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 401 – 422 of 422I don't have time at present to engage more fully, but, in any case, I want to be sure I understand the basic stance. Is it that the Holy Spirit = God's Spirit--no more, no less? In other words, is the basic doctrine a Binity, rather than a Trinity?
Craig 1:25 PM:
Actually Open-Ended Binary, that is to say currently Binary but at Christ's return and thereafter the number will increase.
Here are the specific scriptural details regarding this position if interested:
"YOUR ULTIMATE DESTINY"
https://www.tomorrowsworld.org/sites/default/files/booklets/pdf/yud2.1a.pdf
Correction:
Actually Open-Ended Binity, that is to say currently a Binity but at Christ's return and thereafter the number will increase.
Here are the specific scriptural details regarding this position if interested:
"YOUR ULTIMATE DESTINY"
https://www.tomorrowsworld.org/sites/default/files/booklets/pdf/yud2.1a.pdf
P.S. To my 2:09 PM
https://youtu.be/k8mRzHRrAPk
http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-holy-spirit-arian-proof-texts-refuted.htm
Anti-Trinitarians misuse these passages to prove the Holy Spirit is not a person:
Refuted!
"Refuted!"?
Everyone must prayerfully and carefully determine these things for themselves.
"But we say and believe and have taught, and do teach, that the Son is not unbegotten, nor in any way part of the unbegotten; and that he does not derive his subsistence from any matter; but that by his own will and counsel he has subsisted before time and ages as perfect as God, only-begotten and unchangeable, and that before he was begotten, or created, or purposed, or established, he was not." — Arius of Alexandria's Letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia (circa AD 300)
http://shoebat.com/2014/09/25/muhammad-founder-islam/
Muhammad Was NOT The Founder Of Islam
By Ted on September 25, 2014 in Featured, General
By Theodore Shoebat
Muhammad was NOT the founder of Islam. Islam is simply an Arabian extension of a heresy called Arianism, or the denial of Christ’s divinity, which was founded by Arius in the 4th century. Muhammad simply continued the heresy by converting to Arianism, adding to it some other beliefs, and calling it Islam. I did a whole video on this:
(sadly the video no longer exists because the YouTube account has been terminated)
Anonymous 3:41,
If we reject even the very early church councils, we run the risk of repeating theological mistakes of the past.
Anon @ 2:03/09 PM,
Though I only currently have a few moments, would you mind directing me to your link--assuming there is one--which engages the Greek grammar on Matthew 28:19 from a non-trinitarian stance?
Anonymous 6:35 PM Said...
"If we reject even the very early church councils, we run the risk of repeating theological mistakes of the past."
Anon 6:35 PM, thank you for your input. My position on such a premise is simply a variation on the theme which I posted earlier, to wit:
It's vitally important that one learns to dispassionately separate fallible NON-perfect human beings including ones (by SOME put on pedestals and) called 'Early Church Fathers' from the things that they may put or have put forth and to assess the information's accuracy and worth on its OWN merits (as determined by the Bible) RATHER than as but an extension of the SOURCE of the information (and automatically accept or reject it simply on THAT basis).
And above all else: God is there to prayerfully ask guidance and understanding and wisdom of in all such matters.
He is not absent!
Craig 6:42 PM,
Here is an article that seems to fit your request:
Does Matthew 28:19 Prove the Trinity?
by Larry Neff
Some see the baptismal formula in Matthew 28:19 as the only direct statement of the Trinity in the Bible. But does this verse really prove the Trinity?
Our article “The Trinity: What Is It?” examines the biblical teaching about the nature of God and shows that the idea of the Trinity did not come from the Bible. The Trinity doctrine developed over hundreds of years and was influenced by the teachings of pagan Greek philosophers.
However, Matthew 28:19 is frequently used in attempts to prove that the Trinity is a biblical teaching. According to the New Catholic Encyclopedia, 2003 edition, “The only direct statement of Trinitarian revelation is the baptismal formula of Matthew 28:19.”
If the Trinity doctrine rests its biblical claim on this verse, what happens if this verse doesn’t actually prove the Trinity?
