Do You Yet Understand Why The Catholic Church Is The Great Whore Of Babylon?

UNFORTUNATELY, THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS THE GREAT WHORE OF BABYLON IN THE BOOK OF REVELATION!

 

The title of this letter to you today is not one that I wish were true, I very much wish that it were not true yet to say otherwise would mean that I would have to lie to you about this issue and that, I refuse to do. I am not a Catholic but I have known many strangers and friends who were/are. I have also know several Catholic Priests firsthand as well as a few Nuns. I have also read through the ‘Catholic Bible’ as well as the ‘Protestant Bible’ several times each and I have read through the ‘Apocrypha’ several times, all in an attempt to be more well-rounded in ‘Biblical Scripture.’ I am a person who claims to be a Christian via the things that I believe. I write these things to those of you who are new to this web-site as old friends already know these things about me.

 

The Lord wishes that all people who say that they are followers of Him were either hot or cold, not luke-warm. If we are faithful followers of Christ then we are considered to be ‘hot.’ If we are followers of Christ in name only, then we are ‘cold.’ A cold Christian does not do near as much damage to the ‘reputation’ of the Church as ‘luke-warm’ Christians do. Luke-warm, one who professes with their mouth to love God but their actions are far from Him. These ‘luke-warm’ actions drive so many weak Christians from the Faith that could have saved them. These ‘luke-warm’ Christians also drive away many who had been thinking about becoming a Follow of Christ (a Christian) by their actions. Think about it for a moment, often people are watching us even when we are totally unaware of it. Often people whom we work with or interact with like at the convenience store where we get gas for our vehicle, our next door neighbors or even other personal family members are watching us folks who call ourselves Christians and how we act, how we perform our daily life, they notice. When we act no different from the people of the world in general, or even worse, we tarnish the Cross of Christ in their eyes.

 

By the best of my understanding from all the history I have been able to find Jesus was born as flesh in the year 4 b.c. and He was murdered in 29 a.d.. I do believe that the Holy Spirit raised Him from the dead on the third day (Friday evening, all day on Saturday, until sunup on Sunday). If Jesus had not been raised from the dead, there would be no such thing as Christianity. I do not believe that the Apostle Peter was the ‘First Pope’ of the Catholic Church but that is a side issue at this point in time. A hundred plus years after the Resurrection of Jesus the Roman Catholic Church was starting to take form. Another two hundred years and the Mother of Emperor Constantine started migrating, moving the ‘Church’ away from Rome and toward Istanbul/Constantinople in Asia Minor (Turkey).

 

Things that we all need to understand, the Church, is “The Bride Of Christ.” The Church is what Jesus will be coming back to collect upon His Second Advent. The Perfect Bride Groom will be coming back to collect His Bride who must also be pure. If the Bride has been sleeping with ‘the world’, if his Bride has played the part of the whore, the Groom will not have her, she will be cast into Hell with all of those she committed fornication with. If the Catholic Church and the Pope’s throughout history had truly been “Christ’s Representatives” on earth they would not have been wrong on so many issues throughout history nor would they be saturated in the blood of so many, Saints and otherwise. Also most assuredly all of these so-called Priests who have defiled their oath to God Himself about harming the little ones who believe in Him know that they would have been much better off if they had never been born as they will be worse off than one who has a mill-stone hung about their neck and thrown into the depths of the sea.

 

All of these so-called ‘men of God’ of the Catholic Church and by this I do mean local priests, Bishops, Archbishops, Cardinals and Pope’s who have committed the actual crimes against these children and who have covered these crimes up shall all taste of God’s fury toward them. Not just for defiling His Bride, but for the crimes against these children. There is also another stain that the Catholic Church is guilty of, well, actually there are many, but the one I speak of here is the stain that they have put upon all of the Christian Churches. Here in the States it has been a running joke about all Pastors, Reverend’s and Ministers being child molesters because of the sins of the Catholic Church covering up these sins. It is true that there are some Protestant Priests who have committed these same sins but at least it doesn’t appear that the Churches have been actively covering these sins up from the public eye, at least I sure hope not. Without a doubt the Catholic Church is the ‘Great Whore’ written of in the Book Of Revelation and the Vatican/Vatican City is the Babylon that Revelation so plainly speaks of just as Rome will go up in flames and smoke with her and the language that will be no more forever upon the face of the earth is Latin. The language of the murderers of Christ and of the Great Whore of Babylon.

