I admire my Seventh Day Adventist friends for their love for God’s Word and obedience to what they believe God’s Word is telling them to do, but as far as Sabbath day observance goes, the bottom line for me is the New Testament does not teach it! In Acts chapter 15 when the Apostles disputed whether the Gentiles needed to keep the Laws of Moses or not, the conclusion was they needed to keep only four precepts:

Acts 15:20  But that we write unto them, that they abstain from
(1) pollutions of idols,
(2) and from fornication,
(3) and from things strangled,
(4) and from blood.

Notice Sabbath day observance is not one of them!

I saw this meme on Facebook and I want to tell my readers why it’s not true.

First of all, nowhere in the Bible does it call the Sabbath a day of worship! What does the Bible say? It says:

The Sabbath was a day of rest and not specifically designated as a day of worship! In the books of Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy, there are 8 verses with the words Sabbath and rest. The word worship is not in any of them. And it’s certainly not the “day of the sun” as the meme claims. SDAs even call believers meeting together on Sunday the “Mark of the Beast!” Christians meeting together on Sunday was a tradition that started in Jerusalem according to Acts 20:7, way before the Church of Rome was founded!

“Sabbath observance, not trust in Christ alone for complete forgiveness of sins and eternal life, is to be the dividing line between the saved and the lost in the end time.” – Ellen G. White

That is rank heresy! It tells me she has no idea of the true Gospel of Christ! Ellen White promoted a works religion. Her statement is totally against the core meaning of the Gospel.

I don’t judge my SDA friends for feeling it necessary to observe the Sabbath, and I do think it is important to take at least one day a week off to rest, pray, and have more time to study God’s Word, but the New Testament does not tell me that day of rest must Saturday.

I get the following from Leo Lehmann’s Converted Catholic Magazine.

The Council of Laodicea in 343 (way before the Bishop of Rome claimed to be the Vicar of Christ) , under the Emperor Constantine’s dictate, decreed as follows:

“Christians shall not Judaize and be idle on Saturday, but shall work on that day; but the Lord’s day they shall especially honor, and, as Christians, shall, if possible, do no work on that day.” The following should be noted:

• The “observance” of Sunday, the first day of the week, was customary among the early Christians, as may be seen from Acts 20:7.
  Acts 20:7  And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.
• Opposition to Judaism was the chief reason for the change.
• Salvation under the New Testament dispensation is by faith in Christ’s all-sufficient work of redemption, not by observance of days, forms and ceremonies.
• Our aim is to present facts of objective truth, and to leave it to each one to act on them according to his conscience under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

William W. Gothard Jr. (born November 2, 1934) is an American Christian minister, speaker, and writer, and the founder of the Institute in Basic Life Principles (IBLP), an independent fundamentalist Christian organization. His conservative teachings encourage Bible memorization, large families, homeschooling, aversion to debt, familial patriarchy, the submission of wives to husbands, and modest attire.At the height of Gothard’s popularity during the 1970s, his Basic Youth Conflicts seminar was regularly filling auditoriums throughout the United States and beyond with attendance figures as large as ten thousand and more for a one-week seminar. (from Wikipedia)

I attended Bill Gothard’s Basic Youth Conflicts seminar when I served in the USAF when stationed in Sacramento, CA., circa 1972. I probably didn’t get as much out of it as I should have because I felt I was forced to attend the seminar by the Navigator leadership, the non-denominational Christian fellowship that led me to Christ. I didn’t always agree with what Bill Gothard was teaching. I was deceived then by Pentecostal pastors who told me I didn’t need to study the Bible as much as the Navigators told me to study it or memorize so many Scriptures as the Navigators encouraged me to memorize. The Pentecostals told me all I needed was the infilling of the Holy Spirit. This supposed shortcut to spirituality was in direct contradiction to what the Navigators were telling me, namely, there is no shortcut! I rejected the Navigator’s view of how to grow spiritually the time, but guess what? After a couple of decades of the school of hard knocks, I learned the Navigators and Bill Gothard were right. It was only through decades of Bible study, Scripture memorization, listening to the right people, experience, and guidance of the Holy Spirit that I came to know I know today.

The Scripture that comes to mind about this subject is what Jesus told His disciples.

The Lord blessed Bill Gothard with good health. At the time of this post, he’s 89 years old.

Hurt has got to be one of our major problems today. You can get hurt so badly that you cut yourself off from feeling altogether. I’ve met girls who’ve said, “Hey, I’ve been hurt too many times. I’m never going to love anybody again. Forget it.” So you get hard and cynical. That’s one way people deal with pain–they just withdraw themselves so that they won’t be hurt again. But when you come to Jesus, God heals your heart and He takes the cynicism out of your life. You can once again open your heart to others and love again.

Even Christians can get hurt. It’s not wrong to be hurt, but the way you deal with your hurt makes all the difference in the World. Being hurt is a big enough problem in itself, but if that hurt is not handled in the right way, bitterness will set in. In the end it is bitterness, not “being hurt,” that will destroy you.

RECOGNIZING BITTERNESS

It is really not that complicated to recognize bitterness. Let’s think of some of the characteristics of an extremely bitter person:

1. They show a lack of concern for others. A bitter person cares very little about anybody else.
2. They’re sensitive and touchy. For instance, if a bitter person walks into a room where two other people are talking, and those people get quieter as he walks in, the bitter person thinks, “They’re talking about me.”
3. They become very possessive with just a few friends, and rarely ever have any really close friends. They also have an unnatural fear of losing their friends.
4. They tend to avoid meeting new people.
5. They show little or no gratitude at all.
6. They will usually speak words of empty flattery or harsh criticism.
7. They hold grudges against people, often for a long time. They find it extremely difficult to forgive.
8. They often have a stubborn or sulking attitude.
9. They are usually unwilling to share or help anybody.
10. They end up experiencing mood extremes–very high and happy one minute, and the next thing you know, they’re so low they can reach up and touch bottom.

(Editor’s note: Although these symptoms often indicate bitternesses, they can also result from other causes as well.)

BITTERNESS: THE SEED OF HELL

One of the bad things about bitterness is that it doesn’t stop. It keeps getting worse. It may only start as a little seed of hurt, but then it grows and festers into a very dangerous thing. Many people can be hurt by one person’s bitterness. (See    Heb.12:15 .)

THE “FILING CABINET OF YOUR MIND”

In bitterness, you focus on what that “horrible person” has done to you. You make a filing cabinet with their name on it, saying, “Rotten Things This Person Has Done To Me.” Now this is a big filing cabinet, and every time that person does even the smallest thing that hurts or bothers you, you file it in with the rest of the hurts. Usually we have more than one filing cabinet.

One of the causes of continual or persistent bitterness is that we try to balance out the guilt with blame. We say, “Well, I’m wrong, but they’re worse. I have a good reason to be bitter. You don’t know what they did to me!” That’s how we try to ease our conscience.

Many people use bitterness for revenge. That’s why we hold on to it sometimes. “I’ll show you, and you’re really going to be sorry.” But who is sorry first? You’re the one who’s killing yourself! You are not only hurt spiritually and emotionally, but physically as well. Bitterness and resentment often bring on all sorts of medical problems, such as ulcers and high blood pressure. People who carry deep bitterness around can’t even enjoy a great meal. They sit down to eat, but all they can think of is the person who hurt them–they might as well be eating cardboard.

GETTING OUT OF THE BITTERNESS TRAP

The Lord’s Prayer says, “God, You forgive me the way I forgive others.” The thing that causes hurt to develop into bitterness is failing to respond to the help God can give at that time of being hurt. To forgive someone doesn’t mean pretending you’re not hurt. That isn’t Christianity–that’s insanity. You need to be honest with yourself and admit that you’ve really been hurt. But how do we overcome our hurts? Here are some basic steps.

Pray, and ask God to forgive you for your bitterness and unforgiving spirit. This is not a complicated thing, but it may be costly. You may need a bit of time on your own. Take time to actually write a list of how you have hurt God and others, and let the Lord break you. Ask God’s forgiveness for these things one by one.–And when you get finished, take the list and rip it up. It’s a good feeling. Burn it if you like.

Destroy your files. Remember that list of things that others have done to hurt you? Open the filing cabinets of your mind, take out all the files, and get rid of them. Tear up your list and burn it. You must release it all to God. Forgiveness is opening the filing cabinet before God and clearing the debts. “I’m not going to hold this against them anymore. I’m not even going to keep a record of it.” No record. That’s what God does with you. Do you want Him to remember and recall all the debts He has cleared you of? Of course not, so you do the same. The Bible says, “For if you forgive men for their transgressions, your Heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions.”– Mat.6:14,15 . It’s a choice you must make in response to God’s offer of forgiveness to you. What will you do?

–BY Jim Henry

I read this article long ago some in the 1980s. It helped me greatly to overcome the grudges and bitterness I used to have toward various people for their perceived wrongs against me. If you have bitterness in your heart toward anyone, I urge you to read it! When I was bitter toward a person, it was like a spiritual acid in my soul. I learned over time to forgive others as Christ has forgiven me. I’ve realized how sinful I have been in the past in my attitudes words and deeds toward some people, and knowing that humbles me greatly. I can say now by God’s grace I’m free from the past and have my eyes only on the present and future, praise God!

I’m not sure who the author of this article, Jim Henry is. There’s a Baptist pastor by that name. It could be him.

Bitterness is that hateful, spiteful sourness in the heart that creeps in when you have been, or think you have been, maliciously wronged. I looked up the word in a dictionary, and it was defined as a sharpness affecting the taste, the feelings, or the mind. It comes from an old English word that meant “sharpness to the taste.”

If you’ve ever had a difficult experience with someone who made you mad, and you resented it, held on to it–you know how bad it tasted spiritually, and in your mind it raised hateful feelings and thoughts. That is bitterness, and God’s Word has something to say about it.

RECOGNIZING BITTERNESS

How does bitterness show itself?–In at least three ways.

One kind of bitterness is directed against God. You can become bitter against God in the loss of a loved one, when a friend swindles you out of money, when the boss passes you over for a promotion you really deserved and gives it to someone else, or when your husband walks off and leaves you for another woman.

You are angry, and you say, “Lord, if You love me so much, why did this happen? If You answer prayer, why didn’t You answer mine? Either You are not powerful enough, or You didn’t care enough. Either way, I am angry with You!”

A second kind of bitterness is against other people. It can be there in a child who decides to rebel against his parents, to run away from home because he believes they are unfair to him. It can be there in a wife who says, “I’ll have a nervous breakdown if my husband keeps treating me like this, and I’ll get even with him.”

It might be a person who says, “OK, if I forgive them for what they did to me, that wouldn’t be fair. They don’t deserve to be forgiven. I’m going to carry this a little longer and maybe somehow along the way they’ll see what it has done to me, and something will happen to them.”

You and I cannot afford the luxury of holding on to bitterness and resentment against others, because it only becomes the root of other problems.

Your bitterness can also be directed against yourself, and show itself in an inability to forgive yourself, even though God has forgiven you. You carry that load until you say, “I deserved it, but I’m strong enough to take it, and I’ll just carry this thing and deal with it myself.” Self-centered pride latches onto your heart and you refuse the forgiveness of God and others.

This can also cause you to live in self-pity. You say, “OK, I deserve this. God’s trying to punish me. I shouldn’t have done this or that, and now I deserve what I’m getting, and I’m just going to have to be a martyr and carry it.” So you trudge along in life nursing bitter resentment and a grudge against God or someone else. You carry it until you make life miserable for yourself and everyone around you. Why? Because you never dealt with your bitterness. The Bible says, “Watch out for such bitterness!” (“Look diligently”– Heb.12:15 .)

BITTERNESS BEGINS UNSEEN

Not only am I to “look diligently” for bitterness, but because it may be unseen, I may not be aware of it; and being unaware of it, I may be especially liable to its danger.

Look what the Scripture says: “See to it that no one misses the grace of God, that no bitter root grows up…” Now, where is a root? Usually under the ground. You don’t see it, but it’s there. I have some weeds in my yard, growing through everything–even bricks! There are roots down there somewhere. They cause weeds to grow, whether there’s shade or sunshine–I can’t get rid of them. I don’t see the roots, but the evidence is everywhere.

Bitterness can be an unseen enemy, growing like a tumor in your mind and in your spirit. The Bible says we should look out for it. Just because we don’t see it, doesn’t mean it’s not there.

Bitterness is the unharvested fruit of anger, and in time it will show itself. As    Numbers 32:23    says, “Be sure that your sin will find you out.”

BITTERNESS SPRINGS UP & CAUSES TROUBLE

The Bible warns that the root of bitterness will spring up, and when it does, what does it do? Cause good things to happen? No! Cause joy? No! Cause love? No! Cause peace? No! “See to it…that no bitter root grows up to cause trouble!”

Bitterness, improperly handled, causes trouble–and it does so in at least two ways.

First, it causes physical problems. In his book “None of These Diseases,” S. I. McMillan says, “Anger, unhandled, will show itself in at least 50 diseases.”

Dr. Norman Wright, a professor of psychology at Biola University and a Christian writer, agrees with McMillan. God has constructed us, says Dr. Wright, with a tube about 30 feet long that begins at our throat and runs to our rectum (the alimentary canal). That long tube, disturbed by bitterness and anger, produces things like colitis, diarrhea and ulcers. (Editor’s note: Of course, such ailments often result from many other causes besides bitterness or anger.) When we are angry and do not handle it properly, there are physical consequences.

Bitterness can also show itself in our mental condition. Bitterness is really displaced anger. We can be angry at other things, other people and other objects, not knowing it comes from bitterness. All our energy and mind are set in an anger-mode, and we’re affected mentally. There is no joy, no creativity, no positive power flowing through our lives because there is resentment there.

We are also affected spiritually when bitterness is not resolved. How? By an inability to accept God’s Love. It can cause you to doubt your relationship to God. Ray Burke has written a book called Anger–Diffusing the Bomb, and in it he says that each time he dealt with those who doubted God’s Love for them, somewhere along the line he discovered they harbored bitterness against God, themselves, or someone else. When this bitterness was dealt with and resolved, their ability to accept God’s Love and forgiveness returned.

HOW DO WE OVERCOME BITTERNESS?

The good news is that anyone can overcome a bitter spirit. God encourages us to deal with it. He says in    Ephesians 4:31 , “Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger…”

The Bible is so practical and clear that if we take what God teaches us about overcoming bitterness and apply it, we can be free of the bondage of bitterness.

BITTERNESS TOWARD GOD

Begin by dealing with any bitterness toward God. The following steps may help.

First, trust God’s wisdom. This doesn’t mean you should believe that everything that happens on Earth is good. Sin is in the World. Satan is still the prince of the air. Yet I must believe that God allows things to happen that He may not like, and which we may not like. But in His wisdom, somewhere down the line, God will turn it around for good for His children, according to His promise in    Romans 8:28 .

Second, I have to ask God what He’s trying to teach me through this. The Bible says we’re the disciples of Jesus. What is a disciple?–A learner. The Bible says the Father is the teacher, and we are disciples. We are learners. The experiences of life are teaching experiences. Sometimes we are so anxious to get to our destination that we forget how much joy can be ours along the way. When bitterness comes and you are tempted to be angry with God, ask Him what He is trying to teach you.

Third, apply one of God’s promises to your situation.

Fourth, reject self-pity. Have you ever been a victim of the “Poor Me Syndrome”? Perhaps you know someone else who always seems to be saying, “Poor me, just look what’s happened to me.” No one likes being around such a sad-sack for very long, because it’s no fun. So don’t get into that syndrome.

Fifth, put time into proper perspective. Every difficult experience you may be dealing with now, circumstances that tend to make you angry and bitter, will in time pass away.

Sixth, be quick to give thanks. I’ve learned a little chorus recently, and I start singing it almost from the time I wake up in the morning: “It’s amazing what praising can do.” The song goes:

It doesn’t matter when things go wrong,
Jesus fills my heart with a song.
It’s amazing what praising can do.

You can’t be bitter against God and praise Him at the same time. You can’t be blessing Him while you’re also shaking your fist at Him. So the Bible says, “In all things, give thanks.”– 1Th.5:18 . Learn to give thanks unto the Lord and praise His Name, and it’s really amazing what praising can do.

BITTERNESS TOWARD YOURSELF

Many times we get angry with ourselves. It shows up in many forms–we feel rejected, we wallow in self-pity, and our self-image is poor.

It may be because of some sin or failure of yesteryear, something that, if we had it to do all over again, we wouldn’t do for a million dollars; but we did do it, and we’re having trouble forgiving ourselves.

How do I deal with that?

I begin by confessing my sin to the Lord, and believing His promise: “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness”– 1Jn.1:9 . Then once I know God has forgiven me, I can forgive myself.

BITTERNESS TOWARD OTHERS

How do you deal with bitterness against others? One thing you must do is to keep your anger temporary. In    Ephesians 4:26    God tells us we should not let the sun go down on our anger. If you’re mad at somebody today, you should get it settled before the sun goes down. If it goes down and you don’t deal with it, it will simmer all night, and tomorrow there’s a good chance you’ll be twice as angry and bitter about it as you are today. Washington Irving said that a tart temper is the only thing that doesn’t mellow with age. So deal with your anger before the sun goes down. Keep a short account.

Another crucial area is the tongue. The Bible reminds us that though the tongue is a little instrument, it causes a lot of problems. You can’t get into trouble for something you didn’t say. That’s why it’s so often best to mentally stamp “N.C.” on things you hear or observe. Do you know what that is? “No Comment.” You can keep out of trouble that way. Watch your words. A sharp tongue is a tool that grows keener with use. Watch it.

We can also pursue peace. “Make every effort to live in peace with all men.”– Heb.12:14 . “Seek peace and pursue it.”– 1Pet.3:11 . We must chase after peace, like a dog after a fox! Go for it! In    Philippians 4:5    we are commanded, “Let your gentleness be evident to all.” Be gentle–not to most people, or to some, but to all of them. Live gently. Pursue peace.

Also, if you know someone is harboring anger, hurt or bitterness towards you because of some wrongdoing on your part, you can take the positive step of initiating reconciliation. In    Matthew 5:23-24 , Jesus says that if you come to Him with your offering in hand, and then remember that a brother has something against you, leave your offering, go to your brother, and make your offering after you’re reconciled with your brother. So the Lord not only tells us to go to others when we’re bitter or unforgiving towards them, but He covers both angles and also tells us to go to those who are bitter or angry towards us.

There’s something else: Forgive and forget. How can you forget something negative that’s stuck in your mind? The Bible says God remembers our sins no more. So how can God forget something when He is omniscient? How can He know everything and still forget? Here’s the secret: When you forgive and forget, the forgetting means that you, like God, don’t hold that wrongdoing to the offender’s account. God forgets the charge against us; He remembers it no more. Oh, He knows about it, just as you do, but He will never bring it up again. That’s what we are to do. Don’t fish in the pond of history. Leave it there.

Sometimes we are like the man who came running into the office of a marriage counsellor. “Sir, you’ve got to do something about my wife. Hurry! She’s historical, she’s historical!” The counselor said, “Now, wait a minute. You mean she’s hysterical.” He said, “No! She’s historical! She’s bringing up everything from the past!”

Some people can go back and reel off in chronological order everything that a person has done against them during their entire relationship. If you forgive a person, forget their offenses and never bring them up again. Don’t dwell in the past and don’t let the past dwell in you.

Robert E. Lee, after the Civil War, visited a home in Kentucky. The lady of the house pointed to a limbless, battered tree trunk standing on the front lawn, and said, “Before the Union army came through here, that was a beautiful, magnificent magnolia tree. Then they blasted it with their artillery, and that’s all that’s left. What do you think about that?”

She expected the general to sympathize with her and criticize the Union Army. But instead, he looked at her and said one sentence: “Cut it down and forget it.”

HOW ABOUT YOU?

Do you have some trees of bitterness standing in your life? Bitterness toward God? Toward others? Toward yourself? Cut them down and forget them.

Resolve to deal with your bitter spirit. “Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.”– Eph.4:31-32 .

Continued from part II.

I would now show how the aforesaid teaching is of benefit to us, in that

A) it gives us insight into the names of Christ in Scripture,
B) it encourages us to accept him as our Savior,
C) it encourages us to accept him as our Friend.

A) From this doctrine we may learn one reason why Christ is called by such a variety of names, and held forth under such a variety of representations, in Scripture. It is the better to signify and exhibit to us that variety of excellencies that meet together and are conjoined in him. Many appellations are mentioned together in one verse Isaiah 9:6.

“For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given, and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace.”

It shows a wonderful conjunction of excellencies, that the same person should be a Son, born and given, and yet be the everlasting Father, without beginning or end, that he should be a Child, and yet be he whose name is Counsellor, and the mighty God; and well may his name, in whom such things are conjoined, be called wonderful.

By reason of the same wonderful conjunction, Christ is represented by a great variety of sensible things, that are on some account excellent. Thus in some places he is called a Sun, as Mal. 4:2, in others a Star, Numb. 24:17. And he is especially represented by the Morning star, as being that which excels all other stars in brightness, and is the forerunner of the day, Rev. 22:16. And, as in our text, he is compared to a lion in one verse, and a lamb in the next, so sometimes he is compared to a roe or young hart, another creature most diverse from a lion. So in some places he is called a rock, in others he is compared to a pearl. In some places he is called a man of war, and the Captain of our Salvation, in other places he is represented as a bridegroom. In the second chapter of Canticles, the first verse, he is compared to a rose and a lily, that are sweet and beautiful flowers; in the next verse but one, he is compared to a tree bearing sweet fruit. In Isaiah 53:2 he is called a Root out of a dry ground; but elsewhere, instead of that, he is called the Tree of Life, that grows (not in a dry or barren ground, but) ” in the midst of the paradise of God.” Rev. 2:7.

B) Let the consideration of this wonderful meeting of diverse excellencies in Christ induce you to accept of him, and close with him as your Savior. As all manner of excellencies meet in him, so there are concurring in him all manner of arguments and motives, to move you to choose him for your Savior, and every thing that tends to encourage poor sinners to come and put their trust in him: his fullness and all-sufficiency as a Savior gloriously appear in that variety of excellencies that has been spoken of. Fallen man is in a state of exceeding great misery, and is helpless in it; he is a poor weak creature, like an infant cast out in its blood in the day that it is born. But Christ is the lion of the tribe of Judah; he is strong, though we are weak; he hath prevailed to do that for us which no creature else could do. Fallen man is a mean despicable creature, a contemptible worm; but Christ, who has undertaken for us, is infinitely honorable and worthy. Fallen man is polluted, but Christ is infinitely holy; fallen man is hateful, but Christ is infinitely lovely; fallen man is the object of God’s indignation, but Christ is infinitely dear to him. We have dreadfully provoked God, but Christ has performed that righteousness which is infinitely precious in God’s eyes.

And here is not only infinite strength and infinite worthiness, but infinite condescension, and love and mercy, as great as power and dignity. If you are a poor, distressed sinner, whose heart is ready to sink for fear that God never will have mercy on you, you need not be afraid to go to Christ, for fear that he is either unable or unwilling to help you. Here is a strong foundation, and an inexhaustible treasure, to answer the necessities of your poor soul, and here is infinite grace and gentleness to invite and embolden a poor, unworthy, fearful soul to come to it. If Christ accepts of you, you need not fear but that you will be safe, for he is a strong Lion for your defense. And if you come, you need not fear but that you shall be accepted; for he is like a Lamb to all that come to him, and receives then with infinite grace and tenderness. It is true he has awful majesty, he is the great God, and infinitely high above you; but there is this to encourage and embolden the poor sinner, that Christ is man as well as God; he is a creature, as well as the Creator, and he is the most humble and lowly in heart of any creature in heaven or earth. This may well make the poor unworthy creature bold in coming to him. You need not hesitate one moment; but may run to him, and cast yourself upon him. You will certainly be graciously and meekly received by him. Though he is a lion, he will only be a lion to your enemies, but he will be a lamb to you. It could not have been conceived, had it not been so in the person of Christ, that there could have been so much in any Savior, that is inviting and tending to encourage sinners to trust in him. Whatever your circumstances are, you need not be afraid to come to such a Savior as this. Be you never so wicked a creature, here is worthiness enough; be you never so poor, and mean, and ignorant a creature, there is no danger of being despised, for though he be so much greater than you, he is also immensely more humble than you. Any one of you that is a father or mother, will not despise one of your own children that comes to you in distress: much less danger is there of Christ’s despising you, if you in your heart come to him.

Here let me a little expostulate with the poor, burdened, distressed soul.

1. What are you afraid of, that you dare not venture your soul upon Christ? Are you afraid that he cannot save you, that he is not strong enough to conquer the enemies of your soul? But how can you desire one stronger than ” the almighty God”? as Christ is called, Isa. 9:6. Is there need of greater than infinite strength? Are you afraid that he will not be willing to stoop so low as to take any gracious notice of you? But then, look on him, as he stood in the ring of soldiers, exposing his blessed face to be buffeted and spit upon by them! Behold him bound with his back uncovered to those that smote him! And behold him hanging on the cross! Do you think that he that had condescension enough to stoop to these things, and that for his crucifiers, will be unwilling to accept of you, if you come to him? Or, are you afraid that if he does accept you, that God the Father will not accept of him for you? But consider, will God reject his own Son, in whom his infinite delight is, and has been, from all eternity, and who is so united to him, that if he should reject him he would reject himself?

2. What is there that you can desire should be in a Savior, that is not in Christ? Or, wherein should you desire a Savior should be otherwise than Christ is? What excellency is there wanting? What is there that is great or good; what is there that is venerable or winning; what is there that is adorable or endearing; or, what can you think of that would be encouraging, which is not to be found in the person of Christ? Would you have your Savior to be great and honorable, because you are not willing to be beholden to a mean person? And, is not Christ a person honorable enough to be worthy that you should be dependent on him? Is he not a person high enough to be appointed to so honorable a work as your salvation? Would you not only have a Savior of high degree, but would you have him, notwithstanding his exaltation and dignity, to be made also of low degree, that he might have experience of afflictions and trials, that he might learn by the things that he has suffered, to pity them that suffer and are tempted? And has not Christ been made low enough for you? and has he not suffered enough? Would you not only have him possess experience of the afflictions you now suffer, but also of that amazing wrath that you fear hereafter, that he may know how to pity those that are in danger, and afraid of it? This Christ has had experience of, which experience gave him a greater sense of it, a thousand times, than you have, or any man living has. Would you have your Savior to be one who is near to God, that so his mediation might be prevalent with him? And can you desire him to be nearer to God than Christ is, who is his only-begotten Son, of the same essence with the Father? And would you not only have him near to God, but also near to you, that you may have free access to him? And would you have him nearer to you than to be in the same nature, united to you by a spiritual union, so close as to be fitly represented by the union of the wife to the husband, of the branch to the vine, of the member to the head; yea, so as to be one spirit? For so he will be united to you, if you accept of him. Would you have a Savior that has given some great and extraordinary testimony of mercy and love to sinners, by something that he has done, as well as by what he says? And can you think or conceive of greater things than Christ has done? Was it not a great thing for him, who was God, to take upon him human nature: to be not only God, but man thenceforward to all eternity? But would you look upon suffering for sinners to be a yet greater testimony of love to sinners, than merely doing, though it be ever so extraordinary a thing that he has done? And would you desire that a Savior should suffer more than Christ has suffered for sinners? What is there wanting, or what would you add if you could, to make him more fit to be your Savior?