Examining Matthew 28:19
At first glance, Jesus Christ’s words in this account may appear as validation of the Trinity. “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”
But notice: This verse does not actually make any statement about equality or about three persons in one Being. It does not describe the Holy Spirit as a person or as having personality. The instruction is about baptism, not about the nature of the Godhead. Had Jesus wanted to establish Trinitarianism, He could have been much clearer.
The New King James Version uses the words “in the name.” The American Standard Version, the English Revised Version and the Weymouth New Testament use “into” instead of “in.” In the Greek, the word is eis. It is defined as “into, to, towards, for, and among” (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament). We believe “into” is a much better translation than “in” and that it better describes the marvelous transformation that begins in a Christian’s life when he or she receives the Holy Spirit.
Greek lexicons and dictionaries emphasize that eis shows movement toward something. Translating eis as “into” with regard to going toward something gives a much clearer sense of the meaning. Being baptized thrusts us powerfully toward God the Father and Jesus Christ, and we are given the Holy Spirit to impart to our minds a beginning portion of the divine nature.
We are baptized by the authority of Jesus Christ, who, by His awesome sacrifice, paid for our sins. And we are baptized into the family of the divine God, who is Spirit (John 4:24). We must worship Him in spirit. His Spirit comes into our mind and a new spiritual life begins. It is in this sense that we are baptized “into” the Holy Spirit, becoming younger brothers and sisters of Jesus Christ and children of God the Father (Hebrews 2:10-12; John 1:12; Romans 8:14).
Being baptized into the Holy Spirit reminds us of John the Baptist’s words in Matthew 3:11, “I indeed baptize you with [Greek en, primarily translated as “in,” which is appropriate here since baptism is by immersion in water] water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with [Greek en, “in” again] the Holy Spirit and fire” (emphasis added). John likens being immersed in water with being immersed in the Holy Spirit.
Also, realize that just because something has a name, that doesn’t automatically equate it with personhood. Even inanimate objects—mountain ranges, for example—have proper names.
The Holy Spirit helps us to be like Jesus Christ, but this does not mean it is a person. It is the nature of God, the power of God, the way He extends Himself in the universe. Please see the article “Is the Holy Spirit a Person?”
Baptism
Acts 2:38 also discusses baptism, but it has a different purpose. It gives an overview of the steps involved in baptism and receiving the Holy Spirit: “Then Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.’”
What does he mean here by being baptized “in the name of Jesus Christ”? If we do something in the name of someone, we do it by his authority. So Peter told us to be baptized by the authority of Jesus Christ.
Also consider that Peter describes the Holy Spirit as a gift. If the Holy Spirit were a person, how could it be a gift? Earlier in Acts 2 he quoted the book of Joel where God said that He would “pour out My Spirit” (verse 18). If the Holy Spirit were a person, how could it be poured out?
God the Father’s goodness leads us to repentance (Romans 2:4), and He is the One from whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named (Ephesians 3:15). The Son is the One who died for our sins. The actions of the Father and the Son make it possible for us to receive the power of Their Holy Spirit into our minds upon conversion and baptism to impart the divine nature of God.
In Romans 8:16 we read, “The Spirit Himself [“itself,” King James Version] bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God.” (The reason the New King James Version translators incorrectly used “Himself” is explained in our more comprehensive article on the Trinity.)
The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all essential to the ceremony of baptism. God imparts the Holy Spirit to our minds to begin a new spiritual life in us. It binds Christians together and empowers them, granting them some of the divine nature of Almighty God. But this in no sense proves the Trinity.
For more on this subject, see the related articles:
The Trinity: What Is It?
Is the Holy Spirit a Person?
