Read the Beforeitsnews.com story here. Advertise at Before It's News here.

By MONKS AND MERMAIDS (A Benedictine Blog) (Reporter)
Contributor profile | More stories

Story Views
Now:
Last hour:
Last 24 hours:
Total:

Heaven On Earth- Monasticism

Monday, December 4, 2017 15:05

% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.

St Paul the Hermit’s Monastery

The first Christian hermits seem to have established themselves on the shores of the Red Sea, where in pre-Christian times the Therapeutae, an order of Jewish ascetics, had been established. Not long afterward the desert regions of Upper Egypt became a retreat for those who fled from the persecutions of the Christians so frequent in the Roman Empire during the 3rd century, and for those who found the vices of the world intolerable. The earliest form of Christian monasticism was, probably, that of the anchorites or hermits; a later development is found in the pillar saints, called Stylites, who spent most of their time on the tops of pillars in order to separate themselves from the world and to mortify the flesh. After a time, however, the necessities of the religious life itself led to modifications. In order to combine the personal seclusion of individuals with the common exercise of religious duties, the early hermits had an aggregation of separate cells called laura, to which they could retire after their communal duties had been discharged. From the union of the common life with personal solitude is derived the name cenobite (Greek koinos bios,”common life”), by which a certain class of monks is distinguished.

St. Anthony, who embraced solitude, established himself at Alexandria, and the fame of his sanctity, as well as his gentleness and learning, drew many disciples to him. Most of his followers accompanied him when he retired to the desert. One of his disciples, St. Pachomius, who established a great monastery on an island in the Nile River, is regarded as the founder of the cenobitic manner of living. Pachomius drew up for his subjects a monastic rule, the first regulations of the kind on record. Many thousands of disciples flocked to him, and he founded several other monasteries for men and one for women under the direction of his sister. All of these houses recognized the authority of a single superior, an abbot or archimandrite. They constitute the original type of the religious order.

(source here)

Visiting the monastery of St Antony of Egypt

Hermit Father Lazarus Al-Anthony of St Anthony’s Monastery

His Testimony

modern monks seek God in an ancient monastery

Tradition at the heart of Renewal

by Anthony Mahoney

my source: International Journal for the study of the Christian Church

The Egyptian desert is not only the home of monasticism but of monastic revival which is at the heart of the reform and renewal of the Coptic Orthodox Church. This monastic revival is not the work of one person but of a series of spiritual gifted individuals, in particular Patriarch Cyril VI (1902–1971), Matta el-Meskeen (1919–2006) and the current Patriarch Shenouda III (elected in 1971), who have demonstrated leadership and vision in shaping Coptic Christianity in the modern era. The monastic renewal has also been made possible by the growth in monastic vocations, both male and female, which have made this structural renaissance possible in the Coptic Church. Members of the episcopate in the Coptic tradition are chosen from the ranks of the monks, thus the spiritual character of monastic renewal has become the face of the Church. Today the monasteries are intimately integrated into parish life and the ascetic and spiritual reading of the Desert Fathers have found a new home in the wider Coptic Christian community.

BENEDICTINE MONASTICISM

Benedictines carry on a monastic tradition that stems from the origins of the Christian monastic movement in the late third century. They regard Saint Benedict as their founder and guide even though he did not establish a Benedictine Order as such. He wrote a Rule for his monastery at Monte Cassino in Italy and he foresaw that it could be used elsewhere. Monte Cassino was destroyed by the Lombards about A.D. 577 and was not reestablished until the middle of the eighth century. Meanwhile the Rule found its way to monasteries in England, Gaul, and elsewhere. At first it was one of a number of rules accepted by a particular monastery but later, especially through the promotional efforts of Charlemagne and his son Louis, it became the rule of choice for monasteries of Europe from the ninth century onwards.

The early medieval monasteries of Europe, those for men and women, followed the Rule of Benedict with local adaptations needed in different climes and cultures. They continued, however, the tradition of community life with its common prayer, reading, and work. Some of the monasteries were founded as centers of evangelization of peoples; others carried on a program of education, art and architecture, and the making of manuscripts. Many monasteries were centers of liturgy and learning in the midst of chaotic times and shifting kingdoms….

During the course of the 1800s, however, Benedictines experienced a revival. Some congregations, e.g., the Solesmes and Beuronese Congregations, restored a kind of Benedictine monasticism that stressed the enclosed life with its round of liturgical prayer performed with great precision and splendor.

Other congregations; e.g., the St. Ottilien Congregation and groupings of American Benedictine women, stressed the missionary endeavors of evangelizing, teaching, and health care. Men and women Benedictines continued to establish new houses in many countries right up to the time of Vatican Council II (1962-1965). Since then the number of Benedictines has declined once again, at least in the First and Second World, but it has increased in other regions, e.g., East Africa and South Korea.

One Day in the Life of a Monk
Tyniec Benedictine Monastery in Poland

Orthodox Monasticism

Although not considered as one of the sacraments of the Church since it is not essential to the Christian life as such and is not a necessary element for the very existence of God’s People, monasticism has played an important role in Christian history and is highly valued by the Orthodox Church.

In the Orthodox Tradition the monastic calling is considered to be a personal gift of God to the individual soul for his salvation and service to the Body of Christ. The monastic vocation is the calling to personal repentance in a life dedicated solely to God. The ultimate Christian virtue of love is sought by the monk or nun primarily through prayer and fasting, and through the exercise of the Christian virtues of poverty, chastity, humility and obedience.

The monastic Christian does not normally exercise any particular ministry in the Church such as that of priest, pastor, teacher, nurse or social worker. The monk is normally a layman and not a cleric, with each monastery having only enough clergy to care for the liturgical and sacramental needs of the community itself.

