Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for March, 2019

This video is a rare version of Fyodor Dostoevsky’s The Grand Inquisitor produced by the Open University in 1975. The Grand Inquisitor selection is taken from Fyodor Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov, Book V:  Pro and Contra, Chapter 5.

The chapter opens with Ivan explaining to his brother Alyosha his fantasy poem of The Grand Inquisitor, which is really an unwritten prose story:

“You see, my action takes place in the sixteenth century, and at that time, as you probably learnt at school, it was customary in poetry to bring down heavenly powers on earth. …He comes on the scene in my poem, but He says nothing, only appears and passes on. Fifteen centuries have passed since He promised to come in His glory, fifteen centuries since His prophet wrote, ‘Behold, I come quickly’ … My story is laid in Spain, in Seville, in the most terrible time of the Inquisition, when fires were lighted every day to the glory of God, and ‘in the splendid auto da fe the wicked heretics were burnt.’ …

He came down to the ‘hot pavements’ of the southern town in which on the day before almost a hundred heretics had, ad majorem gloriam Dei, been burnt by the cardinal, the Grand Inquisitor, in a magnificent auto da fe, in the presence of the king, the court, the knights, the cardinals, the most charming ladies of the court, and the whole population of Seville. …

He stops at the steps of the Seville cathedral at the moment when the weeping mourners are bringing in a little open white coffin. In it lies a child of seven, the only daughter of a prominent citizen. … [T]he mother of the dead child throws herself at His feet with a wail. ‘If it is Thou, raise my child!’ she cries, holding out her hands to Him. The procession halts, the coffin is laid on the steps at His feet. He looks with compassion, and His lips once more softly pronounce, ‘Maiden, arise!’ and the maiden arises. …

[A]t that moment the cardinal himself, the Grand Inquisitor, passes by the cathedral. He is an old man, almost ninety, tall and erect, with a withered face and sunken eyes, in which there is still a gleam of light. He is not dressed in his gorgeous cardinal’s robes, as he was the day before, when he was burning the enemies of the Roman Church-at this moment he is wearing his coarse, old, monk’s cassock. …

He stops at the sight of the crowd and watches it from a distance. He sees everything; he sees them set the coffin down at His feet, sees the child rise up, and his face darkens. He knits his thick grey brows and his eyes gleam with a sinister fire. He holds out his finger and bids the guards take Him. And such is his power, so completely are the people cowed into submission and trembling obedience to him, that the crowd immediately makes way for the guards, and in the midst of deathlike silence they lay hands on Him and lead him away.

The crowd instantly bows down to the earth, like one man, before the old Inquisitor. He blesses the people in silence and passes on’ The guards lead their prisoner to the close, gloomy vaulted prison–in the ancient palace of the Holy, inquisition and shut him in it.”

On one level, the story attacks the Roman Catholic Church and the Grand Inquisitor’s hierarchy. On another level, the story is a prophecy of the totalitarian state that intends to establish “universal happiness” through a form of positive Christianity to bring about a unanimous and harmonious world order.

In Ivan’s story, the Inquisitor makes his case that as long as man is free he will choose to satisfy his individual needs and not the collective needs of society, which means that a stable, perfect social order with necessities for all mankind is impossible. Only when men renounce their freedom and submit to the hierarchy’s plan for the universal happiness of man will they be free.

“Hadst Thou taken the world and Caesar’s purple, Thou wouldst have founded the universal state and have given universal peace. For who can rule men if not he who holds their conscience and their bread in his hands? We have taken the sword of Caesar, and in taking it, of course, have rejected Thee and followed him.” – the Grand Inquisitor

 

I.M. Kane

Read Full Post »

I have done some research on James White. In addition I have watched or listened to several of his debates with Dave Hunt, Chris Pinto, D.A. Wait, and others. What I have found is that White is pushing ecumenism by endorsing modern textual criticism and promoting modern Bible versions and the Roman Catholic, Gnostic manuscripts from which they are translated.

