I am happy use this post to expand our discussions. In this thread you may open discussion on synod cuts, convention proposals, the Anti-Christ, NWO, contempo worship, or any faith-based issue or concern.
I would ask that the discussion on UOJ remain in the thread below. I'm still trying to wrap my brain around the semantics involved in that discussion.
52 comments:
You mean UOJ should stay in these threads from February and March?:
http://bailingwater.blogspot.com/2009/02/wels-woes.html
http://bailingwater.blogspot.com/2009/03/making-stronger-and-clearer.html
Bruce, there's a current UOJ discussion in this thread "Synod Convention"
http://bailingwater.blogspot.com/2009/05/synod-convention.html
Good to post the other threads as they were good discussions.
>>>To entertain you I suggest you post a specific question related to the N.W.O. on the thread John just created and I'll answer it.<<<
OK, here goes.
Brett, could you please explain to me what you believe the New World Order is? Furthermore, could you tell me who you think the Antichrist is and elaborate on the role that the Antichrist plays in this New World Order?
I work with many Christians who believe in the, for want of a better word, the mainstream version of the end times as popularized in the recent fiction series "Left Behind".
Here are a few major themes:
#1. The decline of the United States as a fundamental player in the coming 7 years of tribulation.
#2. The rise of a revived Roman Empire as evidenced by the European Union. Generally, the anti-Christ is portrayed as the leader of this new Roman Empire.
#3. The restoration of Israel as a nation. Although this was completed in 1948, an event still necessary is the rebuilding of the Temple along with the reinstitution of animal sacrafice (ala the Old Testament).
#4. The Rapture. Believers in Christ will not be here on Earth to suffer during the last 7 years. Have you seen those bumper stickers: "Warning: In case of Rapture this vehicle will be unmanned" ?
#5. A geopolitical endgame that centers on Israel, and in particular, Jerusalem. Russia and an Arabic Confederacy comes against Israel and is destroyed. Later, the East (Red China ?) comes across Asia to take control of the Middle East while the Roman Empire comes to face them down at the valley/plains of Armageddon.
#6 Jesus comes back right before the world is about to be destroyed by man, and restablishes a 1,000 year reign from Jeruslam. At the end of that 1,000 years, there is one final show down between God and the Devil, Devil loses, and new Earth is created.
There are many variations to the above, but those are the main points I would say.
Oh, this is NOT Brett Meyers....
Luther argued that the Pope was the anti-Christ. I was also taught this in WELS schools.
Frankly, I don't believe it and feel this was Luther's way to denounce the Roman Catholic church after his attempts at reform were refuted.
Now, I do NOT believe in the theology of the RCC. That church body is greatly flawed.
However, the pope is no more the anti-Christ than the bishops and archbishops of the Eastern Orthodox church, the head of the Southern Baptist Alliance, or any other large Christian denomination that has false doctrine.
True, maybe some of these church bodies have the "spirit" of antiChrist. Maybe the WELS has some people within it (laity or called workers) who could be considered to have this spirit also.
But THE Anti-Christ?
No, I don't think so.
Luther certainly was correct in his criticism of the RCC. However, labeling the pope as the "great Anti-Christ" had more to do with the circumstance that Luther found himself in opposition to.
If Luther would have been alive in medieval Russia and lead a reformation, the anti-Christ may have been pointed at as being the archbishop of Constaninople.
Anonymous WELS poster at 7:35PM, good questions. Let's begin by first establishing whether the New World Order (a.k.a. - Global World Order, New Financial System, International Order, New Age Order etc) is real or imagined. Since CNN is a fairly mainstream news source let's look at what they've said about the NWO.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=cnn+new+world+order&aq=f
I'll tantalize the uninitiated with this quote from David Spangler (Director of Planetary Initiative, United Nations), "Christ is the same force as Lucifer... Lucifer prepares man for the experience of Christhood. (He is) the great initiator.... Lucifer works within each of us to bring us to wholeness, and as we move into a New Age ... each of us in some way is brought to that point which I term the Luciferic Initiation ... for it is an invitation into the New Age.” (David Spangler, Reflections on the Christ p.44-45 and "No one will enter the New World Order unless he or she will make a pledge to worship Lucifer. No one will enter the New Age unless he will take a Luciferian initiation..."
In Christ,
Brett Meyer
The United Nations is at the center of the emerging NWO.
Lucis Trust known prior to 1922 as the Lucifer Publishing Company was started by Alice Bailey, theosophist and New Age follower of Satanist Helena Blavatsky, and is a publishing company dedicated to disseminating satanic material as a United Nations NGO. Following what the Lucist Trust and the Thoesophic religion calls The Plan, the United Nations is currently the global body at the center of international efforts to establish the New World Order. Lucis Trust is a member of the United Nations Economic and Social Council.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucis_Trust
United Nations prayer room is also dedicated to Satan and maintained by the Lucis Trust.
http://www.aquaac.org/un/medroom.html
I shuddered when Bush II had the US flag lowered to half mast when the last pope died.
JK
For the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil...
Anonymous on June 16, 2009 7:35 PM, if you feel that I have sufficiently established the reality of individuals wanting to bring about a global governing entity called amoung other names the New World Order I will continue to answer the other parts of your question, my opinion as to who the Antichrist is and His involvement with the NWO.
Let me know. If further information is required to establish the NWO please request it.
For those interested in why the subject of the NWO, United Nations and Satanism could be related to anything in the Lutheran Synods I offer this.
Recalling the quotes from United Nations David Spangler concerning the requirement to worship Lucifer to enter the NWO -
CHURCH AND CHANGE - WELS
"We are excited to announce that world-class Christian researcher and communicator Dr. Leonard Sweet will be the keynote speaker for this year's conference. He will address the general session all day on Thursday, November 10. More information about Dr. Sweet can be found at
http://www.leonardsweet.com/biocv.asp"
In Dr. Leonard Sweet's book entitled Quantum Spirituality he give credit to David Spangler, "(p179) Footnote: 86. I am grateful to David Spangler for his help in formulating this "new cell" understanding of New Light leadership." The promotion of Lutheran small groups or cell groups was formulated in part by a devout Satanist.
Here is a web page providing a link to the book online and discussing quotes from the book.
www.geocities.com/christianconcerns/index.quantum.htm
This is the keynote speaker at the WELS Church and Change conference.
This history may help explain:
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=160
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=159
I think we should talk about Area 51! Maybe Brett has some good ideas about that, too.
After all that nonsense, can anyone take anything that Brett says with any seriousness at all???
>>>I think we should talk about Area 51! Maybe Brett has some good ideas about that, too.<<<
Actually, it's funny that you should mention that because it's actually one of the key tenets of the NWO conspiracy theory that the aliens (probably the Grays, perhaps the Reptilians)are in league with the secret cabal of the Illuminati to bring about the New World Order.
No seriously, people (like Brett) actually believe that.
>>>if you feel that I have sufficiently established the reality of individuals wanting to bring about a global governing entity called amoung other names the New World Order I will continue to answer the other parts of your question<<<
Well, not really. You seem to be confusing the everyday use of NWO in political parlance with the use of it in conspiracy theory. They are two different things. F
or example, wikipedia has one page dedicated to the usage of NWO in modern politics simply to refer to any significant shift in geopolitics. It also has a separate page dedicated to the usage of NWO in conspiracy theory to refer to a secret alliance of shadowy figures intent on world domination.
So when, for example, Lou Dobbs on CNN uses the term, he's using it in a political sense, just as people from FDR to George H.W. Bush used the term to talk about changes in the political landscape.
That doesn't prove a thing about the existence of the conspiracy theory NWO.
But, in any case, I'd like for you to continue with your explanation of who you think the Antichrist is.
By the way, if anyone actually believes any of this stuff that Brett's saying, you should read G. William Domhoff, a professor of psychology with expertise in power structures who has studied all of these conspiracy theories.
He points out pretty forcefully how silly all of these conspiracy theories really are. At one point these conspiracy nuts were convinced that the Communists were behind the conspiracy, pushing for global communism. Then when communism fell, they had to switch to thinking the UN was really the one behind the conspiracy. But now, as the UN as proven completely powerless, they are beginning to look for other groups to suspect.
It would seem that Brett is a bit behind the times in his conspiracy theory. He still seems to be on the UN conspiracy.
Here's a quote from Domhoff:
There are several problems with a conspiratorial view that don't fit with what we know about power structures. First, it assumes that a small handful of wealthy and highly educated people somehow develop an extreme psychological desire for power that leads them to do things that don't fit with the roles they seem to have. For example, that rich capitalists are no longer out to make a profit, but to create a one-world government. Or that elected officials are trying to get the constitution suspended so they can assume dictatorial powers. These kinds of claims go back many decades now, and it is always said that it is really going to happen this time, but it never does. Since these claims have proved wrong dozens of times by now, it makes more sense to assume that leaders act for their usual reasons, such as profit-seeking motives and institutionalized roles as elected officials. Of course they want to make as much money as they can, and be elected by huge margins every time, and that can lead them to do many unsavory things, but nothing in the ballpark of creating a one-world government or suspending the constitution.
Anonymous on June 18, 2009 7:04 AM, whether or not anyone believes or understands the information concerning the emerging New World Order has no bearing on my contention that the WELS doctrine of UOJ is false. As I've said before, you've weakened other Anonymous posters defense of UOJ when you try to defend UOJ by attacking me on another issue. It's a juvenile act. It also shows that you judge Christian doctrine not by Scripture or the Confessions alone but by the person who presents it. WELS has departed far from Christian doctrine and practice.
Anonymous on June 18, 2009 7:47 AM, you falsely attribute to me beliefs that I don't believe and have never promoted.
Anonymous on June 18, 2009 7:53 AM, the definition of a conspiracy is, "an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons." The NWO is just that as even discussed by the liberal CNN who are agast at the implemention of the NWO without consent of the people or open public disclosure as to what it's goals are. http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=lou+dobbs+north+american+union&aq=f
Anonymous on June 18, 2009 8:01 AM, you state, "But now, as the UN as proven completely powerless, they are beginning to look for other groups to suspect." This is blatantly incorrect from even a brief view of current news events. I'm shocked at the absurdity of your statement. See quotes below but also reference the Lou Dobbs, CNN YouTube videos above for further proof.
Pres. George HW Bush, Speech to UN, January 31, 1992, "It was just one year ago that the world saw this new, invigorated United Nations in action as this Council stood fast against aggression and stood for the sacred principles enshrined in the U.N. Charter. And now it's time to step forward again, make the internal reforms, accelerate the revitalization, accept the responsibilities necessary for a vigorous and effective United Nations. I want to assure the members of this Council and the Secretary-General, the United Nations can count on our full support in this task."
Pres. GHW Bush, in a speech Bush entitled "Toward a New World Order" before Congress on September 11, 1990, "[The war in Iraq is] a rare opportunity
to move toward an historic period of cooperation. Out of these troubled times... a New World Order can emerge."
Also Pres. GHW Bush January 1991, "We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a new world order, a world where the rule of law, not the rule of the jungle, governs the conduct of nations. When we are successful, and we will be, we have a real chance at this new world order, an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the UN’s founders."
Brett, you're still making the same mistake. The phrase "New World Order" can be used in two ways.
The first usage is one that is fairly common in international circles. It simply means "a new way of doing things when it comes to geopolitics and diplomacy". There's nothing sinister or secret about it. Those quotes you gave from George HW Bush are using the phrase in this sense. If the NWO is indeed a ultra-secret movement, why would a president even talk about it in very public speeches? Because he's simply using a commonly used phrase to talk about something completely innocuous.
>>>Anonymous on June 18, 2009 8:01 AM, you state, "But now, as the UN as proven completely powerless, they are beginning to look for other groups to suspect." This is blatantly incorrect from even a brief view of current news events. I'm shocked at the absurdity of your statement.<<<
Actually, even the NWO conspiracy nuts admit that the events of the past decade have demonstrated that the UN must not be the engine of the secret NWO. The fact that the US, China, North Korea et. al. have, in the past decade, flipped their noses at the UN and done what they pleased shows that the UN is completely powerless and ineffectual. Again, this is coming from the nuts themselves. You seem to be behind on your conspiracy theory reading. The UN as the means of the NWO is totally passe among the nuts. Get with the times, dude. If you're gonna be a nut, at least be an up-to-date nut.
By the way, you still haven't talked about the Antichrist yet. That was the whole point of my questions to begin with. Who do you think the Antichrist is?
When it comes to all of this New World Order nonsense, it always seems that Occam's Razor applies. Occam's Razor states that the simplest explanation is almost always the best.
So what's more likely? That a secret cabal of elites has been plotting (unsuccessfully it would seem) for at least 500 years to take over the world in complete and unbroken secrecy? Or that there have been a lot of greedy people over the last 500 years who have done a lot of things to make themselves money and get some power?
You'd think that if the world's elite were trying to take over the world, they could do it a whole lot faster than 500 years. Napoleon by himself almost took over the world. Hitler by himself almost took over the world. It shouldn't really take these guys centuries to do.
NWO conspiracy nuts remind me of the nuts who try to predict the end of the world: "It's really gonna happen NOW. No, wait, I mean NOW. Oops, seriously, it's gonna happen right NOW..." and so on.
Anonymous at 1:11PM, Pres. Bush said, "we have a real chance at this new world order, an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the UN’s founders." So if we show what the promise and vision of the United Nations founders was for the New World Order we can clearly determine if NWO is just a sweeping catch all phrase for change or a specific entity with specific purposes and goals.
I would be interested to know if you think the Socialization of the United States is just a series of unfortunate changes or the execution of a specific plan to move all control to a central government in order to advance the emergence of the North American Union (NAU). The NAU of course being the last union required to establish the global New World Order along with the current African Union, European Union and Asian Union.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=cnn+North+american+union&aq=f
Also, this animation on Wikipedia (your referenced web site) shows not the decline of the UN but undeniable control over every country in this world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UN_member_states_animation.gif
>>>So if we show what the promise and vision of the United Nations founders was for the New World Order we can clearly determine if NWO is just a sweeping catch all phrase for change or a specific entity with specific purposes and goals.<<<
Brett, you obviously don't know your history. At the close of World War 2, the United Nations was formed to try to avert more world wars through diplomacy. This was spoken of at the time as a new world order, a new way of handling diplomacy and geopolitics. That's it. We can debate the function and effectiveness of the UN (I personally think it's an ineffectual waste of time). But to claim that this somehow was according to the plotting of some Medieval Illuminati is foolishness.
Thus, when President Bush talked about the UN living up to its role in the new world order, he was simply referring to the intent the founders of the UN had, not the intent of some shadowy cabal.
Again, you don't seem to understand that "new world order" is an innocuous political term used all the time, used in various ways, used to describe different things. Thus, you can't point to it every time a politician uses it and say, "Aha! Here's proof!" Besides, you never answered my question about why, if the NWO is such a secret thing, presidents would casually talk about it in public speeches.
>>>I would be interested to know if you think the Socialization of the United States is just a series of unfortunate changes or the execution of a specific plan to move all control to a central government in order to advance the emergence of the North American Union (NAU).<<<
Yeah, I think the socialization of America is the execution of a plan by some very liberal Democrats who are trying to enforce their left-wing ideology. I don't think, however, that this has any ties to some secret cabal with ties to the Middle Ages.
Also, this talk about some secret push for a North American union is hogwash. It is simply and demonstrably false. It's the kind of stuff you read about on right-wing extremist websites, right next to the page on getting rid of Jews.
The only proof that people who see a conspiracy to unite North America can point to is NAFTA. Just one problem, though. NAFTA favors capitalists and hurts socialists. It is favored by the right and hated by the left. Thus, it can't be part of a plan to institute global socialism.
>>>Also, this animation on Wikipedia (your referenced web site) shows not the decline of the UN but undeniable control over every country in this world.<<<
Nice animation. Very pretty. But again you have missed the point. Just because more nations have joined the UN, doesn't mean that the UN is more powerful. Who cares if everyone in the world is a member of a powerless, ineffectual organization that plays no role in true diplomacy or policy?
As I pointed out before, modern NWO conspiracy theory has moved away from claiming the UN is the vehicle of the NWO. The situations in Iraq, Darfur, North Korea, and Iran in this decade have proven that nations still have the power to act unilaterally without consequence. In fact, nationalism has risen to new heights in this decade. So, if the elites are really working through the UN to enact a NWO, they're doing a pretty terrible job of it.
Besides, you still haven't answered my main question. Who do you think the Antichrist is? It shouldn't be a hard question to answer. Just fill in the blank: the Antichrist is _______________.
Anonymous at 1:29, you state, "You'd think that if the world's elite were trying to take over the world, they could do it a whole lot faster than 500 years."
Henry Kissinger - (at minute 2:40)
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=kissinger+create+a+new+world+order&aq=f
"The extraordinary impact of the President-elect (Obama) on the imagination of humanity is an important element in shaping a new world order."
Henry Kissinger, Evian France, May 21, 1992 Bilderburger meeting, "Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful. This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government."
Paul Warburg, testifying before the US Senate Feb. 17, 1950, "We will have a world government whether you like it or not. The only question is whether that government will be achieved by conquest or consent."
The New World Order is not just a catch phrase:
New York Times Sept. 24, 2001, "If the New World Order agenda is not realized by the terrorist attacks on America and if American's don't agree to give up their weapons and relinquish their sovereignty to the New World Order, the next attack will be the use of chemical, biological and/or atomic warfare against the American people. The architects of the New World Order will not hesitate to use as a last resort an atomic or hydrogen bomb in a major American city."
Your contention that there isn't a real NWO entity is absurd in light of just this one world leader.
Hmm, based on that last post I now have two questions for you, Brett. They both can be answered very simply and directly.
1. Who is the Antichrist?
2. Who was behind the attacks of 9/11?
Anonymous you state, "Also, this talk about some secret push for a North American union is hogwash. It is simply and demonstrably false."
Not true.
U.S. President Bush, Mexico president Vincent Fox and Canadian Prime Minister Stephan Harper met in 2005 in Waco, TX and agreed to create the NAU.
Even a quick glance at the “North American Security and Prosperity” page of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives makes clear how ardently the organization champions SPP. The Canadian Council of Chief Executives was listed alongside the Mexican Council on Foreign Relations (COMEXI, Consejo Mexicano de Asuntos Internationales) and the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) itself as being the sponsors for a March 2005 CFR-published task force report titled “Creating a North American Community -- Chairman’s Statement,” pubpublished before the March 23, 2005 trilateral proclamation of SPP in Waco, Texas. The three groups are also attributed with sponsoring the May 2005 CFR publication, “Building a North American Community.”
The creation of the NACC is following the course prescribed by Robert A. Pastor, the American University professor who is was co-chair of the CFR task force that produced the two CFR publications described in the above paragraph. At a press conference presenting the CFR report, “Building a North American Community,” Robert Pastor said: "The North American summit that occurred in Texas on March 23rd is a very important statement. But if it’s to be more than a photo opportunity, we felt that a second institution was essential, and that would be a North American advisory council made up of eminent individuals, appointed for terms that are longer than those of the governments, and staggered over time. This council would propose ideas for dealing with North American challenges, whether they be regulatory or transportation or infrastructure or education, and put forth options to the three leaders to consider ways to adopt a North American approach."
Robert Pastor described this council as playing an active policy role in the formation of his hoped-for North American Community.
And hopefully, the three leaders would turn to this North American council and say, “Look we’re getting wonderful advice on what we should do about North America as a whole. Why don’t you prepare a plan for us on education, on agriculture, on the environment, and we would consider that even as we consider the advice of our government.”
Dr. Pastor’s comments seem to prefigure the June 15, 2006 first meeting of the NACC, even down to describing the membership of his “advisory council” as consisting of ten members from each of the trilateral states. If Dr. Pastor’s roadmap continues to be predictive, we recommend a serious look at his book, "Toward a North American Community," in which he argues for the creation of a European Union-style fully institutionalized North American Union, constituting a super-regional government complete with a court, a parliament, a chief executive, and a new currency described as the “Amero.” http://www.infowars.com/articles/nwo/american_union_bush_fast_tracks_formation.htm
The Council on Foreign Relations wrote the script on how to bring it about. http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/NorthAmerica_TF_final.pdf
CFR Membership during Bush presidency:
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/cfr-members.htm
http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/nau.asp
http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/ameronote.asp
http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/amerocoin.asp
1. Who is the Antichrist?
2. Who was behind the attacks of 9/11?
I agree with Martin Luther that the seat of the AntiChrist is the Papacy, the Roman Catholic Pope.
My personal belief is that the New Age religion is awaiting Maitreya who they call the Cosmic Christ, the embodiment of every religions hoped for savior. At this point from what I can figure Maitreya will be the false prophet spoken of in Scripture. Certainly there are many Antichrists as Scripture tells us and many have already come and gone. Satan is the father of lies so make of it what you will in light of Scripture but I know that the NWO, United Nations, Lucis Trust, Theosophy, the New Age religions (all those bringing about the emergence of the New Age Order and open worship of Lucifer) believe that Maitreya is the christ they have been waiting for.
9-11
Oh you guys are so tricky and smart I can hardly keep up with you.
I believe that whoever planted the Nano Thermite in the buildings is responsible. http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=nano+thermite&aq=f
I also think that the DVD Loose Change is outstanding evidence of what happened on that day. I highly recommend it.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=loose+change&aq=f
Anonymous at 3:55pm,
NAU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwrQhiuX35E
CNBC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hiPrsc9g98 "The rest of the public is really sort of with their head in the sand on this one"
>>>I agree with Martin Luther that the seat of the AntiChrist is the Papacy, the Roman Catholic Pope. <<<
No, Martin Luther didn't believe that the papacy is the SEAT of the Antichrist. Martin Luther believed that the papacy IS the Antichrist. I like how you wiggled out of that one before showing that you really think Maitreya, working with the UN is actually the Antichrist.
>>>I believe that whoever planted the Nano Thermite in the buildings is responsible.<<<
Wow. Planted nano thermite, huh?
Folks, I hope with all of this walk about Maitreya and nano thermite we can all see that Brett is, for lack of a better term, a whackjob. I'm not sure what else to call someone who believes in 9/11 conspiracy theories, thinking that our own government destroyed those buildings and killed those people instead of Islamic terrorists. No sane and logical person believes that. All 9/11 conspiracies have been thoroughly and completely debunked. (There was a great article in Popular Science a few years ago that tore Loose Change to shreds showing how ludicrous it really is.)
I think everyone here can now see clearly what kind of person Brett is. I'd suggest we all just ignore him from this point on. Rational argumentation never works on these right-wing whackjobs. John, I'd even consider banning Brett if I were you--he has completely hijacked your blog with his insane ramblings about Maitreya and nano thermite.
Anonymous at 5:43pm, you state, "John, I'd even consider banning Brett if I were you--he has completely hijacked your blog with his insane ramblings about Maitreya and nano thermite."
You guys spent more pixels asking me to comment on these things than I used stating my opinion - on a thread that welcomed such discussion no less.
My earlier points still stand, the very fact you clearly, and with little stealth or tact, prodded me to comment on factual information concerning a topic unrelated to UOJ in order to discredit me literally screams that UOJ does not have a Scriptural or Confessional leg to stand on. Pure human reason encased in enthusiasm (justification without and before the Means of Grace).
I do appreciate the opportunity to communicate these important facts even though you've approached this in a juvenile fashion.
In Christ,
Brett Meyer
Anonymous at 5:43PM, rereading you post you state, "No, Martin Luther didn't believe that the papacy is the SEAT of the Antichrist. Martin Luther believed that the papacy IS the Antichrist. I like how you wiggled out of that one before showing that you really think Maitreya, working with the UN is actually the Antichrist."
The papacy is the position, the Pope is the person. Dictionary.com provides this definition of papacy: "The office, dignity, or jurisdiction of the pope." The Antichrist who reigns prior to Christ's return in the position of the papacy is 'The' Antichrist. Those popes who have been in the position are antichrist's but not "The" Antichrist.
You fail miserably in trying to discredit me by your vast ignorance and transparency.
And take time to view the news report videos before you comment it would help to temper your misdirected enthusiasm.
In Christ,
Brett Meyer
Brett is correct. I was asked to open a thread so that discussion could be had about the Antichrist etc.
Let's leave the name calling out of the discussion.
Each of us can use Scripture, the Confessions, and our own wisdom to judge the merits of the discussion.
>>>The papacy is the position, the Pope is the person. Dictionary.com provides this definition of papacy: "The office, dignity, or jurisdiction of the pope." The Antichrist who reigns prior to Christ's return in the position of the papacy is 'The' Antichrist. Those popes who have been in the position are antichrist's but not "The" Antichrist.<<<
Nope, that's completely incorrect. According to Scripture, there is one Man of Lawlessnes (Antichrist) who reigns from the early church till the Last Day. According to the Confessions, each and every pope IS the Antichrist. As Luther put it: "Der Papst ist der rechte Antichrist". If you don't speak German, Brett, that translates: "The pope (not "the papacy") is the true Antichrist". (How can you claim to be a Confessional scholar if you don't even speak German?!?)
That's something that every 8th grade confirmation student knows. I'm quite surprised that such a Confessional scholar such as you claim to be would make such an elementary mistake. Time to brush up on Scripture and the Confessions, huh?
Nano Thermite
I disagree strongly with the Catholic Church, but I also disagree strongly with Luther's statement that the pope in Rome is the anti-Christ.
Why not any of the archbishops in the Eastern Orthodox church?
Why not the leader of the Egyptian Coptics?
That is Luther's spin on the passage.
I agree with Luther's main tenents of salvation through faith, word alone, etc., but he was a sinful, and sometimes angy man, LIKE US ALL.
He is not God, nor is he one of the divinely inspired authors of the bible.
How about all the stuff Luther wrote about the Jews (that was later used by the Nazis to justify their extermination of the Jews)?
You want to give that the weight of scripture also?
How about when Luther allowed one of the German princes to have 2 wives (granted, he regretted that decision). You want that given the weight of scripture also?
WELS, there are times you are a great blessing, there are times you are a great burden.
Of course, you can say that about anyone, including myself.
Anonymous at 8:44PM, you state, "Nope, that's completely incorrect. According to Scripture, there is one Man of Lawlessnes (Antichrist)" then you state, "each and every pope IS the Antichrist."
This is inconsistent. Or is this a Wide and Narrow application of the word "one"? I believe I was consistent with what you said Scripture states, "there is one Man of Lawlessness" and I also confessed that each pope has been an antichrist. You however are saying that although Scripture says there's one specific Man of Lawlessness that each pope is that one man, 'The Antichrist' - please.
And then you say, "(How can you claim to be a Confessional scholar if you don't even speak German?!?)" You must know me personally to say with conviction I don't know German concerning a quote that hasn't been posted before - which for everyone who doesn't know me it is true - I don't know German. I know a little Spanish though. You're not the guy who masticates his German are you? Anyway, it was an unChristian remark and you do harm to everyone who posts as 'Anonymous' Lutherans.
John's statement above is correct, "Each of us can use Scripture, the Confessions, and our own wisdom to judge the merits of the discussion" and should also be seen as an admonition to maintain a curtious discussion.
Thank you,
In Christ,
Brett Meyer
>>>I disagree strongly with the Catholic Church, but I also disagree strongly with Luther's statement that the pope in Rome is the anti-Christ. Why not any of the archbishops in the Eastern Orthodox church? Why not the leader of the Egyptian Coptics? That is Luther's spin on the passage.<<<
No, this isn't Luther's spin on things, this is Scripture's spin on things. According to Scripture, the Antichrist is an offshoot of the Roman Empire who rules from Rome and sets himself up as the ruler of the church from the time of the early church till the Last Day. Hmm, there would seem to be only one person that this applies to, huh?
>>>This is inconsistent. Or is this a Wide and Narrow application of the word "one"? I believe I was consistent with what you said Scripture states, "there is one Man of Lawlessness" and I also confessed that each pope has been an antichrist. You however are saying that although Scripture says there's one specific Man of Lawlessness that each pope is that one man, 'The Antichrist' - please.<<<
Brett, according to Scripture, there is one man of lawlessness who rules from the time of the early church until the Last Day. Obviously, given the fact that this man rules for thousands of years, the word man is used to represent a series of men who rule in succession. Thus, it is entirely Scriptural and Confessional to say that the pope is the Antichrist. Every man who serves as pope then fulfills that role of Antichrist. They aren't individually different antichrists; they are collectively the Antichrist.
Again, as I said before, this is basic Lutheran doctrine. I'm shocked that you don't know these things.
Nano Thermite
Smalcald Articles II:
This teaching shows forcefully that the Pope is the very Antichrist, who has exalted himself above, and opposed himself against Christ, because he will not permit Christians to be saved without his power, which, nevertheless, is nothing, and is neither ordained nor commanded by God.
Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope 57:
Therefore, even though the bishop of Rome had the primacy by divine right, yet since he defends godless services and doctrine conflicting with the Gospel, obedience is not due him; yea, it is necessary to resist him as Antichrist. The errors of the Pope are manifest and not trifling.
The identification of the papacy with the Antichrist does not begin with Luther. I quote Bernard McGinn, noted scholar of apocalyptic thinking:
“The contrast between the compromised popes of the time and wide-spread hopes for more saintly popes to come was at the root of the formation of a new and potent apocalyptic myth during the course of the thirteenth century, the legend of the ‘pastor angelicus,’ the Angelic Pope. . . Apocalyptic themes could be used not only to strengthen hopes for a holy pope to
come, but also as a weapon to attack a present pope whose lack of sanctity, opulence of life, or involvement in politics might be an
occasion for scandal. Since the Antichrist had long been portrayed as a false teacher sitting in the Temple (i.e. the Church), one might
go a step further and identify some present or proximate occupant of the Chair of Peter with the Final Enemy. The identification of the pope with the Antichrist begins in the thirteenth not the sixteenth century.” (p.186)
McGinn, Bernard Visions of the End. New York: Columbia University Press, 1979
>>>The identification of the papacy with the Antichrist does not begin with Luther.<<<
Yup, that's a very important point to make. People have seen that the Pope is the Antichrist long before Luther and long since Luther. This was not just an idea that Luther suddenly had because he was mad at the Pope. Scripture clearly and undeniable identifies the Pope as the Antichrist, even in the Old Testament book of Daniel.
I mean, come on, according to the Bible, the Antichrist will be a church leader who is a direct successor to the Roman Empire, who reigns in the city of Rome, who claims the power and authority of God, who is in power from the early church until the Last Day, and so on.
With that in mind, who else could be the Antichrist?!?
>>>With that in mind, who else could be the Antichrist?!?<<<
Barack Obama.
What a wasted thread this has become! I'm out of here.
No thanks,
Bailin' Out
I just want to make a quick comment about the antichrist discussion, holy cow. Are you serious? Whoever thinks Barack Obama is the antichrist is seriously in need of some mental/emotional/physical rest and/or relaxation.
On to my real reason for posting, as I’m continuing to read through the various discussions about whether or not to close MLS or missions at this coming convention I finally realized that I have personally experienced this before. It has been a while ago, but I am a survivor of the WELS’ mismanagement and gross negligence of peoples’ offerings and of peoples’ lives – the choices and decisions parents and students have made for their children and for themselves etc. I started out at Martin Luther Preparatory School (MLPS) in Praire du Chien and was a freshman in the ’94-’95 school year, the year it closed. Despite the knowledge that MLPS would be closing at the end of this year, many parents still chose to send their kids to that school. Granted, many were little brothers/sisters of current and/or former students of MLPS, but some chose to go there because they wanted to for whatever reasons. I think my freshman class was around 40 students, which isn’t bad considering. I remember that being an awkward year (in many ways for many reasons). The thing that was most striking, however, is that the students of MLPS really did not want their school to close. They wanted everything to continue on as it had been, because it was a good school and many great things happen there and the memories made there will be cherished forever. How can you take that away from us? It appears to me that once a loyalty towards an institution such as a prep school has been established for whatever reasons, being told that that institution must be closed due to lack of finances is really disturbing to the families and friends of that institution. This would be upsetting to anyone in any situation similar to this. Can you imagine the uproar that would occur if Americans were told Disneyworld had to close cause it’s too expensive? Or on a more local level, let’s say your favorite shopping store were closing or even your local church. The emotions and belief systems wrapped up in something that has come to represent so many positive things (e.g., joy, happiness, security, structure) are simply hard to let go of or walk away from. If people didn’t think/feel positively towards something such as a prep school, there’s probably little chance those people would even bother with such a school. But for the ones that do like it, being told it might have to close is very disturbing to those people. From what I’ve been reading and listening to, I am not at all surprised by the emotions of the people who are friends, families, students, and faculty/staff of MLS. They have every right to be upset and to argue that their school should stay open. It’s a natural outcome that arises from a situation such as this.
Cont.--
At the same time, though there were many negative emotions present during the final year of MLPS and in the transition years when it amalgamated with Northwestern Prep School (NPS), people eventually “got over” the hurt feelings and emotions that resulted from their school of choice being closed. This too is a natural outcome of such a disturbance, that people eventually grow to accept and/or adapt to the current situation for mental health reasons and also cause it’s simply a part of life that we continually grow and improve and let bygones be bygones. The memories still remain, but the present and future are the focus and making the best of the situation you’re currently in is the best thing to do, esp. during times of uncertainty and unrest.
If MLS should close at the end of the 2009-2010 school year, I would presume that many if not all of the remaining faculty and staff would receive calls to either LPS or to other high schools in the synod (an attempt to make a fitting match to place them elsewhere). I’m sure though that there may be some who do not get placed right away, if at all, which is where the hurt emotions get larger and hurt that much more. That’s when the individual him- or herself needs to then make a decision that s/he is going to move on with his or her life to the best of his or her ability in the best way possible. Granted, this is easier said than done, but it’s his or her personal responsibility to take control of his or her life and make the best of any situation. I’m not sure how many current MLS students would actually go to LPS for high school, as there are various reasons why students attend one school over another. For some families distance may be a deterrent for sending their kids to LPS. Whatever the reasons, it’s almost a given that attendance will drop once a move is made, which is important to consider.
The argument that MLC viability will be in serious danger from MLS closing is a good argument. However, sitting there and saying that helps no one. What would help is to start thinking about how to improve things from how they’re currently managed and to think of ways to help improve attendance at MLC. I completely understand peoples’ needs/wants to complain and be upset that their school is closing, but honestly, it’s not making the best or most constructive use of either your time or others. Dealing with the facts as they currently stand, however, would be an excellent constructive use of your time. This is not the first time the synod has come to such a situation, and it may not be the last (it’s possible the synod’s entire educational structure will crumble), but arguing for the status quo is not, at this time and in this situation, the most constructive use of your time or others.
Pope, "67. In the face of the unrelenting growth of global interdependence, there is a strongly felt need, even in the midst of a global recession, for a reform of the United Nations Organization, and likewise of economic institutions and international finance, so that the concept of the family of nations can acquire real teeth."
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate_en.html
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=stubblebine&search_type=&aq=f
Prime Minister Stephen Harper calling for Global Governance - not a new way of governing for the world but a single governing body controlling the entire world - no individual sovereignty.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yG3I8ZAnwDI
NAM calls for new world order
Wed, 15 Jul 2009 20:18:59 GMT
The Cuban President also called for a new monetary and economic world order that would take into consideration the needs of the developing countries.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=100790§ionid=351020502
Pope calls for New World Order
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBGo35zDFZg
Republican call for New World Order under the United Nations
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7a9Syi12RJo&feature=related
http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2009/07/too-many-other-people.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/030073.html
Walter Cronkite calls for New World Order. Walter acknowledges that the NWO is in fact a single new global governmeent to replace all other governments contrary to the complicit one worlders who posted earlier on this thread.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/030242.html
CNN reports on the New World Order - 2011
http://bailingwater.blogspot.com/2009/06/open-thread.html
Post a Comment