Catholic, Islam, Mormon, Freemason, Luciferian All these have the SAME ROOTS
Mitt Romney and Glenn Beck are MORMON. DO NOT support them.
They have sold their souls to satan.
It is the LORD, JESUS CHRIST ALONE who judges between heaven and hell.
I am trying to inform others.
Rejecting Jesus as GOD is the unpardonable SIN.
Yeshua Jesus is GOD incarnate, Son of GOD and son of mankind.
QUESTION
When GOD strikes the HEART of America along the New Madrid fault
on the Mississippi River,
will HE send a lesser strike FIRST?
Nearly 100 years ago, the worst quake was the LAST quake.
http://revlu.com/quakes.htm
SBC's Richard Land says Mormonism Fourth Abrahamic Faith
Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever you had formed the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God.
Psalm 90:2
Spiritually Obtuse Evangelicals And Jesus’ Brother Satan
As rapidly apostatizing mainstream evanjellyfish as it continues its lust for acceptance by unregenerate mankind, pitifully begging for his approval, this online apologetics and discernment work of Apprising Ministries has no shortage of silly developing trends to cover. Through evangelicalism’s embrace of the sinfully ecumenial Emerging Church aka Emergent Church, which has grown into a full-blown neo-liberal cult operating within its walls, we’re seeing doctrinal lines blurred and erased at levels unprecedented. Take for example an article of mine from almost three years ago called the Mormon Church Is Now Christian.
I asked within: Does that statement come as a bit of a shock to you? Then I said that if you listen to all the rhetoric a while back from several evangelical Christian leaders who endorsed Robert Millet’s A Different Jesus? The Christ of the Latter-day Saints, a book which was written by a dedicated LDS apologist and actively practicing Mormon, you just might get the impression that Mormonism is now just another acceptable form of Christianity. As I also pointed out Millet is Richard L. Evans Professor of Religious Understanding at Brigham Young University and an active apologist for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormons).
My friend Bud Press of Christian Research Service further informs us that Millet is “the ‘Manager of Outreach and Interfaith Relations’ with the Mormon Church Public Affairs.”[1] I happen to have much experience with Mormon doctrine, as well as with LDS people, from living ten years in a heavily Mormon area of Wyoming not far from Salt Lake City; so in my prior post I used the pro-Mormon Millennial Star blog to show you why having spiritually obtuse “evangelical leaders” lend their name to this book was so welcomed by the LDS Church. Below is what one Mormon writer said:
I applaud Eerdmans for making the offer, Millet for taking the opportunity, and Richard Mouw (who wrote the fore and afterword) for consistantly putting his reputation on the line for the Mormons.
I predict some Evangelicals will actually read it and find that Mormons are not as heretical as previously thought, but not as many as I’d hope. Others will demonize Mouw, Eerdmans and Owen as “giving away the store,” as James White already has. Quelle surprise… (Online source, emphasis mine)
Yes, that’s right; this book of Mormon doctrine was published Eerdmans, and here’s what Dr. Jame White of the fine work Alpha & Omega Ministries astutely observed at the time:
Robert Millet is the Richard L. Evans Professor of Religious Understanding and professor of ancient scripture at Brigham Young University. A believing Mormon, he has been key in the dialogues taking place between certain non-LDS scholars and pastors and LDS scholars from BYU. His book, Another Jesus?, though advertised by Eerdmans as a work “intended to inform rather than to convince or persuade,” is pure apologetic from start to finish. You could find this kind of work at your local LDS bookstore, but thanks to Richard Mouw of Fuller Seminary, now you will be able to find it in your Christian bookstore, too!
Yes, friends and neighbors, not only has Richard Mouw apologized for all of us mean-spirited folks who have labored to witness the true God and the true Christ and the true Gospel to Mormons for decades, but now he has made sure to provide a “Trojan Horse Apologetic,” a work that attacks the Trinity, deity of Christ, sola scriptura, justification by grace through faith alone, the sovereignty of God in salvation, the finished work of Christ on the cross—OK, like I said, it is an LDS work of apologetics, so it is pretty well opposed to sound theology at just about every point—and he has made sure that book will be right there in your local Christian bookstore (how many bookstore owners will recognize it for what it is? Then again, what section will they put it in anyway?). Cards, roses, and copies of the Book of Mormon can be sent to Fuller Seminary in thanks. (Online source)
This would be the same Richard Mouw who was also part of the whole Ravi Zacharias debacle in Salt Lake City “when [Zacharias] accepted an invitation to speak at the LDS temple in Salt Lake City but failed to make any distinction between the true Jesus Christ of the Bible and the demonically inspired false Christ of Mormonism.”[2] So here’s the president of an ostensibly orthodox Christian theological school and Mouw writes both the Foreword and the Afterword for Millet’s book of blasphemy; but it gets even worse as Bill McKeever points out in A Different Jesus? The Christ of the Latter-day Saints (Review). McKeever, who is hardly harsh, tells us:
Richard Mouw, the president of Fuller Theological Seminary, writes the “Foreword” and “After word” to A Different Jesus. He takes full responsibility for Millet writing the book and Eerdmans for publishing it. “Indeed, I encouraged him to write this book, and I urged the Eerdmans folks to publish it” (p.viii)… Mouw has also gained a reputation over the years for the many apologies he has given on behalf of Christians whom he feels have been bearing false witness against the Mormons. He uses his “Foreword” to take another shot…
(Online source)
I’m not the only one noticing this rash of supposed evanjellyfish apologists apologizing for the historic, orthodox, Christian faith, which is the central point I’m drawing out here in this post: We certainly do have an infestation of spiritually spineless people in the church visible posing before people of the world and apologizing for the Gospel of Jesus Christ instead of preaching it to them. Specific to Richard Mouw, as an evangelical Christian here’s what he said in his Afterword of LDS apologist Robert Millet’s book A Different Jesus (ADJ), which also appeared on the websites of LDS bookstores while being used to promote the non-Christian cult of Mormonism:
I think that an open-minded Christian reader of this book will sense that Bob Millet is in fact trusting in the Jesus of the Bible for his salvation. That is certainly my sense.[3]
This despite the fact that Millet clearly states the official Mormon teaching about Christ on page 20 of ADJ—“Jesus was the firstborn spirit child of God the Father.” And there can be no mistake here because I personally have ADJ and in the paragraph before that quote Robert Millet cites LDS “Apostle” Bruce R. McConkie from his book The Promised Messiah—“[Jesus Christ] was born, as were all the spirit children of the Father. God was his father, as he is of all the rest.”[4] Since I covered this in greater depth recently in The “Jesus” Of Glenn Beck here I’ll simply show you the following from the official website of the LDS Church where we read:
On first hearing, the doctrine that Lucifer and our Lord, Jesus Christ, are brothers may seem surprising to some—especially to those unacquainted with latter-day revelations. But both the scriptures and the prophets affirm that Jesus Christ and Lucifer are indeed offspring of our Heavenly Father and, therefore, spirit brothers. (Online source, emphasis mine)
Here’s a news flash: If you claim to be Christian and you can read this official LDS doctrine that our great and mighty, generous and merciful, Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is the brother of Satan without feeling anger rise within then you’d better check to see if you’re even in the faith (see—2 Corinthians 13:5). If Richard Mouw thinks this Jesus, whom Robert Millet has given himself to, is the Jesus of the Bible then it’s well past time for people supporting FTS to investigate what Bible it is he’s reading. And now we consider this from Bill McKeever as he tells how Mouw says he:
has no doubt that Millet has been honest in presenting his case in the book, but at the same time he admits that “The question of whether he really does mean what, say, an evangelical means when he uses the same words that we employ is, of course, a more complicated matter” (p.180). If this is so, doesn’t that place the entire book under suspicion?… (Online source)
Um, ya think? Now in regard to Robert Millet’s laying out “the ‘more’ of Mormonism (baptism for the dead, temple rites, the ancient office of prophet and apostle, golden plates, and new revelations),” McKeever correctly explains that Mouw does admit that these are “reminders that the divide between many LDS doctrines and some key beliefs of Christian orthodoxy is still wide indeed.”[5] Well, I should say so; think Grand Canyonesque, McKeever next tells us :
On the same page, Mouw states that God is “Wholly other – eternal and self-sufficient – who is in a realm of existence that is radically distinct from the creation that was brought into being out of nothing by God’s sovereign decree. On this view of things, to confuse the Creator’s being with anything in his creation is to commit the sin of idolatry. Mormons, on the other hand, talk about God and humans as belonging to the same ‘species.’ Inevitably, then, the differences are described, not in terms of an unbridgeable gap of being, but in a language of ‘more’ and ‘less.’ “ He goes onto say: “This kind of disagreement has profound implications for our understanding of who Jesus Christ is” (p.182). (Online source)
And now we’re about to enter the whacked Wonderland of postmodern Humpty Dumpty language; please keep in mind this is not at all related to Bill McKeever, but rather, what he’s telling us concerning Richard Mouw:
These comments make me question his conclusion on page 183 where he says: “I think that an open-minded Christian reader of this book will sense that Bob Millet is in fact trusting in the Jesus of the Bible for his salvation. This is certainly my sense.” If Mouw agrees that the Mormon view of God is idolatrous, and that this has profound implications for understanding who Jesus is, how can a person like Millet be trusting in the “Jesus of the Bible” when he believes in this idolatrous version of God the Father? Based on Mouw’s explanation in the previous paragraph, should we not conclude that Millet is an idolater when he admits that he believes that “God is an exalted man” (p.145)?
In 1996, Millet also wrote: “Knowing what we know concerning God our Father — that he is a personal being; that he has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as our own; that he is an exalted and glorified being; that he was once a man and dwelt on an earth…” (“The Eternal Gospel,” Ensign (July 1996), p.53). Are we, as Christians, going to change the biblical definition now to say that an idolater can be a saved individual at the same time? Mouw’s reasoning becomes even more problematic when we take into account that the Jesus of Mormonism is the literal offspring of what must be a non-existent God! (Online source)
Twisting The Postmodern Gumby Bible Until Unbelievers Are Also Believers Too
McKeever has insightfully taken us to the heart of the matter here: Why are Christians so willing to try and bend the Bible like Gumby into whatever shape it needs to be so that we can be inclusive and then consider people who are unbelievers, um, believers? This back story from a couple of years ago now sheds much light upon the Glenn Beck issue, where this baptized, and practicing, Mormon is now being considered as Christian albeit in “the fourth Abrahamic religion.” Today in her Washington Post article Glenn Beck may be unlikely leader for conservative Christians Michelle Boorstein informs us:
A few weeks before organizing a massive rally on the Mall that had the feel of a religious revival, Glenn Beck sought the blessing of some of the country’s most prominent conservative Christian leaders. The Fox talk show host wanted their support as he shifted from political commentary to a more spiritual message, he told the group of about 20. This is where God is leading me, Beck declared, according to Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, who was there, along with Focus on the Family founder James Dobson.
Land said most in the group found Beck’s faith genuine and heartfelt, although not everyone agreed to embrace him publicly. “We walked back to the hotel after and said: ‘That was extraordinary,’ ” Land said of his conversation with Dobson after the dinner in Manhattan. “I’ve never heard a cultural figure of that popularity talking that overtly about his faith. He sounded like Billy Graham.” (Online source)
Sounded like Billy Graham; so somehow, Graham’s a Mormon now? Then yesterday Dr. Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, appeared on NPR Radio’s All Things Considered with Melissa Brock and Robert Siegel to discuss Glenn Beck And Obama’s Christianity. The program begins by reminding listeners:
Glenn Beck’s big Washington rally over the weekend was many things: It was a benefit for the Special Operations Warrior Foundation, it was widely described as a Tea Party event, and it turned out to be, as much as anything, a call to faith, a religious rally.
Mr. GLENN BECK (Host, “The Glenn Beck Program”): Something that is beyond man is happening: America today begins to turn back to God. (Online source)
The pertinent question is: Which God? Siegel then asks a question similar to the one I recently discussed with host Derek Gilbert in Pastor Ken Silva On View From The Bunker Podcast: What should we make of this latest mix of religion and politics? Siegel goes on to say:
We’re going to ask one of the guests at the Lincoln Memorial on Saturday what he thinks. Dr. Richard Land has been President of the Southern Baptist Conventions Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission since 1988. He’s considered one of the country’s most influential evangelical Christians. (Online source)
What follows below is part of the transcript from this NPR program where you’ll see “one of the country’s most influential evangelical Christians” in lock-step with apostates Phyllis Tickle—Empress of Emergence Christianity—and Emerging Church guru Brian McLaren trying to get us to believe that Mormonism is supposedly “the fourth Abrahamic faith.” Although. not surprisingly, guru McLaren goes even further and includes Mormonism as a part of Christianity, which you can see for yourself in The New Christianity Of Brian McLaren And The Emerging Church:
Dr. RICHARD LAND (President, Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, Southern Baptist Convention): Well, thank you. It’s good to be with you.
SIEGEL: Let me ask you about that rally: a very partisan political figure, a man who has accused president Obama of being a racist, then questioned his Christianity, holds a big rally with, among others, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. Is the message here that God wants the Republicans to win in November?
Dr. LAND: Well, that certainly would not be the message you got from the rally. The rally did almost everything it could to not be political and to be as ecumenical as possible.
We had rabbis praying. We had Catholic priests praying. We had Muslim imams praying and participating. We had Protestant Christians. And he kept saying over and over again this is not a political event, and politics is not the answer. The answer is spiritual renewal and rebuilding a civil society one person, one family, one church, mosque, synagogue, temple, and one community at a time.
SIEGEL: Are you concerned about what Glenn Beck has said, for example, on “FOX News Sunday,” yesterday, more pointedly than from the podium on Saturday, that Americans do not recognize President Obama’s brand of Christianity? And you share that belief, by the way.
Dr. LAND: Oh, I recognize it. To me, he’s a very typical, mainline, liberal, Protestant Christian. I know lots of people like the president and who have been deeply influenced by liberation theology.
I think liberation theology is wrong. I reject collective salvation as an oxymoron.
SIEGEL: And Mr. Beck’s assertion that most Americans wouldn’t recognize the kind of Christianity that President Obama practices obviously you would disagree with. You say we know what that is.
Dr. LAND: Well, I do. I do know what it is. And I disagree with it. But, you know, it’s a free country, and that’s one reason we have freedom of religion. There were lots of differences of religion that were present at the rally. I mean, you know, you had Jewish rabbis, and as you can imagine, I would have some differences of opinion with Jewish rabbis and with Muslims and with Catholics.
But we were all there together talking about the fact that we need we believe that America needs a return to a greater faith in God, that this country is in trouble, and it’s in trouble at a very basic level. And it’s going to have to be rebuilt at a very basic level and that politics is not the answer.
SIEGEL: Glenn Beck is a Mormon. Is that brand of Christianity as distant or more so from yours than the National Council of Churches mainline Protestantism you…
Dr. LAND: Probably more so.
SIEGEL: More so.
Dr. LAND: And look, Glenn knows this. He said, look, I’m a Mormon. Most Christians don’t think that I’m a Christian. And so, you know, I’ll quote the pope, when he’s talking about liberation theology.
I do not think Mormonism is an orthodox Christian faith, with a small O. I think perhaps the most charitable way for an evangelical Christian to look at Mormonism is to look at Mormonism as the fourth Abrahamic faith.
SIEGEL: Not a Christian faith.
Dr. LAND: Not a Christian faith. (Online source)
Being an SBC minister myself, and having studied Comparative Religion and non-Christian cults for 23+ years, I can assure you that Islam and Mormonism are not Abrahamic faiths, As you’ll read in Keeping You Apprised Of: Islam, the god of the Quran is not the God of the Bible; and Mormonism teaches polytheism (many gods), which is in complete conflict with the monotheism (one God) of the Bible. And so I’ll close this out, for now, with the following from Land Calls Mormonism “The Fourth Abrahamic Faith” While The SBC Calls It a “Cult”, a post today by Kyle Mantyla of the secular site Right Wing Watch. Of Land’s outlandish opinion writes:
Really? That is pretty amazing that Land would place Mormonism on par with Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, especially considering that the Southern Baptist Convention’s North American Mission Board labels Mormonism a “cult” [PDF]… (Online source)
As I essentially asked in Why Glenn Beck Wants To Save America, what does it say about the current state of the man-loving visible church when those who do not even claim to be Christian are showing more discernment than our so-called evangelical leaders?
http://apprising.org/2010/08/31/s...-mormonism-fourth-abrahamic-faith
LDS church - mormon. Glenn Beck is our ENEMY!
Glenn Beck is a Temple Mormon, they believe WE are deceived. They think WE Evangelical Born Again Christians are apostate.
Therefore the Beck phenomenon is part of a subtle attempt to indoctrinate the masses.
Satan is the father of all lies, he can and will do whatever it takes to lead us astray.
Satan our ENEMY can appear as an angel of light, or a charismatic patriot.
And the 'god' Beck serves is Satan, the god of this world.
He sold his soul to the Mormon church cult
Mormonism and Christianity
No one can be a Mormon or a Mason - and a Christian. They are mutually exclusive
Christianity and Mormonism are mutually exclusive terms.
You can NOT insult the intellectual integrity of Christians everywhere
by implying that Mormonism and Christianity share the same philosophical tenets.
May 11, 2007
This persons blog is old but just as relevant today as it was then.
I started listening to Glenn Beck a couple of years ago and have to admit I was quite drawn to his rapid-fire style of conservative commentary. His blend of humor and hard-hitting observations about the state of politics seemed refreshing in comparison to stale and slanted network news drivel. About a year ago Glenn became the host of a televised version of the Glenn Beck Show on CNN Headline News. Apparently the show is doing okay because the secularists running that network have not given him the boot yet. Not long ago I learned that Glenn practices Mormonism within the LDS religion. The hair stood at attention on my neck but I pushed that personal prejudice aside because after all President Reagan confided with the Mormons on his staff didn't he?
During last night's show, Glenn began his monologue in an overly melancholy state and seemed consumed with teary-eyed emotion when discussing Al Sharpton's appearance on the program. Beck informed the audience that Sharpton slighted Mormons everywhere by inferring that Mormons and maybe even Presidential candidate Mitt Romney practiced intolerance and bigotry towards African-Americans seeking to establish relevancy within Utah's favorite religion. Glenn Beck subsequently proceeded to cross the line of known historical truths. Glenn informed his television audience that he was a Christian and certainly not a bigot. Glenn, I believe you are not a bigot. Discussing bigotry with Al Sharpton is like fighting the war on drugs with Robert Downey, Jr. as the head of the DEA.
Neither Sharpton nor Jesse Jackson possess the character or intestinal fortitude to offer humble apologies to the Duke University rape suspects or condemn the moral inadequacy of their accuser. Those sanctioned racists absolutely crucified Don Imus but apparently the coin owns only one shiny side. More troubling than the obvious racial double standard surrounding Sharpton like a hail cloud is Glenn Beck's reference to Christianity and Mormonism. Glenn like many others in his "faith base" refuses to accept that the coupling of those terms defines impossibility. Christianity and Mormonism are mutually exclusive terms.
Here's the real story Glenn. You can practice whatever religion you wish as guaranteed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. You can practice that religion in peace and privacy or among a host of others as guaranteed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. What you cannot do is insult the intellectual integrity of Christians everywhere by implying that Mormonism and Christianity share the same philosophical tenets.
Mormons believe the Bible is flawed and subject to interpretation from modern day prophets. Christians believe the Bible is the sacred and final word and believe the attempt to intertwine modern texts like the Book of Mormon constitutes nothing short of blaspheme. Mormons believe in a multitude of celestial kingdoms and not only will Mormons sit at the right hand of God but become exalted Gods themselves after a lifetime of performing self-meriting works on Earth. Christians believe in salvation through a baptismal in faith and humbling oneself before the Lord on Earth and in Heaven as a servant and not an equal. Mormons believe Joseph Smith had the "book" divinely revealed to him in the hills in 1829. Christians believe Smith little more than a slick talking used car salesman with a penchant for the company of many women. The Mormons successfully changed their own doctrine more than 150 times since banning plural marriage in the late 1800's. The ban exists because of political pressures and not because of religious belief or the adherence to a Christian moral code.
I could go on and on but won't because if Glenn read this and is truly a practicing Mormon, the same taught response sets in. Deny, label the writer as anti-Mormon, and let the apologists for the religion begin a campaign of rebuttal and refutation. At all costs do not examine the critics and their contentions. For God's sake, don't read what Mormonism's opponents write even if the study of such opposition sheds factual light on the dogma being forced into you on those long Sundays.
Here are some topics of interest for those that follow these issues. The divine "secret" writings of Abraham supposedly possessed by Smith written on ancient Egyptian papyrus simply stands as fraudulent. An interpretation revealed nothing more than Egyptian funerary instructions on the "sacred" parchment. Smith found the papyrus when he bought an Egyptian mummy from a traveling sideshow or circus act.
The Mormon texts fail to meet any Christian standards in relation to defining the text as authentic during the period of Apostolic authorship. It is believed by many Christians that the attempt to supersede the Bible with the works of Smith parallel what Catholics call heresy. The Bible is pretty clear about "turning away" from the teachings of Christ as revealed by the apostles in the New Testament. There is no doubt in my mind or the minds of many scholars that Smith's divine revelations as professed in Mormon texts were simply based on his own life and embellished much like a good novelist does. The religion simply bears no semblance to Christianity other than the bits and morsels included to spearhead the religion's recruiting drives.
Of all people, Glenn knows the damage caused by statements like "I'm a Christian." Glenn you are an admitted Mormon so accept it on its own merit and do not dishonor the Holy Bible by referencing Christianity and Mormonism in the same breath. You rail against partisan bickering on Capitol hill and the damage done by disguising truth and progress under a veil of political correctness. Silly Al Sharpton takes a poke at Mormonism and Mitt Romney and the apparent latent dose of political correctness hiding in you spills forth for all to see. Maybe that is a learned and endorsed response to attacks on Mormonism. You can profess to adhere to Mormonism all you want with or without the public emotion and chagrin. You may want to get used to hearing a few candid and plausible refutations from those in the broader Christian community that label the Mormon religion as false and intellectually debilitating. I patiently await the expected barrage from the rabid and misguided attack mongers.
http://montanaconservative.blogsp...nn-beck-takes-huge-step-back.html
Masonic Lodge and Christianity conflict
The Masonic Lodge: What Goes on Behind Closed Doors?
How do the teachings of the Masonic Lodge conflict with Christianity?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-quyKwHr6c
`
Last edited by CJ on Tue Sep 20, 2011 7:33 am; edited 1 time in total
Be Alert! (Mark 13:33) On Watch at the Door. No 89. November 9, 2010
REFORMATION DAY - OCTOBER 31, 2010
Breakoff from the Roman Catholic Church
Reformation Day is a public holiday in five states in Germany, but is also celebrated by many churches around the world.
It commemorates when the German monk Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses on the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany, on 31st October 1517, and so started a religious and social Reformation.
Since Vatican Council II in 1965, the Vatican has worked hard to bring all “separated brethren” back home to Rome.
Some highly influential evangelical leaders have united with them to help reverse the Reformation.
Nearly half a million evangelicals have signed The Manhattan Declaration which seeks unity among Catholics and evangelicals on cultural issues.
It implies that Roman Catholics, Orthodox, and evangelicals are all Christians and are united in a common faith.
Another document, Evangelicals and Catholics together (1994), was signed by well-known evangelicals and Catholics and was trumpeted as a defining moment in Protestant-Catholic relations.
More and more evangelicals are now embracing Roman Catholics as brothers and sisters in Christ.
In May 2005 a senior pastor of Irvine Bible Church in Texas wrote in the church magazine:
“The rift that occurred between Catholics and Protestants 500 years ago is theological pettiness.
It is just plain silly to write each other off as far as true Christianity is concerned.
We'll have plenty of time in Heaven to figure out who was right about Purgatory and Mary.” So was the 16thC Reformation a mistake?
Mike Gendron says that evangelical leaders who have signed these accords may not know how
diametrically opposed the Roman Catholic Gospel is to the Gospel of grace.
“Catholics must be baptized, receive the sacraments, keep the law, do good works, perform indulgences, participate in the sin offering of the Eucharistic "Jesus" on their altars and eat His body and drink His blood.
Even when a Catholic does his/her best to meet these requirements, their religion offers no assurance of salvation.
It was for this reason the Reformers proclaimed "Sola Scriptura" (Scripture Alone); "Sola Gratia" (Grace Alone); "Sola Fide" (Faith Alone); "Solus Christus" (Christ Alone); and "Soli Deo Gloria" (To God Alone Be Glory).
It was also for this reason many were brutally tortured, savagely beaten and hideously burned at the stake by orders from the papacy.”
Many of the teachings of Roman Catholicism stand opposed to the Bible. In the following contrasts, paragraph numbers in parenthesis are from the new Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1994.
The Bible teaches Scripture has authority over the church. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness (2 Tim 3:16).
Catholicism teaches the Church has authority over Scripture. The manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgment of the Church…to the Pope and to the bishops (100,119).
The Bible teaches that man is saved by God’s unmerited grace. For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God, not by works, so that no one can boast (Eph 2:8-9).
Catholicism teaches man is saved by meriting the graces needed for salvation. We can merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for the attainment of eternal life (2010).
The Bible teaches that all sins are purified by the blood of Jesus (1John 1:7).
Catholicism teaches that some sins are purified by the fires of Purgatory (1030-31).
The Bible teaches man becomes a saint when the Spirit baptises him into the body of Christ (Eph 4:11-12).
Catholicism teaches man becomes a saint only if the Pope canonises him. This occurs when he solemnly proclaims that they practiced a heroic virtue and lived in fidelity to God’s grace (828).
The Bible teaches every Christian is a priest and a member of the royal priesthood (1 Peter 2:9).
Catholicism teaches every man needs a priest for salvation. Catholic priests guarantee that Christ is acting in the sacraments which are necessary for salvation (1120-29).
The Bible teaches the Lord’s Supper is a memorial. “Do this in remembrance of me.” (1 Cor 11:24-25).
Catholicism teaches that Lord’s Supper is a sacrifice. The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice…the same Christ who offered Himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and offered in an unbloody manner (1367).
The Bible condemns anyone who perverts the Gospel. If we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! (Gal 1:6-9).
Catholicism condemns with over 100 anathemas those who believe the Bible instead of the Canons of the Council of Trent.
“No man can redeem the life of another or give to God a ransom for him - the ransom for a life is costly, no payment is ever enough - that he should live on forever and not see decay.” - Psalm 49:7-9
PART 2: HOW TO DISCERN - HOW TO SMELL A RAT
The apostle Paul tells us in 1 Thessalonians 5:21-22 to test everything, to hold on to the good and avoid every kind of evil. Do you hear that? Everything must be checked and it must be checked against the Word.
Anton Bosch says, “We live in dangerous times and the world is filled with deceivers, false prophets, wolves in sheep’s clothing and heretics.
Those who preach the Truth are a small minority while the false apostles wield massive budgets with which they dominate every form of media.
No matter whether you listen to “Christian” radio, watch “Christian” television look at “Christian” websites or enter a “Christian” bookstore, the odds are stacked against the possibility that you will be exposed to truth.
Yet every day thousands are deceived into believing anything that is sold under the banner of “Christian.”
It is thus imperative that we carefully check every word we hear or read.”
The following are based on points that Bosch makes:
Firstly, listen to the voice of the Holy Spirit (John 16:13). Do not use this as the sole basis for your decision, but the promptings of the Holy Spirit may make you feel uneasy about something, so stop and check it out with the Word.
Also, a good feeling about a person or their teaching does not mean it is right. It is easy for us to go along with things that “tickle our ears.”
2 Timothy 4:3
Secondly, ask, “Does what you hear line up with Scripture?” Error is easily supported by isolated verses out of context. Look at the whole counsel of God.
Thirdly, check out for yourself exactly what the Bible teaches on the matter. Don’t accept a preacher’s teachings simply because he is a prominent figure, pastor of a big church, speaks convincingly, etc. If you have a concordance use it to follow teaching on a particular topic.
Fourthly, Bosch says to question whether the teaching is new or is it representative of what the church has always believed. This presupposes that you know the fundamentals of your own faith.
There is a lot of “new revelation” in the church today which is not biblical. If you don’t know the basics of your faith you can easily be caught up in deception.
Fifthly, does the message contain flaws in logic? Bosch gives an example:
“God made Abraham rich with material things; God made Isaac rich (materially); God made Jacob rich (materially); therefore God will make you rich with material things.
Wrong. There is no direct link between the Patriarchs, material blessings and you – even though many like to say so.”
Sixthly, is there evidence of dishonesty? Does the preacher/author ignore any verses that would disprove his point and only use those that support his idea?
Are the meanings of words changed? Does he choose a translation or paraphrase of the Bible that would support his view? Are there factual errors?
Standing for biblical truth is not a popular position in the church today, but we must do it. We can’t be complacent or apathetic.
SIGNS OF THE TIMES
Of special concern is the increase in dialogue between Christians and people of other faiths. We should be witnessing to them, not looking for common agendas. What fellowship can light have with darkness? 2 Cor 6:14. Only Christianity has the true light, our Lord Jesus Christ.
1) Christians and Muslim leaders have gathered together in Geneva for a high-level interfaith dialogue on how to build strong and sustainable peaceful relationships. The event was hosted by the World Council of Churches’ Ecumenical Center.
2) The Vatican has sent a message to Hindus on the occasion of the feast of Diwali, the festival of light. It speaks about the importance of engaging in interreligious dialogue so that respect and trust will grow and lead to increased cooperation.
3) Peter Kreeft’s books are widely read on Christian college campuses. His latest book, Between Allah and Jesus: What Christians Can Learn from Muslims, claims that the things Muslims and Christians have in common are more important than the things that separate them. He even says we can learn a lot from Islam.
4) A transformation is being imposed on the US military by the Obama administration.
The occult is also now openly accepted and promoted and they would also like to see homosexuality openly condoned.
At present homosexuality on the part of soldiers is a court-martial offence. If the law is changed, chaplains would be dealt with who speak out against homosexuality.
The FBI is recruiting Muslims and partnering with known jihadists. People who don’t like these changes are being asked to undergo “diversity training.”
Hitler needed people like these with seared consciences in his army to carry out the evilness of the Holocaust. It is like the days just before Hitler came to power.
Christian leaders are now getting out of the military which they thought would be a life-long career.
5) Recently we delighted in Lonely Planet’s selection of Wellington as being the fourth best city in the world.
Tel Aviv in Israel was ranked third best. On its website Lonely Planet says: “Hedonism is the one religion that unites its inhabitants.
There are more bars than synagogues, God is a DJ and everyone’s body is a temple.” Tel Aviv also won praise for its tolerant attitudes and thriving gay culture. It has openly gay beaches and a gay-friendly culture.
The city and the Israeli Ministry of Tourism have actually engaged in international advertising campaigns to promote Tel Aviv as the gay capital of the Middle East.
Perhaps I should find out why Wellington got fourth placing!
contact Val - email vhollard@xtra.co.nz
Posted: Mon Jan 03, 2011 12:59 pm Post subject: Quran verses prove Islam is violent
Got this off another MB - Quran verses prove Islam is violent and sick!
Quran (2:191-193) - "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]...and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah." There is a good case to be made that the textual context of this particular passage is defensive war, even if the historical context was not. However, there are also two worrisome pieces to this verse. The first is that the killing of others is authorized in the event of "persecution" (a qualification that is ambiguous at best). The second is that fighting may persist until "religion is for Allah." The example set by Muhammad is not reassuring.
Quran (2:244) - "Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things."
Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding caravans with this verse.
Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."
Quran (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast TERROR into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority". This speaks directly of polytheists, yet it also includes Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly believed to be 'joining companions to Allah').
Quran (4:74) - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward." The martyrs of Islam are unlike the early Christians, led meekly to the slaughter. These Muslims are killed in battle, as they attempt to inflict death and destruction for the cause of Allah. Here is the theological basis for today's suicide bombers.
Quran (4:76) - "Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…"
Quran (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks."
Quran (4:95) - ". Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (iNot equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their personsn Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,-" This passage criticizes "peaceful" Muslims who do not join in the violence, letting them know that they are less worthy in Allah's eyes. It also demolishes the modern myth that "Jihad" doesn't mean holy war in the Quran, but rather a spiritual struggle. Not only is the Arabic word used in this passage, but it is clearly not referring to anything spiritual, since the physically disabled are given exemption. (The Hadith reveals the context of the passage to be in response to a blind man's protest that he is unable to engage in Jihad and this is reflected in other translations of the verse).
Quran (4:104) - "And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain..." Is pursuing an injured and retreating enemy really an act of self-defense?
Quran (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement"
Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" No reasonable person would interpret this to mean a spiritual struggle.
Quran (8:15) - "O ye who believe! When ye meet those who disbelieve in battle, turn not your backs to them. (16)Whoso on that day turneth his back to them, unless maneuvering for battle or intent to join a company, he truly hath incurred wrath from Allah, and his habitation will be hell, a hapless journey's end."
Quran (8:39) - "And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah" From the historical context we know that the "persecution" spoken of here was simply the refusal by the Meccans to allow Muhammad to enter their city and perform the Haj. Other Muslims were able to travel there, just not as an armed group, since Muhammad declared war on Mecca prior to his eviction. The Meccans were also acting in defense of their religion, since it was Muhammad's intention to destroy their idols and establish Islam by force (which he later did). Hence the critical part of this verse is to fight until "religion is only for Allah." According to Ibn Ishaq (324), Muhammad justified the violence further by explaining that "Allah must have no rivals."
Quran (8:57) - "If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, that haply they may remember."
Quran (8:59-60) - "And let not those who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip (Allah's Purpose). Lo! they cannot escape. Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy."
Quran (9:5 ) - "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them." According to this verse, the best way of staying safe from Muslim violence is to convert to Islam. Prayer (salat) and the poor tax (zakat) are among the religions Five Pillars.
Quran (9:14) - "Fight them, Allah will punish them by your hands and bring them to disgrace..."
Quran (9:20) - "Those who believe, and have left their homes and striven with their wealth and their lives in Allah's way are of much greater worth in Allah's sight. These are they who are triumphant." The "striving" spoken of here is Jihad.
Quran (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." "People of the Book" refers to Christians and Jews. This was one of the final "revelations" from Allah and it set in motion the tenacious military expansion, in which Muhammad's companions managed to conquer two-thirds of the Christian world in just the next 100 years. Islam is intended to dominate all other people and faiths.
Quran (9:30) - "And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!"
Quran (9:38-39) - "O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place." This is a warning to those who refuse to fight, that they will be punished with Hell.
Quran (9:41) - "Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah! That is best for you if ye but knew." See also the verse that follows (9:42) - "If there had been immediate gain (in sight), and the journey easy, they would (all) without doubt have followed thee, but the distance was long, (and weighed) on them" This contradicts the myth that Muslims are to fight only in self-defense, since the wording implies that battle will be waged a long distance from home (in another country and on Christian soil, in this case, according to the historians).
Quran (9:73) - "O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination." Dehumanizing those who reject Islam, by reminding Muslims that they are merely firewood for Hell, makes it easier to justify slaughter. It also explains why today's devout Muslims have little regard for those outside the faith.
Quran (9: 8 - "But the Messenger, and those who believe with him, strive and fight with their wealth and their persons: for them are (all) good things: and it is they who will prosper."
Quran (9:111) - "Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Quran: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme."
Quran (9:123) - "O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness."
Quran (18:65-81) - This parable lays the theological groundwork for honor killings, in which a family member is murdered because they brought shame to the family, either through apostasy or perceived moral indiscretion. The story, which is not found in any Jewish or Christian source, tells of Moses encountering a man with "special knowledge" who does things which don't seem to make sense on the surface, but are then justified according to later explanation. One such action is to murder a youth for no apparent reason (74). However, the wise man later explains that it was feared that the boy would "grieve" his parents by "disobedience and ingratitude." He was killed so that Allah could provide them a 'better' son.
Quran (21:44) - "We gave the good things of this life to these men and their fathers until the period grew long for them; See they not that We gradually reduce the land (in their control) from its outlying borders? Is it then they who will win?"
Quran (25:52) - "Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness..." "Strive against" is Jihad - obviously not in the personal context. It's also significant to point out that this is a Meccan verse.
Quran (33:60-62) - "If the hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease, and the alarmists in the city do not cease, We verily shall urge thee on against them, then they will be your neighbors in it but a little while. Accursed, they will be seized wherever found and slain with a (fierce) slaughter." This passage sanctions the slaughter (rendered "merciless" and "horrible murder" in other translations) against three groups: Hypocrites (Muslims who refuse to "fight in the way of Allah" (3:167) and hence don't act as Muslims should), those with "diseased hearts" (which include Jews and Christians 5:51-52), and "alarmists" or "agitators who include those who merely speak out against Islam, according to Muhammad's biographers. It is worth noting that the victims are to be sought out by Muslims, which is what today's terrorists do. If this passage is meant merely to apply to the city of Medina, then it is unclear why it is included in Allah's eternal word to Muslim generations.
Quran (47:3-4) - "Those who reject Allah follow vanities, while those who believe follow the truth from their lord. Thus does Allah set forth form men their lessons by similtudes. Therefore when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners," Those who reject Allah are to be subdued in battle. The verse goes on to say the only reason Allah doesn't do the dirty work himself is in order to to test the faithfulness of Muslims. Those who kill pass the test. "But if it had been Allah's Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost."
Quran (47:35) - "Be not weary and faint-hearted, crying for peace, when ye should be uppermost (Shakir: "have the upper hand") for Allah is with you," This very important verse asserts that the Religion of Peace is not to grant peace to the broader society until Islamic rule has been established.
Quran (48:17) - "There is no blame for the blind, nor is there blame for the lame, nor is there blame for the sick (that they go not forth to war). And whoso obeyeth Allah and His messenger, He will make him enter Gardens underneath which rivers flow; and whoso turneth back, him will He punish with a painful doom." Contemporary apologists sometimes claim that Jihad means 'spiritual struggle.' Is so, then why are the blind, lame and sick exempted?
Quran (48:29) - "Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves" Islam is not about treating everyone equally. There are two very distinct standards that are applied based on religious status.
Quran (61:4) - "Surely Allah loves those who fight in His way" Religion of Peace, indeed! This is followed by (61:9): "He it is who has sent His Messenger (Mohammed) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam) to make it victorious over all religions even though the infidels may resist."
Quran (61:10-12) - "O ye who believe! Shall I lead you to a bargain that will save you from a grievous Penalty?- That ye believe in Allah and His Messenger, and that ye strive (your utmost) in the Cause of Allah, with your property and your persons: That will be best for you, if ye but knew! He will forgive you your sins, and admit you to Gardens beneath which Rivers flow, and to beautiful mansions in Gardens of Eternity." This verse was given in battle. It uses the Arabic word, Jihad.
Quran (66:9) - "O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern with them. Hell will be their home, a hapless journey's end." The root word of "Jihad" is used again here. The context is clearly holy war, and the scope of violence is broadened to include "hypocrites" - those who call themselves Muslims but do not act as such.
Posted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 6:21 am Post subject: First they came . . . . . NEVER CHOOSE BLINDNESS
First they came . . . . .
NEVER CHOOSE BLINDNESS!
First they came for the Jews, Christians, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the ( blacks, Muslims, Communists, ) and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for me and there was no one was left to speak out for me.
Originally Pastor Martin Niemoller, periodicly revised, periodly needed
It has been over 60 years after the Second World War in Europe ended. 6 million Jews, 20 million Russians, 10 million Christians
and 1,900 Catholic priests were murdered, massacred, raped, burned, starved and humiliated with the German and Russian peoples
looking the other way! Now, more than ever, with Iran, among others, claiming the Holocaust to be a myth, it is imperative to
make sure the world never forgets, because they want to do it again.
Glendale man gets 34 ½ years prison in 'honor killing' case
4/15/11
Judge Roland Steinle sentenced Faleh Hassan Al-Maleki, 50, the Glendale man who ran down his 20-year-old daughter in Peoria in 2009, to 34 ½ years in prison Friday afternoon.
He will serve 16 years for the death of his daughter, Noor Al-Maleki. He will serve 15 years for the aggravated assault of Amal Khalaf, a family friend who was with Noor.
He will also serve 3 ½ years for leaving the scene of the accident.
A Glendale Arizona Muslim man who killed his daughter and injured a friend was sentenced
to 30 years in prison.
ONLY 30 YEARS - FOR MURDER - and he WILL be freed in far less!
Faleh Hassan Al-Maleki found guilty in the killing of his 20-year-old daughter Noor. azcentral
Glenn Beck Jerusalem rally for Mormonism
White horse prophecy. Are mormons christian?
So much more information you need to know here!
http://cj.myfreeforum.org/about2041.html
.
Last edited by CJ on Mon Jan 30, 2012 5:37 pm; edited 1 time in total
British Muslims Urged to Reject Democracy, Embrace Shari’a-Ruled ‘Emirates’
7/15/11
Part of a poster a Muslim group says it will put up in Muslim neighborhoods in Britain as part of its call for “emirates” to be established under Islamic law
A British Islamic group known for its provocative publicity stunts says a borough in northeast London will be the first target of a campaign to establish “emirates” in the country – Muslim enclaves where shari’a law is enforced.
Waltham Forest, an area identified in the most recent census figures available as having the fifth-biggest proportion of Muslims – 15 percent – of any local authority in England or Wales, has been singled out by radicals behind the group calling itself Muslims Against Crusades (MAC).
“As part of our Islamic Emirate Project, Waltham Forest is to be the first borough to be targeted for an intense shari’a led campaign, introducing the prospect of Islamic law for the Muslim community to abide by,” MAC said in a statement this week.
The project aims to “gradually transform Muslim communities into Islamic Emirates operating under shari’a law,” the group said.
“You are entering a Shariah controlled zone – Islamic rules enforced,” declares a poster supposedly to be distributed as part of the campaign.
The poster, depicted on MAC’s Web site, warns that alcohol, gambling, drugs, smoking, ****ography, prostitution and music concerts will be prohibited.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Join! (free) 
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
- "But the Messenger, and those who believe with him, strive and fight with their wealth and their persons: for them are (all) good things: and it is they who will prosper."
