NTR -9/29/10

4 thoughts on “NTR -9/29/10”

1. Chris,

   I absolutely love your website and ministry. I found it just about a week ago, what a find!
   About David Icke, I am no great fan of his knowing that his information is channeled through demons via his kundalini experience a few years ago and from his taking of ayahuasca. To me, he’s really a mixed bag of truths and lies, good deeds (publicly rallying against pedophilia) and evil deeds (denying that Christ even ever existed, calling the Old and New Testament fairy tales, and comparing God in the Old Testament to a vengeful deity similar to moloch demanding blood sacrifices.)
   Icke appears to be the latest tool of Satan using someone who actively exposes true evil – satanic/illuminati pedophilia rings
   but with the bitter aftertaste of a public venal hatred towards Christians. I’m thinking of another activist. Reverend (he was defrocked) Kevin Annett who through his ministry to the Canadian Native people, brought the horrific crimes of the Canadian genoicide of the natives to light where:
   ” Since 1890, the Roman Catholic, Anglican, Presbyterian and United Church of Canada have perpetrated murder, heinous torture, land theft, mass sterilizations, medical experiments, and sexual terrorism on native people across Canada. Government documents and eyewitnesses confirm that over 50,000 children died in the “residential schools” run by these churches until 1984, or more than 50% of the inmates of these facilities”
   And yet Kevin Annett who keeps the moniker “reverend” preaches a Christ who was a political rebel, a Christ without the gospel of salvation, and “rev” Annett frequently ends his radio
   broadcasts inoking the great mother earth goddess. He is twice damning these precious native americans to hell who so desperately need the true Christ preached to them.
   So David Icke and Kevin Annett appear to be the latest flavor of satan – using activists with truly good causes but with the deadly,damning bitter aftertaste of antichristianity. Both men have been compared to saviors.
   Chris, you surely have a lot of debunking to do with Icke – he has an enormous body of work. God bless you and I know God is surely giving you the green light to refute Icke.

2. Stephanie,
   Thanks, this is some very insightful commentary. I will take it all to heart, I couldn’t agree more with your assessment of Icke.

3. While I think Devin made good claims, I don’t think he defended the Catholic position as best as he should/could have.

   I would approach your inquiry on two fronts:

   (1) Demonstrating Sola Scriptura is, in fact, a tradition of men and not an Apostolic doctrine. This article shows the logical problems of SS while on the other hand this article shows how Sola Scriptura is unscriptural.

   With this issue addressed, the Protestant has to find a different approach to authority and truth-finding, which logically must leave them open to the Catholic claims.

   (2) Apostolic Succession (AS) has clear support in Early Church documents, which while important is tangential to the issue of whether it’s found in Scripture.

   Based on what you’ve said in this clip and your original movie, the problem to me is that you’re misunderstanding how certain passages are being applied and appealed to. Though you carefully point out that the Catholic Church makes a clear distinction between being an Apostle and being a Successor, you don’t always seem to maintain that distinction in your comments.

   For example, the Acts 1 account with Matthias. The Catholic point is that there was an “office” seat left unfilled, and that the Apostles can and indeed did appoint another. This is to refute the notion church authority comes by self-appointment, as it is done in Protestantism. This is not to say that this models AS strictly, since the Bishops that succeed are not Apostles in the full sense, they only have the Apostle’s authority. This is akin to how the Apostles act with Jesus’ authority on earth, without being Jesus Himself or sharing all His characteristics.

   Your argument of “before Pentecost” cannot be right, since Pentecost was simply an extraordinary outpouring of the Spirit’s GIFTS, it was not when they first received the Holy Spirit (else they’d be unregenerate up until then). Indeed, it would have been impossible for Peter to infallibly interpret OT Prophecy in Acts 1 if he didn’t have the Holy Spirit. This is akin to John 20 when Jesus breathed on the Apostles and said “receive the Holy Spirit” – in which Jesus was confirming their mission and power and authority yet again.

   As for Eph 2B, this is long a Protestant favorite text for Sola Scriptura, but “Apostle’s and Prophets” here is not speaking of Scripture directly but of actual men and their legacy. The issue of “foundation” not being able to have succession is semantics, since it confuses the Apostle’s themselves with those who carry their authority. The Bishops are not Apostles themselves.

   As for 2nd Timothy 2, I think your approach to the Epistle is wrong. Paul is speaking to Timothy as *appointed bishop*, not as Timothy as mere friend (e.g. 1 Tim 1:3). Timothy had very real authority over his region of jurisdiction. And Paul saying here and elewhere to entrust this teaching authority to other men is AS at it’s most basic form. Here is where Sola Scriptura shows it’s head, since it prevents the Protestant from even considering such a concept being taught – they are forced to explain away any such reading, even if the reading is “plain English” or even simply plausible. You’re reducing Paul’s entrustment to Timothy to simply “hearing” in the most bare sense of the term, and not a more robust “heard from me” including everything Paul passed on from laying on hands to living example (which is buttressed by the many other things Paul says to Timothy regarding his appointment).

   You go onto Titus 1:5, but that’s again AS as plain as day. It’s Sola Scriptura ruling out such a reading a priori.

   Your take on the issue of “bishops” (which not every Christian is) and “laying on of hands” (a very biblical and ancient way of appointing and passing on authority) makes nonsense of the concepts, since *without* AS it becomes self-appointment. There is zero support in any way of self-appointment in Scripture.

   Your claim that Paul disproves all this is false on two accounts: (a) he was clearly called by an extraordinary means through Jesus, so would not model the normative/ordinary accounts and (b) you’re assuming none of the interaction or people he was with were ordained bishops. You also betray the fact Paul met up with the rest of the apostles and other church authorities and thus was not acting as a lone ranger of sorts (e.g. Acts 9:26).

   Your appeal to Mark 9 doesn’t work since it’s (a) not speaking of a church authority, and (b) is only to confirm that outside the *ordinary* and *normative* parameters of the visible Church, others can at times do the work of God (casting out demons and other miracles is not unique to church authorities).

   Matthew 18 speaks of if a dispute arises with another Christian to “tell it to the Church,” yet this is nonsense if the Bible can settle the matter. But if there is no Church in the sense of AS, then there is no church to “tell it to”, and instead the appeal is to mere self-appointed men.

   Your overall approach is unbalance (and hence highly unfair/biased) since it (a) is approached from the perspective of SS, forcing you to rule out even the plausibility of Catholic appeals to texts, (b) ignores the earliest historical evidence, and (c) doesn’t do justice to the Biblical evidence.

   You also said in your first clip in 26:01 that most denominational differences are on minor matters – which is not accurate at all. There is disagreement on virtually every doctrine in Protestantism, except for maybe the Trinity, and this is *excluding* liberalism. For example, Protestantism is divided in almost in half on whether salvation can be lost or not. That’s not minor nor due to liberalism. Whether infants should be baptized is another example. Whether Christ’s Active Obedience is imputed is another. I could go on and on. The reality of the scandal of schism and heresy due to these deep doctrinal divisions was simply whitewashed by you, and that’s not right.

   p.s. you made a serious unbiblical heretical blunder when you said in 18:00 of your first movie that Jesus took on God’s Wrath, that simply isn’t taught in Scripture. See this for starters.

   Unfortunately, I don’t see a post option for “email me of follow up comments,” so I wont know when/if you respond.

4. Wednesday, December 1, 2010

   Chris,
   https://conspiracyclothes.com/nowheretorun/ntr-92910/#comments

   I agree with some of your ideas, especially those regarding 2012, however I to am an writer and researcher who is exposing the misinformation, disinformation and lies found in the Bible and the doctrines of the Jewish and Roman Orthodox Catholic and Christian churches. It is your comments about the formulation of the Roman Canon where disagree with you. You quote data and dates that refer to information around 175 A.D. as they relate to the creation of what has become the Roman Bible Canon. I claim that the Roman Canon aka Bible was a doctored document by then. What most of you ignore is the fact that Marcion was the man who organized the first Bible around 100 A.D. It was called the New Testament back then. Marcion used un-doctored un-Judaized letters, which primarily came from Paul, to create the New Testament.

   Two hundred years later when Rome decided to form it’s version of satanic Christianity they added Marcions New Testament to the Hebrew Bible, but not before Jerome, his “Copy Pasters” etc., doctored it and Judiazed it. While doctoring Marcions New Testament these Roman Bible Canon compilers and the “Powers That Be,” destroyed Marcions reputation. By then Marcion was dead and his followers were not able to defend that damage Roman Christianity did to Marcion and his memory. Marcions Bibles were destroyed so that no copies of it existed in the main stream, so people can not prove how badly these Roman Canon Bible Compilers doctored and Judiazed it.

   I also disagree with you regarding the Nag Hammadi Scroll collection and believe they are more authentic than the later books that were added to Marcions New Testament.

   Jesus followers, members of “The Way” were not allowed at the Council of Nicea, they were enemies of the state and still remained in hiding at the time. The Christian Gnostics were also not allowed at these council meetings where decisions were being made as to what went into the Jewish and Roman Orthodox Catholic and Christian Canon.

   Jesus was not a Jew he was a Nazarene from Galilee and they had there own scriptures and doctrines which were very different from the Jewish, Hebrew Israelites and Roman religious doctrines which were in league with the Ashkenazim, Sephardic, Turkish, Semite, Edomite bloodline beliefs.

   Jesus said that a religion would be created after he was gone that would NOT PREACH WHAT HE PREACHED OR TEACH WHAT HE TAUGHT AND THAT IS THE JEWISH AND ROMAN ORTHODOX CATHOLIC AND CHIRSTIAN CHURCH MOVEMENT.

   I will also send you one of my articles on Marcions New Testament.

   The Catholic and Christian church promotes the teachings of Yahweh Ildabaoth the Demiurge aka Jehovah and the alien group we call the Nordic Aryan Alien “Fallen Elohim Watchers,” which are all physical biological entities we refer to as aliens today. Jesus described them symbolically as Satanic, Snakes and Scorpions and Yahweh as a lion-faced reptilian entity so BUYERS BEWARE of the doctrines of the POWERS AND PRINCIPALITES.

   To comment on what I have said please contact me at:
   rootrace@yahoo.com.