In Orthodox Christian history many missionaries, teachers and bishops have come from men with monastic vocations. For centuries the bishops have been traditionally selected from among the monks. These additional callings, however, are considered to be acts of God’s will expressed in his people, and are not the purpose or intention of the monastic vocation as such. Indeed, one must enter a monastery only in order to repent of his sins, to serve God and to save his soul according to the ideals of monastic ascetism. The ceremony of monastic profession indicates this very clearly. Thus, for example, Saint Herman of Alaska was first dedicated to the monastic life, and only then, in obedience to his spiritual father, left his solitude to become a great missionary.

The Monastic Ranks

The Orthodox monastic tradition has four classical ranks that apply equally to men and to women. The first step is that of novice, which in church terminology is called the rank of obedience. At this first stage the candidate for monastic profession simply lives in the monastery under the direction of a spiritual father or mother.

The second step is that of riasa-bearer, which means that the person is more formally accepted into the community, and is given the right to wear the monastic robe, called the riasa. At this stage the candidate is not yet fully committed to the monastic life.

The third rank is that of the small schema which means that the person is a professed monastic. He or she now receives a new name and wears the monastic schema (a cloth with the sign of the cross), the veil and the mantle (mantia). At this stage the person pledges to remain in the monastic community in perpetual obedience to the spiritual leader and to the head of the monastery, called the abbot or abbess (igoumenos or igoumenia). The service of profession, in addition to the hymns and prayers, includes a long series of formal questioning about the authenticity of the calling, the tonsuring (i.e., the cutting of the hair), and the vesting in the full monastic clothing.

The final rank of the monastic order is that of the great schema. This last step is reserved for very few, since it is the expression of the most strict observance of the monastic ideals, demanding normally a state of life in total seclusion in perpetual prayer and contemplation. With this final profession a new name is again received, and a new monastic insignia—the great schema—is worn.

In the Orthodox tradition there is no prescribed length of time that a person must remain in one or another of the monastic ranks. This is so because of the radically personal character of the vocation. Thus, some persons may progress rapidly to profession, while others may take years, and still others may never be formally professed while still remaining within the monastic community. The decision in these matters is made individually in each case by the spiritual director and the head of the community.

Types of Monasticism

Although the Orthodox Church does not have religious orders as the Latin Church does, there are in Orthodoxy different styles of monastic life, both individually and in community. Generally speaking some monasteries may be more liturgically oriented, while others may be more ascetic, while still others may have a certain mystical tradition, and others be more inclined to spiritual guidance and openness to the world for the purpose of care and counseling. These various styles of monasticism, which take both a personal as well as a corporate form, are not formally predetermined or officially legislated. They are the result of organic development under the living grace of God.

In addition to the various spiritual styles of monastic life, three formal types of organization may be mentioned. The first is that of coenobitic monasticism. In this type all members of the community do all things in common. The second form is called idiorhythmic in which the monks or nuns pray together liturgically, but work and eat individually or in small groups. In this type of monasticism the persons may even psalmodize and do the offices separately, coming together only for the eucharistic liturgy, and even then, perhaps, only on certain occasions. Finally, there is the eremitic type of monasticism where the individual monks or nuns are actually hermits, also called anchorites or recluses. They live in total individual seclusion and never join in the liturgical prayer of the community, except again perhaps on the most solemn occasions. In the rarest of cases it may even happen that the Holy Eucharist is brought to the monk or nun who remains perpetually alone.

In the Orthodox Church today in the Western world there are only a few communities with a genuinely monastic life. In the traditional Orthodox countries monasticism still thrives, although with greatly reduced numbers due to the political and spiritual conditions. In recent years, in some places, there has been a renewed interest in monasticism, particularly among the more educated members of the Church.

Day in the Life in a mens’ monastery

Mount Athos – CBS Documentary

Sisters in love
Contemplative Catholic nuns

St. Therese’s Life in the Carmel of Lisieux and the Influence of Her “Little Way.”

Taken from:

CARMELITE SPIRITUALITY

by PAUL MARIE DE LA CROIX

of the Order of Discalced Carmelites

Those who concentrate on the life and doctrine of this child of Carmel who died at the age of twenty-four are seized with wonder and admiration. They discover, in fact, that her contribution to spirituality is as original as it is profoundly traditional. They also discover that under the Gospel-like simplicity of her message of “the little way of childhood” is hidden a spiritual structure both strong and perfectly balanced from the theological point of view.

No doubt this structure embodies the most authentic elements of the Order to which Theresa belongs; but Theresa has divided and arranged them according to her own genius. Better still, a very sure instinct, given by the Holy Spirit, enabled her to discern and sometimes to rediscover, not without merit, Carmel’s purest spirit. Those who concentrate on the life and doctrine of this child of Carmel who died at the age of twenty-four are seized with wonder and admiration. They discover, in fact, that her contribution to spirituality is as original as it is profoundly traditional. They also discover that under the Gospel-like simplicity of her message of “the little way of childhood” is hidden a spiritual structure both strong and perfectly balanced from the theological point of view.

Saint Theresa of the Child Jesus truly made this interior and radiant spirit incarnate. Her life of love of the absolute and of absolute love is of rare depth and fullness. It was a combination of certain inter-related spiritual principles and constitutes a true doctrine: this is “the little way of childhood” that we must now try to describe.

This doctrine is derived from a re-discovery of the central teaching of the Gospel which may be expressed in this sentence: We are, in Christ, God’s children and we ought to love our Father in heaven with a filial love full of confidence and abandonment.