(Theology) Everything Can Be A God

EVERYTHING CAN BE A GOD

 

In your mind, in your opinion, is Jesus Christ ‘a God’? Outside of Christianity the prevailing answer to that question, is no, He is not. For the first three to four hundred years after the death of Jesus even the Churches heavily debated that question. Within the other two Palestine major religions, Judaism and Islam, Jesus is usually referred to as a ‘misguided’ Prophet. Even though Jesus was born and raised as a Jew His own people, then and now, do not believe that He was/is the Christ, the Messiah, the Promised One. For the purpose of trying to make a point in this commentary today I am going to ask you a question that will seem quite odd to most of you, please bare with me as you will understand more clearly as the article continues. The question is, if I carve a piece of wood to make it look like a human and then I decide to call this piece of wood Jesus Christ, is it really Jesus Christ? Hopefully all of you would say, well of course not, wouldn’t you? If I see a beautiful waterfall or a beautiful rock formation and I say look, this is Jesus Christ, does it make either of them really be Jesus Christ? I sure hope you said no. If I decided to start-up a new Church and I tell everyone that I am Jesus Christ, even if I believed it my self, would that make it be so?

 

Throughout the Bible there are a few different names for God and when you get into not just the different English translations but into various language translations such as Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Latin, German and so on, you will find many names for God the Father and for God the Son. For the English speakers who wish to get uppity you need to understand that in the original Hebrew and Greek there was no letter ‘J’. That means there is no such word as Jehovah or Jesus in the original Scriptures . In the Hebrew the name for ‘the Father’ is Yahweh and the name for ‘the Son’ is Yeshiva. Only after these names were ‘washed’ through several other languages did we come up with the English names of Jehovah and Jesus.

 

If you are a person who is a believer in Buddhism and you are holding a carving of ‘the Buddha’ in your hand and you say that this is Buddha my God, does it make it so? If you are a believer of Hinduism and you are holding one of the many different Hindu Gods in your hand and you say this is a Hindu God, does it make it so? If you are a Christian and you bow down to and worship some statue, is that statue really God? If not, then why are you bowing down to it? If you use a non-English name for Jesus, say Russian, it is Иисус. 

 

What I am getting at is we humans have many names for what we call God and in many religions they have many Deity’s (Gods). I know that many of my ancestors came from Norway so I am quite sure that in the early times of my ‘family tree’ I had relatives who bowed down to the Viking Gods. So with that in thought if Odin was their main God and they made a carving and said this is Odin and bowed down to it, was it really Odin? The Ancient Egyptians worshiped the ‘Gods of the underworld’, folks were they really Gods? We are told in Old Testament and New that mankind has bowed down to dumb rocks and pieces of wood and most of them were nothing but dumb rocks and pieces of wood that could do nothing, but some of them were Demons. If you are worshiping ‘Gods’ of the ‘underworld’ you need to get a grip on reality.

 

Within the Old Testament one of the earliest names for God is ‘Elohim’, by my understanding I have been told from a couple of trusted sources that in the ancient Arabic language for Elohim is the name Allah. So technically then the name Allah is one of the names for God, just not an English name. Now the climax of this article, just because you or I decide to use the name Allah for God, does that automatically mean that because we call something ‘God’ or ‘Allah’ does that make that object really be God? Even Jesus said that because Satan and His Angels used to be Angels of Light that they can portray themselves as Angels of Light to this day. Jesus told us that Satan and His Angels are such good liars/deceivers that they will be able to even deceive some of the Saints.

 

I know that I have many readers who are believers in the Islamic faith and I also know that many get very upset if anyone says that they are not worshiping the one true God, Allah. Folks, this is quite understandable, Christians don’t like to be told that we aren’t really worshiping God, just as folks who believe in other religions feel the same way. What I am saying to our Islamic brothers and sisters isn’t that the name Allah isn’t a name for God, what I am saying is that the Deity that they are worshiping isn’t really God (Allah), that they have been deceived. The believers of Islam do not believe that the ‘people of the Book’ (Jews and Christians) are worshiping the one true God but when those same table are turned and we or anyone else says the same to them you end up with the ‘Islamic Terrorism’ that the world sees today. In the name of God, Jehovah, Jesus, Yahweh, Elohim, Allah, Buddha or any Hindu God, no one spills the blood of anyone. To do so is simply murder, no one is allowed to be an aggressor toward another. If ‘our God’ and His Scriptures are telling its followers to commit violence, then that Deity is not God, that Deity is a Devil! The reason the title says ‘everything can be a God’ is simple, if you or I worship it, no matter what ‘it’ is, diamonds, gold, money, whatever, we have made this item our ‘God’.

