This Forum is now inactive and has been replaced by a new Christogenea Forum. You may browse here but there are no updated threads or new posts since January 1st 2017. Forum members please see THIS NOTICE for information concerning your account at the new forum.

When did the church go wrong?

Discussions about mainstream "jew-dei-ized" religions

Re: When did the church go wrong?

Postby Staropramen » Sat Jul 04, 2015 10:27 pm

EzraLB wrote:MIchaelAllen,
Don't fault yourself for being confused by what Cohen is alleging--after all, all Jews are double-minded and speak out of both sides of their mouths.


I see them as hexa-minded. They speak out of both sides of their mouth and four sides of their rectum simultaneously!

:lol:
"If God is a Jew then the only thing left for us to do is commit suicide"
-Dr. Wesley A. Swift
Historical Recordings of interest to Christians;
http://historicalrecordings.net/
User avatar
Staropramen
 
Posts: 2026
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 12:58 pm

Re: When did the church go wrong?

Postby MichaelAllen » Sat Jul 04, 2015 11:10 pm

Staropramen wrote:
EzraLB wrote:MIchaelAllen,
Don't fault yourself for being confused by what Cohen is alleging--after all, all Jews are double-minded and speak out of both sides of their mouths.


I see them as hexa-minded. They speak out of both sides of their mouth and four sides of their rectum simultaneously!

:lol:



Heheh... I agree Staropramen. Lying is just their nature man... and they just yack yack yack yackety yack until you just begin to agree with them... after all, if they have so much information, surely they couldn't be wrong.

You know how they have their noahide laws, well, what if I became the ruler of the United States, and for some reason we couldn't well... ya know what we'd all like to do right... but let's say that I had to create a piece of legislation for it... I'd make it as follows: Any jew caught talking will be executed on the account of one witness. Preferably, the witness just goes ahead and executes the offender right there.

Witness: Did you just say something?
Jew: No.
Witness: Well, now you did. Follow me please.
:beer:
MichaelAllen
 
Posts: 253
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 1:35 pm

Re: When did the church go wrong?

Postby EzraLB » Sun Jul 05, 2015 8:03 am

Staropramen wrote:
I see them as hexa-minded. They speak out of both sides of their mouth and four sides of their rectum simultaneously!

:lol:


Staropramen hit the nail on the head--thus the concept of the Jewish Messiah as a proctologist named Chaim Ginsberg from Queens.

By the way, not surprisingly the founder of the modern specialty of proctology was William C. Bernstein, M.D.
"No Rothschild is English. No Baruch, Morgenthau, Cohen, Lehman, Warburg, Kuhn, Kahn, Schiff, Sieff or Solomon was ever born Anglo-Saxon. And it is for this filth that you fight. It is for this filth that you murdered your Empire. It is this filth that elects, selects, your politicians." -- Ezra Pound
User avatar
EzraLB
 
Posts: 935
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2015 9:32 am

Re: When did the church go wrong?

Postby EzraLB » Tue Oct 06, 2015 9:18 am

Bill, you mentioned earlier in this thread that some of the writings of Justin Martyr may contain some elements of two-seedline doctrine. In his "Dialogue With Trypho" (circa 160AD), Justin Martyr enters into a debate with the Jews concerning their contention that Christ is not the true Messiah as foretold by the Old Testament.

In this text, we can clearly see Justin wrestle with the concept of spiritual Israel and the literal seedline of Israel--and how he attempts to reconcile the two opposing ideas. He does make the claim that Christians are, in fact, the true "Israelitic Race," but in order to make this claim, he also introduces his own two-seedline doctrine based on the idea that there are two seedlines of Jacob-Israel and Judah, along with three separate identities of Israel. One seedline of Jacob accepted the divinity of Christ while the other, the Jews, rejected the prophesy.

However, in the end Justin Martyr falsely concludes that Jews can be saved through Christian conversion, but in the process, unwittingly shows that early on two-seedline theology was readily apparent in the Scriptures. As such, this dialogue, with its hybrid seedline message, is an important historical illustration of how the church, in fact, was forced to recognize the racial underpinnings of the Gospels.

It's also interesting to note that jewish writers often cite this dialogue as one of the earliest examples of "anti-semitism" in the Christian tradition. But how "anti-semitic' can it be if it promotes the idea that Jews are, in fact, part of the Israelite race of the Old Testament?

