Tuesday, December 24, 2019

Merry Christmas! Significant 2019 events

It's hard to believe that Christmas is almost here again -- it may be the age that I've attained makes time's passage seem more rapid, but it feels to me a little like "it can't be Christmas -- we just had Christmas", referring to last year's holidays.

It's been a different and maybe tumultuous year for me.  My husband had a fall and was hospitalized in May 2019.  While he was in the hospital, I had a fall and was taken to an emergency room at a different hospital.  Needless to say, both our doctors have cautioned us about the dangers of future falls.  I had eye issues, some of which have been ongoing for the past two years -- wet type macular degeneration for which I have had shots in the eyes during that period, the last being last Friday.  I had surgery for cataract removals on October 17th and October 31st.  The vision issues slowed down my writing contributions, but I have kept very current on research. 

We lost our long time research contributor Dorothy Margraf earlier this year.  Our "Rich of Medford" (Richard Peterson) just lost his father this weekend. ''

The New Agers have lost people as well.  Barbara Marx Hubbard and Ram Dass (Richard Alpert) are two major names now gone.  Ram Dass' death received heavy coverage in today's New York Times. 

I discovered in 2018 that I had received some unexpected publicity.  One United Kingdom internet source published an article "Plutarchy in the UK."  Therein, I received the surprising discovery that I was credited as being one of the sources of "conspiracy theories" that fueled Brexit.  It linked my name to an allegedly "Fascist" researcher that up till then, I was unaware of --  one Paul Joseph Watson.  The same source also claimed I had "coined the word 'Prison Planet' in my 1983 book, HIDDEN DANGERS OF THE RAINBOW.  Obviously the author of the Plutarchy article must not have read my book.  I did not use that phrase nor had I seen it used anywhere until I saw numerous Alex Jones articles.  I always assumed Alex Jones must have coined that word.

If there was any word I did personally coin, it was probably "New Ager."

Then, if that was not enough, I discovered that I was the villain of a historical novel by an Australian writer on the life of Alice Ann Bailey.  That book was "The Unlikely Occultist -- Alice Ann Bailey" and the author was one Isobel Blackthorn.  However, I forgave all when she wrote that my work was "foundational" and that basically I had slowed the New Age down for nearly 40 years!   One needs a sense of humor to survive!

The Vatican under the leadership of Pope Francis obviously tilted the former anti-New Age stance taken 1993 and thereafter by Pope John Paul II to one of pro-New Age, pro New World Order.  The syncretism that Pope Benedict XVI opposed became defined by Pope Francis as God intended.   Encouragingly, resistance developed.  One brave soul tossed the Pachamama idols in to the Tiber River.  A brave Catholic Bishop Schneider took a strong stand against the apostasy introduced by the Pope into a Vatican mass.  I suspect he is rather out of favor with the Vatican's present administration these days, but conservative Catholics love him.

The LGBTQ Movement became much more militant and "in your face."  All those subscribing to plain biblical readings on the subject are suddenly labeled as "hate-speechers".

Beyond LGBTQ, suddenly "gender assignment" wherein one suddenly renounce the gender with which he/she was born, announce a change and everybody is expected to bless is now heavily among us.

In short, in 2019, up became down, good became evil, evil became good, and the times -- they are looking to me as pre-Noahic, pre Sodom & Gomorrah, and the events that Jesus himself warned us would come before his return. 

Yes, the times are serious.  I suspect they are going to be much more so in 2020.  2020 still sounds like "science fiction" to me.  But then again, so does 1984.  No man knows the day nor the hour that our Lord will return, but when he returns, will he find us ready?

That is my Christmas prayer -- that we be ready!

 Stay tuned!

CONSTANCE


422 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 400 of 422   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

Inside the secretive Black Hebrew Israelite sect of Harlem, linked to Monsey stabber

https://nypost.com/2020/01/04/inside-the-secretive-black-hebrew-israelite-sect-of-harlem-linked-to--monsey-stabber/

Anonymous said...

Sure hope this doesn't offend the poster who likes to call people "Massa" quite possibly because they at times happen to decry anti-white discriminatory occurrences.

‘Being Nice’ is Now a ‘Tool Of White Supremacy,’ Says Social Justice Group

https://nationalfile.com/being-nice-is-now-a-tool-of-white-supremacy-says-social-justice-group

Anonymous said...

J,

I hope that you find these of help!

Have a nice day.

Three major ways to improve your mitochondrial function

https://www.naturalnews.com/051078_mitochondrial_function_ketogenic_diet_cellular_energy.html

Antioxidants found to be effective in treating mitochondrial disease

https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-04-30-antioxidants-found-to-be-effective-in-treating-mitochondrial-disease.html

MUCH more at...

https://www.naturalnews.com/SearchResults.asp?query=Mitochondrial&pr=NN

GAPS diet claimed to relieve food allergies, autism, ADHD, depression and more

https://www.naturalnews.com/056202_GAPS_diet_autoimmune_disease_allergies.html

https://www.naturalnews.com/SearchResults.asp?query=Autism&pr=NN

Dr. Joel Wallach*

(Although these promote products, they're relevant:)

Autism

https://youtu.be/fx0gYJmFDMY

https://youtu.be/0B-u_yNlp7M

https://youtu.be/Y8Ql2Iewfo4

Mitochondria

CoQ10 along with Vitamin E are essential components of mitochondria function. CoQ10 allows mitochondria to work efficiently throughout the entire body, including the most densely populated area, the heart. Vitamin E enhances the absorption and bioavailability of CoQ10.

https://youngevityrc.com/blog/reduce-your-risk-of-heart-disease-with-2-key-nutrients/

*Who is he?

https://thewallachrevolution.com/

Anonymous said...

Natural News

Medical Alert: Animal URINE called “urea” is found in today's dirty vaccines, including the Varicella... - 3 Hours Ago

Tesla Model 3 owned by Car and Driver staff photographer breaks down in driveway for no reason, sends push... - 3 Hours Ago

Second Amendment sanctuaries now expanding into Kentucky as movement goes nationwide; Americans will NOT be enslaved... - 3 Hours Ago

PREPARE for Iran to activate terror cells across America and attack the power grid, water supplies and vulnerable... - 13 Hours Ago

Environmentalists are the arsonists of Australia: Fires made worse by shortsighted environmental policies that... - 15 Hours Ago

Poland defends itself against LGBT insanity while America surrenders its children to mentally ill perverts and... - 15 Hours Ago

Tucker Carlson outs fake “conservative” think tanks for doing Big Tech’s bidding - 15 Hours Ago

Flat-out treason: Democrats and their Left-wing media allies are providing "aid and comfort" to America's enemies in... - 15 Hours Ago

Top 10 Alzheimer's cures (plus prevention) THEY don't think we know - 15 Hours Ago

5 Poisonous plants to watch out for in your back yard - 15 Hours Ago

What you need to know about EMPs - 15 Hours Ago

When "healthy" goes WRONG - 15 Hours Ago

https://censored.news/naturalnews.com.htm

Anonymous said...

Trump Derangement Syndrome Turns MURDEROUS As Rabid Liberal Claims To Have Let Elderly Trump Patients DIE

http://allnewspipeline.com/TDS_Stages_Electrified_Gullibility.php

Craig said...

Well done, Christine, well done. You did a great job implicitly illustrating that the ad hominem directed at you months ago was an attempt to divert attention away from a self-exposure of a held heretical view—self-exposed, ironically, in an effort to point out another’s (mine) supposed heretical view. You did so, in part, by shrugging off this ad hominem—and in the process making it clear you do not accept the recently proffered ‘explanation’ of it—all the while showing how it far pales in comparison to the heresy self-exposed.

Also, the Hislop critique at the link you supplied is exhaustively detailed, illustrating the myriad faulty bases upon which The Two Babylons relies. Those using Hislop’s work in their ‘apologetics’ should read and take heed. Using bad arguments only weakens—if not destroys—one’s case.

J said...

RayB 9:19 AM,

I finished reading Romanism and Reformation, and I am inclined to believe classical Protestant historicism makes far more sense than contemporary futurism.

Some preliminary thoughts, just mine, just my first attempt at organizing my thoughts after reading it all, not a representation of what authorities on classical Protestant historicism may believe:

1) If this is all real, and it sure seems to line up with history in plain and obvious ways, so I think it is. Then what this means is that the age of the Gentiles is past?

2) If the age of the Gentiles is past, there can't be any more Gentile empires? Could this be why Hitler did not succeed in having a Third Reich? And could it be the reason why the American neo-cons did not succeed in their aggressive efforts to seize the opportunity to establish Pax Americana? Then this would also mean that the efforts of the E.U. will fail, too?

3) Obviously the Pope and the Roman Catholic church are still around, in spite of the history of the Holy Roman Empire and its deceptions and persecutions having peaked and declined. So what role do the Pope and the Roman Catholic church still have?

4) Where does our own time fall? It seems we are transitioning from the age of Gentiles to the age when Israel will be a light unto the nations?

5) What of the frogs coming out of the mouths? There was an interesting interpretation. Frogs were seen before in the plague on Egypt, and they were everywhere. Mouths would signify talking, writing, speech, media. Frogs are noisy. So the interpretation went that there would be constant noise of an anti-Christ spirit. And this certainly seems to characterize our information age and our age of mass media. Does this mean we are living in this time of the "plague of frogs" in that "information warfare" sense, and that it is transitional?

6) Of course hindsight is 20/20, and we can only see the big picture of the future through a glass darkly. When we live in the present we are down in the weeds, and it can be difficult to have a birds' eye view.

7) Now that I am done on the historicism site, I have found the neo-historicism site. I have not yet looked into it very much. Do you have any opinion about it? It claims that classical Protestant historicism has been too Western and that now neo-historicism, from the Eastern Orthodox church, is balancing it to include the place of Eastern Christendom in prophecy.

https://neohistoricism.net/

J said...

Anonymous 1:30 AM,

Thanks, you're very kind. I'll take a look at the information. I do take CoQ10 daily, and it does help a lot!

Anonymous said...

You're very welcome!

Anonymous said...

Is The Two Babylons Reliable?

*Debunking The Nonsense*

Ralph Woodrow's Arguments Against 'The Two Babylons' FAILS

By Janice Moore

Hislop was not always right, NOR altogether wrong!

Hislop was deeply convicted of the truth of the subject of his writings.

And with passion and zeal he erred as all humans do.

He tried too hard to be convincing.

He believed what he wrote and expected his reader to do likewise with out question.

I hesitate way short of being unquestionably convinced of every point.

But I do agree with many of them.

And I disagree with Woodrow's complete debunking of the book The Two Babylons.
...
http://www.onthecheese.com/seekerworld/two-babylons/two-babylons-debunked.html

http://www.onthecheese.com/seekerworld/two-babylons/book-review.html

http://www.onthecheese.com/seekerworld/two-babylons/index.html

RayB said...

To Anon @ 12:13 AM & 12:17 AM ...

Rome is being exposed for what it really has always been, i.e. an anti-Christ system that has been cleverly wrapped in the garbs of religion.

They are truly "wolves in sheep's clothing." It remains a great "mystery" as to how they have been able to fool so many, in spite of their extremely well documented, sordid and violent history!

J said...

Islam described in prophecy? Thoughts?

https://neohistoricism.net/2018/04/14/revelation-chapter-13-the-rise-of-islam-foretold/

This is from an Eastern Orthodox neo-historicist blog about prophecy.

This author thinks that Mohammed was given the kingdoms, and the temple mount, that Jesus had refused when He was tempted by Satan in the desert.

Anonymous said...

(For those that haven't ever tried it, this ONE time I will post CFP current offerings at LENGTH to illustrate its value:)

CITIZEN FREE PRESS

Judge threatens Weinstein with jail for using phone during trial…

Air Force performs huge show of strength with 52 fully-armed F-35A Lightning II stealth fighters (photos)…

Hollywood triggered by Gervais…

400,000 Anchor Babies Born in 2019, Exceeding Total U.S. Citizen Births in 48 States…

Federal govt to close over 1 inch of snow…

Butthurt CNN attacks Babylon Bee…

Watch Live – Mike Pompeo Beats The Press…

Bizarre video shows Soleimani’s body flown in cabin of passenger jet to Tehran…

Solemaini’s daughter threatens USA… Is she a citizen?

Soldiers open fire on civilians refusing to attend Soleimani funeral (raw)…

Soleimani funeral stampede leaves at least 56 dead…

Bodies crushed…

Joseph Lieberman warns Dems not to criticize Trump strike…

Billionaire tycoon’s son found dead at Beverly Hills home…

Colin Kaepernick disgrace…

Feds to hand over Roger Stone records to media outlets…

IRS audits drop to lowest level in decades…

‘Propagandist of the highest order’…

Iran’s Miscalculation…

MS-13 gangbanger faces death penalty for double murder…

Tom Fitton – John Kerry dirty in spygate?

Catherine Herridge – More evidence against Obama…

McConnell has the votes…

Devin Nunes – ‘We have an active investigation into IG Michael Atkinson’…

Sickening display from American media…

CFP Open Thread – Tuesday

Senator Hawley raises hell…

Traitor Martha Raddatz goes to Iran – And covers her hair…

Smelly Antifa kick police car then flee in panic…

Pete Hegseth for the win!

The side of President Trump media will never report…

Chuckie Schumer has the sadz…

Robert Mueller implicated…

Officials to kill thousands of camels in Australia as they drink too much water amid wildfires…

Damn Lindsey Graham, you’re killing Kommie Kaepernick…

Chaos in Venezuela…

Breaking – Ayatollah wants retaliation ‘carried out directly’…

200 People Arrested — 85% of bushfires in Australia started by humans…

Asking Brooklyn residents what they think about Jews…

Tom Fitton – Game, set, match Obama…

Ikea to pay $46M for dresser tipover that killed 2 year-old boy…

Secret Service ‘aware’ of George Lopez assassination threat against Trump…

Rush Limbaugh interview with President Trump…

Seditious John Kerry violated the Logan Act…

Katy Tur embarrassment to humanity…

Gay UK migrant who ‘drugged heterosexual men’ convicted of 136 rapes…

Secret Service saves Ivanka from ‘major parenting fail’

Anonymous said...

Spygate update…

Virginia Delegate Introduces ‘Jack Wilson Act’…

Transcript of Ricky Gervais speech…

How the Pentagon got duped…

Virginia to flood rural areas with votes of prisoners…

Meanwhile, in shithole Nigeria…

California sues tech investor Vinod Khosla over private beach…

Very real scenario of protracted ‘bizarro world’ Dem primary…

Gold hits 6-year high…

PIER 1 closing 450 stores…

Borden Milk files for bankruptcy…

Atlanta police chief orders halt to all police car chases…

Dentist lights girl’s mouth on fire…

$1 Billion Solar Plant Became Obsolete Before It Ever Went Online…

Third Muslim terror attack in Europe in last 2 days…

Look what Wash Post Nat Sec columnist just tweeted…

Finland introduces 4 day work week and 6 hour days…

U.S. Contractors Accused of Funding Taliban Attacks Against American Troops…

Commanding General: USA to Withdraw From Iraq

Defense Secretary: No decision has been made (update)…

Draft letter leaked, confusion at Pentagon…

Top 10 Rudest Cities in America all have one thing in common (link fixed)…

Inside secretive Silicon Valley group funneling cash to Dems…

Hunter Biden linked to 2016 identity theft involving deceased brother…

Judge Judy decides to back a loser…

Arlington National Cemetery on alert after ‘hit list’…

Iraqi Consulate in Detroit opens for Soleimani condolences…

Check out the magazine on Don jr’s gun…

Michael Moore attempts to conduct US foreign policy…

Harvey Weinstein gimps into court…

Obamaworld hates Bernie — and has no idea how to stop him…

College students panic over fine print about registering for the draft…

New AT&T commercials show anti-white racism…

Embarrassing gaffe, CNBC…

Wrong Richard Engel, we turned him into roadkill…

Nature is awesome – Wait for it

60 Minutes: Jeffrey Epstein Neck Autopsy Photos Released For First Time…

Dr. Baden – Epstein was strangled with a wire…

Illegal alien captured after raping 6 year-old girl…

Patricia Arquette didn’t listen to warning from Ricky Gervais…

NY Times seditiously leaks details from Soleimani intel briefing…

Doug Collins hammers Pelosi…

••••••••••••••••••••••••

(All that and NO ads!)

HELP SPREAD THE WORD ABOUT CFP!

CITIZEN FREE PRESS

https://www.citizenfreepress.com/

Anonymous said...

Whew! We can all relax now:

George Soros Working Closely With Iran

https://clarionproject.org/george-soros-working-closely-with-iran/

Anonymous said...

How independent are vaccine defenders?

Vaccine-autism conflicts of interest

https://sharylattkisson.com/2020/01/obg-how-independent-are-vaccine-defenders-vaccine-autism-conflicts-of-interest/

Anonymous said...

Actress says she could not have won meaningless award from empty, soulless idiots WITHOUT killing her baby

https://therightscoop.com/actress-says-she-could-not-have-won-meaningless-award-from-empty-soulless-idiots-without-killing-her-baby/

Anonymous said...

(She should have taken his advice:)

Ricky Gervais: "Most of you spent less time in school than Greta Thunberg. So, if you win, come up, accept your little award, thank your agent and your G-d and off. OK?”

Anonymous said...

Ya gotta love this guy!

"Gervais...warned celebrities to avoid making political statements on stage because no one wants a lecture from pampered movie stars.

“'You know nothing about the real world. Most of you spent less time in school than Greta Thunberg,' he told the crowd.

“'So, if you win, come up, accept your little award tonight, come up, accept it, thank your agent and your God, and fuck off. No one cares about your views on politics or culture.'”

UNLESS you have 'Hollywooditis'!

"Vanity Fair writer and former Entertainment Weekly editor Mark Harris, who complained in a Twitter rant Monday that making fun of hypocritical celebrities is a 'right-wing talking point and an especially stupid one.'
...
"Harris...is part of the showbiz elite by virtue of being married to [an] Oscar-nominated screenwriter.
...
"The Los Angeles Times also leapt to the defense of offended celebrities, protecting their honor by portraying Gervais as nihilistic and mean-spirited."
...
https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2020/01/06/ricky-gervais-wonders-how-teasing-corporations-elite-hollywood-is-right-wing/

Let's all sing it together now:

Hoo-ray for Holly-wood!

Anonymous said...

WOW!

MAJOR UPGRADE to...

https://censored.news/

J said...

RayB 2:01 PM,

One thing I forgot to mention that started to draw me to the Catholic church was a hungering for connection to history and roots. Now I'm fascinated by the history told from the Orthodox perspective, which encompasses the Armenian genocide and so much more.

But I definitely give the historical Reformers and company credit for restoring the Word and for dying to defy the Papacy for the sake of their witness to their eternal life, at the peak of historical persecution of the faithful in the West. Reading the Reformation history and comprehending its place in the fulfillment of prophecy was very powerful.

Overall, historicism is breathtaking because it allows somebody to perceive God playing 4D chess on the stage of history, along with Satan; and to see that over time, God emerges as the better 4D chess player.

I've been thinking about the place of the "New Age" stuff in all of this, and I suspect the possibility that the New Age stuff was and is an attempt to deceive us with the old paganism in a repackaged form, since Satan can't launch any more big prophets on the stage of history, ever since Mohammed. If Mohammed was truly the Antichrist whose foot soldiers built the Abomination of Desolation on the temple mount, as the Eastern Orthodox neo-historicism view of prophecy asserts, then the Antichrist has already come, and 90% of the prophecy is already fulfilled and was already fulfilled slowly for over 2500 years of history.

This is all just food for thought, and I welcome other thoughts. I think all these ideas need to be "vetted".

Anonymous said...

Iran deliberately fired missiles at U.S. forces in non-lethal manner to "save face," posits expert

By Adam Ford - DISRN
Jan 8th, 2020

Speaking to the Washington Examiner, Michael Pregent, a former intelligence officer who studies the Middle East at the Hudson Institute, posited that Iran launched missiles at U.S. bases in Iraq in an intentionally non-lethal manner in order to "save face" after the killing of Gen. Soleimani while attempting to avoid severe retaliation from Washington.

Pregent said:

"They picked bases that are really big, where you can hit the base without hitting anyone. Talking to people inside government, they're saying that they think that this was a 'save face' gesture by Iran because they picked big bases and they're using missiles that were accurate enough not to hit something.

Especially since our special operations missions are conducted out of that Erbil joint base. It's probably going to be the one that's most heavily fortified since it is the closest to the [Iranian] border."
...
https://disrn.com/news/iran-fired-missiles-at-us-forces-in-non-lethal-manner-to-save-face-expert-says

Anonymous said...

