Denounce the Antichrist Pope and Then I'll Take Your National Day of Prayer Seriously

I keep being told I should listen to the National Day of Prayer, that it was a serious call to repentance and a warning of God's judgment, including a hard-hitting attack on the evils of this administration, particularly the abortion requirement of Obamacare.

That would all be wonderful if the day hadn't been an ecumenical gathering of "people of all faiths," which I point out in my previous post might as well be the rites of Baal. It may be (as I was told) that only Christians had the podium, but if the ecumenical nature of the gathering itself wasn't denounced I don't see the value in any of it. One of the speakers in particular is known for treating Catholicism as Christian. So essentially they end up denouncing some of our national moral evils in the name of the Antichrist.   You think God's judgment is going to be abated this way?  Might as well be asking for judgment.

As I pointed out in a previous post, The Pope has been invited to address Congress which is scheduled for next year according to the Washington Post. The most negative statement about this in the Post is the mention at the bottom of the article of somebody's tweet that says “Does Boehner realize Pope Francis is to the left of [President] Obama on many issues?".

Good question, but not only do our conservative members of Congress seem not to have noticed, you'd think they could even come up with some others as well. This Pope not only denounced Capitalism but suggested that atheists can expect salvation without repentance, and has been making noises in obscurantist Popespeak, which is also the subject of one of my recent posts, that suggest he's on track to supporting gay marriage as well. Perhaps these issues don't matter to our heavily Catholic congress.

But where are the supposedly "Protestant" members of Congress on this unprecedented invitation of the leader of the Antichrist system to address them? Where is our Ian Paisley who will stand up and denounce him as the Antichrist? Or better yet, protest loudly enough that the invitation will be called off? Not happening. The Reformation is being denied and trampled on by "Protestants" too..

And where is the speaker at the National Day of Prayer who had the historical perspective and the guts to stand up and say that the whole day was a sham of prayer for the nation when the wolf himself is going to address the nation's governing body?.

I'll listen to your National Day of Prayer when I get the news that something along these lines has happened.

We Need to Repent FROM the National Day of Prayer: It Can Only Bring More of God's Judgment Down on the Nation

May 1st this year is the National Day of Prayer. I used to be all in favor of this event, even went to a few of the public gatherings.  Sounds like a good idea, but I've become sadly aware that organized prayer on behalf of this nation is usually ecumenical and that isn't going to do the nation any good at all

George Bush's prayer meeting in the National Cathedral to pray for the nation after 9/11 brought together Christians and Catholics and Muslims and Jews, NOT a formula for success at getting the ear of God.  Anybody want to know why the prayers have done us no good, there's your answer.  People pray their hearts out for the nation and things get worse.  Some good ministries and good solid Christians form these groups or join these groups and don't seem to notice that even their best efforts are going unrewarded.  There were a couple of prayer meetings on the day of Obama's inauguration to his second term.  Things gotten any better?  Why aren't we paying attention to this simple cause and effect?  If we appeal to God surely things SHOULD get better. But we have to do it right. We can't pray with antiChristians and be doing it right.

Well, sure enough, the National Day of Prayer is also ecumenical, calling "people of all faiths" to pray together for the nation:

The National Day of Prayer is an annual observance held on the first Thursday of May, inviting people of all faiths to pray for the nation. It was created in 1952 by a joint resolution of the United States Congress, and signed into law by President Harry S. Truman. Our Task Force is a privately funded organization whose purpose is to encourage participation on the National Day of Prayer. It exists to communicate with every individual the need for personal repentance and prayer, to create appropriate materials, and to mobilize the Christian community to intercede for America’s leaders and its families. The Task Force represents a Judeo Christian expression of the national observance, based on our understanding that this country was birthed in prayer and in reverence for the God of the Bible.

It talks about the "Christian community" and mentions "reverence for the God of the Bible" but that would include Catholics and even Muslims and Jews depending on how the phrase is understood, because the Jews are of course the people of the Old Testament, and the Muslims revere the Bible along with the Koran.  It would also include Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, cults that consider themselves to follow the Bible.

Also, we are NOT, or were not originally, a "Judeo-Christian" nation.  If we are, GOD WILL NOT BLESS US!

It also mentions "personal repentance."  Sounds good, sort of, if you don't think too much about it.  What we need is God's true people not only repenting personally but repenting on behalf of the nation, and the best place to start is by repenting of the abomination of ecumenical prayer!

How does any Christian think that God would honor prayer by people who deny the essentials of the Christian revelation?  This is like calling for prayer to Molech or Dagon along with God, but God clearly denounced all the deviations by His Old Testament people into worshiping both God and the false gods of the nations around.  Simply worshiping God without following His instructions is condemned. Yet I've never heard any pastor even mention this offense concerning the National Day of Prayer.

Although certainly the nation could be said to have begun with the original Pilgrims and Puritans who were definitely Christians, and there were many true Christians among the founding generation as well, and at that time and for some time to come the citizens of the nation were at least culturally steeped in the Christian faith, this disaster may actually go back to five of the main Founders who were NOT Christians:  Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Franklin and Paine.  I'd recommend Chris Pinto's film "Hidden Faith of the Founding Fathers" if you want to see the evidence.

There's plenty of history we could delve into, and the inauguration of this day in 1952 may have been ecumenical from the beginning, and may even have had a worse effect on the nation than the ceasing of prayer in the schools some ten years later, in fact it may have been why that happened. 

But all we really need to know is that God will not hear the prayers of those who deny Him or do not worship Him according to His revelation.  That's enough to tell us that participating in this event can't possibly benefit the nation and may actually hasten its destruction.

YOU WANT TO SAVE THIS NATION? START BY THROWING OUT THE IDOLS! STOP CONSIDERING CATHOLICISM TO BE CHRISTIAN, THAT'S THE BIGGEST MISTAKE WE MAKE.

START BY REPENTING FOR THE NATIONAL DAY OF PRAYER AND OTHER ECUMENICAL SLAPS IN THE FACE OF GOD.

Are There Any American Ian Paisleys in Congress Willing to Shout Down the Pope?

UPDATE: A friend emailed me the question, "What about the separation of church and state?" Good question. Since that principle got the revisionist treatment in the last few decades, we can no longer have prayer in the schools, we can no longer have Christian Christmas displays in public places, we can no longer have the Ten Commandments in the Courthouse, but let me guess: Nobody is going to protest the presence of the abomination of the Pope in the Congress.

==============================================Earlier post:

The answer to my title is "Not that I know of."

Here's the context: Catholic members of the US Congress, Republican John Boehner and Democrat Nancy Pelosi, have invited Pope Francis to speak to a Joint Session of the Congress. I heard about this as I often do from Chris Pinto, who spent a few minutes on it toward the end of yesterday's radio show on The Crimean Vote for Russia. He mentions the invitation to the Pope starting at 29:00. Since this new Pope is a radical even by comparison with earlier Popes, Pinto wonders why the supposedly conservative Boehner should be so willing to have him speak. Being Catholic apparently trumps other allegiances.

This would be a first, a hideously shameful first. No Pope has ever been invited to speak to Congress before.

Here are a couple of articles on the invitation to the Pope:

Huffington Post

ABC News Blog

What immediately came to my mind was the incident in 1988 when Irish Protestant Pastor Ian Paisley, a member of the European Parliament, angry at the invitation of the Pope to speak to the Parliament without the consent of members such as himself, shouted out that the Pope is the Antichrist just as the pontiff began to speak.

Here's an article on the event from the New York Times .

Paisley was one of a kind then and I suspect he has no representatives in America today.  I'd like to be proved wrong about this.

What good would it do?  You may ask.  Just as Dr. Paisley was summarily escorted out of the European Parliament, anyone today attempting such a statement would meet with a similar response.  We've got a Congress full of Catholics, and the few Protestants haven't the perspective to know that the Pope is the Antichrist.  Forget the unbelievers of the nation.  Too many have been brainwashed to think the Pope represents Christianity and that to object to him is to be "unloving," just as to object to gay marriage is now considered to be "unloving." And besides, they LIKE his radical antiChristian anticapitalist stance. 

So, again, what good would it do?  Maybe nothing pf any note in this fallen world, but God will reward those who stand up for the truth against the Antichrist, and it might even wake up some blinded "Protestants" and bring some backbone into the churches. 

Might. 

Waking Up Among Wolves: The Antichrist Pt. 1: The Papacy

When I started this blog I had a few topics in mind I wanted to pursue, such as the woman's head covering of First Corinthians 11.  That and the Bible versions controversy quickly became big enough to get their own separate blogs.  As I was researching various subjects, such as by listening to sermons at Sermon Audio, the topic "Antichrist" kept popping out at me and eventually I decided that was going to be a topic here as well, but at first I didn't have a lot to say about it. 

I mostly had the Futurist idea in mind, that the Antichrist is to be a personality who emerges at the very end before the Lord returns, and I was aware of various candidates from false religions for that title, such as the Imam Mahdi expected by the Muslims, Maitreya expected by the Buddhists and pursued in a more universal form by Benjamin Creme, and the false Messiah expected by the Jews since they rejected the true Messiah, and so on. 

Unlike most Futurists, however, I did appreciate the Protestant Reformers' view of Antichrist as the papal system throughout all history and thought a particularly telling piece of evidence was the Latin title for the Pope that adds up to 666 through its Roman numerals: VICARIVS FILII DEI.  Nevertheless I had the Futurist attitude that the main thing was still the emergence of the major final Antichrist at the very end, which seems awfully close to a lot of us, and the papacy wasn't really an active agency in my mind.

