionary discussion. And, unfortunately, Christine has a habit of speaking dogmatically, with words to the effect of “Scripture explicitly states…” on matters that have legitimate alternate interpretations, or even other better interpretations.
A reply but not a response, Christine. And what about not committing sins in your heart? To put it bluntly: Would you if you could?
Constance,
[reposting this comment – this time split up into two, as it’s ‘disappeared’ twice]
If I may comment on your 2:09 comment re: Holy Spirit ‘proceeding’: The original Nicene Creed did not contain “and the Son” (this is known as the filioque, from Latin “and [from] the son”); this clause was added later (the reasons are a bit confusing). While the EO affirms that the Persons of the Triune Godhead are Co-eternal, the EO wishes to retain the original wording of the Creed which excludes the clause, with the understanding that the Holy Spirit eternally ‘proceeds’, i.e., originates eternally, from the Father only. The proof-text appears to be John 15:26.
A while back this issue came up in your comments here, with Christine dogmatically declaring that Scripture affirms her position of ‘eternal procession’ of the Spirit from the Father, using John 15:26 as the proof-text (you can find the discussion quickly by performing a search function using “filioque”). It was only because of her dogmatic claim that I decided to refute her view. I was clear that my opinion was/is that it could well be that the Spirit eternally ‘proceeds’ from the Father; however, Scripture is silent on this matter, as John 15:26 is speaking missionally in time; the context speaks nothing about ontology or eternality, i.e, the inner life of the Trinity.
[cont]
[cont]
The verb used for “proceeds” in John 15:26 is a form of ekporeuomai, which is a compound, with ek a preposition meaning “out of” or “from.” The verb poreuomai (or poreuw) is also found individually in the NT, and is always used as a verb of movement, meaning either ‘from a point of departure’ or ‘to a destination’, with the meaning ultimately determined by context. The verb is also prefixed with eis, meaning “into,” as in Luke 18:24: enter the Kingdom of God. So, it stands to reason that ekporeuomai would be used only as a verb of movement, probably the best example being Jesus leaving the temple in Mark 13:1 – obviously, the context says nothing about Jesus’ ontological origins, just as John 15:26 speaks nothing of the Spirit’s ontology.
As I pointed out in that discussion, if the Gospel writer intended to speak of the Spirit’s ontological origin, a different verb would have been used, such as ginomai, from which we get Genesis. In John 1:18, e.g., we have the Son described as monogenes Son (or, “God,” as all the newer translations prefer, based on Greek manuscript evidence).
My opinion expressed there – which I’ll restate here – is that this is not an issue to divide over. Christine’s dogmatic view on this particular matter only brought unnecessary division, and a diversionary discussion. And, unfortunately, Christine has a habit of speaking dogmatically, with words to the effect of “Scripture explicitly states…” on matters that have legitimate alternate interpretations, or even other better interpretations.
Craig,
eternal proceeding is because this happens/happened outside of time. If they are all coeternal, then all of them always existed, there was never a point before which one or more of them did not exist.
" if the Gospel writer intended to speak of the Spirit’s ontological origin, a different verb would have been used, such as ginomai, from which we get Genesis. In John 1:18, e.g., we have the Son described as monogenes Son (or, “God,” as all the newer translations prefer, based on Greek manuscript evidence)."
Here is where you don't get it. Origin in that sense, like genesis or only begotten Son Who is of course God because like begets like so God begets God, is about being BEGOTTEN. This is done without sex with another being, so is best compared to reproduction by budding like a yeast.
(I expect someone will scream "blasphemy! you compare God to a semi fungus!" I am only trying to make a comparison, and all comparisons are imperfect because God is not directly like any created thing, to the non sexual mode of reproduction.)
But note MONOGENES only begotten, The Son is only begotten THEREFORE The Holy Spirit is NOT begotten, being spirated is not being begotten, that is another thing, comparable to exhalation.
So if The Holy Spirit is FROM The Father, but is NOT BEGOTTEN, then His proceeding is about His origin. When Jesus said He will send The Holy Spirit from The Father, you can argue that The Holy Spirit comes from The Father in origin in eternity and through The Son into The Church in time, but the filioque is part of a creedal statement that describes and defines the Persons of The Holy Trinity, speaking both of origin and action. And it is ambiguous enough to allow of either from and through, but single origin, as modern RC apologists sometimes say, or double origin, which is not possible without creating serious problems. And that the filioque indeed meant double origin is shown by its use against the Arians in western Europe and the arguments against it by St. Photios the Great, who answered some answers already given him, which apparently did not include the from and through but stated from and from.
Nice article on Davos Constance!
It's all there in the last paragraph. Unfortunately, they have the global smart grid in place and it’s in use now collecting data on every state and local government, every agency, school and hospital as I type.
"Deconstructing neural science." (in the last paragraph)
Yes, this is the one I keep making comments about. The Brain Initiative is well underway and even News with Views has wolves setting up propaganda on how much power they really have with this one. HINT: An MRI cannot read your thoughts. But if you believe it can, then the truth does not matter. Better yet, if you believe CBN's report then why take an MRI when a fingerprint will do. There’s a team in Hong Kong who can ‘read’ your prints and define you. Send the image across the grid, let them see you.
Your soul is the part of you gifted by God. It’s that special part that makes you His and it is that part that is the object of raw hatred by Satan and targeted by the minute. However, they will make the case that you are just a collection of thoughts, (an essence maybe) just a brain and your brain is god and hey your brain is broken because you believe in God and doubt global warming etc. well, that's what the neuro-Chiropractor says anyway. We all know people with credentials (even those with credentials to destroy) are the experts, the science gurus, the professors now the shaman of the New Age.
Maybe you are so insignificant that your essence can be downloaded into a computer, a robot. A really smart kid told me once, “Then you would be a psychopath, that is your essence in a robot without your soul.” Yup, sounds like the plan. The rest of the last paragraph from the article:
“The future of robotics. The latest developments in synthetic biology. The convergence of physical and virtual worlds.”
AKA the destruction of God’s creation and this time replacement of God’s creation with a ‘race’ of robots?
***
Now, The Father is unoriginate unbegotten. Has no origin. The Son is begotten, The Holy Spirit is spirated or breathed out. A different mode of reproduction if you want to call it that. A different mode of origin.
Remember, ONLY The Son is begotten, but both He and The Holy Spirit are distinct from The Father and come from The Father in terms of origin, so no use of ginomai is going to apply to The Holy Spirit. It would imply a feature He does not have.
The Three are co eternal, so the begetting and spirating (which is causing The Holy Spirit to proceed) happened outside of time.
If you say The Son has the spirating feature of The Father, which you do if you say The Holy Spirit proceeds from both, then you must ascribe these also to The Holy Spirit, or you will make Him out to be less than The Son.
If you ascribe spirating to The Holy Spirit then you must have a bunch of spirated additional divine Persons, because like begets or breaths out like. Here you either have additional Gods, The Trinity becomes and inifitudity, because they will all do this ad infinitum. Or, you argue that the angels were spirated from The Holy Spirit and that means they also are divine by essence and not created out of nothing not creatures, and it is the same thing.
If you make The Holy Spirit out to be the love between The Father and The Son like Augustine did, you reduce Him to a mere emotion, or force
which puts you in the New Age camp.
If you argue that all creation is what The Holy Spirit begets or spirates, then of necessity you imply the whole creation is also divine, because like begets or breathes out like.
which puts you in the New Age camp.
anon. 10:08 "You preach a different Jesus, one who is not Co-Equal with the Father "
That is a lie, I never said or implied any such thing.
"(the Real Jesus Christ is Co-Equal with the Father, all things were made through Him with the Work of the Holy Spirit, and without Him there was nothing that was made!"
Absolutely I agree. and how does the filioque support this, and how does rejection of the filioque deny any of this?
Christine wrote:
But note MONOGENES only begotten, The Son is only begotten THEREFORE The Holy Spirit is NOT begotten, being spirated is not being begotten, that is another thing, comparable to exhalation.
And now Christine makes things up out of thin.......exhalation.
Moreover, one can make the argument that monogenes in that context is speaking incarnationally (when the Word became flesh) rather than eternally.
Christine, you cannot escape the fact that ekporeuomai is a verb of movement and not once does it ever refer to ontology.
And as I pointed out a while back, a form of ekporeuomai is found in the Nicene Creed itself; so, any argument that eternal origins is in the Creed is only the result of importing one’s own preconceived (and wrong) idea that the verb means eternal origins.
It’s important to note that monogenes does not necessarily mean the only one born of a father/Father. This word is used to describe Isaac, and we all know Abraham also fathered Ishmael. See here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monogen%C4%93s
And, before someone calls me a heretic, I DO affirm the eternal Sonship of Jesus Christ. I’m just not so sure that John 1:18 is referring to it.
"But note MONOGENES only begotten, The Son is only begotten THEREFORE The Holy Spirit is NOT begotten, being spirated is not being begotten, that is another thing, comparable to exhalation.
And now Christine makes things up out of thin.......exhalation."
I made up nothing, I draw on the interpretations of the early Church and you are making up something, when you ignore that proceeding as being motion in a direction is exactly what happens when there is an exhalation.
Was Jesus the only begotten Son of The Father or of The Holy Spirit? The Holy Spirit was the One Who overshadowed Mary and begot Jesus in the Incarnation. (not sex, just causing things to happen.)
But Jesus referred to The Father as "MY Father" and distinguished Him from The Holy Spirit.
So monogenes is about Jesus' origin, He is the Only Begotten Son of God The Father even when He was not yet Incarnate.
Since time is itself a creature (note Romans 8:38-39 note "things present, nor things to come") then divine origins are in eternity.
There was never a time when any of The Holy Trinity was not. God stands outside of time, time tracks from a beginning. Where is the beginning with God? He has no beginning and no end. This is beyond human comprehension.
"And as I pointed out a while back, a form of ekporeuomai is found in the Nicene Creed itself; so, any argument that eternal origins is in the Creed is only the result of importing one’s own preconceived (and wrong) idea that the verb means eternal origins."
Take it up with the writers of the time and later who said the same sort of things I am saying.
the Creed refers to Jesus Christ as "the only begotten" and "begotten before all ages, light of light, true God of True God, begotten not made, being one essence with The Father,"
AND THEN GOES ON TO SPEAK OF THE INCARNATION, so all that was about BEFORE the Incarnation,
"and for us and for our salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate by The Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary and became man."
monogenes has nothing to do with the Incarnation, it is used of Him referring to Him BEFORE the Incarnation. "begotten of the Father BEFORE ALL AGES."
I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages. Light of light; true God of true God; begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father, by Whom all things were made; Who for us men and for our salvation came down from Heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man. And He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried. And the third day He arose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into Heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead; Whose Kingdom shall have no end.
And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father; Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; Who spoke by the prophets.
In one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. I look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.
http://oca.org/orthodoxy/prayers/symbol-of-faith
"I am only trying to make a comparison, and all comparisons are imperfect because God is not directly like any created thing,"
How about just being silent then since you do not have a good comparative?
Silence about the things ye know not of would actually be wisdom.
The very spirit of argument in you Christine, is why you are constantly divisive among people, no matter the topic but especially in bible topics. That is where you are most obtuse and lacking in grace. (ever learning and still not coming into the knowledge-understanding-thereof)
The word grandstand really does fit your mode of operation.
It is not about you...and all of your poor comparatives to speak about God.
Wisdom would be to first know Him before you even try to speak of or about Him.
Jesus dealt with the Pharisees from this very angle and why they missed the forest(Him)for the trees(majoring in the minors). I think you do that to keep real questions in issues and topics that are for your own life's learning off the table and where wisdom could come to you in reality.
all comparatives are poor. there is no adequate perfect comparative to anything about God.
And why bother me when I was talking to Craig, who brought this up again?
Why don't you study the Creed and find the Scriptures relevant instead of arguing with me? This isn't about me. This is about truth - and truth is always divisive.
why do you complain about divisiveness and by implication want unity - the big New Age motto?
Christine:
Re: "Elizabeth Taylor once said she didn't believe in sex outside of marriage or had never done that, but ten marriages, well....."
Elizabeth Taylor was married 8 times (twice to Richard Burton). So, she only had 7 different husbands (not 10).
my error. sorry.
Because the points you make are poor but that does not stop you, Christine.
And why he keeps repeating the points he is making but you still keep splitting hairs into infinity.
You are like a dog chasing it's tail but even more and to be more biblical, like a dog who returns to it's vomit. You can't get enough of your own regurgitations...
...and no friend to this blog.
Dear Craig 6:29 and 6:30
We are in agreement about the Son being co-eternal with the Father, but I would simply like to offer a couple of points.
Re:"the EO wishes to retain the original wording of the Creed which excludes the clause, with the understanding that the Holy Spirit eternally ‘proceeds’, i.e., originates eternally, from the Father only. The proof-text appears to be John 15:26."
In the West, St. Augustine of Hippo taught that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father and the Son, though subordinate to neither.
This means that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are co-eternal. If the Father and the Son are co-eternal, then the Holy Spirit as third Person of the Blessed Trinity is likewise co-eternal. He is "the Lord and giver of life"..."who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified." ( Nicene Creed )
Catholics also accept the legitimacy of the Eastern Orthodox "from the Father THROUGH the son.
"This legitimate complementarity [of expressions], provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed" (Catechism of the Catholic Church 248).
When we are baptized, moreover we are baptized with water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Matthew 28:19
Baptism cleanses us of Original Sin. Since only God can absolve us from sin, the Holy Spirit would have to also be God on that ground.
The order and names of the Persons of the Trinity do not indicate "time-talk" like "before" or "after" - or that one Person is greater or lesser than the other. They indicate the relationship in eternity of one Person to the other.
Constance was absolutely correct in quoting the passage in Scripture where Jesus is quoted as saying "I and the Father are one." If, as Scripture tells us, Christ - with respect to His divine nature - and the Father are one, it necessarily follows that the Third Person of the Holy Trinity "proceeds" from the Father and the Son "as from one Principle."
It is the created human nature of Christ that was subject to time.
Since the hypostatic union of two natures - human and divine - in the one Person of Christ is a mystery, I am not going to pretend to completely understand it. But we must be careful to distinguish between the two natures of Christ when referring to the Trinity. Christ's human nature was subject to time. His divine nature was not.
"In the beginning was the Word" John" 1:1
"The Word became flesh and dwelt amongst us" John 1:14
********************
cont.
cont...
This is why it is crucially important to also make the distinction between the "internal procession" which is with respect to God in eternity... and "external procession" which is with respect to creatures in time.
And with regard to the "internal procession" of the Trinity, we can begin with the most sacred name of God revealed to Moses atop Mount Horeb.....I AM WHO AM....and HE WHO IS. ( Exodus 3:14;
JHVH is an archaic Hebrew verb which means absolute uncreated self-existent BEING existing in in the absolute eternal NOW. The "I" and the "HE" also indicate that God is absolute PERSON, and not, as New Agers and Traditionalists/Perennialists believe, some amorphous impersonal "force" that can be tapped into at will vis vis meditation rituals and ceremonial magick..
While our human way of describing things is limited to be sure, it is nevertheless reasonable to conclude from the existence of God in the absolute eternal NOW of eternity, that the internal procession with respect to God can best be expressed in terms of taking place "all at once." This can help us to understand Christ's statement "Before Abraham came to be, I AM" John 8:58 - a statement for which the Pharisees wanted to stone Jesus because in essence, He was claiming to be God......attributing the most sacred name of God to Himself.
As human creatures, we are incapable of fully understanding the divine dynamic which is so unspeakably dynamic that the only way that we can describe it is in terms of its occuring "all at once."
"External procession," on the other hand, which is with respect to creatures, takes place "one after another" in time. Even the angels, as creatures, are subject to a form of time - albeit a speeded up "othertime" called "aeveternity" in which they "move" with the speed of thought.
New Agers like Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and and neo-modernists like Hans Kung who are into the gnostic emanationism which has morphed into evolutionary pantheism, try to subject God to time by claiming that JHVH translates into "I Will Be what I will be."
They present God as "becoming." and give priority to creaturely "becoming" over the BEING who is God. This is
blasphemous.
Getting back to the filioque, as you said, Craig, the filioque issue is complicated.
From the view of the West, the Eastern rejection of the Filioque denied the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son and was thus a form of crypto-Arianism.
Moreover, there are actually two separate issues in the Filioque controversy: namely,the orthodoxy of the doctrine itself and the legitimacy of inserting the phrase into the Nicene Creed.
Although the debate over the orthodoxy of the doctrine preceded the question of the admissibility of the phrase as inserted into the Creed, the two issues became linked when the insertion received the approval of the pope in the eleventh century. After that point, the debate was no longer solely about the orthodoxy of the doctrine but also about the authority of the pope to define what was and was not orthodox.
But when all is said and done, I don't necessarily have to go to the Church Fathers or the Pope in order to defend filioque. In this case, Scripture suffices - in terms of passages I have mentioned from both the Old and New Testaments.
When all is said and done, it is possible to acknowledge the orthodoxy of the filioque doctrine even if one does not accept Catholic ecclesiology.
Christine, please talk to us some more about possible life on Mars.
You have more knowledge about that than anything bible.
"They present God as "becoming." and give priority to creaturely "becoming" over the BEING who is God. This is
blasphemous."
Well said Susanna.
Susanna,
I don't think I find any point of disagreement with you. While I didn't cite any OT Scripture in the previous discussion, I did cite a number of NT verses, including John 10:30.
I'm only refuting Christine's specific notion that John 15:26 "proves" eternal (or, as you say, "internal") procession. I'd noted earlier that a 'dual-procession,' i.e. the filioque, is better backed up Biblically.
"From the view of the West, the Eastern rejection of the Filioque denied the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son and was thus a form of crypto-Arianism.
Moreover, there are actually two separate issues in the Filioque controversy: namely,the orthodoxy of the doctrine itself and the legitimacy of inserting the phrase into the Nicene Creed.
Although the debate over the orthodoxy of the doctrine preceded the question of the admissibility of the phrase as inserted into the Creed, the two issues became linked when the insertion received the approval of the pope in the eleventh century. After that point, the debate was no longer solely about the orthodoxy of the doctrine but also about the authority of the pope to define what was and was not orthodox."
Pope Leo III already spoke to that last issue, HE DENIED HE HAD THE AUTHORITY TO AUTHORIZE ITS ADDITION TO THE CREED, and that an Ecumenical Council would have to decide it. HE FORBADE ITS USE IN THE MASS, this had become an object of dispute after it had been in use for a while, AND PUT UP TWO SILVER SHIELDS WITH THE CREED WITHOUT THE FILIOQUE, but said private devotions could use it. Seems he believed it himself, BUT REFUSED TO PUT IT IN THE CREED, since he recognized primacy is not supremacy.
Augustine created a lot of problems.
As for denying equality with The Father of The Son, that is a ridiculous. No one ever denied that. The Son's position and nature does not depend on the filioque being true or not.
However, Augustine effectively reduced The Holy Spirit to a mere attitude or force, NOT A PERSON when he said that He is "the love between the Father and the Son." I read that one myself, and thought it a bit odd.
The filioque was used in the west to fight arianism, because as long as you admit the divinity of The Holy Spirit, then if He proceeds from The Son as well as The Father, The Son must be divine. Thank God no one noticed that IF The Son is not divine, then neither is The Holy Spirit if He proceeds even in part from The Son. Or that ploy would not have worked. The Eunomian extreme arians in the east, however, held that The Son and The Holy Spirit, who they said proceeded from The Son, were both creatures, and not fully divine.
The filioque does not protect The Son's status or identity, but opens the door to every heresy and maybe some new ones. As St. Photios the Great pointed out.
Photios' legality as Patriarch of Constantinople is irrelevant, a. by the time he wrote Mystagogy of The Holy Spirit he was on his second or third round of being Patriarch, which was legal by then because of the new circumstances, b. the arguments stand or fall on their own. Authority has nothing to do with it.
The Nicene Creed originally didn't mention The Holy Spirit, because it was making official what was already present, and once taken for granted, but now contested by heretics. After that, opposition to the divinity and/or personality of The Holy Spirit appeared, so the Constantinopolitan addition was done. Since they were determined to defend The Holy Spirit, they would have put the filioque in if it was something anyone considered okay.
A few writers who expressed themselves badly, or referred to action in time not origin, do not outweigh a lot of bishops in session, with the weight of tradition and their research in Scripture combined.
Hi Constance.
I am the one who wants to discuss your comments and posts.
Did you notice that others have a discussion going on that has little to do with your current research?
Hmm I wonder why.
***
Back to the usual business, of going round and round between Craig, and Christine. Christine posting numerous posts daily. Constance's wishes completely ignored.
Lots of 'straining at a gnat' while all the serious issues go right on by.
Dear Craig,
I don't think I find any point of disagreement with you either.
The reason I cited the Old Testament was not to contradict anything you said.
It was to emphasize the point that if a Christian truly understands the revelation given by God to Moses atop Mount Horeb, it is unlikely that he will err in his belief about the procession of the Persons of the Holy Trinity.
It is also unlikely that he will fall into any of the major Christological heresies - most or all of which derive from the inability or unwillingness to properly consider BEING.
One more thing to remember...an Old Testament indication of the trinity of Persons in the Godhead is to be found in Genesis where God says:
"Let US make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness." Genesis 1:26
And:
"Behold Adam is become as one of US, knowing good and evil:" Genesis 3:22
In Genesis what the Persons of the Trinity do, they do together as one.
As John tells us:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God; 3 all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made." John 1:1-3
5:46
Who would work so hard to research and then allow an opportunity for serious discussion to be squandered?
What am I missing?
***
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/534591/us-to-develop-dna-study-of-one-million-people/
I imagine these companies will now be tasked with collecting your thoughts and ideas via social media. The dna tells them nothing. They wil have to decide who lives and dies by social media. I am sure the brain scans and fingerprints are also fake.
DNA was invented by Cold Springs Harbor eugenics lab, I don't trust any genome projet. Let the death panels begin, but I didn't vote for it.
***
http://www.exploratorium.edu/tv/?project=33&program=282
Collins is from Cold Springs Harbor eugenics lab.
http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1796
***
http://www.trueexorcist.com/2015/01/global-governance-initiative.html
"Constance was absolutely correct in quoting the passage in Scripture where Jesus is quoted as saying "I and the Father are one." If, as Scripture tells us, Christ - with respect to His divine nature - and the Father are one, it necessarily follows that the Third Person of the Holy Trinity "proceeds" from the Father and the Son "as from one Principle." "
No it doesn't, because they all are one in principle. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Christ because He testifies of Him and is sent by Him in time into the Church, but also in speaking to Isaiah, 48:16 "Come ye near unto Me, hear yed this; I have not spoken in seret from the beginning;from the time that it was, there AM I:" this is not the prophet speaking about himself, but one of The Holy Trinity, as is also shown by the preceding verses the context
"AND NOW THE LORD GOD, [YHWH in the Hebrew at that point] AND THIS SPIRIT HATH SENT ME."
So this must be pre incarnate Jesus The Son The Word.
So in this situation, The Father and The Holy Spirit have sent The Son to speak to Isaiah to tell him to say these things to Israel.
Are you going to argue that the Son proceeds from The Father and The Holy Spirit then? or that The Father proceeds from both of Them?
proceeding is about origin. The Creed starts with The Father and says what He has done, then goes to The Son Who is called ONLY BEGOTTEN monogenes, so The Holy Spirit is not going to be spoken about in terms involving variations of this or the root word of monogenes, it says what He is, what His main feature is and what He did, then it speaks of The Holy Spirit and what He is and does and did. At this point there is no mention of begottenness, but of proceeding, which is not origin by begetting, as The Son's origin is, but another mode of origin.
in eternity, "before all ages" said about The Son but also could be said about The Holy Spirit, He proceeds as origin from The Father, coming from The Father or from within The Father to with The Father, in a manner like exhalation, even as The Son comes from within The Father to with The Father in a mode like nonsexual begetting, and then in time comes from The Father through (by means of) The Son into the Church. This is a different going from point A to point B, not the original going forth.
The result, instead of an inverted triangle effect shown in the Trinity "shield," would be an upright triangle. Or, a point from which come two lines downward.
The rejection of the filioque is not about denying equality of the Persons of The Holy Trinity or identity of nature (distinction however of identity as persons), and does not deny the divinity of The Son or of The Holy Spirit, rather,
The Holy Spirit's divinity is rooted in that of The Father, just as The Son's divinity is rooted in that of The Father.
You could do with a fair bit of exorcism yourself Christine! By the way, because you try and diminutize the Son you do not have the Father either! You deny the Great ' I AM '! You deny the Alpha and the Omega!
You think the Holy Spirit was not involved in the creation process, and you claim that were one to state such then it would follow they would be claiming creation was divine also?
Firstly, the One and Only Almighty Triune God, ( i.e., the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit), is divine Christine. God is not made, neither is God a God of confusion, nor is God a liar. So no, Christine, just because the Holy Spirit is Divine and Perfect does not mean that what he would create would be Divine, what He creates is good yes, but not Divine (God is NOT made! God eternally Is!) only God is Divine!
Things are not so good in creation anymore, Christine, but that is due to the rebellion and of Satan and a third of the angels and, likewise, of man.
Even the holy angels, or even the Apostles were and are not nor shall ever be divine. Yes, when the Holy Spirit proclaims through true followers of Jesus Christ the words He proclaims are Divine but this Divinity is in NO manner transfered onto such true believers (such as the Apostles) , they are merely being obedient.
So in summary, only God is Divine and Worthy of worship and yes, the United Agreement and the Power of the Three Persons of the Triune God was at work when God created the heavens and the Earth and everything in them! And He Saw that it (creation) was good (not divine)!
It seems that you are still spitting seeds of the tree of good and evil in your gnostic folly. If you want the answers you are looking for, repent fully and search the Holy Scriptures diligently and humbly! The Lord rebuke you and humble you, Mary Christine Erikson!
"By the way, because you try and diminutize the Son you do not have the Father either! You deny the Great ' I AM '! You deny the Alpha and the Omega!
You think the Holy Spirit was not involved in the creation process, and you claim that were one to state such then it would follow they would be claiming creation was divine also?"
I do not dimunize The Son neither do I for a moment think that The Holy Spirit was not involved in the creation, and I don't know why you insist on lying about me this way.
I have searched the Scriptures and I have pointed some out to you. Rome added the filioque,
POPE LEO III SAID THIS SHOULD NOT BE DONE
and a later pope did so anyway, without the approval of an Ecumenical Council, none of which ever authorized the filioque, yet POPE LEO III SAID ONLY AN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL COULD DO THIS, AND THAT HE AS POPE COULD NOT DO THIS,
THEREFORE THE SUBSEQUENT POPE WHO DID THIS WAS EXCEEDING HIS AUTHORITY,
ACCORDING TO POPE LEO III.
The filioque dimunizes The Holy Spirit making Him something dependent for His divinity upon an extra dose of divinity from The Son as well as The Father, instead of His being equally rooted in The Father as is The Son.
the filioque dimunized The Father, by making Him out to be unable to produce The Holy Spirit without the help of The Son.
while you may not think of it in these terms, that is what it does if analyzed in detail. It does other bad things besides, which is why the church fathers did not support it, and those who appear to do so are either misquoted, taken out of context (which is almost the same thing) or spoke carelessly while making some other point, or SPOKE IN TERMS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT COMING INTO THE CHURCH, not in terms of His origin.
If you are RC then listen to Pope Leo III speaking ex cathedra.
If you are protestant, then consider that Luther and Calvin failed to jettison romanist error in this matter, repeating the Creed they had received from it, without thinking to check on it.
And stop slandering me. I have said more than enough for you to know you are lying and you are sinning in doing so. REPENT!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filioque
here's a history of it, you will note that the overall tone of filioque similar statements has more to do with interactions between The Son and The Holy Spirit rather than absolute origin, and with The Holy Spirit coming into the Church than with double origin, though some may have leaned in that direction.
The idea presented at Florence (which was rejected by the east) that saints cannot err so have to agree even if they appear not to, is demonstrably false, since St. Gregory of Nyssa supported some of Origen's errors, for which Origen later was anathematized.
Even St. Augustine, though he contributed to the filioque, denied the legitimacy of double origin.
Constance one of the things I saw in my research was that the people who are running some of the the data collection for k-12 in my state also had experience with the FDA and chipping and tracking missing ranch animals especially cows. Seriously.
..listening to your show now..
***
To Mary Chritine Erikson I post this specifically as a nutshell understanding of her multitudes of words:
"When we become advocates of a creed, something dies; we do not believe God, we only believe our belief about Him." Oswald Chambers
The excruciating hairsplitting and the attitude that drives it is perfectly pictured for us in the words, words, words, of Christine Erikson that uphold her beloved creeds higher than Jesus Christ himself. (aka Justina).
anon 12:42
that is nonsense and so is the quote. you have just exposed yourself as one of the emerging church gnostic heretics, who exploit the doctrinal ignorance of the sheep who often never heard of creeds or the doctrines embodied in them, and can be easily led astray, because they don't have a quick memorized set of facts to counter error with.
the Creed is about Jesus and what we need to understand about Him. you can't separate them that easily. attack the Nicene Constantinopolitan Creed, aka Nicene Creed, you attack the foundations of Christian belief.
anon. 11:11 yes, the RFID chip began with agricultural applications.
Did not attack the Creed itself (did you read that I came against that?)only the idolizing of creeds above the LORD himself.
I have no trouble with that creed but no creed replaces Christ and you're promotion of creeds, rituals, and even church above Christ is akin to idolatry. Give God the Glory above those things and then they fall into their correct order and place in our lives. That is the challenge to you...
anon 1:31
exactly how is the Creed being idolized above the Lord Himself? how is supporting truth about The Trinity or preferring rituals that go back to the first few centuries to honor Jesus, or the organization that tracks back to the foundations of the church in Acts and neither added to the faith like Rome, or created a choppy stripped down version with mechanistic Roman scholastic type thinking version of some secondary doctrines like Protestantism did, a form of idolatry?
why is your church attendance not idolatry and mine is?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMOezlb2UcQ
William Pawelic interview, one of the developers of the RFID chip, this is from a longer interview, this section is about the chip.
1:08
I am not interested in your thoughts, do not address me Mary Christine Erikson, I have made myself very, very clear. You have no authority to validate or unvalidate my comments. You do not own this blog. I am not interested in you. Leave me alone.
Third public warning.
***
"exactly how is the Creed being idolized above the Lord Himself?"
It is not the creed that is the issue. That is your own hearts 'homework' to reckon with.
You figure it out.
If I were you I'd be real quiet before the Lord and let Him speak.
anon 3:33
you answer Scripture with an admonition to get quiet and let God speak? you sound like a New Age infected Christian aka charismatic deception.
no wonder you scream when objective truth is discussed - that is something as a category especially theologically that you can't stand.
getting quiet and listening to God usually adds up to listening to your own imagination if you're lucky that's all it is.
God has already spoken in the Scriptures and you don't want to listen, to take the trouble to balance Scripture against Scripture and sort it out.
if you don't like the results of such effort, you don't say work harder think more, you say think less!
Christine, you have no way to know if what you say to me is correct or not...and I could not care less. I am only asking the right questions. The ones you should be asking yourself.
And you can think on what I am posing in those questions or choose not to...
..your call.
Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. Jesus will tell you, if you will hear Him. Not me, Him.
"Christine, you have no way to know if what you say to me is correct or not"
I go by your words. and I don't pay attention to people who are into subjective mysticism.
Neither do I go by your words, because you do not know how to? (or won't?) in order to take my statements to that level of challenge to yourself with the important heart questions they bring up for your own soul to be asking of the Lord.
That is why you do not give God glory but glorify things that are about Him but to actually give the glory to Him is where you fall short.
You figure it out.
This is very objective, but you should be letting this topic take your own heart to apply it in the subjective and see how you measure there. Ask Jesus. He will answer if you are willing to go there in humility. That is your call.
..."I don't pay attention to people who are into subjective mysticism ".
Then you should stop paying attention to yourself, and "... be real quiet before the Lord and let Him speak"!
Excellent advice 3:33 PM!
Also, Mary Christine Erikson, you should be very careful listening to your supposed res. seer as in so doing you are listening to the mutterings of a demon possessed unrepentant apparently "recovering " Devil worshipper!
As 3:50 PM rightly advised you: "Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. Jesus will tell you if you will hear Him. Not me [nor I] Him"!
You seem to need a hint Christine.
Here's one.
Matt 6:5-7 for a starter.
Mary C. Erikson, you do realize if the EO hierarchy were ever to learn the full extent of patient sufferings your dear mother must have been put through with you, they'd probably canonize her!
a. I don't get theological advice from the seer, and it isn't about subjective mysticism, where you turn inward and listen for voices, feelings, sensations, and/or light of varying colors. read carefully. There is a PHYSICAL difference between him and usual people.
The seer as I call him has white retinas, not part of an eye disease that can cause this, which if it is like another pair that a doctor looked real close at, has a partly developed tapetum lucidum, the back of a cat's eye. an imperfectly developed nocturnal eye. I think this is probably the original human eye, since God would walk with Adam and Eve before the Fall in the cool of the evening. The current usual red retina the diurnal eye, is probably a later mutation. The white retina seems to be an imperfect dominant. I suspect another person I knew a nice person, who had the white reflex in a photograph could see and didn't talk about it. The plants she liked were almost all of them entity repellant.
cats are notorious for watching stuff move around we can't see. Sometimes its just a small gnat. Sometimes its something else. They don't particularly like this stuff, but I will spare you details I picked up online.
The means of seeing stuff depends on peripheral vision, both these things indicate a strictly physical ability. The demonic angle is pretty nearly gone after all these years and some times when he was really sick and scared and I got him to make a statement of rejecting satan and accepting Jesus. The thing that used to be in him was more upset around an RC church, less upset in a Protestant church (because the divine power is weaker) but bound during the time of singing hymns in a protestant church. In an Orthodox church it was bound, and in a mormon church it was comfortable, which shows the mormon scene is demon compatible.
b. Matt. 5-7 some of my favorites.
c. The details on what she did would definitely not get her canonized, but prayed for to get her out of hell. Which by the way I have sometimes done. And if you knew anything about spiritual warfare you would not dismiss details I have given.
Jesus words are not mysticism.Period.
And they are objective in going out to us all (to reach hearers) but meant for each of us to take personally. (make ourselves subject to Him as Lord, in word and deed).
Christine, is it possible then that Matt 6:5-7 applies to you, because the hypocritical Pharisees Jesus called out, loved the attention religiosity brought them (their 'churchianity' if you will-------{{and to be distinguished from the Church itself which is His body and members in particular which crosses denominational lines}}------and so often
you are one who demands to be heard in every corner and nearly every topic of this public blog much like them on the street corners making a show of it? You really do make a show of yourself here to have even the blog owner recognize you as one who needs to refrain and the pontificating is not a bit helpful.
Honestly, you need to learn some quiet before God to learn from Him not leaning on your own natural understanding. The Spirit teaches us supernaturally. He says so and that has been discussed here already, and you, of course, dismissed that though the scriptures were very clear.
Your repetitions of your own interpretations of biblical topics are vain, and in vain. I find that sad that you feel the need to force things here as you do.
God is above and all we (you too) are on the earth. Let our words be few. I close this topic with you as I made enough of the point. You can do or not do with it as you please.
The Lord wants your heart Christine. The whole thing that is evidently and currently occupied by a host of things- instead of him-or your words and attitude would reflect that. I do pray for you to see what is meant in the intention of this conversation. It is meant for your good whether you think so or not......
"I got him to make a statement of rejecting satan and accepting Jesus."
So by your own words he is one of your "converts" and not the Lord's.
Wow. Definitely not the work of the Holy Spirit.
anon 7:45 and anon 7:51
""I got him to make a statement of rejecting satan and accepting Jesus."
So by your own words he is one of your "converts" and not the Lord's.
Wow. Definitely not the work of the Holy Spirit."
you take any opportunity to accuse and twist. who is called the accuser? maybe you are the one who doesn't know what spirit you are of.
How many people have taken steps towards Jesus during moments of crisis, and most have some other human helping them along. Jesus said to go forth and make converts and teach them.
you keep saying I don't honor Jesus only talk about Him. If I didn't hold Jesus in honor I wouldn't talk about Him.
Confess with your mouth Jesus is Lord remember that one? when you get someone to speak that sort of thing, God has gained some ground in him.
How do you read the Bible, by trancing out and soaking in a vibe from it, or do you use your God given mind that God says we are to love Him with?
And I never said Jesus' words are mysticism. But I think you take a word here and a word there and wallow in your heart which Scripture warns is deceptive, and think that Jesus has your heart.
Contemplative prayer, I suppose? Lectio divina? That is not how the Desert Fathers did that, by the way, the medieval monks overreacting to scholastic rationalism warped the practice. What the desert fathers did was read the Bible in order to apply it, and contemplate on Jesus or a specific Bible passage to understand it.
My interpretations? I use all the available Scripture to come to a conclusion, and others some protestant have come to similar conclusions the same way. you are apparently wallowing in your "hearts" which you figure are pure and undefiled and undeceivable and infallible and incapable of error once you have invited Jesus into them.
I got news for you. That isn't what the New Testament teaches.
These anonymous Christine haters are just about the most self righteous sounding creatures one could imagine.
There is nothing that Christine can say that will get them to come down off their high hobby horses.
The only thing I can conclude about them is that they are completely perfected and sanctified and are now matriculated to the position of judges and ( if they only could ) executioners.
Let the stones fly !
I mean they couldn't possibly have any sins of their own, based on their condemnations.
Yes Christine is a sinner and you are all saints.
You sound like snarling beasts, but all in the name of the Lord, of course, and all by the letter of the law.
This is your second warning...
This is your third warning..
LOL!
Have a nice day Dotty.
I expect about ten posts now with my name at the top.
Boy I hope I don't receive any warnings.
"The only thing I can conclude about them is that they are completely perfected and sanctified.."
Not the case. No one is talking about sanctification Paul. First things first. Salvation is the issue here for them which is by repentance toward God and faith in Jesus Christ. just as it is for any one of us. Do you hear repentance and faith in the story she just told about her boyfriend? Or don't you believe that that is the how one is saved?
Chritine cannot convert anyone. That is about the worst example of a conversion I have ever heard. Poor man. Perhaps-no she should-she should examine by scripture to see if she actually a real believer and not one in name only. Jesus does not half do the work of His Spirit. That is something to stand by and hope for for the misguided such as she (and her poor boyfriend) is. It is not hate to hope they get to the truth and truly converted to Jesus now is it?
Judge what is written if you will. The truth is the truth with no apology and if you or anyone else cannot hear the honest urgent appeal in the words then I don't know how to help you with that.
The shallowness of many "conversions" these days are proof of the new age influence and watering down of the true Gospel in these times we are in. No miracle changes in their lives. Christine's approach smacks -no reeks- of a man-centered "gospel and not the God-centered salvation that the savior paid for in his righteous blood. I know because I was in a pit of my own sin ans shame myself until the Lord rescued me. Perfect? No way-not yet.....that is coming. But changed daily from the inside out since that miracle day? That day when the Spirit showed me my sin from the Holy word of God and it's penalty of eternal death and the fear of the Lord came to my very soul and the love of God reached my heart? Oh yes. A real rescue ... ///not some half-baked religious prompt or emotional experience or some talking head plying me with their words /// ... and what I only hope can and will happen for others. Christine of course and others I encounter included.
So few actually understand that and must not know personally what a real deliverance from God is-oh but they say they "believe"...
What a crying shame.
(This is a lengthy post and I apologize to all in advance. James)
Paul, there is no other way to put it but that you should sincerely take a good hard look in the mirror. Were you wrong when you judged Christine harshly before or are you wrong now? If you were wrong beforehand then you owe her an apology; if you're wrong now, then you owe one to those you have just judged harshly. Are you so unstable in all your ways? You have an angry spirit either way and one which requires humbling yourself and repenting.
I only hope you are not this way because of a belief in unconditional eternal security. If so, I is my duty as a Christian brother to urge you to consider this well versed argument against such unconditional eternal security:
Question: Once Saved always Saves? "Can a Christian lose salvation?"
Question:
A Christian is a new creation. “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!” (2 Corinthians5:17). This verse speaks of a person becoming an entirely new creature as a result of being “in Christ.” For a Christian to lose salvation, the new creation would have to be canceled and reversed.
ANSWER: Unconditional eternal security suggests that sheep are always sheep, and it is impossible to change them: Once they are God’s sheep, they are always God’s sheep. But the Bible teaches that if one turns away from God, that one is a lost sheep. If you’re lost to God, you’re also lost to heaven and lost to His love, peace and joy. You’re lost to His teachings, to following Him and to the knowledge of His voice.
A sheep is lost until it is found.. And he [Jesus] spake this parable unto them, saying, What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it? And when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing. And when he cometh home, he calleth together his friends and neighbours, saying unto them, Rejoice with me; for I have found my sheep which was lost. I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance (Luke 15:3—7). Jesus is clearly saying that His sheep who’ have gone astray must repent if they are to come back into His fold.
All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all (Isaiah 53:6). Isaiah is comparing us to sheep that have gone astray, but sin caused us to do it. Jesus as our Sacrificial Lamb, however, bore all our iniquities and all our sins, and He will forgive us if we repent with godly sorrow.
Continues...
When you turn to your own way, it isn’t just your way alone; you’ve actually turned to the devil’s way. There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death (Proverbs 14:12). Ministers deceived by this rotten doctrine of unconditional eternal security have preached millions into heaven when they were actually screaming in hell the whole time their funeral was going on. According to the ministers, they have eternal life because once saved always saved, and once in grace always in grace. The truth of God is that those who die with any willful sin at all in their souls are not in heaven; they’re in the torment of hell.
For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls (I Peter 2:25). If you don’t have the Keeper of your soul, you’re not going to heaven when you die. The blood of Jesus is the keeper of your soul, so you must have the blood applied to your soul. The blood will not mix with sin; if you have sin, you don’t have the blood. Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin (James 4:17).
God’s sheep can be turned into sinful goats! Is it carrying a figure of speech too far to say that a sheep can be changed into a goat? It’s just as easy to change a sheep into a goat when one sins as it is to change a goat into a sheep when one receives salvation. Why would people believe that a goat could be changed into a sheep, but say it’s impossible for a sheep to be changed into a goat? People who insist on having their own way won’t accept consistency. Remember, if the devil’s goats can become God’s sheep, then it’s certainly possible for God’s sheep to become the devil’s goats.
We were all goats at one time but when we got a blood bath from Jesus, He perfumed us with heaven’s love and that’s wonderful!
Question: For a Christian to lose salvation, God would have to go back on His Word and “un-declare” what He had previously declared. A Christian is promised eternal life. “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” (John3:16). Eternal life is a promise of eternity (forever) in heaven with God. God promises, “Believe and you will have eternal life.” For a Christian to lose salvation, eternal life would have to be taken away. If a Christian is promised to live forever, how then can God break this promise by taking away eternal life?
Answer:
The Bible also implies that no sinning Christian can inherit the Kingdom of God, and God has the final say. Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God (I Corinthians 6:9,10).
Many think that, even though they’re disobedient, they’re still children of God because they were once saved. No one can get into heaven unless they are made sinless through the blood and the pure Word of God. And the Word [Jesus Christ] was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth (John 1:14). Jesus, the living Word, speaks: I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture (John 10:9). Jesus is our door into heaven, but we can only go through that door if we are without sin.
Continues...
No scripture teaches or even hints that the doctrine of unconditional eternal security is valid. Those who preach once in grace always in grace sometimes quote the latter part of the eighth chapter of Romans. They want to show that nothing can separate them from Christ: For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord (Romans 8:38,39). Where is that love? It’s in Christ. No external power can separate us from the Lord; remember, however, we can separate ourselves through sin. Isaiah the prophet wrote, But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear (Isaiah 59:2). Righteousness never hides God’s face from you; but sin does, and God won’t hear your prayers.
If you’re a sinner or a sinning Christian, it is all the same, your iniquities have separated you from God, eternal life, and the eternal blood— from love, peace, joy, humility, forgiveness of God and more. You’ve separated yourself from everything good, from the holiness and righteousness of God.
Jesus conquered death, hell and the grave to make it possible that we could have an eternal body. But if you sin one willful sin and don’t repent, then that eternal life is gone from your soul. You no longer have it; you only have eternal death.
If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth (I John 1:6). How can you have fellowship with our Lord and walk in darkness? Just as quickly as you were born of the Spirit of God, you can lose your salvation. To turn from the light back into darkness, you’re lost as far as God is concerned; you’re back in the darkness of sin.
Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord (Hebrews 12:14).
That’s why we must be so careful how we live.
I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain (Galatians 4:11). Paul is writing to the Galatians, some of whom had backslidden. If this letter was not to the backslidden, I don’t know who else Paul would have been addressing when he said that his labor in preaching the Gospel had been in vain.
If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man’s religion is vain (James 1:26). People who don’t bridle their tongues after they receive salvation will find that their glorious salvation has been replaced by spiritual death in their souls. Their religion is vain—no heaven for them unless they repent. This scripture also mentions deceit of the heart. When you follow your own heart, you follow the flesh and do what it wants to do. That’s why so many people are in trouble today here and abroad; they are being led by their own spirit and their own heart—the flesh.
Continues...
There is no Bible basis for unconditional eternal life in heaven. The Scriptures promise everlasting life to only those without sin who believeth. Every English word that ends in eth means a continuous work, so believeth means to continue to believe. We have a faith, according to scripture, that is a continuous faith; it has to keep going on without the interruption of sin.
This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh (Galatians 5:16). You can’t walk in the Spirit unless the love law of Christ is in you. When you walk in the Spirit; you don’t fulfill the lust of the flesh; instead, you fulfill the desires of the Holy Spirit Himself. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law (Galatians5:17,18). After you receive salvation, you’re not under the Law of the Old Testament; you’re under the sinless Jesus-love law.
Paul lists the fruits of the Holy Spirit that are grown in the hearts and souls of true born-again Christians. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit (Galatians 5:22—25). If you live in the Spirit, you will walk in the Spirit—but only when you are free from all willful sin.
Continues...
Question: Can a Christian lose salvation? According to the eternal security doctrine, nothing can separate a Christian from God’s love (Romans 8:38-39). Nothing can remove a Christian from God’s hand (John 10:28-29). God is both willing and able to guarantee and maintain the salvation He has given us. Jude 24-25, “To Him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy—to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen.”
Answer: Those believing in unconditional eternal security proclaim, Once a child always a child. Well, let’s see what the Bible has to say about it. Although no scripture teaches that once you’re saved you cannot be lost, those who believe in unconditional eternal security tell us this is implied in the fact that we become God’s children when we’re saved; and no matter how bad a child may become, it is always its father’s child. Anyone, however, who has any knowledge about the laws of our land today knows that a father can disinherit a child. The Lord told Moses that He would disinherit the Israelites; they would no longer be sons and daughters of His. I will smite them with the pestilence [diseases], and disinherit them (Numbers 14:12). God help us!
It is a preposterous twist of the Scriptures to claim that those who were once God’s children can remain His children no matter how great a sinner they become. If the Lord reasoned like man, He would turn us over to the devil again as his legitimate property. But just because we were once children of the devil does not mean that we must remain his children, thank God. Neither does it follow that because we were once children of God we will always remain His children. Born-again Christians can backslide if they commit willful sin.
If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us (I John1:10). John makes this statement because we were born sinners and must have a Savior.
They answered and said unto him [Jesus], Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham. But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham (John 8:39,40). Jesus didn’t let these people get by with claiming Abraham to be their father. He denied that they were true children of Abraham because they were not doing the works of Abraham. If we are God’s children, we do the works of God, not the devil. But the people who claim to be children of God—and continue to sin—are doing the works of the devil. It’s impossible to be a child of God if you sin.
We can reverse the process of a New Creature in Christ Jesus
Believers in unconditional eternal security come forth with this ridiculous question: If we’re born again, how can we be unborn?
It’s just as easy to be unborn as it is to be born of God; it is simply a reversal of the process. The teaching that those who are born of God cannot be unborn is founded on a misconception of what the new birth really is. People don’t realize it’s a spiritual and moral change in a person.
Continues...
Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death (John 8:51). Jesus is talking about spiritual death, meaning that people will have eternal life if they keep the sayings of the Lord and live according to the teachings of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The house of clay you live in will go back to the dust of the earth, but it will come forth a new body, not one made of clay but one that will live forever.
In a letter to the Romans, Paul warns: For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die (Romans 8:13). For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons [or daughters] of God (Romans 8:14). Consider the phrase as many as are led by the Spirit of God. Jesus was led by the Spirit, and you have to be led by the Holy Spirit, too; but the Holy Spirit cannot lead you when you’re full of sin. Backsliders are not led by the Spirit of God but rather by their own spirit, the spirit of the devil, or the two spirits mixed together.
Sadly the answer to the Once Saved doctrine of belief is,
(THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ETERNAL SECURITY), UNLESS A CHRISTIAN RECEIVES SALVATION AND CONTINUELY KEEP THAT SALVATION THROUGH THE BLOOD OF JESUS CHRIST, OUR LORD AND SAVIOR.
Paul, in conclusion, I hope you and others understand this and repent before God of having wilfully given over to hard heartedness.
James.
James,
Thank you for the sermon on "Can Salvation Be Lost?"
It is a worthy subject to preach on and has been preached, and debated all through the Church Age. Suffice to say, there has been sincere people on both side of that subject.
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.
For the record, I agree with your assessment of the question as well as your conclusion.
And, I guess that since I post my name on my comments, that I'm the only one who you could address your sermon to, so, fine. It wouldn't make much sense to address your comments to an Anonymous, or multiple "anonymice".
As far as me being in danger of hellfire, I appreciate your concern, thank you, and I am duly warned.
Maybe you just landed on this site and only caught the last few posts, I don't know, but all I was doing,
was trying to pull a few of the people off the pile of
furious self righteous, anonymous commenters who were essentially a cyber lynch mob that was
fixin' to hang Christine from the highest tree.
You say I have an anger issue?
Christine has bared her soul here on numerous occasions and this is what results.
And yes I've snarled at Christine more than once, but I don't think I've quite condemned her to hell
the way these anonymous people have.
But you're right; I was wrong then.
Christine, I'm sorry for attacking you.
I really am. Please forgive me.
Christine has a medically recognized condition
and she is dealing with it as best she can. I'm not sure it is appropriate to beat her over the head with the Bible and assume that as she is demon possessed, but that's the side you seem to have taken James.
If I have an anger issue, this group of ANONYMOUS commenters have a vengeful RAGE issue.
And I'm not sure that a comments section of a website is really going to lead anyone to Christ.
Oh I've praised His name and thanked him here many times, but preaching? Not so much. I'd save that for in-person. I think that preaching is good,
but we're admonished to not cast our pearls before swine.
I have my doubts about cyber-Christianity. But who knows? The Lord moves in mysterious ways.
This is Constance Cumbey's blog comment section. The topics include new age plots, research, updates and more. The topics do not include helping the mentally ill, encouraging jammers who opress other participants, and counceling the spiritually deviant nor does it include feeding trolls. Boundary issues arise becaue the blog manager has made some error in her relationship alone the way which made it somehow impossible for her to monitor her comment section. Very sad. I am pretty sure mental patient P is really mantal patient M and answers when M knows they can't lash out but a fake annon does the trick. Hence the term suckers might appy.
***
paul,
I forgive you, and I appreciate your efforts to defend me against excessive reactions even when you agreed in theory with them but disliked their rage.
Christine was advised to go to the Lord to let Him do the heart check her soul needs. (not to report back to anyone, simply go to Him) That is not hate. She stands by her excuses and sins and gives God neither thanks nor praise. Go back to her heaped and heaped pile of explanations and rants, and look if you can stand it, to see if she has done so. No. Only pharisical agruments.
She must bear the weight of her words.
(in the multitude of words there lacketh not sin) Very Publicly TELLING.
So I wrap this up and all you good folks can carry on...
Christine, I have a psalm for you (and the boyfriend) to muse.
Psa 50:1 A Psalm of Asaph. The mighty God, even the LORD, hath spoken, and called the earth from the rising of the sun unto the going down thereof.
Psa 50:2 Out of Zion, the perfection of beauty, God hath shined.
Psa 50:3 Our God shall come, and shall not keep silence: a fire shall devour before him, and it shall be very tempestuous round about him.
Psa 50:4 He shall call to the heavens from above, and to the earth, that he may judge his people.
Psa 50:5 Gather my saints together unto me; those that have made a covenant with me by sacrifice.
Psa 50:6 And the heavens shall declare his righteousness: for God is judge himself. Selah.
Psa 50:7 Hear, O my people, and I will speak; O Israel, and I will testify against thee: I am God, even thy God.
Psa 50:8 I will not reprove thee for thy sacrifices or thy burnt offerings, to have been continually before me.
Psa 50:9 I will take no bullock out of thy house, nor he goats out of thy folds.
Psa 50:10 For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills.
Psa 50:11 I know all the fowls of the mountains: and the wild beasts of the field are mine.
Psa 50:12 If I were hungry, I would not tell thee: for the world is mine, and the fulness thereof.
Psa 50:13 Will I eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats?
Psa 50:14 Offer unto God thanksgiving; and pay thy vows unto the most High:
Psa 50:15 And call upon me in the day of trouble: I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify me.
----------------------
Psa 50:16 But unto the wicked God saith, What hast thou to do to declare my statutes, or that thou shouldest take my covenant in thy mouth?
Psa 50:17 Seeing thou hatest instruction, and castest my words behind thee.
Psa 50:18 When thou sawest a thief, then thou consentedst with him, and hast been partaker with adulterers.
Psa 50:19 Thou givest thy mouth to evil, and thy tongue frameth deceit.
Psa 50:20 Thou sittest and speakest against thy brother; thou slanderest thine own mother's son.
Psa 50:21 These things hast thou done, and I kept silence; thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself: but I will reprove thee, and set them in order before thine eyes.
----------------------
Psa 50:22 Now consider this, ye that forget God, lest I tear you in pieces, and there be none to deliver.
Psa 50:23 ********* Whoso offereth praise glorifieth me: and to him that ordereth his conversation aright will I shew the salvation of God. ***********
My prayer for you and your household is that you will respond to go to the quiet of the prayer closet before the The Lord Almighty with the spirit found in Ps 51. (May you no longer quench nor grieve His Spirit)
Then and only then will you give God real glory and the world will know that is your witness of true faith in Christ Jesus.
The words of this Job heart are ended.
Rage is anger plus helplessness. I don't see anyone angry nor helpless here except the trolls who make demands to cross boundaries they have not right to cross and then slander those who stand their ground. It is neither sin nor rage to reject an evil person's controlling and cyberbullying but certainly the evil opressive spirit is naturally an accuser like Satan and naturally exposes himself when he accuses.
I reject you Satan and I bind your evil ways in the Mighty Name of Jesus. Be gone from this blog.
***
http://paloaltocatholic.net/events/spirituality-tuesday-assembly-exorcism
Contact Fr Gary Thomas
***
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/csd/family/counseling.asp
Contact mental health professionals Palo Alto.
****
James,
Here's what you may not realize:
On the middle thread of this comments section,
that is, comments 201 through 400,
the comments at 9:39, 11:11, 11:23, 11:48, 1:42,
1:57, 7:15, 10:37, and 10:42,
and on this latest thread; the comments at 6:41 and 6:57,_all say "paul said" at the top, but they are NOT MY COMMENTS.
They are the work of some very angry and deceitful person or people who really hate me.
No, I don't expect you to go back and find these
or take the time to figure this out because it's just silly, but as far as nasty, vindictiveness that is probably what you thought was mine, which in turn makes me realize where you were coming from earlier.
I'm nowhere near that angry, and never will be as pertains a comments section of a blog that one Dorothy Margraf used to think she was the boss of.
Dorathy mysteriously contacted a woman I once knew after I left facebook. She didn't know me from Adam. She wanted to be in contact with me she said, it was terribly odd.
I was a sort of amature activist back then. I am no longer any use at all as an activist, all groups are infiltrated now.
The game is rigged. There seem to be a group of minders who latch on to anyone who is making a real difference or some headway.
She recomended I take a look at Constance's work.
Too bad the comment section is so opressed.
***
I am again remembering Marx and Satan by Wurmbland.
...wolves and sheep, and infowolves too.
***
"but we're admonished to not cast our pearls before swine. "
That is true, paul.
But have this thought:
just want to see the lies refuted because this is a public place and because Christine has so openly come against the simple and profound and powerful gospel to reduce it to her own formula (which has no power to change her own life as she has eagerly shared the too much about that here & much less anyone else's) that if that shoe fits "cinderella" then she must wear it.
Her religiosity is relentless and verbose in the put down of others for not being like herself (sorry but I'm happy with Jesus and do not need EO or church tradition crammed down my throat repeatedly) so I (and others) are happy to simply stand there in the truth scripture by scripture to expose it and let the chips fall.
And Constance allows this-so be it.
So when the truth is told somebody will "yelp" much like throwing a rock into a pack of dogs.
You'll often hear loudly from the one that gets "hit". That is what her constant arguing is.
She treats this like a competition and how unchristian is that?
If her posititon was so great she would not have to go at it as a bludgeon of her attempt to convert all of us to her brand of "believeing" (her story of the poor boyfriend and the fiasco 'conversion' is a great example in her own words).
She has browbeat this blog to pieces.
But the truth stands and yes, some may be angry-don't know and don't care...I don't have horse in that race, but contending for the faith once delivered to the saints (and wonderfully saved me) is a privilege and not something that brings up anger in my heart. The Spirit is the one doing the 'work' of convicting anyway and people can fight and argue or listen or walk away.
It is their choice and each one can exercise it freely.
Good grief...this is just a blog......
And who can soon forget her own conversion story in her own words that was a spite (flip her off) to her mother?
I couldn't care less what Christine really believes in her heart. And although I regret the tone of some of her respondents I am not surprised that several have lost patience. The real problem is that the referee here has lost control of the game. The good news is that it is not too late for her to regain it, although she will have to be prepared to bar at least one individual.
some heresies of Pat Robertson, who was mentored by Harald Bredesen, part of the scene Constance discusses in the post for this blog.
http://www.letusreason.org/Popteach49.htm
"I couldn't care less what Christine really believes in her heart."
Exactly.
Thanks for showing your hand, anonymous.
I don't care either.
Contrary to jammer belief this is not group therapy nor rehab nor is it a 12 step meeting. It is not a deliverance ministry nor is it a mental health clinic and it's not a dating service. Who seeks such services on an intetnet blog?
***
websites of people who care in Palo Alto
http://www.kara-grief.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=91:drop-in-groups&catid=41:support-groups&Itemid=153
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/csd/family/resource_record.asp?cid=436
http://mingle2.com/online-dating/california/palo-alto/senior-dating?page=6
Tired of dating former warlocks? Looking to stop living in sin? Need someone who wants a long term commitment? How about freash air and longs walks away from blogging? Seeking fellow Gnostics for companionship?
Christine should use her own blog for proseltyzing.
PATRIOTS!!!!!!!!
Paul,
PATRIOTS!
Yessssssssss!!!!!!!!
Patriots in Phoenix. Interesting.
The occult symbolism in the ads and the half time show are blatantly occult. Watch carefully with both eyes open ( not just one like all the other pop stars who make the Illuminati symbol)
Katie Perry, who sold her soul to the devil did "Dark Horse". The black horse in the book of Revelations symbolizes economic collapse. Football and other forms of entertainment is the opiate of the masses to distract from what's really going on.
The elite ALWAYS broadcast in plain site.
OFFICE IN SWEDEN PUTS CHIP UNDER STAFF'S SKIN
Want to gain entry to your office, get on a bus, or perhaps buy a sandwich? We're all getting used to swiping a card to do all these things. But at Epicenter, a new hi-tech office block in Sweden, they are trying a different approach - a chip under the skin.
Felicio de Costa, whose company is one of the tenants, arrives at the front door and holds his hand against it to gain entry. Inside he does the same thing to get into the office space he rents, and he can also wave his hand to operate the photocopier.
That's all because he has a tiny RFID (radio-frequency identification) chip, about the size of a grain of rice, implanted in his hand. Soon, others among the 700 people expected to occupy the complex will also be offered the chance to be chipped. Along with access to doors and photocopiers, they're promised further services in the longer run, including the ability to pay in the cafe with a touch of a hand.
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-31042477
__________________________________
Revelation 13:16-17 (KJV)
16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
Dear Paul,
Thank you for your kind, courageous and humble response. Sorry for having misjudged you and for having been so hard on you. You have shown yourself a Christian and have shown love in your post (not that you need prove anything to me or anyone here). I have also learned from your response.
Thank you once again, and again I apologize for my harshness.
God bless you brother,
James.
Whoa, Christine! I just don't know about this "objective clairvoyance" stuff! I'm extremely wary and again refer you to Johanna Michaelsen's book THE BEAUTIFUL SIDE OF EVIL.
Constance
There is no natural mechanism for what Christine calls objective clairvoyance. Regardless of whatever goes on inside the two people involved a signal has to get between them and physics knows enough about signal propagation through media to rule that out. The only possible mechanism is demonic, which means a demon in each of the two people and the demons communicate by supernatural means. That this runs in families is not particularly surprising. If the demon in Christine has not been expelled, she would do well to get it removed. It might improve her life in some other, surprising areas.
Physicist
James,
No offense taken.
God bless you too, brother.
Physicist is correct.
Some forms of demonic oppression are generational. Introduction of occult practices into families can cause oppression for many generations.
The following is a prayer for breaking curses - including ancestral/generational curses.
Breaking Curses
In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ of Nazareth, by the power of his blood, his cross and his resurrection, I take authority over all curses, hexes, spells, voodoo practices, witchcraft assignments, satanic rituals, incantations and evil wishes that have been sent my way, or have passed down the generational bloodline. I break all forms of demonic oppression and influence over my life by the power of the risen Lord Jesus Christ, and I ask that all curses be replaced with a blessing.
I ask forgiveness for and denounce all negative inner vows and agreements that I have made with the enemy, and I ask that you Lord Jesus Christ release me from any bondage they may have held in me. I claim your shed blood over all aspects of my life, relationships, ministry endeavors and finances. I thank you for your enduring love, your angelic protection, and for the fullness of your abundant blessings.
Constance and Physicist
When people go ghost hunting they get photos with infrared photography sometimes. UV is little experimented with.
the PHYSICAL oddity of Mike's retinas and of some other people, plus the fact that to use this requires using peripheral vision not center vision, which involves a different set of cells in the retina and that this kind of thing requires the eyes work and not be blind to do, tells me that this is not supernatural.
A lot of what we call supernatural or paranormal is just a different range of visibility WHICH CATS AND DOGS HAVE AND STARE OR BARK AT THINGS WE CAN'T SEE.
Signal propagation has nothing to do with it.
And I don't think its necessarily wholesome just because its physical.
thanks for the prayer, sounds familiar, prayed it again.
Sometimes my cat will start meowing in a disturbed sounding holler, and I say "In the Name of Jesus Christ I command all spirits to leave this house," and she gets quiet.
Don't tell me animals don't pick up on stuff.
Interesting point in Job where one of his comforters is saying he got some dream visitation he assumed was a good thing, he got a chilly quality, the hair standing up, this is definitely not a good sign and the charismatics should consider this. angelic visits could scare and overwhelm, but shivers and hair stand up were never part of it.
Christine, cats and dogs probably are aware of the demonic, but they also have far better hearing and therefore react to many things of which we are unaware. Please don't shout (ie use capital letters), at least first time round a loop of differing opinion. Photography of ghosts is, to say the least, controversial. I am not trying to argue with you, but suggest that you could do with deliverance. These things don't lastingly go if you have an attachment to what they give you of which you are unaware. Occult means Hidden. I ask you to consider whether your brush-off might actually be influenced by the spirit which I have suggested you carry if you are capable of clairvoyance.
Physicist
I'm sorry Christine,
Wolves do see infrared, (heat) but not ultraviolet.
I've had many dogs and cats over the years,
If a cat moans it's probably either "in heat" or about to start a fight. If a dog barks he probably wants to go out, or, it's because he hears something we don't simply because they hear much better than we do. They make ideal companions and protectors.
The rest is pure Hollywood, I think.
I have a question about demons, though.
Isn't it true that they vary in power? In the middle ages people apparently took it for granted that there were, little imps, and bigger imps and demons and multiple demons etc, like the man in the Gospel who had many demons (legion) in him and Mary Magdalene who had "seven demons cast out of her", and Jesus had to personally cast out a demon from a man which his disciples couldn't cast out because it required much fasting and much prayer, and in that case it required the Master himself. It's just not that simple. There are Principalities, Powers and rulers of the underworld.
Also, the Gospels list epilepsy as a disease and not demon possession, but a lot of Christians today would not make the distinction...and then there's alcoholism, etc, and heavy metal music, ugh.
And there's brain injury, and dementia, etc.
But what with everyone suggesting that Christine have her demon driven out, it seems too simplistic.
Some of these anonymous trolls around the internet seem much more vicious than the stubborn refusal of Christine to let go of her SUPERSTITIONS.
The Gospels say many times that Jesus healed people and drove out demons with his virtue, like the woman who touched the hem of his garment.
There's no substitute for virtue, nor is there a limit on how virtuous we can be. Virtue is power.
We're saved by grace alone, but we're empowered
by repentance and virtue.
Physicist is correct again,
Clairvoyance is defined as:
The term clairvoyance (from French clair meaning "clear" and voyance meaning "vision") is used to refer to the ability to gain information about an object, person, location or physical event through means other than the known senses, i.e., a form of extrasensory perception.
Claims for the existence of paranormal and psychic abilities such as clairvoyance have not been supported by scientific evidence published in high impact factor peer reviewed journals. Parapsychology explores this possibility, but the existence of the paranormal is not accepted by the scientific community. Parapsychology, including the study of clairvoyance, is an example of pseudoscience.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clairvoyance
___________________________
If a person manifests anything that might appear to be "clairvoyance" and there is no evidence of fraud, then it is not unreasonable to suspect demonic activity may be at work.
In fact, one of the signs of demonic possession is the ability to know secret or hidden things that the victim absolutely should have no knowledge of.
In any case, Physicist has given some very good and charitable advice in recommending deliverance by a qualified member of the clergy.
Dear Paul,
Demons do vary in power. In most cases of exorcism, there is often more than one demon present - a chief demon along with lesser demons. The chief demon is said to always remain at the end and is the last to leave.
Exorcisms are always performed in the name of Jesus Christ. Anyone who presumes to exorcise a demon in his own name or any other name risks being savaged by the demon.
The following is a report about a true case of demonic possession in which a woman from Spain named Marta was possessed by seven demons. The priest who performed the exorcism was an officially appointed exorcist whose name is Father Jose Antonio Fortea.
A journalist from the Spanish daily El Mundo was given permission to witness this exorcism. He was a non-believer before the exorcism. After the exorcism, he was a believer.
EXORCISM MAKES A BELIEVER OF A JOURNALIST
http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/exorcism-makes-a-believer-of-a-journalist
I write in caps because I have been over this already several times.
virtue doesn't mean virtuous it means virtus power dunamis in Greek.
ARE ALL OF YOU SO IGNORANT YOU DON'T KNOW THE NORMAL HUMAN EYE REFLECTS RED LIGHT NOT WHITE BACK TO A PENLIGHT OR PHOTO FLASH?
the only condition that is disease that gives loss of red reflex also cuts your vision. THIS WHITE RETINA STUFF DOES NOT CUT VISION.
The kind of the hollering the cat does is not like that in heat or like that starting a fight. I know animals like you probably know your co workers.
All my cats are spayed and neutered.
http://www.techtimes.com/articles/3597/20140222/surprise-cats-and-dogs-can-see-uv-light-but-you-cant.htm
yes cats and dog see UV.
nocturnal eye, tapedum lucidem behind retina. diurnal eye, not such behind retina. imperfectly developed nocturnal eye, the great white shark and some humans, a thin layer tapedum lucidum low light operations.
smallpox shot taken young enough shuts down hoxsey genes that control expression. google metagenetics. no that's not New Age or transhumanist.
"Exorcisms are always performed in the name of Jesus Christ. Anyone who presumes to exorcise a demon in his own name or any other name risks being savaged by the demon."
well, duh.
however there are some states of mind and some chemicals that make barriers against them and against witches. and there are states of mind and chemicals that facilitate them
that is what the whole altered states of consciousness problem is. and the shamanic drug use problem is.
Post a Comment