It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Homework for FM

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 12 2002 @ 12:28 PM
FM seeing as you have a bible find this verse and tell me why it cannot support reincarnation.

Matthew 14:1 and 2
At that time Herod, the ruler of Galilee, heard about Jesus. "He is really John the Baptist, who has come back to life," he told his officials.

posted on Nov, 12 2002 @ 01:09 PM
It is an undeniable fact that Karma and Reincarnation were Removed from the Christian Bible in 553 AD at the Second Council of Constantinople!

"If anyone asserts the fabulous pre-existence of souls, and shall assert the monstrous restoration which follows from it: let him be anathema [excommunicated]." - Decrees of the Fifth General Council
Plans within plans within plans the politics of forming a world religion.

[Edited on 12-11-2002 by Toltec]

posted on Nov, 12 2002 @ 01:16 PM
Because if reincarnation exists, religion is a less effective tool to subjugate and control the masses, which was (and is) the aim of the Catholic Church.

posted on Nov, 12 2002 @ 01:24 PM
The Fifth General Council

After Constantine and Nicea, Origen's writings had continued to be popular among those seeking clarification about the nature of Christ, the destiny of the soul and the manner of the resurrection. Some of the more educated monks had taken Origen's ideas and were using them in mystical practices with the aim of becoming one with God.

Toward the end of the fourth century, orthodox theologians again began to attack Origen. Their chief areas of difficulty with Origen's thought were his teachings on the nature of God and Christ, the resurrection and the preexistence of the soul.

Their criticisms, which were often based on ignorance and an inadequate understanding, found an audience in high places and led to the Church's rejection of Origenism and reincarnation. The Church's need to appeal to the uneducated masses prevailed over Origen's coolheaded logic.

The bishop of Cyprus, Epiphanius, claimed that Origen denied the resurrection of the flesh. However, as scholar Jon Dechow has demonstrated, Epiphanius neither understood nor dealt with Origen's ideas. Nevertheless, he was able to convince the Church that Origen's ideas were incompatible with the merging literalist theology. On the basis of Ephiphanius' writings, Origenism would be finally condemned a century and a half later.

Jerome believed that resurrection bodies would be flesh and blood, complete with genitals - which, however, would not be used in the hereafter. But Origenists believed the resurrection bodies would be spiritual.

The Origenist controversy spread to monasteries in the Egyptian desert, especially at Nitria, home to about five thousand monks. There were two kinds of monks in Egypt - the simple and uneducated, who composed the majority, and the Origenists, an educated minority.

The controversy solidified around the question of whether God had a body that could be seen and touched. The simple monks believed that he did. But the Origenists thought that God was invisible and transcendent. The simple monks could not fathom Origen's mystical speculations on the nature of God.

In 399, Bishop Theophilus wrote a letter defending the Origenist position. At this, the simple monks flocked to Alexandria, rioting in the streets and even threatening to kill Theophilus.

The bishop quickly reversed himself, telling the monks that he could now see that God did indeed have a body: "In seeing you, I behold the face of God." Theophilus' sudden switch was the catalyst for a series of events that led to the condemnation of Origen and the burning of the Nitrian monastery.

Under Theodosius, Christians, who had been persecuted for so many years, now became the persecutors. God made in man's image proved to be an intolerant one. The orthodox Christians practiced sanctions and violence against all heretics (including Gnostics and Origenists), pagans and Jews. In this climate, it became dangerous to profess the ideas of innate divinity and the pursuit of union with God.

It may have been during the reign of Theodosius that the Gnostic Nag Hammadi manuscripts were buried - perhaps by Origenist monks. For while the Origenist monks were not openly Gnostic, they would have been sympathetic to the Gnostic viewpoint and may have hidden the books after they became too hot to handle.

The Origenist monks of the desert did not accept Bishop Theophilus' condemnations. They continued to practice their beliefs in Palestine into the sixth century until a series of events drove Origenism underground for good.

Justinian (ruled 527 - 565) was the most able emperor since Constantine - and the most active in meddling with Christian theology. Justinian issued edicts that he expected the Church to rubber-stamp, appointed bishops and even imprisoned the pope.

After the collapse of the Roman Empire at the end of the fifth century, Constantinople remained the capital of the Eastern, or Byzantine, Empire. The story of how Origenism ultimately came to be rejected involves the kind of labyrinthine power plays that the imperial court became famous for.

Around 543, Justinian seems to have taken the side of the anti-Origenists since he issued an edict condemning ten principles of Origenism, including preexistence. It declared "anathema to Origen ...and to whomsoever there is who thinks thus." In other words, Origen and anyone who believes in these propositions would be eternally damned. A local council at Constantinople ratified the edict, which all bishops were required to sign.

In 553, Justinian convoked the Fifth General Council of the Church to discuss the controversy over the so-called "Three Chapters." These were writings of three theologians whose views bordered on the heretical. Justinian wanted the writings to be condemned and he expected the council to oblige him.

He had been trying to coerce the pope into agreeing with him since 545. He had essentially arrested the pope in Rome and brought him to Constantinople, where he held him for four years. When the pope escaped and later refused to attend the council, Justinian went ahead and convened it without him.

This council produced fourteen new anathemas against the authors of the Three Chapters and other Christian theologians. The eleventh anathema included Origen's name in a list of heretics.

The first anathema reads: "If anyone asserts the fabulous preexistence of souls, and shall assert the monstrous restoration which follows from it: let him be anathema." ("Restoration" means the return of the soul to union with God. Origenists believed that this took place through a path of reincarnation.) It would seem that the death blow had been struck against Origenism and reincarnation in Christianity.

After the council, the Origenist monks were expelled from their Palestinian monastery, some bishops were deposed and once again Origen's writings were destroyed. The anti-Origenist monks had won. The emperor had come down firmly on their side.

In theory, it would seem that the missing papal approval of the anathemas leaves a doctrinal loophole for the belief in reincarnation among all Christians today. But since the Church accepted the anathemas in practice, the result of the council was to end belief in reincarnation in orthodox Christianity.

In any case, the argument is moot. Sooner or later the Church probably would have forbade the beliefs. When the Church codified its denial of the divine origin of the soul (at Nicea in 325), it started a chain reaction that led directly to the curse on Origen.

Church councils notwithstanding, mystics in the Church continued to practice divinization. They followed Origen's ideas, still seeking union with God.

But the Christian mystics were continually dogged by charges of heresy. At the same time as the Church was rejecting reincarnation, it was accepting original sin, a doctrine that made it even more difficult for mystics to practice.

posted on Nov, 12 2002 @ 01:32 PM
WOW! Great research job, Toltec!

posted on Nov, 12 2002 @ 01:43 PM
There you go toltec ... cutting and pasting huge passages without reference.

Its like the more wods you post the righter you are...

Or like someone who shouts at others to get people to agree he is right....

Again, there were many wrong teachings that has to be removed from the early church, even paul in his letters warns about them.

The fact that there are NO REFERENCES in the bible to reincarnation should be enough to have that teaching removed if it was around. Its not needed, ....

What you are seeing is syncretism... trying to introduce pagan ideas into christianity, the Catholics do that bad enough as it is but at least they got it right on this occasion....

then look at this...

Members of what is commonly called the "New Age" movement often claim that early Christians believed in reincarnation. Shirley MacLaine, an avid New Age disciple, recalls being taught: "The theory of reincarnation is recorded in the Bible. But the proper interpretations were struck from it during an ecumenical council meeting of the Catholic Church in Constantinople sometime around A.D. 553, called the Council of Nicaea [sic]" (Out on a Limb, 23435).

Historical facts provide no basis for this claim. In fact, there was no Council of Nicaea in A.D. 553. Further, the two ecumenical councils of Nicaea (A.D. 325 and A.D. 787) took place in the city of Nicaea (hence their names)and neither dealt with reincarnation. What did take place in A.D. 553 was the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople. But records from this Council show that it, too, did not address the subject of reincarnation. None of the early councils did.

The closest the Second Council of Constantinople came to addressing reincarnation was, in one sentence, to condemn Origen, an early Church writer who believed souls exist in heaven before coming to earth to be born. New Agers confuse this belief in the preexistence of the soul with reincarnation and claim that Origen was a reincarnationist. Actually, he was one of the most prolific early writers against reincarnation! Because he is so continually misrepresented by New Agers, we have included a number of his quotes below, along with passages from other sources, all of which date from before A.D. 553, when the doctrine of reincarnation was supposedly "taken out of the Bible."

[Edited on 12-11-2002 by Netchicken]

posted on Nov, 12 2002 @ 02:13 PM
Herod was an evil bastard that was mocking the lord.

But reincarnation to me does not exist. Youi die go to Heaven, Purgatory, or Hell. And you stay there unless you can go back to Earth in angel form.

posted on Nov, 12 2002 @ 02:18 PM
NC how could you accuse me of cutting and pasting
NC it is apparent there is many bad interpretation of the Bible. And to be honest you seem promoting them. Say what you want NC but to accuse me of manipulating website data to prove a point at a conspiracy site is well beneath my character (I do request a retraction).

Perhaps in your day you have encountered people like this but You are not a present conversing with one of them. Fact of the matter is the search engine I have access to can compile as many as 10,000 results per query but if you look at the sites I posted At this page in ATS you will see clearly That there has been no manipulation on my part

Stated simply I selected all and copied verbatim. That you make such an accusation without even bothering to check your facts points to desperation

The link you attached in your most recent response does not seem to be working properly though I will try it again. Do you have any other, which support your claim?

posted on Nov, 12 2002 @ 02:19 PM
Ah, to do battle with the ancients...

"We may undermine [the Hellenists] doctrine as to transmigration from body to body by this factthat souls remember nothing whatever of the events which took place in their previous states of existence. For if they were sent forth with this object, that they should have experience of every kind of action, they must of necessity retain a remembrance of those things which have been previously accomplished, that they might fill up those in which they were still deficient, and not by always hovering, without intermission, through the same pursuits, spend their labor wretchedly in vain. . . . With reference to these objections, Plato . . . attempted no kind of proof, but simply replied dogmatically that when souls enter into this life they are caused to drink of oblivion by that demon who watches their entrance, before they effect an entrance into the bodies. It escaped him that he fell into another, greater perplexity. For if the cup of oblivion, after it has been drunk, can obliterate the memory of all the deeds that have been done, how, O Plato, do you obtain the knowledge of this fact . . . ?" (St. Iranius, Against Heresies 2:33:12 [A.D. 189]).

To Iranius, I would say that there have indeed been many instances of people remembering past lives.

posted on Nov, 12 2002 @ 02:24 PM
Why is it that Christian religions appear to be so opposed to the concept of reincarnation? As it turns out, this attitude is a departure from the origins of Christianity. Nowhere in the Bible is reincarnation repudiated; in fact, it appears to be a concept that Jesus and his followers took for granted. Jesus himself speaks of John the Baptist as the return of Elijah (Matthew 11:14 and 17:11, Mark 9:11-13 see below). We must look to the development of the Roman Catholic Church and its doctrines to understand how the concept of reincarnation lost favor in Christian tradition.

The first 300 years after Jesus' death, there were many variations of Christian doctrine as the new religion spread throughout the Roman Empire. A number of sects developed, some believing in reincarnation, some not, and they were frequently in conflict. In an attempt to consolidate his crumbling Roman Empire, the Emperor Constantine in 325 A.D. offered his official support to Christians if they would settle their differences and establish a unified set of beliefs. The resulting Council of Nicaea put together the foundation of the Roman Catholic Church and established a new doctrine, from which reincarnation was omitted. Christians were instructed to drop any belief that was not covered in the doctrine.

However, the belief in reincarnation did not disappear easily, and in fact persisted for centuries afterwards. In the early 13th century, the Pope launched a crusade against the Cathars, a reincarnationist Christian sect in Italy and Southern France, exterminating them completely. This, and the ensuing Spanish Inquisition with its fatal intolerance for any deviance from strict church doctrine, was finally effective in forcing Christians to give up their belief in reincarnation - at least publicly!
Why should the early church care so much about this belief, which so many early Christians accepted? The truth was, reincarnation undermined the authority and power of the developing church. A believer in reincarnation assumes greater personal responsibility for his own spiritual evolution. His own personal communion with God being the tool to get him 'home safe.' The teachings of Jesus Christ being pivitol in this belief.

"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do; because I go to the Father. - John 14:12

Therefore he relied less on the influence and control of priests, confessionals, and rituals to ward off eternal damnation. None of these trappings of the church were part of Jesus' original teachings, they were added by the men who shepherded the developing religion. Early Christianity was subject to the same pitfalls many grass-roots movements face when their original leaders are gone. Of necessity, the followers begin to establish a structure and organization to carry on what was given to them. In the process, some valuable elements can be lost and even replaced by dogma that has more to do with practical concerns (like church finances) than spiritual ideals. Reincarnation has never been in conflict with the tenets of Christ's teachings, merely in conflict with the control wielded by various churches.

Scriptures regarding being "reborn."

John 3:3
Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

John 3:7
"Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again."

The Return of Elijah as John the Baptist.

Matthew 11:11
"Truly I say to you, among those born of women there has not arisen anyone greater than John the Baptist! Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he."

Matthew 11:14
"And if you are willing to accept it, John himself is Elijah who was to come."

Matthew 17:11
And He answered and said, "Elijah is coming and will restore all things."

posted on Nov, 12 2002 @ 02:35 PM
Well, that about wraps it up!

Again, great research!

posted on Nov, 12 2002 @ 02:56 PM
Come on Toltec, you can do better than that....

none of these verses about being reborn have anything to do with reincarnation, they are all talking about a spiritual birth

.... you MUST know that, because you CLAIM to have studied chrisitanity.

Scriptures regarding being "reborn."

John 3:3
Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

Bzzzzz Spritual rebirth ... look at the context ... another twisted scripture...

John 3:7
"Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again."

Bzzzzz Spritual rebirth ... look at the context ... another twisted scripture...

I have covered John the baptist and elijah elsewhere so again I don't need to repeat myself...

Would you like me to show you how to interprate scripture Toltec, about how you read it in the context of the passage, the context of the book and the context of the bible. not to take one verse out and twist it to meet your ends.

Now, here is another challange for you, if you can handle it...

Granted that there is no scriptual evidence for reincarnation AND that the bible explicitly talks about being born, death and judgement, in that order which negates reincarnation ...

The question..
Where do you see reincarnation fitting into the biblical condition, do people go to heavne and then come back to earth, do they go to hell and then are reborn here,
WHY is there a rebirth?
WHAT purpose does it serve.

BTW if you are going to cut and paste again, then please include the sites you cut from...

Oh maybe ilovetoact could have a go as well, instead of just making "me to" posts

[Edited on 12-11-2002 by Netchicken]

posted on Nov, 12 2002 @ 03:01 PM
N-C, this is butting your head against the wall if I've ever seen it.
The Bible makes it clear that it isn't possible for someone to make sense out of it without the aid of the Holy Spirit. To even study Christianity without the benefit of the Holy Spirit will only get a man so far.
I don not think Toltec is trying in the least bit to use deceit, so that would mean that the Bible is correct in what it said in reference to this very scene.
But, continue, maybe you'll flip a switch in their noggins to make them want the aid of the Holy Spirit.

posted on Nov, 12 2002 @ 03:11 PM
Keep in mind TC the Headress worn by by a Toltec Indian. In the day's of the Empire included the Image of a Dove. The very reason was to represent the Holy Spirit.

This presented to us by the one who first applied the dove as symbolic of the Holy Spirit.

We may be different TC in certain ways but in others we do have things in common.

I have no reason to lie TC

[Edited on 12-11-2002 by Toltec]

posted on Nov, 12 2002 @ 03:27 PM
NC again your accusation is FALSE and to honest have pointed out the means for you and anyone else to see that either you are engaged in a conscious effort to LIE. Or are so obsessed with your own thinking you are to engaged in. This pattern of thought is clouding your judgment.

May I again point out that those sites were included. And a link is attached to the thread in which those sites are presented by me. In a response on the page the attached a link goes to.

Again I request a retraction as well as an apology.

Simply stated there are three options for a soul once it leaves the body Heaven, Hell or to return to earth. Have the option of going to heaven for some is not a choice they make. Some do make the choice to continue to work on earth and support gods way. For some destined for hell reincarnation is an alternative offered to overcome what they have done to others.

Each post in which text is provided from a web site in any discussion I have ever in my life presented. At any website or forum in my life is presented verbatim. I select all, copy and paste. They are not altered in any way, and if you were not in such a hurry to respond you would have seen that clearly. Personally NC You can do better than that.

posted on Nov, 12 2002 @ 03:53 PM

"(Scripture says) And they asked him, "What then? Are you Elijah?" and he said, "I am not" (John 1:21). No one can fail to remember in this connection what Jesus says of John: If you will receive it, this is Elijah, who is to come (Matt. 11:14). How then does John come to say to those who ask him, Are you Elijah?I am not? . . . One might say that John did not know that he was Elijah. This will be the explanation of those who find in our passage a support for their doctrine of reincarnation, as if the soul clothed itself in a fresh body and did not quite remember its former lives. . . . However, a churchman, who repudiates the doctrine of reincarnation as a false one and does not admit that the soul of John was ever Elijah, may appeal to the above-quoted words of the angel, and point out that it is not the soul of Elijah that is spoken of at Johns birth, but the spirit and power of Elijah" (Origen, Commentary on John 6:7, A.D. 229).

I would counter that although many people remember past lives, many do not. I have no memories of past lives, but I know people who do. It's a matter of whether God wants us to have these memories or not. Obviously, He did not wish for John to have such memories, just as he wishes for many in our own times to remember past lives.

posted on Nov, 12 2002 @ 04:13 PM
aaahhhhh I finally see what you are getting upset about Toltec.

I did not mean that you had cut and paste text THEN changed it. My objections is that you

1 Cut and paste text and not reference it ... thus denying anyone the chance to see it in the context of the site, or even to see what SORT of site it comes from.

2 Quote heaps of words as if the mass of words in themselves makes your point correct. Many times you don't even put your own comments.

If I want to debate with the website writer I would talk to them. The post above you made is the FIRST time I have seen you make an explanation of your own on this topic.

Its the text that you continue to paste that is twisted, by the writer who wrote it the bible verses you have pasted (all of them) are distortions of the truth ... truth that would be obvious to anyone who knows their christian theology.

This handy Heaven/ hell/ earth option (BTW who would choose hell then?) is nice and tidy, but it is NOT biblical.

There is no place in the bible where this happens and indeed places where it is explicitly denied, as I quoted in the other thread.

There are beliefs that people hold - such as the eternal virgnity of Mary - that despite no biblical evidence and even biblical evidence to the contrary, people still don't change their minds.

Sometimes the belief is more important than the reality, than the truth.

This is a case here I am afraid, no matter how hard I try, I have to conceed that you will not see the folly of your belief or its redundancy in christianity.

The belief is more important than the facts.

So for that matter I can see no reason to continue this dicsussion.

[Edited on 12-11-2002 by Netchicken]

posted on Nov, 12 2002 @ 04:46 PM

The bible is not reality NC its just an aspect NC. The choice in relation to going to hell is not there's to make. The option is offered when it is appropriate by the ONE who makes that decision.

NC beyond the link you have offered do you have any other reference which supports your claim?

They are not distortions they are interpretations.

"Handy" is a word you apply I have never stated anything different in relation to my beliefs. You seem to want very much to stereotype me as a someone, who wants very much to lie about what I am.

I am not lying NC but you have manufactured issues. Clearly in my responses to you I have made reference to their origin. This is not a book NC I am not required to catalogue my sources every time I present a point. If that is the case the Simon needs to update his regulations. There are places in the bible where Reincarnation is denied and as well where it is accepted. specifically it does portend to inconsistencies.

Something you seem to be very good at (inconsistent). If you want to argue with the writer of the website that is your problem. My point is that despite your repeated FALSE accusations I did not "cut" anything!!!

When in the past I have placed my comment in a post along with text from a website I do always place a line.


This has not changed and if you wish I would be happy to forward you copies of every interaction I had (in my lifetime) in relation to forums or bulletin boards I have had discussions on in my lifetime (I do have 3.5 floppy copies of all of them). I assure you there is no discrepancy.

I am still waiting for your retraction and apology????

Let continue with the refference as well
as FMs homework
The doctrine itself

Looking at the sequence of creation from its inception to its conclusion, one could summarize Origen's theological system as follows: Originally all beings existed as pure mind on an ideational or thought level. Humans, angels, and heavenly bodies lacked incarnate existence and had their being only as ideas. This is a very natural view for anyone like Origen who was trained in both Christian and Platonic thought. Since there is no account in the scriptures of what preceded creation, it seemed perfectly natural to Origen to appeal to Plato for his answers.

God, for the Platonist, is pure intelligence and all things were reconciled with God before creation - an assumption which scripture does not appear to contradict. Then as the process of the fall began, individual beings became weary of their union with God and chose to defect or grow cold in their divine ardor. As the mind became cool toward God, it made the first step down in its fall and became soul. The soul, now already once removed from its original state, continued with its defection to the point of taking on a body. This, as we know from Platonism, is indeed a degradation, for the highest type of manifestation is on the mental level and the lowest is on the physical.

Such an account of man's fall does not mean that Origen rejected Genesis. It only means that he was willing to allow for allegorical interpretation; thus Eden is not necessarily spatially located, but is a cosmic and metaphysical event wherein pure disincarnate idea became fettered to physical matter. What was essential for Christianity, as Origen perceived, is that the fall be voluntary and result in a degree of estrangement from God.

Where there is a fall, there must follow the drama of reconciliation. Love is one of God's qualities, as Origen himself acknowledged, and from this it follows that God will take an interest in the redemption of his creatures. For Origen, this means that after the drama of incarnation the soul assumes once again its identity as mind and recovers its ardor for God.

It was to hasten this evolution that in the fullness of time God sent the Christ. The Christ of Origen was the Incarnate Word (he was also the only being that did not grow cold toward God), and he came both as a mediator and as an incarnate image of God's goodness. By allowing the wisdom and light of God to shine in one's life through the inspiration of Christ, the individual soul could swiftly regain its ardor for God, leave behind the burden of the body, and regain complete reconciliation with God. In fact, said Origen, much to the outrage of his critics, the extent and power of God's love is so great that eventually all things will be restored to him, even Satan and his legions.

Since the soul's tenancy of any given body is but one of many episodes in its journey from God and back again, the doctrine of reincarnation is implicit. As for the resurrection of the body, Origen created a tempest of controversy by insisting that the physical body wastes away and returns to dust, while the resurrection takes on a spiritual or transformed body. This is of course handy for the reincarnationist, for it means that the resurrected body either can be the summation and climax of all the physical bodies that came before or indeed may bear no resemblance at all to the many physical bodies.

There will come a time when the great defection from God that initiated physical creation will come to an end. All things, both heavenly bodies and human souls, will be so pure and ardent in their love for God that physical existence will no longer be necessary. The entire cohesion of creation will come apart, for matter will be superfluous. Then, to cite one of Origen's favorite passages, all things will be made subject to God and God will be "all in all." ( 1 Cor. 15:28 ) This restoration of all things proposed by Origen gave offense in later centuries. It seemed quite sensible to Origen that anything that defects from God must eventually be brought back to him. As he triumphantly affirmed at the end of his "On First Principles", men are the "blood brothers" of God himself and cannot stay away forever.

posted on Nov, 12 2002 @ 04:46 PM
Hold on aa minute.

"" Until pagan rituals was introduced into the early church ""

Not even going to say anything on this other than, that is an attack
without even understanding our doctrines.

do you want me to teach you a catholic catechism?

i will if you want?

ok, now the other passage goes.

"" unless a man be born of water and the spirit he can not have everlasting life ""

netchicken is correct.

He means that being born again in a spiritual sense.

god also talks about plain and simple that after you die
you face judgement.

he sends you to wither hell or a purification and heaven.

he states that once you are in the state of heaven and hell you will not come out of it, for your
eternity is fixed.

We do not recieve two chances, we get one life, one chance, and we must make the best of it.

if you have really studied the bible than you should know that this is nonsense talking
about reincarnation.

Toltec, the early church councils never promoted no such thing, nor has
any council from then until now either.

Thomas correct!!

see this is what im saying all along.

No, "no" man caan give you an interpretation of scripture unless he is guided
by the holy spirit.

Even st peter gives a qoute about this in the bible.

thats why i go by the saints and popes who were saints interpretation.

To me their miracles bare their holiness, thus they are 'guided' by the holy spirit.


posted on Nov, 12 2002 @ 04:59 PM
OK truth here's a pagan ritual for you the whole issue of saints. Which by the way when you research them, they encompass every act that falls under the auspices of the Wiccan system of belief.

The point is that politics became the issue (as well later the almighty dollar). Take Santeria for instance, for every saint approved by the church you can find a corresponding voodoo God, which the practitioners of Santeria apply in every way, shape and form as corresponding to the Equivalent voodoo deity (there is no difference).

Tell me truth what do you know about the Holy Spirit?

And feel free to go into detail

new topics

<<   2 >>

log in