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... rypho.html
Attachments
Justin Martyr.jpg
Justin Martyr.jpg (30.3 KiB) Viewed 1100 times
"No Rothschild is English. No Baruch, Morgenthau, Cohen, Lehman, Warburg, Kuhn, Kahn, Schiff, Sieff or Solomon was ever born Anglo-Saxon. And it is for this filth that you fight. It is for this filth that you murdered your Empire. It is this filth that elects, selects, your politicians." -- Ezra Pound
User avatar
EzraLB
 
Posts: 935
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2015 9:32 am

Re: When did the church go wrong?

Postby wmfinck » Tue Oct 06, 2015 11:20 am

EzraLB wrote:However, in the end Justin Martyr falsely concludes that Jews can be saved through Christian conversion, but in the process, unwittingly shows that early on two-seedline theology was readily apparent in the Scriptures. As such, this dialogue, with its hybrid seedline message, is an important historical illustration of how the church, in fact, was forced to recognize the racial underpinnings of the Gospels.


You are of course right, that Justin Martyr did not have the interpretation of the Gospel which we believe to be true.

However Paul of Tarsus was the apostle chosen to disseminate the revelation of the Nations, and Justin Martyr did not get his theology through Paul. In fact, Justin Martyr's surviving writings never mention Paul, and there is very little Pauline influence evident in Justin's writings, which may have merely come from a common source.

Without the combination of historical knowledge and understanding of the prophets that Paul of Tarsus offered, Justin and all of those in the east who had earlier rejected Paul only stumbled around in the dark. Only an Identity Christian can understand this, and therefore all commentators on the issue have also stumbled around in the dark.

Peter only seems to have come to understand Paul very late in his life (2 Peter 3) and James may never have truly understood Paul (Acts 21:18-21).

What Justin does offer, are glimpses of Christian Identity truth in other ways, such as the recognition of the racial aspect of the gospel which you mention. But even these seem to have faded after the time of Tertullian.

So on the other hand, without understanding the racial underpinnings of the Scripture alluded to by Justin and Tertullian as well as Paul, for 1800 years or so all of those in the west have also stumbled around in the dark. But race was not so much a factor as it is in these last two centuries.

The early Christian writers must be assessed not only according to what they had written, but also according to what were their own influences and perspectives and understanding. Their work being tried in the fire of the last 17 or 18 centuries, there is a lot of hay and stubble. On the other hand, there is a lot more silver and gold than the so-called theologians of today!
Image
If a jew is moving his lips, he's lying. If you see a rabbi, there has already been a crime!
User avatar
wmfinck
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2775
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 2:09 am

Re: When did the church go wrong?

Postby MichaelAllen » Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 am

EzraLB wrote:However, in the end Justin Martyr falsely concludes that Jews can be saved through Christian conversion, but in the process, unwittingly shows that early on two-seedline theology was readily apparent in the Scriptures. As such, this dialogue, with its hybrid seedline message, is an important historical illustration of how the church, in fact, was forced to recognize the racial underpinnings of the Gospels.


If I might add to this... I'd like to make two points that I think might be relevant here. Bear with me because it might take a few paragraphs to construct my thought here. You never know how long something's going to take!! Lol!!

I think it's important to also see that what we're really dealing with from the time of the Edomite conversion to Hillel Halacha (the Pharisees religion of "Judaism") up through the time of the early churchfathers is a gradual changeover. And this is just my opinion, but I don't think a lot of people even in many corners of CI really view the Judeo-Roman war that culminated in the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman legions as a significant event. There is all of this language that Jesus uses in the New Testament gospels that many unlearned people (churchians) are inclined to see as warnings leading to some sort of altar call after a sermon... for instance: "Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish." Luke 13:1-5 - Well the churchmen all back through the centuries did not see verses like this for what it meant. In the denomination in which I was raised, a verse like this was a "soundbyte" - and it was designed to make you feel like if you didn't "go forward" for the altar call and receive baptism by immersion, you were basically done for if you died on the way home that night. It's psychological warfare unintended... the blind leading the blind. Well, if you take a good long look at the gospels, and if you understand what all these promises in the Old Testament were that Yahweh would preserve a remnant of Old Covenant Israel (meaning, still IN covenant, still UNDER the law, still married to Him)... well, that begins to paint a picture. Christ's ministry - in a personal sense - was not to the OTHER fold. It was to the remnant of Israel in Judea. So, that's where all of the confusion (in my opinion) begins, when a Bible student sees a verse like this, and he doesn't understand the Israel story, and all he knows is that his preacher and mom and dad have told him his whole life that God loves everyone no matter who they are (or, what they are I should say), and Jesus is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world... and if you read all these verses without qualifying your definitives, as opposed to the superimposed semantic meanings that words such as men, world, & all carry today... the roots of the problem become apparent.