Christ taught us that God is our Father. Saint Theresa adheres to this teaching with all her strength and gives to it its whole meaning.

She had a deep understanding of the truth that such a teaching has two complementary aspects: a keen realization of God’s fatherhood toward us; and the need of developing in us a filial attitude of absolute confidence toward God our Father.

If the confidence of Saint Theresa in the goodness of her Father in heaven is absolute, this is because God is a father and this father is God. She comes to this basic affirmation: “We can never have enough confidence in God who is so good, so powerful, so merciful”.

From this we can understand how on her lips the words “Papa the good God” are not childish. On the contrary they testify to the simplicity of her intimate relations with Him and to a confidence so absolute that she can dare to say: “I know what it means to count on His mercy”.[67]

One might be tempted to believe that such confidence was based on the assurance that had been given her that she “had never committed any mortal sins”. But she hastens to correct this idea: “Make it clear, Mother, that if I had committed all possible crimes, I would still have the same confidence. I would feel that this multitude of offenses would be like a drop of water cast into a blazing fire”[68] “How could there be any limits to my confidence?”[69]

Saint Theresa could not have reached this point, it is certain, had she not had a deep experience of God’s love. Even though she always claimed that she had not known extraordinary graces, and she never stressed the grac

More than this: she sought a way that depended on this very weakness. Had not the Apostle said: “When I am weak then I am strong” (2 Cor. 12: 10). So that in searching the Gospels she found the words of the Master: “Let the little children be, and do not hinder them from coming to me, for of such is the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 19: 14).

Such a statement corresponded too well to her knowledge, both of her weakness and also of God’s fatherly heart, for it not to have been a true light. It served, too, as a link between her spirit of childhood and her confidence in the divine fatherhood.

“I leave to great souls and lofty minds the beautiful books I cannot understand, much less put into practice and I rejoice that I am little because children alone and those who resemble them will be admitted to the heavenly banquet. I am glad that there are many mansions in the Kingdom of God, because if there were only those whose description and whose road seem to me incomprehensible, I could never enter there.”[70]

This, therefore, was her way. God Himself had pointed it out and declared its efficacy. On it Theresa was to advance unfalteringly and to draw all the necessary conclusions with courage.

No one will deny that weakness is the characteristic of little children. But this weakness is the surest of guarantees to those who care for them and love them. Teresa remembered a text of Isaias that she copied in a little notebook she used:

“You shall be carried at the breasts, And upon the knees they shall caress you. As one whom the mother caresseth, So will I comfort you” (Is. 66: 12).

Moreover, having learned from experience about this “motherly” goodness of God, and knowing that the smaller the child, the more it can count on merciful help and attentive care, Theresa intended to remain little, that is to say, she would no more be concerned about her powerlessness, on the contrary she would rejoice in it. “How happy I am to realize that I am little and weak, how happy I am to see myself so imperfect”. She does not count on her works, or on her merits, she “keeps nothing in reserve” and she is not to be discouraged even about her faults.

“It is needful to remain little before God and to remain little is to recognize one’s nothingness, expect all things from the good God just as a little child expects all things from its father; it is not to be troubled by anything, not to try to make a fortune. Even among poor people, a child is given all it needs, as long as it is very little, but as soon as it has grown up, the father does not want to support it any longer and says: “Work, now you are able to take care of yourself”. Because I never want to hear these words I do not want to grow up, feeling that I can never earn my living, that is, eternal life in heaven. So I have stayed little, and have no other occupation than of gathering flowers of love and sacrifice and of offering them to the good God to please Him.

Saint Theresa had very great desires, yet she would never admit that she was a great soul or that she had the strength necessary to do great things, like the saints who had been proposed to her as models. So she had to find a way in keeping with this littleness of which she was so deeply conscious.

“For a long time I had been asking myself why souls did not all receive the same amount of grace. Jesus deigned to instruct me about this mystery. Before my eyes He placed the book of nature and I understood that all the flowers created by Him are beautiful… that, if all the little flowers wanted to be roses, nature would lose her springtime garb. The same is true of the world of souls, the Lord’s living garden.” To be little also means not to attribute to one’s self the virtues that one practices, believing that one can do something, but to acknowledge that the good God has placed these treasures in the hands of His little child so that the child can make use of them as needed, but always as the treasures of the good God.

Finally, it means not be to discouraged by one’s faults because children often fall but they are too little to hurt themselves badly.”[71]

This is a pleasant intuition and one that affords many fruitful applications for the spiritual life.

Most especially it drew Theresa along the path of a confidence that was not only a virtue but the life in us of the true theological virtue of hope. Advancing with great boldness to the end of this hope and wishing to place no limits to God’s mercy for those who love Him with filial love, she wrote to a sister:

“You are not sufficiently trusting, you fear God too much. I assure you that this grieves Him. Do not be afraid of going to purgatory because of its pain, but rather long not to go there because this pleases God who imposes this expiation so regretfully. From the moment that you try to please Him in all things, if you have the unshakable confidence that He will purify you at every instant in His love and will leave in you no trace of sin, be very sure that you will not go to purgatory.”[72]

And again:

“O, how you hurt me, how greatly you injure the good God when you believe you are going to purgatory. For one who loves there can be no purgatory.[73]

It seems to me that there will be no judgment for victims of love, or rather, the good God will hasten to reward, with eternal delights, His own love which He will see burning in their hearts.”

Saint Theresa’s confidence in God’s infinite mercy leads her to this other certitude, as theologically sound as the preceding, that if God divides His graces unequally, He does so because of the same love.

