Thursday, August 30, 2018

Remembering Senator John McCain - My personal memories

Today as I watch, a Memorial Service is being held for Senator John McCain at the North Phoenix Baptist Church in Arizona.  I have seen Senator McCain speak on various occasions, but on one notable occasion in July 1983 I met him personally.

The occasion was the International Christian Book Sellers Convention in Washington, D.C., July 12-14, 1983).  I was sitting at a large conference table in a press room where I was being interviewed.  Sitting at the same table was a man who graciously introduced himself to me as a Congressman.  He was a new member of the United States House of Representatives from the State of Arizona.  He introduced himself to me and said he was familiar with my work.  I believe that may have been because in early Spring 1983, I spoke for a week in his district.  I was brought to Phoenix, Arizona by the Arizona Breakfast Club run by local activist Harry Everingham.  I spoke many places that week in the Phoenix and Scottsdale area.  The stint included in several large area churches.  I still treasure the trophy the Arizona Breakfast Club presented me at their Saturday morning meeting.  My Uncle Melvin Butler who lived in Phoenix came to hear me and it was good to see a family member who lived so far away from Fort Wayne, Indiana where I grew up and Michigan my permanent adult residence.

As I recall the conversation, when whoever finished questioning me was finished, Representative McCain spoke up and as I can best recall said, "Mrs. Cumbey, my name is Representative John McCain . . .  More was said but I can't presently recall what was said.  I told him I was happy to meet him, which I, of course, was.

My memory of that encounter with then U.S. Representative John McCain is brief but memorable.  I suspect his interest grew from the Arizona Breakfast Club which clearly was an important part of his base, but I remember him as a pleasant and memorable encounter.

From my personal perspective, he will be missed.  This is not to end the discussion on my last post, which I want to continue, but I thought this was an important memory to share.  It has certainly been on my mind during this past week.

Stay tuned!


1 – 200 of 282   Newer›   Newest»
Constance Cumbey said...

Just found this interesting piece -- 3 forme NATO Secretary Generals, including Javier Solana have recommended that the new NATO headquarters be named in honor of John McCain.


Anonymous said...

Constance, I would genuinely be interested in your feedback on this...

Is Jared Kushner the Antichrist?

Thomas Ivan Dahlheimer said...

May John McCain rest in peace! I hope the new NATO headquarter are named in honor of McCain.

The two pontifical council that produced an on-line document on the New Age mistakenly claim that a form of panentheism that is almost identical to a form of pantheism is New Age panentheism, and that the form of pantheism that is almost identical with it is New Age pantheism. In the document the pontifical councils mistakenly claim that the New Age replaces God the Father with Mother Earth.

There is a form of panentheism that does this, however, it is not New Age panentheism. New Age panentheists believe that God is Spirit and that Its Spirit permeates the entire universe and that It also transcends the universe and is infinite or boundless. They also believe that Spirit immanent in the cosmos is God the Father and that the Spirit transcendent and infinitely beyond the cosmos is the impersonal "unqualified Absolute, transcendent Father beyond the creation." They also believe that Spirit emanated a deific Being who then sinned and became less-that-divine and then created the universe, which is a physical manifestation of its corrupted spiritual Self. They also believe that the spirit or soul of this less-than-divine entity permeates the entire universe - including, in a special way, the entire earth-and physically manifest as the less-than-divine earth, who is referred to as Mother Earth.

Adherents of the form of panentheism that the pontifical councils mistakenly claim is New Age panentheism believe that God is Spirit and that Its Spirit permeates the entire universe and that It also transcends the universe and is infinite or boundless. However, they do not believe that Spirit emanated a deific Being who then sinned and became less-that-divine and then created the universe, and that it is a physical manifestation of its corrupted spiritual Self. They believe that Spirit directly created the universe and that It permeates the entire cosmos and physically manifest as the Divine Universe - and that, in a special way, It (Spirit) permeates the entire earth-and physically manifest as the Divine Earth, and is referred to as Mother Earth. They also believe that Spirit immanent in the creation is the personal God the Father, however, they believe that the Spirit transcendent and infinity beyond the creation is essentially irrelevant and that Spirit in creation, except for the Spirit in the Earth, is also essential irrelevant. Therefore, they believe that God the Father is essentially Mother Earth. They have in effect replaced God the Father with Mother Earth.

Anonymous said...

Not all of us 'worship at the altar of John McCain'... maybe it's time for a refresher course on reality and the FACTS!!!

Must see 45 minute video at the link below...

Gaining a clear perspective on the late John McCain's true political history (as well as the Deep State's war on President Trump, on all of his conservative supporters, and on any alternative media voices who dare to support and defend our President) . . .

Craig said...

Anon 10:20AM and ALL,

I'm not a McCain fan by any stretch--and I do think he may well have been part of the deep state--but straight out of the box ol' Alex Jones comes out with the WHOPPER of a mistake: he claimed McCain, a Republican, ran as VP with Hillary in the last election! I stopped watching after that.

J said...

Anonymous 2:08 AM,

It's mostly based upon somebody in a 2008 David Icke forum claiming a 20-some year old kid had become head of the Illuminati. Then people speculated whether that kid was Jared Kushner. The user who made the claims, babablacksheep, claimed to be part of the Illuminati. This same user deleted most of his own posts. Only a few are preserved quoted in replies. He seems to have denied that Jared Kushner was actually the person he was claiming to have taken over the Illuminati.

He does make interesting references to Project Blue Beam, claiming this about it:

"Project Blue Beam is not designed to 'trick people' into thinking it is real like some people think. Instead, it turns the whole world into Entertainment and the idea is just to 'market' the new world religion like you were marketing Star Wars. They are planning to just make it an entertainment thing that people buy or watch for fun like they would The Simpsons or Star Wars or The Matrix, but it will use real people as Divine Figures."

Researching Project Blue Beam could prove interesting.

Anonymous said...

To Craig @ 1:31 PM

Alex obviously misspoke, Craig (as that made no sense to me either)... but hey, if that's ALL you got out of that entire 45 minute video, then it's quite possible that you had already made up your mind ahead of time that you were going to post a negative response to the video.

J said...

The babablacksheep poster claimed this about Ivanka:

"In Project Blue Beam, The Trump girl from the photo is the one they have chosen to be the New Mother Goddess. She is to be like the Mother of the Prophesied Messiah, like a mix between a modern day Queen Semiramis meets the Holy Mother Mary.

The Trump Family themselves however is not really behind this. She was selected by The Illuminati, of which Donald Trump is NOT a member, nor are any of the rest of her family."

So the claim of babablacksheep actually seems to be that Jared Kushner is the father of the intended Antichrist-to-be.

J said...

(Of course, it's very hard to take the babablacksheep claim seriously, given that the MSM is always down on Ivanka.)

Constance Cumbey said...

Very, very interesting. Why is this blogspot suddenly coming up as "not secure" when it has been an "https" address? Google owns this territory!


Constance Cumbey said...

Without first going to the site that you have requested I view as to my opinion as to whether or not Jared Kushner is the Antichrist, I believe that based on biblical specifications and New Age Theosphical statements (Alice Bailey), I believe he is not and cannot be. First of all, he is married to Ivanka Trump. I've heard no speculation on him being "gay" or "bisexual." One of the prophecies is that "he shall have no regard for the love of women."

There is much unfounded Christian speculation that the Antichrist will be Jewish. There is absolutely no Scriptural authority for that of which I am aware. Moreover, the Lucis (Lucifer) Trust crowd teach that above all their new "Christ" will NOT BE JEWISH.

From The Rays and the Initiatiations by Alice Bailey:

It may interest you to know that the Christ has not
yet decided what type of physical vehicle He will employ
should He take physical form and work definitely upon the
physical plane. He waits to see what nation or group of
nations do the most work, and the most convincing work,
in preparation for His reappearance. He will not, however,
take a Jewish body as He did before, for the Jews have forfeited
that privilege. The Messiah for Whom they wait ·will
be one of Christ's senior disciples, but it will not be, as
originally intended, the Christ. Symbolically, the Jews represent
(from the point of view of the Hierarchy) that from
which all Masters o[ the Wisdom and Lords o( Compassion
emerge: materialism, cruelty and a spiritual conservatism,
\ so that today they Jive in Old Testament times . . .

Page 705, 4th Printing 1972 THE RAYS AND THE INITIATIONS, Lucis Press, New York


RayB said...

Who is the Antichrist?

"… nothing else than the kingdom of Babylon and of very Antichrist. For who is the man of sin and the son of perdition, but he who by his teaching and his ordinances increases the sin and perdition of souls in the church; while he yet sits in the church as if he were God? All these conditions have now for many ages been fulfilled by the papal tyranny." - Martin Luther (Martin Luther, First Principles, pp. 196-197)

"Whereof it followeth Rome to be the seat of Antichrist, and the pope to be very antichrist himself. I could prove the same by many other scriptures, old writers, and strong reasons." - Thomas Cranmer (Works by Cranmer, vol.1, pp.6-7)
Yea, to speak it in plain words; lest that we submit ourselves to Satan, thinking that we submit ourselves to Jesus Christ, for, as for your Roman kirk, as it is now corrupted, and the authority thereof, whereon stands the hope of your victory, I no more doubt but that it is the synagogue of Satan, and the head thereof, called the pope, to be that man of sin, of whom the apostle speaks." - John Knox (John Knox, The History of the Reformation of Religion in Scotland, p.65)

RayB said...

"... In many respects, the Pope has an indisputable claim to those titles. He is, in an emphatical sense, the man of sin, as he increases all manner of sin above measure. And he is, too, properly styled, the son of perdition, as he has caused the death of numberless multitudes, both of his opposers and followers, destroyed innumerable souls, and will himself perish everlastingly. He it is that opposeth himself to the emperor, once his rightful sovereign; and that exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped - Commanding angels, and putting kings under his feet, both of whom are called gods in scripture; claiming the highest power, the highest honour; suffering himself, not once only, to be styled God or vice-God. Indeed no less is implied in his ordinary title, "Most Holy Lord," or, "Most Holy Father." So that he sitteth - Enthroned. In the temple of God - Mentioned Rev. xi, 1. Declaring himself that he is God - Claiming the prerogatives which belong to God alone." - John Wesley (John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon The New Testament, p.216)

RayB said...

"It is the bounden duty of every Christian to pray against Antichrist, and as to what Antichrist is no sane man ought to raise a question. If it be not the popery in the Church of Rome there is nothing in the world that can be called by that name. If there were to be issued a hue and cry for Antichrist, we should certainly take up this church on suspicion, and it would certainly not be let loose again, for it so exactly answers the description."

"Popery is contrary to Christ’s Gospel, and is the Antichrist, and we ought to pray against it. It should be the daily prayer of every believer that Antichrist might be hurled like a millstone into the flood and for Christ, because it wounds Christ, because it robs Christ of His glory, because it puts sacramental efficacy in the place of His atonement, and lifts a piece of bread into the place of the Saviour, and a few drops of water into the place of the Holy Ghost, and puts a mere fallible man like ourselves up as the vicar of Christ on earth; if we pray against it, because it is against Him, we shall love the persons though we hate their errors: we shall love their souls though we loath and detest their dogmas, and so the breath of our prayers will be sweetened, because we turn our faces towards Christ when we pray." - Charles Spurgeon (Michael de Semlyen, All Roads Lead to Rome)

Constance Cumbey said...


Charles Spurgeon is not Scripture and the test of antichrist is not "popery" per se. The biblical test of antichrist is A DENIAL THAT JESUS IS THE CHRIST. The traditional canons of the Catholics (Nicene Creed, Apostles Creed) AFFIRM and not deny that Jesus is the Christ. Some Catholic that awful test, some don't. Some Protesstants meet that test, some don't.


RayB said...


Christ certainly can be professed, whether by creeds, statements of faith, etc., and at the same time deny Him by actions, practices and doctrines that contradict, or negate, the true Christ of the Scriptures. In a very real SPIRITUAL sense, this represents a denial of Christ as the Messiah.

Also, religious, outward appearances can be very misleading. Jesus warned about the "orthodox" religious professors of His day, those that professed belief in the Father, but continually sought to kill Him, the One that was sent by the Father. Judas, by all appearances, was a follower of "the Christ," and yet he betrayed Him and is referred to as the son of perdition. Judas is most certainly a type of Antichrist.

The quotes I provided above are only a small sample of the volumes written on this subject which identify the Papacy as the seat of the Antichrist.

I'll leave you with this ... two verses I am sure you are very familiar with. Jesus was referring obviously to religious people that professed Him, etc. And yet, they were not known by Him. Notice too that their religious works were actually spreading iniquity.

"Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?"

"And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." Matthew 7:22,23


Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

interesting info about John McCain

The accusations of Vigano and the picture painting is ROUTINE info coming out for decades even in past centuries. So I have no doubt it is accurate.

I think the reason the idea was of the antichrist being Jewish is because the tribe of Dan is missign from the 144,000 in Revelation, and in prophecies about the tribes Dan is described as a snake. But it is pure speculation. Dan might have become extinct. The tribal identities of all but priests are lost, but would be known to God regarding any living or records might be found that were hidden that some families might geneaogically connect to. unlikely.

the pope can't be antichrist for the same reasons Jared kushner can't be antichrist. only AN antichrist at most, some individual popes, not THE antichrist.

the bishop who was unsure of the legal status of pedophilia and so forth is obviously weaselilng - even if expressly legal it is in a category of unchastity and as such opposable on Christian grounds. the very fact he would raise the issue of secular legality and that he figured it would fly shows how far the church has fallen to accepting the world's standards intead of judging those standards. it certainly violates the celibacy rule.

"Apparently, this is not the first time Archbishop Vigano has leveled baseless accusations against other prelates. "

Susana, the very stuff you cite doesn't look baseless at all. on the face of it.
"HOW exactly does Massimo Faggioli KNOW the heart of Vigano, i.e. his "motives?""

idiot, our Lord Jesus Christ says you can know the heart for out of it a man speaks. Also there are microgestures microexpressions and body language a good interrogator and someone versed in romanita and suchlike covertness as a way of life would know. once I asked someone to show me Scripture saying o one but God can know someone's heart, and Iwas given verses that say God knows this but NOT that only God can know (though likely God can know more than any creature being omniscient) these merely assert that the One you think knows nothing because invisible so out of your sight out of your thoughts, in fact knows all.

it would be nice of these bible believers who ponhtificate wouild actually read the Bible big sections at one sitting and ignore interpretations handed out by the pop magisterium of preachers and writers.

"think it needs to be pointed out that the credibility of Archbishop Vigano's accusations against Pope Francis stand or fall on whether Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI imposed sanctions on Cardinal McCarrick. "

and Susanna asks why it would be done secretly asclaimed - OBVIOUSLY to avoid scandal since these unspeakable creatures crawled out from under a rock somewhere desire only a good reputation and not good reality.

J said...

Protestants have been calling popes anti-Christs for centuries. These days they're more likely to say the last pope will be the False Prophet in an "unholy trinity". Not that I'm saying I agree with it. It's just interpretation and speculation.

J said...

One thing to keep in mind is that many different peoples have to accept the anti-Christ. The Muslims, the Jews, the Christians, the New Agers, atheists who believe in "Ancient Aliens", and Eastern populations who follow Hinduism and Buddhism. Is it likely that all of those groups would accept the Pope as the Messiah? And Protestants would never do it.

The Bible says the very elect would be deceived if it were possible. It doesn't seem likely for Protestants to be deceived about the Pope any time soon. Would that mean Protestants are not among the elect? It just doesn't add up.

RayB said...

Who will be deceived into believing in the Antichrist, and who will it be that will cause their eyes to be blinded in order to accept the Antichrist? Does the Bible provide us with an answer, or, should we just rely on the vain speculations of men?

II Thessalonians 2: 3-12 describes the falling away (apostasy) and that the "man of sin ... the son of perdition" shall be revealed. While reading this, nowhere is there an indication as to the amount of time that this period of the apostasy encompasses.

Here is the key point as to WHO will it be that accept the lies of the Antichrist ... "Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders. And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; BECAUSE THEY RECEIVED NOT THE LOVE OF THE TRUTH, THAT THEY MIGHT BE SAVED. AND FOR THIS CAUSE GOD SHALL SEND THEM STRONG DELUSION, THAT THEY SHOULD BELIEVE A LIE: THAT THEY ALL MIGHT BE DAMNED WHO BELIEVED NOT THE TRUTH, BUT HAD PLEASURE IN UNRIGHTEOUSNESS." II Thes. 2:9-12

It is unmistakable that those that will accept the Antichrist are those that God knows does NOT possess the LOVE OF THE TRUTH. As a judgment against them, God will send them "strong delusion" so that, as a judgment against them, they will
"believe a lie."

Do you want to be among those that will not be deceived? Then LOVE the truth ... ALL TRUTH. Ask God to have mercy upon you and give you a heart and mind that loves the truth, and then be prepared to humble yourself and allow God's word to be the authoritative source for truth.

"Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In ALL THY WAYS acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths." Proverbs 3: 5,6

PS: block letters used by me for emphasis.

J said...


It seems like the New Agers and the Leftists have the strongest delusions.

I don't overall agree with all of Breitbart's narratives, but they at least do a good job of documenting Leftists looniness.

I really don't see this level of delusion among Catholics. Just how nitpicky do you think God is? It says He is not willing that any should perish.

Did you know that Jews who accept Jesus view Protestants in a similar manner to the way Protestants view Catholics? Some of them even say that the very word "God" refers to Baal and is pagan, for just one example.

Did Jesus really seem so legalistic and technical and demanding of semantic and symbolic purity in every way?

Just yesterday was another good example of a story about Leftist looniness:

UK Police to Treat Diversity Promotion Like ‘Critical Incident’, Forces Set to ‘Embed Equality into All Activities’

Susanna said...


Re: I think the reason the idea was of the antichrist being Jewish is because the tribe of Dan is missign from the 144,000 in Revelation, and in prophecies about the tribes Dan is described as a snake. But it is pure speculation. Dan might have become extinct. The tribal identities of all but priests are lost, but would be known to God regarding any living or records might be found that were hidden that some families might geneaogically connect to. unlikely.

the pope can't be antichrist for the same reasons Jared kushner can't be antichrist. only AN antichrist at most, some individual popes, not THE antichrist.

The idea of THE antichrist being Jewish originates not only with with the tradition that the tribe of Dan, having fallen most grievously into idolatry, was eliminated from the Jewish fold as reprobate, but also with fact that the Jewish people would not accept antichrist unless he WERE> Jewish. Can anyone who has studied the Gospels as well as the rest of the Bible really think for a moment that the Jewish people would accept a gentile as their "Messiah?" Duh!!!

As for the idea of a pope being AN antichrist, you are right. Historically, there have already been some bad actors who have occupied the chair of Peter. However, the validity of the Christian faith does not depend on the personal sanctity of those who are charged with the mission of preaching and teaching it - including those Russian Orthodox Patriarchs Kyrill and his predecessor Alexy I (code name 'Drozdov' (Thrush)), who were both KGB agents. It depends on Christ.

Not to worry. I know you are Greek Orthodox!

One of the first priorities of your Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I has been is on rebuilding the once-persecuted Eastern Orthodox Churches of the former Eastern Bloc following the fall of Communism there in 1990. As part of this effort he has worked to strengthen ties amongst the various national Churches and Patriarchates of the Eastern Orthodox Communion. He has also continued the reconciliation dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church started by his predecessors, and initiated dialogue with other faiths, including other Christian sects, Muslims, and Jews.

Fearing the new initiative by the Russian Orthodox Patriarchate in the direction of achieving Russian hegemony over all of Orthodoxy, Patriarch Bartholomew has forged closer ties with the Catholic Popes. In fact, when Pope Francis became pope, Patriarch Bartholomew accepted the invitation to attend the Pope's installation Mass......the first time that an Orthodox Patriarch has attended a papal investiture since the two branches of Christianity split nearly 1,000 years ago.

Russian Patriarch Kirill was also invited but did not attend.


Susanna said...


As I have said in other posts to this blog, Russian Patriarch Kirill regards Moscow as the "Third Rome."

Regarding the Russian Orthodox hegemony issue, the following is from Forbes:

The recent meeting in Havana between Pope Francis and the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Kirill held importance far beyond religion and historic church splits. The geopolitical reasons Russia wanted the meeting, and historical roots of Russia’s geopolitical play, which are wrapped up in Russia’s sacralized sense of national identity, are far more interesting.

Firstly, the impression was given in some of the media that Kirill, Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC), is the leader of the world’s Orthodox believers – an impression encouraged by Kirill and Vladimir Putin, both of whom have a vested interest in seeing Kirill’s stature enhanced.

The leader of Eastern Orthodoxy, known as the “first among equals,” is the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople (Istanbul), who has been Patriarch since 1991.
… entire article...

The following is from the National Review:

Pope Francis and the Russian Patriarch Will Meet, as Ukrainian Catholics Watch and Wait

The announcement that Pope Francis will meet with Kirill, Russian Orthodox patriarch of Moscow, in Cuba on February 12 is, paradoxically, both a Big Deal and something that ought to have become routine by now. It’s a big deal, in that the Bishop of Rome has never met before with the leader of Russian Orthodoxy (who, like his predecessors, thinks of himself as the patriarch of the “Third Rome”). At the same time, this first meeting should have happened long ago, such that meetings between the pope and the Russian patriarch would be routine: important but regular exchanges of views on questions of mutual interest, like those the pope regularly conducts with other Christian entire article...

J said...


Here is an example of somebody with a Jewish background who accepted Jesus but who finds the Protestant faith to be full of apostasy and idolatry. My point is that if one tries hard enough, it is possible to do something similar to Protestants, as Protestants sometimes do to Catholics.

Actually I'm not certain if this writer is Jewish or is just very serious about Hebrew roots, but he seems very well versed in Hebrew.

This same author also places extreme importance on proper transliteration of "Yeshua" into English from Hebrew and says that "Jesus" renders it incorrectly.



"The three Scriptures I want us to look at relate to a place in Syria called Baal Gad.

'Thus Joshua took all this land: the mountain country, and all the South, and all the land of Goshen, and the low country, and the desert plain, and the mountains of Yisrael and its low lands, from Mount Halak that goes up to Seir, and as far as Baal Gad in the valley of Lebanon below Mount Hermon…,' Josh. 11:16-17.

'And these are the kings of the land which Joshua and the children of Israel smote beyond the Jordan, on the west, from Baal Gad in the valley of Lebanon as far as Mount Halak that goes up to Seir, which Joshua gave to the tribes of Israel as a possession according to their divisions,' Josh. 12:7.

'And the land of the Gebalites, and all Lebanon toward the sunrise, from Baal Gad below Mount Hermon as far as the entrance to Hamath,' Josh. 13:5.



"Here is where Satan has played word games to deceive the whole world into worshipping a false Babylonian deity of Fortune! But who is really being worshipped behind the name of this ancient idol Baal-Gad? And how has Satan accomplished this so easily? Word Games! Remember Acts 4:12 (Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven whereby we must be saved. Remember that Yahushua also said, '...if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.' (John 5:43)

Notice under Strong’s #1167, one of the definitions of the word Baal into English is lord!"


"Notice how the Masorites vowel pointed the word Gad in Hebrew in 1409 like this: גָד: When pointed like this, the word is pronounced Gawd or God or god in Hebrew. Now if we translate Baal Gad into English what does it become? Does it not become LORD GOD? Or lord god? Or Lord God? The capitalization doesn’t change the sound of the word in any way and even so the fact is Baal Gad is the Lord God who is Lord Satan or Master Satan!"

RayB said...


Your "somebody with a Jewish background that accepted Jesus" sounds like he's missing a few cards from his deck.

There were these types during Jesus' time, Jews that "professed" belief in Jesus, but were "children of the Devil" (Christ's words ... not mine). Carefully read John Chapter 8. Your "somebody" sounds like he would fit right in with that crowd.

Thomas Ivan Dahlheimer said...

Source Theosophy Wiki:

Besides using the word Lucifer in connection with the King of Babylon, in the above-mentioned passage from Isaiah, the same term is used by the Vulgate in connection with the High-Priest Simon, son of Onias (Ecclesiasticus, 1, 6), and is applied to the “glory of Heaven” (Apoc., ii, 28), and even to Jesus Christ himself (II Peter, i, 19; Apoc., xxii, 16). In the Exultet (liturgy of Holy Saturday), the Church uses the title of Lucifer in connection with its Saviour, and expresses the hope that this “early morning Lucifer” will find the Easter-candle burning bright, he who knows no decline and who, returning from Hell, sheds his brilliant light upon mankind.

Anonymous said...

J @ 2:15 P.M. said

"Did you know that Jews who accept Jesus view Protestants in a similar manner to the way Protestants view Catholics"?


My family is part Jewish on my mothers side. I have been a part of one messianic congregation, and two Protestants congregations were the pastor was Jewish. None of them viewed Protestants in a similar manner to the way Protestants view Catholics!!!

You would be hardpressed to find a more diverse group of people when it comes to belief, than the Jews. My wife is Jewish and she is from a hard core hillbilly, red neck family! Atheists, one practicing satanist, witches, new agers, gun toting libertarians, agnostics, buddists, hasidics, and catholics. All these Jews on this list, have either been my next door neighbors, co-workers, family, or schoolmates.

You cannot lump ALL Jews who accept Jesus into your 2:15 P.M. statement!

J said...

Anonymous 2:15,

I stand corrected, and I hope you will accept my apology. I should not have generalized on the basis of one web site.

Anonymous said...

The McCain family showed their true colors, towards more than just President Trump, didn't they? They requested and received, after Lindsay Graham was told by the President to tell the McCain family, they had whatever they needed at their disposal after his passing. The President reached out to them first, despite all the past back and forth between John McCain and himself. His actions ended up speaking louder than his words did.

McCain was a very sore loser, a bitter man, and stayed bitter to the very end. That showed up in his politics to even go against stands he had taken earlier just because he was vindictive. He made it about himself and the American people were poorly served in his personal agenda from the Senate floor.
That is all I need to know about him, and that in my mind, will remain his legacy.
That was not a good way to go out.

Anonymous said...

Silence has proved so helpful. NOT.

J said...

Anonymous 9:44,

My above reply to Anonymous 2:15 was intended for you.

J said...

Thomas Dahlheimer 8:53 AM,

Later Christian tradition came to use the Latin word for "morning star", lucifer, as the proper name ("Lucifer") of the Devil as he was before his fall.[26] As a result, "Lucifer has become a byword for Satan or the Devil in the church and in popular literature",[4] as in Dante Alighieri's Inferno, Joost van den Vondel's Lucifer, and John Milton's Paradise Lost.[18] However, unlike the English word, the Latin word was not used exclusively in this way and was applied to others also, including Jesus.[27]

Anonymous said...

Re: John McCain

There are two sides to John McCain: a kind person, at rare times, and when it comes to politics, a long-time member of the deep state.

Youtube and the internet are full of accounts of McCain's life including the killing of 134 and injuring 160 of the men who served with him while "showboating" on the carrier to which he was assigned, to blocking actions to return MIAs from Vietnam, to supporting open borders, to promising to remove Obamacare while campaigning then voting against removal of Obamacare after being elected, etc, etc.

Also search the internet for the story of the failed "red flag" attack on the USS Liberty by the U.S., sailing in the Mediterranean, when his father was Naval Commander over the Mediterranean at the time.

Dave in CA

Dan Bryan said...

McCain is a spoiled brat.
The best of John McCain does not fall far from the tree.

I received the testimony of a first hand account of the the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty.
Petty officer 1st Class Margolis (of Jewish decent) stated that the liberty was flying the largest ensign (flag) and could be seen at great distances. There was no mistaking the USS Liberty as a USA naval vessel.

John McCain, Senator behaved with treason at the Hainoi Hilton.
Had he not had that yellow streak down his neck, he may have died like so many of his other captive shipmates.
The whitewashing of McCain's history started early and often.
Some people never deserved or earned the honor of the table from which they eat.

Retired Army Colonel Earl Hopper, a veteran of World War II, Korea and Vietnam, contends that the information that McCain divulged classified information North Vietnam used to hone their air defense system…McCain told his North Vietnamese captors, “highly classified information, the most important of which was the package routes, which were routes used to bomb North Vietnam. He gave in detail the altitude they were flying, the direction, if they made a turn… he gave them what primary targets the United States was interested in.” Hopper contends that the information McCain provided allowed the North Vietnamese to adjust their air-defenses. As result, Hopper claims, the US lost sixty percent more aircraft and in 1968, “called off the bombing of North Vietnam, because of the information McCain had given to them.”

McCain did not deserve the honors given to him at his wake, he was a trader and a war criminal.

Anonymous said...

.... Correction - the USS Liberty was attacked by Israel with the help of the U.S.

Dave in CA

J said...

On another note, I'm reviving a discussion about Russian thinking. Previously Craig had spoken about balance between the individual and community. Since the context was Lauren Southern interviewing Dugin, I was very negative about it.

When Susanna said something about Moscow being the third Rome, it startled me and got me researching it. I ended up reading about Russian Christian thinking in the age of Dostoevsky, although that wasn't specifically what I was looking for.

I ended up being fascinated by Russian culture, like one of my aunts before me. I never understood why she loved it so much. Now I think I'm starting to get it. This statement was appealing to me:

"For the Orthodox Christian a man’s identity is found in his communion, through the heart, with God, the environment and his fellow man. An Orthodox Christian does not say 'I think therefore I am.' Instead he says 'I Love therefore I am.' His thinking mind is an agent of his Being, rather than the source of his being."

As far as Dugin's Eurasianism and Dugin himself, I remain suspicious. But I have a newfound interest in Russian Christian thought during the age of Dostoevsky.

This is what interests me about Russian Christian thought a la Dostoevsky, though. It has an answer to industrialization and the Enlightenment that does not involve hippy dippy New Age responses. It was just a different kind of cultural response to Christianity than what developed in the West.

Of course I can't endorse the whole ball of wax. It's not as if I would want a monarch instead of a democracy or anything like that. And I definitely don't want Moscow to be the "third Rome". But it got me wanting to study it further.

This was the article.

Craig said...

Jack Dorsey, CEO of Twitter, is making a trip to DC for 2 senate intel hearings regarding “election integrity”. By an amazing “coincidence” a number of Twitter users who had been shadow-banned are no longer shadow-banned. Methinks it’s a temporary thing, but I know I can be pessimistic at times:

Twitter Silently Lifts Shadowbans Right Before CEO Is Interviewed Before Senate and House

Thomas Ivan Dahlheimer said...

Alice and Foster Bailey were serious students and teachers of Theosophy, a spiritual tradition which views Lucifer as one of the solar Angels, those advanced Beings Who Theosophy says descended (thus “the fall”) from Venus to our planet eons ago to bring the principle of mind to what was then animal-man. In the theosophical perspective, the descent of these solar Angels was not a fall into sin or disgrace but rather an act of great sacrifice, as is suggested in the name “Lucifer” which means light-bearer.

The Solar Angels were called in “to serve as a medium between the highest and lowest” aspects of the human entity and, specifically to nurture the development of manas. During the long period of that development each Solar Angel oversees the mental evolution of its charge, acting as an agent of the Monad. It continues to perform this task until the human soul can take over the Angel’s responsibilities.

With the withdrawal of the Solar Angel, the now-empowered human soul is “brought into the Presence of that aspect of Himself which is called ‘His Father in Heaven.’ He is brought face to face with his own Monad, that pure spiritual essence on the highest plane but one, which is to his Ego or higher self what that Ego is to the personality or lower self.” The Tibetan elaborates thus:

The solar angel hitherto contacted has withdrawn himself, and the form through which he functioned (the egoic or causal body) has gone, and naught is left but love-wisdom and that dynamic will which is the prime characteristic of Spirit. The lower self has served the purposes of the Ego, and has been discarded; the Ego likewise has served the purposes of the Monad, and is no longer required, and the initiate stands free of both, fully liberated and able to contact the Monad, as earlier he learned to contact the Ego.

That is, we could not be called “men” until the Solar Angels implanted and, through direct involvement, activated manas in our “mindless” ancestors. On the other hand, the teachings state many times that this intervention occurred after our long evolutionary journey began and that the Solar Angels will depart before our journey —even this phase of it— comes to an end...

Through the energy of the fifth ray, which is "essentially a light-bearer", the evolution of humanity is hastened, bringing about the descent of the Kingdom of God to Earth as a result of the ascent of so many taking initiation in this age. The fact that The Secret Doctrine equates Venus with Gaia (Earth), and the awakening consciousness of the Gaia theory recognizes that Earth is a living and unified organism, suggests that humanity may now be beginning to awaken and cooperate somewhat with the reason for which the angels descended into matter: for the salvaging of substance and the awakening of mind in form so that the Purpose of Deity could be registered and expressed in substance. The solar angels "fell" as an act of choice and of supreme sacrifice on behalf of humanity. Those "Lords of Knowledge and Compassion and of ceaseless persevering Devotion" are ourselves, and we in turn must consciously choose to take control of our incarnation in form, seeking Purpose and thereby rendering life on Earth a gift of sacrifice to the lesser lives dependent on our care.

Christ said, "I am the bright morning star". His promise, and the legacy of the presence on Earth of all such "light bearers", may best be summarized in the following words: H. P. Blavatsky wrote that "in all the ancient cosmogonies light comes from darkness". And Alice Bailey expressed a similar recognition in the following words: "The Master M. . . adds darkness unto light so that the stars appear, for in the light the stars shine not, but in the darkness light diffused is not, but only focused points of radiance." (The Rays and the Initiations, p. 170)

J said...

Occult Theocrasy, first published in 1933.

This is from the forward. When I read it, I felt wistful that there was a time when this state of things was in contrast to how it was before...a time when Christian civilization had not yet broken down so much.

"Today, most of the good people are afraid to be good. They strive to be broadminded and tolerant! It is fashionable to be tolerant — but mostly tolerant of evil — and this new code has reached the proportions of demanding intolerance of good. The wall of resistance to evil has thus been broken down and no longer affords protection to those who, persecuted by evil doers, stand in need of it.

Worse still, there are cases wherein virtuous people's good name is relentlessly filched from them, but no effort will be made by the presumed good people to rally to their defence. Happy are they if they themselves can discover the cause of their ruin, materiel or moral, either partial or total."

Susanna said...


You might want to consider reading THE DEVILS by Fyodor Dostoyevsky. It is based on the real life story of a murder committed by Sergei Netchayev, a Russian revolutionary associated with the Nihilist movement and known for his single-minded pursuit of revolution by any means necessary, including terrorism.

Netchayev, who was a disciple of Mikhail Bakunin and very possibly Bakunin's lover, was the author of the radical Catechism of a Revolutionary.

Prominent Black Panther of the 20th century Eldridge Cleaver adopted the "Catechism" as a "revolutionary bible", incorporating it into his daily life to the extent that he employed, in his words, "tactics of ruthlessness in my dealings with everyone with whom I came into contact". ( Avrich, Paul (1986). The Haymarket Tragedy Princeton: Princeton University Press. p. 13 )

One aspect of the book I found particularly interesting is the way in which Peter Verkhovensky tries to persuade the minor aristocrat Nikolai Stavrogin, the central character of the novel, to assume the fictitious identity of "Ivan the Crown Prince" and become a kind of Russian pseudo-messiah in order to serve as mouthpiece for the stepped-up world socialist cause in Russia. Peter Verkhovensky is the "Sergei Netchayev" of the novel.

Peter says that to chatter eloquently and liberally is a pleasant past time, but a vote is in order. We soon witness the majority of voices crying out that, “All, all,” are in favor of the quick solution, even the most “humanitarian,” whom Verkhovensky turns to and mockingly says, “He’s ready to argue for six months to show off his liberal eloquence, but he ends up by voting with the rest!” (410). Voegelin reminds us that, “historically, the murder of God is not followed by the superman, but by the murder of man: the deicide of the gnostic theoreticians [Stepan Verkhovensky, for instance] is followed by the homicide of the revolutionary practitioners” (Voegelin 43). Peter certainly steps forth as the revolutionary leader of the group, but does he himself have a prescription for a new order? Is he a modern gnostic who displays a “readiness to come forward as a prophet who will proclaim his knowledge about the salvation of mankind” (Voegelin 60)?

After using this approval as a pretext to sanction a planned political murder, Peter exits the party along with Stavrogin. The two leaders discuss large-scale social organization further, and Verkhoveksy says that the Shigalyov order is something too “exquisite,” that its author is an “aesthete,” that they want something more “immediate, something more thrilling” (419). We see here the growing chasm between the mild speculative gnosticism of his father Stepan, and his own activist mysticism. Charged with a prophetic furor, he proposes several stages: first, destruction, upheaval, “such a to-do as the world has never seen . . . The earth will weep for its old gods” and then they will let loose “Ivan the Crown-prince,” a fictional name for Stavrogin, who, like Peter, belongs to the revolutionary sect (422). The Crown-prince, Peter says, will be “in hiding,” and they will spread a legend about him, a legend that “a new force is coming . . . After all, what does socialism amount to? It has destroyed the old forces, but hasn’t put any new ones in their place. But here we have a force, a tremendous force, something unheard of. We need only to lift up the earth. Everything will rise up” (423).


Susanna said...


Ironically, Peter himself composes a legend, signaling the necessity of myths for gnostic politics, speculative or activist. Ivan will serve as a messianic leader. Everyone will hear that he is in hiding, and then suddenly that “We’ve seen him!” that “the leader of the flagellants, Ivan…has been seen, too, ascending into heaven on a chariot in the presence of a multitude of people” (423). Ivan, “proud as a god,” is hiding with the “halo of the victim around [his] head,” and he is “bearing a new truth” (423). At this pinnacle, then, “the whole earth will resound with the cry, ‘A new and righteous law is coming,’ and the sea will be in a turmoil and the whole trumpery show will crash to the ground, and then we shall consider how to erect an edifice of stone. For the first time; We shall build it, we alone” (423).

The persistence of the religious in this passage is remarkable, and Verkhovensky reveals himself as an activist mystic par excellence. Dissatisfied with his situation, with the slow reforms of socialism, he clings to a “tremendous force, something unheard of,” something that will lift up the very earth. No one but the gnostics have heard of this force that will lift the world into salvation, and so they must compose a legend as an exoteric measure, to persuade the multitudes. The legend emphasizes that Ivan the Crown-prince is incarnate. He has been seen, like Elijah, ascending into heaven, but is on earth— though he is in hiding. In this way, the gnostic promises that the immanentization of the visio beatifica has begun, even if it has not unfolded dialectically within history: the “new law” is imminent, and will be immanent. Stavrogin, whom Peter hopes will assume the persona of “Ivan the Crown-prince,” calls it “madness” (424). Verkhovenskty is extremely dejected, for Stavrogin has been the model for his entire religio-political fiction. Devastated, Peter cries out “I can’t give you up now. There’s no one like you in the whole world! I invented you . . . I invented it all while looking at you” (424)…..

It is interesting to note that something similar was attempted with King Louis XVI after the French Revolution. In 1792, when Louis XVI was induced to sign a constitution, he was also made to wear the "bonnet rouge" - the "Phrygian" or "Liberty" cap.....probably with a view to conferring legitimacy on their cause.

Constance Cumbey said...

To Thomas Dahlheimer:

Concisely and bluntly, the "solar angels" to which you and other Theosophically minded people allude are demons!


J said...

Susanna 7:11 PM,

The Devils is one I haven't read yet. I've read Crime and Punishment and The Brothers Karamazov. The Devils sounds very good, too. The true history of Sergei Netchayev is fascinating. The whole theme and plot of the novel as you describe it is "trippy". Dostoevsky remains very relevant.

Susanna said...

J, 12:49 PM,

The whole Dostoyevskian theme is indeed "trippy." Dostoyevsky's novels were psychological/spiritual novels.

Dostoyevsky's novel THE IDIOT was another compelling novel and one of Dostoyevsky's best. In this novel, Dostoyevsky tried to depict "the positively good and beautiful man." One of the more colorful characters in the novel is a drunken rogue named Lebedyev who styles himself as "equal to the foremost in the land" - and all on account of his shady career as self-styled "interpretor of the Apocalypse."

Re: The true history of Sergei Netchayev is fascinating.

Again, Sergei was a disciple of Mikhail Bakunin. Mikhail Bakunin was a self professed Satanist and anarchist who romanticised Satan as "the eternal rebel, the first freethinker and the emancipator of worlds." ( God and the State )

At one time, Bakunin was friends with Richard Wagner and fought with Wagner on the barricades during an uprising in Dresden in 1849.

It is generally accepted that Dostoevsky modeled his revolutionary Stavrogin in The Devils, in part, on Bakunin. According to Janko Lavrin in Tolstoy: An Approach Bound with Dostoevsky, “Dostoevsky saw and heard [Bakunin] on September 9, 1867, in Geneva, during the congress of the International League of Peace and Freedom. The discussions he had witnessed at the congress must have stirred up in him quite a number of ideas later embodied in his novel” [The Devils, aka The Possessed, aka, The Demons].

Susanna said...



In THE IDIOT, if Lebedyev's shady career as self-styled "interpretor of the Apocalypse" leads him to regard himself "equal to the foremost in the land," it is not because he has inspired anyone to strive for greater holiness. It is because he has been so adept at providing the cultural and social elite with "a remarkably clever diversion."

paul said...

You quote Jesus as saying that he is the bright and morning star.
It's interesting that you should quote Jesus at a place in the Bible where he has already been crucified, dead and buried, and then risen from the dead! Your quoting him from heaven itself and ostensibly agreeing with him, ( so that you can twist the meaning into a pretzel ), _your quoting him from that position, pretty much blows everything else you say out of the water and exposes it as fraud and lies.
If Jesus died and then rose from the dead and ascended into heaven to sit at the right hand of God the Father, then who cares one whit about what the wizard and witch combo of Foster and Alice Bailey have to say ?
Get real Thomas.
It's also interesting that the verse immediately before the verse that you quote, says that anyone who loves and makes a lie is accursed. They are right there with the murderers, whoremongers, sorcerers and witches and idolaters. (Revelations 22:15,16)

It's so typical of people like you to read, say, the first ten chapters of Genesis, and then the last chapter of Revelations, _and nothing in between, (other than the two or three verses that Alice Bailey built her whole mountain of nonsense on.
The Baileys are dead; they were dead the whole time.
Jesus is alive and sitting at the right hand of God Almighty.

paul said...

I'd sooner follow Foster Brooks than Foster Bailey

Craig said...

In response to the following video, I think Trump would say, “Fantastic”, and Jesse Lee Peterson would say, “That’s amazin’”. Some Swedish men still have the testicular fortitude to speak out boldly about the unwanted invasion by non-assimilators, who’d come to leach off the state. This new political party, made up of mostly young Swedes (men and women) doesn’t want to merely stem the flow of un-assimilating immigrants; they are running on a platform of repatriation:

Sweden's REAL Alternative

Published on Sep 5, 2018

WotW takes a look at Sweden's upcoming election and finds an exciting new nationalist alternative!

Craig said...

Another video in the same vein:

Alternative For Sweden's Jeff Ahl - Islam Is A Divide And Conquer Tool Of The Globalists

Published on Sep 4, 2018

AfD has it right. SWEXIT. Video Date June 17, 2018.

The 'divide and conquer' comment is absolutely correct.

paul said...

God bless the AfD!
Thanks for the links.

J said...

EU Enters “Final Stage” of Crafting Bill Forcing Big Tech Censorship

Anonymous said...

FYI ~ Sharing an excellent article from today's Spirit Daily (09/07/18) . . .

The Church's Armageddon

For those Catholics who are discouraged ~

Purification is good. Sanctity is the goal.

The Church is not about men in it; it was founded by God; it is about Jesus.

Anonymous said...

Posted on the Drudge Report (September 8, 2018)...

Bible prophecy FULFILLED as first ‘red heifer born in 2,000 YEARS' signaling END OF DAYS

A BIBLICAL prophecy has been fulfilled as a “red heifer” was born signaling the end of days and the coming of the Messiah in both Christianity and Judaism.

Thomas Ivan Dahlheimer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Thomas Ivan Dahlheimer said...

Robert Muller (1923–2010) was an international civil servant with the United Nations. Serving with the UN for 40 years and rising to the rank of Assistant Secretary-General, his ideas about world government, world peace and spirituality led to the increased representation of religions in the UN, especially of New Age Movement. He was known by some as "the philosopher of the United Nations." Muller was a disciple of New Age prophetess Alice Bailey and she was a disciple of Helena Blavatsky, the Mother of the New Age movement. Muller wrote: "Hindus call our earth Brahma, or God, for they rightly see no difference between our earth and the divine." This is one reason why leading Christian opponents of the New Age believe and teach that the New Age religion is an Earth worshiping religion.

Helena Blavatsky said that "the One Infinite Divine Principle is undefinable and indescribable but that the ancient Hindu teaching about Brahman comes closest to the reality."

Brahman is composed of three principle gods, Shiva, Vishnu and Brahma. Shiva and Vishnu are Divine and they are One, they are Spirit. Spirit created Brahma, or God.

Paramahansa Yogananda, who is widely regarded as the Father of yoga (Hinduism) in the West, wrote: "The word 'God' means the manifested, transcendental Being beyond creation, but existing in relation to creation. Spirit [Shiva and Vishnu who are One] existed before God [Brahma]. God [Brahma] is the Creator of the universe, but Spirit [Shiva and Vishnu who are One] is the Creator of God [Brahma]."

The Hindu scriptures teach that after Spirit created God Brahma He sinned. A Hindu scripture says that after Brahma sinned Spirit (Shiva) told him that he would "NEVER BE WORSHIPED." The less-than divine Brahma then created the universe. Or, in other words, he manifest himself as the universe. Hindus and New Agers do not worship Brahma, who is the universe. And neither do Hindus and New Agers worship Brahma's earthly manifestation, or the Earth.

Anonymous said...

6:36 P.M.

The Church is not about men in it, it was founded by God; it is about Jesus.

If it were about the real Jesus, and not the catholic version, then the men in it would not, to the incredible magnitude they have, destroyed the lives of innocent little children! The catholic cult was not founded by God, but rather satan!

Anonymous said...

Purification is good. Sanctity is the goal.---- 6:36 P.M.

Salvation, Righteousness,Purification, Sanctity, are found in Christ alone. Not in a religious system.

Anonymous said...

The Catholic Church was founded in 33 AD by Jesus Christ HIMSELF... when He said the following words: "I say unto you, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and THE GATES OF HELL SHALL NOT PREVAIL AGAINST IT." (Matthew 16:18)

Anonymous said...

Out of 1.2 BILLION Catholics... the majority of us remain focused in our faith on our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ... NOT on FLAWED human beings. We KNOW that GOD sees the big picture... and that HE will clean up this mess according to His timetable (not ours). Things may have to get a lot worse... before they get better. A chastisement for the entire world may be coming soon.

paul said...

Dear Anonymous,
The Roman Catholic Church was founded by men. The Roman authority is exactly who murdered Jesus! Why would you take marching orders from Rome? Did Jesus ever even mention Rome? There isn't even any indisputable proof that Peter was ever in Rome!
Catechism? Confirmation? Indulgences? a two minute confession to a "priest? A Pope? Penance? Cardinals? Where are any of these things in the Bible? Purple and scarlet. Golden chalices. On and on.
"Call no man on earth Father." There is one father and he is in heaven. Mary is blessed among women, but she is not part of the Godhead. She died and she awaits the judgement just like the rest of us. Heaven has no queen and God has no mother.
What Jesus said to Peter could be interpreted in a number of ways. If that is your only proof that the Catholic Church is the "only true church" then you are standing on very shaky ground; more like quicksand. Keep your faith but jettison your bondage.
If the gates of hell could never prevail against your Roman denomination, then what is all this HELL doing prevailing against your Roman church with all these pedophile, homosexual priests by the thousands?
The gates of hell do indeed prevail against the Roman Catholic cult right now!
You've got more unscriptural doctrines in your cult, er, church, than any Morman or Jehovah's Witnesses church ever dreamt of.

I do believe you when you say that most Catholics are focused on Jesus, and not not flawed human beings. But there comes a time when you have to let go of what amounts to man-made religion. The Pope is a flawed human being; in this case an extremely flawed human being. And this is not something new. The abuse and the sodomy go way way back through the centuries. The Jesuits are downright evil, and have been since their inception. The Jesuits have murdered millions.
"Come out of her, my people and do not partake in her sins."
Read Matthew 23 and see the parallel between the temple power at that time and the Roman power now. The priests were corrupt, yet they still taught the truth! Jesus told his followers to "do as they say but not as they do." They were hypocrites and so are the modern Roman "Priests".

Anonymous said...

Here is a news flash for you, Anonymous 11:19 PM...

The Catholic Church did not INVENT sexual abuse. It is happening in ALL of the churches (Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim). It is happening in the public schools, the boy scouts, the Amish community, within families behind closed doors.

Why??? Because Satan knows his time is short... and he is very busy trying to 'divide and conquer' (loving it when Christians bash each other on blogs and eat their own).

The New Agers especially love to see Protestant Evangelicals going after the Catholics... foolishly HOPING that Catholics will renounce their UNSHAKEABLE Catholic faith and join the ONE WORLD RELIGION. But, that is NEVER going to happen. So, Protestants... get off your superior collective high horses, learn some humility, stay in your own lane... and just worry about saving your OWN immortal souls!!!

Anonymous said...

WOW, Paul @ 11:19 PN... are you ever confused!!!

In 33 AD, in addition to choosing Peter to be the first POPE (in a long UNBROKEN line of Popes right up to the present)...
Jesus also chose / hand picked His 12 disciples to be His first PRIESTS. These men were humble fishermen (they were NOT the ROMAN soldiers who crucified Him!!!)

Matthew 4:19-22
And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.
And they straightway left their nets, and followed him.
And going on from thence, he saw other two brethren, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, in a ship with Zebedee their father, mending their nets; and he called them.
And they immediately left the ship and their father, and followed him.

Anonymous said...

By the way...

The long UNBROKEN line of Popes of the Catholic Church (from Peter in 33 AD up to the present Pope Francis) is not open to debate!!! It is a FACT; it is HISTORY!!! All anyone has to do is Google the list to read it for themselves!!!

RayB said...

Paul said (in part) @ 11:19 PM:

"What Jesus said to Peter could be interpreted in a number of ways. If that is your only proof that the Catholic Church is the "only true church" then you are standing on very shaky ground; more like quicksand. Keep your faith but jettison your bondage."

The verse Paul is referring to above only appears ONCE in the entire NT, and it is cited below. In no other verse or passage is there ANYTHING that even remotely suggests that Peter was the head Bishop of the church. In fact, in the only two epistles that Peter wrote (I & II Peter), Peter himself never even hints that he is the head of the church. As to the verse below, it seems to me that it is the only verse Catholics love to quote, because it provides their INTERPRETATION (or more accurately, what they have been TAUGHT) to be the bedrock of their faith.

Matthew 16:18
"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

What's interesting about all this is that in THREE of the Gospels, this verse (and close variations) appear:

Mark 8:33
"But when he had turned about and looked on his disciples, he rebuked Peter, saying, Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men."

If you were to apply Roman Catholic "interpretation" methods to the above verse, clearly, Peter is Satan, which of course clearly he is not. Just as clearly Peter is not Satan, it can be proved, beyond any reasonable doubt, Peter is NOT THE ROCK in the Matt. 16:18 verse!


RayB said...

WHO is the rock that is referred to in Matt. 16:18? It is none other than the true "head of the church," the Lord Jesus Christ. In virtually every single verse in the OT & NT that uses the word "rock" in a spiritual sense, it refers to "God" and "Jesus Christ." Here is just a sampling:

Deuteronomy 32:4
"He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he."

1 Samuel 2:2
"There is none holy as the Lord: for there is none beside thee: neither is there any rock like our God."

Psalm 18:2
"The Lord is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; my God, my strength, in whom I will trust; my buckler, and the horn of my salvation, and my high tower."

Psalm 18:31
"For who is God save the Lord? or who is a rock save our God?"

Psalm 28:1
"Unto thee will I cry, O Lord my rock; be not silent to me:"

Psalm 62:2
"He only is my rock and my salvation;"

Psalm 78:35
"And they remembered that God was their rock, and the high God their redeemer."

Psalm 89:26
"He shall cry unto me, Thou art my father, my God, and the rock of my salvation."

Romans 9:33
"... as it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed."

1 Corinthians 10:4
"... and did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ."

Anonymous said...

Dear Ray B. & Paul ~

Well, all I have to say is that it is going to be very interesting when you both pass on to the other side... and meet St. Peter (obviously not Satan, since he has been given the keys to the Kingdom and will be standing at the gates of Heaven waiting to greet us)... when you will both be forced to explain your comments on how the Catholic Church ~ that our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ created in the year 33 AD ~ not quite 2,000 years ago ~ is a church that is 'standing on very shaky ground, more like quick sand' (YOUR words, not mine).

Good luck with that... you are both going to need it.

(Perhaps you Protestants need to take a long look back at your own fragile history. Protestant sects, started centuries later by mere mortal MEN, e.g. Martin Luther and King Henry VIII, are churches that were truly based on 'shaky ground'.)

Anonymous said...

I have something else to say...

Many years ago, Constance Cumbey started this blog in order to expose the New Age Movement.

On more than one occasion, she brought out the fact that Protestants and Catholics should not be fighting with each other... since we are ALL CHRISTIANS... united in the core belief that Jesus Christ died for ALL of our sins, so we can obtain eternal life with Him for eternity in Heaven.

Does the Catholic Church have problems??? Sure it does... but, so do other churches.

Satan is alive and well and knows his time is short. Therefore, he is trying to divide and conquer and DESTROY all traditional religions!!!

During these past 10 years, a few Protestant Evangelicals have taken it upon themselves to HIJACK this blog and turn it into an anti-Catholic forum (often on a daily basis).

However, we Catholics don't get intimidated easily... and many of us have been forced to
step up and defend our Catholic faith... in order to challenge some of the ignorant propaganda that many of you continue to spread as to what you THINK that Catholics believe. Since we feel that LYING about those beliefs is SLANDEROUS... we are not going to just keep quiet and go away.

(FYI ~ There are YEARS of debates in Constance's blog archives between Protestants and Catholics. There is no need to repeat any of it ad nauseum.)

Jesus has commanded ALL of us to 'LOVE thy neighbor as thyself.' If there is an unwelcoming undercurrent that LOVE is missing on a blog... people will drop off and stop posting. Sadly... that is what has happened here to Constance's blog.

Anonymous said...

(Perhaps you Protestants need to take a long look back at your own fragile history. Protestant sects, started centuries later by mere mortal MEN, e.g. Martin Luther and King Henry VIII, are churches that were truly based on 'shaky ground'.)

The difference is between we and thee is we never claim them to be anything but mere men! Sinful in nature, sinning by practice, only human, men......but when mere men come to God by faith, they are powerfully instantly redeemed by the Blood of the Lamb to live forever in the unshakeable kingdom, (Hebrews 12) the Lord's heaven and our home.
He made the way for sinners to be made perfect before God.

The difference between we and thee is we don't lift a finger to save ourselves because we can't.
Sinners have no righteousness of their own to contribute, just like the Scripture says 9only filthy rags). We can't claim even a toehold in heaven because the One doing all the holding is Jesus Christ, not us, because we are not in any way, in any part it is not us thinking we can have a foot in the door by our own efforts! We believe it is the Righteousness of Christ, at the great exchange that was His cross, our purchase price, that is our salvation and security, to save our wretched selves, in and for eternity, not the say-so of priests and popes, not the say-so of any human at all. Jesus is the Yes and the Amen of God for He paid a debt he didn't owe because we all, as sinners, have a debt we cannot pay to Holy God. John 3:16, ever hear of it? We whosoevers, are bought at a price!
This is bedrock unshakeable truth spoken by God, in whom we trust. But go on ahead trust human means if you are so inclined. Standing before God at the judgment, we'll all see how that works for people.

I'm so thankful for my One and Only Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ His only begotten!
100% Son of God, 100% Son of Man.

Anonymous said...

To Anonymous @ 5:12 PM

On the contrary... you Protestant Evangelicals don't exactly behave like 'mere men.'

You claim to have an automatic insurance policy into Heaven just by saying the
following words out loud: "I believe that Jesus Christ died for my sins; therefore, I am SAVED."

Of course, we baptized Catholics believe that Jesus died for the sins of ALL mankind. We also believe that each and every one of us is a work in progress... and being all too human, that there will be times during our lifetime, when we will fall short, and need to ask God for forgiveness, and continue on the path toward being worthy to enter Heaven.

Since you claim to be a devoted follower of Jesus... don't you think that the very least you can do is acknowledge the POSSIBILITY that Jesus Christ MAY have in fact begun HIS Catholic Church in 33 AD?

Or, you can continue with your self-assured smugness... and face God on Judgement Day armed with your false pride... only to hear the TRUTH straight from God Himself.

RayB said...

"Or, you can continue with your self-assured smugness... and face God on Judgement Day armed with your false pride... only to hear the TRUTH straight from God Himself."

What Anon @ 6:37 PM is actually saying is that those that have an ASSURANCE of their salvation because their faith is planted firmly upon the true ROCK of our salvation, the Lord Jesus Christ, are guilty of Catholicism's "sin of presumption." Anyone that proclaims that their salvation is complete in Christ is "anathema," according to the Council of Trent.

You see, if one has assurance in Christ, by the very nature of that assurance, YOU ARE GUILTY and are committing grave sin! Under Catholicism, you must endlessly strive to remain in a "state of grace" by OBEYING the tenets of the "church." For the Catholic, life in their church consists of the faithful endlessly morphing from being in and out of a state of grace, so that, a Catholic can never be certain of their salvation. This uncertainty puts them on a path where they must always be FAITHFUL to the CHURCH, because it is only through their CHURCH that the possibility of salvation exists (Council of Trent).

Let this one sink in ... IF a Catholic purposely misses weekly Mass and dies, they go to HELL for all of ETERNITY! Imagine your pastor telling you that your salvation is dependent upon you attending every church service, and if you purposely miss one and die, you will spend eternity in Hell! You would rightfully run away from such a person.

I have known literally hundreds of Catholics and have never found a single one that expresses anything other than some vague desire that they hope that they are "good enough" to go to heaven. That sense of uncertainty is completely consistent with the false "gospel" that they have been brainwashed into believing. The RCC "gospel" is centered upon the "believer's unending efforts," and not upon the finished work of Jesus Christ. There is no rest in the RCC, because there is no certainty. The very best they have to look forward to is an untold amount of suffering and time that will be spent in Purgatory in order to PAY for their Venial sins! How sad is that? On top of that, they have to "hope" that they have not died a graceless death by having committed a Mortal sin that will send them to eternal Hell. What an incredible system of lies that enslaves millions of souls.

Craig said...

We are certainly not going to bridge the chasm between Catholicism and Protestantism in these comments. While I wouldn’t call myself a Protestant, I certainly am not a Roman Catholic; however, any individual Catholic who accepts the Jesus Christ as identified in the Catechism I consider part of the church catholic (small “c”), i.e., the universal church. Similarly, any Protestant who affirms the tenets of Constantinople-Nicea and Chalcedon (Biblical Christology), I’ll consider part of the universal church.

With that out of the way, I agree with Paul’s assertion regarding Matthew 16:18. I was looking for a website that discussed this ‘Peter as rock’ issue, and I came across a pro-Catholic site that exegeted from the Greek. The author does a great job laying it out initially, but later goes astray in his assertion that there’s no difference in meaning between the (masculine) Petros and the (feminine) petra in the two major Greek-English lexicons. Au contraire. The former means an individual stone/rock, the latter a fixed rock. Rather than post the info here, one can go to On this Rock: An Analysis of Matthew 16:18 in the Greek. My comments start here.

Anonymous said...

I did not mouth some easy believism and bing, bang, boom, I got saved. it was not a mere mental ascent. It was my will I laid bare before Him, with all that entails as a soul before Holy God.

I came to Jesus the Savior broken. His Word convicted my heart of my lost condition. I could not save myself (nobody can). I came to Him broken over my sin, my entire sinful self offered at His feet ~ by faith ~ and trust in Him to be my Savior and my Lord, to rework and rewire my mind and my heart in cleansing and renewal according to His Word. So keeping His Word He made me brand new, He put the Holy Spirit in my heart, because He owns me, bought and paid for by His precious sacrifice and instantly, yes instantly, I was saved. Ephesians 2: 8-9 is what happened to me. I still vividly remember that day. God offered up the Savior, Jesus, and I offered up the sinner, me. He and I (by faith) met at the cross and I received His justification.
And then the process, in realtime, in everyday shoe leather began, the working out of what He worked in is now my sanctification in progress, and has been going on ever since. Walking the talk. Imperfectly, yes, (I'm not Home with Jesus yet!) but back I go when needing to, that I may keep short accounts with my Lord Who has the right to anything in my life that He wants to, for His purpose and plan, not mine. Acts 2 tells us when the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ began.

Church and ritual did not save me. Jesus did. That's 42 years ago and counting.......

Anonymous said...

The words of Jesus, as spoken to Peter in Matthew 16:18 were not meant to be complicated. They were quite simple and straight forward when He said...
"And I say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall NOT prevail against it."

No... some of you Protestant Evangelicals ~ in your frantic search for various watered-down (later by man) biblical VERSIONS of Matthew 16:18 ~ are DETERMINED to make the words of Jesus 'complicated.' What an insult to Jesus!!!

Like maybe you think that Jesus was speaking in some sort of code... for you all to decipher some OTHER 'hidden' meaning nearly 2,000 years later??? Why would Jesus need to play 'games' like that? The truth is that He wouldn't... and He didn't!!!

How arrogant that none of you are able to put your false pride aside to ACCEPT the truth... that Jesus was talking about HIS Catholic Church... and choosing Peter as HIS new Church's first Pope.

For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe... no proof is possible!!!

Craig said...

Anon 10:57 PM,

It's not as simple as you say it is. The English translation doesn't capture the difference between petros and petra--two similar words, with an important distinction between the two. I know the importance of Church Fathers to Roman Catholics, so it's with this in mind that I direct you to the following. Did the Fathers affirm the typical RCC interpretation? If we look at the following--Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Eusebius, and Augustine--in their full contexts, we find something interesting (just scroll past the author's initial comments and get right to the individual Fathers' words [in green subsections]):

Anonymous said...

Wow, Ray B. @ 8:36 PM...

I wouldn't want to belong to that 'church' that you so depressingly describe either!!!
Fortunately, we Catholics don't recognize it quite as you describe it. Ultimately, God is a JUST and MERCIFUL God... and we KNOW that each and everyone of us will be judged accordingly... as to how we've lived our life.

Are there rules? Yes, of course... just like there are 10 Commandments. (But, maybe you would prefer to belong to a church without rules or commandments.)

Please answer this question for me, Ray B. ~
If being a Catholic is as 'depressing' as you describe... how is it that we have 1.2 BILLION church members???

Anonymous said...

To Craig @ 11:11 PM ~

No one should have to work that hard to decipher the words of Jesus!!!

(And I don't believe for one minute that Jesus MEANT for anyone to work that hard.)

Like I said...
For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

deciphering the words of Jesus - everyone read Greek back then, not difficult to translate right but some have a problem with it now. Lots of Bible stuff needs deciphering hence usefulness of early writers.

unbroken line of bishops of Rome aka popes is a fact, so is unbroken line of bishops of Antioch (Peter also first bishop) to the present time, and of Alexandria (Mark Peter's son) and of Constantinople (Andrew, Pater's brother) not incl heretical lineages dating from splits.

re worries about the word "lord," baal is canaaite for lord, Adonai is Hebrew for Lord totally different words and God is el or elohim, and when either word is in all caps the Hebrew is YHWH. this is almost as silly as thinking that Jesus is hey zeus because of Spanish pronunciation, but it is from Greek Iesous transliterated from Hebrew Yah is Savior.

Psalms 104 sung in ancient Hebrew introduction nearly two minutes.

USS LIBERTY what REALLY happened was that LBJ wated that ship sunk and was yelling on the phone that he wanted it sunk and some other ship to not come to its aid. The whole pla was hatched by USA to bomb Egypt which was buddies with USSR at the time to get them out of the picture. (henry makow.)

According to this, McNamara denied permissio to send rescue

what the catholic bashers here doh't understamd when you talk of "denominations" and incl RC as one and that one should leave it, is that a hard core RC doesn't consider RC a "denomination" but the oly real church, started by Jesus and that you HAVE to be in or lose your salvation, period. however polite they are, you are not, in their eyes, in any relationship with Jesus if you spurn HIS CHURCH. that church might get corrupt at times because of its human content but it has an identity and life and reality beyond that. the sins of the priest do not invalidate the sacraments he performs. leaving is not an option because the church is an extension of Christ Himself of His body, there fore leaving RC is leaving Christ.

to you, leaving RC is affirming Christ (unless you leave to be an atheist or muslim or something). to them, leaving the Church is denying Christ. They do not separate the two.

Ironically, their ecclesiology denies the Church continues between popes, who is the representative of Christ on earth, without adherence to who you are in deep shit. And when he is present the church exists and in his absence the church is therefore not that existive. unless you admit it subsists in bishops and believers in which case pope is irrelevant.

because when a pope has died, and another not yet proclaimed, the seat of Peter is vacant (sede vacante) so during those times the church ceases to exist. oops.

this term sede vacante is used lby those who consider the chair to be empty for decades o rmore because everyone after pius the whatever was fake.

protestant bashers, you keep talking abouit who started your church. you don't get it. they don't figure they are saved by being in a church and they consider that JESUS started THE CHURCH of which they are a remnant or recovery repentant from the errors of RC. to them a church is merely an association of the saved. an assembly (which the term means).

Yes Jesus started His church (ekklesia, formal political assembly of the people of a city) in 33 AD BUT NOT IN ROME. And ALL the Apostles got the keys, or what they are about, after the Resurrection once ALL recogized Jesus as at one time only Peter at first did.

RayB I don't see why ASSURANCE is so important, and if it goes to once saved always saved it is unbiblical and a heresy. all verses seeming to support it when read in context show it presupposes your continuing to cling to Jesus, turn to Him, and if you fall to quit sinning and turn back to Jesus.

Thomas Ivan Dahlheimer said...

Anima Mundi was originally, an emanated Divine Spiritual Universe who sinned against Spirit, its Emanater, and then consequently created this corrupt universe. He is now the less-than-divine soul of the universe-who manifests as the universe. This creator's Christian name is Jehovah. Anima Mundi also has an earthly manifestation as the less-than-divine "spirit of the earth," who physically manifests as "the wholeness of all the lives and patterns that manifest upon, and as, the earth." The people who worship anima mundi are the Christians who worship the emanated and corrupted creator, Jehovah, whose image is the universe and the whole earth.

This "creator" and the creation are identical. This "creator" Jehovah, is anima mundi, the soul of the creation who manifests as the creation -- and it also has an earthly world soul manifestation and physically manifests as the earth. This Jehovah entity manifests in two different ways, as the Earth and as all of Creation, but not absolutely. The evil Jehovah character, or Satan (known as maya in the Hindu religion), is also a part of the physical and psychic creation.

The "ultimate source or Creator," Jehovah's Emanater, is a different Entity. It is Jesus' Father in Heaven. The Christians who mistakenly believe that Jehovah is the same entity as Jesus' Father in Heaven, and worship this entity, are not worshiping the Father but Jehovah. And when they do so, they are unaware that they are worshiping anima mundi and its image, the universe -- and in respect to anima mundi's earthly image they are also (unawarely) worshiping the "Whole Earth" itself.

Anonymous said...

"doh't understamd when you talk of "denominations" and incl RC as one and that one should leave it, is that a hard core RC doesn't consider RC a "denomination" but the oly real church, started by Jesus and that you HAVE to be in or lose your salvation, period. however polite they are, you are not, in their eyes, in any relationship with Jesus if you spurn HIS CHURCH. "

Typos and all, this sums up exactly the problem. Look at the arrogance of believing what RCC teaches.

Christ is above the Church, always was, always will be. The creature and creation, is not higher than it's Creator, just as the heavens are above the earth. There is the RCC arrogance, to equate itself with God.
Their way or the highway..........

Anonymous said...

No, Anonymous @ 10:29 AM... You do NOT "have to be in or lose your salvation, period."

Stop repeating UNTRUE statements about what the Catholic Church teaches. If you're going to post comments about our Church... do your homework, do your research, and get it right!!!

Yes, I agree that "Christ is above the church." And your point is...?

That does not change the FACT that Christ ALSO created the Catholic Church in 33 AD.

And, we also have the promise of Jesus: "....and the gates of Hell shall NOT prevail against it." (Matthew 16-18)

Anonymous said...

"No one should have to work that hard to decipher the words of Jesus!!!"

Mark 10:13-15 is so appropriate to that issue and what Jesus said Himself.
There are many mysteries in God's Word, that is true, and one has to leave those with the Lord for revealing, His time, His way, but many things are knowable already, and not hard to understand, basically, the main things are the plain things and the plain things are the main things.
The Pharisees created stumbling blocks, complications galore, to obstruct the way to Jesus, but Jesus made Himself known and children!

Religion is known for it's many roadblocks, detours, and hoops to jump through, often "high-minded" explanations and impositions men like to force upon others and not needed or helpful, and in some cases actually detract from the Lord and what He has spoken.
That's not Who Jesus is, that's not how His Spirit works, in the hearts and minds of people.

Craig said...

As you read along, see if you can guess who wrote the following:

And perhaps that which Simon Peter answered and said, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, “ if we say it as Peter, not by flesh and blood revealing it unto us, but by the light from the Father in heaven shining in our heart, we too become as Peter, being pronounced blessed as he was, because that the grounds on which he was pronounced blessed apply also to us, by reason of the fact that flesh and blood have not revealed to us with regard to Jesus that He is Christ, the Son of the living God, but the Father in heaven, from the very heavens, that our citizenship may be in heaven, revealing to us the revelation which carries up to heaven those who take away every veil from the heart, and receive “the spirit of the wisdom and revelation” of God. And if we too have said like Peter, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,” not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto us, but by light from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we become a Peter, and to us there might be said by the Word, “Thou art Peter,” etc. For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, and upon every such rock is built every word of the church, add the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God.

It was Origen, one of the ‘Church Fathers’, in his commentary on Matthew (his chapter 10).

[-Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, eds., The Gospel of Peter, the Diatessaron of Tatian, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Visio Pauli, the Apocalypses of the Virgin and Sedrach, the Testament of Abraham, the Acts of Xanthippe and Polyxena, the Narrative of Zosimus, the Apology of Aristides, the Epistles of Clement, Origen’s Commentary on John, Books I–x, and Commentary on Matthew, Books I, Ii, and X–xiv, ANF IX; Accordance electronic ed. 9 vols.; (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1885), paragraph 79634.]

Craig said...

Chapter 11, Origen on Matthew:

The Promise Given to Peter Not Restricted to Him, But Applicable to All Disciples Like Him.

But if you suppose that upon that one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? Does not the saying previously made, “The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it,” hold in regard to all and in the case of each of them? And also the saying, “Upon this rock I will build My church”? Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this promise, “I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,” be common to the others, how shall not all the things previously spoken of, and the things which are subjoined as having been addressed to Peter, be common to them? For in this place these words seem to be addressed as to Peter only, “Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven,” etc; but in the Gospel of John the Saviour having given the Holy Spirit unto the disciples by breathing upon them said, “Receive ye the Holy Spirit,” etc. Many then will say to the Saviour, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God;” but not all who say this will say it to Him, as not at all having learned it by the revelation of flesh and blood but by the Father in heaven Himself taking away the veil that lay upon their heart, in order that after this “with unveiled face reflecting as a mirror the glory of the Lord” they may speak through the Spirit of God saying concerning Him, “Lord Jesus,” and to Him, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And if any one says this to Him, not by flesh and blood revealing it unto Him but through the Father in heaven, he will obtain the things that were spoken according to the letter of the Gospel to that Peter, but, as the spirit of the Gospel teaches, to every one who becomes such as that Peter was. For all bear the surname of “rock” who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of the rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters. And taking occasion from these things you will say that the righteous bear the surname of Christ who is Righteousness, and the wise of Christ who is Wisdom. And so in regard to all His other names, you will apply them by way of surname to the saints; and to all such the saying of the Saviour might be spoken, “Thou art Peter,” etc., down to the words, “prevail against it.” But what is the “it”? Is it the rock upon which Christ builds the church, or is it the church? For the phrase is ambiguous. Or is it as if the rock and the church were one and the same? This I think to be true; for neither against the rock on which Christ builds the church, nor against the church will the gates of Hades prevail; just as the way of a serpent upon a rock, according to what is written in the Proverbs, cannot be found. Now, if the gates of Hades prevail against any one, such an one cannot be a rock upon which Christ builds the church, nor the church built by Jesus upon the rock; for the rock is inaccessible to the serpent, and it is stronger than the gates of Hades which are opposing it, so that because of its strength the gates of Hades do not prevail against it; but the church, as a building of Christ who built His own house wisely upon the rock, is incapable of admitting the gates of Hades which prevail against every man who is outside the rock and the church, but have no power against it.

[-paragraph 79635.]

Anonymous said...

"And if we too have said like Peter, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,” not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto us, but by light from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we become a Peter, and to us there might be said by the Word, “Thou art Peter,” etc. For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, and upon every such rock is built every word of the church, add the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God.

And see what Apostle Peter wrote in 1 Peter 2:4-9.
It is God's doing and it is marvelous in our eyes........

Anonymous said...

While Origen is often referred to as a "Church Father," on account of his heresies, ( i.e. pre-existence of souls, subordinationism, etc. ) he is technically not a Church Father according to the Catholic understanding of the term - although he is regarded as an important ecclesiastical writer.

Craig said...

How about Tertullian? The way he begins could well be interpreted as supporting the RCC view, but note the bolded section, which does not (all italics in original):

If, because the Lord has said to Peter, “Upon this rock will I build My Church,” “to thee have I given the keys of the heavenly kingdom;” or, “Whatsoever thou shall have bound or loosed in earth, shall be bound or loosed in the heavens,” you therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing has derived to you, that is, to every Church akin to Peter, what sort of man are you, subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord, conferring (as that intention did) this (gift) personally upon Peter?” On thee,” He says, “will I build My Church;” and,” I will give to thee the keys,” not to the Church; and, “Whatsoever thou shall have loosed or bound,” not what they shall have loosed or bound. For so withal the result teaches. In (Peter) himself the Church was reared; that is, through (Peter) himself; (Peter) himself essayed the key; you see what (key): “Men of Israel, let what I say sink into your ears: Jesus the Nazarene, a man destined by God for you,” and so forth. (Peter) himself, therefore, was the first to unbar, in Christ’s baptism, the entrance to the heavenly kingdom, in which (kingdom) are “loosed” the sins that were beforetime “bound;” and those which have not been “loosed” are “bound,” in accordance with true salvation; and Ananias he “bound” with the bond of death, and the weak in his feet he “absolved” from his defect of health. Moreover, in that dispute about the observance or non-observance of the Law, Peter was the first of all to be endued with the Spirit, and, after making preface touching the calling of the nations, to say, “And now why are ye tempting the Lord, concerning the imposition upon the brethren of a yoke which neither we nor our fathers were able to support? But however, through the grace of Jesus we believe that we shall be saved in the same way as they.” This sentence both “loosed” those parts of the law which were abandoned, and “bound” those which were reserved. Hence the power of loosing and of binding committed to Peter had nothing to do with the capital sins of believers; and if the Lord had given him a precept that he must grant pardon to a brother sinning against him even “seventy times sevenfold,” of course He would have commanded him to “bind” — that is, to “retain” — nothing subsequently, unless perchance such (sins) as one may have committed against the Lord, not against a brother. For the forgiveness of (sins) committed in the case of a man is a prejudgment against the remission of sins against God.

What, now, (has this to do) with the Church, and) your (church), indeed, Psychic? For, in accordance with the person of Peter, it is to spiritual men that this power will correspondently appertain, either to an apostle or else to a prophet. For the very Church itself is, properly and principally, the Spirit Himself, in whom is the Trinity of the One Divinity — Father, Son and Holy Spirit. (The Spirit) combines that Church which the Lord has made to consist in “three.” And thus, from that time forward, every number (of persons) who may have combined together into this faith is accounted “a Church,” from the Author and Consecrator (of the Church). And accordingly “the Church,” it is true, will forgive sins: but (it will be) the Church of the Spirit, by means of a spiritual man; not the Church which consists of a number of bishops. For the right and arbitrament is the Lord’s, not the servant’s; God’s Himself, not the priest’s.

[-Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, eds., Fathers of the Third Century: Tertullian, Part Fourth; Minucius Felix; Commodian; Origen, Parts First and Second., ANF IV; Accordance electronic ed. 9 vols.; (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1885), paragraph 30118-9.]

Craig said...

What about Eusebius of Caesarea? Here is a portion of his commentary on the Psalms (bold added for emphasis):

‘And he sent out arrows, and scattered them; he flashed forth lightnings, and routed them. Then the channels of the sea were seen, and the foundations of the world were laid bear, at thy rebuke, O Lord, at the blast of thy nostrils’ (Ps. 18.14)...By ‘the foundations of the world,’ we shall understand the strength of God’s wisdom, by which, first, the order of the universe was established, and then, the world itself was founded—a world which will not be shaken. Yet you will not in any way err from the scope of the truth if you suppose that ‘the world’ is actually the Church of God, and that its ‘foundation’ is in the first place, that unspeakably solid rock on which it is founded, as Scripture says: ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it’; and elsewhere: ‘The rock, moreover, was Christ.’ For, as the Apostle [Peter] indicates with these words: ‘No other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus.’ Then, too, after the Savior himself, you may rightly judge the foundations of the Church to be the words of the prophets and apostles, in accordance with the statement of the Apostle: ‘Built upon the foundation of the apostles and the prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone.’ These foundations of the world have been laid bare because the enemies of God, who once darkened the eyes of our mind, lest we gaze upon divine things, have been routed and put to flight—scattered by the arrows sent from God and put to flight by the rebuke of the Lord and by the blast from his nostrils. As a result, having been saved from these enemies and having received the use of our eyes, we have seen the channels of the sea and have looked upon the foundations of the world. This has happened in our lifetime in many parts of the world (Commentary on the Psalms, M.P.G., Vol. 23, Col. 173, 176).

Craig said...

How about Augustine? Bold added:

And I tell you...‘You are Peter, Rocky, and on this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of the underworld will not conquer her. To you shall I give the keys of the kingdom. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall also be loosed in heaven’ (Mt 16:15-19). In Peter, Rocky, we see our attention drawn to the rock. Now the apostle Paul says about the former people, ‘They drank from the spiritual rock that was following them; but the rock was Christ’ (1 Cor 10:4). So this disciple is called Rocky from the rock, like Christian from Christ...Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer (John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Vol. 6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327).

In the Biblical text in Matthew 16:18 “rock” is two different words: sy ei Petros, kai epi tautȩ̄ tȩ̄ petra̧ = You are Peter/petros, and upon this [the] petra…. There is a distinction in the major Greek-English lexicons between these words, with the former an individual rock/stone, the latter a fixed rock/bedrock. Note that petros is NOT preceded by the Greek article, while petra IS. Thus, this is an example of paronomasia (double meaning/pun), in which Peter is both “a rock” and “Petros”, the name given to him. Also, Christ is petra in 1 Cor. 10:4.

More from Augustine:

And this Church, symbolized in its generality, was personified in the Apostle Peter, on account of the primacy of his apostleship. For, as regards his proper personality, he was by nature one man, by grace one Christian, by still more abounding grace one, and yet also, the first apostle; but when it was said to him, ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven,’ he represented the universal Church, which in this world is shaken by divers temptations, that come upon it like torrents of rain, floods and tempests, and falleth not, because it is founded upon a rock (petra), from which Peter received his name. For petra (rock) is not derived from Peter, but Peter from petra; just as Christ is not called so from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. For on this very account the Lord said, ‘On this rock will I build my Church,’ because Peter had said, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ On this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed, I will build my Church. For the Rock (Petra) was Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself built. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Christ Jesus. The Church, therefore, which is founded in Christ received from Him the keys of the kingdom of heaven in the person of Peter, that is to say, the power of binding and loosing sins. For what the Church is essentially in Christ, such representatively is Peter in the rock (petra); and in this representation Christ is to be understood as the Rock, Peter as the Church (Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume VII, St. Augustin, On the Gospel of John, Tractate 124.5).

Anonymous said...

Craig ~ FYI . . .

Origen of Alexandria[a] (c. 184 – c. 253),[2] also known as Origen Adamantius,[b] was an early Christian scholar, ascetic,[3] and theologian who was born and spent the first half of his career in Alexandria. He was a prolific writer who wrote roughly 2,000 treatises in multiple branches of theology, including textual criticism, biblical exegesis and biblical hermeneutics, homiletics, and spirituality. He was one of the most influential figures in early Christian theology, apologetics, and asceticism.[3][4] He has been described as "the greatest genius the early church ever produced".[5]

Charges of HERESY...

The chief accusations against Origen’s teaching are the following: making the Son inferior to the Father and thus being a precursor of Arianism, a 4th-century heresy that denied that the Father and the Son were of the same substance; spiritualizing away the resurrection of the body; denying hell, a morally enervating universalism; speculating about preexistent souls and world cycles; and dissolving redemptive history into timeless myth by using allegorical interpretation.

Craig said...

Anon 6:48 AM,

There are those who deem Origen a heretic and those who’ve defended him, including Athanasius and Eusebius. This Catholic Encyclopedia article, upon skimming, seems to defend him, perhaps en toto. I’d suggest before passing any sort of judgment that it’d be wise to take the controversial sections, find them in the original contexts, and then make a determination—from the original language, rather than someone else’s translation, which may or may not include translational errors or biases.

In any case, I chose the Origen quote first on purpose, since he is certainly controversial. And one could lay a charge against Tertullian for having fallen into Montanism for a time—though I think unfairly. But, what do we have against Augustine, a recognized Doctor of the Church by the RCC? And, taking each of these quotes, the overarching point I’m making is that the definitive stance regarding Peter taken by the RCC was not universally recognized by a host of “Church Fathers”, thereby negating the RCC’s stance that this was universally recognized as true. Thus, when I see a statement such as the one from Anon 11:32 AM, “That does not change the FACT that Christ ALSO created the Catholic Church in 33 AD” I do not accept this interpretation. What I DO accept is that the ekklēsia, the Universal Church—which is NOT coextensive with the RCC—was established in 33 AD, and Peter had a significant role.

We can debate what that role is, since Matthew 16:17-19 can be interpreted in a few different ways, as evidenced by the RCC and the words of the “Church Fathers” above. The three possible interpretations are (1) the RCC view (though, as pointed out, not universally accepted by the “Fathers” above); (2) that Peter’s confession is the 2nd “rock” (petra; (3) that Christ is the 2nd “rock” (petra). To take one verse, ONE VERSE, and create an entire doctrine out of it, a doctrine that is not supported by any other Scripture, and is contradicted by early “Church Fathers”, seem perilous to me. Even if it can be unequivocally proven that there’s been a succession of bishops at Rome after Peter, this still does not prove that the bishop of Rome was recognized as the “Pope” of the Church from the beginning. The way I see it, this has all been anachronistically retrofitted.

As I said above: While I wouldn’t call myself a Protestant, I certainly am not a Roman Catholic; however, any individual Catholic who accepts the Jesus Christ as identified in the Catechism I consider part of the church catholic (small “c”), i.e., the universal church. Similarly, any Protestant who affirms the tenets of Constantinople-Nicea and Chalcedon (Biblical Christology), I’ll consider part of the universal church.

Susanna said...

Moscow patriarchate threatens ‘retaliatory measures’ against Constantinople

Editor's Note: A top spokesman for the Patriarchate of Moscow has announced that the Russian Orthodox Church will “take retaliatory measures” if the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople proceeds with plans to recognize an independent Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Metropolitan Hilarion, who heads the external-affairs department for the Moscow patriarchate, said that “the Patriarchate of Constantinople is now openly on the warpath.” The Russian Orthodox Church has bitterly opposed independence for the Ukrainian Orthodox entire article...

Anonymous said...

To Craig @ 7:57 AM

Re: "Even if it can be unequivocally proven that there’s been a succession of bishops at Rome after Peter, this still does not prove that the bishop of Rome was recognized as the “Pope” of the Church from the beginning."


The unbroken line of Popes of the Catholic Church is not an OPINION, it is documented historical fact!!! It is WORLD HISTORY!!!

A complete list of the 266 Popes (from Peter in 33 AD to Francis I in 2013 AD) is as follows...



The Pope ( Latin: papa; from Greek: πάππας pappas, [1] a child's word for father) [2] is the Bishop of Rome and the leader of the worldwide Catholic Church. [3] The importance of the Roman bishop is largely derived from his role as the traditional successor to Saint Peter, to whom Jesus gave the keys of Heaven and the powers of "binding and loosing", naming him as the "rock" upon which the church would be built. The current pope is Francis, who was elected on 13 March 2013, succeeding Benedict XVI. [4]
The office of the Pope is the papacy. His ecclesiastical jurisdiction, the Diocese of Rome, is often called "the Holy See" [5] or "the Apostolic See", the latter name being based upon the belief that the Bishop of Rome is the successor of Peter the Apostle. [6] The pope is also head of state of Vatican City, [7] a sovereign city-state entirely enclaved within the Italian capital city of Rome.

The papacy is one of the most enduring institutions in the world and has had a prominent part in world history. [8]

Anonymous said...

Craig ~ FYI

Tertullian, although he is often referred to as a "Church Father" who coined the term "Trinity," is not considered a Church Father in the strict sense of the term... because he later rejected Christian orthodoxy when he fell into the Montanist heresy and was excommunicated. Like Origen, he is regarded as an ecclesiastical writer.

Is Tertullian considered a Church Father?

Is Origen considered a Church Father?

Who were the Church Fathers?

Craig said...

Anon 8:57 PM,

You wrote: The unbroken line of Popes of the Catholic Church is not an OPINION, it is documented historical fact!!! It is WORLD HISTORY!!!

You cite an RCC source to ‘prove’ the existence of an unbroken line of “Popes” and state this as indisputable fact, yet the RCC has changed its list of “Popes” throughout its history: THE CONFUSION OF THE POPES. The article at the link illustrates the ‘retrofit’ I mentioned earlier; i.e., the number of “Popes” changed as, for example, the RCC had to discount one which was later determined to never have actually existed. From the link:

A copy of the Jan. 18, 1947 news article from Vatican City can be obtained from any Public Library. It was carried on the front page of the Phila. Inquirer, and in the New York Times. It was titled, "VATICAN DROPS 6 NAMES FROM LIST OF POPES."

And, implied in my statement you quoted were two separate burdens: (1) it must first be proven that there was an unbroken succession of BISHOPS of Rome; (2), then, it must be proven that each and every one of them was recognized as “POPE” at the time they were bishops. The evidence of the four early church writers I cited illustrates that there was not universal consensus. Hence, I ain’t buyin’ the papal succession ideology—for it IS an ideology.

Anon 9:12 PM,

I had already conceded the issues regarding Origen and Tertullian; however, their witness in the specific area I cited cannot be negated on their supposed (regarding Origen), or one-time (Tertullian) failings. (The way I understand it, Tertullian left the Montanists and returned to what we’d consider orthodox beliefs.) To reiterate, the four witnesses—Origen, Tertullian, Eusebius, and Augustine—with their divergent (from the RCC) interpretations regarding Matthew 16:17-19, show that there were some who obviously either were wholly unaware of a papal succession, or they wrote contrary to it in a rather nonchalant manner—the latter would be VERY odd if “apostolic succession” was recognized by “The Church”, if it were the ‘norm’.

Anonymous said...

Craig, I also gave you two Wikipedia sources!!!

Sadly, I can't help someone like you... who stubbornly 'digs in his heels' and refuses to ACKNOWLEDGE what is clearly documented world history!!!

Wikipedia presents a clear documented historical timeline for each of these 266 popes... from Peter in 33 AD up to Francis I in 2013 AD.

Wikipedia acknowledges the following statement. (Why can't you???) . . .

"The papacy is one of the most enduring institutions in the world and has had a prominent part in world history."

Craig said...

Anon 6:50 AM,

Wikipedia sources are hardly unbiased. They can be changed by almost anyone (ask Constance!). They can be used for gleaning general data; but, there are useless to make strong assertions.

In the back of my copy of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History by Cruse is a list of Roman bishops—not “Popes”—and, for the moment, we’ll accept that this is an absolutely correct history of the facts. (FYI, there is also a list of bishops of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Laodicea, and Caesarea.) The key question is whether the Roman bishops were called “Popes” (Grk. Παππας, Pappas).

Online is the Greek of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History, and here is Book 3, Chapter 4, Section 9:

ἀλλὰ καὶ ὁ Κλήμης, τῆς Ῥωμαίων καὶ αὐτὸς ἐκκλησίας τρίτος ἐπίσκοπος καταστάς,
alla kai ho Klēmēs, tēs Rōmaiōn kai autos ekklēsias tritos episkopos katastas,
but, also, the Clement of Rome, and the third overseer/bishop selected
[Now,] also, Clement was selected third bishop of the ekklēsia of Roman,

First, note that Clement is termed “bishop”, and that this was for the ekklēsia of Roman; that is, “ekklēsia” is used as Paul used it in his epistles, rather than in some “Universal Church” sense. But, we do find the Latinized “pope” here—from one bishop of Alexandria to another:
Book 7, Chapter7, Section 4, a quote of Dionysius:

‘τοῦτον ἐγὼ τὸν κανόνα καὶ τὸν τύπον παρὰ τοῦ μακαρίου πάπα* ἡμῶν Ἡρακλᾶ παρέλαβον
Touton egō ton kanona kai ton tupov para tou makariou papa* ēmōn Hērakla parelabon
This I the rule and the form from the blessed father* our Heraclas received
This rule and form I received from our blessed father* Heraclas.

*This is not the correct Greek spelling for “father” (which would be παππας), as it is imported from the Latin. The endnote here in Cruse’s translation of Eusebius corresponding to the asterisk reads: The word παπας here used and applied by Dionysius to his predecessor at Alexandria [ED: Heraclas] was, as we see in this instance, applied to the more aged and venerable prelates. We thus see the origin of the word pope, Latin papa, German pabst

In other words, in context here the word is simply a term of respect for his elder predecessor, not a TITLE given to the office.


Craig said...

Well, the hyperlinks disappeared. they are, in order:

Craig said...


One can find an older version of Eusebius works here. But do a (control + F) search for “pope” and you’ll find the immediately preceding footnote reference, that Pelagius was called “Pope”(!!), and that Alexander, the bishop of Alexandria was called “Pope” by Arius. Under the latter, which is in a letter from Arius to Eusebius, are these words in a footnote:

In the earlier ages of the Church, the title of Pope, or father, was the common appellation of the bishops. But when the bishop of Rome afterwards usurped a spiritual supremacy over his brethren, this title, and some others, once bestowed indiscriminately on prelates, as such, being exclusively appropriated to him, acquired, of course, an additional emphasis.

Unfortunately, I only have access to the Greek of Ecclesiastical History, and not some of the other writings regarding Eusebius; so, I cannot find the original word used in the latter two cases.

Interestingly, Heraclas is listed as “Pope” in the Wiki entry, citing the very Greek I just used, from the see of St. Mark of the Coptic Church: Heraclas of Alexandria, with the following words:

“He has been identified as the first Patriarch of Alexandria to carry the appellation of "Pope" (in Greek, Papás [ED: imported from Latin], a term, originally a form of address meaning 'Father', that the church of Rome did not use until the sixth century). The first known record of this designation being assigned to Heraclas is in a letter written by the bishop of Rome, Dionysius, to Philemon

So, the Coptic Church capitalizes on this one usage of “pope” to claim their patriarchs as “popes”.

Earlier (Book 7, Chapter 2, preface) Dionysius was called merely “great bishop”, not “pope”:

ὁ μέγας ἡμῖν Ἀλεξανδρέων ἐπίσκοπος Διονύσιος
ho megas hēmin Alexandreōn episkopos Dionysios
The great our Alexandrian bishop Dionysius
Our great bishop of Alexandria, Dionysius.

As one can deduce, Eusebius did not recognize the Roman see as the papacy, as, if he did, he would have consistently differentiated them by παππας, papa, etc; however, he merely called them “bishop” like all the others. It’s only Dionysius of Alexandria, whom Eusebius quotes, who referred to his elder (in the term of endearment sense) Heraclas with this term, and this is the ONE AND ONLY TIME the term is used in the entire Ecclesiastical History. And with the assertion above that the RCC didn’t use “Pope” until the 6th century, I’m sticking with my statement about anachronistic retrofitting.

Craig said...

And, once again the links didn't work (what's UP blogger?!). Here they are:

Craig said...

Errata: ekklēsia of Roman should be, obviously, ekklēsia of Rome.

Anon 6:50 AM (which I presume is the other, earlier Anon posts in response to mine),

I find it curious that you wish to discredit sources (Origen, Tertullian) in order to discredit their entire testimony in this regard, while not at all recognizing the witnesses of those you cannot legitimately discredit in any manner. What about Augustine’s statement above? What about Eusebius’ statement above? These certainly do not support the RCC position, yet these individuals’ works are recognized, generally, as authoritative by the RCC. Thus, these cannot be ignored. (Nor can Origen and Tertullian here.)

Just like it would be wrong for a Protestant to just cite other Protestant sources while ignoring others that just don’t agree with their bias, it’s equally wrong for you to ignore sources that don’t agree with your stance.

It’s easy to find sources that agree with one’s position. It’s much more challenging to engage directly with credible sources that do not agree with one’s position. To merely cite other RCC sources (and wiki!) is to do no better than the SJWs who use their own echo chambers. That’s not scholarship. You can and should do much better than that.

Anonymous said...

To Craig @ 8:53 AM

No one is 'ignoring sources.' It is more about 'separating the wheat from the chaff'... and learning discernment: 'by their fruits, ye shall know them.'

Just to clarify...

1) Heresy goes AGAINST the core teaching of Jesus Christ. Therefore, heresy goes AGAINST the teaching of the Catholic Church!!!

2) St. Augustine fought AGAINST heresy. Here is an example below...

3) Origen TAUGHT heresy... that the Son was inferior to the Father!!!

The chief accusations against Origen’s teaching are the following: making the Son inferior to the Father and thus being a precursor of Arianism, a 4th-century heresy that denied that the Father and the Son were of the same substance; spiritualizing away the resurrection of the body; denying hell, a morally enervating universalism; speculating about preexistent souls and world cycles; and dissolving redemptive history into timeless myth by using allegorical interpretation.

4) Tertullian and his association with the heretical Montonists...

Craig said...

Anon 10:49 AM,

I’m not sure why you persist against Origen and Tertullian, but let’s look a bit closer. It’s not even clear Origen was a promoter of so-called “Origenism”, which is what you’re describing here (just like it’s not clear if Nestorius held to the heresy attributed to him). In the Catholic New Advent link I sourced earlier (7:57 AM) is this statement:

The distinctive mark of the Catholic is to belong to the Church, to depend on the Church outside of which there is no salvation; on the contrary, he who leaves the Church walks in darkness, he is a heretic. It is through the principle of authority that Origen is wont to unmask and combat doctrinal errors. It is the principle of authority, too, that he invokes when he enumerates the dogmas of faith. A man animated with such sentiments may have made mistakes, because he is human, but his disposition of mind is essentially Catholic and he does not deserve to be ranked among the promoters of heresy.

This Catholic Encyclopedia explicitly DOES NOT call him a heretic. And then there’s this from the same source:

Origen's name was so highly esteemed that when there was a question of putting an end to a schism or rooting out a heresy, appeal was made to it.

So, again, the CATHOLIC source I cite here affirms Origen.

As regards Tertullian, the following from New Advent tells more of the story regarding Montanism:

It was after the year 206 that he joined the Montanist sect, and he seems to have definitively separated from the Church about 211 (Harnack) or 213 (Monceaux). After writing more virulently against the Church than even against heathen and persecutors, he separated from the Montanists and founded a sect of his own. The remnant of the Tertullianists was reconciled to the Church by St. Augustine. A number of the works of Tertullian are on special points of belief or discipline. According to St. Jerome he lived to extreme old age.

The following is noted on the Wikipedia page:

In middle life (about 207), he was attracted to the "New Prophecy" of Montanism, though today most scholars reject Saint Jerome's assertion that Tertullian ever left the mainstream Church or was ever excommunicated.[23] "[W]e are left to ask whether [Saint] Cyprian could have regarded Tertullian as his master if Tertullian had been a notorious schismatic. Since no ancient writer was more definite (if not indeed fanatical) on this subject of schism than Cyprian, the question must surely be answered in the negative."[24]…By the doctrinal works he published, Tertullian became the teacher of Cyprian and the predecessor of Augustine, who, in turn, became the chief founder of Latin theology.

And, we’re back to Augustine. What about Augustine’s statement above @ 9:15 PM above? Why are you silent on “the chief founder of Latin theology” and a recognized “Doctor of the Church” by the RCC?

And, what do you make of the absence of the word “Pope” in Eusebius’ works, except with respect to Heraclas, bishop of Alexandria, Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, and Pelagius? Given this evidence, one could better make the case that the see of Mark, i.e., Alexandria, is the papacy. More seriously, it seems best to understand the term in a general sense (not as a TITLE), as a term of respect, endearment for an elder prelate.

Craig said...

More from the New Advent link on Origen, under Subordination of the divine persons

Along with these perfectly orthodox texts [by Origen] there are some which must be interpreted with diligence, remembering as we ought that the language of theology was not yet fixed and that Origen was often the first to face these difficult problems. It will then appear that the subordination of the Divine Persons, so much urged against Origen, generally consists in differences of appropriation (the Father creator, the Son redeemer, the Spirit sanctifier) which seem to attribute to the Persons an unequal sphere of action, or in the liturgical practice of praying the Father through the Son in the Holy Ghost, or in the theory so widespread in the Greek Church of the first five centuries, that the Father has a pre-eminence of rank (taxis) over the two other Persons, inasmuch as in mentioning them He ordinarily has the first place, and of dignity (axioma) because He represents the whole Divinity, of which He is the principle (arche), the origin (aitios), and the source (pege). That is why St. Athanasius defends Origen's orthodoxy concerning the Trinity and why St. Basil and St. Gregory of Nazianzus replied to the heretics who claimed the support of his authority that they misunderstood him.

Anonymous said...

Wikipedia may be accused of a lot of things, but what it can't do is totally CREATE (out of thin air) a nearly 2,000 year (or 1,980 years to be exact) timeline of detailed names and dates of Popes (from Peter in 33 AD to Francis 1 in 2013).

Documented world history is still documented world history!!!

Nice try though, Craig. (LOL)

Craig said...

Anon 1:37 PM,

Anyone can state anything they like on Wikipedia, and the pages are changed by individuals all the time. In any case, what do you make of the FACT that the listing of "Popes" has been altered, even as late as the 20th century, by Catholic writers under a Catholic publishing house?

Please disregard the unnecessary polemics by the author above, and just look at the facts from the Catholic sources (and it's not very long).

But, and this is the most important part, even IF it can be proven that there is an unbroken link of BISHOPS at Rome, then the burden is to determine if these have all been known as POPE all along. By the evidence of Eusebius, the answer is a definitive "NO". Do you have another source which illustrates that they have all been known as "Pope" during their time in office?

paul said...

"Call no man your father upon the earth; for one is your father, which is in heaven." (Mat. 23:9)

Anonymous said...

Craig, I don't feel that I need to PROVE what I KNOW to be documented historical FACTS to you or anyone else.

This bullying behavior from you so-called 'Christians' toward Catholics is an absolute disgrace... and you need to ask God for forgiveness.

Anonymous said...

Then, Paul always manages to crawl out from under his rock to further attack Catholics!!!

Craig said...

Anon 5:09 PM,

This is hardly “bullying”. And you are certainly free to adhere to whatever belief system you like.

Since you insist on relying on Wikipedia, I decided to take a look. What about the section below the listings called Notes on Numbering of Popes? There’s “Pope Donus II”, who, upon later inspection, was determined never to have existed! Then there are the “antipopes”. Using the example of Boniface VII: he ‘reigned’ from Aug 984 – Aug 985, which means there was NO POPE for a full year (see the listing for the yearlong gap between John XIV and John XV).

Now, let’s say that we look past all these anomalies and just assume some clerical/calculating errors or what-have-you and take as a ‘given’ that there’s been an unbroken link of successors from Peter (again, the latter assumed), which we’ll call “Bishops”, in keeping with the Greek (episkopos) in Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History. The burden that yet remains is to show how these were all called “Pope” (Greek παππας [pappas], Latin, papa, or even the conflated παπας [papas]) contemporary with their bishopric. This cannot be shown in Eusebius; so, perhaps there’s another source? Then, it must be shown that all other sees recognized Rome as the supreme authority en toto (the latter qualifier because, e.g., it was Leo I’s excellent Tome that was used at Chalcedon to set forth proper Christology, yet this does not necessarily mean the other bishops recognized him as “Pope” in the RCC sense).

Even still, this all relies on a particular interpretation of Matthew 16:18, which Augustine (Doctor of the Church, according to RCC), as but one example, does not hold to. This must be explained somehow.

The bottom line is that what you assert as “FACT” does not hold up to scrutiny.


I also found another site with Arius’ letter to Eusebius. The first footnote there refers to the word “Pope” (in reference to Alexander, bishop of Alexandria—Arius was from Alexandria) in the text, which, as I’ve found on another site is papas—the loanword from Latin. The note states:

On the name "Pope," vide Dict. Christ. Ant., s.v. 1st, it was applied to the teachers of converts, 2ndly, to Bishops and Abbots, and was, 3rdly, confined to the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Constantinople, and to the Bp. of Rome; 4thly, it was claimed by the Bp. of Rome exclusively.

When was definition #4 first applied? It certainly contradicts #3

Incidentally, the 1st definition is based on a Jewish idiom that one who teaches the law to another becomes that person’s “father”. This is the basis for Paul’s comment in Galatians 4:19.

Anonymous said...

Re: "What you assert as 'FACT" does not hold up to scrutiny" . . .

Scrutiny to WHO, Craig??? A bunch of venomous anti-Catholic Protestants who constantly reveal their ignorance... ego maniacs who consider themselves to be 'big fish' here on Constance's blog???

In the grand scheme of things, your opinion really does not matter to the rest of us!!!

Craig said...

Paul @ 4:31 PM,

I’ve thought that verse a bit of an enigma. The term used in Matthew 23:9, patēr, is the usual word used for a biological father; so, that cannot reasonably be the intention. And, importantly, in all fairness, this is not the word behind the English translation “Pope”. However, in its fuller context to include 8-12, one can see that Jesus’ intent here is to warn against seeking after titles of honor to foster pride. I’ll let the reader decide if that’s applicable in this conversation.

Anonymous said...

And, by the way, Craig . . .

When you arrogantly insist on dissecting and picking apart Matthew 16:18... you're picking apart the words of JESUS HIMSELF!!!

So, good luck explaining that to HIM on Judgement Day!!!

Craig said...

Anon 10:11 PM,

"Scrutiny to who"? Augustine, a Recognized Doctor of your church. And, Eusebius, Cyprian, Origen, and Tertullian. You can discount the last two, if you like, as that's your prerogative, but the Catholic New Advent site gives Origen the benefit of the doubt against the charge of "Origenism" (subordination of the Son, etc.)--as did Athanasius and Gregory of Nazianzus.

Rather than getting emotional over this, try looking at the presented evidence on its face. I'm not imposing some outside 'Protestant' arguments, or discounting doctrines and practices a priori; I'm using sources that the RCC (largely) finds credible, and I find that they don't cohere, they don't agree with each other.

Again, you can believe what you want. But, if you wish to assert something as absolute fact, then the burden is upon you to substantiate it, when questioned.

Craig said...

Anon 10:16,

I suppose I'll be there with Augustine and company, then.

Anonymous said...

First of all, Craig... This is a BLOG; it is not a court of law. I don't HAVE to prove anything to you or anyone else. I am quite confident in my beliefs, and I certainly don't need your approval.

What does bother me though (and I have posted on this blog, from time to time, since 2007)
is the smug, arrogant, condescending manner in which a few of you Protestants Evangelicals treat Catholics. You behave like 'school yard bullies'... rather than Christians leading by example.

Anonymous said...

Finally... If you choose to 'identify' with heretics like Origen and Tertullian, be my guest.

Meanwhile, the rest of us Catholics believe that the core teaching of Jesus Christ was passed down to His apostles... and ANYONE who dares to move away from that teaching SHOULD BE CALLED OUT.

paul said...

Anonymous, (what a name)
I didn't say a word about Catholic or Protestant in this case yet you say I crawled out of a hole.
Why, does that direct quote of Jesus Christ offend you?

paul said...

It's amazing.
The one whining about "smug, arrogant and condescending", as well as "crawl(ing) out of a hole", is a smug, arrogant, and condescending person who hides in a hole of anonymity.

Anonymous said...

To Paul @ 2:14 PM ~

Please learn how to READ before you post. No one ever used the word 'HOLE'!!!

The statement was as follows: "Paul always manages to crawl out from under his ROCK"... meaning that, over the 11 years that I have been posting (off and on) on this blog... whenever one of us Catholics feels forced to DEFEND ourselves against overly aggressive attacks (e.g. one of you rudely demanding 'proof' of our beliefs, etc.) ~ even if the discussion is between one of us and another Protestant Evangelical ~ we can always count on you, Paul to JUMP IN with your 'two cents' (even though you were not a part of the discussion in the first place)!!!

Also, evidently you Protestant Evangelicals are the ones who are 'offended' by the words of Jesus... especially in Matthew 16:18 when Jesus said to Peter in 33 AD: "And I say unto you, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall NOT prevail against it."

And... I am only 'offended' by HERETICS who act like they are on God's side... when they are actually betraying HIM!!!

I am also 'offended' by Cafeteria Christians... who carefully 'select' scriptural passages that support THEIR own beliefs... but, choose to IGNORE, DISMISS (or pick apart) passages which support Catholic beliefs.

Craig said...

A “Pope” sympathetic to Montanism?

From Claudio Moreschini and Enrico Norelli’s Early Christian Greek and Latin Literature, A Literary History, Volume One: From Paul to the Age of Constantine, (English transl. Matthew J. O’Connell [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2005], p 190) we find:

…According to Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 4.3.4), it was in connection with similar disagreements [against the Montanists] that the [Montanist] martyrs of Lyons wrote in conciliatory language to the churches of Asia and Phrygia and to Eleutherus, bishop of Rome…In Rome, Montanism was in the process of being accepted, but it was finally rejected due to the efforts of the mysterious Praxeas, whom Tertullian attacks [in his Adversus Praxeas]…

From this site, we find:

The Roman church, during the episcopate of Eleutherus (177–190), or of Victor (190–202), after some vacillation, set itself likewise against the new [Montanist] prophets at the instigation of the presbyter Caius and the confessor Praxeas from Asia, who, as Tertullian sarcastically says, did a two-fold service to the devil at Rome by driving away prophecy and bringing in heresy (patripassianism), or by putting to flight the Holy Spirit and crucifying God the Father. Yet the opposition of Hippolytus to Zephyrinus and Callistus, as well as the later Novatian schism, show that the disciplinary rigorism of Montanism found energetic advocates in Rome till after the middle of the third century.

By “putting to flight the Holy Spirit”, Tertullian meant not supporting Montanism, which took its erroneous views from John 14:26 (“He [the Spirit] shall teach you all things”). For those who don’t know patripassianism, there’s info at the above hyperlink.

And there’s more from Wikipedia:

There was real doubt at Rome, and its bishop (either Eleuterus [sic] or Victor I) even wrote letters in support of Montanism, although he was later persuaded by Praxeas to recall them.[16][17] In 193, an anonymous writer found the church at Ancyra in Galatia torn in two, and opposed the "false prophecy" there.

Craig said...

Anon 6:12 PM:

You wrote: Also, evidently you Protestant Evangelicals are the ones who are 'offended' by the words of Jesus... especially in Matthew 16:18 when Jesus said to Peter in 33 AD: "And I say unto you, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall NOT prevail against it."

Speaking for myself, I have no issue with Jesus’ words above. My issue is with the RCC over-interpretation of them.

You also wrote: And... I am only 'offended' by HERETICS who act like they are on God's side... when they are actually betraying HIM!!!

I am also 'offended' by Cafeteria Christians... who carefully 'select' scriptural passages that support THEIR own beliefs... but, choose to IGNORE, DISMISS (or pick apart) passages which support Catholic beliefs.

Then do I presume you deem Augustine a “HERETIC”?

Anonymous said...

Stop trying to 'twist' my words, Craig!!!

We have already discussed this ad nauseum. I was referring to Origen and Tertullian as heretics. Augustine is on record as having fought AGAINST heresy.

Now, I don't intend to discuss this subject any further with you. You just want to beat a dead horse into the ground. But, you are going to have to find some one else to 'play' your little head games with you.

This is what I mean by arrogance and condescending, behavior on your part... trying to play a game of 'gotcha' with Catholics.

See the difference between us is that we don't really CARE what you believe... but, for some reason, you are OBSESSED with what we believe.

Well, it's time for you people to go find some other form of 'entertainment'... I am DONE!!!

paul said...

So how are you a part of any conversation if you are anonymous? That wouldn't even be a conversation, but rather just you taking potshots at whoever you want, whenever you want with every bit as much venom as you want; no repercussions.
Jesus told his disciples, regarding the powerful rich religious authorities of his day, to "do as they say but not as they do", because they were hypocrites. I'm sure that it was painful for Jesus to expose the Levites of those days for what they were.
But the Sanhedron was filthy corrupt, and he said so, many times.
So what's the difference ?
You cling, not to God the Father but to an institution which long ago came off the rails and skidded into corruption and filth.
You're a coward and, you say, a Roman Catholic but who you really are and what you stand for is completely unknowable and so, pointless, since you don't have the courage of any conviction at all. You say you've been here all these years but no one knows who you are!
I actually don't have anything against Roman Catholics, other than that they cling to a filthy rich, yet extremely corrupt institution which long ago gave itself away to sodomy and pedophilia. Other than those little details, plus the fact that the doctrines of an institution that calls itself orthodox are anything but Christian: Priests? Mary the "mother of god?" little sun-disk shaped wafers? Purple and scarlet? Super rich? Penance?, Indulgences? "Say five "our fathers" and ten "hail marys" and you'll be all better.
_and my favorite: the Jesuits, who were established for the sole purpose of irradicating Protestants, whether by slander and innuendo and marginalization or just by outright murder. Kill them all. That's what Jesuits were commishoned to do.

Anonymous said...

And, Paul, you just succeeded in proving what I have always known about you... that you really are full of VENOM!!!

Anonymous said...

Hapsburg Group happenings?.......

Thomas Ivan Dahlheimer said...

Rev. Matthew Fox wrote: The Cosmic Christ is the incarnation of God in the universe and especially in Mother Earth.

Rev. Fox's Cosmic Christ is [to him] the Spirit of God immanent in the Cosmos. It is the Spirit of the Universe, and It manifests as the material Divine Universe. To become One with the Divine Universe is to become One with the immanent and personal aspect of God. This "immanent and personal God" is the Cosmic Christ. This becoming "One with God" is "the final recognition of the All in All, the unity of the Self with the Cosmos - the cognition of the DIVINITY OF THE SELF!" The Spirit's impersonal transcendence beyond the Cosmos is essentially irrelevant. This is Fox's panentheistic creation-centered spiritual philosophy.

New Age Theology: Yogananda's guru wrote: “Jesus meant, never that he was the sole Son of God, but that no man can obtain the unqualified Absolute, the transcendent Father beyond creation, until he has first manifested the ‘Son’ or activating Christ Consciousness (the Cosmic Christ) within creation.” - Swami Sri Yukteswar

Rev. Matthew Fox's panentheism is NOT New Age panentheism. The panentheism that Yogananda's guru expressed in the above paragraph is New Age panentheism.

Craig said...

I shouldn’t have to put a disclaimer on each of the videos I post, but before someone tries to pigeonhole me as something I’m not: I don’t agree with everything Red Ice stands for. However, this does not negate some of the excellent points they make. Oh, and I don’t agree with everything the Dalai Lama stands for, either…

The Dalai Lama on the refugees—repatriation!:

Dalai Lama: Europe Is For Europeans, Refugees Go Home and Rebuild

The Dalai Lama stated the obvious about mass immigration into Europe, leaving leftists dumbfounded. It's not the first time either.


Formerly, I liked the band U2, but front-man Bono has become increasingly far-left leaning. It’s quite a shame, as I used to like the band’s early output. The first record I bought of theirs was War from 1983, and it’s the only one I still own, having eBayed the others years ago. Owing to their Irish Catholic upbringing, War features “40”, a song with lyrics taken from Psalm 40; the implicitly Christian-themed “Drowning Man”, with a quote from Isaiah 40:31 (rise up with wings like eagles…you’ll run and not grow weary); the somewhat ambiguous “Red Light”, which could be either a love song or song about God wooing someone (I think it better the latter fits better); and, the somewhat ambiguous “Surrender”, though the somewhat Theosophical/New Age-sounding lyric “If I want to live, I’ve got to die to myself someday” raises my eyebrow—but, hey, maybe he still meant them in a Christian manner.

In any case, he’s turned into one of the ‘elites’, hypocritically telling everyone else what they should do, while living as he pleases (does he house refugees in his mansions?—nope; and the band is known for evading taxes).

But, as the following shows, he’s branded blonde-haired, blue-eyed Swedes (as if they’re all with those characteristics) as Nazis (less than 18% voted for the Swedish Democrats, which ran on a platform of immigrant repatriation). But, what I want to know is how HE gets a free pass for doing a Nazi salute—while pretending to be one of the “Nazi” Swedes.

Bono Declares His Racist Hatred of Swedes in Wake of Election

Henrik discuss what the Globalist and U2 singer Bono said at a concert in France in the wake of the Swedish election. Bono declares his open racist hatred of Swedes and came down on how Swedes look. Saying that the traits of the Swedes: tall, blonde and blue-eyed is "boring." We show that he has ties in with lobby groups and international organizations that actually promote population replacement, so this his feelings are really not surprising.


This is all part of the UN Migration Pact:

Dangerous & Disturbing: The UN Migration Pact

Is government complicit in forced UN World Order?

Thomas Ivan Dahlheimer said...

If you look at Iran or Iraq, or any other Arab Islamic country, you will see that the vast majority of people born and raised in these countries are indoctrinated by their parents and society to believe in their perspective country's government, economic system, social order and religion. When the youth of these countries become adults do most of them then question their and their country's Islamic religion? Do they do a comparative religions study of our world's religions? And do they also study modern-day scientific discoveries to see if their religion's scriptures and doctrines based on them are compatible with their religion's doctrines? And do they also apply common sense reasoning to question their religion's doctrines? There is one answer to all of these questions, it's NO they do not. They are CONFORMISTS, they blindly go in the way of the many. By doing so, they avoid persecution and they also receive "safety in numbers," as well as social and economic benefits.

Jesus said: "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in there at: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." The vast majority of people living in Arab Islamic countries blindly follow the principle of going in the way of the many.

Most citizens of the United States of America are "Christians" and the vast majority of them that flow into our country's churches on Sunday are following the same principle that the vast majority of people living in Arab Islamic countries follow. They are blindly going in the way of the majority. They are not Christians they are CONFORMISTS. They do not care that modern-day scientific discoveries have proven that some of their essential Christian doctrines are false and neither to they use common sense reasoning to examine their religious beliefs, to question if they still want to continue practicing their faith. To them its all about going in the way of the majority and receiving the "benefits" for doing so. It is a pathetic world we are living in. If the New Age Movement can not get the majority of people on earth going in the right direction, we will destroy ourselves.

Anonymous said...

News flash Mr Dahlheimer! The New Age Movement is DOA. Going right into the dustbin of history because it is still only a rehash of failed ideas. It has the semblance of some "life" but it has no truth to make it and keep it sustainable like every other movement outside of God's perfect plan that He wrote to tell us in the Holy Bible.
A remnant will not be destroyed, a remnant will remain, because of God's truth and power to do exactly as He has said, and what everlasting benefit to those whose trust in placed solely in Him.
He can pull it all off from His lounge chair in heaven with His feet up, no sweat on His brow.
You're killing yourself trying so hard with an epic failure on your hands. What hopeless you are hanging onto. Such a pity.

You should really allow God to show you His plan from His Word instead of think of yourself as smarter than God. You have been wrong for so long. Aren't you tired of a plan that can't come together? The world and all it's trouble's is all your plans contains because it is based in flawed humanity. Just more of same.
There is hope after all, Mr Dahlheimer, and the Lord is waiting to show it to you.

Thomas Ivan Dahlheimer said...

Anonymous 11:31 AM -- The Lord as already shown me the truth. The Lord is waiting to show the truth to you. If you had been born and raised in Iran or Iraq you would be telling me the same thing. You would be saying: "Islam is the one true religion." Your "Lord's Bible revealed plan" is the only true one-because you were born and raised in this country, America. It's the same old bigoted Christian belief that has done nothing but cause misery to multitudes of people. And it is also causing a global ecological crisis. I hope you repent.

Craig said...


Right, because all Iranians and Iraqis are not Christian, and all Americans are not Muslim.

I, myself, an American, was not born and raised Christian, and I was agnostic for quite a while.

Anonymous said...

Jesus Christ is enough for those in Iraq and Iran, too. I hope they find that out.
Some (a good many actually) have already.
You can't beat or kill that truth out of them.

As for you.......
What Lord? What Truth?
You have not posted one iota of truth at this blog to date.
I have already repented before my Lord's cross, I live in the light of His forgiveness and love and have a future and a hope this world can't touch, my eternity with Jesus is secure.

I hope better for you than you do for me, evidently.
I think it sad that you've got nothing while you pretend you do.
So, sorry I'm not miserable as you suppose.
I guess the thought of that makes you feel at least a tiny bit better about the hopeless mess you are living for?...

Anonymous said...

4:10 PM is a reply for Mr. Dahlheimer.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

what does New Advent and the Catholic Encyclopedia say about popes being called pope?


" The title pope, once used with far greater latitude (see below, section V), is at present employed solely to denote the Bishop of Rome, ..."
section V "The title pope (papa) was, as has been stated, at one time employed with far more latitude. In the East it has always been used to designate simple priests. In the Western Church, however, it seems from the beginning to have been restricted to bishops (Tertullian, On Modesty 13). It was apparently in the fourth century that it began to become a distinctive title of the Roman Pontiff. Pope Siricius (d. 398) seems so to use it (Ep. vi in P.L., XIII, 1164), and Ennodius of Pavia (d. 473) employs it still more clearly in this sense in a letter to Pope Symmachus (P.L., LXIII, 69). Yet as late as the seventh century St. Gall (d. 640) addresses Desiderius of Cahors as papa (P.L., LXXXVII, 265). Gregory VII finally prescribed that it should be confined to the successors of Peter."
(pope is po-peh, like daddy in Italian.)

cites the Catholic Encyclopedia.


Jesus' core teaching was indeed passed on. it does't incl. papal title or supremacy. Try the Creed. Christ created the Church in 33 AD but not in Rome, which went into schism and developed semi heretical teaching before and after AD 1054. Both sides were guilty of sacrilege during the events leading up to it that year or the year prior however.

"You do NOT "have to be in or lose your salvation, period.
Stop repeating UNTRUE statements about what the Catholic Church teaches...."

'scuse me, I was going by pre Vatican II teaching. "outside the church there is no salvation" a papal bull specified Orthodox and protestants were outside the church therefore not saved, present contrary teaching goes against the papal magisterium of the past. (closer to truth however.) There are some caveats here and there

several articles

Paul says the Church is "the body of Christ" which is taken too literally by people like Joel's Army and MSOG it is more metaphorical like some worker being someone's hand The Holy Spirit does operate like sinew and blood flow in a body so it is not entirely metaphorical but a lot less literal than it is sometimes taken.

"And, we also have the promise of Jesus: "....and the gates of Hell shall NOT prevail against it." (Matthew 16-18)"

Orthodox and RC have the same error about gates. GATES ARE DEFENSIVE. Gates do not prevail by conquering others they prevail by not being beaten down by an attacker. Christ's promise is relevant to the church on the offensive, exorcism is a case in point.

In Luke 18:8 Christ asks, "when the Son of Man comes will He really find faith on the earth?" and left it an open question. Of course, the visible structure of the church organizaton(s) and liturgy could be present without any actual belief that affects action.

Apostolic succession to present time of Eastern Orthodox main patriarchates.

J said...

Because of a random string of one research topic leading to another, this morning I started to research St. Francis of Assisi. I was surprised to learn that about a thousand years before Laudato Si, Francis of Assisi was regarded as a patron saint of nature and animals. One legend about him even has him taming a wolf that had been attacking townspeople.

Francis of Assisi -- Nature and the Environment

"Francis preached the Christian doctrine that the world was created good and beautiful by God but suffers a need for redemption because of human sin. He believed that all creatures should praise God (a common theme in the Psalms) and the people have a duty to protect and enjoy nature as both the stewards of God's creation and as creatures ourselves.[37] Many of the stories that surround the life of Saint Francis say that he had a great love for animals and the environment.[37]

An incident illustrating the Saint's humility towards nature is recounted in the 'Fioretti' ('Little Flowers'), a collection of legends and folklore that sprang up after the Saint's death. One day, while Francis was traveling with some companions, they happened upon a place in the road where birds filled the trees on either side. Francis told his companions to 'wait for me while I go to preach to my sisters the birds.'[37] The birds surrounded him, intrigued by the power of his voice, and not one of them flew away. He is often portrayed with a bird, typically in his hand.

Another legend from the Fioretti tells that in the city of Gubbio, where Francis lived for some time, was a wolf 'terrifying and ferocious, who devoured men as well as animals'. Francis had compassion upon the townsfolk, and so he went up into the hills to find the wolf. Soon, fear of the animal had caused all his companions to flee, though the saint pressed on. When he found the wolf, he made the sign of the cross and commanded the wolf to come to him and hurt no one. Miraculously the wolf closed his jaws and lay down at Francis' feet.

'Brother Wolf, you do much harm in these parts and you have done great evil', said Francis. 'All these people accuse you and curse you ... But brother wolf, I would like to make peace between you and the people.' Then Francis led the wolf into the town, and surrounded by startled citizens made a pact between them and the wolf. Because the wolf had done evil out of hunger, the townsfolk were to feed the wolf regularly. In return, the wolf would no longer prey upon them or their flocks. In this manner Gubbio was freed from the menace of the predator. Francis even made a pact on behalf of the town dogs, that they would not bother the wolf again. Finally, to show the townspeople that they would not be harmed, Francis blessed the wolf."

J said...

Another possible influence on current Pope Francis is Teresa of Avila, who wrote an influential work of Christian mysticism called The Interior Castle. Her concepts have been reworked by Carolyn Myss, who authored the book, Entering the Castle: An Inner Path to God and Your Soul. Ken Wilber actually wrote a foreward to this book. I have seen the claim that Teresa of Avila was a big influence on the development of "integralist" thinking.

paul said...

See the movie: Brother Sun Sister Moon

Thomas Ivan Dahlheimer said...

I not along totally believe in David Spangler's belief that the world soul should 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."

I made some changes in my New Age theology:

Paramahansa Yogananda (1893–1952) is widely regarded as the Father of yoga in the West. He wrote: "The word 'God' means the manifested, transcendental Being beyond creation, but existing in relation to creation. Spirit existed before God. God is the Creator of the universe, but Spirit is the Creator of God."

Hindus and New Agers, including me, believe and teach that the emanated God sinned and that it caused Him to fall to a less-than-divine status, and that when He fell he created the material and psychic cosmos, which is a manifestation of his less-than-divine self. One aspect of this entity is now known as the soul of the universe-who [essentially or virtually] manifests as the universe. We also believe that the soul of the universe manifests, in a special way, as the earth's soul, whose status is equivalent to "a great angelic or archangelic being, and that it [virtually] manifests as the earth.

The soul of the universe and the soul of the earth as one less-than-divine entity is totally pure. However, its physical and psychic manifestations do not consists of the whole universe and the whole earth. Unlike the soul of the universe and soul of the earth they (the whole universe and whole earth) are not totally pure. This is because, Satan, known as maya in the Hindu scriptures, is also an aspect of the corrupted and now less-than-divine emanated God, and it (Satan/maya) is also inherent in the structure of creation.

Christians who worship "God the Father"/Jehovah serve his Satanic character and are led astray. New Agers who worship God the Father and honor the character of Jehovah that is the less-than-divine world soul (meaning, the soul of universe and the soul of the earth), receive holy spiritual guidance from his/her good "world soul" character.

Anonymous said...

"I made some changes in my New Age theology:"

And you think we care, Dahlheimer?

J said...

I'm reading Be Wise as Serpents by Fritz Springmeier. It is a book about the hijacking of Christianity by the architects of the one world religion.

One of Springmeier's sources for his book was Hidden Dangers of the Rainbow by Constance.

I downloaded his book as a free pdf.

J said...

I have an odd story to tell which is probably just an uncanny coincidence. I have been thinking for a few months of purchasing a home in Cedar Springs, Michigan. It is a town north of Grand Rapids. Circumstances have not worked out, and I have recently given up on my plans.

Just after finishing Fritz Springmeier's book, Thirteen Bloodlines of the Illuminati, I became curious about the most mysterious and least well studied bloodline family in the book, the Van Duyn family. I read that Springmeier had informants about the bloodline after finishing his book. His informants told him the Illuminati bloodline members of the family might be living in the Grand Rapids, Michigan area, as well as other Midwestern cities, such as Minneapolis/St. Paul.

I felt very skeptical that such a powerful family would really live in Grand Rapids, Michigan, but just out of idle curiosity, I did a web search. One of the first search results brought up a petition for the removal of Superintendent Laura Van Duyn. Apparently about three years ago, Laura Van Duyn moved from San Francisco area back to the Grand Rapids area, saying she was feeling excited about coming home to accept a position as the Superintendent of the Cedar Springs public school system. According to the petition:

"This petition serves as the community’s voice to remove Cedar Springs Public Schools Superintendent, Laura Van Duyn. The atmosphere has become one of bullying, intimidation and pitting people against one another. Collaboration is no longer wanted and many educators feel trapped. Staff members who ask questions are reprimanded, reassigned or removed. The culture changed overnight. The toxic atmosphere has led many quality educators to seek employment elsewhere. Surrounding top flight schools such as Rockford, Hudsonville, East Grand Rapids, East Kentwood and Grandville are now home to former staff. Our district has seen over 75 staff members leave in three short years. Even if half of those people left because of the atmosphere, it would be problematic."

But that was not the end of the curiosities. One more scandal rocked the Cedar Springs community:

Cedar Springs school board member apologizes, resigns after social media post

One of the board members posted on FaceBook after the petition to remove Laura Van Duyn was successful:

"You have sown the wind, you will now reap the whirlwind. All who wore the red shirts of the rebellious have been marked out as being guilty of shedding the blood of the innocent. Your smiles will soon turn to mourning. God is not mocked."

The name of the board member who wrote this post is Tim Shelley Bauer. Bauer was the name of the Rothschild family before changing it. Some of the Rothschild bloodline still use the name Bauer.

I am not claiming that these two scandals prove that Illuminati bloodline members have infiltrated the Cedar Springs public school. I only think it is an uncanny coincidence! I doubt if they would be so easy to remove by the community if they were truly Illuminati! I also doubt the Illuminati would bother with the Cedar Springs school system. It's just a weird thing that made me go, hmmm...

Anonymous said...

Watch "Shade" the motion picture here for free.

Begin at the 22 minute mark...

Craig said...

The new Project Veritas series has begun, and it is excellent:

Deep State Unmasked: State Dept on Hidden Cam "Resist Everything" "I Have Nothing to Lose"

Project Veritas has released the first installment in an undercover video series unmasking the deep state. The video features a State Department employee, Stuart Karaffa, engaged in radical socialist political activity on the taxpayer's dime, while advocating for government resistance. Stuart Karaffa is also a ranking member of the Metro DC Democratic Socialists of America (Metro DC DSA.)

Stuart Karaffa is just the first federal government employee that Project Veritas has filmed in an undercover series unmasking the deep state. More video reports are to be released soon.

Featured in this video are:

Richard Manning of
Bill Marshall of

Craig said...

Here’s the 2nd vlog from Project Veritas. I suspect this will be like the last series, in which the stakes increase with each one.

Deep State Unmasked: Leaks at HHS; DOJ Official Resists "From Inside" and "Can't Get Fired"

Project Veritas has released the second installment in an undercover video series unmasking the deep state. This video features a Department of Justice paralegal Allison Hrabar reportedly using government owned software and computers to push a socialist agenda. Also featured is Jessica Schubel, the former Chief of Staff for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services during the last Obama administration. Both Schubel and Hrabar make admissions revealing that federal employees are using their positions in the government to resist or slow the Trump administration's policies, some breaking laws in the process.

J said...

In light of discussions of teachings of early church fathers, I found this discussion of the eschatology within the early church to be interesting. Especially since lately I have been reading about Freemasonic historical influences behind the formation of churches that most emphasize end times prophecy (Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Mormons). There is also historical evidence of the Freemasonic influence on the teaching of Dispensationalism.

My mind is not made up; I am still researching this. I invite comments and critiques.

Why the Early Church Finally Rejected Premillennialism

"Its Sources Were Non-Christian Jewish Sources

First, critics of chiliasm point out that Christian chiliasts got their chiliasm not so much from the apostles as from non-Christian Jewish sources.6 Irenaeus cites a tradition from a book written by Papias of Hierapolis about the millennial kingdom.7 The tradition purports to reproduce Jesus' teaching on the kingdom as related through the Apostle John to those who remembered the latter's teaching. It is the famous report about each grapevine in the kingdom having ten thousand branches, each branch ten thousand twigs, each twig ten thousand shoots, each shoot ten thousand clusters, and each cluster ten thousand grapes, etc., with talking grapes, each one anxious that the saints would bless the Lord through it.8 As it turns out, this account seems to be a development of a tradition recorded in the Jewish apocalypse 2 Baruch in its account of the Messiah's earthly kingdom (Ch. 29).

Some scholars note that the chiliasm of Justin, though it derives the number 1,000 from Revelation 20, springs more from a certain approach to Old Testament exegesis (particularly on Is. 65:17-25) than from the eschatology of Revelation.9 And this approach is in basic agreement with that of Trypho, his Jewish interlocutor. This is in keeping with the role chiliasm plays in Justin's Dialogue with Trypho, where it functions as part of an apologetic which sought to claim everything Jewish for Christianity. The issue of the fulfillment of the prophets' predictions of glory for Israel was very much a part of the atmosphere of the discussion between these representatives of Christianity and Judaism, for their encounter took place not long after the failed attempt by Bar Cochba to take Jerusalem back from the Romans (a.d. 132­35)."

J said...

This is good, too, from the above link:

"Chiliasm's Old Testament Hermeneutic Led to the Crucifixion

Finally, the chiliastic alternative on the intermediate state of the Christian soul between death and the resurrection was a problem which in itself could have led to chiliasm's demise. But there was another problem which, when clearly exposed, had the potential of being downright scandalous. It was recognized by Origen and has been seen by non-chiliasts down to the present day.20 It is the realization that the 'literal,' nationalistic interpretation of the prophets was the standard that Jesus, in the eyes of his opponents, did not live up to, and therefore was the basis of their rejection of his messiahship. One of the prophecies that Irenaeus had insisted will be literally fulfilled in the kingdom on earth was Is. 11:6-7, which speaks of the wolf dwelling with the lamb and the leopard with the kid, etc. Origen specifically mentions this passage as among those which the Jews misinterpret: 'and having seen none of these events literally happening during the advent of him whom we believe to be Christ they did not accept our Lord Jesus, but crucified him on the ground that he had wrongly called himself Christ.'21 This 'Jewish' approach to the Old Testament prophecies and its role in the Jewish rejection of Jesus was recognized even by Tertullian and was no doubt one of his motivations for taking a more 'spiritualized' approach to those prophecies than Irenaeus had done.22"

Craig said...

Here’s the next in the Project Veritas series:

Deep State Unmasked: U.S. GAO Employee Admits “I Break Rules Every Day”

Project Veritas has released the next in a series of undercover reports which unmask the Deep State. This report features a Government Accountability Office (GAO) employee and self-proclaimed Communist actively engaged in potentially illegal political activity. Natarajan Subramanian is a government auditor for the GAO and a member of the Metro DC Democratic Socialists of America (Metro DC DSA).

Metro DC DSA is a socialist group that works to advance progressive issues in the Metropolitan DC area. Subramanian's political activism may directly violate federal statutes as well as the "Yellow Book" rules which apply specifically to government auditors.

RayB said...

To J regarding your 4:36 PM post:

Criminal history of Fritz Springmeier ...

On January 31, 2002, Springmeier was indicted in the United States District Court in Portland, Oregon[7] in connection with an armed robbery. On February 12, 2003, he was found guilty of one count of armed bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a) and (d) and one count of aiding and abetting in the use of a semi-automatic rifle during the commission of a felony in violation of 18 U.S.C § 924(c)(1).[8][9] In November 2003, he was sentenced to 51 months in prison on the armed robbery charge and 60 months on the aiding and abetting charge, fined $7,500, ordered to pay $6,488 in restitution, and assessed an additional $200.[10] Springmeier's conviction was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[11] He was imprisoned, and was released from federal prison on March 25, 2011.

RayB said...


The link you provided in your 2:34 PM post has a lot of very good material, so this is by no means a criticism of it. However, sometimes such sites attempt to view the forest and ignore the trees that are right in front of them. Their take on, IMO, "Chiliasm's Old Testament Hermeneutic Led to the Crucifixion" is one such example.

The Jews were (and remain, with few exceptions) what the Bible refers to as a "stiff necked people." They have a history of rebellion against the Lord and His prophets ("except ... for a very small remnant" Isaiah 1:9).

Why did the Jews REALLY reject Jesus as the Messiah? Was it, as the Dispensationalists are prone to tell us that they simply misinterpreted the O.T. prophesies concerning the Messiah? That they were "looking" for some type of "political Messiah?" That may be an interesting theory, but the Bible itself indicates no such case.

So what was the cause of the Crucifixion?

First and foremost, Christ's death on the cross was the sovereign, unalterable, prophetic plan of God to happen in exactly the manner in which it did, within the exact prophetic timeline, and to accomplish exactly what God had fore planned throughout all of eternity. In other words, the "Jews," because of their misunderstanding of the O.T., did not cause the crucifixion.

Second, the Jews were purposely "blinded" by God in order to fulfill that plan exactly in the manner of the O.T. prophesies. For example, the actual Biblical reason for Jesus "teaching" in parables (spiritual riddles) was to prevent the those that were "without," or, outside, from understanding these teachings "lest at any time they should be converted," and to fulfill prophecy! Mark 4:10-13

Third, without God's effectual grace, the Jews(and all men since) rejected, and continue to reject Christ not because of a lack of education, or misunderstanding, or some vague philosophical reason, but rather, because their "deeds are evil." Christ is rejected because mankind simply does not want to give up (repentance) their sinful rebellion and obey the Lord Jesus Christ and His word.

"And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil. For EVERY ONE that doeth evil hateth the light, NEITHER COMETH TO THE LIGHT, lest his deeds should be reproved." John 3:19,20

J said...


It wasn't my intention to debate the types of theological points you are raising for discussion, although I do think those are valid related topics to discuss.

I'm trying to figure out if we are really living in the "end times".

Or maybe an alternative explanation is that occultists are doing a great big psy-op on Christians.

This is an open question to me, and I am interested in evidence for and against both ideas.

This is the reason for my interest in preterist theology and its historical underpinnings.

Thank you for your discussion points, though, and I will consider them.

J said...

I found this interesting reading, too, in the preterist archives.

Steve Sabz: Armies of Angels in the Clouds (2014)

The Old Testament’s description of the Lord’s angelic forces is eerily similar to that of Josephus’ and Tacitus’ account of what happened in 66 AD:

And he [the Son of Man] will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other. – Jesus Christ to his disciples in Matthew 24:31

First-century AD historians, Josephus and Tacitus, both document the appearance of what can only be described as armies of angels in the skies above Jerusalem in the spring of 66 AD:

…before sun-setting, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armor were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities. Jewish historian Josephus in Jewish Wars, 6.5.3 (circa 75 AD)

There had been seen hosts joining battle in the skies, the fiery gleam of arms, the temple illuminated by a sudden radiance from the clouds. Roman historian Tacitus in The History, 5.13 (circa 100 AD)

Hebrew author of the Book of Maccabees, a chronicle of the Jewish victories against Antiochus Epiphanes IV, king of the Seleucid Empire (175-164 B.C.), recorded 'people all over Jerusalem' who witnessed angelic armies 'charging across the sky' for almost forty days:

For nearly forty days people all over Jerusalem saw visions of cavalry troops in gold armor charging across the sky. The riders were armed with spears and their swords were drawn. They were lined up in battle against one another, attacking and counterattacking. Shields were clashing, there was a rain of spears, and arrows flew through the air. All the different kinds of armor and the gold bridles on the horses flashed in the sunlight. Unknown Hebrew author in 2 Maccabees 5:2-3 (circa 169 BC)"

J said...


Thanks for the info on Fritz Springmeier. I will need to research it more thoroughly.

J said...

How Fritz Springmeier Was Framed

"Springmeier was convicted because a bank robber, Forrest E. Bateman Jr. testified that Springmeier visited his house on the same day as Bateman discussed the robbery with two accomplices.

Bateman received a reduced sentence for this testimony. He did not say he had discussed the robbery with Springmeier.

At Springmeier’s trial and appeal, James A. Redden, the sentencing judge, kept repeating: 'circumstantial evidence can be used to prove anything.'

Indeed, Springmeier’s case is in the law books as an example of a miscarriage of justice. Ann J Brown, the first Federal Judge to hear the case, had said, 'There is no evidence against this man.'

Springmeier received an extra five years because a firearm was used in the robbery.

Forrest Bateman fired a rifle into the ceiling to get everyone’s attention when he and two accomplices robbed $6000 from the Key Bank in the Portland suburb of Damascus Oct 6, 1997.

Ten minutes prior to the robbery, a ‘bomb’ exploded at the Fantasy Adult Video Store, located six miles west of the bank. No one was injured in the explosion but police investigators believe that the bomb was set off as a diversionary tactic.

The ‘bomb’ was a propane tank. Springmeier was nowhere near either event and had no prior knowledge of either. At the time he was working at a print shop in Eagle Creek, 10 miles SE. However the proprietor refused to provide an alibi because Fritz had offended him by criticizing Billy Graham."

RayB said...


Thanks for your comments. My only purpose in posting to you the Springmeier info was for you to employ some caution.

As for the end times, everyone alive today is in their own personal "end times," because life is incredibly short ... even for the young. Having said that, there is no doubt, IMO, that there is far more potential for the fulfillment of Bible prophecy than any other in my lifetime. Just one illustration; Revelation speaks explicitly that a one world political/economic system will take place. Back in the 1980's for example, that seemed to be a very difficult thing to accomplish ... not now. The entire world is on a fiat currency with unimaginable debt/deficit spending. Sooner or later, that system will implode (perhaps by design) and it will collapse the entire world economic order. I believe the elite will take advantage of the crisis and move to create their ultimate dream; a totalitarian One World Government. Absolute allegiance to the OWG will be enforced. We are far closer to this than many people realize. The last global crisis (2008) was only a precursor to what is coming. In effect, we are in a much weaker position because the world's central bankers "solved" the last crisis by printing massive amounts of fiat money, and their actions only temporarily put off the inevitable. Furthermore, their actions deepened the systemic problems. They will have literally no viable options when this next global crisis hits. So in a nutshell, and that is just one area, but it is huge, because it solves one very big part of the prophecy puzzle that didn't seem possible just 20 or 30 years ago.

One thing is for sure; the end is closer today than it was yesterday! But, only God "knows the hour and the day."

J said...

I agree that people are working toward a one world government and a one world religion. But they did the same thing when they built the Tower of Babylon. Nothing will succeed unless God allows it. Christians may be fatalistic if they think the NWO is a part of the fulfillment of the prophecies in Revelation and Daniel.

Why should we fear any village voodoo witch doctors, even if they have a bigger production budget than the men who put on masks to scare the village women and children? Everybody is just a human being. No matter how rich somebody is, he or she still takes a sh*t the same way, no matter whether it is in a gold-plated toilet or a hole in the ground.

Benjamin Creme was no match for Constance's Lord's Prayer. Too few of us have had the courage of conviction that Constance has had. Creme was supposed to be the False Prophet for the Maitreya. Well, all it took was a prayer, and Creme couldn't channel his entity as usual for the crowd. Should that maybe tell us something? Maybe none of this is the unfolding of prophecy according to God's will. Maybe it's just a huge hoax, and part of the hoax is to psych out Christians.

None of these elite occultists are impressive when you learn who they are and what the facts about them are. Is Aleister Crowley impressive? Not to me. He's a bald, ugly, pretentious and delusional criminal and occultist who had more success than Charles Manson. He was a member of the British elite so he was not imprisoned like Manson, who was just a street level thug. That is all.

J said...

It could be that even though the prophecies of Revelation were fulfilled in 70 AD, there will continue to be types re-occuring through history. For example, Hitler was a type of Anti-Christ. The Axis Powers in WWII were a type of Beast. The Vatican during WWII years was a type of Whore of Babylon riding on the Beast, and the Beast did hate the Whore and did turn on her. What happened to the Catholic church after WW II may even have been a type of judgement. What Armenians went through before the war, and what Orthodox Jews went through during the war, was a type of Tribulation.

I'm just being interpretive. I'm not saying my interpretation is just exactly how God sees it.

I just think maybe we shouldn't be deterministic about it or fatalistic about it.

Hitler did not have his Third Reich.

I'm not characterizing the whole body of the Catholic church the way I characterized the Vatican during the WW II years. About 4,000 priests and nuns were killed for resisting Nazis. What they went through may also have been a type of Tribulation.

Maybe the Tower of Babel will also be a type that re-occurs through history.

Not because it's all pre-determined -- but because of human nature, which doesn't change.

I'm just saying maybe these are not the End Times to end all times.

J said...

When I call the Catholic church during the WW II years (a type of, not THE) Whore of Babylon, what I am referring to is that the church in a sense rode the Beast. Because the Vatican backed Hitler and Mussolini with the hopes of achieving geopolitical objectives. The Vatican had old historical scores to settle with France (for the French Revolution, which was another type of Tribulation perhaps) and with England (for Henry VIII and Anglicanism). And in Russia the Vatican hoped to convert Russian Orthodox Christians into Roman Catholics. I'm not saying I believe the Catholic church itself is identified with THE Whore of Babylon of Revelation. I'm only saying maybe the Vatican during the WW II years could be interpreted as a limited historical type of Whore of Babylon (for riding the Beast, which hated her and turned on her).

But if Hitler had his Third Reich, he planned to turn the Catholic church into a New Age church.

But the whole overall point is just because occultists plan something doesn't mean it is THE fulfillment of prophecy. It might only be a re-occuring historical type that we don't have to accept in a fatalistic manner.

J said...

I also want to clarify that Prussian Masonic Lodge Thule Society members in some cases were Catholic clergy in Germany, so they were Catholic in name only. They were not truly believing Catholics. So I am definitely not in any way attacking the basic tenets of Catholic theology.

Craig said...

We, as a society, are lost. Few can (or will) think critically, logically. For many, when a statement is made that they don’t like, regardless of how well-reasoned or nuanced, they react emotionally—rather than respond to the substance of the statement—most typically injecting their own illogical inferences.

I’ve started the following at the point at which the REPORTER asks about the me-me-me2 movement. You can see her whole countenance change when Penn responds in a manner she clearly does not like. When he states that the “movement” has served to divide men and women, the reporter’s immediate response is to claim that she thinks it has united women. The disconnect, the cognitive dissonance!

And check out the comments section. I’m amazed at the numerous straw man responses to legitimate statements reacting to Penn’s words. Some keep perpetuating the straw men—all serving to absolutely PROVE Penn’s statement of how the “movement” is dividing men and women.

Sean Penn Talks His TV Debut, Criticizes #MeToo Movement | TODAY

Academy Award-winning actor Sean Penn is making his TV debut in the Hulu show "The First," which centers around a dangerous mission to Mars. Penn and his costar, Natascha McElhone, recently sat down with NBC’s Natalie Morales to talk about the show, and Penn shared some frank thoughts about the #MeToo movement.

J said...


Jesus Christ is the answer to #MeToo. Men who are Christian know women have souls and not just bodies. They know women are morally and spiritually equal to men. Women who are Christian know the sexual revolution is not a thing that can be tweaked until some day it is finally a feminist engineered utopia.

Rapists and abusers divide men and women, too. Sean Penn tied up Madonna and raped and abused her verbally and physically for hours when she was his wife. She called the police and reported it but then decided not to file charges, because she feared the damage to her image.

I care a lot more about what Jesus Christ has to say than I do about what Sean Penn has to say. My face in reaction to him may have been even worse than the reporter's face was.

There is no doubt God hates false accusations. There is no doubt the MSM exhibits GroupThink. There is no doubt men and women are often divided by media and now social media messaging ever since the feminist movement.

My response to your story was most definitely not to feel more united with Sean Penn and through him to all men collectively in some way.

I try to have unity with my husband, but I don't know what collective unity means if it is men and women collectively, not unless it means spiritually as a part of the body of Jesus Christ.

I can't be unequally yoked with Sean Penn.

J said...

Did Sean Penn Beat Up Madonna? An Archaeology of Hollywood’s Most Explosive Rumor

"Sean Penn has confirmed in multiple interviews that Madonna summoned the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department to their home on Malibu’s Carbon Mesa Road on the night of December 28, 1988. (Not 1989, as numerous outlets—and Madonna’s own affidavit—have mistakenly noted.) Beyond that, however, the details of that night are still fairly murky. It’s unclear, for example, whether or not Penn was actually arrested. (In Gawker’s original post about his defamation lawsuit against Lee Daniels, we claimed he was in fact arrested, but as we noted in our correction, the available evidence isn’t at all definitive one way or the other.) And Madonna, for her part, has never publicly addressed why exactly she asked the L.A. Sheriff to intervene.

Making matters even murkier is how the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department deals with older police records. When we asked the agency for the related incident report, a sheriff named Jim McDonnell told us that documents dated before 1992 'have been purged from our system in accordance with our retention schedule and are no longer available.' He later explained that the agency does not even keep track of which records have been purged."

J said...

In general, the problem with humanistic reform movements -- including feminism -- is that they deal with the effects of sin but not sin itself, which is the root cause of human problems, whether individual or social. In America, there used to be a Social Gospel, but it actually came out of the Lodges. American Protestant pastors of all denominations but especially Unitarian and Episcopalian have been heavily involved in Masonic Lodges from the beginning.

Also Plato was the first recorded feminist. He wrote in his Republic that children would be educated in schools away from their parents and that girls and boys would be educated to believe that there is no distinction between the two sexes.

There has been a long line of thinkers who have been influenced by Plato, including those of both Marxist and fascist persuasions and many types of utopists with ideas of social experiments. All revolutions and social experiments, including the addiction to reform shown by the American Social Gospel, have come out of Lodges.

Establishment men are the gatekeepers who have promoted establishment feminists. Also feminists have been influenced by men such as Karl Marx.

But Plato was the first to put feminist ideas into writing.

If Plato were alive today, perhaps one of his catamites would have a #MeToo hashtag and fifteen minutes of fame.

Craig said...


To my disappointment (you have shown, at least to me, that you can do better than this) you’ve just exemplified my point. This is not about what Sean Penn may or may not have done in the past (i.e. killing the messenger), this is about the substance of his statement in this context. [And, do we just automatically believe Madonna’s version of this account?—though, as I ready this comment for posting, I see you’ve posted more on this issue, thereby contravening/softening your initial statement.] And it’s not about your extrapolations and inferences, which have nothing to do with his actual statement in this context.

Penn made a statement. It answered the reporter’s question—to her dissatisfaction—and did so in a sufficiently nuanced way. He didn’t excuse rapists. He didn’t excuse unwanted sexual advances, etc. [Yet, see the comments section.] Penn chose his opening statement very carefully:

“I’d like to think that none of it [the presence of a large number of leading women on the cast of the show] was influenced by what they would call the ‘movement’ of metoo. I think it’s influenced by the things that are developing in terms of the empowerment of women acknowledging each other, and being acknowledged by men…[OBVIOUS CUT IN INTERVIEW] This, as a movement, was largely shouldered by a kind of receptacle of the salacious…[angry question by reporter in response to the last four words] Well, we don’t know what’s a fact in many of the cases—it’s salacious. As soon as you call something a ‘movement’ that is really a series of many individual accusers/victims, accusations—some of which are unfounded…[OBVIOUS CUT] The spirit of much of what has been the ‘metoo movement’ is to divide men and women. [REPORTER’S STRAW MAN INTERJECTION: ‘The women would say it’s united women’] I’m gonna say that women that I talk to, not in front of a camera, that I listen to, of all walks of life, that there is a common sense that is not represented at all in the discussion when it comes to the media discussion of it…I don’t want it to be a ‘trend’, and I’m very suspicious of a ‘movement’ that gets glommed onto, in great stridency and rage, and without nuance. And even when people try to discuss it in a nuanced way, the nuance itself is attacked… [REPORTER WHO STILL DOESN’T GET IT: ‘Do you think the movement’s gotten too big; it’s gotten to be—in some ways there are too many shades of grey? And, and’ (stammering)] I think it’s too black and white. In most things that are very important it’s really good to just slow down.”

You say, Jesus Christ is the answer to metoo. Yes and no. ANYONE can be falsely accused, Christian or not. Men’s lives have been absolutely RUINED by false accusations. Men have killed themselves over this sort of thing. The first ‘me2’ victim in recorded history? Joseph—falsely accused by Potiphar’s wife. You may wish to counter that God used it for good; but, from my vantage point, I’d much rather have not been the subject of a false allegation to begin with.


Craig said...


Of course, some of these allegations are credible. But here’s the MAIN POINT: these should be tried in a legal and/or civil court—not in the ‘court of public opinion’. Diana Davison has a YouTube channel dedicated almost exclusively to helping men (primarily men) falsely accused, illustrating how prevalent false accusations are.

Tangentially, the corrupt family courts in conjunction with the Violence Against Women Act have induced unscrupulous lawyers to tell their female clients to fabricate a tale of being the victim of violence (or fear of impending violence) in order to boot their husbands out of the house and in order to secure a more favorable divorce settlement. Men have lost jobs over this sort of thing, and, thereby have lost their ability to support themselves adequately, let alone pay mandated child support, and these men are then jailed for non-payment of child support. In some cases, the women, realizing the extent of their actions, have tried to undo the harm by talking to counsel, judges, police, etc., to no avail.

J said...


I just wrote extensively about defending Catholic priests against false accusations and giving them due process, in the comments section of a previous post. Maybe you missed it.

Also you may have missed that I wrote in my comment in this very thread:

"There is no doubt God hates false accusations. There is no doubt the MSM exhibits GroupThink. There is no doubt men and women are often divided by media and now social media messaging ever since the feminist movement."

No, actually, the allegations are not tried in a court of public opinion, not with celebrities. The men are fired by their corporate bosses or not. Corporations can mostly fire at will, depending on contract. They do not need to follow due process in a legal sense. Should they in a moral sense? Of course. But they are afraid they will lose profit due to their image being tainted.

It is politicians and political appointees whose allegations come closer to being tried in the court of public opinion. (Brett Kavanaugh.)

I am sorry that I disappointed you, but you disappointed me by your choice of spokesman -- and it does matter to me if a messenger is a hypocrite -- I am sorry if that is disappointing.

You, too, are proving your own point. You fail to see where we agree and fixate on our disagreements.

Craig said...

I'll add this: Madonna herself has admitted to sleeping with men to get where she wanted to go. I call that prostitution. Here's the thing: if anyone, man or woman, makes a quid pro quo--you do this and you'll get that--and if the other person goes along with 'this' to get 'that', then, in my estimation, the person agreeing to the quid pro quo should not be able to come back years later and make some kind of allegation regarding it. Said person accepted the proposal. Sure, the person offering the quid pro quo is a dirtbag, but the one who agrees to it is no better in my book. When confronted with such a thing, a person of character says "NO!" and walks away--regardless of whether or not it impedes their career, etc.

J said...


Regarding Madonna and the rest: of course!

Mainly, I don't need Sean Penn to tell me his wise sage words of wisdom. I'm not an indoctrinated Millennial -- but I doubt that those who are, will listen to Sean Penn's opinions about the #MeToo movement any time soon. Frankly, I find zero Hollywood men credible. Zero. I am interested in what normal, everyday men have to say. I care more about what you have to say than I care about what Sean Penn has to say. And why do you need Sean Penn to speak for you? What are your own words about your own opinions?

I am a woman who has lived. I have multiple perspectives. I have a husband and a son. I have been sexually harrassed when younger. I have dated sweet men I worked with, who expressed they were afraid to date me because of the workplace sexual harrassment policy. I have friends who have been raped. I have listened to my husband's workplace stories for years, ranging from comically ridiculous to anxiety-inducing. He has fallen asleep when he had to watch sexual harrassment training videos. He has been told by the CEO of his company that 38% women managers is not enough and it needs to be 50%. I have a son who is ten years old, and I worry more about him being a target of sexual predators, than I worry about myself being such.

I don't need Sean Penn to tell me how to think and feel. I already empathize with men and women.

I don't care what celebrity men say about #MeToo Tell me what normal men say about it. Then you may find my response is different.

I already talk to my husband about things from his perspective. And my brother. And father. And I hear the stories of my husbands male friends and co-workers second-hand.

Sean Penn can go jump in a lake. I do not care what his wise opinions are about any subject whatsoever, including but not limited to #MeToo.

Tell me what your opinions are, Craig. Maybe then we can start over with this topic.

Craig said...

J @ 1:11 PM,

The things you bring up in this comment are precisely WHY I offered my initial parenthetical comment (you can do better). However, your response @ 11:17 AM, most definitely illustrated the point I was making in my 12:16 AM comment. You attempted to kill the messenger, but more importantly, your statement @ 11:17 AM displayed absolutely no nuance—you stated nothing about the possibility of the accusations being false. Instead, you went on a tangent about Christianity (Hollywood celebrities are largely not Christian) and how rapists and abusers are dividing men and women. These have absolutely NOTHING to do with Penn’s statement.

It’s not at all about the ‘spokesman’—as if I agree or disagree with any other thing Sean Penn has said or done. The reference was THIS ONE STATEMENT. I have to admit this is the sort of thing that raises my ire. I hope you’ll admit that each and every Christian is flawed and makes mistakes, doing things at times that are no better than the rest of the world. Conversely, a person of the world, who is expected to do things of the world, can possibly make a statement that can be agreed upon by non-Christians and Christians alike.

You wrote: No, actually, the allegations are not tried in a court of public opinion, not with celebrities. The men are fired by their corporate bosses or not. Corporations can mostly fire at will, depending on contract. They do not need to follow due process in a legal sense. Should they in a moral sense? Of course. But they are afraid they will lose profit due to their image being tainted.

Of course they are tried in the ‘court of public opinion’! This includes other celebrities AND followers of celebrities. And, nearly without fail, from the perspective of women (and weak-minded men), the women are automatically believed, while the men are automatically perceived as guilty. The ultimate end the person’s career is a consequence resulting from the ‘court of public opinion’—as opposed to a LEGAL court, in which evidence can be weighed.

This is the sort of thing SJWs do to those on the more conservative end of the spectrum. They have doxed individuals, contacted their employers, and succeeded in getting them fired OVER FALSE ALLEGATIONS.

In any case, my entire reason for posting initially was to illustrate the lack of logic used in discussions. Rather, emotion is appealed to, which makes discussing the real issues very difficult.

Colleges are churning out Marxist-indoctrinated graduates, not individuals who can think critically. And it’s a shame.

J said...


You will get no argument from me that something is wrong with the way students are educated. In my opinion it is bigger than Marxism, but Marxism makes a good-enough proxy to talk about in many if not most contexts, since Marxism overlaps pretty well with occult goals.

(Marxism is not really the ultimate goal per se, though. Marxism and Capitalism are both in a Hegelian dialectic. The synthesis of the thesis and antithesis is China, with its Communism 2.0. Elites think it is the best social experiment yet and say so in writings openly. They like that there is control from the top down but things still get done through business.)

You probably are aware that Alice Bailey wrote educational goals for U. S. Health, Education and Welfare in 1958? And that her writings were used in the Globalism 2000 curriculum? Skull and Bones member and 33 degree Mason George W. Bush actually pushed the Globalism 2000 curriculum. And then the Millennials grew up with it, more or less.

WRT cultural Marxism, it is interesting, because we have more of it in the USA and Europe than the people of China and Russia.

If you look at Ireland, you will see that southern Ireland is awash in cultural Marxism. But not northern Ireland.

Some people suppose cultural Marxism to be a way to weaken the cultures that are to be divided and conquered.

You mentioned men and women being divided. Do you think that this is just because women are emotional, or could there be more to it?

Craig said...

Asia Argento illustrates the absolute hypocrisy of the ‘movement’ (and she’s not the only example). Here’s a woman accused by a young man, and women are making excuses for Argento:

Asia Argento: The Heart of Deceit

People should not be shocked at Asia Argento's hypocrisy. But we can learn from it.


Relatedly, a blog post I wrote a while back deals with how straw men and cognitive dissonance are related:

Creating Straw Men from Cognitive Dissonance

J said...

Even before Alice Bailey, John Dewey, the father of the US educational system, was an original signer of the Humanist Manifesto in 1933. The idea of the Humanist Manifesto was that man is his own god. And that a new religion, a synthesis, had to be created.

Dewey was also a believer in the ideas of Hegel, who wrote, "The State is the absolute reality and the individual himself has objective existence, truth and morality only in his capacity as a member of the state."

Sounds pretty Marxist to me. I was taught in college that Dewey was one of the American Pragmatist philosophers. He was so much more than that.

J said...


Asia Argento's example should not be shocking to people who think humans are enslaved to sin until they are regenerated. If we say human nature is basically good, but we know evil is done, maybe then we need to scapegoat. Perhaps some feminists scapegoat men. Scapegoating is done when, instead of knowing we all have human nature, some group has human nature projected onto them. For some feminists, that group may be men.

Again, I think a Christian conceptual framework would obviate many of these foolish controversies and cognitive dissonances.

J said...

I am a member of online groups of mothers and a few fathers who support each other through thick and thin. But when it comes to certain topics, I will get no support from most Millennials. For one example, I proposed a gun as a possible solution to a problem with a neighbor's pit bull. I was called disgusting. I had little support and a lot of attack, including attack from the mother who posted about the problem looking for help.

Now let me tell you some background. This mother has a special needs son with both autism and PANDAS (Pediatric Auto-immune Neuropsychiatric Disorder Associated with Strep). She has tried everything for her son's PANDAS, but he doesn't get better. Meanwhile, in addition to all of this stress, the neighbor always lets their pitbull wander into her yard and growl and bark menacingly.

Many neighbors have complained about the pitbull. The pitbull owner has been fined numerous times. But the problem goes on and on.

So I suggested perhaps this mother or her husband could get a gun and be ready to use it. I never said shoot the thing on sight. But you can imagine maybe you would want to shoot one if it's running full speed toward your special needs child, before it bites his throat. Right?

Wouldn't you think that in a group where we are all there to support each other as parents, we would value our own child and somebody else's child more than a neighbor's pitbull? And I only made it worse by citing statistics about pitbull attacks. It brought out the pitbull defenders.

Many people were more concerned at that point about defending pitbulls than they were about helping this mother to solve her problem. And the mother herself became angry with me as well, although she only expressed it by disagreeing with me about everything I ever said about any topic from that point forward.

Millennials are very, very indoctrinated, and it scares me.

I have also had problems talking to them about other things. It has been driving me away from my support groups, because I don't want to create more stress for them or myself. And I don't want to carefully watch what I say.

J said...

What’s In Our Schools Will Shock You

Highlights from a timeline for education:

"1960-1975… Teaching became a draft exempt job. Unsuspecting new teachers were trained in the Modern Education promoted by John Dewey focusing on psychological manipulation training for the desired outcome of the populace. The PC culture was implemented. Dewey’s NEW SCHOOL FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH (which I attended) was the training ground for unsuspecting future teachers were trained to integrate the media and Hollywood into our lessons. Today you can not see a movie, series or documentary which does not carry some government message especially climate.

1976 – The Russian book, The Scientific and Technological Revolution and the Revolution in Education, translated and imported to the U.S.A., helped lay the foundation for the philosophy behind Outcome-based Education.

1978 – Project Global 2000: Planning for a New Century, in which Robert Muller (United Nations Assistant Secretary-General for 40 years) and Margaret Mead (American cultural anthropologist) challenged the people of the world to prepare for the year 2000 by a ‘worldwide collaborative process of unparalleled thinking, education and planning for a just and sustainable human world order.’

1979 – Jimmy Carter – Signs into law the Federal Department of Education. American education begins to decline.

1989 – Shirley McClune from the McRel Foundation told the Association of Governors that education was now changed:

♦ from individualism to collectivism,

♦ from fact to value,

♦ from education to training

Bush 41 was President. Clinton was president of the National Governors Association. Jeb Bush, FL GOV, partnered Florida with UNESCO to promote sustainability in all subject areas. America was always in the top 10 worldwide. After implementation of these plans America is 27-40.

J said...


Have you pondered the fact that the #MeToo movement burst onto the scene on the one year anniversary of the release of the Access Hollywood tapes during Donald Trump's campaign? Maybe it's a coincidence. Maybe not. It came several days after Trump said to the media that "it's the calm before the storm".

I followed #MeToo stories on Breitbart for months, noticing how they were framed and commented on, always tying back to people who were brought down by #MeToo having supported Hillary or having criticized Trump.

Since then I've watched the "resistance" and the "Trump train" attempt to weaponize #MeToo moments against each other.

Sometimes news surfaces of women who make accusations being approached with offers of money to help with law suits and in return for media appearances. Lisa Bloom was implicated in this in some emails. The details escape my memory at this moment, and I'd have to look them up.

I happen to want Kavanaugh to be confirmed.

It's often said the accused need due process, but I think maybe we need to talk about responsible journalism, too.

Craig said...


Since you mentioned the Trump Access Hollywood tape, as well as Kavanaugh, I have two videos for you. The first one is Diana Davison’s full transcription and analysis of the AH tape (LANGUAGE WARNING):

Proof That Donald Trump Does Not Assault Women

Her first comment clarifies a bit: For those who think I'm saying his lack of sexual assault in this video is the "proof" and I'm forgetting cameras were there, well, you missed the part where I told you to look at his body language. If he'd wanted to grab her but was restraining himself because of cameras he'd still have been positioning himself closer. Donald Trump is a known germaphobe. That's why he only hugged her with one hand and kissed her as far from the mouth as possible. Now look at these false accusers again who are claiming he shoved his tongue down a strangers throat or kissed them on the lips with no warning. As it turns out... he didn't even want to shake their hand.

And here is one of my favorite ladies, Janice Fiamengo. She is a Professor in the Department of English at the University of Ottawa, author, editor, anti-feminist, defender of freedom of speech, and campaigner for the right to dissent, with her take on the ‘but, Ford must be so brave, and she has much to lose with her allegations, so we must believe her’ narrative:

The Anita Hill School Of Success -No Joke Janice Episode 12

Both Davison and Fiamengo are LOGICAL!!

And here’s a bonus—from the Fiamengo File (regarding a men’s rights conference):

Two "Journalists" Attended ICMI 2018 - TFF Episode 87

Fiamengo hilariously (to me, anyway) critiques these journalists' English, as well as their cognitive dissonance (or deliberate obfuscation) in their respective pieces.

J said...


Davison and Fiamengo remind me of The Red Pill. Have you watched it?

A Millennial feminist documentary film maker residing in San Francisco, named Cassie Jaye, decides her next project will be a documentary about men's rights activists. While in the middle of her project, her backers refuse to fund or promote it, once it becomes apparent her documentary will provide a sympathetic hearing to the men. She barely finished the film with a GoFundMe fundraising drive.

The story behind her film, as well as her film, does a good job exposing the way the establishment media promotes just one Official View of gender issues and does not allow dissenters to hash out issues in an open marketplace of ideas.

Why is it that the men who control the media, the same ones who have so often been exposed by the #MeToo movement, promote feminism while also harrassing women -- or doing nothing to hold harrassers accountable -- within their own media organizations? While Cassie Jaye's own personal story involves smaller feminist funders, in general her documentary exposes a larger media pattern involving the mainstream media.

As Cassie Jaye says very succinctly in an interview with Dave Rubin, feminism is for feminism. It is not for women. I'm paraphrasing, but I think I'm close to her wording. I found that a very interesting statement.

Who owns and controls the media, and why do they want to promote feminism, if they don't really care about women? Inquiring minds want to know.

Craig said...

Yes, I'm familiar with Cassie Jaye and The Red Pill movie, having watched numerous videos by her and others with/about her. Her TED talk is very good, as well.

Craig said...

Jesse Lee Peterson:

Blacks Looting Again, This Time in North Carolina Amid Storm

Blacks stealing amid the storm in North Carolina — Fox News catches footage of people looting a dollar store. Black people, are you proud of your people? Blacks didn't used to be like this. They used to believe in God, have family and morals. Racism doesn't exist. Blacks who suffer do so from a lack of moral character. We need to tell the truth. They're not getting it from their homes, schools, churches, or the media! Most of these looters would tell you they believe in God and Jesus. SMH

I don’t agree with his statement “Racism doesn’t exist”. Of course it does. But it’s not as prevalent as some make it out to be, and it’s now OK to be racist (using the traditional understanding of the term, not the new Marxist one) against whites.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

chiliasm refers to "one thousand." The rejection of this was rejection of a thousand year LIMIT to Christ's reign, when it is only the first stage. the CREED says, "OF HIS KINGDOM THERE SHALL BE NO END."It was not a rejection of literal physical reign of Christ on earth, but currently RC and EO amilliennialists in general (post mil dominionism is amil ism on steroids) interpret Revelation "spiritually" and the Church is the New Jerusalem (sure its a foretaste but the main thing will be real notice AFTER a new heavens and new earth so an overhaul of laws of physics has happened).

Irenaeus, who learned from a learner of St. John the Apostle, should be taken more seriously than Augustine, who brought manichaean baggage with him and was Scripturally ignorant enough to call a wife kept for love and passion and romance not reproduction a mere legal prostitute. The miscalling of the curse on Canaan as incl all Hamites started back around then also, later generations. HAD TO EXPLAIN WHY THE SECOND COMING HADN'T HAPPENED YET,ignoring Peter's words that a thousand years is as a day in God's sight.)

"educated" clergy were versed in pagan philosophy or tainted with it, as was Origen. And Augustine. And Chrysostom who was better than most of his ilk.


forget all you've been told just READ THE SCRIPTURES WITHOUT PRESUPPOSITIONS. that is the picture you get.

Craig, division existed as the "war of the sexes" the predatory sexual stuff manipulation games all along in a balance of power and mutual contempt. if the feminist movement hadn't become immoralist the predatory sexual and semi sexual stuff would have been attacked as a morals issue, which it was now and then in the past, now it has to be made political. the pseudo feminism that kept "femininity" is the pits.

Granted someone who gives in to sex demands to keep or get a career is bad also but is somewhat duressed while the predator is not, and the predator should be exposed and stopped in his predations (or hers) and the weak who will cave in protected. Also when evil is taken for granted as somehow different when between people who know each other or something you just have to live with nothing gets better. Rape by acquaintances or when one is drunk or by quick ovepowering without beating has been considered not "really" rape. Somewtimes legally. but it is rape. #MeToo isn't all bad, but there can be problems.

as for abuse allegations in divorce, some people think it isn't hitting if you twist arms, body slam onto the wall or floor, drag by the hair shove so a shock wave goes through the target, but don't punch or slap. define your terms.

The sexes should be raised alike with same standards and girls not coddled but encouraged to be tomboys and not back down to pain - by the way, the male math superiority and spatial skills evaporates among boys raised overprotected and girls allowed to be tomboys. then the picture reverses. this isn't sex based difference this is physical world experience based.

Craig said...

NOT ‘metoo’?

I must give kudos to democrat Capri Cafaro for not playing partisan politics regarding the issue of Keith Ellison and his accuser Karen Monahan:

Are Democrats ignoring Keith Ellison's accuser?

Karen Monahan claims to have been smeared, threatened and isolated from the Democratic Party.

And Monahan has documentation to support her claim, unlike Blasey Ford.

Craig said...

Janice Fiamengo calls ‘metoo’ a “movement of mass vengeance”:

“…[Kimmel’s] being taken down is part of the next phase of a movement of mass vengeance, in which many of us will be called to account, not only for our alleged misdemeanors, but simply for being in the path of a mob. Anyone who has ever believed that ‘metoo’ is about specific acts of sexual misconduct need merely read the long and helpfully detailed list of allegations against Kimmel, by a former graduate student, to see the thoroughly narcissistic and delusional nature of the ‘metoo’ scapegoating monster. And this monster will continue to grow, despite its evident hypocrisies, because exponential growth is part of its DNA.”

I Can't Cheer The Allegations Against [pro-feminist] Michael Kimmel - TFF episode 88

J said...


Thank you for replying to my posts about eschatology. I thought nobody would.

I think I will focus just on the rapture for now, although I may return to some of your other points later.

I was just reading that a channeler and spiritist named Margaret McDonald was the first person to have a vision of the rapture. She had her vision in 1830. That alone makes me skeptical about it.

My source is The Encyclopedia of American Religions, by J. Gordon Melton.

I'm talking about the very historically recent Dispensationalist rapture teaching, that is.

I think you're talking about the earlier concept of rapture.

RayB said...

China's Catholic Church Pledges Loyalty to the Communist Party

A little background ... as an act of solidarity with the Communists, the Vatican agreed to allow the COMMUNIST Government to "appoint" Communist "Bishops" to head the Catholic Church in China.

Obviously, pledging "loyalty" to the Communist Party should come as no surprise being that it was the COMMUNISTS that appointed the Catholic Bishops, with the Vatican's blessing!

I have posted historical information on Rome's past, so this comes as no surprise to me. I KNOW how Rome has historically operated, including their despotic rule by proxy over the Monarchies of Europe. The Vatican also gave its blessings to the Fascist Government of Italy's Benito Mussolini, along with its Concordat that it entered into with Adolf Hitler's Nazi Government. Wake up folks ... this is the beast we are dealing with. There is so much filthy history regarding this institution (more like a corporation), that volumes could be written and it would never cover it all.

Keep in mind the fact that Communism has murdered over 100 million people! THIS is what Rome is aligning itself with.

J said...

Christina (and others),

Now that I have a little bit more time I want to return to the topic of the source of the Dispensationalist idea of the rapture idea. I have a little bit more detail to flesh it out.

As I said, the channeler and medium Margaret McDonald had a vision of the rapture. She was on influence on John Nelson Darby. Another influence on Darby were the Irvingites. The Irvingites beliefs had their source in a Jesuit, Emanual Lacunza, who actually wrote under the pen name of "Rabbi Ben Ezra".

Irvingites visited Margaret's house to hear her visions. Edward Irving was actually an ex-Presbyterian. He began to preach Margaret's rapture visions not long after visiting her.

Edward Irving also translated the writings of Lacunza, the Jesuit who wrote under a Rabbi pen name.

Then history picks up with what we are usually told. Darby and Scofield preached Margaret McDonald's spiritist rapture visions across the United States.

In 1827, Darby joined a Tractarian movement that was secretly supported by Jesuits. In 1833, Darby met more than once with Irvingites and Tractarians in Lady Powerscourt's castle.

In England, the Oxford Movement started teaching Margaret McDonald's rapture visions.

Robert Baxter claimed to receive angelic communication about the rapture and began prophecying. Later Baxter changed his mind and said that his supernatural communications actually came from Satan.

Since Baxter, the pretribulation secret rapture idea has been preached and promoted by Oral Roberts, Hal Lindsey, Tim LaHaye, and Billy Graham, among many other Protestants.

Hal Lindsey and Tim LaHaye are members of the CNP, which makes it reasonable to wonder about the possible manipulation of American Protestant Evangelical voters to achieve foreign policy objectives. (Dispensationalism, Israel, wars in the Middle East.)

I don't know as much about the teachings of the early church fathers regarding eschatology. I'm still studying it. I welcome comments on that subject, too.

J said...


Protestants have also been known to be complicit with Communism. Billy Graham is on record advocating that if the Ten Commandments can't be read in the public schools then communist Chairman Mao-Tse-tung's principles should be taught.

Maureen D'Honau interviewed Billy Graham for the Mainichi Daily News, which ran the article on May 28, 1973.

Billy Graham was quoted as saying, "I think communism's appeal to youth is its structure and promise of a future Utopia. Mao Tse-tung's eight precepts are basically the same as Ten Commandments. In fact if we can't have the Ten Commandments read in the schools, I'll settle for Mao's principles."

RayB said...


Why do you always make this a sectarian issue? Re: the Catholic Child sex abuse scandals, your answer is "so do Protestants."

What you don't seem to realize is that probably 95% of what you refer to as "Protestant" are basically leftist radicals that substituted the true Gospel of Christ and the sole authority of His Word for the social "gospel" of Socialism decades ago.

I grew up in a Presbyterian USA "church" that distinctly turned in that direction about 50 years ago. Once the openly began to declare their allegiance to Marxism, which my Father suspected all along, we left. Furthermore, there is no such thing as a large, collective group of "Protestantism" left, if there is, please show me where it exists. If they aren't "protesting" against the Papacy along with all its heretical claims, they are not protesting anything.

Also, Billy Graham was a proven heretic who denied that salvation was only available through Christ alone. He lived a life of constant compromise. In a well publicized visit to the Soviet Union, during a time of intense persecution of Bible believing Christians, Graham declared he "didn't SEE any persecution," meaning, it didn't exist! Kind of the same thing when Pope Francis went to Cuba ... he saw nothing there either.

You'll have to come up with a better example than Billy Graham.

J said...


I think we agree more than we disagree. It would take a long time to come up with all the other examples, besides Billy Graham, but you already know a few yourself.

It was not my intention to use Billy Graham as a proxy to discredit all Protestants.

It sounds like you know a lot besides just how to attack Catholics. I would like to hear some of the other things you know about. Your personal experience in the Presbyterian USA church is interesting.

I had already read about Pope Francis and China, and I agree it's dismaying.

Your information about your own church experience was something I had not known before.

Any opinion about Dispensationalism? Or the Jesuit influence upon it?

J said...

Clarification: When I said it would take a long time to come with all the other examples besides Billy Graham, I meant it would take a long time to list them all, because there are so many. I will come back to this in another day or two.

Again I invite your opinions about the Jesuit influence on Dispensationalism, RayB. I would think you would be all over this topic??

RayB said...


The Papacy makes unique claims that no other entity makes, that the the Pope is the legitimate Vicar of Christ on earth. Being that the Pope heads a "church" that has 1.2 BILLION adherents makes it the focus of attention that it deserves.
It has always been heavily involved in the political, social and economic realms on the global stage. Its influence upon society is, IMO, second to none. Its history is rich with oppression upon the individual rights of liberty and thought wherever it obtains a strong foothold. In short, if you love freedom, you'll be an opponent of this despotic, scheming system that is truly a "wolf in sheep's clothing."

Re: the "Jesuit influence on Dispensationalism," I didn't know you were addressing that to me. I've posted numerous times on the topic of Dispensationalism, a system that I thoroughly rejected as un-Biblical in my first year after my conversion. I have studied it, and there certainly is a connection, via (as I recall) a Jesuit by the name of Lacunza that wrote a "futuristic" view of Revelation under the name of a "converted" Rabbi by the name of Ben Ezzra. I studied this a long time ago, so the spelling might be off. This book was added to the Vatican's list of "Forbidden Books" as a ruse, in order for it to be accepted and studied by "Protestant" scholars. I posted this, along with much more, before ... but never got much of a response.

The bottom line is that Dispensationalism was thoroughly rejected by historically orthodox (small "c") expositors. It later (early 20th. century) gained popularity here in the USA primarily via the wide spread use of the Scofield Reference Study Bible, which was the foundation for the Dispensational Bible colleges here in America, the two main ones being Dallas Theological Seminary and the Moody Bible Institute.

I could go on and on, but have to stop here due to time. I did notice your reference to Margaret McDonald, so you are aware of some of the early history. The pre-trib rapture theory is directly connected to Dispensationalism, etc.

One final note, I thoroughly believe that the false belief in this system, along with the pre-trib rapture false doctrine, has had dramatic negative effects, both for the individual and upon the professing church itself. More on that later ...
if you'd like.

J said...


I'm sorry, I didn't realize you'd already posted on the topic of Dispensationalism here in the past. Yes, I'm interested in more discussion later.

Re: the Catholic church, it has been hijacked by its chief historical enemies -- or at least powerful factions within the church have been hijacked. Those historical enemies reside inside and outside of the Catholic church, and they are more powerful in earthly terms than the church is. The Catholic church was the historical bulwark against those, even as late as the 1920s -- although the RCC was never the same again after Napolean.

I don't agree that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ, but I agree with the basic tenets of Catholic theology, and I learn so much from both Catholic and Orthodox sources who are of a more traditional inclination.

Historically, the vessel was never perfect, but the wine was never vinegar, either.

J said...


I'm going to circle back and address another of your statements. I'm not sure if you were responding to what I wrote about Plato being the first to write that girls and boys should be taught there is no distinction between the sexes. You wrote girls and boys should be raised alike, with girls encouraged to be tomboys. You also said that pseudo-feminism that keeps femininity is the pits. You may have been addressing yourself to Craig, but since Craig was responding to me on this topic, I'm going to respond to you.

First, I want to clarify my terms a little better. I want to get right down to it. The belief that there is no biological difference between the sexes -- which has been, albeit inconsistently, promoted by feminism -- was the slippery slope that led to confusing kids about LGBTQ topics in the schools. My cousin's daughter said they tell her in school, "Consider yourself nothing until you figure out what you are."

There have always been tomboys in American history like Laura Ingalls Wilder and Willa Cather. It's true women have been restricted into artificial roles deemed feminine, separating them from nature in far too many layers of garments and probably giving them vitamin D deficiency and obesity as well, from lack of sunshine and exercise!

I, myself, was a tomboy who rode horses bareback and got dirty and scratched up in the woods. I played games all summer outdoors with a group of neighborhood kids who were mostly boys. And an eighty year old woman I know was even more of a toughie and a tomboy in her childhood than I was in mine.

But men and women are not interchangeable; we are complimentary. We are certainly both human, and we are definitely all individuals.

But God created biological sexual dimorphism for the purpose of reproduction in most creatures and family in humans.

Man (and woman) wants to play God and make humans into something different, whether that means cyborgs, transgenders, or eventually maybe even neutered worker bees.

What it gets down to, for women, is that women were made to be mothers. Mothers have lots of transferable skills and can do lots of things.

But there are now doctors in the world who are being told they cannot use transgender biased words when they are dealing with pregnancy, childbirth and lactation. And guess who enabled all of this to happen and who are mostly complicit with it? Feminists.

It really gets down to whether biological sex is nothing or whether it is something. And now there is a big push to say it is nothing. What will this do to families and children? Well, we are already seeing that. We are seeing children celebrated for being mutilated if boys and sterilized if girls.

We need to face up to the monster we created as women, and we need to stop being complicit with it and disown and renounce giving any more power to it.

As I stated before to Craig, establishment feminists have been promoted by establishment men who are gatekeepers. It's bigger than just a grassroots women's lib movement that just happened to occur when hippies were dippy.

Bluntly, establishment feminists are useful idiots for the elite men who are eager to complete their plans to usher in the NWO.

This does not mean that everything any woman has ever said or done under the label of feminism is bad. Feminist is just a label. As always, it gets down to true-and-false and right-and-wrong, with feminism as with any other issue or cause.

Nothing becomes successful without gaining some street cred with at least a minimum of "chicken feed truths". Mass movements don't happen if there is no frustration. But still, the entire Left has been manipulated and manufactured, and that includes feminism.

Craig said...


Perhaps you’ll like Dana Loesch as a spokesperson over against Penn:

“You don’t have to demonize men to empower women.”

Dana Loesch: Kavanaugh Allegations & Why Doesn't Christine Ford File A Police Report 9/22/18

Starting at around 11:50 are important words about boys (and men).

J said...


I don't think I can generalize about the entire #MeToo movement. I think I would need to take each claim one by one. They are not all equivalent to each other. One woman says during a photo shoot, Garrison Keiler's hand slipped down her dress to touch her bare back. And then Uma Thurman's interview with Maureen Dowd, complete with a car crash. And Rose McGowan's book, Brave, with a story of a life of pain.

And each of those women, Rose and Uma, do not have normal experiences of personality, identity, memory. Rose goes out of her body when she is touched or kisses with most men, including in her acting scenes, automatically. Uma's memory blacked out during her interview with Maureen Dowd, when it got to the point when she was going to describe her encounter with Harvey Weinstein after he finally got her.

Rose was raised in a cult commune. Who knows how Uma was raised. Each of those women seems to have found strength at age forty or forty-five that most women find in their twenties if not sooner. They did not have normal development. Rose says she spent her time pretending to be other personalities, so that her own personality did not develop.

One wonders about MK Ultra or Monarch mind control.

This all gets messy and deep and big, and you'll probably feel I'm going off on another tangent. But reality itself is full of tangents.

What would be far simpler would be to talk about what our values, standards and processes should be. Reality is not simple nor logical nor clean. It is messy. Our values don't have to be equally messy. And our processes should be logical. Are we going to get logic out of Twitter hashtag movements, though?

Maybe it will take several victims of false accusations suing their accusers of slander and defamation? What do you think the solution is?

Craig said...


The solution is very simple: DUE PROCESS. No one should EVER go to social media to initiate allegations that are criminal (or worthy of a civil suit). It makes it nigh on impossible to have a fair trial IF it goes to trial. In fact, I'm more apt to DISBELIEVE an allegation that originated on social media.

I think it OK to sue for slander/libel and defamation; however, the problem is that many do not have the funds for that sort of thing. If you know of Steven Crowder, he is wrestling with whether or not to sue a teacher (of LOGIC! lol) at the University of Arlington, who asserted that Crowder is an "alt-right Neo-Nazi, is anti-semitic, and that he made death threats to his son. This nonsense was used, in part, to disallow Crowder from speaking there. I think he should sue.

CROWDER CONFRONTS: Slandering SJW PROFESSOR! | Louder With Crowder


You may not have seen this video I posted a while back, so I’m reposting it now, since it addresses a number of things you’ve recently brought up, or have recently been discussed. It’s a VERY provocative title, but please listen to the first 2:30 or so to understand where it’s going. LANGUAGE WARNING:


* UNINTENTIONALLY and/or INADVERTENTLY Please watch the entire video, you may miss the gist if you don't. ***The title is controversial only if you don't watch the whole of the video.

Post script:

“Western men have given Western women freedom of will and choice in society; and Western women are now choosing [unwittingly or wittingly] who will take that away from them.”

J said...


I will have to get to these videos later in the week. It's so much easier and faster for me to read text than to watch a video, although I appreciate there are good videos out there worth watching, and I've posted links to a few myself. It just takes me a little more time to get to those.

Getting back to due process, given that people are free to post things on social media, what do you think the solution is to their persistence in doing so, if you think they should refrain from that and only file criminal charges?

Craig said...

Diana Davison made a pretty good comment: If you choose to voice your complaint on social media (court of public opinion), you forfeit your right to legal remedies.

J said...


Does Diana Davison intend this proposal to include workplace sexual harrassment, or to limit it to alleged rape and sexual assault?

Craig said...

I've no idea.

J said...

Do you think it should apply to both?

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 282   Newer› Newest»