 

Yahushua is the true name of the Messiah: Not Jesus

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF: http://www.ellyah.com/nameson.htm)

 

Yahushua is the true name of the Messiah

***** Note that Joshua = Yoshua or Yahushua because there is no “J” sound in Hebrew. The “J” with its “J” sound didn’t come into the English language until about 500 years ago. In fact, the “J” isn’t even found in the original 1611 King James version. (proof)

The purpose of this study is to demonstrate that the Messiah’s name never was “Jesus” and that the name “Jesus” is actually an invention of man.

 In the King James Version of the scriptures, we find an interesting problem in its translation:

Acts 7:44(KJV) Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness in the wilderness, as he had appointed, speaking unto Moses, that he should make it according to the fashion that he had seen. 45 Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David;

Isn’t this scripture referring to Joshua, son of Nun rather than the Savior? Yes. Here is another instance…

Hebr 4:7 (KJV) Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts. 8 For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.

Again, the context reveals that this scripture is referring to Joshua, the son of Nun and not the Messiah. All other translations put “Joshua” here. Why then is it translated ‘Jesus’? The answer lies in the Greek/Latin corruption of the Messiah’s original Hebrew name. Originally, the name of the Messiah was , pronounced Yahushua. This is the Messiah’s original name. When the Gentiles tried to transliterate His name into Greek, they came up with ihsoun or “Iesous”. But originally, this word was from #3091 in the Hebrew which is . When Iesous was transliterated into Latin, it became “Iesus”, which was then carried over into English it became our modern day “Jesus” when the letter “J” developed. 

Therefore, the reason the King James Version has “Jesus” in those two verses is because the Messiah’s name is actually the same name as Joshua, Son of Nun… correctly pronounced “Yahushua”. It is quite evident that the modern form “Jesus” doesn’t even remotely resemble the original name that the disciples were praying in, baptizing in and receiving so much criticism for preaching in. This is fact. Do some research and see for yourself.

Secular References

Encyclopedia Americana:

“Jesus Christ— …Although Matthew (1:21) interprets the name originally Joshua, that is, ‘Yahweh is Salvation,’ and finds it especially appropriate for Jesus of Nazareth, it was a common one at that time.” (Vol.16, p. 41)

Encyclopedia Britannica (15th ed.)

“Jesus Christ—…The same is true of the name Jesus. In the Septuagint it is the customary Greek form for the common Hebrew name Joshua;” (Vol. 10 p.149)

Religious Scholars

Barnes’ notes: (Note on Matt. 1:21)

“His name is Jesus: The name Jesus is the same as Saviour. It is derived from the verb signifying to save. In Hebrew it is the same as Joshua. In two places [Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8] in the New Testament it is used where is means Joshua, the leader of the Jews into Canaan, and in our translation the name Joshua should have been retained.”

Word studies in the New Testament, by Marvin R. Vincent—

“Jesus. The Greek form of a Hebrew name, which had been borne by two illustrious individuals in former periods of the Jewish History — Joshua, the successor of Moses, and Jeshua, the high priest, who with Zerubbabel took so active a part in the re-establishment of the civil and religious polity of the Jews in their return from Babylon. Its original and full form is Jehoshua, becoming by contraction Joshua or Jeshua.”

The Acts of the Apostles, by Jackson and Lake

“Jesus— This is the regular Greek translation of the Hebrew Joshua.”

Smith’s Bible Dictionary:

“Jesus Christ —- The name Jesus means Savior, and was a common name, derived from the ancient Hebrew Jehoshua.”

A dictionary of the Bible, by James Hastings

“Jesus — The Greek form of the name Joshua or Jeshua. Jeshua —- Yahweh is Salvation or Yahweh is opulence.”

Alford’s Greek New Testament, An Exegetical and Critical Commentary:

“Jesus — The same name as Joshua, the former deliverer of Israel.”

Encyclopedic Dictionary of Religion:

“Jesus (The Name) — Matthew’s gospel explains it as symbolic of His mission, ‘For he will save His people from their sins.’ This agrees with the popular meaning as ‘Yahweh saves…’ ” p.1886

Catholic Encyclopedia:

“The Sacred Name —- The word Jesus is the Latin form of the Greek “Iesous” which in turn is the transliteration of the Hebrew Jeshua, or Joshua, or again Jehoshua, meaning ‘Jehovah is Salvation’ ” Vol. 8, p. 374

Interpreter’s Bible: (Note on Matt. 1:21)

“Jesus: for He shall save: The play on words (Yeshua, Jesus; yoshia, shall save) is possible in Hebrew but not in Aramaic. The name Joshua means “Yahweh is salvation”

Matthew Henry’s Commentary

(on Matthew 1:21)

“Jesus is the same name with Joshua, the termination only being changed, for the sake of conforming it to the greek.”

Conclusion

It can be concluded then, that “Jesus” was not the Messiah’s name when He walked the earth. That is the purpose of this study. For information on why we should use the Messiah’s original name, click here. 

Common Myths Concerning Islam

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF ‘CREEPING SHARIA’S’ WEBSITE)

Common Myths Concerning Islam

A Muslim professor discusses “moderate Muslims.”

His definition of this term should be read very carefully. Also notice that he includes the head of the Muslim Brotherhood in Europe, Tariq Ramadan, as one of this group.

China has its problems with jihad. And then there were the bus bombings.

A Muslim doctor on how to take over an American hospital and make it a Muslim one.

Dhimmitude at the Washington Post.

Debating About Islam

Once you know something about Islam and try to talk to others, you may find yourself in a debate. Here are some of the “standards”.

CAN YOU READ ARABIC?
Everyone from Muslims to atheists uses this. The implication is that Arabic is a unique language that can’t be translated and therefore, how could you know what you are talking about? First, the Koran claims to be a universal message for all humanity for all times. If the message is universal, then it must be able to be understood by all. If the message cannot be understood by everybody, then by definition it is not universal. So, which is it?

Another thing to consider is that over half of the Koran is about Kafirs and politics. Do you really think that a political message about a Kafir cannot be understood by the Kafir? If so, what is that message that cannot be understood?

It must be made clear which Arabic is being spoken about. The Arabic of the Koran is classical Arabic which is about as similar to modern Arabic as the English of Chaucer and Beowulf is similar to modern English. Said in another way, not even a modern Arab can read classical Arabic. It is estimated that fewer than a thousand scholars who read classical Arabic can compose a paragraph on a random topic.

And what about the nearly billion Muslims who don’t even understand modern Arabic? If it is necessary to understand classical Arabic to understand what the Koran is about, then how can those billion non-Arabic-speaking Muslims understand the Koran? And if they cannot understand the Koran how can they be Muslims?

Ask the person who presents the argument if they have any opinions about the doctrine of Christianity. Then ask them if they read Hebrew, Aramaic or Biblical Greek? If they do not read those languages how can they form an opinion about something they have to read in translation? Of course they can read it and form an opinion, the same way we can read and understand the Koran.

A secondary question is why would anyone want to believe that the Koran couldn’t be understood? What is the purpose of believing that out of all the books in the world, why would there be one that cannot be translated?

The Koran is only 18% of the total doctrine. Would the questioner believe that the other 82% of the doctrine not be understood as well?

WELL, THE CHRISTIANS DID...
This response usually comes after some grim facts are given about Islam. This is probably the most common response from non-Christians. The best response is to ask if they have a reason that they don’t want to talk about Islam, since they want to change the subject. The average person knows next to nothing about Islam and sometimes this gambit is merely a way to steer the conversation into a familiar ground.

They are just trying to prove that Islam is not any worse than Christianity. At this point, welcome the chance to compare the two. Choose the ground of comparison. The best place to start is the founders. Compare Mohammed to Christ. The other good comparison is in ethics. Compare Islam’s dualistic ethics to unitary Golden Rule ethics.

Another version of this is that the person will compare some failed Christian to a “good” Muslim they know at work. It is fairly useless to do personal comparisons. How do you choose which Muslim out of 1.5 billion Muslims and which Christian do you choose out of a couple billion Christians?

A variation on the “Well, the Christians did …” is “What about the Crusades”? This is the time to say you welcome a comparison of the Crusades to jihad. Start with the question of why the Crusades were needed. Islāmic jihad caused the invasion of the Middle East. The Crusades were a response to a cry for help by the tortured and oppressed Christians in their native land. Did the Christians do some very wrong things? Yes, but notice that the Crusades have been over nearly a thousand years. Jihad is active today. And while we are at it, why do academic libraries have many books on the Crusades, which lasted only 200 years, and so few on jihad, which has lasted 1400 years? The West has analyzed the Crusades forever and has never analyzed jihad.

I KNOW THIS MUSLIM AND HE SAYS…
Why is the Muslim your friend knows the only Muslim out of 1.5 billion that makes him the expert on Islam? Remember, the average Muslim knows very little about the doctrine of Islam. Why? Because, historically the imams have acted as the high priests of Islam and they have never made the doctrine simple to understand. That is one way they keep their prestige and power.

But once you know something about the doctrine, you can say that you know also know a Muslim, and his name is Mohammed, and what you say comes from the Sunna. In short, your Muslim, Mohammed, can beat your friend’s Muslim on any issue of doctrine. If the Muslim your friend knows says something about Islam that agrees with Mohammed, then it is right. If what he says contradicts Mohammed, then he is wrong. So this Muslim your friend knows is either wrong or redundant, but never more right than Mohammed.

I KNOW THIS MUSLIM AND HE IS A NICE MAN
Probably so. What does that prove about Islam? He may follow the Golden Rule and not Islam. That is, he may be a poor Muslim and a good person.

Now is the time to explain about the Islam of Mecca and the Islam of Medina and which one is the more powerful. It is also time to explain about dualism and how Islam always has two faces.

Stay with doctrine and history of Islam, never get personal and talk about an individual Muslim. Actually, there is one way to talk about any Muslim, show how what they do and say follows the doctrine.

Besides, you know this Muslim and his name is Mohammed. Don’t talk about “Muslims,” talk about Mohammed.

THAT IS NOT THE REAL ISLAM
If you are quoting the Koran or the Sunna, then it is the real Islam, by definition. The Koran and the Sunna are Islam, the real Islam. All other Islam, such as is found in the media, is the false Islam. There is only one real Islam, the doctrine of Islam.

THEY DON’T REALLY BELIEVE THAT
This comes after you have revealed some horrific part of the doctrine. What do Muslims call themselves? The believers. What do they believe? The Koran and the Sunna. They say that is what they believe. Really believe.

I KNOW THIS MUSLIM AND HE IS NOT VIOLENT
This is a restating of, “I know this Muslim and he is good man.” He may be a poor Muslim and a good man who follows the Golden Rule.

But, the statement shows that there is no understanding of the duality of Islam. The Koran has both violence and tolerance against the Kafirs. Today in America the power of Islam is just getting started, so Islam is still weak. When Mohammed was weak in Mecca, he did not kill anybody. Islam is still in the first phase of jihad here.

But the Koran says that one Muslim can beat two Kafirs. It also says that Islam must be the dominant political system. So when Muslims reach a third of the population (that makes it 2 to 1), they will be in the full stage of Medina and violence becomes a standard operation. But even then, we know from the Sira, that many Muslims just don’t have the stomach for the violence. The Sira shows that Muslims can support jihad many ways, besides personal violence. The “peaceful” Muslim you know is commanded to give money to Islāmic charities and the charities give the money to the actual fighters.

WHAT ABOUT THE VIOLENCE IN THE OLD TESTAMENT?
Look at the violence in the Old Testament. It has two qualities—local and temporary. None of the violence is commanded to be global and eternal. In each case the violence is directed in a political struggle and when it was over it was over.

The violence in the Trilogy is for all Muslims, in all places and for all time. Jihad is to stop only when every kaffir submits. Look at Mohammed, the perfect example. He was involved with violence until the day he died. And on his deathbed he directed eternal violence against the Kafirs when he said in his last breath: “Let there be neither Christian or Jew left in Arabia.”

IF ISLAM IS SO VIOLENT, HOW CAN IT BE SO SUCCESSFUL?
The Sira records that when Islam committed violence, it attracted new followers. As Osama bin Laden says: “People like a winning horse.” After 9/11 in the US, new followers joined Islam. Communism was a political system that preached, promised and delivered violence and it attracted many people. Many people love violence. Have you never paid any attention to Hollywood? Violence is piled upon violence and people line up to see it.

Islam is growing rapidly. but most of the growth can be attributed to high birth rates, not conversion. Islam’s growth in Kafir countries is due to immigration, not conversion.