Should We Be Baptized in Jesus’ Name Only?
https://lifehopeandtruth.com/god/holy-spirit/the-trinity/does-matthew-28-19-prove-the-trinity/#
********************
Incidentally, Craig, I've happened to come across this interestingly premised article just now, for what it may (or may not) be worth:
http://www.trinitytruth.org/matthew28_19addedtext.html
Anon 9:10 PM,
Though I’m aware of the issues regarding Matthew 28:19’s textual (the question of its authenticity) and larger contextual (whether it is at odds with the practice of baptism in Jesus’ name only in Acts, e.g.), my specific question was if there was some UCG article that addressed the grammar, for the grammar is unassailable. The command was to (Go and) “make disciples”, baptizing them in the NAME (singular)—the one name—of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, thus implying the Trinity. In other words, the grammar clearly implies that all three have the same name. That stated, let me specifically address some things:
The article states: But notice: This verse does not actually make any statement about equality or about three persons in one Being. It does not describe the Holy Spirit as a person or as having personality. The instruction is about baptism, not about the nature of the Godhead. Had Jesus wanted to establish Trinitarianism, He could have been much clearer.
To paraphrase what I wrote in the first paragraph above, given the grammar which uses “name” in the singular, this implies 3-in-1 co-equality. Given that we know that both the Father and the Son are Persons, then the Holy Spirit must also be a Person, for the three are in parallel construction syntactically. Yes, the instruction is about baptism, yet the grammar does say something about the nature of the Godhead: If the Father and the Son are co-equal Persons, then the Holy Spirit must be co-equal, given the syntactical parallelism following the singular name. Now, since I’m not well-versed on UCG doctrine, I’ll add this: If the UCG does not view the Father and the Son as exactly co-equal Beings, then we can adjust the words here to say that there is certainly something about all three (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit) that is the same, due to the three sharing the same name and due to the parallel structure of the verse’s phraseology.
Since the article fails to address the grammatical issues, it merely assumes the predetermined view that the Holy Spirit is not a Person according to the UCG’s Binitarian theology. That is, the article takes this predetermined view and (re)interprets associated passages with this view in mind, having completely disregarded the grammar and syntax of Matthew 28:19.
Anon 9:10 PM,
At the last link you supplied, that author references the following pdf in the first hyperlink provided:
trinitytruth.org/proof-of-the-gospel_eusebius.pdf
The first quote the author sources from this pdf is found on page 20 of the work—found at page 19 of pdf (56 of 326), but on the right not left page (20) [in other words, type “19” in box at left and look on right side page]—with an accompanying footnote. The first paragraph of the footnote lists some who question the verse’s authenticity, but the second states:
But the threefold formula occurs in the Didache, chapter vii., and is supported by Justin Martyr, Apol. i. 61 and Irenaeus, who, however, bases it not on Matt. xxviii. 19, but on tradition…The textual authority as it stands is unassailable, and the problem is to reconcile it with the statements in Acts.
In other words, the textual question is based on syllogistic implications. There are absolutely no Greek texts which show a variant in Matthew 28:19 evidencing anything different from what English Bibles read. That said, however, we do not have any Greek manuscripts earlier than ca. 4th century—but this is not unlike other sections of Scripture.
One can find info the Didache, as well as four different translations of it, at the following link:
earlychristianwritings.com/didache.html
The threefold formula can be found at 7:1 (chapter 7, verse 1).
The author of that last link clearly has his/her own bias—supporting Seventh Day Adventism. I find it a bit humorous that the author would doubt the textual authenticity of Matthew 28:19, while he quotes Mark 16:16 to support his view, given that Mark 16:9-20 has variants to support its inauthenticity. In other words, he uses one verse of a section of Scripture that DOES have legitimate questions regarding its authenticity, while he attempts to discredit another that has no textual variant to question its authenticity. So much for objectivity…
Craig 7:29 AM,
Thank you for your reply.
You said "If the UCG does not view the Father and the Son as exactly co-equal Beings, then we can adjust the words here to say that there is certainly something about all three (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit) that is the same, due to the three sharing the same name and due to the parallel structure of the verse’s phraseology."
(Here then is that position:)
Jesus Christ's Submission To The Father
The apostle Paul, in Philippians 2, says that Jesus was willing to voluntarily surrender His awesome godly power and position for our sakes, telling us: "Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped [i.e., tightly held onto and not let go of], but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death—even death on a cross!" (Philippians 2:5-8, NIV).
Directly from Scripture, we see that God the Father is the undisputed Head of the family— and that Father and Son are not coequal in authority, as claimed by the Trinity doctrine.
After Jesus had been sacrificed for our sins and then restored to eternal life, He “sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high [that is, the Father]”
(Hebrews 1:3). After He had directly experienced what it was like to be a flesh-and-blood human being, Christ returned to the Father’s side—His previous station throughout all past eternity.
Remember His words just before His impending death and resurrection: “And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was” (John 17:5). In this passage Jesus talks of a time even before the creation account of Genesis 1:1, when these two divine Beings were together.
Of course, then and always, the Father is supreme. Christ’s equality with the Father is in the sense of sharing the same level of existence, both of Them being God. It does not mean, as the Trinity doctrine holds, that the two are equal in authority— for Scripture clearly shows that Jesus is subordinate to the Father.
The Athanasian Creed, in use since the sixth century, states that “in this Trinity … none is greater, or less than another.” In fact, Trinitarian teaching denies any relationship of command and obedience between the divine persons—as this would imply individual wills and distinct beings and contradict the doctrine. Yet Scripture tells us that the Father gives commands that Christ perfectly and lovingly obeys (John 12:49-50; John 14:31; John 15:10). And Jesus distinguished between His own will and the Father’s, yet submitted to the Father’s will (Luke 22:42; John 5:30). Some see this as a temporary façade while Christ was in the flesh, yet His subordination to the Father persists today and will persist through the culmination of the ages.
The 15th chapter of 1 Corinthians is often rightly called the resurrection chapter. It tells us that everyone in God’s future Kingdom will be subject to Christ, with the Father being the only exception: “It is evident that He [the Father] who put all things under Him [the Son] is excepted. Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all” (1 Corinthians 15:27-28).
Earlier in 1 Corinthians, Paul clearly states that “the head of Christ is God” (1 Corinthians 11:3). In both of these passages Paul describes two individual divine Beings, with Jesus being subject to God the Father. This is consistent with Jesus Christ’s own statements in which He said, contrary to the Athanasian Creed, “My Father is greater than I” (John 14:28) and “My Father . . . is greater than all” (John 10:29).
Directly from Scripture, we see that God the Father is the undisputed Head of the family—and that Father and Son are not coequal in authority, as claimed by the Trinity doctrine.
https://www.ucg.org/bible-study-tools/booklets/is-god-a-trinity/jesus-christs-submission-to-the-father
Anon 9:12/13 AM,
Though I do not plan on getting into some protracted back and forth discussion on this, with respect, the article you source does not adequately address the grammar of Matthew 28:19. Specifically, since all three—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—are preceded by the Greek article, this indicates all three are distinct from each other in some sense, yet, at the same time since this entire genitival clause is governed by the singular “name”, they all share the same “name”, and they are all co-equal in this respect. The meaning of “name” is authority.
Basically, the WCG must either reject Matthew 28:19 as inauthentic or adequately grapple with its semantic implications.
Moreover, I see nothing that addresses the point Harris made (see comment @ 9:13 AM in last 200 comments) regarding the personal roles of the Holy Spirit, as spoken by Jesus in John 14-16 (teaching and reminding [14:26], testifying [15:26], guiding [16:13], and informing).
When looking at Trinitarianism as a whole, it is important not to conflate what is revealed as the eternal inter-relationship between each ‘Member’ (immanent Trinity) and what is presented in the outworking of salvation-history during the earthly Incarnation (economic Trinity). Since Christ lived a human life on earth (in simultaneity with His Divine life), there are many passages which speak of His subordination to God the Father in this Incarnational sense. And there are other passages which speak of His eternality and co-equality as Deity. These must be harmonized with each other while doing no violence to their separate emphases.
The article just above creates a false pretext in referencing John 10:29 in abstraction from 10:30:
29 My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”
That “the Jews” understood this to be a statement of equal identity—Jesus’ claim to essential Deity on par with the Father—is evidenced by their reaction and statement in John 10:33.
HOW I GOT MY HUSBAND BACK HOME
Ever since my husband got me divorced for the past 1 year, i v'e not been my self. I was reviewing some post of how i could get back my husband then, i saw a testimony shared by Rissag Jaden from NEW YORK about a spell caster named Dr AGBAKA. I contacted Rissag Jaden to confirm about how Dr.AGBAKA helped her and she clarified everything to me of how he helped her and that gave me the courage to get in touch with Dr AGBAKA for help. Dr AGBAKA assured me that my days of sorrows will be over within 48hours after he has finished with his work. I followed his instructions he gave to me because i had the believe, faith, hope and trust in him. Verily i say to you today that i and my husband are back together and i can proudly say and testify to the world of what Dr AGBAKA did for me. Contact him today via E-mail (Agbakaspelltemple @ gmail . com) OR call him or whatsapp him +2349052647861 if you seek his help. Also specialize in treating all kinds of illness, HERPES VIRUS, HEPATITIS B, CANCER, BRAIN DISEASE, INFERTILITY, DIABETES AND MORE..
As Pope Francis and the United Nations work to usher in the New World Order of one world government and one world religion-and do so, by putting an end to both, 1.) the scientifically outdated (think evolution) imperialistic traditional Christianity of America and the world...and 2.) America's arrogant anti-multilateral emerging one world government thuggery... and replacing them with 1.) a one world syncretic religion, under the ruler-ship of the pope, a religion that believes in both God transcendent and Mother Earth, and 2.) a United Nations one world government...Michael Matt, a traditionalist Catholic, and other traditional Christian conservatives protest, as displayed in a recent Michael Matt video located at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBUHhQrct_M&feature=share&fbclid=IwAR1nChpzo0GKo1bAjDy5CHa6fM5IKCu0me_fBR1fkOguXiqoOc4yTTv_BV4
I am so Happy to be writing this article in here, i am here to explore blogs forum about the wonderful and most safe cure for HERPES SIMPLEX VIRUS.I was positive to the Virus called HERPES and i lost hope completely because i was rejected even by my closet friends. i searched online to know and inquire about cure for HERPES and i saw testimony about DR Ebhota online on how he cured so many persons from Herpes Disease so i decided to contact the great herbalist because i know that nature has the power to heal everything. i contacted him to know how he can help me and he told me never to worry that he will help me with the natural herbs from God! after 2 days of contacting him, he told me that the cure has been ready and he sent it to me via FEDEX or DHL and it got to me after 4 days! i used the medicine as he instructed me (MORNING and EVENING) and i was cured! its really like a dream but i'm so happy! that's the reason i decided to also add more comment of Him so that more people can be saved just like me! and if you need his help,contact his Email: (drebhotasoltion@gmail.com) You can contact him on WhatsApp +2348089535482 He also have the herb to cure difference cure for any sickness (1) HERPES,
(2) DIABETES,
(3) HIV&AIDS,
(4) URINARY TRACT INFECTION,
(5) HEPATITIS B,
(6) IMPOTENCE,
(7) BARENESS/INFERTILITY
(8) DIARRHEA
(9) ASTHMA..
My husband and I have been married for about 7 years now. We were happily married with two kids, a boy and a girl. 3 months ago, I started to notice some strange behavior from him and a few weeks later I found out that my husband is seeing someone. He started coming home late from work, he hardly cared about me or the kids anymore, Sometimes he goes out and doesn't even come back home for about 2-3 days. I did all I could to rectify this problem but all to no avail. I became very worried and needed help. As I was browsing through the Internet one day, I came across a website that suggested that Dr Osita can help solve marital problems, restore broken relationships and so on. So, I felt I should give him a try. I contacted him and he did a spell for me. Two days later, my husband came to me and apologized for the wrongs he did and promised never to do it again. Ever since then, everything has returned back to normal. My family and I are living together happily again.. All thanks to Dr Osita. If you need a spell caster that can cast a spell that truly works, I suggest you contact him. He will not disappoint you. This is his Email: (drositamiraclespell@gmail.com) or WhatsApp him (+15088120454) web.site: http://drositamiraclespell.website2.me
Post a Comment