Until I ran across some of Chris Pinto's films at You Tube.  Others, such as ex-priest Richard Bennett, also identify the papacy as Antichrist, but Pinto brings out the ongoing activity of the papacy as Antichrist down the centuries and into the present in a way nobody else I'd seen does.  He also made me aware of the active role of the Jesuits from their origin into the present.

This has had the effect of making the Antichrist himself come alive in a real and immediate way that I wasn't expecting at all.  It's quite startling. 

It's what I mean by the title "Waking Up Among Wolves."  It's like I've been asleep to all this except in the most intellectual abstract way and suddenly it has become quite real, almost "up close and personal."  And of course this latest Pope is almost frenetically pursuing a role that easily defines him as "That man of sin."  He may or may not be the last Pope as an old Catholic prophecy predicted, and even if he is he may not be THE Antichrist, who may be a political figure like Hitler, backed by the Pope, but the development of the qualities of the Antichrist is pretty startling.

Still a "watch and see" situation, only in my mind looming large as it never did before. Kind of like waking up surrounded by wolves.

===================================== Part Two:  Islam    

Some Warnings Against the Bogus Bibles, Against the Bogus "health care plan," and Against the Bogus "Palestinian cause" plus Update on Jesuits

11/20 UPDATE:

Chris Pinto's radio show today is about Jesuit influence, particularly in Scotland. He quotes from J A Wylie's book on the history of Protestantism (It's listed at my Catholicism blog).   In passing he mentions a book about Vatican influence in Nazi Germany.  The book is available but so is this video Interview with John Cornwell about his book, Hitler's Pope.

=============================

THE GREAT BIBLE HOAX:

After writing yesterday's post for the Bible Hoax blog I went back and listened again to Chris Pinto's radio show The Burning of the Bibles, which I'd linked in the previous post at that blog, because I remembered that it gives support to some of the claims I was making about Westcott and Hort's Bible revision of 1881.  It does, and it's an excellent outline of the whole Bible debacle that was hatched in the 19th century and has been creating chaos ever since, causing the English Bible to be brought into doubt.  Yes we're talking conspiracy.  The revision of 1881 was more of an attempt to destroy the King James Bible by people under the influence of the Vatican than it was any kind of legitimate revision.  This is what Chris Pinto has been repeatedly documenting for some time, and this particular radio show does a very nice job of outlining the whole story.

I started that blog based on the writings of John Burgon, a contemporary of Westcott and Hort's who saw their revision as an indefensible undermining of the Bible, which he called "poisoning the river of life," and wrote a series of critiques of the revision that became the monumental book The Revision Revised.   Although Burgon's name has been used by a King-James-Only organization, The Dean Burgon Society,  Burgon did not give King-James-Only arguments.  His effort was entirely to show the scholarly deficiencies of the 1881 revision, both in their substitution of corrupted Greek manuscripts for those underlying the King James, and in their mangling of the English translation itself by thousands of unnecessary changes, both against the instructions that had been given to the revising committee. 

What Chris Pinto does is show that there were very likely ulterior motives to their mutilation of the King James Bible, specifically in the use of the corrupted Greek manuscripts, and that these motives were most likely fostered under the influence of the Vatican.  The Vatican of course had, and still has, strong motives to bring down the Reformation, which had deposed it from its former power in Europe, of which the King James Bible was the crown jewel.

This particular radio show was inspired by an incident in which Catholic priests in America burned the King James Bible in the year 1834, as reported by the Protestant writer John Dowling, but Pinto doesn't get to that incident until late in the show because he gets sidetracked by the fact that the criticisms of the King James used by Catholic apologists as reported by Dowling are the same as those unwittingly given by supposedly Protestant Bible textual critics today.

The title of Dowling's book is The Burning of the Bibles:  Defense of the Protestant Version of the Scriptures Against the Attacks of Popish Apologists for the Champlain Bible Burners,  and Pinto says that the arguments Dowling describes as those of the Catholic apologists for the burning of the Bibles

...are arguments that are nearly identical to your textual critics in modern times, who don't realize that many of their arguments come from the Roman Catholic Church ...  even though these guys are professing Protestant evangelical, sometimes neo-Reformed...  the arguments they make about the Bible and its history...come from Roman Catholic apologists, and Jesuits and rationalists...who have made these arguments for hundreds of years.  And of course I believe that because Higher Criticism gained the upper hand in the 19th century, largely as a result of events surrounding the discovery of Codex Sinaiticus, and because of the discovery of Codex Sinaiticus, this is what led to the full-blown exploitation of unbelieving Higher Criticism in our colleges and universities...  and as a direct result of the Higher Critical arguments gaining the upper hand, what immediately happened after was the beginning of modern-day ecumenism...

This gets him into a discussion of how the revising committee of 1881 introduced the corrupted Greek manuscripts, but especially how their arguments came to dominate today's Bible scholarship. He says we have to understand that

...Westcott, Hort, Scrivener, all of these guys, were Anglo-Catholics... That's why they invited Cardinal John Henry Newman, who was the leader of the Oxford Movement, to come and sit on the committee with them.... Cardinal Newman, his entire purpose was to reclaim England for Rome.

The plot goes on thickening from there, through the work of Phillip Schaff who did the American version of the English revision, how Schaff kissed the feet of the Pope and how he was a keynote speaker at the ecumenical Parliament of World Religions of 1893 which included Buddhists and the satanic Theosophists Blavatsky and Annie Besant among the bogus "Christians" and so on and so forth. This is all within the first six minutes of the radio show, and it goes on from there until he finally gets back to Dowling's book in the middle of the second half of the show.   Listen and weep.  That's what happens to me when I hear this stuff.

What can I say.  I pray and hope that Chris Pinto's work might change the minds of some of those Protestant Christian spokesmen today who are committed to the modern Bible versions.  I pray for James White and Daniel Wallace and John MacArthur who are very influential Reformed Christian leaders who are unwittingly supporting these Vatican-inspired Bibles that are contributing to the destruction of Protestant Christendom.  Why?  Because they have put their trust in Bible scholars, some of whom were unbelievers, such as Bruce Metzger, and Jesuits.  If there is a lesson here from the Bible itself, it must be the many warnings to us to avoid the "wisdom of this world."  It's just another of the devil's strongholds we are to bring down through the spiritual weapons we have been given in the Word itself.

=============================
So I wanted to point back to that radio show today, hoping hoping hoping my voice joined with Chris Pinto's and others who are saying the same things might help turn the tide against the Antichrist Vatican's plots -- if it might by God's providence reach some open ears.

But Protestant Christendom is so far gone these days, so completely under God's judgment, so mutilated and dying, I wonder how much hope is there that the Lord might have mercy on us at this late hour.

There are so many fronts on which we need that mercy these days, the Bible versions are just one of them. 

=============================

THE PLANNED OBAMACARE TRAIN WRECK

I just heard a radio show Jan Markell hosted on Saturday, on two separate topics, Obamacare and Israel that constitute two such fronts, that was something like being punched twice in the stomach:  one, the second, was on The Planned Train Wreck of Obamacare, which suggests that this was never a legitimate health care plan, which many of us knew anyway, but a designed attack on American capitalism.

There's a whole lot that needs to be said about how capitalism is a specifically PROTESTANT system, that brought about the unprecedented prosperity of Protestant America, and how socialism is the economic system of the Vatican, whose work can be seen in the miserable poverty of Catholic nations.  This wasn't part of Jan Markell's show, but it's necessary background.  All this stuff was new to me over the last year, and I've hardly even touched on it in my blogs.  All I'm going to do here is say this much and hope others who are still in the dark about these things, as I was, will do the research.  I've listed many sources on such things at my Catholicism blog.  Check out the book Ecclesiastical Megalomania, which is available at The Trinity Foundation for some eye-opening revelations about Catholic economics.

THE EVANGELICAL POLITICAL ABANDONMENT OF ISRAEL

The second punch in the stomach from Jan Markell's weekend radio show was on the fact that the growth of Reformed theology in American churches has contributed to the political abandonment of Israel in evangelical circles, in favor of supporting the "Palestinian" cause against Israel.  This is apparently due to the Reformed theology that says the Church has replaced Israel in God's plan, which I've discussed here before as in my opinion a misunderstanding of what scripture teaches.  I believe the Church is the fulfillment of God's plan that He began with believing Israel, not a replacement but a fulfillment, a continuation.  It isn't the result of God's rejection of Israel but the completion of His plan through the coming of the promised Messiah, which goes back to Eden.  Apparently some Reformed or Covenant theology sees it as a substitution instead of a fulfillment.  In either case it is true that earthly Israel is no longer God's people as only BELIEVING Israel is God's people and that's the Church. 

HOWEVER, we're also talking about spiritual Israel versus earthly Israel (or "Jacob") as I've looked at it -- and I could be wrong about this way of looking at it but it makes sense of some things for me.   Looking at it this way, there is no "replacement" of Israel at all.  Earthly Israel today is the playing out of Old Testament teaching as misunderstood by unbelieving Jews, but it makes no sense to me to take the Reformed view that God has utterly abandoned them, let alone to treat them as some kind of specially evil earthly nation.  God hasn't abandoned a single earthly nation on this planet, why would He abandon the Jews who represent His firstborn chosen people?  If only for the honor of His name among the peoples God is not going to abandon even apostate earthly Israel. 

