 |
| Couldn't go to bed without showing you this first. Read Javier Solana's opinions on "The Global Leadership Vacuum" by going to www.https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/trump-global-leadership-vacuum-by-javier-solana-2017-09 |
LEST WE FORGET -- HOW DR. SOLANA'S FIRST EU JOB WAS CREATED -- A PICTURE IS WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS, BUT THE WORDS -- AND THE NUMBERS ARE HERE, TOO:
721 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 600 of 721 Newer› Newest»Free, 50 page PDF download of Rev. J.A.Wylie's classic study on identifying the Antichrist. Published in Scotland in 1888, this position was believed and taught by virtually every Protestant church for hundreds of years. Sadly, the truth has largely been replaced by the modern, false doctrinal system known as Dispensationalism, based on the false system of Futurism, made popular by the Jesuits, in order to misdirect attention away from the real Antichrist system.
If you want to read a true Biblical case for identifying the Antichrist, read this. If you want your ears tickled with false doctrine, go watch a Left Behind movie.
http://www.historicism.net/readingmaterials/thepapacy.pdf
Thanks Ray B. :)
God bless and protect you richly, brother as you fight the good fight in Jesus Christ's Holy Name!
October 31st, 2017 is the 500th anniversary since Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the Cathedral door in Wittenberg, Germany.
http://m.christianity.com/christian-life/art-and-culture/the-connection-between-halloween-reformation-day.html
https://archive.org/download/Babylon-Mystery-Religion-Ralph-Woodrow/Babylon_Mystery_Religion_-_Ralph_Woodrow_%281966_81%29.pdf
Reformation day: Pope Francis marks Luther anniversary in Sweden
31 October 2016
Pope Francis has taken part in events to commemorate the anniversary of the Protestant Reformation during his trip to Sweden.
The Pope appealed to Catholics and Lutherans to "mend" history and look with honesty at the past, "recognising error and seeking forgiveness".
By tradition, on 31 October 1517 the German theologian Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the door of a church.
The papal visit kicks off a year of events to mark the quincentenary.
Pope Francis and Lutheran leaders presided over an ecumenical prayer service in Lund cathedral in southern Sweden on Monday.
The leader of the Roman Catholic Church praised the Reformation for helping to give greater centrality to scripture in the church's life.
Luther's pamphlet attacked excesses and abuses within the church, and his actions and writings were hugely significant in the schism which developed in Western Christianity, which became known as the Reformation.
Luther was subsequently excommunicated, but his teachings spread throughout northern Europe.
Decades of religious wars in Europe followed.
The Church of Sweden is part of the Lutheran branch of Protestantism, though the country is largely secular.
In a joint statement, the Roman Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation said that both partners "are no longer strangers" and that their joint goal was to bring members of the two churches together at the Eucharistic table.
Pope Francis has previously praised Luther for his fight against corruption and greed in the church of the time.
He has also criticised his own church, calling on it to shun greed.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/world-europe-37827736
Exposing the Double Minded Man, Ralph Woodrow (SJ? Pretending to be a Protestant for the ultimate benefit of Rome?). Unstable in all his ways as he Jesuitically finally wobbled drunk on the mixture of abominations flowing from Rome.
http://jesus-messiah.com/html/woodrow.html
Dear me! Thank you for that update, Anon 12:21 AM. Well, at least Woodrow wrote a pretty good book before he monumentally backslid.
(May God keep us from such a fall!)
https://www.ucg.org/tags/halloween
In respect to the Lucifer-Jesus vs. Lucifer-Satan debate on this Constance Cumbey blog, I would like to say that the posters who have refuted my position on this topic have expressed their opinions and that's all they are, they are OPINIONS. Throughout the history of Christianity renowned Christian theologians have had different opinions on this topic. Many have said that Lucifer is not Satan, or that Lucifer was not the name of Satan prior to Satan's rebellion against God. Jesus said in Luke 12:51, "Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division." Bringing "peace on earth" through successful international unification efforts (like what the UN and Pope Francis are doing today) gives strength to the nations and solves global problems, bringing "division" weakens the nations. Isaiah 12:14 says: "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!" - [King James Bible] When God the Father sent Jesus to the earth, Jesus had to fall from heaven because it is "above" the earth. And, in a way, Jesus did not want to "fall" to the earth or to be "cut down to the ground," but He chose to allow this to happen to Him for our benefit. Jesus, like Lucifer, (they are the same person) originally came to bring "division" on earth or to "weaken the nations," this is no longer the mission of Lucifer-Jesus. Today, the UN and Pope Francis are working to fulfill Jesus's current mission, which is, to bring peace on earth.
The Two Babylons = provable, documented truth that ties Rome to "Mystery Babylon" spoken of in the Book of Revelation. Proves beyond any shadow of doubt that much of Rome's "traditions," practices, holidays, doctrines, etc. are linked to the Mystery Babylon, pagan religious system.
Ralph Woodrow = provable, compromising fraud. "Wrote" a book that rebuked and denied his very own research. "A double minded man is unstable in all his ways."
1:47 AM, exactly! Thank you too and God bless you mightily.
Ray B., spot on, as usual, with everything you've written in your 10:37 AM post.
God bless you richly,!
Dumbas Dullheimer at 9:29 AM, you're in denial and as always your words hold no truth. You haven't addressed anything in an academic manner because you have lost the argument.
I refer you back to my previous posts and wipe the dung off my feet for I shall waste no time further wading through your sewage to help you out of the filth you are content to roll forever around in... well you'll soon be doing so eternally in the Lake of Fire, you blaspheming chaff of humanity!
Constance once suggested you could be a Saul the Pharisee who may one day become a Paul on the road to Damascus yet you are a vile creature, a Satanist (as your lying tongue and blasphemies prove,).
Nay, you of a dark heart and seared conscience ... there is nothing good Samaritan about you. Indeed, your aim to do anything you may regard as 'good' is worse than Simon Magus.
May the Lord smite you down as he cut down your father the lord of flies!
Dear Thomas Dahlheimer,
You (and the "scientists/historians" need to read their Bible a little closer.
Try these versions from various translations of the Bible on for size:
English Standard Version
It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in;
New American Standard Bible
It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.
King James Bible
It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
Holman Christian Standard Bible
God is enthroned above the circle of the earth; its inhabitants are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like thin cloth and spreads them out like a tent to live in.
International Standard Version
He's the one who sits above the disk of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers. He's the one who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to live in,
A misinterpration does not mean the Bible "lied" as you put it.
Constance
Now, Thomas Dahlheimer,
Who, but Lucifer himself would have a vested interest in defending his "good name"?
Constance
To RayB:
Is Hislop and his "Two Babylonians" good scripture?
Constance
To 12:15 pm
While I absolutely agree that Dahlheimer is in deep, serious error, I don't think he is yet beyond the reach of the Holy Spirit.
I would caution you that an evil spirit of vitriol and self-righteousness, can be just as damaging and hateful as any other evil spirit.
God will judge Thomas Dahlheimer just as he will judge all the rest of us. Please review the Apostle Paul's writings on charity.
Constance
Yes, thank you, Constance, for that comment @ 5:11 PM.
The statements of 12:15 PM, in numerous posts, have been wrong even while they've been right, because the spirit of them is caustic, obscuring the truth meanwhile. Very unhelpful and not the way the Lord speaks. The Lord knows how to reach the blackest, and coldest of hearts. I know this myself, personally. "New Age" beliefs rescue no one, have no true Oneness to offer anyone. Ever.
Mr. Dahlheimer has been refuted with numerous Scripture references to topics he brings up here, but he chops up the Bible to use it out of context, piecemeal, or just wrongly, to make his points for his beliefs, refusing to assess the entire Bible with intellectual honesty. So it is he that is going strictly by his opinion, in reality, really making light of God's. Proven science does not back up his claims so he only spouts theories of...humans. God reigns from the heavens and we are on the earth. Let our words be few then, for God has spoken.
And yes, he'll answer for it, if he doesn't hear the Spirit of God's entreaty to believe the truth he has been told (and God has clearly shown through all the ages of time in the pages of the Bible, God alone being outside the realm of time can tell the story). Instead he has decided from a finite human perspective, his, or other rehashed opinions, that have not to date, nor will they, stand the test of time.
To each his own. God knows those that are His.
And, true, it isn't too late...yet.
Blogger Constance Cumbey said...
To RayB:
"Is Hislop and his "Two Babylonians" good scripture?"
Constance
5:08 PM
Constance,
I'm not sure I understand your question, but, I will say this ...
Many of the doctrines and practices of the RCC has no scriptural basis whatsoever. However, they do have to have an origin from somewhere ("there is nothing new under the sun"). Not by coincidence, many of their beliefs and practices (along with their "holidays") find their place among pagan religions, dating back to the beginning of time. So, in a real sense, the REAL question is not whether or not, as you put it, "Hislop's Two Babylons" being "good scripture," but rather, whether or not the RCC is using "good scripture" as a basis for their practices and beliefs. Personally, I think that answer is extremely clear. Either the RCC is correct and the Bible is wrong, or the Bible is correct and the RCC is wrong. The two cannot be reconciled!
I'll say this again, as I have stated in the past; I have known literally hundreds of Roman Catholics in my lifetime. I have NEVER, not even once, met a single one that has expressed a firm faith and reverence for the authority of God's Word. In contrast, they will typically have a reverence for their sacramental, superstitions that they believe will somehow earn them merits. More often than not, my Catholic friends express a strange element of agnosticism, with such comments as "if there really is a God, I hope I am good enough," etc. At the very least, what they have to look forward to is Purgatory, because Christ's death on the cross was not sufficient to cover all of their Venial sins. Question: is THAT "good scripture?" If they miss Mass on purpose (a mortal sin) and die before paying confessing and paying penance, they will go to Hell for all eternity. Question: is THAT "good scripture?"
RayB
Mark 7:6-13
6-7 Jesus replied, “You bunch of hypocrites! Isaiah the prophet described you very well when he said, ‘These people speak very prettily about the Lord but they have no love for him at all. Their worship is a farce, for they claim that God commands the people to obey their petty rules.’ How right Isaiah was! 8 For you ignore God’s specific orders and substitute your own traditions. 9 You are simply rejecting God’s laws and trampling them under your feet for the sake of tradition.
10 “For instance, Moses gave you this law from God: ‘Honor your father and mother.’ And he said that anyone who speaks against his father or mother must die. 11 But you say it is perfectly all right for a man to disregard his needy parents, telling them, ‘Sorry, I can’t help you! For I have given to God what I could have given to you.’ 12-13 And so you break the law of God in order to protect your man-made tradition. And this is only one example. There are many, many others.”
Luke 6:46
"Why do you keep on saying that I am your Lord, when you refuse to do what I say?"
Well, RayB,
I've met MANY Catholics who have reverence and respect for God's word. I've met many of the other variety as well, such as the Raymond Brown crowd (Castelot Seminars, etc, ad nauseum) who claim to be "discovering Scripture" when in fact they are ridiculing and denigrating it.
I've met Protestants on both sides of that divide as well.
Constance
Faith & Doctrines Of The Early Church
http://www.friendsofsabbath.org/ABC/Church%20of%20God%20History/Faith%20of%20Early%20Church/Faith%20&%20Doctrines%20of%20the%20Early%20Church.pdf
(Occasional transcription errors.)
Dear Constance Cumbey,
You presented the following scripture and a statement with it.
English Standard Version:
It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in;
I believe that Christians often grossly mangle Bible scriptures to force meanings they do not support so that they can fool themselves and others to believe that truths discovered my modern-day science do not contradict the "Word of God." They do this because they are evidently psychologically unable to accept the truth that the "Word of God" sometimes lies. Words mean things and sorry, but "circle" does NOT mean ball/sphere/globe, as you suggested in your post.
Drawings and paintings on a Biblical cosmology site:
https://www.google.com/search?q=Bible+cosmology&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi72_CYlp3XAhXI24MKHSxSAEcQsAQIQQ&biw=1347&bih=749
The Hebrew and Canaanite cosmology and creation myth were borrowed from the neighboring Babylonian flat earth cosmology, which considered the earth as a flat circular disc, covered by a semi-spherical dome (called “vault”, “firmament” or heaven in the bible), with the sun, moon and stars as small objects inserted into (not above) the dome. The firmament (sky) was seen as a solid semi-spherical "ceiling".
When keeping this ancient view of the earth in mind, it makes perfect sense how people who wrote the bible could think that:
God could "open the windows of heaven and the fountains of the earth" to flood the entire earth during Noah’s flood. [Bible writers believed that there was water ABOVE the stars, sun and moon (or above the vault of heaven) and that God used it to produce enough water to flood the entire earth.]
The devil could take Jesus to a very high mountain to see "all the kingdoms of the world."
People could build the Tower of Babel to reach the heaven.
People could see "a tree of great height at the center of the earth...reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds".
God is "at the zenith of the heavens and looks down on all the stars, high as they are", [some are billions of light years from the earth, they are not little lights in the sky and not that far away from the earth. God "looks down on all the stars", this indicted that writers of the bible believed that the earth was not a globe with stars located all around it. God was stationary, sitting on His throne, and looking DOWN on all the stars. God could not do that if the stars were located all around the global shaped earth.]
God "walketh on the vault of heaven"
Mind-Blowing Las Vegas Revelations!
{Starts 8 Minute Mark}
http://cdn1.gcnlive.com/cache/gcn_archives/TheAlexJonesShow/TheAlexJonesShowOct312017Hour2.mp3
Continues:
http://cdn1.gcnlive.com/cache/gcn_archives/TheAlexJonesShow/TheAlexJonesShowOct312017Hour3.mp3
Constance,
Respectfully, I think you are missing the point. I am not debating on behalf of one religious sect against the other. That is not the issue. The issue is what is the final authority? If there are so-called Protestant churches or individuals that proclaim doctrines that are not scriptural, those doctrines must be exposed and rejected as well. Your confusion on this issue, in my opinion, stems from not standing upon the Bible as the sole, absolute authority in which to judge on all matters of faith and practice. You seem to have a consistency in excusing the many errors of Roman Catholicism simply because there are also errors found among Protestants. Your thought process appears to be rooted in RELIGION, and not in Biblical Christianity, which leads to the conclusion that "all religions have error, consequently we can't make valid judgments on anything."
The final authority is God's Word ... of course, that is rejected by Roman Catholicism. It is also rejected by many Protestant churches and individuals as well. But as Christians, if we are to be "pleasers of God, rather than men," we must faithfully follow the command to "earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints." (Jude 1:3) That means to oppose error wherever it is found, whether within the ranks of so-called Protestantism, Catholicism, Jehovah Witnesses, etc., etc. It is the truth that sets one free. Lies and error keeps people in spiritual bondage.
You are to be commended for your life-long work in exposing the errors of the NAM. However, exposing error does not begin and stop with the NAM. Satan is a master counterfeiter and he attacks souls from virtually every angle. He uses the name of Christ, his ministers appear as ministers of righteousness and is more than willing to use RELIGION to ensnare and enslave people.
