Just What I Needed to Hear I went to a club with a friend of mine the night before and noticed that my thoughts were not pure. While having impure thoughts is never good for one's soul, it feels even worse when your girlfriend is in Chile and you don't know when you'll get to see her again. This sermon really helped me maintain my faithfulness, not physically because that's not a problem, but mentally and spiritually.
1. Who would borrow at 400%, no matter what. We are not told what "christian" actually means here though. 2. This goes to show that christians should not get involved with ursury. 3. This Mustafa is a Islamic Hypocrite. Islam being partly gleaned from Judaism, also does not believe in practicing ursury (though how Islam considers lending to us Dhimmi may allow for such behaviour?) If someone knows please let me know.
What saddens me the most is that he lost a kidney over a miserly $1500. I could have paid his debt.
It is this last point that makes me take a hard look at myself.
"Possibly, Rome has a shrine somewhere with a bottle of Jesus real blood,"
If you watch Mel Gibsons "The Passion" you see Mary wiping up Jesus' blood from the ground after he was whipped.
Of course Rome would think like this, but this is what others have said about John Macarthur's comments, excusing him.
He should have made this point as it would have put it in context but he has avoided it either to not offend Roman Catholics or he truely holds this blasphemous view that he espouses.
Frankly the liquid (aka at the time of it's shedding once and for all) because no other could shed their blood. Jesus was from the blood line of David, this is significant, the messiah had to have the royal blood of the house of David running through him. This is actual and this is not mystical. The blood of Jesus is not mystical, but it is legal. John Macarthur does not acknowledge this fact, and as educated as he is, it should be clear to state it as such.
Dr Macarthur equates the blood as a metaphor for death. He says this himself.
So then is blood significant or not.
His blood was significant and since John Macarthur is a theologian he should be able to explain this in his statements but has not leaving his statements clear and obviously from another source of revelation other than the Bible.
The blood (the actual liquid) is significant because firstly you cannot shed non actual liquid blood.(This becomes a word game) Secondly the blood has power because it is authoritative, this is a legal matter and produces a legal result (remission of sins). If Jesus was a non blooded being and yet was without sin and died for us we would not be saved because "without the shedding of blood there is no remission.." Why because life is in the blood.
We are baptised into his blood, we are ALSO baptised into his death and will also take part in his ressurrection. Notice how these are 3 seperate things, blood and death and not synonomous.
What Dr Hymers rings true to me because firstly Eddy(Christian Science), Russell(JW's) and Smith (Mormons) were best friends and were high level Freemasons.
We are told also by Alice Bailey of the Theosophical society that the new World Order would come about through the church. That they would put ther people in our churches and steer us in the way they wanted to go.
And so the church today is already walking in these ways and no one says boo, and no one challenges the leaders (don't touch the Lords annointed). We're all so scared of our "priests" I know were not Protestants any longer.
What has happened in western culture and equally in the church is what is termed an 'unpercieved ideological transshipment'.
This is what the numerous bible translations are all about too.
hidemi williges: If he has retracted it that would be a great thing.
What I am referring to is that he said in his book Grace to You pg 10
"It was His death that was efficacious not His blood"
What is interesting about this is this is almost the same as a quote by Mary Baker Eddy of Christian Science (which it is not) saying
"The material blood of Jesus was no more efficacious to cleanse from sin when it was shed upon 'the accursed tree' than when it was flowing in his veins"
This is a terrible statement and I wonder who Dr Macarthur has been gleening his theology from? At least in the past. Like I said I wish to checkout his retraction to see exactly what it entails. Sometimes retractions are merely damage control and spin doctoring.
Scripture says the life is in the blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins.
It is good to see such a huge response in the negative here.
We have had our flu season here in Australia and I was watching US news hour yesterday. I was first struck dumb by how many NWO sponsors PBS has and noticed that most of those who they interview are also in the same category.
Then a news item which had me most amused was on H1N1, and how "more children have died from H1N1 already this season than from the normal flu the whole of last season"
Well they have learnt from our arguements from our season, that was exactly the problem with causing a panic here. There just wasn't enough deaths.
It would be good with someone with access to check the stats. It is not difficult to reclassify other types of death and attribute it with H1N1, cause once it is in the media as fact even with an investigation, it will be almost impossible to get "the facts" out of peoples minds.
This reclassification occurs all the time with death from vaccination, and it is posible these deaths may have been from the H1N1 vaccination.
Willa wrote: About 90% of 3146 scientists surveyed believe in global warming, and 82% of these 3146 believe it's man made. Among climatologists, this percentage is 97.
These statistics are misleading. I believe it is man made aka not by me using a washing machine or others driving a car. It is literally man made. It is the desire of the world leaders to have another panic button on their dash board of population control techniques, like terrorism ( as this one seems a little thin unlike the iron curtain which achieved it's aims). Socialist politics is green. I am all for being responsible but this is all leading to Thomas Aquinas' ide of rights, responsibilities, needs and the like. This of course will then create by default Roman Catholic Theology on law and order, punishment and persecution but through a cicil authority without having to make it clear that it is in the name of God.
