Many of you regularly listen to my internet radio program on TMERadio.com. It is also known as TheMicroEffect.com. The program has been a tremendous bully pulpit for me for the past eight years since April 2007 when Joe McNeill, the network owner, first offered me a program of my own. Previous to that, I had been interviewed by some of his other then hosts.
Joe runs an amazing operation in Kamiah, Idaho. He has made brilliant use of "recycled" computers combined with other technology that is "beyond my pay grade" to reach an international audience. I have had people call in to my program from as far away as New Zealand. I have used the program to lay out detailed expository information that I have not yet had time to reduce to the printed page. I have also used it to share critical information on what is currently transpiring in the New Age Movement as well as overlooked history accessible to me through my private library, but not readily sitting on most conventional public library shelves.
For the last four years or so, I have done the program for two hours each and every Saturday morning. Occasionally I have used guest hosts including the late Dr. Stanley Momteith, John Loeffler, and Sarah Leslie.
There are many other hosts on Joe's network from which my own world views radically diverge. Joe McNeill tells me that he believes in "Freedom of Speech" and he believes that listeners can do their own research and sort it out for themselves. But at any rate, Joe gave me a platform when many who professed to be cult experts tried to muzzle me. You might want to review my past articles on "The Hi-Jacking of Evangelicalism," both here and on NEWSWITHVIEWS.COM.
TMERadio is revamping its studios and equipment. New broadband lines are scheduled for installation and the provider has notified Joe that it will take two weeks to properly install and test the equipment. Therefore, we will be off the air for the next two Saturdays. I had a guest scheduled for this coming Saturday, David Livingstone. I have interviewed him successfully in the past about his own extensive research and writing on the New Age Movement and its impact. He has now written a brilliant new book on TRANSHUMANISM. He sent me a .pdf review copy that I am still reading, but the depth and breadth of his research amazes me, just as Lee Penn and Cliff Kincaid's work never cease to humble me.
I'm still working on Part 3 of my series on General Paul E. Vallely and military New Age and Satanism with possible tentacles reaching into the Tea Party Movement. I've also been doing extensive research lately on the obvious continuation of the 1970's Weathermen Movement, a violent branch of SDS (Students for a Democratic Society).
I did my radio program last Saturday on that, reviewing a book long in my library on DIANA: THE MAKING OF A TERRORIST (Thomas Powers, Houghton Mifflin Publishers, 1971.) My particular copy was purchased several years ago at a Baldwin (Birmingham, Michigan) Public Library used book sale. It was discontinued by the library for reasons I do now understand.
 |
| DIANA: THE MAKING OF A TERRORIST book covers. |
The school Diana and Bill Ayers ran in Ann Arbor, Michigan, it developed, never taught a single one of its many students to read. That was discovered when third grade children started begging their parents to teach them to read. Diana's radicalisation then went on to more violent manifestations, including a belief that they were making war on all USA citizens.
Many believe this to have been a Marxist operation. There was Marxist indoctrination and ideology there. But, there were even heavier New Age aspects, including free love, sexual experimentation, "smash monogamy", group sex, "free love" and beyond. LSD, drugs, and the like were heavily employed by those in the Weatherman operation. There was extreme violence by this group that included bombings of several government buildings, including the United States Capitol Building.
It is relevant now because of the current links of the unrepentant leadermen leaders (Dohrn and Ayers, now a married couple) who have been publicly advising OCCUPY members on the stages they can expectg in their movements, including violence.
 |
| Bernardine Dohrn and Bill Ayers at Occupy rally, |
Stay tuned!
CONSTANCE
571 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 571 Newer› Newest»Christine, you are overcommitting to your understanding of verses that don't give sufficient info for certainty. Tell me, why do you think Jesus bothered to construct a whip at all if he was going to use it on people? Why not just start a fist fight?
I'm the anon who asked about gang stalking in the comments of the previous post. I'm sorry for the stir that it caused. I also would like to express my sincere condolences to Mrs. Cumbey.
Reading the news on the Synod on the Family in the Vatican (which some call the Synod on the destruction of the Family), it seems hard not to notice the presence of a pre-determined outcome.
In this report by Fatima TV from Rome, I wonder if it's just my imagination or some elements of the synod organizing really do resemble the manipulative Delphi technique that Rosa Koire mentions in relation to Agenda 21?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qmZdCwXUlw
On the Delphi technique:
http://www.santarosaneighborhoodcoalition.com/delphi.html
Another question: I was looking for an article on the New Agers' plan to pit all three monotheistic religions against each other but I only could find mentions of it in articles where it's not the main topic. I wonder if there is material on this online (given that I wouldn't like to buy the cited books by Peter LeMesurier and Alice Bailey)?
I am going silent here now for maybe a few days. you people seem to be unable
to do anything but clutter this place up with lectures at me, draw me out (next
time I'm asked about my past I will refer you to prior posts) and then pretend I
just bring it up out of the blue for no reason but my obsessions. The only reason
I got on the subject was because I had personal knowledge of being on the receiving
end when this sort of thing was being discussed. I didn't say anything to get pity
or attention but I am appalled at those who argued on her side earlier.
"but clutter this place up with lectures at me, draw me out"
Who said you are supposed to respond to everything? Use some discretion for once.
And nobody draws you out.
You stay at the ready to pounce (post).
Chrisitne, you are the lecturer here.
The Anon (me) who points out to Christine that she cannot extract a Jesus who fought physically with people from the Cleansing of the Temple episode in the gospels is not the Anon who talks about her comebacks to kindness.
Hi,
Re Anonymous 12:20
Deflection is a common defense for heavily rejected individuals.
Fixated on their bad experiences they frame their whole world in that way rather than Gods truth, it really is tough for them to break through.
We know that Jesus only did what the Father told Him to do and His words and deeds are therefore the will of God.
If you look at all the wonderfull things Jesus did for people in the New Testement record (a huge amount to list) theres no disputeing His love.
It appears that Christine has trouble reconcileing all of what Jesus did re love, focusing on the temple whipping account and reading more into it as some sort of proof (or excuse) text for unloveing acts to your fellow man is a rejection of the Truth.
Takeing the concensus of 99.999% of the scriptures that are very clear about what Gods love is and His expectation on how we are to behave is more prudent than focusing on a dubious interpretation of one scripture to support dishonouring behaviour.
Jesus took the ultimate whipping for us....
1Pet 2:24 Who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live
for righteousness; by whose stripes you were healed.
Is 53:4,5,6 Surely He has borne our griefs, (sicknesses) and carried our sorrows, (pains); yet we esteemed
Him stricken, smitten by God and afflicted. But He was wounded for our transgressions, He
was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon Him; and with His
stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned, every one to his own
way; and the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.
Can I now offer counsel that I have offered to others which I believe is in the Lord.
"We all need to take our doctrines, theories and experiences and compare them with the Truth.
By truth I mean this….
THE LIFE OF JESUS CHRIST
THE MINISTRY OF JESUS CHRIST
THE TEACHING OF JESUS CHRIST
THE ATTITUDES OF JESUS CHRIST
THE ACTIONS OF JESUS CHRIST.
Why because Jesus reveals the will of God.
2 Peter 3:9 says ….
The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering towards us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.
So God establishes His will that no one should perish
Does that mean everyone will be saved…. of course not.
Why ? because we have sinned and have to use the “free will” he has given us to repent in order to conform to His will and be saved.
Has Gods will failed or changed some how when a person refuses to repent ,of course not.
We need to know the will of God revealed in Christ ."
God bless.
Grant
New Zealand
PS ... Australian cattle drovers use a whip to drive cattle... they use the noise it makes.
I think I have said enough.
Hi,
Re Anonymous 12:20
Deflection is a common defense for heavily rejected individuals.
Fixated on their bad experiences they frame their whole world in that way rather than Gods truth, it really is tough for them to break through.
We know that Jesus only did what the Father told Him to do and His words and deeds are therefore the will of God.
If you look at all the wonderfull things Jesus did for people in the New Testement record (a huge amount to list) theres no disputeing His love.
It appears that Christine has trouble reconcileing all of what Jesus did re love, focusing on the temple whipping account and reading more into it as some sort of proof (or excuse) text for unloveing acts to your fellow man is a rejection of the Truth.
Takeing the concensus of 99.999% of the scriptures that are very clear about what Gods love is and His expectation on how we are to behave is more prudent than focusing on a dubious interpretation of one scripture to support dishonouring behaviour.
Jesus took the ultimate whipping for us....
1Pet 2:24 Who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live
for righteousness; by whose stripes you were healed.
Is 53:4,5,6 Surely He has borne our griefs, (sicknesses) and carried our sorrows, (pains); yet we esteemed
Him stricken, smitten by God and afflicted. But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon Him; and with His stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned, every one to his own way; and the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.
Can I now offer counsel that I have offered to others which I believe is in the Lord.
"We all need to take our doctrines, theories and experiences and compare them with the Truth.
By truth I mean this….
THE LIFE OF JESUS CHRIST...
THE MINISTRY OF JESUS CHRIST
THE TEACHING OF JESUS CHRIST
THE ATTITUDES OF JESUS CHRIST
THE ACTIONS OF JESUS CHRIST.
Why because Jesus reveals the will of God.
2 Peter 3:9 says ….
The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering towards us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.
So God establishes His will that no one should perish, does that mean everyone will be saved…. of course not.
Why ? because we have sinned and have to use the “free will” he has given us to repent in order to conform to His will and be saved.
Has Gods will failed or changed some how when a person refuses to repent ,of course not.
We need to know the will of God revealed in Christ ."
God bless.
Grant
New Zealand
PS ... Australian cattle drovers use a whip to drive cattle... they use the noise it makes.
I think I have said enough.
Hi Anonymous 4:16..
This blog needs to be for registered users only (which is a shame) at least then Constance might be better able to stop it being hijacked all the time by blocking abusers.
Does freedom of speech extend to off topic speaking on everything that comes into your head of a single visitor.
I think not.... people move away from this site because of the continual attention seeking commentry and babble from one commentator on a regular basis (and I am recent viewer).
Christine just does not get it regardless of the hundreds of comments people make some of them very sincere and hopeing the best for her.
Christine needs to create a blog of her own with cut and pastes of all her comments from here as a starting point... it would save us extra reading and she could let post at it ad nauseam if she wanted to.
I am still in Fort Wayne at my sister's house. We buried my cousin James Butler this afternoon. I plan to head back to Michigan tomorrow. I am currently watching GIFTED HANDS about the wonderful Christian neurosurgeon who is my favorite and preferred Presidential candidate. I commend it all to you!
http://www.4shared.com/video/6hrCwiQU/giftedhandsthebencarsonstory20.html
Constance
Constance,
I have seen GIFTED HANDS and I can vouch for the fact that it is an excellent film.
In this film, Cuba Gooding stars as gifted Christian pediatric neurosurgeon, Dr. Ben Carson who is currently one of the front-runners in the Republican presidential primaries. I would highly recommend this film.
"When the righteous rule, the people rejoice" my Bible reads. Ben Carson strikes me as a good and righteous as well as a brilliant and Godly man!
Constance
Whow... didn't know you were fortunate to have a man that enriches and saves childrens lives running in your primaries.
You would have to be compassionate and very intelligent to be in his chosen profession.
He will need a great deal of prayer support so spread the word.
Carson endorses the works of Ellen G White which are as New Age as you can get. Nice guy though.
Anon 7:19AM, much earlier in this thread, wrote:
I am not convinced about the phrase "Mystery Babylon" that many anti-New Age Bible commentators use. It comes from Revelation 17 but the Greek simply says "written on her forehead a mystery, Babylon the Great..."
I agree with this conclusion, but not the specific reasoning. It is possible to render Rev 17:5 “Mystery Babylon”; however, I’ll illustrate why this is most likely incorrect. First, note here that only one English Bible translation (Aramaic Bible in Plain English), and not even the KJV, renders it this way. Following is the Greek construction. It’s important to understand (as I’m sure this Anon is aware) that Greek has flexibility with word ordering:
καὶ ἐπὶ τὸ μέτωπον αὐτῆς ὄνομα γεγραμμένον, μυστήριον, Βαβυλών
kai epi to metōpov autēs onoma gegrammenon mystēriov Babylōn
and on the forehead of her name was written mystery Babylon
and on her forehead name was written mystery Babylon
Identifying only the nouns: forehead (μέτωπον) is in the accusative, the direct object of the prepositional phrase “on her…”; name (ὄνομα) is in the nominative (subject nomination = SN); mystery (μυστήριον) is an SN; and, Babylon is an SN. So, we have three subject nominatives (four including “mother”)!
Cont…
…Cont…
Clearly, name is the SN of the first (independent) clause. And, almost as clearly, Babylon (the Great) is the SN of the second (dependent) clause.
The Mother is also an SN, and it is best seen as in apposition to “Babylon”; that is, “Babylon the Great, the Mother…” So mystery could be either in apposition to name:
And on her forehead a name was written, a mystery: Babylon…
Or, mystery could be coordinate with Babylon:
And on her forehead a name was written: Mystery Babylon, the Mother…
However, militating against this rendering is the fact that this mystery is revealed two verses later by the angel in Rev 17:7. Quoting David Aune (Revelation 17-22, Word Biblical Commentary, B. M. Metzger, gen. ed. (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1998)) on this passage:
…Since the angel offers to explain the “mystery of the woman” in v 7, it is probable that the term μυστήριον, “mystery,” is not part of what was written on the woman’s forehead in v 5 but a way of indicating that the phrase “Babylon the great, the mother of whores” itself is a mystery in need of interpretation (p 936).
Robert L. Thomas (Revelation 8-22: An Exegetical Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1995) agrees with this position, while taking the larger context in consideration:
The . . . question about the syntactical role of mystēriov, whether it is in apposition to ὄνομα (onoma, “name”) or part of the inscription on the woman’s head is resolvable through a comparison with 14:8 and 18:2. The woman’s name is “Babylon the Great,” not “Mystery Babylon the Great . . . This along with the fact that mystēriov seems to have a parenthetical independence here brings a decision favoring the appositional relationship [ED: with “name”]. This gives the sense, “a name written, which is a mystery” . . . (p 289).
It seems to me that the woman is labeled so there is no more mystery about who she is. The mystery so far is that she isn't fully revealed yet, but we will know her when we see her. Interesting to me is that this is a "her" that is spoken of. The book is called revelation so, of course, the subject is Christ's revelation, but includes the exposure of all others along the way being brought out into the open too, as the whole thing unfolds.
And it's not a long wait for that, either.
Craig,
That was me. I should have been clearer; I wasn't excluding "Mystery Babylon" as a concatenation in the interpretation of Rev 17:5, but pointing out that too many commentators blithely suppose that it MUST mean that. You know far more ancient Greek than me and I am grateful for the expert exegesis.
Constance Cumbey said...
"When the righteous rule, the people rejoice" my Bible reads. Ben Carson strikes me as a good and righteous as well as a brilliant and Godly man!
Constance
9:59 PM
Ben Carson is un-electable as a candidate. Why? Because the Main Stream Media (owned and operated by the corporate/banking establishment) is waiting to destroy this man when and IF he becomes a serious threat. Ben Carson is a Seventh Day Adventist (Saturday Worshippers), which (unknown to MILLIONS of "professing" Christians) accepts the FALSE teachings and FALSE prophesies of Ellen G. White in defiance of the clear teachings of Scripture. Also, Adventism is staunchly anti-Catholic due to their belief that Saturday worship was changed to Sunday by the Pope in Rome. Catholics and Evangelicals make up a large voting bloc in this country .. all that is needed is to alienate a relatively small percentage of these voters, causing them to stay home, and the Democrat will get elected.
The Main Stream Media is holding off on this information on Carson because they want to use him to cut into Trump's lead. Clinton is the Establishment's candidate as evidenced by the fact that she has amassed millions in campaign funds from the corporations (as has Jeb Bush ... another Establishment hopeful). American voters are hopelessly duped and swayed by quick sound bites that will shape their opinions. Unfortunately, the system is rigged and so corrupt that an "honest" candidate cannot possibly be elected. If somehow an honest candidate makes it to the White House, as happened with (IMO) Reagan, he will be marginalized by the career, inside the beltway corruption that will outlast ANY presidency.
If you REALLY want to understand how the American political system works, I highly suggest the updated version of "A Choice, Not an Echo" by Phylis Schaffly available on Amazon.
I want to add one and very important point to the post above ... which sounds quite hopeless, and that is, the ONLY true hope any individual or nation has is found in the Lordship and authority of Jesus Christ as defined by the Word of God ... not by some religious system that has been invented by men.
"Righteous exhaults a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people."
America murders over a million babies each year and it joyfully exhaults in the sin of adultery, fornication, drunkeness, homosexuality, etc. etc. Do you honestly believe the answer to our nation's problems is via politics?
"It seems to me that the woman is labeled so there is no more mystery about who she is. The mystery so far is that she isn't fully revealed yet, but we will know her when we see her."
And the candidates are the Church of Rome, a New Age endtime belief system, and the world financial system based on fiat currency (with which kings are certainly committing spiritual fornication today). I'd say that Rome was the best guess in the Reformers' time, when Catholic nations were spreading news of Christ worldwide in coercive fashion and persecuting evangelical Christians, but today it is very clear that Catholic nations are not going on to dominate the world. Some fundamentalist protestants are so committed to this view that they seem almost to want it to happen. Not me. The woman is one of the other two suggestions and I believe it is premature to say which with any confidence.
Anon 11:41AM,
Just for the record, I really don’t know much Greek; however, I’ve learned how to make use of some tools I procured over the years. I have a resource that identifies all the parts of speech, which makes things much easier! And I rely on reputable commentaries comparing them against each other, all the while checking the grammar against other Greek grammar works in my possession, comparing definitions with lexicons, etc. - though I do try to figure out as much on my own at first to help facilitate learning. And, I usually don't figure out too much!
As an aside, I see I’ve been a victim of the dreaded spelling auto-correct (and/or poor self-editing). In parentheses I wrote “subject nomination = SN”, which should be “subject nominative = SN”.
Regarding Carson
http://www.theamericanmirror.com/exclusive-records-show-ben-carson-became-republican-less-than-one-year-ago/
He gives a talk against Obamacare and all of a sudden he becomes presidential material? I can see the appeal. He's a good, moral,intelligent man who has a good background. There are tens of thousands like him in the US who are so busy with their private lives they don't have a clue what is going on politically.
As I see it, he gets elected and is chewed up by the political community. He will be dependent on the Republican establishment because he has no political background or connections. He didn't vote in primaries which tells me he either wanted to keep himself undocumented or he didn't care enough about what was going on politically to take a stand.
Trump? Anyone who could support Trump after learning about the Hitler speech book connection must have been lobotomized at an early age. Even without that they live in a world of wishful thinking, hoping upon hope. They are like the Germans who supported Hitler because he said what the public wanted to hear. Fiorina is a major liar. Trusting the Republican establishment is just as stupid as trusting Democrats. I don't believe the news people who spin that the Republican establishment is afraid of the independents. Both sides take the public as being dumb as rocks. They are right.
Show me Carson knows about the New Age movement in detail and I might be interested.
Trump has been bankrupt several times. He knows exactly how to run a financially bankrupt outfit. So look at the US federal debt and vote for Trump!
Dumb as rocks. Trump screwed over people who got in his way, not paying them what was owed. Of course it was legal. That's the way the government is being run now. Haven't you learned by now the law means nothing. The government says what the law is to people who don't know the law and don't have the money to legally fight back.
From what I've seen, the book title Government Book of Fairy Tales hasn't been taken. If Trump gets in, you will be able to write and sell it.
Dear 5.33pm,
May I suggest that you look up the word "satire"?
Yours sincerely
5.06pm
To Anonymous @ 4:30 PM ...
I agree with you for the most part. I might add that the Democrats are also controlled by the Corporate/Banking Establishment. The Democrats talk a lot of nonsense about being against big business and corporations, etc. but ... and this is a big but ... they all take large amounts of money from the K Street corporate and banking lobbyists.
One of the biggest things the American people are gullible about is the fact that they actually believe "their" partisan politicians actually care for them. What polticians "care" about is maintaining their own elitist power and political status.
Incidently, regarding Carson; he is a favorite of the Neo-Cons ... the exact same group of lunatics that maneuvered us into Iraq & Afghanistan ... and are desperately working to get us into wars in Syria and Iran.
Anonymous 4:30 P.M.
Dr. Ben Carson Talks About New World Order
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVemcpA-wx0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tV30gVffCzI
Dr. Ben Carson Warns of New World Order, Gay Marriage (Video)
https://www.opposingviews.com/i/religion/christianity/dr-ben-carson-warns-new-world-order-gay-marriage-video
Thanks Grant.
Your posts are gracious and tell it like it is.
5:06 I've read the comments of so many Trump supporters on Facebook and your comment sounded similar. These days I'm not in a laughing mood. I'm glad for you that you can still find what is going on funny.
Susanana, Carson is a 7th Day Adventist, which is sure to come up. What they teach their members about the New Age movement has little to do with reality. The information their speakers share is based on promotion of their religious beliefs. It is a very tight community which makes no allowances for views outside of their system.
How do I know? At this point I can only tell you about my experience. There is nothing on the internet to support what I say. In my efforts to warn others I met someone at work who told me there was a speaker at the local 7th Day Adventist church who was talking about New Age. This was in the early '90s. I went only to hear a rationalization of their beliefs. An effort on my part to share what I knew went nowhere. Then through my son I met a gentle woman who was very intelligent and who was very involved in the support she received from that group. She was not open to hearing anything about the New Age movement other than what she learned from church members. What she knew had almost nothing to do with factual information.
I have my own beliefs. Her group has its own beliefs and the individuals appear to be good people. Even giving her Lee Penn's book had no effect. The 7th Day Adventists are really a closed system.
In trying to find something on the internet connecting the two, I came across this site which others might find useful in their research on New Age. http://www.watchman.org/cat95.htm
Satire, 11.08pm, is not fundamentally about comedy. It uses comedy to make a serious point.
Re Donald Trump reading Hitlers speeches
Do you that an occultist Erik Jan Hanussent taught Hitler his speech techniques
Stories abound of meetings between Hanussen and Hitler, including an encounter shortly before the election of November 1932, during which Hanussen taught Hitler his crowd control techniques of using gestures and dramatic pauses.
Dr. Walter C. Langer prepared a psychological profile of Hitler for the Office of Strategic Services in 1943. The profile included a reference to Hanussen: "... during the early 1920's Hitler took regular lessons in speaking and in mass psychology from a man named Haanusen who was also a practicing astrologer and fortune-teller. He was an extremely clever individual who taught Hitler a great deal concerning the importance of staging meetings to obtain the greatest dramatic effect.".
In 1931 Hanussen purchased a Breslau printing firm and began publishing an occult journal, Hanussen Magazin and Bunte Wochenschau, a popular biweekly Berlin tabloid which included astrological columns.[6] He used the proceeds from his publishing ventures and stage shows to purchase a mansion which became known as "The Palace of the Occult", which he renovated and turned into a luxurious interactive theatre for fortune telling games.
Erik Jan Hanussen, born (2 June 1889, Vienna – 25 March 1933, Berlin Jewish publicist, charlatan and clairvoyant performer. Acclaimed in his lifetime as a hypnotist, mentalist, occultist, and astrologer, Hanussen was active in Weimar Republic Germany and also at the beginning of Nazi Germany. He is said to have instructed Adolf Hitler in performance and the achievement of dramatic effec
Stories abound of meetings between Hanussen and Hitler, including an encounter shortly before the election of November 1932, during which Hanussen taught Hitler his crowd control techniques of using gestures and dramatic pauses.[3]Hanussen was also quite close to other important Nazi officials, to whom he had often lent money, including Wolf-Heinrich Graf von Helldorf, Karl Ernst and Friedrich Wilhelm Ohst.
Dr. Walter C. Langer, a psychoanalyst, prepared a psychological profile of Hitler for the Office of Strategic Services in 1943. The profile included a reference to Hanussen: "... during the early 1920's Hitler took regular lessons in speaking and in mass psychology from a man named Hamissen[4] who was also a practicing astrologer and fortune-teller. He was an extremely clever individual who taught Hitler a great deal concerning the importance of staging meetings to obtain the greatest dramatic effect."[5]
In 1931 Hanussen purchased a Breslau printing firm and began publishing an occult journal, Hanussen Magazin and Bunte Wochenschau, a popular biweekly Berlin tabloid which included astrological columns.[6] He used the proceeds from his publishing ventures and stage shows to purchase a mansion which became known as "The Palace of the Occult", which he renovated and turned into a luxurious interactive theatre for fortune telling games.
Sorry for the double up made editing error
I understand that Hitler systematically studied great speechmakers. He was impressed with the rhetorical style of Lloyd George among others.
The world is full of fools who sell their souls for money. In one way or another they lose.
Also from Wikipedia
Controversy and assassination[edit]
Predicting the Reichstag fire,[citation needed] a decisive event that allowed recently appointed Chancellor of Germany Adolf Hitler to seize absolute power in 1933, was Hanussen's most famous feat of clairvoyance. It also was possibly a miscalculated use of inside information[citation needed] that led to his death shortly thereafter.
Eric Hanussen was assassinated on March 25, 1933,[7] probably by a group of SA men[citation needed], and was hastily buried in a field on the outskirts of Berlin, near Stahnsdorf.[8] He was potential competition to Hermann Göring and Joseph Goebbels for the attention of their Führer, which may also have led to his murder. Hanussen's body was discovered over a month later. There are unsubstantiated claims that he may have been involved in the Reichstag fire, hypnotizing and directing Marinus van der Lubbe, the convicted arsonist, to commit the act.[9]
Erik Jan Hanussen is buried in the Südwestkirchhof Stahnsdorf, near Berlin.
It's not too difficult to paste from Wikipedia! There's a film about Hanussen directed by Istvan Szabo, great drama though not historically accurate, and released with English subtitles only on VHS to date; DVDs in German only.
I arrived home from Indiana last night and am now catching up on this site -- not to mention my household duties. Pray for me. My left leg continues to give trouble.
Carson is a Seventh Day Adventist, although he says he attends other Churches as well. He, like many SDA's believe in Ellen G. White. I would not call her works "New Age" per se. I am well familiar with her works. My mother was a Seventh Day Adventist during my formative years. I now disagree with much SDA theology, including the extreme Catholic bashing and encouraged (not mandatory) vegetarianism. I have spoken in SDA churches over the years, including the Burns Avenue Seventh Day Adventist Church in Detroit where Dr. Ben Carson was baptized. (I only learned that online the other day). When questions were posed to me about EGW (Ellen G. White), this was my standard response: "insofar as Ellen G. White is consistent with Scripture, I guess I agree with Ellen G. White. In so far as she might deviate, I guess I would disagree."
I do believe Ellen G. White wrongfully claimed status as the "Word of Prophecy." I disagree with much from Walter Martin, as well. But I do believe his analysis of Ellen G. White was accurate, based on my reading of his book in 1980.
I would, however, buy a used car from the average Seventh Day Adventist based on my life's experiences with them. I agree with their views of Creation and evolution. Their stress on the Bible is admirable. I only wish they would take some passages a little more literally when it comes to believing Ellen G. White, which many SDA'
s no longer as fervently do. Interestingly, Ellen G. White warned her followers that day would one day come. She defined THAT as apostasy. The test of antichrist and apostasy is biblically clear. It is a denial that Jesus is the Christ and that Jesus is come in the flesh -- not that Ellen G. White is his chosen messenger.
I would welcome an opportunity to sit down with Dr. Carson, but he is an honest man and right now the one I believe to be the most honest and Godly person in the presidential race. I guess I would have the same analysis of his as I told my SDA audiences I had of EGW.
Constance
For the record, I have been able to get effectively through Seventh Day Adventists on the issues, but clearly my background knowing their theology has been a clear advantage.
Constance
There clearly has been large New Age infiltration of Seventh Day Adventist circles. The New Agers love their vegetarian type restaurants. Neurolinguistic Programming was employed by many in some states. I was contacted by a Pastor Osborn who was a prominent SDA media personality in Florida. His Church leadership was angry at him for questioning NLP ("The Bandler Method"). He had a good understanding of New Age issues. Unfortunately, our rapport fell apart for him in sad dismay when I questioned Ellen G. White. He literally howled in our last conversation, "If Ellen G White is not true, there is no truth." I have prayed for him ever since. I've heard from others who had knowledge of his struggles with attempted New Age takeovers.
Constance
And, if I sat down with Dr. Carson, I could also profitably inform him on the Fellowship Foundation, the organization tightly affiliated with Paul N. Temple and the Institute of Noetic Sciences. I honestly believe him to be a Godly man and I honestly believe he would listen and do his own investigation.
Constance
"I would welcome an opportunity to sit down with Dr. Carson, but he is an honest man and right now the one I believe to be the most honest and Godly person in the presidential race. I would have the same analysis of his as I told my SDA audiences I had of EGW."
I guess that's true, but it says a lot about the country's political system and the lack of awareness of what we are living under, the political New Age networks, when we have as a front runner a political newbie with good soul.
I saw on Fox last night an interview with three of the authors of 13 Hours in Benghazi. Oh for a chance to vote for one of them though they did not talk politics.
On a lighter side I came across a column by Archbishop Coleridge who was at the Synod. http://brisbanecatholic.org.au/articles/on-the-road-together-new-congregation/ Down to earth like priests I knew many years ago. By lighter side I mean he presents what went on among a group of human beings. I look forward to see what else he has written.
"insofar as Ellen G. White is consistent with Scripture, I guess I agree with Ellen G. White. In so far as she might deviate, I guess I would disagree."
Well Yes, but for the evangelical Christian that is true of everybody, not just Ellen G White. It avoids comparing her words with scripture - and be in no doubt that 7th Day Adventists put her first.
* The Sabbath command is the only one of the Decalogue that Jesus didn't repeat to his followers. I run a business and I would not ask employees to work Sunday, because it is good to have a family day off, but I believe I am no sinning if I choose to.
* 7th Day Adventists are annihilationists and do not believe that the torments of hell are perpetual in clear contravention of, for instance, Rev 20:10.
* When Jesus failed to return in 1844 as William Miller took Daniel to be stating (after some calculation), instead of admitting that he got it wrong he said that Jesus did actually begin conducting "investigative judgement" in heaven in that year. Yeah, sure. This view was taken up by Ellen G White who assembled the 7th Day Adventists from what was left of the Millerites.
Constance,
Condolences for the loss of your cousin.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
When you have the opportunity, please look at the whole host of UNCATHOLIC Catholic prelates and their significant influence at the most recent 2015 Synod on Marriage and Family. This event in Rome appeared to be more of a "SIN NOD" than a Synod. It's was quite disturbing and begged many questions. For starters...how did these deceivers rise to their prominent positions within the Catholic Church hierarchy? and at the Synod? To view some of the delegation, scroll down to the individual Synod Profiles.
http://www.churchmilitant.com/search/category/232/synod-showdown
After watching all the Synod clips over the past month, clearly one can say groundwork has been established to create a "new" and unrecognizable church that will lead to the destruction of many for all eternity. Call it "Vatican III" if you wish, but it will proceed like "In the Spirit of Vatican II".
The players have now all revealed their cards and soon Pope Francis will show his hand, too--will he stop those defectors, a huge number of cardinals, bishops, and archbishops who promote a different Gospel, via excommunication...or will he fulfill the role of False Prophet?
I remind everyone even though the verse goes, "The gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church," it is foolish to believe Satan and his minions wouldn't try to infiltrate it. Time will tell if the prophesies of Blessed Fulton Sheen, St. Francis of Assisi, St. Hildegard, and St. Malachi hold water. I can only wonder how long before those of us who hold to the Truth, like the African bishops, are forced underground or martyred??
Come, Lord Jesus Christ, come!
Catherine
Well it may be that lay people in the Catholic church are picking up where some of the clergy are dropping off when it comes to exposing the New Age movement. Thank God for that. While looking to see if the Archbishop had written anything about the New Age movement, exploration led to other sites in Australia where it was being exposed.
Australia was targeted for New Age change a long time ago. Many years ago by chance I picked up a book how a group of conservative Catholics had to fight all of the changes being brought into their parish by new leadership. I gave the book to my brother, a staunch Catholic.
Put Brisbane and New Age into a search and see what New Age opposers have had to fight.
I am sharing two sites. The first is a cornucopia of information with the lead in telling people to ask their questions about New Age. Some one worked really hard in putting this together.
http://www.womenofgrace.com/blog/?cat=6482
Blog Index by Subject | Women of Grace
The second site contains less information, but it does give leads to some Constance Cumbey information. A link to this blog is also there. There are also other sources given. http://miraculousrosary.blogspot.com/p/beware-maitreya-anti-christ.html
Miraculous Rosary: BEWARE THE NEW AGE ANTI-CHRIST
Doing a search on miraculous rosary with the term New Age, it leads to other essays. The site is full of information on other things taking place in the Catholic church community. I leave it to Catholics to evaluate the entire site for others. My interest was solely in how New Age is exposed.
I have yet to find sites doing an excellent and honest job of exposing New Age politics. Has anyone found any?
Nothing to do with New Age, yet I feel compelled to call this to your attention. Fox had an hour long interview with three of the contract workers who were on the scene in Benghazi. They explain their involvement from the time they got the notice to get on the scene to the time the plane took them out. 13 Hours in Benghazi is now a book and I believe a film now. Fox is rebroadcasting it at 2 am tonight. They just describe what they and their comrades went through. They do not discuss politics. If you need your sleep, record it.
E. G. White was not only a heretic, she was most certainly a false prophet. White made numerous prophesies that she claimed came from the "light of God" that, in reality, proved to be absolutely false. All cults have one thing in common; they put the teachings of their system (or their "prophet")above that of God's Word. Most cults give lip service to their "belief" in Christ, but WHO exactly IS Jesus Christ?? He IS THE WORD OF GOD. "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." I John 5:7 The "test" of being a true believer is NOT just in accepting Him, or believing that He "came in the flesh." The real test is found in Scripture itself. As Jesus said "they that are of God heareth God's word." His people hear His voice (God's Word) and "a stranger they will not follow."
"We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us: he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error." I John 4:3
If a person is truly born of the Spirit of God (the new birth), it is IMPOSSIBLE to be born from above while denying the COMPLETE authority of the Word of God that God's Spirit authored.
In His confrontation with "believing" Jews in John Chapter 8, the dividing line is clear: "Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, if ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free." John 8: 31,32 Later, Jesus said to these very same "believers" that their father was the devil. Why? Because, although they expressed a "belief" in Him, they rejected His Word! "He that is of God heareth God's Words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God." John 8:47
This holds true for all of us ... if you claim to be a believer, the test is this:
What is your attitude to God's Word? Do you really faithfully believe it? Or are you trusting in a religious system that contradicts God's Word to save you?
RayB,
I would recommend that you reconsider using that particular portion of 1 John 5, as it's almost universally accepted within scholarship that this is a later addition (see here). This verbiage is in the N/KJV, but not in any other translation for this reason. Keep in mind that the KJV was originally translated using a small amount of manuscripts, and there've been many found and unearthed since then. Most modern translations have a footnote reference at this text, indicating that this verbiage does not appear in any Greek manuscript until the sixteenth century.
Craig,
not so fast. http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/1john57-exegesis.htm
scroll down to a list of ancient writers that quote it. It was present in the
earliest texts the ones it is absent from are only assumed to be the best because
the oldest in good shape, but that in itself is a strike against them, if they were
in good shape they were not in much use so not esteemed. Also, their provenance,
orthodox or heretical, is unknown.
Pickering THE NEW TESTAMENT TEXT is the best book on the subject aside from
Dean Burgeon's writings.
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/conservatives-prevail-gay-issues-vatican-synod-143859406.html
Christine,
Not so fast. I wrote, "...it's almost universally accepted within scholarship..." The author you cite claims Dr. David Alan Black as his professor, dedicating this work to him; yet, Black does not affirm the Johannine Comma as authentic.
See Greek scholar and textual critic Dr. Daniel B. Wallace's posts on this issue here and here.
Regarding Walter Martin: There’s no doubt he did much to explain and expose cults; but, I have a number of problems with his theology (not to mention his ill-treatment of Constance). Of course, I readily concede that no one has perfect theology, including myself.
First, Martin missed an excellent opportunity to very publicly deny Christian fellowship to Kenneth Hagin and Kenneth Copeland on the basis of their ‘Jesus Died Spiritually’ heresy, with their attendant claim that He went to hell, took on Satan’s nature, and was subsequently ‘born again’. This was in a broadcast on TBN, as resurrected by Jackie Alnor (TBN never re-aired it, not surprisingly). Alnor’s blog has been removed, but I had copied the post onto my own blog – with her permission. My comment (dated March 20, 2011) on the matter (edited):
I take exception to the late Walter Martin’s quite charitable affirmation that Hagin and Copeland are “brothers in Christ” who “love the Lord” [video 3 @ 8:30]. Given Hagin’s and Copeland’s stated heresy . . . with its blasphemous depiction of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior, and its associated inherent denial of the Atonement, which thereby places these individuals clearly outside of Christian orthodoxy, I would have a difficult time embracing them as brothers in Christ.
Secondly, in a book authored by Martin, he promotes what is best called functional kenosis, i.e. Jesus possessed all divine attributes yet did not actually utilize some during His earthly ministry:
The New Testament irrefutably teaches that Christ did not exercise at least three prime attributes of deity while on the earth prior to His resurrection. These were omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence. Had He done so while a man He could not have been perfect humanity . . . It can be said on good Biblical ground that all of Christ's miracles, powers, and supernatural information were the result of the Father's action through Him, thus safeguarding our Lord's identity as a true man . . . (Walter Martin, Essential Christianity (Santa Ana, CA: Vision House, 1980), p 34).
This does not agree with historical Christian orthodoxy, and, more importantly, with the Bible. As but one example, John 2:11 indicates that the very first miracle – turning water into wine at Cana – was performed by Jesus, thus revealing His glory. In online discussions some have tried to refute my position by claiming that Jesus did this by the power of the Spirit, but this is at odds with the clear reading of the context.
Martin gets himself into trouble by making dogmatic statements (such as “irrefutably” in the above). For the third (and fourth) example, I’ll have to get a bit technical.
Cont…
…Cont (2):
It has to do with a particular Greek syntactical construction regarding the placement of a predicate nominative. First, I’ll explain in English. In the sentence George is the guitar player, we have a subject nominative (SN), George, a predicate nominative (PN), the guitar player, and a linking verb, aka copulative verb (CV), is. A PN functions to explain the SN. In English, the format is always, SN-CV-PN; however, in NT Greek, there is some flexibility, and this flexibility can influence meaning.
Also, in NT Greek there is one article (roughly ≈ “the” in English); whereas, in English there are two – the definite article, the, and the indefinite, a or an. If the article precedes a Greek noun, the noun is definite, if the noun lacks the article it may be indefinite - unless the noun precedes the CV. We’re interested in PN-CV constructions (position of SN does not matter). John 1:1c is an example, usually rendered and the Word was God. In Greek the ordering is thus: and God was the Word. In this case the SN follows both the PN and the CV; but, importantly, for our purposes, the PN precedes the CV, with the PN lacking the article. So, the question is: Is God indefinite (a god), definite (‘the’ God), or perhaps a 3rd category altogether?
Jehovah’s Witnesses would render this “a god”; whereas, many Christian scholars claim it is definite, though, of course, we wouldn’t put “the” in front of “God”. However, there’s a 3rd option: qualitative – though definiteness can accompany qualitativeness. This would be akin to and the Word was divine, with the understanding that divine strictly means ‘possessing traits of Deity’, as in “and the Word possessed all the qualities of Deity”, or something like that. Rendering and the Word was God is fine in translation, as long as we understand that qualitativeness is predominate over definiteness (we’ll see why in a moment).
This same construction is used in John 1:14: flesh became. We wouldn’t think the Word became the flesh or a flesh. No; the Word took on all the qualities and characteristics consistent with human flesh, though, of course, the Word took on a particular body of flesh at conception. Therefore, there is a shade of definiteness, as well.
The confusion came in (as if this may not already be confusing!) when E.C. Colwell formulated a ‘rule’ back in 1922. Colwell found that when a PN precedes its CV, and the PN is definite, it usually lacks the article. That is, contextually, these particular PNs are definite even though they lack the article. The problem is that Colwell, in formulating his hypothesis, didn’t really take into account qualitative PNs, and, most misconstrue Colwell’s rule as the converse: when a PN precedes its CV it is definite. That does not hold!! The PN could well be qualitative instead. (Indefiniteness in these constructions is quite rare.)
Cont…
…Cont (3):
Misconstruing Colwell’s rule is Martin’s mistake, which he compounds with another in his explanation of it.
In an effort to refute the Arian heresy inherent in the JW’s New World Translation rendering of John 1:1c (“and the Word was a god”), Walter Martin [The Kingdom of the Cults: The Definitive Work on the Subject, Revised, Updated, and Expanded Edition, gen. ed. R. Zacharias (Bloomington, MN: Bethany House, 2003)] misapplied Colwell’s Rule, which, ironically, resulted in his inadvertent support of Sabellianism (modalism) – a heresy he had staunchly opposed. Martin dogmatically declared:
[T]he Greek grammatical construction leaves no doubt whatsoever that this [and the Word was God] is the only possible rendering . . . Colwell formulated a rule that clearly states that a definite predicate nominative (in this case theos – God) never takes an article when it precedes the verb (was), as we find in John 1:1[c] . . . [T]herefore . . . no article is needed . . . and to translate it ‘a god’ is both incorrect grammar and poor Greek (p 108; bold added on dogmatic statements, other emphasis in original).
The reason this can support Sabellianism is that in John 1:1b (and the Word was with God (theos)) God is best understood contextually as the Father, and by claiming that the PN is definite in which “no article is needed” Martin affirmed – whether intentional or not – a fully convertible A = B / B = A proposition: the Word = God (the Father) and God (the Father) = the Word. [See A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, 4th ed. (Nashville, TN: Broadman, 1934 (1914), pp 767-768 who references this very clause, adding: “[W]hen the article occurs with the subject . . . and predicate, both are definite, treated as identical, one and the same, and interchangeable” (p 768). Cf. Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), pp 258, 268.]
Martin went further astray in his assertion that a definite noun in a PN-CV construction “never takes an article,” for, per Colwell, 15 out of 112 do take the article (Colwell, “Definite Rule,” p 17). Hence, not only did Martin erroneously affirm the converse of Colwell’s rule, he mistakenly asserted that there can never be an arthrous PN-CV construction (arthrous means ‘with the article’).
Craig said...
RayB,
"I would recommend that you reconsider using that particular portion of 1 John 5, as it's almost universally accepted within scholarship that this is a later addition (see here). This verbiage is in the N/KJV, but not in any other translation for this reason. Keep in mind that the KJV was originally translated using a small amount of manuscripts, and there've been many found and unearthed since then. Most modern translations have a footnote reference at this text, indicating that this verbiage does not appear in any Greek manuscript until the sixteenth century."
11:17 PM
Craig,
Before I answer your assertion as stated above, which I strongly, in no uncertain terms, disagree with, I would like to ask you one question in order to help me understand where you are coming from ... in my post @10:57 PM, is there anything that you disagree with, and if so, please explain what and why.
Craig,
Luke 2:52 states that, while he was growing up, Jesus "grew in wisdom" (sophia). How do you reconcile this with your insistence that he had all divine attributes all of the time?
RayB,
The way I understand your post, I'm in agreement. I merely disagree that that portion of 1 John 5:7 is part of the original text as John wrote it. Hence, my recommendation is not to use it to bolster any argument.
Anon 10:04AM,
Short answer: the hypostatic union.
Craig
"Not so fast. I wrote, "...it's almost universally accepted within scholarship..." The author you cite claims Dr. David Alan Black as his professor, dedicating this work to him; yet, Black does not affirm the Johannine Comma as authentic."
so? what bearing does that have on the information in the article?
"Around A.D. 250, Cyprian, as noted, wrote, "The Lord says, 'I and the Father are one, and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, 'And these three are one.'"[59]
Cyprian, less than two hundred years after the writing of I John, is expressly quoting the Johannine Comma. He must have got it from an early form of the Old Latin in spite of Metzger's claims. It is interesting that even he admits that "Our information concerning the Old Latin translation of the New Testament is very defective . . ."[60] "
the available Tepl MS is real late, but is a pre Jerome Old Latin type and has this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_Johanneum#Early_Church_Writer_evidences
"and the three are one" as a phrase keeps cropping up where did they get it?
though it is said this was pivotal in developing the doctrine of the Trinity, it is
more correct to say it was pivotal in DEFENDING it, since you don't need it at all
to have the Trinity doctrine, this is what you get when you apply all information
about The Father The Son and The Holy Spirit in the Bible and this eliminates the
apparent contradictions and apparent confusions.
the one thing it could be pivotal in developing would be modalism, and some article
elsewhere suggested that in fighting this heresy, some overeager Greeks deliberately
left this out. "are one" can be interpreted several ways. Modalism is ruled out
by Isa 48:16 which shows distinct persons, One Who speaks and Two Who sent the Speaker, and by the baptism of Christ, where The Father speaks, the Holy Spirit
has descended on Jesus Christ, Who is also present. Three distinct beings.
As for what is "almost universally accepted within scholarship" I really don't care.
Give me the information they draw on and surrounding facts and whatever is in
early writers that supports presence or absence, and I can draw my own conclusions.
"scholarship" has been dominated by people in love with Hort and WEscott and in love
with acceptability and pomposity. (In reaction to something someone here wrote on
another matter, which had me laughing for quite a while, I coined the word "pomposterous," a mix of pompous and preposterous. Might apply in this general context also.)
I don't like his drawing on Gail Riplinger however. some people I do without, if I
have to use them I go to their source and ace them out altogether.
Christine,
This isn't a Westcott and Hort thing. The 'comma' is not even in the large majority of the Byzantine Text (aka "Majority Text"). I think Wallace does a great job in illustrating that Cyprian did not in fact quote the portion in the 'comma', as he omits "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit”:
“…Cyprian does show evidence of putting a theological spin on 1 John 5:7. In his De catholicae ecclesiae unitate 6, he says, “The Lord says, ‘I and the Father are one’; and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, ‘And these three are one.’” What is evident is that Cyprian’s interpretation of 1 John 5:7 [ED: “For there are three that testify”] is that the three witnesses refer to the Trinity. Apparently, he was prompted to read such into the text here because of the heresies he was fighting (a common indulgence of the early patristic writers). Since John 10:30 triggered the ‘oneness’ motif, and involved Father and Son, it was a natural step for Cyprian to find another text that spoke of the Spirit, using the same kind of language. It is quite significant, however, that (a) he does not quote ‘of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Spirit’ as part of the text; this is obviously his interpretation of ‘the Spirit, the water, and the blood.’ [ED: in verse 8] (b) Further, since the statement about the Trinity in the Comma is quite clear (“the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit”), and since Cyprian does not quote that part of the text, this in the least does not afford proof that he knew of such wording. One would expect him to quote the exact wording of the text, if its meaning were plain…”
I don't wish to continue to debate this with you. You can believe the Johannine Comma is original to the text. Having viewed the evidence, I don't.
Craig, I appreciate you don't want to continue this. I do want to correct one
point though,
"It is quite significant, however, that (a) he does not quote ‘of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Spirit’ as part of the text"
no it isn't, because speaking as one well versed in Scripture to others ditto and
speaking in context of the Three Persons, he only needed to cite that sentence
segment to back it up. The phrasing is significant. it repeats in many other
early writers not just him. there are other ways to assert Their oneness but this
is a good quick way. FRAGMENT of sentence quoting from Scripture is to be found
in NT quoting OT where it says that it was written that Jesus would be called a
Nazarene. (This relates to the righteous Branch of Jesse prophecies, branch being
nezar or nezer I forget which, and Nazareth being based on this, "Jesus of Nazareth" would trigger a memory in those who clung to Scripture, "Jesus the Branch," a hint.)
(note to any here who don't know this, chapter and verse didn't exist then, and like
with NT references to OT if you are in the habit of reading those books straight
through not piecemeal as done now, you will recognize a phrase immediately. in many
cases the specific prophet is not named in some cases he is.)
This focus on Cyprian ignores the rest of the early writers who refer to it.
Craig said...
to RayB,
"I would recommend that you reconsider using that particular portion of 1 John 5, as it's almost universally accepted within scholarship that this is a later addition (see here). This verbiage is in the N/KJV, but not in any other translation for this reason. Keep in mind that the KJV was originally translated using a small amount of manuscripts, and there've been many found and unearthed since then. Most modern translations have a footnote reference at this text, indicating that this verbiage does not appear in any Greek manuscript until the sixteenth century."
11:17 PM
Craig,
Thanks for your scholarly "recommendation" (that detracted and caused doubt, incidently, from the Biblical truth that I expoused) but I will continue to not only use I John 5:7 but will also continue to trust in the KJV in its entirety. Of course, such a position might put me in jeopardy with the "majority of scholars" that you refer to. It's enough to take one's breath away to actually believe something in opposition to the "scholars." These same "scholars" are of the ilk that often deny Christ's deity, His miracles, His literal Second Coming, His Attonement for sin, His Virgin Birth, etc., etc.
I hope you realize that both Wescott and Hort held deep hatred for the Textus Receptus and that they also held numerous beliefs that were less than Orthodox to say the least. This claim is well documented due to the fact that the sons of both Wescott and Hort published their letters (free PDF downloads available) in which they enumerated their often strange beliefs. Both held Darwin and his "irrefutable theories" in high regard. Did you know that? Did you know that they both held to the RCC position of Baptismal Regeneration? Did you know that Hort believed that "...Jesus worship and Mary worship both lead to the same end"? The point is; Wescott and Hort were extremely prejudiced in their work, as evidenced by the watered-down versions that trace their existence to that prejudiced endeavor.
continued ..
Over 30 years ago, I too held to the position that you expouse. One day, I was challenged to do a verse by verse comparison using the KJV against a number of modern translations. What I found shocked me (along with my then future wife).
Over and over again, the modern translations weaken the meaning of passages by removing key words and at times even eliminating verses and entire passages.
Again, take some time and study exactly what Wescott and Hort actually believed. Then try to convince yourself that they didn't carry these prejudices into their work.
RayB,
Your position as a KJV-onlyist is disappointing. However, taking the contrary position that the Greek text underlying the N/KJV has some errors does not necessarily entail a disbelief in Biblical inerrancy and infallibility.
I hope you'll take the time to study both Koine Greek and the discipline of textual criticism so that you can view the evidence with your own mind.
I've read accounts of how some are making wild accusations about Westcott and Hort (and Bruce Metzger). Yet, even if these are true, textual critics of today assess the evidence of the manuscripts, not the character of W&H. And as I stated above, no one has perfect theology. I've been reading a portion of Westcott's commentary on the Gospel of John, and it is rich in insights. I've not found a single item that raised my eyebrows.
I've found the following to be some good food for thought for those who are not sure what position to believe (KJV vs. modern translations):
DEMYSTIFYING THE CONTROVERSY OVER THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS AND THE KING JAMES VERSION OF THE BIBLE
by
Douglas S. Chinn
Robert C. Newman
RayB,
I wanted to address this: Over and over again, the modern translations weaken the meaning of passages by removing key words and at times even eliminating verses and entire passages.
Could it be that earlier scribes, with good intentions, tried to 'correct' the text to what they thought it was supposed to say? By 'correct' I mean one of two things (1) they actually changed the manuscript while copying; (2) some previous reader wrote some comments in the margin of the manuscript (manuscripts are replete with marginal notes) and a subsequent copyist thought this was supposed to be in the actual text, then placed it into his copy.
...and that's what those coming over to this blog will find out about the New Age movement. Better to check in with the Australian website.
Anon 2:48PM,
There are some of the opinion that any Bible other than the King James Version is part of some grand New Age conspiracy. See here:
New Age Bible Versions: An Exhaustive Documentation of the Message, Men & Manuscripts Moving Mankind to the Antichrist's One World Religion
Craig, thank you for that piece of information.
I can't help but wonder where God is in all this Biblical translation controversy. It all seems to be a scholastic competition for who is the best scholar.
Where is the Lord? Didn't He oversee anything?
Scribes, lawyers & professors make mistakes all the time. Probably as often as they get it right.
The KJV was good enough for 400 years, but now it's not good enough.?
By their fruits you will know them.
To God be the glory.
Amen Paul.
The best scholar, if you will, is the Holy Spirit. He wrote the Bible and can interpret it to.
The mind of man is not to be taken as the final word on any subject no matter how scholarly the work.
Heb 4:12, 2 Peter 1:20-21, John 16:13-14 are just some verses regarding this subject.
Thank you Paul ... very well said and right to the point!
Busy day and unfortunately away from my computer. Another MAJOR problem with Seventh Day Adventist theology is their teaching that Jesus is Michael the Archangel. Scripturally (book of Hebrews) we read, "To which of his angels has he ever said, 'Thou art my son, this day have I begotten you. . " Michael the Archangel was clearly a being of LIMITED POWER. We read in Jude that "1.Yet Michael the archangel, in contending with the devil, when he disputed about the body of Moses, dared not bring against him a reviling accusation, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!" Jude 1:9
Jesus could have made any accusation he wanted. Jesus was not a being of limited power.
As the Adventists (probably rightfully) teach that Lucifer was once the Archangel, now logically if Jesus and Lucifer were both Archangels, wouldn't that make them consistent with many aberrant doctrines brothers?
Many Seventh Day Adventists are not aware of THAT doctrinal teaching, but it is a SDA belief probably derived from Ellen G. White who claimed to be a prophetess to them on the stature of the prophets and apostles of the Bible.
Constance
If you are going to translate the Bible into another language for some newly discovered peoples then do you start with the Greek and the Hebrew or with the King James?
As for updating it, that is necessary because English usage has changed. What do most people think that "Suffer little children" means today? It's hard enough getting people to believe in Christ. Demanding that they learn Shakespearean English to do so is absurd given that the gospels are deliberately written in dumbed-down koine Greek rather than classical Greek.
Certainly it is possible that some modern translations are compromised, and there is legitimate scholarly debate about which ancient manuscripts and fragments to go by when minor variations exist. But those are the principles.
"Another MAJOR problem with Seventh Day Adventist theology is their teaching that Jesus is Michael the Archangel."
The Mormons certainly believe that, Constance. Do the 7th Day Adventists too?
http://www.churchmilitant.com/video/episode/the-vortexbenedicts-fingerprints
Catherine
http://www.churchmilitant.com/video/episode/the-vortexthe-church-is-the-church
Catherine
To 7:26 pm. Thank you, I just watched the Michael Voris video. I know Voris personally and have spoken for him in the Detroit area. I have respect for his opinions. Disturbing and sad!
Constance
to Anonymous 4:22 a.m. I didn't know the Mormons believed that Michael the Archangel is Jesus and vice versa, but YES, the Seventh Day Adventists do believe it. My mother believed it. I've argued with SDA'ers on that -- sometimes successfully, sometimes not.
Constance
Normally Doug Ross' Bad Blue website http://badblue.bitnamiapp.com/trendr8.htm is filled with conservative news stories not covered at regular news sources. Therefore I was shocked to see a link to this story. http://www.thisblogisdangerous.com/the-pagan-cross-and-codes-of-honour/
This is not the kind of New Age material one will find at New Age bookstores. It's more like the kind of New Age seduction one might have found in Nazi Germany.
As I just came across the link, I have had no time to check out the size of the movement. I did check out much of the material on the page and other pages. In the past there was a similar type of violence in the Black Metal Music community. I've seen references to these types of groups in Europe. Is the movement resurfacing? Has anyone found information they will share?
anon 12:55
search pagan reconstructionism for starters.
The Jehovah's Witnesses also believe in the "Michael the Archangel is Jesus" nonsense, which is
probably a giveaway that they are all three cults which are heavily influenced by the very imaginitive
Freemasons.
The Enemy is a destroyer and a liar.
He has no creativity and he leaves his
slimy fingerprints on everything he does.
paul,
aside from that source of influence, which is of course involved, these three,
SDA, Mormonism and JWs, have a common origin, the Restoration movement of the early
to mid 1800s which attempted to restore the early church, claiming far more than
Luther did that Rome is whore of Babylon and that the true church had either been
nonexistent for 1500 years or possibly until the founding of the USA, or hiding
underground in the organizations identifiable as "Christian" despite evidence to
the contrary, simply because persecuted by Rome.
This attitude gave rise to heretical groups and more orthodox groups, and informed
a lot of writers and so forth and through them regular people of the denominations.
pagan reconstruction is EXACTLY what this is, the first lure is heroic values
squared off against supposedly inferior Christian values, and then of course
looking at the Pashtun standards which are in varying degrees to be found
everything. exactly the kind of society where even a taunt is occasion for a kill,
is what Jesus addressed with turn the other cheek, it had moved in that direction.
Christianity had been ambivalent about military life and killing even in self
defense and one who killed in combat even after the Empire was Christian was put
under penance, even as in the OT where someone who killed in war had to be cleased
with the water of the REd Heifer ashes.
Yes apparently there were crosses in use (from what origin is anyone's guess
it had value in several pagan systems before Christianity, perhaps because God had
given the symbol in its variant forms some degree of power against evil and evil
atmospheres as a pre statement of Christianity) before Christianity in the celtic
and gaulish peoples and the difference was that "high cross" was Christian.
A High Cross is one that is positioned on a stand, maybe three steps, with or
without the classic celtic circle around the cross. This is always intended as
clearly Christian.
Pagan reconstructionism is of course easier when the culture is closer to its
preChristian roots. Essentially it says that one should not worship the Christian
God, but the false gods' of one's ancestors. ethnic pride always plays a role in
sneaking this in if covert or in overtly recruiting for it.
This particular article is a bit more nazoid in the co-opt-the-church phase of
Nazism sense, because it tries to hijack Jesus Christ to its warrior god concept
and sleeping kings and thereby also (since this is done without reference to the
resurrection) implies the resurrection did not occur.
The classic reconstruction form would develop later, when some people or a generation
grew up in this, and could be more easily moved to dump Christianity altogether.
Meanwhile last heard from in the 2000s when I did the research online hours and hours every day in egroups and so forth,
there was celtic reconstructionism, several groups, one of them planning to revive
slavery, and allowing sexual abuse of slave women in its standards; Roman pagan
reconstruction working in Italy and among Italians; various flavors of Slavic pagan
reconstruction working with various east European people, both descendants here and
in the home countries incl. Russia and Poland, Canaanite Reconstructionism which
also tries to recruit Jews claiming that YHWHism was made up and their real original faith was the syncretistic religion the prophets denounced and the archaeologists
record; Aztec reconstructionism; druid reconstructionism; and Greek reconstructionism
which acquired legality in Greece, alongside Judaism, Christianity and islam the
only legal religions there, shortly after that fires broke out all over the
country I think it was the wrath of God.
I forgot to mention, pagan reconstructionism is not the la de da neo pagan
fluff bunny wicca or anything like it. It attempts to reconstruct those religions
using such history from the ancestral writings or accounts by observers, and
archaeology as they can find. they are very precise and exact. you can be very
sure that any system like this would if it gained power, illegalize and persecute
Christianity and Judaism. Their ultimate goal in all cases seems to be to restore
not as a weekend getaway but as a serious and non escapable reestablished legal
and religious entity the societies and religions. at first members are on the
honor system and devoted. somehow they might some of them get power on land as
a political breakaway. They are not a joke.
this article argues Christianity despite its semitic roots was built by Indo Europeans from Greek and Roman materials which is only partly true.
Nazism followed the same pattern as the articles at that site. start with some
pragmatic and values issues, point to grandiose mythological sense and co opt
Christianity until it can be suppressed.
Nazi Germany would have revived Nordic and Germanic or teutonic paganism, and
was doing serious archaeological research, however this was partly shall we say
contaminated instead of pure to ancient locality, by Greco roman notions like
Atlantis and imports from the far east like Blavatsky derived stuff. The far
east had an ethnic linguistic "euro" angle to it, but had developed away on its
own over time to where you wouldn't at first glance thing germanism and Hinduism
had anything in common. a closer look tells otherwise, as the Nazi obsessions with
research in all this shows.
Even now, the particular evil group networked across the country that I was
researching, shows a peculiar mix of hindu and celtic models while focusing on
druidry some of them. "ganesha" seemed to be rather popular for whatever reason.
perhaps because if you add more trunks you got a multi tentacle headed think like
Lovecraft's Cthulhu, which though fictional seems to strike a chord in some
of these people.
Five of the last six posts by Christine Erikson. Please, Constance, would you delete them and explain to her that she can always post ONE comment her to the effect that she will reply further on her own blog. Then the rest of us can get on with dealing with the New Age.
if you can't see that what I just lectured on is a critical element of the New age
a major beneficiary and in its overtly satanic form part of the core of the New
Age, then you don't understand the New Age at all.
Christine, you write a lot, probably like you talk a lot in real life, going on and on and on until you weary everyone who tries to follow your mush writings.
Just in case others don't know, mind control cult operators use a technique called Information Overload. A huge amount of information is presented in a short period of time. When the target tries to process the information it is impossible. So, the target is left with the options of either accepting everything or discarding everything in an effort to move on. Most here just discard your information overload by leaving the blog and thus missing valuable information about the New Age movement or try to overlook your meanderings. You hope there is some innocent who accepts what you post, your evaluation of yourself and the denigration of the target who is being responded to. Again I'm calling you out Rumplestilskin.
Just as Constance does, I'll continue to present sources and let the readers make up their own minds. I do think most of them are much more intelligent than you are.
Anonymous said...
Five of the last six posts by Christine Erikson. Please, Constance, would you delete them and explain to her that she can always post ONE comment her to the effect that she will reply further on her own blog. Then the rest of us can get on with dealing with the New Age.
4:15 PM
How's this for a novel tip .. if you don't like or find useful what Christine or anyone else posts, simply skip over it.
"I pack into a small space what might take you years to find
in books and online. it took me years."
Then Cristine, why aren't people willing to go to your blog for further study since you are so well versed?
Suzanne and Craig don't pounce on topics going at it like a machine gun firing, plus they actually are informative in what they post and gracious besides.
But you torture the topics and then beat them to death in comparison.
Your style and substance are problematic.
Christine, even when I disagree with Susanna it is obvious that she has thought it through and writes cogently. You, unhappily, do neither; yet you have the effrontery to accuse her of being boring. She is an excellent and reliable source of information. Your wanton and unsolicited attack is a disgrace. For that alone, or for your comments about Craig - another class act - whose contributions clearly go over your head, Constance should sling you out of here. Susanna and Craig would reasonably be entitled to ask her to.
I am well aware that you know a lot about New Age but I don't read what you write because you have no discrimination and it is impossible to separate out the wheat from the tares.
RayB,
You miss the point. Christine enters just about every discussion and thinks she knows better, and people fell the need to respond because she often gets things wrong or is slapdash. Then the discussion isn't what it would have been if she wasn't here.
Let's see if she answers the question put at 5.15pm.
constance, Yale is using Lady Gaga to push an "emotional revolution".http://ei.yale.edu/what-we-do/teaching-emotional-intelligence/http://ei.yale.edu/what-we-do/teaching-emotional-intelligence/
Yes. all the usual suspects.
http://ei.yale.edu/who-we-are/partners/
Little wheat and lots of tares.
She often has an occultic blended in with what is biblical and the new age slants in some of her opinions definitely show up, so I agree it is correct to say she cannot seem to tell the difference.
And boring........who can put this blog into a coma quicker than Ms. Erikson? Reading her posts would beat sleeping pills any day of the week.
Susanna and Craig stay on point.
Her lectures belong on her own blog.
Some have answered the question for you. You didn't get that right, either.
Your stuff is most definitely classifiable. It is off more than on point. (you should learn from Susanna and Craig)
If you posted actual on topic substance it would at least be easier to overlook the other.
What is clear enough is that you should take off your victim badge and take a look at the real problems you have.
Christine, I had to be off this afternoon and engaged in other business. But coming on, I've not read all your posts -- far too many for me and I suspect the others. Again, please do not monopolize the conversation. Brevity can be a distinct virtue. I will probably have to delete much of the above.
Constance
"apparently you don't read my stuff because you can't read"
I have no trouble reading other people's stuff. But the main reason, as already stated above, is that it is impossible to separate the wheat from the tares in what you write.
And except for graveyard miasma, nibiru and martians.
Anybody else like to add to the list?
Christine, just like everybody else you are not competent to judge the merits of your own writing. That is a privilege reserved for others. It is full of tares. I posted at 3.11am but have said nothing about Pashtuns or reconstruction paganism. You are evidently making incorrect assumptions about the number of Anons you are dealing with.
https://in.news.yahoo.com/global-bishops-call-complete-decarbonisation-151851702.html
Christine,
If you find my posts boring, then please do me the favor of not reading or responding to them. That will keep me from having to counter your bad counter-arguments. I didn’t want to continue the debate regarding John 1:7-8 because it becomes difficult and time consuming to right your wrongs.
In addition, your posts generally exhibit sloppiness, not just in grammar and syntax, but in content (many tares amongst possible wheat). One example is in the following in your counter-argument re: 1 John 5:7-8: Pickering THE NEW TESTAMENT TEXT is the best book on the subject aside from Dean Burgeon's writings.
(1)Pickering’s work is titled The Identity of the New Testament Text. (2) “Burgeon” is actually Burgon, a point I made in a previous discussion on this blog. Yet you wish to continue misspelling his name. This makes me, and I’m sure other readers, distrust the rest of your posts. Which part is actually correct and which is jumbled up in your mind? And why don’t you check your work before you post? (3) Pickering’s work is flawed with regard to the Johannine Comma, and Burgon reject’s the ‘Comma’ as being authentic, as we will see; hence, the basis for your argument falls apart.
In the same comment from which I selected the text above, you stated: It [the Johannine Comma] was present in the earliest texts the ones it is absent from are only assumed to be the best because the oldest in good shape, but that in itself is a strike against them, if they were in good shape they were not in much use so not esteemed. In your zeal to discredit the Alexandrian text (“the ones it is absent from are only assumed to be the best because the oldest in good shape…”) you discredit your argument. While the ‘Comma’ is absent in the Alexandrian manuscripts (mss), it is also absent from the earliest Byzantine mss. It is only present in a small minority of 15th century and later Byzantine mss. In addition, the ‘Comma’ is only allegedly in early non-NT texts.
Pickering argues for the ‘Majority Text’, i.e. for using the majority of manuscripts to determine originality. The Byzantine text-type makes up by far the majority of extant manuscripts; however, the majority of the Byzantine manuscripts which contain the 1 John 5-8 do not contain the Johannine Comma. From the article I referenced earlier:
Cont…
…Cont:
The primary problem with this argument [for the Majority Text] is that the KJV does not totally follow the majority text. When the TR [Textus Receptus, the Greek text] underlying the KJV is compared with the majority readings of the 5,000 known Greek manuscripts, many differences are found to occur…[A] close comparison of the TR with the majority text reveals that some well-known and widely-quoted verses in the KJV either are not found or are significantly different in the majority text. For example, I John 5:7 and Acts 8:37 are found only in the smallest minority of manuscripts…
If one consistently holds to the majority text argument, then he should point out these minority readings in the KJV and have them corrected. Indeed, some pro-TR-KJV people have done this. Burgon suggested 150 corrections in the Gospel of Matthew alone (The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels, by J. Burgon and E. Miller, 1896, p. 5) and rejected the authenticity of I John 5:7 (see Burgon's article in Counterfeit or Genuine?, ed. by D. O. Fuller, 1975, p. 39)…
…One of the authors [of this current article] (DSC) asked Wilbur N. Pickering, author of The Identity of the New Testament Text (1977), how he resolved the problem of minority readings in the KJV with his majority text thesis. In a letter dated January 19, 1978, he answered stating, "The status of I John 5:7, etc. will be resolved in due time." Thus…Pickering seem[s] to say that it is possible for the majority text to be wrong, which is a contradiction of their argument that God has preserved the best text in the majority of the manuscripts. It is doubtful that…Pickering would accept as reasonable someone saying that "the status of the Alexandrian text where it differs from the KJV will be resolved in due time."
In a subsequent comment on this issue you wrote, “…because speaking as one well versed in Scripture to others ditto and speaking in context of the Three Persons, he only needed to cite that sentence segment to back it up.” Potentially alluding to or paraphrasing a passage is not the same thing as quoting a passage. Textual critics look for exact quotes, for how can it be known if the work in question is posting a commentary or actually alluding to or paraphrasing a particular Scripture? A quotation holds much more weight than a possible allusion; it’s a distinction with a difference.
OK, my first post got lost, so read this one before the 8:26AM:
Christine,
If you find my posts boring, then please do me the favor of not reading or responding to them. That will keep me from having to counter your bad counter-arguments. I didn’t want to continue the debate regarding John 1:7-8 because it becomes difficult and time consuming to right your wrongs.
In addition, your posts generally exhibit sloppiness, not just in grammar and syntax, but in content (many tares amongst possible wheat). One example is in the following in your counter-argument re: 1 John 5:7-8: Pickering THE NEW TESTAMENT TEXT is the best book on the subject aside from Dean Burgeon's writings.
(1)Pickering’s work is titled The Identity of the New Testament Text. (2) “Burgeon” is actually Burgon, a point I made in a previous discussion on this blog. Yet you wish to continue misspelling his name. This makes me, and I’m sure other readers, distrust the rest of your posts. Which part is actually correct and which is jumbled up in your mind? And why don’t you check your work before you post? (3) Pickering’s work is flawed with regard to the Johannine Comma, and Burgon reject’s the ‘Comma’ as being authentic, as we will see; hence, the basis for your argument falls apart.
In the same comment from which I selected the text above, you stated: It [the Johannine Comma] was present in the earliest texts the ones it is absent from are only assumed to be the best because the oldest in good shape, but that in itself is a strike against them, if they were in good shape they were not in much use so not esteemed. In your zeal to discredit the Alexandrian text (“the ones it is absent from are only assumed to be the best because the oldest in good shape…”) you discredit your argument. While the ‘Comma’ is absent in the Alexandrian manuscripts (mss), it is also absent from the earliest Byzantine mss. It is only present in a small minority of 15th century and later Byzantine mss. In addition, the ‘Comma’ is only allegedly in early non-NT texts.
Pickering argues for the ‘Majority Text’, i.e. for using the majority of manuscripts to determine originality. The Byzantine text-type makes up by far the majority of extant manuscripts; however, the majority of the Byzantine manuscripts which contain the 1 John 5-8 do not contain the Johannine Comma. From the article I referenced earlier:
Cont…
Since my post preceding the 8:26AM post TWICE NOW, I'm dividing it up into two:
Christine,
If you find my posts boring, then please do me the favor of not reading or responding to them. That will keep me from having to counter your bad counter-arguments. I didn’t want to continue the debate regarding John 1:7-8 because it becomes difficult and time consuming to right your wrongs.
In addition, your posts generally exhibit sloppiness, not just in grammar and syntax, but in content (many tares amongst possible wheat). One example is in the following in your counter-argument re: 1 John 5:7-8: Pickering THE NEW TESTAMENT TEXT is the best book on the subject aside from Dean Burgeon's writings.
(1)Pickering’s work is titled The Identity of the New Testament Text. (2) “Burgeon” is actually Burgon, a point I made in a previous discussion on this blog. Yet you wish to continue misspelling his name. This makes me, and I’m sure other readers, distrust the rest of your posts. Which part is actually correct and which is jumbled up in your mind? And why don’t you check your work before you post? (3) Pickering’s work is flawed with regard to the Johannine Comma, and Burgon reject’s the ‘Comma’ as being authentic, as we will see; hence, the basis for your argument falls apart.
Cont...
...cont
In the same comment from which I selected the text above, you stated: It [the Johannine Comma] was present in the earliest texts the ones it is absent from are only assumed to be the best because the oldest in good shape, but that in itself is a strike against them, if they were in good shape they were not in much use so not esteemed. In your zeal to discredit the Alexandrian text (“the ones it is absent from are only assumed to be the best because the oldest in good shape…”) you discredit your argument. While the ‘Comma’ is absent in the Alexandrian manuscripts (mss), it is also absent from the earliest Byzantine mss. It is only present in a small minority of 15th century and later Byzantine mss. In addition, the ‘Comma’ is only allegedly in early non-NT texts.
Pickering argues for the ‘Majority Text’, i.e. for using the majority of manuscripts to determine originality. The Byzantine text-type makes up by far the majority of extant manuscripts; however, the majority of the Byzantine manuscripts which contain the 1 John 5-8 do not contain the Johannine Comma. From the article I referenced earlier:
Cont at 8:26AM above
It is high time that an updated Textus Receptus was prepared using all the Greek manuscripts that have been discovered since the original TR. This has to precede all translations.
Craig,
these three are one or they are one would be pretty exact of that last half of the
entire cite at issue, these three or they could be in different text types (classic
example of how all this nit picking has no bearing on doctrine).
however, this is focusing on only one of SEVERAL some of who are a lot more obviously referring to this than others. I would say even in that one case it is
exact.
I misspell Burgon's name because I haven't read him in a long time and it doesn't matter if Pickering's arguments are the same as Burgon's they stand or fall on their
own merits whoever is using them.
the background of TR is indeed variable, WITHOUT IMPACTING DOCTRINE, and the Byzantine text type has to be the best because guess what, the originals were
written in Byzantine turf except Mark in Egypt at the request of the Alexandrian
Church he was put over. The originals and generations of copies would have been
used up and disintegrated mostly. I suspect Rylands 35 if that's the John fragment
being so early might be a piece of the original or of a first generation copy.
you can't know the provenance of ANY text incl. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and whoever,
the scribes could have been orthodox or arian or other heretical. that is a big
problem. motive to mangle. Meanwhile Pickering probably had access to more information
than Burgon if so that makes his arguments all the stronger.
one thing about copies, as long as the originals were kept intact, and only
copies used to keep the originals, ALL copies or most could be "first generation
copies" i.e., from the originals, for easily 200 years.
To Catherine 5:35
Good post! Thank you!
Constance
As to the above apparent fight over Textus Receptus, King James Version, etc., I have enough faith in God to believe he preserved His word sufficiently for every generation to have opportunity to know and understand. Not with perfect knowledge or understanding, mind you. We all see through glass darkly, as the Apostle Paul put it. To say that no accurate version of the Bible existed before the King James Bible is to say that God denied everybody before it accurate scriptures. Are there NOW New Age Bible Versions? Yes, liberties have been taken with some later translations. J. Vernon McGee, whom I respect/respected, once said that he had worked on a later translation of the Bible, he wouldn't say which one. He said that while they were working on it there was a great deal of humor. He said he liked humor as much as the next guy. He pointed out that when they were working on the KJV, per historical accounts, they would sometimes spend hours on their knees praying over which words should be used in the translation. He said he later had to question himself, "did we really give God's Word the respect it deserved? He concluded they had not and consequently would not use the very version of the Bible he had helped assemble.
I really believe this business comes down to who loves God and is trying to please him. Those with the proper spirit and without an ungodly agenda will probably write things as God intended. I think an example of this is THE LIVING BIBLE that the author wrote for his grandchildren to understand. If there are major flaws in that, I didn't see them. Maybe some of you did. The NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION, IMHO is another story! I wonder if that was the one of which J. Verson McGee spoke?
THE MESSAGE by Eugene Peterson is also IMHO a very different story.
Constance
No Bank Card Required: Citigroup Testing Eye-Scanning ATM
http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/innovation/no-bank-card-required-citigroup-testing-eye-scanning-atm-n451661
To Anonymous 1:15
I saw a report about this on the NBC Today Show this morning. Very ominous development, IMHO, and thanks for highlighting it here!
Constance
http://shoebat.com/2015/10/26/donald-trump-questions-carsons-faith-and-one-thing-we-must-recognize-is-that-the-seventh-day-adventist-religion-is-an-evil-and-demonic-cult-that-must-be-exposed/
http://themidweekrapture.yuku.com/topic/1313/Joel-Richardson-BITES-THE-DUST-in-Daniel#.VjAzqGnn-1s
Joel Richardson's case against the European antichrist (I don't recommend all
his stuff)
be careful of that last URL site, the forums got me one of those popups that claims there is a virus or something and refers me to a fake Microsoft security site. just
shut down, pull the cord if need be and pull the battery out if need be (laptop) and
start again, run rootkit scan to get rid of it. sorry.
To Christine re the Shoebat article. I think Carson believes what he has been taught since childhood (he was baptized, per the Wikipedia article I read, at age 12. I think Shoebat is too hard on Carson. I have had my analyzed differences with Shoebat over which Lee Penn and I have had long discussions in the past. It is difficult for a Seventh Day Adventist who was raised in the church to not believe. I decided to sort it all out for myself as an adult and read the Bible all the way through for myself. Many things I ASSUMED were in the Bible weren't. They were Ellen G. White teachings. I found many things in the Bible that directly contradicted SDA teachings. The test of who was and who was not taken in by the antichrist was "the love of the truth." Carson strikes me as a man with the love of the truth. I'm thinking and praying about how to approach this. As Carson is originally a Detroiter baptized in one of the very Seventh Day Adventist churches where I was invited in the 1980s to come speak and inform the about the New Age Movement -- information they well received, I think I might have an entrée. There is increased questioning about Ellen G. White in 7th Day Adventist churches and moreover, there appears to be far less fear of Catholics than was once the case. The Seventh Day Adventists use a hymn, "Give me the Bible, holy message shining." The Bible is the best tool to use when talking to them because most of them really do love the truth.
Constance
I didn't read the Joel Richardson site in depth, but I did catch his reference to ancient hatred between Ishmael and Isaac. I'm not sure that is biblically correct as to Ishmael and Isaac. Perhaps as to descendants, that might be the case. There were clearly brotherly relations between Ishmael and Isaac. When Esau was denied his blessing by the actions of Jacob, the Scriptures tell us he went to live with his Uncle Ishmael. When Abraham died, Isaac and Ishmael cooperated in his burial. (Genesis 25:9).
Constance
https://web.archive.org/web/20080517125103/http://www.scottishrite.org/council/journal/jun01/klein.html interesting.
while the Confederacy has a reputation for Christianity (but it seems God heard
the prayers of the slaves not of the masters, as He warned He would in the Bible)
it also was full of freemasons. This particular venture is no longer on the
Scottish rite site but archived.
How the television industry is obsessed with New Age plotlines....
http://nypost.com/2015/10/27/tvs-obsessed-with-new-age-plotlines/
priest defrocked after coming out "called on 'all gay cardinals, gay bishops and gay priests to have the courage to abandon this insensitive, unfair and brutal Church.'"
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3293357/The-Church-making-life-hell-millions-gay-Catholics-clergy-homosexuals-says-priest-fired-Vatican-coming-out.html#ixzz3pueKMYFu
good, maybe they will all leave.
http://www.pokrov.org/its-raining-on-the-popes-parade-on-clerical-abusewebsite-finds-popes-argentina-record-favored-priests/
questionable actions of pope (probably only defrocked the gay priest because he
came out, keep it quiet and its okay. the reputation of the organization is primary,
but there is more to it. one could preserve reputation from scandal by quietly
identifying and defrocking pervert priests, but instead the coverup is done and
no defrocking done.)
Re Christine's newest information: very, very disturbing indeed. I think the Pope was very right to remove the priest. What his motives were are known to God -- not presently to me.
Constance
Constance,
Exactly, in the ancient world showing up for a burial together was significant and showed reconciliation.
It's important to remember Ishmael was not a Muslim. The Muslims retroactively claim all the Biblical figures as theirs but the reality is that Islam started in the 600s AD, so this is rewriting history to fit a narrative which attempts to legitimize Islam as an Abrahamic religion. Abraham had nothing whatsoever to do with it.
acknowledging their father and honoring him is not necessarily indicative of a
reconciliation all that much, though it might be the occasion of one, the big
hostility was between Jacob and Esau who after reconciling went their separate ways,
prevents more trouble developing or Esau changing his mind. some people are a
temptation to be around. trigger effect.
I think that the hostility developed more seriously many generations later. Yes
Islam like masonry grabs as validators everyone it can locate in names list in
the past.
"FREEMASONS, n. An order with secret rites, grotesque ceremonies and
fantastic costumes, which, originating in the reign of Charles II,
among working artisans of London, has been joined successively by the
dead of past centuries in unbroken retrogression until now it embraces
all the generations of man on the hither side of Adam and is drumming
up distinguished recruits among the pre-Creational inhabitants of
Chaos and Formless Void. " http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/biography//bierce_a/devils_dictionary.html
Islam also claims that it was not Isaac but Ishmael who was almost offered
on Mt. Moriah by Abraham. there are other serious bible history errors in
the Koran, I recommend https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1C4AA90128325473
answering islam youtube channel http://www.answeringmuslims.com/ to get the
details.
priest defrocked after coming out "called on 'all gay cardinals, gay bishops and gay priests to have the courage to abandon this insensitive, unfair and brutal Church.'"
You know, some conservative Catholics might just agree with him there.
"... insensitive, unfair and brutal Church"
How long will this magic charge continue to be leveled at anyone and everyone who
sees sodomites for what they are, and says so?
What liars they are; what slanderous backbiters they are !
Just like snakes in the grass, they would bite the horses heel and make the rider fall off.
How long will average people continue to believe this crap?
When was the last time that a gay was ever beat up in America? I mean by
someone straight, not by fellow sodomites, which is how almost all gay violence
in fact takes place.
There is no persecution !
They can get married if they want to.
They hold every high position. They have
a red carpet rolled out in front of them wherever they go, and still they
scream persecution.
They're going to love Sharia Law, which is what they will inherit.
Constance,
Re: There were clearly brotherly relations between Ishmael and Isaac. When Esau was denied his blessing by the actions of Jacob, the Scriptures tell us he went to live with his Uncle Ishmael. When Abraham died, Isaac and Ishmael cooperated in his burial. (Genesis 25:9).
Just for your readers' information who may not be aware of this, and who might be interested.... Esau, who was Jacob's twin, was actually Isaac's firstborn. But even at the moment of their birth, Jacob seemingly attempted to prevent his elder twin brother from becoming the firstborn with all the rights and privileges that being the firstborn entailed at that time.
The Book of Genesis speaks of the relationship between Jacob and Esau, focusing on Esau's loss of his birthright to Jacob and the conflict that had spawned between their descendant nations because of Jacob's deception of their aged and blind father, Isaac, in order to receive Esau's birthright/blessing from Isaac.
This conflict was paralleled by the affection the parents had for their favored child: "Now Isaac loved Esau, because he did eat of his venison, and Rebekah loved Jacob." (Genesis 25:28). Even since conception, their conflict was foreshadowed: "And the children struggled together within her; and she said, If it be so, why am I thus? And she went to enquire of the Lord. And the Lord said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger." (Genesis 25:22–23)
Then at birth, “his brother came out, with his hand grasping Esau's heel; so he was named Jacob”. This passage in Genesis 25:26 is as if Jacob was seemingly trying to pull Esau back into the womb so that he could be firstborn.[1] The grasping of the heel is also a reference to deceptive behavior....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_and_Esau
________________________________________
cont...
cont.
However, Esau became his own worst enemy when he foolishly sold his birthright to his younger brother Jacob "for a mess of pottage."
In Genesis, Esau returned to his brother Jacob being famished from the fields. He begged his twin brother to give him some "red pottage" (paralleling his nickname, Hebrew: אדום (`Edom, meaning "red")). Jacob offered to give Esau a bowl of stew in exchange for his birthright (the right to be recognized as firstborn) and Esau agreed.
The birthright has to do with inheritance of goods and position both. The tale is typically biblical. Esau acts impulsively. As he did not value his birthright over a bowl of lentil stew, by his actions, Esau demonstrates that he does not deserve to be the one who continues Abraham's responsibilities and rewards under God's covenant, since he does not have the steady, thoughtful qualities which are required.....
Jacob shows his wiliness as well as his greater intelligence and forethought. What he does is not quite honorable, though not illegal. The birthright benefit that he gains is at least partially valid, although he is insecure enough about it to conspire later with his mother to deceive his father so as to gain the blessing for the first-born as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_and_Esau
___________________________________________________________
Genesis 25:29-34Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
29 And Jacob boiled pottage: to whom Esau, coming faint out of the field,
30 Said: Give me of this red pottage, for I am exceeding faint. For which reason his name was called Edom.
31 And Jacob said to him: Sell me thy first birthright.
32 He answered: Lo I die, what will the first birthright avail me?
33 Jacob said: Swear therefore to me. Esau swore to him, and sold his first birthright.
34 And so taking bread and the pottage of lentils, he ate, and drank, and went his way; making little account of having sold his first birthright.
____________________________________________________________________________
Jacob, at the instigation of his mother, also tricked Isaac into giving the paternal blessing to Jacob. Genesis 27
Nevertheless, Esau still felt that he was entitled to his birthright, and needless to say, the relationship between the two brothers was a rocky one.......
Esau is furious and vows to kill Jacob (Genesis 27:41). Rebekah intervenes to save her youngest son Jacob from being murdered by her eldest son, Esau. At Rebekah's urging, Jacob flees to a distant land to work for a relative, Laban (Genesis 28:5).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_and_Esau
_____________________________________________________________
cont.
Ironically, Jacob, who has thus far been the "tricker," becomes the "trickee" when his relative Laban tricks Jacob into marrying his eldest daughter Leah after Jacob labored seven years for Laban in exchange for the privilege of marrying Laban's younger daughter Rachel, whom Jacob truly loved.
Jacob does not immediately receive his father's inheritance. Jacob having fled for his life, leaves behind the wealth of Isaac's flocks and land and tents in Esau's hands. Jacob is forced to sleep out on the open ground and then work for wages as a servant in Laban's household. Jacob, who had deceived his father, is in turn deceived and cheated by his relative Laban concerning Jacob's seven years of service (lacking money for a dowry) for the hand of Rachel, receiving Leah instead. However, despite Laban, Jacob eventually becomes so rich as to incite the envy of Laban and Laban's sons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_and_Esau
_______________________________________________________________
Eventually, Jacob and Esau are reconciled.
Genesis 32–33 tells of Jacob and Esau's eventual reconciliation. Esau showed forgiveness in spite of this bitter conflict. Jacob sends his whole family and multiple wives of gifts to Esau as they approach each other in hopes that Esau will spare Jacob's life. Esau refuses the gifts, as he is now very wealthy and does not need them. Jacob bows down before Esau and insists that Esau receive the gifts. (After this, God confirms his renaming of Jacob as "Israel".) Jacob gets the name Israel after he wrestles with the Angel of God as he is traveling to Esau. His hip is knocked out of joint but he keeps on wrestling and gains the name.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_and_Esau
__________________________________________________________________
As the Scriptures tell us, Esau came to be called Edom - a Hebrew word that means "red" and the descendants of Esau were known as the Edomites/Idumeans:
The Hebrew word Edom means "red", and the name was later given to Esau, the elder son of the Hebrew patriarch Isaac, because he was born "red all over". Later, as a young adult, he ate "red pottage", a term the writer used in irony, reinforcing Esau's second name. The Tanakh and the New Testament both describe the Edomites as descendants of Esau.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edom
_______________________________________________________________
Eventually, the Idumeans were conquered by Judas Maccabeus.
Judas Maccabeus conquered their (Idumean) territory for a time around 163 BC. They were again subdued by John Hyrcanus (c. 125 BC), who forcibly converted them, among others, to Judaism, and incorporated them into the Jewish nation, despite the opposition of the Pharisees. Antipater the Idumaean, the progenitor of the Herodian Dynasty along with Judean progenitors, that ruled Judea after the Roman conquest, was of mixed Edomite/Judean origin. Under Herod the Great, the Idumaea province was ruled for him by a series of governors, among whom were his brother Joseph ben Antipater, and his brother-in-law Costobarus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edom
_________________________________________________________________
cont.
cont.
Things come full circle when the Idumean named Herod is made Rome's puppet king.
Herod - also known as Herod the Great and Herod I, was a Roman client king of Judea, referred to as the Herodian kingdom. He has been described as "a madman who murdered his own family and a great many rabbis", "the evil genius of the Judean nation", "prepared to commit any crime in order to gratify his unbounded ambition", and "the greatest builder in Jewish history". He is known for his colossal building projects throughout Judea, including his expansion of the Second Temple in Jerusalem (Herod's Temple), the construction of the port at Caesarea Maritima, the fortress at Masada and Herodium.
Vital details of his life are recorded in the works of the 1st century CE Roman–Jewish historian Josephus. Herod also appears in the Christian New Testament as the ruler of Judea at the time of the birth of Jesus, who orders the Massacre of the Innocents.