Mr. White has (either inadvertently or intentionally) aligned himself with the Roman Catholic Church state and its Jesuit henchmen to destroy the authority and credibility of the King James Bible that came out of the Reformation. Scripture alone is the final authority for the Christian faith, not the Pope, not White, and certainly not some motley crew of textual critics.      

Over the last four centuries, the Roman Catholic Church and its Jesuits have been working to undermine the authority and to destroy the credibility of the King James Bible and to abolish biblical Christianity in favor of a world religious system headed by the Roman Church state. White and the textual critics are helping the RCC achieve its goal.

Throughout the centuries, the Roman Catholic Church and her Jesuits used coercion, torture, and murder in their effort to destroy the Scripture as the sole authority for the Christian fatih, but Rome’s heavy-handed tactics of fear and intimidation didn’t work as planned and drove people from the church instead of keeping them in it. So she shifted her strategy to using indoctrination techniques and focused her Jesuit counter-reformation forces on infiltrating Protestant seminaries and secular colleges and universities. 

She lauded Westcott and Hort and the Revision Committee of 1881 for discrediting the Textus Receptus Greek texts of the New Testament and for undermining the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible as an inferior, untrustworthy translation. Westcott and Hort not only discredited the Textus Receptus and dethroned the KJV, but they also cleared a path to call for ecumenical unity between Evangelical Protestants and Rome.  

What is most disturbing about the defense of modern Bible versions by “Christian” scholars and apologists the likes of White, Daniel Wallace, Bruce Metzger, and Norman Geisler is that they seem to be intentionally keeping their sycophants and followers in the dark about Rome’s ties to the corrupted manuscripts and her influence on the “science” of modern textual criticism.

I have yet to see written or video documentation of White calling on Roman Catholics to leave the Roman Catholic Church, or of White echoing the Reformers condemnation of the Roman Church state as the Whore of Babylon and its vicars as antichrist. However, White has condemned King James Only advocates as cultists, many of whom are Reformed or Calvinist as White himself claims to be. 

It’s the Roman Catholic Church state and not Reformed Protestantism that benefits when Protestants like James White undermine and discredit the King James Bible and endorse modern Bible versions based on corrupted Roman Catholic and Gnostic manuscripts.

As long as White doesn’t call upon Roman Catholics to leave their church, and as long as he endorses Rome’s manuscripts and modern Bible translation over the King James Bible, he’s an unregenerate Christian and an appeaser to the cause of the Roman Catholic Church state.

In case anyone is interested, Chris Pinto has made three documentaries (about three hours each) addressing the history of the Bible and the modern translations issue. A Lamp in the Dark https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmXBj2N9fhY; Tares among the Wheat https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qe3CMDXeG4w; and Bridge to Babylon https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukRCVDmiAts.

They are well worth your time.

I.M. Kane

Read Full Post »

“[M]any leaders within Evangelical Protestantism in recent years have been working to help the Papal Dominion recover from the glorious Protestant Reformation. We call this effort the suicide of Non-Catholicism.

Unless a person does some serious research, he, many times, simply perpetuates the errors he himself has been taught, by men who think they are teaching the truth….A concerted effort has been made in the past 200 years to undo the truths of the Protestant Reformation, not just on the part of the Jesuits, and other Roman Catholic scholars; but on the part of those within Protestantism itself….Few thinking people will deny that great changes occurred within the once-Protestant denominations, across the board, in Europe and North America throughout the twentieth-century. The very term Protestant is all but gone, and the term non- Catholic is now used to describe the part of “Christendom” that has not yet joined Roman Catholicism.” Ronald N. Cooke

A Protestant View of Church History: The Early Church

by Ronald N. Cooke

http://www.trinityfoundation.org/PDF/The%20Trinity%20Review%20328%20A%20Protestant%20View%20of%20Church%20History%20Cooke.pdf

Read Full Post »

Romans, by Gordon H. Clark.

The Future of Israel (11:1-36)

Hath God then cast away His people forever? Not at all. First, His people, in the sense of those individuals whom He foreknew, God has not cast away. This does not mean all the Jews. For as it was in the time of Elijah, so now the elect are a remnant. Election is of grace, not of works, so that while the remnant obtained grace, the rest were blinded. God gave them the spirit of slumber and caused them to stumble in order to bring salvation to the Gentiles.

Of course, no one would suppose that God would cast away the remnant elected by grace. But there is also another sense in which God will not cast off His people. The Jews as a race still figure in God’s plan and they will have a glorious future. For if the impoverishment of the Jews in the first century enriched the Gentiles, the return of the Jews in the future will produce much greater blessing. It will be like life from the dead.

The history of the Church can be illustrated by an olive tree. Some of its original natural branches were broken off so that branches from a wild olive tree could be grafted in. This, of course, is no compliment or ground of boasting for the Gentiles. And if God did not spare the natural branches because of their unbelief, the Gentiles should take heed lest God spare not them also. Furthermore, if God has grafted in wild branches, is it not all the more certain that He will graft back the natural branches at some future date?

The blindness of the Jews is to continue until the “fulness [sic] of the Gentiles” be come in. This fulness may indicate a time when the great majority of Gentiles then living shall have been converted. Virtually the whole world will be Christian. Such an interpretation makes a proper contrast with “all Israel” in the next verse. Or “the fulness of the Gentiles” might possibly refer to a time when all the Gentiles whom God has chosen for salvation, even though not a majority, have been saved and God will save no more of them. At any rate, when this fulness occur, then the great majority of the Jews shall be saved also. This ultimate conversion of the Jews was prophesied in the Old Testament.

“O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and his ways past finding out! . . . For of him, and through him, and to him are all things: to whom be glory forever. Amen” (11:22, 36)

Read Full Post »

Why Won’t Google, BING, and DuckDuckGo allow this published commentary to appear in their search engines? 

Only You Can Prevent Social Media Giant Censorship

“GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION” NOT REQUIRED

by Jerry Kane, ©2019, blogging at The Millstone Diaries

Back in the day when leftists masqueraded as liberals, they’d often say, “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” Although the aphorism’s meaning was lost on them, it reverberated within their “echo chambers” and gave them the pretense of magnanimity, which they seemed to relish at the time.

Today the leftists have bolted from the closet and have abandoned all pretense of embracing the protection of free speech. They’ve taken off the mask of liberalism, and discarded it along with their “cherished” aphorism. Now they are leading the effort to squelch freedom of speech, demanding that ideas and opinions they deem insensitive and hateful be censored and silenced on social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. Being hardcore leftists themselves, the CEOs of these social media giants have been more than happy to comply with their wishes.

First Stormfront, a white nationalist, white supremacist, neo-Nazi group lost its web address of more than two decades beginning the “crackdown against hate sites.” Whimpers chimed over the Internet, but not many on the right gave serious attention to what was happening. Next the social media giants collectively set their sights on Alex Jones, which garnered more attention and brought their assault on free speech to the forefront. Although they saw Jones as an easy target, he was the proverbial “canary in the coal mine” (albeit more Kuku than canary) warning Americans that the social media giants had joined forces and were out to purge the Internet from politically “inappropriate” ideas and “offensive” speech.

But the giants weren’t concerned because they viewed Jones as the tin-foil hat poster boy for offensive, insensitive, and hateful speech. They surmised that the mainstream conservative and evangelical opinion-makers would show little sympathy for Jones and wouldn’t make much noise about the violation of his free speech rights. And they guessed right because few of the mainstream talkers and pundits on the right voiced any genuine concern for what was happening to Jones.

As they say, the camel doesn’t stop once its nose is under the tent, so the social media giants went after more undesirable voices that they considered low-hanging fruit. They banned Dennis Prager, Franklin Graham, some lesser-known Christian ministries for posting “unsuitable” content on their platforms. And now it’s become a daily occurrence as more and more evangelicals, conservatives, classic liberals, and patriots are rounded up and shadow-banned by Twitter, censored by Facebook, and terminated by YouTube for expressing ideas and opinions that the giants claim violate their community standards regarding bullying and hate speech.

America needs a kid who’s good with a slingshot because the lauded movers and shakers and heralded opinion-makers with the loudest voices and biggest megaphones on the right are either intimidated, afraid, or controlled and won’t stand up and fight the giants. They know what’s been going on, yet they constantly promote the social media giants’ platforms on their shows, encouraging people to join the platforms and to like and follow them when they go there. They’re appeasers feeding the giants hoping to be the last ones censored and banned.

Conservatives, classic liberals, evangelicals, and patriots on social media find themselves on the horns of a dilemma. If they continue to express contrary thoughts, ideas, and opinions, they will be purged. If they self-censor and stop posting and tweeting their “offensive and hateful” thoughts, ideas, and opinions and go along to get along, some social media friend, social justice warrior, or LGBTQ and sometimes Y-stapo member will uncover something offensive they tweeted or posted years before they got their mind right and they’ll be given a strike or a time out or some other childish reminder that failure to communicate means time in the box.

Yet something must be done to halt the attack on free speech and to keep the giants from purging all their political and religious enemies from their platforms under the pretense of promoting inappropriate ideas and expressing offensive speech. Although the solution may prove to be easier said than done, it will solve the problem, and it doesn’t require government intervention.

If the majority of account-holding conservatives, classic liberals, evangelicals, and patriots on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube would en masse join the giants’ competitors such as Gab, USA.Life, and Brighteon.com and ask their friends on social media to join them there, it’s likely Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube would backpedal their censorship and revise their speech code guidelines and community standards.

If the U.S. Constitution, the First Amendment’s freedom of speech and conscience clause, and the Founders’ belief in God-given rights and individual liberty mean anything to conservatives, classic liberals, evangelicals, and patriots in this country, this proposed solution will be easier done than said. What’ll happen next only God knows. “I didn’t come here to tell you how this is going to end. I came here to tell you how it’s going to begin. … Where we go from there is a choice I leave to you.”

Read Full Post »

“What upsets me the most about the Catholic bishops is that they support mass immigration for their own reasons. That makes it impossible to protect the lives of unborn children in one state after another state after another state, and Cardinal Dolan in New York City is a big part of this.

I’m a firm believer in the phrase, ‘Follow the money.’ The U.S. Catholic bishops get 40 percent — four-zero percent of their money — from the federal government, from federal contracts to serve mostly immigrants. Open borders, immigration, the welfare state are all the economic bread and butter of the Catholic bishops.

If the Democrats were to really turn on the Catholic bishops, they could bankrupt them overnight, and the Catholic bishops — not all of them, just 90 percent of them — are much more worried about the financial bottom line than they are about unborn children.

The bishops have a choice. We can do really difficult reforms that tick a lot of people off and anger leftist elites against us in order to maintain and keep the faith of native-born Catholics and protect unborn children, or we can let the federal government pay our bills and the federal government fill our pews. Guess which one they’ve picked?” –John Zmirak

Zmirak is a Senior Editor of The Stream and author of the Politically Incorrect Guide to Catholicism and the Politically Incorrect Guide to Immigration

 

Read Full Post »

Both the Old and the New Testament Scriptures make it clear that women are not to have spiritual authority over men. The OT teaches that men were under the law, and that women were under the men. This is God’s order.

God created man, and from the man He created the woman as a help mate, who by default is the weaker vessel. “But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.”

In The Fall, Eve was deceived by Satan, not Adam. “And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.” Yet the sinful nature entered the human race through Adam, not Eve.

The sinful nature is passed on through the man, not through the woman, which is why the Christ had a human mother. Although she possessed a sinful nature, that nature could not be passed on to Jesus because God was His Father.

Jesus is the second Adam, and like the first Adam, He too did not have a sinful nature. However, He differed from Adam in that He could not disobey God and fall to temptation because He was the God-man “for God cannot be tempted with evil.”

25 Bible verses about women pastors

Many women say, “God called me to be a preacher.” Scripture teaches that God did not call them because God doesn’t contradict His Word. Scripture makes it clear that women are not to have spiritual authority over men.

See, https://biblereasons.com/women-pastors/ for the full article.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »