In our society, sophisticated people know that other sophisticated people do not speak the truth. It is acceptable in that stratification for people to say pleasant things to lull the unsuspecting person into believing that you want what they want. It is acceptable to make promises that one cannot keep. It is acceptable to say one thing to one person and tailor what was just said to another in a different way, that is, to spin it. Sophisticated people do not rely upon smooze or sweet talk or whatever you call it. If they want a serious answer to a serious question, they resort to writing things down and having someone sign what was said. But how would Jesus look at that and how should we look at smooze.
Matthew's Gospel reports that Jesus said, "Let your 'Yes" mean 'Yes', and your 'No' mean 'No. Anything more is from the evil one. Matthew 5:37. In the early Church, there was a sin called double-tongued. The Didache at 2:4-5 says, "You shall not be double-minded or double-tongued; for duplicity of tongue is a snare of death. Your speech shall not be false or vain, but fulfilled by deed."
Our President and Senator John McCain sparred with each other in the last election. Each made promises and statements about how they believed. Neither has done what they said and some of what they promised to do, each could have done with a proper vote or the stroke of a pen. Yet, these men are the role models for us and our children. They are some of the worse offenders of the commands of Jesus and any claim that they are not vicious and viral sinners is false. But we put up with this activity, because we do it ourselves. People who get ahead in this world must learn to smooze. You can be assured that he who is successful in people oriented professions must be double-tongued and double-minded.
But on the day of Judgment, the Lord will say to these people, I never you because you promised great things to many people and did none of them.
Let me urge my readers to reject the teachings of this world. Tell people what you really mean, and do not allow silence to be misinterpreted. Turn away from a environment of lies and seek the truth. I know a man who is convinced that he is a saint and yet he does evil every day with his mouth. It is not surprising that Ephesians calls the only offensive weapon in the armory of the Christian, the Word of G-d that will splint flesh from the bone.
Friday, April 30, 2010
Monday, April 26, 2010
Should Governments Be Involved With Religion?
The first answer to this question from a biblical perspective is yes. From the earliest time, religion supported the ruler and thus the ruler supported religion. Such an arrangement seemed natural to the people from the beginning and those who made up the majority of any locality expected the government to support their religion. In those rare cases in which the government or the ruler converted to a new religion, inevitably the government forced a new religion on the people. Such an event occurred in Israel after the accession of David as King. Scripture does not record what occurred in clear terms, but we see in the pronouncements of the Yahwist a state interest. Certainly, we see a strong state interest in the Deuteronomist.
Up until the accession of David, the people of Israel believed that YHVH was the G-d of Israel. There were other gods in Egypt, among the Canaanites, in Chaldea, in Babylon, in Assyria, in Hatti and other countries. Everyone knew that YHVH was the son of El and that he was appointed to rule over Israel. Deuteronomy 32:9 confirms this fact. But after the accession of David, we see the government moving for centralized control of the state and as it did, it sought to control the religion as well. The people who worshiped YHVH as their King also worshiped Ba'al who claimed Kingship in Lebanon; Asherah, their sister; and El who is called Elyon, the Highest, and Shaddai, the Almighty. Slowly, in the time after David and up until the reign of Josiah, we see what is called conflation in which the nature, power, and interests of first El, then Ba'al and finally Asherah are attributed not to them but to YHVH. He becomes the only G-d, not just the G-d of Israel. This conflation supported the centralization of the government which eventually suppressed religious sites at Arad, Bethel, Shechem, Nob, and Samaria in favor of Jerusalem.
In America, there was no supreme G-d. Jehovah was certainly the G-d of the Protestants. The Lord was the G-d of the Catholics. YHVH was the G-d of the Jews. Manitou was the G-d of the Iroqois and other Great Lakes Indians. Allah of the Muslims was here as well. Also, there was the Great Architect of the Masons and the Deist G-d who was far away.
The Masonic point of view held sway in America. Every man should believe in a supreme deity and no man should discuss in public that belief. Such a position became the official position when the Constitution forbade the establishment of one G-d over another. No preference was made for any g-d and certainly the Founding Fathers had no truck with atheists as Masons considered atheists as morally degenerate. The Constitution does not establish a religion, but neither is it inimical to religion. However, even the Declaration of Independence, the most radical of documents, treasonous in the new nation, mentions Nature's G-d and gives sway to his right to know why a people would separate themselves from another people who have the same G-d.
The American Government is not supported by religion per se although Mormonism makes Americanism religious. Because many people, motivated no doubt by the same natural empathy as those early Hebrews, feel that the state and the church should uphold each other, want the American government to be controlled by religious opinions, we have seen an upsurge of religious involvement in matters of the state. Such a position is biblical. Such a position is well within the spectrum of what the people in America felt in the time when the Constitution was made. However, the founding fathers lived in States which had a state religion. The Constitution did not seek to disestablish any of the State religions and there is no indication that it did. In our unique system, the 10th Amendment reserved to the States the power to influence religion. I recognize that the Supreme Court has not dealt directly with this question and its rulings about the 10 Commandments on the courthouse steps have been inimical to this concept. But, the Supreme Court has a long history of usurping the 10th Amendment and needs to be re-educated. The current Sovereignty Movement is the first step towards re-establishing the limited sovereignty of the States and ultimately State Religion.
The situation is better now than it has been. When I first started practicing law, a new congregation, a non-denominational congregation, had to jump through many hoops to declare its existence for purposes of taxation. The congregation had to have a method of educating its clergy, had to have a process of ordaining its clergy, had to maintain strict records of giving, had to account for its money, and was generally overseen by the government. When the Servants of G-d Evangelical Mission was formed in 1981, it received some substantial support from one person and thus as that one person gave more than half of its support, the congregation was deemed a private foundation and subjected to significant public scrutiny and control. All of that has changed. Now, a group of people may ask the government for a federal employer identification number declaring that they are a religious congregation and the granting of that number is sufficient to exempt that new congregation from further scrutiny. They use that number to gain exemption from state sales tax and local sales tax. They use that number to open bank accounts which are not subject to federal review. While the Supreme Court was busy throwing the Ten Commandments out of every courthouse, but its own, Congress was reaffirming the separation of Church and State by removing the previous controls. Nonetheless, the actions at Waco and with the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of LDS show the government still involved with the suppression of religion.
In a pluralistic society, morality must be decided by the Church. There is no room for 536 legislators in Washington and 9 Jurists on the Supreme Court to dictate what is religious and what is not. If we are to avoid the inherent dangers of a state church, dangers well documented in the histories of all the continents, we must allow a full separation of Church and State with a clear understanding that the State will neither encourage nor discourage belief, not just religion, but belief. The right to be an atheist must be supported so that those who are on the other side may exist. Plural marriage is biblical and must not be stopped. Bigamy laws are inherently Christian and date from Roman times, when Rome set the rules for religion. Morality must be controlled by the Church. At the same time, as the State steps back from Church control, the Church must step back from political actions such as the accumulation of guns and participation of the church in politics. Separation is complete only when both sides desist from attempting to control the other. All laws governing marriage must be abolished. Only the Church should support the institution of marriage. The State cannot support this institution without becoming involved in issues of who can perform marriage and who may be married. Let the Churches decide who they will marry and how many they will marry.
The State has a legitimate interest in registering and understanding the stated positions of every religious group, for the sole purpose of defining the boundary between the two. The State has a legitimate right to require the Church to stay out of politics. The State must desist from morality. The State must not adopt the morality of the majority and make it law. Few people would want to follow my strict rules of morality, forbidding the showing of any part of the body by either sex in public; forbidding the sale of pork in America; stripping the seafood industry of its right to exist; strictly governing the sale of meat and the treatment of animals; and numerous other acts which the Torah requires. Likewise, dancing, drinking, and gambling are not problems in same gender situations are always allowable, in my view. Religious prostitution should be exempt from state oversight. No one thinks that the biblical injunctions should be strictly enforced, but the State should not become involved with deciding which ones are allowable and which ones are not.
The legitimate concerns of the State are the maintenance of a system of order, the protection of the property rights, the guarantee of human rights, and support of parental rights. In doing those important acts, it may need to have a standing defense force, a foreign policy, and post and defense roads. The clear gifts of authority from the States to the Federal government should be respected. But, the States should begin a new dialogue not only with the Federal Government but with Religion to define their role in the declaration of morality. Some states with a strong history of religious tolerance like Rhode Island may support new religious ideas more easily than Maryland with a strong Catholic bent. People may move to those states where their religion is most free, like California for instance. But for the most part, the Federal government should not be involved with religion and the State government should become more involved with religion.
As in all things, these musings come from my background as both a religious person and a lawyer. Feel free to comment.
Up until the accession of David, the people of Israel believed that YHVH was the G-d of Israel. There were other gods in Egypt, among the Canaanites, in Chaldea, in Babylon, in Assyria, in Hatti and other countries. Everyone knew that YHVH was the son of El and that he was appointed to rule over Israel. Deuteronomy 32:9 confirms this fact. But after the accession of David, we see the government moving for centralized control of the state and as it did, it sought to control the religion as well. The people who worshiped YHVH as their King also worshiped Ba'al who claimed Kingship in Lebanon; Asherah, their sister; and El who is called Elyon, the Highest, and Shaddai, the Almighty. Slowly, in the time after David and up until the reign of Josiah, we see what is called conflation in which the nature, power, and interests of first El, then Ba'al and finally Asherah are attributed not to them but to YHVH. He becomes the only G-d, not just the G-d of Israel. This conflation supported the centralization of the government which eventually suppressed religious sites at Arad, Bethel, Shechem, Nob, and Samaria in favor of Jerusalem.
In America, there was no supreme G-d. Jehovah was certainly the G-d of the Protestants. The Lord was the G-d of the Catholics. YHVH was the G-d of the Jews. Manitou was the G-d of the Iroqois and other Great Lakes Indians. Allah of the Muslims was here as well. Also, there was the Great Architect of the Masons and the Deist G-d who was far away.
The Masonic point of view held sway in America. Every man should believe in a supreme deity and no man should discuss in public that belief. Such a position became the official position when the Constitution forbade the establishment of one G-d over another. No preference was made for any g-d and certainly the Founding Fathers had no truck with atheists as Masons considered atheists as morally degenerate. The Constitution does not establish a religion, but neither is it inimical to religion. However, even the Declaration of Independence, the most radical of documents, treasonous in the new nation, mentions Nature's G-d and gives sway to his right to know why a people would separate themselves from another people who have the same G-d.
The American Government is not supported by religion per se although Mormonism makes Americanism religious. Because many people, motivated no doubt by the same natural empathy as those early Hebrews, feel that the state and the church should uphold each other, want the American government to be controlled by religious opinions, we have seen an upsurge of religious involvement in matters of the state. Such a position is biblical. Such a position is well within the spectrum of what the people in America felt in the time when the Constitution was made. However, the founding fathers lived in States which had a state religion. The Constitution did not seek to disestablish any of the State religions and there is no indication that it did. In our unique system, the 10th Amendment reserved to the States the power to influence religion. I recognize that the Supreme Court has not dealt directly with this question and its rulings about the 10 Commandments on the courthouse steps have been inimical to this concept. But, the Supreme Court has a long history of usurping the 10th Amendment and needs to be re-educated. The current Sovereignty Movement is the first step towards re-establishing the limited sovereignty of the States and ultimately State Religion.
The situation is better now than it has been. When I first started practicing law, a new congregation, a non-denominational congregation, had to jump through many hoops to declare its existence for purposes of taxation. The congregation had to have a method of educating its clergy, had to have a process of ordaining its clergy, had to maintain strict records of giving, had to account for its money, and was generally overseen by the government. When the Servants of G-d Evangelical Mission was formed in 1981, it received some substantial support from one person and thus as that one person gave more than half of its support, the congregation was deemed a private foundation and subjected to significant public scrutiny and control. All of that has changed. Now, a group of people may ask the government for a federal employer identification number declaring that they are a religious congregation and the granting of that number is sufficient to exempt that new congregation from further scrutiny. They use that number to gain exemption from state sales tax and local sales tax. They use that number to open bank accounts which are not subject to federal review. While the Supreme Court was busy throwing the Ten Commandments out of every courthouse, but its own, Congress was reaffirming the separation of Church and State by removing the previous controls. Nonetheless, the actions at Waco and with the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of LDS show the government still involved with the suppression of religion.
In a pluralistic society, morality must be decided by the Church. There is no room for 536 legislators in Washington and 9 Jurists on the Supreme Court to dictate what is religious and what is not. If we are to avoid the inherent dangers of a state church, dangers well documented in the histories of all the continents, we must allow a full separation of Church and State with a clear understanding that the State will neither encourage nor discourage belief, not just religion, but belief. The right to be an atheist must be supported so that those who are on the other side may exist. Plural marriage is biblical and must not be stopped. Bigamy laws are inherently Christian and date from Roman times, when Rome set the rules for religion. Morality must be controlled by the Church. At the same time, as the State steps back from Church control, the Church must step back from political actions such as the accumulation of guns and participation of the church in politics. Separation is complete only when both sides desist from attempting to control the other. All laws governing marriage must be abolished. Only the Church should support the institution of marriage. The State cannot support this institution without becoming involved in issues of who can perform marriage and who may be married. Let the Churches decide who they will marry and how many they will marry.
The State has a legitimate interest in registering and understanding the stated positions of every religious group, for the sole purpose of defining the boundary between the two. The State has a legitimate right to require the Church to stay out of politics. The State must desist from morality. The State must not adopt the morality of the majority and make it law. Few people would want to follow my strict rules of morality, forbidding the showing of any part of the body by either sex in public; forbidding the sale of pork in America; stripping the seafood industry of its right to exist; strictly governing the sale of meat and the treatment of animals; and numerous other acts which the Torah requires. Likewise, dancing, drinking, and gambling are not problems in same gender situations are always allowable, in my view. Religious prostitution should be exempt from state oversight. No one thinks that the biblical injunctions should be strictly enforced, but the State should not become involved with deciding which ones are allowable and which ones are not.
The legitimate concerns of the State are the maintenance of a system of order, the protection of the property rights, the guarantee of human rights, and support of parental rights. In doing those important acts, it may need to have a standing defense force, a foreign policy, and post and defense roads. The clear gifts of authority from the States to the Federal government should be respected. But, the States should begin a new dialogue not only with the Federal Government but with Religion to define their role in the declaration of morality. Some states with a strong history of religious tolerance like Rhode Island may support new religious ideas more easily than Maryland with a strong Catholic bent. People may move to those states where their religion is most free, like California for instance. But for the most part, the Federal government should not be involved with religion and the State government should become more involved with religion.
As in all things, these musings come from my background as both a religious person and a lawyer. Feel free to comment.
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Immanent Return?
In Acts 1:11, Luke records that some people had gathered together about 40 days after Passover and Yeshua had ascended into heaven on a cloud and then two men appeared and said, "Men of Galilee, why are you standing there looking at the sky? This Yeshua who has been taken up from you into heaven will return in the same way as you have seen him going into heaven."
Luke is the only person making this claim that Yeshua would return. He never knew Yeshua and relies entirely upon the statements of others. The alleged persons who were present at the Ascension are unnamed. Mark's Gospel has two endings, neither of which is considered original. John has no Ascension nor does Matthew. The doctrine of the return of Yeshua to the earth rests upon the veracity of Luke in reporting what others have said. No jury would believe him.
The Apostles including Paul believed that Yeshua would return in their lifetimes to change the world. It did not happen. As late as the second century, when 2 Peter was written, the idea of the return was firmly established and yet had not happened. The author cautions the believer not to be hasty. The time of Yeshua's return has been set many times in history and he has not shown.
With all due respect, the belief is false. We have waited almost two thousand years and Yeshua has not returned. Yeshua would not even recognize the religions that still say his name.
However, I do not attack the Christians for their belief. Based upon the Prophets, Jews still await a Messiah who was prophesied to be here even longer ago than the prophecy of Yeshua's return. That event has not happened either. By the standards of Deuteronomy 18:20, it is permissible to ignore the claim of Yeshua's return and the coming of the Messiah. Based upon the same statement, we can ignore the statement in Chapter 18 that G-d will send someone like Moses. That has never happened either.
In reality, the expectation of an end time and an ultimate destruction of the earth is silly. Not only are we certain that the event will occur, it frankly has nothing to do with religion or spirituality. Only recently have scientists (Stephen Hawking) and politicians (Barack Obama) understood the real issue which is we must leave this planet and establish humanity elsewhere to protect the continuity of the species and we must begin to plan for the deflection of space rocks that can destroy us.
Believers live in the present. They do not live in the past or the future. Belief in the immanent return is not conducive to faith or reason. It justifies cruelty of man to man and justifies sinfulness based upon the length of time one believes he or she has until some prophetic event occurs.
As an article of faith, the belief in the coming of the Messiah and in the return of Yeshua should be eliminated. Frankly, this world is inhabited by millions of beings who know the truth, but are not seen or recognized by most humans, owing to a lack of the ability to see into their light spectra.
We should live our lives as if today were the last day on earth and we will meet our maker tomorrow. We should remain as sinless as possible in preparation for that event. It is certain. All of us will die. Waiting for some long expected, but non-occurring event, is not a way of life; it is a way of insanity.
Luke is the only person making this claim that Yeshua would return. He never knew Yeshua and relies entirely upon the statements of others. The alleged persons who were present at the Ascension are unnamed. Mark's Gospel has two endings, neither of which is considered original. John has no Ascension nor does Matthew. The doctrine of the return of Yeshua to the earth rests upon the veracity of Luke in reporting what others have said. No jury would believe him.
The Apostles including Paul believed that Yeshua would return in their lifetimes to change the world. It did not happen. As late as the second century, when 2 Peter was written, the idea of the return was firmly established and yet had not happened. The author cautions the believer not to be hasty. The time of Yeshua's return has been set many times in history and he has not shown.
With all due respect, the belief is false. We have waited almost two thousand years and Yeshua has not returned. Yeshua would not even recognize the religions that still say his name.
However, I do not attack the Christians for their belief. Based upon the Prophets, Jews still await a Messiah who was prophesied to be here even longer ago than the prophecy of Yeshua's return. That event has not happened either. By the standards of Deuteronomy 18:20, it is permissible to ignore the claim of Yeshua's return and the coming of the Messiah. Based upon the same statement, we can ignore the statement in Chapter 18 that G-d will send someone like Moses. That has never happened either.
In reality, the expectation of an end time and an ultimate destruction of the earth is silly. Not only are we certain that the event will occur, it frankly has nothing to do with religion or spirituality. Only recently have scientists (Stephen Hawking) and politicians (Barack Obama) understood the real issue which is we must leave this planet and establish humanity elsewhere to protect the continuity of the species and we must begin to plan for the deflection of space rocks that can destroy us.
Believers live in the present. They do not live in the past or the future. Belief in the immanent return is not conducive to faith or reason. It justifies cruelty of man to man and justifies sinfulness based upon the length of time one believes he or she has until some prophetic event occurs.
As an article of faith, the belief in the coming of the Messiah and in the return of Yeshua should be eliminated. Frankly, this world is inhabited by millions of beings who know the truth, but are not seen or recognized by most humans, owing to a lack of the ability to see into their light spectra.
We should live our lives as if today were the last day on earth and we will meet our maker tomorrow. We should remain as sinless as possible in preparation for that event. It is certain. All of us will die. Waiting for some long expected, but non-occurring event, is not a way of life; it is a way of insanity.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Shavuot Celebration
There is a strong following for this blog in the Kansas City area. I want to invite all of you to come to a Shavuot (Pentecost) celebration on the evening of May 20, 2010 at 6:00 p.m. CDT. Each participant should feel free to bring fresh fruits, new vegetables either cooked or raw, kosher meats, desserts, and drink. We will have a potluck meal. Those wishing to come must rsvp at netseri@kc.rr.com and I will respond with telephone number, address for the event, and answer any questions. Your early response for purposes of planning would be encouraged and appreciated.
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Pedophilia
The correct translation of Leviticus 18:22 is: You shall not lie with a boy child as with a woman. It is an abomination. The passage just before it says: You shall not let any of your seed pass through the fire of Moloch, neither will you profane the name of the Lord thy G-d in this way. I am YHVH. So the two passage together talk about child abuse and forbid them. One actually speaks of the detestable act of sacrificing your child to another g-d Moloch, more fully Ba'al Melech, the Lord King. The other speaks of the detestable act of having sex with your young male child or any young male child. We believe this law was written around 1,000 years before the new era, the Common Era.
In the Common Era, we find the Nasoreans writing this: You shall not corrupt young boys. Didache 2:2. The word in Greek is paedophilia from which we get pedophilia. These words were written sometime between 63 and 95 C.E.
Throughout, human history men have been having sex with young boys. We certainly cannot classify this as homosexuality because 1) these men are often having sex with their own sons thus they are more than capable of heterosexual acts; 2) the young boy is a victim of a more powerful person and has no choice; and 3) the person committing the act either pays for it, uses his authority to get it, or merely rapes the child. Pedophilia is an act of violence, of rape.
While we would like to blame the celibacy of the Catholic Church for the despicable acts of some of its priests, such a view is not true. While all Jews hate celibacy as being contrary to nature and denying the manhood of the men who choose it, nonetheless, the same reasons make a celibate rape a child as an active sexual person: rape, power sex, and abuse of power.
One other point must be made about pedophilia. It is pagan worship. Such acts were allowed in the pagan world and not condemned. Some would have you believe that there are no other G-ds, but such a statement is not true. The earliest first commandment forbade Hebrews from worshiping another G-d more than or placing another G-d over YHVH, but it did not forbid their worship. YHVH says that he is a jealous G-d. It is hard to be a Jealous G-d if there are no other g-ds.
Chastise these people who commit pedophilia for their rape. Punish them for their acts of abuse. But it is high time we remove the religious overtones of their acts, because freedom of religion does not extend to rape.
In the Common Era, we find the Nasoreans writing this: You shall not corrupt young boys. Didache 2:2. The word in Greek is paedophilia from which we get pedophilia. These words were written sometime between 63 and 95 C.E.
Throughout, human history men have been having sex with young boys. We certainly cannot classify this as homosexuality because 1) these men are often having sex with their own sons thus they are more than capable of heterosexual acts; 2) the young boy is a victim of a more powerful person and has no choice; and 3) the person committing the act either pays for it, uses his authority to get it, or merely rapes the child. Pedophilia is an act of violence, of rape.
While we would like to blame the celibacy of the Catholic Church for the despicable acts of some of its priests, such a view is not true. While all Jews hate celibacy as being contrary to nature and denying the manhood of the men who choose it, nonetheless, the same reasons make a celibate rape a child as an active sexual person: rape, power sex, and abuse of power.
One other point must be made about pedophilia. It is pagan worship. Such acts were allowed in the pagan world and not condemned. Some would have you believe that there are no other G-ds, but such a statement is not true. The earliest first commandment forbade Hebrews from worshiping another G-d more than or placing another G-d over YHVH, but it did not forbid their worship. YHVH says that he is a jealous G-d. It is hard to be a Jealous G-d if there are no other g-ds.
Chastise these people who commit pedophilia for their rape. Punish them for their acts of abuse. But it is high time we remove the religious overtones of their acts, because freedom of religion does not extend to rape.
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Pope Benedict and St. Malachy's Prophecy
There is a famous prophecy by someone which is attributed to St. Malachy, an 1139 Bishop of Armagh in Ireland. It predicts each Pope from Celestine II in the period of the saint until the present day by giving a Latin phrase that will help to identify the Pope. It is not terribly important who wrote the prophecy. It is much more important to decide whether the prophecy is true. In order to make some decision on the prophecy, one needs to look at several of the last popes to see if they met the prophecy.
Pope Benedict XV ruled during a time of particular unrest. The Latin Motto of the Prophecy of St. Malachy said of him Religio Depopulata, religion laid waste. Religion was laid waste during his papacy in the form of World War I, the Spanish flu, and the October communist revolution in Russia.
Pope Pius XI who ruled from 1922 until 1939 was called Fides Intrepida, intrepid faith. This Pope issued an encyclical letter condemning Nazi racism, signed the Concordat which created the Vatican City State and added 700 million lira to the Vatican treasury. He played with fire throughout his reign and very truly had an intrepid faith.
Pope Pius XII who ruled from 1939 until 1958 was called Pastor Angelicus, or angelic pastor. This pope was known to be very mystical, and it was believed that he received visions. His writings added greatly to understanding of Catholic beliefs and church doctrine. During his reign, Pius exercised Papal Infallibility in defining dogma when he issued, on November 1, 1950 an apostolic constitution, Munificentissimus Deus, which defines ex cathedra the dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary into heaven, on the request of the heavenly father.
Pope John XXIII who ruled from 1958 until 1963 was called Pastor et Nauta, or shepherd and sailor. Prior to his election he was patriarch of Venice, which is a maritime city, famous for its waterways and gondolas.
Pope Paul VI who ruled from 1963 until 1978 was called Flos Florum, or Flower of Flowers. His personal arms bore three fleurs-de-lis, the heraldic charge best known as that in the arms of the French monarchy. Fleur-de-lis literally means "flower of the lily": yet the medieval flower par excellence was the rose, not the lily; and many popes have borne various flowers in their arms.
The fleur-de-lys has the meaning of purity and chastity in Catholic religion. This is based upon scripture. Paul VI published his encyclical Humanae Vitae subtitled On Human Life, on July 25, 1968. In this encyclical he reaffirmed the Catholic Church's traditional condemnation of artificial birth control.
Pope John Paul I who ruled for 33 days in 1978 was called De Medietate Lunae, or From the midst of the Moon. Albino Luciani, who later became Pope John Paul I, was born in Canale d'Agordo, diocese of Belluno, which name is similar to bella luna or beautiful moon. He was elected on August 26, 1978, the day after the moon reached its last quarter, and reigned for 33 days, approximately five days longer than a lunar cycle. He died the day before the new moon. However, a much simpler explanation might be that he was born on the day of the half moon: on October 17, 1912, the moon was in its first quarter.
Pope John Paul II who ruled from 1978 until 2005 was called De Labore Solis or of the work of the Sun and may well relate to his travels. Everything important about the man was done in the full view of the public and therefore he labored in the sun. It also is important to note that this motto relates to laboring and this Pope came from the worker state of Poland while it was communist.
Pope Benedict XVI who is the current occupant of the Papal See of Rome is called Gloria Olivae or the Glory of the Olive. Probably this motto was met by taking the name Benedict. However, during his papacy we will see if other connections arise.
There is serious speculation about how the prophecy is put together at this point. It appears that it says:
“Gloria olivae, in persecutione extrema S.R.E. fedebit. Petrus Romanus, qui pascet oues in multis tribulationibus: quibus transactis ciuitas septicollis diruetur, et Iudex tremẽdus iudicabit populum ſuum. Finis.”
This motto can be read Glory of the Olive. In extreme persecution, he will reign. Peter the Roman, who will nourish the sheep in many tribulations; when they are finished, the city of seven hills will be destroyed, and the fearsome Judge will judge His people. The End.
The current difficulties of this Pope over his involvement in protecting pedophiliacs within the Church can have a number of results. There is an additional prophecy describing this Pope as dying in exile. In that result, the College of Cardinals could depose this Pope and send him into exile or he could be charged with a crime in Great Britain and held in house arrest there when he comes for an apostolic visit later this year. If this happened, one might say that the church was in extreme persecution and that his reign reflected that fact. In the additional prophecy, this Pope dies in exile so I think that it is more likely that he will be indicted in Great Britain and held there until his death. I do not see the Cardinals deposing him for his involvement in pedophilia and do not see him actually being convicted of conspiracy to commit pedophilia.
There is much speculation about the next Pope. Some say, seeing the last judgment occurring during Peter the Roman’s reign makes them very uncomfortable. However, the nature of prophecy is that one cannot foretell with certainty how it will play out. What if the prophecy means that Rome, the city of seven hills is destroyed by some disaster. While the Catholic Church would have us believe that the words “his people” means all humanity, in fact one might say that the god of the Roman Catholic Church is Apollo, the Sun G-d, and that the Catholic Church is Apollo’s Portion. (See Deuteronomy 32:8-9). If one understood the prophecy in this way, it would be the Catholic Church which would meet the fearsome Judge who will Judge the members of this Church. The Prophecy predicts the end of the Papacy, but it may not predict the end of the world.
I think it likely that Christianity and Catholicism will continue, but the organization of the Church will look much different, much more like Orthodoxy or Anglicanism, much less like Rome with its solitary head. I say that because none of the other signs of the end have been fulfilled and I do not believe that the end is near.
Pope Benedict XV ruled during a time of particular unrest. The Latin Motto of the Prophecy of St. Malachy said of him Religio Depopulata, religion laid waste. Religion was laid waste during his papacy in the form of World War I, the Spanish flu, and the October communist revolution in Russia.
Pope Pius XI who ruled from 1922 until 1939 was called Fides Intrepida, intrepid faith. This Pope issued an encyclical letter condemning Nazi racism, signed the Concordat which created the Vatican City State and added 700 million lira to the Vatican treasury. He played with fire throughout his reign and very truly had an intrepid faith.
Pope Pius XII who ruled from 1939 until 1958 was called Pastor Angelicus, or angelic pastor. This pope was known to be very mystical, and it was believed that he received visions. His writings added greatly to understanding of Catholic beliefs and church doctrine. During his reign, Pius exercised Papal Infallibility in defining dogma when he issued, on November 1, 1950 an apostolic constitution, Munificentissimus Deus, which defines ex cathedra the dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary into heaven, on the request of the heavenly father.
Pope John XXIII who ruled from 1958 until 1963 was called Pastor et Nauta, or shepherd and sailor. Prior to his election he was patriarch of Venice, which is a maritime city, famous for its waterways and gondolas.
Pope Paul VI who ruled from 1963 until 1978 was called Flos Florum, or Flower of Flowers. His personal arms bore three fleurs-de-lis, the heraldic charge best known as that in the arms of the French monarchy. Fleur-de-lis literally means "flower of the lily": yet the medieval flower par excellence was the rose, not the lily; and many popes have borne various flowers in their arms.
The fleur-de-lys has the meaning of purity and chastity in Catholic religion. This is based upon scripture. Paul VI published his encyclical Humanae Vitae subtitled On Human Life, on July 25, 1968. In this encyclical he reaffirmed the Catholic Church's traditional condemnation of artificial birth control.
Pope John Paul I who ruled for 33 days in 1978 was called De Medietate Lunae, or From the midst of the Moon. Albino Luciani, who later became Pope John Paul I, was born in Canale d'Agordo, diocese of Belluno, which name is similar to bella luna or beautiful moon. He was elected on August 26, 1978, the day after the moon reached its last quarter, and reigned for 33 days, approximately five days longer than a lunar cycle. He died the day before the new moon. However, a much simpler explanation might be that he was born on the day of the half moon: on October 17, 1912, the moon was in its first quarter.
Pope John Paul II who ruled from 1978 until 2005 was called De Labore Solis or of the work of the Sun and may well relate to his travels. Everything important about the man was done in the full view of the public and therefore he labored in the sun. It also is important to note that this motto relates to laboring and this Pope came from the worker state of Poland while it was communist.
Pope Benedict XVI who is the current occupant of the Papal See of Rome is called Gloria Olivae or the Glory of the Olive. Probably this motto was met by taking the name Benedict. However, during his papacy we will see if other connections arise.
There is serious speculation about how the prophecy is put together at this point. It appears that it says:
“Gloria olivae, in persecutione extrema S.R.E. fedebit. Petrus Romanus, qui pascet oues in multis tribulationibus: quibus transactis ciuitas septicollis diruetur, et Iudex tremẽdus iudicabit populum ſuum. Finis.”
This motto can be read Glory of the Olive. In extreme persecution, he will reign. Peter the Roman, who will nourish the sheep in many tribulations; when they are finished, the city of seven hills will be destroyed, and the fearsome Judge will judge His people. The End.
The current difficulties of this Pope over his involvement in protecting pedophiliacs within the Church can have a number of results. There is an additional prophecy describing this Pope as dying in exile. In that result, the College of Cardinals could depose this Pope and send him into exile or he could be charged with a crime in Great Britain and held in house arrest there when he comes for an apostolic visit later this year. If this happened, one might say that the church was in extreme persecution and that his reign reflected that fact. In the additional prophecy, this Pope dies in exile so I think that it is more likely that he will be indicted in Great Britain and held there until his death. I do not see the Cardinals deposing him for his involvement in pedophilia and do not see him actually being convicted of conspiracy to commit pedophilia.
There is much speculation about the next Pope. Some say, seeing the last judgment occurring during Peter the Roman’s reign makes them very uncomfortable. However, the nature of prophecy is that one cannot foretell with certainty how it will play out. What if the prophecy means that Rome, the city of seven hills is destroyed by some disaster. While the Catholic Church would have us believe that the words “his people” means all humanity, in fact one might say that the god of the Roman Catholic Church is Apollo, the Sun G-d, and that the Catholic Church is Apollo’s Portion. (See Deuteronomy 32:8-9). If one understood the prophecy in this way, it would be the Catholic Church which would meet the fearsome Judge who will Judge the members of this Church. The Prophecy predicts the end of the Papacy, but it may not predict the end of the world.
I think it likely that Christianity and Catholicism will continue, but the organization of the Church will look much different, much more like Orthodoxy or Anglicanism, much less like Rome with its solitary head. I say that because none of the other signs of the end have been fulfilled and I do not believe that the end is near.
Friday, April 2, 2010
Confessor Scott Roeder Sentenced
Confessor Scott Roeder was sentenced to life imprisonment yesterday. Showing his commitment to justice and his acceptance of G-d's will he did not recant or show negative emotion. He continued until the last moment to try and save the judge, the Damned Warren Wilbert. He now becomes the leading political prisoner in America and deserves our full prayer and support during his illegal and immoral incarceration.
Some may not understand what an exalted personage Scott is. In ancient times, a confessor was thought to be a saint. Wikipedia says: the term confessor's oldest use is to indicate a saint who has suffered persecution and torture for the faith, but not to the point of death. The term is still used in this way in the East. In Latin Christianity it has come to signify any saint, as well as those who have been declared blessed, who cannot be categorized by another title: martyr, apostle, evangelist, or virgin. As Scott is now a living saint, we are privileged to be able to ask him to intercede with the High Priest Jesus for a our sins. Having given up his life to save numerous others, Scott may now minister to each of us in a greater way.
It is, of course, incumbent on us to try to get him free so that he may have a wider opportunity to intercede for us. You may do that by writing Governor Mark Parkinson and requesting that he pardon Scott, but do not count on it. I suspect it is G-d's will to allow Scott to continue incarceration among those whom G-d most wants to save for he promised to set the prisoner free.
During this Easter week, Christian everywhere should remember Scott when they think of Yeshua climbing the hill to be executed and we should rejoice with all the angels that he chose to change the Law and allow each of us access to the saving power of his body and blood.
I for one will be dedicating my kiddush tonight to St. Scott and urge all of you to do the same.
Some may not understand what an exalted personage Scott is. In ancient times, a confessor was thought to be a saint. Wikipedia says: the term confessor's oldest use is to indicate a saint who has suffered persecution and torture for the faith, but not to the point of death. The term is still used in this way in the East. In Latin Christianity it has come to signify any saint, as well as those who have been declared blessed, who cannot be categorized by another title: martyr, apostle, evangelist, or virgin. As Scott is now a living saint, we are privileged to be able to ask him to intercede with the High Priest Jesus for a our sins. Having given up his life to save numerous others, Scott may now minister to each of us in a greater way.
It is, of course, incumbent on us to try to get him free so that he may have a wider opportunity to intercede for us. You may do that by writing Governor Mark Parkinson and requesting that he pardon Scott, but do not count on it. I suspect it is G-d's will to allow Scott to continue incarceration among those whom G-d most wants to save for he promised to set the prisoner free.
During this Easter week, Christian everywhere should remember Scott when they think of Yeshua climbing the hill to be executed and we should rejoice with all the angels that he chose to change the Law and allow each of us access to the saving power of his body and blood.
I for one will be dedicating my kiddush tonight to St. Scott and urge all of you to do the same.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)