We know from scripture that a time will come when a huge number of Jews will recognize their true Messiah, and we also know that Jesus is going to return to the Mount of Olives.  God hasn't abandoned that piece of real estate or the Jewish people even in their apostate condition.  And how can it be denied that they are THERE, on that land that God originally gave Abraham?  That couldn't happen without God's willing it.  Yes, that land was a type of a heavenly Promised Land that Abraham himself looked to, as so much of the Old Testament gives us types that point to Christ and our redemption through Him, but in earthly terms it still represents that promise God gave to him. 

AND historically speaking God has clearly supported the nation of Israel miraculously against many of the attacks by her Arab neighbors since she became a nation in 1948.  There is no doubt in my mind that Israel, for all her unbelief, is still under God's protection and still figures in God's plan for the finale of Planet Earth.  AT THE SAME TIME there is also no doubt in my mind that earthly Israel is under God's judgment for their apostasy and rejection of their Messiah, which can certainly be seen in their being surrounded by implacable enemies.  Only God could juggle these two facts but that's what He's doing.

Theologically it makes no sense to treat Israel as if it doesn't exist or isn't in fact back on that particular piece of land given to them, but it's also political and historical blindness to take up the "Palestinian" cause against Israel.  Surely the Palestinians are a miserable people we need to pray for, but they are the pawns of their Israel-hating leaders who invented the whole idea of a "Palestinian people" in the first place to be a thorn in the side of Israel. 

There is no such thing as a Palestinian people.  The area known as Palestine was almost barren of population when the Jews began to settle it.  It had no official name, it had no government, it had no "people."  Mark Twain wrote a description of the land as a wilderness on his visit there in the late 19th century.  The accusation that the Jews stole the land from a "Palestinian people" is just bogus.  They bought whatever land was owned by the few who owned it, but the over five million people who today take the name of "Palestinians" are the descendants of citizens of all the surrounding Arab nations who originally came to the area to work for the Jews as their nation was being built up.  When the first Arab attack on Israel was planned, the Arabs living in Israel were warned to flee the country to protect themselves.  They became the "Palestinian" refugees whose refugee status was then blamed on Israel although it came about through the Arab warning of the imminent attack.

Over the decades attempts to bring peace to the region between Israel and the "Palestinians" have included many generous concessions by Israel to form a Palestinian State, that were nevertheless rejected by the "Palestinians," over and over and over, and yet the reason for this continues to go unrecognized by most of the world:  the refusal to accept any compromise whatever with the nation the Arabs want not to exist at all, and which their maps show as not existing at all.  There is NO peace plan that will ever work for this reason.   America has been right all these decades to support Israel, but the ridiculous "peace plans" we've tried to foist on the region show a basic blindness to the true political situation.

The "Palestinian" cause has been invented entirely as a ruse to give Israel a bad reputation in the eyes of the world and ultimately to eliminate the nation from the planet altogether as many Arab leaders have so often made clear is their desire.   There is a book which details this plot through historical facts and quotes that is available at Amazon,  Philistine: The Great Deception, by Ramon Bennett, which I got from the ministry of The Berean Call back before 9/11. 

Whatever your theology, the historical facts ought to tell you that supporting the "Palestinian cause" which is founded on devious Arab plots against Israel, is not the side to be on.

=============================
We need a new Protestant Reformation.    

Again I Point to the Work of Chris Pinto in calling down the Roman Church as the Antichrist Plotter of Plots.

A friend listened to Chris Pinto's radio show on The Final Antichrist that I linked at my Catholicism blog yesterday and was fascinated and edified by it, which encourages me to continue to give Chris Pinto's work top billing at my blogs.  My friend was lamenting about how stupid we all are about history, which we may find out by listening to Chris Pinto for one. 

So I thought I'd edit my answer to him for the sake of anybody reading this.   I do my blogs in the hope of being useful to the Church, after all, which is up to God of course and I don't get much notice out here in Cyberboonieville but that's no reason to stop.  So here's some stuff as I laid it out for my friend, that I've learned through Chris Pinto's work, through his documentary films and his radio shows and articles.

One reason we're all so stupid about history is that Jesuits have rewritten many of our history books to obscure and downplay the role of the Vatican in all their evil doings, from the Inquisition to attempts to assassinate the leaders of nations, even the whole English government at one time (The Gunpowder Plot), to their work to take the American continent for the Pope (recognized by the first Protestant settlers, as described in Bradford and Winthrop's writings), to their role in the assassination of Lincoln (sources are Charles Chiniquy and Paul Serup), to their influence on the Bible manuscript and translation committees, including their forgeries of "ancient manuscripts" designed to discredit the King James Bible, which used to be common knowledge, and much more, all of which I learned through Chris Pinto's ministry.

He is not a scholar, but a guy who used to want to be an actor and now makes documentary films, but he's got the instincts of a historian and collects all kinds of old books with all this information in them that has been suppressed over the last century or so.  I've linked to many of them in the right margin of my Catholicism blog.  I don't know of anybody else who is doing anything comparable that could be of so much benefit to the Church and I pray for him, that the knowledge he has been trying to get out would be picked up by the Church at large so we won't have to remain stupid about who our enemies are.

Right now if you research any of these topics you'll find you are directed to a lot of Catholic revisionism and disinformation.  If you love the idea of the Pope ruling the world through a reestablished Holy Roman Empire along with a new Inquisition, which we believe would in fact be fulfillment of prophecy, then choose the Catholic sources.  But if you love the idea of truth and freedom you might consider finding out what Chris Pinto has to say and put off the fulfillment of prophecy for another season.

Both Pinto and my friend are ex-Catholics by the way, and it is always necessary to say that in attacking the RCC nobody is attacking Catholics as such, who don't know anything about this history but need to learn it so they can escape the clutches of the Vatican, which is what the Reformers and their followers did.  The Vatican is still working strenuously but stealthily behind the scenes to bring down the Protestant Reformation, and making quite a bit of headway, too, judging from the signs of the times. 

I hope many will be inspired to learn what Chris Pinto has been bringing to our attention and do their own deep study of all of it.

************WE NEED A NEW PROTESTANT REFORMATION************

DOCTRINES OF DEMONS IN TODAY'S CHURCH

I'm inspired to collect my usual list of the Doctrines of Demons I believe the true Church has been laboring under for a long time, that we need to repent of, that we need to correct.  Yes, this is just my own opinion, but I can muster quite a bit of evidence and have done so on many of my blogs. 

BARE-HEADED LADIES IN THE CHURCH
BOGUS BIBLES ACCEPTED AS GENUINE
ROMANISM ACCEPTED AS CHRISTIAN

1)  The denial of the head covering for women that I blog about at Hidden Glory.  I'm putting this first because although it may be the least of the deceptions in the Church, I keep having the suspicion it's not, that it's the toe in the doorway that has allowed others to push their way in.  This one has seduced many of the best preachers of our time.  Women sit bare headed in the vast majority of true Bible-believing Christian assemblies these days, an affront to God's Creation Order, an affront to the Glory of God, as expressed in verse 7 of 1 Corinthians 11:

For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God, but the woman is the glory of the man.

Therefore her head should be covered in the worship service, so that not man's glory but God's glory may be on display.  Isn't it a clue that after two millennia of Christian understanding of Paul as requiring women to cover our heads, we stopped doing this about the middle of the twentieth century when feminism was taking off?

2)  The acceptance of the Bible versions that have come down from the Revision of 1881.   I've been coming to think of this as the devil's biggest triumph against the Church these days, getting true believers to accept his own clever undermining of the English Bible, from the assault on it by Westcott and Hort in 1881 through all of today's increasingly worse "translations." 

Westcott and Hort built their abomination of a "revision" on their preferred but bogus Greek manuscripts, against the instructions given to the revising committee which they came to dominate; along with an inexcusable mangling of the English in 36 thousand unnecessary changes, also against the instructions.  All to destroy the King James which they hated.  Well, they succeeded.  Now modern preachers have accepted their frauds as genuine, even to impugning the King James and its Textus Receptus as the erroneous Bible.  Oh do read John Burgon, and do listen to Chris Pinto.  Consider carefully that the devil is very smart and that there can be conspiracies clever enough to deceive us all where there is a will to undermine the true work of God.

3)  The Dragon-Sized Wolf in Sheep's Clothing is the acceptance of Roman Catholicism among true Christians.   This one is common among Charismatics, which may be the main door through which the dragon has entered.  John MacArthur has been one of the most faithful opponents of this trend in the church while other big-name preachers have been guilty of embracing as orthodox the very system that was the reason for the Protestant Reformation. 

Chris Pinto (Adullam Films and Noise of Thunder radio) has opened my eyes over the last year or so to the fact that the Roman Church has been tirelessly working without a break to destroy the Reformation and restore their former power, while true believers are taught to think of the Roman "church" as just another Christian denomination, and its Inquisition that tortured and murdered some fifty million true Christians along with another seventeen million others (yes these statistics can be supported), as dead history we can safely ignore.

There are plenty of apostate movements, cults and heresies that threaten true Christian doctrine these days, but for the most part they are recognized and rejected by true Christians and under scrutiny by many Discernment ministries.  What I'm listing are hidden insidious influences WITHIN the true Church.  The above are the top three on my list although I keep thinking I'm forgetting something. 

I could, and may, add the Charismatic Movement along with its Word-Faith/Prosperity Gospel version,  which the recent Strange Fire Conference did such a good job of exposing, even possibly Dispensationalism, which is also accepted as true Christian doctrine, and perhaps Evolutionism insofar as it has undermined the belief of true Christians in the inerrancy of the Bible.

Praise God for the resurgence of Reformed thinking in the churches, but even the Reformed are susceptible to many of these deceptions.  We need a New Reformation, we need a Revival with Holy Spirit conviction of the sins of false doctrine (that it seems to me do feed individual propensity to personal sins, which is a whole topic I've been thinking about -- but Romans 1 is a clue), and with Holy Spirit inspired repentance from all these errors.  We need Fear of God, we've lost our Fear of God.

May be back to add or correct.

Bogus Bibles: A Complete Tangent to the Strange Fire issues but it was getting to me

It kept bothering me as I listened to the Strange Fire Conference so I'd like to register my objections:

BIBLE VERSIONS
I have a separate blog on the Bible manuscript controversies, The Great Bible Hoax of 1881,  and am probably hypersensitive to quotations from any of the modern Bibles, having come to regard them as based on the bogus Greek manuscripts that were introduced into all our new Bibles with the Revision of 1881.  At the Conference every time a lengthy quotation was read from -- presumably --  the New American Standard, I cringed.  The English is just plain awful in that translation, which is a different problem from the fact that it's also one of the modern versions that is based on the Critical Text, which includes the corrupt Westcott and Hort Greek text.  The NAS is considered to be a good "literal" translation, but in fact it is a klutzy rendering that is deaf to English, attempting to render the Greek in ways that are simply alien to the English language.   For one thing, it keeps on saying "keeps on doing" this that or the other, which is NOT the way ongoing action is normally conveyed in English.  John Burgon pointed out this strange mistreatment of English  -- yes it's a legacy from the 1881 Revision -- in his book, The Revision Revised, a massive critique of the 1881 Revision put out by the Westcott-and-Hort-dominated committee.

THE STRANGE FIRE CONFERENCE IS BASED ON ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY, IT IS BASED ON SOLA SCRIPTURA, AND THOSE WHO BELIEVE THIS ALWAYS AFFIRM THAT OUR BIBLE IS INERRANT.  BUT ALL THESE VARIOUS BIBLE VERSIONS, AND ESPECIALLY THE CORRUPTED GREEK TEXTS CONSIDERED TO BE THE "OLDEST AND BEST" ALTHOUGH THEY ARE FULL OF CORRECTIONS AND ERRORS, TESTIFY TO ERROR, NOT INERRANCY.  THE "SCHOLARLY" ASSESSMENT DOES LEAD SOME CANDID THINKERS TO THE FALSE BUT NOT UNREASONABLE CONCLUSION THAT THE BIBLE IS NOT TRUSTWORTHY.   THE CHURCH NEVERTHELESS CONTINUES TO AFFIRM BIBLE INERRANCY, WHICH WE SHOULD DO IN ANY CASE, BUT BECAUSE OF THESE FALSE MANUSCRIPTS THE DEVIL HAS BEEN BUSY USING ALL THOSE BOGUS BIBLES QUITE PLAUSIBLY TO TEACH SOMETHING ELSE. 

AEON
Burgon also pointed out the equally bizarre mistranslation of the Greek word "aeon" as "age" as opposed to the King James rendering, "world."   "Age" is now in most of the new Bibles and is staunchly defended as the "correct" meaning of the Greek term, at the Conference by Justin Peters if I recall correctly, although Westcott and Hort's insistence on it merely demonstrated their ignorance of nuances of translation from Greek to English (OR possibly a more sinister motive?  They DESPISED the Textus Receptus and the King James).  Of course it also bothers me that it wouldn't just be obvious that the King James translators were the highest caliber scholars who knew Greek far better than W and H did, but maybe you have to read Dean Burgon to have a sense of the difference. 

YAHWEH
And I also cringe at the name "Yahweh" as the Name of God in the place of "Jehovah."  As for the scholarly excuses for the change - the reasons are NOT as clear as is often claimed -- even at best they are not worth the confusion and disruption of the historical usage in the minds of millions of English speaking Bible readers, not to mention the disruption of the literary and cultural heritage of centuries.  Not only does it sound to me like the name of a tribal god, a lesser god, but it shows only too tellingly the lengths to which some "scholars" are willing to go to undermine the King James Bible in one way or another.  There was NOTHING wrong with "Jehovah" just as there was nothing wrong with MANY of the English words in that Bible that the Westcott and Hort Committee chose to change, some 36 thousand UNNECESSARY changes in the English alone, that went on to spawn more and more change-for-change's sake in subsequent translations (although much of that is due to the fact that a certain number of differences from other versions is necessary for a translation to qualify for copyright). 

It's something of a puzzle why people do not simply HEAR the problem when all these different translations are compared, not to mention why we don't hear the confusion that is created by simply HAVING so many translations used by so many Christians, the cacophony, the confusion of tongues, even the simple inability to locate a verse because you've remembered its wording from a different translation.  The effect is to GARBLE THE BIBLE.  But I didn't hear it either once upon a time, I've had to learn all this stuff over the years. 

Chris Pinto is now the best source of information about what all this is REALLY about, at least the Greek manuscripts (he doesn't object to the English translations as I do).  Hint:  Vatican, Jesuits;  the Roman Catholic behemoth's plots to destroy the English Bible and ultimately whatever is left of the Protestant Reformation.  Westcott and Hort were at least Anglo Catholics, and so were/are many of the scholars who have been promoters of their Greek text.  I know, conspiracy conspiracy.  Well, you need to hear Chris Pinto and I've done some work myself toward demonstrating all this at my blogs including the Catholicism blog, nowhere near as much as needs to be done.  Pinto is the best source of all this information.

Of course this doesn't apply only to the Strange Fire Conference, it is just as true of most of today's Christian teachers, of Reformed teachers and Charismatics as well.  I do a lot of cringing these days as I listen to sermons by today's preachers.  It's just that I know MacArthur is a strong NAS guy and it started to get to me so I had to mention it.  I'd call it a "pet peeve" but obviously I take it a lot more seriously than that.

================

Later:  Listening to the Charismatic radio show host, Dr. Michael Brown, I encountered another common affront to the Church brought to us courtesy of the Westcott and Hort 1881 debacle, the belief that the last twelve verses of Mark are not authentic.  The vast majority of supposed Bible-inerrancy believers now accept this devil-wrought slap in the face of the Church.  Well, that's what we get for accepting the work of scholars who are unbelievers, who let their disbelief in the supernatural dictate their dating of the Bible among other things.  Not to mention scholars who are Jesuits.  How gullible today's Church is!  Is it too late to wake up?    

The Lincoln Assassination the work of the Vatican / Jesuits

First a brief musing on how the World Out There, or some parts of it, insists on demonizing Biblical Christians these days.  If we express our belief in the scripture's teaching that homosexuality is sin, we "hate gays" although we also recognize many other kinds of sins than homosexual sin without being labeled as "hating adulterers" or "hating thieves" or whatnot;  if we argue against evolution we "hate science" although I've never known a Christian who didn't appreciate the achievements of science, and most science has nothing to do with evolution; and if we suggest that the Vatican is a power hungry organization that still wants to take over the world, we're characterized as "hating Catholics" even though we usually work hard to make it clear we understand that ordinary Catholics have nothing to do with that.   It doesn't matter what we say, THEY know the truth and we're just ignorant dupes of religion.

When it comes to things Catholic, such as the information I've been gathering lately about how Jesuits were behind the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, there is no way to get even a moment's open-minded consideration of the idea, which they label as a "conspiracy theory" as if that magic label all by itself dispels the very possibility.  You even get accusations of believing in Bigfoot or the like as if there's any connection whatever.  The way these people think is hard to follow, they just leap from one category to another within some bizarre frame of reference entirely of their own, but it all adds up to an abiding bias against Bible Christianity whatever mental route they take.  About all we can glean from this is that prophecy is being fulfilled more rapidly and consistently than we might have expected only a few years ago.

About the Lincoln assassination, I first learned of a Jesuit connection from the book by Charles Chiniquy, 19th Century priest who eventually left the Church of Rome.  He knew Lincoln from the time Lincoln as a lawyer successfully defended him against some false charges by his Catholic superiors.  He described all this in his book Fifty Years in the "Church" of Rome.  Now there is a book out by a Paul Serup, a Canadian who researched Chiniquy's claims over a couple of decades and ended up confirming them.  I have yet to read his book, Who Killed Abraham Lincoln? but of course I'm already well disposed toward it because Chiniquy is a credible witness. 

But you can't tell the World about this without being treated to heaps of scorn and abuse.  Don't we already know enough about the assassination?  It was all Confederate vengeance for the Civil War according to current wisdom.  The idea that perhaps the truth of who was behind it has been suppressed is just proof of "conspiracy thinking" that couldn't possibly have any merit. 

A typical taunt from this quarter goes:

When you have a letter from Pope Pius IX to John Wilkes Booth you let us know, okay?

I wonder if correspondence between Pope Pius IX and Jefferson Davis would suffice, in which the pope tacitly recognizes the Confederacy as a nation unto itself by referring to Davis as "President of the Confederate States of America," making him the only head of state to recognize the Confederacy.  Could this suggest a connection between Catholicism and the Confederacy that might then suggest a connection with the conspirators to kill Lincoln?

Then there is this quote of Lincoln given by Chiniquy, which of course is denied by Catholic apologists and therefore also denied by those who must believe all this a mere case of conspiracy thinking that has no real substance: 

This war would never have been possible without the sinister influence of the Jesuits. We owe it to Popery that we now see our land reddened with the blood of her noblest sons. Though there were great differences of opinion between the South and North, on the question of slavery, neither Jeff Davis nor any one of the leading men of the Confederacy would have dared to attack the North, had they not relied on the promise of the Jesuits, that, under the mask of Democracy, the money and the arms of the Roman Catholics, even the arms of France, were at their disposal if they would attack us.”

 
Here's an interesting website, or perhaps a rather strange website, but its content is interesting.  They make the following accusations including the above quotation: 


That Pope Pius IX did plan, coordinate and deliberately instigate the conditions and actions that directly led to the American Civil War, in particular the rise of the secessionist movement of wealthy slave owners, the funding of extremists on both sides (North and South), on the political successes of Southern President Davis an in particular on the attach of Fort Sumter in South Carolina which started the conflict.

That the motivations of the Papacy were not only to sustain its last profitable enterprise of slave trade, but to actively destabilize the largest constitutional democracy in the world.

That so directly involved were the Papacy in causing the war that President Abraham Lincoln himself did write and say: “This war would never have been possible without the sinister influence of the Jesuits. We owe it to Popery that we now see our land reddened with the blood of her noblest sons. Though there were great differences of opinion between the South and North, on the question of slavery, neither Jeff Davis nor any one of the leading men of the Confederacy would have dared to attack the North, had they not relied on the promise of the Jesuits, that, under the mask of Democracy, the money and the arms of the Roman Catholics, even the arms of France, were at their disposal if they would attack us.” President Lincoln.

Furthermore, the direct and constant involvement of Pope Pius IX is also evident in his attempt to prolong the war by pledging support in a letter to Confederate President Jefferson Davis in 1863 in which the Pope pledged his sympathy to the Southern cause, that there were people loyal to their cause in the North and all around the world. That when this letter was published to encourage support in 1863, it did have the opposite effect whereby of 144,000 Irishmen that enlisted, 104,000 deserted after the recognition of the Confederacy by the Pope. That because of the direct and deliberate involvement of the Vatican and Pope Pius IX in deliberately destabilizing the United States, the Roman Catholic Church is directly responsible for the death of 498,332 people because of the Civil War and the ensuing decades of misery and cost it caused. Of murder (political assassination) (1865)

That Pope Pius IX did authorize the funding and mission that resulted in the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln on April 15, 1865. That John Wilkes Booth and other conspirators were recruited, funded and controlled for their mission by the Jesuit emissaries of the Pope. That on at least one occasion there was clear evidence of the connection between the Vatican’s involvement when John Wilkes Booth did spend ten days in October 1864 in Montreal with Catholic priests and several days in Toronto at St. Patrick Hall, an important meeting place for the Irish Catholic Benevolent Union. It is in Canada, that it is believed Booth was shown (never given) letters of authority from the Pope himself for the assassination mission.

That of the conspirators discovered and arrested, a number of their family did successfully escape through the direct and known assistance of the Roman Catholic priests from Montreal. That John H. Surratt (son of conspirator Mary Surratt) upon reaching Rome was appointed to the Pope's Zouave military unit but was arrested by U.S. officials and brought back to trial in Washington, D.C. in 1867.

That upon US authorities discovering the extent of the Papal involvement, it did end all diplomatic ties with the Vatican in the same year. (1867). That these relations with the US were only normalized in 1984.

Of crimes against humanity for the purpose of promoting the international slave trade : (1866) That the Holy Office upon the orders of Pope Pius IX did declare on 20 June 1866: “Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law, and there can be several just titles of slavery and these are referred to by approved theologians and commentators of the sacred canons.... It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given”. That this position was officially published as part of a campaign to encourage European and Latin American Catholic nations to enter the war on the side of the South to ensure the most profitable slave market for the Vatican remained operational.

Of historic false statement, moral indignity, heresy and contempt for the fundamental rights of common law (1871) 

I would like to see all this documented of course, but since I find Chiniquy credible and many others who have written similarly about the machinations of the Vatican, I don't have any reason to doubt it.  I will eventually get Paul Serup's book, hoping he's done a lot of the needed documentation there.

==================================================
Here's an earlier post I did on this subject at my Catholicism blog, including links to Chris Pinto's radio shows on the subject.
==================================================
http://xpknights.net/images/lettertoJeffersonDavispdf

http://one-evil.org/content/people_19c_pius_ix.html

Sainting a Pope, conjuring a miracle, misleading a faithful Catholic woman.

So Pope John Paul II is going to be made a "saint" according to the pagan formula of the Roman Catholic system.  It takes a recognized "miracle" to qualify a person for "sainthood" in that system.  Turns out there's a woman in Costa Rica who believes the Pope healed her of a brain aneurism she had been told would take her life probably within a month. 

She says she prayed to the late pope to heal her

Roman Catholics pray to dead people.  The Pope isn't even officially a "saint" yet but she prayed to him.  She has a shrine in her house to that Pope, something pagan religions set up to honor their gods.

The doctor who diagnosed her says he didn't give her a short while to live but rather a very small chance of bleeding in her brain, and put her on a diet to reduce this very slight risk, but he does say it's amazing that there are now no signs of the aneurism present, and it looks like this will be counted as a miracle toward the sainting of the former Pope. 

I don't have any reason to doubt her story about the healing episode itself.  I would of course doubt the source of the voices she heard and of the healing as well, assuming it can be considered a healing. 

But what most interests me is the patent paganism in the Roman Church, and how this Roman Catholic woman is so sadly misled. 

What does Roman Catholicism have to do with Christianity at all?

The New Pope, Jesuits and Socialism

UPDATE:  Some good stuff on the Roman church and the papacy by John MacArthur:

• A Timely Critique of the Catholic Church on February 21, after Benedict resigned. 
• Here's a 2005 77-minute talk at You Tube: The Pope and the Papacy:  How the Reformers viewed it as Antichrist etc.

Catholicism is no more Christian than Islam. THAT statement will offend 1,000,000,000 people... and it is TRUE ...

UPDATE on the Jesuits:  Chris Pinto is doing a special radio program today, March 22, an overview of the Jesuit Order: Part 1, The Jesuits and the Counter-Reformation.  He covers a lot of the history of Catholicism up to the Jesuits as well.    And here's the show for March 23:  Part 2, The Engineer Corps of Hell.  In this part the abominable Jesuit Oath is partially quoted. 

UPDATE, the Malachy Prophecy:
Learned a few days ago that it's possible this new Pope may yet be regarded as the Petrus Romanus of the Malachy Prophecy, the last Pope of the prophecy, based on the fact that Peter, or Pietro, was one of the given names of Francis of Assissi, whose name this Pope has taken.

UPDATE March 22:
This is to add a radio interview of Dr. Ronald Cooke on the Jesuits in our world today by Chris Pinto done back on March 12 and 13.  They are still active, their objective is to destroy Protestantism and reinstate the Roman  papacy as the ruler of the world.  And here is Part Two of this interview.

UPDATE March 18
Unfortunate big news is that "evangelical" Rick Warren called for prayer for the cardinals in electing a new Pope, which ought to be a red flag to Christians that Rick Warren is part of the apostasy and not part of the Church.  And, how sad, apparently John Piper who has generally been regarded as a trustworthy Reformed preacher, continues to align himself with Rick Warren.  Sad things are coming to light in this time of the Great Apostasy as supposed "Protestants" betray the Reformation and the millions who died for the gospel under the Roman Inquisition.
{--Info from Ken Silva's Apprising Ministries.}

UPDATE  March 16

Pope Francis also said some had suggested jokingly that he, a Jesuit, should have taken the name Clement XV “to get even with Clement XIV who suppressed the Society of Jesus” in the 1700s.

Some joke.  The Jesuits already got even with Clement XIV.  They poisoned him.  And he knew it.  See quote below.

But of course this is now to be denied.  Searching on this you'll turn up websites denying it and classing it with false conspiracy theories.  We'll probably get a lot of this sort of thing now that there is a Jesuit Pope, the aggressive whitewashing of the Jesuits, who USED to be well known for their behind the scenes manipulations enforced by murder, and they were feared by kings and Popes.  Books galore were written about them, but over the last century all that history has been suppressed.   It's time it got revived and made known again.

Here are some quotes on the Jesuits from John Adams, Lincoln, Napoleon and others.

"My history of the Jesuits is not eloquently written, but it is supported by unquestionable authorities, [and] is very particular and very horrible. Their [the Jesuit Order’s] restoration [in 1814 by Pope Pius VII] is indeed a step toward darkness, cruelty, despotism, [and] death. … I do not like the appearance of the Jesuits. If ever there was a body of men who merited eternal damnation on earth and in hell, it is this Society of [Ignatius de] Loyola."

 John Adams (1735-1826; 2nd President of the United States)

"The Jesuits…are a secret society – a sort of Masonic order – with superadded features of revolting odiousness, and a thousand times more dangerous."

Samuel Morse (1791-1872; American inventor of the telegraph; author of the book Foreign Conspiracy Against the Liberties of the United States)

"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."

  Napoleon I (i.e., Napoleon Bonaparte; 1769-1821; emperor of the French)

"It is my opinion that if the liberties of this country – the United States of America – are destroyed, it will be by the subtlety of the Roman Catholic Jesuit priests, for they are the most crafty, dangerous enemies to civil and religious liberty. They have instigated MOST of the wars of Europe."

 Marquis de LaFayette (1757-1834; French statesman and general. He served in the American Continental Army under the command of General George Washington during the American Revolutionary War.)

“Alas, I knew they [i.e., the Jesuits] would poison me; but I did not expect to die in so slow and cruel a manner.” (1774)

Pope Clement XIV (Who had “forever” abolished the Jesuit Order in 1773)

"The war [i.e., the American Civil War of 1861-1865] would never have been possible without the sinister influence of the Jesuits."

  Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865; 16th President of the United States)

Chris Pinto also has some information on the Jesuits here

***********************************************

March 13

So no Pope Peter the Roman after all, so is the Malachy prophecy all blown to bits?  Now we have Pope Francis, a first for that name and another first in his being a Jesuit.  A man of austerities who rejects the luxuries of his office and probably will as Pope too.  Probably a Communist.  I mean that seriously.

Been wanting to get up a post about the connections between Communism and Rome, may yet.  Look forward to what Chris Pinto has to say about all this.

Later:  Worldview Weekend is doing a program with Brannon Howse and Chris Pinto about this that I won't get to see because it's only available to subscribers to Worldview Weekend.  Although I like some of the things Howse does I wouldn't subscribe even if I could afford to, which I can't.   Two reasons:  1)  If this becomes a common practice on the web anyone with limited resources is going to have to choose very carefully what information we are willing to pay for;  and 2)  Brannon Howse was very vocal against Jonathan Cahn's Harbinger, showing his LACK of discernment in that particular instance.

But this is from Howse's blurb for the program:

One headline spoke of his commitment to social justice which is one of the eight areas that I have detailed as a major focus of the Jesuits. Here is the headline: Pope Francis profile: Argentine cardinal known as humble conservative who preached social justice

Yes, "social justice" is a code word for socialism (as "progresive" is a code word for Communism) and it happens to have been coined by a Jesuit in the 19th century, some time before Marx came along.  It's also interesting to consider that Marx was trained by Jesuits.

So that will no doubt be Chris Pinto's theme when he gets to his radio show on the subject.   

Spiritual Deception: Soul Power 2 --Hindrances to recognizing the problem

I was involved in a charismatic "parachurch" organization in the early 90s but some happenings and teachings, and the "tone" of it, started getting to me after a while. I couldn't discern clearly what was wrong, it just FELT wrong. Even back then I knew the Catholic Church was not Christian so when my group prayed for the Pope to be blessed I refused to join in and that was the beginning of the end. I was finally driven to pray for understanding and God showed me things I was accepting that I shouldn't have been accepting and I left.

Something similar may possibly be the case with others inside that movement. You can get into a position where you feel, even quite strongly, that there's something wrong with, say, the "Toronto Blessing," the Brownsville "revival," "holy laughter" and the like, can even think of Biblical objections to it, but you doubt your own impression because you're told it's of the Holy Spirit. Since you don't want to offend the Holy Spirit you just keep going along with such things though in a chronic state of unease. (Oh and try telling someone you're "confused" about this or that charismatic phenomenon, and see if you get back in a chirpy dismissive tone of voice "God is not the author of confusion!" Hoo boy, thanks.)

I did read critical studies of those things to see if they would convince me, but they always left some questions hanging in my mind, enough to prevent me from taking a definite stand one way or the other. Even after all this time I still have some questions left hanging in my mind, though I think my rereading of Nee's Latent Power of the Soul may yet give me a handle on some of it.

Side note on being at odds with your conscience: I was just reminded of a book I recently read, that I've been planning to post on when I can get to it, that shows that a person can go on in such a conflicted state of mind for years, possibly even indefinitely. This book is Fifty Years in the "Church" of Rome, written in the 19th century by Charles Chiniquy, an ex-Catholic priest. For years he was greatly disturbed by the corruptions he kept seeing in priests and bishops of the Church, also great evils in the confessional where people were more likely to be corrupted than encouraged to holiness. He read and loved the Bible and found many things there contradicted by Roman tradition. He worked for reform within the Church, denying that the problems were in the Church institution itself. He had strong prickings of conscience but because he was committed to his Church and believed its teachings he denied his conscience, told himself it was the devil trying to lead him away from the truth, and he went on in that uncomfortable state of mind until a series of events finally drove him out of the Church and he found true salvation in Christ -- after twenty-five years as a priest.

Richard Bennett is another ex-Catholic priest whose story is similar, also unable to bring himself to leave the Roman Church for many years despite seeing many ways its teachings contradict the Bible. He has the website Berean Beacon, and you can find many of his videos at You Tube as well.

I wonder how many are in the Roman Church in a similar state of mind, clinging loyally to their "Church" and constantly in conflict with their consciences. Or the charismatic movement. Or any of the other apostate or cultic "churches" that are springing up like weeds these days. Suppressing their conscience, perhaps even to the point that they hardly detect it any more.

Poor blind humanity. And that includes most of us Christians who have received light from God but let ourselves be blinded and act blind so much of the time nevertheless. We know so little of the realities we live in, the dangers that surround us. We have spiritual enemies in high places working constantly to keep us in the dark, to convince us that good is evil and evil is good, or at least keep us so busy with irrelevancies we are useless as God's servants. But although we know from the Bible the reality of such enemies, how many of us really take it seriously and apply ourselves with the appropriate fervency to protecting ourselves and each other?

God WILL give us light, but we can even ask for light wrongly, we can have a wrong idea of God that can lead us astray and so on. The perils are everywhere.

As Nee points out, we can sing too much, we can even PRAY wrongly, focusing on the wrong object as we pray, or even study the Bible wrongly -- YES, isn't that a depressing thought? Simply concentrating hard on a passage of scripture can release what Nee calls soul power that can bring an answer -- even a true answer -- but if it doesn't come from God it remains a mental exercise rather than a spiritual illumination. As Nee says [p. 71] if it's not from God it will not bear spiritual fruit.

Not only he himself may not derive life from it, he may also have no way to impart life to others while giving out his interpretation. All he can do is help the mind of people a little.

The Spirit, indwelling the human spirit upon salvation, IMPARTS LIFE, not just knowledge, not just experiences, but actual SAVING LIFE. If we use our soul powers without their being submitted to the Spirit we impart nothing of God's life. Much preaching is done in soul power rather than spiritual power, imparting only intellectual knowledge or human compassion and not spiritual life.

So often I've thought about my own blogging here: I know I'm doing this in the flesh, in my own natural abilities, I so much want to do it in the spirit but I don't know how, Lord help me.

And now I'm led to Nee's writings once again and hoping that God will help me with this.

What we want as Christians is to be able to release the LIFE that God gives us upon believing in Christ, so that LIFE can be LIFE to others as well. All our best thoughts, our true thoughts, do not impart LIFE. All our deepest emotions, of compassion and concern for others, do not impart LIFE if they come only from our own soul powers.

And, another depressing thought for you -- spiritual life iteself can be counterfeited BY the soul powers. We can think we have the "anointing" of the Spirit when it's nothing but a heightening of the natural powers left over from the Adamic life in us, OR even sometimes something coming from demonic activity. As Nee says in Latent Power of the Soul there is a false salvation counterfeited by the soul powers, a false regeneration, a false repentance and so on and so forth. Mere human powers can be dazzling and convincing.

False conversions, false prayer, false Bible reading, false visions, false dreams, false prophecies, false healings, false miracles, false anointing, false spiritual life . . .

The answer, again, is DYING TO SELF, mortification of sin, mortification of Self, crucifixion of everything of the Adamic life, submitting to the crosses that the Lord sends us daily -- how often we fight them but we need to submit to them because they are for our eternal good.

More to come.

Jewish Christians, Pt. 3, Suspicion and Disunity in the Church: Look to the Machinations of Rome

HMore to say on the interview with Shelly and Scott Volk on Understanding the Times radio from last weekend:

After the clip was played of the traditionalist Catholic denouncing the Jews, first Shelly Volk offers the usual wrong defensive attempt to take the burden of guilt off the Jews for the death of Christ in terms of how we all killed Christ and how He chose to die and wasn't really killed anyway, and then Scott Volk quotes early church father Chrysostom who also waxed vehement against the Jews, and says he got it from a book titled The Roots of Christian Anti-Semitism by Malcolm Hay.

Having been alerted to the possibility of Jesuit deception by Chris Pinto I went looking on the internet for some clue to the frame of reference of this book and its author. I couldn't find much at first but finally I found a reviewer of the book at Amazon saying the author is Catholic and I found out it was written in 1913. As Chris Pinto has pointed out, the earlier the book the more trustworthy a history it's likely to be, especially before the 20th century and especially books purporting to expose "Christian" errors, or the devious ways of the Jesuits and Rome in general.

Scott Volk's reaction alone is enough anyway to raise a suspicion in my mind about the author's agenda in writing such a book. If it is a Jesuitical production purporting to reveal the roots of "Christian" Anti-Semitism it's most likely going to be geared to SEEM to put some of the blame on the Catholic Church by admitting at least the well-known facts about the Inquisition --and in any book written around WWII, their complicity in the Holocaust -- while nevertheless managing to shift the burden of blame to OTHER Christians or at least keep the terms vague enough that the reader isn't going to be able to make a clear distinction. Well, you know, the Protestants were just as bad really.

So Scott Volk reads this book, reads the quote from Chrysostom, and concludes that "this is the nature of what is going on in the 21st century church." Not "the ROMAN Church" where it IS true, but "the church," the true Church where it really isn't true -- not to anywhere near the extent he thinks anyway, and certainly not if the proof of anti-Semitism is the misleading "replacement theology."

But I would expect a Jesuit-inspired book to try to get him to blame the nonCatholic churches or anybody nonCatholic. I'm afraid I can only guess in relation to this book, but there's obviously something askew when "the church" or "Christianity" gets blamed for what the Roman monstrosity did to the Jews -- and for that matter did to far more of the true Christians than to the Jews. Scott Volk seems to have picked up that attitude of blame from this book, or at least allowed the book to confirm what he was already feeling.

But of course perhaps not all of the disunity in the church between Jew and Gentile these days is fomented by Rome. The annoyance I felt in listening to the Volks on the Understanding the Times broadcast I explained in the previous post as

1) about their accusation that "the church" doesn't seriously enough recognize the Hebrew foundations of the New Testament

• which as I show in that post is far from describing my own observations of the PROTESTANT church (not Rome), as I was treated to a great deal of good teaching on the prophetic meaning of the Hebrew scriptures in the tabernacle and the rituals and the feasts and so on, and on the role of Israel in the last days;
• and I go on to show as well that Jesus was most probably NOT called "Yeshua" in His day because Hebrew was most probably NOT the common language of the Jews at that time, but koine Greek.

2) about an apparent false equation they make between "Christian" or "church" and "Gentile" which misreads history, especially Acts 11:26; if they are accepting Roman Catholicism as Christian, of course, then there is a lot that needs sorting out here, Romanism being the great pagan counterfeit of Christianity.

3) and about their objection to "replacement theology" which to my mind misrepresents the position of the TRUE churches that hold the view that the Church is the inheritor of the Abrahamic promise. That's the BIBLICAL view.

Not the ROMAN Church of course, the Roman Church isn't a church at all, but a monstrosity of blasphemy, fakery and presumption.

It isn't just Jewish believers, there are plenty of nonJewish Christians who are taking this position as well these days -- contrary to the idea that the church is denying the Hebrew foundations it seems to me that way too many are going too far in that direction.

Clearly the Church is made up of "the Elect," which means "the Chosen" -- how can they deny this? After Christ has come and His Church is being formed, FULFILLING the promises of the Hebrew scriptures, how can UNSAVED Israel be in any sense God's Chosen People? Yet the Volks call them that.

At one point [around 20:40] Shelly Volk gives false history to support his view: He says it's the Gentiles who came to outnumber the Jews in the Church who came to believe that since the Jews had failed, "therefore they have become the New Israel of God." Going on to say "And this of course is called Replacement Theology and it's taken on a Greco-Roman mentality rather than the Hebrew mentality."

This is simply false. Except for the unbiblical part about God having no future plans for national Israel and the Jewish people, what is misleadingly being called Replacement Theology is BIBLICAL! Paul himself called the Church the Israel of God. Paul described the Church as the Temple of God being built of living stones. Paul spelled out the inheritance of the Abrahamic Covenant by the Church, not as replacement but as fulfillment! NOT the Gentiles, but the Church, the Church that is Jew and Gentile in "one new man."

Jesus Himself is the fulfillment of hundreds of the Old Testament prophecies. He Himself is the New Israel and the Church is the new Temple of God. All this is New Testament scripture. To deny it as the Volks and others seem to be doing these days is very wrong. Shelly Volk at one point says "the ultimate end is, What does the word of God say?" [17:42 on the audio counter] But he's just misrepresented scripture by effectively denying what the word of God clearly says, that the Jews took the curse of the death of Jesus upon themselves, and both he and his son Scott go on to misrepresent the word by denying that the Church is the fulfillment of God's plan of redemption of souls and the Elect.

There is no replacement here. The Church is the fulfillment of the Hebrew scriptures, not the replacement of Israel but the true Israel of God. It isn't as if the Jews stopped being the Chosen and the Church took over their role, the Church is what all the scriptures were aiming for from the beginning. It has always been the REMNANT that were God's, not the whole people of Israel. It is the REDEEMED, the FAITHFUL, who are God's. "Not all Israel is Israel." The Church is NOT Gentile, it's JEW AND GENTILE, it's the UNIVERSAL CHURCH, it's the saved out of all lands and all peoples. The Church goes back THROUGH ancient Israel through Job and Noah and all the PRE-Jewish people who put their faith in God.

NEVERTHELESS it is clear that God has continuing plans for national Israel as well and great numbers of Jews are to be saved at the very end.

Clearly there is a fear of the growing anti-Semitism in the world that is partly fueling this exaggerated Jewish emphasis in the Church these days but it is a big big mistake to hang that as a blanket judgment on the Church as that book by Malcolm Hay apparently succeeds in doing judging from Scott Volk's take on it.

As it always has, it is most likely that the majority of the true Anti-Semitism is coming from the Roman Monstrosity, and from Islam, the two legs of the soon-to-be-revived Roman Empire, the Beast that is soon to come back to life and trample down everything on this earth.

However, there is no shortage of anti-Semitism in the world, and probably the Church too. There is a spiritual mystery involved with anti-Semitism I think, it's a way God's judgment against the Jews for the curse they took upon themselves gets expressed in the world, and yet anyone who would persecute the Jews comes under God's judgment as well. We're all under God's judgment -- "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone" -- until we're saved in Christ, and that's what we must hope for all the sinners on this planet. God loves mercy over judgment. Vengeance is His, not ours.

In any case it's not right to equate anti-Semitism with true Biblical doctrine as even these Jewish Christians the Volks are doing whether they want to recognize that or not. Scripture says the Jews took the curse of Jesus' death on themselves, scripture says that the Church is the inheritor of the promises to Abraham, scripture says the Church is the Israel of God. This is fact, not anti-Semitism. It can of course be USED for anti-Semitic purposes, but the point is that this whole subject calls for careful distinctions and not the broad statements that came from this radio talk show. Names need to be named so that exactly who is being accused of what can be figured out. A Roman Catholic preaching vehemently even from true scripture against the "accursed Jews" is PROBABLY preaching anti-Semitism, but we need to know he's a Roman Catholic and withholding that information while implying the source is "Christian" contributes to the false equation of Rome the Antichrist with the true church of Christ. This whole subject is a powder keg, it has to be approached carefully and not with broad accusations.

Again, I believe there is definitely to be a role for Israel to play as the end times drama unfolds and huge numbers of Jews will be saved out of it and join the Church which IS the Israel of God.

===================

Apparently it's always necessary to make the effort to avoid any implication of accusing individual Catholics of supporting the horrors of the Inquisition or the Holocaust and so on. I certainly don't have rank and file Catholics in mind when I'm talking about the evils of the Roman Church. Individuals may or may not share the mentality of the Church governors, and any individuals who don't share it or can be brought to see its anti-Biblical and anti-Christian nature, need to obey the Bible and leave the RCC. Catholic authors of books on anti-Semitism or the Holocaust or the Jesuits or whatnot COULD be seeing through the errors of their Church. The reason I suspect that Malcolm May is probably a jesuitical type defender of the Church instead is that Scott Volk seems to have arrived at the conclusion from this book that "the church," including Protestants as well as the Catholics, all equally promote anti-Semitism, which is not exactly your fair-and-balanced perspective on the history of these things. If the book really did expose the truth it should drive a wedge between the Roman and Protestant churches. That's my thought anyway.

Jewish Christians, Israel, Replacement Theology, Anti-Semitism, Catholic connection

Heard last weekend's radio program at Jan Markell's website, Understanding the Times, titled The Church's Missing Agenda, with the show's executive producer Larry Kutzler sitting in for Jan, and I've got to say this was one confusing -- and annoying -- theological experience. I had to listen more than once to try to figure it out.

The guests on the show were Shelly and Scott Volk, father and son, Jewish pastors of churches, Shelly's in Arizona, Scott's in North Carolina. I knew of Shelly Volk because of his earlier association with Art Katz, whose books and tapes I absorbed avidly years ago. Art Katz was an inspiring preacher and he never annoyed me, so I was surprised to have such a reaction to this interview with the Volks.

Let me see if I can sum up my annoyance: They seem to be saying that the "Church" has a "Gentile" flavor to it that denies the essential Hebrewness of the scriptures, which deprives us of a necessary perspective, especially on Israel. Much of the time their way of speaking seems to set themselves outside the Church as in "we" versus "them" although they are believers in Christ and certainly know that scripture tells us "there is no more Jew or Gentile ... but all are one in Christ Jesus." They do emphasize at times that they identify with the Church, but often their language suggests a sense of distance from it nevertheless.

For instance, they refer to the mention in the Book of Acts [Acts 11:26] of the point at which the Church started to be called "Christians" and clearly imply that they think this described a switch from a predominantly Jewish to a Gentile Church, which makes the name "Christian" pretty much synonymous in their minds with "Gentile." But the Church at Antioch was just as much Jewish in those days as all the churches were. Paul and the apostles always went to the Jews first, to the synagogues, wherever they took the gospel. The first believers were ALL "Christians", both Jew and Gentile. This kind of thinking that makes the Church Gentile simply must come from the modern Jewish mentality and not from early church history.

In fact, Matthew Henry makes the point that the name "Christian" would have been a unifier of Jew and Gentile, rather than the divisive Gentile designation the Volks are trying to make of it:

Thus those who before their conversion had been distinguished by the names of Jews and Gentiles might after their conversion be called by one and the same name, which would help them to forget their former dividing names, and prevent their bringing their former marks of distinction, and with them the seeds of contention, into the church. Let not one say, "I was a Jew;’’ nor the other, "I was a Gentile;’’ when both the one and the other must now say, "I am a Christian." [Matthew Henry commentary at Blue Letter Bible for Acts 11:26]

This quote gets at what annoyed me so much about the interview with the Volks. All this emphasis on their Jewishness and the Jewishness of the scriptures and the supposed Gentileness of the Church and so on IS divisive and does bring "seeds of contention into the church." And after you spend some time sorting it out and finding that they are wrong about most of this, wrong about this supposed denial of the relevant Hebrew context of the scriptures and the gospel, which I went on to do and report on below, it is more clearly shown that this IS merely a contentiousness that shouldn't be made so much of.

They don't quote anyone so that we might know who, or what segment of the Church, they are referring to when they speak of "Christians" having a deficient appreciation of the Hebrew background of the scriptures, or what that looks like in action. This is made all the more mystifying in the context of the use of audio clips concerning anti-Semitism, in which the speakers --both pro and con anti-Semitic positions-- are also not identified, but the implication is that "Christians" are somehow the "anti-Semites." We are left having to figure out how to connect these vague accusations with some notion that the Church is rather too "Gentile" and doesn't appreciate the Hebrew scriptures.

A host of objections floods my mind as I try to grapple with this.

First, the Reformers, as I've been most particularly learning from Chris Pinto recently, DID see a role for Israel in the last days, contrary to the accusation that the "Church" has left Israel out of their reckoning. Have contemporary Reformed churches done so? They need to be specific.

Second, I remember a discussion of the translators of the King James Version of the Bible as taking care to preserve the Hebrew forms and rhythms of its language even in the New Testament Greek -- wish I knew where to find that comment now. Certainly the newer translations haven't bothered with such niceties but I don't think this is what the Volks are objecting to.

Third, my own experience since I became a believer in the late 80s has been of a veritable inundation with the Hebrew context of the gospel. Who hasn't learned the "scarlet thread of redemption" that can be traced from Eden to Christ? Who has missed out on a study of the Book of Daniel's direct prophecy of the timing of the coming of Christ, or the prophecies of the world situation of the last days in that and other Old and New Testament books as well, prophecies we are seeing unfolding before our eyes? I had years of Bible study with Kay Arthur's materials for instance, who is strongly pro-Israel. I got this in both a Presbyterian church and a charismatic church. The same pro-Israel position is also true of John MacArthur whose books and tapes I avidly learned from. And Chuck Missler did very interesting in-depth studies of the meaning of the ceremonies and feasts of Israel as depicting Christ. I got from Kay Arthur's studies the analysis of the tabernacle as showing Christ, and that's the sort of teaching Missler also did. Jews for Jesus made the rounds of the churches too in those days with similar teachings; maybe they still do but it's been a while since I got to see them.

Perhaps my experience was not the norm? But if not, then what is needed is a clear reference to the experience of the majority of the churches about which I apparently know nothing, as I would have thought such teaching, at least of the building of the New Testament on the Old, to be essential and unavoidable.

So, I need to ask WHICH part of the "Church" is supposedly deprived of this sort of teaching?

Some of the complaint from the Volks seems to have to do with "replacement theology," which has been the subject of a few recent posts of mine, but it's not clear exactly how that fits in either. WHICH part of the Church teaches this theology anyway? And exactly WHAT IS this theology in their minds? Surely they can't deny that the Church IS the Israel of God, spiritual Zion, the inheritor of the Abrahamic covenant by faith, SCRIPTURE SAYS SO. But they DO seem to deny this and get it all confused with the notion that "therefore" there is no longer a role for national Israel. The latter does not necessarily follow from the former but they seem to put it all together as one package. I've discussed my own view of this in more detail in earlier posts.

SOME PART OF THIS HAS TO BE ROMAN CATHOLIC, AND PLEASE LET'S STOP CALLING ROMAN CATHOLICISM "CHRISTIAN."

Is it perhaps the CATHOLIC "church" that most strongly holds the "replacement theology" that is so objected to? This needs to be made clear.

One clue to this particular confusion did come up in this broadcast as an audio clip was played of a man very aggressively denouncing the Jews as "the accursed Jews" -- without identifying the speaker but implying that he somehow represents something "Christian." It wasn't hard to google "accursed Jews" and trace the clip to a video at You Tube in which a Catholic [identified as Richard Joseph Michael Ibranyi] standing in front of a table full of Roman Catholic paraphernalia, a crucifix with a dead Christ pinned to it, pictures of Christ with a Catholic flavor, a picture of the face on the shroud of Turin, a statue of Mary, candles and so on, goes on ranting against the Jews. The film was made by a group called "Mary's Little Remnant" --Mary, not Christ, Mary the true god of Roman Catholicism.

From his first few minutes on the subject it's clear he's a traditionalist Catholic who rejects the council of Vatican II as apostasy, and some of his objection is that that council said Jews should not be accused of the blood of Christ. Of course his own views are apostate as well, just judging from the table behind him, although he's right that the Jews did take the curse of Jesus' death upon themselves and Vatican II is wrong.

So are the Volks who deny the special culpability of the Jews, and the rest of us who have tried to take the heat off the Jews for this, as I also used to do. Shelly Volk gives the typical defensive denial {17:06]:

I would just say this: Jews for centuries have been called Christ-killers, and you know what, in a sense we even see that written in the New Covenant [so far so good, yes we do], but the reality of it is [could "the reality of it" be something different from what the New Covenant says? Careful here.] that the Roman Centurions killed Him, the Jews killed Him, we all killed Him by sin, but the fact of the matter is, the crucifixion of the Messiah was in the heart of God. In other words ... He wasn't killed, He gave up His life voluntarily to fulfill the will of God and that's what we have to go for. The ultimate end is, What does the word of God say? {17:42]

This is what a lot of us do when we discover the role of the Jews in the Bible, try to get them off the hook. But we have to rewrite scripture to do that. The Jewish leaders brought the charges against Jesus, the Jewish people supported that action with their cheers for the release of Barabbas rather than Jesus, then they took the curse of the death of Jesus on themselves and their posterity:

Matthew 27:22-25 Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ? [They] all say unto him, Let him be crucified. And the governor said, Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out the more, saying, Let him be crucified. When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but [that] rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed [his] hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye [to it]. Then answered all the people, and said, His blood [be] on us, and on our children.

Scripture is very clear that they did this, it can't be avoided. Yes, in a sense we're all guilty of the blood of Christ, but it was the Jewish leaders who brought the charges against Him while Pilate tried to get out of prosecuting Him, and only the Jews specifically agreed to be cursed for His death.

It's sad, really, they had no idea what they were doing, as Jesus said from the cross, but the curse has followed them down the centuries nevertheless. What should our response be? Pity I think.

I do agree with the Volks about the Catholic guy's ATTITUDE, it is arrogant and boasting against the Jews and you can see how violence could come out of it. I only heard the first few minutes of his talk and it would need a lot of careful thought to sort out the true from the false and all the implications, but acknowledging that the Jews are under a curse for the blood of Christ [until they receive Him as Savior] no way justifies the Roman Church's anti-Jewish pogroms and the tortures and murders of the Inquisition. Jesus rejected all violence against His enemies and the Romanist perpetrators are going to get worse than the Inquisition at the judgment seat, PRAISE THE LORD!

One thing needs to be made clear in these last days: THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS NOT CHRISTIAN. Pre-Vatican II or post-Vatican II it's all still the Antichrist system and the Great Apostasy. This is one of the biggest errors being made by the true churches these days, to treat Romanism as just another denomination of Christianity. It is NOT CHRISTIAN AT ALL! If there IS a Rapture of the Church soon, before the last days come to their full expression of horror and evil, the main representative of "Christianity" left on earth is going to be the apostate Antichrist Roman Catholic Church, the Harlot Church, and the Great Tribulation of those days is very likely to look like the Inquisition and the Holocaust (which also had Roman Catholic roots -- go hear Chris Pinto) rolled into one and magnified to unimaginable heights.

It was not right for the Roman identity of this denouncer of the Jews to have been left out of the discussion with the Volks. This is a rant that could have come from Mel Gibson, who was apparently raised in this form of Catholic anti-Semitism.

Also, at the very beginning of the Understanding the Times radio broadcast an audio clip was played of a man with a British accent who is also not identified, who was going on about how anti-Semitism in Europe has been increasing in recent years "as a consequence of pandering to the bigotry of Muslims," referring to the huge increase in the European Muslim population, who then went on to say "not that Europe has ever needed much encouragement in that direction." And here again it occurred to me to ask, WHICH PART OF EUROPE? Catholic Europe perhaps? The Inquisition killed over 50 million people, most of them TRUE CHRISTIANS. It was the ROMAN Church that set itself to exterminate the Jews, along with all the true Christians, along with sundry Muslims, witches and whomever else they felt like torturing and murdering. If there was SOME Protestant or other source of anti-Semitism, this has to be made clear. And try to avoid histories of such things that have a hidden Jesuit connection in them too. The history of the Holocaust often traces it back to Luther's Lies of the Jews, but the predominant role was really the Catholic church. Pinto proves this.