Mike wrote: "One song that the children were taught quotes directly from the spiritual "Jesus Loves the Little Children," though Jesus' name is replaced with Obama's: "He said red, yellow, black or white/All are equal in his sight. Barack Hussein Obama."
Excellent observation, I noticed that. It adds to his messiah complex.
Tony cool it with the term "fool" since scripture says to call no man fool. These guys aren't disagreeing with you on doctrine, but on an ENIGMA, the falsely named Obama. Disagreeing with an opinion is one thing, slurs are quite another.
I would like to see some evidence rather than just flat out opinions. Obama is still in the land of theory. The whole story is not at hand yet.
Obama is not the Anti Christ. He is artificially being made to fulfill some aspects but not all. He has to come from among us "the church" (like the pope, Obama may be seen as doing that) up root 3 horns (the Pope did) have names of blasphemy (like the Pope does) Obama only assume a blaphemous musings, not titles. comes in a name that is not his own (the pope does that, and it appears so does Obama) but he is not antichrist, the Pope is. Lacking one aspect of antichrist then he is not antichrist.
This thing is bigger than being muslim or not christian. Your not asking the right questions.
Obama's ex pastor for the UCC gave Larry Farrakan an award (you know of nation of islam).
Obama's wife has connections with Farrakan's wife.
Farrakan, Schuller and Billy Graham all attended the same masonic lodge.
All have had sanction by the Pope.
Schuller trained Rick Warren who had Obama at his church.
This is just in your neck of the woods, it's going on everywhere
Labels and titles are illusions. We are talking about the erection of the final peices of mystery of iniquity that has been working through the Roman Catholic Church for 1500 years and everything it touches.
These guys don't think in terms like we do. These guys are occultists (more than just the hidden defnition).
These are the ones spoken of by Alice Bailey, Blavatsky, and numerous warnings through the ages by godly men and women.
These men have gazed into the void of the darkness (those who understand know what I speak of) and it has driven them mad.
(Firstly I like you name. Spot on, no disagreement there)
Bouffard, I have video of him speaking with Nury Rivera. He also had the gold pen on him. He shows the ring of a Bishop which was broken.
He also has other evidence he says but he has this in hiding.
This is for good reason I believe, because once all the info is available it will be destroyed along with Bouffard. Equally, it might just be the one thing he has over them that keep him alive.
No Protestant Reformed RC believe's Rivera's credible and that is their perogative. Even Richard Bennett. Rivera's an extreme case and they may be finding it more conducive for evangelism to reach Catholics in a less confronting manner. That is the way they minister.
As for him seeing priests levitating, it would not surprise me. I have seen some pretty demonic things myself, as have other people with me, all dealt with in the name of Jesus.
I have numerous examples I could give.
His story is to me, not far fetched.
What's wrong with Seasame St and the Muppets, don't dis my childhood up bringing. lol
Can I please ad on the mention of Muammar Gadhafi. It came out in the Lockerby Bombing case when the two Lybian agents were extradited to Scotland for the trial that one of the on the stand admitted that Muammar Gadhafi was a Muslim Mason.
The leaders of the world play the part they are required to play and say the things they have to say.
Just thought that might add more light on the discussion.
Thanks for you comments Tony. Yes, I believe by what Dr Rivera said that he could have only been exactly what he claimed, regardless of certain "inconsistencies". If you asked me to give my testimony I would assure you it would not be exactly the same every time. Especially when quoting dates from times in your life you'd rather forget, in many ways have forgotten through past stress, the memory blacks some things out.
He either is the most incredible researcher or he was a Jesuit. I believe he was the latter.
Malchi Martin has validated what he has spoken about, new inforation has been forth coming since his death and keep prooving he was the genuine article.
Hac cathedra, Petrus qua sederat ipse, locatum Maxima Roma Linum primum considere iussit. - "Adversus Marcionem" (Patrologia Latina II, 1099)
The Latin translates:
"On this chair whereupon Peter himself sat The great Rome placed Linus and commanded him to sit."
Tertullian and others say that a true chair exsisted. (On Baptism, 4). "... various churches in which the actual chairs of the Apostles are still standing in their places, in which their own authentic letters are read..." (Prescriptions Against Heretics, 32, 36, by Tertullian).
Early Roman martyrologies record January 18: "The chair of St. Peter on which he first sat at Rome."
St Peter's chair's establishment celebrated on February 22. The second "Chair of Peter" was encased in bronze by Bernini.
There have also been other chairs. See the Catholic Encyclopedia http://www.newadvent.org/cathen 03551e.htm
One was marble, one was wood which was a movable cathedra. Pope Gregory the Great had another one commissioned etc etc.
History attests to the fact that it is a well known problem there are a number of historical chairs upon which it is said to be the said "seat of St Peter".