God’s love is revealed just as much in the most simple soul who does not resist His graces as in the most sublime.”[75]

Lastly this confidence in God leads Saint Theresa, by paths of poverty of spirit and self-forgetfulness, to a wonderful simplification of spiritual life. In fact, how could she have failed to notice that the kingdom of heaven is offered not only to little children but also to the poor in spirit, and almost in the same words: “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 5: 3). “Unless you turn and become like little children, you will not enter into the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 1 8: 3). “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for of such is the kingdom of God” (Mark 10: 14).

As Theresa made spiritual childhood her own, so she made her own poverty of spirit. She aspires to be nothing more than “a poor little child” who looks to her Father for everything and who obtains everything from Him because of this same poverty. She cultivates this poverty and wants to keep nothing for herself, not even her merits and her good works.

“There is only one way to force the good God not to judge at all, and that is to present one’s self to Him with empty hands.

When I think of this word: ‘I will soon come and I carry My reward with Me to give to each one according to his works ‘, I say to myself, He will be very embarrassed for me because I have no works. Well, He will have to give me according to His own works.”

She is forgetful of herself and counts on nothing, she is truly poor: “It is necessary to consent to remain poor and weak; this is hard “. “I have always longed to be unknown, I am resigned to being forgotten”. “It is necessary to count on nothing”.

Theresa arrived at perfect detachment but in her own humble, hidden “little way”.

“I know well that it is not my great desires that please God in my little soul, what He likes to see is the way I love my littleness and my poverty; it is my blind hope in His mercy, this is my only treasure…. The weaker one is, without desires or virtues the more ready one is for the operations of this consuming and transforming love…. God rejoices more in what He can do in a soul humbly resigned to its poverty than in the creation of millions of suns and the vast stretch of the heavens.”

She buries herself with delight deep in this radical poverty. “I tell you that it is enough to recognize one’s nothingness and to abandon one’s self like a child in the arms of God.[76]

Theresa is marvelously free from herself and marvelously free for God. Her soul is wide open to the invasions of divine love. We, in fact, prevent God from coming to us and “flooding our souls with waves of His tenderness”, because we do not open to Him the place He wants to occupy. Only when poverty is united with confidence, is He able to realize in us the desires of His love. It is difficult for us to understand much less to describe how great was Saint Theresa’s desire to love. Nevertheless she who wished “to love and to make Love loved”, perhaps wished even more “to be loved” by this infinite Love. The deep reason for this will be evident when we remember that she wrote:

“Merit is not to be found in doing much or in giving much, but rather in receiving and in loving much. It is said that it is far sweeter to give than to receive, and this is true. But when Jesus wants for Himself the sweetness of giving, it would not be gracious to refuse. Let Him take and give whatever He wants.”

To take and to give, in these two cases, Theresa will remain poor, in order that she can receive the love that God thirsts to pour out on her.

“I beg You to allow the waves of infinite tenderness hidden in You to overflow into my soul so that I may become a martyr of Your love.”

Because she will not keep this love for herself but will pour it out on others, she adds:

“As for me, if I live until I am eighty I shall always be just as poor, I do not know how to economize. All that I have, I spend immediately to buy souls.”[77]

Theresa has given us the secret of this outpouring of love and its apostolic fruitfulness: her love is crucified. In offering herself to merciful Love, she gave herself up without any reserve to trial and suffering which from this moment mark her life as with a seal. From the day that “love penetrated and possessed her” suffering seized her as if she were its prey. The victim offered in holocaust had been accepted. Saint Theresa was really flooded with divine love and that is why her life bore such fruit. This charity transfigured two qualities that in her were always to remain united: love of God and love of neighbor. And when we consider her fraternal charity which was so practical, so delicate, so heroic and which flowed from a charity for God that was so faithful that “from the age of three she had never refused” Him anything and was willing to suffer all things in silence for His love and for the love of souls, then no one can any longer oppose contemplation and action, prayer and the apostolate, the service of God and the service of the Church.

She who had carried so far confidence and abandonment never ceased to multiply her own most concrete and generous efforts.

It is because of this confidence and fidelity that God could communicate the plenitude of His own life that transformed her soul and opened it to the dimensions of infinite Love.

From the beginning of her religious life, Theresa, like a true daughter of Elias, is devoured with apostolic ardor. Was it not love for souls, especially for the souls of priests, that she came to Carmel? To save souls she would have liked to have fulfilled all vocations. She would have liked to have been preacher, apostle, missionary, martyr.

Yet it was only after she had offered herself to the divine outpouring and surrendered herself to merciful Love that she discovered the vocation God destined for her.

“I understand that love includes all vocations. I realize that all my desires are fulfilled. I have found my vocation. In the heart of the Church, my mother, I will be love.”

It was only then, too, that her vocation reached its full apostolic dimension and revealed its limitless fruitfulness. In fact, henceforth, Theresa was to think and to speak only in universal terms: “I shall spend my heaven in doing good upon earth”. “Yes, until the number of the elect shall be complete, I shall take no rest”.

Just as blood flows from the heart and moves with life-giving power into every part of the whole body, so this apostolic spirit springs from the love that possesses her and extends to the whole Church.

“From her little cell, as from a broadcasting station, wonderful waves escape night and day. The souls whom they reach are unaware of their origin. They merely murmur: ‘Someone has prayed for me.’”[78]

But knowing that God had never before shown her so much love and that such trials also made it possible to prove her love for Him, Theresa accepted them with heroic generosity and even with joy. “I would not want to suffer less. “She offered her sufferings for souls until the last ounce of her strength: “I walk… for a missionary”.

Before departure she gave us not only the assurance of a wonderfully efficacious help: “Because I never did my will on earth, the good God will do all that I want in heaven”, but she told us how she was able to realize her contemplative and missionary vocation in all its fullness: “I do not regret having surrendered myself to Love”.

When we look at the life of Saint Theresa of the Child Jesus we are struck by its simplicity and wonderful transparency. We are amazed to discover through her, not only the purest Gospel teaching but Christ Himself. We also notice that the unity of her spiritual life is unique and profound. In fact, all her words, acts, sufferings, life and death are of a piece, yield the same tone and are proof of an equal plenitude. Like her Master, Theresa is true, and also like Him, her person and her message are one.

It must also be noticed that the Christian instinct was not deceived. In search of a spirituality that is adapted to life and is livable men turned to Saint Theresa. Not the least original thing about this cloistered religious who died at the age of twenty-four was that she has given to our times the most “incarnate” and at the same time the most supernatural doctrine that there is. Transcendence and immanence. Her life prolongs the message of the Gospel in our midst. This, no doubt, is the reason that devotion to her, surprisingly enough, was not limited by the boundaries of France but became worldwide, truly universal, because her spirit is truly Catholic.

Saint Theresa brought a maximum of depth and supernatural efficacy to spiritual life. She is as apostolic as she is contemplative, and that with a minimum of means. “Purely and simply”, she succeeded in being both.

It is not only our utilitarian age (and this is true even in spiritual matters) that is conscious of her success, it is Christian life in general which has been enriched by a new way leading to sanctity, a way as quick and sure as it is evangelical.

If Saint Theresa received from Carmelite spirituality a great part of the wealth she used–and they are forgetful who fail to connect her with her “family” or who minimize what she owes it–she knew how to increase her heritage. She offers us a style of spiritual life that is so detached, so simply reduced to the essential, so supple in its absolute surrender to love, so generous in the gift to the Church and to her brothers. She made her life a reality that is so near to us and so lived in God, that to breathe the fragrance of this flower of Carmel is to breathe the fragrance of eternal life.

LIFE IN HIDDEN LIGHT

“There is only one thing worth knowing: that God loves you and wants to be loved.”

(words of an old Carmelite nun,)

AN EXCELLENT AND THOUGHT-PROVOKING VIDEO

Source: http://fatherdavidbirdosb.blogspot.com/2017/12/heaven-on-earth-monasticism.html

Before It’s News® is a community of individuals who report on what’s going on around them, from all around the world.

Anyone can join.
Anyone can contribute.
Anyone can become informed about their world.

"United We Stand" Click Here To Create Your Personal Citizen Journalist Account Today, Be Sure To Invite Your Friends.

Please Help Support BeforeitsNews by trying our Natural Health Products below!

Order by Phone at 888-809-8385 or online at https://mitocopper.com M - F 9am to 5pm EST

Order by Phone at 866-388-7003 or online at https://www.herbanomic.com M - F 9am to 5pm EST

Order by Phone at 866-388-7003 or online at https://www.herbanomics.com M - F 9am to 5pm EST

Humic & Fulvic Trace Minerals Complex - Nature's most important supplement! Vivid Dreams again!

HNEX HydroNano EXtracellular Water - Improve immune system health and reduce inflammation.

Ultimate Clinical Potency Curcumin - Natural pain relief, reduce inflammation and so much more.

MitoCopper - Bioavailable Copper destroys pathogens and gives you more energy. (See Blood Video)

Oxy Powder - Natural Colon Cleanser! Cleans out toxic buildup with oxygen!

Nascent Iodine - Promotes detoxification, mental focus and thyroid health.

Smart Meter Cover - Reduces Smart Meter radiation by 96%! (See Video).

Comments

Total 1 comment

allendaves

123’s of true Christianity v popular & damnable heresies

#1 “ANOTHER JESUS”:
-“ONE” not triune: Mark 12:28…Which is the first commandment of all? 29. …Hear, O Israel; THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD: 30. And ………..this is the first commandment….. 31. And the second is….. IF YOU CAN’T GET THIS “FIRST OF ALL COMMANDMENTS” RIGHT, ALL THE REST OF YOUR “FAITH” AND PREACHING ON LOVE & SIN IS MOOT….. (NOTE: And yes, the specific Greek and Hebrew words used also and only define one person contrary to the ridiculous obfuscation attempts of some!?!)
PART 4 & 5 HOW MANY GODS ARE THERE FOR THE ONE GOD TO TALK TO?? Who was Jesus praying to??!?…. The real question should be … How does having multiple different persons keep this one God/being/entity from praying to himself?! (The trinitarian “schizophrenic” “god-head”) The Trinitarians want to have their cake and eat it too as the saying goes. On the one hand they need to say they only worship one indivisible God being/ entity but on the other hand they feel the need for some reason to keep Jesus or God from praying and talking to himself by dividing him up into different persons!?! It never occurs to them that that since there is only one indivisible God to pray too and Jesus is that indivisible God come in the flesh that he would need to talk to himself as to show us how to live, suffer, pray and die for our/ flesh) benefit not his!?!….. So while Trinitarians are quick to complain that God was not talking to himself at Christ baptism or in Gen “let us” they ignore the logical demands of their own theology! If Jesus is the ONE GOD in flesh and the Father is the SAME ONE GOD in heaven then Trinitarianism demands THE ONE GOD is talking to HIMSELF! Claiming that God is multiple different persons as the reason for why God is not talking to himself (because God is three different “selfs”) only demonstrates that what they really worship is in fact not a ONE GOD who talks to himself but three different god “selfs”/ and they all talk to each other! When they speak about who God was talking and praying to, they are quick to say “the other person, NOT HIMSELF!” But if you ask them how many gods do they pray to then they will say “ONLY ONE”!?! They expect you to believe that those three different persons are THE ONE GOD-BEING” which is like calling three different cars “THE ONE VEHICLE” (text book examples of prov 26:12)

-PART 5 Echad, Echad, my God, God is Echad!….:The Greek word pros in Jn 1:1 does not demand nor demonstrate multiple different persons because:

1. The definitions (without forced conclusions stuffed in) are just as equally valid as reference to parts of the same person (modalisim) Your head and your right arm have close relationship to each other; can be facing, towards, relating to, moving to, in the direction of, to, unto, looking to; even at home with, a living union, in the presence of, a common ground, closeness They are still both distinct and different from each other and yet they are of both the same person. Ironically the scriptures use the very same terms to describe father and son.

2. Ironically and most hypocritically, the trinitarians are trying to appeal to the anthropomorphisms (they claim this passage implies) to demonstrate different persons while at the same time denying the very anthropomorphisms that God himself specifically in scriptures uses to define the son and the son’s relationship to the father. Apparently only the literal anthropomorphisms that trintiarins “see’ exist while the one’s that God himself uses should not be taken too literal or too anthropomorphic or seriously. Is the face anthropomorphic and or literal face or just some metaphor? Either way the problem for trinitarians still exist and simply does not cease with linguistic distractions. There are many different types of faces; face of a clock; face of a mirror; face of one’s palm. Further, the face of one’s palm would be totally consistent with the anthropomorphism that God uses when discussing his own right arm as the son! So either way, a literal and or anthropomorphic face or a metaphorical face in close relationship only leaves the trinitarinas peddling an empty argument hoping no one notices the fact that this argument is nothing more then delusional smoke and mirrors for “the faithful” and for everyone else, well, just “never mind that man behind the curtain”.

3. You cant appeal to your own desired and or preconceived conclusions as evidence that your methodology in arriving at your conclusions are valid. [ie the use of Jn 1:18 et al as proof that Jn1:1 supports different persons in Jn1:18 et al or visa versa ] How difficult can they make these simple things? The God in heaven is a he but cannot be known except by the he who is the same God in flesh! So why can’t they be the same he again? It should not be difficult to understand since:

A. The same God who is in heaven is on earth and the difference need only be of circumstance which at least we know that much to be factually true [spirit only v spirit in human flesh] There is no further need or demand for different individual persons since all the different he’s are in fact the same HE!. Trying to claim that God is multiple different “He(s)” who make up the one being either leaves your God to be a “it” that consist of different he(s) or a“God being” who is a he while simultaneously consisting of different individual he(s) [Father-he; Son=he; Holy Spirit=he].

B. If you find no difficulty in accepting that God is a he that consist of father son and holy spirit also referred to each as a different he and yet all the same he then what is the point to claiming different persons again? How is the multitude of hes who are all the same he show or demand different persons rather than different circumstances of the same person who is in fact “HE”?

In any case, the trinitarian inconsistency and or incoherence will never be resolved by simply chalking it all up to “how great thou art” unless you willingly and blindly “drink the cool aid” calling it “faith”. True faith is in the words of God (including the specific anthropomorphism God himself uses) not in wild created imaginations of three different persons with different minds, locations and instructions for each other that is somehow not a pantheon of three gods who are only “one in terms of purpose not one god!….To deny the father is to deny the son because they are one and the same person that came in the flesh! Trinitarians confess & preach literally …”ANOTHER JESUS” 2 Cor 11:4

-JOHN 14: 8-20 ….[Note Isaiah 9:6. For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: …: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, … the everlasting Father] ….The son, father/Holy Spirit are all the same person, NOT like two different persons working together even as “one flesh” ….The “oneness” between Christ and the father is not comparable to a man & his wife, for only a fool would say “When you have seen me you have seen my wife, how sayest thou then, Shew us your wife?” Notice they asked to see THE FATHER and the response was Jn 14:9 ..“HAVE I BEEN SO LONG time with you, and yet hast THOU NOT KNOW ME, Philip…..Now image some fool trying to claim that statement if you asked to see his wife!?!!? You want to see the FATHER but have I been with you but you don’t know me!?!?!
Jn 14 continued….…………..17. Even THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH; (Jn 14:6 I AM the way, THE TRUTH,) whom the world cannot receive, .. for HE DEWLLETH WITH YOU, (present tense/standing next to them in the flesh) and SHALL BE IN YOU… (future tense “In them”) 18. I will not leave you comfortless: I WILL COME TO YOU (future tense “In them”) Jesus himself here makes the point that the same person who was the HOLY SPIRIT that would come was standing next to them but lets them know “I will come to you again to be Inside of you”

-The whole point to Gal 3:20.a mediator is NOT A MEDIATOR OF ONE, (HEIS) but GOD IS ONE. (HEIS) again, point blank, identifies the number of persons of God! The “but” points out the contrast between multiple persons in a mediation party v the “one” of God. God is not like a mediation party with multiple different persons. …..”the express image of his person” ( the person of God; singular not plural) Any attempt to lay claim otherwise is willful ignorance and delusional nonsense

-Like a thief in your house caught stealing your things insisting he was not there stealing “I CONFESS I am NOT stealing”. You just do not “properly understand” what he is doing/saying. Further, since you never had a “proper understanding” of what he is doing/saying you have no business accusing him since you do not even know what you are talking about in the first place. It is with and in your own ignorance that you base your “false accusations” & “ad homonym attacks” against him…… Ridiculous of course it is ……2Thess 2:11; Titus 1:16; 2Tim 3:5; TRINITARIANS CONFESS JESUS /THEY ARE NOT POLYTHEIST BUT ARE MONOTHEIST LIKE A LIAR & THIEF WHO “CONFESS” THEY DO NOT LIE OR STEAL The simple fact is that just because you confess or deny that you are in an adulterous relationship and denounce all forms of adultery has nothing to do with whether or not it is in fact adulterous! .. …A rose by any other name is still just a rose AND calling it a water lily does not change the definition of what a water Lilly or a rose is either!…

-This should have given you a hint, harking back to Satan in The garden…God said you will die…Satan comes along and states no you will be more WISE……Today .God said He is one; but Satan’s children come along and say no three is more WISE and humble in the face of God’s grandeur only “a mystery” that can be understood “in faith”. God uses head and right arm to explain the distinctions between father and son.. However, the Trinitarian heretics say to the effect: “NO, that is just a figure of speech, or that is not what God really means. What God is really saying is that God is three different persons”. Fools, hypocrites and blind guides, God said he was One and by your traditions have taken the words of God and made them of no effect, refashioning God into the image of your vain imaginations!
You can download the complete FREE book from
https://www.scribd.com/doc/305367608/The-Trinity-Heresy
OR
https://www.academia.edu/23463667/THE_TRINITY_HERESY
OR
http://www.globethics.net/gtl/10920799

#2 “ANOTHER GOSPEL”:
-If you ask most people what the Good news or Gospel is they will probably tell you about the virgin birth or Christ death burial and resurrection. This would be rather humorous if it was not so sad considering that for the three and half years of Christ ministry he does not mention hardly ever. However, Christ does spend a lot of time preaching out of the OT scriptures. Now imagine given a report or manual to read and understand, that makes reference to and even quotes other source material and then ignoring that source material when it comes to defining the context and meanings of words in the report or manual you are trying to make sense of. If that seems dysfunctional that is because it is. This is, however, what most people are doing when it comes to understanding sound NT doctrine and or even what the Gospel message of Jesus was. The mystery of the gospel was not the death, burial and resurrection although it is part of it. In fact, death, burial and resurrection was the sign, the only sign, that Jesus gave to validate that the gospel message he was preaching all that time was true……and yet most deny it!?!?!

-The “2nd coming”… “I come quickly” so “Hold fast till i come”… NOT …“in another 2000 years I might be coming soon any time now, so hold fast”!?! …those that deny the second coming of Christ in the war of AD70 (in their lifetime) are practicing a damnable heresy in denying the Lord that bought them ( 2Peter 2:1-2 ;2Tim 4:8/ you cant love an appearing you deny& the context is the 2nd coming not the first)… Mat 7:23..”I NEVER KNEW YOU” …..Mat 10:33. But whosoever shall deny me before men……..sound familiar?…. If I said I am coming to your house in this generation when these things happen but no one knows the day or hour what fool would think I might be coming in 2000 years latter!?!? ..2 Tim 4: 4. And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be TURNED UNTO FABLES. The “idea”/ doctrine that Jesus has not yet returned but “soon any day now soon” does not just make God out a liar; it is not just ridiculous but makes Christianity a mockery, A pathetic “ship of fools”!?!
-The following example excerpt from Bertrand Russell: sometimes quoted by atheist et al and from his published work “Why I Am Not A Christian”
Defects in Christ’s Teaching
Having granted the excellence of these maxims, I come to certain points in which I do not believe that one can grant either the superlative wisdom or the superlative goodness of Christ as depicted in the Gospels; …. I am concerned with Christ as He appears in the Gospels, taking the Gospel narrative as it stands, and there one does find some things that do not seem to be very wise. For one thing, he certainly thought that His second coming would occur in clouds of glory before the death of all the people who were living at that time. There are a great many texts that prove that. He says, for instance, “Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel till the Son of Man be come.” Then he says, “There are some standing here which shall not taste death till the Son of Man comes into His kingdom”; and there are a lot of places where it is quite clear that He believed that His second coming would happen during the lifetime of many then living. That was the belief of His earlier followers, and it was the basis of a good deal of His moral teaching. When He said, “Take no thought for the morrow,” and things of that sort, it was very largely because He thought that the second coming was going to be very soon, and that all ordinary mundane affairs did not count. I have, as a matter of fact, known some Christians who did believe that the second coming was imminent. I knew a parson who frightened his congregation terribly by telling them that the second coming was very imminent indeed, but they were much consoled when they found that he was planting trees in his garden. The early Christians did really believe it, and they did abstain from such things as planting trees in their gardens, because they did accept from Christ the belief that the second coming was imminent. In that respect, clearly He was not so wise as some other people have been, and He was certainly not superlatively wise.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/305366745/Revelation-the-First-Gospel-of-the-Kingdom
OR
http://www.globethics.net/gtl/5455069
OR
https://www.academia.edu/23464127/REVELATION_THE_FIRST_GOSPEL_OF_THE_KINGDOM
Amazon/Barns & Nobel et al
978-1-4907-0590-3 (SC ISBN)

#3 GOD LOVES EVERYONE; Jesus Died for “you”…… Just “come as you are”
Does God love you?….”Probably” NOT!….and NO Jesus did not die for everyone!?!……There is a sharp contrast between THREE groups : A. The predestined damned B. the “many” called C. The “Few” Chosen
Predestination….its true.. its all true… God does NOT love everyone:

Prov 8: 17. I LOVE THEM THAT LOVE ME …………
1John 5:3. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments:

(1) “PREDESTINED DAMNED” who were NEVER written in the book of life ………..Rev 17: 8 WHOSE NAMES WERE NOT WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF LIFE FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD, …as contrasted …EPH 1: 4. According as he hath CHOSEN US in him BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD

(2) “MANY CALLED”= ONLY and ALL SAINTS (those who come to Christ) are written in the book of life … Philippians 4:3… ……Rev 21:27; (Only saints are Called and elect; Rom 1:6-7 et al) This is THE CHRUCH and ONLY these can have their names blotted out of the book of life ….….Heb 12:23 to the general assembly and CHURCH of the firstborn … WHICH ………are WRITTEN in heaven,

(3) THE FEW CHOSEN: Those saints who were alive in group #2 who are now physically dead. They died “faithful” these are the FEW that were chosen faithful…….Rev 3:5. ……; and I
will not BLOT OUT HIS NAME OUT OF THE BOOK OF LIFE, (Ps 69:28) …. These are the FEW that are CHOSEN and now that they have died and are saved then “once saved THEY CAN NEVER BE LOST”

PS: “The world” that God so loved was not the Roman world nor the world of the Maya nor the world you imagined in your head that God specifically told them NOT TO LOVE!?!
https://www.scribd.com/doc/306868420/Most-True-Christians-Go-to-Hell
OR
http://www.globethics.net/gtl/10920800
OR
https://www.academia.edu/25217564/Most_True_Christains_Go_to_Hell

THE THIEF-BAPTISM-GRACE& THE NAME-LORD & LT

“whosoever shall call on THE NAME OF THE LORD shall be saved”
………So WHAT “NAME” did you “CALL UPON”?……
Rev 19:13. .. and HIS NAME IS called THE WORD OF GOD
Ps 138:2. praise THY NAME … for thou hast magnified THY WORD ABOVE ALL THY NAME -
NOTE: God placed His “THE WORD” ABOVE all of God’s various NAMEs – and Jesus NAME IS called “THE WORD” no other name saves. The MOST important name we should KNOW and CALL UPON is “THE WORD”; Not letters that spell “word” but the sayings/ doctrine/commands. It does NOT say “thy word is given a name above other names because here THY WORD is identified as the name that is placed above all other names.
Isaiah 52:1. . 6. Therefore MY PEOPLE SHALL KNOW MY NAME: ..What NAME do you “KNOW”.?
1Jn 2:3. And HEREBY WE DO KNOW that we KNOW HIM, if we KEEP HIS COMMANDMENTS./ Titus 1: 16. They profess that THEY KNOW God; but IN WORKS THEY DENY him…
“AT the name OF JESUS”…..Jesus has a name that belongs to Jesus…just like the name OF GOD means a name that belongs to GOD but it is ridiculous to suggest that the letters G-O-D is that name…likewise the name OF JESUS is NOT the letters J-E-S-U-S. Why would anyone think that you could pronounce THE HIGHEST NAME OF GOD letter by letter…. (ie Judges 13:18; 2Cor 12:4 but God’s name is not as great and or “unspeakable )
Rev 3:8 kept MY WORD, and hast not DENIED MY NAME; …
.Jn 17:6. I have MANIFESTED THY NAME And they have KEPT THY WORD.;
THE WORD is THE NAME above every name that saves us 1Pt 3:21 The ONE baptism(Eph 4:5) is into THE WORD ( which is also baptism in the Holy spirit Jn 6:63the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit ) ..ALL the sayings doctrines and commands….what did THE WORD that became flesh command? (Mat 28:19)…..what did THE WORD exemplify? (Mat 3:15/ Jn 4:1)………among other things…..YES .water baptism is just as essential and necessary for much a part of salvation (1Pt 3:21) as is keeping one self away from works of the flesh (Gal 5:21)….In fact obedience to the command of water baptism is specifically identified as the act of calling on the name of the Lord (Col 2:12 “……though the operation[work] of God” CAN ANY MAN BE SAVED WITHOUT GOD WORKING ON HIM?) …..THE WORD OF GOD is the name of God that men call upon OR…OR ..they DENY with their disobedience
The scriptures tell us almost nothing about the thief’s life. However, the scriptures tell us a great deal about Christ life……Jesus had been around for 3.5 years before the cross and was Baptizing (Jn 4:1-2 in fact He instructed his disciples to do so and did many more then John the Baptist ever did) …..Those who try to appeal to the thief on the cross assume the thief had never heard of Jesus preaching and had never ever been baptized….The burden of Proof is on those who say baptism is not essential! ………..You can’t claim a logically valid “non-essentiality” doctrinal argument on ANYTHING based on what the scriptures do not say and in spite of the things it clearly does state to the opposite effect!…That is like looking at the constitutional law and then basing a argument against a constitutional principle in law based on the fact that history did not record for us what some unknown cattle thief did or did not do a 150 years ago?!?! What??..Who cares?? We know what the constitution did say 150 years ago. I don’t know of any Law school that bases its teaching on constitutional law based on what history does not tell us about unknown cattle thieves!?! ..Jesus command, preached & practiced Baptism so did the apostles ….To build one’s theology on the fact that the scriptures do not tell us ANY detail(s) of the thief’s life before the cross (we know almost absolutely nothing about the thief!!) it is quite foolish and willfully ignorant of what the scriptures do say about baptism…….so those who try to use the thief are in effect building their house on the sand of what scriptures do not say about a thief in spite of what the scriptures do specifically tell us about baptism!?!… “Their damnation is just” comes to mind…
https://www.scribd.com/document/326686356/Thief-Cross-3D OR https://www.academia.edu/23846490/Thief_and_Cross_3D

Dec 5, 2017, 3:58 pm 0 Reply

Online:
Visits:	1,603,819,739
Stories:	8,151,440