Jesus was attempting to warn the remnant in true Israel (in Judea) to be ready... something was going to happen that required their attention if they were to be "saved" --- and I really appreciate that the CNT uses the word 'preserved' as opposed to 'saved' because again, the modern church has a very bad semantic attached to the word "saved." John the Baptist said to the impostors, "Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?" That wrath - at that time - came in the form of Titus the General.

There was a division in Judea - and it wasn't exclusively[i] a racial division - although the racial element was there, and really was the cause of the second division, to which I believe most of Christ's warnings about "being saved" are directed. The division that Christ had to draw was simple: [i]"Listen up remnant: Who are you going to believe? The Son of God in the flesh, or Edomite high priests and Pharisees and the rest of these kike gangs. One leads to life, one leads to destruction. You choose it boys and girls."

Well, Paul makes it pretty clear that some Israelites did in fact reject Christ outright, and were considered enemies of the Gospel. Therefore, they would have rejected all of His blatant warnings in various passages throughout the gospel volumes (Olivet discourse even says, THOSE IN JUDEA, AND ESPECIALLY JERUSALEM... GET OUT OF TOWN, AND DON'T COME BACK!!).

I don't want to paint this with a broad brush, but most of the gospel warnings about salvation were specific to that time, and that place - although the principle remains with us even to this day. I mean, we all operate in CI to try to warn our brethren, hey jack, stock some food, get some sustenance put away, try to get out of the system to one extent or another, quit injecting and eating poison, try to keep your kids out of the schools, quit going to magicians for health and finances, etc, etc, etc. Our message to our kindred today is in many ways remarkably similar to that of Jesus' to his brethren in Judea --- get your act together, or you're all gonna die!! It is a salvation message... it's just not the salvation of the church world today. They don't give two flying flips about what happens to people here and now (well... unless by people we include niggers, spics, arabs, etc... then they'll adopt you), but anyway...

A lot of Jesus' specific warnings would not have had an immediate application to Christian Israelites who had come out of paganism during the time of apostolic Christianity's expansion throughout the empire, and like I said, I think that's where a good chunk of the misunderstanding resides in the thinking processes of theologians all back through history.

Paul makes mention in Romans 9:27 of the remnant of Israel being saved while the number of the children of Israel in total was innumerable. In this passage, he's quoting Isaiah 10:22... a lot of people have read this passage from Paul in say the New International Version (among others), and in the NIV, the passage is rendered: Though your people be like the sand by the sea, Israel, only a remnant will return. Destruction has been decreed, overwhelming and righteous.

I've met people in CI who believe that only a remnant of Israelites will experience the here and after based on this passage alone, and if they were to understand it as a historical event that pertained to a very small portion of Israel, it wouldn't burden them with the "personal salvation" fallacy.

Paul quotes from the LXX in Romans 9, and I'm going to give the exact translation from the LXX here: "And if the people of Israel should become as the sand of the sea, the remnant of them shall be preserved." What is really being said is, Israel as a race will be huge, but Yahweh is not going to forget to preserve the remnant (who were under rule by Edomite enemies at that time). The people of Judea were in a VERY precarious situation in that era, and it was like the prototype for the bolshevik revolution. Chaos, conspiracy, corruption you name it... it was all there.

That passage in Isaiah sounds a lot different than what other English translations do in that verse, and it's tremendously important to see the relevance here. With a bad translation of that verse in Isaiah, and then a bad translation of Paul's quotation of it in Romans... the average person will end up hearing: Even though Israel might have 300 million people among them, only a small fragment of them will receive eternal life in the here and after. There are even Christian Israel Identity preachers who teach that!!!