The purity of God's Word is a wonderful gift that has been given in order to set people of faith free. Shouldn't we be working to advance the truth of His Word, so that they too will live free, and by doing so, bring glory to God?
I hope you receive this in the spirit in which it was written.
RayB
Flat Earth Theory
Many people have erroneously believed that the Bible teaches the earth is flat. The Medieval Catholic Church held to the notion the earth is flat and is the center of the universe.
When Galileo presented scientific evidence to the contrary, his facts and theories were branded as “absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical, because expressly contrary to Holy Scripture.” But nowhere does the Bible teach the flat earth theory, or that the earth is a stationary object at the center of the universe. Galileo’s theories were declared heretical in the 17th century. But, amazingly enough, six hundred years before Christ, the prophet Isaiah was inspired by Almighty God to write and speak of the spherical shape of the planet earth!
Notice it! In Isaiah 40:22 we read of God, “It is He that sitteth upon the CIRCLE of the earth.”
Moffatt translates this verse more clearly: “He sits over the ROUND EARTH.”
The Critical and
Experimental Commentary states this expression is “applicable to the globular form of the earth.” The
original Hebrew word is chuug and means a “compass, circle, or sphere.”
http://www.triumphpro.com/star-wars-book-new-2.pdf - Pg. 9.
(MORE on this topic on pages 10 & 11)
Well stated RayB.
Constance,
It looks like you may have some Antifa activity headed your way.
https://www.rednewssite.com/2017/10/26/heres-list-places-leftists-plan-riots-november-4th/
Dear Constance,
It has just come to my attention that your community is on a list of places where Antifa may be planning action on November 4. I was told that the Orlando Park Police Dept. has acknowledged this. Otherwise, I wouldn't be posting this. You might want to verify this for yourself and exert extra vigilance in order to be safe.
This is the link where I am told this information originated.
https://www.rednewssite.com/2017/10/26/heres-list-places-leftists-plan-riots-november-4th/
RayB,
In addition to not having law training, it appears you also do not have training in the Koine Greek language of the New Testament. Logos, or "The Word of God,", refers to Jesus Christ himself.
Yes, the Bible was given to humanity through the councils of the Catholic-Orthodox church, and yes the Bible is extremely useful as we make our way through life and to Saint-hood. However, we are not to worship the Bible as the Son of God.
Catholics and Orthodox rightly understand that Jesus is to be worshipped, not the Bible, and that the Bishops have a responsibility to guide and instruct those under their care. I encourage you to visit a local Catholic or Orthodox church and with humbleness, inquire how you might be rescued from your tendency to worship the Bible.
Colossal 'Conspiracy Theory' Now Confirmed May Have Profound Implications For November 4th With Outright Chaos The 'Endgame' Plans To 'Take Down President Trump And America' Reach Upper Echelon Of Democratic Party
http://allnewspipeline.com/Antifa_And_ISIS_Agree_Death_To_The_West.php
Was ISIS Terror Attack In New York Just The Tip Of The Iceberg? REMEMBER! Antifa Plans To Terrorize America Days Ahead!
http://allnewspipeline.com/Realtor_Apocalypse_Survival_Story.php
http://pjmedia.com/trending/reminder-refuse-fascism-protests-unseat-trump-begin-nov-4/
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-11-01/november-4th-antifa-insurgency-against-donald-trump-and-his-supporters-will-begin
ON THE OTHER HAND:
http://www.infowars.com/antifas-november-4th-revolution-is-a-joke/
9:24 P.M.
Have you lost your mind?
Anonymous 9:24 PM:
And I encourage YOU to earnestly pray to the Almighty and with humbleness, inquire how YOU might be rescued from YOUR tendency to worship the ways of MEN rather than the ways of GOD.
("Don't worship the Bible!" What a Satanicly clever twist of phrase to try to make God's Word a "2nd Class Citizen". SHAME on you!)
RayB,
So what exactly constitutes “God’s Word”? Is it found in the Greek text? If so, is it the very first extant complete New Testament, i.e., Sinaiticus? Or is it in Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, Ephraemi Rescriptus? Or is it found in the Textus Receptus? Or the Byzantine text? The Majority text? The Critical Text?
Or is it found in an English translation of one of the above? If so, would that be the King James Version? If the KJV, which version of that—the 1611?
Can a Bible in any other language besides Koine Greek or English really be considered “God’s Word”? If so, why? If not, why not?
Most importantly, who decides which of any of the above, or which combination of any of the above, is defined as “God’s Word”?
Craig: You do the best you can.
Therefore use: The oldest texts available. (To avoid later "additions" etc.)
And trust the root meanings of words over "translators" putting their spin on Bible verses.
http://biblehub.com/interlinear/
Craig,
I recognize that you fancy yourself as an expert in textual criticism. I make it a habit of rarely entering into any debate with an expert, primarily, because experts tend to know everything there is to know, so what's the point? You obviously have arrived at an "expert" position that God's Word really doesn't exist. At the very least, you have, for not the first time, sewn a great deal of confusion on this blog regarding God's Word.
Not willing to "debate" you on any of your "higher learning" positions stated above, I will, however, say this. And I do so, not with you in mind, but rather, for others that may be seeking God, and to encourage them that God can be found by reading His Word in humility and by asking for His Grace to show you His truth.
God promises in His Word, that He will preserve His Word, which was written by His Spirit. God is sovereign, and being that "no man can come unto Christ except the Father in heaven draw him ..." (John 6:44), the Holy Spirit will certainly draw that person using the Word.
Being that the Word of God is paramount to conversion, God will lead that person to His Word. I personally came under conviction, faith, and repentance by reading God's Word in English. I dare say (you may find fault in this) that countless others have experienced the exact same thing. No one "taught" me what to believe; God's Word and His Spirit did, which brought about a dramatic "renewing" of my mind and soul.
I hesitate to write this because you will probably scoff at this, but I am of the conviction that the Authorized Version (KJV) is the most accurate available in the English language. The method, material and matter used in the translation of the KJV is, in my opinion, superior to any other.
PS: I meant to use the word "manner," not "matter" in the last sentence above.
Ray:
King James Bible
In 1604 there was a ruling from the Hampton Court Conference between the English king and various clergymen, one of whom was President John Reynolds of Corpus Christi College. An agreement was reached that there should be a revised English translation version of the Bible. Forty-seven scholars began the translation to create the King James Version which used both the Tyndale and Geneva Bible as a starting point. The point of having this new version created was to try and eradicate the use of the 1599 Geneva Bible.
The marginal notes throughout the 1560 and 1599 Geneva Bibles questioned the authority of the Catholic Church and any ruling monarchy. That his subjects might question his authority because of this text was a problem for King James I. It helped to cement the choice of creating a new Bible for one uniformed English translation that would represent both King James I and the Church of England’s religious and political views. The first King James Version began publication in 1611 and has since gone through many revisions but remains the Standard English translation in use for the Bible today.
Bible Differences
The differences between the 1599 Geneva Bible and the 1611 King James Version of the Bible are apparent. The King James Version of the Bible eliminated the marginal notes that had been a popular feature for those who used them as a study guide in the 1599 Geneva Bible. Furthermore, the Old Testament from the 1560 and 1599 Geneva Bible was translated directly from the Greek Old Testament and the Hebrew Septuagint scriptures, while the 1611 King James Version of the Bible was compiled from previous English translations of the Old Testament.
http://www.brighthubeducation.com/esl-lesson-plans/2409-helpgeneva-bible-vs-king-james-bible/
RayB,
So, in attempting to make a case for your position, you try to demean my character by making the false claim that I “fancy myself as an expert in textual criticism” (as if being an expert in textual criticism is inherently antithetical in determining what constitutes “God’s Word”), etc. Not once have I ever made such a claim—in fact, I challenge you to find such a statement and post it here. Nor do I consider myself an ‘expert’ on the Greek. Far from it. But I am studying both disciplines (NT Greek and textual criticism of the Greek NT) in an effort to better understand God’s Word.
But you didn’t answer my most important question: who decides what “God’s Word” is? What makes your opinion more valid than mine, or anyone else’s?
You wrote: You obviously have arrived at an "expert" position that God's Word really doesn't exist. When have I ever stated something so ridiculous? The bottom line here is that we disagree on what constitutes “God’s Word”. You are of the opinion that it must be a very specific ‘these words and these words only’ kind of thing; whereas, my position is that God’s Word is found in a general sense in the Greek manuscripts—putting aside any obvious mistakes in copying (or “corrections”). Speaking strictly about English, my position is such that most any recognized English translation adequately conveys God’s Word, though some have strengths that others lack, and vice versa. None are perfect.
There are very few—those who are intellectually honest, at least—who will argue for the originality of the so-called Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7-8), which is present in the AV/KJV/NKJV only. I’m absolutely convinced it wasn’t part of the ‘original’ writing of John, but that doesn’t mean I think the KJV is an inferior translation (though some of the words are outdated—and the Greek text upon which it is based does not always represent the best Greek manuscripts). The most important aspect of the ‘comma’ is the Trinity, which is borne out in Scripture as a whole. So, I see it’s admission into the text as commentary, though not strictly “God’s Word”. Those translations which do not contain the ‘comma’ are not “anti-trinitarian”, as per the rhetoric of some staunch KJV-onlyists.
Given that, as you say, the Word of God is paramount to conversion, how were English-speaking individuals converted before the AV/KJV was printed—or any English Bible for that matter?
You and I both know English speakers who can read an English Bible and yet get nothing out of it. The missing ingredient is the Spirit of God in those cases. Perhaps the active work of the Spirit is what’s needed to illuminate the text—“God’s Word”—and perhaps that’s more important than the particular English version one is reading? I submit that this indeed is the case (see John 14:15-16:15).
This sort of hyperdogmatic stance to which you adhere is what caused Bart Ehrmann to become an atheist (or agnostic, depending on how one construes the terms). Ehrmann found what he believed to be a mistake in the Bible, researched it, and having believed he was correct, abandoned Christianity. Ehrmann is perhaps best described as a former ‘bibliolatrist’—one who made an idol out the Bible. Once he found fault in his idol, he forsook it.
Anon 1:16 AM,
I’m generally amenable to your position, but I won’t go so far as saying ‘earliest manuscript is best’. This is demonstrably proven false in a number of cases. Some are real blunders, such as P46 at Philippians 1:11, which reads “…glory of God and my [Paul’s] praise”—subsequent copyists were certainly right in correcting this.
The interlinear over at Biblehub seems to adhere to the most (or a very) recent edition of the “Critical Text”. I’ll agree with that, though that doesn’t mean that I might not quibble over one particular word or section of Scripture. So, generally, from what I’ve seen, I’d recommend it.
I do find their ‘working’ English translation a bit peculiar in spots, however. Since I’m currently working through the Greek of John 1:1-18 in a blog post series, I’ll use one example from John 1. The same verb, ginomai (become, come to be), is used in verse 3 (3 times), verse 6, 10, 12, 14, 15 and 17. Respectively, these are translated:
3: emerge, emerge, has emerged
6: [there] was
10: emerged
12: to be
14: became
15: has
17: came
I personally don’t care at all for “emerge” as a translation, preferring “came to be” in its place. You can check translations for the others to see what you think.
As to “root meanings” of words, I suppose that may depend on how one defines that term/phrase. Let me illustrate, using the last word in verse 5 katelaben. This verb (here in aorist active indicative) is a combination of the preposition kata (down, according to) and the verb lambano (receive, take). Many times, when a preposition is prefixed to a verb the meaning is altered. In this case, it means either win, attain, comprehend or, seize, overtake, overcome. So which is correct? Is it that the darkness cannot overtake it, or is it that the darkness could not comprehend/apprehend it?
If you look at the various English translations on this, you’ll see they’re split, though the NET Bible cleverly straddles the two with “mastered”. My opinion is that the Gospel writer is using paronomasia (pun), and that both meanings are correct in this context (similar to ‘born again/from above’).
I hate to bring up the obvious but maybe it's too obvious;
The "bright morning star" could very likely and accurately be referring to the Sun.
Some have said it's Venus and some have said it's Saturn but the only real morning STAR is the sun.
( talk about bright ), and that would point to Jesus as He is the One who sustains life on earth, plain and simple.
Satan would love to claim this title but he can't.
Dollhieller would also like to claim this title for Lucifer, but he's barking up the wrong tree.
Dawlhiner says:
"I believe that Christians often grossly mangle Bible scriptures to force meanings they do not support so that they can fool themselves and others to believe that truths discovered my modern-day science do not contradict the "Word of God." They do this because they are evidently psychologically unable to accept the truth that the "Word of God" sometimes lies. Words mean things and sorry, but "circle" does NOT mean ball/sphere/globe, as you suggested in your post."
Two things jump to mind:
1: If Christians grossly mangle the Bible, imagine what Thomas Dullheimer does to them since he doesn't believe them.
But interestingly, he doesn't mind using them (the scriptures) and abusing them and ripping them out of context and singling out a verse here and a verse there, at the expense of all the other verses, which clearly dispell Mr Dollhomer's gay religion ...in order to make his gay points which distort the scriptures beyond recognition.
and 2: He calls God a liar. This makes it real easy for Christians to see through.
Also, I think your typo "my modern day science" above is a beautiful Freudian slip.
The science you so adamantly espouse is yours and yours alone Tom.
That is to say, that for someone who claims to be scientific, you have no real
claim to science at all. You twist science just like you twist the Bible.
There are many real and actual scientists who firmly believe the Bible, and you
Thomas Dunheimer, are not a scientist at all.
Also "circle" is a very good word to use to describe a sphere, since
a sphere is a circle from every and any external point of view.
So it worked for ancient folks and it works for us as well, just as the entire
Bible worked for people two to three thousand years ago and it works for us right now.
Thomas you're shooting at a battleship with a BB gun.
Craig said @ 12"36 PM (in part):
"This sort of hyperdogmatic stance to which you adhere is what caused Bart Ehrmann to become an atheist (or agnostic, depending on how one construes the terms). Ehrmann found what he believed to be a mistake in the Bible, researched it, and having believed he was correct, abandoned Christianity. Ehrmann is perhaps best described as a former ‘bibliolatrist’—one who made an idol out the Bible. Once he found fault in his idol, he forsook it."
Craig,
In the illustration that you provide above re: Bart Ehrmann ... he obviously was not born of the Spirit of God. So his "abandonment" of Christianity was nothing other than an abandonment that would have happened for some other reason as well. This is precisely what the parable regarding the Sower and the Seed teaches. A person that is truly born again has faith and trust in the Word that the Holy Spirit authored.
You seem to have a habit of falsely accusing me of positions that I don't seem to have. Such as being "hyperdogmatic" regarding texts. I simply made the statement that I believe the KJV to be the most accurate English translation available. If someone else wants to use another translation, that's up to them, as far as I am concerned. So where do you get that I am "hyperdogmatic?"
By the way, I was converted using the New American Standard. Later, I became persuaded to use the KJV. So again, what basis are you using for making your charge?
RayB & Craig:
Gentlemen, please! Enough! Just drop it, the two of you. There are bigger fish to fry. Unite on the things you agree on to the benefit of all!
Craig,
you're truculent, arrogant and well above your station! You once claimed it was acceptable to use more than one exclamation mark in 'informal English'. Where on Earth do you get such rubbish from? More than one exclamation mark, one immediately after the other, is no more acceptable than more than one comma, one immediately after the other.
If you're not willing to even google something so straightforward then you should heed the wise words someone once uttered,'better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt', or as Solomon recorded in Proverbs 17:28 (KJV):
28 Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.
Your knowledge of English grammar, of the proper analysis of literature (especially regarding the concept of committed writing), and your ability to self-reflect and modify your behaviour are all, quite frankly, abysmal!
Craig,
you're truculent, arrogant and well above your station! You once claimed it was acceptable to use more than one exclamation mark in 'informal English'. Where on Earth do you get such rubbish from? More than one exclamation mark, one immediately after the other, is no more acceptable than more than one comma, one immediately after the other.
If you're not willing to even google something so straightforward then you should heed the wise words someone once uttered, 'better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt', or as Solomon recorded in Proverbs 17:28 (KJV):
28 Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.
Your knowledge of English grammar, of the proper analysis of literature (especially regarding the concept of committed writing), and your ability to self-reflect and modify your behaviour are all, quite frankly, abysmal!
Anon 11:37/11:52 PM,
It seems we have different definitions for what constitutes “informal English”. Let me make mine clear. It’s really very simple. “Informal English” is anything that is not, well, “formal English”!! Anything. This includes texts, emails, blog comments, blog posts, etc. Surely you’ve seen texts, emails, blog comments, or the like, with two, or even three exclamation points, and you’ve not felt the need to correct the writer!!
According to the way I construe “informal English”, I wouldn’t be the least bit bothered by another individual’s blog comment that begins a paragraph with an uncapitalized “you’re” instead of “You’re”—in duplicate even!!
Oh, and I'd be remiss if I didn't include this link regarding two or more exclamation marks in informal writing:
In very informal writing (personal letter or email), people sometimes use two or more exclamation marks together...
One final comment, or, rather, illustration to show how utterly useless, worthless and confusing Craig's post @ 12:16 AM really is:
Try to imagine, if you will, a person that approaches "Craig" and informs him that he/she is sensing the need to find truth, and that this person expresses a desire and need to read God's Word.
Here is Craig's response (fictionally, of course) as taken verbatim from his 12:16 post:
"So what exactly constitutes “God’s Word”? Is it found in the Greek text? If so, is it the very first extant complete New Testament, i.e., Sinaiticus? Or is it in Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, Ephraemi Rescriptus? Or is it found in the Textus Receptus? Or the Byzantine text? The Majority text? The Critical Text?"
"Or is it found in an English translation of one of the above? If so, would that be the King James Version? If the KJV, which version of that—the 1611?"
"Can a Bible in any other language besides Koine Greek or English really be considered “God’s Word”? If so, why? If not, why not?"
"Most importantly, who decides which of any of the above, or which combination of any of the above, is defined as “God’s Word”?"
http://govtslaves.com/2017-11-02-are-your-appliances-spying-on-you-lg-smart-devices-are-easily-hacked-warn-security-experts.html
Well stated brother Ray !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You too brother Paul !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
RayB,
Context, RayB, context. Your admittedly “fictitious” scenario in your comment @ 8:28 AM only serves to demean you as one who continues to disparage others for no good reason and to no good end. My original comment was directed squarely at you and no other, and, more importantly, I made my position known as to what constitutes “God’s Word” in a subsequent comment.
You’ve stated: The method, material and manner used in the translation of the KJV is, in my opinion, superior to any other. So, let me ask you directly: Given the obvious implication that you view the other English translations as having an inferior status relative to the KJV, are these translations still validly “God’s Word”? Or are the other translations not really “God’s Word”? In other words, is “God’s Word” really preserved only in the AV/KJV?
P.S. Before a member of the self-appointed grammar police (Anon 11:37/11:52 PM) registers an infraction against you via a finger-pointing diatribe, let me point out that when quoting someone’s multi-paragraphed comment, one should put quotation marks in front of the first paragraph and all subsequent paragraphs, only closing the quote at the very end of the last paragraph. Also, if the original material contains quotes (e.g. “God’s Word”), then the double quotation marks should be replaced with single quotation marks on that word or phrase (e.g. ‘God’s Word’).
Theosophy is bigger than ever. It's why there is a huge uptick in classic Paganism and occult around the world. To put it simply, the religion of Atheism and Modern Humanism is Metaphysical Naturalism - blind faith in a self-creating universe, and in self-aggregating, self-improving life. This faith determines an adherent's beliefs regarding origins, daily decision making and thoughts on morality. That is the very ~essence~ of religion. It boils down to worship of the Cosmos as original cause and Humanity as it's currently highest known expression. Now consider it - a mystically self-creating natural world, and mystical "power of the soul", and "will to power". That's the essence of Paganism. And all of this goes right along with Hegel, Nietzsche, Darwin, Marx, Blavatsky... it's all the same thing. It all boils down to, "Hath [the Christian] God really said...", and, "Ye shall be as God, knowing [creating, determining] good and evil..." It's a philosophy as old as the serpent. That's also, by the way, why so many philosophical conjectures pose as modern science these days. Panspermia, universe out of nothing, Phyletic Gradualism, strong anthropic principle, infinite multiverse- all of these exist to explain ~away~ what we observe, not to support what we observe. They go diametrically against the scientific method- testable hypothesis, experimentation, observation, proof.
Craig said (in part) @ 1:18PM:
RayB,
"Context, RayB, context. Your admittedly “fictitious” scenario in your comment @ 8:28 AM only serves to demean you as one who continues to disparage others for no good reason and to no good end. My original comment was directed squarely at you and no other, and, more importantly, I made my position known as to what constitutes “God’s Word” in a subsequent comment."
Craig,
I hope my use of quotation marks meets your approval.
I know you probably regret posting such a weird, convoluted, confusing rant on "where is the Word of God." You seem to take a certain amount of pleasure in attacking the validity of God's Word, as illustrated in you 1 John 5:8,9 statement. I recall you making a similar statement during a "debate" on the validity of the Trinity, where I quoted that, and you jumped in with your input and stated "it doesn't belong in the Bible."
Sorry, Craig. I have to apologize for having more trust in the 50 translators of the KJV instead of you. LOL!
To Anonymous @ 10:21 AM ...
Thank you for your kind comment, but, I would be remiss if I didn't scold you on your excessive use of those exclamation points !!!!!!!!
PS: I was taken to task by the Most Learned One for my misuse of quotation marks.
I promise to try like really, really hard to do better. I hope you can make the same pledge.
RayB,
I've no regrets on what I posted. While you continue to dance around the issue, it's apparent you are a KVJ-onlyist—that the AV/KJV is "God's Word" and nothing else.
So you trust the "50" (it was only seven for the NT epistles) translators of the KJV, when the Johannine Comma has been shown to be a very late addition to the manuscript tradition by subsequent scholarship--many more than 50 individuals. (The first two editions of Erasmus’ Textus Receptus didn’t have it either.) This is because your faith is wrapped up in God preserving His Word in the manner that you think it should have been preserved.
And the variant is in 1 John 5:7-8, not 8,9. Here’s an excerpt from Metzger’s commentary (pp 647-649) on this variant:
…That these words are spurious and have no right to stand in the New Testament is certain in the light of the following considerations.
(A) EXTERNAL EVIDENCE. (1) The passage is absent from every known Greek manuscript except eight, and these contain the passage in what appears to be a translation from a late recension of the Latin Vulgate. Four of the eight manuscripts contain the passage as a variant reading written in the margin as a later addition to the manuscript.
(2) The passage is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers, who, had they known it, would most certainly have employed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian). Its first appearance in Greek is in a Greek version of the (Latin) Acts of the Lateran Council in 1215.
(3) The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic), except the Latin; and it is not found (a) in the Old Latin in its early form (Tertullian Cyprian Augustine), or in the Vulgate (b) as issued by Jerome (codex Fuldensis [copied a.d. 541–46] and codex Amiatinus [copied before a.d. 716]) or (c) as revised by Alcuin (first hand of codex Vallicellianus [ninth century]).
The earliest instance of the passage being quoted as a part of the actual text of the Epistle is in a fourth century Latin treatise entitled Liber Apologeticus (chap. 4), attributed either to the Spanish heretic Priscillian (died about 385) or to his follower Bishop Instantius. Apparently the gloss arose when the original passage was understood to symbolize the Trinity (through the mention of three witnesses: the Spirit, the water, and the blood), an interpretation that may have been written first as a marginal note that afterwards found its way into the text. In the fifth century the gloss was quoted by Latin Fathers in North Africa and Italy as part of the text of the Epistle, and from the sixth century onwards it is found more and more frequently in manuscripts of the Old Latin and of the Vulgate. In these various witnesses the wording of the passage differs in several particulars…
(B) INTERNAL PROBABILITIES. (1) As regards transcriptional probability, if the passage were original, no good reason can be found to account for its omission, either accidentally or intentionally, by copyists of hundreds of Greek manuscripts, and by translators of ancient versions.
(2) As regards intrinsic probability, the passage makes an awkward break in the sense.
Craig said @ 4:09 PM (in part):
RayB,
".. it's apparent you are a KVJ-onlyist—that the AV/KJV is "God's Word" and nothing else."
Craig,
In my post above @ 10:04 PM I stated to you:
"By the way, I was converted using the New American Standard. Later, I became persuaded to use the KJV. So again, what basis are you using for making your charge?"
Craig,
What part of that statement is it that you don't understand?
PS: how am I doing with those quotation marks?
PSPS: your use of the word "hyperdogmatic" is inappropriate. Please take note that a hyphen is required. as in hyper-dogmatic. Please make all necessary corrections in the future. LOL !!
RayB,
So, what do you make of the fact that the NASB does not have the Johannine Comma?
RayB,
You wrote, in part regarding me (@ 3:08 PM): ...You seem to take a certain amount of pleasure in attacking the validity of God's Word, as illustrated in you [sic] 1 John 5:8,9 [sic] statement...
Do you think the NASB is "attacking the validity of God's Word" due to its having relegated the Johannine Comma (at 1 John 5:7-8) to a footnote, rather than placing it in the text?
Precisely one of the many reasons that I believe the KJV is superior to the Modern Translations. Does the NASB contain God's Word? YES it does, just as a tract can contain the Word of God. Back in the days when Rome ruled the monarchs of Europe by proxy, the Roman Catholic Church tortured and burned believers at the stake for having fragments of God's Word (and yes, it really happened). Those believers had God's Word as well, albeit in fragments, because it was all that was available to them. These were the Dark Ages, a period of over 1,000 years ... DARK because the RCC sought to keep the people in darkness by not allowing them exposure to the light of God's Word.
I already stated I was converted via the NASB. I also stated I believe the KJV is superior to the modern translations. Why do you have such a problem with that? Or is it, you are a "Modern Translation Onlyist?" LOL !!!
Craig,
You claim you are "absolutely convicted" that 1 John 5:7,8 does not belong in the Bible.
That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. However, you seem to want to belittle anyone that does not hold to YOUR "absolute conviction." That leads me to suspect that you might be guilty of being a "hyper-dogmatic." Please note that I correctly used the hyphen !!!
RayB,
I feel certain you’d consider yourself a reasonably smart guy. Judging by most of your comments on this blog, you are one who attempts to look at all available evidence in determining if something be true or false, correct or incorrect, valid or invalid.
But yet, while I’ve provided plentiful evidence indicating that the Johannine Comma is not original to John’s first epistle, you choose—with no counter evidence and no compelling reason—to cling to your KJV supremacy, ignoring the evidence I provided. Why is that? Why do you abandon your usual zeal for researching truth in this regard?
Even if you wish to prefer the KJV—I’ve no issue with that—certainly, you must look at the evidence and either concede that modern scholarship is correct, or provide a plausible case for your adherence to the Johannine Comma as original. Otherwise, I’m more inclined to take your equivocations* in your first paragraph @ 9:09 PM as evidence that you are a KJV-onlyist in denial, or are ashamed to publically proclaim your stance.
By ‘equivocations’ I mean your continued avoidance to fully define “God’s Word” as per your own definition. I’ve asked this question a number of different ways, and yet your refuse to fully state your view. So, one more time: Is the AV/KJV the only version that is truly and fully “God’s Word”; and, by that I mean are all others deficient in some manner—as akin to ‘God’s Word’ only insomuch as they are like tracts containing only some of “God’s Word” yet incomplete as compared the AV/KJV?
Foxe's Book Of Martyrs
https://archive.org/details/FoxesBookOfMartyrsUnabridged
https://archive.org/download/foxesbookofmarty00fo/foxesbookofmarty00fo.pdf
Craig,
Have you ever considered that there are others that totally disagree with your premise?
Being that this is a site re: the NAM, have you ever read Riplinger's "New Age Bible Versions?" Just curious. Have you?
I read it once about 10 years ago, and have a copy of it somewhere. As I recall, I was quite impressed by the material she presented.
I don't really care what Bible version another person reads. Personally, I prefer the KJV ... that is my conviction based upon verse by verse comparisons with the Modern Translations. The Modern Translations all have one thing in common; they are watered down in comparison to the KJV. Do a verse by verse comparison, and if you feel comfortable using the MT, go for it. I personally don't feel comfortable, because I have done the verse by verse comparisons. Numerous times the name of Jesus Christ is missing, along with references to the blood, etc.
I am not ashamed of using the KJV exclusively .. not in the slightest, and I am not ashamed of my conviction that the KJV is superior, in spite of your claims and others that claim that the Modern Translations are superior.
For those that want to check out the KJV vs Modern Translations ... check this site out.
http://www.the-gospel.org/stdy_hrmntcs/kjv_vs_niv.php
Note 1 John 5:7. As given in the text of the King James Bible, this verse reads, "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." On the surface, this verse seems to clearly teach the Trinity. However, there is one problem with that: this verse was never in any of the inspired Greek manuscripts. That it originated as a monkish insertion into the Latin text is almost universally admitted by Bible scholars! The Interpreter’s One Volume Commentary on the Bible, published by Abingdon Press, explains that during the fourth century controversies about the doctrine of the Trinity the text was expanded—first in Spain around 380ad, and then taken up in the Vulgate, the official Roman Catholic version written in Latin (p. 939). Bullinger’s Companion Bible explains in its footnote on the text of 1 John 5:7, "The words are not found in any Gr. MS. [Greek manuscripts] before the sixteenth century. They were first seen in the margin of some Latin copies. Thence they have crept into the text." The New Bible Commentary: Revised simply states in its comment on that text that "the words are clearly a gloss and are rightly excluded by RSV even from its margins" (p. 1269).
http://www.lcg.org/cgi-bin/lcg/studytopics/lcg-st.cgi?category=FalseReligion1&item=1116550111
RayB,
I recommend you take out Riplinger’s book and go verse by verse, one at a time doing some counter-research against her “research”. While I’ve never owned a copy of this book, I did spend some time reading through portions of it at a local used book store. Her scholarship is quite poor. As I recall, she selectively ignores those instances in which the Greek behind the modern translations is actually more Christ or God exalting than the KJV (John 1:18 comes to mind, IIRC).
As for the link you provided at 10:15 PM, the site covers the tired the-modern-versions-deleted-scripture argument, when in actual fact, the KJV has a lot of extra text that isn’t in many manuscripts, and thus was added to the Bible. I really think it would behoove you to do some independent research on textual variants. This way you could see it for yourself, rather than rely on someone else.
I have to admit that about 10 years ago when I first heard about the discipline of textual criticism I was initially quite taken aback. I though, “What do you mean these jokers are claiming the Bible has errors in it!” But, after my initial shock, I was bound to prove these guys wrong, and I found that there was some validity in their writings. That’s not to say I agree with all the decisions the “Critical Text” (the Greek text which underlies most modern versions) committee made in determining this text.
Personally, I learn best by reading material from a counter view. I have Bultmann’s commentary on the Gospel of John, and while he is wildly off-base in much of it (he wants to reorganize the Gospel; he thinks there was a subsequent redactor; he demythologizes Scripture in general; etc.)—which helps me provide a stronger counter-argument—he also has some insights that aren’t in many, or even any, other of the 25 or so commentaries on John that I have. And, some of these other commentaries cite him both when he’s right and when he’s wrong. Seriously engaging with both sides of an argument is the best way to hone your own position.
Anon 10:20 PM,
The Living Church of God is a unitarian cult. While the portion you cite is correct regarding 1 John 5:7-8 (though what I wrote above is much more comprehensive), that article claims the Trinity isn't in Scripture anywhere. Really? What about Matthew 28:19?
Craig,
Matthew 28:19 proves nothing related to a contrived doctrine of trinity.
What is THE NAME (Caps for emphasis only) of the father, son and holy spirit?
Yet no where in scripture do we see the name used. You very well know there is another verse that instructs to baptize in the name of Jesus.
Apparently Jesus was not baptized in that name of the father son and holy spirit, no more than did he fulfill every point of the Law of Moses.
Others were baptized in other apostles names.
The point of baptism is that it is done in obedience, not necessarily by a specific set or formula.
I do not believe the tradition of trinity is any more a 'deal breaker' salvation, than the formula used for baptism.
Craig:
Please know whereof you speak before attacking someone or something.
The LCOG is most decidedly NOT a "unitarian cult" as you claimed.
"Unitarians believe that Jesus was inspired by God in his moral teachings, and is a savior,[2][3] but a human being, rather than a deity."*
"Unitarianism is also known for the rejection of...the infallibility of the Bible.[7]"*
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarianism
* (The DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSITE positions to what they hold!)
AND in answer to your question: Does Matthew 28:19 Prove the Trinity?
https://lifehopeandtruth.com/god/holy-spirit/the-trinity/does-matthew-28-19-prove-the-trinity/
Dan Bryan, "What is THE NAME (Caps for emphasis only) of the father, son and holy spirit? "
The Name of The Father is The Father, The Name of the Son is The Son (before He was named Jesus)
The NAme of The Holy Spirit is The Holy Spirit. real simple. nowhere in Scripture is the Name used?
THE NAME IS YHWH. and I AM the YH part. The self existent One Who IS. all Three are YHWH.
anglicized Jehovah (short form Jah). biblehub search it.
Jesus wasn't baptized like that - that was before the NEw Covenant activated by His death and REsurrection.
Jesus supposedly didn't fullfil all the law of Moses? where did you get that idea?
really, Dan, you got to get basic Christian theology and Bible truth in your head. you are a mess.
"Others were baptized in other apostles names" NEVER. Paul said he was glad with all the guruism going on
(my paraphrase) that he had not baptized more than a couple of the Corinthians, lest he be ACCUSED of having baptized in his own name instead of the Trinity. SEE HOW YOU OR YOUR TEACHERS GET IT ALL WRONG? THE BIBLE IN YOUR MOUTH IS UNRECOGNIZABLE. YOU ARE BEWITCHED OR WORSE A DELIBERATE LIAR. Paul asks were you baptized in the name of this or that? obvious answer NO he asks this rebuke their adhering to teachers as if they are Christ some saying they are of Apollos or of Cephas or of Paul but they were NOT baptized in those names!
Dullheimer, creationists and evolutionists often agree WHAT happened not WHEN or HOW.a genetic bottleneck is within an existing population, first pair were supposedly 100,000 to 200,000 years ago the bottleneck blamed on the Toba eruption more likely The Flood, about 70,000 years ago. genetics being studied a short time no way to know normal speed of mutational changes.
Teilhard never excommunicated but condemned several times and some powerful elements supported him.
(wikipedia.)
Woodrow " "Wrote" a book that rebuked and denied his very own research." ITS CALLED
REPENTANCE. the so called research for the first book was nothing but parrottig Hislop, when he actually
DID research, checking Hislop's sources, he found Hislop often misquoted or otherwise Hislop was a FRAUD.
biblically illiterate RayB & co. take note: no pope ever handed out a tattoo without which you can't engage in legal commerce nor had power to do this.
Vatican Hill is NOT ONE OF ROME'S SEVEN HILLS.
NIMROD AND SEMIRAMIS WERE NOT IN THE SAME CENTURY. The only
ancient writer to equate Ninus with Nimrod was considered unreliable and sloppy by his peers.
Christmas Dec. 25 is 9 months from annunciation 6 months after John the Baptist's conception when his father's 3 week cycle of priestly service ended listed as of a particular group. Luke's Gospel. John 10:22 mentions feast of dedication, now called Hanukkah origin is in Maccabees, also called
feast of lights, Jesus the True Light was born at about this time. symbolic action.
Jer. describes process of carving an idol not Christmas tree. incense and lights because
God said use them in His service.
RayB shows he loves self and pride not truth when puzzled Woodrow could repudiate his own work.
NOT TO MENTION THAT LIE HE STARTED ABOUT THE SUPPOSED AD.
Dan Bryan and Anon 4:44 AM:
“In the name of” means, in essence, “in the authority of”, and given that all are given equal weight in Matthew 28:19, what else would that mean? Now, I’ll admit that it’s hardly wise to make a doctrine out of one Scripture, which is why I always start with Christology. What does Scripture say about Christ? Is Jesus a mere man acting as agent of God YHWH? My current blog post series going through John’s prologue sets out, in part, to refute the Unitarian view, by illustrating, via proper grammatical analysis, context, and parallel passages/allusions, the Deity of Christ—Deity on par with YHWH.
I hope to have finished today or tomorrow the section on John 1:3-4 (which will include v. 5) which illustrates the Word as agent in creation, logically implying that the Word predates creation, and, hence is eternal, while also pointing to those passages which show Jesus Christ, the Son as agent in creation (1 Cor 8:6, Col 1:16, Heb 1:2), implying the Word and Christ are coextensive, i.e. the same Person—not that Christ is ‘indwelled’ by “the Word”.
For the past year I’ve spent a good amount of time interacting with others on an anti-trinitarian site, providing me a good basis upon which to learn about how various Unitarians proof-text to arrive at their respective doctrines. Their counter-claim that Trinitarians proof-text to reach their doctrine is, in part, what prompted me to write the series. While an anti-trinitarian can claim that one verse is “proof-texting”, it’s much more difficult to make the claim when the verse is also put into its immediate and larger context.
LCoG is just an off-shoot of Herbert Armstrong’s CoG.
One correction to the above: MS Word kept capitalizing "unitarian", and I did not intend that. Let me just make it U/unitarians in order to capture all the 'one God' views. The LCoG might claim a 'binity', but it boils down to one God the Father, and one Christ who has a sort of diminished deity, and is sort of in between God and man.
Craig:
Interesting that you KEEP SAYING "unitarians" as a BLANKET "indictment" if you will, DESPITE just being shown that you were quite clearly WRONG in your so attempted labeling of the LCOG.
Despite it's faults, which I acknowledge, Herbert Armstrong's CoG (as you put it) had more biblically accurate doctrines than the vast majority of professing Christianity, so when you called the LCOG an off-shoot of same, you unwittingly shot yourself in the foot.
AND incidentally, attacking the MESSENGER (LCOG) is the Oldest Intellectual Dodge there is.
Nevertheless, let us move past all this and concentrate on, each of us in our own minds, improving our respective understandings of God's Word and God's ways, edifying instead of attacking. Uniting where we agree and amicably endeavoring to Foster Love and Understanding between ourselves!
AND incidentally, attacking the MESSENGER (LCOG) is the Oldest Intellectual Dodge there is.
No, I 'attacked' the message in the link you (or some other anonymous) provided--a link proclaiming the Trinity as wrong. The LCoG is the originator of that message, so they are part of the 'attack'.
P.S. They do NOT say Christ has a "diminished diety" nor imply such.
Again, please know whereof you speak.
Ms. Erickson says:
"RayB shows he loves self and pride not truth when puzzled Woodrow could repudiate his own work."
"NOT TO MENTION THAT LIE HE STARTED ABOUT THE SUPPOSED AD."
RayB says:
I wasn't the only one that saw the infamous ad that offered psychic services ... provided by her live in Satanist boyfriend. It was seen by myself and at least 2 other witnesses, that stated on this site that they saw it as well, before it was pulled by said author. "With the testimony of two or three witness, a thing shall be established" (paraphrase).
Can anyone honestly trust anything this woman says ... ANYTHING?
Re: Mr. Woodrow. He does extensive research, which is very hard, laborious work for his first book that validates Hislop's Two Babylons. THEN, he turns around and repudiates his laborious research by publishing another book.
"A double minded man is unstable in all his ways," is one possibility. Another, is a very powerful "state church" threatened him, or, possibly even bought him off. It wouldn't be the first time! This very same "state church" paid for the silence of countless victims of their pedophile priests.
Craig,
I believe you didn't do justice to Riplinger's "New Age Bible Versions." Looking a book over at a book store isn't the same as reading the entire book, I'm sure you would agree with that. As I recall, it is a tome of a book. I read it in its entirety and was very impressed by the documented research that went was used to validate her points.
I strongly suggest you take the time to read this book, with an open mind.
RayB,
Have you read James White's The King James Only Controversy? If not, I suggest you read that along with Riplinger.
I don't profess to know all the Bible versions out there, but of the more common translations, they're all fine--exceptions come, for example, in the paraphrase of Peterson's 'The Message'. 'The Message' most definitely contains New Age words and themes. I don't find any such thing in the NIV, NASB, etc.
But if you believe Riplinger is true in any of her charges that the modern Bible versions are "New Age", then how can you call them "God's Word"?
If true Christians believe that the "Word of God" (Bible scriptures) always tell the truth, then why do they NOT believe that "the earth is firmly fixed on foundations and shall never be moved? There are a number of other scriptures that confirm that this scripture is to be taken literally. When science discovers that a Bible scripture is not telling the truth and that a Christian doctrine based on it is consequently also NOT true, these "true" Christians ether refute the science or change the true meaning of the scripture so that it fits with the newly discovered scientific truth. This is why the world is going to Hell in a hand basket.
In a new article of mine titled "Correlations Between Hinduism, Christian Gnosticism And The New Age Spiritual Philosophy" I present a summary at the end of the article, it reads:
The Hindu "Gods" Shiva and Vishnu are One God. It is eternal and was never created or emanated. This "God"/Spirit is Jesus's "Father in heaven." Spirit emanated/"created" Brahma. Brahma (the same god as the Old Testament god YHWH) then sinned before creating the world, which caused him to be composed of both light and darkness (Isaiah 45:6-7). Brahma/YHWH created the cosmos, which is a physical manifestation of a corrupted part of His original, totally spiritual Self.
Brahma/YHWH created maya-satan by manifesting the dark side of the part of Himself that became the world. The part of the consciousness of Brahma that is in the world is the world soul. It is an emanated, entity and it is not worthy of worship. Brahma did not want to have to create nature-satan-maya, but because of his original sin, which occurred before the world began, he had to. When the world soul is not worshiped by individual humans, they can and should have a good relationship with it. It can help us on our spiritual journey to Oneness with Spirit.
When referring to the world soul, David Spangler, one of the founding figures of the modern New Age movement, wrote: "It is generally not accorded the status of being the ultimate source, or Creator, but might be looked upon as a great angelic or archangelic being presiding over the well being of the world, or as the gestalt, the wholeness of all the lives and patterns that manifest upon, and as, the earth." Clarification: Because Spirit emanated/"created" Brahma, Spirit, not Brahma, is the 'ultimate source, or Creator' of the world.
In an on-line encyclopedia article there is a statement that reads: "In this most common form of Gnosticism [Valentinianism] the Demiurge [Creator Jehovah] had an inferior though not intrinsically evil function in the universe..." Hindus and New Agers - including me - believe that the part of Brahma that is in the universe is the world soul and that he is not worthy of worship, but that he is a fundamentally good entity.
My article located at: http://www.towahkon.org/Satan-maya.html
Please remember to support Constance's Saturday morning "My Perspective" Radio Show with your prayers and financial support!
•Donors call Joe McNeil at TME at (208) 935-0094.
http://www.themicroeffect.com/
•Donors remember to tell Joe that your donations are specifically for "My Perspective".
•If you send a money order, note on it "For: 'My Perspective'".
•If you use PayPal, use the "Add special instructions to the seller:" feature to indicate "For: 'My Perspective'".
There are amazing truths that were known about the earth, indicated in the Scriptures, which the rest of the world did not understand for another two or three THOUSAND YEARS! Sound incredible? It should!
The fact that the earth revolves around the sun once every year was not generally understood until
the days of Copernicus and came to be known as the Copernican Theory. This was in the 16th century --
just a little more than 400 years ago. He taught that the sun is the center of the solar system.
However, thousands of years before his time -- in the days of the patriarch Moses -- the Bible uses the precise expression to indicate the revolution of the earth around the sun once a year was known
to ancient Biblical astronomers! In Exodus 34:22 we read, in the King James Version, the innocent phrase, “And thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, of the firstfruits of wheat harvest. and the feast of
ingathering at the year’s end.“ According to the original Hebrew, however, this should be translated “at the REVOLUTION OF THE YEAR.” The original Hebrew word is tequuphah and means “to move in a
circle,” “circuit,” “to go round,” “orbit of the sun,” as well as “revolution of time.” The Goodspeed translation has “at the turn of the year.” In the days of the prophet Samuel, the expression “in revolution of days” was used to denote the time from conception to birth of a child (I Sam. 1:20, margin). Goodspeed translates this, “when the time came around.” Notice also II Chronicles 24:23 where the “end of the year” is called, in the original Hebrew, “in the REVOLUTION of the year” (marginal rendering).
These verses clearly suggest the fact that the ancient Hebrews KNEW the earth revolves around the sun, and completes one revolution -- one turning -- each year? But this is not all. Notice Job 38:12-14 where we read: “Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days; and caused the dayspring to know his place; that it might take hold of the ends of the earth . . . IT [the earth] IS TURNED AS CLAY TO THE SEAL . . .” What does this mean? God is talking to the ancient patriarch Job about the morning -- the rising of the sun. How is it that the sun appears to rise in the morning? This verse contains the scientific truth -- the TRUE explanation! The earth itself turns, or “rotates” - from west to east, causing the sun to rise in the morning, in the eastern sky, and appear to move through the sky to the western horizon, where it appears to “set.” The original Hebrew in this verse says, of the earth, “it turns itself.” What could be a more apt expression? The allusion to the clay and the seal refers to the rolling cylinder seal one to three inches long, such as was used in ancient Babylon, which left its plastic impression on the clay as it turned about or rolled around. What more apt figure of speech could be used to represent the motion of the earth itself, as it rotates, causing day and night?
Another amazing discovery of science -- the laws of gravity -- were not explained and understood until Sir Isaac Newton, a Christian scientist and theologian, discovered them in the 18th century. The laws of motion were discovered by this same genius. However, strange as it may seem, thousands of years ago the Bible alluded to the laws of centrifugal force, centripetal force, gravity, and motion! We read in the book of Job, speaking of the earth – “He [God] . . . hangeth the earth UPON NOTHING” (Job 26:7.) The ancient pagans believed a tortoise carried the earth about; but God revealed to His people the truth -- that the earth hangs suspended in space by powerful laws of force and motion! God asked Job, “Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?” “Whereupon are the foundations [sockets] thereof fastened (made to sink]?” (Job 38:4, 6.) It is interesting that science has discovered that the earth’s axis is pointed in the general direction of the North Pole Star, and the north and south poles are the points where the earth’s axis of rotation meets the surface of the earth. The earth is inclined to its axis at 23 1/2 degrees. God is the One who planned it all out, and tilted the earth to create the seasons of the year; He set the earth to spinning on its axis; and pointed the north pole toward the star Polaris.
http://www.triumphpro.com/star-wars-book-new-2.pdf - pages 10-11
11:18
Yes and it was all very good, even though Thomas Dollheimer doesn't think so.
But let's not forget the most obvious thing of all; that Moses couldn't possibly have had any inkling of, and
it's right on the first page so that even a dollheimer could and would see it and have to ask himself; "How in the world would Moses have known that?"_ I'm referring to Genesis 1:3 ..."And God said Let there be light. And there was light."...
Three thousand years later science began to catch up with the Bible and scientists realized, when looking at the Background Radiation, that the universe had a very abrupt beginning and that it was all about LIGHT. In fact everything that followed, including the formation of all the elements and all the molecules, all initially came from electrons/ light.
Uranium came from light. Gold and silver came from light. All matter coalesced from light.
Moses couldn't possibly have known that, but that's what he wrote, or I should say that's what he was told to write, by God.
Craig,
Believe it or not, the NIV is one of the worst when it comes to using New Age terms, as covered extensively in Riplinger's book.
You stated to me:
"But if you believe Riplinger is true in any of her charges that the modern Bible versions are "New Age", then how can you call them "God's Word"?"
As I stated before, even though I agree with Riplinger's conclusions based upon her documented research, as I stated before, I was converted using the NASB, and, I believe it does contain God's Word, just as a tract does when it contains quotes from God's Word. However, again, I am of the conviction that the KJV is superior to the modern, watered-down, translations.
By the way, I came to that conclusion because, early on, I purchased an Exhaustive Strong's Concordance in hardcover. It is a huge book, that has extensive, as you probably know, Hebrew & Greek word definitions. Within that book also contained is a fairly large section of verse by verse comparisons of the most popular (at that time ... mid 70's) translations, including the KJV. At the time, I was still using the NASB, and became somewhat alarmed at the differences between these versions. I became convinced over a period of time, and my then future wife did as well, that the KJV offered the "meat" of God's Word, while the others all were much weaker, as in "milk." Keep in mind, that at that time, we were both strong advocates for the NASB.
A verse by verse comparison will strongly illustrate the important differences. Over and over again, the meaning of verses are made weaker via the Modern Translations, due to the prejudices of the Modern Translators, which often had their own theological prejudices interfere in the process.
Having said that, AGAIN, if someone else is of the conviction to use the Modern Translations, that is up to them. However, if ASKED for my own personal recommendation, I will always encourage the use of the KJV. Also, when witnessing to JW's, I often point out the errors of their New World "translation" , the most glaring of course being John 1:1. When and if this subject comes up, I always recommend them obtaining a KJV and reading it, without comments.
I know there are those out there that are KJV only advocates. I have known many of this ilk. I also know there are Modern Translations only advocates. I have also known them as well. Some of the Modern Translation advocates express an equal hatred for the KJV, that many of the KJV only crowd expresses towards the Modern Translations.
Again, I strongly recommend that you read Riplinger's book in its entirety.
For those that may have an interest, here is a FREE, PDF download of Riplinger's "New Age Bible Versions."
https://archive.org/stream/NewAgeBibleVersionsRiplinger/New-Age-Bible-Versions_Riplinger#page/n19/mode/2up
RayB,
As a proponent of Riplinger, why not show the readers and me some examples of “New Age” wording in the NIV? For me, I’ll pass on Riplinger, for, from what I recall, she resorted to continued ad hominem attacks on anyone who had anything to do with the modern translations (‘not Christians’, ‘antichrists’, etc.) and the translations themselves as “perversions”. Also, James White engages with her book in his own book, illustrating her very shoddy ‘scholarship’. Moreover, there’s a YouTube upload of a radio debate between Riplinger and White, which shows how off-base she is.
As for your position for the supremacy of the KJV, let me show an example of rather poor translation, which only results in a lack of clarity. The KJV uses the term “the Godhead” in three different places in which three different forms of the noun for God (theos) are used. I’ll provide the NASB translation, followed by the NIV for these three (there are no textual variants in any of these):
Acts 17:29: theion einai, adjective (accusative, direct object): “the Divine Nature” / “the divine being”. Here, the NIV is the most literal (though I’d prefer capitalizing both), for einai is a form the verb ‘to be’, and this same translation is found in many other modern versions.
Romans 1:20: theiotēs, noun: “divine nature” / “divine nature”. As you can see, with the added “i” this word resembles the adjective above. It basically means the quality or characteristics pertaining to D/deity. I’d say “divinity” would be the most literal, but “divine nature” conveys it adequately.
Colossians 2:9: theotētos, noun (genitive): “the Deity” / “the Deity”. This is the only occurrence of this word in the NT. BDAG defines it the state of being [G/]god.
The KJV translators sure could have done a better job here, perhaps saving “the Godhead” for the last one only. I suppose one could argue that “the Godhead” is stronger here, but don’t we want accuracy? The larger contexts of the first two make the referent clear (God), so why not just translate the words here more accurately?
Craig ...
I will do that ... but it will have to wait until sometime tomorrow afternoon.
PS: White is certainly of the pro Modern Translation camp, which certainly is going to lean him in that direction.
RayB,
I just listened to most of the YouTube upload. Riplinger’s “acrostic algebra” is a real hoot! She takes “NASV”—curiously, not “NASB”, as it’s more commonly known—and NIV”, then adds all the letters together, omitting any duplicates. This yields “ASINV”. From this, she subtracts the “A” and the V”—for “AV”, as in Authorized Version—yielding “SIN”, which represents both modern versions. She claims to have received this ‘revelation’ from God. Uh huh.
Riplinger embarrasses herself by taking one author totally out of context, confusing his teaching about the inter-Trinitarian ‘begetting’ of the Son, and conflating this with the incarnational birth of Jesus, by using a misunderstand of the NIV translation of John 1:18 and thinking that John 1:18 is paralleled with Luke 1:35 (whew!). White absolutely annihilates her positions time and again. I was kind of embarrassed for Riplinger—for a moment.
Here’s a blog article by White regarding her book:
https://bible.org/article/why-respond-gail-riplinger
http://www.wakingtimes.com/2017/11/03/occult-worship-hollywoods-dirty-secret-everyone-knows-no-one-talks/
Craig,
First of all, I am NOT an advocate of everything Riplinger stands for. As I stated before, I read her "New Age Bible Versions" about 10 years ago and have not given her work much thought since then. I own a copy of it, but, currently do not even know where it is .. perhaps someone borrowed it, I don't know. I mention this only to illustrate that, although I felt it was a credible work 10 years ago, it is not one of those books that I go back to and use as reference ... again ... I don't even know where my copy is.
Also, after I read her book, I never made it a point to "check her out" regarding what else she has written .. or said. I have read a lot of books in my lifetime. Often, I can tell you all about a book I have read, but also quite often can't recall the author's name when asked. It's kind of like driving a car ... I know where I am going, but can't necessarily tell you the names of all the streets.
I posted a link to a pdf download to "New Age Bible Versions" with the intent that if someone wanted to check it out for themselves, they can, and then draw their own conclusions. To make my self clear; I am not here to defend EVERYTHING Riplinger has said in her book, nor regarding EVERYTHING she has ever written or said.
(in addition to above)
I also posted a link in which people can, if they are interested, do a verse by verse comparison (albeit condensed and incomplete) between the KJV and some of the more popular Modern Translations, with the sole intent that they could draw their own conclusions.
Many people that use the NIV, etc. have made the comment to me "its the best translation available, etc." and that "it only has changed the archaic words of the KJV, etc." which is false. That is why I encourage people to do their own verse by verse comparisons. At the very least, they will see that far more than "archaic" words have been changed.
Having said all that, I think this discussion between us on this subject should end. The reason being is that you are obviously of the Modern Translation is superior camp, whereas, I believe as I previously stated, that the KJV is superior. Nothing I say to you will change your mind. Nothing you can say to me will change my mind, as I arrived at my position, and am very comfortable with it, over 35 years ago.
Two parallel lines will never meet ... so what is the point in going on?
As someone posted in here recently ... "there are bigger fish to fry."
I read the posts that were in response to my post that criticized Bible believing Christians for being anti-science and consequently being responsible for why the world is going to Hell in a hand basket. I agree with Paul's post. The Old Testament God was right about first creating light and He was also right about some other things. However, there are the many other things He inspired the "prophets" to write that science has proven to be false. Essential, Bible based, doctrines\dogmas of the Christian religion have been proven by modern-day science to be false. A Minnesota county newspaper letter of mine on this topic is located at: http://www.towahkon.org/ChurchScience.html.
Today, an article titled, "Federal report says humans are the cause of climate change" was published. It's located at https://finance.yahoo.com/news/federal-report-says-humans-cause-132700068.html
The first paragraph of this article reads:
'Today, over a dozen federal agencies released the Climate Science Special Report, which is a product of the National Climate Assessment -- a congressionally mandated review that takes place every four years. In it, hundreds of scientists from dozens of government agencies and academic institutions present evidence that supports the existence of a human-caused warming planet and all of the consequences that come with it."
RayB,
You wrote, in part: Nothing you can say to me will change my mind, as I arrived at my position, and am very comfortable with it, over 35 years ago. You do realize that this sort of statement can lead one to consider you as being hyper-dogmatic, don’t you? As I’ve learned more on various subjects, I’ve changed my mind from 5, 10, 15 years ago. It’s a part of growth.
Frankly, from what Riplinger said in that radio interview defending her book, as that was the whole point of it (she apparently was so proud of her work that she wanted to debate others, demanding, fairly, that the individual must first have read her book), I know her work is not trustworthy. My point here is that, this radio debate is not something totally distinct from her New Age Bible Versions book, but rather central to it.
She was so far out of her depth that it was nearly laughable—though I generally don’t like to laugh at others—and her ‘acrostic algebra’, which is in the book, I did find initially funny. But, upon further reflection, I found it a bit scary. If she claims that this was a direct revelation from God, then what else did she ‘receive directly from “God”’? Did “God” instruct her to so distort the work of other Christian scholars—such as Richard Longenecker and D. A. Carson (the names of whom she consistently misspelled)—that she confused their respective orthodox views with heretical ones? Of course, that’s rhetorical.
Was she just clueless about these authors’ works, or did she purposely attempt to disparage their reputations in order to sell her book? I have quite a few books by Carson, and while there may be a few places in which I’d disagree, these do not have to do with Christian orthodoxy, but are very secondary issues (his particular interpretation on a clause in the Gospel of John comes to mind). Otherwise, I found his works very helpful (his book Exegetical Fallacies is a must have—it’s currently right by my desk). And her apparently purposeful conflation of B. F. Westcott (of Westcott and Hort) and W. W. Westcott, the latter a London area mortician, was very disingenuous.
Usually, what I find with KJV supremacists, or KJV-onlyists is that there are one or two (but usually both) things at play: (1) their faith depends on God having preserved His exact words, and/or (2) they construe the KJV as the basis upon which to judge all other Bible versions. As to (1), this induces the individuals to put their faith in the KJV, in English many times as opposed to the Greek on which it relies, primarily because it predates the modern versions (though many don’t factor in the myriad changes the KJV went through since 1611).
Cont…
Cont:
As for (2), this leads them to compare the KJV verse by verse with the newer versions (look what those modern versions omitted!!), totally unaware (or not wanting to learn) that manuscript evidence continues to be unearthed, which helps us get closer to ‘the very words’ of the “originals”. Moreover, one particular Greek text type, the Byzantine, has a penchant for harmonizing passages, especially ones that quote Jesus. Thus, if Mark doesn’t have all the words that a parallel passage in, say, Luke, the Byzantine text just ‘fills in’ Mark. It’s the same thinking at play: the Holy Spirit would not have told Mark to omit “they very words of Jesus (who is God)”, so we should fill them in. This is totally wrongheaded, as the Gospel witnesses are all different, and it’s likely that they didn’t always record “the very words of Jesus”. If you asked me to write down something I said yesterday I’d be hard-pressed to remember! We must keep in mind that Scripture is “God-breathed”, not ‘God-dictated’.
The fact is that we don’t have “originals”. But, I firmly believe—in agreement with most text critics—that we have “God’s Word” in the manuscripts we do have. Not one of the variants affects any important Christian doctrine—even the Johannine Comma, which is found in Scripture as a whole.
In any case, getting back to this blog, I learn a little bit of something from those who contribute here, even those I disagree with (even those diametrically opposed to Christianity).
RayB,
You wrote, in part: …Also, when witnessing to JW's, I often point out the errors of their New World "translation" , the most glaring of course being John 1:1. When and if this subject comes up, I always recommend them obtaining a KJV and reading it, without comments.
You do realize that all the other modern versions read almost exactly the same here? I dunno; it would seem to me that the antiquated language of the KJV could be confusing, especially for the younger crowd.
I’m guessing you don’t know this, but the Greek in the last clause (and the Word was God) absolutely can be interpreted and the Word was a god. This is because the Greek lacks the article (~ “the”) in front of theos. Now, any good Greek teacher/grammarian will argue against this (see my current blog post for an abbreviated discussion), and the larger context of John and Scripture as a whole certainly shows that “a god” is wrong. My point is that, even if the JWs in question were not taught this (they probably were), they would go back, consult the Watchtower, which would explain that “a god” is a viable translation.
Now, if you want to get the JWs really thinking, tell them that theos, “God” also lacks the article (“the”) in John 1:6—a mere five verses later—and the referent clearly is God. And, 1:12’s “children of God” lacks the article, as well.
You're RIGHT, TD:
Let's All Bow Down To "SCIENCE"!
If human beings give it that label it is AUTOMATICALLY to be taken for granted that IT IS UNDENIABLY TRUE! Our DEEPEST apologies for not leaping on board your New Age "Science" Express before now and dumping The Bible!
Oh, wait...
https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia2/ciencia_consciousscience57.htm
��
https://listverse.com/2015/03/25/10-reasons-scientific-studies-are-surprisingly-unreliable/
P.S. Those weren't 2 question mark symbols between the links as entered but it came out that way when published for some reason.
It was a planet Earth emoji.
Thomas Dullhammer,
You apparently have difficulty understanding metaphorical language, literalizing it instead.
Well drat, TD, you removed your comment. Do I presume you'll repost when you've collected your thoughts. Well, that could be a while...
Anonymous 11: 18 AM said "....thousands of years ago the Bible alluded to the laws of centrifugal force, centripetal force, gravity, and motion! We read in the book of Job, speaking of the earth – 'He [God] . . . hangeth the earth UPON NOTHING' (Job 26:7.) The ancient pagans believed a tortoise carried the earth about; but God revealed to His people the truth -- that the earth hangs suspended in space by powerful laws of force and motion! God asked Job, 'Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?' 'Whereupon are the foundations [....] thereof fastened (....]?' (Job 38:4, 6.)"
The Bible says that a part of the earth is a flat, circular disc that has foundations below it, they go down into a body of water and are also a part of the earth, as is also the "body of water." The Bible also says that the earth's mountains are a part of the earth and that some of them are like pillars that are holding up the earth's dome, which is also a part of the earth. And in this part of the earth there are little lights (stars) as well as the sun and the moon, which were thought to be a little higher that the clouds. When the Old Testament God said that He ... "hangeth the earth UPON NOTHING" He was saying that all of these things that make up the totality of what the earth is "hangeth ... UPON NOTHING."
TD aka "Mr. The Bible Says":
Kindly put the exact verses of the things that you CLAIM that "The Bible Says", should they exist.
To All:
Just to clear things up, the 11:15 AM Post I put I notice has a punctuation error in the original subject matter (which I had simply copied). This line ended with a misplaced question mark, it should read thus:
These verses clearly suggest the fact that the ancient Hebrews KNEW the earth revolves around the sun, and completes one revolution -- one turning -- each year!
Rome continues to push the false science of climate change. Calif. Governor Jerry Brown (former Jesuit Seminarian) pushes forth the New World Order's agenda on climate change at the Vatican Climate Change Summit:
https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2017/11/05/california-governor-uses-vatican-conference-attack-trump-climate-change/
PS: climate change = urgent need = creation of international governing body = the loss of independent sovereign rights = loss of independent sovereign nations = loss of individual rights = creation of despotic, totalitarian One World Government
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5052163/Up-27-shot-Texas-church-gunman-opens-fire.html
The Southerland Spring, TX shooting--I live only about 45 minutes from there. Sad, very sad.
Thomas Dahlheimer:
The Bible says the Earth is a SPHERE!
"Six hundred years before Christ, the prophet Isaiah was inspired by Almighty God to write and speak of the spherical shape of the planet earth!
Notice it! In Isaiah 40:22 we read of God, 'It is He that sitteth upon the CIRCLE of the earth.'
Moffatt translates this verse more clearly: 'He sits over the ROUND EARTH.'
The Critical and Experimental Commentary states this expression is 'applicable to the GLOBULAR form of the Earth.' The original Hebrew word is chuug and means a 'compass, circle, or SPHERE.'"
http://www.triumphpro.com/star-wars-book-new-2.pdf - Pg. 9.
Ray B, I too saw mom-hating MCE's "ad" for her "Resident Seer"'s psychic services of reiki,chakra clearing, etc. I almost had to rub my eyes I was so shocked at what I was seeing. It seems she'd put it up then quickly removed it when she realized she'd posted it here. I think Dan Brian said he saw it too as well as others.
I saw it too. It disappeared real quick 10:04 PM.
http://www.infowars.com/texas-shooter-liked-atheist-fb-pages-sjw-causes/
http://www.newstarget.com/2017-11-05-breaking-texas-church-shooter-was-stopped-by-armed-citizen-with-rifle.html
http://www.dailycaller.com/2017/11/05/senators-tweet-calling-for-gun-control-after-texas-church-shooting/
http://www.newstarget.com/2017-11-05-top-ten-questions-intelligent-people-ask-texas-church-mass-shooting.html
http://www.dailycaller.com/2017/11/05/liberals-make-fun-of-prayer-following-texas-shooting/
http://www.newstarget.com/2017-11-05-mass-shooting-in-texas-church-follows-left-wing-medias-incessant-demonization-of-christians.html
http://www.newstarget.com/2017-11-05-how-to-avoid-being-brainwashed-by-the-mainstream-media-actively-choose-your-news-from-independent-outlets.html
Christine as always, blessings, and thanks for your lovely insight!
Anonymous said...
Ray B, I too saw mom-hating MCE's "ad" for her "Resident Seer"'s
Regarding the ad posted in Christine's name, I expressed first that I thought it to be a joke.
Next I expressed that it may very well been the posting by her significant other in error, as she claimed not to have posted it. Additionally he also may have realized his error and also deleted it, as Christine denies posting or deleting it.
http://www.activistpost.com//2017/11/declassified-docs-show-cia-poisoned-entire-town-lsd-massive-mind-control-experiment.html
For Christians who are caught up in a religious delusion that is based on Bible scriptures that were written thousands of years ago... it does not matter how much scientific evidence there is that proves that some of those ancient Bible scriptures are not telling the truth, these Christians just refute the scientific evidence and keep on believing in what they should know is a lie. Pope Francis was right when he recently said, "people are stupid, they only see what they want to see." When science proves that a scripture is not telling the truth, or a group of scriptures on a particular topic are not telling the truth the great multitudes of Christians will then find there "expert theologians" who, I believe, know how to set up "smoke and mirrors" and spin the truth into deceptive lies, so that the great multitudes of Christians can continue to believe that the "Word of God" always tells the truth and that their religion is not actually a hoax. An article of mine on this topic is located at: http://www.towahkon.org/Hoax.html
Dan Brian:
"Next I expressed that it may very well been the posting by her significant other in error, as she claimed not to have posted it. Additionally he also may have realized his error and also deleted it,"
Maybe. She has posted here before using the screen name of her unrepentant "ex" Satanist boyfriend, Mike Tingle, with whom she's shacked, so I guess it could happen vice versa. Then again, she has a history of boasting of his clairvoyant "talents" along with her promoting chakras and tantric sex magic dabbling on witchcraft sites. She hopes to catch us unawares of late and convince us to the contrary yet it wouldn't be the first time she's been economical with the truth.
The Drudge Report is reporting that the Texas mass-murderer was a "former Bible studies teacher." Those that knew him personally state emphatically that he was an avowed ATHEIST. This may appear to be an impossible dichotomy, it isn't. Religion has the potential to attract true nut cases .. in my 35+ years as a Christian, I have run into quite a few "church goers" whose life style did not comport to their professed beliefs, or, if you scratched below the surface a little bit, their TRUE "belief" system would be exposed. Church goers (from which "Bible studies teachers" are usually recruited) can be wolves in sheep's clothing, as is true for any writer, teacher, evangelist, pastor, etc.
The bottom line is this; do not put your trust in any man. Verify every teaching and action by "thus saith the Lord." Satan is using his people to wage war against God's people. As his time grows shorter with each passing day, his evil, destructive, activity will continue to increase.
"Religion has the potential to attract true nut cases .. in my 35+ years as a Christian, I have run into quite a few "church goers" whose life style did not comport to their professed beliefs, or, if you scratched below the surface a little bit, their TRUE "belief" system would be exposed."
Let's hope the Eastern Orthodox congregation in and anywhere near Sacramento heed your warning, Ray B.
To: All
You can see by this that Dahlheimer has basically given up. Notice that he is neither providing scriptural specifics to back up his claims nor is he specific on Biblical scriptures that he is lamely trying to refute by talking in vague generalities.
Why?
Because: "A person convinced against his will is of the same opinion still!"
P.S. That is to say: Why does he KEEP posting Anti-Bible, etc comments then?
For attention.
He has his poor ego "needy cup" stuck out for another round of filling.
Go figure.
He thinks his beliefs are golden.
Nah, just some old pot metal. So is his needy cup. It's got holes in it.
Tough way to make a livin'..
Anon 12:43 PM,
that's Mr. Dullheimer for you ... empty and needy seeking attention. He should repent and have a relationship with God but he prefers to sling his poisonous dung here and elsewhere instead.
Such a shame!
Not sure who's worse: MCE or TD ... still, put the two together and you get MT ... whose opinions are as empty and void as a void and should be avoided. Mary Erikson is all about "ME, ME, ME" and TD is tedious to the max!
Yawn!
In one of Constance Cumbey's blog posts about Pope Francis' new environmental mission, she provided a link to an article by Mary Jo Anderson, a renowned Roman Catholic writer and speaker. In the post Cumbey wrote: "I had talks about it [where Catholics are headed] in the past and she [Anderson] agreed with my analysis 'Earth Worship was definitely where they were headed." The article that Cumbey provided a link to is titled Neo Gnostics at the End of the Age.
In the article Anderson wrote: Across America Catholics were being wooed with outright neo-Gnostic practices taught by priests and nuns. The strategy to empty the Catholic Church of its doctrine and to supplant it with a false religion...[An Earth worshiping religion].
Neo Gnostics do not worship the earth not do they worship the creation. The most common form of ancient Gnosticism was Valentinianism. The renowned Christian Gnostic Valentinus (100-160), who was once a candidate for the Bishop of Rome, wrote: "... the world is the total mountain of evil, a deserted dwelling place of beasts, to which all who lived before the law and all Gentiles render worship. But Jerusalem represents the creation or the Creator whom the Jews worship.... You then who are spiritual should worship neither the creation nor the Craftsman [Creator, the Old Testament God], but the Father of Truth [Jesus's Father in heaven]."
Anderson's also wrote: Perhaps the best known New Age apostate from Catholicism is a former Dominican priest, Matthew Fox. Fox frequents dissident Catholic conferences as a guru of a pantheistic “Creation Spirituality.” Fox, and New Age priest Tom Berry are votaries of the urbane French Jesuit paleontologist, Teilhard de Chardin. ... It was Chardin’s mystical marriage of pantheism and futurism that captivated and inspired....
Matthew Fox is not a pantheist and neither was Chardin a pantheist. Fox is a pan[en]theist who is a votary of the pan[en]theist Teilhard de Chardin.
A statement on Fox's website reads: A principle of Creation Spirituality is panentheism: God is as much beyond all words and images as in all forms and beings. God is both transcendent and immanent.
The universe is expanding out into infinity and it's expanding faster than the speed of light. The universe is an image or form, and there are no images or forms beyond the outer boundaries of the universe. The only thing that is out there in infinity is God's Spirit.
Helena Blavatsky is the Mother of the New Age movement. Mahatma Gandhi said that: "Theosophy is the teaching of Madame Blavatsky. It is Hinduism at its best." Paramahansa Yogananda (1893–1952) was a Hindu who is widely revered as the Father of Yoga in the West. He quoted his guru in his book Autobiography of a Yogi, "Christ’s claim, 'No man cometh unto the Father, but by me' (John 14:6), is a promise to all humanity, irrespective of creed. 'Jesus meant, never that he was the sole Son of God, but that no man can attain the unqualified Absolute, the transcendent Father beyond creation, until he has first manifested the 'Son' or activating Christ Consciousness within creation." - Swami Sri Yukteswar
God the Father is Spirit and It is in all of creation and It is also beyond the creation and is infinite. When people become One with Spirit in creation they are still be attached to having a body to identify with, so they will experience the universe as their body. This gives them the mystical experience of being one with the universe. But they will then eventually advance spiritually and lose all attachment to having a body to identify with. They will then become One with the Father (or Spirit) beyond the creation.
Could your post be more wrong or more boring, Mr Dahlheimer?
I don't think so.
It's all just wind from a man born spiritually dead and yet thinks he's spiritually alive.
So add sad, to wrong and boring.
I guess it's all you've got.
Thomas, you quote John 16:6 let me add to that verse 7.
"I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you had known Me, you would know My Father as well. From now on you do know Him and have seen Him." John 14:6-7.
Jesus is unique, look closely at Him because He does indeed mean what He says. To say otherwise, would be to call him a liar.
~ K ~
Tommy D:
Compulsive Talking
Compulsive talking or talkaholism) is talking that goes beyond the bounds of what is considered to be socially acceptable.[1] The main factors in determining if someone is a compulsive talker are talking in a continuous manner or stopping only when the other person starts talking, and others perceiving their talking as a problem. Personality traits that have been positively linked to this compulsion include assertiveness, willingness to communicate, self-perceived communication competence, and neuroticism.[2] Studies have shown that most people who are talkaholics are aware of the amount of talking they do, are unable to stop, or do not see it as a problem.[3]
Characteristics
It has been suggested, through research done by Dr. James C. McCroskey and Dr. Virginia P. Richmond, that United States society finds talkativeness attractive.[4] It is something which is rewarded and positively correlated with leadership and influence.[1] However, those who compulsively talk are not to be confused with those who are simply highly verbal and vary their quantity of talk. Compulsive talkers are those who are highly verbal in a manner that varies greatly from the norm and is not in the person’s best interest.[2] Those who have been characterized as compulsive talkers talk with a greater frequency, dominate conversations, and are less inhibited than others.[1] They have also been found to be more argumentative and have a positive attitude regarding communication.[1] Tendencies towards compulsive talking also are more frequently seen in the personality structure of neurotic psychotic extraverts.[5] It has also been found that talkaholics are never behaviorally shy.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsive_talking
Mad Hatter Dullhammer (he's not the sharpest tool in Wal-Mart's that's for sure) is as boring as a dentist's reception and as mad as a box of frogs!
Dullhammer,
You're redirected to:
www.politicallyunclassifiable.blogspot.com
You'll find like-minded New Age views such as yours there ... and just as wrong, unsubstantiated and boring.
http://www.activistpost.com//2017/11/schools-installing-cameras-high-school-bathrooms-parents-outraged-over-privacy-violation.html
http://www.blacklistednews.com/Pay-By-Plate%2C_bridge_and_tunnel_surveillance_cameras_are_spying_on_everyone/61566/0/38/38/Y/M.html
http://www.activistpost.com//2017/11/totalitarian-europe-now-doorstep.html
http://www.thedailysheeple.com/new-virus-with-no-cure-spreading-this-is-worse-than-the-black-death_112017
"An Open Warning To Churches All Across America! You Won't Believe What We Have Found!"
http://allnewspipeline.com/All_Out_War_Upon_Christianity.php
Anon @ 6:33 AM ...
It's because of people like you that I can't get any work done.
I checked out your sites posted above ... some very interesting stuff. I found the Activistpost site particularly interesting, which led me to a site called UKColumn, which listed a number of books available on their site, which led me to do a search on my local library site, which then caused me to add to my already bloated list of "books to read," which will further delay putting off my "honey do list," which will get me in trouble, which causes me to blame you for not working around the house and getting me into more trouble with the wifey! LOL!!
RayB said...
Anon @ 6:33 AM ...
putting off my "honey do list,"
My suggestion RayB is to make the honey do list a priority, and you will be able to do all the other things you desire.
However, under any circumstances, never finish the last two items on this list as it will exponentially lead to enslavement and perpetual servitude. lol
You're very welcome indeed, RayB, very funny comments! You reminded me of a Family Circle cartoon I read many years ago that had a regular plot device of a "Job Jar" that the wife would put a number of slips in for her hubby to do. Then came the strip we males'd all been waiting for when HE triumphantly presented HER with HER OWN JOB JAR! (And the look on her face was PRICELESS!)
Correction to my 5:02 PM Post
(I said "Family Circle" but I believe it was a strip called "Hi And Lois".)
Tedious
Hideous
Odious
Mindless
Asinine
Snake
Dull
Anal
Horrible
Lamentable
Horrendous
Evil
Intolerable
Monotonous
Effeminate
Reprobate
6:50 pm:
I am reposting what...
Constance Cumbey said...
While I absolutely agree that Dahlheimer is in deep, serious error, I don't think he is yet beyond the reach of the Holy Spirit.
I would caution you that an evil spirit of vitriol and self-righteousness, can be just as damaging and hateful as any other evil spirit.
God will judge Thomas Dahlheimer just as he will judge all the rest of us. Please review the Apostle Paul's writings on charity.
Constance
5:11 PM
I'm flying to Washington, DC tomorrow morning to participate in Ciff Kincaid's conference at the National Press Club in Washington, DC on Friday afternoon.
The conference is open and without charge to attend. You might check America'sSurvival website for more info. The conference is Friday afternoon.
It will be in the Zenger Room of that building
CONSTANCE
http://www.activistpost.com//2017/11/climate-engineering-is-a-gateway-to-global-government.html
The Pope works diligently to save the world from Climate Change. Now, he's working really, really diligently to save the world from a North Korean initiated nuclear war. This should be extremely easy for the Pope. After all, Rome claims that "whatever the Pope binds on earth, is bound in heaven." Just declare it Mr. Pope ... and ... hocus pocus it is done!
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4876328/pope-francis-north-korea-nuclear-latest-kim-jong-un/
http://www.wakingtimes.com/2017/11/06/new-vaccines-will-permanently-alter-dna/
http://www.infowars.com/emergency-alert-government-and-big-pharma-to-make-vaccines-mandatory/
http://www.shtfplan.com/conspiracy-fact-and-theory/report-former-intelligence-operative-is-picked-up-by-the-fbi-after-warning-about-a-false-flag-terror-attack-inside-the-united-states_11082017
http://www.newstarget.com/2017-11-08-deranged-transgender-leftists-hold-monthly-occultist-curse-sessions-to-try-to-destroy-trump-using-supernatural-forces.html
RayB:
I was a little surprised at your comment. Let us not conflate the religious with the political. If, say the Dalai Lama said that he was going to try to help bring peace with North Korea, THAT I wouldn't criticize, nor do I criticize the Pope (neither of whose religious denominations I am a member of). If you want to critique the validity of any Papal religious claims do so but just keep that separate and distinct as it should be. (I happen to have a high regard for you btw, so don't take this amiss.)
10:30 PM, I've only put in one post that which others were putting down in piecemeal. Is this what you're after, 10:30 PM? Some ear ticking dishonesty?
Talented
Highbrow
Obedient
Moderate
Astute
Sage
Diligent
Amenable
Humble
Laudable
Honest
Endearing
Interesting
Magnificently
Eloquent
Reasoner
Which of the posts do you find truer, 10:30 PM, this one or the one at 6:50 PM?
I suggest you and heathen applauding Constance (who believes animists can be saved and get to Heaven without having consciously repented of such wickedness and without having accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior) take the beams out of your own eyes first!
Dear 3:31 PM,
I can't find one good reason for Thomas Dahlheimer to post on this site, or frankly speaking, for you either.
He has his own brand of poison to spread and you can find lots of places where your acrimonious opinions will be right at home.
So why do either of you bother?
There are lots of places on the worldwide web where your posts, and his posts, would fit in instead of here.
Just say'n......
I suggest you take yourself up and vacate this site immediately. It needs a good clear out anyway ...why not take yourself over to Thomas Dahlheimer's? You'd fit right in there! Even MCE has sussed old Tommy D out ... yet you haven't?
You've not answered my point at 3:31 PM, either. Not able?
Just say'n to you, you hypocrite!
Responsible Fact Checking:
http://mediafactwatch.com/
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-11-09/13-baltimore-high-schools-have-zero-students-are-proficient-math
http://www.activistpost.com//2017/11/narrative-attempts-to-connect-homeschooling-violence-and-pedophilia-to-expand-domestic-warrantless-surveillance.html
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-11-09/mass-shootings-mass-psychology-and-self-defense
http://www.infowars.com/disgusting-elite-sex-slave-cult-exposed/
https://www.infowars.com/ex-facebook-president-warns-app-exploits-psychological-vulnerability/
http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/877457/brain-function-dementia-super-power-human-kernel
http://www.newstarget.com/2017-11-09-4-rational-reasons-to-avoid-the-flu-shot-and-what-to-do-instead.html
http://www.wakingtimes.com/2017/11/09/test-see-lack-empathy-become-empathetic/
Exposing Christian Propaganda Against the New Age Movement:
Two pontifical councils wrote and published a joint document about the New Age and they totally got it wrong. To distort the truth to the degree that they did in this document of theirs makes me think that they are influenced and deceived by the Devil himself. They wrote:
New Age has a marked preference for Eastern or pre-Christian religions, which are reckoned to be uncontaminated by Judaeo-Christian distorsions. Hence great respect is given to ancient agricultural rites and to fertility cults. "Gaia", Mother Earth, is offered as an alternative to God the Father, whose image is seen to be linked to a patriarchal conception of male domination of women. There is talk of God, but it is not a personal God; the God of which New Age speaks is neither personal nor transcendent. Nor is it the Creator and sustainer of the universe, but an "impersonal energy" immanent in the world, with which it forms a "cosmic unity": "All is one". This unity is monistic, pantheistic or, more precisely, panentheistic. God is the "life-principle", the "spirit or soul of the world", the sum total of consciousness existing in the world. In a sense, everything is God. God's presence is clearest in the spiritual aspects of reality, so every mind/spirit is, in some sense, God."
Wikipedia: "Pantheism is the belief that all reality is identical with divinity, or that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent god. Pantheists do not believe in a distinct personal or anthropomorphic god."
Wikipeadia: "Panentheism is the belief that the divine pervades and interpenetrates every part of the universe ... is greater than the universe ... extends beyond time and space ... and transcends all things created."
H.P. Blavatsky, the Mother of the New Age Movement, hardly ever used the word “God.” She used terms such as “Deity,” “The Divine,” and “The Absolute.” Blavasky said that "the One Infinite Divine Principle is undefinable and indescribable but that the ancient Hindu teaching about Brahman comes closest to the reality." It is literally "beginningless," or greater than the universe, which had a beginning. And It is not a little bigger than the universe, but is "boundless," "endless," "Infinite," and "entirely unconditioned." "It is not a Being. It is Be-ness itself."
David Spangler, one of the founding figures of the modern New Age movement, wrote: The world soul is usually conceived as a "formative force," an active, intelligent, purposeful spiritual presence at work in the material world [it is immanent] to guide and guard the course of planetary evolution. It is generally not accorded the status of being the ultimate source, or Creator [who is transcendent], but might be looked upon as a great angelic or archangelic being presiding over the well being of the world, or as the gestalt, the wholeness of all the lives and patterns that manifest upon, and as, the earth [Gaia].
"Exposing Christian Propaganda Against the New Age Movement: "
Aw Dahlheimer. That's too bad. :(
But keep pouting and sucking your thumb here so you'll keep the reminder out there of how useless and powerless your version of "truth" is. The more you post the worse your religious worldview looks.
Christians are actually suffering for truth all over this world. It is your camp and other people who trust in their false worldview who are doing that to them. There's the real story rather than your false premise.
That's okay though. Jesus Christ, the way, the truth, and the life is worth it. It isn't about us. It isn't about this world system either, that you are part of corrupting.
This sad world that is pershing just like the Lord has said it, would is all you've got.
I would suggest you quit sucking your thumb and get to the truth while you are still drawing a breath. Then you'll actually have truth to report.
Thomas Dahlheimer:
The thing that you apparently can't get is that we, the regular readers, who are here IN THE FIRST PLACE because we're generally simpatico with a blog like Constance's...
DON'T CARE ABOUT THE NEW AGE MOVEMENT.
You can post details about it all day long...
DON'T CARE.
"Ohhh, THIS detail is wrong and THAT detail is wrong..."
COULDN'T CARE LESS.
(Other than the threat it poses to Christians and the world in general which people like Constance are and have been alerting us to) as far as all these NAM-related details that you're so very fond of cluttering up this blog with...
THEY'RE TRASH TO US.
You can yammer your NAM propaganda 'til you're blue in the face and our opinion of it will ALWAYS be that it's...
ABSOLUTE GARBAGE.
And to top it off, YOU make an ABSOLUTE FOOL out of YOURSELF when you TRY (in your rather pitiful way) to demean God, The Bible and Christianity. Our opinion always of your Anti-Christian writings is that they're a stream of:
SEWAGE
Safe travels Contance... I hope the conference is well-attended.
*Constance.... ugghh
Anon said to RayB @ 2:15PM:
"I was a little surprised at your comment. Let us not conflate the religious with the political. If, say the Dalai Lama said that he was going to try to help bring peace with North Korea, THAT I wouldn't criticize, nor do I criticize the Pope (neither of whose religious denominations I am a member of). If you want to critique the validity of any Papal religious claims do so but just keep that separate and distinct as it should be. (I happen to have a high regard for you btw, so don't take this amiss.)"
Anon,
I take your comment above in the same spirit in which it was written ... with grace. Perhaps I didn't express myself in a correct manner, for that I apologize. Perhaps too I didn't clarify what I meant by my post. Let me explain where I am coming from:
Rome has always been extremely active in politics since its inception from the 4th. Century when Constantine declared HIS version of "Christianity" to be the official state religion of the Roman Empire. His "version" was a mixture of Roman paganism, both in beliefs and practice, along with Christianity. In effect, Constantine was a very early proponent of ecumenicalism; attempting to please both "Christians" and pagans. It remains that way to this day. Also remaining, is Rome's never ending attempt to be a predominant player in Global politics. Throughout the 1,000 year period of the Dark Ages, the Papacy ruled, by proxy, virtually all of Europe (the then "known world")via the Catholic ruling monarchs. Within those nations of Europe, by utilizing their grip over the monarchies, the ONLY religion officially allowed was Roman Catholicism. Ponder that for awhile; the monarchies enforced Rome's rule as a state religion, via punishment BY the state on behalf of Rome! However, in defiance of Rome, through the efforts of John Wycliffe, and others, the Bible began to be translated and PUBLISHED in the language of the people. As the light of the truth of scripture spread among the people, Rome's superstitious grip was severely diminished, ultimately leading to the rebellion against Rome ... the Reformation.
The Reformation severely crippled the despotic religious, political and economic grip that Rome had, which then countered with their own counter-Reformation efforts, primarily via the Jesuits. The RCC, along with the secret order of the Jesuits, has been overtly, and, covertly, active in subverting Biblical Christianity, while at the same time, projecting themselves into the geo-political scene ever since.
(more)
Flash forward to relatively modern times. The RCC was INSTRUMENTAL in bringing Italian Fascist Dictator Benito Mussolini to power, by endorsing him, along with enforcing a policy in which Priests, etc. could not criticize the Fascist state (see the Lateran Treaty of 1929). Mussolini in turn, gave the Vatican the Italian Government owned land upon which the Vatican sits, and sanctioned the Vatican as a foreign, independent state. Mussolini also recognized RCC as the "ONLY" religion allowed in Italy, enforcing that policy with punishment by the State, and, enacted a 2% tax that supported the Vatican financially. Rome also signed the infamous Concordat with the Nazis (I believe it was 1933), which, essentially was the same type of agreement that was signed with Mussolini.
From that time forward, including JP II, Benedict, Francis ... Rome has continued to inject itself onto the main stage of Global social,economic/politics. All three mentioned Popes promulgated policies consistent with the New World Order, including, the promotion of the world's antichrist false "religions" as a viable means to God. All three have undermined God as the supreme Creator by their sanctioning of the false, anti-scriptural theory of Evolution. Francis has also been most vocal in his support for the false science of climate change. Why? Because climate change is being used to diminish the sovereignty of the independent, nation state (in particular, America), and will be used as a powerful means to implement the One World Government they crave for ... with the RCC being given the supreme "moral authority" for the OWG.
I could go on, but will stop by saying, that, based on their well-documented past, I trust virtually nothing that they say or do. They masterfully propagandize the gullible masses with their clever trickery that they use to hide their nefarious goals. They are a major player in attempting to create counterfeit to the Kingdom of God on earth ... a One World Government dictatorship.
My post in which you commented upon was a poor attempt to covey, in a very abbreviated manner, the substance of my comments above. I will try to be more explicit in the future.
RayB
RayB:
No worries, and just to be more clear myself, I wasn't meaning to imply that the political intrigues of the Vatican didn't exist or shouldn't be brought out but that they shouldn't be conflated with religious issues per se. In other words, when you said: "whatever the Pope binds on earth, is bound in heaven." That, of course, is a Papalicized scripture quote. BUT, the quote upon which it's based is about THEOLOGICAL issues. That's all I meant: Use such a quote for THOSE things and use politically oriented material for the political.
Have a great day, bud, and keep on keepin' on!
Just one short, but LARGE, example of John Paul II calling for a "New World Order," whereby religions of the world "walk hand in hand" at Ghandi's memorial.
There are many other examples, of Rome supporting the Christ-denying religions of the world, as they march "hand in hand" towards a New World Order.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRX-KEXBvYY
Anon ...
Thanks for the clarification. I know we are both on the same page.
I usually do not use sarcasm, but that is exactly what I was doing re: the "bond on earth, is bound in heaven" comment. I agree with you 100% that that statement is based upon their theological claims (albeit, false) and not political.
Thanks for keeping me in check. I don't mean to mislead anyone ... "let God be true, and every man a liar."
RayB
RayB,
In my 12:57 PM post I inadvertantly neglected to mention one other point:
YES, the Vatican has a history which includes political intrigues, but DOES that mean that when the Pope says something good (like "I will try to help to establish peace with North Korea.") immediate putdowns should be given? This is NOT AT ALL to say that any good reasons for taking such a statement with a grain of salt (or even with up to and including viewing it with very great suspicion) be put forward, but to say that it is perhaps counter-productive at best to reject such a statement out-of-hand, especially in an overtly hostile way. I mean, what's the guy supposed to do, Ray? If he had said he's going to try to bring about WAR with North Korea what would you have said THEN? If he had said NOTHING wouldn't a LOT of people (perhaps including you) say "If he was truly Christian wouldn't he try to help bring about peace with North Korea!" To automatically attack him regardless means "He's 'damned if he does and damned if he doesn't'! As a general rule, people should be praised for saying good things (or at least not completely rejected out-of-hand). Who's to say whether the Pope isn't sincere in his desire to help establish peace with North Korea? Who's to say he might not have recently started repenting of any undue "intrigues" he may have been involved in and has started to turn over a new leaf?
So my point is simply:
Let's not overdo criticism.
CORRECTION:
This is NOT AT ALL to say that any good reasons for taking such a statement with a grain of salt (or even with up to and including viewing it with very great suspicion) NOT be put forward...
http://www.activistpost.com//2017/11/vatican-rc-church-hierarchies-not-unnerved-infertility-ingredients-whos-african-tetanus-vaccine-campaign.html
http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/the-surveillance-state-an-inexorable-march-toward-totalitarianism_11102017
http://www.thedailysheeple.com/video-proof-there-were-at-least-7-different-shooters-during-the-las-vegas-massacre_112017
http://www.shtfplan.com/conspiracy-fact-and-theory/alert-mainstream-media-now-promoting-gun-confiscation-orders-as-solution-to-mass-shootings_11112017
http://www.newstarget.com/2017-11-11-how-to-stop-a-mass-shooter-shoot-back.html
Left-wing feminism’s WAR on motherhood continues as liberal author claims she’s being blackballed after warning about daycare replacing parenthood:
http://govtslaves.com/2017-11-09-left-wing-femisms-war-on-motherhood-blackballed-daycare.html
http://lifesitenews.com/blogs/liberals-now-claim-christian-parents-are-dangerous.-this-is-an-existential
http://lifesitenews.com/news/catholic-agency-denies-adoption-to-couple-who-hold-christian-view-of-sexual
http://www.thedailysheeple.com/millennials-are-being-brainwashed-to-oppose-capitalism-and-support-communism-their-favorite-leaders-are-kim-jong-un-and-stalin_112017
http://www.dailycaller.com/2017/11/11/professors-not-happy-that-jordan-peterson-wants-to-warn-students-about-radical-left-classes/
http://pjmedia.com/trending/wages-social-justice-death/
http://www.newstarget.com/2017-11-09-liberal-cities-in-california-becoming-homeless-wastelands-as-socialist-policies-fail.html
http://www.activistpost.com//2017/11/happy-holidays-california-city-demands-church-stop-feeding-homeless.html
http://allnewspipeline.com/More_Signs_Catastrophic_Collapse_Of_Food_Chain.php
http://www.activistpost.com//2017/11/confirmed-health-harms-microwaves-smart-meters-smart-devices.html
http://www.naturalnews.com/2017-11-10-bombshell-science-paper-documents-the-depopulation-chemical-covertly-spiked-into-vaccines.html
http://www.naturalnews.com/2017-11-11-disease-outbreaks-staged-to-generate-funding-for-big-pharma.html
http://www.sgtreport.com/articles/2017/11/11/uranium-one-and-star-trek-technology-1884
https://activistmommy.com/breaking-roy-moores-accuser-worked-democratic-leaders-actively-campaigning-moores-opponent/
https://www.infowars.com/photos-moore-accuser-a-democrat-activist/
This info has been posted on numerous alternative sites.
https://www.teaparty.org/breaking-nasa-drops-global-warming-truth-bomb-people-stunned-276558/
http://m.newser.com/story/251349/north-koreas-nukes-may-be-the-wrong-thing-to-fear.html
I'm back safe and sound from Washington, DC. Interesting conference -- Cliff Kincaid will be presenting it on his network and on Youtube, I understand. I understand it was livestreamed on Facebook at the time, but didn't know about that far in advance to tell you. Sorry!
Constance
Aynaz Anni Cyrus, former Muslim, explains the two different types of lying that are allowed under Islam, cautioning about the Islamisation of the West:
Because You Asked: What's the Difference Between Taqiyya and Tawriya?
American Truth Project
An ATP Report Production - on this episode Anni Cyrus explains the details of different ways that lying is allowed and advocated under Sharia.
Essential points:
Tagiyya (deception):
1) When life is in danger you may deny that you are a Muslim, but not denounce Allah or Muhammad.
2) When using conversion efforts you may lie about anything that could be detrimental to these efforts.
3) While attempting to conquer non-Islamic lands
4) To save another Muslim's life. ("He's not a Muslim.", etc.)
Tawriya ('white lies'):
1) You may lie in any non-Islamic court--because it's not valid--which means can witness a fellow Muslim rape someone and either claim you didn't see anything, or claim he didn't do it.
Thanks for your bot-written BS ad!
Thar is, 2:37 AM: Thanks for your bot-written BS ad!
Sorry, "Tagiyya" should be Taqiyya.
That is, THAT is 2:37 AM: Thanks for your bot-written BS ad!
On 11/12/2017 my new article titled "Exposing Christian Propaganda Against The New Age Movement" was posted on Hippyland's "New Age" forum. Hippyland is a 290,000 registered members interactive website. Its founder and webmaster is Skip Stone. Mr. Stone added his "like" to the article and initiated e-mail correspondence with me. We have been occasionally corresponding for years. In the article I inform its readers that I often post on Constance Cumbey's blog. Stone has my article titled "UN, Natives And Hippies Unite To Save The World" prominently displayed on his Hippyland site. (Note: The second comment on my most recent Hippyland post is my comment.)
Exposing Christian Propaganda Against The New Age Movement
https://www.hipforums.com/forum/threads/exposing-christian-propaganda-against-the-new-age-movement.484311/
UN, Natives And Hippies Unite To Save The World
https://www.hippy.com/other/un-natives-and-hippies-unite-to-save-the-world/
Thomas Dahlheimer,
With all your concern regarding Christianity, do you share the same, or more, about Islam? If not, why not?
Aww, Little Tommy @ 12:19 PM got a "like" from somebody!
Well, Hippyland's your style, so just stick with that since you need so much recognition.
All you get here is negative response, unless you are so needy you'll settle for that too.
You're preaching to your choir there at that other little planet your little sun circles...why waste time here on us?
And go get that counseling somebody had suggested.
Thomas Dahlheimer, Ladies and Gentlemen, is proving, YES I say PROVING the Truth of Reincarnation!
Just LOOK at his last post, have you ever seen a more beautiful example of a figurative housecat, full of pride at his accomplishment and wanting to share it, coming right up to his human and...
DROPPING A DEAD RAT
Interesting, mind boggling stuff.
Graig said:
"With all your concern regarding Christianity, do you share the same, or more, about Islam? If not, why not?"
Graig: I believe that people who worship and serve the Old Testament God are worshiping and serving "Satan," the "adversary." This includes Christians, Muslims and people who practice Judaism. When the Old Testament God is worshiped He manifests His dark side to those who worship Him. His dark side is "Satan." When people HONOR Him and do not worship Him, but rather worship the God who created Him, who is Jesus's Father in Heaven, He manifests His good side.
Wikipedia: "God as the devil" (Referring to the Old Testament God, not Jesus's "Father in Heaven.")
"In the Hebrew Bible God is depicted as the source of both light and darkness, as in Isaiah 45:6-7. This concept of 'darkness' or 'evil' was not yet personified as 'the devil.'"
"The author of the Books of Chronicles is thought to have first introduced the notion of 'divine intermediaries', which was not found in the earlier parts of the Hebrew Bible. The main evidence adduced by theologians to support this is 1 Chronicles 21, a reworked version of 2 Samuel 24."
"This change is made most evident in the Chronicler's treatment of 2 Samuel 24:1: 'And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.' Which, in 1 Chronicles 21:1, becomes: 'And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.'" — King James Version
"In the Book of Samuel, YHWH himself is the agent in punishing Israel, while in 1 Chronicles an 'adversary' [the devil] is introduced."
COMING SOON
You've Wanted It.
You've Waited For It.
And It'll Soon Be Here:
MY PERSPECTIVE 2.0
ALL The Comments You Love...
WITHOUT The Dahlheimer!
AND COMING IN JANUARY:
MY PERSPECTIVE 3.0
MCE FREE Communications!
CONSTANCE:
5:14 AM
"frank said...
Interesting, mind boggling stuff."
I clicked on "frank" and "frank" is (an AD for) THE UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI
Constance,
Can't wait to see the conference on video. I wish I could have attended! Quite an interesting mix of speakers, all of whom bring a unique perspective to world events.
https://ec.europa.eu/avservices/video/player.cfm?ref=I146553&lg=INT&sublg=none
Lisbon Treaty is getting the implementation they want.
They want it bad.
I can't recommend this book enough by former POTUS Herbert Hoover: "Freedom Betrayed: The Secret History of World War II and Beyond." If you REALLY are interested in how our government operates, this is the book to read. It contains "state secrets" that were purposely withheld from the public, by the Hoover family, for over 50 years.
World War I & II had a devastating effect on the lives of hundreds of millions of people. Forget all the "history" you have been taught about how and why these wars were fought ... we have all been led into believing an incredible amount of lies about these events.
Being that Hoover was a former President, he knew all the main players both here and abroad. He had sources that gave him top secret info for years. He reveals, beyond any shadow of doubt, that it was FDR, working with USSR Dictator Stalin, that denied and or severely delayed much needed supplies to China's army that was fighting the Communist forces of Mao. Via the USSR, Mao was supplied with arms from the USA that were channeled to them by Stalin. There is much more to this story. In effect, we denied the democratic forces in favor of the Communists, which led to over 60 million brutal deaths of innocent Chinese.
There is much, much more! Both FDR and Churchill KNEW that Hitler was no real threat to the USA or Britain. Hitler had virtually no navy, and could never have successfully invaded Britain, let alone the USA on the other side of the Atlantic. Both Churchill and FDR acknowledged this to be true in private ... the opposite of what they stated in public.
From 1933 on, FDR worked behind the scenes to engage the US in a war with Japan and Germany, all the while promising, over and over again, that he would never send "your boys off to fight in some far way foreign war." His economic blockade against Japan was designed to provoke Japan's war party to attack, and it worked. Also, lots of 'insider" evidence to suggest that the Japanese code was completely broken, both the diplomatic and military code ... and they knew Pearl Harbor was the target ... and let it happen in order to rile up the nation for war.
This is an incredible book, by an incredible source. Read it, and you will gain insight into how things really operate behind the scenes. "Spiritual wickedness in high places."
http://www.thedailysheeple.com/watch-cops-beat-innocent-homeless-man-to-a-pulp-because-he-was-sleeping_112017
http://govtslaves.com/2017-11-14-nyt-calls-for-facebook-to-censor-all-pro-life-websites-by-labeling-them-fake-news.html
http://www.naturalnews.com/2017-11-15-trump-nominates-big-pharma-executive-to-run-hhs-proving-government-has-been-hopelessly-corrupted-by-the-drug-industry.html
http://www.activistpost.com//2017/11/10-compelling-reasons-vegas-shooting-disappeared-headlines.html
http://www.activistpost.com//2017/11/effs-street-level-surveillance-project-dissects-police-technology.html
http://thenationalsentinel.com/2017/11/15/dartmouth-college-prof-will-donate-half-of-book-proceeds-to-antifa/
http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/saudi-coup-signals-war-and-the-new-world-order-reset_11152017
Well, I just discovered an amazing resource on line! It is an interactive course taught by Javier Solana on GLOBAL GOVERNANCE and it cost me a whole $29.00. There are videos, English transcripts available (at least if you use the Google translate option to the Spanish course) It is most informative and amazing -- don't know what grades I will get in the course. Rich of Medford has prognosticated that I will probably flunk. He sure is up front about his call for GLOBAL GOVERNANCE -- NOW!!!
The website is called "Coursera". The course is one that Solana teaches at the Esade School of Business in Spain.
Constance
RayB,
I have the Hoover book you recommended. I ordered it via Amazon after reading your review. It is quite a lengthy tome.
Constance
Constance,
I was very glad to read your post. This book is, as you wrote "a lengthy tome" (900 pages), however, it is well worth the effort. Rarely (if ever) does one have the opportunity to read this type of material from such a source as Hoover.
I am very much looking forward to your own take on the book ... it probably won't be for awhile due to its length!
RayB
√ Black Death escalates; DOCTORS struck down...
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/660252/black-death-plague-doctors-madagascar-latest-news-update-disease
√ 'Resilient' to antibiotics...
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/660006/black-death-plague-madagascar-get-worse-antibiotics
√ Kills in 3 HOURS...
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/world-news/660127/new-black-death-outbreak-kill-three-hours-Madagascar-death-toll-video
ATTENTION ALL YOU PERVERTS OUT THERE
http://www.sfchronicle.com/news/world/article/Pope-rebukes-climate-deniers-as-perverse-in-12361964.php
Constance,
Not only do I predict a failing grade but also expulsion.
I recently debated a man who worked for a nationwide trade association for the university systems. He continually graded my comments with an F because 1) universities don't teach about the dangers of the Alliance of Civilizations and 2) my sources originated from "conspiracy theory" web sites. I could not get him to authenticate the United Nations Security Council and the Organization for Security and Co-operation of Europe as legitimate sites which conducted business for those organizations. I considered posting a picture of a book to see if he would authenticate it as being a book.
I expect Solana will be a bit more poised when he expels you.
http://www.naturalnews.com/2017-11-15-youtube-videos-target-children-with-bizarre-mind-altering-narratives-disguised-as-kids-entertainment.html
Constance, brace yourself for a little insult and innuendo.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/fccs-net-neutrality-killing-vote-on-track-for-december-14/
AL FRANKEN SEX ACCUSATIONS
http://www.kabc.com/2017/11/16/leeann-tweeden-on-senator-al-franken/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5089713/Radio-host-former-Playboy-model-Al-Franken-GROPED-her.html
In response to the disturbing allegations made against Franken, Media Equalizer and Media Equality Project Co-Founder Melanie Morgan has come forward to recall her own frightening encounter...
https://mediaequalizer.com/brian-maloney/2017/11/melanie-morgan-after-tv-appearance-al-franken-harassed-me-too
https://newswars.com/secret-service-leak-biden-engaged-in-weinstein-level-groping-of-teens
http://www.blacklistednews.com/NYT_reporter_calls_for_Twitter_to_censor_images_of_Biden_inappropriately_touching_women%2C_children/61682/0/38/38/Y/M.html
Post a Comment