14 May 2014

Even the Founders of the New Protestant Religions Agreed with the Universal Teaching of the Early Church Fathers on the Theotokos' Perpetual Virginity

Most Christians today still believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary (All Orthodox Christians and Roman Catholics as well as some Protestants). The practice of Evangelicals today of denying the perpetual virginity of Mary is a fairly recent innovation - a peculiar historical aberration, particularly since evangelicals would consider themselves to be conservative Christians - that can't even find historical precedent among the primary magisterial Reformers; for that, one can only look to a hand-full of 4th century teachers of heresy who were otherwise universally rejected as heretics expressing new and unfounded ideas.

Of course one can go right to the source, Saint Iakovos (James) the son of Saint Joseph the Betrothed from his first marriage, who wrote a document in the early 100's explaining the lie of his step-mother, Mary, the Theotokos. It wasn't included in the Bible, because it was not telling us how to work out our salvation, as the rest of the New Testament does. But you can read it here on this blog: The Protoevangelium of James.

Martin Luther (Founder of the 1520 A.D. Lutheran Religion) believed that Mary did not have other children and did not have any marital relations with Joseph. The Latin text of the 1537 Smalcald Articles, written by Martin Luther, used the term "Ever Virgin" to refer to Mary. The perpetual virginity of Mary was Luther's lifelong belief, even after he rejected other Marian doctrines.

Huldrych Zwingli (A Founder of the 1522 A.D. Reformed Protestant Religion) directly supported perpetual virginity and wrote: "I firmly believe that the Theotokos, ... forever remained a pure, intact Virgin." Like Zwingli, the English reformers also supported the concept of perpetual virginity. Luther and Zwingli's support of perpetual virginity was endorsed by Heinrich Bullinger and was included in the 1566 Second Helvetic Confession.

John Calvin (Founder of the 1530 A.D. Calvinist Religion) cautioned against "impious speculation" on the topic.

King Henry VII of England (Founder of the 1534 A.D. Anglican and Episcopal Religions) supported perpetual virginity "on the basis of ancient Christian authority".

John Wesley (Founder of the 1739 A.D. Methodist Religion) one of the founders of Methodism, also supported the doctrine and wrote that: "... born of the blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as before she brought Him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin.

A passage all the Protestant Founders used to support the doctrine of perpetual virginity is of the sayings of Jesus on the cross, i.e. the pair of commands first to his mother "Woman, behold your son!" and then to his disciple "Behold, thy mother!" in The Gospel According to Saint John 19:26-27. The Gospel then states that "from that hour the disciple took her unto his own home". Since the time of the Church Fathers this statement has been used to reason that after the death of Jesus there was no one else in the immediate family to look after Mary, and she had to be entrusted to the disciple given that she had no other children.

29 April 2014

YES! It is true! Jesus Christ did have a Bride and still does to this day!

Yes it is true that Jesus Christ is married! He had a Bride and He still does until this very day! He will not divorce Her and He will not be an adulterer with other sick adultresses claiming to be His Bride, His Bride's sister, or His Bride's daughter.

Who is this Bride? The New Testament of the Holy Bible tells us! It is the Church, the New Jerusalem. Read it yourself in the Epistles of Saint Paul to the Ephesians (Chapter 5), Second Corinthians (Chapter 11), Romans (Chapter 7), and Galatians (Chapter 4).This is further detailed in the Revelation of Saint John (Chapters 3, 19, 21, and 22). You can also see this mentioned in The Gospels According to Matthew (Chapter 9 and 25), Mark (Chapter 2), Luke (Chapter 5), and John (Chapter 3)!

Where can this Bride be found? How do you make sure we are not bound to a false wife or one of the false sisters or daughters of the Bride? Read about the almost 2,000 history of the Bride of Christ, the Church, the New Jerusalem here.

27 February 2014

Don't Trust Hollywood (For True Theology or Biblical Truths)

The movie, "Noah", looks to be another Bible movie travesty. Why? Because it is only very loosely based on the Bible. It is based the fictional graphic novels of film's director, Darren Aronofsky, NOE/NOAH and NOE2/NOAH02. See this quote from Brian Godawa:
“Having got a chance to read an undated version of the script for Noah I want to warn you. If you were expecting a Biblically faithful retelling of the story of the greatest mariner in history and a tale of redemption and obedience to God you’ll be sorely disappointed. Noah paints the primeval world of Genesis 6 as scorched arid desert, dry cracked earth, and a gray gloomy sky that gives no rain – and all this, caused by man’s “disrespect” for the environment. In short, an anachronistic doomsday scenario of ancient global warming.”
According to the website, Beginning And End, In this movie Abel and Cain befriend the Shaman Noah as a child. Adding to the Biblical confusion, King Og of Bashan, an evil Nephilim King in Scripture, is portrayed as good being in Noah. In Scripture, Og lives after the flood and is one of the most powerful Kings of his day. He hated the ancient Israelites and sought to conquer them as they migrated to the land of Canaan, the Promised Land, after being led out of slavery in Egypt. The battle against Og, led by Moses, took place over 1500 years after the flood.  In Noah, Og is one of the fallen angels or "Watchers", who now, despite rebellion against God, decide to help Noah build the ark and protect it. In a scene in which a small army of men try to take siege of the ark, it is the fallen angels who fight to make sure that Noah and his family can enter safely. Not only that, but Noah tries to kill his own granddaughter once she is born in the Ark!

You wouldn't stand for going to church and the Bible being preached in a way that it was changed "to be more exciting", so why would you pay people to do this very the same blasphemous thing?

This is not the first movie that Hollywood has done this with. What other Biblical movies has Hollywood messed up? Pretty much all of them, but here are just a few:
  • The Passion of the Christ's principal source is The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the reported visions of the stigmatic German nun Anne Catherine Emmerich (1774–1824), as written by the poet Clemens Brentano. Even the Vatican position on the authenticity of the books produced by Brentano was stated by Father Peter Gumpel, who was involved in the study of the issues for the Congregation for the Causes of the Saints: "It is absolutely not certain that she ever wrote this. There is a serious problem of authenticity".
  • The Last Temptation of Christ's eponymous final sequence depicts the crucified Jesus—tempted by what turns out to be Satan in the form of a beautiful, androgynous child—experiencing a dream or alternative reality where He comes down from His cross, marries Mary Magdalene (and later Mary and Martha), and lives out His life as a full mortal man. He learns on his deathbed that He was deceived by Satan and begs God to let Him "be God's son," at which point He finds Himself once again on His cross. At other points in the film, Jesus is depicted as building crosses for the Romans, being tormented by the Voice of God, and lamenting the many sins He believes He has committed.
  • The Prince of Egypt shows Moses is adopted by Pharaoh’s wife, instead of his daughter. Miriam walks off and leaves Moses as soon as he is found, rather than approaching Pharaoh’s daughter wife to offer her mom as a milk maid. Moses kills the Egyptian entirely by accident, and he never hides the body, because in the film this all happened in sight of everybody. He flees the very same hour, and that because of his own feelings of guilt, not because Pharaoh was trying to kill him. Pharaoh wasn't trying to kill him, not having heard about anything yet, and not having been given the opportunity before Moses left. Moses approaches the Burning Bush, to the point of putting his hand into the fire. Moses did not hide his face, neither was he afraid to look at God. Moses' reason for not wishing to return to Egypt at God's command is his guilt at having been party to the oppression of the Israelites, not because he was a poor speaker. Moses does not set his wife and children upon a donkey, but sets his wife upon a camel. He doesn't have any children. Aaron does not come forth to meet him, but rather avoids him, because Aaron is Moses' enemy.  Aaron is therefore not Moses' spokesman, does not even go in with him to Pharaoh, and manifestly does not perform the miracles. Moses demands the entire and permanent liberation of the Israelites, rather than just three days’ freedom to worship God outside the country. Pharaoh’s response is to double the workload of the Israelites, rather than to make them gather their own straw. Moses is not eighty years old by any stretch of the imagination. The carcasses of the Passover lambs continue to lie in the street after the blood has been put on the door posts, and are not eaten.  The Red Sea is parted because Moses strikes the water with his rod, not because he lifted his hand over it, and, conversely,  it returns without him doing anything at all. Pharaoh is in the midst of the sea and survives.

24 February 2014

My Blog Stats, Compared

My blog stats vary, which is normal, due to them having different audiences, but here are the stats I found interesting for the last month, and you may too.  Blog A is Orthodox Ecclesiology and the World, Blog B is How to get Married in China, and Blog C is Steamies vs. Diesels.

Visitors by Browser
Blog A
  1. Chrome (27%)
  2. Firefox (27%)
  3. Internet Explorer (25%)
  4. Safari (13%)
  5. Opera (3%)
Blog B
  1. Chrome (41%)
  2. Firefox (26%)
  3. Internet Explorer (14%)
  4. Safari (7%)
  5. Opera (1%)
Blog C
  1. Safari (30%)
  2. Chrome (24%)
  3. Internet Explorer (21%)
  4. Firefox (11%)
  5. Opera (1%)
But why such an bwoser disparity? Maybe this can be explained by OS?
Visitors by Operating System:
Blog A
  1. Windows (67%)
  2. Macintosh (13%)
  3. iPhone/iPad (8%)
  4. Android (6%)
  5. Linux (3%)
Blog B
  1. Windows (64%)
  2. Macintosh (12%)
  3. Android (10%)
  4. iPhone/iPad (7%)
  5. Linux (3%)
Blog C
  1. Windows (55%)
  2. iPhone/iPad (29%)
  3. Macintosh (6%)
  4. Android (6%)
  5. Linux (2%)
OK, but why such an OS disparity? Maybe this can be explained by the origin of the audience?
Visitors by Country:
Blog A
  1. United States
  2. Ukraine
  3. China
  4. United Kingdom
  5. India
  6. Canada
  7. Germany
  8. Turkey
  9. Russia
  10. France
Blog B
  1. United States
  2. New Zealand
  3. Germany
  4. United Kingdom
  5. Australia
  6. Canada
  7. Indonesia
  8. France
  9. Singapore
  10. China
Blog C
  1. United States
  2. United Kingdom
  3. Ukraine
  4. Australia
  5. Canada
  6. Japan
  7. New Zealand
  8. Ireland
  9. Russia
  10. Indonesia
Based on this and other evidence, it seems that Safari and iPad/iPhone stats are higher for Blog C because of the traffic from the United Kingdom. Do any other bloggers or webmasters see this same type of trend?

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...