How does that all tie in to Justin Martyr? Well, we realize that in the time of Justin Martyr... there was no such word as "jew" --- so if Justin Martyr, just like the New Testament, is translated having used the word "jew" - we know that he is speaking of a person from the province of Judea. After the destruction of Jerusalem as foretold by Christ and the apostles... is it feasible to assume that there were still pure blooded Judahite/Benjaminite/Levite etc. Israelites [i]still[i] straggling behind playing temple (even though it was destroyed), playing "law", playing religion, etc.

Kind of imagine this today. Assume that the United States of America had a systemic failure and collapsed and all of our stupid evangelical and post-evangelical institutions that do nothing but preach universalism and the gospel of the jew world order they all go out of business too (especially when they have to first apologize for the whole rapture thing)... Let's say our country was to come apart at the seams, and those of us who had done some prepping survived it, and we all began to reassemble in communities and rebuild a society closer to Godly customs and moral righteousness...

Well, don't you think it's entirely plausible that some stooge holdovers from judeochurchianity who might still think niggers are awesome -maybe in the collapse they didn't see the cannibalism, or the thuggery, etc- and might possibly survive it too and not really have a clue AT ALL as to what happened (God's judgment on our nation)? There is actually a verse in the Old Testament, and I cannot recall it offhand, or exactly how it is worded, but it says that those who are defiant toward God cannot see his judgment or something to that effect. I wish I could recall it. Well, it would be my intention in such a situation to try to take stooges like this aside and make them see and understand what really happened in retrospect. I love my people even when they are idiots.

I'm just hypothesizing... but could it be that Justin Martyr simply meant that true Israelites, who may have been recent holdovers from the collapse of the province, identifying themselves as jews still (religiously), could be converted from the traditions of the elders over to Christ?

Today, no such people would exist under the name jew - we all know that, except for Adamites who may have been adopted by jews. But, could there come a time - say given a situation like I used above - where the USA collapses and we abandon the title Christian because of its horrid connotation today - and there's another case of a semantic having been imposed upon us - and say we go with Yahwehites, or Yashuites. Well in that case, we would view "Christians" as apostates, and let's just look at it today... "Christians" today come in all colors, preferences, etc... But we recognize the designation as self-applied and fatuous. Christians today already ARE the apostates - and in fact, I think the rest of society would actually be up for a change, but too many Christians are sitting on their folded hands completely content with the decay of their society.

Today's white churchgoer "christians" are the disbelieving Israelite Judeans of the first century. I see no difference. In fact, I gave a message at a camp a few years ago about this very thing. So, I'm not for certain, but I could envision this as a possible reason why Justin Martyr would say that Judeans could be converted.
MichaelAllen
 
Posts: 253
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 1:35 pm

Re: When did the church go wrong?

Postby EzraLB » Fri Oct 09, 2015 6:22 am

MichaelAllen,
You bring up many important distinctions that I think provide another layer of explanation about the nature of the confusion regarding the racial issue in the texts of the early Church writings. But the issue still arises whether or not there is evidence that Justin Martyr was making any distinctions between Israelite Judeans who falsely kept to the laws and rituals of the Old Testament and actual Edomite Jews who maintained the same.

Of course the English translations of Justin Martyr are limited by the same problems as the translations of the New Testament, especially with the terms "Gentiles" and "Jews". The original Greek texts are available, but I have not been able to check the accuracy, but I think it's safe to assume "Jews" is translated from "Judeans" and "Gentiles" from "Nations" to a greater or lesser extent, depending on context.

It is clear in the Dialogue that Justin does make a distinction between the terms "Church" and "Synagogues," which are places where he accuses the "Jews" or perhaps "Judeans" of not only still holding to the empty rituals but also of intentionally changing verses in the Septuagint to deny the prophecy of Christ's coming as Messiah.

Starting in Chapter 71, Justin points to copies of the Septuagint found in the Synagogues with obvious deleted and edited passages, which prove that these people intentionally compromised the Scripture in order to deny any references that prophecied the coming of Christ. And he does seem to refer to these deniers as a race, when he states, "I am aware that this is denied by all of your nation."

In Chapters 72 through 74, Justin demonstrates exactly how the Jews removed and edited passages from Esdras and Jeremiah, along with Psalms to deny Christ. Could racial Israelites attending these Synagogues be responsible for these Talmudic sleights of hand?