But further, to induce you to accept of Christ as your Savior, consider two things particularly.

3. How much Christ appears as the Lamb of God in his invitations to you to come to him and trust in him. With what sweet grace and kindness does he, from time to time, call and invite you, as Prov. 8:4. ” Unto you, O men, I call, and my voice is to the sons of men.” And Isaiah 55:1-3 ” Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money, come ye, buy and eat– yea come, buy wine and milk without money, and without price.” How gracious is he here in inviting every one that thirsts, and in so repeating his invitation over and over, ” Come ye to the waters, come, buy and eat – – yea come!” Mark the excellency of that entertainment which he invites you to accept of; ” Come, buy wine and milk!” your poverty, having nothing to pay for it, shall be no objection, ” Come, he that hath no money, come without money, and without price!” What gracious arguments and expostulations he uses with you! ” Wherefore do ye spend money for that which is not bread? and your labor for that which satisfieth not? Hearken diligently unto me, and eat ye that which is good, and let your soul delight itself in fatness.” As much as to say, It is altogether needless for you to continue laboring and toiling for that which can never serve your turn, seeking rest in the world, and in your own righteousness — I have made abundant provision for you, of that which is really good, and will fully satisfy your desires, and answer your end, and I stand ready to accept of you: you need not be afraid; If you will come to me, I will engage to see all your wants supplied, and you made a happy creature. As he promises in the third verse, ” Incline your ear, and come unto me: Hear, and your soul shall live, and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David.” And so Prov. 9 at the beginning. How gracious and sweet is the invitation there! ” Whoso is simple, let him turn in hither;” let you be never so poor, ignorant, and blind a creature, you shall be welcome. And in the following words Christ sets forth the provision that he has made for you, ” Come, eat of my bread, and drink of the wine which I have mingled.” You are in a poor famishing state, and have nothing wherewith to feed your perishing soul; you have been seeking something, but yet remain destitute. Hearken, how Christ calls you to eat of his bread, and to drink of the wine that he hath mingled! And how much like a lamb does Christ appear in Matt. 9:28 30. ” Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me, for I am meek and lowly in heart, and ye shall find rest to your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.” O thou poor distressed soul! whoever thou art, consider that Christ mentions thy very case when he calls to them who labor and are heavy laden! How he repeatedly promises you rest if you come to him! In the 28th verse he says, ” I will give you rest.” And in the 29th verse, ” Ye shall find rest to your souls.” This is what you want. This is the thing you have been so long in vain seeking after. O how sweet would rest be to you, if you could but obtain it! Come to Christ, and you shall obtain it. And hear how Christ, to encourage you, represents himself as a lamb! He tells you, that he is meek and lowly in heart, and are you afraid to come to such a one! And again, Rev. 3:20. ” Behold, I stand at the door and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and I will sup with him and he with me.” Christ condescends not only to call you to him, but he comes to you; he comes to your door, and there knocks. He might send an officer and seize you as a rebel and vile malefactor, but instead of that, he comes and knocks at your door, and seeks that you would receive him into your house, as your Friend and Savior. And he not only knocks at your door, but he stands there waiting, while you are backward and unwilling. And not only so, but he makes promises what he will do for you, if you will admit him, what privileges he will admit you to; he will sup with you, and you with him. And again, Rev. 22:16,17. ” I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star. And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth, say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will let him take of the water of life freely.” How does Christ here graciously set before you his own winning attractive excellency! And how does he condescend to declare to you not only his own invitation, but the invitation of the Spirit and the bride, if by any means he might encourage you to come! And how does he invite every one that will, that they may ” take of the water of life freely,” that they may take it as a free gift, however precious it be, and though it be the Water of life.

4. If you do come to Christ, he will appear as a Lion, in his glorious power and dominion, to defend you. All those excellencies of his, in which he appears as a lion, shall be yours, and shall be employed for you in your defense, for your safety, and to promote your glory, he will be as a lion to fight against your enemies. He that touches you, or offends you, will provoke his wrath, as he that stirs up a lion. Unless your enemies can conquer this Lion, they shall not be able to destroy or hurt you; unless they are stronger than he, they shall not be able to hinder your happiness. Isaiah 31:4. ” For thus hath the Lord spoken unto me, Like as the lion and the young lion roaring on his prey, when a multitude of shepherds is called forth against him, he will not be afraid of their voice, nor abase himself for the noise of them; so shall the Lord of hosts come down to fight for mount Zion, and for the hill thereof.”

C) Let what has been said be improved to induce you to love the Lord Jesus Christ, and choose him for your friend and portion. As there is such an admirable meeting of diverse excellencies in Christ, so there is every thing in him to render him worthy of your love and choice, and to win and engage it. Whatsoever there is or can be desirable in a friend, is in Christ, and that to the highest degree that can be desired.

Would you choose for a friend a person of great dignity? It is a thing taking with men to have those for their friends who are much above them; because they look upon themselves honored by the friendship of such. Thus, how taking would it be with an inferior maid to be the object of the dear love of some great and excellent prince. But Christ is infinitely above you, and above all the princes of the earth; for he is the King of kings. So honorable a person as this offers himself to you, in the nearest and dearest friendship.

And would you choose to have a friend not only great but good? In Christ infinite greatness and infinite goodness meet together, and receive lustre and glory one from another. His greatness is rendered lovely by his goodness. The greater any one is without goodness, so much the greater evil; but when infinite goodness is joined with greatness, it renders it a glorious and adorable greatness. So, on the other hand, his infinite goodness receives lustre from his greatness. He that is of great understanding and ability, and is withal of a good and excellent disposition, is deservedly more esteemed than a lower and lesser being with the same kind inclination and good will. Indeed goodness is excellent in whatever subject it be found; it is beauty and excellency itself, and renders all excellent that are possessed of it; and yet most excellent when joined with greatness. The very same excellent qualities of gold render the body in which they are inherent more precious, and of greater value, when joined with greater than when with lesser dimensions. And how glorious is the sight, to see him who is the great Creator and supreme Lord of heaven and earth, full of condescension, tender pity and mercy, towards the mean and unworthy! His almighty power, and infinite majesty and self- sufficiency, render his exceeding love and grace the more surprising And how do his condescension and compassion endear his majesty, power, and dominion, and render those attributes pleasant, that would otherwise be only terrible! Would you not desire that your friend, though great and honorable, should be of such condescension and grace, and so to have the way opened to free access to him, that his exaltation above you might not hinder your free enjoyment of his friendship? — And would you choose not only that the infinite greatness and majesty of your friend should be, as it were, mollified and sweetened with condescension and grace; but would you also desire to have your friend brought nearer to you? Would you choose a friend far above you, and yet as it were upon a level with you too? Though it be taking with men to have a near and dear friend of superior dignity, yet there is also an inclination in them to have their friend a sharer with them in circumstances. Thus is Christ. Though he be the great God, yet he has, as it were, brought himself down to be upon a level with you, so as to become man as you are that he might not only be your Lord, but your brother, and that he might be the more fit to be a companion for such a worm of the dust. This is one end of Christ’s taking upon him man’s nature, that his people might be under advantages for a more familiar converse with him than the infinite distance of the divine nature would allow of. And upon this account the church longed for Christ’s incarnation, Cant. 8:1. ” O that thou wert my brother that sucked the breast of my mother! when I should find thee without, I would kiss thee, yea, I should not be despised.” One design of God in the gospel is to bring us to make God the object of our undivided respect, that he may engross our regard every way, that whatever natural inclination there is in our souls, he may be the centre of it; that God may be all in all. But there is an inclination in the creature, not only to the adoration of a Lord and Sovereign, but to complacence in some one as a friend, to love and delight in some one that may be conversed with as a companion. And virtue and holiness do not destroy or weaken this inclination of our nature. But so hath God contrived in the affair of our redemption, that a divine person may be the object even of this inclination of our nature. And in order hereto, such a one is come down to us, and has taken our nature, and is become one of us, and calls himself our friend, brother, and companion. Psalm 122:8. ” For my brethren and companions’ sake, will I now say, Peace be within thee.”

But is it not enough in order to invite and encourage you to free access to a friend so great and high, that he is one of infinite condescending grace, and also has taken your own nature, and is become man? But would you, further to embolden and win you, have him a man of wonderful meekness and humility? Why, such a one is Christ! He is not only become man for you, but far the meekest and most humble of all men, the greatest instance of these sweet virtues that ever was, or will be. And besides these, he has all other human excellencies in the highest perfection. These, indeed, are no proper addition to his divine excellencies. Christ has no more excellency in his person, since his incarnation, than he had before; for divine excellency is infinite, and cannot be added to. Yet his human excellencies are additional manifestations of his glory and excellency to us, and are additional recommendations of him to our esteem and love, who are of finite comprehension. Though his human excellencies are but communications and reflections of his divine, and though this light, as reflected, falls infinitely short of the divine fountain of light in its immediate glory; yet the reflection shines not without its proper advantages, as presented to our view and affection. The glory of Christ in the qualifications of his human nature, appears to us in excellencies that are of our own kind, and are exercised in our own way and manner, and so, in some respect, are peculiarly fitted to invite our acquaintance and draw our affection. The glory of Christ as it appears in his divinity, though far brighter, more dazzles our eyes, and exceeds the strength of our sight or our comprehension; but, as it shines in the human excellencies of Christ, it is brought more to a level with our conceptions, and suitableness to our nature and manner, yet retaining a semblance of the same divine beauty, and a savor of the same divine sweetness. But as both divine and human excellencies meet together in Christ, they set off and recommend each other to us. It tends to endear the divine majesty and holiness of Christ to us, that these are attributes of one in our nature, one of us, who is become our brother, and is the meekest and humblest of men. It encourages us to look upon these divine perfections, however high and great; since we have some near concern in and liberty freely to enjoy them. And on the other hand, how much more glorious and surprising do the meekness, the humility, obedience, resignation, and other human excellencies of Christ appear, when we consider that they are in so great a person, as the eternal Son of God, the Lord of heaven and earth!

By your choosing Christ for your friend and portion, you will obtain these two infinite benefits.

5. Christ will give himself to you, with all those various excellencies that meet in him, to your full and everlasting enjoyment. He will ever after treat you as his dear friend; and you shall ere long be where he is, and shall behold his glory, and dwell with him, in most free and intimate communion and enjoyment.

When the saints get to heaven, they shall not merely see Christ, and have to do with him as subjects and servants with a glorious and gracious Lord and Sovereign, but Christ will entertain them as friends and brethren. This we may learn from the manner of Christ’s conversing with his disciples here on earth: though he was their Sovereign Lord, and did not refuse, but required, their supreme respect and adoration, yet he did not treat them as earthly sovereigns are wont to do their subjects. He did not keep them at an aweful distance, but all along conversed with them with the most friendly familiarity, as a father amongst a company of children, yea, as with brethren. So he did with the twelve, and so he did with Mary, Martha, and Lazarus. He told his disciples, that he did not call them servants, but friends, and we read of one of them that leaned on his bosom: and doubtless he will not treat his disciples with less freedom and endearment in heaven. He will not keep them at a greater distance for his being in a state of exaltation; but he will rather take them into a state of exaltation with him. This will be the improvement Christ will make of his own glory, to make his beloved friends partakers with him, to glorify them in his glory, as he says to his Father, John 17:22, 23. ” And the glory which thou hast given me, have I given them, that they may be one, even as we are one I in them” etc. We are to consider, that though Christ is greatly exalted, yet he is exalted, not as a private person for himself only, but as his people’s head; he is exalted in their name, and upon their account, as the first fruits, and as representing the whole harvest. He is not exalted that he may be at a greater distance from them, but that they may be exalted with him. The exaltation and honor of the head is not to make a greater distance between the head and the members, but the members have the same relation and union with the head they had before, and are honored with the head; and instead of the distance being greater, the union shall be nearer and more perfect. When believers get to heaven, Christ will conform them to himself, as he is set down in his Father’s throne, so they shall sit down with him on his throne, and shall in their measure be made like him.

When Christ was going to heaven, he comforted his disciples with the thought, that after a while, he would come again and take them to himself, that they might be with him. And we are not to suppose that when the disciples got to heaven, they found him keeping a greater distance than he used to do. No, doubtless, be embraced them as friends, and welcomed them to his and their Father’s house, and to his and their glory. They who had been his friends in this world, who had been together with him here, and had together partaken of sorrows and troubles, are now welcomed by him to rest, and to partake of glory with him. He took them and led them into his chambers, and showed them all his glory; as he prayed, John 17:24. ” Father, I will that they also whom thou hast given me, be with me, that they may behold the glory which thou hast given me.” And he led them to his living fountains of waters, and made them partake of his delights, as he prays John 17:13. ” That my joy may be fulfilled in themselves,” and set them down with him at his table in his kingdom, and made them partake with him of his dainties, according to his promise, Luke 22:30, and led them into his banqueting house, and made them to drink new wine with him in the kingdom of his heavenly Father, as he foretold them when he instituted the Lord’s supper, Matt. 26:29.

Yea the saints’ conversation with Christ in heaven shall not only be as intimate, and their access to him as free, as of the disciples on earth, but in many respects much more so; for in heaven, that vital union shall be perfect, which is exceeding imperfect here. While the saints are in this world, there are great remains of sin and darkness to separate or disunite them from Christ, which shall then all be removed. This is not a time for that full acquaintance, and those glorious manifestations of love, which Christ designs for his people hereafter; which seems to be signified by his speech to Mary Magdalene, when ready to embrace him, when she met him after his resurrection; John 20:17. ” Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father.”

When the saints shall see Christ’s glory and exaltation in heaven, it will indeed possess their hearts with the greater admiration and adoring respect, but it will not awe them into any separation, but will serve only to heighten their surprise and joy, when they find Christ condescending to admit them to such intimate access, and so freely and fully communicating himself to them. So that if we choose Christ for our friend and portion, we shall hereafter be so received to him, that there shall be nothing to hinder the fullest enjoyment of him, to the satisfying the utmost cravings of our souls. We may take our full swing at gratifying our spiritual appetite after these holy pleasures. Christ will then say, as in Cant. 5:1. ” Eat, O friends, drink, yea, drink abundantly O beloved.” And this shall be our entertainment to all eternity! There shall never be any end of this happiness, or any thing to interrupt our enjoyment of it, or in the least to molest us in it!

6. By your being united to Christ, you will have a more glorious union with and enjoyment of God the Father, than otherwise could be. For hereby the saints’ relation to God becomes much nearer; they are the children of God in a higher manner than otherwise could be. For, being members of God’s own Son, they are in a sort partakers of his relation to the Father: they are not only sons of God by regeneration, but by a kind of communion in the sonship of the eternal Son. This seems to be intended, Gal. 4:4-6. ” God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that are under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.” The church is the daughter of God not only as he hath begotten her by his word and Spirit but as she is the spouse of his eternal Son.

So we being members of the Son, are partakers in our measure of the Father’s love to the Son, and complacence in him. John 17:23. ” I in them, and thou in me, — Thou hast loved them as thou hast loved me.” And ver. 26. ” That the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them.” And chap. 16:27. ” The Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God.” So we shall, according to our capacities, be partakers of the Son’s enjoyment of God, and have his joy fulfilled in ourselves, John 17:13. And by this means we shall come to an immensely higher, more intimate and full enjoyment of God, than otherwise could have been. For there is doubtless an infinite intimacy between the Father and the Son which is expressed by his being in the bosom of the Father. And saints being in him, shall, in their measure and manner, partake with him in it, and of the blessedness of it.

And thus is the affair of our redemption ordered, that thereby we are brought to an immensely more exalted kind of union with God, and enjoyment of him, both the Father and the Son, than otherwise could have been. For Christ being united to the human nature, we have advantage for a more free and full enjoyment of him, than we could have had if he had remained only in the divine nature. So again, we being united to a divine person, as his members, can have a more intimate union and intercourse with God the Father, who is only in the divine nature, than otherwise could be. Christ, who is a divine person, by taking on him our nature, descends from the infinite distance and height above us, and is brought nigh to us; whereby we have advantage for the full enjoyment of him. And, on the other hand, we, by being in Christ a divine person, do as it were ascend up to God, through the infinite distance, and have hereby advantage for the full enjoyment of him also.

This was the design of Christ, that he, and his Father, and his people, might all be united in one. John 17:21 23. ” That they all may be one, as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee — that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou hast given me, I have given them, that they may be one, even as we are one; I in them and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one.” Christ has brought it to pass, that those whom the Father has given him should be brought into the household of God, that he and his Father, and his people, should be as one society, one family; that the church should be as it were admitted into the society of the blessed Trinity.

This article is by my friend Brian Klunder who sent me PDF files. I converted it to web format to make it easy to read from a small screen.

In Greek mythology, the Rod of Asclepius is a serpent-entwined rod wielded by the Greek god Asclepius, a deity associated with healing and medicine. In modern times, it is the predominant symbol for medicine and health care. – Wikipedia

We are told that the snake is a symbol of medicine…BUT WHY?

Rod Of Asclepius Symbol Of Medicine

Does it represent the brass serpent of Moses in the desert? Not a chance!

Here’s the short version. The Lord gave the people a serpent to look upon for healing and as usual they turned it into an idol (snake worship) until it was destroyed 700 years later in 700 BC (2nd Kings 18:4). But it was too late. The enemy turned the idol into the cult of Asclepius around 460 BC invading Greece, Rome and Europe.

So where did the snake symbols come from?

In order to understand, we must enter the world of Greek mythology; A collection of myths belonging to a religious culture.

TEMPLE OF ASCLEPIUS

This is where the sick would come for healing. It was known as the “Seat of Satan” in Pergamus, Revelation 2:13

Asclepius was referred to as “Saviour Asclepius” in the temple. The temple floor would be covered in what they believed to be healing snakes in honor of the god. This theme prevailed as new temples were founded throughout the classical world.

Hygeia, the daughter and assistant of Asclepius

Do you notice the snake drinking from the bowl of wisdom?

The bowl of Hygeia is the most widely recognized international symbol of the pharmacy industry.

The serpent drinking from the bowl of wisdom represents the deceptive character of Satan deceiving people today.

CADUCEUS 3500 BC:

This was the staff of the god…Hermes, father of Hermaphrodite, [both sex organs]

In Greek mythology and in the occultic world, the caduceus has nothing to do with health or medicine.

So why has modern medicine adopted the symbol? It’s only purpose was for magic and to protect thieves and merchants.

It is the spirit behind the deletion of the genders that’s so prevalent in our society today.

Are you connecting the dots?

Did you know when Christians began their battle against the pagan gods for the souls of mankind, Asclepius was the leading deity in the struggle between the dying world of the pagans and the rising world of the Christians?

[“Edelstien and Edelstein” – Asclepius, A Collection and Interpretation of the Testimonies) Stone Masons were beheaded for refusing to make statues to Asclepius. Christians were burned alive in Pergamum for refusing to sacrifice to the gods.

Early Christian Martyrs refused to worship the Cult of Asclepius in the times of Diocletian.

ASCLEPIUS: “THE COUNTERFEIT JESUS”

The Old Testament prophesied that a Saviour would come healing the sick and raising the dead. Satan, who opposes everything God does, preempted the arrival of the Messiah by sending Asclepius as a counterfeit god of medicine.

As Justin Martyr said (1st century Christian apologist), “And when he (the devil) brings forth Asclepius as the raiser of the dead and healer of other diseases, may I not say that in this matter likewise he has imitated the prophecies of Christ.”

Eusebius, the “father of church history”, called Asclepius, “The god who does not cure souls but destroys them. The one who draws men away from their true Saviour.”

Let’s meet the father of the modern pharmaceutical industry (Toxicology/Pharmacology). Ever wonder why there are so many metals in vaccines? I sure have and here is why:

Paracelsus was an occultist, alchemist and astrologer (1500’s) who theorized it was the planetary alignment that was the reason for your ill health. But hey, no worries! His toxic metals potion blend will do the trick! But just ignore the Alzheimer’s disease, Dementia, Autism and all the other heavy metal diseases that are a result of his venomous blend.

Did you know the original Hippocratic oath that doctors made was to Asclepius?

The early church forefathers clearly saw Satan’s deceiving hand at work. Do you?

LET’S DO A QUICK RECAP OF WHAT WE LEARNED AND ANSWER THE ORIGINAL QUESTION OF: WHY SNAKES?

Obviously, it’s symbolism, Right? But allow me to expand what that really means. Imagine running for your life in the dead of night, trying to escape a murderous gang, and you stumble upon two houses.

Without a moments hesitation you ran into the house with the cross, right?

But why?

Because that symbol marked ownership. You recognized the spirit behind the symbol controlled the territory you were about to enter.

BUT DOES THE BIBLE HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY ABOUT – SATANIC SYMBOLS?

Note:The so called “Star of David” on the Israeli flag is actually the star of the pagan god Remphan! How many Christians or Jews know that? Ref: The Star of David? Or the Star of Remphan! And also: The ‘Star of David’ Is A Satanic Hexagram

As Christians, we can all agree that the modern day abortion industry is just Molech worship repackaged. Children are being sacrificed for comfort and prosperity. But doesn’t an aborted baby being sacrificed for the lie of promising health and protection fall into that same definition of aborted fetal cells for vaccines argument? Of course it does! Think Christian! Do we partake in the sacrifice of a murdered baby for our benefit? Do we “do evil so that good may come?” What has the Lord to say about this?

My friends, if all the nations are deceived by the pharmaceutical industry {Revelation 18:23} then should we not struggle and work through this scripture? Could it be, we also have defiled our sanctuary by participating? And is ignorance a worthy defense, when we stand before the throne?

Let’s explore the answers through the lens of God – SHALL WE?

<!--

DID YOU KNOW?

(That’s all for now until Brian sends more!)

Continued from part I.

Having thus shown wherein there is an admirable conjunction of excellencies in Jesus Christ, I now proceed,

Secondly, To show how this admirable conjunction of excellencies appears in Christ’s acts, [namely:]

A) in his taking of human nature,
B) in his earthly life,
C) in his sacrificial death,
D) in his exaltation in heaven,
E) in his final subduing of all evil when he returns in glory.]

A) It appears in what Christ did in taking on him our nature.

In this act, his infinite condescension wonderfully appeared, That he who was God should become man; that the word should be made flesh, and should take on him a nature infinitely below his original nature! And it appears yet more remarkably in the low circumstances of his incarnation: he was conceived in the womb of a poor young woman, whose poverty appeared in this, when she came to offer sacrifices of her purification, she brought what was allowed of in the law only in case of poverty, as Luke 2:24. ”

According to what Is said in the law of the Lord, a pair of turtle- doves, or two young pigeons.” This was allowed only in case the person was so poor that she was not able to offer a lamb. Lev. 12:8. And though his infinite condescension thus appeared in the manner of his incarnation, yet his divine dignity also appeared in it; for though he was conceived in the womb of a poor virgin, yet he was conceived there by the power of the Holy Ghost. And his divine dignity also appeared in the holiness of his conception and birth. Though he was conceived in the womb of one of the corrupt race of mankind, yet he was conceived and born without sin; as the angel said to the blessed Virgin,

Luke 1:35. ” The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee, therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God.”

His infinite condescension marvelously appeared in the manner of his birth. He was brought forth in a stable because there was no room for them in the inn. The inn was taken up by others, that were looked upon as persons of greater account. The Blessed Virgin, being poor and despised, was turned or shut out. Though she was in such necessitous circumstances, yet those that counted themselves her betters would not give place to her; and therefore, in the time of her travail, she was forced to betake herself to a stable; and when the child was born, it was wrapped in swaddling clothes, and laid in a manger. There Christ lay a little infant, and there he eminently appeared as a lamb.

But yet this feeble infant, born thus in a stable, and laid in a manger, was born to conquer and triumph over Satan, that roaring lion. He came to subdue the mighty powers of darkness, and make a show of them openly, and so to restore peace on earth, and to manifest God’s good-will towards men, and to bring glory to God in the highest, according as the end of his birth was declared by the joyful songs of the glorious hosts of angels appearing to the shepherds at the same time that the infant lay in the manger; whereby his divine dignity was manifested.

B) This admirable conjunction of excellencies appears in the acts and various passages of Christ’s life.

Though Christ dwelt in mean outward circumstances, whereby his condescension and humility especially appeared, and his majesty was veiled; yet his divine divinity and glory did in many of his acts shine through the veil, and it illustriously appeared, that he was not only the Son of man, but the great God.

Thus, in the circumstances of his infancy, his outward meanness appeared; yet there was something then to show forth his divine dignity, in the wise men’s being stirred up to come from the east to give honor to him their being led by a miraculous star, and coming and falling down and worshipping him, and presenting him with gold, frankincense, and myrrh. His humility and meekness wonderfully appeared in his subjection to his mother and reputed father when he was a child. Herein he appeared as a lamb. But his divine glory broke forth and shone when, at twelve years old, he disputed with doctors in the temple. In that he appeared, in some measure, as the Lion of the tribe of Judah.

And so, after he entered on his public ministry, his marvellous humility and meekness was manifested in his choosing to appear in such mean outward circumstances; and in being contented in them, when he was so poor that he had not where to lay his head, and depended on the charity of some of his followers for his subsistence, as appears by Luke 8. at the beginning. How meek, condescending, and familiar his treatment of his disciples; his discourses with them, treating them as a father his children, yea, as friends and companions. How patient, bearing such affliction and reproach, and so many injuries from the scribes and Pharisees, and others. In these things he appeared as a Lamb.

And yet he at the same time did in many ways show forth his divine majesty and glory, particularly in the miracles he wrought, which were evidently divine works, and manifested omnipotent power, and so declared him to be the Lion of the tribe of Judah. His wonderful and miraculous works plainly showed him to be the God of nature; in that it appeared by them that he had all nature in his hands, and could lay an arrest upon it, and stop and change its course as he pleased. In healing the sick, and opening the eyes of the blind, and unstopping the ears of the deaf, and healing the lame, he showed that he was the God that framed the eye, and created the ear, and was the author of the frame of man’s body. By the dead’s rising at his command, it appeared that he was the author and fountain of life, and that

“God the Lord, to whom belong the issues from death.”

By his walking on the sea in a storm, when the waves were raised, he showed himself to be that God spoken of in Job 9:8. ” That treadeth on the waves of the sea.” By his stilling the storm, and calming the rage of the sea, by his powerful command, saying, ” Peace, be still,” he showed that he has the command of the universe, and that he is that God who brings things to pass by the word of his power, who speaks and it is done, who commands and it stands fast;

Psalm 115:7. ” Who stilleth the noise of the seas, the noise of their waves.”

And Psalm 107:29.

” That maketh the storm a calm, so that the waves thereof are still.”

And Psalm 139:8.

” O Lord God of hosts, who is a strong Lord like unto thee, or to thy faithfulness round about thee? Thou rulest the raging of the sea: when the waves thereof arise, thou stillest them.”

Christ, by casting out devils, remarkably appeared as the Lion of the tribe of Judah, and showed that he was stronger than the roaring lion, that seizes whom he may devour. He commanded them to come out, and they were forced to obey. They were terribly afraid of him; they fall down before him, and beseech him not so torment them. He forces a whole legion of them to forsake their hold, by his powerful word; and they could not so much as enter into the swine without his leave. He showed the glory of his omniscience, by telling the thoughts of men; as we have often an account. Herein he appeared to be that God spoken of, Amos 4:13.

” That declareth unto man what is his thought.”

Thus, in the midst of his meanness and humiliation, his divine glory appeared in his miracles, John 2:11.

” This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory.”

And though Christ ordinarily appeared without outward glory, and in great obscurity, yet at a certain time he threw off the veil, and appeared in his divine majesty, so far as it could be outwardly manifested to men in this frail state, when he was transfigured in the mount. The apostle Peter, 2 Pet. 1:16,17. was an

” eye-witness of his majesty, when he received from God the Father honor and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; which voice that came from heaven they heard, when they were with him in the holy mount.”

And at the same time that Christ was wont to appear in such meekness, condescension, and humility, in his familiar discourses with his disciples, appearing therein as the Lamb of God; he was also wont to appear as The Lion of the tribe of Judah, with divine authority and majesty, in his so sharply rebuking the scribes and Pharisees, and other hypocrites.

C) This admirable conjunction of excellencies remarkably appears in his offering up himself a sacrifice for sinners in his last sufferings.

As this was the greatest thing in all the works of redemption, the greatest act of Christ in that work; so in this act especially does there appear that admirable conjunction of excellencies that has been spoken of. Christ never so much appeared as a lamb, as when he was slain:

” He came like a lamb to the slaughter,” Isaiah 53:7.

Then he was offered up to God as a lamb without blemish, and without spot: then especially did he appear to be the anti-type of the lamb of the passover:

1 Cor 5:7. ” Christ our Passover sacrificed for us.”

And yet in that act he did in an especial manner appear as the Lion of the tribe of Judah; yea, in this above all other acts, in many respects, as may appear in the following things.

8. Then was Christ in the greatest degree of his humiliation, and yet by that, above all other things, his divine glory appears.

Christ’s humiliation was great, in being born in such a low condition, of a poor virgin, and in a stable. His humiliation was great, in being subject to Joseph the carpenter, and Mary his mother, and afterwards living in poverty, so as not to have where to lay his head; and in suffering such manifold and bitter reproaches as he suffered, while he went about preaching and working miracles. But his humiliation was never so great as it was, in his last sufferings, beginning with his agony in the garden, till he expired on the cross. Never was he subject to such ignominy as then, never did he suffer so much pain in his body, or so much sorrow in his soul; never was he in so great an exercise of his condescension, humility, meekness, and patience, as he was in these last sufferings; never was his divine glory and majesty covered with so thick and dark a veil; never did he so empty himself and make himself of no reputation, as at this time.

And yet, never was his divine glory so manifested, by any act of his, as in yielding himself up to these sufferings. When the fruit of it came to appear, and the mystery and ends of it to be unfolded in its issue, then did the glory of it appear, then did it appear as the most glorious act of Christ that ever he exercised towards the creature. This act of his is celebrated by the angels and hosts of heaven with peculiar praises, as that which is above all others glorious, as you may see in the context, (Revelation 5:9-12)

” And they sang a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood, out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; and hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth. And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne, and the beasts, and the elders: and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands, saying with a loud voice Worthy is the Lamb that was slain, to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honor, and glory, and blessing.”

9. He never in any act gave so great a manifestation of love to God, and yet never so manifested his love to those that were enemies to God, as in that act.

Christ never did any thing whereby his love to the Father was so eminently manifested, as in his laying down his life, under such inexpressible sufferings, in obedience to his command and for the vindication of the honor of his authority and majesty; nor did ever any mere creature give such a testimony of love to God as that was.

And yet this was the greatest expression of his love to sinful men who were enemies to God; Rom. 5:10. ” When we were enemies, we were reconciled to God, by the death of his Son.” The greatness of Christ’s love to such, appears in nothing so much as in its being dying love. That blood of Christ which fell in great drops to the ground, in his agony, was shed from love to God’s enemies, and his own. That shame and spitting, that torment of body, and that exceeding sorrow, even unto death, which he endured in his soul, was what he underwent from love to rebels against God to save them from hell, and to purchase for them eternal glory. Never did Christ so eminently show his regard to God’s honor, as in offering up himself a victim to Justice. And yet in this above all, he manifested his love to them who dishonored God, so as to bring such guilt on themselves, that nothing less than his blood could atone for it.

10. Christ never so eminently appeared for divine justice, and yet never suffered so much from divine Justice, as when he offered up himself a sacrifice for our sins.

In Christ’s great sufferings did his infinite regard to the honor of God’s justice distinguishingly appear, for it was from regard to that that he thus humbled himself.

And yet in these sufferings, Christ was the target of the vindictive expressions of that very justice of God. Revenging justice then spent all its force upon him, on account of our guilt; which made him sweat blood, and cry out upon the cross, and probably rent his vitals–broke his heart, the fountain of blood, or some other blood vessels–and by the violent fermentation turned his blood to water. For the blood and water that issued out of his side, when pierced by the spear, seems to have been extravasated blood, and so there might be a kind of literal fulfilment of Psalm 22:14.

” I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax, it is melted in the midst of my bowels.”

And this was the way and means by which Christ stood up for the honor of God’s justice, namely, by thus suffering its terrible executions. For when he had undertaken for sinners, and had substituted himself in their room, divine justice could have its due honor no other way than by his suffering its revenges.

In this the diverse excellencies that met in the person of Christ appeared, namely, his infinite regard to God’s justice, and such love to those that have exposed themselves to it, as induced him thus to yield himself a sacrifice to it.

11. Christ’s holiness never so illustriously shone forth as it did in his last sufferings, and yet he never was to such a degree treated as guilty.

Christ’s holiness never had such a trial as it had then, and therefore never had so great a manifestation. When it was tried in this furnace it came forth as gold, or as silver purified seven times. His holiness then above all appeared in his steadfast pursuit of the honor of God, and in his obedience to him. For his yielding himself unto death was transcendently the greatest act of obedience that ever was paid to God by any one since the foundation of the world.

And yet then Christ was in the greatest degree treated as a wicked person would have been. He was apprehended and bound as a malefactor. His accusers represented him as a most wicked wretch. In his sufferings before his crucifixion, he was treated as if he had been the worst and vilest of mankind, and then, he was put to a kind of death, that none but the worst sort of malefactors were wont to suffer, those that were most abject in their persons, and guilty of the blackest crimes. And he suffered as though guilty from God himself, by reason of our guilt imputed to him; for he who knew no sin, was made sin for us; he was made subject to wrath, as if he had been sinful himself. He was made a curse for us.

Christ never so greatly manifested his hatred of sin, as against God, as in his dying to take away the dishonor that sin had done to God; and yet never was he to such a degree subject to the terrible effects of God’s hatred of sin, and wrath against it, as he was then. in this appears those diverse excellencies meeting in Christ, namely, love to God, and grace to sinners.

12. He never was so dealt with, as unworthy, as in his last sufferings, and yet it is chiefly on account of them that he is accounted worthy.

He was therein dealt with as if he had not been worthy to live: they cry out, ” Away with him! away with him! Crucify him.” John 19:15. And they prefer Barabbas before him. And he suffered from the Father, as one whose demerits were infinite, by reason of our demerits that were laid upon him.

And yet it was especially by that act of his subjecting himself to those sufferings that he merited, and on the account of which chiefly he was accounted worthy of the glory of his exaltation. Philip. 2:8, 9. ” He humbled himself, and became obedient unto death; wherefore God hath highly exalted him.” And we see that it is on this account chiefly, that he is extolled as worthy by saints and angels in the context: ” Worthy,” say they, ” is the Lamb that was slain.” This shows an admirable conjunction in him of infinite dignity, and infinite condescension and love to the infinitely unworthy.

13. Christ in his last sufferings suffered most extremely from those towards whom he was then manifesting his greatest act of love.

He never suffered so much from his Father, (though not from any hatred to him, but from hatred to our sins,) for he then forsook him, or took away the comforts of his presence; and then ” it pleased the Lord to bruise him, and put him to grief.” as Isaiah 53:10. And yet he never gave so great a manifestation of love to God as then, as has been already observed.

So Christ never suffered so much from the hands of men as he did then; and yet never was in so high an exercise of love to men. He never was so ill treated by his disciples; who were so unconcerned about his sufferings, that they .would not watch with him one hour, in his agony; and when he was apprehended, all forsook him and fled, except Peter, who denied him with oaths and curses. And yet then he was suffering, shedding his blood, and pouring out his soul unto death for them. Yea, he probably was then shedding his blood for some of them that shed his blood, for whom he prayed while they were crucifying him; and who were probably afterwards brought home to Christ by Peter’s preaching. (Compare Luke 23:34. Acts 2:23,36,37,41. and chap. 3:17. and chap. 4.) This shows an admirable meeting of justice and grace in the redemption of Christ.

14. It was in Christ’s last sufferings, above all, that he was delivered up to the power of his enemies; and yet by these, above all, he obtained victory over his enemies.

Christ never was so in his enemies’ hands, as in the time of his last sufferings. They sought his life before; but from time to time they were restrained, and Christ escaped out of their hands, and this reason is given for it, that his time was not yet come. But now they were suffered to work their will upon him, he was in a great degree delivered up to the malice and cruelty of both wicked men and devils. And therefore when Christ’s enemies came to apprehend him, he says to them, Luke 22:53. ” When I was daily with you in the temple ye stretched forth no hand against me: but this is your hour, and the power of darkness.”

And yet it was principally by means of those sufferings that he conquered and overthrew his enemies. Christ never so effectually bruised Satan’s head, as when Satan bruised his heel. The weapon with which Christ warred against the devil, and obtained a most complete victory and glorious triumph over him, was the cross, the instrument and weapon with which he thought he had overthrown Christ, and brought on him shameful destruction.

Col. 2:14,15. ” Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances,–nailing it to his cross: and having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it.”

In his last sufferings, Christ sapped the very foundations of Satan’s kingdom, he conquered his enemies in their own territories, and beat them with their own weapons as David cut off Goliath’s head with his own sword. The devil had, as it were, swallowed up Christ, as the whale did Jonah– but it was deadly poison to him, he gave him a mortal wound in his own bowels. He was soon sick of his morsel, and was forced to do by him as the whale did by Jonah. To this day he is heart-sick of what he then swallowed as his prey. In those sufferings of Christ was laid the foundation of all that glorious victory he has already obtained over Satan, in the overthrow of his heathenish kingdom in the Roman empire, and all the success the gospel has had since; and also of all his future and still more glorious victory that is to be obtained in the earth. Thus Samson’s riddle is most eminently fulfilled, Judges 14:14.

” Out of the eater came forth meat, and out of the strong came forth sweetness.”

And thus the true Samson does more towards the destruction of his enemies at his death than in his life, in yielding up himself to death, he pulls down the temple of Dagon, and destroys many thousands of his enemies, even while they are making themselves sport in his sufferings–and so he whose type was the ark, pulls down Dagon, and breaks off his head and hands in his own temple, even while he is brought in there as Dagon’s captive. (1 Samuel 5:1-4)

Thus Christ appeared at the same time, and in the same act, as both a lion and a lamb. He appeared as a lamb in the hands of his cruel enemies; as a lamb in the paws, and between the devouring jaws, of a roaring lion; yea, he was a lamb actually slain by this lion: and yet at the same time, as the Lion of the tribe of Judah, he conquers and triumphs over Satan; destroying his own destroyer; as Samson did the lion that roared upon him, when he rent him as he would a kid. And in nothing has Christ appeared so much as a lion, in glorious strength destroying his enemies, as when he was brought as a lamb to the slaughter. In his greatest weakness he was most strong; and when he suffered most from his enemies, he brought the greatest confusion on his enemies.

Thus this admirable conjunction of diverse excellencies was manifest in Christ, in his offering up himself to God in his last sufferings.

D) It is still manifest in his acts, in his present state of exaltation in heaven. Indeed, in his exalted state, he most eminently appears in manifestation of those excellencies, on the account of which he is compared to a lion; but still he appears as a lamb; Rev. 14:1. ” And I looked, and lo, a Lamb stood on mount Sion”; as in his state of humiliation he chiefly appeared as a lamb, and yet did not appear without manifestation of his divine majesty and power, as the Lion of the tribe of Judah. Though Christ be now at the right-hand of God, exalted as King of heaven, and Lord of the universe; yet as he still is in the human nature, he still excels in humility. Though the man Christ Jesus be the highest of all creatures in heaven, yet he as much excels them all in humility as he doth in glory and dignity, for none sees so much of the distance between God and him as he does. And though he now appears in such glorious majesty and dominion in heaven, yet he appears as a lamb in his condescending, mild, and sweet treatment of his saints there, for he is a Lamb still, even amidst the throne of his exaltation, and he that is the Shepherd of the whole flock is himself a Lamb, and goes before them in heaven as such. Rev. 7:17. ” For the Lamb, which is in the midst of the throne, shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters, and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes.” Though in heaven every knee bows to him, and though the angels fall down before him adoring him, yet he treats his saints with infinite condescension, mildness, and endearment. And in his acts towards the saints on earth, he still appears as a lamb, manifesting exceeding love and tenderness in his intercession for them, as one that has had experience of affliction and temptation. He has not forgot what these things are, nor has he forgot how to pity those that are subject to them. And he still manifests his lamb-like excellencies, in his dealings with his saints on earth, in admirable forbearance, love, gentleness, and compassion. Behold him instructing, supplying, supporting, and comforting them; often coming to them, and manifesting himself to them by his Spirit, that he may sup with them, and they with him. Behold him admitting them to sweet communion, enabling them with boldness and confidence to come to him, and solacing their hearts. And in heaven Christ still appears, as it were, with the marks of his wounds upon him, and so appears as a Lamb as it had been slain, as he was represented in vision to St John, in the text, when he appeared to open the book sealed with seven seals, which is part of the glory of his exaltation.

E) And lastly, this admirable conjunction of excellencies will be manifest in Christ’s acts at the last judgment.

He then, above all other times, will appear as the Lion of the tribe of Judah in infinite greatness and majesty, when he shall come in the glory of his Father, with all the holy angels, and the earth shall tremble before him, and the hills shall melt. This is he (Rev. 20:11.)

” that shall sit on a great white throne, before whose face the earth and heaven shall flee away.”

He will then appear in the most dreadful and amazing manner to the wicked. The devils tremble at the thought of that appearance, and when it shall be, the kings, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains. and the mighty men, and every bond-man and every free-man, shall hide themselves in the dens, and in the rocks of the mountains, and shall cry to the mountains and rocks to fall on them, to hide them from the face and wrath of the Lamb. And none can declare or conceive of the amazing manifestations of wrath in which he will then appear towards these, or the trembling and astonishment the shrieking and gnashing of teeth, with which they shall stand before his judgment-seat, and receive the terrible sentence of his wrath.

And yet he will at the same time appear as a Lamb to his saints; he will receive them as friends and brethren, treating them with infinite mildness and love. There shall be nothing in him terrible to them, but towards them he will clothe himself wholly with sweetness and endearment. The church shall be then admitted to him as his bride; that shall be her wedding-day. The saints shall all be sweetly invited to come with him to inherit the kingdom, and reign in it with him to all eternity.

Continued in part III.

A friend asked me to write about the Counter-Reformation as succinctly as possible because he wanted to add pictures to the text. Most of the materials in this article have been compiled from other articles on this website.

Let’s start off with definitions:

The Protestant Reformation

The 16th-century movement that was started by Martin Luther. Entire European nations protested against the abuses of the Roman Catholic church, endeavored to reform it, refused to continue to submit to the Pope, and sought to base their Christian beliefs and worship of God solely on what the Bible teaches, and not on Roman church traditions.

The Counter-Reformation

The Roman Catholic Church’s reaction to the Protestant Reformation and its efforts to undo it.

A brief history behind the two movements

Martin Luther

Martin Luther (10 November 1483 – 18 February 1546) was a German priest, theologian, author, hymn writer, professor, and Augustinian friar. He was the seminal figure of the Protestant Reformation.

Luther turned to the prophecies of the “little horn” of Daniel 7:8, the “man of sin” of II Thessalonians 2:3, and “the beast” of Revelation 13. He saw the truth and said to himself, “Why, these prophecies apply to the Roman Catholic Church!”

On October 31, 1517, Martin Luther posted on the door of a church in Wittenberg, Germany, a statement of 95 points called the Ninety-five Theses, which protested against the sale of indulgences by the Church. According to Catholic doctrine, an “indulgence” is a way to reduce the amount of punishment one has to undergo for forgiven sins. Luther wrote the sale of indulgences is an unbiblical practice that only enriches the Vatican and does nothing for the soul. Because of the invention of the printing press by Gutenberg in the previous century, the Ninety-five Theses was reprinted and distributed to all the nations of Europe. The kings and princes of the nations who agreed with Luther subsequently left the Roman Catholic Church, and this resulted in a substantial loss of income for the Vatican! Catholic nations are usually poorer than Protestant ones because of the sale of indulgences and paying the Church money for other fruitless unbiblical practices such as masses for the dead.

Besides identifying the prophecies of the Antichrist as the office of the papacy, Luther also discovered that salvation is only through faith in Jesus Christ and not through works or the Catholic sacraments as the Church of Rome insists. He discovered the truth of Romans 1:17 that salvation is by faith in Jesus Christ alone.

 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

At the risk of losing his life, Martin Luther preached publicly and in print to an astonished people that Papal Rome was indeed the Antichrist of Bible prophecy.

Because of this dual message of salvation solely through faith in Jesus Christ apart from works, and of Papal Rome being the Antichrist, hundreds of thousands of people in Europe and in England left the Catholic Church!

The leader of the Counter-Reformation, Ignatius Loyola

On August 15, 1534, Ignatius Loyola founded a secretive Catholic order called the Society of Jesus, also known as the Jesuits. The Jesuits have a dark history of intrigue and sedition. Jesuit priests have been known throughout history as the most wicked political arm of the Roman Catholic Church.

A quote from Napoleon Bonaparte about the Jesuits:

The Jesuits are a MILITARY organization, not a religious order. Their chief is a general of an army, not the mere father abbot of a monastery. And the aim of this organization is power – power in its most despotic exercise – absolute power, universal power, power to control the world by the volition of a single man. Jesuitism is the most absolute of despotisms – and at the same time the greatest and most enormous of abuses.

Ignatius Loyola pledged loyalty to the Pope and worked for the destruction of the Bible-based faith of the Protestants.

Planning the Counter-Reformation at the Council of Trent

In 1545, the Catholic Church convened one of its most famous councils in history, which took place north of Rome in a city called Trent. It continued for three sessions ending in 1563. One of the main purposes of this Council was for Catholics to plan a counterattack against Martin Luther and the Protestants. Thus the Council of Trent became a center for Rome’s Counter-Reformation.

Up to this point, Rome’s main method of attack had been largely frontal—the open burning of Bibles and of heretics. Yet this warfare only confirmed in the minds of Protestants the conviction that Papal Rome was indeed the Beast that would “make war with the saints” (Revelation 13:7). Therefore a new tactic was needed, something less obvious.

Francisco Ribera’s false interpretation of the Daniel 9:27 and the 70th Week of Daniel

At the Council of Trent, the Jesuits were commissioned by the Pope to develop a new interpretation of Scripture that would counteract the Protestant application of the Bible’s Antichrist prophecies to the Roman Catholic Church. Francisco Ribera (1537-1591), a brilliant Jesuit priest and doctor of theology from Spain, repudiated the idea that the Antichrist was the Papacy. He set forth Antichrist as a man who would not appear until the very end of the age. Circa 1585, Ribera called the “he” of Daniel 9:27 the Antichrist who would make a treaty with the Jews and people of Israel at the beginning of the 7 years before the return of Christ. At the time, to a man all the Protestants interpreted Daniel 9:27 and the 70th Week of Daniel fulfilled by Jesus Christ and His disciples from 27 AD to 34 AD, the preaching of the Gospel to the Jews which confirmed the Covenant that God made with Abraham, the Covenant of grace through faith.

Galatians 3:6  Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.

Galatians 3:13,14  Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

Ribera also applied all of Revelation but the earliest chapters to the end-time rather than to the history of the true Bible-based Church. The Antichrist would be a single evil person who would be received by the Jews and would rebuild the Temple the Romans destroyed in 70 AD. Ribera denied the Protestant Scriptural Antichrist (2 Thessalonians 2) as seated in the church of God—asserted by Augustine, Jerome, Luther and many reformers. He set on an infidel Antichrist, outside the church of God. The result of Ribera’s work was a twisting and maligning of prophetic truth.

Protestants of the time rejected Ribera’s interpretation of Daniel 9:27, the 70th Week of Daniel, 2 Thessalonians 2 and the Book of Revelation. It took four more centuries and the work of more Jesuits for Ribera’s false interpretations of prophecy to become absorbed into Protestant eschatology. This resulted in most Protestants today no longer thinking of the office of the papacy as the seat of the Antichrist. And the ironic thing is, traditional Catholics actually know better than most Protestant Christians about it! They are so shocked at the things Pope Francis is saying and doing, for example, having prayer sessions with Buddhists, Hindus, and other pagan religions, and blessing individuals in homosexual relations. As a result, many of them do look at Pope Francis as the Antichrist!!! There are YouTubes made by Catholics who call Francis an antipope.

Robert Bellarmine

Following close behind Francisco Ribera was another brilliant Jesuit scholar, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621) of Rome. Between 1581 and 1593, Cardinal Bellarmine published his “Polemic Lectures Concerning the Disputed Points of the Christian Belief Against the Heretics of This Time.” In these lectures, he agreed with Ribera that the Antichrist is a single individual who would not rule until the very end of time. Through the work of these two tricky Jesuit scholars, a new school of eschatological thought was formed. Francisco Ribera has been called the Father of Futurism. Cardinal Bellarmine promoted Ribera’s Futurism further.

Manuel De Lacunza

Manuel De Lacunza, S.J. (Society of Jesus) (July 19, 1731 – June 18, 1801) was a Jesuit priest who used the pseudonym Juan Josafat Ben-Ezra in his main work on the interpretation of the prophecies of the Bible, which was entitled The Coming of the Messiah in Majesty and Glory. He picked up and promoted Francesco Ribera’s and Robert Bellarmine’s doctrines which also included the false teaching of a secret pre-tribulation rapture of the Church before the Antichrist’s seven-year covenant with the Jews.

Edward Irving

Edward Irving (1792-1834) was a Scottish clergyman. He contended that Manuel De Lacunza’s book was the work of a converted Jew. Irving knew Spanish and translated The Coming of the Messiah in Majesty and Glory into English. This influenced John Nelson Darby.

S. R. Maitland

Ribera’s futurist interpretation rocked not only the Protestant church but also the Catholic church, so the Pope ordered it buried in the archives out of sight. Unfortunately, over 200 years later a librarian to the Archbishop of Canterbury by the name of S. R. Maitland (1792-1866) was appointed to be the Keeper of the Manuscripts at Lambeth Palace, in London, England. In his duties, Dr. Maitland came across Francisco Ribera’s futurist/rapture teaching and he had it republished for the sake of interest in early 1826 with follow-ups in 1829 and 1830. This was spurred along with the Oxford Tracts that were published in 1833 to try and de-protestantize the Church of England.

John Nelson Darby

John Nelson Darby (1800-1882), was an Anglo-Irish Bible teacher, one of the influential figures among the original Plymouth Brethren. Some sources say Darby was a Satanist, Freemason, and agent of the Rothschild-owned British East India Company. Darby’s family owned Leap Castle, renowned as the most sinister and occultic castle in Ireland’s history.

Darby is known as the “Father of Dispensationalism.” Dispensationalism is a big bag of false doctrines including an end-time-only Antichrist who will arise 7 years before the coming of Christ, the false pre-tribulation rapture, the rebuilding of a Third Temple in the last 7 years as a fulfillment of prophecy (no such prophecy in Scriptures), a distinction between the Church and the people of Israel which eventually resulted in the false interpretation of Genesis 12:3 claiming it’s refers to blessing the Jews and Israel and not the Church, the people of God through faith in Christ Jesus. This resulted in the Christian Zionist movement and the support of the modern State of Israel no matter what it does, even when the Israeli government murders innocent Palestinians, women and children as it is doing today.

Cyrus I. Scofield and the Scofield Reference Bible

Cyrus Ingerson Scofield (August 19, 1843 – July 24, 1921) was an American theologian, minister, and writer whose best-selling annotated Bible popularized futurism and dispensationalism among fundamentalist Christians.

World Zionist leaders initiated a program to change America and its religious orientation. One of the tools used to accomplish this goal was an obscure and malleable Civil War veteran named Cyrus I. Scofield. A much larger tool was a venerable, world-respected European book publisher–The Oxford University Press.

The scheme was to alter the Christian view of Zionism by creating and promoting a pro-Zionist subculture within Christianity. Scofield’s role was to re-write the King James Version of the Bible by inserting Zionist-friendly notes in the margins, between verses and chapters, and on the bottoms of the pages. The Oxford University Press used Scofield, a pastor by then, as the Editor, probably because it needed such a man for a front. The revised bible was called the Scofield Reference Bible, and with limitless advertising and promotion, it became a best-selling “bible” in America and has remained so for 90 years.

Scofield, of course, got all his dispensational and futurist doctrines from John Nelson Darby. He immersed himself in Darby’s teachings.

The Dallas Theological Seminary

Lewis Sperry Chafer, in 1924, founded the Dallas Theological Seminary. Almost all radio preachers have gone there. Almost all prophecy writers have gone there. It was established to promote dispensationalism. John Walvoord, Charles Ryrie, and Dwight Pentecost were among the names of people who were professors there. Later on, Hal Lindsey who wrote The Late Great Planet Earth was a graduate of there, Chuck Swindoll more recently was chancellor there at Dallas. It’s hard to find a person who ever writes or speaks on prophecy who didn’t ever go to Dallas Theological Seminary, or at least read commentators by those who did. Scofield’s Reference Bible was of course promoted by the Dallas Theological Seminary. How many are knowingly promoting false doctrines of the Jesuit Counter-Reformation?

In conclusion

All of Europe, formerly Protestant England, Scotland, the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand have been taken over by the Catholic Counter-Reformation. If you were wondering why your country is falling apart morally, spiritually, and economically, with an increase in crime and mental illness such as men thinking they are women, this is why. This may drive more conservatives away from liberal Protestant churches into conservative Catholic churches. This is the goal of the Counter-Reformation.

I believe the Jesuits behind all the problems in the world today which include false ideologies called “wokeness”, the LGBTQ agenda, the US southern border crises, wars, etc. etc.

What do you think about all this? Comments are welcome below in the comments section.

Jonathan Edwards (October 5, 1703 – March 22, 1758) was an American revivalist preacher, philosopher, and Congregationalist theologian. He was also the 3rd President of Princeton University! (Source: Wikipedia.)

Preachers in the 18th century really knew how to teach from the Bible. They didn’t add their own biases or agendas to the Bible. They just taught what the Bible says. This was when Protestantism was still strong in America before the Jesuits were able to derail it like today.

I really liked this message by Jonathan Edwards and hope you do too.

Introduction

The visions and revelations the apostle John had of the future events of God’s providence, are here introduced with a vision of the book of God’s decrees, by which those events were fore-ordained. This is represented (Revelation 5:1) as a book in the right hand of him who sat on the throne, ” written within and on the back side, and sealed with seven seals.” Books, in the form in which they were wont of old to be made, were broad leaves of parchment or paper, or something of that nature, joined together at one edge, and so rolled up together, and then sealed, or some way fastened together, to prevent their unfolding and opening. Hence we read of the roll of a book Jer. 36:2. It seems to have been such a book that John had a vision of here; and therefore it is said to be ” written within and on the back side,” i. e. on the inside pages, and also on one of the outside pages, namely, that which it was rolled in, in rolling the book up together. And it is said to be ” sealed with seven seals,” to signify that what was written in it was perfectly hidden and secret; or that God’s decrees of future events are sealed, and shut up from all possibility of being discovered by creatures, till God is pleased to make them known. We find that seven is often used in Scripture as the number of perfection, to signify the superlative or most perfect degree of anything, which probably arose from this, that on the seventh day God beheld the works of creation finished, and rested and rejoiced in them, as being complete and perfect.

When John saw this book, he tells us, he

” saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, Who is worthy to open the book, and to loose the seals thereof? And no man in heaven, nor in earth, neither under the earth, was able to open the book, neither to look thereon.”

And that he wept much, because

” no man was found worthy to open and read the book, neither to look thereon.”

And then tells us how his tears were dried up, namely, that

” one of the elders said unto him, “Weep not, Behold the Lion of the tribe of Judah hath prevailed”

etc. as in the text. Though no man nor angel, nor any mere creature, was found either able to loose the seals, or worthy to be admitted to the privilege of reading the book, yet this was declared, for the comfort of this beloved disciple, that Christ was found both able and worthy. And we have an account in the succeeding chapters how he actually did it, opening the seals in order, first one, and then another, revealing what God had decreed should come to pass hereafter. And we have an account in this chapter, of his coming and taking the book out of the right hand of him that sat on the throne, and of the joyful praises that were sung to him in heaven and earth on that occasion.

Many things might be observed in the words of the text; but it is to my present purpose only to take notice of the two distinct appellations here given to Christ.

1. He is called a Lion. Behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah. He seems to be called the Lion of the tribe of Judah, in allusion to what Jacob said in his blessing of the tribe on his death-bed; who, when he came to bless Judah, compares him to a lion, Gen. 49:9.

” Judah is a lion’s whelp; from the prey, my son, thou art gone up: he stooped down, he couched as a lion, and as an old lion; who shall rouse him up?”

And also to the standard of the camp of Judah in the wilderness on which was displayed a lion, according to the ancient tradition of the Jews. It is much on account of the valiant acts of David that the tribe of Judah, of which David was, is in Jacob’s prophetical blessing compared to a lion; but more especially with an eye to Jesus Christ, who also was of that tribe, and was descended of David, and is in our text called ” the Root of David“; and therefore Christ is here called ” the Lion of the tribe of Judah.”

2. He is called a Lamb. John was told of a Lion that had prevailed to open the book, and probably expected to see a lion in his vision; but while he is expecting, behold a Lamb appears to open the book, an exceeding diverse kind of creature from a lion. A lion is a devourer, one that is wont to make terrible slaughter of others; and no creature more easily falls a prey to him than a lamb. And Christ is here represented not only as a Lamb, a creature very liable to be slain, but a ” Lamb as it had been slain,” that is, with the marks of its deadly wounds appearing on it.

That which I would observe from the words, for the subject of my present discourse, is this, namely —

There is an admirable conjunction of diverse excellencies in Jesus Christ.

The lion and the lamb, though very diverse kinds of creatures, yet have each their peculiar excellencies. The lion excels in strength, and in the majesty of his appearance and voice: the lamb excels in meekness and patience, besides the excellent nature of the creature as good for food, and yielding that which is fit for our clothing and being suitable to be offered in sacrifice to God. But we see that Christ is in the text compared to both, because the diverse excellencies of both wonderfully meet in him, — In handling this subject I would

First, Show wherein there is an admirable conjunction of diverse excellencies in Christ.

Second, Show how this admirable conjunction of excellencies appear in Christ’s acts.

Third, make application.

Part One

First, I would show wherein there is an admirable conjunction of diverse excellencies in Jesus Christ. which appears in three things:

A) There is a conjunction of such excellencies in Christ, as, in our manner of conceiving, are very diverse one from another.

B) There is in him a conjunction of such really diverse excellencies, as otherwise would have seemed to us utterly incompatible in the same subject.

C) Such diverse excellencies are exercised in him towards men that otherwise would have seemed impossible to be exercised towards the same object.

A) There is a conjunction of such excellencies in Christ as, in our manner of conceiving, are very diverse one from another. Such are the various divine perfections and excellencies that Christ is possessed of. Christ is a divine person, and therefore has all the attributes of God. The difference between these is chiefly relative, and in our manner of conceiving them. And those which, in this sense, are most diverse, meet in the person of Christ. I shall mention two instances.

1. There do meet in Jesus Christ infinite highness and infinite condescension. Christ, as he is God, is infinitely great and high above all. He is higher than the kings of the earth; for he is King of kings, and Lord of lords. He is higher than the heavens, and higher than the highest angels of heaven. So great is he, that all men, all kings and princes, are as worms of the dust before him; all nations are as the drop of the bucket, and the light dust of the balance; yea, and angels themselves are as nothing before him. He is so high, that he is infinitely above any need of us; above our reach, that we cannot be profitable to him; and above our conceptions, that we cannot comprehend him. Prov. 30:4 ” What is his name, and what is his Son’s name, if thou canst tell?” Our understandings, if we stretch them never so far, cannot reach up to his divine glory. Job 11:8 ” It is high as heaven, what canst thou do?” Christ is the Creator and great Possessor of heaven and earth. He is sovereign Lord of all. He rules over the whole universe, and doth whatsoever pleaseth him. His knowledge is without bound. His wisdom is perfect, and what none can circumvent. His power is infinite, and none can resist Him. His riches are immense and inexhaustible. His majesty is infinitely awful.

And yet he is one of infinite condescension. None are so low or inferior, but Christ’s condescension is sufficient to take a gracious notice of them. He condescends not only to the angels, humbling himself to behold the things that are done in heaven, but he also condescends to such poor creatures as men; and that not only so as to take notice of princes and great men, but of those that are of meanest rank and degree, ” the poor of the world,” James 2:5. Such as are commonly despised by their fellow creatures, Christ does not despise. I Cor. 1:28 ” Base things of the world, and things that are despised, hath God chosen.” Christ condescends to take notice of beggars Luke 16:22 and people of the most despised nations. In Christ Jesus is neither ” Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free” (Col. 3:11). He that is thus high condescends to take a gracious notice of little children Matt. 19:14. ” Suffer little children to come unto me.” Yea, which is more, his condescension is sufficient to take a gracious notice of the most unworthy, sinful creatures, those that have no good deservings, and those that have infinite ill deservings.

Yea, so great is his condescension, that it is not only sufficient to take some gracious notice of such as these, but sufficient for every thing that is an act of condescension. His condescension is great enough to become their friend, to become their companion, to unite their souls to him in spiritual marriage. It is enough to take their nature upon him, to become one of them, that he may be one with them. Yea, it is great enough to abase himself yet lower for them, even to expose himself to shame and spitting; yea, to yield up himself to an ignominious death for them. And what act of condescension can be conceived of greater? Yet such an act as this, has his condescension yielded to, for those that are so low and mean, despicable and unworthy!

Such a conjunction of infinite highness and low condescension, in the same person, is admirable. We see, by manifold instances, what a tendency a high station has in men, to make them to be of a quite contrary disposition. If one worm be a little exalted above another, by having more dust, or a bigger dunghill, how much does he make of himself! What a distance does he keep from those that are below him! And a little condescension is what he expects should be made much of, and greatly acknowledged. Christ condescends to wash our feet; but how would great men, (or rather the bigger worms,) account themselves debased by acts of far less condescension!

2. There meet in Jesus Christ, infinite justice and infinite grace.

As Christ is a divine person, he is infinitely holy and just, hating sin, and disposed to execute condign punishment for sin. He is the Judge of the world, and the infinitely just Judge of it, and will not at all acquit the wicked, or by any means clear the guilty.

And yet he is infinitely gracious and merciful. Though his justice be so strict with respect to all sin, and every breach of the law, yet he has grace sufficient for every sinner, and even the chief of sinners. And it is not only sufficient for the most unworthy to show them mercy, and bestow some good upon them, but to bestow the greatest good; yea, it is sufficient to bestow all good upon them, and to do all things for them. There is no benefit or blessing that they can receive, so great but the grace of Christ is sufficient to bestow it on the greatest sinner that ever lived. And not only so, but so great is his grace, that nothing is too much as the means of this good. It is sufficient not only to do great things, but also to suffer in order to do it, and not only to suffer, but to suffer most extremely even unto death, the most terrible of natural evils; and not only death, but the most ignominious and tormenting, and every way the most terrible that men could inflict; yea, and greater sufferings than men could inflict, who could only torment the body. He had sufferings in his soul, that were the more immediate fruits of the wrath of God against the sins of those he undertakes for.

B) There do meet in the person of Christ such really diverse excellencies, which otherwise would have been thought utterly incompatible in the same subject; such as are conjoined in no other person whatever, either divine, human, or angelical; and such as neither men nor angels would ever have imagined could have met together in the same person, had it not been seen in the person of Christ. I would give some instances.

1. In the person of Christ do meet together infinite glory and lowest humility. Infinite glory, and the virtue of humility, meet in no other person but Christ. They meet in no created person; for no created person has infinite glory, and they meet in no other divine person but Christ. For though the divine nature be infinitely abhorrent to pride, yet humility is not properly predicable of God the Father, and the Holy Ghost, that exist only in the divine nature; because it is a proper excellency only of a created nature; for it consists radically in a sense of a comparative lowness and littleness before God, or the great distance between God and the subject of this virtue; but it would be a contradiction to suppose any such thing in God.

2. In the person of Christ do meet together infinite majesty and transcendent meekness. These again are two qualifications that meet together in no other person but Christ. Meekness, properly so called, is a virtue proper only to the creature: we scarcely ever find meekness mentioned as a divine attribute in Scripture; at least not in the New Testament; for thereby seems to be signified, a calmness and quietness of spirit, arising from humility in mutable beings that are naturally liable to be put into a ruffle by the assaults of a tempestuous and injurious world. But Christ, being both God and man, hath both infinite majesty and superlative meekness.

3. There meet in the person of Christ the deepest reverence towards God and equality with God. Christ, when on earth, appeared full of holy reverence towards the Father. He paid the most reverential worship to him, praying to him with postures of reverence. Thus we read of his ” kneeling down and praying,” Luke 22:41. This became Christ, as one who had taken on him the human nature, but at the same time he existed in the divine nature; whereby his person was in all respects equal to the person of the Father. God the Father hath no attribute or perfection that the Son hath not, in equal degree, and equal glory. These things meet in no other person but Jesus Christ.

4. There are conjoined in the person of Christ infinite worthiness of good, and the greatest patience under sufferings of evil.

5. In the person of Christ are conjoined an exceeding spirit of obedience, with supreme dominion over heaven and earth.

6. In the person of Christ are conjoined absolute sovereignty and perfect resignation. This is another unparalleled conjunction.

7. In Christ do meet together self-sufficiency, and an entire trust and reliance on God, which is another conjunction peculiar to the person of Christ.

C) Such diverse excellencies are expressed in him towards men, that otherwise would have seemed impossible to be exercised towards the same object; as particularly these three, justice, mercy, and truth. The same that are mentioned in Psalm 85:10. ” Mercy and truth are met together, righteousness and peace have kissed each other.”

The strict justice of God, and even his revenging justice, and that against the sins of men, never was so gloriously manifested. as in Christ. He manifested an infinite regard to the attribute of God’s justice, in that, when he had a mind to save sinners, he was willing to undergo such extreme sufferings, rather than that their salvation should be to the injury of the honor of that attribute. And as he is the Judge of the world, he doth himself exercise strict justice, he will not clear the guilty, nor at all acquit the wicked in judgment.

Yet how wonderfully is infinite mercy towards sinners displayed in him! And what glorious and ineffable grace and love have been and are exercised by him, towards sinful men! Though he be the just Judge of a sinful world, yet he is also the Savior of the world. Though he be a consuming fire to sin, yet he is the light and life of sinners. Rom. 3:25. ” Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; to declare, I say, at this time his righteousness, that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.”

So the immutable truth of God, in the threatenings of his law against the sins of men, was never so manifested as it is in Jesus Christ, for there never was any other so great a trial of the unalterableness of the truth of God in those threatenings, as when sin came to be imputed to his own Son. And then in Christ has been seen already an actual complete accomplishment of those threatenings, which never has been nor will be seen in any other instance; because the eternity that will be taken up in fulfilling those threatenings on others, never will be finished. Christ manifested an infinite regard to this truth of God in his sufferings. And, in his judging the world, he makes the covenant of works, that contains those dreadful threatenings, his rule of judgement. He will see to it, that it is not infringed in the least jot or tittle: he will do nothing contrary to the threatenings of the law, and their complete fulfilment. And yet in him we have many great and precious promises, promises of perfect deliverance from the penalty of the law. And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life. And in him are all the promises of God yea, and Amen.

Continued in part II

The Covenant of Daniel 9:27!

The words “the covenant” occur 106 times in 102 verses in 63 chapters and 25 books of the King James Version of the Bible.

The word “the” is a definite article that is used to denote a proper noun. Therefore in every case “the covenant” is used in Scripture, it is referring to something specific.

Did you know that of all of the occurrences of “the covenant”, there is only one single verse of Scripture where “the covenant” is clearly referring to something other than has to do with a covenant between the Lord and man?

It is clear from verse 8 of Jeremiah 34 that this particular covenant was one that was between King Zedekiah and his people.

In the Book of Daniel, the phrase “the covenant” appears twice in Daniel 9 and twice in Daniel 11.

Daniel 9:4 is clearly referring to the Covenant God made with Abraham. I submit to you therefore, that verse 27 and the two verses in Daniel 11 are also referring to the Covenant God made with Abraham!!

Why do evangelicals today call the “he” of Daniel 9:27 the Antichrist and three of the four occurrences of “the covenant” in the Book of Daniel as something a future Antichrist makes when 102 occurrences of 106 occurrences of “the covenant” in the Bible are clearly talking about a covenant God made with man? No less than 96% of all occurrences of “the covenant” unquestionably refer to the covenant God made with man! I therefore submit to you that except for Jeremiah 34:10, in all instances of “the covenant,” it is something to do with God and man and not an Endtime deal the Antichrist makes with the Jews!

Calling the “he” of Daniel 9:27 a future antichrist is a false interpretation that entered into Protestant theology in the early 19th century! It’s a Jesuit doctrine that John Nelson Darby got from Edward Irving who got it from a Catholic Jesuit priest! I cover this in detail in https://jamesjpn.net/basic-bible/eschatology/the-70th-week-of-daniel-delusion

Modern Bible translations do not translate Daniel 9:27 correctly. The translators were all biased with Darby’s interpretation of that verse. They read into the text something that isn’t there. Reading into the text one’s own opinions and biases is called eisegesis. Eisegesis is the process of interpreting the text in such a way as to introduce one’s presuppositions, agendas or biases. It is commonly referred to as reading into the text. It’s a no-no for a translator to do that!

I know something about translating text. It was my job for 11 years in Japan to check Japanese translations from English. Often the Japanese translator didn’t correctly understand the English and translated it to something that sounded good but was wrong.

Now, if you know the author of the text personally, the chances of you getting the translation correct are much higher! When my friend Yoko asked me to translate Japanese text for her into English, sometimes she used words that if translated literally would make no sense to a native English speaker. Because I knew what she meant, I used different words. And she always agreed with me it was best to use those words. I believe the King James Version translators were all men of God who knew the Author of the Bible text. I can’t say that for every modern Bible translator.

The New International Version uses the indefinite article before covenant, “a covenant.”

The New Living Translation is even worse. It says “make a treaty” instead of “confirm the covenant”. Can you see the vast difference in meaning between the two?

The New King James uses the indefinite article, “a covenant” which implies something yet unknown.

The English Standard Version says, “make a strong covenant.”

The New American Standard Bible says, “make a firm covenant.”

In other words, modern translations, by using the word “make” rather than “confirm” indicate the event has yet to come in the future rather than been fulfilled in the past. Can you therefore see why the King James Version is important? And the Geneva Bible which is earlier than the KJV is also a good translation and correctly translates Daniel 9:27: And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week:

Below is the list of all occurrences of the covenant. The bold italics is to show how the verse is referring to a covenant God made with man. I counted five covenants: The Covenant with Noah, the Mosaic Covenant, the Covenant of the priesthood, the Covenant God made with King David, and the Abrahamic Covenant of grace which we are now under.

Rosalind Wright Picard (born May 17, 1962) is an American scholar and inventor who is Professor of Media Arts and Sciences at MIT, founder and director of the Affective Computing Research Group at the MIT Media Lab, and co-founder of the startups Affectiva and Empatica. — From Wikipedia.

I love reading testimonials of smart people who come to know Christ as Lord and Savior! I found the above meme on Facebook and looked up Dr. Picard’s salvation testimony. I found it on Christianity Today dot com.

God’s Word says in 1 Corinthians 1:26-29:

26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: 27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; 28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: 29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.

When I first read these Scriptures after I got saved after hearing the true Gospel in 1971, I was thrilled to pieces! I was one of those “foolish things of the world” who did not do well academically in school. (But now everything I hated to study in class I continually seek to know more of, especially history and writing skills.) I knew from reading the Word that God had a plan for my life but had no idea at the time what it was. I only knew God wanted me to share the Gospel with my friends and fellow co-workers. I used to feel intimidated in the presence of highly academic people, but now just the knowledge of the first three chapters of the Book of Genesis and the knowledge of the Gospel of Jesus Christ of the New Testament is far more valuable to me than any university degree.

Rosalind Picard must be very much loved by the Lord to be chosen among those who were wise after the flesh. I personally know one more, my friend Dr. John Gideon Hartnett of Bible Science Forum..

Dr. Rosalind Picard’s testimony

As early as grade school, when I was a voracious reader and a straight-A student, I identified with being smart. And I believed smart people didn’t need religion. As a result, I declared myself an atheist and dismissed people who believed in God as uneducated.

In high school, I led a classroom debate team arguing for a godless form of evolution, confident my side would win because “this was science.” When the class voted and awarded victory to the creation side, I was dumbstruck. Most people didn’t understand science, I figured—either that, or they were unduly swayed by the most popular girl in class. She had a swimming pool in her backyard and threw fun parties.

MIT Professor Dr. Rosalind Picard

At the time, I babysat to earn money. One of my favorite families was a young couple; both the husband (a doctor) and the wife were really sharp. One night, after paying me, they invited me to church. I was stunned—people this smart actually went to church? When Sunday morning came around, I told them I had a stomachache. They invited me again the following week, but once more I came down with another phantom stomachache. The more they persisted, the more I struggled to invent convincing excuses. (You try faking an illness to a doctor.)

Just a Phase?

Eventually, the couple tried a different tack. “You know,” they said, “going to church is not what matters most. What matters is what you believe. Have you read the Bible?” I figured that if I wanted to be an educated person, I needed to read the best-selling book of all time. The doctor suggested starting with Proverbs, reading one chapter daily for a month. When I first opened the Bible—this was the King James Version—I expected to find phony miracles, made-up creatures, and assorted gobbledygook. To my surprise, Proverbs was full of wisdom. I had to pause while reading and think.

I quietly bought a modern translation called The Way and read through the entire Bible. While I never heard actual voices or anything to justify summoning a neurologist, I felt this strange sense of being spoken to. It was disturbing yet oddly attractive. I began wondering whether there really might be a God.

I decided to work my way through the Bible again, thinking that perhaps my experience was common for first-time readers. This time I would step back and read it more carefully, the better to debunk it. I also vowed to learn more about the Bible’s origins and to study other religions. Maybe, I thought, my culture—in which most people were Christians or Jews—was conditioning me to find Christianity attractive.

A favorite Jewish teacher at my high school ran a “gifted” program that let me devote one class each semester to whatever I wanted. I studied Buddhism, Hinduism, and several other faiths. I visited temples, synagogues, mosques, and other holy places.

More than anything, I wanted to get past this “religion” phase, because I knew I didn’t want religion. But despite my wishes, an internal battle raged. Part of me was increasingly eager to spend time with the God of the Bible, but an irritated voice inside me insisted I would be happy again once I moved on.

There were two passages I found especially troubling: Matthew 10:33 (“But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven.”) and Matthew 12:30 (“Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.”). I resented what felt like an unwelcome ultimatum. I didn’t want to believe in God, but I still felt a peculiar sense of love and presence I couldn’t ignore.

During my freshman year in college, I reconnected with a friend I had met at a summer honors program. He was a straight-A student and a star on both the basketball court and football field—I had never known anyone so smart and athletic. He helped me with difficult physics homework, and then he invited me to his church. This time, I felt fine.

The sermon prompted many questions. I started to raise my hand while the pastor spoke before realizing that everyone else was sitting quietly. I nudged my friend: “Can we ask questions?” He hushed me. How do we learn if we can’t ask? After the sermon I tried getting answers, but people mostly wanted to socialize. I started coming to Sunday School classes because the teachers let me ask questions. I also kept reading.

One Sunday, the pastor talked about the difference between believing there is a God and following God. I knew Jesus claimed to be “the way” to God, but I had been trying to avoid anything Jesus-related—I couldn’t help hearing his name with the word freak attached. But the pastor got my attention when he asked, “Who is Lord of your life?” He discussed what happens when “you, a human being, put yourself on that throne.”

I was intrigued: I was the captain of my ship, but was it possible that God would actually be willing to lead me? From there, I came to a deeper understanding of what it meant to have a relationship with God through faith in Jesus. It seemed silly to pray about this—after all, I still had doubts about God’s existence. But in the spirit of Pascal’s wager, I decided to run an experiment, believing I had much to gain but very little to lose.

After praying, “Jesus Christ, I ask you to be Lord of my life,” my world changed dramatically, as if a flat, black-and-white existence suddenly turned full-color and three-dimensional. But I lost nothing of my urge to seek new knowledge. In fact, I felt emboldened to ask even tougher questions about how the world works. I felt joy and freedom—but also a heightened sense of responsibility and challenge.

Learning and Exploring

Have you ever tried to assemble something mechanical, and it only kind of works? Maybe the wheels spin, but not smoothly. Then you realize you were missing a piece. When you finally put it together correctly, it works beautifully. This is how it felt when I handed my life over to God: I thought it had worked fine before, but after it was “fixed,” it worked exponentially better. That’s not to say nothing bad ever happened to me—far from it. But in all things, good and bad, I could count on God’s guidance, comfort, and protection.

Today, I am a professor at the top university (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) in my field. I have incredible colleagues who have helped translate my lab research into difference-making products—including a smart watch that helps caregivers save the lives of people with epilepsy. I work closely with people whose lives are filled with medical struggles, people whose children are not healthy. I do not have adequate answers to explain all their suffering. But I know there is a God of unfathomable greatness and love who freely enters into relationship with all who confess their sins and call upon his name.

I once thought I was too smart to believe in God. Now I know I was an arrogant fool who snubbed the greatest Mind in the cosmos—the Author of all science, mathematics, art, and everything else there is to know. Today I walk humbly, having received the most undeserved grace. I walk with joy, alongside the most amazing Companion anyone could ask for, filled with desire to keep learning and exploring.

This article is from a PDF file on LutheranLibrary.org. It was published by The Converted Catholic Magazine. The author, Leo Herbert Lehmann, is a former Roman Catholic priest.

ROMAN CATHOLIC TEACHING rests upon the principle that eternal salvation depends upon the works performed by the hands of its priests. This principle is expressed by the phrase, ex opere operato (literally, “because of the work that is worked”), coined by the theologians in Rome to convey the belief that the grace of salvation can be made to flow into the souls of men only through the works performed upon them by validly ordained priests of the Roman Catholic Church.

They have another phrase to complement this: ex opere operantis (“because of the work of the worker”), which means that the individual must also earn his salvation by works of penance and mortification as commanded by the Church. But these works of the individual are of no avail without the works that are worked upon him by the priest. Both of these kinds of works, however, are contradictory of the new and living way of salvation as clearly set forth in the New Testament:

“Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.” (Titus 3:5).

Of prime importance, therefore, to the young priest setting out from the seminary to begin his ministry are his anointed and consecrated hands. Many hundreds of newly-ordained priests, with the oil of ordination scarcely dry on their hands, enter each year on the active work of the Roman Catholic priesthood in the United States. Pious men and devout women and young girls love to kiss these freshly-anointed hands. For they believe that these hands will carry the body of Jesus Christ to countless thousands of the faithful, and that they will be the actual instruments for the signing away, by absolution in confession, the crimes of men against God and the many mortal sins committed against the laws of the Roman Catholic Church. In Latin countries of Europe and South America, the customary mode of saluting a priest is by kissing the palms of his hands.

With these hands is poured the water of baptism over the heads of infants, without which there is no possibility of salvation at all. These hands are likewise the instruments which will apply the oil of last anointing to the sin-stained senses of dying bodies, an action which is believed to take effect on the soul even after consciousness has fled. The motions of these hands raised in blessing over material objects, chase out the power of evil which is held to be inherent in all matter, after which such objects become sacred and holy things. To employ such objects — medals, scapulars, rosary beads etc. — thereafter for other than spiritual uses is considered desecration. It is by these hands that the devil is exorcised from infants after they are born.

But Roman Catholic priests no longer claim to possess in their hands the power of healing sickness and disease, although it was definitely said by Christ: “They shall lay their hands on the sick and they shall be healed.” Relics of saints from Italy are now applied instead to the bodies of the believing faithful in the hope that they will be cured of their infirmities.

The intricacies of theology, philosophy and the art of preaching count much less in the work of a priest than his anointed hands. A young man may receive ordination to the Roman Catholic priesthood who is intellectually deficient, but not so one who is lacking one joint of either thumb or two joints of an index finger. Personal sanctity is of lesser importance than the left eye, called “the canonical eye,” the lack of which constitutes an impediment to ordination, since it would render difficult the reading of the prayers from the mass book which is placed at his left side on the altar. As regards the productive efficiency of the works he performs with his hands, the personal beliefs or morals of a priest do not matter at all, as long as he performs the operations correctly and has the intention of doing what the Church has instructed him to do. It is a necessary fundamental rule of Roman Catholic soteriology that the efficacy of the manipulations of a priest’s hands is no way impaired by unbelief or immoral conduct of the priest in his own private life.

Unless he has specially qualified for a teaching position, the young priest beginning his ministry has a very hazy knowledge of what the theology that was taught him in the seminary is all about. A small book called a ritual detailed instructions of the manner in which he must perform the various actions deemed essential for the valid administration of the sacraments and other ceremonial acts. The “Church” is his covering and final argument in every doctrinal difficulty presented to him. “The Church,” he will answer, “has so decreed it, so you must obey or be damned.” The law of the Church and his tabloid ritual book constitute his entire equipment. His usefulness as a priest is limited to what his hands are endowed to accomplish.

A priest’s help to the dying (which many Protestant ministers in America seem to envy) is not due to any personal contact from himself, but to the psychological comfort induced in the dying person by the contact of the act of oil applied by the priest to his lips, nose, hands, feet and other parts of his body. His preaching is mostly about brick and mortar for buildings, and the necessary dollars to cover payment of mortgages, along with frequent appeals to increase attendance at devotions and novenas to the Little Flower, Saint Anthony or Saint Anne.

But the priest cannot be altogether blamed for this. His economic support, his dignity, and his position as mediator between the people and God have been made dependent upon the belief of the people in the magic of external objects — shrines, blest candles, medals, beads, relics and such like. Were he to exert himself to prepare inspiring sermons to raise the people’s minds to grasp the true teachings of Jesus Christ, of what use then would it be for him to exhort the people to drop their dimes and dollars into church boxes to light little colored lamps before magical shrines of the Sacred Heart and the Little Flower? Were he to take the trouble to explain the real meaning and message of Calvary, how then could he demand a price for the favor of celebrating the sacrifice of the mass for those who can afford to pay more than others for it? If he were to preach the self- development of supernatural power and spiritual insight, how could he then command unquestioned submission to a pope in Rome as the sole medium of all things spiritual?

If Roman Catholic priests were to extol the virtues of true education and intellectual progress, how could they honestly clamor Sunday after Sunday for the dollars of their poor parishioners to build bigger and better parochial schools? For in these Catholic schools education must be in strict accord with the Church’s dogmatic teaching, which consists in stuffing the child’s mind with mere one-sided knowledge — the doctored metaphysics that are essential to protect the authoritarian system of the Catholic Church. The first duty of a Roman Catholic priest is to keep his people in ‘simplicity of faith.’ In order to do so he is obliged to leave them in ignorance of facts.

Often the priest himself is confused about many things that he is obliged to preach to the people. One of these is the power he is supposed to have to forgive sins in confession. Does or does not the act of absolution which he pronounces over sinners in the confession box take away their sins? No priest can give a clear, definite answer to this question. He was taught that he has the power of forgiving sins, which was transmitted to him by the authority of the Church in Rome. But he has no clear understanding of the extent and limitations of this supposed power. The people who come to him for forgiveness, on the other hand, have no doubt about their belief that pardon for their sins depends entirely on the will and judgment of the absolving priest. But this is not strictly true. For, in theory at least, Roman Catholic theologians admit that sins can, in some cases, be forgiven without absolution of a priest.

The whole difficulty, of course, centers around the absurdity that sins can be forgiven week after week in the same way as you pay off your debts to your grocer, after which you can begin again to contract further debts. The Jesuit theologians have made it more difficult still by distinguishing between different kinds of contrition or sorrow for sin. One kind they call ‘perfect’ contrition, the other ‘imperfect’ contrition, for which they have coined a special word attrition. A person who has only this attrition for his sins is said to be sorry for them, not because his sins have offended God, but because he is afraid he will go to hell unless he obtains forgiveness of them from the priest.

It can easily be seen that this is fear, not sorrow or true repentance. For it means that if there were no hell, such a person would not be sorry at all for having sinned, and would keep on sinning all the time with impunity. But according to Roman Catholic teaching, if a person with this feeling of mere attrition for his sins confesses them to a priest, then his sins are washed away as soon as the priest makes the sign of the cross over the sinner’s head and pronounces the prescribed formula of absolution. But not all together. Immediate danger of going to hell only is removed, but there remains an unknown amount of guilt which must be expiated for, either in this life by penances, or in the next life by burning in purgatory.

It is taught that, in rare instances, sins can be forgiven without the absolution of a priest. There are two conditions attached to this supposition: if the person is dying and a priest is not available, and if the sinner can work up ‘perfect’ contrition. Furthermore, if such a person recovers he is obliged to go and confess his sins, already pardoned, to a priest as soon as he can find one. If not, then in some mysterious way that no one can explain, his sins come back. In fact, if he fails to do so, another sin is added, namely, one of grave disobedience to the law of the Church.

It is entirely unscriptural that ‘attrition’ is sufficient to obtain forgiveness of sins. In the Christian dispensation, “the blood of Jesus Christ alone cleanses from all sin.” This is obtained by true repentance, metanoia, a change of heart, and is a complete and perfect pardon. Confessing to a priest to obtain his forgiveness is the pagan, pre-Christian way. But it serves to enhance the power of the priest to whom the people trust for pardon of their sins before they die.

This teaching explains the anxiety of Roman Catholics to make sure they will have the priest when they come to die, and it is for this reason that we see pictures in newspapers of .priests rushing dramatically into burning buildings, or to the scene of automobile smash-ups, to reach the burned and mangled bodies of the victims before they expire. The people firmly believe that the priest alone has the power to give them a ticket to heaven, even though it leads through the flames of an excruciating purgatory. To know that “he had the priest” at the end, relieves the anxiety of many a Catholic mother’s heart about the salvation of a wayward son, even if he dies in the electric chair.

Parents and friends of those killed in automobile wrecks and airplane crashes are consoled to hear that a priest was in the locality, even some distance away. I once knew a Catholic mother whose son was killed in a plane crash, and who was broken-hearted at first because there was no priest present to absolve him. But her sorrow disappeared afterward when a priest wrote to tell her that he had seen the accident from a passing train and had made the sign of absolution in the air to forgive the sins of those in the plane.

In practice, however, it is made the rule that only by the absolution of a priest can a sinner be pardoned from his sins and saved from eternal punishment in hell. Priests make it known that generally speaking it is almost impossible to work up ‘perfect’ contrition for sin, for perfect sorrow is equal to perfect love of God, something that only heroic saints can have. In this way, the obligation to come to confession is stressed. To clinch the argument, they will quote verse 22 of the 20th chapter of the Gospel of John (Catholic version): “Whose sins you shall forgive they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain they are retained.”

This verse of Scripture, they tell their people, makes it plain that only priests of the Roman Catholic Church have the power to forgive and to refuse to forgive sins. They do not explain that Jesus Christ said this to both apostles and disciples, among whom were some women. Neither do they explain the context, in which Christ mentioned two distinct ‘missions,’ one, His mission from the Father — which was to die upon the cross to forgive the sins of the world, and which only He could do — and the other, the commission to his apostles and disciples to go forth and preach the Gospel message that sins have been remitted by His finished work on Calvary. Protestant ministers carry out this commission to remit sins, but in the correct sense that they declare that sins are forgiven, and that sinners are saved, “to the uttermost,” by this redeeming work of Jesus Christ. For who can forgive sins but God alone?

This matter of the forgiveness of sins has been made so confusing in Catholic Church teaching that the bewildered young priest soon ceases to argue how it is done. He takes it for granted that all he has to do is to make the sign of the cross and pronounce the prescribed formula over the heads of the thousands of sinners who kneel down before him in the confession box. Some priests become very careless about it and ask no questions of their penitents. Others require that every detail of sins confessed must be explained to them, and that it depends upon the judgment of the priest whether or not the sinner can be pardoned. They are especially severe on women who try to conceal the details of their marital relations with their husbands in the matter of birth control.

The word ‘confession’ and ‘going to confession’ are ill-advised and no substitute for true repentance for sin. The former implies merely the telling of sins and the number of times committed to a priest in order words of absolution. The whole process is in no way spiritually directive and has little psychological value.

An action of the priest’s hands of even greater importance is the pouring of the water of baptism over the heads of infants. If this action is not properly performed the infant will be cast out of the sight of God for all eternity — even if he grows up and professes full faith in Jesus Christ. No other sacrament of the Catholic Church is of any avail to a person who was not properly baptized in the beginning. The three essential words which the priest must be sure to say while pouring the water are: Ego te baptizo. Woe to the child if the priest, by inadvertence or a slip of the tongue, should say the formula for confession, Ego te absolvo, which is so much alike and which he repeats many thousands of times. Should this mistake occur, the entire act of baptism would be invalidated, and the child would be a Christian in name only. The unconscious antics of the baby, the sudden contact of cold water on its head, the embarrassing, but perfectly natural accidents that happen to newborn babies at unexpected moments, may conspire to unsteady the hand of the priest while pouring the water or divert his mind from the correct word formula. This pouring of the water of baptism is made so essential for the attainment of heaven, that exact instructions and suitable instruments are provided to perform this action upon a fetus still in its mother’s womb, if it appears likely that it may die before issue.

An infant, because born of natural intercourse, is regarded by the Roman Catholic theologians as possessed by the devil after it comes from its mother’s womb. The priest’s first task, therefore, is to cast out this unclean spirit from the child before baptism. To this end he uses the most powerful exorcisms accompanied by the sprinkling of holy water and repeated signs of the cross. He puts salt (previously exorcised) into the infant’s mouth, wets the infant’s lips, ears and nostrils with spittle from his own mouth, rubs oil on its chest and back. Directly addressing the devil which is believed to be in the child, the priest commands him as follows: “Depart, thou accursed devil (maledicte diabole) from this servant of God.”

Rosary beads, scapulars, medals, chalices and mass vestments must likewise be cleansed from the evil which is supposed to be inherent in them as natural and material objects. After being thus exorcised they are looked upon as holy objects to be handled with reverence and used exclusively for acts of worship. It is a sin for a layman to touch the chalice used by the priest at mass. It thus comes about that Catholics believe that such objects, after being blessed by a priest, possess a magical charm and are able to ward off the power of the devil and to protect from accidents their person and property. Blest medals of Saint Christopher are pinned to automobiles (even by some Protestants) in the belief that by so doing cars and their occupants will be protected from wrecks. But insurance companies allow no rebate on insurance premiums for cars that carry one of these blest medals of Saint Christopher.

Priests personally have little faith in relics of the saints, medals, beads, scapulars and statues, even though it is part of their work to exorcise the evil from them and to recommend their use to the pious faithful. Priests who have been to Rome for any length of time lose reverence for such things because of the shameless traffic carried on there in bits of bones and all kinds of pious objects. Rome is a vast graveyard of skulls and bones of supposed saints. In some churches the lamps and ornamentations around the walls are fashioned from bones of departed holy people. In Rome are two heads of Saint Paul, a slipper of Saint Joseph, the girdle of the Virgin Mary, and what is said to be milk from her breasts.

All this ritualistic maneuvering has been invented by the Roman theologians to fit in with their basic teaching that salvation can only be gained by “the works that are worked” by a priest. The grace of salvation is taught as something that can be ‘poured’ into people’s souls through the specially devised channels of the seven sacraments. These in turn are supposed to act as conduits from the great reservoir of grace over which the pope in Rome has sole monopoly. This engineering of external unrealities, to act with magical force to produce a spiritual effect, runs through the entire system of Roman Catholic theology. The works of a priest’s hands must be accepted both as a matter of belief as well as of organization and practice.

But of such is not the power of the kingdom of heaven.

Vatican city

This is a re-post of a 2014 article. It still applies in my opinion.

The original title of this article is: The Real Powers Behind President Barack Obama By Karen Hudes

From Karen Hudes Facebook page:

Barack Obama is truly not the President of the United States. He is not a powerful person at all. Rather, he is a front man for more powerful entities that hide in the shadows.

The real power in the world is not the United States, Russia, or even China. It is Rome. The Roman Catholic Church (Vatican) is the single most powerful force in the world.  

However, the Vatican has been under the control of it’s largest all-male order, the Jesuits. The Jesuits were created in 1534 to serve as the “counter-reformation” — the arm of the Church that would help to fight the Muslims and the Protestant Reformers. However, they fought with espionage. The Jesuits were expelled from at least 83 countries and cities for subversion, espionage, treason, and other such things. Samuel Morse said that the Jesuits were the foot soldiers in the Holy Alliance (Europe and the Vatican) plan to destroy the United States (Congress of Vienna). Marquis Lafayette stated that the Jesuits were behind most of the wars in Europe, and that they would be the ones to take liberty from the United States.

Adolfo Nicolas

The head of the Jesuit Order is Adolfo Nicholas. His title is Superior General of the Jesuits. The use of the rank “general” is because the Jesuits are, in reality, a military organization.

Nicholas, as the Jesuit General, is the most powerful man in the world. He ultimately issues the commands that are administered by drones like Obama.

The Jesuit General is nicknamed “The Black Pope” because he always wears black robes. Pope Francis is, thus, the “White Pope”.

Directly under the Jesuit General is Fr. James E. Grummer, S.J. — one of the five Jesuit priests who serve as direct “assistants” to the Jesuit General. Grummer is his American assistant, and controls the US Jesuit Conference. He is the controller of every American Jesuit university and every American Jesuit Provincial. The New York Provincial has the most contact with Grummer (as the top provincial).

Under Grummer is the President of the US Jesuit Conference, Fr. Thomas H. Smolich, S.J., who was the Jesuit Provincial of California during the reign of Governor Arnold Schwarznegger. Smolich was the power behind Arnold during these years. Smolich is a key force behind the planned Sino-Soviet-Muslim invasion, which the Jesuit Order is planning to use to bring down the United States. He is also actively involved in the orchestration of the Chinese-Mexican invasion.

Under Smolich is Fr. David S. Ciancimino, S.J., the Jesuit Provincial of New York. He is the top Jesuit Provinical in the United States, as New York is the capital of the Jesuit Order’s power (that’s why it was chosen as the staging area for 9/11). Here, Ciancimino (and the Jesuits beneath him) control Wall Street, the NYSE, and the Federal Reserve Bank. Ciancimino controls Archbishop Timothy Dolan, the most powerful Roman Catholic official in the United States who is not a Jesuit. Ciancimino is an occultist, as are many other top Jesuits.

Directly under Ciancimino is Fr. Joseph M. McShane, S.J., who is the President of Fordham University — the Jesuit college of New York, and the Jesuits’ military stronghold there. It is through McShane that the Jesuits (led by Ciancimino in New York) control Archbishop Timothy Dolan. He has become known as the “penholder” for Dolan. He wears a decorative necklace that features an equilateral triangle, a Masonic symnol of the Risen Horus.

Under the control of these powerful Jesuits is Pope Francis, the Vicar of Christ (Horus) and the current Roman Papal Caesar. He represents Osiris in mystery-school/occult mythology.

Below Pope Francis is the Timothy Dolan, the Archbishop of New York. Dolan is the “American Pope” and the “Archbishop of the Capital of the World”. He heads the American branches of the Knights of Malta and Knights of Columbus. He is a likely occultist and the controller of American Freemasonry, the CFR, the ADL (B’nai B’rith), the Pentagon, and the intelligence community.

Joseph A. O’Hare, S.J. is the President Emeritus of Fordham University and the man directly under Egan. He is a Knight of Malta and has presided over CFR meetings as Egan’s operative. He is an adviser to David Rockefeller (Knight of Malta), Henry Kissinger (Knight of Malta), and Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York. He is, thus, the Jesuit who directly controls the city mayor. He is also the Jesuit who controls the Rockefeller-Kissinger apparatus, of which the CFR is a key part.

O’Hare is a devoted Zionist who supports the State of Israel, which was created in 1948 by the United Nations (UN) — a creation of the Archbishop of New York’s Council on Foreign relations). It was Archbishop Francis Spellman of New York who solicited votes at the UN for Israel. Spellman played a key role in Israel’s founding. The founder of Zionism was Theodor Herzl, who had frequent meetings with the Pope and had once planned to lead the jewish people in a “mass conversion” to Roman Catholicism. The true designers, financiers, and promoters of Zionism are the Rothschilds, who Encyclopedia Judaica describes as “guardians of the papal treasure”. That’s right — the Rothschilds are the banking agents of the Papacy. The State of Israel is just the revived Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, and it’s under the Vatican’s thumb.

Below O’Hare is John J. DeGioa, the President of Georgetown University. DeGioa is also a Knight of Malta and a member of the CFR. He is one of the over-seers of the State of Israel.

Below DeGioa, we find Richard N. Haas — the Chairman of the CFR. Haas is ultimately simply a lowly agent of Archbishop Egan. Haas is a Jewish Labor Zionist and oversees the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). These Jewish Zionists are mainly just Papal Court jewish people.

Below Haas is Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was a member of the CFR, Bilderberg Group, and Trilateral Commission. Brzezinski had co-founded the Trilateral Commission. He was a Knight of Malta, as was the other founder of the Trilateral Commission – David Rockefeller. Brzezinski is a Polish Roman Catholic and an adviser to Georgetown University.

Brzezinski was Soetoro’s professor at Columbia University, and recruited him for presidential grooming. Are we beginning to see the big picture?

Once Brzezinski created “presidential candidate” Obama, his campaign was financed and promoted by the multi-billionaire behind hundreds of organizations on the “political left” — George Soros. Soros was a high-ranking CFR member and a member of the Carlyle Group, an international corporation that served as a front for the Vatican. Soros, a Hungarian jewish, was a strong socialist-communist (like Brzezinski). Like Haas, Brzezinski was a Papal Court jewish and a Labor Zionist. He is also a Freemason. He is a friend of Rupert Murdoch. Soros is a major stockholder in Halliburton.

Murdoch is the protector of Obama, controlling his opposition. Murdoch was knighted by the Pope in 1998 for making large contributions to the Roman Catholic Church. He has said that his corporation – News Corp – is “just like the Jesuits” while speaking at Georgetown University. Murdoch is a member of the CFR.

Joseph R. Biden is the Vice President, and is directly under the Vatican’s big-wheel operatives (Soros and Murdoch). He is Roman Catholic and has been honored at two Jesuit universities. His son is a Jesuit volunteer and a lobbyist for a Jesuit university he attended.

Under the guidance of Biden, we find Barack Obama, a 32nd Degree Freemason who has been trained in Romanism.

Webmaster note:The text of this article is slightly edited from the original. I only changed the name of the current Pope from Benedict XVI to Francis. I got it from http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2013/12/the-real-powers-behind-president-barack-obama-by-karen-hudes-2861806.html and changed one image and added one more.

Who is Karen Hudes?

“Karen Hudes studied law at Yale Law School and economics at the University of Amsterdam. She worked in the US Export Import Bank of the US from 1980-1985 and in the Legal Department of the World Bank from 1986-2007. She established the Non Governmental Organization Committee of the International Law Section of the American Bar Association and the Committee on Multilateralism and the Accountability of International Organizations of the American Branch of the International Law Association. ” – From Karen Hudes’ website at http://kahudes.net/

The speaker on this video is Richard Bennett, a former Roman Catholic priest. He knows what he’s talking about! There is another talk from Richard Bennett already on this website, The Cunning Genius of the Vatican Papal System, Part I

Transcription

Welcome to the program. We are going to address a topic that is quite difficult because it is truly startling. In June 2015, it was announced by the Vatican that it is warning people across the globe of the catastrophic global warming that is taking place and that it calls for an ethical and economic revolution. The Vatican insists that the destruction of the world’s ecological system calls for changes in lifestyle and energy consumption to avert unprecedented destruction of the planet before the end of the century. So the Vatican insists. And this command that goes out by the Vatican that energy is to be conserved and that everything is to be done so the planet is not destroyed by the end of the century is typical of the commands and instructions that the Vatican gives many times throughout history. It’s become so much a fact of life that people don’t notice that this church, which is also a civil system that dictates to the world. It’s become so accepted as it were.

This is not acceptable whatsoever. Actually, the whole system of the Catholic structure is so alarming that an exposure of its system is essential. And thus we have a Biblical and historical analysis of the system today in this video.

In dealing with the Papal System, we must remember that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Many Christian people, indeed Evangelical churches, are totally ignorant of the genius of the Vatican procedures. And so I ask you to make this video known to your friends and family, and if possible, to have it displayed on Internet web pages. Have it displayed on web pages of friends you know or churches you know.

The world today is enamored by Pope Francis, whether it’s on television, the Internet, YouTube, or whether it’s a news item that you’re listening to on the radio. The world is enamored by Pope Francis. What people do not realize is the platform from which Francis speaks, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, his name when he was in Argentina, would be totally unknown to the world were it not for the Papal System, the platform from which he speaks, or the stage on which he acts.

The Papal System is unrivaled in the world. It’s massive, it’s institutional, it’s a religious system which is also a civil system. Yet it appears friendly and inviting. It’s immensely deceptive. It has immense wealth and worldwide dominion, and it dictates its faith to millions. In fact, on the books, there’s over a billion Catholics alone, besides the influence that the Papal System has on other people of the world. It’s the largest organization on Earth and it shows superb skill in all its endeavors.

The Papal System is an elitist bureaucratic machine. It is so powerful that even the pope himself must conform to what the system says or face consequences. An example of this is the murder of John Paul I in 1978, only 33 days after his election. Cardinal Ratzinger as he was called at the time said on Zenit, the Catholic news agency website, his death was totally unexpected. John Paul I seemed to enjoy good health, and Ratzinger should know because he had known him personally inside the Vatican.

And Ratzinger would have known because he was well versed in church history, he would have known of the abnormal deaths of many other popes. For example, other popes were murdered besides John Paul I, and I would recommend David Yallop’s book, In God’s Name: An Investigation Into the Murder of Pope John Paul I (1984). That book has been well known and still sells very well, even as secondhand copies.

But there are other murders. For example, in history, Stephen VII, in 897 AD, he died, he was strangled to death.
And Stephen IX in 972 AD was mutilated.
And then we have John the XII in 964 AD, he was murdered.
And Benedict VI was strangled in 974.
And John XIV in 984 AD was starved to death.
Gregory V, in 999 AD was poisoned.
Clement II, in 1047 AD also was poisoned.
Damasus II, 1048, murdered.
Pope Pius XI, 1939 was allegedly assassinated.
Later in 2013, Ratzinger then Pope Benedict XVI appears to have been forced to resign or else face the consequences.

So it’s interesting, that even the popes themselves are dictated to by the system. Very few people realize this. These historical deaths of murders and strangulation and poisoning of popes in previous times are quite interesting.

We now must see some more history, we must have an overview of the history of the Papal System.

In the fourth and fifth centuries, great persecutions against Christians were over, and Emperor Constantine made Christianity the religion of the Roman Empire. And thus at this time the Gospel was watered down, and practices were accumulated into what was called the Church that were really Pagan practices and some Gnostic speculations. The true worship of God and the inner conviction of the Holy Spirit, and walking in step with the Holy Spirit, knowing the personal love of the Father in salvation in Christ, these things were replaced by worldliness and a worldly system of externalized rituals. And so gradually what had been Christian became more and more devoid of authentic spiritual experience.

We had true churches at the time such as the Vaudois, quite well known in history. The Vaudois had to flee Rome and go to the Alps to Northern Italy, going into France. The Vaudois, later known as the Waldensians after Peter Waldo, one of the more famous of the Vaudois. They were real Christian people. And they saw that this system that was growing was not Christianity. Later on, they were persecuted by the Church of Rome. And some of those horrific persecutions were the Pope sent forth armies to destroy those people. It is a really sad history.

We also had the Paulician churches at that time, true Christian churches. They realized what was growing in Rome and having its influence on other parts of the world from Rome was not biblical. It was a system that became in time a persecutor of those who were true Christians. And that is the whole story in itself, and we’ll touch on that later on.

At the beginning of the New Testament times the Gospel had produced internal unity. The fellowship of believers is wonderful when you’re in a Christian assembly and you know Christ Jesus the Lord, and you partake of the fellowship of brothers and sisters in the Lord. It’s a wonderful experience. It’s not only an experience of the presence of God in your midst as you praise and worship Him in Christ Jesus by the power of the Spirit, but the fellowship of the believers who are the body of Christ, it is as it were Christ, is as it were tangible as you meet the Believers in the fellowship of the believers. It is just wonderful. But this now was replaced in what was becoming the Roman system by an institutionalized and external unity, but with no internal spiritual experience.

And then there grew up in this system a clergy/laity division. Soon it was that the people the lycos (spelling?), which means the people of God in Greek, they were not just the people of God. One of the people was maybe an elder, learning to lead the people of God. There became a split, there was a ruling class, a clergy, and the lower class, the laity. And so it was that we had men who were later to call themselves priests lording it over the people who were under them. These men calling themselves priests began to mediate between God and the people. And so the fellowship of the believers no longer existed. In the system, it was an external unity. It was now dominated by men who were called bishops and priests. And so it was that this system developed.

In the year 330, those of you who know history know that the emperor Constantine moved the seat of the Empire from Rome to Constantinople. And so Rome no longer had the leadership of the Empire. The emperor, who was as it were the Caesar, going back to the Caesars, the emperor was now taking the place of Caesar, but it no longer had the emperor in Rome. And this created as it were a vacuum, that there was no authority figure in Rome. There was a foothold set as if it were for this system to come in with its head, the bishop of Rome, to become the dictator as it were in Rome. And so it was in the system, the bishop of Rome, and those under him called priests lording over the people underneath them, became the religion of the city of Rome.

If you know anything about history, you know that the barbarians, hordes of barbarians like the Vandals, were coming into Rome. The bishop of Rome would call upon these barbarians not to do vandalism, not to devastate the city, but to be welcomed into the city, and they would be welcomed also into what they called the Christian Church which was not Christian. They were welcomed as they were, just as they were, into the Church. They were baptized and accepted into the System. And so we had many of those barbarians now accepted as if they were Christians with no change of life, baptized by a ritual that was purely symbolic with no inner meaning. The barbarians had their names inscribed in the registers, a custom going back many years and is still in the Catholic Church. They always have a record of the names of those who have been baptized. It’s amazing how far back that goes. Even the barbarians had their names written down that they were accepted into what was becoming the Church of Rome, the Roman System.

And so we have on the ruins of what was the Empire, the emperor himself now being in Constantinople and the bishop of Rome taking authority and acting as if he had not just religious power but civil power.

Beginning then also in the fifth century and developed throughout the succeeding centuries was what is called sacramentalism, that is rituals called sacraments that are believed to have the power to make people Christian. In the first place, baptism is supposed to make you a Christian. When the priest pours water on your head and declares I baptize you in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, he then says that you are a Christian. I know I did that for years when I was a Catholic priest. I did that with adults and of course with babies in Trinidad, West Indies. You declare that the person is a Christian because you poured water on their head. And then you inscribe their name into the registers. This was the beginning of sacramentalism.

It is interesting in the New Testament the glorious message of the Apostle Peter speaks about being born again, not of corruptible seed but of incorruptible, by the Word of God who lives and abides forever. We are born again when we are convicted that we’re sinners by the written Word of Truth in the Scriptures, and the Holy Spirit convicts us, and we’re brought to new birth, and we accept Christ as our Savior by God’s grace alone. That is the wonderful thing, a real change, a spiritual birth being born again in the words of the Apostle Peter. But this (sacramentalism), is a claiming that people are born again to a ritual. And this is the same in modern-day Catholicism.

I’d like you to see on your screen the official teaching of the Catholic church at the present time from the code of canon law. I quote from Canon 849.

Baptism, the gateway to the sacraments and necessary for salvation by actual reception or at least by desire, is validly conferred only by a washing of true water with the proper form of words. Through baptism men and women are freed from sin, are reborn as children of God, and, configured to Christ by an indelible character, are incorporated into the Church.

The system dares to say that men and women are born again by washing of true water. No water, water does not convey the grace of God. It’s directly in Christ by the Spirit of God. It’s not physical water. But this is the teaching of the Catholic Church and is still the teaching and what they did back then with the barbarians as they were accepted in the early centuries into the Catholic church.

And so in the late fifth century, men calling themselves priests presumed to mediate between God and man! The Papal System began to have its sacraments necessary for salvation. The Scripture says there is one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus. In the Scriptures, it’s abundantly clear. But the Papal System claims that it has its mediators the priests, and they operate by the sacraments.

And I’d like you to see again on your screen the exact quotation from the official catechism of the Catholic church, and it’s paragraph 1129:

1129 The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation. “Sacramental grace” is the grace of the Holy Spirit, given by Christ and proper to each sacrament. The Spirit heals and transforms those who receive him by conforming them to the Son of God. The fruit of the sacramental life is that the Spirit of adoption makes the faithful partakers in the divine nature by uniting them in a living union with the only Son, the Savior.

And there are actually seven of them mentioned necessary for salvation. You must have these rituals. What did Paul and Silas say to the jailkeeper when he, the jail keeper, said: “What must I do to be saved?” They said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus and thou shall be saved, thou and thy family.” It wasn’t any rituals that Paul and Silas recommended, it was believing on the Lord Jesus Christ.

You see how horrific the system is. The present Pope is obedient to obey the Catholic Church to purport that life comes through the sacraments. I’d like to give a recent example of this on Sunday, May 3rd, 2015. Pope Francis obeying the Vatican’s guiding policy regarding the sacraments said the following:

Jesus is the vine, and through Him we are the branches. And through this parable Jesus wants to make us understand the importance of remaining united to Him, grafted by baptism in Christ, we have freely received from him the gift of new life, and are able to remain in vital communion with Christ. We must remain faithful to baptism, and grow in friendship with the Lord through prayer, listening, and docility to His Word, reading the Gospel, and participation in the sacraments, especially the Eucharist and Reconciliation.

The last two sacraments, the Eucharist, which is the Mass, and Reconciliation is the sacrament of forgiveness that used to be called confession. These are necessary for salvation. (According to the Pope.) And there Francis is telling you what sacraments you should do to have life.

No ritual of any church gives life. It’s only trusting on Christ Jesus the Lord praise His name! Praise His name that it works! These rituals don’t work. And it’s so sad to see countries that have the majority of Roman Catholics in them in the system not living Godly lives.

And now we continue to go back in history to the sixth century with the system, just how it was developing. The emperor Justinian I who lived as Emperor from 527 to 565 AD. He was the one more than anyone else to establish the supremacy of the bishop of Rome as the head of the system. He did this in a formal and legal manner by bringing purely ecclesiastical edicts and regulations under civil law, at the time Roman civil law. And this we have from the historian Le Roy Edwin Froom.

Justinian’s great achievement was the regulation of ecclesiastical and theological matters crowned the Imperial by the Imperial decretal letter seating the bishop of Rome and the church as the head of all the holy churches, thus laying the legal foundation for papal ecclesiastical supremacy. The emperor Justinian’s decree did not create the office of the pope. Rather, it laid the legal foundation for the advancement of ruling power by the bishop of Rome.

The emperor wished to allay the demise of the Empire. Thus, the ecclesiastical unity was imposed. Consequently, the bishop of Rome, the head of the Roman Empire’s Church, became its head, and the title Pope began to fit the one who sat as the bishop of Rome, and now free to use the civil sword in coercion as did the Emperors before him. All of this was given by Justinian’s decree.

Thus it was that civil power came into the grasp of what was the papacy, the Roman system. The power of the system grew, and so did the immorality of the men and women under the System and under its control. If you read the histories of the church, you see how utterly depraved was not only the man who ran the system, and the popes totally immoral themselves, but also the people under its control. And historically, if you know anything about history, there was a turn and that turn came in the year 1073. It was the turning point in the Papal System.

A man came to power called Gregory VII. He was still known by the name he had before he was elected Pope Hilderbrand, and he’s often called Hilderbrand in history books, he’s well known in history books. And the year 1073 is well known in history books because it was a total turnaround of the System. The immorality was to go, strict laws were imposed on people. Priests were no longer even to be married let alone have many wives, and the same with bishops. They were now commanded to be celibate for their whole life. This was the beginning of celibacy in the Roman Catholic system that still goes to the present day under Pope Gregory VII, Hilderbrand. He was ambitious beyond all who went before him. He was so ambitious that he saw the reign of the Pope as God’s Reign on Earth. Gregory envisaged what was to become the Roman structure in power and authority with a supreme ruler who had civil rule besides religious rule, and has enormous wealth. That’s what he envisaged. It didn’t take place all together under his own rule which just went from 1073 to 1085, but popes afterwards developed it.

The most well-known were Pope Innocent III from 1198 to 1216, and Boniface VIII from 1294 to 1303. They put the final touches to the Pope’s spiritual and temporal power.

Probably the most well-known of all and you’ll see a picture of him on your screen is Pope Innocent III. He proclaimed a crusade, a war against the Albigenses in what now is France. This war was perpetrated with unimaginable cruelty. Thousands were evicted from their cities and towns and slaughtered. Others were burnt at the stake. Others were tortured with horrendous tortures. And so we have the beginning of what was to be the Inquisition. This war that Innocent III perpetrated right across France. And the Albigenses, if you read the history of the early church, you see that they were really truly really truly believers going back to Albi itself, still a city in France to the present day but no semblance at all of Christian Life in Albi. It’s just Romanism. Romanism obliterated true Christianity that had been right across France before that. It is horrific true history.

I have traced that in other videos that I’ve made. I’ve traced all of that horrendous history particularly as I’ll be mentioning later on in the Inquisition video.

And now we have Boniface VIII. He was stubborn, ambitious, intelligent, vain, and unscrupulous. He believed that the pope was literally the Vicar of Christ on Earth, and held extraordinary power, and anyone who opposed the pope opposed God. That was the mindset of Boniface VIII. He is well known for his statement, and you find it easy online if you have a computer, “Unam sanctam” the words of the decree of Boniface the VIII.

“We declare, say, define and proclaim to every human creature, that they by necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman pontiff.”

So to be Christian you must be subject to the Roman pontiff. That was the decree of this evil man, Boniface VIII.

And 75 popes one after the other from Innocent III to Pope Pius VII approved of torture, murder, burning at the stake, and confiscation of property of believers through the six centuries. Actually, it was 605 years of the Inquisition. It wasn’t just believers, it was also Jews who were also tortured and burnt at the stake.

The Knight’s Templar was an order within the Catholic church that had rebelled against the Catholic Church. They were also tortured and brought to the stake. But principally, believers were persecuted.

And I ask you to look at the video that we have made on the Inquisition, called the Catholic Inquisition, and the torture tools. It is graphic in showing the actual pictures of torture. You can still find them in museums in Europe, and we got pictures of the actual tortures, and the torture implements, some of them are horrific to look at. And we got some video footage made professionally, with due permission, showing what it was like to be burnt at the stake or tortured by the Church of Rome. And all of that is in that video.

I would ask if you have children watching it that you really get them ready beforehand or you might think it’s not suitable when you see the torture and you see what the believers went through and others, Jews, Knights Templars, it’s horrific. But that’s a video that must be seen, the horrendous System.

The glorious Reformation of the 16th century brought a change, and that you would know. Biblical faith was restored, and the rights of people were restored. It was the first time that nations really became nations. It was after the Reformation that we got the nation-states really set up, and we had great men preaching the true Gospel of Christ. It was amazing what happened at the Reformation, such as Martin Luther at Wittenberg, Erasmus and John Colet at Oxford, Hugh Latimer, Thomas Cartwright at Cambridge, William Farel at Paris and later on John Calvin and leaders of the Reformation were highly trained men such as Bees (?) and Tindale. They ranked as men of letters.

The Reformation was a glorious awakening. And man did it retard the Papal System! The Papal System was for the most part taken out of some of the nations. And it’s amazing when you study how much biblical true faith grew! It was like the time of Pentecost all over again. The true Gospel was preached, and nations were freed so that men and women could live as Christians. It was a wonderful experience for even the children at the time of the Reformation could tell you that faith is based on the truth of Scripture alone. A man or woman is saved by grace alone, through faith alone, and In Christ alone, unto God only be the glory! Even children could give you those five biblical principles of the Reformation! At the time of the Reformation so great was the transformation that men and women and even children could give you the basis for the Gospel message, the five principles of the Reformation.

The known world at the time was changed, and glorious change it was. The remnant of that change comes down to the present day. But there was a horrific response of the System, primarily through the Jesuits. The Jesuits in a uncompromising and sometimes militant manner restored the Roman System to the position it held during the Reformation.

I have made a video on this alone, the horrific success that the Papal System had in Poland, with Peter Samski who is a Polish man. We had a video made showing the history of the Christian church in Poland, and how it was restored at the Reformation. And then the Jesuits come in and they take over the kings and princes of Poland at the time, and the educational facilities. And they totally practically, not 100%, but nearly 100%, wiped out biblical faith in Poland. (The land of my grandparents. If it weren’t for the Jesuits, I might have been raised a Protestant.)

It breaks one’s heart when one sees what Poland is today. To think that it had a religious transformation and then was obliterated by the Jesuits. The Jesuits did similar work, not so horrifically, but in other nations right across Europe. Their design was to undermine people’s confidence in the Bible and to extirpate the effects of the Reformation. The Jesuits were the Papal System’s most forceful tool to bring back Europe under the thumb and rule of the Papal System. And they succeeded in doing that in many of the Christian nations.

And it is really sad to see just how successful they have been as the Jesuits have continued into the present day, evangelicals and Catholics together. The second part of that was a System trying to say that evangelicals and Catholics could work together was diabolical in its intellectual ability to twist the minds of men and women to believe In a System that it was equal to the biblical System. I have a whole video made on that as well. It’s horrific to see what the Jesuits did, but they continue to do it.

On June 1, 2015, again a Jesuit, and the Jesuit is none other than Pope Francis, he was a Jesuit before he ever became Pope and he still is a Jesuit, the man who calls himself Pope Francis.

Now we have definite lessons to learn from these historical facts that we have gone over. With the demise of the Roman empire in the year 537, Justinian I gave legal power to what was to become the Church of Rome. It was very successful for many centuries coming up to the 16th century when it was really cut back by the power of the Gospel as it went forth at the time of the Reformation. But in the 20th century, it has come back strongly again. And through the ecumenical movements joining the Catholic church together with all other so-called Christian churches, it’s beginning to rule again and bring more again into our midst the mystery of iniquity. And so people are accustomed, say on Easter Sunday, to see the pope elevated on St Peter’s Square as if he were the head of Christianity dictating his message to the world. It’s the same on Christmas day. All television stations, and all radio programs go to Rome, and it is as if this is Christianity. When news is to be given, it’s always news of the System. It’s not true Christianity.

The mystery of iniquity in deceivableness of all unrighteousness is seen in the present-day world. You just have to turn on your television on Easter Sunday, or on Christmas Day, or on many Sundays of the world as this man parades his ignorance across the face of the world – Pope Francis claiming that sacraments give life. This is the horrors. It is accepted, and its dictates are accepted even in the secular world. And you find that radio stations and so-called Christian groups accept this System as if this is the archetype of Christianity. It’s the contrary. It’s what’s called the Antichrist in Scripture. And it is horrendous.

So you must know about this. This is why I appeal to you to make this video known because people must know the historical facts that we have presented in this video. You can trace historically exactly what I have said. It is accurate historically and can be verified in the annals of history.

Now the great thing for you and for me is that Christ Jesus Himself still reigns, He reigns in righteousness. Those wonderful words given at the very beginning of the book of Hebrews:

Hebrews 1:1-3 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

You can feel the wonder of that, the reality of the person of Christ Jesus. He is the person who reigns. He is the person who reigns victorious over sin and death. He is the person that Paul and Silas pointed the jailkeeper to in Acts 16, “Believe on the Lord Jesus and you shall be saved, you and your household.” It’s the same message. It is He who purged our sins. It is He who summarizes, in a nutshell, the Gospel message, that He gives life, and life everlasting, that whoever believes on Him has everlasting life as he says, and does not pass in his sins unto the second death, but comes to new life as he believes on Him, the Wonder of it all.

As Scripture says, “Neither is there salvation in any other. There is none other name under Heaven given among men whereby we must be saved.” The Scripture says in the Psalm the wonderful words, “Who have I in heaven but thee? There is none other on earth I desire besides thee.” Ultimately it’s the Lord Jesus Christ. Look to the Lord Jesus Christ, and if you see in His glorious resurrection, in His perfect life, if you see and are convicted by your own sin because we’ve all sin and fall short of the glory of God. Know that many others including myself have seen that before you. And cry out to Him for the faith and the grace and He will give it to you, and you will know what it is truly to be born again by the Spirit! True Life, true life is by the Spirit, and men and women are changed! Go to any Bible-believing church and see men and women praising God, obviously, their lives are changed, and see the fellowship of Believers. It is a glory to His Name. We just thank God for that.

And we have the words of Christ Jesus too, and they are frightening words where Christ Jesus said, “Not every one that says unto me Lord Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven but he who does the will of My Father which is in heaven. It’s not by saying Jesus is my Lord and Jesus is my Savior, and going through the rituals of the Mass and through the rituals of any church that does not know the true Gospel. It’s not by any false message. It’s by the true Gospel message: Believe on the Lord Jesus and you shall be saved. This is the work of God that you believe on Him whom He has sent. Christ Jesus Himself said this is the work of God. It’s God’s work. But it’s you who believe. It’s wonderful, and it works. It changes you and you know that you’re born again, and it is a joy.

I think one of the greatest joys I have is when I hear from people like you watching this video that the Lord has moved in your life. Not just to see this horrendous System and to come out of it, that’s good enough joy, and I thank I’ll thank you for getting that message as you email me and my email address will be given on your screen, but the joy of knowing everlasting life, and the joy of being born again by the Spirit. There’s no greater joy than that. And in this world, there are few joys that warm my own heart when I read the emails that I get from listeners like you, that their lives have been touched, and that they’ve been born again. It is truly in the words of Peter, in First Peter, joy unspeakable and full of glory, praise God! It really is. It is delightful.

And so we say a word of praise at the end, to the praise and glory of his grace whereby He has made us acceptable in the beloved. That is the words of Scripture.

2 Corinthians 5:17  Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

Praise God! All things are made new! And may that be so for you. And I thank God it will be for many as you listen to this program. And may God be glorified now and forever more. All praise, all glory, all worship, all honor, be to Him now and forever more, amen and amen.

Pope Francis engaging in idol worship.

This article is about the history of errors by the Church of Rome, written by George Burnside. I didn’t agree with one of his points and omitted it, the one about “Sunday worship.” The Bible tells me that the disciples met on the first day of the week – Sunday. The Sabbath was the last day of the week.

Acts 20:7  And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, …

There may be other points in this article you find questionable. If so, please tell me about it in the comments section.

Errors continue to this day. I just read on Facebook of a man speaking as if he were God saying, “I will not cast unbelievers into hell.” He doesn’t read his Bible. My Bible says,

John 3:36  He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

200 AD
Immersion of infants who are dying, but considered sinless. (Tertullian V.12)

250 AD
North Africa region is first to practice infant baptism and reduced the age of baptism from minors to all newborns. This is opposed by other regions.

257 AD
Baptism by sprinkling for adults instead of immersion first used as an exception for those on sick beds, but it caused great dispute.

300 AD
Prayers for the dead.

320 AD
Special dress code of the clergy in worship.

325 AD
At the general council of Nice, 325, it was proposed indeed, probably by the Western bishop Hosius, to forbid entirely the marriage of priests; but the motion met with strong opposition, and was rejected.

325 AD
The date for Easter was set.

379 AD
Praying to Mary & Saints. (prayers of Ephraim Syrus)

385 AD
In the West, the first prohibition of clerical marriage, which laid claim to universal ecclesiastical authority, proceeded in 385 from the Roman church in the form of a decretal letter of the bishop Siricius to Himerius, bishop of Tarragona in Spain.

389 AD
Mariolatry begins with Gregory Nazianzen, who mentions in a eulogy, how Justina had besought the virgin Mary to protect her virginity.

400 AD
Impossibility of apostasy or once saved always saved, (Augustine XII.9).

416 AD
Infant baptism by immersion commanded of all infants (Council Of Mela, Austin was the principal director).

430 AD
Exhalation of Virgin Mary: “Mother of God” first applied by the Council of Ephesus.

502 AD
Special dress code of the Clergy all the time.

500 AD
The “Habit” of Nuns (Black gowns with white tunics).

519 AD
Lent.

526 AD
Extreme Unction.

593 AD
The Doctrine of Purgatory popularized from the Apocrypha by Gregory the Great.

600 AD
First use of Latin in worship (Gregory I) Beginning of the Orthodox/Roman Catholic church as we know it today in its present organization.

607 AD
First Pope: Boniface III is the first person to take the title of “universal Bishop” by decree of Emperor Phocas.

608 AD
Pope Boniface IV. turns the Pantheon in Rome into a temple of Mary ad martyres: the pagan Olympus into a Christian heaven of gods.

709 AD
Kissing of Pope Constantine’s feet.

753 AD
Baptism by sprinkling for those on sick beds officially accepted.

787 AD
Worship of icons and statue approved (2nd council of Nicea).

787 AD
Rome (Latin) and Constantinople (Greek) part ways and begin the drift towards complete split, resulting in two denominations emerging in 1054 AD
.

965 AD
Baptism of bells instituted by Pope John XIII.

850 AD
Burning of Holy Candles.

995 AD
Canonization of dead saints, first by Pope John XV.

998 AD
Good Friday: fish only and the eating-red meat forbidden.

1009 AD
Holy water.

1022 AD
Penance.

1054 AD
Roman Catholic church breaks away from the Orthodox church.

1054 AD
Roman Catholics officially embrace instrumental music, Orthodox reject instrumental music down to the present time.

1079 AD
Celibacy enforced for priests, bishops, presbyters (Pope Gregory VII).

1090 AD
Rosary beads: invented by Peter the Hermit.

1190 AD
Sale of Indulgences or “tickets to sin” (punishment of sin removed).

1215 AD
Transubstantiation by Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council.

1215 AD
Auricular Confession of sins to priests instituted by Pope Innocent III, (Lateran Council).

1215 AD
Mass a Sacrifice of Christ.

1217 AD
Adoration and Elevation of Host: ie. communion bread (Pope Honrius III).

1230 AD
Ringing bells at Mass.

1251 AD
The Scapular, the brown cloak worn by monks invented by Simon Stock.

1268 AD
Priestly power of absolution.

1311 AD
Baptism by sprinkling accepted as the universal standard instead of immersion for all, not just the sick. (Council of Ravenna)

1414 AD
Laity no longer offered Lord’s cup at communion. (Council of Constance)

1439 AD
Purgatory a dogma by the Council of Florence. (see 593 AD)

1439 AD
Doctrine of Seven Sacraments affirmed.

1480 AD
The Inquisition. (of Spain)

1495 AD
Papal control of marriage rights.

1534 AD
Order of Jesuits founded by Loyola.

1545 AD
Man-made tradition of church made equal to Bible. (Council of Trent)

1545 AD
Apocryphal books added to Bible. (Council of Trent)

1546 AD
Justification by human works of merit.

1546 AD
Mass universally said in Latin. (see 600 AD)

1547 AD
Confirmation.

1560 AD
Personal opinions of Pope Pius IV imposed as the official creed.

1864 AD
Syllabus Errorum [Syllabus of Errors] proclaimed that “Catholic countries” could not tolerate other religions, (no freedom of religion), conscience, separation of church and State condemned, asserted the Pope’s temporal authority over all civil rulers (Ratified by Pope Pius IX and Vatican Council) condemned.

1870 AD
Infallibility of Pope. (Vatican council)

1908 AD
All Catholics should be christened into the church.

1930 AD
Public Schools condemned by Pope Pius XII. (see 1864 AD)

1950 AD
Sinners prayer, invented by Billy Sunday and made popular by Billy Graham. (Some Catholics now use this.)

1950 AD
Assumption of the body of the Virgin Mary into heaven shortly after her death. (Pope Pius XII)

1954 AD
Immaculate conception of Mary proclaimed by Pope Pius XII.

1995 AD
The use of girls in the traditional altar boy duties.

1996 AD
Catholics can believe in Evolution. (Pope John Paul II)

Can Roman Catholics Accept The Bible?

• 1. Why does it condemn clerical dress? (Matthew 23:5-6).
• 2. Why does it teach against the adoration of Mary? (Luke 11:27-28).
• 3. Why does it show that all Christians are priests? (1 Pet. 2:5,9).
• 4. Why does it condemn the observance of special days? (Galatians 4:9-11).
• 5. Why does it teach that all Christians are saints? (1 Corinthians 1:2).
• 6. Why does it condemn the making and adoration of images? (Exodus 20:4-5).
• 7. Why does it teach that baptism is immersion instead of pouring? (Colossians 2:12).
• 8. Why does it forbid us to address religious leaders as “father”? (Matthew 23:9).
• 9. Why does it teach that Christ is the only foundation and not the apostle Peter? (1 Corinthians 3:11).
• 10. Why does it teach that there is one mediator instead of many? (1 Timothy 2:5).
• 11. Why does it teach that a bishop must be a married man? (1 Timothy 3:2, 4-5).
• 12. Why is it opposed to the primacy of Peter? (Luke 22:24-27).
• 13. Why does it oppose the idea of purgatory? (Luke 16:26).
• 14. Why is it completely silent about infant baptism, indulgences, confession to priests, the rosary, the mass, and many other things in the Catholic Church?

Reasons Why The Apocrypha Is Not Inspired:

1. The Roman Catholic Church did not officially canonize the Apocrypha until the Council of Trent (1546 AD). This was in part because the Apocrypha contained material which supported certain Catholic doctrines, such as purgatory, praying for the dead, and the treasury of merit.

2. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.

3. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.

4. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.

5. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church.

6. They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places.

7. The Apocrypha inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.

8. The apocrypha contains offensive materials unbecoming of God’s authorship.

Ecclesiasticus 25:19 Any iniquity is insignificant compared to a wife’s iniquity.

Ecclesiasticus 25:24 From a woman sin had its beginning. Because of her we all die.

Ecclesiasticus 22:3 It is a disgrace to be the father of an undisciplined, and the birth of a daughter is a loss.

9. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation.

10. The apocryphal books themselves make reference to what we call the Silent 400 years, where there was no prophets of God to write inspired materials.

12. The Manual of Discipline in the Dead Sea Scrolls rejected the apocrypha as inspired.

13. The Council of Jamnia held the same view rejected the apocrypha as inspired.

14. Although it was occasionally quoted in early church writings, it was nowhere accepted in a canon. Melito (AD 170) and Origen rejected the Apocrypha, (Eccl. Hist. VI. 25, Eusebius) as does the Muratorian Canon.

