Author Archives: Lila

Rothschild Behind Young Turks & Genocide

Posted on by

Iamthewitness.com [this blog was deleted under the laws of France]. I did not realize at the time of linking it that it was considered anti-Semitic, however, in looking for the link, I see that they have renounced all association with any form of racist feeling, so I am linking through an archive of the site.

I am the witness traces the hand of Edmund James de Rothschild behind the deposing of the Ottoman Sultan, Abdul Hamid II,  in  1908; the rise of the secular nationalist government of the Young Turks;  and the genocide of Armenian Christians by the Young Turks, most of whom were Sephardic Jewish Sabbateans and/or Freemasons.

Less well-known is the savage massacre of Assyrian Christians, also at the hand of the Young Turks.

R. J. Rummel and several of the authors above cite  Mevlan Zadeh Rifat’s “The Inner Facet of the Turkish Revolution,”  Rifat also seems to be one of the main sources for the following claims,

So where do we need to look to find the thread that will bring us to the real powers behind these Young Turk scenes? We will start to move in the right direction if we go back to Caraso and his position of Lodge grandmaster. How does one become grandmaster of a Lodge, it is not the type of role that gets advertised in the job centre. The answer is that freemasons are supposed to ‘work their way up in the craft’ and advance from spiritual stage to spiritual stage. As they grow they are raised in rank and degree. Each degree has its own practices, known as rites. A major Lodge with several thousand members would have masons at all different levels (degrees) but there is only ONE master mason for the Lodge.

Therefore, for Caraso to have reached the position of Lodge grandmaster, the Lodge which granted and therefore OWNS the charter for his Macedonia Rissorta Lodge, is the Lodge that will have given him this appointment. In this case the charter was granted by the Grand Orient of Italy, through and not by the Istanbul Italia Lodge. This means that the grandmaster of the Istanbul Italia Lodge would have been at a similar rank to the grandmaster of the Macedonia Rissorta.  Therefore in this case ‘head office’ in Turin must have appointed Caraso.

We now have to ask the question, who was the power behind the Grand Orient Lodge of Italy at that time? We should start by looking at who was the founder of the Grand orient Lodge and who was its first grandmaster. The answer is surprising, in that we find the Lodge was established by no less a person than Napoleon Bonaparte, at the time that he conquered Italy. We find that after founding a chivalric order called The Order of the Iron Crown, Napoleon and his advisers continued. “Furthermore, a Grand Orient Masonic lodge was founded on 20 June, 1805; Eugène was its Grand Master and Marescalchi the Grand Conservator. In the kingdom, for certain higher levels of responsibility, membership of Free Masonry was almost obligatory. On the other hand, a modern administration had been formed, and the young Italian agents (average age of under forty in), were soon integrated.” (See http://www.napoleon.org/en/reading_room/biographies/files/marescalchi_melzi.asp for the fuller story)

Summing up this state of affairs we find that the charter for the Grand Orient of Italy (in Turin) was in fact granted its charter by the Grand Orient of France (in Paris). The first grandmaster named above, Eugene, is in fact Napoleon’s stepson, Eugene Beauharnais (biography at http://www.napoleonguide.com/soldiers_eugene.htm). The appointment of Eugene was made by the grandmaster of the Grand Orient of France.

At this time, 1805, no Jews were accepted into Lodges anywhere in Europe. In fact the first Jew to be accepted into any significant position within European Lodge, was a man by the name of Isaac Adolphe Cremieux (biography at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolphe_Cr%C3%A9mieux). He was very much seen as an assimilated Jew by his contemporaies and as a result managed to gain access and prominence in many important french institutions. According to the Encyclopedia Judaica however, his crowning achievement was in freemasonry. “Adolphe Cremieux was not only a freemason from his early youth but in 1869 became the Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of the Scottish Rite in Paris”.

Cremieux was the first Jewish grandmaster of a Grand (charter issuing) Lodge, and one which was international, being the charter issuer and therefore owner of several Grand Orient Lodges, including of course the Italian.

The Return of Mehmet Cavit

These apparently separate pieces come together when we re-visit Mehmet Cavit at the time of his death. Alexandre Jevakhoff further informs us that when Ataturk had decided on the death penalty for Cavit in 1926, for an alleged attempt on Ataturk’s life, an important aspect of Cavit comes to life. “He had connections with French financial circles. And both the French government and the house of Rothschild appealed to Ankara on his behalf.”

Cavit was openly a Zionist and he had major connections into Paris, so high that the French government intervened for his life.

Who could this connection have been? Given the year was 1926 there were only 9 members of the Rothschild dynasty that would have been of an adult age and of them only one was openly a rabid Zionist, namely Edmond James de Rothschild. (Biography at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmond_James_de_Rothschild). It is worth noting that his wife was Adelheid and that she was born in Naples, given the importance of the Italian freemasonic influence.

Given that Caraso made his own personal fortune AFTER the revolution of 1908, the question arises as to who put the money up for this entire operation? The answer lies in the FACT that Rafik Bey was present in Paris in 1908 and therefore able to give an interview to Le Temps about his activities. He was part of the Zionist cabal that was working over and through the Young Turk movement, receiving instructions and financing directly from Edmond James de Rothschild, who supported the movement as part of Rothschild’s plan to acquire the land of Palestine.”

Do I contradict myself?

Posted on by

A reader writes querulously that he can’t understand why I link so-and-so (a Hindu right-winger), even though I am a believing Christian…..and why I deconstruct the Tamil Tigers, but say nothing about Sri Lankan racism.

He put it a lot more intemperately than that, but that was the substance of it, once the personal attacks are left out.

Another tells me that if I critique neo-conservatives, I must equally criticize Islamicists.

In other words, I have a point of view that is not neutral, according to my readers.

Well, guilty as charged.

I am not neutral, nor would I want to be.  I cordially detest the ideology and objectives of the global centralizers. I might call them Zionists or Elites or Power-Elite or any other term, but it’s clear whom I mean, and if it’s not,  please search Kleptocracy or New World Order or Zionism on my blog.

Given that,  this blog is my small attempt at deconstructing the unceasing propaganda put out by the Controllers,  propaganda that extends to every branch of human inquiry, from science to theology, from politics to academics.

One reader wants me to begin every critique of the Tamil Tigers with a “fair and balanced”  criticism of Sri Lanka. But why? Are the  Tigers, with the backing of Western intelligence groups, with a well-heeled Tamil diaspora and Western (left-wing) church groups behind them,  lacking in voice?

Sri Lankan racism is beside the point. If armed insurrection, assassinations, and terrorism against civilians is the proper response to racial chauvinism,  God help us all.

The facts show that the Lankan Tigers were manipulated and used by both a part of the Indian intelligence service (RAW) and the Israeli (Mossad). That is what is important.

If the Tigers were concerned about Tamils, they would not have killed them in such numbers. Until the civil war, they assassinated more Tamils than their enemies did.

I am sure Sri Lankans can be racist. Who doubts it? That goes with the human condition.

But my  primary interest on this blog is to show how the Controllers use such inter-ethnic frictions to push their own agenda, using the various players as tools in their larger game. And how that agenda itself drives the friction.

Explaining why some particular tool really had some cause against that other tool isn’t germane to my objective.  I am interested in the ones who use the tools. And my sole objective is to neutralize the propaganda.

I am fair, but unbalanced.

I could, of course, flame the fans of race or culture-war in the US, as some do.

And some people might consider some of my posts as tending in that direction. But I’m not interested in culture-wars, except as they are war-gamed by the elites.

I deconstruct homosexual propaganda, only because sexual “liberation” has long been the front behind which the global order brainwashes the young to turn against the very traditions that would protect them from the pathology of that order. For the rest, my beliefs  do not require anyone else to subscribe to them.

As for consistency, my political positions on war, the police state, and the government have stayed the same, but in the course of writing and reading, I’ve changed from staunchly pro-choice to strongly pro-life. I’ve gone from being a Christian skeptic to a believing Christian.  I’ve gone from being an ardent Ron Paul/Lew Rockwell anarcho-capitalist to a traditionalist conservative, but an antiwar, small government conservative. I have become sympathetic to the men’s rights movement (the part that the elites haven’t co-opted).

That is the nature of the intellectual life.  One learns. One grows; sometimes, down, but hopefully, up.

My old posts are up there for everyone to see, revisions, corrections and all. The things I got right, the things I got wrong (pro-choice,).

I link the Hindu right-wing when I think they are right. When they are wrong, I don’t link them.  I link others. Is that hard to understand?

Not if you think that truth is more important than ideology.

And that truth, in the realm of politics, doesn’t exist outside a context or a history.  And  what one takes to be context or where one starts one’s history is not just personal preference but judgment, which is objective and true, but not in an ideological sense. In fact, it requires the abandonment of ideology.

More on the “Two Rocks” Critique of Papal Primacy

Posted on by

A Catholic website refutes the two-rock argument against the primacy of the Roman Catholic church (derived from the primacy of the apostle Peter),  the subject of my previous post.

Let’s call this the “little rock, big rock” theory. It claims that Peter is a little rock and his declaration (Jesus is the Christ) is the foundation of the Church. The Greek text of the passage says “You are Peter (Petros) and upon this rock (petra) I will build my Church.”(Mat 16:18-20). In modern Greek, the name Peter Petros means “small stone” and Petra means “stone.” The theory proposes that Peter was only a little pebble and unimportant, while the big rock was the “declaration” of several verses earlier, that Jesus was the Christ.

OK, I’m going to get a little “heady” here by talking about Aramaic, and ancient Greek. The Greek text is a translation of Jesus’ words, which were actually spoken in Aramaic. Aramaic only had one word for rock, kephas (which is why Peter is often called Cephas in the Bible). The word Kephas in Aramaic means “huge rock.” The Aramaic word for “little stone” is “evna,” and Peter was not called “Evna” or “Envas” or anything like that.  In Aramaic, Jesus said “You are Peter (Kephas) and upon this rock (kephas) I will build my Church.” The metaphor worked well in Aramaic where nouns are neither feminine or masculine, but in Greek, the noun “rock” was feminine, and therefore unsuitable as a name for Peter. So the Aramaic word Kephas was translated to the masculine name Petros when it referred to Peter, and to the feminine noun petra when it referred to the rock. In ancient Koine Greek, petra and petros were total synonyms, unlike modern Attic Greek and unlike Ionic Greek which was about 400 year before Christ.

In Evangelical circles, the “little rock, big rock” theory is fairly recent. Nearly every Protestant commentary written in the last 50 years interprets Peter as the rock upon which the Church was built. (However, they didn’t believe that Peter had a successor, more about that here ). The scholarly Evangelical work, Carson’s “Expositors Bible Commentary” explains this well. It is in the section on Matthew 16. These Evangelical scholars looked closely at the Greek word for rock “Petra” and determined that it refers to Peter. The early Christians also referred to Peter as the Rock. Some Quotes are here.

I recently spoke with a grammar specialist who is not Catholic. She explained to me that the adjective “this” grammatically must refer to the nearest preceding noun, which was Peter, not his declaration which occurs two verses earlier.

upon this rock

When Jesus says  “whatever you bind” to Peter in Mat 16:18, the Greek text used for “you” is singular. In Mat 18:18 the Greek text, the word for “you” in “whatever you bind” is plural. Catholics think these two juxtaposed but similar phrases lay out the early structure of the Church with Peter as the Pope and the other apostles as priests.

Some of the Church fathers do speak of Christ or of Peter’s confession as “the Rock” of Matt 16:18, ALL of these SAME Church fathers ALSO speak of Peter himself as the Rock.   In other words, the confession of Peter is in relation to Peter. It says something about him, and his faith. In this respect, it was not an either-or proposition for our ancient Christian forefathers, but a “both-and” proposition.  Here are what the fathers (and some other scholars of the ancient Church) have to say.

The fathers –including ALL the Greek fathers –say that Peter himself is the Rock of Matt 16.   They make no distinction between Peter himself and Peter’s confession; for any father who speaks of it as Peter’s confession is ALSO on record calling Peter himself the Rock. ……

….If we compare Matt 16:18-19 with Isaiah 22:20-24, which describes the appointment of the Prime Minister of the old Davidic Kingdom of Israel –the minister who could act with the King’s own authority in the King’s physical absence –we can see quite clearly that Peter himself is being made the Rock in Matt 16:18.   And, again, this is what all of the Church fathers consistently say (even when they also speak of other things as the Rock). Catholics believe that Jesus had a very specific purpose in saying that Peter was the Rock upon which he would build his Church. He was evoking Isaiah 22:22.

Isaiah 22:15-24 Mat 16:18-19
22:15 (Shebna) you have cut out a tomb here for yourself … in the rock? …I will thrust you from your office….22:20 On that day I will call my servant Eliakim son of Hilkiah, 21 and will clothe him with your robe and bind your sash on him. I will commit your authority to his hand, and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. 22 I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and no one shall shut; he shall shut, and no one shall open. 23 I will fasten him like a peg in a secure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his ancestral house. 24 And they will hang on him the whole weight of his ancestral house, the offspring and issue, every small vessel, from the cups to all the flagons. …you are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

In the Isaiah passage, Shebna was the Chancellor (like a Prime Minister) under King Hezekiah. This Prime Minister had a special role above the cabinet. He got the keys to the kingdom. Shabna messed up and was unfaithful so God appointed Eliakim to Prime Minister and gave him the keys. In Mat 16:18, Peter got the keys just the way Eliakim got them in Isaiah 22:15-24.

When Jesus says  “whatever you bind” to Peter in Mat 16:18, the Greek text used for “you” is singular. In Mat 18:18 the Greek text, the word for “you” in “whatever you bind” is plural. Catholics think these two juxtaposed but similar phrases lay out the early structure of the Church with Peter as the Pope and the other apostles as priests.”

My Comment:

Even if Peter is being referred to as a rock in Matthew 16 (which is highly contestable),  it is still a long journey from there to the primacy (in juridical terms) of the Roman church; and from there, to the primacy of the Pope,;and from there, to the infallibility of the pope and the impossibility of salvation outside the Roman Catholic church.

Thus, in “The Specific Functions of the Church in the World,” (Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary) Harold Eckert writes:

Rome’s rule for explaining the Scriptures and determining doctrine is the Creed of Pius IV. This Creed binds Rome to explain the Scriptures only according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers. In the year 1870 when the Fathers gathered and the pope declared his infallibility, the cardinals were not in agreement on Matthew 16, 18. They had five different interpretations. Seventeen insisted, Peter is the rock. Sixteen held that Christ is the rock. Eight were emphatic that the whole apostolic college is the rock. Forty-four said, Peter’s faith is the rock, The remainder looked upon the whole body of believers as the rock. — And yet Rome taught and still teaches that Peter is the rock.”

Eckert then attacks what he calls the “anti-Christ” principle which animates such claims to pre-eminence and authority:

And if we ever bear in mind what the Church is, that it is the body of believers in in Christ Jesus, known only to God, we shall not confuse the Church Invisible with visible church organizations. We shall not be drawn into the circle of those who today aim at world prominence and world dominion, holding world conventions for world movements, not on the basis of sound doctrine but by compromising doctrine, all in the name of the Church, and think that we actually are building the Church on earth thereby, and are the Church at work.

The Church is not built by such conventions, such unions. Anti-Christ movements are the result of such action. And such who attempt to make it a matter of conscience unto us for not participating in such movements will fail in their efforts, if we remain clear on the Church. Neither will anyone be able to do to us what Grabau did with the consciences of the Lutherans in Perry Co., Mo., and the pope did to Luther for a time, if we but cling to the truth of what the Church is. The last chain that fettered the papacy was the pope’s false teaching that Rome is the Church. Luther for a time thought that his salvation was dependent upon the Roman Catholic Church to this degree, that it was the Church, and to be saved he, therefore, had to remain in it or attached to it. Once he, however, learned that the Church is not Rome, but a spiritual house, the body of believers, the chain was broken and he was free, completely free from Rome in the eternal truth: “Therefore, we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.” And Grabau had the Lutherans in Perry. Co., Mo., all upset with his false teaching of the Church, namely, that the Church is a “visible aggregate composed of ministers, whose function was to instruct their parishioners and direct all church affairs, and laymen, whose duty it was to hear and obey.” Once the Lord through His servant Walther taught these people, the believers in Christ Jesus, the Son of the living God, are the Church, and that the Church is not only in a Grabau organization, but also in congregations organi zed individually, because believers are there, were they in doubt
any longer about their status as Church.—Yes, let us remain clear on the matter of the Church.Next to the doctrine of justification, the doctrine of the Churchis of utmost importance. The confusion in Lutheran Church circles today and the wild union efforts on the part of some in many instances without a doubt is to be attributed to a wrong conception of the Church. ALutheran ecclesiastical empire is no more the Church than the Roman See. To build a Lutheran ecclesiastical empire, and at the expense of sound doctrine, is not building the Church. We Lutherans, who by God’s grace still have the Word in its truth and purity, and know the Bible only as that which it is (The Bible is the Word of God), are not here to compromise the Word and build an ecclesiastical empire, but to remain steadfast and true to the Word, and to bring it to< others in its truth and purity. If doing that great and glorious work has lost its greatness and glamour for us, and ecclesiastical empires mean more to us than every last word of Holy Writ then we as organizations are fast moving into the circle of anti-christian organizations, and should take particular note of what true discipleship of Christ consists. “If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed, and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”

Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus – Dogma Of Man, Not God

Posted on by

An explanation of why the Catholic doctrine of “no salvation outside the Catholic church” (extra ecclesiam nulla salus) is based on an incorrect interpretation of the Biblical text from Orthodox  Research Institute.org: 

Although there are many issues which divide Orthodox and Roman Catholics such as the Latin addition to the Nicene Creed concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit (i.e. the Filioque), and the Roman doctrines of Indulgences, Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception of Mary, Papal Infallibility, Created Grace, and Original Sin, the most divisive doctrine between the two Churches has been the doctrine of Papal Supremacy. The Church of Rome claims that Christ made Peter and his successors the chief rulers over the Church; the successors of Peter are the Popes of Rome; the Church of Christ (the means of salvation) is located where Peter and his successors are. Therefore, (according to traditional Roman Catholic theology) union with him (the Pope) is necessary for salvation. As the visible head of the Church, he is the final judge of truth, the supreme teacher, the visible sign of unity, and the Vicar of Christ. Since the Pope is the head, the bishops of the Church can do nothing without him. The converse of this is, however, not true. Although the Pope generally acts in concert with his fellow bishops, he can at least in theory, act independently of them.

If these claims are true, then the Orthodox are the guilty party in the schism for not recognizing the supreme authority of the Pope, and must repent. If, on the other hand, it can be historically proven that the Bishop of Rome did not originally possess this power over the Church, but usurped it, then the Papacy is guilty of schism and must repent. Below is an examination of the problems associated with these papal claims.

The first concern that Orthodox have with this premise has to do with the presupposition that Peter was the unique rock upon which the Church was built. The Orthodox Church sees the following…problems associated with this claim.

First of all, although Peter was given the prominent role as the first of the apostles, he was always equal to the other apostles. Christ told the apostles that they would sit on twelve thrones (Matt. 19:28). A special throne was not set up for Peter. Moreover the “keys” were given to all the apostles (Matt. 18:18). The other apostles were also the foundation upon which the Church was built (Eph. 2:20). If the Roman view is to be believed, it is interesting to note that when the disciples disputed among themselves as to who would be the greatest, (Lk. 22:24-27), they seemed unaware that Christ had already picked Peter.

Second, the Rock upon whom the Church is established is Christ. When Christ says, “Thou art Peter,” He called him “PETROS,” which means “small stone.” But when He says, “Upon this rock I will build my Church” the Greek term for rock is not Petros but “PETRA” which means “bedrock.”  This bedrock which the Church is built upon was always understood by the Greek Fathers and many Western Fathers to mean either Christ Himself, or the profession of faith in Christ’s Divinity.

[Lila: studying the Bible with eyes sharpened by research into Preterism, I believe the “rock” is nothing more than the “corner-stone” of the church, Jesus, the same corner-stone which crushed his enemies in 70 AD, which Daniel predicted when he talked of the stone which crushes the last great world-empire of his vision.]

Third, the patristic witness is that no Father of the Church has seen, in the primacy of Peter, any title of jurisdiction or absolute authority in Church government. The Latin Church Father, St. Ambrose, for instance, taught that Peter and Paul were equal: “It was proper that Paul should go to see Peter. Why? was Peter superior to him and to the other Apostles? No, but because, of all the Apostles, he was the first to be entrusted by the Lord with the care of the churches. Had he need to be taught, or to receive a commission from Peter? No, but that Peter might know that Paul had received the power which had also been given to himself.” (The Papacy, by Abbe Guettee, pp. 173-174).

Furthermore, he taught that Peter’s primacy was not one of honor or rank, but of faith and confession: “As soon as Peter heard these words, ‘Whom say ye that I am?’ remembering his place, he exercised this primacy, a primacy of confession, not of honour; a primacy of faith, not of rank.” (Ibid., p. 174).

Blessed Augustine, one of the “Doctors” of the Roman Church, considered Peter and Paul equal. He puts these words in Paul’s mouth: “I am in nothing inferior to Peter; for we were ordained by the same God for the same ministry” (Ibid., p. 187). Blessed Augustine, also referred to Peter’s primacy, but he does not understand this to mean power over the Church. “He had not the primacy over the disciples but among the disciples. His primacy among the disciples was the same as that of Stephen among the deacons” (Ibid., p. 176).

The second concern that Orthodox have with the Latin premise is with the claim that an exclusive transference of power occurred from the Apostle Peter to the Bishop of Rome, and from the Church in Jerusalem to the Church in Rome. The Orthodox would first point out that all bishops are successors of all the apostles, and that the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, does not therefore have exclusive rights to Peter. Second, since Peter died before the Apostle John, this would mean, according to the Papal doctrine, that the Beloved Apostle would have been under the universal rule of the Bishop of Rome (at that time), thus reversing the intended order of rank.

Third, Peter ordained several bishops in Rome. (Irenaeus and Eusebius write that he ordained Linus, and Tertullian states that he ordained Clement.) How could they be his successor while he was still alive?

Fourth, Jerusalem had unique authority in the Church. It was the Mother of all the Churches. But it never attempted to lord it over the other Churches as its supposed successor did.

And fifth, if we admit a succession from apostle to bishop and (from) Jerusalem to Rome, then there would be a decrease in authority, due to the unique place of the Apostle and of Jerusalem. Rome, however, has claimed more authority that Peter or Jerusalem ever claimed.

The last concern that the Orthodox have is with the Roman presupposition that the authoritative role of the Papacy always existed from ancient times. To demonstrate the novelty of this idea I cite the ancient witness of Pope Gregory the Great (540-604), one of the greatest of the Popes. Pope Gregory was concerned that the Patriarch of Constantinople, St. John the Faster, had accepted the title of Ecumenical (or Universal) Patriarch. He condemned any such title for the following reasons.

First, anyone who would use such a title would have fallen into pride, equal to the anti-Christ. He wrote: “I say it without the least hesitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is by his pride, the precursor of anti-Christ, because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of anti-Christ; for as that wicked one wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a god, so likewise whoever would call himself sole bishop exalteth himself above others” (Ibid., 226).

Second, St. Gregory believed that such a title would be perilous to the Church. “It cannot be denied that if any one bishop be called universal, all the Church crumbles if that universal one fall” (Ibid., p. 223).

Finally, he refused the title for himself because he believed that he was equal with and not superior to his fellow Patriarchs. He wrote to the Bishop of Alexandria these words: “Your Holiness has been at pains to tell us that in addressing certain persons you no longer give them certain titles that have no better origin than pride, using this phrase regarding me, ‘as you have commanded me.’ I pray you let me never again hear this word command; for I know who I am and who you are. By your position you are my brethren; by your virtue you are my fathers. I have, therefore, not commanded; I have only been careful to point out things which seemed to me useful. Still I do not find that Your Holiness has perfectly remembered what I particularly wished to impress on your memory; for I said that you should no more give that title to me than to others; and lo! in the superscription of your letter, you gave to me, who have proscribed them, the vainglorious titles of Universal and Pope. May your sweet holiness do so no more in the future. I beseech you; for you take from yourself what you give excess to another. I do not esteem that an honor which causes my brethren to lose their own dignity. My honor is that of the whole Church. My honor is the unshakable firmness of my brethren. I consider myself truly honored when no one is denied the honor due to them. If Your Holiness calls me Universal Pope, you deny that you are yourself what I should be altogether. God forbid! Far from us be words that puff up vanity and wound charity” (Ibid., p. 227). Is it possible that Pope Gregory the Great, one of the greatest of all popes, would be unaware that Peter had universal authority over the Church? Is this fact not proof enough that Peter’s supremacy over the Church as well as his passing on that power to the Bishops of Rome, was an invention and not instituted by Christ?

It is illuminating to understand that even some very illustrious Roman Catholic theologians today recognize that the Papacy as it now exists is of late origin. W. DeVries admits, “… throughout the first ten centuries Rome never claimed to have been granted its preferred position of jurisdiction as an explicit privilege” (Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism and Anglicanism by Methodios Fouyas, p. 70).  Avery Dulles considers the development of the Papacy to be an historical accident. “The strong centralization in modern Catholicism is due to historical accident. It has been shaped in part by the homogeneous culture of medieval Europe and by the dominance of Rome, with its rich heritage of classical culture and legal organization” (Models of the Church by Avery Dulles, p. 200).

The Church was never intended to be an institutional government that is ruled with worldly power (See Matt. 23:8-10). Rather its leaders must be the servant of all. Orthodox rejoice that the Pope now prefers to be called the servant of the servants of God. Sadly, this has not always been the case, and its claims have at times been incongruent with these words of Christ. I entreat my Catholic friends to examine these facts. Do they not give ample evidence that the cause of the Great Schism is rooted in the exaggerated Papal claims and that the way to unity is to return to the Church which did not fall into this error?”

Lila:  Better to avoid confusing the institutional church (the visible structure) with the body of believers, which, if Jesus is really taken at his word, included many outside any organized church at all.

Indeed, we would be wise to really look closely at what Jesus meant by belief, whom he was addressing in particular passages, and what the “fruits of the spirit” are.

 

Ten Failings Of The Mob Mind

Posted on by

The mob mind is characterized by ten things:

1. Inability to ask and answer any but the simplest of questions – “for” or “against”  – about anything.

Inability to accept answers such as “maybe,” “this, as well as that,” “true and also true,”
“we don’t know,” “who knows” and “so-so.”

2.  Inability to read or cite people with whom they fundamentally disagree. Inability to learn from their enemies.

3. Inability to understand that one can believe a religion without condemning every other religion.  One can accept one own’s faith and yet be honest and see how one’s faith is seen by others.

4.  Inability to understand that in a time when the vast media conglomerates behind the establishment and alternative press are spewing one-sided declarations, exposure of the opposite side of the argument is a necessity and a virtue.

5. Inability to see through labels, such as “Hindutva,” “Islamophobic,” “Zionazis,” etc. even when the labels conform to their own perceptions.

6 Inability to  respect process more than results; adherence to truth rather than achievement of political goals.

7. Inability to grow or change an opinion when confronted by new facts.

8. Inability to understand differing contexts or historical situations.

9. Inability to understand different levels of power and address them accordingly.

10. Inability to rise above their own personal preferences and beliefs and give due measure to others.

 

Patriot or Shill? Deconstructing Ann Barnhardt

Posted on by

Update:

Also telling is the fact that Barnhardt converted to traditional Catholic teaching only  in 2007.

Before that, she was a non-believer who’d rejected the universalist type of low church (United Church of Christ) she attended as a child.

The 2007 conversion is only two years before her 2009 conviction of fraud, which becomes even stranger in that context.

ORIGINAL POST

Recently, I ran across rants from a Catholic financial manager who, supposedly, called out the financial collapse in advance and then shut down her business to tour the country warning of problems to come.

ZeroHedge publishes her (a problem just there, since ZH, whom I sometimes cite , runs a lot of disinformation, as I’ve blogged before).

So does Glenn Beck, who also promotes her.

See where I’m going?

For a devout Catholic,  Barnhardt swears a lot in public and engages in unnecessarily  incendiary anti-Islamic actions, such as, burning the Koran in a viral video and  denouncing the religion in this video.

[Barnhardt has every right to her opinion. My point is solely that the style and language of her presentation conflict with her self-portrait as a devout Christian. Some samples: “faggotry”; “pervy war-mongering Bedouin trash”; “scum”.]

Some other points:

1. Barnhardt attacks “halal” food (food made according to Islamic standards), but doesn’t attack “kosher” (food made according to Jewish standards).

2. She fears Islamic Sharia law in the US, but not the Jewish Noahide laws or Halakha.

See here for an extended discussion of Sharia, Halakha, and Canon law in the US.

3. Barnhardt refers to “shape-shifting  Joooooooos“ in one post in a sarcastic slap at people who criticize the Zionist world order:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:EoSNhqZhY1QJ:www.barnhardt.biz/author/annb/page/4/+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

The problem is that the psychiatric medications, we now know, often do far more harm than good, and elicit or even create murderous, suicidal rage monster reactions.  Adam Lanza, the Giffords shooter, the Aurora movie theater shooter – all of these men should have been sent to insane asylums, and all of the signs were there.  Total detachment from reality.

I have multiple people who email me who are in this category, and I keep an eye on their emails just to be sure there are no suicide or murder rampage threats contained therein, but they pretty much have two things in common: they subscribe to all of the boilerplate whack job conspiracy theories, and they are all convinced that I am communicating with them personally, that they are engaged in an intimate personal relationship with me, and that I am destined to be their wife/girlfriend/sex slave/baby mama.  And we shall go to the secret underground lair and vanquish the shape-shifting lizard jooooz and their mind control chemicals together.

See also: http://www.barnhardt.biz/the-one-about-sharia-finance-blankies-and-axe-body-spray/

4. She attacks 9/11 researchers as ignorant, sick, and anti-Semitic.

5. Then, in this piece she describes ethnic Jews/national Israel as proxies for humanity, which is a kabbalistic notion, not a Christian one:

In this portion, I would like to focus once again especially on the Jews in the audience. So far, we have established how Israel has been the proxy for humanity throughout Salvation History. Understanding that as we do, we can now see that to hate Israel is to hate humanity itself.

All we need do to confirm this is look at where the locus of anti-Semitism exists in today’s world. There are two main loci today: Marxism and islam. Both of these political systems have at their core an intrinsic hatred of the individual man. Both mask this seething hatred by wrapping themselves in a false cloak of collectivism, manifested in the call for Marxist class warfare and jihad. Both systems use the Jews as their primary scapegoat and whipping boy, blaming all problems in the world on Jews, and then calling for the “final solution” to the stumbling block to utopia that is the Jewish race.

From the Koran to Mein Kampf, the rhetoric is exactly the same: exterminate the Jews so that utopia can be achieved. But what this is at its core is a call to exterminate humanity itself, which is the ultimate goal of both Marxism and islam. If the Jews are exterminated, the rest of humanity will follow quickly, because if the Jews are exterminated, that means that there are no longer any people of good will on earth who could see and understand the representative quality of humanity itself in Israel. No one would be left to take up the banner of Christ and the Church Militant to march against the forces of evil in defense of not just Israel, but of all human life on earth. It is essential to approach, understand and see this coming war with the forces of evil through that lens.

6. She writes that she is going to fight the common era crowd (those who use C.E. or common era, rather than A.D. or anno domini, year of our lord), by using her own term:

So, I have decided to go super hardcore in my war against the “common era” crowd. There is actually a notation that is way old-school, that is even more in-your-face than Anno Domini. Check it:

A.R.S.H.

Anno
Reparatae
Salutis
Humanae

“In The Year Of The Reparation Of Human Salvation”

I have put the request in to the webwizard to change the date formatting at the top of each post to this format. I will also be writing ARSH on everything I date from now on, replacing my standard “AD”.

The phrase “reparation of human salvation” seems to come from the writings of a medieval Cistercian prioress, Beatrice of Nazareth (in Belgium), whose meditations show up in collections of medieval feminine mysticism.

The removal of the masculine “our lord” with its reference to Jesus and its replacement with “reparation” and “human salvation” (strangely similar to the kabbalistic “tikkun olam“) is quite significant and gives us a clue to the agenda behind Barnhardt.

But this strange, made-up, religio-feminist phrase that Barnhardt feeds gullible Catholic traditionalists already has a meaning.

An Islamic web-site explains:

A: According to Muslim scholars, and the Arabic language, `Arsh means a throne or a throne belonging to a king.

The `Arsh of Allah is an extremely large and great Throne; it is the greatest thing created by Allah. It has four legs, and is carried by Angles. Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) is above the `Arsh as He (Glorified and Exalted be He) says about Himself: <> (Surah Taha 20:5). And: <<indeed, who=”” the=”” a=”” your=”” lord=”” is=”” allâh,=”” created=”” heavens=”” and=”” earth=”” in=”” six=”” days,=”” then=”” he=”” rose=”” over=”” (istawâ)=”” throne=”” (really=”” manner=”” that=”” suits=”” his=”” majesty)=””>> (Surah Al-A’raf 7:54).

Thus, it is a significantly large `Arsh; none knows how great the size of its magnificence is except Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) Who created it (but we are told by the Prophet that it is very large). This `Arsh is like a dome stretching over the entire universe; it is the ceiling of the whole universe. It is also the ceiling of Paradise; nothing is above it except Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He).

How’s that for a little New World Order insider fun at the expense of Christian rubes?

7.  She’s friends with Rabbi Jon Hausman.

Hausman is a friend of Geert Wilders.

The spiritual leader of Ahavath Torah is one Rabbi Jon Hausman, we hate to give him more publicity than he deserves but a little background on him will clear this matter up sufficiently.

Rabbi Hausman is a friend and admirer of Geert Wilders, the neo-fascist Dutch politician who has called for the deportation of Muslim citizens, banning the construction of Mosques, the banning of religious freedom for Muslims, the banning of the Quran, a tax on hijabs and other similar nonsense. Rabbi Hausman invited Wilders to speak to his congregation where he spouted verbatim the above positions. Wilders, bestowed on the Rabbi the “honorific” title of “the Warrior Rabbi” which coming as it does from a fascist should send shivers down the spine of any sensible person who cares about Democratic values. That Hausman can revel in such praise from a vile cretin like Wilders exposes his moral bankruptcy and reveals how unfit and inept he is to lead a congregation. I posit another title for Hausman, instead of “the Warrior Rabbi” he may better be known as “the Betraying Rabbi” for his betrayal of Judaic values and  “never again” for any people.

8. Even her persona sounds like a composite concocted by the powers-that-be. It doesn’t ring true.

Look at this photo of Ms. Barnhardt with a pink gun and red shoes.

The staring eyes resemble Michele Bachman; the pose, Sarah Palin; the macho street language and anti-Muslim rhetoric, Pamela Geller.

And she uses quotes (Tu ne cede  malis….) that have been associated life-long with anti-state websites, like LRC and Mises.

[But, she trashes Ron Paul as an Islamic appeaser who wants Israel wiped off the map and she prefers Obama to him, when push comes to shove.]

9. And then I find that in 2009, while she was still a commodities broker, a couple of years before she popped up in the national media as a truth-teller and patriot hero, she had been successfully sued for fraud.

That is very similar to the past history of the Russian immigrant who (along with many others) runs ZeroHedge, although in her case, the matter is much more serious.

I like a lot of ZH’s commentary, but there’s definitely something odd going on there.

I don’t believe it is “Russian” disinformation, though, unless you want to add, Russian, with HQ in the USA.

Here’s a comment at ZH on Barnhardt’s conviction:

   http://www.zerohedge.com/news/first-mfglobal-now-pfg-who-next

I particularly enjoyed Annie B’s rant. All the rage of a reformed sinner. On 10/28/2009 (Case #09ARB00009, filed 01/20/09) the NFA issued a finding & award in the matter of Moiola Brothers Cattle Feeders, ltd. vs. Barnhardt Capital Mgmt. She was charged with “constructive fraud, fraud and deceit, misrepresentations of material facts, excessive trading, failure to follow instructions, breach of fiduciary duty, violation of NFA Compliance rules (listed), violation of Sections (listed) of the Commodity Exchange Act, Violation of CFTC Regulations (listed). The Moiola Brothers sought $350,000 in Compensatory damages + $100,000 in Punitive; award was $50,000 + $50,000. Bad girl, Ann Elizabeth. She’s mightily pissed because little minnows like her get caught while sharkz like Corzine swim away. Still, none of us is pure…. @ http://www.nfa.futures.org/basicnet/Arbitration.aspx?entityid=0282801&case=09ARB00009.  

A conviction under federal law makes a person uniquely susceptible to any arm-twisting by the government.

It is probably the reason that Ms. Barnhardt shut down her business in 2011, a couple of years later. The conviction would have had to be disclosed to potential clients, who would naturally choose another broker.

Plus, the government would have subjected her to a variety of compliance measures that would have made continued operation impossible.

So she didn’t really “go Galt,” as she says.

My conviction is the woman is engaged in some kind of disinformation or infiltration (of the Cass Sunstein variety).

The purpose is to claim dissident status among Christians, while actually venting tropes that aid the long-term goals of  the establishment.

Controlled opposition.

Googling, I find that the astute Mr. North seems to smell a rat too:

“When a woman comes in the name of Christ with this vocabulary, do not pay any attention to her. It is bad enough when a man uses such language in public. For a Christian woman, it is reprehensible.

She has become a foul-mouthed embarrassment to the Catholic Church. She should be disciplined by her priest. If she does not publicly repent and apologize for this article, she should be excommunicated….

This woman needs professional psychological counseling……….

North quotes lengthy passages from her writing and notes that she is passing on language from popular movies, a clever way to hook into the subconscious of her listeners:

“I’m your Huckleberry” was what the script writer for Tombstone put into the mouth of Doc Holliday, in his challenge to Johnny Ringo. (Just for the record, the encounter never happened.)

She is not Doc Holliday, but the IRS really is the administrative equivalent of Johnny Ringo. She can’t shoot straight. The IRS can.

She has crossed over a line: from legitimate concern over the state of the financial system and the society to a quest for ersatz martyrdom.

Avoid her.”

Bloomsbury’s Last Secret: Sado-Masochism

Posted on by

Lytton Strachey, the cultural critic and author of “Eminent Victorians,” a book  that  aimed to expose the darker nature of Christian public figures like Florence Nightingale, is one of the most celebrated figures of  the early twentieth century British intellectual circle called the Bloomsbury group.

The group was named after the Bloomsbury neighborhood in central London where members lived and worked.

The circle included some of the most important intellectuals of the time – the famous economist John Maynard Keynes; the feminist writer Virginia Woolf and her husband, the critic Leonard Woolf; the author E.M Forster and the philosopher G.E.Moore.

Many of them had met while students at Cambridge and they continued to maintain close ties with Cambridge scholars and with groups like the Fabian Society.

The Fabians advocated socialism through gradualism and evolution rather than revolution, but, as with Marx and Engels, they were not from the working-class that they claimed to champion, but from the upper middle-class and higher.

And, again, as with Marx and Engels, they were financed by the wealthiest and most powerful people in the world. 

Bertrand Russell, the mathematician, was one of  the Fabians and he promoted the one- world government favored by the elite class, as well as its cultural agenda of rampant hedonism, practicing the latter by discarding three wives in turn.

The Fabians also included Beatrice and Sidney Webb, notorious for covering up Soviet communist atrocities; the great playwright George Bernard Shaw, who admitted that the “democratic” part of the Fabian platform was pure propaganda; Annie Besant, a theosophist who was instrumental in the founding of the Indian Independence Movement, which was thus from the start infiltrated by the British; and Harold Laski, whose socialist theories filtered down to the former colonies through his teaching position at the London School of Economics. Generations of post-colonial leaders were indoctrinated there in an ideology that was inherently atheistic, radically egalitarian, and totalitarian in nature.

[Celebrated artist Eric Gill, along with G.K. Chesterton, one of the founders of an alleged “third-way” between capitalism and socialism, was also a Fabian at one point.

Gill was regarded for a long time as a kind of secular saint.

But research in recent years has revealed a different picture.

Unknown to the public, Gill was an incestuous pedophile and adulterer, drew pornographic religious art, and dabbled in exhibitionism, homosexuality, and zoophilia, both before and after his “conversion” to Catholicism.]

Through the Woolfs and their friends, the Bloomsbury group was closely tied to the universities, the occult societies, the Fabians, the left, the anti-colonial leadership, and the League of Nations.

The ideas that permeated one area were inextricably joined with the ideas influencing another.

Property redistribution melded into wife/lover-swapping, polyamory, homosexuality, bisexuality, and pederasty.

Property, Christianity, bourgeois morality, and empire –  they all had to fall together.

Not surprisingly, the enlightened Fabian agenda hid many base appetites.

Keynes was an open homosexual/bisexual and pederast:

Zygmund Dobbs wrote in his work Keynes at Harvard:

“ In 1967 the world was startled by the publication of the letters between Lytton Strachey and Maynard Keynes. Undisputed evidence in their private correspondence shows that Keynes was a life-long sexual deviate. What was more shocking was that these practices extended to a large group. Homosexuality, sado-masochism, lesbianism, and the deliberate policy of corrupting the young was the established practice of this large and influential group which eventually set the political and cultural tone for the British Empire.Keynes’ sexual partner, Lytton Strachey, indicated that their sexual attitudes could be infiltrated, “subtly, through literature, into the bloodstream of the people, and in such a way that they accepted it all quite naturally, if need be, without at first realizing what it was to which they were agreeing.” He further explained, privately, that, “he sought to write in a way that would contribute to an eventual change in our ethical and sexual mores—a change that couldn’t ‘be done in a minute,’ but would unobtrusively permeate the more flexible minds of young people.” This is a classic expression of the Fabian socialist method of seducing the mind. This was written in 1929 when it was already in practice for over forty years. It is no wonder we are reaping the whirlwind of student disorders where drug addiction and homosexuality rule the day.[9]

Virginia Woolf, who had a history of molestation and mental  illness, had a lesbian affair and eventually killed herself.

Strachey himself was a homosexual pederast.

Letters published in 2005 show that Strachey also practiced S&M and once staged a blasphemous sado-masochistic crucifixion scene with his gay lover.

Thus behind the political revolution, we find  the sexual revolution, and behind that  an agenda that is essentially anti-Christian.

“Although Strachey had had a heterosexual relationship with the painter Dora Carrington, with whom he set up house in 1917, he soon became predominantly homosexual – with an occasional flicker of interest directed at women, including Katherine Mansfield. His last boyfriend was Roger Senhouse, who subsequently became a distinguished publisher.

Dearest old creature, what a villain you are! It was certainly settled that you were to keep Monday for me, and now I gather you’ve arranged to do something else. Tut, tut! What is to be done with you? What fearful punishment? To stand with the right ear nailed in the pillory, I think, at Piccadilly Circus, from midday to sunset on that very Monday!

To Roger Senhouse, Wednesday, July 30, 1930

Strachey had always delighted in verbal blasphemy – and, as described here, playing at crucifixion added erotic spice. I imagine the cut was made, à la Longinus’s spear, in Strachey’s side, which would have made it difficult to apply the salve.

My own dearest creature. Such a very extraordinary night! The physical symptoms quite outweighed the mental and spiritual ones – partly because they persisted in my consciousness through a rather unsettled but none the less very satisfactory sleep. First there was the clearly defined pain of the cut (a ticklish business applying the lanoline – but your orders had to be carried out) and then the much vaguer afterpangs of crucifixion – curious stiffnesses moving about over my arms and torso, very odd – and at the same time so warm and comfortable – the circulation, I must presume, fairly humming – and vitality bulking large… where it usually does – all through the night, so it seemed. But now these excitements have calmed down – the cut has quite healed up and only hurts when touched, and some faint numbnesses occasionally flit through my hands – voilà tout, just bringing to the memory some supreme highlights of sensation…”

The Real Rape Culture On American Campuses

Posted on by

Dr. Lori Handrahan has compiled an astounding list of convicted child-pornographers (hard-core rape/torture of children as young as 3 months) on American (and Canadian) campuses.

I DELETED THE LINK.  THOSE INTERESTED IN IT CAN GOOGLE THE INFORMATION.

In some cases, the crimes go beyond pornography to actual rape.

Included on the list of convicted child pornographers are renowned educators holding high office ( in Canada),  the President of  American university,  a Yale-trained senior professor who coached Girls Scouts,  a brilliant MIT researcher, directors of university research and policy centers, and one Nobel-level geologist at Yale who video-taped his sessions raping a child he was supposed to be mentoring.

Hanrahan should know about crimes against children.

A professor at the School of International Service at American University, she claims her own daughter was molested by her husband, although a court later found the charges unsubstantiated and ordered her to pay damages.

In the ensuing court battle, she found to her horror that the US court system didn’t make it easy to get redress in such cases.

In fact, there seems to be a net-workers of gate-keepers whose interest lies in protecting the perpetrators.

Dr. Handrahan lost her own case and was fired from two jobs, so some people believe that her accusations about her own child are malicious and unwarranted.

But, after reading her research and her background and after looking at opposing counsel in her case, I am inclined to believe that she is the target of a campaign of vilification intended to destroy her for blowing the whistle on child pornography in American universities and federal institutions.

 

 

Satan’s Seat at Pergamum: The Imperial Cult

Posted on by

Alan Bandy, a New Testament scholar and specialist in the Apocalypse interprets the famous passage in the Book of Revelation, in which Jesus addresses the church of Pergamum:

I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan’s seat is: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth.”

Revelation 2:1

Bandy describes the most popular interpretations of the term, “Satan’s seat”:

1. The temple of Zeus and Athena at Pergamum, current Bergama in Turkey.

2. The Pergamene Asklepieion, an ancient hospital dedicated to Asklepios, the god of healing.

3. Pergamum as an important seat of Roman power in the province of Asia.

4.  Pergamum as a prominent site of the imperial cult, the worship of the Roman emperor. instituted after Augustus Caesar.

Citing Steven Friesen on whom he relies for many of his arguments,Bandy opts for the last item – the Roman  imperial cult – as the object of Jesus’ denunciation.

I find his choice persuasive and the reasons he gives are important, especially as, all over the Internet,  Christian websites point to the  altar of Zeus as the “seat of Satan.”

Juri Lina, whose book “Under the Sign of the Scorpion” describes the masonic, occult, and Kabbalist aspects of the Russian Revolution, also refers to the Zeus  altar in those terms.

The popularity of the interpretation probably derives from the fact that the Zeus altar, which was transferred to a Berlin museum in the 19th century, was the inspiration of Hitler’s architect, Albert Speer:

Eventually, the altar caught the eye of a young man named Albert Speer, the new chief architect for the Nazi Party. Germany’s new chancellor, Adolf Hitler, had commissioned him to design the parade grounds for the party rallies in Nuremberg.

For inspiration, Speer turned to the Pergamon Altar. [sic]

“If you read the German written by Speer, he gives all the credit to Hitler,” says Dr. Anthony R. Santoro, the Distinguished Professor of History & President Emeritus of Christopher Newport University. “I think he’s like a good interior decorator that someone hires, and that client already has the ideas of what he wants to do, and the decorator agrees with him. So that’s what Speer did.”

Using the altar as his model, Speer created a colossal grandstand at the rally grounds in Nuremberg. It became known as the Zeppelintribüne. After the war, only a small part of it was left standing.

“If you look at the kinds of ceremonies that were on display at Zeppelin field with the reconstructed temple there patterned on the Pergamum Altar, you’ll see photographs of Hitler, descending down the steps, like a tribune of the people from old Roman times,” says Santoro.”

Although Bandy arrives at his conclusion by a process of elimination, I think there are other reasons to regard the apotheosis of the emperor as the target of Jesus’ address to the Pergamum church.

Within the frame-work of Biblical prophecy, Satan’s end-time appearance on earth is invoked not directly, but through types: thus, the hunter-ruler Nimrod is a type of Satan; so are the King of Tyre and the Pharaoh of Egypt; so also the rulers of Persia and Babylon.  So too Antiochus IV Epiphanes, whose profanation of the Jewish Temple was predicted by the prophet Daniel.

Notice that these rulers were not merely rulers, but rulers who aspired to divinity; rulers whose kingdoms dominated the known world in their time.

Each of these types of Satan is addressed in prophetic passages that start out by describing contemporary events and then enlarge into prophesies about the end-times.

It seems hermeneutically correct that if Satan in the Old Testament is embodied in kings who aspire to displace God,  then Satan in Revelation must also refer to a king who seeks to displace God.

The worship of Zeus and Asklepios, gods themselves,  cannot be the main reason Jesus called Pergamum Satan’s seat.

Nor can the Dionysian cultic orgies in the region be the reason.

However vile, they did not demand the unquestioning submission of Christians. It was only the cult of the emperor that demanded that.

The desire to  aspire to the throne of God is in the Bible the quintessential characteristic of Satan:

12   How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
13   For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
14   I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
15   Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.”

Isaiah 14, 13-15

The site of the imperial cult in Pergamum was the temple of the Roman emperor Trajan, which was completed by his successor, the emperor Hadrian.

Hadrian is the emperor who put an end to the Jewish revolt under Bar-Kokhba around 132-135 AD.

The the rebels were completely defeated;  the Jewish people were deported and exiled and their religion proscribed;  the name of Judea was changed to Syria-Palestine.

The imperial cult was thus specially dreadful for the Jews.

Moreover, the worship of the emperor was conjoined with the worship of Zeus (Jupiter), giving even more potency to the term “Satan’s seat.”

This is  nowhere so clear as in the martyrdom of the elderly Bishop of Pergamum, Antipas, to whose death (in 92 AD) Jesus refers in the same passage in Revelation.

Why was Antipas martyred?

Apparently his faith and his ability to heal people from demons attracted the rivalry of the priests of Asklepios.  They complained to the Roman authorities and Antipas was asked to sacrifice to the emperor and to call him god.

When the devout bishop refused, he was taken to the temple of Zeus and put inside a hollow bronze bull at the top of the 40 foot altar. 

The bull was the vessel in which human sacrifices were performed.

(Human sacrifices were officially outlawed by the Romans in 97 BC, but continued infrequently into the4th century AD).

The bull was then heated with flames until Antipas was roasted to death inside the burning metal, his cries animating the bull and making it come alive to spectators.

 

 

Do Any Good Scientists Reject Evolution?

Posted on by

From a comment at Scienceblogs.com:

You may have noticed that evolutionists often attack the scientific credentials
of any scientist who rejects the theory of evolution.

There is no question that some of the most famous scientists of all times believed in creation. Ann Lamont has written a book entitled 21 Great Scientists
Who Believed The Bible.

She devotes chapters to Kepler, Boyle, Newton, Linnaeus,
Euler, Faraday, Babbage, Joule, Pasteur, Kelvin, Maxwell, and Werner von Braun.

These men weren’t dummies, and they believed in creation.

Here are a few more “academics” to add to the list.

Dr Raymond V. Damadian – Inventor of the MRI (magnetic resonance imaging)
Dr. John R. Baumgardner (Geophysicist)
Dr Ian Macreadie (Molecular Biologist and Microbiologist)
Dr. Raymond Jones (Agricultural Scientist)
Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith (3 Doctorates and a 3-star NATO General)
Dr. Robert Gentry (nuclear physicist)
Emeritus Professor Tyndale John Rendle-Short – From (theistic) evolution to creation
Charlie Lieberts – (Chemist)
Dr. Gary Parker (Biologist)
Dr. D. Russell Humphreys (Physicist)
Dr. Alan Galbraith (Watershed Science)
Dr. Donald Batten (Agriculturist)
Dr. David Catchpoole (Plant Physiologist)
Dr. Robert V. Gentry – (Physicist)
# Gerald E. Aardsma (physicist and radiocarbon dating)

# Louis Agassiz (helped develop the study of glacial geology and of ichthyology)

# Alexander Arndt (analytical chemist, etc.) [more info]

# Steven A. Austin (geologist and coal formation expert) [more info]

# Charles Babbage (helped develop science of computers / developed actuarial tables and the
calculating machine)

# Francis Bacon (developed the Scientific Method)

# Thomas G. Barnes (physicist) [more info]

# Robert Boyle (helped develop sciences of chemistry and gas dynamics)

# Wernher von Braun (pioneer of rocketry and space exploration)

# David Brewster (helped develop science of optical mineralogy)

# Arthur V. Chadwick (geologist) [more info]

# Melvin Alonzo Cook (physical chemist, Nobel Prize nominee) [more info]

# Georges Cuvier (helped develop sciences of comparative anatomy and vertebrate
paleontology)

# Humphry Davy (helped develop science of thermokinetics)

# Donald B. DeYoung (physicist, specializing in solid-state, nuclear science and
astronomy) [more info]

# Henri Fabre (helped develop science of insect entomology)

# Michael Faraday (helped develop science of electromagnetics / developed the
Field Theory / invented the electric generator)

# Danny R. Faulkner (astronomer) [more info]

# Ambrose Fleming (helped develop science of electronics / invented thermionic
valve)

# Robert V. Gentry (physicist and chemist) [more info]

# Duane T. Gish (biochemist) [more info]

# John Grebe (chemist) [more info]

# Joseph Henry (invented the electric motor and the galvanometer / discovered
self-induction)

# William Herschel (helped develop science of galactic astronomy / discovered
double stars / developed the Global Star Catalog)

# George F. Howe (botanist) [more info]

# D. Russell Humphreys (award-winning physicist) [more info]

# James P. Joule (developed reversible thermodynamics)

# Johann Kepler (helped develop science of physical astronomy / developed the
Ephemeris Tables)

# John W. Klotz (geneticist and biologist) [more info]

# Leonid Korochkin (geneticist) [more info]

# Lane P. Lester (geneticist and biologist) [more info]

# Carolus Linnaeus (helped develop sciences of taxonomy and systematic biology /
developed the Classification System)

# Joseph Lister (helped develop science of antiseptic surgery)

# Frank L. Marsh (biologist) [more info]

# Matthew Maury (helped develop science of oceanography/hydrography)

# James Clerk Maxwell (helped develop the science of electrodynamics)

# Gregor Mendel (founded the modern science of genetics)

# Samuel F. B. Morse (invented the telegraph)

# Isaac Newton (helped develop science of dynamics and the discipline of
calculus / father of the Law of Gravity / invented the reflecting telescope)

# Gary E. Parker (biologist and paleontologist) [more info]

# Blaise Pascal (helped develop science of hydrostatics / invented the
barometer)

# Louis Pasteur (helped develop science of bacteriology / discovered the Law of
Biogenesis / invented fermentation control / developed vaccinations and
immunizations)

# William Ramsay (helped develop the science of isotopic chemistry / discovered
inert gases)

# John Ray (helped develop science of biology and natural science)

# Lord Rayleigh (helped develop science of dimensional analysis)

# Bernhard Riemann (helped develop non-Euclidean geometry)

# James Simpson (helped develop the field of gynecology / developed the use of
chloroform)

# Nicholas Steno (helped develop the science of stratigraphy)

# George Stokes (helped develop science of fluid mechanics)

# Charles B. Thaxton (chemist) [more info]

# William Thompson (Lord Kelvin) (helped develop sciences of thermodynamics and
energetics / invented the Absolute Temperature Scale / developed the
Trans-Atlantic Cable)

# Larry Vardiman (astrophysicist and geophysicist) [more info]

# Leonardo da Vinci (helped develop science of hydraulics)

# Rudolf Virchow (helped develop science of pathology)

# A.J. (Monty) White (chemist) [more info]

# A.E. Wilder-Smith (chemist and pharmacology expert) [more info]

# John Woodward (helped develop the science of paleontology)

University of California law professor, Phillip Johnson, who holds an endowed
chair at Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California, Berkeley.”

http://www.creationists.org/outstanding.html