Earlier in the Dialogue in Chapter 26, Justin does seem to identify this "nation of deniers" with the Edomites. While he equates the Christ-believing Gentiles with the daughter of Zion in Isaiah 62:1, he goes on to equate the Christ-denying Jews with Edom, quoting from Isaiah 63:1, "Who is this that cometh from Edom?"

As I stated in my prior post, Justin does seem to have some vestiges of a racial awareness between the Jews as a "nation" of deniers and the Gentile "nations" who accepted Christ. However, despite that fuzzy distinction, he none the less mistakenly asserts that these Jews must--and can--repent by accepting Christ. That he ultimately fails to make that distinction could, in fact, be because of what Bill points out--that Justin did not use Paul's Epistles as a primary source--but also because of the confusion that you point out, MichaelAllen.

As a side note, it should be pointed out that in the mid-19th century, there was a resurgence of interest in this Dialogue. In his Introduction to his 1846 translation of the Dialogue, William Trollope points out that Justin's contentions with the Jews were very much relevant to the current tensions evident in Christian nations--which, of course, coincided with the emancipation of the Jews across Europe.

With this in mind, I can't help but sense how Justin Martyr's "Dialogue With Typho" may have informed--in the very least thematically--Maurice Joly's "Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu," which was published less than twenty years after new Trollope's translation appeared. After all, the Jews have long-considered Justin's "Dialogue" as a foundational example of antisemitism in early Christian writers.
Attachments
Justin.jpg
Justin.jpg (13.13 KiB) Viewed 1042 times
"No Rothschild is English. No Baruch, Morgenthau, Cohen, Lehman, Warburg, Kuhn, Kahn, Schiff, Sieff or Solomon was ever born Anglo-Saxon. And it is for this filth that you fight. It is for this filth that you murdered your Empire. It is this filth that elects, selects, your politicians." -- Ezra Pound
User avatar
EzraLB
 
Posts: 935
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2015 9:32 am

Re: When did the church go wrong?

Postby MichaelAllen » Fri Oct 09, 2015 8:59 am

EzraLB wrote:In Chapters 72 through 74, Justin demonstrates exactly how the Jews removed and edited passages from Esdras and Jeremiah, along with Psalms to deny Christ. Could racial Israelites attending these Synagogues be responsible for these Talmudic sleights of hand?


I know we don't like to think about this... but it is possible that racial Israelites were in collusion over this - sure it definitely was an Edomite agenda but we have among our race janissaries, and run of the mill sellouts to this day. The "jewish religion even at the time of Christ was not as bad as it became in later centuries. For instance, the Christian golden rule, "As ye would that men do unto you, do ye likewise unto them" -- this actually appears in (I believe) the mishna. So it was definitely leavened, but it would be on par with today's judeochristianity, at least I think so.

EzraLB wrote:Earlier in the Dialogue in Chapter 26, Justin does seem to identify this "nation of deniers" with the Edomites. While he equates the Christ-believing Gentiles with the daughter of Zion in Isaiah 62:1, he goes on to equate the Christ-denying Jews with Edom, quoting from Isaiah 63:1, "Who is this that cometh from Edom?"


If that is so, then I think that only bolsters the arguments we make in Christian Identity that the real conflict in Judea during the life of Jesus and the apostles was born out of an ethnic struggle, not a religious one. Good find here dude.
MichaelAllen
 
Posts: 253
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 1:35 pm

Re: When did the church go wrong?

Postby PhillipWMorrow » Wed Dec 16, 2015 8:17 pm

I too have wondered about this. We truly are a "Stiff Necked People". We had our God living in our midst guiding us by day as a pillar of smoke and at night by a pillar of fire. We rejected Him for a king. He led us into battle and we suffered no casualties. When we were hungry He fed us w/ manna. From what I've read and understand the church began to corrupt itself within 30 years of the Resurrection. Revelation reveals this within the 7 churches. The church really went wrong w/ John Darby and his Plymouth Brethren. Then he enlisted the help of C. I. Scofield an his Zionist cohorts. The dispensationalists roots began in 1830. Prior to this Covenant Theology was the standard. Now the dispensationalists out number all w/ the exception of the Romanish "church". If the "jews" are not Israel then their theory falls by the wayside. If there will be no "rapture" then they believe a lie. Of course they believe the lie ! It's not popular to say a racial theme runs thru the Bible. They say it all come down to John 3:16 and that that is an invitation for all the mud races to become a "spiritual" Israel. They do this over and over spiritualizing Our Bible. A lot of the blacks do accept that Christianity is not their religion and so that allows for the "false prophet" Mohammad to gather them up into Islam. It all begins to make sense w/ very little study. But you have to do your own studies and not rely on the works of others. C I is Covenant Theology !
User avatar
PhillipWMorrow
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 12:16 pm

Re: When did the church go wrong?