15. Jerome vigorously resisted including the Apocrypha in his Latin Vulgate Version (400 AD
), but was overruled. As a result, the standard Roman Catholic Bible throughout the medieval period contained it. Thus, it gradually came to be revered by the average clergyman. Still, many medieval Catholic scholars realized that it was not inspired.

16. The terms “protocanonical” and “deuterocanonical” are used by Catholics to signify respectively those books of Scripture that were received by the entire Church from the beginning as inspired, and those whose inspiration came to be recognized later, after the matter had been disputed by certain Fathers and local churches.

17. Pope Damasus (366-384) authorized Jerome to translate the Latin Vulgate. The Council of Carthage declared this translation as “the infallible and authentic Bible.” Jerome was the first to describe the extra 7 Old Testament books as the “Apocrypha” (doubtful authenticity). Needless to say, Jerome’s Latin Vulgate did not include the Apocrypha.

18. Cyril (born about A.D. 315) – “Read the divine Scriptures – namely, the 22 books of the Old Testament which the 72 interpreters translated” (the Septuagint)

19. The apocrypha wasn’t included at first in the Septuagint, but was appended by the Alexandrian Jews, and was not listed in any of the catalogues of the inspired books till the 4th century.

20. Hilary (bishop of Poictiers, 350 A.D.) rejected the apocrypha (Prologue to the Psalms, Sec. 15)

21. Epiphanius (the great opposer of heresy, 360 A.D.) rejected them all. Referring to Wisdom of Solomon & book of Jesus Sirach, he said “These indeed are useful books & profitable, but they are not placed in the number of the canonical.”

By Jesse C. Stevens, 1923

THE Roman Catholic Church claims that Christ made the apostle Peter His successor, His vicar, or vicegerent, the visible and infallible head of the church, with power to bequeath that office to his successors; that he was given power and authority over all the other apostles and over the entire church; that Christ built His church upon Peter, and delivered unto him the keys of the kingdom of heaven. She claims that Peter was the first bishop of the church in the city of Rome, and that therefore all this privilege and power was handed down in succession to all the bishops or popes of that imperial city.

Scriptural Basis of the Claim

This claim, in so far as the Bible is concerned, is based upon the three following passages of Scripture:

1. “When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that Thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. He said unto them, But whom say you that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Matthew 16:13-19.

2. “The Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou are converted, strengthen thy brethren.” Luke 22:31, 32.

3. “So when they had dined, Jesus said to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, love thou Me more than these? He said unto Him, Yea, Lord; Thou knows that I love Thee. He said unto him, Feed My lambs. He said to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, love thou Met He said unto Him, Yea, Lord; Thou knows that I love Thee. He said unto him, Feed My sheep. He said unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, love thou Met Peter was grieved because He said unto him the third time, Love thou Me? And he said unto Him, Lord, Thou knows all things; Thou knows that I love Thee. Jesus said unto him, Feed My sheep.” John 21:15-17.

Gospel, Acts, and Epistles the Only Authorities

This far-reaching claim in behalf of Peter and his successors demands a careful and critical examination; and the first evidence to be considered is naturally found in the New Testament. What, if any thing, was conferred upon Peter by Christ’s words? What privilege, if any, did Peter possess that the other apostles did not have? First of all, the Gospels, the Acts, and the Epistles necessarily contain the means of ascertaining what Peter enjoyed and exercised by virtue of Christ’s words:

“I say also unto thee that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Matthew 16:18, 19.

Very shortly after Christ said these words to Peter, the Savior bestowed upon the other apostles, and likewise upon the whole church, the power of binding and loosing. He said:

“Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if lie shall hear thee, thou has gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hour them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to bear the church, lot him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican. Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Matthew 18:15-18.

It is apparent, therefore, that the words in Matthew 18:19, con corning binding and loosing, do not constitute an especial privilege of Peter. They plainly put no difference between him and the other apostles.

Peter Beneath the Other Apostles

The second passage, “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren,” seems to place Peter beneath the other apostles. All of them were to be tried, but Peter’s fall and denial of his Lord are alone foretold. The worst sin of the others was that they would be offended because of Christ, and cowardly flee. Peter would therefore stand in greater need of conversion than the others, and when that necessary change should take place, he was to strengthen his brethren who had not fallen as he bad, to save them, no doubt, from filling as he had done. Certainly to strengthen them by confession of his weakness in denying the Lord, is not suggestive of exercising authority over them.

Peter’s Privilege Not Above Other Apostles

The words in the third passage, “Feed My sheep,” most certainly confer no privilege upon Peter above the other apostles. The privilege of feeding the sheep was conferred upon even the local elders of the church. The apostle Paul, addressing, at Miletus, the elders of the church of Ephesus, said, “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which He hath purchased with His own blood.” Acts 20:28.

And the apostle Peter himself gave a similar exhortation: “The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, you shall receive a crown of glory that fades not away.” 1 Peter 5:1-4.

Hence when Christ said to Peter, “Feed My sheep,” these words bestowed upon him no privilege that was not given to the other apostles, and to the elders of all the churches.

The Kingdom of Heaven Defined

Now, in all reason, if Christ, when He said to Peter, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,” etc., meant to give Peter primacy over all the other apostles, making Peter His vicar, as the Catholic Church claims, we would certainly be justified in expecting that this fact would be revealed in our Savior’s words and actions after the utterance of these words to Peter, and also in the words and actions of the other apostles. What do we find?

A very little while after these words were spoken, the disciples came to Jesus, asking, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” Matthew 18:l. Often in the book of Matthew, the expression, “the kingdom of heaven,” refers, not to the heaven where God’s throne is, but to Christ’s church on earth, in which is represented His kingdom. It is so used several times in the thirteenth of Matthew: “The kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind” (verse 47); “The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a wan which sowed good seed in his field” (verse 24). If Peter had been made the visible head of the church, the vicegerent of Christ, why did the apostles ask this question, “Who is the greatest?” Did they not know that Peter had been made the greatest? Evidently not.

“It Shall Not Be So Among You”

Again, a little later, Peter said to the Master, “Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed Thee; what shall we have therefore?” And Jesus said to them, “You which have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of His glory, you also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” Matthew 19:27, 28. In these words Christ placed all the apostles on an equality.

There is no intimation here that Peter’s throne would be exalted above those of the others. It was not long after this that John and James came with their mother to the Master, asking that one of them might Bit on His right hand and the other on His left in the kingdom that they thought He was going to establish. In Eastern kingdoms the two principal ministers of state, ranking next in authority to the monarch, were styled the vizier of the right and the vizier of the left. These were the positions for which John and James were asking.

What was Christ’s answer to their request? If the Roman Catholic claim were true, Christ’s answer should have been that He had given the right-hand place to Peter, and that He did not intend creating a left-hand place. But what He did say was to declare in the plainest language that no one of them was to exercise authority over the others. We read: “When the ten heard it, they were moved with indignation against the two brethren. But Jesus called them unto Him, and said, You know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them, but it shall not be so among you.” (See Matthew 20:20-26; Mark 10:35-43.)

There is more evidence of the same kind in our Savior’s words to the disciples, recorded in Matthew 23. Speaking of the Pharisees, He said: “They bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments, and love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief Heats in the synagogues, and greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi. But be not you called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all you are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be you called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.” Matthew 23:4-10.

Here again the apostles are placed upon an equality. “One is your Master, even Christ; and all you are brethren.” Peter is not to be called father, nor are any of the others. Peter is not exalted above his brethren.

Merely One of the Branches

After eating the Passover Supper with His disciples, the Master walked with them to the garden of Gethsemane, and on the way, probably seeing a grapevine, He drew a lesson there from, saying, “I am the vine, you are the branches.” John 15:5. Here again the Master places all the apostles on an equality; Peter was merely one of the branches, as were John, James, and each of the others. We have further disproof of the papal claim for Peter in Christ’s words to him as recorded in John 21:20-22:

“Peter, turning about, sees the disciple whom Jesus loved following; . . . and said, Lord, and what shall this man do? Jesus said unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? Follow thou Me.” Now, if Peter had received, a little while before this, jurisdiction over John and over all the other apostles, as is claimed, Peter’s question was not improper and unreasonable, and it called for a corresponding reply from the Master. But Christ said, “What is that to thee?” And in these words the Master asserted John’s entire independence of Peter, and gave no hint that He had given Peter jurisdiction over John.

Thus not even once in any of Christ’s words and actions, as recorded in the Gospels, was there given any hint whatever of Peter’s primacy and authority over the other apostles, any hint that He had made Peter His successor, His vicar, or vicegerent, the visible head of the church.

Evidence in the Book of Acts

What evidence does the book of Acts contain with reference to Peter’s primacy? In the first part he is prominent. It is denied by no one that he was a leading apostle. But do we find any evidence that he was looked upon by the other apostles or by the church as the head of the church in Christ’s place, having been appointed so by Christ, as is claimed from Christ’s words in Matthew 16: 18, 19? His prominence is seen in the first chapter. The place of Judas must be filled, and Peter, it seems, was the first one to call the attention of the church to the prophecy in the Psalms that was to be fulfilled in appointing some one in Judas’ place, made vacant by his treachery and suicide.

Now if Peter had been made the head of the church in Christ’s place, he would have had the authority, and it would have been his duty to exercise it, to appoint some one in the place of Judas, as the pope has authority to appoint bishops, cardinals, etc. But nothing of the kind took place. The believers nominated two brethren, and after praying that God would guide them in the selection of the right one, they all voted, as we would now say, and Matthias was elected.

Peter Reports to the Church

There is more very interesting evidence in the eighth chapter. Philip the evangelist had been preaching the gospel in Samaria, and God had wonderfully blessed. In the fourteenth and fifteenth verses we read: “When the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost.”

How plain it is from this narrative that there was in the church at Jerusalem an authority greater than either Peter’s or John’s. This authority was in “the apostles which were at Jerusalem.” It is a true axiom that the sender is greater than the sent, and Peter acknowledged this authority in going down to Samaria. Would it not be inconceivable that the cardinals of the Roman Church would send the pope on some mission? And would any pope allow himself to be sent?

In the tenth chapter we read of Peter’s baptizing Cornelius and other Gentiles, and from the eleventh chapter we learn that the apostles and brethren at Jerusalem called him to account for the innovation. It will be plainly noticed that Peter did not claim any authority for his actions, as the Catholic Church claims he then had, and contend that they should obey him, but practically admitted his accountability to them by defending himself, and thus also showing his accountability to the church. It is therefore very plain that the other apostles and the church, and for that matter Peter himself, did not know that Christ had made Peter the head of the church.

But the strongest proof against the primacy of Peter in the early church is found in the fifteenth chapter of Acts. A council had been called at Jerusalem to consider the teaching of some that Christians were under obligation to observe the whole Mosaic law, even to circumcision. James, and not Peter, acts as chairman of the council, and has a deciding voice, while Peter is merely a delegate, a debater, on a level with Paul and Barnabas. James terminates the discussion with an authoritative ruling, saying, “Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: but that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.” Acts 15:19, 20.

Paul the Central Figure

This closes the evidence in the book of Acts. Peter is not mentioned again in the entire book after this council. The apostle Paul becomes the central figure, and Peter goes into total eclipse, so far as the Acts is concerned. Like the Gospels, the book of Acts does not contain even a hint of the primacy of Peter, nor an inkling that the other apostles and the church recognized him as Christ’s successor, having authority as the head of the church; but on the contrary, all the evidence shows that there were others possessing and exercising more authority than Peter, for example, James and the apostles at Jerusalem.

The Testimony of the Epistles

What is the testimony of the epistles of the New Testament? The apostle Paul, writing to the Corinthian church concerning divisions therein, said, “Now this I say, that every one of you said, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas [Peter]; and I of Christ.” I Corinthians 1:12.

From this scripture it seems that it was a mark of division in the church for any one to say, “I am of Peter,” but this certainly would not have been true if Peter bad been the head of the church in Christ’s place, as the Roman Church claims. Instead, it would have been a mark of unity for one to say, “I am of Peter.” But Paul teaches here that it was just as wrong to say, “I am of Peter,” as it was to say, “I am of Paul” or Apollos. Again, Paul says, “God bath set some in the church, first apostles,” etc. 1 Corinthians 12:28.

This scripture shows that in the divinely ordered constitution of the church, there was no higher authority in the church than the apostles, and let it be noted that no one of the apostles is singled out as having authority over all the other apostles. So far, then, it is seen that Paul makes no allusion to the so-called privilege of Peter, but on the contrary uses language that shows that no such thing was claimed or known in the days of the apostles.

Paul Withstands Peter

We come next to the book of Galatians. There is some very interesting evidence in the following verses: “Of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it makes no matter to me: God accepts no man’s person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me: but contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; and when James, Cephas [Peter], and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do. But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.” Galatians 2:6-12.

The seventh and ninth verses of this passage show that instead of Peter’s jurisdiction being over the whole church, he was restricted to a division of the church, that is, of the circumcision-converts to the gospel from among the Jews. Paul says that unto him was committed the gospel of the uncircumcision, and in another place he calls himself the apostle to the Gentiles. If Peter, then, were ever the head of any church, he was head of only a portion of it, namely, the Jewish; for, as plainly stated in the Scriptures, Paul was head of the Gentiles; and if the pope be his successor, he can claim no more; for it is evident that Peter could not hand down to his successors greater or wider authority than he himself had.

In the ninth verse, Paul speaks of James, Cephas (Peter), and John as pillars in the church. Now this language means that James, Peter, and John were on an equality; or that James (James is mentioned first), as bishop of the church in Jerusalem, was in some degree Peter’s ecclesiastical superior; and this seems to be implied by Peter’s dissembling at Antioch, mentioned in verses 12 and 13. Peter had eaten with the Gentiles, but when a party came “from James,” for fear of them, apparently, he withdrew and separated himself.

The evidence here, as elsewhere, is entirely contrary to the claim that Peter was the head of the church, and most certainly here is clear evidence in disproof of Peter’s infallibility. He decides wrongly on a question of faith (Catholic writers have claimed that Christ promised infallibility to the church in its teaching), for the church ever after took Paul’s view of the matter; and Paul, the younger apostle, withstands Peter to the face, instead of submitting to him, as he would have done without question had Peter been the vicar of Christ, the infallible head of the church.

Peter’s Own Words and Actions

We will now consider Peter’s own words and actions. Do they indicate that he understood that the Master had made him His successor, that he was the head of the church, the rock upon which the Master built His church? There are three passages of Scripture that have a bearing on this question:

1. “As Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshiped him. But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.” Acts 10:25, 26.

2. “You also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Zion a chief corner-stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on Him shall not be confounded. . . . And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.” 1 Peter 2:5-8.

3. “The elders which are among you I exhort, which am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, you shall receive a crown of glory that fades not away.” 1 Peter 5:1-4.

In the first passage, Peter seems to be entirely unconscious of his being the vicar of Christ, and his refusal to allow Cornelius to fall down and worship him is very unlike many of his so-called successors, who have been anxious for men to bow down and worship them. If this was on account of his humility, it is a pity that this virtue was not handed down also.

In the second passage, Peter refers to Christ as the rock foundation of the church. He quotes from Isaiah 28:16: “Therefore thus said the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner-stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.”

“A foundation stone,” “a tried stone,” “a sure foundation,”–these words Peter applied to Christ. Evidently he did not understand that the words of Christ, “Upon this rock I will build My church,” applied to himself. To the apostle Peter, Christ alone was that rock, and no other.

And in the third passage, Peter speaks of himself as an elder, and places himself on a level with the other elders of the church, and admonishes them all not to be lords over God’s heritage—-the very office that is claimed for the pope. If there is any meaning at all in this language, it means that Peter did not understand that he had been made by Christ lord over Christ’s church; and to Peter, Christ was the chief Shepherd. (This title also has been applied to the pope.) It is therefore perfectly plain from Peter’s own words and actions that he (Peter) did not know that Christ had made him His successor, the head of the church, the chief Shepherd, and the rock upon which the church was built.

Peter Eclipsed by Paul

If the Roman Catholic Church had undertaken to prove that either James or Paul, instead of Peter, was the head of the church in apostolic times, a much stronger case could have been made out, particularly as to Paul. However, James was bishop of the church at Jerusalem, and that was the first church of Christian believers. But when Paul comes into the Christian church, Peter especially goes into eclipse so far as leadership is concerned. Even in the early centuries, ecclesiastical writers speak of Paul as the apostle. St. Augustine said, “So when ‘apostle’ is said, if it be not expressed what apostle, none is understood save Paul;” and Chrysostom said, “When you say apostle, at once all think of Paul, just as when you say Baptist they think of John.”

The apostle Paul was the greatest teacher of the apostolic church. Peter was not. Peter’s writings in the New Testament are quite insignificant in comparison with Paul’s. Paul wrote (as they are given in our Bibles) 100 chapters with 2,325 verses. Peter wrote 8 chapters with 166 verses. Paul claimed and exercised apostolic authority in the church, as is seen from the following scriptures:

1. “I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office.” Romans 11:13. He here claims to be the (not an) apostle of the Gentiles, claiming the Gentile world is peculiarly his.

2. “Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do you. Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God has prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.” 1 Corinthians 16:1-4. Note, he gives orders to the churches.

3. “As God has distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches.” I Corinthians 7:17. He makes ordinances binding on all the churches.

4. “In nothing am I behind the very chief apostles.” 2 Corinthians 12:11. “I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chief apostles.” 2 Corinthians 11:5. In Galatians 2:9 he spoke of James, Peter, and John as pillars in the Christian church. These doubtless were included in the “chief” of apostles. He says he was not a whit behind the very chief of them, making no exception even in favor of Peter, which he certainly would have done had he understood that Christ had made Peter the head of the church, as claimed by the Catholic Church.

5. “We command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother that walks disorderly.” 2 Thessalonians 3:6. “If any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.” Verse 14. He here lays down rules to be observed in the ease of one walking disorderly, and commands obedience.

6. “For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou should set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee.” Titus 1:5. He sends out ministers with power to act in perfecting the organization of the church.

7. “Beside those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches.” 2 Corinthians 11:28. And besides all these things, he lays down many regulations for the observance of the Christian churches, as, for example:

1. Lawsuits between Christians. 1 Corinthians 6:1-4.
2. The unequal yoking of Christians with unbelievers. 2 Corinthians 6:14-17; 1 Corinthians 7:12-17.
3. Use of unknown tongues in public worship. 1 Corinthians 14:27-40.
4. Weekly offerings for the poor. 1 Corinthians 16:1-4.
5. Dress of women. 1 Timothy 2:9-15.
6. Preparation for the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. 1 Corinthians 11:18-34.
7. Qualifications of elders and deacons. 1 Timothy 3:1-13.
8. Disfellowshipping of heretics. Titus 3:10.

Thus it must be clear to the reader that Paul was the more prominent apostle in the apostolic church.

Who Is the Rock?

What was the meaning of Christ’s words to Peter, “I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”

First, let us consider the relationship between type and antitype; for in this there is light. The ceremonial, or Mosaic, dispensation, with its types, shadows, and figures, was a type of the gospel. The old-covenant sanctuary was a type of the new-covenant sanctuary. Hebrews 8:1-5; 9:9-12, 23, 1-5. The service in the first was a type of the service in the second. Hebrews 8:5. The shedding of the blood of innocent beasts, slain at the door of the sanctuary, was a type of Christ’s death upon the cross. Their blood was a type of Christ’s blood. Hebrews 9:15; 10:4; 1 Peter 1:19. The Old Testament church was a type of the New Testament church.

Now the antitype is never lower than the type. This is the law of type and antitype. Who was the rock of the Old Testament church? It was the Lord, as many scriptures testify: “He is the Rock, His work is perfect: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is He.” Deuteronomy 32:4. “The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spoke to me, He that rules over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God.” 2 Samuel 23:3. This is confirmed in the New Testament:

“They drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.” 1 Corinthians 10:4. Now if Peter be the rock of the Christian church, it follows that the rock of the New Testament church is lower than the rock of the Old Testament church; for there certainly is a very wide gulf between the Lord and Peter. It should give a true Christian a shock to think of the rock of the Old Testament church being God, while the rock of the New Testament church is man. This is impossible in fact, and impossible of belief.

The interpretation that the Catholic Church places upon the words of our Savior in addressing Peter, is contradicted by every bit of evidence in the New Testament, as we have seen in our examination of the evidence, and that interpretation has been disputed by Bible students for centuries.

In Christ’s words to Peter, “I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church,” two entirely different Greek words are used for “Peter” and “rock.” Christ said, “Thou art Peter [petros, stone], and upon this rock [pets, rock] I will build My church.” They are nouns of different genders. Petros is masculine, while pets is feminine. Petros means “stone.” Young defines it as, “A small stone.” Petra is “rock.” Christ said to Peter, “Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shall be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.” John 1:42. The Greek word, petros, is here used. Fully to harmonize with the Roman contention, the verse should read, “Thou are Petros, and upon this Pelros I will build my church;” or else Petra in both clauses of the sentence.

Christ the Rock

Christ is the rock upon which the church is built. “Upon this pets” (rock, referring to Himself), He said, “I will build My church,” and this, as we have seen, is the teaching of the entire New Testament. It was taught by Peter himself that Christ was the rock foundation of the church. 1 Peter 2:4-8. The same precious truth was taught by the apostle Paul. He wrote, “Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” 1 Corinthians 3:11.

Under another figure, Peter is merely a stone in the foundation, while Christ is the chief corner-stone. “Now therefore you are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner-stone.” Ephesians 2:19, 20.

In this scripture all the apostles are placed on an equality. Peter is a stone in the foundation. So are James and John, Andrew and Bartholomew, and Matthew and all the other apostles; and likewise are the prophets stones in the foundation. Peter is on an equal footing with them all, but not above his brethren. This is the plain and unequivocal teaching of the Bible on this question.

The Keys of the Kingdom

Nor did the Master give to Peter alone the keys of the kingdom. They were given unto all the apostles, and for that matter, the whole church. What are the keys of the kingdom? The keys are that which unlocks heaven to the sinner. What is it that locks heaven against one? It is sin. The provision to take away sin, that man might not be shut out of heaven, is the key of the kingdom, and that provision is the gospel of our Lord. Now the privilege and commission to preach the gospel were given to all the apostles, and likewise to the whole church. The church really exists for no other work than to preach the gospel in all the world; and if a man accepts it, the kingdom of heaven is unlocked to him.

The Power to Forgive Sins

It is certainly plain from the New Testament that the apostles did not understand that they were given the power to forgive sins, personally, by the words of Christ to them, “Whose so ever sins you remit, they are remitted unto them” (John 20:23); for we do not find a hint in the New Testament that they ever claimed or exercised the power to forgive sins. This they certainly would have done had they so understood it; for the importance of carrying out such a commission, had it been given them, can be seen without argument. On the contrary, we find the apostles, including Peter, directing the people to God for the forgiveness of their sins. To Simon, who desired to buy the gift of the Holy Ghost with money, Peter said, “Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of your heart may be forgiven thee.” Acts 8:22. And the apostle John said, “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” 1 John 1:9. Likewise in the book of Hebrews we read the admonition, “Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.” Hebrews 4:16. This throne of grace is in the heavenly sanctuary, and it is the only confessional of the Christian system.

The meaning of Christ’s words to the apostles is made plain by the words of the Lord to the prophet Jeremiah: “Before I formed thee I knew thee; and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. . . See, I have this day set thee over the nations and over the kingdoms, to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy, and to throw down, to build, and to plant.” Jeremiah 1:5-10.

Did this mean that Jeremiah was given the power, as an individual, to uproot nations, to pull down, to destroy, or to up build national Certainly not; no more than Christ’s words gave to the apostles the power, as individuals, to forgive sins. Jeremiah was called of God to be a prophet unto the nation. When God sent a message to a nation through Jeremiah, if that nation accepted and walked in the light of that message, it stood and was built up; but if that nation rejected the message through Jeremiah, it was to be uprooted, pulled down, and destroyed. But Jeremiah was not given such power individually. The power to do this was in the message which he bore. All this is evident from the following verses:

Conditions of Forgiveness

“At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it; if that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it; if it do evil in My sight, that it obey not My voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.” Jeremiah 18:7-10.

So with the apostles. They were given the gospel message to proclaim. If a person accepted the message they bore, his sins were remitted, and he was loosed from the bondage of sin; if he rejected it, he was still bound. The forgiveness of sin was in the message that they carried. The priestly confessional is not of God’s ordaining. God alone forgives sin.

Roman Catholic “Fathers”

The Catholic Church contends that her claim that Peter was made Christ’s successor, the rock upon which Christ built His church, is substantiated by tradition and by the testimony of the so-called Fathers of the church. If this were true, it would have no weight with many people, but it is not true. The creed of Pope Pius IV is the authoritative creed of the Roman Catholic Church. In that creed we read:

“I also admit Holy Scripture according to that sense which the holy mother church has held and does hold, to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures; neither will I ever take and interpret them otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.”

According, then, to this creed, it must be shown that there is full agreement among the Fathers in their interpretation of Christ’s words to Peter,-that Peter is the rock upon which Christ built His church, in order to be accepted even by Catholics. What does the Catholic Church mean by the “Fathers”? She means the theological teachers and doctors of the church from the age immediately following the days of the apostles down to St. Bernard, who is accounted the last of the Fathers, and who died in 1153. What, then, do the Fathers teach as to the rock of the church4 How do they interpret Christ’s words, “Thou are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church”?

Testimony of the Fathers

Writers who have made a specialty of studying the writings of the Fathers on this question, tell us that very few of the Fathers in the centuries immediately following the days of the apostles, made any comment at all upon our Savior’s words in Matthew 16:18. This seems a bit strange if the church’s claims for Peter were true.

Cyprian, bishop of Cartilage, who lived and wrote during the latter part of the third century, said, in explanation of this passage, that it serves to explain “the honor of a bishop and the order of the church. So that the church is founded upon the bishops.” Epistle 27. And the second time he refers to the text he says: “The Lord that he might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honor and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity.”

Origen, who lived and wrote in the third century, says, in commenting on the text in question: “The rock is every disciple of Christ from whom they drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them. . . But if thou thinks the whole church is built by God on Peter alone, what dost thou say of John, the son of thunder, and every one of the apostles? Or shall we say that the gates of hell were not to prevail against Peter in particular, but that they were to prevail against the other apostles and perfect ones?” – Comments on Matthew 16:18.

Hilary of Poitiers, called a doctor of the church, said: “Upon this rock of the confession is the building up of the church. This faith is the foundation of the church. Through this faith the gates of hell are powerless against it. This faith hath the keys of the heavenly kingdom.”-De Trinity 6:36, 37.

Jerome, who wrote in the latter part of the fourth century, said: “Christ is the rock, who granted to His apostles that they should be called rocks.”-Comments on Amos 6:12. And in another place, “But thou says that church is founded on Peter, albeit the very same thing is also done upon all of the apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the church is established on them all equally.”-Adv. Jovin 2.

And still again in another place he says: “Upon this rock the Lord founded His church; from this rock the apostle Peter derived his name. The foundation which the apostle, as architect, laid in our Lord Jesus Christ alone. On this foundation the church of Christ is built.”-Comments on Matthew 7:24, 35.

John Chrysostom said: “‘I say unto thee, Thou are Peter, and upon this rock, will I build My church;’ that is, on the faith of his confession.” – Comments on Matthew 16:13, paragraph 3, Homily 54.

Augustine, writing in the first past of the fifth century, said, in explaining Christ’s words to Peter: “At the same time while I was a priest, I wrote a book against the letter of Donatus, in which book I said in a certain place of the apostle Peter, that the church was founded on him as on a rock, an interpretation which is also sung by the lips of many in the verses of the blessed Ambrose where he speaks of the cock, Lo! even the very church’s rock melts at the crowing of the cock.’ But I know that afterward I most frequently have thus explained what the Lord said, ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church,’ that it should be understood as upon Him whom Peter confessed, saying, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and that Peter, named from this rock, represented the person of the church, which is built on the rock, and received the keys of the kingdom of heaven. For it was not said to him, ‘Thou are the rock’ (petra), but, ‘Thou art Peter (petros). For Christ was the rock whom Simon confessing, as the whole church confesses Him.”-Retractions, 1:21.

Cyril of Alexandria said: “That which He named a rock, referring to his name, was naught else, I think, than the unshaken and most firm faith of the disciple, on which also the church of Christ was founded and established.” Dialogue on the Trinity, 4.

Janus (J. J. Dollinger), himself a Catholic, says on this point: “Of all the Fathers who interpret these passages in the Gospels, not a single one of them applies them to the Roman bishops as Peter’s successors. How many Fathers have busied themselves with these texts, yet not one of them whose commentaries we possess-Origen, Chrysostom, Hilary, Augustine, Cyril, Theodoret, and those whose interpretations are collected in catenas-has dropped the faintest hint that the primacy of Rome is the consequence of the commission and promise to Peter! Not one of them has explained the rock or foundation on which Christ would build His church of the office given to Peter to be transmitted to his successors, but they understood by it, either Christ Himself, or Peter’s confession of faith in Christ; often both together. Or else they thought Peter was the foundation equally with all the other apostles, the twelve being together the foundation stones of the church.” – “The Pope and the Council,” page 91.

And it is also well to note the fact that the Fathers give similar testimony with reference to the keys of the kingdom. Origen says: “What, are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only? And shall no others of the blessed receive them?” –Comments on Matthew 16.

Ambrose, another Father of the church, said: “Therefore the Lord gave the apostle that which was previously a part of his own judicial authority. Hear Him saying, ‘I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ What is said to Peter is said to all the apostles.” – Comments on Psalms 38.

Augustine said: “The Lord Jesus, as you know, chose before His passion His disciples, whom He named apostles. Amongst them Peter, almost always alone, was permitted to be the representative person of the whole church. Because of that personification of the whole church which he alone supported, it was his to hear, ‘I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ It was not one man that received these, but the unity of the church, when it was said to him, ‘I will give thee that which is given to all.” – Sermon 295, “On Peter and Paul.”

It must be seen by the reader that a Catholic cannot be loyal to his own creed and at the same time accept such an interpretation of Matthew 16:18 as makes Peter the rock on which Christ built His church; for surely sufficient evidence has been produced to show that the Fathers do not unanimously interpret Matthew 16:18 to mean that Peter is the rock; their interpretation is far from it indeed.

Was Peter Bishop of Rome?

The Roman Church asserts that Peter was the first bishop of the Christian church in the city of Rome, that he actually sat as bishop there for twenty-five years, dying there as a martyr in the year 67 AD; and since, it is claimed, Peter was made Christ’s successor, the head of the church universal, and given power to bequeath his privileges to his successors, the bishops of Rome in succession have been the vicars of Christ, or the heads of the church; and that also, since Peter was the first bishop of Rome, the Roman church became the mother church of all Christendom.

As to Peter’s being the first bishop of that church, the New Testament is silent, and at the outset this seems somewhat strange if the Roman claims for Peter are true. It would seem reasonable to expect that if Christ did make Peter the head of the church and that his first episcopate was in the city of Rome, the fact of his being bishop there would be mentioned not once but many times in the New Testament. The silence, therefore, of the New Testament is one of the weightiest arguments against the belief that he was the first pope of the universal church.

Testimony of Paul’s Letters

The apostle Paul, while he was in Rome, wrote, as every Bible student knows, four or five epistles, namely, Colossians, Ephesians, Philippians, Philemon, and Second Timothy, the last being written just before his martyrdom, as indicated by the language in chapter 4, verses 6-8. This was about 67 AD. It is claimed that Peter was in Rome, occupying the bishop’s seat, during these years that the abovementioned epistles were written from Rome. But in all these epistles there is absolute silence regarding Peter’s leadership over the church.

In Paul’s letter to the Philippians, he sends greetings to the Philippians from “all the saints” at Rome (Philippians 4:22); so if Peter was in Rome at that time, he was reckoned by Paul merely as one of “the saints.” In the second epistle to Timothy, Paul says, “Only Luke is with me” (2 Timothy 4:11), and because of this, he asks Timothy to bring Mark to Rome as a worker. Now if Peter were in Rome all this time as bishop, as is claimed, does it not seem strange that Paul never once refers to the fact? Does it not seem strange that if Peter were sitting at that very time as Christ’s vicar, as head of the church, Paul never mentions that fact. Indeed, Paul’s act of calling for Mark to come to Rome as a worker, would seem to show conclusively that he, rather than Peter, had charge of the work in that city at that time, the very time that it is claimed Peter sat there as head of the whole church.

The Supremacy of the Roman Church

Nor is it true that the church in Rome was recognized as the mother church, holding supremacy and exercising jurisdiction over all the churches of Christendom. Every reader of church history knows that the Roman church had a gradual growth into power, her power becoming greater with the lapse of time, gradually overcoming resistance; and this is one strong proof of her real character.

In the first century there were five leading and influential churches, namely, Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, and Rome. At the very beginning of Christianity, Jerusalem was the leading church and exercised the most authority, as is plainly seen in the book of Acts (Acts 8:14; 15:2, 22), while for a long time Alexandria and Constantinople shared equal precedence with Rome.

There is evidence of this in the history of some of the councils of the early church. The Council of Nicaea, AD 325, a general council, was called upon to settle the Episcopal jurisdiction of the bishop of Alexandria. It decreed: “Let the ancient customs prevail in Egypt, and Libya, and Pentapolis, that the bishop of Alexandria should have authority over all these, since this is the accustomed practice for the bishop of Rome also; and similarly in Antioch and the other eparchiea (i. e., primatical sees of the first class), let the precedence be preserved to the churches.” – Canon 6.

It is clearly manifest from this decree that at that time, the beginning of the fourth century, Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch were on an equality, all of them called “sees of the first class.” History informs us that this decree meant that the patriarch of Alexandria should have the same authority over Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis as the bishop of Rome had over the churches of central and southern Italy, with the islands of Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica. This limitation shows clearly that no universal jurisdiction was than conceded to, or exercised by, the church in Rome.

Testimony of the Church Councils

The fourth general council was held in Chalcedon, 451 AD, and it, too, has a strong disproof of the acknowledged precedence of the church in Rome. Its decrees are weighty in evidence on this point. In Canon 28, the council decreed as follows:

“In all respects following the definitions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon of the 150 God- beloved bishops which has just been read, we likewise make the same definition and decree concerning the precedence of the most holy church of Constantinople, or new Rome. For the Fathers with good reason bestowed precedence on the chair of old Rome, because it was the imperial city, and the 150 God-beloved bishops, moved by the same view, confer equal precedence on the most holy throne of new Rome, rightly judging that the city honored with the empire and the senate should enjoy the same precedence as Rome, the old seat of empire, and should be magnified as it was in ecclesiastical matters also, being second after it.”

Thus in a general council, Constantinople is placed on a level with Rome, and that in the latter part of the fifth century; and every reader of history knows that this rivalry continued between Rome and Constantinople (it began a long time before this council) until Justinian, in the year 533 AD, decreed that the bishop of Rome should be the head of the universal church.

The Roman church had a gradual rise unto her high pinnacle of power. In the earlier centuries, as we have seen, the Roman church was not above other churches, like Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch, and Constantinople. But this church was located at the old capital of the great Roman Empire, and gained precedence because of that fact, which is plainly mentioned in the decree of the Council of Chalcedon, which has just been noticed, as being a reason of the exaltation of the Roman church.

The church at the former capital of the empire began to be looked upon as the leading church, and its bishop as the leading bishop. As missionaries went forth, they gladly hailed from the Roman church, and it began to be called the mother church. Disputes arising among the churches or among the bishops were carried to the Roman bishop for settlement, because he was the bishop of the mother church at the ancient capital of the empire. And when the seat of political power was transferred to Constantinople, very naturally the bishop of the mother church of the West became the most prominent figure in Rome.

After the removal of the capital from Rome to Constantinople, in the fourth century, the claim that Peter had been made Christ’s vicar, that he was the first bishop of Rome, and that the popes of Rome were his successors, began to be especially urged, and to substantiate these claims forged and fabricated sayings of earlier popes, and decisions of earlier councils were brought forward. Words were put in the mouths of popes which they never uttered. Decrees of councils were brought forward that were wholly forged and fabricated. Janus says:

“Like the successive strata of the earth covering one another, so layer after layer of forgeries and fabrications was piled up in the church.” – “The Pope and the Council,” page 117. These culminated in the famous Isadorian Decretals of the ninth century, which all scholars today acknowledge as forgeries. Thus the Papacy arose to its height of power and prestige. This will not be denied by any unbiased reader of church history.

The Papal Chain Examined

As a mark of apostolicity, the Catholic Church claims an unbroken succession of popes from St. Peter to the pope elected in 1922, Pius XI.

This claim will not, however, stand the test of history. It seems impossible for the reader of church history not to see that the so-called papal chain has been broken in a number of places; but of course the Roman Catholic Church cannot admit this, no matter how much evidence is produced, as it is the keystone in the arch of all her arrogant and unscriptural claims.

However, from Victor, bishop of Rome in 193 AD, to Clement VII in 1523-1534, there were nine popes who were guilty of heresy, nine whose elections were disputed, nine whose elections were doubtful, fourteen who were guilty of simony (that is, of buying the papal chair), and nineteen who were guilty of intrusion. Yet all of these, excepting three, are counted as links in the papal chain, in spite of the fact that it is contrary to Roman canon law for one to be accounted as pope who secured the papal chair through simony or intrusion. And as to doubtful elections, Bellarmine, a famous Roman Catholic author, says, “A doubtful pope is no pope.” – De Cancil, book 2, chapter 19.

Doubtful Popes

That there have been in the line of papal succession not only several very “doubtful popes,” but desperately immoral and wicked popes, is admitted by Catholics themselves. The early years of the tenth century were what the “The Catholic Encyclopedia,” article, “Christopher, Pope (903-904),” denominates “the darkest [period] ever known in papal Rome, when its barons were making and unmaking popes at their pleasure.”

Further light is thrown upon the uncertainty of the papal succession at that time by the same authority, which says, article “Sergius III:”

“He seems to have ceased to act as a bishop after the death of Formosus, and was put forward as a candidate for the Papacy in 898. Failing to secure election, he retired, apparently to Alberic, Count of Spoleto. Disgusted at the violent usurpation of the papal throne by Christopher, the Romans threw him [Christopher] into prison, and invited Sergius to take his place.”

Both Christopher and Sergius are acknowledged as popes of Rome in the line of succession from St. Peter. Coming down from the tenth to the latter half of the fifteenth century, we find the case of Rodrigo Borgia, Alexander VI, pope from 1492 to 1503. Of this man “The Catholic Encyclopedia” says: “Borgia, by a bare two-thirds majority secured by his own vote, was proclaimed pope on the morning of the 11th August, 1492, and took the name Alexander VI.” “That he obtained the Papacy through simony was the general belief.”-Article, “Alexander VI”

Of Borgia’s character previous to his elevation to the papal throne, but while a priest and occupying high official position in the church, “The Catholic Encyclopedia” says this: “In his twenty-ninth year he drew a scathing letter of reproof from Pope Pius II for misconduct in Sienna, which was so notorious as to shock the whole town and court. Even after his ordination to the priesthood, he continued his evil ways. Toward 1470 began his relations with the Roman lady, Vanozza Catanei, the mother of his four children.”

Such were some of the popes, and such is the line of the boasted “apostolic succession.” Bear in mind, also, that these statements are not from Protestant authors, but from a recognized Roman Catholic authority. Remember that our only object in introducing such evidence is to show that unless Catholics are ready to assume and are able to defend the position that character and regularity of selection have nothing whatever to do with the apostolic succession, they cannot consistently contend that there has been such a succession from Peter’s time down even to our own day. Clearly there has not been, and hence their claim falls to the ground.

Of the events of the period to which “The Catholic Encyclopedia” refers as “the darkest ever known in papal Rome,” Cardinal Baronius, the greatest of all Catholic historians, says: “It is evident that one can scarcely believe, without ocular evidence, what unworthy, base, execrable, and abominable things the holy, apostolical See, which is the pivot upon which the whole Catholic Church revolves, was forced to endure, when the princes of this age, although Christian, yet arrogated to themselves the election of the Roman pontiffs. Alas, the shame! Alas, the grief! What monsters, horrible to behold, were then, by them, intruded on the Holy See, which angels revere! what evils ensued! What tragedies did they perpetrate! With what pollutions was this See, though itself without spot or wrinkle, then stained! With what corruptions infected! with what filthiness defiled! And by these things blackened with perpetual infamy.” “Baronius Annal.,” ad Ann. 900.

And there is another serious break, that of the Great Schism of 1379 to 1417. During this time, two and sometimes three rival popes were claiming to be the pope. It was difficult even then to decide which had the better claim. Gregory XI was pope before the schism, and Martin V was elected at its close. This covered a period of thirty-eight years. But when Martin V was elected, there was only one cardinal living who had been created before the death of Gregory XI. Therefore the majority of votes cast for Martin V in 1417 were void. It must be evident, then, that there are some broken links in the so-called chain of apostolic succession. Blasphemous Claims Growing out of the assumption that Christ made Peter His vicar, some very extravagant, and what some consider blasphemous, claims have been made for the pope. The following is taken from Ferraris’ “Ecclesiastical Dictionary” (Roman Catholic), article “Pope.” The latest edition of this book was issued from the Press of the Propaganda at Rome in 1899, which shows that it has the approval of the Roman Catholic Hierarchy. “The Catholic Encyclopedia” (Volume VI, page 48) speaks of it as “a veritable encyclopedia of religious knowledge,” and “a precious mine of information.”

“The pope is of so great dignity and so exalted that he is not a mere man, but as it were God, and the vicar of God.”

“The pope is of such lofty and supreme dignity that, properly speaking, he has not been established in any rank of dignity, but rather has been placed upon the very summit of all ranks of dignities.”

“Hence the pope is crowned with a triple crown, as king of heaven and of earth and of the lower regions.”

“Moreover the superiority and the power of the Roman pontiff by no means pertain only to heavenly things, to earthly things, and to things under the earth, but are even over angels, than whom he is greater.”

“So that if it were possible that the angels might err in the faith, or might think contrary to the faith, they could be judged and excommunicated by the pope.”

“The pope is as it were God on earth, sole sovereign of the faithful of Christ, chief king of kings, having plenitude of power, to whom has been entrusted by the omnipotent God direction not only of the earthly but also of the heavenly kingdom.”

“The pope can modify divine law, since his power is not of man but of God, and he acts as vicegerent of God upon earth with most ample power of binding and loosing His sheep.”

The following is from the writings of Augustinus de Aneona (Roman Catholic), “On an Appeal from the Decision of the Pope:”

“Therefore the decision of the pope and the decision of God constitute one [i. e., the same] decision, just as the opinion of the pope and of his disciple are the same. Since, therefore, an appeal is always taken from an inferior judge to a superior, as no one is greater than himself, so no appeal holds when made from the pope to God, because there is one consistory of the pope himself and of God Himself.”

“We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty.” – Pope Leo XIII, in an encyclical letter dated June 20, 1894, “The Great Encyclical Letters of Leo XIII,” page 304.

The following is from an oration of Christopher Mareellus (Roman Catholic) in the fourth session of the Fifth Lateran Council, 1512 (an address on the pope); “History of the Councils,” by Labbe and Cossart, Volume XIV, column 109:

“For thou art the shepherd, then art the physician, thou art the director, thou art the husbandman; finally, thou art another God on earth.”

And the following gloss on the “Extravagantes Communes,” book l, “On Authority and Obedience,” chapter 1, reads:

“Christ entrusted His office to the chief pontiff; but all power in heaven and in earth had been given to Christ; therefore the chief pontiff, who is His vicar, will have this power.”

When Pope Benedict XV died, his death was officially announced by the papal secretary of state thus: “Our Lord the Pope is dead.”

The Papacy Not Apostolic

Sufficient evidence has been produced, though volumes more could be added, to show any one that the Papacy is not apostolic. Any reader of the New Testament knows there is no likeness between the apostolic church and the papal hierarchy. Instead of the Papacy’s being apostolic, it is the fruitage of a great falling away, or apostasy, that came into the church in the centuries adjoining the age of the apostles. The apostle Paul had a vision of its coming; for it was in embryo in his day. In writing to the Thessalonians, he said:

“Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sits in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God,” or as the Revised Version puts it, “setting himself forth as God.” 2 Thessalonians 2: 3, 4.

Every reader of church history knows that this falling away did come, and that it developed a system at the head of which a man set himself forth as God, as seen by the above quotation. In the apostolic church, Christ was the only head of the church, the only High Priest, the only Mediator between God and man (1 Timothy 2:5), and the rock foundation of the church. And His one sacrifice upon the cross of Calvary was sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world. (See Romans 6:9, 10; Hebrews 7:27; 9:25-28; 10:10-12.)

Dr. Richard Day

Dr. Richard Day revealed New World Order plans in 1969. As we enter the new year 2024, let’s count how many of these 55 points in their plans have come to pass. My comments are in parenthesis after some of them.

This article started with a video of the recollections of Dr. Lawrence Dunegan regarding a lecture he attended on March 20, 1969, at a meeting of the Pittsburgh Pediatric Society. Unfortunately, that video was removed from YouTube. 🙁

The lecturer at that gathering of pediatricians was Dr. Richard Day (who died in 1989). At the time Dr. Day was Professor of Pediatrics at Mount Sinai Medical School in New York. Previously he had served as Medical Director of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Dr. Dunegan was formerly a student of Dr. Day at the University of Pittsburgh and was well acquainted with him, though not intimately. He describes Dr. Day as an insider of the “Order” and although Dr. Dunegan’s memory was somewhat dimmed by the intervening years, he is able to provide enough details of the lecture to enable any enlightened person to discern the real purposes behind the trends of our time.

You can also read a transcript of the entire message on this site!

Here are just some of the topics covered in this video created from Dr. Dunegan’s audio tapes about the plans of the New World Order. He revealed this information in 1969! How many predictions can you count that have been fulfilled? Please write your answer in the comments section below.

1. Girls would be discouraged from playing with dolls so they wouldn’t think about babies. They would be encouraged to get out on the soccer field instead.
2. Guns would be eliminated almost entirely and the few that were allowed to have them for hunting would have to check them out from officials. (The public in Canada, Australia and New Zealand have been disarmed. This is the reason, in my opinion, government repression during the Covid plandemic was much harsher in those nations than in America.)
3. They already could cure over 98% of all cancers – they had the cures at the Rockefeller Institute. But they would not be released because there were too many people in the world and they had to die of something.
4. Homosexuality will be encouraged – anything goes. (Since the Obama administration, gay rights have been promoted, and now under Biden, the LGBTQ agenda is given priority over fixing the southern border crisis and fixing other serious problems America is facing today.)
5. Families will diminish in importance. People would be encouraged to live alone.
6. Euthanasia will be encouraged – they will use “the demise pill” to kill themselves.
7. Births will be strictly controlled and you could not simply have children because you wanted them.
8. “Stupid” people would not eat correctly and exercise so they would die much earlier and that’s what they wanted.
9. Private doctors will be eliminated – doctors make too much money.
10. They will make health care so expensive that you must have insurance or be financially destroyed. Limiting access to affordable medical care will make eliminating the elderly easier. They would stop hospitals from giving any charity care.
11. New difficult-to-treat and diagnose diseases will come about as a means of population control. (SARS, Covid-19, laboratory engineered viruses.)
12. Running shoes and sports equipment will be made glamorous to make the “smart” people get into exercise.
13. Romantic music will not be put out anymore. All the old music will be brought back on certain “oldies” radio stations and the young people will have their own radio stations. Old movies will be put on again for the old people.
14. Entertainment will be used to mainly change and program young people. The old people are not important anyway so they don’t care much about them.
15. Entire meals will be made and put in grocery stores. Convenience foods will be made unhealthy. They wanted people who were too lazy to fix their own meals or exercise to die early.
16. Inducing heart attacks as a means of assassination. (Heart attacks among young people have indeed dramatically increased since the Covid-19 pandemic. Did the Covid vaccines cause it? I believe it did.)
17. They will blend all religions but Christianity had to go especially! Once the Roman Catholic Church is brought down then the rest will go next. Then they will create a new religion. (Many traditional Catholics are alarmed at the way Pope Francis is leading the church. I believe that even if the RCC is destroyed as an institution, those who controlled it will lead the new world religion. And if end-time events do not go the way dispensational evangelicals think they will, some have actually said they will throw their Bible away!)
18. They will change the Bible over time – churches would help them! (False doctrines abound in churches today.
19. The education system will be restructured as a tool of indoctrination. Kids will spend more time in school but won’t learn anything. Kids will have to specialize early on in their education and changing their plans will be very difficult.(Many Americans cannot find major countries such as Japan on a map.
20. ID will be required for all travel. They will implant IDs inside the skin so that nobody can say they lost their IDs.
21. They will control who has access to information. Some books will just disappear or be changed. They will even have thieves steal certain books from the library. (It’s much harder for them to control Information now unless Internet providers start to charge more money to access websites like mine which are not sanctioned by the government.
22. Drug use will be encouraged to create a “Jungle” atmosphere. Meanwhile, police enforcement to put people in prison for drugs will be drastically increased.
23. Food will be strictly controlled and people would be not allowed to grow their own. They only would give you enough food to give you what you needed but hoarding food or growing food would be criminal activities. They didn’t want anybody to be able to support those outside their system.
24. Travel will be first made cheaper to encourage people to spread out their families but then made very expensive so few people can afford it.
25. Crime will be increased as a way to control society.
26. More jails would be made and they would even use hospitals as jails.
27. America would lose its manufacturing base. Other countries would be making the products America was making now. (This is sure true of manufacturing in Asian countries.)
28. Sports would be used as a tool for social change – Soccer was being encouraged since it was a global game. They wanted to do away with anything like football and baseball that were created in the United States. National pride of any type would be discouraged.
29. Sex and violence would be programmed through entertainment.
30. All television sets would have secret cameras that would watch everybody in the room.
31. They would implant IDs in everybody.
32. They would control what was in our food.
33. They already controlled the weather. They would stop rain in certain areas to bring them under their control. They would make rain during harvest to make it harder to get the food from the fields.
34. There were always two reasons for all their actions. The public reason they give everybody and the REAL reason.
35. People don’t ask the right questions – they are too trusting.
36. Scientific research would be falsified to push their agendas.
37. Terrorism would be used to control the people.
38. Home ownership will be a thing of the past.
39. The new system would be either brought by peaceful means if possible or by bringing the nation to the brink of nuclear war. People would give up their national sovereignty to keep the peace.
40. If too many people resisted their plans, there might be a need to use one, two or more nuclear weapons to show that “we mean business”.
41. War was justified as a way to control the population. They were happy that World Wars had killed millions so they couldn’t keep having babies. But now with nuclear weapons, they would not allow wars to be fought with nuclear weapons on a wide scale.
42. Americans have had it too good so nuclear terrorism might need to be used in order to implement the new world order system.
43. Inflation is a tool of control. Money would be turned into credit. Cash would be done away with. People would carry money only for small items such as chewing gun. All else is done electronically. They would ultimately have a single bank system but might appear as several banks.
44. All purchases would be tracked. If you bought too much of an item or a particular item, an official would be alerted to investigate. The ability to save would be curtailed so they would not be able to accumulate wealth. Wealth in the hands of the people is not good for those in charge.
45. If you saved too much, your pay would be cut in the future so you could not accumulate any wealth.
46. Credit would be encouraged so people would get in debt and get in trouble so authorities could come down hard on them.
47. Eventually there would only be one credit card and then after that, there would be a skin implant located in your right hand or your forehead. He was told to not worry about what the Bible said about this because this was just the logical place for the implant.
48. Implants would also be used for surveillance. Every citizen could be identified by their own signal through tooth fillings etc.
49. You’ll be watching television and somebody will be watching you at a central station. The TV could be off and still monitor you. They could tell what you are watching and how you are reacting to what you are watching. The signals for monitoring you will go down the cable for your Cable TV and telephone wires.
50. Audio monitors would also be used in other rooms. Any wires that come into the home will be used to monitor you such as telephone wires.
51. There would be service trucks everywhere putting in the monitoring equipment.
52. People who already owned houses would be allowed to keep them but young people would never be able to afford a home. The cost of homes would not come down even with all the empty houses. They would control the price of homes to turn more and more people into renters.
53. People would be assigned where they would live and they would assign non-family members to live with you. That’s why the census asks how many bedrooms you have in the home.
54. When the new system comes out, they would be required to sign allegiance to it. There would be no room for people who would not sign their allegiance to the new system. They would be secretly taken to special places where they would not live very long. People will just disappear so they can’t be martyrs.
55. The new system will come in over a weekend in the winter. They would announce the new system was in place on a Monday. Everybody will have less leisure time after the new system was brought in so they couldn’t figure out what was going on.