....."Fear them not therefore: for there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known". Matthew 10:26 (KJV)

Tuesday, March 19, 2013

...And upon this stone I will build my hoax.

>

 ".....And so I say to you, you are Peter, 
and upon this rock I will build my church, 
and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it........"

URL: http://whispersintheloggia.blogspot.it/2013/03/tu-es-petrus.html





"......It should be obvious from the Word of God 
that the rock Jesus was referring to was not Peter, 
but himself........."

[see References]
 

 Thursday, January 21, 2010

Rat-lines - 2 or: Rome, the Mother of All the Cornerstones




--------------------REFERENCES:


URL:  http://carm.org/is-peter-the-rock

Is Peter the rock on which the Church is built?


"And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it," (Matt. 16:18).
The Roman Catholic Church Puts a great deal of emphasis on Peter and claims that Jesus said he would build his church on him.
  1. Simon Peter holds the first place in the college of the Twelve; Jesus entrusted a unique mission to him. Through a revelation from the Father, Peter had confessed: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Our Lord then declared to him: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it." Christ, the "living Stone", thus assures his Church, built on Peter, of victory over the powers of death. Because of the faith he confessed Peter will remain the unshakable rock of the Church. His mission will be to keep this faith from every lapse and to strengthen his brothers in it."  (Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 552).
  2. "By the word "rock" the Saviour cannot have meant Himself, but only Peter, as is so much more apparent in Aramaic in which the same word (Kipha) is used for "Peter" and "rock". His statement then admits of but one explanation, namely, that He wishes to make Peter the head of the whole community of those who believed in Him as the true Messias; that through this foundation (Peter) the Kingdom of Christ would be unconquerable; that the spiritual guidance of the faithful was placed in the hands of Peter, as the special representative of Christ." (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm).
The scripture reference to which the Roman Catholic Church attempts to substantiate its position is found in Matt. 16:18.  Here it is in context.
"Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He began asking His disciples, saying, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" 14 And they said, "Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.  15 He *said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17 And Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it. 19 "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." 20 Then He warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ," (Matt. 16:13-20).
There are problems with the Roman Catholic position.  First of all, when we look at the Greek of Matthew 16:18 we see something that is not obvious in the English.  "...you are Peter (πέτρος, petros) and upon this rock (πέτρα, petra) I will build My church..." In Greek nouns have gender.  It is similar to the English words actor and actress.  The first is masculine and the second is feminine.  Likewise, the Greek word "petros" is masculine; "petra" is feminine.  Peter, the man, is appropriately referred to as Petros.  But Jesus said that the rock he would build his church on was not the masculine "petros" but the feminine "petra."   Let me illustrate by using the words "actor" and "actress:"  "You are the actor and with this actress I will make my movie."  Do see that the gender influences how a sentence is understood?  Jesus was not saying that the church will be built upon Peter, but upon something else.  What, then, does petra, the feminine noun, refer to?
The feminine "petra" occurs four times in the Greek New Testament:
  • Matt. 16:18, "And I also say to you that you are Peter (petros), and upon this rock (petra) I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it."
  • Matt. 27:60, "and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock (petra); and he rolled a large stone against the entrance of the tomb and went away."
  • 1 Cor. 10:4, "and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock (petras) which followed them; and the rock (petra) was Christ."
  • 1 Pet. 2:8, speaking of Jesus says that he is "A stone of stumbling and a rock (petra) of offense"; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed."
We can clearly see that in the three other uses of the Greek word petra (nominative singular; "petras" in 1 Cor. 10:4 is genitive singular) we find it referred to as a large immovable mass of rock in which a tomb is carved out (Matt. 27:60) and in reference to Christ (1 Cor. 10:4; 1 Pet. 2:8).  Note that Peter himself in the last verse referred to petra as being Jesus!  If Peter uses the word as a reference to Jesus, then shouldn't we?
In addition, Greek dictionaries and lexicons give us further insight into the two Greek words under discussion:
  1. Petros
    1. Petros, "πέτρος, a stone, distinguished from πέτρα (Source:  Liddell, H., 1996. A lexicon : Abridged from Liddell and Scott's Greek-English lexicon (636). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.)
    2. Petros, Πέτρος, Peter, meaning stone. The masc. of the fem. pétra (4073), a massive rock or cliff.” (Spiros Zodhiates, The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament, electronic ed., G4074, Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers, 2000, c1992, c1993).
    3. Petros, Πέτρος, “a noun akin to 4073, used as a proper name; “a stone” or “a boulder,” Peter, one of the twelve apostles:— Peter(150), Peter’s(5).” (Robert L. Thomas, New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries : Updated Edition, H8674, Anaheim: Foundation Publications, Inc., 1998, 1981).
  2. Petra
    1. Petra, πέτρα , Ion. and Ep. πέτρη, , a rock, a ledge or shelf of rock, Od. 2. a rock, i.e. a rocky peak or ridge...Properly, πέτρα is a fixed rock, πέτρος a stone." (Source:  Liddell, H. (1996). A lexicon : Abridged from Liddell and Scott's Greek-English lexicon (636). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.)
    2. Petra, πέτρα , (4073) denotes a mass of rock, as distinct from petros, a detached stone or boulder, or a stone that might be thrown or easily moved." Source:  Vine, W., & Bruce, F. (1981; Published in electronic form by Logos Research Systems, 1996). Vine's Expository dictionary of Old and New Testament words (2:302). Old Tappan NJ: Revell)
    3. Petra, πέτρα, ας, ἡ (1) literally, living rock, bedrock (MT 7.24), in contrast to πέτρος (isolated stone); (Timothy Friberg, Barbara Friberg and Neva F. Miller, vol. 4, Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, Baker's Greek New Testament library, 311, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 2000).
    4. Petra, πέτρα, noun feminine; ≡ bedrock, (James Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages With Semantic Domains : Greek (New Testament), electronic ed., GGK4376 (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997).
  3. Petros & Petros
    1. πέτρα petra; a prim. word; a (large mass of) rock:— rock(10), rocks(3), rocky(2). Πέτρος Petros, “a noun akin to 4073, used as a proper name; “a stone” or “a boulder,” Peter, one of the twelve apostles:— Peter(150), Peter’s(5).” (Robert L. Thomas, New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries : Updated Edition, H8674, Anaheim: Foundation Publications, Inc., 1998, 1981).
    2. "On this rock (ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ). The word is feminine, and means a rock, as distinguished from a stone or a fragment of rock (πέτρος, above)." (Marvin Richardson Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, 1:91, Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2002).
    3. Petros, "πέτρος, a stone, distinguished from πέτρα.  Petra, πέτρα , Ion. and Ep. πέτρη, , a rock, a ledge or shelf of rock, Od. 2. a rock, i.e. a rocky peak or ridge...Properly, πέτρα is a fixed rock, πέτρος a stone." (Source:  Liddell, H. (1996). A lexicon : Abridged from Liddell and Scott's Greek-English lexicon (636). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.)
A stone is movable, unstable and this is exactly what we see with Peter, who doubted when he walked on water, who denied Jesus, and who was rebuked by Paul at Antioch.
  • Matt. 14:29-30, "And Peter got out of the boat, and walked on the water and came toward Jesus. 30 But seeing the wind, he became afraid, and beginning to sink, he cried out, saying, "Lord, save me!"
  • Luke 22:57-58, "But he denied it, saying, "Woman, I do not know Him." 58 And a little later, another saw him and said, "You are one of them too!" But Peter said, "Man, I am not!"
  • Gal. 2:11,14 "But when Cephas [Peter] came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned...14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, "If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?"
Jesus, who knew the heart of Peter, was not saying that Peter, the movable and unstable stone, would be the immovable rock upon which the Church would be built.  Rather, it would be built upon Jesus and it was this truth that Peter had affirmed what he said to Jesus, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God," (Matt. 16:16).  This is consistent with scripture elsewhere where the term rock is sometimes used in reference of God, but never of a man.
  • Deut. 32:4"The Rock! His work is perfect, for all His ways are just; a God of faithfulness and without injustice."
  • 2 Sam. 22:2-3, "The Lord is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer; 3 My God, my rock, in whom I take refuge."
  • Psalm 18:31, "And who is a rock, except our God."
  • Isaiah 44:8, "Is there any God besides Me, or is there any other Rock?  I know of none."
  • Rom. 9:33, "Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, and he who believes in Him will not be disappointed."
It should be obvious from the Word of God that the rock Jesus was referring to was not Peter, but himself.

The Aramaic Kepha

In contrast to this, in paragraph #2 at the beginning of this article, the Roman Catholic Church says that the rock cannot refer to Jesus, "but only Peter, as is so much more apparent in Aramaic in which the same word (Kipha) is used for 'Peter' and 'rock'."  The problem is that the text is not in Aramaic, but Greek.  Since we do not have the Aramaic text, it is not proper to refer to it as proof of the Roman Catholic position.  We have to ask ourselves why the Roman Catholic Church would resort to using something that we don't have:  the aramaic text.  Is it because their argument is not supported by the Greek and so they must infer something from a text we don't possess?
Furthermore, in John 1:42 it says, "He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, "You are Simon the son of John; you shall be called Cephas," (which is translated Peter)." The word "Peter" here is petros, not petra.  It is used to elucidate the Aramaic kephas which is not a name in Aramaic.
"Except in Jn. 1:42, where it is used to elucidate Aramaic kēphás, Pétros is used in the NT only as a name for Simon Peter....The translation supports the view that Kēphás is not a proper name, since one does not usually translate proper names."1

Jesus is the rock on which the church is built

The truth is that the only foundation is Jesus.  The only rock of truth is Jesus Christ and that we, as his redeemed, need to keep our eyes on him.  We are to look to no one else as the foundation, the source, or the hope on which the church is built.  The Church is built upon Jesus, not Peter.
"For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ," (1 Cor. 3:11).

_____________
1.  Kittel, G., Friedrich, G., & Bromiley, G. W. (1995, c1985). Theological dictionary of the New Testament. Translation of: Theologisches Worterbuch zum Neuen Testament. (835). Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans.


This article is also available in: Español, Norsk, Polski


Monday, March 18, 2013

Alexander Hislop, the "mason".

>



From

"THE CHRISTMAS LIE: It's Bigger Than You Think"

URL:  http://www.christmasisalie.com/revalexanderhislop.htm




"At the same time, Hislop himself was a freemason who was reverand of the Free Church of Scotland. Freemasonry worships baal."
 
"......THE FACTS

Alexander Hislop was a Free Church of Scotland minister who was famous for his outspoken criticism of the Roman Catholic Churches. His father was a mason [i.e., a "Brick-layer"] and elder of the Relief Church. His brother was a missionary to India.  Alexander was born at Duns, Berwicksire, Scotland in February, 1809 and died in Arbroath, March 13, 1865. He was a parish schoolmaster originally, and married Jane Pearson in 1831. They had six children: five girls then a boy. He also edited the Scottish Guardian newspaper. In 1843 he joined the Free Church of Scotland and was ordained in 1844. He became a senior minister in 1864 and having been ill for two years died of a paralyzing stroke.  He wrote several books, and his research on Catholicism has withstood the constant and continual assault of those who do not want to accept the message. His work remains an important and valuable insight into the adoption of heathenism into “Christian Churches” and so challenges every true believer to “come out from among them and be separate, saith the Lord!”  Alexander Hislop was loved by those who know him and captivated their interest with his wit and conversational abilities. He was generous and unselfish by nature. He took interest in improving the housing of the worker, as well as their spiritual and moral nature.  - Alexander Hislop, Rev.Clinton Macomber,  Pleasant Places Press
 
Appearantly, Alexander Hislop's enemies have been confused by the reference to "mason" in bio.  This was a reference to (1) his father and (2) a profession of being a "brick-layer".  Obviously his father being a "Brick-layer" in England might suggest he was also involved with the "Freemasons" by virtue of his trade. But concerning this two points must be realized; (1) Many Evangelicals who rejected the Church of England [dominated by Freemasonry] did so with family members [sometimes even parents] who were Masons (and thus familiar with the problem it posed for genuine "Christianity") (2) There is no public indication his father actually was. (at least as far as we have been able to find)  Even so however, this would not indict Hislop.  His arguments were against syncretism, not in favor of it.

Secondly, it must also be realized that invoking "Scotland" as a "hot bed" of "Freemasonry" is a bit disingenuous historically. Scotland had become a "battle-ground" over "Freemasonry".  And "Freemasonry" had "targeted" the Evangelicals in this community for precisely this reason.  The "Scottish rite" had a long presence there, but so this the "Scottish Free Church" which produced some of the most intellectually formidable Evangelicals in history...."
etc. etc.
Please, give a look to...:
Add caption

 Monday, March 18, 2013


The Protocols of the New Covenant World Roman Empire 

http://apparentlyenemies.blogspot.it/2013/03/the-new-covenant-world-roman-empire.html

 -----------------REFERENCES: 

 ".....His father was a mason [i.e., a "Brick-layer"]...." - below image: a brother of Alexander Hislop's father, a mason of  Paoua, Central African Republic:

 
  ".....A bricklayer or mason is a craftsman who lays bricks to construct brickwork. The term also refers to personnel who use blocks to construct blockwork walls and other forms of masonry.[1] In British and Australian English, a bricklayer is colloquially known as a "brickie".[2]......".
URL:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bricklayer


The Protocols of the New Covenant World Roman Empire

>


 

"....4. Moreover, the art of directing masses and individuals by means of cleverly manipulated theory and verbitage, by regulations of life in common and all sorts of other quirks, in all which the GOYIM understand nothing, belongs likewise to the specialists of our administrative brain. Reared on analysis, observation, on delicacies of fine calculation, in this species of skill we have no rivals, any more than we have either in the drawing up of plans of political actions and solidarity. In this respect the Jesuits alone might have compared with us, but we have contrived to discredit them in the eyes of the unthinking mob as an overt organization, while we ourselves all the while have kept our secret organization in the shade. However, it is probably all the same to the world who is its sovereign lord, whether the head of Catholicism or our despot of the blood of Zion! But to us, the Chosen People, it is very far from being a matter of indifference......."

URL: http://www.samliquidation.com/whore.htm


    How not to translate the above underlined words with the obsession of the Jesuits to "fight  plot with plot"? Let's see better the matter of it:



"The Protocols of the Elders of Zion or The Protocols of the Meetings of the Learned Elders of Zion is an antisemitic hoax purporting to describe a Jewish plan for global domination. It was first published in Russia in 1903, translated into multiple languages, and disseminated internationally in the early part of the 20th century. Henry Ford funded printing of 500,000 copies that were distributed throughout the US in the 1920s."

     They were published just-in-time for the destruction of the greatest enemies of the church of Rome in Eurasia, the Protestant Prussia empire, the Hapsburg empire too much appeased with the northern "heretic" cousins, the 'heretic' Romanov empire and the Ottoman empire [= end of First World War]. The problem was to make you believe that the true enemies of the vanished empires were the Jews and not Rome.




     It is obvious that I, the gentile Jesuit order [quite filled with converted Jews in order to make the order to appear "Jewish-friendly"] have to push away the suspects from me, and I have not to appear  the mastermind of the start of the Second Thirty Years War in Eurasia, but "among the victims". We see that the Protocols etc. are perfectly fitting for this manipulative deception. 



     Above image -  an excerpt from page http://www.samliquidation.com/whore.htm, "Whore of Babylon".


Translating the text: Freemasonry has been created by Jews to infiltrate 'Christendom' and therefore is a false teaching except when Freemasonry the same tells us that she is a creation of the Jews.... In other words Freemasonry must save her soul confessing her "true masters" aka to claim that the Old Covenant doesn't exist no more and is replaced by the New Covenant. "Pike saved his soul and Hislop will burn in the Hell".  [Jew-bashing aporia and contradictions].


     [from the image I hope you now are seeing above, at least if they have it not yet erased] ".......This hatred goes back to the murder of Jacques Demolay, a celebrated French Mason and fellow member of the Illuminati. Freemasonry quickly infiltrated nearly all Protestant groups and they were often the voices who accused the Catholic Church of being Mystery Babylon the Great. .......".

 


     Read the underlined phrase and tell me if this is a case of psychiatry (I hope it for the salvation of the author's quoted sentence!) or simply another Jesuit perfidy. Well, so we know that Protestants are known not because they protest against the Global Warming or against the Hunt to the Whales, but because they protest [even if historically the context where is born that term was different - they protested for having not being recognized by the institutions]. "Protestants" in fact "protest" (or should protest) against the pretence of the pope to be.... the pope, better said: they contest the pope to be ultimate authority over the Bible.


     Therefore, a person opposing to the pope's pretence to be the ultimate authority over the Verb of the Lord [and to do it in the name of the same Lord],  is not far from to rise  "the voices who accused the Catholic Church of being Mystery Babylon the Great" . Exactly  so much natural as for a Communist to accuse the Capitalism to be the Mother of the Exploitation or for a Nazi to accuse the Jews to be the Mother of all the Misfortunes of the world. Point.


    Ergo (therefore in Latin) Protestantism doesn't need to be infiltrated in order to accuse Rome to be the Whore, because this should the true definition of Protestants: the ones who accuses Rome to be the Whore.


    Things are even more intriguing. As noticed in a post of News that matters [I wasn't able then to track it down again] there's a solid link between Lutheranism and the Roman Catholicism, a fact that obviously was exploited by Rome in order to destroy what is dangerous in the Lutheranism [the 95 Thesis] and to exalt the elements in favor of Rome.


  This identical content which render the theology of Luther very much near the Roman Catholic one, is called:

...supersessionism:

 "....

 Supersessionism, fulfillment theology, and replacement theology are terms for the biblical interpretation that the New Covenant supersedes or replaces the Mosaic Covenant,[1][2] the latter thus also referred to as the Old Covenant. The terms do not appear in the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, however, the view they cover is considered part of most traditional Christian views of the Old Covenant, viewing the Christian Church as the inheritor of the promises made with the children of Israel.[3][4] This view contrasts with the minority views of dual-covenant theology on the one side and abrogation of Old Covenant laws on the other.

..Punitive supersessionism is represented by such Christian thinkers as Hippolytus, Origen, and Luther. It is the view that Jews who reject Jesus as the Jewish Messiah are consequently condemned by God, forfeiting the promises otherwise due to them under the covenants......."

URL:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersessionism

     Origen was the first true father of the Roman Catholicism and an Alexandrian guy who manipulated the Bible adding to the Old Testament pieces from the New one in order then to gain success from his translation. 

      Even to the blind one is evident that the needs of the Roman Empire was to suck out of Jewry and Christendom all the possible in order to use it as a alibi, justification, for the existence of the Roman Empire: Rome as pure will of "God", God as a player which "deliver to Rome the holy documents of a New Covenant", of course related not only for Jews, but for every kind of human on the planet earth

    Being the political purposes of Rome the endless enlarging of the Empire, it could be justified in the eyes of the submitted ones only with a new "divine" and universal "covenant". The birth of the Roman Empire from the republic is a religious transformation pursued having in mind  the Jewish Old Covenant. Isn't the pagan religious system of Rome an obsession built on the Old Testament?

     The rest is blatant anti-scriptural anti-Judaism.

      The link between Luther and Roman Catholicism via supersessionism explains many things. You must never forget that at the beginning Martin Luther didn't want to suppress the church of Rome, but simply to reform it. Like today the Jesuit soldier Bergoglio is claiming to do

    Luther then affirmed the church of Rome to be impossible to reform, but this only betrays the true original goals of Luther. No problem to say that he would have reformed the Roman Catholic classical sessionism rendering it in fact even punitive, therefore worst than the one of the church of Rome/Origin/Alexandrian guys. In fact from this point of view we can read the Lutheran anti-Judaism as an attempt to surpass Rome in her traditional field of the anti-Judaism, demonstrating that the new course of Luther was more near to the origin [Origin] in his total denial of the Covenant

    The only thing Rome would have do in order to have the right to be appointed as seat of the 'true' New Covenant [new imprimatur of 'God' to the imperial design of Rome], was simply to return to some important teachings of the Gospel, especially the ones involving the true mean of salvation:

 "......Luther successfully campaigned against the Jews in Saxony, Brandenburg, and Silesia. In August 1536 Luther's prince, Elector of Saxony John Frederick, issued a mandate that prohibited Jews from inhabiting, engaging in business in, or passing through his realm. An Alsatian shtadlan, Rabbi Josel of Rosheim, asked a reformer Wolfgang Capito to approach Luther in order to obtain an audience with the prince, but Luther refused every intercession.[5] In response to Josel, Luther referred to his unsuccessful attempts to convert the Jews: "... I would willingly do my best for your people but I will not contribute to your [Jewish] obstinacy by my own kind actions. You must find another intermediary with my good lord."[6] Heiko Oberman notes this event as significant in Luther's attitude toward the Jews: "Even today this refusal is often judged to be the decisive turning point in Luther's career from friendliness to hostility toward the Jews."[7]........" 

URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_and_antisemitism

         For this reason Luther was dangerous: because he was more competing with Rome than to openly oppose to her. He was nearly stealing away the weapon of the "New Covenant" from her hands as legitimacy for temporal domains, a weapon then to be consigned in the hands of German bloodlines after having stolen it [from the theological casket where the satanic Roman Empire/church of Rome protected it] using the argument of the popish betrayal of the Gospel as jimmy/pick-lock to open.  

      Eastern Prussia had therefore to be disintegrated. Not only a revenge for the territories subtracted from the Teutonic order by prince Albrecht with direct intermediary collaboration of Martin Luther, but also because Lutheran Eastern Prussia, with her weak answer to the Roman Catholic New Covenant calls [anti-semitism] from the electoral results with the numbers for the Nazi party below expectations at the beginning of the thirties, demonstrated to have betrayed the secret loyalty to Rome by many Protestants, a secret loyalty based on the New Covenant. 

    The ''weak answer'' automatically meant that those Lutherans of Prussia were more loyal to the Luther's 95 Thesis than to the Luther's  On the Jews and Their Lies. But meanwhile in Norway Quisling was not so enthusiast towards the Hitler's anti-semitism [he was more interested in the struggle against Bolshevism], as Norway is not on the Amber Path where it runs the religious rift of the Eurasian Big One, the revenge of the Roman empire for the betrayal of the secret loyalty to the Roman Emperor (the pope) consisted mostly in a quick liquidation of Quisling immediately at the end of the war [meanwhile Pavelic fleed in Jesuits' Spain - see my: "….and Quisling for all!" of Saturday, July 23, 2011 in my post "Spectacular fireworks at 22.11 hours" - URL: http://avles-theamberpath.blogspot.it/2011/07/spectacular-fireworks-at-2211-hours.html ]:

"For this reason, today you don’t use the term Pavelic in order to generally describe the phenomena of collaborationism, but the term Quisling. [source: see above]"



Above image - the intelligence of the New Covenant [my text in red reported also in References] ".....The New Covenant (Hebrewברית חדשהAbout this sound berit hadashah (help·info)Greekδιαθήκη καινή • diatheke kaine) is a biblical interpretation originally derived from a phrase in the Book of Jeremiah, in the Hebrew Scriptures. It is often thought of as an eschatological Messianic Age or world to come and is related to the biblical concept of the Kingdom of God.
Generally, Christians believe that the New Covenant was instituted at the Last Supper as part of the Eucharist, which in the Gospel of John includes the New Commandment.
URL:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Covenant

    The fulfillment of the New Covenant [with Satan] by the World Roman Catholic empire must be implemented only by the delegitimization of the Old Scriptural Covenant. At page 9 of "The four horsemen" it is reported what Rivera discovered about the methods used by Nero's Inquisitorial intelligence: "I discovered that the methods of persecution used by Nero were very sophisticated. He organized imitation Christian churches. Many of them used Jewish synagogues as meeting place"....

     All such zeal pro-fused in the persecution of the Christians involving Jewish synagogues witnesses the very deep connection of the Ancient Roman Empire with the Jewish caste of priests and betrays the efforts of the Empire in the religious war against the Old Scriptural Covenant which was and is an obstacle for the declaration of the Rome's emperor as "God on earth".  The Jews are not the creators of the church of Rome simply because they didn't create the Ancient Roman Empire. But it is the Ancient as well the new World Roman Empire to need of the 'blessing' of God and no nation, no race no individual must obstacle this satanic plan.

     Israel today is controlled by the New Covenant World Roman empire which needs to feed a continue conflict in that area in order to justify her theology ["international/Vatican control of Jerusalem"]. Nazi-Islam is simply a tool of the New Covenant meanwhile Shabtai Tzvi and Labour masonic Zionism are the fifth columns of the same New Covenant inside Israel.

*   *   *

Don't worry about the trip in the Vatican by the young Lutheran pastor - a New Covenant trip?

 "........in 1882 the "La Civiltà Cattolica" announced with satisfaction the first manifestations of modern anti-Semitic political movements that organized international conferences........"

Tuesday, April 5, 2011

1862: a trip in Vatican 

http://avles-theamberpath.blogspot.it/2011/04/1862-trip-in-vatican.html

      An article (Italian language) by nwo-truthresearch blog quotes interesting excerpts from Kertzer's book "Unholy War" - about the Jesuits' La Civiltà Cattolica magazine: 

"...... This was the period in which the Catholic priests distributed with enthusiasm the famous hoax known as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, as evidence of a Jewish conspiracy to dominate the world. And it was also the time when the Catholic press - Catholic newspapers influential as La Civiltà Cattolica [the Jesuit magazine, ed] and L'Osservatore Romano, which is widely believed reflected the views of their Pope - unleashed a flood vitriolic of articles against the Jews.....

  .....The La Civiltà Cattolica in 1880 described the Jews as "thieves stubborn, dirty, ignorant, liars, parasites, ... a barbarian invasion by an enemy race." Since 1920, her articles could have been dictated by Hitler himself. "Vienna will be nothing but a Jewish city, the properties and the houses are all of them, the Jews will be the masters, the Christians their servants," it [La Civiltà Cattolica] warned in 1922....." [Google translated from nwo-truthresearch blog]

 

 sabato 16 marzo 2013

Il Segreto più Infame del Vaticano 

 http://nwo-truthresearch.blogspot.it/2013/03/il-segreto-piu-infame-del-vaticano.html

 ------------------REFERENCES:

 Above image - Eleventh commandment burning? Twin Towers burning after an alleged "Zionist/Jewish" "false flag" terrorist attack; truly, an allusion to the New Covenant between the "Lord" and the "world" (= World Roman Empire)?"...The "New Commandment", the Wycliffe Bible Commentary states, "was new in that the love was to be exercised toward others not because they belonged to the same nation, but because they belonged to Christ...and the love of Christ which the disciples had seen...would be a testimony to the world"..". Source: see below. Image:

 "............The New Commandment of Jesus ("love one another") is part of the final instructions given to his disciples after the Last Supper had "ended",[1] and after Judas Iscariot had departed in John 13:30.[2][3][4]


Little children, yet a little while I am with you. Ye shall seek me: and as I said unto the Jews, Whither I go, ye cannot come; so now I say to you. 34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. 35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. —John 13:33-35 (KJV)
This commandment appears thirteen times in twelve verses in the New Testament.[4][5] Theologically, this commandment is interpreted as dual to the Love of Christ for his followers.[2] The commandment can also be seen as the last wish in the Farewell Discourse to the disciples.[6]

 .......

 This commandment appears thirteen times in twelve verses in the New Testament.[4][5] Theologically, this commandment is interpreted as dual to the Love of Christ for his followers.[2] The commandment can also be seen as the last wish in the Farewell Discourse to the disciples.[6]

......"

URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Commandment

      Note. "Thirteen times in twelve verses" probably gave to Satan the inspiration to the selling of United Kingdom and future pertinence [therefore everything else conquered in the future like America and India] to the pope with an indulgence ante-litteram signed on the third October 1213, the crucial day for the later Jesuit/Vatican/Canonical Admiralty "british" Maritime law. Admiralty law as planetary juridicial arm of the New Covenant Roman World Empire ("church of Rome"), and therefore the instrumental interpretation in favor of Rome of the New Commandament given by Jesus [love each other = love the ones Rome order to love and hate the ones who hates this order of Rome].

 See also:

Christ's New Commandment

 URL: http://www.ucg.org/booklet/ten-commandments/ten-commandments-new-testament/christs-new-commandment/

Does this new commandment supersede the Ten Commandments and replace all other biblical laws?

Jesus said, "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another" (John 13:34). Did Jesus replace the clear definitions of the Ten Commandments with a new religious principle: that love alone can guide our lives?
Does this new commandment supersede the Ten Commandments and replace all other biblical laws? Jesus clearly answered this fundamental question when He said, "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets" (Matthew 5:17).
Yet many people who believe in Christ as their Savior also believe this new commandment frees them from any obligation to obey God's laws.
They misunderstand what Jesus said and meant. The Holy Scriptures, in the Old and New Testaments, teach that we should love each other (Leviticus 19:18). Jesus did not introduce love as a new principle. That was already in the Bible and a fundamental part of God's instruction to ancient Israel.
What, then, was new in Christ's "new commandment"? Notice His wording. He said we are to "love one another; as I have loved you ..."
What was new was His own example of love! The whole world has, in Jesus, a perfect model of the love of God in Christ's perfect example of loving obedience. Christ loved us so much that He sacrificed His own life for us. He Himself explained: "Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one's life for his friends" (John 15:13).
Jesus came as the light of the world to illuminate the application and practice of the royal law of love. We no longer have an excuse for saying we don't understand what to do or how to do it. Jesus demonstrated what loving obedience is all about: "If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father's commandments and abide in His love" (John 15:10).
We comply with Jesus' new commandment when we obey every commandment of God in a genuinely loving manner and are willing to risk our lives for the sake of others.
-------------------------
Text I added to the New Covenant screenshot:

 "No race" means just this: NO human being can allow to him/herself to NOT be a subject of the New Covenant World Roman Empire. The term "no race" stands for "no human being", being the physical race simply the psysical manifestation of the Lord's will on earth, therefore if there are "no races" there's no Lord's will except the one of the New Covenant World Roman Empire.

Hegelian reversal of the meaning: the denial of a fantasticated New World Order hides the proclamation of the New Covenant of the World Roman Empire based on the below following Roman Catholic satanic doctrines.

Read: The New Covenant World Roman Empire pretend to be the "will of God" therefore the Old Testament Covenant must be destroyed.

Anti-pope John Paul II was only a puppet of NC World Roman Empire. This is a trick where you puppet expresses with a theatrical coreography [the "anti-pope" farce] what you need to condemn, giving the alibi for the beginning of a campaign of terror against "heretics".