Postby CIman » Mon Oct 03, 2016 7:50 pm

I personally find many "Church fathers" views (at least from the late 2nd/early 3rd century) on certain things and theology to be very appalling. Many seem to have been steeped in Gnosticism and Pagan idolatries. Origen believed in some kind of reincarnation and cut his own "evil fleshly" testicles off.. and many other "Church" fathers" taught some similar crazy stuff. Marcion (in keeping in line with the Gnostic belief that the "evil" demiurge-God created the physical world while the "good" God created the "spiritual") taught that the " tribal God of the Old Testament" was the demiurge and the "New testament-God" was the "good spiritual" God. And later of course the Catholic Pagan Gnostics took a hold of the the "mainstream" theology, introducing the likes of the Catholic saint St. Augustine (who was a Manichean Gnostic before his supposed "conversion" and recounted his previous homosexual encounters with certain men with joy).

Is it any wonder that we have had so many wicked doctrines within mainstream Churches when they have been filled with Gnostic, Stoic and Pagan philosophies? All ranging from forcing young adolescent boys to wear torturous devices on their sex organs to prevent them from "sinning" by getting nocturnal erections, to monks flogging and cutting themselves, to women and men (by recommendations from "Church fathers") starving themselves to death to attain "spiritual salvation". We probably should not even touch the really embarassing topics like masturbation is "worse than murder" (I think Aquinas taught this, but he was okay with prostitution!), or what positions are permissible for a couple to have in the marriage bed and which days they can have intercourse, and everything else that just simply have tainted Christianity for centuries. And with these doctrines, of course, race becomes obsolete and should be ignored (just like the Catholic Church teaches and the ancient Pagan Gnostics like Marcion did), because the material world and everything in it is inherently evil.

I talked to a man some time ago who had grown up in an Evangelical Churchianity congregation but he was now an atheist. I tried to speak to him about the Bible but he just became frustrated and angry when I mentioned the scriptures.. he told me that his complete hatred for Christianity stemmed from his childhood and his mother who would "spy" on him when he was a little boy (what a sick and perverted parent) if he took "too long" showers or toilet visits and tell him things like, "Jesus can see if you touch your penis.. and you're going to hell if you even think about it!". His parents would even check his bedsheets daily to see if they had any "sinful stains" on them. And if he laughed too much or wanted to play some video game they would punish or embarass him (with twisted interpretations of scripture of course). And--as can be expected--he eventually rebelled against his parents and started to practice all manner of things that were contray to what they taught.

I mean this is how people view Christianity today (at least here in Scandinavia).. people here are absoulutely hateful towards "Christianity" because they believe that these teachings are all that "Christianity" is about--namely hating yourself, demonology, focusing on embarrassing things like masturbation, "speaking in tongues", and all sorts of wicked Pagan filth.. You can't even talk to people about the Bible before they bring these things up.

I believe this is also why so many people (especially during the Enlightenment and during the 60's) rebelled, because the theology is so anti-human and non-Christian. It wasn't true Christianity, of course, but it was certainly viewed as that and that's what they rebelled against.

A true Christian society always needs to have a "balance" (which true Christianity and the scriptures teach) to function properly. When Greece and Rome became too depraved the Gnostics, Stoics and neo-Platonists rebelled and infiltrated the Churches (the true Christians were obviously also opposed to Rome, but truly followed the scriptures).. their teachings then became mainstream through the Romish Church and people realised that those views were too extreme in the opposite way.. then many people--with the jews help-- rebelled during the Enlightenment and the sixties and now we are back in the same depraved state that Rome and Greece were in thank's to those traitors (plus the invasion of our countries).

CI has these "balanced" teachings.
CIman
 
Posts: 61
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 1:13 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Churchianity

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron