Many souls released from Purgatory on Christmas, pray AND on a commercial flight, Mother Teresa spea

reply to post by colbe

My Father has extended, for a short space of time, His Mercy waiting to be promulgated the fifth dogma of My Mother and the Russia’s consecration.

Colbe, there's a problem with this -- God is omniscient, so he would have known what the "deadline" was the whole time. If he knew that, despite someone thinking that it was 15 May, that the actual deadline was 31 May, he wouldn't have ever said that it was 15 May. Extraneous circumstances, such as the pleadings of Mary, don't matter because, again, being omniscient, he would have known that she would plead, and he would change the date.

Moving goalposts is an almost certain sign that a "prophet" is not legitimate.

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by colbe

 

My Father has extended, for a short space of time, His Mercy waiting to be promulgated the fifth dogma of My Mother and the Russia’s consecration.

Colbe, there's a problem with this -- God is omniscient, so he would have known what the "deadline" was the whole time. If he knew that, despite someone thinking that it was 15 May, that the actual deadline was 31 May, he wouldn't have ever said that it was 15 May. Extraneous circumstances, such as the pleadings of Mary, don't matter because, again, being omniscient, he would have known that she would plead, and he would change the date.

Moving goalposts is an almost certain sign that a "prophet" is not legitimate.

My Father has extended, for a short space of time, His Mercy waiting to be promulgated the fifth dogma of My Mother and the Russia’s consecration. By request of My Mother the time of mercy was extended waiting for these events be fulfilled.


Hi adjensen,

If I could write like you I would be a much better apologist. Since the message is a translation, doesn't translate perfectly and true, Pastor Enoc could be a false prophet.

God knows the beginning and the end and all things playing out but we don't. Recently, look at all the prayers said for a holy Pope and I am sure, there has to of been more prayer here in our country since the awful tragedy in Boston. Prayers mitigate, changes events and only God knows when exactly...

Our Lord doesn't give an exact date in the message but tells you the Father's justice has been held back, His mercy extended for a bit. It could be our increased prayers AND mercy for the time that only God knows exactly when the prophesied 5th Marian Dogma will be proclaimed plus the Consecration of Russia specifically this time by the world's bishops. Prophecy states, (Fatima), much grace will come down on our sorry world for these two actions.

I remember an older message, pertains a bit, shows why prophesied events, some do not take place or are changed, it seems to us anyway but God always knew.

an excerpt:

+ + +

message to Lec of the Philippines

January 3, 2009
7:00 A.M.

...By this time, you must already be aware that the signs pointing to the fulfillment of prophecies have become more visible than before. As you have already resolved not to ask me for the specific dates, I would say instead….continue watching for the signs instead for many messengers have fallen by the wayside because they gave specific time frames in which the stated prophecies did not happen. Son, I don’t want you to lose your credibility. Remember Jonah! Did he preach that Nineveh would be destroyed in 40 days? Jonah did not understand at first why I asked him to declare a prophecy of destruction that did not happen. Did I deceive Jonah? It may appear that way at the surface for my ways are not your ways and my thoughts are not your thoughts. I want people to know that I am a loving, merciful Creator who is slow to anger and do not punish people as they deserve.

I love my creation. I wanted to give the people of Nineveh the chance to be saved, my reason for sending Jonah to warn them of devastation. And Jonah’s preaching was not in vain. The people of Nineveh believed Jonah and repented of their sins and so I did not send them the punishment that I planned for them because of the evilness of their ways. The people were saved from eternal separation from me. Jonah is a victim soul like many of my messengers in the present era.

I send messengers to help prepare people to become aware of the times they are living in so they can re-align their life’s priorities and determine what matters most in eternity.

7:20 A.M.

see Yahoo Groups - Seers 2 (Archives)

Oh my, I skipped right over these words, stupida. Forgive me dear Blessed Mother. Recall Cana, Our Lord said it, He was not ready yet but at the request of His mother.



"My Father has extended, for a short space of time, His Mercy waiting to be promulgated the fifth dogma of My Mother and the Russia’s consecration. By request of My Mother the time of mercy was extended waiting for these events be fulfilled."

Originally posted by colbe


"Martin Luther, he threw out the baby with the bath water rejecting the faith totally."

He did not throw out enough. He kept the trinity and trinity baptism.

reply to post by colbe


Well, Colbe, I'm glad that these messages give you consolation, and agree that the world does, indeed, need to get its act together, and fast, I just wanted to caution you that there are some people who claim messages from God who do not actually get messages from God. Whether intentional or misconstrued, who knows.

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by colbe

 

Well, Colbe, I'm glad that these messages give you consolation, and agree that the world does, indeed, need to get its act together, and fast, I just wanted to caution you that there are some people who claim messages from God who do not actually get messages from God. Whether intentional or misconstrued, who knows.

You are right, an example now would be the supposed messages given an Irish seer, Maria of Divine Mercy.

To me, I noticed, there are words in those messages that do not line up with the faith. And major, recently, MDM messages stating Pope Francis is the False Prophet! People need to pray and discern. Words against the faith stand out. We can read and share private revelation except for the ones condemned by the Church. Take the good from the messages.

I have a bit of a bias, I was converted/reverted by private revelation. The messages at Conyers. Most all of the current messages from Heaven have not been investigated by the Church yet. The Vatican, we see is investigating the current, long time Medjugorje messages. It maybe a favorable decision, look at the fruit, one, the miraculous healings.

About the final Marian Dogma spoken of in the message given Pastor Enoc posted on a previous page, it is prophesied, the 5th Marian Dogma will be proclaimed on a day, May 31st so it is not an exact date, you do not know the year.


may the Two Hearts keep you safe adjensen,

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by colbe


"Martin Luther, he threw out the baby with the bath water rejecting the faith totally."

He did not throw out enough. He kept the trinity and trinity baptism.

Love you truejew, well, then...

How come you can't see the "Reformation" in 1517...bahaha...was a revolt, a rejection of the faith? This is why you must read the quotes of the men taught by the Apostles. Why?....

Non-Catholic Christians will argue the meaning of the written Word forever, well, until the Great Warning takes place. A Catholic apologist, NIck wrote recently, a brief, very clear proof to show "private interpretation" of Scripture is false God did not give every person reading the Bible the authority to interpret it.

I might post it in the other thread, Protestant disinfo debunked.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


Catholics have the concept of purgatory backwards. You don't die and go to purgatory to be cleansed, we're born into purgatory and we have to be purified in this world or we cannot inherit the kingdom of God. The righteous in the Lord die and go to Paradise to await resurrection, they do not go to "heaven" because only the Son of Man can ascend to heaven, therefore Enoch and Elijah went to paradise.

Ofcourse Peter was never the first Pope, Constantine was. See according to the pagan roman religion, the Caesar was the "son of God", which is what all the Byzantine murals depict Christ with Constantines face on him and Rome was the "kingdom of heaven". The Arch that Constantine had comemorated for his victory of Maxentius doesn''t have one christian symbol on it, and for a claim that he saw a cross emblazoned in the sky and heard "in this sign you shall conquer", you'd think that would have been something he would have put on his arch, but instead he had pagan gods carved on his monument, no crosses, no images of Christ or Menorah, not one icon representing the Way. Constantine was a fraud and a pagan.

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
Of course Peter was never the first Pope, Constantine was.

No.

The office of the Pope is simply the person who is the Bishop of Rome. Though the person who sits in that particular Bishopric is determined differently than the others, that's all that they are.

Constantine was never Bishop of Rome, so he was not a Pope, couldn't have been. It is debatable whether Peter was ever Bishop of Rome and, thus, the first Pope -- I personally do not believe that he was -- but there is a distinct history of Bishops of Rome before Constantine, leading back to the generation after Peter, and they are considered to be the Popes of those times, regardless of when the title came to be.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by colbe


"Martin Luther, he threw out the baby with the bath water rejecting the faith totally."

He did not throw out enough. He kept the trinity and trinity baptism.

There is nothing wrong with the trinity concept. The hebrew word "Elohim" is plural, and you also ommit both Yeshua and the prophecies that clearly state that Elohim is "We, Us, and Our". Jesus said himself to baptise in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Peter later gave us his name as Yeshua, Yehoshua or Yeshua which in english would be Joshua and in greek Iesous.

Isaiah 6:8

8 Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying:

“Whom shall I send,
And who will go for Us?”

Then I said, “Here am I! Send me.”

John 12:37-41

37 But although He had done so many signs before them, they did not believe in Him, 38 that the word of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spoke:

“Lord, who has believed our report?
And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?”

39 Therefore they could not believe, because Isaiah said again:

40 “He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts,
Lest they should see with their eyes,
Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn,
So that I should heal them.”

41 These things Isaiah said when he saw His glory and spoke of Him.

Isaiah 53:1

1 Who has believed our report?
And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?

I suggest you try using blue letter bible and backcheck using Strongs Exhaustive Concordance.

blue letter bible

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
Of course Peter was never the first Pope, Constantine was.

No.

The office of the Pope is simply the person who is the Bishop of Rome. Though the person who sits in that particular Bishopric is determined differently than the others, that's all that they are.

Constantine was never Bishop of Rome, so he was not a Pope, couldn't have been. It is debatable whether Peter was ever Bishop of Rome and, thus, the first Pope -- I personally do not believe that he was -- but there is a distinct history of Bishops of Rome before Constantine, leading back to the generation after Peter, and they are considered to be the Popes of those times, regardless of when the title came to be.

Of course all of these "popes" are believed to have been Modalists before Urban in 222AD.

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000

There is nothing wrong with the trinity concept.

It is not taught in Scripture and comes from pagan sources.

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000

The hebrew word "Elohim" is plural,

When referring to the true God, "Elohim" is used to show that God has multiple attributes, not multiple persons/gods. When used for the true God, "Elohim" is always combined with "he" and "him", not "they" and "them", disproving your "Elohim" view.

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000

Jesus said himself to baptise in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

According to the way the apostles responded to the command, by baptizing in the name of Christ, and Luke's account of what Jesus said, it is questionable that Jesus ever spoke those words. Even if He did, it says nothing of three persons and speaks of a singular name.

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000

Peter later gave us his name as Yeshua, Yehoshua or Yeshua which in english would be Joshua and in greek Iesous.

Incorrect. His name is Yeshas/Iesous/Jesus, pronounced as Jeshas in Hebrew, Jesus in English, and Jesous in Greek.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
Of course Peter was never the first Pope, Constantine was.

No.

The office of the Pope is simply the person who is the Bishop of Rome. Though the person who sits in that particular Bishopric is determined differently than the others, that's all that they are.

Constantine was never Bishop of Rome, so he was not a Pope, couldn't have been. It is debatable whether Peter was ever Bishop of Rome and, thus, the first Pope -- I personally do not believe that he was -- but there is a distinct history of Bishops of Rome before Constantine, leading back to the generation after Peter, and they are considered to be the Popes of those times, regardless of when the title came to be.

Of course all of these "popes" are believed to have been Modalists before Urban in 222AD.

There is no evidence of that, so no, all these Popes are not believed to have been Modalists, apart from wishful thinking Modalists who wish to find support for their heresy.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
Of course Peter was never the first Pope, Constantine was.

No.

The office of the Pope is simply the person who is the Bishop of Rome. Though the person who sits in that particular Bishopric is determined differently than the others, that's all that they are.

Constantine was never Bishop of Rome, so he was not a Pope, couldn't have been. It is debatable whether Peter was ever Bishop of Rome and, thus, the first Pope -- I personally do not believe that he was -- but there is a distinct history of Bishops of Rome before Constantine, leading back to the generation after Peter, and they are considered to be the Popes of those times, regardless of when the title came to be.

Of course all of these "popes" are believed to have been Modalists before Urban in 222AD.

There is no evidence of that, so no, all these Popes are not believed to have been Modalists, apart from wishful thinking Modalists who wish to find support for their heresy.

None of them mentioned a trinity... Very strange for a foundational doctrine such as the trinity is said to be.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
Of course Peter was never the first Pope, Constantine was.

No.

The office of the Pope is simply the person who is the Bishop of Rome. Though the person who sits in that particular Bishopric is determined differently than the others, that's all that they are.

Constantine was never Bishop of Rome, so he was not a Pope, couldn't have been. It is debatable whether Peter was ever Bishop of Rome and, thus, the first Pope -- I personally do not believe that he was -- but there is a distinct history of Bishops of Rome before Constantine, leading back to the generation after Peter, and they are considered to be the Popes of those times, regardless of when the title came to be.

Of course all of these "popes" are believed to have been Modalists before Urban in 222AD.

There is no evidence of that, so no, all these Popes are not believed to have been Modalists, apart from wishful thinking Modalists who wish to find support for their heresy.

None of them mentioned a trinity...

I wasn't aware that you had the comprehensive works of all church fathers -- every word written or uttered by them. You simply must share this with the rest of the world, it sounds like that archaeological find of the ages!



The Trinity is implicit in the Bible. Your modality is not, it needs to be inferred and problematic passages, those which declare that Christ existed before the incarnation, for example, need to be ignored or misinterpreted.

reply to post by adjensen


If the Bible says "God is three persons", show the verse. It must be from a respected translation.

reply to post by truejew

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (1 John 5:7 KJV)

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by truejew

 

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (1 John 5:7 KJV)

1John 5:7 is a questionable verse. Even if it was not, there is no mention of God being separate gods/persons.

reply to post by truejew

When referring to the true God, "Elohim" is used to show that God has multiple attributes, not multiple persons/gods. When used for the true God, "Elohim" is always combined with "he" and "him", not "they" and "them", disproving your "Elohim" view.

You still do not get that "trinity" is referring to those attributes? It doesn't disprove my triune view at all, it just confirms it. What you're doing is splitting hairs. All the trinity is, is Body, Spirit and Soul. 3 in one, not one in 3. For Christ to be the express "image" of the Father, he would be the physical manifestation of the Father who is Spirit and cannot be seen. This is what the Glory of God is, the manifested Light in one Yeshua/Yahshua.

For instance, we all know that Father is spirit and no man has ever seen him (John 2:18), yet God was indeed seen many times: Joshua 5:5, Genesis 18, Judges 13, Exodus 32.

So how could Moses see God on Mt Sinai if God cannot be seen by men? He was seeing his Glory, the Son of God that is how. Father sent his Glory here, as is attested to in the geneology of names.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by truejew

 

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (1 John 5:7 KJV)

1John 5:7 is a questionable verse.

How convenient... "questionable" by whom?

Even if it was not, there is no mention of God being separate gods/persons.

There are three distinct persons in that sentence, each bearing record. It doesn't say "There is one that bears record" it says three.