Censored.news 2.0 is now LIVE, indexing nearly FIFTY censored websites [and counting]!

January 08, 2020
By: Mike Adams
Natural News

Censored.news, the free speech alternative to Google News, now indexes 47 censored websites that bring you real, pro-human news that’s systematically censored by the tech giants!

The new version 2.0 has added feature images from top stories and now allows end users to create custom sort order so that YOU can see the sites presented in the order that YOU want!

On Censored.news, you’ll get near-real-time headlines from 47 censored news sites, completely free from advertising (it’s just 100% content).

Some of the sites indexed by Censored.news include The National Sentinel, American Thinker, Free Beacon, Summit News, Peak Prosperity, The Federalist and many more.

Now we’ve added several new sites that are reader favorites:

•Children’s Health Defense

Releases groundbreaking news on vaccine health hazards and the lying propaganda of the vaccine-controlled media.

•Law Enforcement Today

Is covering the Virginia 2A sanctuary situation very closely and has a pro-liberty, pro-2A stance combined with solid investigative journalism.

•Strange Sounds 

Documents strange phenomena around the world, including geological activity (earthquakes, volcanoes, etc.), weird sounds in the sky, mass animal die-offs and similar news.

•National File 

Is a politically-oriented investigative journalism site run by Tom Pappert, one of my co-hosts at InfoWars.

We’ve also recently added:

•Caitlin Johnstone.

Also:

•Jeremy Hammond

His site is a great source on vaccine investigations and medical truth.

When you want honest, truthful, pro-human news that’s censored everywhere else, read Censored.news 
and make it the home page for your mobile browser (the site is mobile friendly).

Also coming soon: 

Webseed.com 

...is the new search solution for searching natural health websites, including full coverage of vaccine truth, the dangers of pharmaceuticals and GMOs, 5G hazards, natural cancer cures and much more.

It’s launching in early 2020 as a replacement for Google search.

When you want to be truly informed while escaping the “thought gulags” of the evil tech giants, turn to independent media sources like Censored.news to discover truths that the corporate-controlled media won’t dare touch!

https://www.naturalnews.com/2020-01-08-censored-news-childrens-health-defense-law-enforcement-today-strange-sounds-and-national-file.html

https://censored.news/

J said...

Paul 9:23 PM,

I can't believe I missed it all this time. It is so obvious. I have taken it for granted my whole life and become desensitized to it, as an American butthead of the twenty-first century, weaned on pop culture, giggling at South Park cartoons.

Yes, I looked it up, and now I see the historical irony, that the Dome of the Rock was actually built in the court of the gentiles!

And now I see the Holocaust as a very obvious tribulation just prior to the end of the times of the gentiles and the retaking of Jerusalem by Abraham's seed.

It is indeed the greatest story ever told.

Anonymous said...

So then, when does the millennial reign begin?

J said...

This could be relevant to the work of Constance and others, and the time she worked/works in:

http://www.beholdthebeast.com/two_witnesses.htm

Just food for thought. I'm still researching and thinking. Look into it and decide for yourself. All the ideas need to be vetted.

J said...

From the above link so you know what I was looking at in that chapter to remind me of the work of Constance:

"For the first time since the invention of the printing press, books on astrology, satanism, and the occult are outselling the Bible. Truth has fallen in the street (Isa 59:14), and the consciences of our people have been seared as with a branding iron (1Ti 4:2). This will eventually lead to a worldwide rejection of the Bible and of the Lord. As the spiritual decay deepens, a ruthless and devastating evil will be unleashed upon this planet, and it will come with an intensity unknown since the flood. It has already begun."

I will step aside now and wait for other comments for the remainder of the comment thread.

paul said...

Anon @10:49,
The millennial reign begins when God says it does. If anyone tells you different they're full of baloney.
"...as an American butthead of the twenty-first century, weaned on pop culture, giggling at South Park cartoons."
_LOL !

But as far as Hitlers' holocaust goes, I'm afraid there's an even worse one still yet to come, which will include Christians on the hit list.
I feel fairly certain that the Beast of Revelations 13 is Islam, more specifically the Islam that grew out of the Eastern half of the Roman Empire after Alexander the Great died so young. That part of the Roman Empire became the Ottoman Empire which lasted for over five hundred years. It basically died during WWI. The woman of Rev. 17, who rides the beast is the Vatican, or more specifically the Jesuit cult which still nurtures Islam. This latest Pope (aka Papa or "father", in spite of Jesus telling his disciples not to call any man on earth father but God in heaven alone), _this latest pope is actively working to create a religion that he calls Chrislam! This in spite of the fact that Islam has been a slow motion genocide of Jews and Christians for the last 1,300 years! Not that anyone has learned any of this in school. They don't teach to anyone anywhere. They also never told us anything about the Roman or the Spanish Inquisitions which amounted to the execution of all Protestants, or anyone who simply OWNS A BIBLE and reads it. And not just execution, but very often prolonged torture in dozens of extremely sick ways. Well over a million Christians were murdered in the Inquisitions and another million were murdered in Armenia under the Ottomans in 1911-1912.
I never heard a word of any of this in school. Granted, I quit after two years of college, but c'mon, not a single mention?
The Ottoman Empire that was killed at the start of WWI, is now rising from the ashes and is called ISIS, among other names.
It's kind of like a mortal wound to the head but now the nearly dead patient is coming out of his 100 year coma.
Please know that none of this is my own personal interpretation of prophesy, but I've gleaned it from people like Walter Veith and many others.

paul said...

"And to the angel of the church in Pergamos write; these things saith he which has the sharp sword with two edges; I know thy works and where thou dwellest, even where Satan's seat is: and thou holdest fast my name, and has not denied my faith..."
_The Revelations of Jesus Christ (Chapter 2:12-13)

FYI: Pergamos was/is in modern day Turkey.

Anonymous said...

Free download or read online Foxes Book of Martyrs pdf (ePUB) book. The first edition of the novel was published in 1563, and was written by John Foxe. The book was published in multiple languages including English, consists of 416 pages

https://blindhypnosis.com/foxes-book-of-martyrs-pdf-john-foxe.html

Anonymous said...

CNN and Fox News Report on the Rise of...

January 8, 2020

While listening to news reports of what a monstrous threat Iran is, I’ve been wracking my brain to think of a single terrorist attack in this country committed by an Iranian. If there is one, now would be a good time to mention it! But I can’t find any.

Nor any child rapes, Medicare frauds, heroin dealing or general anti-social behavior making life in America such a pleasure these days.

Even the 9/11 report could tie Iran to the attacks only on the thin reed of several hijackers passing through Iran on their way to the U.S. -- where our customs officials welcomed all 19 of them with open arms.

Thirteen of the 19 terrorists had been given Florida drivers' licenses. If we’re going back to 9/11, maybe Trump should consider dropping a drone on Jeb Bush.

To get killed by an Iranian -- or even to be harassed by an Iranian -- you have to go the Middle East.

Breaking News: Unrest in the Middle East!

Why is the solution to this problem always to gather up our best young men ... and send them to the Middle East?

President George W. Bush tried to pacify that region of the world with the Iraq War. We see how well that worked.

By 2016, Americans were so sick of pointless Middle Eastern wars that even Trump’s ham-handed attacks on President Bush, saying he had “lied” about weapons of mass destruction, led to Trump’s landslide victory in the most hawkish state of the union: South Carolina.

But today, Americans are sitting at home being scared out of their wits by news reports of the “threat” Iran poses to their children, their homes, their commute to work, their very lives.

They can rest easy. It’s more likely that Mars will attack, and we didn’t just kill a Martian general.

Just in terms of American Lives Snuffed Out, the greatest threat to our country, hands down, comes from...
...
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2020-01-08.html

Dan Bryan said...

Anonymous J said...
This could be relevant to the work of Constance and others, and the time she worked/works in: http://www.beholdthebeast.com/two_witnesses.htm

Hi J
I tend to believe the Elijah and Enoch interpretation over the piece I just read.
My reason to believe this is the scripture Heb 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment..... Both these men will face the fate of all men I believe. The descriptions in the word of these two killed, lying in the street, then resurrected and taken into heaven fits 2 people, not religious or church groups.

The other thing this piece speculates is the destruction of a Jewish and Christian church/s.
Daniel 2:44 countermands that explanation:
And in the days of these kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed; and the kingdom shall not be left to other people; it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever.
- God sets up a Kingdom
- Will never be destroyed
- Not left to other people (no early rapture)
- Will Break and consume all other Kingdoms
- Shall stand forever

Anonymous said...

"ZIPPER KILLING" AMERICANS: A POLICE TACTIC OF KILLING PEOPLE IN A HAIL OF GUNFIRE

https://www.blacklistednews.com/article/75944/zipper-killing-americans-a-police-tactic-of-killing-people-in-a-hail-of.html

Anonymous said...

Epstein Didn't Kill Himself:

https://www.coreysdigs.com/u-s/epstein-didnt-kill-himself-graphic-death-photos-reveal/

Anonymous said...

police are being taught to ‘start shooting a suspect low on the pelvic girdle and work their way up to the face or on the brain housing group’ like a zipper.

The instructor’s use of words, “pelvic girdle and brain housing” are designed to make it easier for cops to justify using their weapons like a zipper on human beings.
...
What has happened to American policing?

Supervisors commended a police officer for continuously firing at an UNARMED SUSPECT until he died from being zippered to death!
...
Why isn’t this headline news?

Have police killings of Americans become so commonplace that zipper killings are viewed with indifference by the mass media?

Anonymous said...

Video of Jeffrey Epstein's Suicide Attempt "ACCIDENTALLY" Destroyed by US Government

https://www.activistpost.com/2020/01/video-of-jeffrey-epsteins-suicide-attempt-accidentally-destroyed-by-us-government.html

RayB said...


I have a question that I would like to put forth to the people that participate in this blog:

What do you think is the biggest problem (or series of "problems") that the world faces right now? If there is more than one, please try to prioritize.

Try to be as thoughtful as you can before you answer. I would REALLY appreciate what you all have to say!

Anonymous said...

WINNING: Court Ruling Gives Trump Administration the Green Light in Using $3.6 Billion in Military Funds for Border Wall!

https://bigleaguepolitics.com/winning-court-ruling-gives-trump-administration-the-green-light-in-using-3-6-billion-in-military-funds-for-border-wall/

RayB said...

To Anon @ 10:22 AM ....

Isn't it kind of funny how the US Government seems to have history of either malfunctioning video cameras or disappearing videos? And some of this history includes the Pentagon on 9/11, where no cameras seemed to be functioning (well enough that is) to accurately film a plane crashing into the building.

Yet, often poorly funded local Police departments are able to utilize fully functioning cameras that catch motorists speeding or crashing stop signs or lights. A nice, crisp photo of your license plate (I am told) accompanies the ticket in your mail box.

Anonymous said...

Study: Physical Outrage Differs Significantly Between Liberals & Conservatives

Research discovers how people may actually be wired differently

By Ben Warren
NEWSWARS.COM
01/09/20

The physical outrage liberals feel when offended is significantly different from what a conservative experiences, a new study says.

This conclusion is part of a larger body of behavioral science that operates on the assumption that “liberals and conservatives rely on different moral foundations and react differently to violations of morals.”


This study, in particular, examined how moral violations – like seeing someone being unfair or disloyal to someone else – are “felt” in the body (i.e., faster heartbeat, twisting stomach, flushing face, or loss of feeling in legs.)

Study participants were asked to draw where they felt “emotion-related body sensations” on highly-detailed silhouettes of the human body after experiencing an offense over specific moral metrics that included care, fairness, loyalty, authority, and purity.

“Our study finds that liberals and conservatives feel moral violations in different areas of their bodies, interpret them as distinct complex feelings and make different moral and political judgements,” said an assistant professor at the University of Southern California. “This was particularly true for perceptions of feelings of loyalty and purity.”

A notable example is provided:

“Liberals feel violations of purity in their crotch area, chest and slightly in their heads while conservatives feel these violations almost exclusively — and very strongly — in their heads.”

https://www.newswars.com/study-physical-outrage-differs-significantly-between-liberals-conservatives/

Anonymous said...

(Series of "problems")

The moneyed elite (humanist, deist, pagan, luciferians), have the resources,(Satan's bankers, alchemists, (money from air), to control, (media, education, religious leaders - pope Francis), the world's majority of people,(non remnants), to submit, or zealously support globalism.

Until the Lord brings His power as King, to rearrange things to His will, things will was worse, and worse. Global Holocaust.

Have a nice weekend!

Anonymous said...

http://www.beholdthebeast.com/scarlet_beast.htm

Maybe Constance's writings over the years have been reporting on the scarlet beast -- the final Gentile empire -- but one no longer represented by visible geographic countries and empires as in the past -- since this final one is a shadowy "deep state" and "deep church" Satanic theocracy divided among ten regions of the world (with NAFTA being one of the ten regions, for example).

Could it be that the peculiar reason why "Leftists" and "globalists" work hand in hand with Islam is because both are inspired from the same source, whether they realize it or not? Although the ideologies and creeds of Islam vs. globalism present a contrast, perhaps the master behind the scenes is really the same puppeteer.

Anonymous said...

Disney introduces kids to world of DEMONS, WITCHCRAFT in new 'The Owl House' show

https://lifesitenews.com/news/disney-introduces-kids-to-world-of-demons-witchcraft-in-new-the-owl-house-show

Anonymous said...

US govt report: Vatican's secret deal with China linked to 'intense' spike in Catholic persecution

https://lifesitenews.com/news/us-govt-report-vaticans-secret-deal-with-china-linked-to-intense-spike-in-catholic-persecution

Anonymous said...

Former New Age adherent spells out why 'New Age' is spirituality of post-Christian West

https://lifesitenews.com/blogs/former-new-age-adherent-spells-out-why-new-age-is-spirituality-of-post-christian-west

https://censored.news/LifeSIteNews.htm

https://censored.news/

Anonymous said...

It could be possible that the Holy Spirit kindly blinded the eyes of Constance to Islam, because she is so honest that she would have gotten herself a bullseye on her back before she could have finished writing her books about the New Age.

RayB said...

IF it weren't so incredibly serious, I would have to laugh at the lack of attention given to the Vatican as they continue to push for World Government.

From the link (see below for full article):

"In May 2019, Pope Francis made a strong push for globalism, calling for a supranational, legally constituted body to enforce United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and to implement “climate change” policies."

NOW ... the Pope is calling for a Global Educational Pact:

From the article:

“‘Never before has there been such need to unite our efforts in a broad educational alliance, to form mature individuals capable of overcoming division and antagonism, and to restore the fabric of relationships for the sake of a more fraternal humanity,’” he said.

Repeating Hillary Clinton’s favorite aphorism, “It takes a village to raise a child,” Pope Francis asserted the need to create an “educational village” to face new challenges.

Seriously, who is it that has more influence globally than the Vatican? Does the New Age Movement? Does Islam? WHO?

Link to full article: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-renews-call-for-global-pact-promoting-new-humanism-in-address-to-vatican-diplomats

Anonymous said...

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2016/08/31/report-george-soros-exploits-catholic-useful-idiots/

A noted opponent to all things Christian, liberal “philanthropist” George Soros has been investing heavily in Catholic “useful idiots” to change the tone of Catholic moral discourse in the United States, according to a new essay in the Washington Times.

Anonymous said...

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20180110-the-invented-language-that-found-a-second-life-online

A teenage George Soros was to be found preaching the Esperanto gospel in London’s famous Speakers’ Corner

Anonymous said...

"form mature individuals capable of overcoming division and antagonism, and to restore the fabric of relationships for the sake of a more fraternal humanity"

"educational village"

Can this devil(false prophet) pope Francis be anymore Antichrist than that??? Can you see Jesus saying anything remotely like this satanic drivel? This is diametrically opposed to the teachings of Christ!

Anonymous said...

But, exposing the dead New Ager John E. Fetzer is much less 'divisive and antagonistic' than exposing his holiness!

Anonymous said...

"Could it be that the peculiar reason why "Leftists" and "globalists" work hand in hand with Islam is because both are inspired from the same source, whether they realize it or not? Although the ideologies and creeds of Islam vs. globalism present a contrast, perhaps the master behind the scenes is really the same puppeteer."

What is FAR more insidious and terrible than Islam is the Chabad Lubavitch sect of Judaism. The Muslims apparently are simply 'broomsticks' that are being used to drown down the Gentile nations. They will never rule the world. They may have numbers, but even the prophecies hint that Islam will be turn into a backwater voodoo cult by the time Gog and Magog is over (and that will be fast!). THIS has power over us. Look how Trump dances to the tune where if 'they' tell him to kill a general, he says 'How high?'

The Noahidic law system is the real monster under the bed. And he gonna set up shop in Jerusalem, not Mecca.

Anonymous said...

Right now Christians are already being beheaded by the tragic cult members whose cult has already existed for centuries. It's happening in Nigeria, Sudan and so many other places in the Middle Eastern and adjacent regions, where the apostles and -- those of the apostolic era of the first five centuries of church history -- evangelized historically.

What is worth worrying about more -- a theoretical future beheading? Or a factual, historical, ongoing beheading of Christians?

One is conspiracy theory. The other is conspiracy fact.

Anonymous said...

Yes, it is a cult, and the tragedy of history is that some of these cult members may be descendents of some of the earliest converts to Christianity, who subsequently chose to survive by converting to this biggest cult on the stage of history -- out of fear of he who can hurt the physical body and he who can hurt financial thriving -- when we are told to fear more He who has power over our eternal life and death.

How would we measure up if we were faced with the same choice? We should be glad we never had to choose rather than judging the descendants of those who did. Those descendants need to be lovingly deprogrammed to the extent that is possible.

Anonymous said...

https://www.biblehub.com/matthew/24-19.htm

"How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers!"


http://www.beholdthebeast.com/the_big_lie.htm

"Fundamental Moslems in the Sudan have slaughtered over 2,000,000 unarmed villagers, both Christian and animists. Christian pastors are routinely crucified. Christian women have their breasts cut off, making it impossible for them to feed their
babies who subsequently starve to death. The West has known about this genocide for years, but little has been done to stop it."

Anonymous said...

Question. Who qualifies as Abraham's literal, physical seed? Maybe there is some truth to British Israelism, or maybe not? But wouldn't it stand to reason that yellow people, red people, black people and brown people may all have some blood from the lost tribes of Israel in them, if the ten lost tribes scattered to every place on Earth? Not only that, but in Ethiopia, they traditionally believe that the Queen of Sheba had the child of King Solomon. Moses took an African bride. The Cherokees' DNA has been tested and has been found to have Semitic blood in it. And I'm definitely NOT saying that the current Jews in Israel are not really Jews. I think the Ashkenazi Jews came from some of the lost tribes, too. There is so much disinformation regarding this particular group of Jews. It is important to look at all the evidence, both confirming evidence and disconfirming evidence, before jumping to a conclusion regarding the Ashkenazi Jews.

Anonymous said...

Could it be that Satan's plan was to enslave the black people in the south, but God's plan, was to bring them out of slavery in an exodus similar to that led by Moses? And could they perhaps even be the descendants of Moses, since he took a black bride? Maybe they came to learn God again, and they should only thank God, but not white people. Perhaps that is why the slaves took such encouragement from identifying with Moses leading his people out of Egypt. Who knows what we will learn when we die?

Anonymous said...

Although one can certainly take some intellectual delight in engaging in endless speculations about many (such) topics, one can though, better off INSTEAD choose to carefully, prayerfully study the Bible verses on a given topic and see what ALL of those verses taken together indicate and base any further thoughts about the given topic upon that ROCK solid foundation!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 10:54,

Absolutely, and perhaps I needed to be rebuked.

Anonymous said...

Parallels between Roman Catholicism and Islam

http://brotherpete.com/index.php?topic=512.0

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

Craig, thank you. I got a sneaking suspicion RayB is either a member of or a follower of the writings of either JWs or a spinoff of theirs, because I recall reading decades ago something of theirs that sounded like they think Jesus only spiritually rose, not physically. or not entirely physically.

yet ANOTHER problem with the Nimrod and Tower of Babel story:

"Hislop deduces that Ninus, aka Nimrod, ruled around 2000 BC, from 2039 BC to 1987 BC.73 While early, this
dating still presents serious problems. Ten generations separate Noah’s sons from Abraham (Gen. 11:10-26).
Nimrod, the grandson of Ham, belongs to the 3rd generation. Peleg was the 5th generation; he was so named,
because “in his days the earth was divided” (Gen. 10:25)."

BINGO! you got at least 500 or 600 years after The Flood to Peleg, while Nimrod was most likely dead 400 or 500 years after The Flood. (There are more than one way to compute the begats, and none of them make anything but a senile, weak flabby Nimrod contemporary to Peleg's youth.) So now, especially since Nimrod isn't mentioned in The Bible in connection with the tower, is it possible he had nothing to do with it? Nimrod founded the cities surrounding the tower but it doesn't say he built it.

And while you're dividing the population by language, why not go a step farther and divide their locations physically? I think the separation of landmasses into the continents we have now happened suddenly in Peleg's time, also the Tower of Babel. If one miracle, why not another?

J, the Vatican Hill is not inside the Roman city limits ancient or modern. It was NEVER one of the seven hills of Rome, but a garbage dump chosen for humility's sake.

another problem is that prophecy centers on Israel in particular and the Middle East in general. transferring everything from Israel to the church (defined as Roman Catholic) results in a recentering on Europe, a view adopted (along with Romish style of "doing theology" as someone called it and the filioque and other problems) by the reformers. This in turn gets transferred with a poetic (ergo largely prelest, spiritual deception of any category or degree) sense of America as the city lit on a hill, started by some 1800s poet and continued by Bush Sr.

We fit more the category of the islands, since the center of the world's landmass is Africa-Europe-Eurasia-Asia, and the rest are obvious breakoffs probably during the time of Peleg when the earth was divided (physically likely as well as linguistically).

We need to go back to the drawing board. That neo historicist page you gave the link for looks good.

anon 12:41, Woodrow wrote a book supporting hislop then later rejected HIslop and debunked him with the info he had acquired which went against him.

Mohammed was definitely AN antichrist but not THE antichrist, I John 2:18 when did anyone have to have a tattoo to be able to engage in economic transactions? When did Mohammed declare himself to be god? Islam may or may not even still exist when the antichrist appears. end of times of gentiles not same as time of second coming necessarily.

Anonymous said...

http://islamrevealed.org/islam-and-666/

Name of Allah written in Arabic letters looks like Greek rendition of number 666. Take a look at this evidence and more.

Also if you care to research it you can find examples of Muslims with the name of Allah on their foreheads, either directly on it, or on a bandanna.

Anonymous said...

A picture of the name of Allah superimposed on a picture of a right hand.

The name of the blog featuring this picture is called Allah Miracles.

http://allahamiracleas.blogspot.com/2010/08/allaha-miracles.html

The superimposed text states: "If we contemplate in the shape of the fingers at the back of the right hand we will find out AMAZINGLY that it draws the name of ALLAH."

Anonymous said...

So North America, and South America are islands! Thanks Christine. Your a genius!

Anonymous said...

https://exposingchrislam.com/

It's not just the Pope promoting Chrislam. Remember that the harlot had daughter harlots. Rick Warren for one.

Craig said...

Anon 7:20, 25:

I only wish to comment on the claim regarding the Greek “666” being akin to “ALLAH” sideways. In the Greek of that time, numbers could either be written using what is called Isopsephy (using letters for numbers), or by writing out it all out (e.g. six hundred sixty and six). Codex Vaticanus uses Isopsephy, while Sinaiticus uses the latter. See this link for the equivalent Greek letter-to-number correspondence:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isopsephy#Letter_values_of_the_Greek_alphabet

Using the above, one could either use the majuscule (capital letters)

ΧΞF

…or miniscule (‘small’ letters).

χξς

Vaticanus is written in miniscule. You can see this in the digital facsimile online:

csntm.org/manuscript/View/GA_03

Scroll to find the image marked “Rev 12.18”, then, since it’s conveniently penciled with chapter/verse, go to final column, fifth line (at top/left of pane, use + to home in). With this point of reference, you can find it in the actual manuscript here:

digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209

First, you will need to click on the three horizontal lines at top/left to access the index. Once this is populated, scroll all the way down to “Apocalypsis”. Since the page number, 1530, is on the above facsimile, scroll over till you find that page. The χξς image can be found at the same spot as above: final column, fifth line (use + to – slider to home in):

Sinaiticus uses majuscule and, as noted above, writes out the number:

codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?book=59&chapter=13&lid=en&side=r&verse=18&zoomSlider=0#59-14-4-5

To find, see “Transcription” box. The easiest way is to use its scroll/slider until you find Rev 13:18 in that Transcription box. Near the end of this verse, find the word ECTIV (“is”) and click on it. Correspondingly, this will put a red rectangle around this word in the manuscript in the “Image” box on left. Use + to – slider (it’s a bit tricky) to home in on the words following ECTIV, which are four individual words all run together, encompassing the entire line under ECTIV and the first four characters of the next line.

By visually comparing the two manuscripts, you can draw your own conclusions regarding the relative merit of this particular claim of ‘666 is ALLAH’.

Anonymous said...

For someone who has so much knowledge of truth, Christine is the Queen of Wild Speculation!

Craig said...

Anon 8:51 AM, and 9:12 AM,

Perhaps you've never heard of the theory of continental drift within the plate tectonics theory?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics

paul said...

Christine,
The Book of Jashervery clearly says that Nimrod:
"reigned securely, and all the earth was under his control, and all the earth was of one tongue and words of union. And all the princes of Nimrod and his great men took council together: Phut, Mitzraim, Cush and Canaan with their families, and they said to each other, come let us build ourselves a city and in it a strong tower, and it's top reaching heaven, and we will make ourselves famed, so that we may reign upon the whole world, in order that the evil of our enemies may cease from us, that we may reign mightily over them, and that we may not become scattered over the earth on account of their wars."

And the Book of Jasher goes on in a lot more detail about the people who began to build the Tower of Babel and how they divided themselves into three groups. There were those who said we will ascend into heaven and and fight against him. The second group said they would ascend into heaven and place their own gods there and serve them, and the third group said we will ascend into heaven and smite him with bows and spears. All this was before God sent seventy angels to confuse the single language of them all and watch them proceed to kill each other as they tried to continue building the tower.

I know, I know, the Book of Jasher is NOT Holy Scripture. No one is suggesting that it is, but the Book of Jasher is quoted in 2nd Samuel 1:17:18, and 2nd Timothy 3:8-9, and The Babylonian Talmud, and The Mishna, not to mention that it's mentioned by Josephus as being reliable history.
As far as the earth being divided in the time of Peleg, there are differing opinions as to just what they means, but I agree with you. There was the single land mass on earth until that time and that's when the continents were divided.
So, by the way, it follows that the flood of Noah was indeed a flood of the whole habitable earth, and not just a local cataclysm.
Have a nice day.

RayB said...


Christine Erikson (aka Justina, aka Sandra, aka Anonymous) said...

"Craig, thank you. I got a sneaking suspicion RayB is either a member of or a follower of the writings of either JWs or a spinoff of theirs, because I recall reading decades ago something of theirs that sounded like they think Jesus only spiritually rose, not physically. or not entirely physically."

Ordinarily, I don't respond to really far out, outrageous lies, but this one I just can't let go.

For over 35 years, I have always taken the time to witness to JWs whenever they appear at my door. Many times, I have invited them in and, with an open Bible, attempted to reason with them. Often these encounters have lasted for hours. I have heard this comment (or similar) very often from them: "you are very different from others that claim to be born again. They usually just slam the door in our face." To make the bogus claim that I am a "follower of the writings of .... JWs" is not only a huge, unfounded lie, it is really weird, even for Christine.

As to the claim that I believe Jesus rose only "spiritually" is totally false .... as in TOTALLY FALSE. The Lord's body was risen, a fact that I have never even questioned or doubted! The Scriptures, which is my ROCK foundation, is abundantly clear on this.

Christine, you really need to repent of your ways. You make the most outrageous false claims against virtually everyone in here, and you do so with reckless abandon. For every single false charge that you make in here .... YOU WILL HAVE TO GIVE AN ACCOUNT, along with your promoting your sinful lifestyle while "professing" your "faith."

Anonymous said...

State Department Report: U.S. #1 in Sex Trafficking - 60% American Child Sex Slaves Come Out of Foster Care

https://medicalkidnap.com/2019/06/25/state-department-report-u-s-1-in-sex-trafficking-60-american-child-sex-slaves-come-out-of-foster-care/

Anonymous said...

I got a sneaking suspicion RayB is either a member of or a follower of the writings of either JWs or a spinoff of theirs...

What does JW mean? - JW Definition - Meaning of JW

What does JW mean?

This could be the only web page dedicated to explaining the meaning of JW (JW acronym/ abbreviation/ slang word).

Ever wondered what JW means?

What is JW?

JW is "Just Wondering"

The definition of JW is "Just Wondering"

The Meaning of JW
JW means "Just Wondering"

So now you know - JW means "Just Wondering" - don't thank us. YW!

https://www.internetslang.com/JW-meaning-definition.asp

(LOL)

RayB said...

To Anon @ 12:39 PM ...

Now that you put it that way, maybe I am a member of the JW cult and didn't even realize it.

After reading Christine aka Justina aka Sandra aka Anonymous et all's posts, I often finding myself "Just Wondering" what in the world she is trying to say.

It's amazing what you can find out about yourself when you take the time to do a self examination.

Thanks for pointing me in the right direction.

Anonymous said...

http://www.fivedoves.com/letters/oct2014/The%20Mark%20of%20the%20Beast%20is%20a%20%27seal%27..pdf

Anonymous said...

https://jubileechristiancenter.church/isis-the-mark-the-name-and-the-image-of-the-beast/

Scroll down to look at comparisons of two images.

"THE ABOVE IMAGE IS WHAT EVERY MUSLIM LIVES FOR IT’S CALLED THE BISMILLAH WITH THE CROSS OF THE TWO SWORDS OF JIHAD AND IT’S WORN ON THE HEADBANDS IN THE IMAGE ABOVE.

THE IMAGE BELOW IS TAKEN FROM A RECENTLY DISCOVERED BIBLICAL MANUSCRIPT OF THE BOOK OF THE REVELATION. PREVIOUSLY TRANSLATED 666. BUT I BELIEVE IF YOU WILL EXAMINE IT CLOSELY YOU WILL SEE THAT THEY ARE THE SAME."

Craig said...

RayB,

Though I can understand your response to Christine above re: JW association, I’m curious as to why you ignored her first comment (@ 3:04 PM), and my response to it (@ 10:03 AM), to which she referred in her most recent comment. This Christological error you brought forth earlier remains unresolved. Your claim in your 10:03 AM (bold added)…

As to the claim that I believe Jesus rose only "spiritually" is totally false .... as in TOTALLY FALSE. The Lord's body was risen, a fact that I have never even questioned or doubted! The Scriptures, which is my ROCK foundation, is abundantly clear on this.

…is negated below.

From the following link are your relevant comments:

blogger.com/comment.g?postID=1493201844006862879&blogID=11772087&isPopup=false&page=1&bpli=1

@ 12:09 PM:

The only purpose of his "humanity" was to offer a PERFECT sacrifice, which died on the cross. His MANIFESTATION in the FLESH ON EARTH was TEMPORARY.

@ 12:27 PM:

Jesus Christ is no longer the "God-man." That was only temporal. He is now fully God without the flesh, which was destroyed on the cross.

Craig heretically believes that Christ continues "through eternity" with an "attached human nature/flesh." THIS IS A CLEAR diminishing of Christ's DEITY! AGAIN, when Christ was "manifested in the flesh," he purposely, and TEMPORARILY LOWERED himself "lower than the angels" in order to accomplish his predetermined sacrificial task.


After getting called to task for the implicit heresy in your words—that is, implicitly denying Jesus’ bodily resurrection—rather than admit you were wrong, you quoted a portion from a link I supplied containing the words of R. C. Sproul--@ 5:41 PM:

I may have not made my position clear, but, this accurately states what I believe:

“...The divine nature did not become human and the human nature did not become divine. Neither were the natures mixed together such that Christ was a strange human-divine hybrid, neither truly human nor truly divine. No, Christ was and remains the God-man. This is a mystery we cannot fully comprehend, but we must affirm it...”


Yet, this ‘clarification’ statement is completely contrary to your words above that—hardly a clarification. Then, after I pointed this out, you claimed you “misspoke” (@ 5:58 PM)—as if that is an adequate response. Everyone misspeaks/misstates on occasion, but you expressed both explicit error (that Christ is no longer the God-man—and some might call this explicit heresy) and implicit heresy in attempting to refute my supposed (by you) heresy. After pressing you further, you made this statement (@ 6:51 PM):

… As I STATED EMPHATICALLY before, and will do so again, GOD DID NOT DIE ON THE CROSS !

I agree 100% with R. C. Sproul's article. Does that make my position clear enough for you???


The thing is no one ever claimed you stated that God died on the Cross. And, again, to agree with Sproul is to completely contradict your earlier statements—statements that implicitly deny Jesus’ bodily resurrection. I and others are waiting for some sort of harmonization, some sort of REAL clarity on this from you. You expressed rank heresy. What exactly rose at the Resurrection?

Craig said...

RayB,

And, concurrent with this implicit denial of Jesus’ bodily resurrection, you made another Christologically problematic statement that I left unaddressed at the time. The resurrection issue was more pressing, so I let it go. But, I’ll bring it forth now, so that you can clarify this one with the other. It is found in this statement below, the bold portion making the implication I shall pinpoint below it:

Craig heretically believes that Christ continues "through eternity" with an "attached human nature/flesh." THIS IS A CLEAR diminishing of Christ's DEITY!...

Given your stated position that attached humanity through eternity would be “A CLEAR diminishing of Christ's DEITY”, you imply that Christ’s earthly ministry as the Divine-human Person was in some diminished state of Deity. This implies the Kenosis heresy. There are myriad Christological issues this position entails, but the inherent logical problem is this: If the Word’s Deity was diminished in any fashion during the Incarnation, then how can a less-than-full-Deity (re)acquire His full Deity while being less-than-Deity? Can other less-than-Deity beings obtain Deity?

RayB said...

Craig,

The thing I find amazing is that no matter how many times I have clarified what I MEANT to say, and have emphatically stated in no uncertain terms that Jesus did in fact rise BODILY, you simply ignore it.

When I put forth Sproul's explanation, I agreed with it, and stated such .... a fact that you cannot accept.

I think your problem with me arises because you are still wounded by the fact that I got you to admit that, according to YOU, there was a "time when the Word was NOT GOD," which I called you on. Being that Christ has always been God, and that the Word has always existed as God, the case can definitely be made that it is YOU that is denying Christ's divinity.

I'm not going to waste time on a subject that you want to continue to haggle over, because we have gone around in circles on this to the point of absurdity.

I know what I believe. God knows what I believe. I don't feel the need to convince you of anything.

Arguing with intellectual giants like you will always lead to pointless discussions such as "how many angels can fit on the head of a pin."

Craig said...

RayB,

Nice try. Anyone reading this exchange can see that you (now) completely changed your statement, not that you merely “misspoke”.

You wrote: I think your problem with me arises because you are still wounded by the fact that I got you to admit that, according to YOU, there was a "time when the Word was NOT GOD," which I called you on.

That is a statement I never made. I challenge you to find such a statement.

Anonymous said...

Craig, not pointing any fingers but just for the sake of argument, if someone happens to have a compulsive need to be seen as THE Spiritual & Moral Authority on this blog, good luck in getting them to admit when they are seriously wrong.

Heck, they'd probably even have little compunction in, say, manufacturing contrived comparisons between themselves and Constance herself to attempt to elevate themselves in our eyes at her expense!

Craig said...

Anon 5:56 PM,

Speaking hypothetically, of course, such a person just might do such a thing!

Anonymous said...

https://flashtrafficblog.allisrael.com/2015/11/05/what-is-apocalyptic-islam-and-why-is-it-so-dangerous-the-research-behind-my-remarks-to-the-jerusalem-leaders-summit/

Indeed, for the first time in human history, the top leaders of not just one nation state but two — Iran and the Islamic State — are being driven by Islamic eschatology, or End Times theology. Their particular brands of Shia and Sunni eschatology are driving them towards genocide. Why? Because they believe:

*that the End of Days have arrived

*that the Islamic messiah known as the “Mahdi” will appear at any moment

* that when the Mahdi appears, he will rule the entire Earth

*that Jesus will also return to Earth, but not as the Messiah, or Savior, or Son of God, but as the deputy to the Mahdi

*that Jesus will force all Jews, Christians and other so-called “infidels” to convert to Islam or be executed

*that the way to hasten the arrival and full establishment of the global Islamic kingdom or “caliphate” is to annihilate Jews and Christians, and specifically to annihilate Israel (which they call the “Little Satan” in their eschatology), and the United States (which they call the “Great Satan.”)

*that time is very short, and they must move decisively because soon each Muslim will face the Mahdi face to face and be brought into judgment if they have not faithfully followed the Mahdi’s orders.

They discuss such matters often — not in the shadows, but in public. Yet, Western leaders are not paying attention, much less carefully analyzing the implications of such beliefs.

Anonymous said...

BIG LEAGUE POLITICS

Feminist Author Pushes Nude Models for Children to Make Them 'Relaxed' about Their Sexuality

Hollyweird Strikes Again: Writer Of 'Captain Marvel 2' is Anti-Trump, Pro-Iran, Pro-Islam Feminist

WATCH: 'Never Trump' Loser Consultants Smear Evangelical Christians in New Cash Grab Ad

Now, VA Democrats Want to BAN Indoor Shooting Ranges

CAPITALISM'S VILLAINS: Meet the Globalist Vultures Feasting on the Remains of America

Soros-Funded Propaganda Outlet Claims Tucker Carlson's Anti-War Stance is Motivated by Racism

COVER-UP: Prosecutors Confirm That Surveillance Video of Jeffrey Epstein's Cell Was Destroyed

WINNING: Court Ruling Gives Trump Administration the Green Light in Using $3.6 Billion in Military Funds for Border Wall

Dan 'McCain 2.0' Crenshaw Says He NEVER Wants the Troops to Come Home From Afghanistan

Bill Clinton Poses in Front of Jeffrey Epstein's 'Lolita Express' with Deceased Pedo's Right-Hand Woman

New 'Saved By The Bell' Reboot Will Feature Transgender Teen as the MAIN Character

1/8/2020 6:53:51 PM

China is Forcing Religious Organizations to Spread Communist Party Propaganda

HANNITY: Trump Will Put 'No Boots on the Ground', Only 'Washington Swamp Creatures...(Who) Like to Send Our Kids to War'

DISGUSTING: Twitter Gives Platform for Pedophiles to Discuss the Finer Points of Raping Children

ANTIFA Leader Exposed as Catholic School Teacher After Being Inadvertently Doxxed in CBC Documentary

Census Reports that China is Sending More Immigrants to U.S. than Any Other Nation

https://censored.news/BigLeaguePolitics.htm

RayB said...

Craig said (in part) @ 5:18 PM:

"You wrote: I think your problem with me arises because you are still wounded by the fact that I got you to admit that, according to YOU, there was a "time when the Word was NOT GOD," which I called you on."

"That is a statement I never made. I challenge you to find such a statement."

Craig,

I'm surprised by you (not really, but it always sounds good for some reason).

You can't recall this exchange, which I repeatedly posted, as in over and over again?

The direct question I asked Craig:

"Did Jesus Christ always exist as the Word of God?"

To which Craig succinctly answered .... "No"

How does this deny the Divinity of Jesus Christ? Read John 1:1 for yourself and see what the Word says:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Jesus Christ IS the WORD OF GOD, and the WORD WAS GOD. There has NEVER been a time when God did not exist. By claiming, as Craig did, that there was a time when Jesus did not exist as the Word of God, he is clearly claiming that Jesus is not God.

Craig,

"J" was right. These recent attacks by you started up again because "J" and I were having a meaningful discussion, AND, possibly more importantly, she had some very nice things to say about me. Be honest Craig .... isn't that true?

Craig said...

RayB,

Just as you’d done before, you’ve selectively quoted me, thereby misquoting me. At the following link are my complete answers to your questions (@ 9:14 AM—bold added to point out your deception above: To which Craig succinctly answered .... "No"):

blogger.com/comment.g?postID=1493201844006862879&blogID=11772087&isPopup=false&page=1&bpli=1

…I shall answer your questions:

1. Is Jesus Christ the Word of God?

Yes.

2. Has Jesus Christ ALWAYS been the Word of God?

No. See above and my answer to 3.

3. Did Jesus Christ have a beginning, or, has He ALWAYS existed as God?

Jesus Christ, the God-man, was born in Bethlehem, but He preexisted as the uncreated, eternal “Word”.

4. Has Jesus Christ changed at any time, or, has He always been the same, as in "yesterday, today, and forever"?

In His Deity He is ontologically unchanged, but in His humanity He “grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him” (Luke 2:40, KJV)


RayB, you wrote just above (7:33 PM):

…By claiming, as Craig did, that there was a time when Jesus did not exist as the Word of God, he is clearly claiming that Jesus is not God.

Jesus’ (the God-man) existence began when the Word became flesh (John 1:14); before that the eternal Word, the second Person of the Trinity, God the Son, existed/exists (John 1:1). But, Jesus’ PRE-existence was as the Word (John 1:1), the Second Person of the Trinity—Jesus doesn’t predate His existence, for that is illogical. Thus, John 1:1 does not describe Jesus (the God-man) except in His pre-existence as the Word sans flesh. To place Jesus into John 1:1 is to push back the Incarnation and to defy both Scripture and logic, for the Word is the agent of creation (John 1:3), which includes the human nature the Word took on at the Incarnation of the God-man (John 1:14).

You have a hopelessly confused and incoherent Christology. You really should pay much more attention to the works of, e.g., R. C. Sproul, whose Christology is 100% orthodox.

As I wrote later on in that earlier thread, your questions were poorly worded. The reason is that you have a built-in bias towards placing Jesus into John 1:1 (your question 2), which is error, implicitly pushing back the Incarnation and creating internally incoherent Christology, given that the Word—and not the God-man Jesus—was the agent in creation (John 1:3).

Craig said...

RayB,

Also, your explicit claim just above (@ 5:04 PM) was that I made the claim that there was a “time when the Word was NOT GOD”. Once again, I’ve never said anything of the sort.

Anonymous said...

Keep Praying, It Seems to Be Working!

JOEL B. POLLAK
BREITBART NEWS
JANUARY 12, 2020

The horrific crash of Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 shortly after takeoff from Tehran last week, killing all 176 passengers, is an inexplicable loss whose heaviness is barely eased by the fact that it has aroused the Iranian people to take to the streets against their government.

Unlike some of our Democrat politicians, who rushed to blame President Donald Trump, the Iranian people understand clearly that the regime bears sole responsibility for shooting down the plane.

Democrats are struggling to explain the rest of what happened last week — how a president whom they despise, whom they hold in contempt, whom many will not even name — managed to start and win a war with Iran without really fighting it. The airstrike that took out Iranian General Qasem Soleimani restored American deterrence, and emboldened Iranian dissidents.

A friend suggested to me that Trump had “turned a corner,” even earning the grudging respect of his most vociferous critics.

The friend, a prominent member of the Jewish community, suggested further that what was also important about the Iran strike was that unlike the movement of the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, the strike against Iran was an attack for America’s sake alone.

It was not perceived — except by the usual conspiracy theory nuts — as something Trump had done for Israel, or to satisfy a domestic Jewish constituency. The two events — Jerusalem and Baghdad — were independent.

I told him that I agreed with him — up until the last point. The embassy and the Soleimani strike were connected by a common thread.

In both cases, the president had trusted his own instincts, ignoring the advice of experts and the threats from enemies. Diplomatically in the former case, militarily in the latter, Trump had been audacious in pursuing his foreign policy agenda, and saw that the perceived dangers had failed to appear.

Courage begets courage, success begets success.
...
Moreover, think of how many millions of Americans were praying Tuesday evening, when news of the first missile attacks by Iran against bases housing U.S. troops first broke. The result called to mind the many Biblical episodes, especially in the Book of Kings, when enemy armies simply melted away, once confronted.

It is impossible for the human mind to interpret every news event as Divine will. The victims of Flight 752, and their friends and families, simply need our prayers.

But keep praying: it seems to be working.

https://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2020/01/12/pollak-keep-praying-it-seems-to-be-working/

RayB said...


Anonymous Craig said @ 8:31 PM:

RayB,

Also, your explicit claim just above (@ 5:04 PM) was that I made the claim that there was a “time when the Word was NOT GOD”. Once again, I’ve never said anything of the sort.

In a very round about, but at the same time direct way, that is exactly what you were saying.

AGAIN ...

The direct question I asked Craig:

"Did Jesus Christ always exist as the Word of God?"

To which Craig succinctly answered .... "No"

How does this deny the Divinity of Jesus Christ? Read John 1:1 for yourself and see what the Word says:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Jesus Christ IS the WORD OF GOD, and the WORD WAS GOD. There has NEVER been a time when God did not exist. By claiming, as Craig did, that there was a time when Jesus did not exist as the Word of God, he is clearly claiming that Jesus is not God.

Craig,

I really wish you would leave well enough alone. However, you seem obsessed with your attacks on my character, as evidenced by your recent, repeat of your ongoing, never ending attempt to smear me by making the false accusation that I was attacking Christine's "looks." Your utterly false accusation was based ENTIRELY upon your equally false assumption of what you THOUGHT I was thinking, but NEVER expressed. I think I recall something in the Bible that speaks about the "testimony of 2 or 3 witnesses." You've ignored that and have based your unfounded attack on me based upon ONE "witness" that is baring FALSE testimony; yourself.

Honestly Craig. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Anonymous said...

Anon 6:33
Imagine a civilization; a country with a history, that didn't know that it had entered into a world size war until after the first ten years of that war. That's when the country realized and admitted that it was indeed in the midst of a really big bloody war; after ten years of this said war. The country woke up one day and realized that it had been at war for the last ten years and no one had said anything about it. In fact no one was saying anything about it now, but it finally dawned on this country that this was a world war and that maybe they should mobilize a bit, and pool their resources and combine their efforts to win this war and not lose it, because to lose it would mean that they would no longer have this thing called freedom and autonomy to pursue whatever business that one might want to pursue, and freedom to own property, and freedom to vote for a certain party and it's given platform or to eschew that party and vote for a different one.
Soon, maybe next year the people of the United States may finally realize that they have been under attack from a very quiet mortal enemy now for quite some time.
Perhaps we were thinking that since we killed Osama Bin Laden that the Muslim hoard was somehow defeated or disabled.
Perhaps we were thinking that the muslim hoard was retreating and no longer a threat.
Maybe we were under the impression that the muslim mob was giving up the battle that they started, unbeknownst to the U.S.
They had openly declared war on the United States years ago but no one took them seriously.

Craig said...

RayB,

You wrote, in part: In a very round about, but at the same time direct way, that is exactly what you were saying. [that there was a “time when the Word was NOT GOD”.]

I’ll be succinct in response to this: Nope.

Once again you reiterate that my answer to your question (2) was a “succinct” No, when in my initial response—to all your questions—this was not my complete answer, as I’ve shown just above. Just repeating your assertion doesn’t change what I’ve shown was my full answer to your question(s). Moreover, your claim in the following does not jibe with Scripture—or at least requires some further explanation from you:

Jesus Christ IS the WORD OF GOD, and the WORD WAS GOD. There has NEVER been a time when God did not exist. By claiming, as Craig did, that there was a time when Jesus did not exist as the Word of God, he is clearly claiming that Jesus is not God.

Once more I’ll try to explain this. There is a temporal succession between John 1:1 and John 1:14, the latter the point at which the eternal Word took on human flesh in the Person of Jesus Christ. During this interval, from a temporal perspective, there was no Jesus (the God-man), for not until John 1:14 did He become—and now remains—the Incarnation of the Word, i.e. Word-made-flesh. In other words, the Incarnation of Jesus began at a point in time (as indicated in John 1:14). Your claims belie Scripture. Now, we can say “Jesus is God”, and with that statement, we understand that this is only so because of His Divine nature (the Word); however, we concurrently understand that His Divine nature precedes His human nature, the latter originating at John 1:14. This is not to claim “that Jesus is not God.” This is what Scripture reveals, properly exegeted, explained, and understood.

There may well be some sort of inadvertent talking past one another here—that either or both of us is/are not fully understanding what the other is conveying. As I understand your claim, you wish to insert “Jesus” into John 1:1, as if “the Word” and “Jesus” are interchangeable here (‘In the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus was with God, and Jesus was God’). If this is not what you are conveying, let me know. If this IS what you are conveying, please cite chapter and verse to substantiate this.

As regards the ad hominem against Christine, there are at least 3 witnesses who construe that your words amounted to this: the Anon that brought this up initially in this current blog post, me, and Christine herself.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 11:22 PM,

Yes! And we need to warn people while we still have the freedom to do so online. And support efforts to evangelize Muslims, too. Those brave few ex-Muslims who are evangelizing their own tribe need all of the protection, prayer and support that we can muster.

Anonymous said...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/turkey/12077703/Turkeys-president-says-all-he-wants-is-same-powers-as-Hitler.html

Anonymous said...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/turkey/11210083/Turkeys-president-moves-into-worlds-biggest-palace-costing-384-million.html

Anonymous said...

https://www.rt.com/news/395178-turkey-aircraft-carriers-erdogan/

Anonymous said...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/05/pope-francis-gives-peace-symbol-gift-president-erdogan-turkish/

Anonymous said...

https://www.nowtheendbegins.com/pope-francis-chrislam-calls-for-major-theological-reforms-catholic-schools-promote-common-mission-islam-muslims/

Anonymous said...

https://israelinewslive.org/the-vatican-unveils-its-muslim-antichrist/

Anonymous said...

Rick Blaine: "Here's looking at YOU, kid!"

Amazon Admits Employees Have Secretly Watched Ring Camera Customers

https://thenewamerican.com/tech/item/34597-amazon-admits-employees-have-secretly-watched-ring-camera-customers

More News from The New American »

https://censored.news/TheNewAmerican.htm

RayB said...

Craig said (In part) @ 11:39 PM:

"As regards the ad hominem against Christine, there are at least 3 witnesses who construe that your words amounted to this: the Anon that brought this up initially in this current blog post, me, and Christine herself."

Craig,

Copy & paste my exact words that prove I was referring to Christine's "looks" as you have charged.

Of course you can't. You can't because it doesn't exist.

I have thoroughly answered your childish, false charge, which you have chosen not to accept. BUT, that's not good enough for our resident "Greek Scholar Intellectual."

And by the way, JESUS ALWAYS EXISTED AS THE WORD OF GOD as declared in John 1:1. Wrestle with your "intellect" all you want. Rationalize all you want. That does not change that fact.

Go play your childish game with someone else Craig.

Anonymous said...

Craig's big ego on display for all to marvel at!

RayB said...

One more little tidbit on my friend Craig, which to me says it all.

Several years ago, I was on this blog defending the doctrine of the Trinity against a poster that was attacking its validity.

Among other Scripture verses, the last one I used was the following Scripture from I John 5:7:

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

At that point, Craig entered the conversation and offered his ONLY contribution, which was, STUNNINGLY, making the ridiculous claim that I John 5:7 "DOES NOT BELONG IN THE BIBLE."

Now think about how revealing that is. Craig is a Wescott/Hort only fanatic and that verse didn't comport with the modern translation (actually they are INTERPRETATIONS) textual "belief" of these two men, both of whom held to numerous heretical beliefs ... a documented fact.

Due to that experience with Craig, I lost virtually all respect for him, because he just had to throw his "intellectual" fly into the ointment which virtually RUINED, and ENDED a meaningful conversation about the Trinity.

Craig said...

RayB,

As regards the ad hominem, since this would be considered a civil not a criminal matter, the burden of proof is by the preponderance of the evidence, which many legal experts construe as 51% or more. The words have already been posted earlier (in the first 200 comments on this post), so I won’t repost them.

You wrote: And by the way, JESUS ALWAYS EXISTED AS THE WORD OF GOD as declared in John 1:1. Wrestle with your "intellect" all you want. Rationalize all you want. That does not change that fact.

Reasserting your circular logic does not make your claims any more so true. Shall we also change John 1:14 to And Jesus became flesh and dwelt among us? Was it Jesus Who attached flesh to Himself or was it the Word? This not merely an academic issue. In your zeal to uphold the Deity of Jesus Christ, you’re not only defying both Scripture and logic, you’re inadvertently divinizing His humanity. However, asserting that Jesus Christ has a beginning in time (via the Incarnation) is completely orthodox (and Scriptural), and does not deny His Deity, though quite different from stating something like ‘the Word has a beginning in time’ which is heretical.

Jesus Christ is God the Son by virtue of His pre-existence [the prefix pre meaning “before”] AS ‘the Word’, God the Son in John 1:1. In 1:14 the pre-existing, eternal Word attached humanity to Himself resulting in the two-natured, Divine-human Jesus Christ, Whose human nature has a beginning and Whose Divine nature does not. Thus, John 1:1 is speaking of Jesus Christ’s (Word-become-flesh’s) pre-temporal, pre-existence as the Word (before enfleshment), and thus, we can rightly claim that the final clause and the Word was God refers, by extension, to Jesus Christ, and, therefore, that Jesus is God. But to state “in the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus was with God, and Jesus was God” is both nonsense and non-Scriptural. I’ll quote Murray J. Harris’ excellent and exhaustive book [Greek transliterated and briefly defined; bold added] Jesus as God: The New Testament use of Theos in Reference to Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1992) to illustrate:

[continued]

Craig said...

[continuing]

In 1:14 John is…[affirming] that the personal individualized Logos [‘the Word’] assumed a complete and genuine human existence. If, for John, the Logos was the preincarnate Son, then Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is the incarnate Logos. There was personal continuity between the preexistent Logos and the historical Jesus: the logos ensarkos [Word enfleshed, aka Jesus @ 1:14] was personally none other than the logos asarkos [Word not-fleshed]. If this is so, what John says in 1:1 regarding the person of the Logos, he says, by implication, regarding the person of Jesus Christ (p 59).

At times we strain at language to make proper distinctions, and, by convention, we may sometimes refer to the preincarnate existence of Jesus as “Jesus” to try to explain or maintain personal continuity between His earthly existence and His pre-existence. However, we must do our best to make proper distinctions, if for no other reason than our Christian witness. Being careless or imprecise in our wording can bring about the perception to outsiders that Christians hold to blatant contradictions and are not worthy of a hearing, thus potentially creating an impediment to the Great Commission. Thus, this is not a mere academic issue.

Moreover, to reiterate, Biblically Jesus had a beginning, His birth; and Biblically ‘the Word’ is without beginning, eternally unbounded. This distinction must be maintained or we run the risk of either/both (inadvertently) divinizing His humanity or humanizing His Deity. In our efforts to maintain personal continuity of God the Son, we must not to do so at the expense of His true humanity or His Deity.

Reiterating and restating: Jesus Christ began His existence at the Incarnation. Yet Jesus Christ pre-exists the Incarnation. But He didn’t pre-exist AS Jesus, He pre-existed as the Word in John 1:1. Importantly, after the prologue in John’s Gospel (1:1-18) the Biblical author never refers to Jesus as ‘the Word’. ‘The Word’ only refers to Jesus’ pre-existence, not His temporal existence. His temporal existence is derived from 1:14 And the Word became flesh… = Word enfleshed, not “Jesus enfleshed.”

Your statement JESUS ALWAYS EXISTED AS THE WORD OF GOD, and by that statement meaning Jesus can be placed into John 1:1 is not Scriptural. To put it more finely, Jesus Christ always existed and yet still exists as the Word-enfleshed—but this existence began at the Incarnation (John 1:14). The Word, on the other hand, always existed/exists eternally, but since the Incarnation (John 1:14) The Word is, in theological terms, in hypostatic union with human nature in the Person of Jesus Christ.

Anonymous said...

Glad he posted that.

It shows clearly which of the two of them is the more intellectually honest:

I John 5:7

"It does NOT appear in the oldest Latin manuscripts, and appears to have originated as a GLOSS around the end of the 4th century.[3]"

[3] Houghton, H. A. G. (2016). The Latin New Testament: a guide to its early history, texts, and manuscripts. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 178–179. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198744733.001.0001. ISBN 978-0-19-874473-3.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannine_Comma

Anonymous said...

(Glad he posted that at 10:06 AM that is.)

Craig said...

Anon 10:26 AM,

I want to be sure I understand you fully. I think I do. Regarding your use of the pronoun "he"--does it refer to RayB's recent comment or to my previous statement about 1 John 5:7 (which RayB deceptively phrased--a not uncommon occurrence). Basically, can you clarify?

Anonymous said...

http://shoebat.com/2016/03/15/turkeys-erdogan-being-worshipped-again-as-god-while-prophecy-lines-up-russia-allies-with-israel-and-distances-from-iran-as-ezekiel-38-predicted/

Craig said...

RayB,

Making such hyperbolic statements such as “Craig is a Westcott/Hort only fanatic” does not help your cause. I’ve criticized their stance that the Alexandrian texts are the Neutral Texts here on this blog, and this is also criticized by most text critics today. I’m hardly a “fanatic” of W/H.

The evidence against what is called the Johannine Comma, certain verbiage found in the Textus Receptus (Greek text underlying the KJV) at 1 John 5:7-8, is overwhelming. It is not found in Greek manuscripts until the 16th century. The Wikipedia link furnished by the Anon above does a good job assessing the issues.

The doctrine of the Trinity does not rise or fall on the Comma. Matthew 28:19 is a great place to start. But, using the Comma makes one vulnerable to attack from anyone knowledgeable on the textual issue.

RayB said...

Anonymous said @ 10:03 AM ...

"Craig's big ego on display for all to marvel at!"

Anon,

I would really be interested to see how your post would look in Koine Greek. You wouldn't happen to know any Greek Scholars by any chance, would you?

In a pinch, even a high brow, intellectual wannabe Greek "scholar" would do.

Thanks !

Anonymous said...

Me thinks a "high brow" can be summoned. Painful as hermeroids though!

Anonymous said...

800K Children in the U.S. Missing Each Year - International Tribunal Exposes Pedophilia Problem - Victims Testify of Child Sex Trafficking and Satanic Ritual Abuse

https://medicalkidnap.com/2018/12/02/800k-children-in-the-u-s-missing-each-year-international-tribunal-exposes-pedophilia-problem-victims-testify-of-child-sex-trafficking-and-satanic-ritual-abuse/

Anonymous said...

(Yes, well said, ESPECIALLY since the ONLY ones hemorrhoids bother are @ssholes!)

Anonymous said...

Craig,
I, too, have been castigated by RayB, even while I was agreeing with him in major ways but only said things a little differently!

He looks for disagreement much faster than he looks for common ground and common values that should belong to Bible believers, so his hairsplitting is annoying, so even when I often agree with him on positions with Scripture, I end up not caring for his "dialogue".
For that reason, I do not engage with him anymore since he begins accusatory tactics as soon as he even thinks there is a difference. He starts a bullying approach at first hint of differences. He throws "the baby out with the bathwater" faster than Christine Erikson...and that tells us something. Jesus told his disciples not to argue with the Pharisees. That is wisdom. Anyone can see the tactics he uses against most others so he is not hard to read, just hard to reason with.
Disagreeing is one thing, but being disagreeable is quite another, and I find him much more often than not in that camp.
So I don't read his posts anymore. Easy to skip and generally others make better points about topics here, especially about Biblical ones. His clang, clang, clang, just repeatedly gets in the way.

Anonymous said...

Greta Thunberg’s FATHER caught making Facebook posts in her name, confirming she’s a PUPPET being run by her PARENTS

January 13, 2020
By: JD Heyes
Natural News

When Swedish teen Greta Thunberg made an impassioned, albeit angry, appeal at the United Nations last year, imploring world leaders to do ‘something’ about ‘climate change,’ she was immediately hailed as some sort of savant by the Left.

Mind you, young Greta didn’t really say anything new or unique about the subject that we haven’t heard before, though the visceral anger she displayed, coming from a youngster, was unnerving for a lot of people.

That said, it was obvious to thinking, rational people that her anger and actual fear that the world isn’t going to be around for much longer thanks to cattle farts and SUVs was driven entirely by Left-wing propaganda. 

And who is responsible for the propaganda?

The adults that have been in young Greta’s life.

THEY are the ones responsible for mentally abusing her with their lies claiming humankind’s modern technology is destroying the planet.

The mental abuse includes that meted out by her own father, it turns out.

Thanks to a software glitch at Facebook last week during a software update, anyone and everyone who wanted to see exactly who was posting under the accounts of public figures could do so.

As such, roughly 3 million followers of young Greta could have discovered that the posts accredited to her were actually being made by her FATHER, Svantes Thunberg, as well as a climate change activist in INDIA who is a delegate at the UN’s Climate Change organization, Adarsh Prathap. 

So much for the teen’s ‘activism’...

https://www.naturalnews.com/2020-01-13-greta-thunberg-puppet-parents-father-facebook-posts.html

Related:

https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-12-15-eco-fascist-greta-thunberg-calls-for-execution-of-national-leaders-then-apologizes.html

https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-10-03-greta-thunberg-phenomenon-money-making-scheme-climate-hysteria.html

Anonymous said...

Trump administration marks 100 miles of border wall, vows 'many more' to come!

https://truepundit.com/trump-administration-marks-100-miles-of-border-wall-vows-many-more-to-come/

Anonymous said...

1:54 PM

It must have taken 12 years for you to finish grade school! 🐌

Anonymous said...

K through 6 that is. See, it was hard for me too. It must have been twice as difficult for you 1:54 PM

Anonymous said...

8:21 PM - 8:38 PM

Evidently you're in the 7th grade and soon you'll be a big boy and will be able to participate in adult forums like this one without making yourself look like the prepubescent that you are.

How exciting for you!

Anonymous said...

http://shoebat.com/2014/12/19/new-discovery-erdogan-now-reviving-religion-antichrist-will-enable-islamic-mahdi-declare-god/

This is extremely significant. Erdogan wants to warrant himself major titles and he will never be able to do so unless he finds a theological justification within the theology of Islam which at face value rejects that man can be deified. But imbedded within Islam, the act of a man declaring “I am God,” is in fact an Islamic belief, and is right in line with what St. Paul warned about, a verse which mystified theologians from time immemorial, that the Antichrist “as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.” (2 Thessalonians 2:4). The reason Islam zigzags in this theology is simple: to reject the deity of Christ but only insert this hidden theology when necessary to become Antichrist; to deny the essence of who Christ is and at the same time to replace Christ.

We in fact even illustrated, before Erdogan’s coming out of the closet this very issue, by quoting the most infamous of Islamic Sufi writers, Rumi, when he wrote of how the goal of the Sufi is to become divine via Fana:

Remember the famous utterance of al-Hallaj, “I am God.” People think that to say “I am God” is a claim of great pretense and spiritual arrogance. It is actually a claim of extreme humility. “I am God” means “I do not exist.” He is all, everything is He, existence is God’s alone. I am without existence, pure non-existence. I am nothing.” “I am God” is not a claim of great pretension, it is a claim of extreme humility. There is more humility in this than any supposed claim to greatness, but people do not understand the inner meaning. When a man acknowledges his servitude to God, he is aware of his being a servant. He may see himself as a devoted servant of God, but he still sees himself and his own actions as apart from the one reality of God. He is not drowned in the Ocean of Divine Unity. Drowned is he in whom there is not separate motion or mobility. Drowned is he whose movement is the movement of the water. And so it is with the enlightenment ones, those who declares, “I am God.” Anyone who says “I am the servant of God” asserts the reality of two existences, one for himself and the other for God. But he who says “I am God” — and has realized the deepest levels of unity within his being — has seen through the illusion of his existence. He knows from the experience of unity that his own separate existence is nothing but an illusion. Knowing that, he casts its former selfhood upon the winds of oblivion. (Rumi, Hearts bear witness one to another, in The Complete Discourses of Jalal al-Din Rumi, discourse 11, p. 75, ed. Louis Rogers)

This is the first time in history that this connect was made and now, it is no surprise to us that this Wednesday, the president of Turkey, Erdogan, praised Rumi’s work, revealing that he himself is not only Sufi but that he also believes in Fana “the art annihilation and becoming God himself”. Why else would Erdogan praise Rumi’s work The Masnavi, saying “A work can live for more than seven centuries only if it is written with love”. The Masnavi is amongst Rumi’s most popular works, and it is in this very book that the idea of man becoming divine is adulated. He praises the Sufi declaration “I am the Truth!” saying, “Mansur’s ‘I am the Truth!’ was purest light” (Masnavi, 2.307, trans. Mojaddedi)

When Christ said “I am The Truth” He was declaring Himself to be God Almighty. Likewise in Sufi Islam, this also exists, yet mimicing Christ. In Sufi Islam for one to exclaim, “I am the Truth,” is to say “I am God!”

Anonymous said...

Madonna loves a whirling Dervish

https://www.theguardian.com/Columnists/Column/0,5673,247536,00.html

I'm drunk and you're insane.
Who's going to lead us home?

It can be good to know, if you've been drinking, that the spirit of a 13th-century Islamic mystic poet is with you, even if he's been dead for 700 years. And it's striking to find out, when you're sober, that he is the founder of the whirling Dervishes, the Sufi sect that reaches transcendence by dancing. But maybe you're still drunk, after all: the talk is that Jelaluddin Rumi, born 1207, died 1273, is not only back in fashion but has become the best-selling poet in America, with a range of admirers including Madonna, Goldie Hawn, Donna Karan, the composer Philip Glass and the celebrity new age guru Deepak Chopra.

Rumi was born in Afghanistan and lived and died in Konya, a city in present-day Turkey which is still the centre of the Dervish movement. In his day, both places were part of the Persian empire. Rumi's vast outpouring of ecstatic poetry has become canonical in Iran, where it is considered second only to the Koran. Like the Song of Solomon, his expressions of intoxication and crazy love are, at one level, metaphorical. It's curious, nevertheless, to imagine the ayatollahs of today pouring over verses like these:

I want to hold you close
Like a lute,
So we can cry out with loving.
You would rather
Throw stones at a mirror?
I am your mirror
And here are the stones.

Anonymous said...

We don't only have terrorist sleeper cells in America. We also have New Age sleeper cells. Look at the Leftists now. Look at how they sympathized with the Iranian general who was struck down by the drone, more than they sided with America. Do you really think the New Agers wouldn't be capable of siding with a Rumi fanatic more than they would side with America and Israel?

Anybody who read the work of Constance, you know that New Age networks are everywhere and have been demonically compromised without most of them realizing it.

Talk about sleeper cells? Spiritual sleeper cells exist as well.

Anonymous said...

New Agers have a weird propensity to be enablers of the Crybullies who seem to be the opposite of the usually very wimpish and hippy-ish New Agers. Ghandi said he would not oppose Hitler, for example.

Anonymous said...

https://muslimskeptic.com/2019/01/03/muslims-and-the-acceptance-of-new-age-paganism/

Anonymous said...

https://www.counter-currents.com/2016/10/gandhi-and-hitler-part-1/

Gandhi & Hitler:
The Story of a Friendship, Part 1
Guillaume Durocher

dear_friend_hitler_film_poster3,429 words

“Strength does not come from physical capacity. It comes from an indomitable will.” – Mahatma Gandhi[1]

There are few world leaders in history who differ as starkly as Mohandas Gandhi and Adolf Hitler. The one is revered in his nation and throughout the world as the Mahatma, an apostle of nonviolence and non-discrimination. The Führer in contrast is officially and widely loathed both in his home country and across the West as a criminally insane warmonger pursuing of racial domination. Gandhism, in many ways, legitimately appears as the antithesis to Hitlerism.

For the liberal-internationalist leadership of the West, Gandhi has become something of a secular saint. And yet, because actual history is always more interesting than official mythology, one is struck both by some of the surprising similarities between Gandhi and Hitler, and by Gandhi’s rather nuanced views of the German dictator. Both were influenced by the philosophy of Arthur Schopenhauer. Perhaps significantly, both were convinced and proselytizing vegetarians. Both had come to national consciousness by living as a minority in a conflict-ridden multiethnic state, namely South Africa and Austria-Hungary, respectively. Both were possessed by the conviction of being on a sacred mission to convert their countrymen to their philosophy in service of national liberation. Both were nationalists so inflamed with passion for their fatherland that they were willing, on numerous occasions, to risk death — including the threat of suicide, the one by the fast, the other by the bullet — in the pursuit of salvation. Perhaps most surprising is the fact that both Hitler and Gandhi were enormously proud of the Aryan heritage and indeed built their political ideologies around this racial and spiritual ancestry.

Anonymous said...

The origin of the name "Baphomet" was the name "Mohammed" in the Middle Ages?

https://www.etymonline.com/word/Baphomet

Craig said...

Anon 1:54 PM,

I can understand your reluctance to engage. I don’t mind dialoguing, if for no other reason others can read the exchange and judge for themselves the validity of the claims made by either party. I usually only engage with him to challenge what I see as erroneous assertions made. With subjects like Christology, e.g., we should be as precise as possible.

When he embellishes another’s words or effectively misquotes by selectively quoting, or mischaracterizes another’s position (or the person him/herself) in other ways, it reflects poorly on him. This can make the reader—it certainly makes me—question the veracity of his posts. That’s not to say I think all his posts are non-factual; I just read with a degree of skepticism (when/if I do read them), with an eye for what may be some sort of built-in bias.

Of course, we should read all material with a critical mind, as most are biased in some way on a given topic. But judging the degree of bias in a comment/commentator assists in determining the relative merits of its contents. Some individuals evidence more bias than others.

Anonymous said...

http://www.infiniteunknown.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Merkel-May-Westerwelle-Erdogan.jpg

Anonymous said...

http://www.thesectofthehornedgod.com/?p=2719

Baphomet as a Symbol of Self-Deification

There are several theories concerning the origins of the name “Baphomet”. The most common explanation claims that it is an Old French corruption of the name of Mohammed (which was Latin-ized to “Mahomet”) – the Prophet of Islam. During the Crusades, the Knights Templar ventured throughout the Middle-East where they became acquainted with Arab mysticism. This contact with Eastern civilizations allowed them to bring back to Europe the basics of what would become Western occultism, including Gnosticism, alchemy, Kabbalah and Hermetism. The Templars’ affinity with the Muslims led the Church to accuse them of the worship of an idol named Baphomet, thus leading to a plausible link between Baphomet and Mahomet.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sufism


"Sufi beliefs about Muhammad. According to Ibn Arabi, Islam is the best religion because of Muhammad. Ibn Arabi regards that the first entity that was brought into existence is the reality or essence of Muhammad (al-ḥaqīqa al-Muhammadiyya). Ibn Arabi regards Muhammad as the supreme human being and master of all creatures."

Text appears in DuckDuckGo search. No longer in Wikipedia entry. Apparently has been edited out.

Craig said...

RayB,

Here are two very straightforward questions:

1.) Does the Word as described in John 1:1 have an attached humanity?

2.) Did Jesus Christ ever exist without His humanity?

Anonymous said...

https://www.aqrtsufi.org/sufism/muhammad.html

In the tradition of Sufism Muhammad (peace be upon him) is respected as the prototypical example of a true human being. Sufis strive to emulate his behavior in the hope of attaining a similar close and loving relationship with the Creator.

We sent thee (O Muhammad) not except as a mercy for all creatures. (Qur'an 21:107)

RayB said...

Craig,

You just CAN'T let anything go can you?

By the way, the "Anon" that you addressed your post to is a follower of the Herbert W. Armstrong cult. He hates that fact that whenever I see that he is providing links to their brainwashing material (often entire pdf books), I warn people about it. Take a little time to investigate what Armstrongism teaches ... for one .... Armstrong believed he was a "chosen Apostle" that was provided "new revelation." He also thoroughly denied the Trinity ... claiming that the Holy Spirit was "not God, but a force."
I've had A LOT of experience with cults and can recognize them from a mile away. Warning people about these links is not anything that I am ashamed of.

As to your questions above:

The REAL point that you refuse to acknowledge is the fact that the WORD IS GOD as clearly stated in John 1:1. God always existed and there was NEVER a time when the WORD did not exist, because the WORD IS GOD. The WORD (Jesus Christ) literally spoke the entire Universe into existence. The WORD ALWAYS EXISTED, and was MANIFESTED in the FLESH at the Advent. WHAT IN THE WORLD IS SO DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND ?

Prior to His Advent, Jesus existed as GOD. He LOWERED Himself to take on humanity at the Advent.

Question: are you claiming that PRIOR to His Advent, Jesus as God also had "humanity?" Is that what you are saying?

RayB said...

Craig,

By the way ... do you think you might find the time to "copy and paste" the post that proves your claim that I "made fun of Christine's looks?"

If you can't Craig, do you think you might owe me an apology for slandering my character with your false claim? A false claim that you continued to make over and over and over again .... all based upon your PERSONAL ASSUMPTION ... which of course was completely false.

RayB said...

Project Veritas strikes again !

This time, they record on video Bernie Sanders' Field Organizer for his Campaign stating that ....

STALIN'S GULAGS "weren't that bad" and that "Trump Supporters Will Need To Be 'Re'Educated in Camps' !!!

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/gulags-werent-bad-sanders-staffer-says-trump-supporters-will-need-be-re-educated-camps

RayB said...

Anon said (in part) @ 7:19 AM ....

"When Christ said “I am The Truth” He was declaring Himself to be God Almighty. Likewise in Sufi Islam, this also exists, yet mimicing Christ. In Sufi Islam for one to exclaim, “I am the Truth,” is to say “I am God!”

Take a little time (assuming that you haven't already) to study up on what the Papacy has ALWAYS claimed about itself.

For starters, the Pope is the "personification of truth." "The Pope is the INCARNATION of the Holy Ghost' (Bulletin du diocese de Bayonne). This is making the claim that the POPE is the INCARNATION OF GOD !!!

He rules in all matters, including the three spheres ... Heaven, Earth and Hell.

He controls the "Keys" to eternity, Heaven and Hell.

The Papacy claims that whatever the Pope "binds" on Earth, is "bound" in Heaven.

The Pope claims the blasphemous title of "Holy Father," a title reserved for God the Father only !

Throughout history, particularly in the Middle Ages, ANYONE opposing the Pope's complete authority were relentlessly persecuted, often resulting in death sentences carried out by the Papal Proxy Monarchs throughout Europe (the REAL "revised Roman Empire" with the Pope serving as the "little horn" of Daniel and Revelation).

THERE IS MUCH MORE !!!

What other person has ever attributed more God-like powers to himself than that of the Papacy?

Craig said...

RayB,

You wrote:By the way ... do you think you might find the time to "copy and paste" the post that proves your claim that I "made fun of Christine's looks?"

If you can't Craig, do you think you might owe me an apology for slandering my character with your false claim? A false claim that you continued to make over and over and over again .... all based upon your PERSONAL ASSUMPTION ... which of course was completely false.


In any case of this sort witnesses provide their testimony, weighing the validity of the evidence—which was provided earlier in this very thread—and the claims. I’ve provided 3 witnesses who find your explanations wanting. However, there were others who believed your explanation. Thus, I suppose the issue either remains unresolved or we have a stalemate at present. But there is ONE who knows your initial intentions and the veracity of your provided explanation. To HIM we both answer.

Craig said...

RayB @ 11:16 AM,

You wrote: The REAL point that you refuse to acknowledge is the fact that the WORD IS GOD as clearly stated in John 1:1. I’ve never refused to acknowledge that; I’ve affirmed it more than once (@ 10:21-22 AM above is merely one example).

You wrote: God always existed and there was NEVER a time when the WORD did not exist, because the WORD IS GOD. We agree, as per the Scripture (John 1:1).

You wrote: The WORD ALWAYS EXISTED, and was MANIFESTED in the FLESH at the Advent. We agree. This is the essence of John 1:14.

You wrote: Prior to His Advent, Jesus existed as GOD. He LOWERED Himself to take on humanity at the Advent. Let me fix this: Prior to His Advent, Jesus, in His PRE-existence as the Word, PRE-existed as GOD (and Jesus Christ, Word-made-flesh, is God due to His Divine nature and human due to His human nature). He LOWERED Himself to take on humanity at the Advent. That is, Jesus Christ does not preexist the Advent except as “the Word”, aka God the Son. For at the Incarnation, as you stated, The WORD ALWAYS EXISTED, and was MANIFESTED in the FLESH at the Advent.

As to your question I reject some of the premises in it due to its built-in biases and poor wording; however, I’ll answer the essence, which involves the humanity issue: In John 1:1, the Word, aka God the Son, second ‘Person’ of the Trinity, did not have attached humanity, for that occurred at John 1:14.

My questions were very straightforward. My answers to the questions are simply “No” and “No.” Distinguishing these two very simple Scriptural facts can help one correctly state Christology.

Your Christology is imprecise, lacking proper distinctions.

Anonymous said...

RayB said...

"He hates that fact that whenever I see that he is providing links to their brainwashing material (often entire pdf books), I warn people about it."

Which statement was an attempt to try to trump my own previous statement on that topic [slightly modified here to be more inclusive and 'to the point']:

"Notice how 'Mr. Bible Truth (aka Martin Luther's Doctrines Right Or Wrong)' DOESN'T refute what the [articles, books and videos say] but tries to discourage the reading[/viewing] of [them] in the first place?

"He's great at 'sounding the alarm' on all beliefs that don't jibe with his own, isn't he?

"Here's an idea that he will absolutely HATE: Make your OWN mind up as to [their] merits (or lack thereof) by actually [READING/VIEWING them] instead of trusting a MAN (namely HIM)!

"4:47 PM"

So TAKE RayB's advice...

"Take a little time to investigate what [the Church Of God] teaches"!

...which advice he WON'T take himself EXCEPT to look at what its DETRACTORS say!

WHAT a brilliant, intellectually honest methodology!

Imagine such a sound philosophy being used in the first century:

"Jesus Christ?!? Hah! Just take a little time to investigate what he teaches, do what I do and ASK THE PHARISEES!".

LOL!

WHAT IS HE SO AFRAID OF YOU DISCOVERING?

Let's find out!

FAITH

Is It ALL That God Requires for Salvation?

https://www.ucg.org/beyond-today/beyond-today-magazine/faith-is-it-all-god-requires-for-salvation

https://lifehopeandtruth.com/search/?q=Law+and+grace

https://www.ucg.org/beyond-today/beyond-today-magazine/martin-luther-the-unfinished-reformation

VIDEO - Martin Luther: The UNFINISHED Reformation

https://youtu.be/Cu20I0QZVgM

Statement Of Beliefs

https://www.ucg.org/fundamental-beliefs-of-the-united-church-of-god

https://www.ucg.org/bible-study-tools/booklets/fundamental-beliefs-of-the-united-church-of-god-0

http://triumphpro.info/category/statement-of-beliefs/

http://triumphpro.info/category/basic-doctrine/

https://lifehopeandtruth.com/change/blog/8-beliefs-of-a-true-christian/

https://www.youtube.com/user/BeyondTodayTV

RayB said...

Craig said (in part) @ 12:55 PM:

Regarding the "Christine's looks" accusation, Craig states (despite my account of what I was REALLY referring to):

"I’ve provided 3 witnesses who find your explanations wanting."

Who are Craig's "3 witnesses" that somehow KNEW what I was THINKING?

None other than Craig himself, Christine, and the follower of Armstrongism. That's it.

Again, here is my explanation that I posted before, which Craig judges to be "wanting."

(more)

RayB said...

This is what I posted @ 9:00 AM (1-200 on this thread) to Craig:

Craig,

Maybe this will help you in your "extremely wanting" problem.

The link to Christine's video was originally posted without identifying it. As I recall, it had a sub title along the lines of "answering heresies," etc. When I went to the link, I watched it for a total of about 2 minutes.

Why? Because I don't take seriously anything Christine has to say based upon what I know about her, all based upon the voluminous posts of her past. Those posts were often filled with personal attacks upon anyone and everyone that had the audacity to disagree with her on even a minor detail. She has often used vulgarity and has enthusiastically made arguments in favor of "living in sin," going so far as to justify her sinful rebellion by attempting to use the Bible to excuse it. She has numerous far out and weird beliefs (such as her desire to evangelize Martians), and was so obnoxious on this blog that a number of people here made requests to Constance that she be banned from this site entirely. Constance responded by making the unusual move to limit her posts to one per week.

When I saw Christine pontificating her usual nonsense while puffing away on her cigarette, that was the cap stone.

This is the person that you have used as a battering ram to attack me. I think there is something going on here that is far deeper.

RayB said...

On a personal note regarding the above:

Prior to my rebirth, entirely via the Sovereign Grace of God, I worked with a man that professed to be "born again." He was a little older than me, and virtually every time we spent some time together (lunch, etc.) he would tell me that I needed to be "born again."

The problem I had with this guy was that he loved to tell dirty jokes, used filthy language, used the Lord's Name in vain, was a liar, was a chain smoker, etc., etc. In essence, even though I didn't know much, I knew one thing; this man was selling something and I wasn't a buyer.

IN SPITE of him, I began reading the Scriptures for myself after a friend from my old high school called me and began telling me what he was learning by reading the Bible. By God's Grace and Mercy, I became a believer in Christ and began to notice a "change" in desires, goals, etc. About a year after this, while continuing to work at the same place, there was a Jewish man that I became friends with. He knew me prior to my conversion. We became close friends and seriously talked about starting a business together. One day, after witnessing my faith to him, he said to me: "I don't believe in what you are saying, but I respect what you are saying. I have seen a big change in you, but "Earl" is the type that gives you Christians a very bad name." "Earl" was the vulgar guy that was always telling me (between puffs on his cigarette and dirty jokes) that I needed to be "born again."

Christine reminds me of "Earl." That is repulsive to me, because I know the damage that these types really do .... all in the name of Christ !

RayB said...

Regarding Armstrongism:

Dr. Walter Martin, recognized foremost authority on cults, regarded Armstrongism as a cult. He wrote a book entitled "Herbert W. Armstrong & The Worldwide Church of God."

For a fairly good, but not comprehensive, expose` on Armstrongism, check this out ... entitled "The Painful Truth."

https://hwarmstrong.com/armstrongism.htm

For the testimony of a former member of this cult, check this out:

"The True Doctrine of Christ Foundation - Refuting Armstrongism"

Proves that Armstronism teaches a "salvation" based entirely upon the Old Testament Covenant ...

http://thetruedoctrineofchrist.blogspot.com/p/letter-to-disciples.html

Another book that is HIGHLY recommended (used books available on Amazon) entitled:

"Armstrongism's 300 Errors Exposed with 1300 Bible Verses" by S. E. Anderson

https://www.amazon.com/Armstrongisms-Errors-Exposed-Bible-Verses/dp/0801000890/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8

Anonymous said...

RayB called me:

"the follower of Armstrongism"

LMAO!

I am HARDLY THAT!

I have posted things ON THIS VERY BLOG that were OPPOSED TO WHAT ARMSTRONG TAUGHT.

Here's an example:

Satan’s Fate

http://triumphpro.info/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/SF-BookF.pdf

(AND POSTED LINKS EXPOSING HIS SERIOUS FLAWS!

The Incredible Prophetic Errors of Herbert W. Armstrong!

http://triumphpro.info/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/The-Prophetic-Errors-Of-HWA.pdf)

Either RayB didn't pay attention or simply didn't CARE that his claim was UNFOUNDED.

So right there ALONE you can see his intellectual dishonesty (&/or laziness &/or sloppiness) and how he resorts to 'smear' tactics when the truth just won't do!

THIS, incidentally, is a good example of WHY one should strive to have an open-minded, objective, logical soundness of mind as a second nature!

It will act as a barrier against joining cults of personality in ANY field INCLUDING religion AS WELL AS A BARRIER AGAINST DOGGEDLY STICKING TO A BELIEF SYSTEM INSTEAD OF BEING AS OPEN-MINDED AS THE BEREANS!

Bottom line, here is the approach I recommend:

Follow GOD, NOT any MAN (be it HWA, PF or RayB)!

RayB said...

The above post is VERY deceptive.

The material that he/she posts are links to an off shoot of Armstrong's World Wide Church of God. Many of the very same brainwashing techniques that Armstrong used are employed in these reading materials.

As Armstrong did, they REQUIRE a strict obedience to the LAW in order to be "saved," including keeping the Sabbath (as in 7th. day). With them, it is "grace PLUS REQUIRED works," i.e., obedience to the LAW in order to MERIT salvation.

They MUST deal with Armstrong's "prophetic errors" (see above posted link) because Armstrong's false prophesies are well documented. Armstrong's false prophesies can easily be found via the Internet. What they can't get around is that their roots remain firmly planted in this false religious cult.

RayB said...

(more)

The poster above recommends reading material that denies the doctrine of the Trinity. For some reason, denying the Trinity, or the Deity of Christ is typical for cults. In this case, they deny that the Holy Spirit is God, claiming that He is only a "spiritual force."

RayB said...

(more)

The Armstrong follower above very often posts free PDF downloads of works by William F. Dankenbring.

Dankenbring taught that the Biblical doctrine known as the Trinity was an invention of Catholicism and represented its very foundation. He also declared that the Trinity doctrine was "Satan's Great Deception - A Cruel Hoax." In a bizarre explanation as to WHY Satan invented this deception, Dankenbring explains that Satan himself, through false worship of the Triune Godhead, implanted himself as the 3rd. member of the Trinity !

Meditate on that for awhile. IF you believe in the "Trinity," you are actually believing in Satan, the "real" 3rd. member of the Trinity !

If you are reading this and can't see the BLASPHEMY being committed here, I don't know what to say .... I'm rendered speechless !

Here's a link to the extensive explanation by Dankenbring himself on this subject, entitled: "A New Look at the "Trinity": THE TRINITY DOCTRINE -- Is It Bibical?"

http://www.sevenroses.cz/index.php/satanic-dogma-of-trinity

Anonymous said...

Well, I agree with him!

Except he got the times wrong, LOL!

The above 2 posts at 4:41 & 4:44 PM are VERY deceptive.

RayB said...

"Many of the very same brainwashing techniques that Armstrong used are employed in these reading materials."

WOW! WHAT A FAST READER!

NOT.

Yet AGAIN, he tries to discourage (and now even SCARE) you from MAKING YOUR OWN DETERMINATION of the value (or lack thereof) in the materials (AND with an UNSUBSTANTIATED ALLEGATION {"brainwashing"[!]} AND WITHOUT HAVING READ THEM HIMSELF to top it off!)

Trust HIM.

Trust the DETRACTORS that he wants you to read INSTEAD of the materials themselves.

Don't read the materials THEMSELVES and make YOUR OWN mind up!

Heavens no, INSTEAD trust good ole RayB!

Trust a MAN.

And of course, THAT'S a mind-control trick if ever there was one!

Anonymous said...

P.S. To my 5:56 PM

That is, I agree with his 4:41 PM statement except he got the times wrong!

And as to this latest thing at 5:47 PM, leave it to Mr. Shoot-From-The-Hip to take a sliver of a complex subject matter and go to town with it! Pathetic.

AGAIN: Use the mind that God gave you and RESEARCH these topics for YOURSELF and IGNORE RayB's increasingly frothing at the mouth scaremongering tactics!

https://lifehopeandtruth.com/god/holy-spirit/the-trinity/

http://triumphpro.info/2011/06/a-new-look-at-the-trinity/

https://www.ucg.org/bible-study-tools/booklets/who-is-god/is-god-a-trinity

https://youtu.be/pln8YWni7X0

Make your OWN mind up.

That's what God GAVE it to you for!

Anonymous said...

"frothing at the mouth, scaremongering tactics"

Hyperbolize much 6:17 PM ???

Anonymous said...

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/01/duping-americans-sharia-raymond-ibrahim/

Enter Shariah: What Everyone Needs to Know, co-authored by John Esposito and Natana J. Delong-Bas. The authors’ goal is to exonerate Shariah, which they portray as enshrining “the common good (maslahah), human dignity, social justice, and the centrality of the community” from Western criticism or fear, which they say is based solely on “myth” and “sensationalism.”

Anonymous said...

NATURAL NEWS

Bernie Sanders Field Organizer caught on tape revealing plans to mass execute liberals and throw American citizens into GULAGS run by left-wing communists… or BURN DOWN cities if Trump wins!

EVIL RISING: Disney now flat-out promoting demons and witchcraft to children

Privacy no more: Google, which censors conservative voices, now mining tens of millions of health records without your permission

Gwyneth Paltrow is now selling candles that she claims smell like her crotch – what has happened to our world?

Pollak: Media, tech self-censorship over ‘whistleblower’ marks death of free press in United States

VACCINE BOMBSHELL as U.N. health experts ADMIT toxic vaccine ingredients are harming children worldwide

Trump took out ONE terrorist so far in 2020, but Planned Parenthood will murder 400,000 human children before the end of this year

https://censored.news/NaturalNews.htm

Anonymous said...

Many people around Mohammed thought he was possessed, and he himself also suggested that he was.

1. His nurse thought muhammad was possessed
2. His call to prophethood seems demonic
3. Muhammad himself thought he had become possessed
4. Muhammad became suicidal and unstable as a result of his “revelations”
5. People around muhammad, and of his own tribe thought he had become demon-possessed
6. People in the quran thought that he was demon-possessed

Islam is false. Allah is a fabricated god made up by a false prophet.

https://www.nakedislam.com/muhammad-possessed/

[1] And the unjust said, “That you are following but bewitched man!” Sura 25:8
[2] They said, “Surely you are only from the bewitched! Sura 26:153
[3] Then they turned away from him, and they said, “A demon-possessed teacher.” Sura 44:14
[4] And they say, “Are we forsaking our gods to a demon-possessed poet?” Sura 37:36
[5] “Muhammad at Mecca”, by W.M. Watt, Pub. Oxford University Press.
[6] “The Life of Muhammad”, by A. Guillaume, Oxford University Press.
[7] Bukhari Book 9 Volume 87 Hadith 111
[8] At-Tabari Vol. 9, page 167, note 1151
[9] “The History of al-Tabari”, translated by W.M. Watt, pub. by SUNY

Anonymous said...

DISRN

LGBT plowed the road, and the pedophiles are now marching down it

https://disrn.com/opinion/opinion-lgbt-plowed-the-road-and-the-pedophiles-are-now-marching-it

"Entirely new life forms": Scientists create robots using living stem cells

https://disrn.com/news/entirely-new-life-forms-scientists-create-robots-using-living-stem-cells

https://disrn.com/

RayB said...

I found this to be very revealing about our 'friend' Craig ... he posted this to RayB @ 9:47 AM:

Here are two very straightforward questions:

1.) Does the Word as described in John 1:1 have an attached humanity?

2.) Did Jesus Christ ever exist without His humanity?

To which I replied ...

As to your questions above:

The REAL point that you refuse to acknowledge is the fact that the WORD IS GOD as clearly stated in John 1:1. God always existed and there was NEVER a time when the WORD did not exist, because the WORD IS GOD. The WORD (Jesus Christ) literally spoke the entire Universe into existence. The WORD ALWAYS EXISTED, and was MANIFESTED in the FLESH at the Advent. WHAT IN THE WORLD IS SO DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND ?

Prior to His Advent, Jesus existed as GOD. He LOWERED Himself to take on humanity at the Advent.

Question: are you claiming that PRIOR to His Advent, Jesus as God also had "humanity?" Is that what you are saying?

Anonymous said...

NATURAL NEWS

Pedo-enabler Jack Dorsey condones child rape and pedophilia via Twitter policies while banning those who try to protect children

This is SCIENCE? Lancet medical journal says society needs to “eliminate whiteness” in order to solve racism

Monumental hypocrite Ilhan Omar blasted pro-life Christians for trying to ‘impose their views on society’ while imposing her own radical demand for unlimited ABORTION

Gut-brain connection in individuals with autism CONFIRMED by scientific data

Student found DEAD after viral video of him leading protest against ‘drag queen’ event for kids

https://censored.news/NaturalNews.htm

RayB said...

(more)

My answers to Craig's questions are thoroughly orthodox and Biblical.

But that's not good enough for Craig.

Instead, he responded to my detailed answer by scolding me for not answering with a simple "yes or "no" as stated by Craig
@ 12:55 PM ...

"My questions were very straightforward. My answers to the questions are simply “No” and “No.” Distinguishing these two very simple Scriptural facts can help one correctly state Christology."

He then concludes with this in the same post:

"Your Christology is imprecise, lacking proper distinctions."

RayB said...

(more)

Craig takes me to task for being, in his mind, 'imprecise and lacking proper distinctions' i.e. I am one mixed up mess.

Now, why is this important?

It's important because Craig's Armstrong friend and fellow false accuser repeatedly posts links that teach utterly false, often blasphemous information from a "church" that has its roots firmly planted in the soil of what Dr. Walter Martin labeled to be a "deceptive cult." Martin even devoted an entire book to Armstongism.

While Craig strains at his imagined gnats when it comes to me, he seemingly has no problem at all when his friend posts links that claim that the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity is, in the words of the Armstrong author himself ...

"Satan's Great Deception - A Cruel Hoax." In a bizarre explanation as to WHY Satan invented this deception, Dankenbring explains that Satan himself, through false worship of the Triune Godhead, implanted himself as the 3rd. member of the Trinity !

AGAIN ... let this sink in. If YOU believe in the Triune God of the Bible, you are actually believing in and worshipping SATAN !

Kind of funny that Craig 'takes me to school' for a completely orthodox, Biblical answer that I provided to his two questions, YET, remains COMPLETELY SILENT when his friend posts links to authors that attack the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity.
.

Anonymous said...

The battle over gun control in Virginia heats up as Democrats try to keep 2A supporters out of committee hearings

https://www.thedailysheeple.com/the-battle-over-gun-control-in-virginia-heats-up-as-democrats-try-to-keep-2a-supporters-out-of-committee-hearings/

BREAKING: Virginia Democrat Governor Ralph Northam Expected To Declare Emergency Banning All Guns

https://hnewswire.com/breaking-virginia-democrat-governor-ralph-northam-to-declare-emergency-banning-all-guns/

Anonymous said...

Is Islam so incompatible with Leftism, after all?

https://stage.wikiislam.net/wiki/Islam_and_Pedophilia

One of the most disturbing things about Islam is that it does not categorically condemn pedophilia. Indeed, it cannot, for to do so would draw attention to the pedophilia of Muhammad, the founder of Islam. Many Muslims cannot condemn pedophilia even if they would like to, for they would have to abandon Islam. Muslims tacitly approve of pedophilia, even if they are embarrassed to say so. So mesmerized are Muslims by the example of Muhammad's pedophilia that they are unable to categorically denounce pedophilia or feel shame. It is prevalent in many Muslim countries disguised as child marriage.

http://shoebat.com/2016/06/20/check-this-out-erdogan-possessed-by-the-devil-dines-with-a-transvestite-during-the-muslim-holy-month-of-Ramadan/

To support the transgender movement, Turkey’s president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan yesterday had a Ramadan dinner with Turkey’s best-known transgender celebrity Bülent Ersoy “The Diva” (get this) hours after Istanbul riot police broke up an LGBT rally. Erdogan and his wife, Emine Erdoğan, shared the iftar (eating after sundown) at the end of the Muslim fasting day on Sunday at the presidential residence in the Istanbul.

So while a gay rally is being busted, here is Erdogan having supper with a transvestite. Sounds confusing? No, not if one understands the author of Islam, the devil, who controls Erdogan is himself the author of confusion.

Anonymous said...

See how easy it is for Leftists to join with Islam, even when it comes to the T in LGBTQ?

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/transgender-dignity-in-is_b_10089712


Transgender Dignity in Islam
05/23/2016 06:31 pm ET Updated Dec 06, 2017

The 18th century British colonists, the self-righteous Anglican males of the self-assessed superior civilization, upon arrival in the Mughul-Muslim India, were repulsed by the sight of Hijras (transgenders) and baffled over why they were accorded so much respect in royal courts and other spheres of life. After deposing the Mughuls, and in discharging the white man’s burden of civilizing the inferior races, the British colonists enacted the Criminal Tribes Act, 1871 to declare what they called Eunuchs (transgenders) a criminal tribe (among many other Indian tribes) on the theory that certain tribes were genetically criminal and must be placed under state surveillance.

By invoking the power of criminal law and associated prisons and penalties, the British colonists attacked the dignity of transgender community, degrading them in social echelons, and eventually forcing them to adopt begging, prostitution, and other questionable professions. Turning a respected community into a legally certified criminal tribe was an egregious blunder of the British colonialism (and it is hoped that Sadiq Khan, the new mayor of London, will begin to restore the full rights of transgenders at least in London municipality).

Anonymous said...

Incidentally, our 'Mr. Shoot-From-The-Hip' had taken it upon himself to proclaim to Craig:

"By the way, the 'Anon' that you addressed your post to is a follower of...Herbert W. Armstrong"

>>>BUZZER<<<<

Sorry, WRONG ANSWER!
Different poster!

-But thanks for playing! LOL!

Anonymous said...

RayB,

Do you know anything to confirm or deny the story that the Vatican created Islam as a means of gaining possession of Jerusalem?

If the RCC is the mother of abominations, would that hint that she is also the mother of the abomination of desolation (the Dome on the Rock)?

Could Mohammed have begun as controlled opposition and then later have become "blowback" and turned into uncontrolled opposition?

Could the RCC be the harlot riding the Ottoman Empire but later hated by the beast, who turned on her?

What do you think, RayB?

Anonymous said...

"Your Christology is imprecise, lacking proper distinctions.". REALLY ????

Yet Cranky Craig has kindly dialogue with Crusty Christine, of spinning chakras, evangelizing Martians, and Devilish couch diddling fame, etc!!!! As well as Mr. Hateful, the cultist!

But nooooo, RayB is the bad guy here!!!

Sorry RayB that you have been assaulted by these people.

Anonymous said...

Yes indeed, our greatly misunderstood SUPER-Friendly charmer has (of course) done NO verbal assaulting whatsoever, of ANYBODY, at ANY time, EVER!

Craig said...

Anon 9:32 AM,

I wondered how RayB just KNEW your identity, for I had no clue.

Craig said...

RayB,

Despite your repeated assertions that what you put forth is “thoroughly orthodox and Biblical”, it is not. You’ve yet to provide any sort of Scripture reference to back up your claim that amounts to “the Word” in John 1:1 being the exact same entity as Jesus with no distinction whatsoever. My contention, using Scripture, is that Jesus is ‘Word-made-flesh’ as per John 1:14, for Jesus’ name is not even mentioned until John 1:17, thereby making this implication. Thus, “the Word” is the PRE-incarnation of Jesus, while Jesus is the Incarnation of “the Word”. That is, my contention is that Jesus is expressly Divine-human, while “the Word” is strictly Divine.

But I don’t rest my case solely on that. For additional Scripture referents, see below (all in your preferred KJV):

Matthew 1:18-25: 18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost…21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus…25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.

Jesus was BORN; “the Word” was/is uncreated. Jesus is the Divine-human God-man. When the uncreated, eternal “Word” took human nature to Himself He was forever in hypostatic union with human nature, and in this new mode of existence is known as Jesus the Christ/Messiah.

Luke 1:26-35: …31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end…

Luke 2:4-21: …7 And she brought forth her firstborn son…11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord…21 And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called Jesus, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.

Matthew and Luke bear the same witness: Jesus was BORN. Jesus PRE-existed as “the Word” (using John’s language in His Gospel), yet Jesus was not once called “the Word” during His earthly ministry or afterwards.

Biblical conclusion: “Jesus” does not predate His earthly existence AS Jesus, but as “the Word”. To attempt to place “Jesus” into John 1:1 is to implicitly import humanity into pre-temporality, pre-creation.

Thus, as I wrote earlier: Your Christology is imprecise, lacking proper distinctions. Now, perhaps you can find Scripture to back up your claim that we can place “Jesus” into John 1:1, and that it was indeed literally Jesus Himself who “literally spoke the entire Universe into existence” (@ 11:16 AM).

Oh, and to illustrate how you have a penchant to taking words out of context to misquote others, I never scold[ed] [you] for not answering with a simple "yes or "no" (your words @ 8:57 AM), for I quite thoroughly addressed your earlier response @ 12:55 PM.

RayB said...

Anon,

It is an interesting theory, but very difficult to prove. I have read in the past material that comports with everything you posted, however, I recall thinking at the time when I first read about this that there isn't enough concrete proof as to its validity. It also struck me as being quite implausible, while at the same time not impossible.

Just a few personal thoughts ...

Contrary to what many Catholics like to believe, the Papacy didn't even exist until well beyond the fall of the Roman Empire in 476 AD. Arguably the first Bishop that even asserted the THEORY of papal primacy was Gregory I, although not without dispute. Gregory I died in 604. However, it can be argued that it was Gregory I that laid the foundation for what would eventually evolve into the centralized, autocratic rule of the Bishop of Rome over the rest of the "Church."

Prior to power being centralized in Rome, there were many Bishops throughout the known world that rose to positions of authority within these various regions. This loosely organized, non-autocratic religious body was simply referred to as "The Church." (The term "Roman Catholic Church" came much later). Throughout this period, due to the fact that Rome, as a city, represented pre-eminence in many ways, along with of course being the seat of the Roman Empire, the Bishop of Rome, over time, began to be recognized as a more powerful Bishop than the rest. However, during Muhammed's life (died in 622?), the "Church" at Constantinople (seat of the eastern capital of the Roman Empire) also held considerable power during this time as well.

Gregory I (590 - 604) was the FIRST that is known to assert a centralized power under the leadership of one man (the "Papacy"). However, for literally hundreds of years, disputes arose surrounding the validity of various "papacies." The reason that this is important, IMO, is this; during the time of Muhammed, the "Church" was not a cohesive unit. It had yet to evolve into the despotic centralized power that it became in the Dark Ages (a period of 1,000 years), where they controlled, and virtually extinguished, the light of the gospel for common people.

It just seems to me implausible, knowing the lack of cohesiveness, that they would have somehow possessed the foresight and planning required in order to "create" a religion that would be used in a scheme to gain possession of Jerusalem. Such a plan, IMO, would require the type of operation that only a Jesuit mindset could conjure up ... and implement. Obviously, the Jesuits didn't come into existence until the days of the Counter Reformation.

Although Islam represents a type of anti-Christ, it fails miserably, IMO, in comparison to the RCC. It has no universal appeal whatsoever and it has intense, historic, warring divisions within its religious body (Sunnis & Shiites). Whereas Rome fulfills prophecy in innumerable areas, which can be viewed via the eye of history along with its numerous blasphemous claims of god like supremacy.

I recommend this rather old book that I recently read for the first time. IMO, it presents a very plausible, and historically orthodox view of prophecy. I personally found this work to be fascinating. It represents what was considered to be the orthodox view of prophecy for virtually the first 1800 years. Here is a link in case you are interested (free PDF download):

http://historicism.com/Guinness/Romanism/Index.htm

RayB said...

Craig,

So you really are saying that Jesus did not pre-exist His advent as the Word of God.

John 1: 1-3

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

"The same was in the beginning with God."

"All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."

Amazing ... simply amazing.

I noticed as well that while you strain at your imagined little gnat, you've apparently swallowed the camel of your Armstrong friend that denies the Trinity. Not one single word about that, why is that Craig?

RayB said...

Question:

WHO was the WORD prior to His Advent?

The WORD was GOD.

The WORD was and is the Son.

The WORD became flesh at the Advent, when He lowered Himself to take on human flesh.

It is amazing that anyone would argue with such fundamental truth !!

RayB said...


Reading Craig's post at 11:23 AM reminds me of the VERY SAME arguments that Jehovah Witnesses make while arguing against John 1:1. JWs deny the deity of Christ, and argue against His pre-existence of the Advent as God. Craig is doing the exact same thing !

Again ... amazing ... simply amazing !!

PS: this should be all that surprising. He is a follower and advocate of Wescott & Hort, both of whom held numerous heresies, whose work remains the foundation of the Modern Translations (actually, interpretations). They also delved into the occult, holding seances, etc. in attempts to channel the dead. When I pointed this information out to Craig in the past, he simply passed over it and diminished its importance.

Anonymous said...

Non-Hateful RayB Non-Hatefully TOTALLY DISREGARDED the VERY MANY valid academic points made concerning the 'WHAT' of the Trinity doctrine to INSTEAD rabble-rousingly focus on William F. Dankenbring's SPECULATION as to the 'WHY'!

What a SHOCK.

So to correct that, here is...

The Trinity: What Is It?

Does the Bible teach the doctrine of a triune God?

Did the early Church hold the Trinity as a key teaching?

The facts show the answer to both questions is NO!

The Roman Catholic Church considers the Trinity to be a central doctrine of the Christian religion. Likewise most Protestant denominations teach the doctrine of the Trinity as well.

But let’s look at the FACTS regarding this venerated doctrine!

To many in the world of Christendom, a church cannot be considered valid without belief in the Trinity. But what do history and the Bible show us? Do churches offer convincing explanations that can stand the test of Scripture?

The Catholic Church instituted the doctrine, and over time it carried over into the majority of Protestant denominations. Hundreds of years transpired during its development. A long metamorphosis of terms and explanations occurred, and the church finally established a definition that gained wide acceptance and has changed little since around A.D. 400.

What is this definition that has such wide acceptance?

The Definition Of The Trinity

My Catholic Faith, a volume written in layman’s language by Louis LaRavoire Morrow, states that there is only one God (1963 edition). Then he explains further, “In God there are three Divine Persons—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. … In speaking of the ‘Persons’ in God, we do not use the term in exactly the same way we use it when speaking of people. We use it only for lack of a word to show our meaning better” (p. 30).

On the next page Morrow asserts, “The three Divine Persons are really distinct from one another.” Then a page later he writes, “The three divine Persons are perfectly equal to one another, because all are one and the same God.”

How can we understand three persons as one Being with one nature? We can’t! The book My Catholic Faith further says: “We cannot fully understand how the three divine Persons, though really distinct from one another, are one and the same God, because this is a supernatural mystery”
(p. 33). Later on the same page we read, “The doctrine of the Blessed Trinity is a strict mystery; that is, we cannot learn it from reason, nor understand it completely, even after it has been revealed to us.”

But What About The Bible?

The Church of God, a Worldwide Association, believes that all doctrines must stand the test of Scripture—that we must test or prove all things (1 Thessalonians 5:21).

And that proof lies in the BIBLE.

We should NOT just take someone’s word for it!

(To see what the Scriptures say about the Godhead, please read our article “What Did the Apostles Believe About God?”

https://lifehopeandtruth.com/god/who-is-god/apostles-believe-about-god)

NO scripture in the Bible truly supports this doctrine of the Trinity, which emanated from the mind of man and was influenced by philosophers like Plato. Athanasius, who wrote the creed accepted by the church in A.D. 325 at the Council of Nicaea (see below), was influenced by Platonic teaching, as were others who figured into the doctrine’s development.

Anonymous said...


Although we wouldn’t go so far as to say that it originated directly from Greek philosophers or pagan trinities, interestingly there are various parallel forms of the Trinity that predate the early church by many hundreds of years—Brahma/Shiva/Vishnu and Osiris/Isis/Horus, for example.

Please note the following quote from Substance and Illusion in the Christian Fathers by Christopher Stead: “The problem of Trinitarian origins is rather like the problem of Gnostic origins. In each case, we have a pattern of thought which emerges about the same time as Christ, but which has close affinities with pre-Christian or non-Christian thought; while the evidence of first-century documents is scanty and enigmatic, so that we can hardly be certain that the doctrine is exclusively or even predominantly a product of Christian inspiration.”

History And Development Of The Trinity Doctrine

The Trinity doctrine is not taught in the Bible. So how did it develop? Let’s look at a quick overview of some of the key stages in the formulation of this doctrine that’s accepted by Catholics and most Protestants.

A.D. 180: Theophilus of Antioch is the first person to write about this “important doctrine.” However, even though he used the term, the trinity he spoke of was “of God, and His Word, and His wisdom.” At best, this was an introduction of the term, but it didn’t come close to what was later taught in classic Trinitarianism. Even 150 years after Christ there is no evidence of a formulated doctrine. Could this really be considered an essential teaching? A part of “the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3)? Hardly!

In the early third century Tertullian introduced the expression “three persons, one essence.” “Persons” was used in the sense of “faces” or “masks.”

The Council of Nicaea was held in A.D. 325 at the behest of Roman Emperor Constantine. Strong disagreement characterized this council. Arius argued the nonbiblical heresy that Jesus Christ is a created being and not equal with the Father. Many held to this view, but the view that prevailed was presented by Athanasius, a deacon from Alexandria, Egypt. His view forms the essential basis of Catholic and Protestant teaching today. It is frequently known as the Athanasian Creed.

During the last quarter of the fourth century the doctrine underwent slight modifications, and those were mainly to make a point against Arian teaching. This basic explanation has been passed down through the centuries. Slight variations exist in the teaching of the Eastern Church, but they also hold to the doctrine of a triune God.

The 1967 edition of the New Catholic Encyclopedia states: “The formulation of ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective” (emphasis added).

Personification And Translation

The Bible does not teach the Trinity. But what about the seeming personification of the Holy Spirit in John 14-16 with “He, Him, Whom and Who”?

The rules of Greek grammar require that pronouns agree in gender with the nouns that are their antecedents. The antecedent of these masculine pronouns is “comforter” (Greek parakletos), which is masculine in Greek. The use of a masculine pronoun simply means it is in gender agreement with the masculine antecedent “comforter.” This fact of grammar does NOT prove that the Comforter is a person.

Anonymous said...

Consider other examples. Proverbs 8 refers to wisdom as “she.” That doesn’t make wisdom a person. El libro means “the book” in Spanish, which is another language that assigns nouns as masculine or feminine in gender. In this case the gender is masculine. But, of course, we don’t think of a book as a person.

Translators, believing in Trinitarianism, also incorrectly assigned masculine pronouns to another Greek word for “spirit,” pneuma (meaning spirit, breath or wind). However, in Greek this word is neuter in gender. In Romans 8:16 it is correctly translated in the King James Version, “The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit”
(emphasis added throughout). The New King James Version translates it incorrectly as “Himself.”

Other Points

✓Now notice the following scriptures and points relating to the alleged “personhood” of the Holy Spirit.

Once it is established that the Holy Spirit is not a person, the doctrine of a triune God FAILS.

✓1 John 5:7: “For there are three who bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.” This passage is acknowledged as spurious even by Catholic scholars. “The words do not occur in any Greek [manuscript], version or quotation before the fifteenth century” (Tyndale New Testament Commentary). They did appear in an obscure Latin text in the fourth century.

✓In Matthew 1:20 we see Christ being conceived by the Holy Spirit.

Why then does He not call the Holy Spirit His Father?

✓In Acts 2:17-18, Peter quotes the prophet Joel describing the Holy Spirit as being poured out.

Is a person poured?

✓1 Thessalonians 5:19: “Do not quench the Spirit.”

Is this terminology that would be applied to a person?

✓John 7:37-39 describes drinking of the Holy Spirit, which is NOT how we would describe a person!

✓2 Timothy 1:6: “Stir up the gift of God which is in you,” referring to the Holy Spirit.

Do we stir up a person in the sense described here?

✓The Holy Spirit is CONSISTENTLY LEFT OUT of greetings in Paul’s epistles, such as in Romans 1:7: “Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.”

Wouldn’t this be an AFFRONT if the Holy Spirit were a coequal third “Person” of the Godhead?

✓1 John 1:3 describes our fellowship with the Father and the Son.

WHERE is the Holy Spirit?

✓Matthew 11:27: “All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.”

HOW could a coequal person of the Godhead be LEFT OUT?

OBVIOUSLY the Holy Spirit is NOT a person!

See also Luke 10:22.

The Holy Spirit is described as speaking, but this does not make it a person. We find in 2 Peter 1:21, “For prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.” God uses His Spirit to speak through human beings, as with Peter in the case of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5. So the word “speaking” simply means communicating. God communicates through His power, the Holy Spirit, just as He communicates through His inspired Bible, the Scriptures. There are a number of places where the Bible states “the Scripture says” (for example, Romans 9:17; 10:11). Consider also that, in a metaphorical sense, dead Abel still speaks (Hebrews 11:4)!

Hebrews 12:24 even describes BLOOD as speaking!

The analysis presented here is just an OVERVIEW of SOME of the important points.

MUCH more can be gleaned from our articles on God and Jesus Christ. But the essential point is that not only is the word Trinity not in the Bible, the doctrine is not in God’s Word either.

https://lifehopeandtruth.com/god/holy-spirit/the-trinity/#

(For more information, see the article “Is the Holy Spirit a Person?”

https://lifehopeandtruth.com/god/holy-spirit/is-the-holy-spirit-a-person)

Anonymous said...

These make the claim that Britain has had a significant hand in shaping Muslim affairs

https://journal-neo.org/2017/11/04/the-truth-about-radical-islam/

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/muslim-brotherhood-created-by-british-intelligence.211757/

Anonymous said...

I just know, by the faith born in me by the Lord's Holy Spirit, that the WORD promised at the beginning was kept. Jesus was in the beginning, because He is eternal as Genesis tells us -- "let US make man"..though not called Jesus at that point in time, but we know through the continuing and mounting prophecies thereafter, that it was/is ultimately Him, as specifically implied though yet un-named as such. Joseph, the betrothed of Mary the virgin, got that honor. In the OT He is concealed, in the NT He is revealed, so all throughout, and to the last book of Scripture, Jesus Christ is the Revelation at the end, as He was the Mystery of God from the beginning, and God's Word was kept to the letter that we may know and believe God as in:
1 Timothy 3:16
By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh, Was vindicated in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Proclaimed among the nations, Believed on in the world, Taken up in glory.
He will fully satisfy our longing to understand and express Him when we see Him face to face...until then we are all somewhat shortchanging that in our finite-ness..
God does not have this problem, but words do fail us. In the end, I think you are both meaning the same thing, but words may be (and perhaps egos) getting in the way? You judge for yourselves, as this is my speculation.

God's eternal WORD was, just as promised, kept. Jesus is the one (only One) who kept it as 100% God and 100% man, fulfilling His title as LORD of lords, as both the Son of God and the Son of Man. When He came to earth as the promised, and long awaited Root of Jesse, was conceived the son of Mary, by the power of the Holy Spirit, He forever identified Himself with us (He alone bore our shame and paid for it) as our God and our ultimate, born of the flesh, brother and Savior, (foreshadowed in Joseph son of Jacob and many other fore-shadowings of the OT), and died as a sinner though spotless, and is the very Salvation of those who trust the WORD that HE is their forever substitute to make unholy men holy before God the Father. It is in that sense then, totally interchangeable as well as fully integrated, that the two concepts are both to be known and believed by us that Jesus Christ is the Word of God of John 1:1.
You can't get a closer relationship than that, that happens, that begins, that is sealed by the Spirit of God, that God both initiated and fulfilled, when we believe Christ Jesus!

Oh the depths of the riches both of the Wisdom and Knowledge of God (Romans 11:33) beautifully, exquisitely, summed up and tied up very neatly in that heavenly package that is Jesus Christ the Lord.
Yes, indeed, words fail us, so enough then, I say, to brothers in the Lord.

Craig said...

RayB,

You wrote: So you really are saying that Jesus did not pre-exist His advent as the Word of God.

What part of my specific words Thus, “the Word” is the PRE-incarnation of Jesus, while Jesus is the Incarnation of “the Word” are you having difficulty with? If you wish to state this as “Jesus pre-exists His advent as the Word of God”, then fine: you’ve restated what I’ve been saying. The difference in some of the rest of what you’ve been stating is that Jesus is not coextensive with “the Word”, for Jesus is both Divine and human. His PRE-existence is as God the Word. His PRE-existence is not as “Jesus”.

As I’ve stated more than once and in many ways, Jesus pre-exists the Incarnation, but ONLY as “the Word”. “The Word” does not equal “Jesus” (who is Divine-human), any more than Jesus equals “the Word”. “The Word” is the pre-existence OF Jesus. Jesus is “the Word-made-flesh”. Jesus was born in time, as Scripture bears witness in myriad ways; whereas, “the Word” exists outside time. “The Word” now enfleshed is none other than Jesus Christ. “Jesus” does not predate His Advent EXCEPT AS “the Word”.

Jesus is God by virtue of His Divine nature. God always exists eternally. Jesus is human by virtue of His human nature. Humanity has a beginning in time. Since Jesus is both God and human, you cannot place Him in John 1:1, for that is contrary to Scripture and logic.

Craig said...

RayB (@ 3:29 and 3:45 PM),

Short response: I remain unpersuaded.

As regards this particular issue, you’ve continued to characterize me as providing false testimony, but is that really accurate phraseology here? Without rehashing, the gist is that you made statements in response to Christine’s video being potentially nightmare-inducing. I interpreted that as quite possibly ad hominem, so I asked you pointed questions to determine if my suspicions were correct or incorrect. In response, rather than address the substance of my questions—which you could have done then rather than waiting until this current post—in deflection, you inquired about my sense of humor, as if I should find your initial comment funny. This logically implies you were being funny, and you thought I should also find your comment amusing.

Then, when you posted your much-delayed ‘explanation’ here, I found it “wanting”, meaning I disbelieve you. And you call that bearing false testimony? Well, no. According to my interpretation of the events and of your ‘explanation’ I find the latter not believable. Thus, in my interpretation, I believe you are providing false witness in regards to your ‘explanation’. This is my honest appraisal. That does not in any way make me one bearing false testimony. Some are in agreement with my basic stance, others are not, apparently. Neither group is bearing false testimony (as far as I know). The two groups are merely in disagreement on this subjective issue. But, good attempt at trying to deflect. Again.

Your further explanation above (@ 3:29 and 3:45 PM) has only made my stance firmer. First of all Christine’s character and her contributions here are completely irrelevant to this issue. This particular issue centers on YOU and the readers’ interpretations of your words/actions.

Secondly, I’m curious as to why didn’t you provide this account of “Earl” back at the very beginning, if this has any sort of bearing here. Are we to believe “Earl” gave you nightmares? Also, in these two recent comments you mentioned nothing about laughter or humor. In fact, you specifically used the word “repulsive”. In any case, if you’re implying that this account is a backdrop to your response to Christine’s video, and that with this mind you found it humorous in a way, how in the world would I or anyone else see any sort of humor, given that you did not provide any info about “Earl” initially?

To apply words you used @ 3:45 PM: You’re obviously selling something, but I am not buying.

RayB said...

Anon @ 12:49 PM ...

Spoken in a manner that only a truly born again believer could express.

Very, very well said Brother !

RayB said...

Where does Craig get he unorthodox, unbiblical beliefs of Christ?

I distinctly recall Craig praising Wescott's The Gospel According to St. John as (paraphrase) "some of the very best material I have ever read."

Lo and behold, what does Mr. Westcott proclaim in this work concerning the deity of Christ?

"He never speaks of Himself directly as God, but the aim of His revelation was to lead men to see God in Him." (Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John, p. 297).

"(John) does not expressly affirm the identification of the Word with Jesus Christ." (Westcott, Ibid., p. 16).

RayB said...

More gems by Mr. Wescott:

"I reject the word infallibility of Holy Scriptures overwhelmingly." (Westcott, The Life and Letters of Brook Foss Westcott, Vol. I, p.207).

"Our Bible as well as our Faith is a mere compromise." (Westcott, On the Canon of the New Testament, p. vii).

RayB said...

Westcott denied the Biblical account of Creation:

"No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history. I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think they did." (Westcott, cited from Which Bible?, p. 191).

But rather, accepted instead Darwinism:

"But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with..... My feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable." (Hort, cited from Which Bible?, p. 189)

RayB said...

More gems by Mr. Wescott:

"I reject the word infallibility of Holy Scriptures overwhelmingly." (Westcott, The Life and Letters of Brook Foss Westcott, Vol. I, p.207).

"Our Bible as well as our Faith is a mere compromise." (Westcott, On the Canon of the New Testament, p. vii).

Craig said...

RayB,

So, after agreeing with the excellent words of Anon 12:49 PM, you follow that up with my supposed "unorthodox, unbiblical beliefs", using false equivalences?

RayB said...

Craig,

So, when are you going to address your Armstong friend's posting links that claim that the Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity is a Satanic lie? And, that those that believe in the Triune God are believing in and worshipping Satan, because Satan has inserted himself in as the 3rd. member of the Trinity .... replacing the Holy Spirit, which they claim is not a person, but a "spiritual force" ??

Anonymous said...

"Lo and behold, what does Mr. Westcott proclaim in this work concerning the deity of Christ?

"He never speaks of Himself directly as God, but the aim of His revelation was to lead men to see God in Him." (Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John, p. 297)."

I agree with what that particular statement conveys.

Because Jesus spoke in parables, He told demons to shut up regarding calling Him the Son of the Most High, He, many times, told people after they received their miracle not to broadcast it (for varied reasons) but..with the aim that they like Mary, should ponder in their hearts, truly let the truth sink in of what they saw, heard, and experienced, to actually cause them to worship Him more than have a thrilling story to tell.
The one leper that was healed, that turned back, of the ten, gave Jesus the response He was after. Heart faith, rather than lip faith, will worship, first, foremost..
When you can begin to stand up again, after being on your face before such Awesomeness, then perhaps words will come to you. And will likely be few. It's then that will be the time to speak the wonders He has been, and is, doing.

Jesus IS the point of the work He did. Learning what Philippians 3:10 actually means has been paramount to my understanding because God Himself, the Blesser, is better than His many blessings--even all put together and that is unfathomable! He would rather let the truth "dawn" on people rather than speak up for Himself (for He knows what is in man like the Pharisees who tried to use His own words against Him) so in that way He deferred to the Spirit, allowing the Spirit to do the "dawning upon" hearts and minds, just as we read in His highly priestly prayer of John 17. To believe or not to believe as is our own choice. So He spoke often in couched terms rather than overtly when He walked among us on the earth.



In private He spoke more directly to His 12, and even they asked Him to speak "straight up" to them rather than in figures of speech as in John 17 again (verses 29-30). Notice His Presence and Power made them ask the right questions to themselves when He calmed the sea in Mark 4:39-41! That's right fellas, you need to ask yourself some deep questions I can almost hear Him say to Himself, and the response He wanted. Men taken aback...and in awe...few words needed!
So His intent was for people to arrive at the understanding, that He was, and is, God among them, without all the hype that could be taken from the miracles alone, as is often true to form in carnal minds, people are too often more enthralled with miracles, than the One who actually did them. That is to our shame isn't it?

That's people for you. Jesus really does know what is in the heart of man.
Good thing for us, the Holy Spirit knows His job......

Anonymous said...

RayB said...

"Craig,

So, when are you going to address your Armstong friend's posting links that claim that the Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity is a Satanic lie?"

Yes Craig, when are you going to do that?

When, oh when are you going to be as intellectually upright as RayB?

Oh, wait...

"Non-Hateful RayB Non-Hatefully TOTALLY DISREGARDED the VERY MANY valid academic points made concerning the 'WHAT' of the Trinity doctrine to INSTEAD rabble-rousingly focus on William F. Dankenbring's SPECULATION as to the 'WHY'!"

Oopsie. My bad!

And BY THE WAY, RayB: WHO ELSE OVER THE CENTURIES OTHER THAN SATAN INFLUENCES THE CREATION OF FALSE DOCTRINES (AND AS A CONSEQUENCE OF COURSE RESULTING IN PEOPLE UNWITTINGLY FOLLOWING THEM)?

THE MAN IN THE MOON?

So THEREFORE, since there is QUITE the evidence to support the position that the Trinity Doctrine is indeed false, it is HARDLY a 'stretch' for someone to think there was Satan's influence in its creation!

But keep on DELIBERATELY AVOIDING the REASONS and KEEP focusing INSTEAD on the SPECULATIONS.

Pathetic.

Truly pathetic.

Anonymous said...

It's vitally important that one learns to dispassionately separate fallible
NON-perfect human beings from valid things that they may put forth and to assess the information's accuracy and worth on its OWN merits RATHER than as but an extension of the SOURCE of the information.

And now for another episode of...

***B.F. Wescott***
1ST GRADE MATH TEACHER

BFW: And so you see, kids, that 1+1= 2!

Afterwards, on their way home...

Student #1 to Student #2 - "Well, that was interesting!"

Student #2 - "Who cares WHAT he says? My dad said that Wescott claimed that Jesus never speaks of Himself directly as God, but the aim of His revelation was to lead men to see God in Him!"

Anonymous said...

Bernie Sanders' Staffer Suggesting Gulags For Conservatives Gives Americans Another Reason To NEVER Give Up Their Guns!

And Democrats Are Drooling Like Pavlovian Dogs

http://allnewspipeline.com/Trump_Pulverizing_Dem_Warhawks_Into_Submission.php

Craig said...

Anons 2:46 PM and 3:34 PM,

I’d posted this before, but I’ll post the complete context of Westcott’s words yet again. He’s commenting on John 20:28:

And Thomas...My Lord and my God The words are beyond question addressed to Christ (saith unto him), and cannot but be understood as a confession of belief as to His Person…expressed in the form of an impassioned address. The discipline of self-questioning, followed by the revelation of tender compassion and divine knowledge, enabled St Thomas to rise to the loftiest view of the Lord given in the Gospels. His sublime, instantaneous confession, won from doubt, closes historically the progress of faith which St John traces. At first (John 1:1) the Evangelist declared his own faith: at the end he shews that this faith was gained in the actual intercourse of the disciples with Christ. The record of this confession therefore forms the appropriate close to his narrative; and the words which follow shew that the Lord accepted the declaration of His Divinity as the true expression of faith. He never speaks of Himself directly as God (comp. 5:18), but the aim of His revelation was to lead men to see God in Him.”

And since the author mentions John 1:1—and most Johannine scholars understand the two verses together forming an inclusio—I will also provide his commentary on that verse:

“The first sentence of the Gospel offers a perfect example of the stately symmetry by which the whole narrative is marked. The three clauses of which it consists are set side by side (...and...and...); the Subject (the Word) is three times repeated; and the substantive verb three times occupies the same elative position. The symmetry of form corresponds with the exhaustiveness of the thought. The three clauses contain all that it is possible for man to realise as to the essential nature of the Word in relation to time, and mode of being, and character: He was (1) in the beginning: He was (2) with God: He was (3) God. At the same time these three clauses answer to the three great moments of the Incarnation of the Word declared in vs. 14. He who “was God,” became flesh: He who “was with God,” tabernacled among us (comp. 1 John 1:2): He who “was in the beginning,” became (in time).”

Craig said...

And here is some more deceptive editing—done by either RayB or the source he’s taking the quote from. In the comment @ 1:43 PM we find:

>>>"(John) does not expressly affirm the identification of the Word with Jesus Christ." (Westcott, Ibid., p. 16).<<<

Now let’s provide a bit more context, shall we? Westcott begins this section with the words below, and following that he provides some numbered points. The above ‘quote’ is from his 2nd main point which is posted correctly below (bold added):

----

Several important reflections follow from the consideration of the Prologue.

2. There is no effort on the part of the writer to establish, or to enforce, or to explain. He sets forth what is matter of experience to him with complete conviction and knowledge. Nothing can be farther from the appearance of introducing any new teaching. The Evangelist takes for granted that his readers understand perfectly what he means by “the Word,” “the Father.” He does not expressly affirm but assumes the identification of the Word with Jesus Christ (vs. 17).

----

RayB, or his source, selectively edits the sentence so that it reads quite a bit differently from original intent! Thus, either one of two things is true:

A) RayB himself is being VERY deceptive.

B) The source RayB used is being VERY deceptive, and RayB carelessly didn’t bother to verify, thereby perpetuating falsehood.

Not good either way.

Craig said...

Anon 12:12-12:15 PM,

I won’t answer point for point, but I will address a few of the more salient ones:

The rules of Greek grammar require that pronouns agree in gender with the nouns that are their antecedents. The antecedent of these masculine pronouns is “comforter” (Greek parakletos), which is masculine in Greek. The use of a masculine pronoun simply means it is in gender agreement with the masculine antecedent “comforter.” This fact of grammar does NOT prove that the Comforter is a person.

Everything about this statement is true, and I have read others’ try to use this to ‘prove’ the personality of the Comforter and, by extension, the Holy Spirit. Let me quote Murray J. Harris (I quoted him earlier, using another work) in his exegetical commentary on John (Greek transliterated) John, Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament (Nashville, TN: B&H, 2015), p 261:

The fact that the pronouns referring to the Spirit (viz. dia…auto…auto) are neuter no more establishes the impersonality of the Spirit than the masculine pronouns ekeinos in 14:26; 15:26; 16:8, 13-14 and auton in 16:17 prove the personality of the Spirit. In each case the gender of the pronouns is grammatically conditioned…The personality of the Spirit should be established without appeal to the masculine pronouns in the passages cited above. (One can argue, for example, that since Jesus as Helper [implied by allos, “another” in 14:16] is personal, one would assume that the Spirit as “another Helper” is also personal. And the other personal roles attributed to the Spirit, such as teaching and reminding [14:26], testifying [15:26], guiding [16:13], and informing [16:14-15], would certainly be strange if the Spirit were simply an impersonal force).

Jesus is also referred to as the paraklētos in 1 John 2:1. This further implies that the Holy Spirit and Jesus are similar entities in some fashion, does it not? Moreover, in the account of Ananias and Sapphira, Peter equates the Holy Spirit with God in Acts 5:3-4:

3 But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself? 4 While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.”

Can a human lie to a mere “force”? Also, notice how Peter is making a direct equivalency between lying to the Holy Spirit (v. 3) and lying to God (v. 4). Thus, logically, the Holy Spirit is God.

You wrote: ✓John 7:37-39 describes drinking of the Holy Spirit, which is NOT how we would describe a person!

Does Jesus not refer to Himself as Gate, the Bread of Life, etc., and does this make Him a non-person?

Anonymous said...

RayB 11:47 AM,

The Papacy seems to me to be lamblike in appearance but speaking as a dragon.

But the Papacy doesn't deny the Father and the Son. It only claims to be the vicar on Earth of the Son. It also doesn't deny that Jesus came in the flesh.

On the other hand, on all four sides of the Dome of the Rock, words are written stating that Allah has no son.

The early church struggled with Arianism, which also denied the deity of Christ. Arianism is thought by some students of religious history, to have been a precursor to Mohammedism.

The Reformers were right to oppose the lamb speaking as a dragon and to stand up to the harlot holding the reins of empire, fornicating with the kings of the Earth, and drunk on the blood of the saints. But nonetheless, the Papacy doesn't meet the criteria of denying the Father and the Son, nor of denying that Jesus came in the flesh.

Anonymous said...

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/popes-favored-interviewer-claims-francis-denies-christs-divinity

Pope’s favored interviewer claims Francis denies Christ’s divinity

Eugenio Scalfari claims that Pope Francis said, 'Jesus of Nazareth, once he became a man, even if he was a man of exceptional virtue, was not God at all.'

ROME, October 9, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – Atheist Italian journalist Eugenio Scalfari has claimed that Pope Francis does not believe that Jesus Christ is truly God and man.

The Pope has granted Scalfari numerous interviews throughout his pontificate, despite repeated claims from the Vatican press office that his reports are unreliable.

In La Repubblica newspaper on Wednesday, Scalfari wrote: “Those who have had the chance, as I have had different times, to meet him [Pope Francis] and speak to him with the greatest cultural confidence, know that Pope Francis conceives Christ as Jesus of Nazareth, a man, not God incarnate. Once incarnated, Jesus ceases to be a God and becomes a man until his death on the cross.” According to Scalfari, “When I happened to discuss these phrases, Pope Francis told me: ‘They are the definite proof that Jesus of Nazareth, once he became a man, even if he was a man of exceptional virtue, was not God at all.’”

EWTN news anchor Raymond Arroyo reacted on Twitter, writing that he finds the report “hard to believe.” However, he added, “Why does the Pope continue to grant interviews to an atheist who does not take notes and relies on his aged memory to reconstruct conversations?”

RayB said...

To Anon @ 9:49 AM ...

Many people and religions name the name of Christ VERBALLY, but deny Him by their beliefs and actions.

The "Christ" of the RCC is not the true Christ of the Bible. In reality, they deny Him in many ways, particularly in the Mass, where He is sacrificed thousands of times "for the sins of people, both alive and dead" on their altars all over the world. Purgatory stands as a stark example that, although they name His name, they deny His finished work on the cross. They also deny Him by negating the commandments of God with their commandments of men. No humble believer would ever take the title "Holy Father." No humble believer would ever make the claims that the Papacy has, and done so for centuries.

Just as the "Christ" of the Jehovah Witnesses, the Mormons, etc., etc. is not the true Christ, yet they do not deny Him.

Remember what Jesus warned us about. "Many shall come in my NAME .... "

Anonymous said...

Yes Craig,
As I read it, John Chapter 1 is the progression of declarative statements from the very first verse that are speaking clearly the progression of revelation so that understanding how it delineates, leads one right to the exact conclusion to draw of Christ Jesus, that John himself, saw, and handled, and declared later (and again an in the beginning statement) repeating the same point in 1 John 1:1-4.
Alpha and Omega-the beginning and the end, He is, Genesis to Revelation, the Yes and the Amen of God.

From Eternity's Glory, to Earth's Time was concealed to be revealed in Glory, and back to even more Glory where time is no more.

And awesome beyond words..........

Craig said...

Anon 11:3 AM,

And all that--plus the fact that the Greek is simpler in John than in other NT books--is why John is my favorite book of the entire Bible, and the one I've spent most time studying. John's first epistle is my second favorite.

Craig said...

While RayB dishonestly continued to misstate my statements on the relationship of “the Word” and “Jesus Christ” (@ 11:52 AM, 11:57 AM, 12:06 PM), he also made a claim that requires some scrutiny. At the end of 12:06 PM he speaks derogatorily about “the Modern Translations (actually, interpretations)”. The thing is ALL translations necessarily involve some level of interpretation. I shall illustrate this using Scripture with no textual variants between KJV (Textus Receptus) and modern versions for a fair comparison, showing how the case can be made that the KJV interpretation is erroneous in one particular verse. That’s not to say the KJV is bad (it’s not the only one with this interpretation in this verse); it’s to illustrate that no Bible version is perfect in translation.

In John 1:7 John the Baptizer provides witness to “the Light” so that all might believe through him. The referent for “through him” here is the Baptizer, and the Greek words for this are di’ autou. A small minority of translations use “by him”, but I think “through him” is best. This is the most literal translation, and this the KJV translation.

Yet in John 1:3 we find these two same Greek words rendered “by him”—referring to “the Word” here—rather than “through him” like most other versions. This is an interpretation issue. The KJV interpreters believed “the Word” was the instrument in the creation event, while the other versions construe “the Word” as being the agent of creation. We’ll come back to this.

Also in John 1:3 we find the verb egeneto, which most literally means either “became” or “came-to-be”. Most versions translate as “were made”, since it is obvious by the context that the creation event is the subject. This same verb is used in John 1:14, with the KJV rendering it: And the Word was made flesh. Most other versions use became. I prefer the latter, but I have no issue with the KJV here. To its credit the KJV is very consistent here, for in John 1:10 we find “and the world was made by him (di’ autou egeneto)”. Thus, in three separate verses we find the verb rendered the same. While we have the difference between 1:7 and 1:3/1:10, at least the KJV has consistency between 1:3 and 1:10 in the use of “by him”, given that both refer to the creation event.

But let’s look at Rev 4:11 in the KJV [there is a variant in the last clause that does not impact translation here], which reads about the same as other verses: “…for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.” The Greek verb rendered ‘created’ is ktizō. By looking back to the beginning of chapter 4, we see that the subject is ‘the One Who is on the Throne’, aka “O Lord” (4:11), and this is clearly God the Father. In the book of Revelation, He is distinguished from Jesus, aka the Lamb, who is also at times sitting on the Throne along with ‘the One Who sits on the Throne’ (5:6-8, 5:13; 7:15-17, etc.).

With the foregoing evidence, and by the words in John 1:1—“the Word was with God [the Father]”—it seems best to understand “the Word” as the agent of creation (“through Him”), with the Father, aka “the One Who sits on the Throne” as the ultimate Creator, as opposed to “the Word” as the instrument, sans Father, of creation (“by him”), does it not?

In sum, the intent is not to deride the KJV; it’s to point out that all translations require a bit of interpretation and that none are perfect in their interpretations.

Craig said...

I’ll just add one more piece of evidence to the immediately preceding comment. Let’s look at 1 Corinthians 8:6 in the KJV:

6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him (eis auton [accusative case, direct object]); and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him (di’ autou).

In the other versions, the first prepositional phrase is sometimes “for him” or “to him”, but in the last one the large majority render it the most literal “through Him”. This better aligns with John 1:3 and Rev 4:11 the way I read Scripture.

Craig said...

Sorry, meant to add, the preposition di' is also use in the KJV's "by whom are all things". Again, I think this should be "through Whom".

Anonymous said...

Craig 9:49 AM,

Thank you for your response.

(This article addresses the matter in Acts 5:3-4 that you mentioned:)

Does Acts 5:3-4 and the story of Ananias and Sapphira prove that God is a trinity?

In this scripture, the apostle Peter stated, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit, and to keep back part of the price of the land? Whiles it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own power? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied unto men, but unto God.”

How could Peter say that Ananias and Sapphira were lying to the Holy Spirit? Because it was the Holy Spirit in Peter’s mind that gave him the ability to discern (Heb. 5:14) Ananias and Sapphira’s lies. Notice I Corinthians 2:11: “For what man knows the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? Even so the things of God knows no man, but the Spirit of God.” This verse shows that there are things that we can learn and understand without having God’s Holy Spirit, and things that can only be understood with God’s Spirit.

Christ evidenced this ability of discernment in John 13:27: “And after the sop Satan entered into him [Judas]. Then said Jesus unto him, That you do, do quickly.” Also notice Mark 8:33: “But when He [Christ] had turned about and looked on His disciples, He rebuked Peter, saying, Get you behind Me, Satan: for you savor not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men.”

In Old Testament times, God spoke directly to His chosen servants. Notice the following account: “And the LORD said unto Ahijah, Behold, the wife of Jeroboam comes to ask a thing of you for her son; for he is sick: thus and thus shall you say unto her; for it shall be, when she comes in, that she shall feign herself to be another woman” (I Kgs. 14:5). God had revealed to His prophet that Jeroboam’s wife was on her way and that she was going to lie. He told the prophet how to respond.

Also notice: “…for the LORD searches all hearts, and understands all the imaginations of the thoughts…” (I Chron. 28:9). Also: “For God has not given us the spirit of fear, but of power, and of love, and of a SOUND MIND” (II Tim. 1:7). To understand how Peter could “see through” Ananias and Sapphira, consider the following analogy:

An attorney is discussing an extremely technical legal matter with a potential client. The implications are such that only a lawyer with the utmost legal understanding could properly handle the case. Also, only with complete and total knowledge of every aspect and detail of the situation can the lawyer hope to proceed. But the client, having dishonest ulterior motives, intentionally omits some minor details. Those details are so minute that they could potentially escape the attention of an attorney not deeply, intricately versed in the law. (If he were fresh from law school, he would definitely miss them.) But the attorney sees the deception for what it is. How does he see through it? Because of the knowledge of the law that he possesses. Without that knowledge, he would not recognize the lie for what it is. His knowledge of the law leads him to understand the man’s ulterior motives.

If one lies to a farmer about a matter dealing with aerospace engineering, he might not recognize the lie. Likewise, if one lies to a rocket scientist about a matter concerning agriculture, he might not recognize the lie. Why? Because neither is versed in the particular subject being addressed. The lie goes “right over his head.”

Anonymous said...

It is the same with spiritual understanding. Notice I Corinthians 8:7: “Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge…” Job 39:17: “Because God has deprived her of wisdom, neither has He imparted to her understanding.” Romans 8:14: “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.” John 16:13, referred to earlier, shows, “…the Spirit of truth…will guide you into all truth.” In Acts 5, Peter, guided by God’s Spirit working in his mind, was able to discern the following about Ananias and Sapphira:

They had conspired together and were on their way to see him

Their sin and their motive

The punishment they would receive

After being given on Pentecost in A.D. 31, the Holy Spirit was the means by which God communicated to His servants (John 16:13).

When Ananias and Sapphira lied to Peter, he could say that they were also lying to God because:

Peter was an apostle in God’s Church. Christ had told them, “…Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matt. 18:18).

Christ had also told His disciples, “And whatsoever you shall ask in My name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you shall ask any thing in My name, I will do it” (John 14:13-14). Christ had given His disciples power to act on His behalf. God had to guide them in these matters.

Conversely, He showed, in Matthew 25:40, that anything done to or for true Christians, was considered to be done to or for Him: “…Inasmuch as you have done it unto one of the least of these My brethren, you have done it unto Me.”

Also notice the following Old Testament accounts:

“And the people murmured against Moses, saying, What shall we drink?” (Ex. 15:24)

“And the whole congregation of the children of Israel murmured against Moses and Aaron in the wilderness…And in the morning, then you shall see the glory of the LORD; for that He hears your murmurings against the LORD: and what are we, that you murmur against us?…for that the LORD hears your murmurings which you murmur against Him: and what are we? Your murmurings are not against us, but against the LORD”
(Ex. 16:2, 7-8).

“And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto you: for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them” (I Sam. 8:7).

The above illustrates why Peter could say that Ananias and Sapphira were lying to both God and the Holy Spirit. It was not because the Holy Spirit is God, as trinitarians claim. They were lying to one of God’s apostles, in whom He was working (through the power of His Holy Spirit).

Also, consider Peter’s statement, “…You have not lied unto men…” Advocates of the trinity doctrine seem to completely ignore the fact that the husband and wife had lied directly to Peter (a man). Peter was a flesh-and-blood human being. Was he somehow elevating himself to the status of either God or the Holy Spirit? (See Acts 14:7-18.)

Why do trinitarians not consider that part of Peter’s statement? Their argument is flawed here as it is inconsistent and does not examine every aspect of the account.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 400 of 422   Newer› Newest»