Upon Herod's death, the Romans divided his kingdom among three of his sons and his sister—Archelaus became ethnarch of the tetrarchy of Judea, Herod Antipas became tetrarch of Galilee and Peraea, Philip became tetrarch of territories east of the Jordan, and Salome I was given a toparchy including the cities of Jabneh, Ashdod, Phasaelis.
Herod was of Arab (Nabatean) and Edomite descent, whose ancestors converted to Judaism. Herod was born around 74 BCE in Idumea, south of Judea. He was the second son of Antipater the Idumaean, a high-ranked official under ethnarch Hyrcanus II, and Cypros, a Nabatean. He was raised as a Jew. A loyal supporter of Hyrcanus II, Antipater appointed Herod governor of Galilee at 25, and his elder brother, Phasael, governor of Jerusalem. He enjoyed the backing of Rome but his brutality was condemned by the Sanhedrin.
Two years later Antigonus, Hyrcanus' nephew, took the throne from his uncle with the help of the Parthians. Herod fled to Rome to plead with the Romans to restore him to power. (The Roman general Pompey the Great had conquered Jerusalem in 63 BCE). There he was appointed King of the Jews by the Roman Senate. Josephus puts this in the year of the consulship of Calvinus and Pollio (40 BCE), but Appian places it in 39 BCE. Herod went back to Judea to win his kingdom from Antigonus and at the same time he married the teenage niece of Antigonus, Mariamne (known as Mariamne I), in an attempt to secure a claim to the throne and gain some Jewish favor. However, Herod already had a wife, Doris, and a three-year-old son, Antipater, and chose therefore to banish Doris and her child.
cont.
cont.
Three years later, Herod and the Romans finally captured Jerusalem and executed Antigonus. Herod took the role as sole ruler of Judea and the title of basileus (Βασιλεύς, "king") for himself, ushering in the Herodian Dynasty and ending the Hasmonean Dynasty. Josephus reports this as being in the year of the consulship of Agrippa and Gallus (37 BCE), but also says that it was exactly 27 years after Jerusalem fell to Pompey, which would indicate 36 BCE. Cassius Dio also reports that in 37 "the Romans accomplished nothing worthy of note" in the area. According to Josephus, Herod ruled for 37 years, 34 of them after capturing Jerusalem.
As Herod's family were converts to Judaism, his religious commitment was questioned by some elements of Jewish society. When John Hyrcanus conquered the region of Idumaea (the Edom of the Hebrew Bible) in 140–130 BCE, he required all Idumaeans to obey Jewish law or to leave; most Idumaeans thus converted to Judaism, which meant that they had to be circumcised, and many had intermarried with the Jews and adopted their customs. While Herod publicly identified himself as a Jew and was considered as such by some, this religious identification was undermined by the decadent lifestyle of the Herodians, which would have earned them the antipathy of observant Jews.
Herod later executed several members of his own family, including his wife Mariamne I.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_the_Great
___________________________________________________________________
Mariamne was a Hasmonian princess whom Herod married in order to further "legitimize" his own monarchy, but as history reveals the benefits of marriage to Herod were not mutual. In fact, it was very dangerous to be a member of Herod's family.
Herod's ruthlessness was of such renown that even Augustus Caesar Augustus is said to have joked that he would prefer to be Herod's pig than Herod's son, because being a Jew (of sorts) Herod did not eat pork.
Constance,
The Pope's removal of the priest Krzysztof Charamsa who came out as gay was because he worked at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, formerly headed by Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI when he was still Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.
That this gay priest "came out" as he did, indicates that his gay status was not generally known - especially by the current head of the CDF who is known to be a conservative.
Charamsa’s "coming out" was a particular source of rage for Vatican officials because it came on the eve of the church’s Synod on the Family which addresses, among other issues, official attitudes towards the LGBT community.
Here is the latest in which Charamsa jumps ugly on Pope Francis and the Vatican officials who fired him.......
Defrocked Gay Priest Condemns Catholic Church’s ‘Homophobic Hate’ in Letter to Pope Francis
by Anthony Costello
October 28, 2015
http://www.towleroad.com/2015/10/defrocked-gay-priest-condemns-catholic-churchs-homophobic-hate-letter-pope-francis/
____________________________________________________
Despite now defrocked Fr. Charamsa's homosexual peccadillos, he denies that he has broken his vows of chastity having previously stated that he had not broken his vow of chastity because he “never touched a woman.” How warped is that?????
Polish Bishop Defrocks Gay Priest Fired by the Vatican After Coming Out: VIDEO
by Sean Mandell
October 21, 2015
http://www.towleroad.com/2015/10/polish-bishop-defrocks-gay-priest-fired-by-the-vatican-after-coming-out-video/
________________________________________________________________
"Despite now defrocked Fr. Charamsa's homosexual peccadillos, he denies that he has broken his vows of chastity having previously stated that he had not broken his vow of chastity because he “never touched a woman.” How warped is that????? "
I read somewhere decades ago, that mothers who are jealous of their sons being involved with other women, do not mind other men somehow that "doesn't count" and
they figure whatever affection is involved is more superficial than the adoration
they want from their sons.
Be that as it may, I strongly suspect that in many cases some kind of notion of
"fornication" or "unchastity" or "sex before marriage" or something is only about
heterosexuality. There is a strange brew of notions of loopholes on the one hand
and something special and exalted above mere heterosexual love, whether emotional
or physical.
Fornication is anything and everything sexual (of mind or body) outside the bounds of marriage defined by God as male and female made He them, so heterosexual married couples are the only ones free to be engaged sexually without sin.
God holds us to His standard-not our own version of what He clearly said. He said we are to refrain from even the appearance of evil, so that is included this issue also.
I know that, but I am saying that some people don't think like that. I met one
guy once whose only idea of sin was adultery, and since he had never been married
he had never sinned. period. This conversation was too brief and him leaving for
me to get out of stunned silence and deal with that. Granted this wasn't about
homosexuality (though he might have been doing that occasionally, I don't know)
but the issue is, DEFINITIONS.
I have heard celibacy and chastity defined (I forget which was which) one of them
means no sex and one means no marriage so an oath in the term meaning no marriage
would leave one free to fornicate and be perverted and not be in violation of one's
oath.
It comes down to the meaning of Greek words in the New Testament. But we can be sure that they encompass all of the specific sexual acts deemed sinful in the Old Testament.
https://medium.com/@dconrad/how-new-long-range-radios-will-change-the-internet-of-things-ed8e6b5e367f#.gh6n9rgd8
These new long range radios that will facilitate the Internet of Things are scary.
Jesus said that there are three types of eunuchs in Matt. 19:12
1.Those which are born that way,
2. Those which are made that way by men, and
3. Those which have chosen that way for the sake of the
Kingdom of heaven.
But modern "gay men" are hardly eunuchs, and for them to
pose as such is supremely dishonest. It is a bald faced lie.
Maybe Mr Charamsa has some really big ambitions for himself ?
"I know that, but I am saying that some people don't think like that"
That was just a general statement, not directed specifically to you, merely to uphold the standard set by God's word so I don't care what people think about the issue. God is clear about what He calls sin.
I heard a speaker, KrisAnne Hall, tonight. I have very mixed feelings about her presentation and work. I'm wondering what any of you might be able to share?
Thanks!
Constance
I got a beef (no pun intended) with her already, regarding Cliven Bundy.
"And now we are repeating a history of Kings and Tyrants because we forgot that the federal government has no Constitutional right to own land. Period." http://ncrenegade.com/editorial/krisanne-hall-cliven-bundy-cows-and-the-constitution/
There is nothing in the constitution that in any way prohibits federal ownership
of land. In fact, it is implicitly there: The category of territorial land, which
goes through a process to become a state. Until it has done this, it is federal
property, except for private property originally acquired from the federal owner,
or sold from such acquisition.
Once it is a state the state would own the land except for privately owned land,
and if a state can own land then the larger state that the joining of the smaller
states made can own land. As for lands held as federal within state boundaries,
the legitimacy of these would be location by location and how they came to be
(or not cease to be) federal lands. Perhaps there was some clause to this effect
in the Act of Congress that ratified a statehood in that place?
the history given of Bundy is a bit flawed, seems he paid fees to some state or county
office that had no authority to collect them, since he rejected federal authority,
and there was a strong possibility of finagling by his Mormon friends in power in
the state or county. (which is an interesting story that Tarpley dug up.)
she likes to harp on state power and the word patriot. personally I don't like it.
I suspect she is another potential second American revolution person.
In general, people like this fail to address the equally serious corruption in
state and county governments, which often can only be addressed by outside force.
Paul,
Re: But modern "gay men" are hardly eunuchs, and for them to
pose as such is supremely dishonest. It is a bald faced lie.
Maybe Mr Charamsa has some really big ambitions for himself ?
How right you are!
In October 2015, on the very day before the second round of the Synod on the Family, Krzysztof Charamsa stated publicly in Italy's Corriere della Sera newspaper that he is gay and has a partner. Apparently, Charamsa hoped to influence the Synod on the Family in terms of approving homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle option for Christians. The statements made by Charamsa in the aforementioned article from the Corriere della Sera newspaper are not only a disgrace in and of themselves, but are also particularly troubling given his position at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and at the Pontifical Gregorian University and the Pontifical Athenaeum Regina Apostolorum in Rome where he teaches theology.
The reason he is in the Roman Catholic priesthood at all is because he admits that he "lied and denied" about his homosexuality and was already a priest when the 2005 Vatican ruling reiterated the Church's longstanding rule that homosexuals could not be ordained to the priesthood - even if they are celibate. The theological reasoning behind this is that a homosexual man cannot properly identify with the nuptial meaning of his sacramental vocation in which he acts "in persona Christi." Nor can he properly identify with the relationship between Christ the "Bridegroom" and the Church His "Bride."
http://www.corriere.it/cronache/15_ottobre_03/vatican-theologian-confesses-m-happy-to-be-gay-and-have-partner-53aef384-69b2-11e5-b67f-8dc132718e33.shtml
______________________________________________________
In his resignation letter to Pope Francis Charamsa thanked him for some of his words and gestures towards gay people. However, he criticised the Catholic Church for being "frequently violently homophobic" and "insensitive, unfair and brutal" towards people that are gay. This is despite the fact that he claimed there are significant numbers of gay men at all levels within the Church - including the cardinalate. He called for all statements from the Holy See that are offensive and violent against gay people to be withdrawn; citing Benedict XVI's signature of the 2005 document that forbids men with deep-rooted homosexual tendencies from becoming priests as particularly "diabolical".
cont.
cont.
In his utterly unambiguous book LIGHT OF THE WORLD, Pope Benedict XVI:
"The Congregation for Education issued a decision a few years ago to the effect that homosexual candidates cannot become priests because their sexual orientation estranges them from the proper sense of paternity, from the intrinsic nature of priestly being. The selection of candidates to the priesthood must therefore be very careful.
The greatest attention is needed here in order to prevent the intrusion of this kind of ambiguity and to head off a situation where the celibacy of priests would practically end up being identified with the tendency to homosexuality........"
......Sexuality has an intrinsic meaning and direction, which is not homosexual. We could say, if we wanted to put it like this, that evolution has brought forth sexuality for the purpose of reproducing the species. The same thing is true from a theological point of view as well. The meaning and direction of sexuality is to bring about the union of man and woman
And, in this way, to give humanity posterity, children, a future. This is the determination internal to the essence of sexuality. Everything else is against sexuality's intrinsic meaning and direction. This is a point we need to hold firm, even if it is not pleasing to our age ...
Homosexuality is incompatible with the priestly vocation.
Otherwise, celibacy itself would lose its meaning as a renunciation. It would be extremely dangerous if celibacy became a sort of pretext for bringing people into the priesthood who don't want to get married anyway."....
In other words the "sacrifice" of celibacy for a homosexual entering the priesthood is analogous to a little kid giving up broccoli for Lent!
Constance and all,
It's not going away.
http://tass.ru/en/politics/831839
https://twitter.com/FAE_pl/status/647015590633320449/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
anon 12:45
so what? any available organization in the UN is going to be turned to to deal with
an international issue, ""The issues of migration were discussed in detail, particularly through the prism of the current situation with migrants in Europe,"
that is an extremely nasty situation brewing with all the jihadis coming in as
"refugees." ISIS has bragged they are doing this, and there is already violence
from such and from other muslims already there in Europe. political correctness
is causing it to be masked, but the statistics on rape and other matters make it
obvious.
anon 12:53
looks like Solana is pushing for an anti Russian alliance? not surprising.
"Russia will strengthen cooperation with United Nations Alliance of Civilizations to counter fuelling conflicts, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said. "The importance of your activities has grown considerably in the conditions when inter-religious strife is being fuelled in different parts of the world, when religious and civilizational factors are being used as an instrument of unscrupulous policy," he noted." sounds they are concerned about stealth and not so stealth jihad.
This problem exists in Russia and surrounding countries also.
The global plan is right on schedule. That is why this info is notable in both links.
It is what it is, with or without your comments 1:05 PM.
so what 4:51 PM?
Your conclusions are not the only conclusions people have to draw. Others can decide for themselves what they are looking at and follow up or not.
Russia has been working to detach itself from the global agenda which is the tool
of the western banksters and enforced by the American empire of which NATO is the
puppet.
Usual rubbish, usual source. Why not go and live there if it's so much better than the USA and it's got Orthodox churches?
Ask not what you can do for your country but what your country can do for you?
4:51 and 6:22
if people were looking at the rivalry of the BRICS and financial developments to
the IMF and the facts about who gains and who finances the NWO and New Age Movement,
instead of narrower considerations you would see it for yourself.
We are back on the air in the morning. My guest is DAVID LIVINGSTONE and he has written an ASTOUNDINGLY BRILLIANT book on Transhumanism. I think Dorothy would be pleasantly surprised at the scope and depth of his work that covers many of the concerns she has voiced.
Please join us at www.TMERadio.com. It can be accessed from your mobile phones as well. It will be 10 a.m. Eastern time, 7 a.m. Pacific time.
Constance
I just deleted Christine's comment that concluded by saying "this blog IS a conspiracy site." Despite the misrepresentations of those trying to conceal the New Age Movement and its insidious incursions into about every facet of this life, this blog deals in FACTS, not random speculations nor streams of consciousness.
Constance
Christine, I deleted the next post, too. The poster with the concise link to the Alliance of Civilizations participation by Russia did us a great favor. Ditto the one who gave us an update on Solana's continued role with European military developments. There was no reason to complain or say "so what" about that information.
Constance
Constance, my point was that "the new age movement" is considered a "conspiracy
theory" along with multiple shooter views about the JFK assassination and some
other things which all have plenty of evidence. The term "conspiracy theory" is
thrown around the loudest as facts supporting whatever conspiracy is at issue
pile up.
So if someone wants to throw that term around, this is the wrong place to do it.
Because it is about something that can only be called a conspiracy.
Granted there are some pretty silly conspiracy theories, including some held to
by some here, such as Zionists run the world and reptilian royals (actual not
spiritual) and nephilim are coming back and annunaki made humans and Christianity
was invented by pagan Rome as a ploy against the Jews and the Vatican made islam.
The facts that appear to support these are few and weak. Of course there's the
we never went to the moon theory, which has some arguments in its favor, but far
too many arguments against it. A third version, that something was there NASA
didn't want seen, so some photos are legit we were there, but some were staged
to keep the other stuff out of the picture, literally, makes more sense than not
going at all.
Jesuits run everything including the American Revolution for their own nefarious
designs and then there is the idea that we are a corporation owned by London and
all kinds of idiotic stuff based on total ignorance of some legal concepts.
The federal reserve as part of a larger bankster conspiracy is legitimate enough.
It is a private corporation it is not a government office. But the game didn't start with the Rothschilds and was never limited to them.
Constance, I apologize for "so what," but considering the content of the article,
the concern is precisely the massive immigration that hides jihadis, as ISIS has
boasted it is doing. A great many are not even from Syria. The Russian motives for
Alliance of Civilizations was likely to undercut the intensity of loyalty to islam,
even if some use it to undercut intensity of loyalty to Jesus Christ.
as I said in that post, it is not surprising that Solana is pushing
for some anti Russian coalition. After all, Solana represents the new age
AND the new world order (not all fit in both), and the latter operates heavily
through the IMF, which the BRICS nations (to which more have joined) are rejecting
and counterbalancing.
The IMF routinely acts like a loan shark, stripping debtor countries of their
wealth. Aside from greed it very well fits a possible scenario of intending to
reduce everyone to a kind of feudalism, and to conditions under which mass die off
of humans can develop without much trouble. The worst victimization is usually
in countries predominantly not white. The whole UN as you know is a product of
mystics often Theosophists. I don't know the exact origin of the IMF but I'm sure
it shares some of this pedigree.
Confessions of an Economic Hit Man is a good overview of what goes on. BRICS proposes to act more responsibly than IMF in any future loans. It is pulling away
from the economic controls of the globalists. That latter rides on the US dollar
as primary reserve currency. And especially the petrodollar, the use of the dollar
as medium of trade in oil.
As for all the Abrahamic religions killing each other off, islam being the most
aggressive would simply revive what it was doing earlier anyway, only without
nearly the limits most schools of shariah put on it eventually, meanwhile due to
its depredations in Europe, the racist element in rejection of this invasion of
Europe (and America later) would be accepted as necessary military assistance when
everything breaks down.
Once islam was destroyed, the fascist mystical elements of RC and their nazoid friends,
and the pagan Nazi types, and so forth, would be expected to gain control and
Christianity be reduced to a culture and political thing only. Present day
monarchist relevant people are all degenerate, occultic and/or perverted. The
Merovingian focus promoted by some would have a figurehead king of Europe, and
one such claimant of Stewart background favors the homosexual agenda.
anyone wanting documentation can go look for themselves. I speak from decades of
stumbling on information here and there, in libraries, magazines (NOT tabloids)
and later online.
oh, I forgot to add, the Merovingian focus comes from a very heretical angle.
In the aftermath of this scenario, the "Christendom" that would emerge would
be a heretical version, or one that allowed orthodox doctrine, but was run
(and Europe ruled) by gnostic types most of whom denied Jesus rose from the
dead but only lived on in the genetics of the Merovingian descended king on
the throne of Europe.
Thanks Constance at 12:47 AM for making sure the links I posted will get the notice they should have.
Things are still moving and shaking.....
You've helped us learn to identify and keep tracking these and many other particulars to be watchful of, and I can't thank you enough.
A very important video for watching -- why the former head of Green Peace jumped ship!
http://www.libertyconservatives.com/forums/topic/youtube-confessions-of-a-greenpeace-dropout-dr-patrick-moore/
or
http://tinyurl.com/ofdn5eb
Constance
Constance
great video, I posted it to facebook and twitter.
Christine,
Your comment that "this site is a conspiracy site" should warrant you being banned from it.
More than one commentator has proposed less than charitable conspiracy theories about your prolific postings and motives in doing so.
If you want attention could you concentrate on your own blogs... I have checked and they seem well neglected by you in the commebting department.... but not so here.
Hi Mrs. Cumbey,
This is in response to you post regarding the link:
http://www.equalparenting-bc.ca/issues/na_cumbey-constance-new-age.htm
I looked up it's domain. See link. The info doesn't tell me anything. It might be useful to you. All I see is that it was registered in America to Can Reg (Infinet Communications Group Inc.).
http://whois.domaintools.com/equalparenting-bc.ca
I hope this helps.
Sarai
I only got the last half hour or less, I woke up too late, stayed up too late last night.
Constance, is David Livingstone working up a book or article on the Aquino Vallely thing or is it in his book Transhumanism beyond just mentioning it?
Christine Erikson (aka Justina) -- You obviously have a lot to say. Please get your own blog and post there. I want to read Constance Cumbey, not you.
the review of Livingstone's book on amazon.com says this whole thing started with
The Cybernetics Group. searching for that, I found a copy on google books, but
not set up to be read online. the review says that "This is the engaging story of a moment of transformation in the human sciences, a detailed account of a remarkable group of people who met regularly from 1946 to 1953 to explore the possibility of using scientific ideas that had emerged in the war years (cybernetics, information theory, computer theory) as a basis for interdisciplinary alliances. The Macy Conferences on Cybernetics, as they came to be called, included such luminaries as Norbert Wiener, John von Neumann, Margaret Mead, Gregory Bateson, Warren McCulloch, Walter Pitts, Kurt Lewin, F. S. C. Northrop, Molly Harrower, and Lawrence Kubie, who thought and argued together about such topics as insanity, vision, circular causality, language, the brain as a digital machine, and how to make wise decisions.Heims, who met and talked with many of the participants, portrays them not only as thinkers but as human beings. His account examines how the conduct and content of research are shaped by the society in which it occurs and how the spirit of the times, in this case a mixture of postwar confidence and cold-war paranoia, affected the thinking of the cybernetics group. He uses the meetings to explore the strong influence elite groups can have in establishing connections and agendas for research and provides a firsthand took at the emergence of paradigms that were to become central to the new fields of artificial intelligence and cognitive science.In his joint biography of John von Neumann and Norbert Wiener, Heims offered a challenging interpretation of the development of recent American science and technology. Here, in this group portrait of an important generation of American intellectuals, Heims extends that interpretation to a broader canvas, in the process paying special attention to the two iconoclastic figures, Warren McCulloch and Gregory Bateson, whose ideas on the nature of the mind/brain and on holism are enjoying renewal today.Steve J. Heims, once a research physicist, has devoted his attention to the history of twentieth century science for the past two decades." https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Cybernetics_Group.html?id=9LLrAAAAMAAJ
two things jumped off the page.
that Margaret Mead was involved.
that the brain is viewed as a digital computer.
I think the latter is an error, though some of the synapse firing is like this I
think it operates either also or more like an analog computer. If this is correct,
then the foundation of cybernetics applied to the brain is flawed.
in a digital system, something is either on or off and the strings of 0s and 1s
reflect this condition, so that an incredible string of such is needed to state
something fairly simple.
In an analog system, it is more comparable to the flow of water in a hose, full on,
restricted in varying degrees, full off.
Margaret Mead "was a respected and often controversial academic who popularized the insights of anthropology in modern American and Western culture.[2] Her reports detailing the attitudes towards sex in South Pacific and Southeast Asian traditional cultures influenced the 1960s sexual revolution. She was a proponent of broadening sexual mores within a context of traditional Western religious life. As an Anglican Christian, Mead played a considerable part in the drafting of the 1979 American Episcopal Book of Common Prayer."
Basically she worked from the presupposition, stated or not I don't recall, that
the "primitive" is closer to original humanity and therefore a proper model. This may
have been partly driven by her personal inclinations. While three marriages (one to
a man who researched sorcery in eastern Papua) is not necessarily that big of a
problem one wonders what she was up to before and between her marriages. at least
one possible lesbian relationship is indicated and "In her writings she proposed that it is to be expected that an individual's sexual orientation may evolve throughout life."
"In 1976, Mead was a key participant at UN Habitat I, the first UN forum on human settlements." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Mead
this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitat_I looks a bit like an ancestor to Agenda 21, though it goes in a rather
opposite direction in disliking urbanization, which Agenda 21 would maximize, while
pushing everyone out of the rural scene including small farmers. The huge amount
of proposed off limits to humans shown spaces on the map would mean camping and
fishing and hunting trips are ruled out also. http://theunsolicitedopinion.com/maps/
Kurt Lewin was a great scientist, but he also had a theory of change, which while
it might be an accurate picture of acquiring radical new information and applying
it, is essentially amoral, doesn't suggest sorting what to dump and what to retain
and why, and is a blueprint for messing with the public mind.
"An early model of change developed by Lewin described change as a three-stage process.[14] The first stage he called "unfreezing". It involved overcoming inertia and dismantling the existing "mind set". It must be part of surviving. Defense mechanisms have to be bypassed. In the second stage the change occurs. This is typically a period of confusion and transition. We are aware that the old ways are being challenged but we do not have a clear picture as to what we are replacing them with yet. The third and final stage he called "freezing". The new mindset is crystallizing and one's comfort level is returning to previous levels. This is often misquoted as "refreezing" " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Lewin#Change_process
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_Bateson atheist aside from anything else.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Sturgis_McCulloch
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Pitts
"was a logician who worked in the field of computational neuroscience.[1]
He proposed landmark theoretical formulations of neural activity and generative processes that influenced diverse fields such as cognitive sciences and psychology, philosophy, neurosciences, computer science, artificial neural networks, cybernetics and artificial intelligence, together with what has come to be known as the generative sciences. He is best remembered for having written along with Warren McCulloch, a seminal paper entitled "A Logical Calculus of Ideas Immanent in Nervous Activity" (1943). This paper proposed the first mathematical model of a neural network. The unit of this model, a simple formalized neuron, is still the standard of reference in the field of neural networks. It is often called a McCulloch–Pitts neuron." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Pitts
Norbert Wiener "Norbert described his father as calm and patient, unless he (Norbert) failed to give a correct answer, at which his father would lose his temper.
He became an agnostic." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norbert_Wiener hmmmm. often one's theological tendencies get shaped by
experience of parental behavior or misbehavior, probably because one doesn't
separate the behavior from the belief (or lack thereof) or go check the Scriptures
to see if the person is acting in accord with or against what is taught as right.
While it doesn't say this experience influenced him, a failure to note the timeframe
involved (instant reaction by his father vs. decades or centuries before God
cracked down big time after lots of warnings and offers of forgiveness and over far
more important things than math wrong answers) might have got him equating God with
his father. Stalin was once an altar boy or something like that, got a vicious
verbal assault for a minor error from a priest or bishop and ended up an atheist and
hating the church.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molly_Harrower
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann
Lawrence Kubie was harder to locate, perhaps for good reason. maybe this background
is dealt with in some references to a Dr. Lawrence Kubie psychiatrist, but the
serious dirt, if this is the same man, is at this link. use "find" in "edit" be sure
to spell his name k u b I E don't forget the I or you miss it kubie.
http://mindcontrolblackassassins.com/tag/dr-lawrence-kubie/
anon 3:02
why do you always analyze things in terms of having a following or not? power, or
whether someone's will is stronger than another's? or who is exerting control?
apparently these are you only motives in anything you do (family life included)?
you seem incapable of considering anything else.
meanwhile if you would read the information (and people can pursue the source links
at the Wikipedia articles, or springboard off to more research on these names on
their own) in some of the posts, you would find an overlap to your interests. Nazi
friendly tendencies in some, how to get people to do things in some others. you are
missing a serious picture here.
the computer as such has ancestors in the 1800s in Europe, in China in the crude
calculator the abacus (with that name it sounds like it came from an arab land or
was named by an arab before it got to China) and even something the antikythera
device found on a sunken ancient mediteranean ship. adding complexities of
purpose and function and electricity ramped it up. printing function added and you
get onscreen typing on the one hand, and actual printouts on the other.
yep, that was Dr. Lawrence S. Kubie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macy_conferences#Cybernetics_Conferences
Clackity clackity clackity
anon 3:02 and 3:38
reading my post to you I just realized something.
"anon 3:02
why do you always analyze things in terms of having a following or not? power, or
whether someone's will is stronger than another's? or who is exerting control?
apparently these are you only motives in anything you do (family life included)?
you seem incapable of considering anything else."
you sound like a Nazi.
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/08/001-the-death-of-protestant-america-a-political-theory-of-the-protestant-mainline
And that's the way the political and "spiritual" New Age belief system has overtaken the US in the same way it overtook Germany. Except for pockets here and there, the same is true of the Jewish religious community. Study the historical past.
"...In 1948, as he completed his draft of the U.N.’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Canadian law professor John Humphrey went home and noted in his diary that what had been achieved was “something like the Christian morality without the tommyrot.”
"That seems a nearly perfect phrase: Christian morality without the tommyrot. Humphrey meant, of course, all the unnecessary accretions of prayer and miracles and faith and sacraments and chapels. But the phrase might be the motto of all who answer surveys by saying they are “spiritual, but not religious.” It might be the motto of all who have a vague and unspoken—indeed, unspeakable—feeling that it is somehow more Christian not to be a Christian.
"It might even be the motto of the Mainline churches today. Of course, without all that stuff about God and church, the morality proves to be empty: cups for us to fill with almost any meaning we want—which, in the actual give and take of public life, will almost always be political and economic meaning. In other words, having gotten rid of all the tommyrot, the liberal Protestant churches can at last agree in nearly every particular.
"Unfortunately, they obtained their ecumenical unity at the price of abandoning most of the religious work that ecumenism was supposed to advance. Indeed, the churches’ desperate hunger to mean more in politics and economics had the perverse effect of making them less effective opponents to the political and economic pressures on the nation. They mattered more when they wanted to matter less.
"Social nature abhors a social vacuum, and the past thirty years have seen many attempts to fill the place where Protestantism used to stand. Feminism in the 1980s, homosexuality in the 1990s, environmentalism today, the quadrennial presidential campaigns that promise to reunify the nation—the struggle against abortion, for that matter: Leave aside the question of whether these movements are right or wrong, helpful or unhelpful, and consider them purely as social phenomena. In their appearance on the public stage, these political movements have all posed themselves as partial Protestantisms, bastard Christianities, determined not merely to win elections but to be the platform by which all other platforms are judged.
"Look at the fury, for instance, with which environmentalists now attack any disputing of global warming. Such movements seek converts, not supporters, and they respond to objections the way religions respond to heretics and heathens. Each of them wants to be the great vocabulary by which the nation understands itself. Each of them wants to be the new American religion, standing as the third great prop of the nation: the moral vocabulary by which we know ourselves.
"Just as religion is damaged when the churches see themselves as political movements, so politics is damaged when political platforms act as though they were religions. And perhaps more than merely damaged. Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, the killing fields of Cambodia, the cultural revolution in China: We had terrible experiences in the twentieth century when political and economic theories succeeded in posing themselves as religions...."
Post a Comment